Quotes from Race or Mongrel by Alfred Schultz
Easily one of the best books about race and situation of race throughout the European world. Written in 1909 yet completely forgotten. Selected quotes and excerpts from book "Race or Mongrel" by Alfred P. Schultz. Race or Mongrel was a favorite of novelist Jack London which he heavily marked and annotated. Jack London's Racial Lives: A Critical Biography, by Jeanne Campbell Reesman, page 349
some of the language used may need to be clarified. By "Promiscuous crossing" he means race-mixing. And by "inbreeding", he does not mean incest. He means marrying within your own "group". A modern equivalent of the word "inbreeding" would be "endogamy".
Races do not fall from heaven, they are bred.
Great races have great schools, but schools never make a race great. It all depends upon the blood.
Race has character. The mongrel is very plastic; it is at home everywhere, because it has no depth.
The laws of nature rule man as rigidly as they rule animal life.
Domestic animals exist as long as man breeds them, feeds them, or fancies them. They lead no life of their own. Turn the domestic animals loose, leave them to nature, and in ten years no mongrel will exist.
Equal rights for equal men is justice, but equal rights for men that are not equal is tyranny, the tyranny of the inferior over the superior.
It has been said that American institutions assimilate every race. That is confusing cause with effect. Institutions are the products of men, not men the products of institutions. Institutions founded by a great race may outlive that race for a time, but eventually they will be changed to harmonize with the changed race instinct.
National character can form only in a population which is stable. The repeated introduction of other races prevents the formation of a race.
In literature and in science the old spirit is alive. England is great because Englishmen are great; Englishmen are great because the spirit of their ancestors is alive in them; and that spirit is alive in them because the blood that courses in their veins is the blood that rolled in the veins of the old Saxons. Never have Englishmen practiced promiscuity, never have they vitiated their blood. This race purity makes the English the greatest and the strongest of races.
As the Greek cities increased in wealth, the number of immigrants became very large, and the number of slaves enormous. "With the industrial growth of the commonwealth, the resident aliens, or, as they were termed, metoeci, grew in number and consideration. They were more numerous in Athens than in any other state" (McCullagh).
Paraguay and Uruguay are as fertile as Central Europe, and the climate is delightful. If Paraguay and Uruguay were as thickly inhabited as Central Europe, they would contain a population of forty-five millions and more. These figures show that the Monroe Doctrine, which prevents honest people from taking possession of these lands and creating flourishing countries there, is the greatest crime, the most abominable atrocity, that was ever perpetrated by white people against the white races.
Between the beginning of the seventeenth century and its end, the immigration to America consisted almost entirely of Anglo-Saxons. There were a few Germans, a few Dutchmen, a few Swedes, and a few Frenchmen. Their number, however, was very small in comparison with that of the Anglo-Saxons. Most of them were of the race that is closest akin to the Anglo-Saxon race, i.e. the German. This kinship and the smallness of their number rendered their absorption easy. Their denationalization was not a deterioration, for in a few generations they became Anglo-Saxons. In Pennsylvania, where many Germans lived, the absorption was slow, slow and thorough. There was no mongrelization, although the absorbent capacity of every race is limited, even in respect to a kindred race.
The mongrel is worthless everywhere.
The mongrel is worthless, and the pan-world mongrel is the most worthless of all mongrels.
Let any one who doubts the evil of the mixture of races, and is inclined from a mistaken philanthropy to break down all barriers between them, come to Brazil. He cannot deny the deterioration consequent upon an amalgamation of races, more widespread here than in any country in the world, and which is rapidly effacing the best qualities of the white man, the negro, and the Indian, leaving a mongrel nondescript type, deficient in physical and mental energy.
There are historians who assert that primeval man lived in promiscuousness, but they cannot give a single reason for the assertion, nor quote one tribe as an example to support their theory. The fact is that even the lowest of savages, the natives of Australia, have very complex marriage regulations; and that all races which have stepped from darkness into the light of history had constitutions founded on the strictest race purity. Pride of race characterizes them all. Nearly every one of these peoples considered itself the pure descendant of one hero and of one heroine; and the Teutons traced their line of descent back, not to any gods, but to the German gods.
On Nationality and Nationalism
There is no art that is not based on race and nationality. There is no international art. That art has the greatest influence on the art of every country which is the most national.
In the domain of architecture, we have deteriorated to that international level, lauded by the friends of eternal peace and of universal uniformity, with the result that we have no architecture. Architecture without art is building, constructing, but not architecture. If the modern buildings of Washington, London, Paris, or Berlin were transferred from any one of these cities to any other city, they would be as much in place there and as much out of place there as everywhere else. They have no character. Internationality means imitation. We erect fine buildings, such as the capitol at Washington; but these buildings are imitations, not art, and it takes greater men than imitators to produce art.
Where there is no national style, nothing great is produced. This is as true of literature, of music, of painting, of every effort, as it is of architecture. Internationally, cosmopolitanism, eternal peace, universal uniformity!
A nation, a government is constituted, not for the purpose of feeding the greatest number of human animals, but for the purpose of making possible the development of efficient and noble men and women. If it fails in that respect, it is a complete failure and has lost the right to continue its existence.
Civilization is measured, not by good machines, not by political institutions, not by scientific progress, and not even by the holy balance-sheet; it is measured by social, intellectual, moral, and spiritual progress and perfection. An immigration that does not conduce to these is degrading civilization.
There are a few people the nationality of which is a biological fact. The English is one of them. In that sense the English dictum, "Once an Englishman, always an Englishman," is certainly true. Citizenship, allegiance to a country, is something external, superficial, temporary, and revocable. Nationality is something inborn, sacred, irrevocable. A little ink on a little piece of paper changes a man's citizenship. Nationality is changed only by destroying it. ...
Allegiance to a state is a matter of convenience and of choice; nationality is a matter of necessity. It is the epitome of the capacities, tendencies, and labours of many generations. Nationality is infinitely better than citizenship, just as blood is better than ink.
The English became great, because they remained true to themselves, true to their race instincts. Their conservative adherence to race, their repulsion of foreign races, is the source of their greatness.
The innate qualities of the race have, in peace and war, won imperishable glory. Who can doubt that its future will be as great as its past?
Abstract ideas have no power to improve vitiated blood, neither have laws, declarations, constitutions, or other papers with ink on them.
A world language is not desirable. It is an active factor in bastardizing the people who speak it. There was a time when Greek was the world language; there was a time when Latin was the world language. Greek was a great tongue as long as it was spoken by Greeks only; but, when it was spoken the world over, it had ceased to be a great language. The same is true of the Latin tongue. An everybody's tongue is a no man's tongue. It is a language spoken by mongrels. And the mongrel is everywhere worthless.
Why did California have the Chinese exclusion act passed? Economic reasons were given, but were they the real ones? The Chinaman had been useful in developing the resources of the State; he was an excellent labourer in the mines; he had reclaimed marsh lands where malaria would have killed the white man; in the rural districts he was the only domestic servant that could be obtained. The Chinese did not compete with skilled labour; they took the drudgery. Economically the Chinaman was a benefit to California. It was asserted that the "Six Companies" exercised absolute authority over the Chinese, and that they assisted a coolie traffic. It was proved that the "Six Companies" were mutual benefit organizations similar to the Odd Fellows, and that there was no coolie traffic.
Personally the Chinese were more cleanly than many white people. They were hardy and their rate of morbidity and mortality was low. They smoked opium, but they did not drink. They were law-abiding, and very few of them were criminals. There was proportionally less criminality among them than among the white inhabitants; and the little criminality that existed was directed exclusively against members of their own race.
Why, then, were they excluded? They were excluded not for economic but for racial reasons. The Californians, having seen Magyars and other yellow-white mixtures, either knew that the white-yellow mongrels were among the most worthless of mongrels, or their instinct told them the same truth. The desire of the West to keep people of the yellow races out of America has something instinctive about it. Racial, not economic reasons, cause the clamour against the admission of the Japanese. It is for this reason that it will not cease.
The Japanese, on the other hand, either because they have seen Magyars and people of similar breed, or because their instinct tells them that the mongrel is worthless, do not allow foreigners to hold property in Japan, on the supposition that people who are differentiated against by the law will not come to Japan, and if they come, will not stay. Japan is poor and needs money. Economically, therefore, the law is a bad one for Japan. The reasons for its existence are, however, racial, not economic.
There is a very distinct difference between colonization and immigration. Colonization means, in addition to immigration, the creation of law, order, and customs. It includes the bringing of civilization. The same men are in one place colonizers, in another only immigrants. Thus Americans or Germans who go to Hungary are colonizers, if, like the brave Saxons of Transylvania, and the Suabians of Southern Hungary, they refuse to deteriorate into Magyars, if they refuse to disappear in the muddy Magyar swamp.
In England they are immigrants only. The men who came to America when it was a wilderness, the men who had to create law, government, and civilization in America, the men who established the country and impressed upon it the mould in which it had to develop, were colonists. The men who came later, who found a civilization here established, were immigrants merely. All men that came after 1783 must be considered immigrants. Immigrants are of value to a country if the immigrants are of a race akin to that of the inhabitants, and if their number is not greater than can be absorbed.
Excessive immigration is of the same detriment to the immigrant as to the native, for it destroys the race of both, and it reduces them both to a nondescript something-nothing mongrel without worth. The mongrel is everywhere worthless. All nature proves this, and the history of humanity declares not less distinctly the same truth. Why should a law of nature that holds good everywhere not hold good in America? Is it because Americans have pretty eyelashes or pretty teeth? Or is it because the advocates of unrestricted immigration do not like that law?
On Race and Civilization
Why do nations decline? Does conquest destroy a race? The history of the Jews, of the English, of the Irish, of the Germans, and of other peoples, proves that it does not.
Luxury cannot be held responsible. This is confined to the upper class, and the luxury of this class in Rome and Greece was not greater than that of the same class in America, England, Germany, and other countries to-day.
Immorality and vice cause national decay only in the case of peoples of corrupted blood. Nations of race suffer from periods of immorality, but soon become disgusted with depravity, and the disease is cured without leaving permanent effects, (v. The history of England in the seventeenth century, the history of Prussia in the eighteenth century.)
One cause only is sufficiently powerful to cause the decay of a nation. This cause is promiscuousness. A nation is decayed that consists of degenerates, and it consists of degenerates when it no longer constitutes a distinct race. A degenerated race is one that has no longer the same internal worth which it had of old, for the reason that incessant infusions of foreign blood have diluted and weakened the old blood. In other words, a nation is deteriorated that consists of individuals not at all related or very distantly related to the founders of the nation.
The impetus which the founders of the nation have given it will persist for a time. Their ideas, their ideals, their civilization will for a time seem to be alive, like a galvanized corpse. Soon after the death of the race, however, its institutions, its morals, its customs, will perish. The same words begin to signify different things, for ideas have the same meaning to people of the same blood only. As the Romans perished, Roman institutions and Roman government changed. It carried the name long after it ceased to be a republic. A nation consisting of a heterogeneous mass of men has no future. Its first defeat marks the moment of its death.
Political institutions change with the blood that has created them. A strong race carries its institutions with it; and, if it displaces another race, its institutions displace those of the displaced race, even though the old forms are retained.
Wherever promiscuousness destroys a race, its institutions share the decomposition of the race. Declarations, constitutions, statute books, and other papers with ink on them, are not decisive. With another race, words, ideas, and ideals have another meaning or cease to have any meaning.
That environment is of little importance to the development of a race is clearly demonstrated by the fact that when Hellenes lived in Greece, Greece was great. Since their mongrelization, Greece has produced nothing. As long as Romans existed, Rome was great; when they were mongrelized, Rome was dead. The Lombards came to Italy, and they produced the Renaissance. Their mongrelization left only an Italy. The Phoenicians produced a great civilization; it perished with them.
The same phenomenon can be observed the world over. Where a great race is, civilization flourishes; where the great race is not, the best possible environment cannot produce it.
American art and literature are thoroughly Unitarian. Why is it that the small Unitarian Church has produced so many great men in America? This is the answer: The Unitarian Church has as its followers Anglo-Saxon Americans almost exclusively. The great qualities of that race give to that church the great number of men of genius, a number out of all proportion to its numerical strength. The church doctrine has nothing whatsoever to do with it; it is the race of its members that is essential, and that makes it great.
The history of Phoenicia, like that of many other nations, proves that, not the country, not the location, not the environment, creates the worth of a nation; but that, on the contrary, the nation, the race of the people, gives to the country its social, moral, economic, and political worth. The race creates its environment, not the environment the race. When the Phoenicians came to the Syrian coast, they found it a desolate stretch of arid land, and changed it into a home of temples and palaces.The Phoenicians
Why are the South Americans not better than they are? There are writers who tell us that in parts of South America the soil is not fertile; others tell us that in South America nature is so full of exuberant strength that she becomes the enemy instead of the friend of man. She overpowers his efforts. One place has too much water, another has not sufficient water. Many similar reasons are alleged. All these explanations or excuses are insipid. The cause of the bad condition of these countries is the people that infest these countries. A better class of whites is what South America needs in order to turn it into a number of happy, rich, and flourishing countries. Let no good Europeans, however, settle there as long as the mongrel controls these lands. ...
It would have taken an impossible degree of stupidity, an impossible degree of dementedness, to accomplish less in South America than has been accomplished.
Chile is the best of the South American countries, which is very far from meaning good. Chile was settled by people from the north of Spain, that is, by the least mongrelized Spaniards, many of whom did not cross with the coloured races. Still, between twenty and thirty per cent, of the Creoles are of relatively pure blood, and furnish the oligarchy which rules Chile. The fact that these rulers of Chile are the least mongrelized people of South America has conduced to make Chile the most progressive country of the continent.
The Hindoos were a great race. Their death was a loss to the world, a loss that it is impossible to overestimate. Men who call themselves Hindoos still exist, Sanscrit [sic] derivatives are still spoken, the Hindoo spirit, however, is dead; the noble blood has been lost in the Indian quagmire, in the yellow-black-white swamp.
It would seem that nothing in this world could bring about the deterioration and degradation of as great a race as the Hindoo race; but bastardization, mongrelization, continued throughout many centuries, has done it.
The history of the Hindoos, like that of the Jews, proves that race is more important than home, country, flag, and everything else put together.
Great was the Hindoo; worthless is the mongrel.
The craze for world power has ruined, degraded, deteriorated many peoples. Only those nations are great that have become great through their own organic development. It is they who have produced art, science, literature, music, philosophy, culture. With them rests the future of the world, not with the mongrels. Not with the nations that grow by accretion, the growth of the dead rock.
The Lombards in the North maintained their race for a sufficiently long time to produce a great civilization, the so-called "Italian Renaissance." Even to this day the difference that exists between the Southern Italian and the much less mongrelized Lombard of the North is apparent to every one.
The quantity of Teutonic blood in Northern Italy is not sufficient to absorb, to demongrelize, the Southerners, and the mongrelization of the Northerners is gradually progressing. The history of Rome is repeating itself, and the Northerner is gradually deteriorating to the level of the Southerner.
The Assyrian empire existed no longer than the blood that had created it.
As the influx of coloured blood continued, objections to intermarriage decreased, with the result that the Hamitic stock became thoroughly corrupt. The mongrel offspring was unable to continue the work and the civilization of his ancestors, the Hamitic civilization became stagnant. Soon the mongrels became unable to understand their ancestors and their civilization.
The old forms persisted for a time, but the spirit that had given them life was dead. The stagnant civilization fell into decay and crumbled to pieces. This process continued through the centuries, until there remained but few traces of that civilization of which the mongrel was unworthy.
The Anglo-Saxon Americans objected to clannishness yet practised it to a large extent. The Irish-Americans preached and practised clannishness, as long as America was Teutonic, for religious reasons. The Germans who came to America after the revolutionary disturbances were liberals, who were afflicted with French phrases. The wisdom of the French revolution was with them the end of all wisdom. That all men were created equal was to them a self-evident truth, a practice, not a mere theory. They had solved all problems, there was no God in heaven and no race on earth. Hence their tendency to intermarry with other races was extreme. Promiscuous crossing has the same effect in America as everywhere else. The German-Americans deteriorated, degenerated, because their race, their blood, was not sacred to them. They squandered their inheritance, and degenerated because they deserved to degenerate.
Extreme individualism characterized all people of the Teutonic race. The individual is everything. His person and his liberty are sacred. He will not disappear in a mass. In the herds of Slavic, post-Roman, and post-Hellenic mongrels, the individual disappeared. They counted as masses only. The greater the race jumble became, the less important and the more worthless became the individual.
[Anglo-Saxons] These were the men and women who were the ancestors of the English as well as of the Germans. Their chief vice was their excessive desire for independence, which led them to split up into little tribes, every tribe suspicious of its next neighbour. The Romans recognized that Teutonic strength alone could break Teutonic strength. They therefore fostered jealousies among German families and tribes, and fomented dissensions and wars among them. By the employment of craft, duplicity, insinuations, and bribery they set one German tribe against the other. Thus they were successful in having the Bructeri destroyed by the neighbouring tribes.
It was part of the subtle policy of Rome to systematically corrupt young Germans, who had either been persuaded to go to Rome, or who had been carried to Rome. On these Rome conferred rank and privileges. In Rome many Germans persuaded themselves to believe that Rome and civilization were synonymous terms; that the civilization of the German tribes was desirable; and that, therefore, the Romanization of Germany was a necessity, not a calamity to be striven against, but an opportunity eagerly to be sought. It was an insidious system that Rome employed, and it helped Rome gain many advantages over the Germans. The mongrel was very crafty and cunning, and Rome extended her frontier from the Alps to the Danube and to the Rhine.
Had Rome been successful in Romanizing the Germans there would never have been a Germany, never an England, never a United States. A herd of worthless pan-Europeans, such as infested Rome, would have infested all of Europe; incapable of withstanding the attacks of the Mongols, Saracens, Huns, and Turks that at different times attempted the subjugation of Europe, and who would have destroyed the Aryan races, had Teutonic strength not expelled them. The resistance of the Teutons to Rome was therefore the most momentous struggle of history, and in it the Saxons took the chief part.