The Normans: England's Blessing and Curse It has been nearly one thousand years now, since back

in 1066, that any nation has made a successful conquest of the indomitable British, a fierce and resolute mixture of Germanic, Keltic and pre-Indo-Europeans white peoples. The Spanish Armada, Napoleon and Hitler all failed to subdue what Shakespeare (perhaps in reality Edward de Vere?) called the Sceptered Isle. But back in October of 1066, seven thousand Vikings, who had become French-speaking, who had superficially adopted Christianity, and were now called knights, noblemen and Normans, massacred ninety percent of the proud and ancient English nobility and their valiant infantry in a fierce, sevenhour battle at Hastings on the southern English coast, right after their king, Harold Godwinson, had taken an arrow in the eye around dusk. The exhausted English had just rusehd south from defeating another Viking invasion further north at Stamford Bridge. The Battle of Hastings on October 14, 1066 meant what Palestinians would call a nakba, a catastrophe. It was the end of Anglo-Saxon England. It was the end of its original Germanic language, of its Germanic culture and mindset, and of England's isolation from the eternal wars of the Continent. Ever since that dark October day in 1066, Norman Britain having brought in Jewish immigrants from Rouen, Normandy as its tax collectors and moneylenders has been a European and then a global power, spreading their Norman English language and ways also via Britain's offshoot, the United States. Have these Normans and their Jewish financiers proved a blessing or a curse to England and to the world? John de Nugent, a frequent TBR writer (of remote distant Norman ancestry himself) tackles this thorny Norman question. By John de Nugent [Previously free countries] will never allow the memory of their former liberties to fade; so the safest method is to destroy them, or settle among them. --Niccolo Macchiavelli, The Prince, chapter V, Concerning The Way To Govern Cities Or Principalities Which Lived Under Their Own Laws Before They Were Annexed Nice guys finish last. Brooklyn Dodgers coach Leo Durocher Why the English hate the Normans and the French Nick Griffin, an acquaintance of nearly three decades, is chairman of the nationalist British National Party, which wants to protect the white people of Britain for being inundated by Third World foreigners. A few years ago I wrote to him to congratulate him on his electoral successes (which in 2009 have been even better). I mentioned that I had English ancestors on both sides, from both the English common folk through my mother,
1

Constance Angell Coldwell, and from the Norman aristocrats who ruled England through my father, James Nugent. Nick Griffin's reply surprised me, and made me realize that the English have not grown very fond of their overlords: Normans, eh? I guess we can forgive you for that. My first very nave reaction was that Griffin must be influenced by the mythical tales of Robin Hood. As we Americans also know, the legendary English hero had led the band of commoners and merry men from Sherwood Forest in robbing the cruel Normans, especially the usurper Prince John, while his good brother, King Richard the LionHearted, was away on the Crusades (and was later held for a literal king's ransom). But after all, these were stories..... But then I read about the shocking and true Harrowing of the North (the north of England) by William the Conqueror, and that he also was known as William the Bastard. I learned that the new king, crowned on Christmas Day, 1066, in London, acted so cruelly that a justified revolt arose against the foreign invader and that William then ad ordered the utter scorched-earth devastation of every village, barn, and cottage in that very Yorkshire region where my mother's father, John Thomas Coldwell, had been born. He had ordered the killing of every Northumbrian man, woman, child, pig, sheep and cow his thugs could get their hands on. (By the way, my proud Yorkshire ancestors long served in the Coldstream Guards, who, in their tall black fur hats, famously guard Buckingham Palace when not being rotated into very real combat.) One hundred thousand innocent Yorkshire men and women perished from my mother's Anglo-Saxon ancestors, and ironically it was due to my father's Norman ancestors. Even the pope, who had supported Duke William of Normandy's claim to the English throne in 1066, expressed disgust and horror at the genocide of the Northumbria area to William in a letter, hinting even at excommunication. This was a man he had already excommunicated once, for marrying his own cousin. And the Anglo-Saxons' last champion, Hereward (the English had only first names; the Normans introduced last names as a tax ID and to identify rebels), a fiery noble who had fought the Normans for years from his inland swampy bastion called the Isle of Ely, was likely murdered by Norman nobles after he had honorably surrendered. I began to understand why Griffin said maybe I could be forgiven for being a Norman.....Frankly, I had never understood how the English and their ruling class could be so different; my English grandfather, born in the town of Goole near the North Sea, was in every inch a true English gentleman of common stock, with a little colonel's mustache, John Thomas Coldwell was a man of honor, respected by all who knew him in the American region to which he moved as a boy, called fittingly New England.
2

John Thomas Col(d)well, my maternal grandfather from Goole, England and his wife, my grandmother, Elizabeth Angell. She was descended from an early father of Rhode Island colony, Thomas Angell.

Coldwell farm, Austonley, Yorkshire The Normans Harrow Yorkshire One reason why Hereward had risen up against the Normans was the atrocious Harrowing of the North of England in 1069-70. England was then a freedom-loving country, a proud and free Germanic folk that certainly was not interested in being forced to learn French or become any Frenchmen's serfs. And northern England was barely under the control of any king. In fact, there was only one castle in all of Anglo-Saxon England, because castles were meant to control a hostile and enslaved population. But English kings respected their own people, they did not fear them, and when they called for volunteers, as King Alfred the Great did in 877 against the invading Vikings, they came running to- help. Nor did the Anglo-Saxon kings have a heavy tax system, because no one was building castles with moats, nor were they paying for a standing, professional army. In this England was unlike the Vikings from Denmark, all professional soldiers, or the French Viking heavy cavalry that were the Normans. It was a big mistake in a psychopathic world to be so unarmed. Freedom wasn't free, and they lost it. Then they really paid the price. Northern England, having been settled heavily by both northern German Saxons and by the Danes, was even more rich in Nordic genes than the south. The dialect of Yorkshire
4

and the whole north was heavily influenced by Danish, so much so that the Londoners down south could barely understand it. Many nobles, in fact, were Danes. The region was called the Danelaw, and historians today call the Northumbria of that era AngloScandinavia. In fact, so-called English place names that end in -thorpe, -borough, -wick or -by, such as Bixby, Hornby and Frisbee or Albee all come from the Danish. By is still today the Danish word for a village. Thus the meaning of the English word by-laws is village laws, hence one never hears of federal or state by-lawsbut only those of towns, or local clubs and associations. Hundreds of the most basic English words are actually Danish, such as take, skin, sky, he, they, anger, bask, bawl, bet, build, blunder, crash, crazy and other vigorous and basic English words. One can hear a northern English dialect -- very hard for Americans to understand, because our accent is from southern England -- in the unique and touching 1997 English comedy film The Full Monty, (written by Simon Beaufoy as Norman a name as you can get). It depicts six very desperate unemployed ex-steel mill workers in Sheffield who resort very bashfully to a striptease as a fundraiser to get money to pay their back bills and their child support. This is the very area that William the Bastard had genocided nine hundred years ago. Given both their Scandinavian and Saxon heritages, the the doughty Yorkshiremen up north told William in no uncertain terms that he was not welcome as their new master when they saw him enslaving the south. At the legendary Battle of Maldon, 75 years before, their brave Saxon brothers in southern England had already fought honorably to the death rather than pay any tribute to Viking marauders. (They finally began paying Danegeld, money for the Danes, only after their annihilation at Maldon). The Northumbrians of the year 1066 were just as brave as the men of Maldon 75 years before. In 1916 Rudyard Kipling penned a notable, even jarring poem that expressed the Saxon hated of oppression: When the Saxon Begins to Hate It was not part of their blood. It came to them very late. With long arrears to make good When the Saxon began to hate. They were not easily moved. They were icy willing to wait.
5

Till every count should be proved Ere the Saxon began to hate. Their voices were even and low; Their eyes were level and straight. There was neither sign nor show When the Saxon began to hate. It was not preached to the crows; It was not taught by the state. No man spoke it aloud When the Saxon began to hate It was not suddenly bred.; It will not swiftly abate. Through the chilled years ahead When time shall count from the date That the Saxon began to hate. Although this poem was composed during World War One, when Kipling had just lost his son at the front fighting the Germans, it reveals a fundamental mindset: We don't seek quarrels, but we intend to finish them. ===sidebar =The Battle of Maldon: not one penny for Viking tribute!====== On August 10, A.D. 991, the Anglo-Saxons under Byrhtnoth (= Bright Courage) categorically refused to pay a bribe (that is, tribute) to a large party of raiding Vikings (probably led by their king, Sweyn Forkbeard) so they would go away and leave them and their coastal English villages in peace. Possibly Byrhtnoth felt that paying Danegeld would be morally irresponsible, for if they submitted to the extortion of the sea-pirates (as they aptly called the Vikings), then the marauders merely would have sailed further up the coast to victimize yet other English villages. No, Byrhtnoth believed in confronting the foe for all England, seeking victory or death with honor. Unfortunately, the first and last pages of The Battle of Maldon, written by a now unknown Anglo-Saxon, were burned in a fire in 1731, but the 325 lines that remain are very stirring. Here are some excerpts from this great Anglo-Saxon battle poem, which starts with Byrhtnoth responding to the Viking demand for tribute/bribe money. (The first line, in
6

bold, is in the original Anglo-Saxon, and the second is in Modern English). The style is highly poetic and filled with imagery, as Byrhtnoth defies the Vikings by offering not a bribe but spears: Gehyrst u slia, hwt is folc sege? Hearest thou, seafarer, what this [my] folk sayeth? Hi willa eow to gafole garas syllan, They will to you a spear-tribute give, ttrynne ord, ond ealde swurd, lethal spearpoints, and time-tested swords, a heregeatu e eow t hilde ne deah..." getting such war-gear, you by battle will not profit...." As the poem then relates, the Viking "slaughter-wolves" (a typical Germanic word picture) then crossed a muddy tidal causeway, actually by Byrhtnoth's chivalrous permission, so the battle could finally begin. No one wanted to fight on the causeway mud. Some armchair generals say his decision to let the Danes cross the causeway was foolish, because the Anglo-Saxons ended up defeated by giving battle. But others believe Byrhtnoth's reasoning was impeccably practical as well as chivalrous. The heavily-armored Vikings were simply not going to be willing to stand and fight in the seawater-y mud of the causeway; rather than sink in the mud they would have instead set sail and gone ravaging elsewhere. If Byrhtnoth wanted to spare all England further attacks, the Viking enemy had to be engaged right then and there, and that meant granting their request for safe passage first over the causeway.

[source: http://www.wuffings.co.uk/WuffSites/Maldon.htm] [Paul: first photo] Caption: The causeway the Vikings advanced along as they headed toward the volunteer forces of Anglo-Saxon leader Byrhtnoth. The poem relates typically that the hungry ravens wheeled overhead, awaiting their corpse harvest and then the blow-by-blow battle account begins. Battling Byrhtnoth (Germanic poetry loves alliteration, i.e., words that start with the same sound) finally falls at the hands of three fierce Vikings, and the flight of some of the peasant soldiers before the professional and terrifying sea-scavengers. The poem ends with the immortal last stand of several Englishmen who refuse to yield though all is now lost. Fighting over their lord Byrhtnoth's body, their flagging courage is rejuvenated by the words of his comrade Byrhtwold (= Bright Forest in Saxon), who summons their willpower just as their exhausted bodies falter in famous words: "Hige sceal e heardra, heorte e cenre, "[Our] thoughts shall become harder, hearts yet keener, mod sceal e mare, "Fighting mood more shall become e ure mgen lytla.... as our body strength becomes less!" It is a triumph of the will and military defeat becomes the inspiration for future valor and victories. As Carl von Clausewitz wrote in his On War, those who go down fighting
8

as heroes plant the seeds for the nation's rebirth in a future generation. ============end of sidebar================== But William the Bastard had no respect for the Anglo-Saxons as brave and honorable foemen in war. After massacring the Saxon soldiers, he resolved to also slaughter their helpless civilians and annihilate the beautiful north English countryside. Already after the battle of Hastings, William and his army had marched about southern England, on Dover and on Canterbury before arriving on the outskirts of London. He met resistance in Southwark and in an act of revenge set fire to the area. Londoners refused to submit to William so he turned away and marched through Surrey, Hampshire and Berkshire, ravaging the once beautiful green English countryside. By the end of the year the people of London, surrounded by devastated lands, submitted to this man who can only be called a terrorist. On 25th December, 1066, William was crowned king of England by Aldred, Archbishop of York, at Westminster Abbey. But then the uncowed north revolted. Orderic Vitalis (1075-1142) had a strong opinion of William's reaction. He was an Anglo-Norman chaplain to Roger de Montgomery, a key friend and war companion of William (yes, as in Field Marshal Montgomery of WWII). He later became a monk in Normandy, and was normally an open admirer of Duke William for skill and bravery as soldier and ruler. However, he wrote in his Latin chronicle Gesta Normannorum Ducum [Deeds of the Norman Dukes] of his horror as a believing Christian at the Normans' merciless scorched-earth policy toward the North, which was far worse even than the March to the Sea through Georgia in 1864 by Union troops under General William Tecumseh Sherman. (Sherman, by the way, is a classic Norman, not Saxon name. See sidebar on Norman names, page XX[Paul, provide]) From the Humber River to the Tees, for four seemingly unending years, from 1066 to 1070, William's rampaging, sadistic Normans burnt whole villages to the ground and killed the unarmed civilians of northern England an especially brave and blondish folk like helpless sheep. The death toll is believed to have been 150,000, with substantial social, cultural, and economic damage. Due to the scorched earth policy, much of the land was laid waste and depopulated, a fact to which the Domesday Book, William's great tax and inventory list of all the properties in England, readily attests in 1086, almost two decades later. And it provoked as much bitterness and hatred of the Normans as Sherman's march through Georgia and the burning of Atlanta (memorably depicted later in the 1939 film
9

Gone with the Wind) did among all Southerners. The deliberate annihilation of all foodstocks and livestock like Stalin';s Holodomor in the Ukraine in the 1930s meant that anyone who survived the initial Norman massacres would still die of starvation over the winter. The land was even salted just as the Romans had done with Carthage so as to destroy its fertility for decades forward. As the monk Orderic relates and again, Orderic was otherwise an admirer of William the wretched survivors were reduced literally to the horrors of cannibalism and necrophagy: killing and eating their dying family members, and cracking open the skulls of the dead to devour their brains. This is a chapter of British history of unparallelled darkness, unequaled until the bombing of Dresden in 1945, and it explains the Pope's threat of excommunication. Unsurprisingly, among the starved, wretched survivors with their immune systems weakened by hunger, physical abuse (including rape) and emotional trauma, a plague followed. Below, a Norman knight. The Anglo-Saxons preferred to fight on foot, and were very effective against both the Vikings at Stamford Bridge and at the battle of Hastings against the mounted Normans until King Harold took an arrow in the eye at dusk, just around the time both sides wold have quit fighting. Saxon villagers in Yorkshire stood of course no chance against the armored Norman cavalry burning their cottages with firebrands and stabbing and slashing at all that moved.

10

11

[source: http://johndenugent.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2009/08/Norman-knight-inheavy-mail-armor.jpg] Orderic, though half-Norman himself and a supporter, like the pope, of the winner, could find no sincere way to defend this unparalleled holocaust:
The King stopped at nothing to hunt his enemies. He cut down many people and destroyed their homes and land. Nowhere else had he shown such cruelty. To his shame he made no effort to control his fury, and he punished the innocent with the guilty. He ordered that crops and herds, tools and food should be burned to ashes. More than 100,000 people perished of hunger. I have often praised William in this book, but I can say nothing good about this brutal slaughter. God will punish him.

Interestingly, as discussed later, in his later years his wife died, William's own son Robert Curthose revolted against him, ravaging his Norman domain, he became very fat, and in 1087 he was told that King Philip of France had described him as looking like a pregnant woman. A furious William then mounted an attack on the king's territory. After capturing and setting fire to Mantes, he was thrown half off his horse, landed on the metal pommel of his saddle, and died after three weeks of agony from a ruptured groin, friendless, and absolutely and utterly alone, as Orderic notes. In fact, this four-year harrowing of the North was just the beginning of a new, long dark age of Norman oppression, of the crushing of ancient freedoms for the English and soon after for the Welsh, Scots and the Irish. In some ways it was akin to the nightmare of the Bolshevik Revolution. It brought war and enslavement to the vast majority of the people. And from this harrowing we can see that although the Normans had picked up the French language, they were still merely Viking marauders, still what the Battle of Maldon poem called the Vikings: pirates, scavengers and 'slaughter-wolves. For all the British peoples, if you make it, a Norman will take it your land, your crops, your pride, and if possible your wife's or daughter's virtue. It reminds me of what the psychopathic mongol Genghis Khan said boastfully, in his definition of pleasure: The greatest happiness is to scatter your enemy, to drive him before you, to
12

see his cities reduced to ashes, to ride his horses, to see those who love him shrouded in tears, and to gather into your bosom his wives and daughters. As for the Bolsheviks, as Alexander Solzhenitsyn's book Two Hundred Years Together shows (discussed in a special issue of TBR, August 2008, available for $10)) they were most often not related by blood or ethnicity to the people they were slaughtering. Their victims were Slavs (Russians and Ukrainians), but they were often Jews, Georgians or even Latvians. However, the Normans were of the same Germanic blood as the English, but many of them, as the Harrowing of the North and many subsequent misdeeds showed, acted in a manner that was psychopathic. Psychopaths in Power In the Barnes Review of January-February 2007 my article Psychopaths in History discussed the phenomenon of the large role played by psychopaths in world history. I showed the latest scientific research on psychopaths, indicating that a shocking four percent or more of the general population may be psychopathic, and I defined that term. I showed that we can now look back on seventy years of hard medical case studies of psychopaths by top doctors and scientists such as Hervey Cleckley of Oxford, Martha Stout of Harvard, and Robert Hare of the University of British Columbia. And their therapeutic findings have been buttressed since the 1990s by extensive physical brain cans of the cerebral tissue of certified psychopaths. Many of these brain scans have been analyzed by Adrian Raine, PhD, an Oxford graduate who was a full professor at the University of Southern California 1994-2007 and is now a professor of criminology and psychiatry at the Ivy League's University of Pennsylvania.

Raine is noted for his research on the neurobiological causes of antisocial and violent behavior in children and adults. Receiving his BS degree in experimental psychology
13

from Oxford in 1977, he earned his PhD in psychology in 1982 from York University (in that very Yorkshire that William had holocausted). Raine spent four years in two high-security prisons in England as a prison psychologist. Raine emigrated to the US in 1987 to teach psychology at the University of Southern California. He became the associate chair of the Psychology Department in 1990. In 1994 he was promoted to professor of psychology, and in 1999 was given the endowed chair of Robert G. Wright Professor of Psychology. In 2007, he made the move to serve as Richard Perry University Professor of Criminology & Psychiatry at the University of Pennsylvania. He also serves as the University's fourth Penn Integrates Knowledge professor. These reports and these brain scans show that some monstrous individuals are born not with a bad attitude which could be changed by therapy, by religious repentance or making different friends but instead they seem cursed with the gravest and most dangerous physical birth defect possible: They are born monsters; they have no conscience; they cannot feel shame no matter what depths of evil they plumb; and they can derive no happiness from helping others. But what turns them on is power, and even more, sadistic power; vengeance; hatred, and any other intense emotional trip that involves taboos. For the politically gifted among them, the ultimate high is the organized mass murder called war. This is the reason why Martha Stout's 2005 bestseller is called The Sociopath Next Door because psychopaths are not all locked up in prison, but instead roaming the halls of power, appearing nightly on TV twisting the news, or wreaking havoc in the families around us. And according to Stout, these psychopaths are not, as the expression goes, one in a million, as rare as a Ted Bundy (the infamous Florida serial killer of college women), but instead a staggering four percent or more of the population. So a small city such as Pittsburgh, with a 300,000 population, could be infested with as many as twelve thousand full-bore psychopaths. Some scientists speculate that psychopaths lack proper levels of dopamine, and thus the ability to experience any stimulation from the simple and decent pleasures which normal persons enjoy such as: a beautiful sunset, petting a dog, making a friend feel better by a compliment, or performing a secret act of kindness for a charity. No, only the most intense, animalistic and visceral thrills bring psychopaths to life. And the breaking of every moral taboo such as assaulting the weak, the old or very young, or thefts, rapes, arson and murder are ultra-intense events that stimulate the dopaminestarved brain. All this recalls Nietzsche's too-little known quotation: The most underrated factor in
14

human history is people fleeing boredom. And it recalls the colonel Kilgore played by Robert Duvall in the movie Apocalypse Now: I live the smell of napalm in the morning. Terror, roasting people with jellied gasoline, exerting godlike power from the sky as villagers run: what's not to like for a psychopath? http://pigscantfly.files.wordpress.com/2008/07/apocalypse-now_01.jpg

(Among the Jews of Poland in the 1600s, interestingly, there arose a false messiah called Sabbatai Zevi, who insolently preached redemption through sin. He also reveled in being hailed as the Anointed One -- then treacherously converted in public from Judaism to Islam under the Turkish sultan's threat of decapitation, which shocked his followers all over Europe. As Yiddish novelist Isaac Bashevis Singer admits in his 1958 novel The Destruction of Kreshev, Sabbatai Zevi preached the practice of every sort of abomination. According to French author Herv Ryssen, in his Psychanalyse du Judaisme, Sabbateans are still a highly influential secret movement within Judaism, still popular for their diabolical doctrine of redemption through sin.) Even worse, many psychopaths, by virtue of being absolutely shameless, are talented liars, never blush even when caught only the ashamed blush, never the shameless -and are gifted manipulators.

15

*** Quotes from Adrian Raine: Pathological liars can't always tell truth from falsehood and contradict themselves in an interview. They are manipulative and they admit they prey on people. They are very brazen in terms of their manner, but very cool when talking about this. Our argument is that the more networking there is in the prefrontal cortex, the more the person has an upper hand in lying. Their verbal skills are higher. They almost have a natural advantage. To our knowledge, it is the first imaging study [brain scan experiment] on people who lie, cheat and deceive as a group. White matter [as opposed to gray matter in the brain] may provide liars with the tools necessary to master the complex art of deceit. Lying takes a lot of effort. You have to be able to understand the mindset of the other person. You also have to suppress your emotions or regulate them because you don't want to appear nervous. There's quite a lot to do there. You've got to suppress the truth. If these liars have a 14 percent reduction in gray matter, that means that they are less likely to care about moral issues or are less likely to be able to process moral issues. Having more gray matter would keep a check on these activities. Lying is cognitively complex, ... It is not easy to lie. It is certainly more difficult than telling the truth. Some people have a biological advantage in lying. It gives them a slight edge. *** Because psychopaths count in the millions around the world, they differ in their talents as much as do normal persons. Some stay merely as low-level con-men, but others, for whom the word mattoid (unfortunately rarely used) is appropriate, become either brilliant mass showmen (as seen in some tele-evangelists) or crafty behind-the-scenes conspirators (such as Joseph Stalin). In the language of traditional religion, they are evil; the Antichrist in the Book of Revelation is basically a grand psychopath, charming, megalomanic, self-worshiping, utterly ruthless and profoundly and proudly dedicated to deceit on a grand scale and tyrannical evil. Of course he appears as an angel of light.

16

This topic of psychopaths was also at the core of my fiance Margaret Huffstickler's cover story in the September-October 2006 Barnes Review,The Truth About Cattle Kate, Wyoming historys Forbidden Subject. This saga, the forebear of many a Hollywood western about ruthless cattle barons trying to drive out small homesteaders, was the (non-fictional and utterly true) horror story of how one cattle rancher in July 1889, an Albert Bothwell, got several other ranchers drunk during the annual roundup, defamed as criminal cattle rustlers a perfectly innocent couple of settlers who held a perfect legal claim to land he wanted (James Averill and Ellen Watson, Canadian immigrants)and then had the ranchers lynch this pair, who while strung up with their hands not even tied behind their backs took ten agonizing, endless minutes to slowly die as they clawed for air. Then as Bothwell had arranged, the judicial inquest was subverted, political favors were called in, lying newspaper defamations of the couple were printed and spread, in a concerted media campaign, as far away as the Chicago Sun Times and the New York Times, and a judge linked to the defense lawyer refused to recuse himself. All the murderers walked (although most later fled the state, taking their money with them). What strikes the reader is how respectable the lead cattle baron, an Albert Bothwell, seemed to others, including to visiting clergymen. Bothwell by all accounts was a man of great ability, charm and energy, as well as a member of the Republican country club in the Wyoming capital, the elegant Cheyenne Club. There was just this one little matter of murder, or actually two: his fraudulent oil drilling and absconding with investors' money. Several Hollywood movies have dealt with this infamous Cattle Kate lynching, which outraged and divided Wyomingites for decades. In April 1892 the impunity of the crime motivated other cattle barons to organize a true invasion so as to crush the rest of Wyoming's small homesteaders. They even hired 50 Texas gunslingers, brought them up by train, lied to them that rustlers (hated in the West) were taking over the state, and rode with this army into the newly organized counties of northern Wyoming in a conflict labeled the Wyoming Civil War or the Powder River War. (The siege of a homesteader ranch owned by the heroic Nate Champion, who kept a moving diary of his feelings, hope and despair before he was shot, was filmed as a powerful segment of the heartily recommended Hallmark television movie Johnson County War (2001) with Tom Berenger, Luke Perry, Rachel Ward and Burt Reynolds, which deals with both Cattle Kate mostly unfairly and the aftermath, the Wyoming Civil War.)

17

It must shock any investigator of this criminal lynching that many books, movies and newspapers still repeat the murderer Albert Bothwell's vicious claim that Cattle Kate had made her money not as a homesteader but as a fence for stolen (rustled) calves and as a part-time prostitute. The public never bought this defamatory claim, which is why most of the guilty ranchers except Bothwell fled the state of Wyoming, reviled and hated. But the vengeful Bothwell, who also kept pet wolves to intimidate visitors, sadistically put his own house up on rollers, rolled it onto the very site of Cattle Kate's house (which had been dragged away and turned into an ice housee), settled down to enjoyed the new location and water rights forthcoming from his sadistic, planned-out double murder and theft, and died a wealthy man in the 1920s in Los Angeles, having divorced his wife and married his mistress after his lawyer had saved him from federal prison for egregious land fraud, including selling federal land to suckers as his own. The Normans, as their later behavior in England would show, fit neatly into the same Bothwellian category of brutal and scheming mattoids, albeit one must qualify the situation and see its Dark Ages content. In a brutal age, men who might not otherwise have become brutal will do so. The phenomenon is called disadvantaged psychopaths or to be less politically correct, people (or animals) who are not born vicious but become vicious yet only after suffering severe abuse themselves that scars their nervous systems and brain tissue (as cortisol, the stress hormone, can do). One subject I did not delve into in my TBR study on psychopaths was what are euphemistically called disadvantaged psychopaths. What the euphemism disadvantaged means is that the individual was not born psychopathic, as in torturing animals and being a little terror right from the womb. It means that something happened.... some extremely brutal and shocking event was inflicted on these individuals, some kind of searing abuse or trauma, and this made them psychopathic (perhaps already having latent psychopathic tendencies, which may apply to many of us) not fully an unfeeling monster but partly so. That is, they may have some conscience or feel some regret if they have done something sadistic and low-down toward another, especially if taken to task by someone meaningful to them. And some of these abused psychopaths seem capable of recovery, unlike the born psychopaths, who are listed by all psychiatrists as untreatable and incurable. Christian martyrology is full of stories of Romans who while decapitating Christians or feeding them to the lions, crucifying or burning them alive, become so shaken with remorse by their steadfast faith and even forgiveness for their torturers that they embrace the faith and values of their victims, risking the extreme sanction for themselves as a result. The excruciating scenes in Mel Gibson's The Passion show a Roman army at its
18

torture-loving worst, really enjoying the whipping and impaling of a victim, and unfortunately the movie was true to that Roman reality. The confidence with which Christ had openly addressed God as his Father, and committed his soul into his hands, seems greatly to have affected the Roman centurion (captain) who commanded the cru8cifixion detail. Mark 15: 39 reports: And when the centurion who stood in front of the cross saw that He was dead, he exclaimed, 'This man was indeed God's Son.'" Indeed, the brain scans of these abused or disadvantaged psychopaths evince a pattern that is clearly halfway between that of normal, altruistic person full of red-die areas indicating activity and that of a full-blown, conscience-free psychopath with no feeling at all for others in a brain colored largely with blue die, showing lack of any activity in compassion centers of brain tissue, even while watching a scene that would cause grief in any normal person. I was very surprised, pleasantly so, in this context to see the 1946 MGM film The Courage of Lassie featuring of course the famous Scottish dog and also a young Elizabeth Taylor. Lassie, in this fourth film, is no longer a loving four-legged friend and rescuer of others, but instead a vicious human-biter and animal-killer whom the authorities finally seize to destroy as a danger to society and livestock. But when Taylor's distraught character demands a hearing before the dog is put down, it is revealed by finding dog tags that Lassie, during the years she had been missing, had ended up serving in the British Army in WWII in heavy frontline combat, seen horrors and death and suffered severe shocks from artillery. The movie ends with a lawyer teaching the judge and attendees poignantly that the public must not expect anyone -man or dog -- to be the same peaceful being right after suffering the unspeakable horrors of war. And thus Lassie's life is spared and she will be helped to readjust to a life with Miss Taylor of home, security and love. This was easily the most powerful Lassie movie I have seen, and was socially useful in 1946. Sadly, this understanding that a dog received was more care than many human vets of WWII received, or that vets of Iraq and Afghanistan receive today. As I point out later in this piece, my own father came back from both WWII and then Korea profoundly affected, as did many other marines, soldiers, sailors and airmen.

19

[black-and-white version] [source: http://johndenugent.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2009/09/NGRI_PET_scanBW.jpg] Non-psychopath brain PET scan in B&W; the large light areas reflect normal feelings of compassion, sadness, shock and disgust in various emotion centers of the brain while the subject views a photo of a true fatal car wreck with a dead mother and children. Photos by Adrian Raine, PhD, Oxford, a criminal psychologist, currently serving as a full professor at the University of Southern California.

[black-and-white version] [source: http://johndenugent.com/blog/wpcontent/uploads/2009/09/Non_NGR_PET_scan-BW.jpg] Psychopath brain PET scan in B&W; the large dark areas reflect a lack of feeling in various emotion centers of the brain while viewing the same photo of the fatal car wreck and the dead mother and children. When Raine first showed such photos to a neurologist, the colleague joked nervously: Are those brain scans of a Martian? He had never seen such patterns. The brain scans of disadvantaged or abused psychopaths show more feeling than those of full psychopaths but less than those of normal persons, who have active feelings of compassion. ========in color [source: http://johndenugent.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2009/09/NGRI_PET_scan20

11.jpg] Non-psychopath brain PET scan in color: the large warm-colored areas reflect normal feelings of compassion, sadness, shock and disgust in various emotion centers of the brain while viewing a photo of a true fatal car wreck with a dead mother and children. Photos by Adrian Raine, PhD, Oxford, a criminal psychologist, currently serving as a full professor at the University of Southern California. [source: http://johndenugent.com/blog/wpcontent/uploads/2009/09/Non_NGR_PET_scan-11.jpg] Psychopath brain PET scan in color; the large blue and black areas reflect a lack of feeling in various emotion centers of the brain while viewing the same photo of the fatal car wreck and the dead mother and children. When Raine first showed such photos to a neurologist, the colleague joked nervously: Are those brain scans of a Martian? He had never seen such patterns. The brain scans of disadvantaged or abused psychopaths show more feeling than those of full psychopaths but less than those of normal persons, who have active feelings of compassion. The History Channel recently had a program on Wake Island in the Pacific during World War Two. Rather than send in the Marines to liberate the island and rescue its XX Marines and XX American civilians, U.S. Authorities cold-bloodedly decided to skirt the island and push on westward toward Tokyo, leaving over 1,000 Americans to their fate. Power was not handed over to the Americans until September 7, 1945. It was learned after the war that 1,000 had been put in Japanese prison camps and 98, after rebuilding the island's defenses against their fellow Americans, had been mowed down on a beach by machine gun. The one who had escaped was caught and beheaded. [source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/62/James_Patrick_Sinnott_Devereux .jpg] James Patrick Sinnott Devereux, Marine Corps major who heroically defended Wake Island and for it won the Navy Cross, one of the highest Navy medals. All four names of his names are Norman, and Devereux a famous one in English nobility. After the war, he was a liberal Republican and a Maryland congressman, casting votes against discrimination and for desegregation from 1951-59. [source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/58/Robert_Devereux %2C_2nd_Earl_of_Essex.jpg] Caption: Robert Devereux, 2nd Earl of Essex (1565-1601), an impetuous military hero and royal favorite of Elizabeth I (played with impetuous dash by Errol Flynn in the 1939
21

film The Private Lives of Elizabeth and Essex). Following a poor campaign against the Irish, he failed in a coup against the Queen and was beheaded for treason. Five Americans who returned to Wake for the filming of this documentary discussed their feelings about the four years they spent in emotional and physical hell. One said: Most of us have PTSD [post-traumatic stress syndrome]. We have bad tempers. Anything can make us just go off. Many children of American WWII, Korea, Vietnam, Gulf and Iraq vets can testify to this side effect: brutal words or even brutal deeds. The vet seems to be stuck in the jungle. It seems, to put it unscientifically but perhaps accurately, that some abusive horror causes on a deep brain level a new world view to arise: this world is a jungle, and in it you are either predator or prey. The abused psychopath is one who draws this drastic conclusion, and the decision to become a predator himself. Not enough is known about why certain abuse victims themselves become killers, but one can assume that it is a reaction to the most primitive part of the brain's decision that the world is ruled by the survival of the fittest, or as Herbert Spencer (Norman name) once famously described nature, red in tooth and claw. (The late Princess of Wales, Lady Diana, was born a Spenser.) One example of this phenomenon would be molested children, for whom estimates exist that ten percent of them (let us emphasize only ten percent) become molesters themselves. Often these disadvantaged psychopaths grew up in an abusive home or setting. I saw an interview with the psychiatrist at Canada's only super-max prison, which contains the 100 worst criminal fiends in Canada, all men. (Ninety percent of psychopaths, unfortunately, are male.) This doctor said that all one hundred men had been severely abused as children. This may recall to us that a very young Caligula, before he became a psychopathic emperor (AD 36-40), saw his own beloved father Germanicus probably poisoned by his great-grandfather, Emperor Tiberius, his two brothers murdered, his mother arrested and himself kept as the emperor's prisoner at his palace for six year, surviving only by acting as if he dearly loved the tyrant. Let us then recall the shock to the northern peoples of the entire Saxon aristocracy being mass-murdered by Charlemagne. In fact, Snorri Sturluson, the Christian monk from Iceland of the 12th century, directly states that the massacre at Verden was the key
22

incident that triggered the Viking Age. Certainly the Dark Ages that long period after the fall of Rome say 450-1100 when the European population was far below what it had once been, and roads and bridges, schools and law and literacy were neglected, were in a sense one long trauma for all European mankind. It is said that when the Visigoths cut the aqueduct into Rome, overnight hundreds of thousands of Romans had to flee to the countryside to become instant slaves of any landowner who would accept them as his serfs, to work for him for water and food. (I have a neighbor here in Pennsylvania who told me that even in the late 1940s, men would walk out of the nearby town to his farm, six miles one-way, to work hard all day just for three meals, no cash.) William's childhood from hell

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f4/William1.jpg William was called the Bastard because he literally was illegitimate. His father, Duke Robert the Magnificent, saw a beautiful peasant girl, Harleva, washing clothes by a stream, found her ravishing and basically ravished her. When she was pregnant with William, he married her to another nobleman, Herluin de Conteville. William became duke of Normandy on the death of his father at the ripe old age of eight.
23

His illegitimacy and boyhood provided two pretexts for the major barons of Normandy to flout his ducal authority. The Duchy of Normandy then traversed a decade of serious unrest. Wars broke out between the main families and with the Duke, and assassins tried constantly to kill various members of his entourage. William lost three of his guardians or protectors by murder: the Seneschal Osbern de Crepon, Gilbert de Brionne and Alain III of Brittany. The descendants of the ancient (pre-Viking) dukes, the Richardides, were apparently involved in these murders. Adding to these traumatic events was the scourge of famine, which lasted seven long years in Normandy, later accompanied by a very deadly epidemic. In 1046, William was nineteen. For the first time, he was now the target of an assassination, Some of the lords formed a coalition to depose William for Guy de Brionne (c. 1025-1069), a cousin. The rebellion gathered most of the "old Norman" west side of the duchy (Bessin, Cotentin, Cinglais), traditionally unruly and hostile to the policy of assimilation pursued by the Viking-blooded dukes. In Valognes, William narrowly escaped an assassination attempt. He fled at night on horseback and was hosted by Hubert de Ryes who escorted him under heavy protection to Falaise. With the aid of King Henry I of France, the young duke and the king crushed the rebel Normans at the Battle of Val-s-Dunes in 1047. Of course, as a descendant of the Vikings, William may already have had a violent nature, but surely the incredible stress and danger of his childhood would have encouraged him to see life as truly a jungle. One could tell many more tales of William's ruthlessness, but the most telling is how he publicly slugged Matilda of Flanders, the woman he had gone to that part of Belgium to court. She had given him the brush-off in public, so he simply decked her she was also the niece of King Henri I of France in the presence of his own and her entourage. She was so impressed that she married him.... There were rumors that Matilda had been in love with the English ambassador to Flanders, a Saxon named Brihtric, who refused her advances. Years later, when she was acting as Regent for William in England while he was busy suppressing more revolts in Normandy, she used her authority to confiscate Brihtric's lands and throw him into a hellish dungeon where he died. This was the founding family of Norman Britain. Tolkien on the Normans and their usurious friends

24

We Aryans must admit that we have our own psychopaths too; the Khazars (Ashkenazi Jews) are not the only ones. What happened after 1066, when the Normans, who were French-speaking former Vikings who had "adopted Christianity," is that, just like William of Orange 600 years later, the ruthless Normans brought in Jews as their even more ruthless money men. And as Stalin also realized, if you want to crush a people, Jews are happy to assist you in crushing them because of their rancor against all gentiles. They make good evil assistants. No, what is especially unique about England was that these brilliant, brave but psychopathic French-speaking former Vikings barely converted, on paper, to Christianity -- joined with Jews to transform England into their slave colony. England was a nightmare for centuries for the common man. And I say this as a descendant of this ruthless conquering group, the Northmen. And I do believe that the "Hobbits" of J.R. Tolkien's Lord of the Rings saga were meant to symbolize the innocent but brave Anglo-Saxons, enslaved by wicked warlords intent on gaining all the world's GOLD........ John Ronald Reuel Tolkien (1892-1973), a distinguished professor of ancient linguistics at Oxford University, was every inch an Englishman, that is, a heritage-conscious Anglo-Saxon, and a fervent admirer of the heritage of all northern Europe (including especially Finland, a non-Germanic but very white Nordic country). Nevertheless, his public utterances at least were anti-German and anti-Hitler, a common if often insincere strategem used both then and now to deflect attacks by Jewish groups, which always go on the attack charging opponents with hatred, bigotry, disloyalty, antisemitism, Neo-Nazism and white supremacism. Tolkien was a professor of Anglo-Saxon language and literature at Oxford from 1925 to 1945, and of English language and literature from 1945 to 1959. Although highly sympathetic with the heroic values of ancient heathen Northern Europe, he was also a close friend of Christian novelist C.S. Lewis (Christianity, nota bene, being opposed to usury as well as all cruelty), and he and Lewis were members of the informal literary discussion group known as the Inklings. Tolkien was honored by the Queen on 28 March 1972 with an appointment as a Commander of the Order of the British Empire, which he had sought via his writings to preserve. A turning point in his life was the carnage of World War One, into which he had volunteered as an artillery. He became invaldid from disease in the trenches. He later wrote: Junior officers were being killed off, a dozen a minute. Parting from my wife
25

then ... it was like a death.... By 1918 all but one of my close friends were dead. The name Tolkien for an Englishman had always puzzled me until I researched further. His ancestors had migrated from Lower Saxony, Germany to England in the 1600s. Before, their name had been Tollkhn, which fittingly means bold in German. (The dialect of Lower Saxony, unsurprisingly, is very similar to that of Old Anglo-Saxon English.) Thus the Tolkiens were just one more little wave of Lower Saxon emigration to the cousin-land of the Anglo-Saxons. (The first Saxon settlement of Britain had come in the 400s as the Roman Empire was collapsing due to the Asiatic Hun invasions.)

[source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/d/d7/Jrrt_1972_pipe.jpg] According to Tolkien's private papers, what did the evil golden ring signify with the mysterious foreign writing on its inside the gold ring that tempts wicked men with its power?

26

And who did the Hobbits signify? How did the Norman Conquest affect England -and the whole planet?

The Normans -- French-speaking Vikings -- turned Anglo-Saxon England into an aggressive, ruthless sea-roving power. In 2002, a Jewish professor sought to combat the enthusiasm of white preservationist groups worldwide for The Lord of the Rings. Fascists hijack Lord of the Rings By Sophie Blakemore, Birmingham Post Dec 18 2002 [source: http://icbirmingham.icnetwork.co.uk/0100ne...ll&siteid=50002] As the second film of the trilogy, The Two Towers, comes out on general release today, a Midland academic has expressed concerns that neo-Nazi groups are interpreting the Birmingham author's epic for their own ends.
27

One Internet website urges "every white nationalist" to watch the films, which it claims promote white supremacy over ethnic minorities living in the West. Dr Stephen Shapiro, an English expert at the University of Warwick, said the adoption of the literary masterpiece by far right groups was worrying. [He then claims Tolkien would not approve of the far right which wanted to keep a White Britain.]

Shapiro, center. [source: http://www2.warwick.ac.uk/fac/cross_fac/capital/about/people/194-2-1711_small.jpg] Dr Shapiro said [however that] the trilogy of Middle Earth mythology [in fact did] represent [Tolkien's and other white Britons'] anxieties about immigration. "Tolkien wrote The Lord of the Rings because he believed England's original culture and mythology was destroyed by the Norman invasion, and [he] thought his story-cycle would recreate the world of pre-invasion Britain. "For today's film fans, this older racial anxiety fuses with a current fear and hatred of Islam that supports a crusading war in the Middle East." He added that the books should not be used to incite racial hatred but to look at the modern state of race relations in the UK and further afield. The distinguished white South Africa patriot Stephen Goodson wrote the below: (from http://www.spearhead.com/0208-sg.html) According to a survey by the Folio Society in 1997, as well as a poll by Waterstone's, the booksellers, in January of that year, The Lord of the Rings was voted readers' "favorite book of all time." The recent filming of the book has popularised it once more, and stimulated speculation as to what fuelled this extraordinary work. While many aficionados are content to treat The Lord of the Rings as an epic fantasy, some have detected an underlying repugnance for the industrialisation of the countryside and the damage of total war. In June 1997, Ross Shimmon, chief executive of the Library Association, commented:It's astonishing that The Lord of the Rings has this impact. The idea of a parallel world... I wonder whether it's something to do with trying to make sense of the world around us.
28

Candour reader A 20-year subscription to the patriotic journal Candour and a faithful preservation of its 24 volumes, may well provide some clues as to what were Tolkien's innermost thoughts, ideas and beliefs. Candour was founded by A. K. Chesterton, a cousin of G. K. Chesterton, as a successor to Truth magazine, of which he had previously been Deputy Editor. Chesterton, a distinguished veteran of two world wars, had earlier edited Oswald Mosley's publications in the 'Thirties. In 1954 he established the League of Empire Loyalists, whose antics and interventions at Tory meetings proved to be a constant source of irritation and embarrassment to both Eden and Macmillan. In 1967 the League merged with the old British National Party (not to be confused with the present party of the same name) and the Racial Preservation Society to form the National Front, with the Greater Britain Movement joining the merger a short time later. Chesterton assumed the role of leader. In 1973, Tolkien's copies of Candour were sold out of his estate for 10. In 1997, I inherited these newsletters from Chesterton's secretary Moyna Traill-Smith. The quotations from Candour which follow have all been underlined by Tolkien with a red [ballpoint pen]. Empire tragedy The dissolution of the British Empire was viewed by Tolkien as a tragedy, which would have permanent negative consequences for its indigenous populations:Africa is not peopled by Black Europeans, but it is a continent full of tribes mentally and morally at the dawn of history. Self-government does not mean democracy - Liberia and Abyssinia are two warning lights. African hegemony would lead to the suicide of the White community in East and Central Africa and to the ruin of African hopes of sustained progress. (3/10 August 1956, page 44) Tolkien was disillusioned about the effectiveness of modern democracy, and considered both the media and high finance to be inimical to its success:The concentration of the power of the Press has long since made a mockery of whatever degree of informed democracy we may have once known... (10 February 1956, page 50) The true equation is democracy = government by world financiers.

29

The main mark of modern governments is that we do not know who governs, de facto any more than de jure. We see the politician and not his backer; still less the backer of the backer; or, what is most important of all, the banker of the backer. Throned above all, in a manner without parallel in all past, is the veiled prophet of finance, swaying all men living by a sort of magic, and delivering oracles in a language not understood of the people. (13 July 1956, page 12) Monetary reformer It was in the field of monetary reform that Tolkien displayed his most passionate concern. His indignation about the evil of usury - the creation of money out of nothing and then lending it out at interest - is reflected repeatedly:There should only be one source of money: one fountainhead from which flows the nation's blood to vitalize commerce and industry, ensure economic equity and justice and safeguard the welfare of the people... In other words, it has always been and still is our contention that the prerogative of creating and issuing the money of the nation should be restored to the State. (3/10 August 1956, page 48) Utilizing the above background, a brief exegesis of The Lord of the Rings may be attempted. The center of all evil is the Dark Lord Sauron, who has enslaved the people of Middle Earth through the rings of power. There are seven rings for the dwarf lords, five for the elven kings, nine for mortal men, and one to rule and bind them all in darkness and slavery forever. These gold rings were forged in the fires of Mount Doom and are symbolic of the central banks and their monopolistic powers, which enable them to create money out of nothing and lend it out at interest to the gullible people. With their unlimited financial power, they are able to control the mass media and spellbind the general public with their propaganda. Eventually good prevails over evil and the Ringwraiths, the Orcs and Uruk Hai monsters are defeated. Background So who was John Ronald Reuel Tolkien? Did he support the NF? Probably not in any meaningful way, but indisputably he was sympathetic to its anti-immigration and antiCommon Market [now European Union] policies, having endorsed Chesterton's views over two decades.
30

There is little doubt that Tolkien was a patriot, and that his conviction that the civilizing effects of the British Empire were a blessing to be enjoyed by all has been proven correct. The torment of death, debt and destruction, which Africa has subsequently endured, bears regrettable testimony to that fact. Above everything else Tolkien may be judged as an ardent supporter of monetary reform. He understood that money is not a form of wealth, but a medium for the exchange of goods and services. He sought social justice through the adoption of an honest money system, which would distribute the benefits of the technological age to all mankind, and provide a secure basis for a future of progress and prosperity. Tolkien could have written a treatise on political economy, and, if published, it would in all likelihood have achieved only a limited circulation. By employing a powerful allegory, he has subconsciously embraced and influenced the minds of untold millions with his mythos.

=Sidebar===Think you're English, Welsh, Scottish or Irish? Try instead Norman.=== If your name is Allison, Davison, Angel, Duke, Nugent or Tiffany -- or Dawes, Curtis, Pierce, Piper, Beckwith, Chase, Doggett, Blodgett, Fitzwater, Disney, Drury or Dillon, to name just a few surnames or Chamberlain, Grant, Gibbs or Goddard or Pinkerton, Lindsay, Murdoch or Quincey -- you might not be quite as English as you think. You might be descended from some French-screaming Scandinavians who got bored in 1066 after one hundred years ruling Normandy, swilling hard cider, and grabbing for French wenches washing clothes in the crique (like William the Conqueror's mother), and your great-great-great (and so forth) grandpappy decided to try conquering England at the Battle of Hastings, and being Vikings, your ancestors succeeded. And that's why you like brandy and champagne, not Budweiser. See the sidebar Names of the French Northmen. Here are some truly common if prominent names in Anglo-American (and Canadian, Australian, New Zealand and white South African) society that, with their French original spellings in parentheses, go straight back in the male line to the Norman Conquest of 1066, and if any of these names is in your family tree, you have a Norman swinging from it:
31

[source: http://johndenugent.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2009/08/Norman-knight-inheavy-mail-armor.jpg] Duke (le Duc), Rogers, Lyons, Chamberlain, Bailey (Bailli), Beamis (Beaumis), Beacham (Beauchamp), Boyle (Boelles or if Norman-Scottish --from the family name de Boyville), Chase (de Chancey), Crocker (le Crochre), Curtis (de Curteis), Daltrey (d'Altrey, d'Alterive = of the higher river bank), Danvers (d'Anvers, of Antwerp, as in the Massachusetts town where the Salem Witchcraft Trial was actually held ), Tiffany or Tiffin (from Thophanie), Davison (d'Avison).... [source: http://www.visoterra.com/images/original/bruyeres-vue-depuis-l-avisonvisoterra-28450.jpg] Caption: Bruyres from the Avison Tower, when the name Davison

[source: http://img.groundspeak.com/waymarking/display/d0459101-b1db-4a57-9499f918ba958d12.JPG] Caption: La Tour d'Avison .Dawes (as in the Dawes Plan, designed to lighten the Versailles Treaty for Germany in the 1920s), Dewey (from d'Eu, a major Norman family that spread throughout England).... [source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Schlo%C3%9FEu.jpg] Caption: Chateau d'Eu, Normandy ..Douglas (not a French name at all, but a Scottish place and manor acquired by the Norman Fleming family in 1147), Driver (as in actress Minny Driver of the film Good Will Hunting, from de Rivre), Eliot or Elliott or Ellis (from d'Alis, near Pont de l'Arche, Normandy)..... [source: http://cache.virtualtourist.com/1973508-Pont_de_lArche-Pont_de_lArche.jpg] Caption: Near Alis, Pont de l'Arche

32

...Day (de Dai), Denny (as in the restaurant chain) or Dench (actress Judy Dench), Dennis (as in white nationalist author Lawrence Dennis) (from le Danois = the French word for the Dane) Quincy or Quincey (as in US President John Quincy Adams), Denton (d'Eudon, a companion of the Conqueror), Devine, Dillon (de Lion), Dingell (D'Angell), Pierce (from Pierres, a name that no longer exists in France), Agnew (Agneau), Cheney (de Chesne = of the oak), DeLay, Disney (d'Isigny), [source: http://www.normandie44lamemoire.com/les %20monuments/imagesmonuments/isignyx2.jpg] Caption: Church at Isigny-sur-mer (Isigny [pronounced Ee-see -nyee] on the sea), home of the lords d'Isigny, a few miles from Omaha Beach (D-Day 1944) and the manor of the family now known as Disney in America [source:http://motivationalspeaker1.files.wordpress.com/2008/07/waltdisney3.jpg ] Caption: Walt Disney, 1901-1966, a direct descendant of Hughes d'Isigny, who settled in England with William the Conqueror in 1066. The d'Isigny family settled in the English village now known as Norton Disney, south of the city of Lincoln, and later moved to Ireland. .Ducie/Doocy [source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/34/Steve_Doocy_Interview_FOX_ %26_Friends.JPG] Caption: Steve Doocy, host, FOX and Friends morning show, FOX News Channel ..Arby, as in the roast-beef chain (d'Arby), Dunhill, as in the cigarettes (d'Oisnel), Richmond, Landry (Dallas Cowboys coach), Blanchard, Montgomery, Cushing (Cuchon), Dorset, Dwight (de Doito), Dyer (d'Iore), Dyson, as in the chicken-processing giant in Arkansas (Tesson), Blanchett, Barrett, Beckett, Crockett, as in Davey, East, as in the late U.S. senator and patriot from South Carolina) (d'Est), Edmonds, Everett, Fairfield (Fierville; most Something-fields come from something-ville, not the Anglo-Saxon word field, ville meaning large town or city in French), Faraday as in Michael F., the great chemist (from de la Fert, an important family), [source: http://www.frenchconnections.co.uk/_db/_images/LaFerteBernard.jpg] Caption: Porte St. Julien before the city la Fert .Farmer (Fermor), Faussett, Fawkes (Vaux), Faulkner (Falconarius, a latinate noble
33

name from France meaning hunter with falcons), Fawn (Vanne), Fay,

[source (top photo): http://www.france-voyage.com/en/] Caption: Church in Fay, Picardy, France .Fenner (from Fenarius, and as in Merrill Lynch Pierce Fenner and Smith, a once famous Wall Streetttttttttttttttt brokerage), Ferris (Ferrers), Fiennes (as in Ralph F., an English actor who starred as an SS commandant in Schindler's List), Fingerhut, as in the bank security company (from Vingraut), Fish, as in the great patriotic NY congressman (de Piscis, from the Latin name that means fish), Ferry, Fitch (from Fitz = Fils = illegitimate son of a noble), Fitzgerald (a very powerful family from Aquitaine, from which the Kennedy boys were descended via their mother Rose Fitzgerald of Boston), Fitzwater (as in Marlin Fitzwater, Ronald Reagan's press secretary), Fitzwilliam (a county in Virginia), Fletcher (le Flechier = the arrow maker), Flood (Flote), Flowers (de Flore), Foley (de la Folie, an important family from La Folie, near Bayeux), [source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/2a/SpeakerFoley.jpg] Thomas Foley as Speaker of the House 1989-1994; Foley was later ambassador to Japan and chairman of the North American branch of the Trilateral Commission; some Irish Foleys, Boyles, Roaches, Walshes and others bearing Norman names are not of Norman descent at all, but descended from the retainers of Normans; also, in the 1400s Britain began forcing the Irish to adopt English-sounding names. .Foreman (Farman) not to imply that boxer George Foreman is a Norman, but he may have one in the woodpile; Forrest (de Foreste = of the forest, forest being a French word) or Forrester, Forster, and Foster; Fountain, Fox (translation of Reinard), Francis, French, Franklin (le Fraunclein = tenant of the lower nobility who owes a lord military service), Fraser (Frezel, but many are pure Scots descended from retainers of the Frezels), Freeman (some, but not most, come from Fremont as in the great Californian discoverer), Furlong, as in the young actor Edward F. in the second Terminator movie (from Forlon), Gagan (Gacon), Gage, as in General Thomas Gage, British ruler of Boston in the American Revolution (from de Gaugi) [source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f6/ThomasGageByCopley.jpg]
34

Caption: General Thomas Gage, Royal Military Governor of Massachusetts at the outbreak of the American Revolution; ordered raids on Lexington and Concord that triggered the Minuteman confrontations

. Futrell (Vautrel), Gaffney, as in a well-known neo-conservative Frank G. (de Chavigny), Garland (de Garlande, a very high noble family under the king of France), Garlick (Gerloch), Garrett, as in Garet G., anti-FDR author and journalist, [source: http://mises.org/images4/garrett1925.jpg] Garet (really Peter] Garrett, 1878-1954, reporter for the NY Times, the old Washington Times, the Wall Street Journal, and opponent of the wars of Wilson and Roosevelt, American imperialism and New Deal economics. He was called by libertarian Ludwig von Mises a writer of keen penetration and forceful, direct language...unsurpassed by any author." Here again we see prominent people of Norman ancestry, whether for or against the Establishment. .Gascoyne, Gay (de Gay), Geary (le Gere), Gerrard, Germain, Gervis, Jarvis, as in Howard Jarvis, California tax revolt leader in the 1980s, Gibb, Gibbs (de Wibo), Gibbons, as in the author of The Rise and Fall of the Roman Empire (from Gibon), Curbison, and also some Gibsons (from Curbizon, Normandy), Gifford, as in the NY Giants quarterback, from Giffard), Gilbert (Gilbart), Giles (de Gueilles), Gill (Gille), Gulliver (de Gulafre), Gilpin (Galopin), Ginn (Guinee), Goddard (American rocket builder), Godfrey, as in Arthur G. , CBS radio and TV personality (Godefroy), Gooch (le Goche, Gouche), Goodyear, the tiremaker (from Godier), Gore, as in the vice president under Bill Clinton (Goher), Gorham, as in the American silverware maker (from Brittany), Gossett, Gower (Guer), Grace, as in Peter Grace, American industrialist, Graham (from a thoroughly English place name in Lincoln, but ruled by the de Tankarville family; this, like Douglas, is an example of a Norman family that dropped its name for its new manor location in England or Scotland), Grange, Granger, Grant (if and English Grant, coming from Le Grand = the tall one, not a Scottish Grant; general and president Ulysses S. Grant, of Pennsylvania stock, may have been English), Granville, Grenville, Grenfell, Greenfield (from Granville), Graves (de la Grave), Greeley, as in Horace Greeley (Go west , young man, go west!, from de Grelly), Greenlees (de Gringelai), Gresham or Grisham (English place name, ruled by the Branche family), Gray (not an English name at all, but from de Gray de Flvy or de Gray de Malmdy), Grosvenor (Big Hunter) as in Melville Bell Grosvenor and his father, who edited the National Geographic magazine form 1899-1969; Gunn (de Gons),
35

Gunnell (de Gondeville, de Conteville), Gurney, still a prominent English noble family (de Gournay), Hackett, as in David H., Vietnam war hero and military expert; Haddon (de Hadon), Haines, as in the underwear manufacturer (de [from] Haisne, a place near Arras, Normandy, the city where the British landed in 1944), Haliday, Halsey (American admiral in WWII and fierce opponent of the Japanese), [source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/cd/W_Halsey.jpg] Caption: William F. Bull Halsey, US admiral; his fierce saying was that after WWII the Japanese language would be spoken only in hell. ...Hamilton, as in Alexander, officer and later Secretary of the Treasury under Washington, father by a Scottish lord from Grange (Norman name in Ayrshire, Scotland), and advocate of a private central bank (from the English place name of the manor of the Norman family de Blossevilles), Hamlin (Hamelin, Normandy), Hampton (de Hantona, Normandy), Hancock, as in John H., very wealthy Massachusetts signer of the American Declaration of Independence (from the English place name Encot of the Norman de Sprenchaux family), Handley (d'Andelys), Harbin (de Harpin), Harbourt (Harbord), Harcourt, as in Harcourt Brace publishers, Hewlett (as in Hewlett-Packard computers), Jewett (anti-abortion bomber at the Atlanta Olympics), Hardy, as in author Thomas Hardy (from le Hardi = the bold), Hare, as in Robert H., famous Canadian psychopathologist (le Hare), Harrah (Arras), Harrell, Harris (from both de Heriz and from de Harace); Harrison, not English but Norman, as in two U.S. presidents (from Herion).... ..Harvey, as in Paul H. legendary radio commentator; Hatcher (Achard), Hatherill, Hawfield, Hovell (all from de Hauteville, one of the most warlike Norman families), Hawley (de la Haulle), Hay (de la Haye), Hayes, Helm (de Helme), Herbert (Harbard), Hewett, Hewitt (from Huet, Normandy), Hickey (Hequet), Hillary (de Saint Hilary, Normandy), Hoare (de Aure), Hogg (de Hoga), Hollings (de Holene), Holmes (du Holme, a very Norwegian name), Honeywell (probably de Handeville), Hooker (Huchier), Housman (de Housemaine), Howley (de Houlie), Hoyle (de Hoel), Humphrey (Homfray), Hudson (Heudescent), Hunter (Anglo-Normoans often translated their name le Venur, 'the Royal Hunter), Huntley (the Fitzbaderon family), Hutton (the de Percy family), Hyatte and Hoyt (Hoyte), Ingall (de l'Angle), Innes, as in the captain of the USS Liberty, from the Egmont family of Flanders), Irby (the de Amondevilles), Ireland, as in Humphrey Ireland, author of The Disposssessed Majority, Irons (d'Airan, Normandy), Janes (Genes), Jekyll (Jackel), Jenner (Gaynar), Jennett (Genet), Jennings, as in the ABC news anchoir Peter Jennings (Genon), Jocelyn, Joyce, Kain, as in the current governor of Virginia (de Cahaigne), Keates, as in the poet (de Catot), Kemp (de Campe), Keney (de
36

Kaigny), Kerr (the family d'Espec), King (le Roy was a very common noble Norman name, translated as 'the king), Kinsey (de Canci), Kirk (de Quercu), Knapp (de Kenappeville), Kenyon (the Banastre family, whence Bannister), Lacey (de Lacey, a great family that fought at Hastings and spread all over England and Ireland), Lake (du Lac), Lambert, Larkin (Largen), Lattimer, Laurel (Lorel), Laver (Lavarde), Lawson (Loison), Lear (de Lyre, Normandy), Lechmere (strangely, from de la Mare), Ledger, as in the recently expired Australian actor Heath Ledger (de St. Leger), Lemmoni (Lemon), Levison (de Levasson), Liddell, Liggett, Lilly, Lilley, Lind (de la Lynde), Lindsay (de Limesay, formerly the royal house of Norway), Lockhart (Locard), Lodge, as in the famous Massachusetts senatorial family (de Loge), Long (de Longa), Lucas, as in the creator of the Star Wars films (from de Lukes, de Luches), Macy, or Macey, as in actor William M. of the movie Fargo(from Macey, or Massey, from Macy, Normandy), Maitland (Maltalent), Mantle, as in the famous baseball slugger (de Montellis), Marley (de Merlai), Mason (le Mazon), Maynard (Mainard or Mainart), Mercer (Mercier), Montgomery (de Monte Goumeril, from the Germanic Gomerik = Man power, -rik being relate to the political word Reich), Murdoch (from Meurdrac, Barons of St. Denis and Meurdraquiere, Normandy, not far inland from Saint-Malo, Brittany and the Channel Islands of Jersey and Guernsey) [source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/4/48/KeithMurdoch.jpg] Caption: Sir Keith Murdoch, father of mysterious media billionaire Rupert Murdoch ...Neal (de Neel), North (Norreys or Norensis), Oake (de Quercu), Owen (in some, not all cases, from de St. Ouen or Audoen, from St. Ouen near Caen, Normandy), Padgett (Pachet), Palmer, as in the great golfer (le Paumier), Patrick (This great Norman house, Patry or Patrick de la Lande was from la Lande, near Caen), Patton, as in the great American WWII general (Patin), [source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/d/da/George_S._Patton__France_-_1918.jpg/757px-George_S._Patton_-_France_-_1918.jpg] Caption: Captain, later General George S. Patton of Virginia, in WWI. Patton became, ironically, anti-Jewish and pro-German in 1945 after helping the former and smashing the latter. Peel (Pele), Pepper (Peppard or Pipard), Peter (de Petra), Phelps (Phylippus), Pickett (Picot), Pierce (de Piris), Pinkerton (Punchardon or Pont Cardou), Pitt, as in several great British prime minsters who battled the French (Peet, Pet, Pette, Pite), Piper d), Plunkett (de Plugener), Pointer (Pontier), Porter (Portarius), Potter (Potier)
37

Power (Pohier, Poher or Poncaer, as in my father's divorce lawyer.....), Pratt (Pratum), Purcell (Porcel), Quantrell, as in the famous Confederate raider (from Canterell or Quinterell), Quincey (a baronial family from Quince, in Maine, a French province), Randolf (Randulf or Ranulf), Rankin (Roncin), Rawlins (Roillon), Ray (de Rea), Reynold (Renoldus), Rivers (de la Riviere), Rodney (de Reyney), Rooney (Roenai), Roper (de Rupierre), Ross (de Ros, from Ros [now Rots], near Caen), Rowley (from Roelly, Reuilly, or Roilly, near Evreux, Normandy. Ralph de Roileio coming over with William the Conqueror), Russell (de Rosel), Sawyer (from de Sahurs, or from the English occupation of a man who saws), Sayles (de Sella), Seymour (St. Maur, from St. Maur, near Avranches, Normandy), Sharpe (translation of Poignant), Sherman, as in the famous Union general (from Sire-horne), Shore (d'Escures), Sloane (de Sellant), Sowter (Sutor), Sweet (English, translation of Latin Dulcis), Talbot (Talbot, Talebot, Thalebot), Thorne (Taurne), Temple (from Temple, near Caen, Normandy), Tobin (St. Aubain), Tory (de Tury, Turi or Turri) Travers (de Trevieres), Tyson (Tyson or Tisson), Ullman (d'Allemagne, meaning from Germany), Vance (Vaux), Vickers (Vacarius), Wade (de Vado), Ward (Gar or Garde), Warwick (Warrok, Waroc), Weaver (de Wevre, or from the English occupation), West (de Gaste), Wheeler (Huielor, Huelier), White (translation of le Blanc), Wilde (translation of de Sauvage), Willard (de Guillart), Wolfe (Lu, Loup), Young (from Juven, Juvenis, Jouvin). And that is just a short list of the Normans' names. In researching my own Norman family tree there are 13 villages or cities called Nogent in northern France (in Roman times Noguntiac-um) I found that some de Nugents crossed the Channel, others stayed back in France after England was conquered and opened up in 1066, and still others ended up in Austrian military service in Croatia. [source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Nugent.jpg] Laval Graf [Count] Nugent von Westmeath (b. Ballynacor, Irland, 1777, died in Croatia, Austro-Hungarian Empire, 1862 as an Austrian field marshal. Many other Irish Normans who stayed Catholic rose to the highest ranks in the armies of non-Protestant powers, such as Count Francis Maurice von Lacey (1725-1801) an Austrian field marshal born in St. Petersburg, whose father Peter was a Russian field marshal. [source: www.ncarchitects.com/company-awards.aspx ] Town Hall in the rural Anglo-Norman villa style in my home town, Barrington RI, built of stone, a Norman predilection as opposed to building in wood, for prestige and for fire-proofing. It has a French tower roof, plus Germanic half-timber designs that are not
38

just Anglo-Saxon, as in Stratford-on-Avon, England, but also popular in Normandy (Frankish-settled) and all Germanic part of Europe. On August 30, 1914 a Felix Henri Marie Richard de Nugent died of his wounds as a volunteer for France at the very beginning of World War One, one of the first of the 1,354,782 Frenchmen who died bravely in combat in that unfortunately useless WWI carnage. The process of subduing the Anglo-Saxons was long and difficult (as the Robin Hood saga indicates), and William the Conqueror appealed to many members of the French nobility not just from Normandy but from all over France and Belgium to come over and join him to hold down the new realm and in cementing French aristocratic rule. Historians believe that many penniless second and third sons came over at that time, young adventurers who stood to inherit nothing from their father but their noble name. The law of primogeniture was good for the property of a deceased lord, because it was not broken up among all the children, but it was brutal for young male children who had grown up wealthy but at their father's death suddenly became penniless when the older brother inherited everything but the cash on hand. There were no trust funds back then as with the modern Kennedys and Bushes. (Many of the Spanish conquistadors of the 1500s were also younger sons who had needed to make their fortune in war. In the late 17th and early 18th centuries, many younger sons of Anglo-Norman aristocrats likewise left England for Virginia in the American colonies to become plantation founders and owners in that hot but beautiful state. Thus many of the Founding Fathers were descended from the Anglo-Norman aristocracy or the gentry (lower nobility). George Washington in particular exemplified an aristocratic English bearing, and although British newspapers denounced the American Congress as treasonous, they routinely praised Washington's personal character and his qualities as a military commander.) Other Normans were actually the illegitimate sons of noblemen, and were named Fitz-something (Fitz being Old French for son of, and related to Modern French fils, from Latin filius). Two examples are Fitzhugh and Fitzgerald, as in the middle name of President John Kennedy. It was not terribly shameful among the domineering Normans to have a mistress; they had had concubines in their old pagan days in Scandinavia as Vikings, and the Church, which was glad simply that the Normans were no longer pillaging monasteries, winked at what it delicately called relationships de more danico, according to Danish mores. So England began to fill up with knights de this name or that. However, many French
39

or Norman families that had moved to England after 1066 finally dropped the prefix de (meaning in French from) after 1430, when the bitter One Hundred Years War (as in Joan of Arc) was finally lost. When the Anglo-Normans' efforts to keep their vast territories in France failed and the long struggle had been abandoned, many British aristocrats felt their de prefix was too obvious a reminder of their French origin and of a France they now wished to forget except as an enemy. So very many Norman families dropped the de after 1430. It would appear from research that the de Nugents did NOT come over with William the Conqueror in 1066. But suddenly there they are in Greattt Britain in 1181, probably having come from Nogent-le-Rotrou. (There are thirteen towns or cities named Nogent in France.) Suddenly they have their own rather massive castle in Delvin, built by a brother-in-law, Hugh de Lacey, [source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:IMG_DelvinCastle1779c.jpg] Caption: Castle Nugent or Castle Delvin, central Ireland, 1181. Since our family is Protestant, we are not typical Irish but rather Protestant Anglo-Normans residing in Ireland, like the family of George Bernard Shaw. After the Protestant Reformation, which England joined under Henry VIII, all Catholic Normans who did not convert to the Church of England faced trouble from the Crown, loss of nobility, property and even life, and many left Ireland. The nightmare did not end until 1921, when the Irish Republic was founded. =====sidebar ====Anglo-Normans vs. Ireland and the liberal Kennedy phenomenon======== It was Richard de Clare, 2nd Earl of Pembroke, Lord of Leinster, a Norman ruler from Wales, a tall, fair man with a deep voice and wise counsel, who led the Norman invasion of Ireland in 1170. Known as Strongbow, he became Justiciar of Ireland 11301176. Son of Gilbert de Clare and Isabel de Beaumont, he then saw King Henry II of England elbow him aside and assume the main control of Ireland himself (as much as that was possible) rather than see an independent and even rival Norman kingdom arise next to his own under Strongbow. Hugh de Lacy (ca. 11351186) came with him. De Lacy, whose family hailed from the town of Lassy in Calvados, Normandy, was the great-grandson of Walter de Lacy, combatant alongside William the Conqueror at Hastings. After helping Strongbow subdue Ireland, he received County Meath in Ireland as his fief from Henry II, and then built a castle for his in-laws, the Nugents (my ancestors), in Delvin.
40

Anglo-Norman control of unruly Keltic Ireland waxed and waned until the Tudors in the 1500s. The Protestant Tudors Henry VIII and especially Elizabeth I were terrified, not that anyone would remain Catholic in their heart, but that Catholic Spain, a major sea power and one brimming with South American gold, i.e. with money, would ally with Catholic Ireland, downtrodden by Protestant London, against England. The Tudors then gave military orders that sank to new levels of ruthlessness in crushing the Irish. [source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/2e/SirGilbertHumphrey.jpg] Caption: Sir Humphrey Gilbert, 1539 1583, both names being classic Norman names. His two mottoes, in Latin, meant Why Not? and I spurn change and fear. Serving the crown during the reign of Queen Elizabeth I, he incarnated the Viking/Norman love of adventure, exploration and ruthless subjugation. His atrocities against the Irish became legendary, and his combat with the Fitzgeralds, from which the American Kennedy family is descended via Rose Fitzgerald Kennedy, the mother. One of the pioneers of English colonization, he also claimed what is thought to be the first English property in North America, now in Newfoundland, Canada. He was a half-brother through his mother of adventurer Sir Walter Raleigh. During the three weeks of his 1569 campaign, all enemies were treated without quarter and put to the sword - including women and children - which explains, perhaps, the swiftness with which forty castles were abandoned to Gilbert's army. One of his lieutenants bemoaned of a certain rocky area of Ireland that it had 'no trees to hang the Irish, no rivers to drown them and not enough dirt to bury them.' Gilbert's attitude toward the Irish is shown in one letter from him, dated November 13, 1569: "These people are headstrong, and if they feel the curb loosed but one link they will, with bit in the teeth, in one month run further out of the career of good order than they will be brought back in three months." In order to terrorize local supporters of the rebels, he arranged a gruesome spectacle: after a day's killing he would order the scattered corpses decapitated, have the heads brought to his camp in the evening, and ordered them arrayed in two parallel rows, making a pathway to the flaps of his tent, along which supplicants would have to walk in the presence of their late fathers, brothers and sons. (John Perrot, another Norman, employed the same atrocious practice at Kilmallock a few years later).

41

By relentless scorched-earth tactics, the English broke the momentum of the second and final Desmond Rebellion by mid-1581. Desmond's head was sent to Queen Elizabeth and his body triumphantly nailed onto the walls of Cork. After three years of scorched-earth warfare, famine hit the Irish city of Munster. In April 1582 the provost marshal of Munster, Sir Warham St. Leger (another Norman) estimated that 30,000 people had died of starvation in the previous half year. Plague broke out in Cork City, to which the country folk had fled to avoid the fighting. People continued to die of famine and plague long after the war had ended, and it is estimated that by 1589 a third of the province's population had died. Two famous accounts tell us of the devastation of Munster after the Desmond rebellion. The first is from the Gaelic Annals of the Four Masters: The whole tract of country from Waterford to Lothra, and from Cnamhchoill to the county of Kilkenny, was suffered to remain one surface of weeds and waste At this period it was commonly said that the lowing of a cow, or the whistle of the plowboy could scarcely be heard from Dun-Caoin to Cashel in Munster. The second is from the View of the Present State of Ireland, written by English poet Edmund Spenser (Norman), author of The Faerie Queen, who, not just a poet, also fought in the Irish campaign: In those late wars in Munster, notwithstanding that the same was a most rich and plentiful country, full of corn and cattle, that you would have thought they could have been able to stand long, yet ere one year and a half they were brought to such wretchedness, as that any stony heart would have rued the same. Out of every corner of the wood and glens they came creeping forth upon their hands, for their legs could not bear them; they looked anatomies of death, they spoke like ghosts, crying out of their graves; they did eat of the carrions [rotting corpses], happy where they could find them, yea, and one another soon after [cannibalism], insomuch as the very carcasses they spared not to scrape out of their graves; and if they found a plot of watercresses or shamrocks, there they flocked as to a feast for the time, yet not able long to continue therewithal. In a short space there were none almost left, and a most populous and plentiful country suddenly left devoid of man or beast. The wars of the 1570s and 1580s marked a watershed in Ireland. Although English control over the country was still uneven, the FitzGerald (Geraldine) axis of power had been annihilated, and Munster was "planted" with English colonists following the parliamentary arrangements of 1585.The thousands of English soldiers and administrators imported to deal with the rebellion were given land in Desmond's
42

confiscated estates. Elizabeth's subjugation of the Emerald Isle was completed after the subsequent Nine Years War of 1595-1603 in Ulster (northern Ireland) and the extension of plantation policy to other parts of the green island. Humphrey Gilbert returned to England, won a seat in Parliament and then with crews full of misfits, criminals and pirates, took off with a fleet to reach Newfoundland and claim it for England in 1583. His ship, the Squirrel, went down in a storm and he perhaps to hell. How the Normans made the Irish liberals The Irish were one of the very few European peoples to accept Christianity without major resistance. When not enjoying a good fight (as the joke goes, an Irishmen sees a brawl and asks Is this a private fight, or can anyone join in?), the Irish are basically kind-hearted, poetic, idealistic and compassionate. If they fight, usually there is some moral principle involved or claimed. But the Norman psychopaths of London who crucified the Irish people for 900 long years, and their soldiers were as white as they were (the white English). This, in my view, along with the Irish-Keltic proclivity for an impractical idealism, has led the Irish to feel very little sense of racial solidarity with other Whites. In fact, all around the world the Irish element roots for "underdogs," whether it be the Blacks in America, the Aborigines in Australia, or the Muslims in England (whose cities are full of the Irish as well). In his great book on the white situation in North America, The Dispossessed Majority, author Wilmot Robertson (whose real name was Humphrey Ireland, and whose descent was likely Norman) wrote about Irish political support in America for ultraliberal and anti-white causes, thinking especially of the Kennedy clan. As I wrote in a review of his book for Amazon.com: I met the late Wilmot Robertson (or Humphrey Ireland) in 1990 in his home in the North Carolina mountains and found him a sterling gentleman. Let me say as a person proud of my Irish and Keltic genes that I think his critique of the Irish-American role in the Left (partly illustrated by the Kennedy family) was fair and accurate. The Irish have become such rooters for the "underdog" that they often have been at the forefront of supporting Blacks, Jews and others against the white majority, and aiding in its dispossession. It is urgent that Irish-Americans realize that it is we Whites who are now "the underdog" and our compassion must flow now for them, for our own people whose backs are now to the wall.
43

Whenever a white nationalist event is held anywhere in public in the white, Englishspeaking world, a leftist mob will form to stop our freedom of speech. And one can be sure that in addition to the usual blacks, lesbians, Hispanics and Jews, one will always find, among the main agitators, some red-haired Irishmen, often of excellent racial stock.

[source: http://timesonline.typepad.com/photos/uncategorized/2008/01/28/kennedy.jpg] Caption: The Kennedy family in the 1930s. Joseph, the patriarch, a blond, blue-eyed Irish-American who graduated from Harvard, was strongly anti-Jewish as a result of his business experiences but also anti-White Anglo-Saxon Protestant due to Irish bitterness over what Norman England had done to the land of his ancestors. His two sons John and Robert promoted the black civil rights agenda, and his son Edward, as a U.S. Senator, sponsored the cataclysmic 1965 Immigration Reform Act, possibly the most dangerous law in U.S. history, which allowed millions of Third Worlders into America. Those of us of Irish or part-Irish blood need to understand psychopaths and that the vicious English white psychopaths who crushed Ireland are NOT typical white people or even typical Englishmen. In fact, the English common man himself has lived in misery ever since the Norman Conquest, and his valor as a warrior has been misused over and over and over -- by his Norman and Jewish ruling class -- against not just the Irish but against many good people. (The common English people, by the way, are probably 50% Keltic genetically, according to Wikipedia.) And this is my appeal: that if the Irish wish to root for the underdog, then our white race is now the underdog, being exterminated by psychopaths, humiliated, and enslaved everywhere just as the Irish were. ===============================

44

[source: http://johndenugent.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2009/08/Jhn-cath-Caen45

Guillaume-Conqurant-2.jpg] Caption: The author in Caen in 2004 before the church Abbey of the Men, built by William the Conqueror ===========The Theory of Just War============== Medieval thinking on war, including that of Saint Thomas Aquinas, was based on St Augustine's theory of the just war as laid out in De Civitate Dei (On the City of God) (5th century AD), written around the time the Roman Empire was falling and the Dark Ages were beginning. The population of Europe was about to fall by about 50 percent, and education, law and order, courts, police, an the maintenance of roads, bridges and aqueducts all collapsed when Rome was shattered. If a just war is lost, then anarchy and mega-death loom. By the time of Augustine, the Roman Empire had Christian emperors and so he believed that Rome's cause was now just. Christians were no longer being ripped apart by lions in the Flavian Amphitheater, which we know as the Colosseum. They were in the Roman legions on the battlefield, trying to rip apart pagans. St. Augustine saw war as a means to punish sin and stop evil, as a judicial action to right wrongs. As Augustine put it in Latin, Justa bella ulciscuntur injurias" (just wars avenge injuries). That meant also that those waging war were God's scourge and thereby expressing God's justice and love, in fact benefiting the evildoer who was being destroyed. The Augustinian attitude was that war was a mass death penalty for people who had earned it. According to Augustine, you could take up the sword only if you were the injured party, or you perceived an injustice needing redress (such as the Muslims occupying the Holy Land). And ever since Augustine, aggressors claim they were injured. In the fourteenth century, Christian writers like John Gower and Philippe de Mezieres were not impressed by the dynastic justifications for the Hundred Years War offered by England and France. The warring parties even tried to recast their actions as a crusade, not concerned with how the war was being waged but whether it was justified in the first place. Shakespeare's (Edward de Vere)'s play Henry V shows this concern, but also shows King Hal speaking of rape and pillage. Medieval war extended well beyond the battlefield. Assassination was widely practiced and not felt to be dastardly. As St Augustine wrote, "all homicide is not murder." St Thomas Aquinas, the 13th century authority on theology, gave three criteria for a just War: 1) It must "right a wrong" 2) It must be winnable. Fighting hopelessly against an evil despot was not justified.
46

3) The suffering caused by the war had to be less than the suffering caused by leaving the evil in place. The third point was oft quoted to justify assassination. But this ran up against the class consciousness of the nobility. Seeing themselves as a better sort of people, the nobles found it convenient to treat each other charitably in combat. Thus there was the prevalence of offering quarter and taking ransom instead of the opponent's life. (This it was very shocking when Henry V began slaughtering his captured French prisoners at Agincourt, apparently afraid they would rise up while he was hard pressed.) The nobles fighting in the Hundred Years War showed little regard to the damage they caused. This was particularly true of the Norman-English. Depopulation of towns and villages in France was noted in a lot of the sources. The great Italian Renaissance scholar Petrarch visited Paris in the 1360s and reported wolves running in the streets and whole surrounding villages empty. That probably was caused in part by the plague, but the war between the English and French king was fought in such a way that everyone suffered except the two kings. According to medieval thinking, one of these two kings was "wicked" but neither suffered much. In fact, during the Middle Ages war between the international nobility was something between a game and a career path, where people went to war for reasons of personal profit and social advancement, rather than for king and country. In 1421 two English squires, John Winter and Nicholas Molyneux, entered into a solemn agreement to fight together in France and then to pool their winnings (i.e., their ransoms) and invest them at home. These fellows were definitely not going off to do Gods work. This noble age had an enormous propensity to accept cruelty and barbarity as a fact of life. Thus you see figures like Sir John Hawkwood, who probably would be at home in Bosnia or Somalia today as a warlord, being praised in the 15th century as a chivalrous and noble knight who deserved to be remembered alongside Edward III, the Black Prince, and Sir John Knollys (another mercenary commander and self-made man). Du Guesclin, who served with mercenary captains in Spain before going on to become Constable of France, was praised as a pious and gallant knight. There was a chivalrous side to all this, but not in terms of sparing the innocents. For example, Poton de Xaintrailles, a professional soldier and mercenary, thought nothing amiss when he took a break from combat to participate in a great tournament/pageant staged by Ren of Anjou in 1446. This was not hypocrisy, but chivalry as it was actually practiced and an essential part of a military career. Attending tournaments with your enemies added social acceptability and class solidarity to the profession of arms.
47

The great chronicler of chivalry, Jean Froissart, genuinely believed in chivalry, so he tended to gloss over the massacre of peasants, rape, pillage, and the torturing of priests so they would reveal where the silver was hidden. ======Sidebar=====Norman Jews============= [source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/2/2f/Time-magazine-cover-montagunorman.jpg] Caption: Montagu Norman, Governor of the Bank of England 1920-1944. Judging by the features, is this is really a Scandinavian-descended Norman or something rather different that would be most comfortable under a yarmulke? [source: http://thepeerage.com/120136_001.jpg] The Norman banking family, as the always truthful Wikipedia informs us, is not descended from the dukes of Rutland. but are related to the Bonham-Carter family. This is a rather large hint, for Wikipedia then informs us this of Helena BonhamCarter, a current Anglo-Hollywood starlet: her mother's father was of half Spanish and half Jewish ancestry, and served as a diplomat and former Minister-Counsellor at the Spanish Embassy in Washington, D.C. Bonham Carter's Jewish maternal grandmother, Hlne Fould-Springer, was the daughter of Baron Eugne FouldSpringer (a French-born banker), and Marie Cecile von Springer (whose father was the industrialist Baron Gustav Springer). Hlne Fould-Springer's sister was the French philanthropist Liliane de Rothschild (19162003), the wife of Baron Elie de Rothschild... In other words, these Normans are a mixture of Jews and various European aristocrats, like much of the modern, dark-complected British aristocracy that hardly resembles the French-screaming Scandinavians who triumphed at Hastings. Bankers' Fascism By all historical accounts, Hjalmar Schacht was the architect, in 1930, of the Bank for International Settlements (BIS), along with the Bank of England's Montagu Norman. The infamous pro-Rockefeller historian Carroll Quigley, a Georgetown professor who mentored a young Bill Clinton in the 1960s in globalism, wrote in his book, Tragedy and Hope: A History of the World in Our Time (New York: MacMillan Company, 1966), that the BIS was scheme to establish a dictatorship over world finance: The powers of financial capital had another far-reaching aim, nothing less than to create a world system of financial control in private hands, able to dominate the political system of each country and the economy of the world as a whole. This system was to be controlled in a feudalistic fashion by the central banks
48

of the world acting in concert, by secret agreements arrived at in frequent private meetings and conferences. The apex of the system was to be the Bank for International Settlements in Basel, Switzerland, a private bank owned and controlled by the world's central banks, which were themselves private corporations. Each central bank, in the hands of men like Montagu Norman of the Bank of England, Benjamin Strong of the New York Federal Reserve Bank, Charles Rist of the Bank of France, and Hjalmar Schacht of the [German] Reichsbank, sought to dominate its [respective] government by its ability to control treasury loans, to manipulate foreign exchanges, to influence the level of economic activity in the country, and to influence cooperative politicians by subsequent economic rewards in the business world. Wikipedia continues: Quigley highlighted the role of Schacht's closest ally in the BIS scheme, Bank of England Governor Norman, who headed the privately-owned British institution for an unprecedented 24 years (1920-44). "Norman was a strange man," Quigley reported, "whose mental outlook was one of successfully suppressed hysteria or even paranoia. He had no use for governments and feared democracy. Both of these seemed to him to be threats to private banking, and thus to all that was proper and precious in human life. Strong-willed, tireless, and ruthless, he viewed his life as a kind of cloak-anddagger struggle with the forces of unsound money which were in league with anarchy and communism."

The Wikipedia article on the Bank for International Settlements states baldly: The Bank for International Settlements (BIS) is an international organization of central banks which "fosters international monetary and financial cooperation and serves as a bank for central banks." It is not accountable to any national government. [source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/96/BankIntZahlungsausgle
49

ich.jpg] Caption: The hideous-looking BIS headquarters in Basel, Switzerland

==Sidebar===Novelist Ian Fleming: a Norman antisemite?=====

source: http://www.solarnavigator.net/images/ian_flemming.jpg]

http://i187.photobucket.com/albums/x46/mugworticus/IanFleming.jpg Getty Images Caption: Ian Lancaster Fleming (1908-1964) The Normans were French nobility that were not just from Normandy. Often adventuresome (or desperate) second and third sons who stood to inherit nothing under the feudal laws of primogeniture that had been instituted by Charlemagne, king of the Franks and of most of France, Germany, Italy and much of Spain, the invaders of 1066 also came from other parts of France, from Keltic Brittany (a French peninsula of pink granite cliffs peopled by descendants of Welshmen and Cornish who had fled the Anglo-Saxons centuries before) and there were many Flemings (from what is now the northern and Dutch-speaking part of Belgium, called Flanders). And that is why people named Fleming are called Normans -- in the one sense that they came over with, fought under, won alongside and got their plunder from the Norman William the Bastard, and the common language of the 7,000 invading knights and warlords at Hastings in October 1066 was French. Ian Fleming's mother was Evelyn St. Croix Rose, a triple Norman name, and his father, Valentine Fleming, was, says Wikipedia directly, a descendant of William the Conqueror. In 1914, Valentine Fleming joined "C" Squadron, Queen's Own Oxfordshire Hussars, rising to the rank of major.
50

From combat in France he wrote about the horrors of World War I to his close friend and fellow Norman, Winston Spencer Churchill, that same year. The following is an excerpt: Imagine a broad belt [of land], ten miles or so in width, stretching from the Channel to the German frontier near Basel, which is positively littered with the bodies of menin which farms, villages, and cottages are shapeless heaps of blackened masonry; in which fields, roads and trees are pitted and torn and twisted by [artillery] shells... Fleming was killed by German shelling in the Gillemont Farm area, in Picardy, France on May 20, 1917. For his service, Valentine was posthumously awarded the DSO, the Distinguished Service Order, his obituary written by his chum Churchill. After Valentine's death, widow Evelyn inherited his large estate in trust, making her very wealthy. However, the trust stipulated that she would be cut off should she ever re-marry which virtually guaranteed that she would remain forever Valentine's widow, regardless of other loves (and she had them) or circumstances (which did stay affluent). Son Ian attended the upper-class school Eton and then the Royal Military Academy at Sandhurst. This was a man who, as we Americans would say, was stamping his ticket, i.e. doing all the right things for his career. He learned to speak fluent French, German and Russian as well as, of course, BBC English. He then had both a military and intelligence career in WWII, and thereafter began writing espionage novels for a character he called James Bond, Bond being yet another Norman name. These fascinated, among millions of others, John, Robert and Jackie Kennedy and also the Italian Broccoli family, yes, the inventors of that hybrid vegetable, who became in the 1960s the producers of the James Bond films. Was this upper-cruster Fleming also a closet antisemite? The major New York Jewish newspaper Forwards thought so. In Bonds Semitic Villains (November 24, 2006), Jewish reporter Robert F. Moss first notes that the newest actor playing the James Bond character, Daniel Craig, is blond-haired, tut-tut. (Some other Jewish-influenced media mocked the fair-haired Craig as James Blond.) [source: http://www.topnews.in/light/files/Daniel-Craig1.jpg] Caption: Daniel Craig outraged Jewish Hollywood, until the money began rolling in, as James Blond. Moss then launches his expos of the long-dead closet antisemite Ian Fleming: Most of the 13 original Bond books made a point of disparaging Jews, a feature
51

that was purged from the film versions. Casino Royale, published in 1953, kicked off the Bond series, establishing most of Flemings trademark devices, among them a grotesque criminal nemesis for 007. In Casino Royale, the monster is Le Chiffre, a major Soviet operative. Like all Fleming villains, he is a racial hybrid, a mixture of Mediterranean with Prussian or Polish strains, and has large lobes, indicating some Jewish blood. Goldfinger, possibly Flemings most famous villain, is only suspected of having Jewish ancestry, but his fierce obsession with gold pretty much erases any doubt. [Editor: as does the name.] Ernst Stavro Blofeld (On Her Majestys Secret Service) was supposedly baptized, but he has a Semitic-sounding name and a set of those telltale enlarged lobes. Even when Flemings Jews are not sinister or demonic, they are confined to only a few avarice-driven professions, like banking and diamond dealing. Except for the kindly Dr. Stengel (in Thunderball), a German Jewish refugee, they are barred [in Fleming 007 novels] from medicine, science, law and journalism, to say nothing of the fraternity of valiant, selfless civil servants like Bond.... Physically, Flemings Jewish men are always repellent, fat creatures with black hairy bodies. Jewish women are almost completely omitted. In Dr. No, a character who clearly speaks for Fleming sums up Jamaicas 450year-old Portuguese-Jewish community as an enclave of rich, frivolous snobs who spend too much of their fortune on fine houses and fill the social column in The Gleaner, which is Jamaicas leading newspaper. [Jamaica is where Fleming spent his final years.] Both white nationalist writer David Duke (perhaps via Scotland from the Norman family Le Duc) and former Marine Corps major William Fox (another Norman name, a translation of Reinard) have opined, proceeding from Moss' expos, that every James Bond novel may be an Ian Fleming antisemitic fantasy: Aryan superman saves world by taking out Jewish mega-billionaires...... That would mean real Normans zapping the Norman banking family.....

==sidebar =======That James Bond accent========== I recall an article in the Washington Post years ago noting that a K Street law firm would be sure to hire any attractive woman as a receptionist provided she had an upper-class
52

British accent. It went so well with the fox-hunting scenes on the wall..... (...not so well with the various Goldbergs and Silversteins working there...) And I recall a Jewish expression: think Yiddish and dress British. Both refer to a matchless, confident, aristocratic British style that forces admiration and fascination even from real anglophobes, and was exemplified by Roger Moore, the baritone-voiced British actor who played James Bond in the 1970s. The modern men's suit is British, it has not changed much in 90 years, and it reflects the overthrow of the gaudier French style of men's attire in favor of the understated British elegance. While it was Louis XIV, the French Sun King himself, who during his 72year reign and while building the Palace of Versailles, first began promoting the wearing of coats, pants and vests instead of cloaks and pantaloons. But it was the English Civil War and the victor of off-with-his-royal-head Cromwell and his dour Puritans that sealed the victory of the gentleman who put gaudy things behind him, and banished gay colors to the women's wardrobe. The Puritans themselves were often descendants of second and third sons of the Norman aristocracy, called gentry (a kind of lower nobility) if they kept their fortunes. The men's suit today is defined by London's Savile Row tailors, tailor being a Norman word (tailleur in Modern French), and Savile is also Norman, although pronounced English-style like saddle, not the French Sah-VEEL. Men's suits have barely changed since the 1930s. Hitler and Roosevelt, if they gave comeback speeches in 2009, would still be dressed properly today in their wardrobes of then. (Hitler adored Edwardian double-breasted jackets, named for Queen Victoria's son and heir to the throne, King Edward VII, 1901-1910.)

[source: http://www.fpp.co.uk/shop/Ealing/photos_misc/gallery_1/images/Hitler_children.jpg] Caption: Adolf Hitler in World War One admired the British while fighting them, adopted and adored an English terrier that had crossed the lines, named "Foxy," grew a wide English-style mustache (which he later on trimmed back, unfortunately, to the toothbrush style), drank tea, and wore Edwardian jackets on all purely social occasions. He also let the entire British Expeditionary Force (100,000 men) escape at Dunkirk in 1940 and, many say including Leon Degrelle, secretly gave his hearty blessing to Rudolf Hess' perilous peace mission to Britain in 1941, which he denounced after it failed. The British accent is another aspect of upper-class style that sounds, typically, both insufferably haughty and amazingly elegant. (My English grandfather John Thomas Coldwell had his British accent beaten out of him as a Little Lord Fauntleroy accent
53

-- by the American boys when he arrived in Rhode Island, in New England, America in the early 1900s. From then on he had an also attractive Yankee accent, which by the way also dropped the r's.) Called properly the Received Pronunciation, it developed in the later 1800s (thus, well after American had separated from England in 1776) at upper-class boarding schools such as Winchester, Eton, Harrow and Rugby, and at the great universities of Oxford and Cambridge. It was based on the local accents of the south-east Midlands, that is, London, Oxford and Cambridge. Actually, only about two percent of the residents of the United Kingdom speak this way, but via James Bond films and the Queen herself, and the British Broadcasting Corporation (the BBC), it has spread around the world as a symbol of Rule, Britannia. Lord Reith, the first general manager of the BBC, adopted it in 1922 as a broadcasting standard - the term BBC English. Ironically, it was during WWII that the BBC first began scaling back its use of the Received Pronunciation, and using more of the regional accents. The Germans were making skilled propaganda broadcasts to England during the war, using both Germans and the pro-German Briton William Joyce (whom the BBC ridiculously and unfairly called Lord Haw Haw), and only in the British accent. So if you heard an impeccable British accent on the radio during the war, it was probably the supposedly dreadful Nazis. However, since the prime ministership of Yorkshireman Harold Wilson (1964-70 and 1974-76), the tendency has been to see the accent as overly stuffed shirt (as we Americans would say) and regional accents are heard constantly on radio and TV these days. In reality, the accent is artificial, and in my opinion as a linguist may well reflect the British aristocracy's millennial hate-love-contempt-admiration for the French, and an imitation of their stylistic obsessions. In the 1600s the Acadmie Franaise had resolved to clean up the pronunciation of French at the court of Versailles, to make it more elegant, and thus, the king approving, by royal fiat many sounds then in use were banned, especially certain nasal and short vowels. The aristocracy and then the French middle class, the bourgeoisie, being social climbers, then copied the new-and-improved and truly more elegant pronunciation., which today we would call Parisian. (These sounds live on, however, in Canadian Quebec French. The French like the Quebeckers very much, as their country cousins, but find their accent which remains somewhat stuck in the 1600s somewhat peasant-ish, bizarre and medieval-sounding. Their Anglo-Canadian compatriots in turn often exclaim, after hearing Parisian French
54

and then what the Quebeckers speak: The Quebeckers don't even speak real French! Actually, they do; they speak medieval French, just as Americans speak an offshoot of medieval English. It is the French and the British themselves that have moved on, inventing new and more elegant accents for their upper classes.) The Received Pronunciation that evolved in the 1800s, and in fact shortly after the Napoleonic period, may well represent a discreet desire by the Anglo-Norman aristocracy to copy France the ancient and resented homeland by having a truly prestigious and also unified, national, standardized accent. (It is, strangely and yet logically, the Los Angeles television broadcasting accent that fills the role of highprestige accent here in the United States, and is called General American Pronunciation. It is the broadcasting standard heard in news anchors from Mobile, Alabama to Boston, Massachusetts and Seattle, Washington.) In fact, one goal of the British Received Pronunciation (the RP) was to be so standardized that no one could tell from what part of England one hails. Unfortunately, very few Brits use this accent, and what it now means is not standardization, but that one is an upper-class Brit -- or Sean Connery, Roger Moore, Pierce Brosnan or Daniel Craig. ======sidebar ======Sidebar====Ian Fleming: Norman Antisemite?===========

source: http://www.solarnavigator.net/images/ian_flemming.jpg]

source: http://i187.photobucket.com/albums/x46/mugworticus/IanFleming.jpg

Getty Images Caption: Ian Lancaster Fleming (1908 - 1964) The Normans were French nobility that were not just from Normandy. Often adventuresome (or desperate) second and third sons who stood to inherit nothing under the feudal laws of primogeniture instituted by Charlemagne, they also came from other parts of France, from Keltic Brittany (a French peninsula of pink granite cliffs peopled by descendants of Welshmen and Cornish who had fled the AngloSaxons centuries before) and there were many Flemings (from what is now the northern and Dutch-speaking part of Belgium, called Flanders).
55

And that is why people named Fleming are Normans --- in the sense that they came over with, fought under, and won alongside the Norman William the Bastard, all speaking French. Ian Fleming's mother was Evelyn St Croix Rose, a triple Norman name, and his father, Valentine Fleming, was, says Wikipedia directly, a descendant of William the Conqueror. In 1914, Valentine Fleming joined "C" Squadron, Queen's Own Oxfordshire Hussars[3] rising to the rank of Major. During World War I, he wrote to his close friend and fellow Norman Winston Churchill in 1914. The following is an excerpt: Imagine a broad belt [of land], ten miles or so in width, stretching from the Channel to the German frontier near Basel, which is positively littered with the bodies of menin which farms, villages, and cottages are shapeless heaps of blackened masonry; in which fields, roads and trees are pitted and torn and twisted by [artillery] shells... Fleming was killed by German bombing in Gillemont Farm area, Picardy, France on May 20, 1917. For his service, Valentine was posthumously awarded the Distinguished Service Order. His obituary was written by Churchill. After Valentine's death in action in May 1917, Evelyn inherited his large estate in trust, making her very wealthy. However, the trust cut her out should she ever re-marry which virtually guaranteed that she would remain forever Valentine's widow, regardless of other loves or circumstances. Ian Fleming had both a military and intelligence career in WWII, and began writing espionage novels for James Bond (another Norman name) which fascinated among others, John, Robert and Jackie Kennedy and the Broccoli family, who a century before had actually first bred that hybrid vegetable and in the 1960s became the producers of the James Bond films. Both James Bond, the fictional character, and the author Ian Fleming went through the elite career path: Eton, then the Royal Military Academy Sandhurst. Ian Fleming learned fluent French, Russian and German. Was Fleming also a closet antisemite? The major New York Jewish newspaper Forwards thought so. In Bonds Semitic Villains (Nov 24, 2006), reporter Robert F. Moss notes that the new actor playing James Bond, Daniel Craig, is blond-haired, perhaps disapprovingly. (Some media mocked Craig as James Blond.) Moss scolds: The notion of a Jew with a license to kill, however, most likely would have aroused little enthusiasm in either Bond or his maker, Ian Fleming. Most of the 13 original Bond books made a point of disparaging Jews, a feature that was purged from
56

the film versions. Casino Royale, published in 1953, kicked off the Bond series, establishing most of Flemings trademark devices, among them a grotesque criminal nemesis for 007. In Casino Royale, the monster is Le Chiffre, a major Soviet operative. Like all Fleming villains, he is a racial hybrid, a mixture of Mediterranean with Prussian or Polish strains, and has large lobes, indicating some Jewish blood. Goldfinger, possibly Flemings most famous villain, is only suspected of having Jewish ancestry, but his fierce obsession with gold pretty much erases any doubt. [Editor: as does the name.] Ernst Stavro Blofeld (On Her Majestys Secret Service) was supposedly baptized, but he has a Semitic-sounding name and a set of those telltale enlarged lobes. Even when Flemings Jews are not sinister or demonic, they are confined to only a few avarice-driven professions, like banking and diamond dealing. Except for kindly Dr. Stengel (Thunderball), a German Jewish refugee, they are barred from medicine, science, law and journalism, to say nothing of the fraternity of valiant, selfless civil servants like Bond.... Physically, Flemings Jewish men are always repellent, fat creatures with black hairy bodies. Jewish women are almost completely omitted. In Dr. No, a character who clearly speaks for Fleming sums up Jamaicas 450-year-old Portuguese-Jewish community as an enclave of rich, frivolous snobs who spend too much of their fortune on fine houses and fill the social column in the Gleaner, which is Jamaicas leading newspaper. [Jamaica is where Fleming spent his final years.] A fellow writer, former Marine Corps major William Fox, has opined that every James Bond film is a Fleming fantasy about an Aryan superman who saves the world by direct action against Jewish billionaires, i.e., he takes them out. Would a real Norman like Bond, or Fleming, then bump off the Norman banking family?

====Indians! British Army pays well for white scalps============ Since the Norman Conquest of 1066, England has been a land of incredible culture (Shakespeare/de Vere), statecraft (Magna Charta, Elizabeth I, Pitt, Parliament), science (Newton, Faraday), exploration (Captain Cook) and military valor (Sir Francis Drake defeating the Spanish Armada, and Admiral Nelson stopping Napoleon). But its government has at times showed extraordinary cruelty and treachery toward its
57

very own people and toward white unity in general. It was dedicated for centuries to annihilating the white Irish (1500-1850) by war and famine, it aided the Soviet Bolsheviks (1940-45) in their hour of greatest peril, and it sent its lads to subdue their very kindred in America, to crush the white Afrikaners in death camps, and it bombed their distant blood relatives of Germany in the atrocity that was Dresden and many other carpet bombings of German civilians. There is hardly any more heinous act of treachery than when British army officers, not acting on their own but under government orders, forcibly turned the anti-communist Cossacks of Russia over to Stalin's murderers in Austria in 1945 after after having given their word of honor not to. I cannot imagine how those British lads must have felt watching the brave, betrayed Cossack men desperately trying to kill themselves before Stalin's psychopaths got to them. From my perspective as a proud British American, the most heinous thing the ruling class in England ever did to the American colonists was unleashing the Amerindians on the white settlers. It was just the kind of thing that ruthless psychopaths would do whose only goal was to win, with no ethnic solidarity or compassion for their supposed fellow countrymen. I haste to add as a born New Englander that even after open military conflict began between the colonists and London on April 19, 1775 at Lexington and Concord, Massachusetts, the Americans still were not seeking independence. It was not until July of 1776, more than a year of fighting later, that their representatives in Philadelphia decided to break entirely away from the mother country. And they did so because the British ruling class had made clear that it expected Americans to give up their freedoms, have no representatives in Parliament but pay heavy new taxes, have the Bank of England control and harm their economy, prohibit any industry, prevent any white settlement beyond the Appalachian mountains, and submit to an aristocracy that, as Thomas Paine wrote, consisted merely of the descendants of Duke William and his captains. The late lawyer and author John A. DeMay (an overtly Norman name) of Pennsylvania could find no major publisher -- in this "politically correct" age -- for his electrifying 1997 expos, a 214-page book with many photos and drawings, entitled Settler Forts of Western Pennsylvania.

58

The reason for this blacklisting is that DeMay told the unvarnished truth about the Indian varmints and the barbaric, Oriental atrocities which the "Noble Red Man" loved to commit, for searing days on end, against both his own Indian kind and against white settlers -- men, women and children. These Mongoloid descendants of ancient immigrants from Siberia -- who as George Kadar's article "The Last Survivors" in a 2003 Barnes Review proves likely also killed off the original white Solutreans from Europe ten thousand years ago reveled in passing days at a time after each successful battle in acts of sickening torture of helpless prisoners, humiliating sexual mutilations and amputations, scalpings and literal cannibalism on their prisoners whenever they got
59

hungry on the march and wanted a protein snack. And when the Americans revolted, the British Crown had its officers pay the Indians by the scalp to do these unspeakable atrocities to their fellow Whites. Such indescribable and ghoulish deeds are now being suppressed from our politically correct school textbooks. One main reason is that these acts of cruelty were not the work of deranged and psychopathic loners among the Amerindians. They were an Indian custom; they were a thoroughly accepted part of the Indian way of life and Indian culture, and even the Indian squaws and children participated in these gorefests that surpassed the imagination of any modern horror film. And the British Army, once the American Revolution broke out, rather than acting in accordance with the purported concept of the white mother country that was bringing back its wayward children to the Empire, instead hired the frontier Indians and paid these Mongoloids to horrifically kill white American frontier families. This was one of the most outraging deeds ever by the British Crown, and one of the most immediate triggers of the American Revolution. The British Virginian Thomas Jefferson was of Scottish, Welsh and English ancestry, and wrote a British friend on November 29, 1775: Believe me, dear sir: there is not in the British Empire a man who more cordially loves a union with Great Britain than I do. But, by the God that made me, I will cease to exist before I yield to a connection on such terms as the British Parliament propose; and in this, I think I speak the sentiments of America. But by July of 1776, his heart had changed. He composed these words found in the Declaration of Independence: He [King George III] has endeavored to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers the merciless Indian savages, whose known rule of warfare is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions. In British policy even before the Revolution, the Crown offered little protection to American settlers. In fact, it promised the Amerindians without consulting the Americans that Whites would never pass the Allegheny/Appalachian mountain range. Thus the British attitude was that any settler beyond the Allegheny River caused his own
60

scalping. (This was also the attitude of the leftist Quakers in the provincial government of Philadelphia, the first capital of Pennsylvania, who literally sold arms to Indians but tried to prevent Whites from getting any.) At the beginning of the French and Indian War of 1754-1763, Sir Jeffrey Amherst, the overall British military commander, consistently scoffed at reports of massacres of whites by Indians that were happening up and down the frontier, and wrote his Indian Superintendent, Johnson: I cannot think the Indians have it in their power to execute anything serious against us while we continue to be on our guard. [footnote: Nester, William R. Haughty conquerors: Amherst and the great Indian uprising of 1763, (New York: Praeger, 2000), p103 But once Amherst finally gave the signal, the British Army's redcoats fought the Indians like lions, and with ruthlessness. One example of that determination to win by any means was in the actions of Captain Simon Ecuyer, commanding officer at Fort Pitt (now Pittsburgh). (His name Ecuyer was of course Norman, and meant in Old French Squire, from Escuyer, /Middle English Equerry. A squire was an apprentice knight, age 14 or older, who assists a knight in peace or in battle, holding his shield and caring for his horse while learning the techniques and values of knighthood.) Captain Ecuyer saved Fort Pitt (Pittsburgh) in1763 from the horrors of surrender to the torturing Indians by both combat and, in the end, biological warfare: he finally gave two emissaries of the besieging Indians blankets infected with smallpox from the soldiers who had just died of that disease in the fort. This one gift to the Indians while Ecuyer said he would consider surrender may have saved thousands of white settler and soldier lives, because it infected and killed hundreds of Indian braves up and down the embattled frontier. Sir Jeffrey Amherst had only six battalions of British soldiers (around 1,800 men) to suppress a general uprising that covered thousands of square miles of New York and Pennsylvania. At the beginning of the French and Indian War the British had defeated the French up in Quebec fairly quickly, but not suspecting an Indian uprising had then transferred the men quickly southward to the Caribbean to fight off the Spanish, who were allied with France and were also ruled by members of the Bourbon dynasty.

61

So the mother country had not protected the Americans very well in the French and Indian War, yet after it was concluded began levying heavy taxes on the Americans.
62

But when the Revolution began in 1775-76, there was nothing that enraged and alienated the majority of white Americans, who had been very ambivalent about independence, more than the British custom of paying the hated and feared Indians to gruesomely massacre white settler families. It was a flagrant breach of racial solidarity in a zone where being a good neighbor was defined as someone who would rush to your farm with his rifle to save your life, or bring your wife and children along with his to a nearby fort. The routine on the frontier was for a rotation system where men and older boys would take six month turns as rangers, patrolling the frontier and killing any male Indian warriors they encountered (but certainly not squaws and children, and never using torture). The use of Indians against whites was one of the last straws for frontier Americans in their feelings toward Britain. DeMay's book relates, on pages 49-53, a typical Indian massacre of whites in Pennsylvania, where the British Crown failed to protect settlers despite levying taxes. This will be followed by an incident from pp 69-71 of DeMay's book where the British unleashed these very same Indians on the Americans deliberately during the Revolution:
[An] aspect of Indian nature that was abhorrent to the white settlers was their love of torture. They Indians seemed to revel in it and 'stayed up nights' [literally] devising new ways of making their prisoners suffer. When several prisoners were captured the war party would drop off one or two at each [Indian] village through which it passed on the way home for the purpose of torture. Mary Jemison describes her observations at a Shawnee town: On the way we passed a Shawnee town, where I saw a number of heads, arms, legs and other fragments of the bodies of some white people who had just been burned. The parts that remained were hanging on a pole, which was supported at each end by a crotch stuck in the ground, and were roasted or burnt black as a coal. The fire was yet burning; and the whole appearance afforded a spectacle so shocking that even to this day the blood almost curdles in my veins when I think of them." 35 [from Seaver, James. E., The Life of Mary Jemison, Jersey Shore, Pa.: Zebrowski Historical Service and Publications Company, 1991, p56] [Mary had been] traded to the Senecas and she pent the rest of her life with them. She describes her second husband, Hickatoo, and his ability at torture in these words: In early life he showed signs of thirst for blood ... and in practicing cruelties on everything that chanced to fall into his hands which was susceptible of pain... He could inflict the most excruciating tortures upon his enemies, and prided himself upon his 63

fortitude, having performed the most barbarous ceremonies and tortures without the least degree of pity or remorse." [footnote: Ibid., footnote36, pp185-186] This man was clearly a monster but Mary tells us he was a nice person at home. She had several children by him. He became a leader of the Seneca and led many of their raids against the frontier settlements and undoubtedly practiced his tortures on white men, women and children who fell into his hands.

64

from DeMay, Settler Forts, frontispiece

65

The stories of the tortures inflicted by these Indians are as numerous as the stories of their killings of women and children and for the same reason [this Indian practice] was so common. These store are ugly in their details, but they represent a reality that the settlers had to live with, and reading them can help us appreciate some of the horror of frontier life. Only three such stores will be related here -- the well-know death of Colonel Crawford, the killing of a poor, unknown white woman, and the torture of John Turner. I might tell of Lt. Boyd but his death was so horrible it even shocked the hardened frontiersmen, so we will leave it. The death of Colonel Crawford was witnessed by Dr. Knight (who was told the same thing would be done to him the next day). Knight tells us:
"In a few minutes a large stake was fixed in the ground ... Col. Crawford's hands were then tied behind his back; a strong rope was produced, one end of which was fastened to the ligature, between his wrists, and the other tied to the bottom of the stake. The rope was long enough to permit him to walk around the stake several time and then return. **** His ears had been cut off and the blood was streaming down his face. **** The [Indian] warriors shot charges of gunpowder into his naked body, commencing with the calves of his legs, and continuing to his neck. [Ed.--Gunpowder shot at skin causes terrible burns.] The boys snatched burning hickory poles and applied them to his flesh. As fast as he ran around the stake to avoid one party of tormentors, he was promptly met at every turn by others with burning poles, red-hot irons, and rifles loaded with powder only; so that in a few minutes nearly one hundred charges of powder had been shot into his body, which had become black and blistered in a dreadful manner.

The squaws would rake up a quantity of coals and hot ashes, and throw them upon his body, so that in a few minutes, he had nothing but fire to walk upon. *** The terrible scene had now lasted more than two hours, and Crawford had become much

66

exhausted. **** At length he sunk in a fainting fit upon his face, and lay motionless. Instantly an Indian sprung upon his back ... made a circular incision with his knife upon the crown of his head, and, clapping the knife between his teeth, tore the scalp off with both hands. Scarcely had this been done, when a withered hag approached with a board full of burning embers, and poured them upon the crown of his head, now laid bare to the bone.

The Colonel groaned deeply, arose and again walked slowly around the stake. But why continue a description so horrible? Nature at length could endure no more, and at a late hour in the night, he was released by death from the hands of his tormentors." [footnote: Rupp, I.D., Early History of Western Pennsylvania (Lewisburg, Pa.: Wennawoods Publishing, 1995, originally published in 1846 in Harrisburg, Pa.) pp214-215] Dr. Knight had seen all that he wanted to see - the next day he escaped.

Participating in this torture [of Colonel Crawford] were 30 warriors and about 60 women and boys. As you can see, it was a community affair. In the villages torture was always a community affair. Mary Jemison tells us that "it was one of the highest kinds of frolics ever celebrated in their tribe." 38 [footnote: Seaver, Mary Jemison, p99] That this was a long-standing practice is obvious from a story told by [historian] Francis Parkman about the torture of some Algonquin Indians - both men and women - at an Iroquois village [reported by French Jesuits].

===sidebar==Francis Parkman: America's Greatest Historian of the Frontier====== Francis Parkman (1823-1893), from a distinguished old New England family and a Harvard graduate, has been hailed as one of America's greatest historians and as a master of narration. Despite the political incorrectness today of his views then of race and especially of the Amerindians, his work has been praised by Pulitzer Prize winners C. Vann Woodward, Allan Nevins, and Samuel Eliot Morrison, and by Sir John Keegan and Mark Van Doren. Famous artists of the West such as Thomas Hart Benton and Frederic Remington illustrated Parkman's books.

67

[source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/df/Francis_Parkman.jpg] Caption: Francis Parkman wrote his seven-volume France and England in North America while going almost completely blind; his assistants read to him and he dictated text to them as he wrote. The great American writer and literary critic Edmund Wilson described Parkmans masterpiece thus: The clarity, the momentum and the color of the first volumes of Parkmans narrative are among the most brilliant achievements of the writing of history as an art.
68

=====end of Parkman sidebar============= Parkman wrote, as John DeMay relates:

"[The Alqonquin prisoners] were placed on a large scaffold, in the sight of the whole population. It was a gala day. Young and old were gathered from far and near. Some mounted the scaffold, and scorched them with torches and firebrands while the children standing beneath the bark platform, applied fire to the feet of the prisoners between the crevices." 39 [footnote:

Parkman, Francis, The Jesuits in North America, (Williamstown, Mass.: Croner House Publishers, 1980) p345 (originally published in 1867)] At Kittanning [30 miles northeast of Pittsburgh on the Allegheny River] two captured white women -- Marie Le Roy [a Norman name] and Barbara Leninger [possibly German] were forced to watch the torture of some unknown white woman who had tried to escape and was recaptured.

69

Indians with white female captives source:http://johndenugent.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2009/09/Indians-withcaptives.jpg

[This was related in Pen Pictures of Early Western Pennsylvania, edited by John W. Harpster, University of Pittsburgh Press, 1938, p54-55]:
"First, they scalped her; next they laid burning splinters of wood here and there upon her body; and then they cut off her ears and fingers, forcing them into her mouth so that she had to swallow them. Amidst such torments this woman lived from nine o'clock in the morning 70

until toward sunset. .. When she was dead, the Indians chopped her in two through the middle, and let her lie there until the dogs came and devoured her. As a matter of fact, a French soldier traveling with the Indians couldn't stand it any longer and had shot the woman in the head to put her out of her misery. In so doing that French soldier risked his own life; the Indians didn't tolerate this kind of interference in their ways, whether torture or other. Most likely the woman had stopped screaming, the Indians were now bored with the whole thing, and the Frenchman saw a chance to end this melancholy affair.[footnote: Ed.--None of this means that psychopathy was restricted to the British ruling class or to Amerindians. The German general Wallenstein, during the genocidal Thirty Years War of 1618-1648, had a simple motto: "Let war feed on war." He had no supply lines, no supply trains, no problem with paying his soldiers--he and his armies simply took anything they wanted from any locality they passed through, Protestant or Catholic. Be it eatable, drinkable, ridable, shootable, spendable, or female, they just helped themselves and killed anyone who got in the way. Wallenstein's armies were like a horde of fire ants swarming over the countryside and stripping away everything, leaving a barren wasteland in their wake.] Another such hideous death was that of John Turner who was tortured in front of his wife and children. This also happened at Kittanning at the hands of the Delaware Indians. [footnote: Ed.-The mighty Iroquois Confederation, under a deal with the British Crown, had ordered the Delaware Indians out of the young English colony of Delaware (de la Warre being a Norman name, by the way, not at all an Indian toponym) and had commanded the Delawares to move into western Pennsylvania, crossing the Allegheny River, which was to be the white-red racial boundary. London's deal with the Iroquois was that no white man would ever cross the Allegheny River or the Appalachian Mountain Range, an agreement made by the English king without the Americans' consent, and especially not the accord of the Germans and the Scotch-Irish, many of whom were bitterly poor, had no money to purchase farmland back east, and were frustrated at the way the Indian

71

braves, who lived only to hunt, make war or torture, were neglecting some of the finest topsoil in the world. Squaws did very little farming, mostly subsistence farming.] First several Delaware warriors heated their musket barrels [sold to them by white traitorsEd.] red-hot in a fire and rammed them into his body. A woman then sliced off his ears and ate them. Then some men cut off his fingers, penis, and testicles. Following this his scalp was torn off. All of this was done in a leisurely manner, to the laughter and approving cries of the crowd. Turner was still not dead, so a six-year-old boy was given a tomahawk and lifted up by his father so that he could pound on Turner's skull, finally caving it in. At last John Turner died. 41 [footnote: Eckert, Allan W., Wilderness Empire, Boston: Little, Brown & Co., 1969) pp406-407]

We are also told that:

A common torture of the Iroquois Indians was to prepare a great quantity of wooden splinters about the thickness of a pencil at one end and tapering to a sharp point at the other, each about five inches long. These would be soaked in turpentine or pitch and them stuck into the naked body of a bound captive at random until he might take on the appearance of a pin cushion. The pain of the turpentine or pitch in the wounds alone was excruciating, but these splinters would then be set afire. Some victims were able to remain alive in such condition for three hours or more." 42 [footnote: Eckert, Wilderness Empire, p452, footnote 137)]

Enough of this. Suffice it to say that these tortures were routine in Indian life and they were all bad. They did nothing to encourage good relations between the Indians and the white settlers. They inspired the flames of hatred by the white people and kept the fires roaring. Finally, the third aspect of Indian life that made white people very uncomfortable was cannibalism. Everyone who came into contact with the woodland Indians observed it, commented on it, and hated it. The Indians ate human flesh for two reasons: one, they were hungry; two, if the man had been a brave enemy, they thought that by eating some portion of his body they would gain his fighting spirit and strength.

72

The great historian, Francis Parkman, mentions this trait in his classic The Jesuits in North America several times, and also in his [1884] Montcalm and Wolfe, Part I, including this story:
"At a first halt, the captors (Iroquois) took the infants from their mothers, tied them to wooden spits, placed them to die slowly before a fire, and feasted upon them before the eyes of the agonized mothers ... "43 [footnote: Parkman, Jesuits, p343]

The French captain Pouchot, who served for years in North America and was the French commander at Ft. Niagara, mentions Indian cannibalism as do many other observer-authors. Allan Eckert, the great writer about America's colonial days, and a man possessing an encyclopedic knowledge of the Indians, tells story after story thereof in his books, principally in his Wilderness Empire. We read that that some Miami Indians [Ed.--the Miami Indians of southern Florida, being nomads like many Amerindians, had wandered north to Ohio] killed ten French traders and then simply ate them; that Pontiac, the great Ottawa chief, cut out the heart of a Indian trader and ate it, and a group of his followers boiled and ate the bodies of three enemy Indians and a European trader. [footnote: Eckert, Allan w., Wilderness Empire, pp183, 185, 188, 189]

73

[source: http://images.barnesandnoble.com/images/16500000/16509864.JPG] Caption: In the French and Indian War, during the Revolution, and afterward, the Iroquois slaughter white settlers, but it is they who lose in the end. After British general Braddock's defeat at Pittsburgh [where a Virginian named George Washington also fought], some Ottawas captured Mary Francis [Ed.--a Norman name, btw.] and five other white women along with seven white men. On the way to their villages the Indians became quite hungry and proceeded to dismember Mary Francis and two of the men and boiled and ate them. The gruesome details are given in Eckert's Wilderness Empire for those who are interested. ==sidebar==French world explorer disgusted at Amerindians==============

Louis-Antoine, Count de Bougainville (1729-1811) was a French world explorer, especially in Latin America and the Pacific, the author of a book on calculus, the discoverer in Brazil of the gorgeous flowering vine now called Bougainvillea, the discoverer and popularizer of the hammock and a French military officer during the French & Indian War in North America in the 1754-1760 period. (He was later both a field marshal and an admiral.) Bougainville learned to hate the Indians for their atrocities and to regret the way the French monarchy, like the British, would use the Indian tribes as wartime allies against their fellow whites.
74

[source: http://images.barnesandnoble.com/images/16500000/16509864.JPG] Wilderness Empire, published 2002

[source:http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/5c/Bouganvelia.JPG] Caption: Bougainvillea, an extremely popular garden plant named after the great French explorer of the Pacific

[source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/4f/Bougainvillea_San_Diego.jpg]

Bougainville later circumnavigated the globe, losing only seven of 200 men, a marvelous safety record. He also wrote a description of tropical Tahiti as a Pacific paradise of non-prudery, and he discovered to his amusement that the valet of the male botanist he had taken along was actually a woman in love with that man, a Jeanne Baret (whence our Norman-English name Barrett). Baret became thus the first woman ever on any warship, and the first woman to circumnavigate the globe. De Bougainville later served as a naval officer and ally of the Americans in the American Revolution, at the Battle of the Chesapeake in 1781, when the French Navy under Admiral de Grasse defeated the Royal Navy under Admiral Thomas Graves. This victory saved George Washington's force at Yorktown, Virginia and led to the surrender of Lord Cornwallis' entire army, which won the Revolutionary War for the United States.
75

But returning to the French and Indian War, the Count de Bougainville wrote in his journal: "It is an abominable kind of war. The very air we breathe is contagious of insensibility and hardness."
As John DeMay further relates: [De Bougainville] cites instance after instance of [the Indians] eating prisoners: "They put three prisoners in the pot and ate them... a horrible spectacle to European eyes."45 [footnote: Bougainville, Louis-Antoine de, Adventure in the wilderness: the American journals of Louis Antoine de Bougainville, 1756-1760, translated and edited by Edward P. Hamilton (Norman [yes], Oklahoma: University of Oklahoma Press, 1964), p143. " ... they devoured one of them up at this camp. It is impossible to stop them." 46[footnote: ibid., p146] "An English corpse came floating by the Indian's camp. They crowded around it with loud cries, drank its blood, and put its pieces in the kettle." 47 [footnote: ibid., p150] Our local [= Pittsburgh-area] Indians shared in these activities. De Bougainville goes on: "The Delawares and Shawnees have made many prisoners .... They have eaten an English officer whose pallor and plumpness tempted them. Such cruelties are frequent enough among the Indians of La Belle Rivire."[The Beautiful River was how the French justly designated the Allegheny River]. 48 [footnote: ibid., p114] =============end of Bougainville sidebar=============

And now, in DeMay's courageous book The Settlers' Forts of Western Pennsylvania, on pages 69-70, we see the British ruling class at its absolutely very worst, viewing the American settlers their fellow whites, their fellow Britons as contemptuously as it viewed the Scots or Irish back home, with victory for the ruling class justifying any atrocity. John DeMay writes:

During the Revolution, in 1778, a British officer described the work of his Huron, Ottawa, and Iroquois allies (some 2,300 who had struck out from Ft. Niagara in war parties large and small): 76

The Indians of the Six Nations and those from the westward have exerted themselves in laying waste the [American frontier] country most exposed to them, from the east branch of the Susquehanna to the Kiskiminitas Creek upon the Ohio [=Allegheny], and thence down [the Ohio] to Kanawha River [starting in West Virginia].

An extent of many hundred miles is now nothing but an heap of ashes; such of those miserable people as have escaped have taken refuge in small forts." 10 [footnote: Thwaites, Gold, Reuben and Kellogg, Louise Phelps, Frontier Defense on the Upper Ohio 1777-1778 (Madison, Wisc.: Wisconsin Historical Society, 1912), pp173-174, footnote 38]

That is all of southwestern Pennsylvania of which he is speaking. One commentator remarked "Under these circumstances it seems remarkable that any settlements were maintained west of the Allegheny Mountains during the years of the Revolution." 11 [footnote: ibid.] ===sidebar===The Scalping of Jane McCrea========

In 1777, Jane McCrea, the Loyalist American fiance of a soldier serving with British General John Gentleman Johnny Burgoyne's army, was captured by Indians allied to the British. Then during a dispute between two warriors, Jane the American Loyalist to the British Crown was scalped and killed. General Burgoyne (a Norman name, of course) did not punish the guilty Indians for fear of breaking the alliance with that tribe. [source: http://johndenugent.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2009/09/John-BurgoyneByReynolds.jpg] Baronet John Burgoyne, Major General, a successful playwright and sometimes gifted general who however on October 17, 1777 surrendered his entire army of 5,800 to the Americans at Fort Ticonderoga, giving them their greatest victory to date, and bringing France into the war. Lord George Germain (also Norman), Viscount Sackville, had failed to order British General Howe to come to Burgoyne's aid, saying of the Americans, "...the rabble ... ought not trouble themselves with politics and government, which they do not understand" and that "...these country clowns cannot whip us." This decision enraged local Americans., dismayed all the many sincere Loyalists, and
77

more American men streamed into the armies of Washington. And so the horrible death of Jane McCrea, a Loyalist, through Norman arrogance, greatly aided the revolutionary cause and contributed to the defeat of Burgoyne's army at Saratoga, New York at the hands of Ethan Allen and his Green Mountain boys from Vermont. The incident became a major propaganda piece against the English and the story was immortalized 27 years later, in 1804, by John Vanderlyn's painting, The Death of Jane McCrea, eight years before America's second war with Britain in 1812. [source: http://johndenugent.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2009/09/Death-of-JaneMcCrea.JPG]
The Death of Jane McCrea, by John Vanderlyn, 1804

The scalp was usually taken from a dead enemy. The French engineer and captain Pierre Pouchot saw English soldiers being scalped by Amerindians in about 1760: "As soon as the man is felled, they run up to him, thrust their knee in between his shoulder blades, seize a tuft of hair in one hand and, with their knife in the other, cut around the skin of the head and pull the whole piece away." Some warriors gained status by scalping a man during combat. This involved making a knife incision around the scalp lock and pulling the hair back very quickly. Although extremely painful, being scalped alive was not always fatal. But a full scalping would often lead to serious medical complications. This included profuse bleeding, infection, and eventual death if the bone of the skull was left exposed. Death could also occur from septicemia, meningitis or necrosis of the skull. Native American tribes used scalping to persuade Americans from abandoning the idea of taking their land. An American, Nelson Lee, was unlucky enough to captured by the Comanche tribe. "During all the time they were thus exhibiting the result of their savage work, they resorted to every hideous device to inspire us with terror. They would rush toward us with uplifted tomahawks, stained with blood, as if determined to strike, or grasp us by the hair, flourishing their knives around our heads as though intending to take our scalps. So far as I could understand their infernal shouts and pantomime, they sought to tell us that the fate which had overtaken our unfortunate companions not only awaited us, but likewise the whole race of the hated white man. All the dead, without exception, were scalped and the scalps, still fresh, were dangling from their belts. After the battle had finished the warrior would clean and dry the scalp. Thomas Gist witnessed this while he was being held prisoner. "The men began to scrape the flesh and
78

blood from the scalps, and dry them by the fire, after which they dressed them with feathers and painted them, then tied them on white, red, and black poles". And now DeMay, on pp69-71, comes to an item that surpasses even the most jaded imagination, equaling only William the Bastard's Harrowing of the North. He writes:
There is a certain letter uncovered by the great frontier historian Allan Eckert and set forth in his recent book, That Dark and Bloody River (p. 310) which demonstrates the horror of those days. It is from the British Secretary of Indian Affairs in Albany, New York to the British Royal Governor in Montreal [Frederick Halimand], and is a letter of transmittal accompanying eight bundles of scalps taken by Seneca Indians. Those Indians lived in northwestern Pennsylvania, western New York, and those scalps would have been taken during raids in this area and northern West Virginia. There were a total of 1,006 scalps for which the British government would have paid $10,060.
January 3rd, 1782 May it please your Excellency, At the request of the Seneca Chiefs, I herewith send to your Excellency, under the care of James Boyd, eight packages of scalps, cured, dried, hooped and painted with the Indian triumphal marks, of which the following is invoice and explanation:

No. 1. Containing 43 scalps of Congress soldiers, killed in different skirmishes, these are stretched on black hoops 4 inches in diameter; the inside of the skin painted with a small black spot to note their being killed by bullets. Also, 62 of farmers killed in their homes; the hoops painted red, the skin painted brown, and marked with a hoe, a dark circle all around to indicate their being surprised at night, and a black hatchet in the middle, signifying their being killed with that weapon. [Ed.--The Indians relished the details of how each victim was killed.] No. 2. Containing 98 of farmers killed in their houses; hoops red, figure of a hoe to mark their profession, great white circle and sun to show they were surprised in the daytime; a little red foot to show they stood upon their defense, and died fighting for their lives and families. No. 3. Containing 97 of farmers; hoops green, to show they were killed in the fields; a large white circle with a little round mark on it for the sun, to show it was in the daytime,

79

black bullet mark on some, and hatchet on others. No.4. Containing 102 of farmers, mixed of several of the marks above, only marked with a little yellow flame, to denote their being prisoners burnt alive after being scalped, their nails pulled out by the roots, and other torments; one of those latter was supposed to be an American clergyman, his hand being fixed to the hoop of the scalp. Most of the farmers appear, by the hair, to be young or middle-aged men, there being but 67 very gray heads among them all; which made the service more essential. No. 5. Containing 88 scalps of women, hair braided in the Indian fashion to show that they were mothers, hoops blue, skin yellow, ground with little red tadpoles to represent, by way of triumph, the tears of grief occasioned to their relations; a black scalping knife or hatchet at the bottom, to mark their being killed by these instruments; 17 others, very gray, black hoops, plain brown color, no marks by the short club or casse-tte, to show they were knocked down dead, or had their brains beat out.

=sidebar ====La casse-tte (headbreaker)============= A 1695 New England account, Narrative of the Indian Wars 1675-1699, mentions white captives of the Indians who, during a rescue attempt by their friends were assaulted by the Indians using their casse-ttes, in French literally headbreakers. These were war clubs consisting of a large, roundish rock affixed to the end of a stout stick (or of a rock swung at the end of a buffalo nerve).
The [white] captain retook [liberated] all of the captives, but the Indians, in going off, struck them all so violently on the head with the clubs, which I remember a French historian somewhere calls by the frightful name of headbreakers, that they afterward died, all of them, except for a lad that was only hurt in the shoulder. Some of them lingered for half a year, and some of them for more than a whole year, but if the doctors closed up the wounds on their heads they would grow light-headed and faint and sick and could not bear it. So at last they died.[footnote: Lincoln, Charles, H., ed., Narratives of the Indian War 1675-1699 (New York, Charles Scribner's Sons: 1913), p260]

80

[source: http://www.snyderstreasures.com/eBay/Images/2009/07112009/AMER020F.JPG] Caption: Amerindian casse-tte (headbreaker)

====end of sidebar casse-ttes==============

No. 6. Containing 193 boy's scalps of various ages, small green hoops, whitish ground on the skin, with red tears in the middle, and black marks, knife, hatchet, or club as their death happened. No. 7. Containing 211 girls ... scalps of various ages, small green hoops, white ground, tears, hatchet, club, scalping knife, etc. No.8. This package is a mixture of all the varieties above mentioned, to the number of 122, with a birch box containing 29 little infant scalps of various sizes, small white hoops, white ground, no tears, and only a little black knife in the middle, to show they were ripped out of their mothers' bellies."

*** John DeMay concludes this litany of British horror:

Albany, New York was not the only scalp "collection point." The biggest one was at Detroit and others were at Presque Isle [near Erie, Pennsylvania] and Fort Niagara.

I am aware of the contention put forth that Benjamin Franklin invented this letter in 1782, or possibly got the letter from famed Indian fighter and patriot George Rogers Clark, who may have invented or embellished it. In fact, Franklin conceded in a letter to John Adams that the letter might lack veracity but contained substance. First, the Captain Samuel Gerrish who supposedly wrote this letter has not been
81

identified. Second, Franklin was then waging from Paris, where he was posted as ambassador, a diplomatic and public-relations war against Britain's image to influence the American Congress. At that Congress' request he was in the midst of negotiating with the now rather hated British the issues of total or partial independence from England. Franklin was opposed to anything short of total independence, and was faced with a British diplomatic counter-offensive which involved offering the Americans a kind of joint government. Back in Franklin's early days in Boston, at age 14, young Ben had written a series of hit letters to a newspaper masquerading, amusingly. as a Puritan matron named Silence Dogood (and he pulled similar hijinks as a publisher in Philadelphia), Franklin was ready to write under pseudonyms to make his points, as were many others in that era. Writing under a pseudonym was in fact an accepted custom of those times, and the public enjoyed guessing who was wielding the honeyed or poisoned pen under discussion. One must also remember that there was no absolute freedom of speech in colonial times, certainly not under the British monarchy or its royal governors. Every remark had repercussions. So it is possible that Franklin was indulging in poetic license, or passing on that of Georgee Rogers Clark, but certainly he was not fabricating a different reality. It must be admitted with shame that not only the French monarchy had paid Indians for white British scalps in the French and Indian War, but the British rulers just 15 years later were also paying Indians for white scalps in the American Revolution. But from the American viewpoint the mother country's action was far more reprehensible. The purpose of such a letter, whatever its origin, was to forcefully remind American readers why they had cast off the mother country in the first place, and the horrors a callous London might yet have in store for the Americans if it tricked them into gradual reincorporation into its empire. In fact, America was not out of the woods at all after the 1781 victory at Yorktown. The British had been highly aware for decades of the gigantic consequences for their future as a world power of losing the vast and fertile continent of North America, whether to the hated French or to their own despised colonists, and were thus furiously
82

making new offers of joint government to the victorious but exhausted Americans, a kind of good cop position, with the bad cop implication in the background that the war on America could always be renewed by the world's most powerful navy and its formidable army. (And so the war was renewed, in 1812, and the young nation's capital was burned in a dynamic British offensive that threw back the US Marines, Army and Navy for a time.) Franklin, by publishing this 'scalping invoice,' was proving his adamancy that the British ruling class was never to be trusted. He wrote that a proposal of joint government might have seemed acceptable in 1775, but that too many horrors such as the scalping campaign had happened to ever heal the relationship. In fact, the British were apparently floating a notion in 1782 that because Franklin was the toast of Paris, he was therefore a French agent, and did not have America's interests at heart, but instead was making America a tool of France's anti-British hatred. The other notion was that England had mellowed and was ready to renounce its role as parent to America and instead wished to serve as merely an older brother within a fiftyfifty government. Franklin was surely correct that had this proposal been proffered in 1775 and with evident sincerity (and the great English conservative of Norman descent, Edmund Burke, was pleading with London at that very time to stop trying to enslave the free Englishmen who had been building America) such a joint-government proposal would surely have avoided the Revolution, since most Americans were very proud to be British. (It is interesting that 120 years later the British Empire allowed white South Africa to have two capitals, one in mostly British Capetown and the other in Afrikaner Pretoria, in this way starkly proclaiming the reality of power-sharing.) But Franklin felt in his gut that there had been too many massacres and horrors committed during the war to ever wish to live under the older brother. (After Franklin's parents had both died, young Ben of Boston had himself come under the domination of an older brother; but considering him a tyrant, he stowed aboard a ship bound for Philadelphia, and became his own master at seventeen.) As for British war conduct, Mel Gibson's movie The Patriot dramatizes not unjustly the horrors of the Norman-British campaign in the southern colonies. Once London
83

realized that it stood real danger of losing the war, and thus the vastness and riches of North America, the white gloves came off in both the South and on the Indian frontier. The somewhat gentlemanly conduct ended in a hail of gore and tears that had initially been seen in the New England campaign, where General George Washington allowed an entire British army to peacefully leave Boston in 1776 for England on their honorable promise never to return. As I have written earlier, the Normans like to be gentlemen, but a stronger emotion is the hatred of losing.)

[source: http://i300.photobucket.com/albums/nn3/JohndeNugent/JohnEtretat2004.jpg] caption: Etretat is the French area of white cliffs opposite the White Cliffs of Dover on the other side of the Channel. William the Conqueror set out from near here toward the south of England. Guy de Maupassant grew up here in the 1800s and became the originator of the modern short story. In his The Legend of Mont SaintMichael, which incarnates the Norman spirit of shrewd business and vigorous violence, Michael gets the best of the Devil in a farmland deal and when he objects (during a rich meal being drowned in hard Norman cider), the warrior archangel chases him with a cudgel from tower to tower on Mont Saint-Michel and from gargoyle to gargoyle, and, cornering Le Diable at the edge of the last terrace, he boots him with a vicious kick through the sky, across the whole bay and into the face of a cliff, where the mark at which his horns gashed the granite is still to be seen today.....A typically Norman story of a saint!

84

Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/ee/Mont_SaintMichel_France.jpg Caption: The monastery of Mont Saint-Michel, honoring the warrior archangel Michael, was annexed to Normandy by William the Bastard/Conqueror, supported him during his wars and is depicted on the Bayeux Tapestry. It was the last bastion of ancient Roman power, not falling to the Franks until around 708. According to legend, Bishop Albert refused to build a church there to Saint Michael until the saint himself appeared and with his finger burned a hole into his skull. The urban geography of many parts of England was radically changed between the Norman Conquest and the mid 13th century by the foundation of several hundred new towns or enlargement of existing villages. These were places given a charter from the
85

king, a leading baron, bishop or monastic house which conferred on them the legal status of a borough. Privileges were granted to the leading citizens, or burgesses. (Burgess is an Anglo-Norman word from the French word bourgeois meaning a wealthy but nonnoble person who lived in a town, a burg, not a peasant [an unfree farmer].) These burgs or towns had the right to hold markets and levy tolls to those passing through. The citizens might also be allowed to collect their own taxes and pass them directly to the crown without the lord's interference. At the same time a town's founder was able to raise much more rent from his wealthy urban tenants than from peasants on his rural manors. New towns were usually laid out to promote economic activity with a central market place in the form of square or a long, broad street. Individual building plots were long and narrow, and set end-on to the street so as to give as many residents as possible access to the frontage where each house would have a shop. The plots were let for money rents rather than rents in kind. Many new towns were located outside gates of their lord's castle (e.g. Windsor and Ludlow) or abbey (St Albans), thereby providing customers for the town market. Some foundations were immediately successful and, as at Ludlow, were enlarged by means of a simple grid of streets attached to the original market place. Not all new towns flourished, however, and in the Welsh border, for example, there were numerous failed boroughs which never became more than villages. Most English houses had always been made of wood, especially oak, but the Normans built in stone, a much more French style, also more prestigious and more fire-proof. There is evidence that both England and Normandy were benefiting from a rising level of long-distance trade (especially in high-value goods such as silk and wine), carried out by merchants in great port cities such as London on the Thames and Rouen on the Seine. http://www.mondes-normands.caen.fr/angleterre/cultures/GB_FR/4/pic4-4a.htm

86

The Jew's House, Steep Hill, Lincoln (mid-late 12th century), Photo : P.Ottaway ===============================Is Warfare Normal? In 2004 I visited Strasbourg, a still rather Germanic city in the east of France, home of Johann Guttenberg, who invented the printing press. Amusingly, the French, who recovered Alsace after WWII, have painted the panels of the sober half-timbered (Stratford-on-Avon style) German houses in gay Latin colors -- not really such a bad synthesis of the two cultures. I also gasped at the awe-inspiring and gothic Strasbourg Cathedral. But I really gasped at the Archeological Museum of Strasbourg (in French Muse Archologique de Strasbourg ) just a few blocks south of it, literally in the basement of the magnificent Rohan Palace, and totally renovated in 1992.

87

[source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/56/Cathedrale-de-StrasbourgIMG_1331.jpg] Caption: View from the Strasbourg Cathedral's steeple of the palace (1742) of the mighty Rohan family This small but extraordinary museum is fittingly underground, since it was the result of many archeological digs into the ground. It revealed to me several things:
1) that Alsace (in German Elsass) has had a relatively large population for a very

long time, for the last five hundred thousand years, running from homo erectus to the Neanderthals and to our ancestors, the Cro-Magnons, who were early modern Europeans;

88

2) France, once called Gaul (perhaps coming from the word Kelt) has always had a very hospitable climate, which has supported such a large population (except during the worst of the ice ages), and it has always had fertile soil, with lots of friendly but not extremely hot sunshine, and between that fact and many archeological discoveries of skeletons and artifacts (tools, weapons, jewelry, pottery, etc.), some experts now believe that more individuals (both humans and pre-humans) have lived and died in the region that now is called France (given its 500,000-year-long history and its size, as big as Texas) than in any other country on earth except China. 3) Most surprisingly to me, warfare was not exactly normal or frequent for humans until the Bronze Age, a relatively very recent event, occurring in Europe between 2000 and 1,000 BC. Men were killers all along, of course, that is, hunters, while women were gatherers, clothes-makes and child-rearers, but unless attacked they were killers only of animals: deer, wild horses, bears, rabbits, ducks, geese and other animals, slaying them not out of hatred or lust for conquests but only for their needs in food and especially protein, which made our brains grow, scientists believe. That was the message at least of this museum. In the late Stone Age, when agriculture began, human populations began to grow, so there was more crowding and more friction, but Europe was still basically an empty continent of vast forests and plains with perhaps a population of ten million, compared to 500 million today. Still, we do find some archeological ruins of fortified walls in the late Stone Age indicating that some communities feared marauders, who perhaps were only hungry and desperate. But it was only in the Bronze Age when new, hard and far more lethal weapons and body armor were made by smelting copper with tin that plus the very important use of the horse on flat ground to pull a war chariot from which an archer could stand and fire arrows that warlords and warfare began to dominate life, and make Europeans live in daily fear of other humans beings. Only then did, as stated, body armor come into being, and swords -- used only for protecting oneself while killing other humans. No one used a sword to kill a mammoth or wild horse (back in the Ice Age) or a bear! A lance (a long, stout pole with a sharp blade at the tip, used for a heavy stab) or a spear (a throwable, lightweight lance) or of course arrows were much safer and better for hunting animals, especially large and dangerous ones. Until the Bronze Age the time celebrated by Homer in his Trojan War saga, the Iliad, with Achilles and Paris -- most Europeans were anything but warriors, and there was no warrior aristocracy. They were hunters and gatherers, then, toward the end of the
89

Stone Age (the New Stone Age or in Greek, the Neolithic), growers of crops, peaceful people who lived in peaceful villages along rivers on an underpopulated continent, like the USA back in the 1750s. There were perhaps ten million people in all of Europe, compared to five hundred million living today. But I was not aware of this in effect prehistoric anti-war reality. So the inscription on the wall of the museum in Strasbourg (printed in French, German and English) that stared at me shocked me: Warfare came to Gaul [ancient France] in the Bronze Age with the invading Kelts [who were Indo-Europeans]. Again, this is not to say there were never conflicts, but there is a difference between hungry tribes fighting over food or hunting grounds and a brutal society like Rome that was based on military invasion, enslavement of all victims who surrendered, and especially the atrocity that was gladiator combat, when men were forced to kill each other for the entertainment of others. (This custom, by the way, shocked other peoples of antiquity; it was considered overly brutal by the Greek and other civilizations.) 4) The idea that warfare had NOT always been with us started a major revolution in my thinking. Being a second-generation Marine, I was raised to see war as a truly unfortunate, even ghastly but inevitable part of life, at best a necessary evil, but necessary nevertheless. It would be utopian, I assumed as we all do, to think we ever could get rid of it. I recall my father, who had fought as an enlisted Marine at Iwo Jima against the Japanese in WWII, and later served as a Marine officer against the Chinese in the Korean War. He then saw the Vietnam War break out and then the two wars with Iraq. He once sighed to me: Every generation has its war. We also may think of those old cartoons of a Neanderthal with a huge club dragging his woman into the cave. We assume from all this indoctrination that planned human-onhuman violence has always been prevalent; that war is a basic part of human society. In fact, the pretention that war is normal or engrained in human nature is very much in dispute by scientists. I also realized that my own experience also gainsaid this notion. I have met so many men who, like my father, came back from the war deeply troubled if not seriously traumatized, suffering PTSD (post-traumatic stress syndrome) and certainly none of our hunting ancestors ever came back traumatized from killing deer. They hunted to eat, they killed to feed their families, and they did so with a perfect conscience and manly pride. If a fellow hunter was killed by a bear, well, he died trying to feed his kin and the bear was just defending himself. Neither party was evil.
90

Ironically, it was also in France that I encountered an American novel about this topic. I met a French girl who was avidly reading (in translation) the prehistorical docu-novels written by the bestselling Finnish-American author Jean Auel, such as her bestselling Clan of the Cave Bear. (This was later made into a movie about CroMagnon/Neanderthal interaction starring actress Darryl Hannah.) This French girl told me that Auel had been praised for doing massive research on the Stone Age, and her novels showed that human-on-human killing was of course not unknown but in fact quite rare in the Stone Age. Because, as stated above, Europe was a big and empty continent in 30,000 BC with a tiny population and room for many more people, the main threats to survival were not from each other but 1) not enough game animals, 2) a changing climate; 2) to die of an accident, 3) to die of a hunting injury from an animal, or 4) to die of dirt, infection and disease before the invention of soap..... All these things kept populations down, and only 250 years ago even most white American children died of disease before age five. After getting an earful about how wonderful Jean Auel's novels were, I decided I needed to read some serious academic literature on the subject of Is warfare part of human nature? I then went to the academic (university) bookstore in the city in south of France where I was staying, in Aix-en-Provence. There I consulted five different massive scholarly books by anthropologists on white European prehistory.

91

[source: http://ursispaltenstein.ch/blog/images/uploads_img/lascaux_2.jpg] Caption: The south of France was an excellent place for me to ponder prehistoric humans. Some of the most famous caves of Neanderthal, Cro-Magnon, Solutrean and Magdalenian history are found there, in a dry Mediterranean climate that like Egypt or Syria has preserved artifacts very well. Here is a website tour of the Lascaux cave paintings of eighteen thousand years ago: http://www.lascaux.culture.fr/#/en/00.xml These scientific books, each a good thousand pages in length (I still remember the height of the stack when the reference expert wheeled them out on a cart), all said the same thing to me as the Archeological Museum of Strasbourg and the novels of Jean Auel: Warfare as a planned and regular activity for conquest, rape and enslavement began in Europe only in the Bronze Age. In fact, one book said that of 10,000 major archeological digs around the world, there is only one from the period of the whole Stone Age period which preceded the Bronze Age that gives any clear evidence of humans deliberately killing other humans in any kind of warfare. And even this is not a battle site, but rather a mysterious mass execution pit into which several hundred apparently executed people in ancient Stone Age Gaul or France were thrown. We know they were killed by the cuts on their ribs and bashed-in skulls. Was perhaps a tribe of nomadic criminals or thieves being wiped out by a lawabiding tribe? Nothing wrong with that.....then or now.
92

Somewhat contradicting all this, I found literature subsequently in English saying there were Stone Age forts in both prehistoric Germany and also in the Middle East with palisades (tree poles) and even sharpened poles sticking outward likely to keep other determined people out, perhaps attackers. So it would seem there were at least some 'bad guys or perhaps just hungry and desperate people out there. If there were villains, the scenario may have been that depicted in the Discovery Channel video Ice Age Columbus, where a tribe has expelled antisocial elements, making them into exiles. If a group of expellees find each other in the woods and band together for survival, founding an antisocial gang, then you have highwaymen (forest robbers) and marauders. In effect, you have a class of criminals under no one's control but their own. But this is not warfare, nor are these soldiers or warriors acting under the orders of any normal tribal chieftain, elders or government. Basically, these would be psychopaths. If they took women by force and bred with them, then you have some bad genes indeed that are reproducing, creating the first stage of a criminal ethnic group..... I tried to put all this together as the German philosopher Hegel would have with his famous thesis, antithesis and synthesis. War is part of life, a rather yang view; No, people are naturally peaceful a very yin concept. What is the synthesis of these opposite claims? The key thing to remember is that human nature has been formed during hundreds of thousands of years of the Stone Age, 500,000 years at least, and the brief Bronze Age and now our own Iron age (in which we have lived since around 200 BC, when iron and steel began to dominate tool-making and weaponry) these last few thousand years have not made us into different creatures. I had to then think about my own father's life and what I knew about so many other returning American combat veterans. Some come back just fine (.at least on the surface, until they start drinking or showing a temper); others come back with physical wounds (my father was in a coma for three days from being hit by Chinese mortar fire); others have psychological harm caused to them. Each man is different, and each has gone through his own hell. I should add that my father James Nugent, who is still living, has the personality type of a classic Marine: stern, exacting, precise and duty-bound. It was interesting to have a Marine vet of heavy combat in two wars as a father, although mostly positive.
93

He had joined the Navy while still under-age in WWII and eventually switched to the Marines, avid like many others after Pearl Harbor and the Bataan Death March to kill Japs. He landed on the beaches and fought the battles of the islands of Tinian, Saipan, and on the Philippines; it was a ghastly and savage business, with neither side taking many or even any prisoners. Then in February 1945 he fought at the famous battle of Iwo Jima, under general Harry Schmidt, seeing as did many others the US flag proudly raised on top of Mount Suribashi as he was down in the gray volcanic sand on the beaches. In the early 1950s he re-entered the Marines, this time as an officer, and after training at the Quantico officer school he fought Chinese human-wave attacks in the trenches in the second half of the Korean War. (The first half had been a war of tremendous movement up and down the peninsula. The second half, the trench half, was just about as pleasant as World War One trench warfare had been artillery barrages, mortars and assaults day and night, plus some nice North Korean atrocities on captured Marines.) Now if war really were just part of life, like sickness, aging, the pain of childbirth for a woman, romantic heartbreak, or being widowed, it would not truly traumatize us; it would not cause men to awaken screaming with nightmares. And no normal part of life ever would have been able to traumatize a man such as my father: rugged, masculine, genuinely tough, a born warrior and leader, self-made millionaire businessman, and the youngest president ever in the 1960s of an American Rotary Club. He has never changed in the 55 years I have known him, though of course he has mellowed. My father is a profoundly yang man. But even before I moved to France in 2004 and ran into the museum in Strasbourg and the girl there who was reading the American Ice Age Europe novels, my father told me something that had planted a seed of doubt in me about the normality of war. Actually, like so many sons of warriors, I had noticed my father was never eager to talk about the war; he was tight-lipped, and just would say It was no picnic, son. War.....is a very bad thing. A lot of good men get killed. And occasionally he would mention his i best friend, Ed Flanagan, a fellow Marine lieutenant, killed in Korea. (He told me that about 50% of his officer class was killed or wounded. Marines are not the troops you find in the rear. They are at the front.) But in 2003 he told me something else that gave me real pause. He had had such terrible nightmares from the horrors of both those wars, WWII and Korea, that he like so many other Marines had needed to consult a Navy psychiatrist, and my father is the last kind of man to either run to a shrink or even go to a regular doctor. He hates pills, even vitamins, and never complains, although we all know he has terrible ringing in his ears (tinnitus) from the Korean War causing damage to his ear drums. For over a decade, it's
94

been worsening now to a steady roar.... In fact, he had to see a psychiatrist for six months for the nightmares. (He told me once about discovering a crucified Marine lieutenant the North Koreans had nailed to a cross and sickeningly mutilated.) Now if a man like my father, as tough as they come if even HE found war highly traumatizing, then how normal could war be? War often causes nightmares, which are not remembering but, far worse, reliving the horror. They also cause PTSD, post-traumatic stress syndrome, which in WWI was called shell shock, and in WWII and Korea the thousand-yard stare. The Pentagon now estimates that as many as 25% of US troops returning from Iraq or Afghanistan have PTSD. PTSD has been described thus in the Journal of Traumatic Stress (from Wikipedia): Veterans who screened positive for PTSD were four times more likely to report suiciderelated thoughts relative to veterans without the mental disorder. Post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) is a type of anxiety problem. It can develop after your safety or life is threatened, or after you experience or see a traumatic event. Some examples of traumatic events are a natural disaster, rape, a severe car crash or fighting in a war. Usually, the event makes you feel very afraid or helpless. People with PTSD have trouble coping with and getting over traumatic events and often feel the effects for months afterward. You can have symptoms right after the trauma or they can develop months, or even years, later. Your symptoms may include: Having flashbacks, nightmares, bad memories or hallucinations Trying not to think about the trauma or staying away from people who remind you of it Not being able to recall parts of the event Feeling emotionally numb or detached from others

95

http://johndenugent.com/blog/wpcontent/uploads/2009/08/exhaustedUSsoldierafghanistanphotoo.jpg World Press Photo of the Year 2007: an American soldier resting at a bunker in Korengal Valley, Afghanistan, taken September 16, 2007

Clearly, the mere act of killing does not cause this. Hunting animals, by itself, is both very absorbing and then exciting, and deeply satisfying to many men, and can be wholesome, useful and even humane if it culls the herd and prevents animals from dying of starvation. Hunting brought home the bacon and the meat that made the family healthy, happy and strong. The studies of the skeletons of prehistoric Europeans show that humans were much healthier in the Old Stone Age, an age of hunting for meat and the gathering of berries (rich in antioxidants), fruit and roots than they were later on. The New Stone Age meant agriculture and sedentary villages, but all these grains led to a sudden drop in protein. The average height of men shrank by a whopping five inches, and many skeletons and teeth of New Stone Age humans exhibit signs of malnutrition.
96

Humans thrived on meat and all men by definition, musculature and hormones, are visibly descended from hunter-killers. Those men who could not hunt simply did not reproduce and become our ancestors. They did not attract a wife, or bring home enough good for the offspring. The genes of bad hunters died out. But war is very different: it is a ghastly kind of hunting. The great American Confederate general Robert E. Lee once said: It is well that war is so terrible, else we should come to enjoy it. It is certainly exciting but it destroys psyches, cities, and nations. So clearly the killing of animals not cruelly or sadistically, but swiftly and effectively, just as the animals themselves hunt and kill each other was a normal event, a healthy event, a daily event in good weather, and it certainly did not cause post- traumatic stress syndrome. In fact, the return from a successful hunt was an occasion for joy and the celebration of courage and skill. A good young hunter could thereby impress a nice young potential mate with his prowess. This joy too is depicted in the brilliant Discovery Channel video Ice Age Columbus. The whole clan rejoices at a horse meat feast and thanks the clan chieftain and his men as they return weary but happy to the encampment of very hungry Ice Age Solutreans. But to slay deliberately another human being, or see him slay your friend....to do as Julius Caesar did, ordering the brave young Gaulish hero Vercingetorix, defeated defender of his invaded country, to be strangled after seven miserable years down in a Roman dungeon is a horrifying act of sadism. To conquer another man's village without any reason, to rape his women and see their tears, to put your neighbor in chains and sell him or her as a slave, to break up families and send them apart to be worked to death in a salt or copper mine that is a very different activity indeed compared to hunting for food, or gathering berries, or growing wheat or apples, building sturdy homes, making tools and clothes and benefiting life. Wikipedia, confirming what I have said above, states in its article on Prehistoric Warfare: The most common weapons used by early man were simple in form and easy to produce. Originally, such weaponry consisted of clubs and spears. These
97

were heavily used for hunting as early as 35,000 B.C., but there is little evidence that there was much of what we would consider war in that era. Of the many cave paintings from this period, none depict people attacking other people. There is no known archaeological evidence of large-scale fighting during this period of social evolution. Wikipedia on the Neolithic (New Stone Age), just before the Bronze Age:
Compared to the subsequent Bronze and Iron Ages, the Neolithic is characterized by small towns, stone versus metal technology, and a lack of social hierarchy. Towns are generally unfortified and built in areas difficult to defend. Skeletal and burial remains do not generally indicate the presence of warfare. The first archeological record of what could be a prehistoric battle is on the Nile near the Egypt-Sudan border. Known as Cemetery 117, it is at least seven thousand years old. It contains a large number of bodies, many with arrowheads embedded in their skeletons, which indicates that they may have been the casualties of a battle. Some question this conclusion by arguing that the bodies may have accumulated over many decades, and may even be evidence of the murder of trespassers rather than actual battles. Nearly half of the bodies are female, and this fact also causes some to question the argument for large-scale warfare. Further evidence of Neolithic warfare is evident in the Talheim Death Pit in Talheim, Neckar, Germany where archaeologists believe a massacre of a rival tribe was conducted approximately 7500 years ago. Approximately 34 people were bound and predominantly killed by a blow to the left temple. The Talheim site is one of the earliest indications of warfare in Neolithic Europe.

Even a rather militaristic article by Arthur Ferrill in MHQ: The Quarterly Journal of Military History concedes: There is no evidence for the practice of war before the late Paleolithic Age (35,000 to 12,000 BC). But by the year AD 1100, war was actually considered fun. Here is an excerpt from Wikipedia's article on Melee: During the Middle Ages, tournaments often contained a mle consisting of knights fighting one another on foot or while mounted, either divided into two sides or fighting as a free-for-all. The object was to capture opposing knights so that they could be ransomed, and this could be a very profitable business for such skilled knights as William Marshal. There was a tournament ground covering several square miles in northern France to which knights came from all over Europe to prove themselves in
98

quite real combat. This was, in fact, the original form of tournaments and the most popular between the twelfth and thirteenth centuries jousting being a later development, and one that did not completely displace the mle until many more centuries had passed. The original mle was engaged with normal weapons and fraught with as much danger as a normal battle. Rules slowly tempered the danger, but at all times the mle was more dangerous than the joust. In other words, this was a voluntary gladiator match and needless to say fought only among aristocrats. I believe that technology caused the Bronze Age to become a nightmarish turning point in human history. It marked the rise of the slave-taker, the slave-maker, the warlord and oppressor. It became the end of human freedom for most of the population. It was the takeover of the human race by its psychopaths, who then bred with many women polygamously, thus increasing the percentage of psychopaths in the population. Remember that there was no tyranny when every man was under arms. As Stuart Piggott's magnificent Ancient Europe from the Beginnings of Agriculture to Classical Antiquity (Edinburgh University Press, Scotland, 1965) points out, white tribes consisted of an elected chief or king, selected often from the best of a royal family (but not fatherto-son) by all the hunters, that is by all men. This elected chief was limited in his powers by tradition and by the observations and advice of a council of tribal elders, who also of course were as armed as was the king. There were no slaves and no masters, no bowing and no scraping. Every man was able at every instant to defend his honor, and tyranny was thus impossible for hundreds of thousands of years. It was during this vast Stone Age that our character freedom-loving male hunters and peaceful female gatherers, nurturers and clothes-makers was deeply and permanently formed. But the Bronze Age technologies began to change us just as we were changing and shaping the copper and tin into bronze. (In our own time, the Internet is also changing us as we it.) Piggott's Ancient Europe states:
The heroes [of Homer's Iliad] remain, despite the poetic talents of Homer, stubbornly of another, a primitive and barbaric world. It has never been stressed enough that characteristic traits of the Homeric world are the same as those of the Irish sagas [such as the Ulster Cycle], [the Anglo-Saxon] Beowulf or [the Norse] Sagas, [Ed.--elsewhere, the author adds, and of the Mahabharata in [Aryan] India] and that they are the common possession of the lost, orally passed-on literature of the barbarian age of Europe. 99

The noblest behaved like wild beasts in combat; emotionally overwrought, the male warriors cried a lot and in public; the seizure of women was a completely approved activity and the main prize of combat, as was the destruction of cities, the killing or enslavement of men and children and the rape of maidens; piracy, highway robbery on a large scale, seeking both human and material booty, is a completely honorable activity (as the Greek historian Thucydides thought); and theft and oath-breaking were admired if successful. Agamemnon systematically strips his foes of their armor after killing them.....the atmosphere of the Iliad is amazingly similar to that of a cowboy movie.

And who can forget the vengeful Achilles dragging the body of the fallen Hector behind his chariot after slaying the brave warrior? Wikipedia on Hector:
Homer places Hector as the very noblest of all the heroes in the Iliad: he is both peaceloving and brave, thoughtful as well as bold, a good son, husband and father, and totally without darker motives.

Wikipedia on Achilles' action:

100

http://media.comicvine.com/uploads/3/36888/773875-troy_achilles_brad_pitt_super.jpg

Wanting to go down fighting, [Hector] charged at Achilles with his only weapon, his sword, but missed. Accepting his fate, Hector begged Achilles not to spare his life, but to treat his body with respect after killing him. Achilles told Hector it was hopeless to expect that of him, declaring that "my rage, my fury would drive me now to hack your flesh away and eat you raw such agonies you have caused me". Achilles then got his vengeance, killing Hector with a single blow to the neck and tying the Trojan's body to his chariot, dragging it around the battlefield for nine days.

Njall's Saga (called also, ominously, Burnt Njll) is one of the longest and finest of the Icelandic sagas, presenting a comprehensive picture of Icelandic life in the heroic age and featuring many complex, realistic but tragic characters. It is definitely based at least partly on fact, and the foundation of Njall's burned farmhouse has been unearthed, and discusses the Battle of Clontarf in Ireland in 1014, when the great Irish king Brian Boru fell fighting other Irish and the Norse who had settled in Ireland. The work has two Icelandic heroesGunnar (Gunther) and Njll (whose name is borrowed from the Irish name Neil). Gunnar is a brave, guileless, generous youth like Sigurd (Siegfried) of the heroic legends; Njll is a wise and prudent man endowed with prophetic gifts. Both are men of peace, but in a society in which the ties of blood impose obligations that cannot be escaped and past injuries must be avenged, neither Gunnars goodwill nor Njlls wisdom can save them from their fate.
101

Gunnar meets death at the hands of his enemies when his wife, the beautiful but capricious Hallgerd, in retaliation for a slap he once gave her in anger, refuses him a strand of her hair to string his bow as his enemies storm in. Njll is drawn into a blood feud through his headstrong sons, who slay Hauskuld, the Priest of Whiteness, their father's own stepson.
"But this," says Njal, "no less than old age, is why I grieve, that I know better than thou what will come after."What will come after?" [asks his son] Skarphedinn."My death," says Njal, "and the death of my wife and of all my sons." "What dost thou foretell for me?" says Kari. "They will have hard work to go against thy good fortune, for thou wilt be more than a match for all of them." This one thing touched Njal so nearly that he could never speak of it without shedding tears.

"There is no good in mincing the matter," said [another], "but we must say outright that he has been slain for less than no cause; and his death is a great grief to all men. No one thinks it so much a loss as Njal, his foster-father."

Flosi, a kinsman of the late Hauskuld encounters Hildigunna, his widow. She plays every card to get vengeance.
Then Hildigunna went back into the hall and unlocked her chest, and then she took out the cloak, Flosi's gift, and in it Hauskuld had been slain, and there she had kept it, blood and all. Then she went back into the sitting room with the cloak; she went up silently to Flosi. Flosi had just then eaten his full, and the board was cleared. Hildigunna threw the cloak over Flosi, and the gore rattled down all over him. Then she spoke and said "This cloak, Flosi, thou gavest to Hauskuld, and now I will give it back to thee; he was slain in it, and I call God and all good men to witness, that I adjure thee, by all the might of thy Christ, and by thy manhood and bravery, to take vengeance for all those wounds which he had on his dead body, or else to be called every man's dastard." Flosi threw the cloak off him and hurled it into her lap, and said "Thou art the greatest hell-hag, and thou wishest that we should take that course which will be the worst for all of us. [The custom for avoiding a feud was to pay money to the victim's family.] But 'women's counsel is ever cruel'." Flosi was so stirred at this, that sometimes he was blood red in the face, and sometimes ashy pale as withered grass, and sometimes blue as death.

Flos sighs as he realizes that this will end badly for all.
102

I see this clearly, that though we slay Njal or his sons, still they are men of so great worth, and of such good family, that there will be such a blood feud and hue and cry after them, that we shall have to fall on our knees before many a man, and beg for help, ere we get an atonement and find our way out of this strait. Ye may make up your minds, then, that many will become poor who before had great goods, but some of you will lose both goods and life."

Njal's sons go about demanding support from their relatives:

They went to the booth of Gizur the white and inside it. Gizur stood up to meet them, and bade them sit down and drink. "Not thitherward," says Asgrim, "tends our way, and we will speak our errand out loud, and not mutter and mouth about it. What help shall I have from thee, as thou art my kinsman?" "Jorunn my sister," said Gizur, "would wish that I should not shrink from standing by thee; and so it shall be now and hereafter, that we will both of us have the same fate."

He accepts stoically that his fate has come in a powerful scene in which he and his family are burned to death in their home by a reluctant enemy, whose honor demanded they wreak vengeance. In the final part of the saga, Njl's fiery death is avenged by his son-in-law Kri, the sole survivor of the family, who slays another Icelander he had tracked down to Wales. Perhaps the most famous and shocking organized expression of this barbarism was the Colosseum in Rome, where for mere sport, for centuries on end (AD 80-c.435), literally hundreds of thousands of men were forced to kill each other for the crowds' entertainment, and even women and old people captured in war or arrested for their religion were eaten alive by lions. Was this considered normal back then? No, for other ancient peoples found it appalling, such as the people of Pontus in Asia Minor after their kingdom became a Roman province, their king having died childless, the first gladiatorial arena was put up and the stabbings began.

103

The Flavian Amphitheater, called for its size the Colosseum. It honored the victory by Titus and his father, Emperor Vespasian, in the year AD 70 over the revolting Jews.... I remember a BBC report on excavations in Central Asia of an ancient Persian city. The deeper the archeologists dug, toward the earliest layers, the more they found a culture with an equal number of figures of male and females gods. The gods, of course blessed the hunt, and the goddesses health, fertility and crops. But those were just the earliest layers of the city. In the upper layers the archeologists found metal weapons suddenly appearing copper, then hardy bronze, and then harsh iron, and everything else changed as well. Suddenly there were war gods, and the archeologists found less and less figurines of goddesses. It had become a man's world only, a war-man's world, a world of warcraft (to borrow the name of a new video game). It likely also became a world of increasing polygamy, where violent men simply attacked villages as the Romans did with the Sabines in the 752 BC and took and bred with as many women as they could with some very unhappy captives.
104

Rape of the Sabines, by Cortona, 1627. Romulus invited neighboring tribes to a festival and then treacherously seized their young women. When a neighboring king invaded, Romulus slew him and annexed his kingdom. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Cortona_Rape_of_the_Sabine_Women_01.jpg

105

If these warlords had psychopathic tendencies in their genes, then this forced breeding would result over time in an ominous phenomenon that is central to my beliefs ever since I read Martha Stout's The Sociopath Next Door in 2006. I now believe that the percentage of psychopaths has been increasing steadily ever since the Bronze Age, when the manly art of hunting turned into the savage hunting of men and the raping and impregnating of their defenseless women. Such women found themselves the mothers not of a Prince Charming, a knight in shining armor, or a mighty hunter who well fed his family, but the psychopathic spawn of a human monster. In this way, England's history could be said to have genetically changed since the Norman Conquest. Sicily's history would have changed since both Arabs, who were polygamists, and then Normans conquered that island. We read in Wikipedia concerning Sicily:
By 826, Euphemius, the commander of the Byzantine [imperial forces ruling Sicily] killed his wife and forced a nun to marry him. Emperor Michael II caught wind of the matter and ordered that his general Constantine end the marriage and cut off Euphemius' head. Euphemius however rose up, killed Constantine and then occupied Syracuse; he in turn was defeated and driven out to [Arab-conquered] North Africa. He [treacherously] offered the rule of Sicily to Ziyadat Allah, the Emir of Tunisia, in return for safety and a position as a general; a Muslim army of Arabs, Berbers, Spaniards (Spain then being under Islamic control) Cretans and Persians was sent....All of Sicily was eventually conquered by Arabs in 965.

(From 1068 to 1091 Roger Guiscard and his Norman mercenaries conquered the island, and his Hauteville dynasty ruled for a hundred years until a daughter married a German emperor and the isle came under the Holy Roman Empire.) The application to the Normans is obvious. England before the Normans was a nontyrannical kingdom that minded its own business, did not invade Wales, or Scotland, or Ireland, or France, or Holland, or Germany, or anywhere else -- or sell opium to the Chinese or spread negroes all over North America. Queen Elizabeth I ordered Sir John Hawkins in 1652 to begin the slave trade and, joined by his cousin, Sir Francis Drake, they began bringing negroes from Africa to the New World. The British Crown then forced all American colonies to accept slaves and hired Sephardic Jews to run the trade, which they did Charleston, South Carolina the home of Freemasonry, also and from Newport in my home state of Rhode Island; the Crown also overruled Georgia, which from 1735 to 1751 had banned slavery as a moral evil, an
106

economic blow to the white working class, and a security threat, given the danger of slave uprisings, especially with Spanish Florida next door. The Jewish author Marc Raphael, in his 1983 book Jews and Judaism in the United States (New York: Behrman House) wrote that just as Jews ran the slave trade for Portugal and Spain they did also for the British Crown: This was just as true in the territories of North America in the 1700s when Jews participated in the triangular trade which brought slaves from western Africa, exchanged them for cane sugar molasses, and traded that for rum in New England [Newport, Rhode Island]. Isaac da Costa in Charleston [S.C.] in the 1750s, David Franks of Philadelphia in the 1760s and Aaron Lopez of Newport at the end of the 1760s and the early 1770s dominated the slave trade on the American continent. And who was their partner in this moral and economic crime of slavery? A crime that would put a curse on America, of which Thomas Jefferson said in 1820: We have the wolf by the ear, and we can neither hold him, nor safely let him go? The Norman ruling class of England, which ordered that slavery not be abolished in the colonies. King George III in council, on Dec. 10, 1770, issued an instruction, under his own hand, commanding the governor of Virginia, " upon pain of the highest displeasure, to assent to no law by which the importation of slaves should be in any respect prohibited or obstructed." In 1772 the Virginia Assembly earnestly discussed the question, " How shall we get rid of the great evil?" Jefferson, Henry, Lee, and other leading men anxiously desired to rid the colony of it. " The interest of the country," it was said, " manifestly requires the total expulsion of them." The Assembly finally resolved to address the King himself on the subject, who, in council, had compelled the toleration of the traffic. They pleaded with him to remove all restraints upon their efforts to stop the importation of slaves, which they called " a very pernicious commerce." In this matter Virginia represented the sentiments of all the colonies, and the King knew it; but the monarch " stood in the path of humanity and made himself the pillar of the colonial slave-trade." Ashamed to reject the earnest and solemn appeal of the Virginians, he evaded a reply. The conduct of the King caused Jefferson to write as follows in his first draft of the Declaration of Independence:
"He has waged cruel war against human nature itself, violating its most sacred rights of 107

life and liberty in the persons of a distant people who never offended him, capturing and carrying them into slavery in another hemisphere, or to incur a miserable death in their transportation thither. This piratical warfare, the opprobrium of infidel powers [that is, the Muslim Barbary pirates and Turks were doing this], is the warfare of the Christian King of Great Britain. Determined to keep open a market where men should be bought and sold, he has prostituted his negative [his right of veto] for suppressing every legislative attempt to prohibit or to restrain this execrable commerce."

This paragraph was unfortunately stricken out of the Declaration of Independence before the committee submitted it to a vote of the Congress. The British had been a relatively peaceful people before the Normans. In fact, it was the Romans under Julius Caesar and then under Emperor Claudius who unprovoked invaded Britain, finally slaying the heroic Queen Boadicea. Later, Anglo-Saxons from Germany, then Vikings, then the French-speaking, converted Vikings called Normans, who attacked Britain. Britain was never an attacker of other nations before the Norman Conquest, but after that the Norman ruling class began attacking literally all points of the compass.

===========The Theory of Just War============== Medieval thinking on war, including that of Saint Thomas Aquinas, was based on St Augustine's theory of the just war as laid out in De Civitate Dei (On the City of God) (5th century AD), written around the time the Roman Empire was falling and the Dark Ages were beginning. The fact is that the population of Europe fell by about 50 percent, and education, law and order, courts, police, an the maintenance of roads, bridges and aqueducts all collapsed. By the time of Augustine, the Roman Empire had Christian emperors and so he believed that Rome's cause was now just. Christians were no longer being ripped apart by lions in the Flavian Amphitheater, which we know as the Colosseum. They were in the Roman legions on the battlefield ripping apart pagans, or trying to. St. Augustine saw war as a means to punish sin and stop evil, as a judicial action to right a wrong. As Augustine put it in Latin, Justa bella ulciscuntur injurias" (just wars avenge injuries). That meant also that those waging war were God's scourge and, by were expressing God's love, in fact benefiting the evildoer being destroyed. The
108

Augustinian attitude was that war was a mass death penalty for people who had earned it. According to Augustine, you could take up the sword only if you were the injured party, or you perceived an injustice needing redress (such as the Muslims occupying the Holy Land). And ever since Augustine, aggressors claim they were injured. In the fourteenth century, Christian writers like John Gower and Philippe de Mezieres were not impressed by the dynastic justifications for the Hundred Years War offered by England and France. The warring parties even tried to recast their actions as a crusade, not concerned with how the war was being waged but whether it was justified in the first place. Shakespeare's (Edward de Vere)'s play Henry V shows this concern, but also shows King Hal speaking of rape and pillage. Medieval war extended well beyond the battlefield. Assassination was widely practiced and not felt to be dastardly. As St Augustine wrote, "all homicide is not murder." St Thomas Aquinas, the 13th century authority on theology, gave three criteria for a just War: 1- It must "right a wrong" 2- It must be winnable. Fighting hopelessly against an evil despot was not justified. 3- The suffering caused by the war had to be less than the suffering caused by leaving the evil in place. The third point was oft quoted to justify assassination. But this ran up against the class consciousness of the nobility. Seeing themselves as a better sort of people, the nobles found it convenient to treat each other charitably in combat. Thus there was the prevalence of offering quarter and taking ransom instead of the opponent's life. (This it was very shocking when Henry V began slaughtering his captured French prisoners at Agincourt, apparently afraid they would rise up while he was hard pressed.) The nobles fighting in the Hundred Years War showed little regard to the damage they caused. This was particularly true of the Norman-English. Depopulation of towns and villages in France was noted in a lot of the sources. The great Italian Renaissance scholar Petrarch visited Paris in the 1360s and reported wolves running in the streets and whole surrounding villages empty. That probably was caused in part by the plague, but the war between the English and French king was fought in such a way that everyone suffered except the two kings. According to medieval thinking, one of these two kings was "wicked" but neither suffered much.

109

In fact, during the Middle Ages war between the international nobility was something between a game and a career path, where people went to war for reasons of personal profit and social advancement, rather than for king and country. In 1421 two English squires, John Winter and Nicholas Molyneux, entered into a solemn agreement to fight together in France and then to pool their winnings (i.e., their ransoms) and invest them at home. These fellows were definitely not going off to do Gods work. This noble age had an enormous propensity to accept cruelty and barbarity as a fact of life. Thus you see figures like Sir John Hawkwood, who probably would be at home in Bosnia or Somalia today as a warlord, being praised in the 15th century as a chivalrous and noble knight who deserved to be remembered alongside Edward III, the Black Prince, and Sir John Knollys (another mercenary commander and self-made man). Du Guesclin, who served with mercenary captains in Spain before going on to become Constable of France, was praised as a pious and gallant knight. There was a chivalrous side to all this, but not in terms of sparing the innocents. For example, Poton de Xaintrailles, a professional soldier and mercenary, thought nothing amiss when he took a break from combat to participate in a great tournament/pageant staged by Ren of Anjou in 1446. This was not hypocrisy, but chivalry as it was actually practiced and an essential part of a military career. Attending tournaments with your enemies added social acceptability and class solidarity to the profession of arms. The great chronicler of chivalry, Jean Froissart, genuinely believed in chivalry, so he tended to gloss over the massacre of peasants, rape, pillage, and the torturing of priests so they would reveal where the silver was hidden. ========================= It is instructive to read various scholars about the Normans. One famous Jewish scholar, Norman F. Cantor (nomen est omen, the Romans would remark of such a first name, the name is an omen), is predictably impressed with them. His The Civilization of the Middle Ages[footnote:Cantor, Norman F., The Civilization of the Middle Ages. New York: HarperCollins, 1963, 1993] is a standard work, if only because Jewish publishers publish, and Jewish critics praise, the works of Jewish authors, or as the French say, they send them the elevator. Other historians, of genuine English stock, view the Normans as a kind of holocaust, a Nakbah, as the Palestinians would say, a catastrophe. Norman F. Cantor (1929-2004), a professor at New York University of history, sociology and literature, eulogizes in a whole chapter The Anglo-Norman Monarchy and the Emergence of the Bureaucratic State, and accuses the Anglo-Saxons of political
110

backwardness for not having a centralized government, an efficient tax system, and military weakness because they fought on foot, both peasants and nobility, and without knights on horseback. Serves them right to be enslaved for not having a large defense establishment. He adds one paragraph (p280-81) that got my English blood steaming: For four decades after the Conquest the Normans exhibited an unmitigated contempt for all Anglo-Saxon culture. During this period some of the greatest works of AngloSaxon art were probably destroyed; some of the best Anglo-Saxon illustrated manuscripts survived only in Continental libraries, having been sent [prior to the Nakbah] as gifts to rulers or churchmen across the Channel. The cosmopolitan [Norman] French nobility spoke French and were representatives of French language and culture. The Anglo-Saxon language became a peasant dialect, and it was revived in literary form only in the fourteenth century. [It was by then much changed, and laced with French words.--Ed]. For at least a century and a half after the Norman Conquest, England was culturally a province of France. And thus in both WWI and WWII the British ruling class felt zero kinship for their Saxons cousin in Germany, and they spent the flower of English youth and all those efficient taxes on the English folk a Hundred Year's War, interfering in French affairs., and burning Joan of Arc alive as a witch. (After all, she wore armor, and thus was a woman wearing men's garments, and thus a witch. What more proof does one need?) Then Cantor concludes with a non-sequitur, unless one sees things from a Norman or Jewish viewpoint: In spite of the losses to native vernacular literature and art, the Norman Conquest was a great benefit to England, which in any case was bound to lose its independence. Well, as a descendant of Englishmen, and a knower of English history (just three successful invasions in two thousand years: the Roman, Anglo-Saxon and Norman), I can think of few peoples braver, sturdier, or prouder or less, quote, bound in any case to lose their independence. The Anglo-Saxons fought like lions and very successfully at Stamford Bridge, defeating the previously invincible Norwegian king Harald Hardrade who previously had conquered Sicily and Norway, and massacred all his enemies) and slaying him with an arrow to the neck. Cantor's rhetoric is part of that same liberal line we hear today -- that right-wing conservatives are afraid of change, and that progress and multiculturalism and the blending of cultures and diversity are inevitable. Later, we read in the good Cantor, the complete feudalization of the realm was undertaken by the Conqueror and [this] allowed allowed England to participate in the thriving intellectual, religious and artistic life of eleventh- and twelfth-century
111

France.... [Otherwise] it would have been cut off from these achievements. Ah, the good life, paying taxes and doing backbreaking unpaid work to build a castle so foreign lords can dominate you, eat your meat that you raised and butchered while you get only bread, pay taxes to a Jewish tax collector, live as a serf (oh glorious feudalism) or a debt slave, and as a peasant see your bride taken away to the Norman castle on her wedding night, a horror depicted jarringly in the opening scenes of Mel Gibson's magnificent film Braveheart. =====sidebar====Why Lords Needed Jews======== If, rather than do something productive, you were noble, then your job was to wage war and take from the peasants. A famous stained glass says farmers work, monks pray and nobles fight. All right. So you are a noble and you want to take something, not make something like the peasants and workers. Then you needed lots of money, because the other noble, from whom you proposed to take his city, money, honor or life, would tend to resist. You needed lots of money to take it and he needed lots to defend himself from you. Here is an account of sieges in the Middle Ages (from http://www.hyw.com/books/history/Medi0000.htm) .
Sieges were the most common form of large-scale combat in the Middle Ages. Political control in medieval times depended on who held the numerous castles and walled cities that dotted the countryside. These fortifications held reserve supplies of food and large numbers of troops. From these bases, the nobility controlled the countryside. If you wished to "conquer" an area you had to take the fortified places away from whoever currently held them. Since these places were built to resist being taken, a siege was the usual result. Sieges took time, some went on for months and cost literally millions of ducats. The larger force outside often had more serious food problems than the besieged. The surrounding countryside was often stripped bare of food at the approach of an enemy army. But the defender could not always depend on the besieger giving up because he was hungry. The usual hope was that a friendly army would come up and chase the besiegers away. This often resulted in a battle as a means to determine of the siege would continue or not. 112

Sieges themselves were largely a matter of engineering work, with a little knightly combat thrown in to keep the warriors from getting bored. It was not uncommon for an impromptu tournament, or series of duels, to be arranged between the knights on both sides, just to enliven what was otherwise a very tedious process. The English had an advantage in sieges for most of the war (until the French developed superior cannon) because their yeomen were more effective at siege warfare. In addition to being able to sweep defenders from castle walls with their accurate and long range archery, the yeomen were also more skilled at the more mundane aspects of siege work. Being well paid mercenaries, the yeomen went about the digging and building that comprised most siege work in more professional manner than their French counterparts. Armies took siege technicians with them on campaign. These were usually carpenters and miners, plus master siege artisans who had years of experience in the techniques of siege warfare. The typical siege consisted of throwing a cordon of troops around the fortified place and then building rock (or fire) throwing catapults to attack the troops on the walls, tunnels to collapse the walls, scaling ladders and movable towers to allow troops to go over the walls, and battering rams to demolish walls or gateways. But the typical activity was the threat of an attack. The custom was that if the city surrendered without a fight, it would not be pillaged by the enemy troops. Both sides preferred to end the matter through negotiation and this was basically a war of nerves. The besieger didn't really want to attack, as this would get a lot of his troops killed and it might not work, at least not the first time. Moreover, the besieger was usually after permanent possession of the place and didn't want to be stuck with the damage his angry troops would inflict if, after successfully storming the place, they pillaged it (thus wrecked everything in sight and killed off a fair percentage of the population). The defender didn't want to risk an assault either, but for different reasons. In many cases, time was on the side of the besieged. If careful preparations were made, the defenders might well have had a better supply of food and water than the besiegers. Moreover, there might be a relief army on the way. The defender had to calculate whether he could fight off enough assaults so that the attacker ran out of men or enthusiasm for the task. If the attacker could make a breach in the wall with, say by tunneling which caused the wall to collapse, this might give the defender sufficient reason to surrender without an assault. Catapults throwing fire balls into the city or castle might start fires that would also encourage a surrender. Negotiations were usually underway from the very beginning (or even before, as the advancing army sent forward Heralds to try and convince the commander of the castle or town that it was never too early to surrender). Of course, the commander of the defenders had more than his honor at stake. His boss might punish him quite severely (unto death, perhaps) if the fortified place was lost without every possible action being taken to avoid such a loss.

113

There was also the question of cost. Your typical fortress or castle (the former had fewer towers and less comfortable living accommodations) had a garrison of 100-300 men. These were usually locals, full or part time soldiers on the regular payroll of the local lord. Say an army of 1,000 men approached, mercenaries, costing the attacker, on average, 170,000 ducats a week to maintain. It would take several weeks to invest the place, build siege engines (catapults, etc.), and start digging tunnels. By this time the cost would already be up to half a million ducats, with less than a hundred thousand gained from pillaging the surrounding countryside. That pillage would going to cost the local lord tens of thousands of lost taxes in the future, and some of the damage would be to things the lord owned, such as flour mills or buildings. Nevertheless, it would be costing the besieger a lot more than it would be costing the defender. If the place is taken by negotiation, there would be loot inside the castle. In addition to at least several thousand ducats in cash, there were no doubt many other valuable items. Everything from captured weapons and tools, and perhaps some gold or silver objects. But the besieger had to decide when to stop throwing good money after bad. We may not think of Medieval warlords as accountants, but they had to pay their bills, too. Unpaid troops tended to drift away, leaving you defenseless in hostile territory. It wasn't all adventure and glory. A lot of Medieval warfare was the headaches delivered via a clerk's report on your current cash position.

============The psychopathic destruction and greed of war===============Pillage, Plunder and Ransom

Even if the agreed upon pay were not forthcoming on a regular basis, the troops could be kept loyal with sufficient opportunities to pillage the countryside and plunder particularly rich places (like towns.) There was a lottery aspect to this, because rich opportunities did not always present themselves during a campaign. But a share of the plunder could make even a common soldier rich beyond his fondest dreams. Even without hitting the jackpot, just traveling around with a large bunch of armed men presented new opportunities to enrich oneself. In most medieval armies, it was expected that the troops would "live off the land." Living off the land did not mean that they would go hunting and live off nuts and berries from the forest. A more accurate term would be "live off any unarmed locals." It meant that any food or other valuables encountered as the troops moved along was free for the taking. The nobles leading the army would discourage the troops from pillaging while in friendly territory, which was why everyone was eager to "take the war to the enemy." Once on the lands of the enemy, pillage was encouraged. This not only demoralized the enemies population, but it made your troops happy and gave you the opportunity to skip a pay day and get away with it. Plunder was another matter. This was organized pillage, undertaken when there was a lot of wealth concentrated in one place and the nobles wanted to make sure they got their cut. Towns and castles were the most likely places to find plunder, as anyone with wealth would look to such heavily fortified places as a safe location to park their money and valuables. Taking walled towns or castles was no easy 114

task, as it usually involved a long and costly siege. What kept troop morale up during this dreary and dangerous process was the prospect of looting the town or castle. Any big treasures had to be shared with the head of the army, but the common soldiers were customarily allowed to grab anything else and, in general, enjoy themselves for a few days. If the town surrendered before an actual assault took place, the terms usually included the payment of a large sum of money. While the troops would not be allowed to loot the place, they would get a portion of this payment. Sometimes the besieging general would refuse to accept a surrender unless his troops were allowed to do some looting anyway. It all depended on what shape his soldiers morale was in. Not being allowed to plunder a town was a big disappointment to the troops. This attitude was known by those within and without the walls and often led to a rapid surrender of a town or castle. The alternative was grim if the defender guessed wrong about his chances of keeping the besiegers out. Towns and castles often yielded tens of millions of ducats worth of coin and treasure. For an army of a few thousand men, and with the nobles taking at least half of this, there was still enough left for each soldier to pick up a few thousand ducats. In an age when the average working stiff was living well on an annual income of 3,000 ducats, this was good money indeed. And then there was all that opportunity to abuse [rape] the local women. Armies were never friendly, cuddly creatures, and the people in the towns and castles well knew it. Ransom was a little harder, and riskier, to come by. The custom of the period was to take nobles and knights (anyone in a good set of armor) alive, if possible. The captives family would willingly pay a ransom to get their man back. The amount of the ransom depended on the wealth of the family and was, to a certain extent, negotiable. The captives were not that difficult to take alive. All that armor protected the wearer from a lot of battlefield damage and often all you had to do was knock him down, pile on, and disarm him. The fellow was usually quick to surrender at that point. The problem was, to take a captive, you had to fight, win and survive a battle. Not an easy task when everyone was armed in the same fashion and fought the same way. Moreover, only a small portion of most medieval armies consisted of knights and nobles. Anywhere from 50 to 90 percent of a Medieval army consisted of commoners. These folks didn't rate a ransom, and were usually found easier to kill than take prisoner. Commoner soldiers, knowing their probable fate if their side lost, would usually run for cover at the first opportunity. English armies of the 14th century had ample opportunities to defeat French armies. For the English yeomen infantry, who were often 70 percent or more of these armies, there were splendid opportunities to take French nobles captive and many a yeoman family became rich in the process. Ransoms of over 100,000 ducats were not uncommon. For a particularly high ranking noble, the yeoman might bring in one of his own nobles to help with the negotiations. In any event, the commoner soldier would have indeed hit the jackpot.

===========================

115

In stark contrast to Cantor's approval of Normanism stands R.J. White's book (again, nomen est omen) , entitled The Horizon Concise History of England.[footnote: White, R.J., The Horizon Concise History of England. New York: American Heritage Publishing, 1971.] Quoth he: The Norman Conquest of England has been called the greatest takeover in the history of western Europe.....The duke of Normandy was making good his claim that the throne had been promised to him by his cousin, the childless King Edward the Confessor (1042-66) [but] the crown, being elective, was not Edward's to give, and at the time of the Confessor's death, the Witan [Council of Wise Men] had chosen Harold, Earl of Wessex, as Edward's successor.[footnote: p7] Thus was created the aristocracy of medieval England, the barons, a class of military men.....Centuries later, English radicals like Tom Paine were to ask the question: What are the aristocracy?' and to answer, William the Conqueror, his colonels, majors and captains...... [Paul: the following might be a perfect quote for the center of the page] After the Conquest, there was a wholesale depression of the laboring classes. In fact, all classes of the native population were downgraded by the Conquest but the lowest class naturally felt the weight of depression most because its members were at the bottom of the heap. They found themselves doing the work of slaves, and thus a nation of free villagers was transformed into a nation of serfs. Generations passed before they recovered the status enjoyed by the Saxon freemen. For a time, and for the mass of Englishmen, although learned men have often tried to minimize it, the Norman Conquest was a tragedy.[footnotep32] ==============sidebar===========

Medieval Historians Speak Out

116

Geoffrey Malaterra, an Italian historian of the 1200s: The Normans are a cunning and vengeful people....The delights of the Normans are arms and hunting, beautiful clothes, hunting and hawking, but on pressing occasions they can endure with incredible patience the inclemency of any climate and the toil and abstinence of military life. Orderic Vitalis, a half-English, half-Norman historian of the same period: When under the rule of a strong master the Normans are the most valiant of peoples, excelling all others in the skill with which they meet difficulties and strive to conquer every enemy. But in other circumstances they rend each other to bits, and bring ruin on themselves. The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, written between the 800s and the 1200s: This King William of whom we speak was a very wise man, and very powerful.... he was gentle to good men who love God, and stern beyond measure to all who resisted his will.... Among other things, we should not forget the real security he made in this country so that any honest man could travel around his kingdom with his gold, nor did any man dare kill another.... Certainly in his time there was much oppression.... [William] was sunk in greed and utterly given to avarice.... ======================Freedom Fighters English history after the Conquest contains several real outlaws, none of them angels, but all of them fierce resisters of the king's rule or rules. Because the Normans spoke French, many French stories crossed the Channel and merged with the English, especially relating to the romance of Robin Hood and Maid Marian, which added a nice French and heterosexual note to this story of men out in the woods..... Hereward

117

Hereward was an Anglo-Saxon noble who lost everything in the Conquest. Some nobles fought the Normans to the end, others meekly became lowly serfs, and of them some saw Normans actually marry some of their friends' widows. Hereward, from the old Germanic word Heer (meaning army, as in Modern German), and ward as in guard or to ward off attack, fought the Conqueror fiercely and eventually retreated to the Isle of Ely, a plot of land in northern England containing a monastery and located in the middle of a lakelike swamp. (It is now all filled-in solid land.) The Normans, being systematic Scandinavians, and unaccustomed to losing, built a causeway of boards all the way through the swamp to get at the Anglo-Saxon diehards, but being heavy armored chaps on even heavier armored horses, they began sinking into the ooze. At that point the Normans, always fixated on money, not honor, bribed the monks to reveal a secret path in. At this point, Hereward retreats through the fens, probably to disappear into history or flee to the Continent like so many of the true English. Many Anglo-Saxon ethelings (blue-bloods, from the word ethel, meaning noble as in the German Adel Adolf comes from Adelwolf and means Noble Wolf) fled to France, Flanders or Germany to work as warriors; Hereward may have been murdered by vengeful Normans once in France, or maybe he met a nice French girl and settled down, as did another aristocrat the Anglo-Normans did not like 700 years later, James Hennessy of Ireland. (A Catholic, he became a mercenary in the French Army of Louis XV of France, then settled down in the town of Cognac to make guess-what. Hennessy began exporting his Irish-French miracle drink to America in 1794, and today 40% of all the world's cognac is a result of one aristocrat going into French exile.)[footnote: One of my clients in 1999 in American accent was a French engineer who visited Cognac; he vowed to me that some day he would return and buy their $600 bottle, because its aroma, he said, is that divine.) Robin Hood Robin Hood was a popular hero then and now because he robbed the rich to give to the poor. And rich meant then the Normans and poor meant the afflicted native AngloSaxons. Did he ever exist? The Italians would say Si non e vero, e ben trovato, a very Latin or Keltic attitude that means: If it's not true, it's still a good story. Whenever the pompous get their comeuppance, it is satisfying.
118

Fulke FitzWin was a famous woodland outlaw, but Roger Godberd may have been the main historical basis behind the legend of Robin Hood. He flourished around 1260-1274 (floruit in Medieval Latin meaning, usefully, the time when a man whose birth and death dates we do not know did tings of note). Godberd was a Norman officer under Simon de Montfort and other barons, but was outlawed in 1265 for fighting against King Henry III in the Battle of Evesham. (Nearly two centuries later, in about 1446, Walter Bower claimed that Robin Hood also became an outlaw as a result of this battle.) In October 1267, Godberd settled in Sherwood Forest, living there for four years and defying the authorities with up to 100 men, some of whom may have been merry. But he was caught in 1272 by Reginald de Grey, Sheriff of Nottingham. After more exciting escapes and dismal captures, the busy Godberd was eventually sent to the Tower of London, where the famous Edward I, Longshanks, returning in 1274 from the Eighth Crusade, pardoned him. Glad of it, Roger Godberd headed back to his farm for the rest of his days, his outlaw flourishes over. Several other men with names like Robert, Roger and Robin and with last names like Hood were also outlaws who hid out in the woods. What the rise of the Robin Hood legend means is clear: English people, white people, all people need, and in times of despair desperately need, their heroic resistance leaders, just as the great Thomas Carlyle (1795-1881) wrote in his 1841 masterpiece Heroes and Hero Worship. (This treatise on the power of the mythos of the hero became the most important book in young Adolf Hitler's life, and he re-read it again at the end in the bunker in Berlin, and it determined him to fight until the end and die rather than be captured and subjected to a show trial. ==========Hitler's Unrequited Love: Britain from his Second Book, written in 1927 and never published.: That England has a clear foreign policy goal is proved by the fact of the existence and therewith of the rise of this giant empire. Let no one fancy, after all, that a world empire can ever be forged without a clear will thereto. Obviously not every single member of such a nation goes to work every day with the idea of setting a great foreign policy goal, but in a completely natural way even an entire Folk will be gripped by such a goal so that even the unconscious acts of individuals
119

nevertheless lie in the general line of the aim that has been set and actually benefit it. Indeed the general political goal will slowly stamp itself on the very character of such a Folk, and the pride of the present-day Englishman is no different from the pride of the former Romans. The opinion that a world empire owes its rise to chance, or that, at least, the events which conditioned its establishment were accidental historical processes which always turned out luckily for a nation, is false. Ancient Rome owed its greatness, exactly as does present-day England, to the soundness of Moltke's assertion that in the long run luck is always with the fit. This fitness of a Folk in no way lies only in racial value, but also in the ability and skill with which these values are applied. A world empire of the size of ancient Rome, or of present day Great Britain, is always the result of a marriage between the highest race value and the clearest political aim. Herein lies the superiority of English statesmanship [:] that country is not ruled by such smart-alecks who can never brace themselves for an action, but by men who think naturally and for whom politics most surely is an art of the possible, but who also take all possibilities by the forelock, and really strike with them. There is no foreign policy leadership at all which is less determined by doctrines that bear no relation to life's realities than the English. A world empire does not come into being by means of a sentimental or purely theoretical policy. Hence the sober perception of British interests will be determining for English foreign policy in the future too. To be sure, yet another important factor emerges in regard to England's attitude toward Germany: the decisive influence world Jewry also possesses in England. Just as surely as Anglosaxonism itself can overcome its war psychosis vis--vis Germany, world Jewry just as surely will neglect nothing to keep the old enmities alive so as to prevent a pacification of Europe from materializing, and thereby enable it to set its Bolshevist destructive tendencies into motion amid the confusion of a general unrest. We cannot discuss world policy without taking this most terrible power into account. Therefore I will deal especially with this problem further in this book. This accumulated hatred was discharged in the typically bourgeois national fulmination and battle cry: God Punish England. Since God is just as much on the side of the stronger and the more determined, as well as preferably on the side of those who are cleverer, he manifestly refused to inflict this punishment.

120

====sidebar====The Fine British Art of Cant============== The Irish had an expression about three things you cannot trust, and one of them was the smile of a British officer. In World War Two the Third Reich put out a brochure called The Fine British Art of Cant. The dictionary defines this word cant thus: the insincere, especially conventional expression of enthusiasm for high ideals, goodness, or piety. Synonyms: hypocrisy, sham, pretense, humbug. In line with this, a chief characteristic of this British plutocrat class is simply lying about one's true motives. I have had many dealings with different northern European peoples of Germanic or Scandinavian stock, and they all have several traits in common. One of them is direct frankness, an almost tactless honesty, and masculine forthrightness. The British ruling class has replaced these old Germanic traits, however, with their special band of cant and the mother country has passed this on to America, where we never bomb anyone into tiny, charred body parts unless it is for their own freedom. And this AngloAmerican cant is one of the many things that alienates other Europeans about the British and the Americans -- yet I usually do not find this trait among the British or American white working class. My English grandfather was certainly free of it. We have seen this cant for centuries in Britain, and especially since the unforgettable novels of Charles Dickens about cruelty to children began appearing in the 1800s. (We all remember Bob Cratchit and Tiny Tim, or Great Expectations.) In a supposedly Christian and civilized nation some truly appalling cruelty, poverty, misery and neglect have been experienced by the children of the British working class in their horrid slums at the hands of, I would not say, their betters, but instead their richers and their users. The British ruling class has been infamous for generations also for the practice of homosexuality and bisexuality at their private boys' schools, which in England strangely (since the public cannot afford them) are called public schools. (One of the advantages of introducing girls to such schools in recent decades has been to reduce this problem.) Still, an American friend of mine visited England and spoke with some white nationalist working class activists. One of them them referred with contempt for upper-class ponces and my friend asked what that term ponce meant. He said: That's what you Americans call 'queers.' The privileged class is full of these fairy boys, these buggers. (A well-known example of this even in WN circles was Martin Webster, a close
121

acquaintance of many WN leaders in Britain.) This is indeed a very dark side of the British upper class and aristocracy. Another trait lined to it is effeminate and high-pitched speech, about which I read on a WN discussion forum (VivaMalta.org) located on Malta (an ancient and fascinating island south of Sicily, and a British colony for generations before its independence). The anonymous writer posted: One should never be taken in by that high-pitched and almost effeminate way some Brits have. They are absolutely ruthless to win and to get what they want by any means whatsoever. The headlines in both Britain and Australia have now been discussing the latest chapter in the on-going saga of the horrific abuse of working-class (mostly Saxon, but also Scottish and Welsh) British children. Approximately 7,000 British children from disadvantaged families were shipped to faraway Australia from Britain from 1930 to 1967 using the rankest of lies and then put in homes that were, with no exaggeration, scenes of pure and psychopathic horror.

Getty Images [source: http://einestages.spiegel.de/external/ShowTopicAlbumBackground/a5535/l0/l0/F.html#featuredEntry]

122

Off to Australia: One morning in February 1951 these boys began their long trip from London's St. Pancras train station to Oz. their joyful anticipation of a happier life is visible on their faces. No one told them they would never see their parents again or return from their holiday adventure.

The British wanted to get rid of their welfare cases (and certainly not end their poverty, just move it on), and the Australians at first were delighted to get the white newcomers, living as they did and do on the southern edge of a Pacific Ocean teeming with yellowand brown-skinned Asians. These British children were told they were going on a holiday adventure. Lie Number One they were never coming back. When they had wet their bed, they were punished by having their faces scrubbed until bloody. As punishment, they had their feet stuck in boiling water. They were forced to lick up their own vomit and excrement from the floor. They were kept under staircases and had food scraps thrown at them like animals. Even at Christmas, they got to play with their gifts for four hours, then had to give them back. They were tortured, raped, both boys and girls, and the girls were often impregnated. They were used as cheap and hard labor, and humiliated for decades in both state and church orphanages, in various homes, in schools, or among so-called foster parents across Australia. If they were lucky, they were allowed to keep their names, but often they only got one number: 23, 56, 2 instead of Anne, John or Frank.

123

Getty Images http://einestages.spiegel.de/external/ShowTopicAlbumBackground/a5535/l3/l0/F.html#featuredEntry

English children on December 18, 1948 joyfully ready to ship out to the sunny Down Under. Once there, they were told their parents had died; the parents were told their children had been adopted. Instead they were worked, tortured, and raped. Here are three of around 7,000 British children who were shipped from 1920 to 1967 by special agencies from Britain to the Fifth Continent. Often without parental consent, they had been shipped from the most impoverished, dysfunctional working-class situations toward a "better life" promised them Down Under. Bashed with a hockey stick Ron Simpson grew up in the slums of Newcastle, and ended up at the Fairbridge Farm School at Molong in the Australian state of New South Wales: "I was working in the
124

kitchen when my boss pushed me into the toilet and there he raped me," he told the London Telegraph decades later. When he overslept one morning, the teacher beat him senseless with a hockey stick. His spine has not recovered to this day. Caroline Carroll also went through this hell. At 14 months she was separated from her parents and seven siblings, who went to six different Australian institutions. Each time she got a new name or just a number. At night, they pulled out of sleep, to put it back into a new home. The perverse game types of abuse, neglect, punishment - with their seventh birthday Caroline knew them all already. Their foster parents, both alcoholics, had tried to drown her in the bathroom, they had raped, physically punished. "I can not recall ever being held, loved or even liked," she told the Sydney Morning Herald. At age nine she had her first gynecological exam and was called a whore who spreads s her legs wide for everyone." When she insulted the doctor, he inflicted a painful examination on her. At 15 as put out on the street to fend for herself. Later, he met one of her brothers and her parents. "I had to say hello to them, kiss them and sit with them in the garden, but for me they had become completely alien," she recalls. John Hennessy was ten years old when he was shipped in 1947, together with 146 other UK children from Bristol in western England to Australia. "Welcome to Australia. We need you to preserve the white race," the Archbishop of Perth had told them. But only as a white slave.... They put in a home of the "Christian Brothers" where he had to work from sunrise to sunset. The children were beaten and whipped like slaves, says the now older gentleman.

125

AP/National Archives of Australia

Children at work in the garden of Melrose House, 1953 For the Australian government (whose upper class then spoke only with the British accent), these "forgotten children" were cheap labor, and immigrants from "good white stock, which they mostly were. The raven-mother country, Britain, was happy to be rid of social cases. The parents were lied to, told their children would be adopted, while the children were lied to that they were going on an exciting journey. Many were later lied to that their parents had died. Not until 1967 did this program end. "This is an ugly story" The first to apologize to the "forgotten children" was the Roman Catholic Church in Australia, in the year 2001, 24 years after the program ended. Recently the Australian prime minister, Kevin Rudd, has followed suit, but any "Sorry" from the British PM Gordon Brown is still pending. "This is an ugly story," Rudd said in November to roughly a thousand surviving victims in Australia's capital of Canberra. But it was not only the martyrdom of some 7,000 children who had been abducted from England to the other end of the world, but also a total of 500,000 children who were abused from 1930 to 1970 in Australia's foster homes and orphanages. Whether the apology late today adult victims still help? Caroline Carroll, now president of the Alliance of the Forgotten Australians," is a grandmother and lives with the trauma. "Yes, I am hopeful that this apology will be beneficial for many, many people," she says.
126

For hundreds among the forgotten Australians official remorse has however come too late. They took their own lives -- unable to bear any longer the horror of their childhood. *** William Joyce was a Norman-Irish-American-Briton born actually in New York who fought for white Britain in the 1930s in the streets, often alongside activist leader Oswald Mosley. In 1939, fearing arrest by Churchill (with excellent justification), he fled to the German Reich, from which he broadcast the truth about the British plutocracy and Germany's values and its views of the war. (Ludicrously, the BBC smeared him as Lord Haw-Haw for no discernible reason, but probably to try to put a dent in his very high listenership by the British of all classes, who were skeptical of Churchill as a stooge of the rich. Churchill in fact lost office immediately after the war ended.) After WWII Joyce was arrested in occupied Germany by a British Jew in a British uniform and was brutally hanged for treason. This noble Norman-Briton wrote prophetically in his 1940 Twilight Over England:
To view [this] war as a mere combat between Germany...and the Allies is natural from the pragmatic military point of view, but it is to lose sight of the greatest and most fundamental change that has come upon the human race since the Renaissance or the fall of Rome [i.e. the appearance of the National Socialist Third Reich]. It is well to realize that Jewish finance is as bent on the enslavement of the British people as of the German. The military power of England, the spurious jingoism engendered by the Jewish need for military defenders, and the sacrifices of the British military forces all play their part today. But in the event of British victory all this synthesized nationalism will be destroyed in a few months. The supreme fact of world politics today is that the Jews want no nationalism but their very own. ...I hope and believe that when the flames of war have been traversed, the ordinary people of England will know their soul again and will seek in National Socialism to advance along the way of human progress with their brothers of German blood. That this hope and this belief shall not prove vain there are two guarantees....the greatness of Adolf Hitler and the greater glory of Almighty God.

Who can gainsay that the British people are among the very finest, and the British upper ruling class among the very worst?

127

Conclusion
Britain today is becoming a non-white country and the reason is not its people but its traitorous ruling class. That ruling class is a mixture of Jews, Normans and various upwardly mobile people of Saxon, Welsh, Scottish, Cornish and Irish stock. There must be a purge of all the psychopaths out of British society, or Britannia will have nothing of its former glory, but become a police state and Pakistani-Chinese-African mega-slum that for White Britons will be a living hell, exactly as predicted by George Orwell in his prophetic novel 1984.. New leaders, true leaders, must arise and harken to what Hitler said at the very end of his Political Testament on April 30, 1945. The very last words he left the white world that would come after Germany's defeat were: Guard the bloodlines of the white race -- and fight the International Jew. --30--

128

129