Translated by Vivian Bird, and
edited by Thomas Dalton PhD.
Originally published by
Hoheneichen-Verlag, München, 1930
Introduction by Thomas Dalton
Widely recognized as the „second most famous book” of National Socialist Germany – behind Mein Kampf – Alfred Rosenberg’s The Myth of the Twentieth Century demands reassessment. The time is right for a serious treatment – the first ever, in fact – of this monumentally important work. The present edition comes not a moment too soon.
Myth is a potent, insightful, and masterful treatment of many aspects of National Socialist ideology: race, spirit, idealism, higher values, the Jewish Question, religion, art. Rosenberg has an expert’s eye view of history, of culture, and of social values, and his vast erudition is on full display in this now-classic book. Though it is perhaps not „official” ideology, and though at some points it conflicts with the opinions of Hitler and others in the NS hierarchy, Myth is very much aligned with the spirit and essence of the movement, and it adds much in the way of elaboration and justification. It is an invaluable and irreplaceable work for anyone wishing to understand the most consequential ideology of the 20th century.
In this book, Rosenberg is hugely ambitious. He seeks to examine, analyze, and integrate a vast scope of culture and history within a single conceptual framework. The impressive (and substantial) Chapter One alone offers an overview of the entire thesis of the book; the remaining chapters provide extended discussion of different aspects of the overall thesis. And Rosenberg’s thesis is this: that there is an overriding ‘myth’ or worldview which, in itself, provides the key to understanding history, society, and humanity – „the Myth of the Blood.” Everything rests on, and reduces to, ‘blood’ – though today, and with much support from modern science, we would say ‘genetics.’ ‘Blood,’ race, ethnicity, genetics: these are the things that truly matter, and these are the things that are truly determinative of social well-being. The „blood-myth” is the „myth of the 20th century.” From this, everything else follows.
Sadly, though, Rosenberg’s towering intellectual achievement has, like Mein Kampf been systematically slandered and obscured for decades. Apart from the title and the author, few outside specialized academia know anything at all about the book. It is rarely quoted, rarely analyzed, and never refuted. It has gone without a single adequate presentation in the English language. Professors, journalists, and armchair intellectuals alike run in fear at the mere mention of the man and his notorious book. Rosenberg himself is not nearly as famous as the likes of Hitler, Goebbels, and Himmler, and thus, they think, he can be safely ignored. For these intellectual crimes, we all pay a tremendous price. As I said, the time has come to right this wrong.
The Present State of Affairs
Much of the blame for the current shameful neglect of this major work accrues to feckless English-language publishers and booksellers. No major publisher has attempted to produce an edition, and for the few renegade versions available, major sellers have banned them. No translations, no publishers, no sellers – nothing to discuss. An ideal situation, for the powers that be.
But thankfully this is not quite true. For all practical purposes, there is one English translation available – a 40-year-old text by a Briton, Mr. Vivian Bird.[1] It is a fair initial effort, but it needs much development and editing to yield a high-quality and readable translation; unfortunately, no one thus far has found themselves able or willing to do so. The end result is that English versions are either out of print or hard to find, and once found, are disappointing.
Consider the few versions now available. The original Bird translation appeared in print in 1982, published by a small, obscure, renegade publisher, Noontide Press, which was the publishing arm of the Institute for Historical Review. It was a quality hardcover production, one which can be found even today in university libraries. And yet it suffers from several drawbacks, including an inauspicious opening. The book begins with a lengthy preface by an obscure individual, Peter Peel, followed by a lengthy introduction by a marginal professor of political science, James Whisker. There then follows three „author’s introductions” by Rosenberg himself, dating from 1930 (1st edition), 1931 (3rd edition), and 1937 (final revision). All well and good, except that the reader must plow through a full 54 pages of text before even reaching the start of Chapter One.
Arriving at the main text, we find many structural problems. Grammar, punctuation, word flow, and sentence structure are all in need of substantial rework. Part of the problem lies with Rosenberg himself, as I will explain; but things are made much more difficult than need be. Furthermore, with few exceptions, the lengthy chapters are single, long blocks of text, lacking in section headings that would encapsulate the main ideas and break up the monotonous pages of text. The German original was printed with page headings at the top of each page, which served a similar function; here, I have inserted section breaks directly in the text, to improve readability. On the positive side, the Noontide edition has an index, though it lacks explanatory footnotes, a bibliography, or any reference list of any kind. This is the best of the lot.
Then we have the Invictus edition, published in 2011. Its compact format is a benefit, as is the fact that they removed the two lengthy Forewords by Peel and Whisker. But it introduces several new deficiencies. It ‘borrows’ the Bird translation (without crediting him), but introduces awkward German spellings, such as ‘Homeros’ for Homer, ‘Platon’ for Plato, ‘Aristoteles’ for Aristotle, etc. Not only has it no section heads, it has no page headers at all, making it very difficult to track one’s location in the text. It has no footnotes, no bibliography, and no index. All in all, it is a poor effort.
The third common version, and probably the most widely available today, is from Ostara. Unfortunately, in many ways, this is the worst of them all. First, it has no date, apart from the original 1930; this is unheard of in modern publications, where a new edition would always have a release date. All the Invictus problems are here: no notes, no index, no bibliography. No credit is given to Bird. There are no section heads. Again we read of ‘Homeros’ and ‘Platon,’ but then the editors went a step further (astray), introducing previously-nonexistent British spellings (‘colour,’ etc). On top of all this, they heaped two additional ignominies: The Table of Contents is completely wrong; not a single page number is correct. And perhaps most embarrassing of all, on the very cover of the book, they misspelled a key word in the subtitle: ‘‘Ntellectual.” When you misspell ‘intellectual’ on the cover of your own book, you know you have big problems.
Suffice to say that Rosenberg’s magnum opus has been very poorly treated indeed.[2]
A Fresh Start
Let us, then, begin anew. A short biographical overview is in order. Alfred Rosenberg was born to ethnic-German parents in Reval (today, Tallinn), Estonia on 12 January 1893. He went on to study architecture and engineering in Moscow, eventually earning a PhD in 1917, at the young age of 24. Following the Russian Revolutions of 1917, he moved with his Estonian wife to Munich, Germany in 1918. There he came into contact with Dietrich Eckart, co-founder of the German Workers’ Party (DAP), which was the precursor to the NSDAP, or ‘Nazi’ party. Rosenberg joined the DAP in January 1919, some nine months before a 30-year-old Adolf Hitler did the same. In 1920, he published the first two of his many books: Immorality in the Talmud and The Track of the Jew through the Ages.
Rosenberg divorced his first wife in 1923, and then married a second time, to Hedwig Kramer, in 1925. Meanwhile, the NSDAP was steadily growing in influence. By 1929, he had founded what would become the „Institute for the Study of the Jewish Question,” which analyzed negative Jewish influences in Germany and Europe. In 1930, he was appointed Reichstag Deputy; that was also the year that he published the first edition of great work, Myth of the 20lh Century (later editions came out in 1931 and 1937). Hitler and the NSDAP assumed power in early 1933, and Rosenberg was named head of the foreign political office. The next year, Hitler appointed him „cultural and educational leader” of the new Reich. By the end of the decade, Rosenberg was widely recognized as the „chief racial theorist” of National Socialism.
Once the war began in 1939, military tasks took precedence over ideology, and Rosenberg was appointed chief of the Ministry for the Occupied Eastern Territories, covering the areas that were captured from the Soviets in 1941 and 1942. For the remainder of the war, however, he was a minor figure politically, and had little influence in overall strategy or war plans. By the end of the war in 1945, he had published more than 30 books, along with numerous essays and pamphlets.
After the war, Rosenberg was captured and tried at Nuremberg as a „major war criminal.” His testimony and defense, especially as they relate to the Jewish Question and the Holocaust, are very compelling; trial records show a highly intelligent man, confident in his views and ideas, and unbroken by his Allied captors.[3] In the end, of course, he was found guilty, sentenced to death, and hanged. He was 53 years of age, leaving behind a wife and young daughter.
But let us be clear: Rosenberg was killed not for what he did – he shot no one, directed no killings, signed no death warrants – but simply for what he thought and what he wrote. He was killed for his ideas – ideas displeasing to his Jewish prosecutors at Nuremberg.[4] The ramifications for the present day are dire.
The subject at hand, though, is Rosenberg’s masterpiece, The Myth of the 20th Century. As noted above, the ‘myth’ to which he refers is the Myth of the Blood – the idea that race or genetics is the key determinant in social and cultural evolution. The Myth furthermore categorizes races by rank, assigning each a higher or lower value, depending on their culture-creating and spirit-forming abilities. The Myth, on his view, is the key to understanding human history, and is central to producing a flourishing and dynamic future society.
Unfortunately, the very term ‘myth’ opens up the possibility of confusion. In English, a ‘myth’ is typically understood as a parable or allegory – as a story, usually untrue or fanciful, that serves to explain some central aspect of human existence. For Rosenberg, however, his myth is not at all fanciful or fictious; it is literally true, a guiding reality. It functions more as a worldview (Weltanschauung), as a total outlook on humanity and the Earth. It provides an overarching framework by which to assess all of history. Perhaps this is why he used the German word Mythus rather than the more common Mythos; the latter is usually a fable or story, but the former can be a guiding ideal.
As I stated above, the massive first chapter contains all the essential points that Rosenberg wishes to make in the book. As we will see, the overarching focal point is race. Race is the key determinant in human history. It underlies all human progress, human conflict, and human achievement. Race is manifested in all aspects of human nature – physical, psychological, moral, cultural, and spiritual. Races are „typeforming”; that is, they result in a specific kind of human being, and a specific kind of society. Races may furthermore be compared on certain objective bases, such as personality, intelligence, moral quality, creativity, industriousness, and so on. And though he obviously speaks in the terms and concepts of the 1930s, Rosenberg’s general view of genetics has been proven out by modern science and modern anthropology – not in every detail, of course, but in its broad scope and in its essential conclusions.
Let’s start with what we know today to be true, or at least to be widely accepted among those with an objective, scientific eye to race and genetics. Given the importance of the topic here, a relatively detailed exposition is required. Of course, much is still unknown or controversial, but equally so, much is fairly well established. I start here with some specific points of note:
1. All human beings on this planet are members of a single species – Homo sapiens. (Technically, our genus is Homo, and our species is sapiens.) This means that we can all interbreed, producing mixed offspring.
2. Human differences are therefore below the level of species; that is, of subspecies. A distinct subspecies is a grouping within a species that displays unique morphological characteristics, and thus has a unique and distinctive physical appearance (skin color, hair color, height, etc).
3. Within the human species, relatively large subspecies differences – such as black, white, oriental – are generally termed ‘race,’ whereas minor differences within races are generally called ‘ethnicity’ (Italian, German, Scandinavian).
4. Race and ethnicity are rooted in genetics; they are entirely biological in nature. This is why genetic (DNA) ancestry services work; they can pinpoint a person’s genetic heritage, or mixed heritage, sometimes to within an incredibly small geographic region.
5. Therefore, it is false to say that race is a „social construct,” as some politically-correct leftists would have it. Racial boundaries are socially determined, such as when we define a person who is half-white and half-black, as himself white or black. But this does not make race socially determined. The same is true of ethnicity. The mere fact that we can have mixed-ethnicity or mixed- race individuals does not make race subjective.
6. Races and ethnicities emerged over thousands of years, when subgroups of people lived in relative isolation. Under such isolation, humans adapt, through natural selection, to their environmental conditions, and therefore come to manifest certain unique and often visible characteristics. For example, it is widely believed that people living in regions of strong sunlight, such as the tropics, will develop darker skin over time (more melanin protects against strong UV rays); conversely, people living in northern regions with weak sunlight will, overtime, develop paler skin (lighter skin is more efficient at producing vitamin D) – though, as we will see, northern latitudes are not a requirement for light skin.
7. Genetics also determine a variety of non-physical, and thus non-visible, attributes. Intelligence, personality, values, and social tendencies are at least 50% attributable to direct genetic factors. The remainder is typically assigned to „the environment,” but much of this factor is itself determined by genetics – such as when a baby’s parents create or select specific living conditions for their child, which they do according to their genetic dispositions. Genes, therefore, account for the vast majority of ‘who we are’ as individuals, and as societies.
8. So-called human ‘equality’ has no basis in genetics. Diverse races and ethnicities have different skills, interests, and abilities which evolved over time in response to diverse environmental pressures. There is no meaningful scientific or objective sense in which all people, or any people, are equal.
9. It is difficult to rank races and ethnicities on any kind of objective scale, from ‘better’ to ‘worse.’ Whites and Orientals score higher on IQ tests than blacks, for example, but this is a measure of analytic, technical intelligence that is more relevant to northern-evolved races than tropically-evolved races. Blacks tend to reproduce more prolifically and display less parental involvement, which is evidently an evolved trait from sub- Saharan conditions. Black traits seem ‘dysfunctional’ in White societies, just as white traits seem dysfunctional in black societies.
It is also worth citing a few facts regarding the latest consensus on human evolution and migration, out of Africa and into Europe:
10. All humans were originally black African. Early humans (the genus Homo) first evolved in central Africa some 3 million years ago. As these early humans gradually shed their hair over many generations, their exposed skin became darker. Modern humans – Homo sapiens – also apparently evolved in Africa, but much later, around 300,000 years ago. They too were initially black.
11. Early, pre-modern humans first moved out of Africa around 2 million years ago, reaching southeast Europe within 200,000 years. In central Europe, at least two subspecies evolved from these pre-moderns, including Heidelbergensis (circa 600,000 years ago) and Neanderthal (circa 400,000 years ago). Both had dark skin. By 40,000 years ago, both these subspecies had vanished.
12. Modern humans, with phenotypical dark skin, left Africa around 200,000 years ago, quickly reaching southeast Europe. There, they would have encountered and interbred with premoderns, including Neanderthals.
13. The world’s earliest known artworks and musical instruments come from the early Germanic people, such as 60,000-year-old ivory flutes, and figurines from 35,000 to 40,000 years ago. These early Germanics were the first true artistic creators in the world.
14. Modern humans in Europe eventually drove out the premoderns, and then survived through the last true „ice age,” which lasted from 30,000 to 20,000 years ago. It was also at this time, around 25,000 years ago, that the first light-skinned people began to appear in the Middle East.[5]
15. By 19,000 years ago, the dominant central European people began to appear: the „Western Hunter-Gatherers.” The initial core of this group migrated up from Spain. Genetic evidence suggests that they evolved blue eyes, while retaining dark skin and hair.
16. At 18,000 years ago, the first truly blond hair emerged, in the „Ancient North Eurasians” of north-central Asia. They were a prolific people. Some moved west, becoming „Eastern Hunter- Gatherers” and, separately, so-called „Yamnaya Pastoralists.” Others moved north into Siberia. And yet others migrated east, crossed the Bering Strait, and formed the core of Native Americans.
17. From 13,000 years ago, a group known as „Baltic Hunter-Gathers” appeared in the Baltic region and Finland, likely also having dark skin and hair, though with mixed blue eyes. They were primarily a cross between Western and Eastern hunter-gatherers.
18. Around 10,000 years ago, Western hunter-gatherers and Eastern hunter-gatherers met again in Scandinavia and interbred. This new people – „Scandinavian Hunter-Gatherers” – had white skin, mostly blue eyes, and mixed blond hair.
19. At about 8,000 years ago, yet another group – so-called „Anatolian Farmers” – entered southern Europe from the east, from the region around present-day Turkey. They seem to have carried the Middle-Eastern lighter skin color, but retained dark hair and brown eyes, similar to present-day Turks.
20. The final and decisive wave came relatively recently, circa 5 000 years ago, when both the Yamnaya pastoralists and the Siberians (descended from Ancient North Eurasians) migrated into the Baltics and Scandinavia. There they mixed with existing hunter-gatherer tribes, forming the modern-day genetic composition of northern Europeans. These were the first true Aryan peoples. They became fully entrenched by 1,000 BC, embodying the classic Nordic features: light skin, with a tendency toward blond hair and blue eyes; tall in stature; physically strong; and of robust physical health.
21. The Nordic Aryans were not only light-skinned, blond, and blue-eyed. Due to their many generations of life in austere northern climates, they were selected for robust health and physical strength, but also, through the need for survival technologies, they evolved an analytic, technological intelligence – something that was lacking in races and ethnicities from tropical climates. By this means, Nordics evolved to become ‘smarter’ than their southern neighbors.
22. Technical skills and intelligence, combined with a pressing need for creative responses to adverse climates, likely contributed to the emergence of symbolic culture, iconic imagery, and art. This explains why we find relatively advanced art and musical instruments in northern Europe from 30,000 years ago, and even older.
23. Due to its ‘Nazi’ connections, few today speak of an Aryan race. But it is nonetheless true that, throughout most of recorded history, east and west, that light-skinned (‘white’) northerners were the driving factor in the advancement of culture and civilization.
We need to be clear, then, on the Aryan race: their physical tendencies (skin, hair, eyes) per se do not confer on them higher intelligence, industriousness, or creativity. Obviously, there are plenty of lower-intelligence blonds, and plenty of high-IQ dark-haired people and blacks. But the physical markers are signs of broad tendencies toward intelligence, creativity, culture-building, etc. Light skin is correlated with, but not causal for, these other positive characteristics.
But what about the Jews? What about that „anti-race,” as Rosenberg put it? They, too, are an ethnicity, well-defined and relatively homogenous. It was recently determined, based on advanced genetic studies, that all Jews worldwide contain a high degree of genetic commonality; thus there is indeed, scientifically-speaking, a „Jewish race”.[6] All Jews are now confirmed to have originated in the Middle East in the area of their traditional homeland, around present-day Israel. And they stayed there until quite recently. The first Jewish presence in Asia proper occurred around 600 BC, when Jews first began to migrate into the region of present-day Armenia. By 300 BC, they were moving into Greece and other parts of the eastern Mediterranean. But this is very late – much later than the formation of the north European, Nordic/Aryan peoples. Jews were relatively isolated, and thus relatively immune to interbreeding until very recently, anthropologically speaking.
But why an „anti-race”? The term itself – Gegenrasse, a word coined by Rosenberg’s colleague Arno Schickedanz in 1927 – refers to the Jews’ unique tendency toward deconstructive and exploitative social practices. Most races construct things, such as societies, governments, cultures, and artforms. Jews, though, seem to do the opposite; they invade successful and prosperous societies and tear them down from the inside, all while enriching themselves. Hence we find Rosenberg describing the Jewish anti-race as „parasites” and „destroyers.” But this was not just a ‘Nazi’ opinion; it was the view of the Jews themselves: „We are a parasitic people” (A. D. Gordon); „We Jews, we, the destroyers, will remain the destroyers forever” (M. Samuel).[7] Considering Jewish practices in the past 80 years, it is difficult to come to any other conclusion – they indeed function as an anti-race.
Given that light skin first appeared in the Middle East (as cited above), it is not surprising that Jews, like most Middle Easterners, would, over time, develop a „white” appearance.[8] Thus, many of these people today appear as white-skinned, though very few are blond or blue-eyed. Middle Easterners can often pass as white, but their genetics are not drawn from the same Aryan pool that constitutes most of the European peoples. Jews are light-skinned, but they are not White.
But Jews certainly did develop their own, distinctive characteristics. Being highly insular, they quickly developed unique ethnic qualities, both visible (large nose, protruding lips, short stature, and so on), and invisible. Their relative isolation apparently led to, at first, a mistrust of strangers, and then later, to an outright contempt for them. In their religion, they came to view themselves as „the chosen” of their god (of course), and hence granted divine privilege on this Earth. Their learned men – the rabbis – were selected for their intelligence, and they were then granted preferential reproductive rights, yielding a sort of de facto eugenic policy; thus today, Jews tend to score relatively high on conventional IQ tests – higher even, on average, than European whites. High intelligence combined with an isolationist, tribal mentality and a contempt toward all non-Jews accounts for much of the historical, and present-day, „Jewish Problem.”
Given this background and context, we will find much agreement with Rosenberg’s main themes. A quick walk through Chapter One – „Race and Race-Soul” – finds such ideas as:
-
Connections between Atlantis legends and the origins of the Aryans
-
Aryan migration into India
-
Racial ideals in ancient Greece
-
Greek and Roman decay at the hands of racial mixing
-
The story of Etruscan decadence
-
Two Christianities: Aryan Jesus versus Jew Paul
-
The Huguenot revolt against Rome in the 16th century
-
The decadence and racial blindness of democracy
-
An explicit formulation of the Myth of the Blood
-
Racial theories of science
-
The Judaization of religion
-
The falsehood of ‘universalism’
-
The Nordic virtue of honor
The depth and breadth of thinking here in this opening chapter is astonishing. Rosenberg – a young man of 37 – encompasses, in a single chapter, more learnedness than we would find today from an entire book by the most senior university professor. Extensive footnotes are required, simply to allow the reader to keep pace. It is doubly- impressive given the fact that this was relatively early in the National Socialist movement; much related writing came out of Germany after Hitler assumed power in 1933, but in 1930 there were no legions of NS scholars. Rosenberg was largely on his own, drawing from a vast knowledge of history and integrating it into a National Socialist and racialist ideology – indeed, largely creating such an ideology.
Later chapters build on and elaborate these opening themes. Virtues of love and honor (Chapter 2), the mysticism of Meister Eckhart (Chapter 3), a racial theory of aesthetics and art (Chapter 4), the philosophy of Schopenhauer (Chapter 5), and architecture (Chapter 6) cover the first half of the book. Rosenberg then turns to politics and the State, reviewing the nature of social myth (Chapter 7), the role of women (Chapter 8), the role of the folk (Chapter 9), Germanic versus Roman law (Chapter 10), a critique of Catholicism (Chapter 11), and oriental and Asian political systems (Chapter 12), concluding with a look at the unity of the German people (Chapter 13). All in all, Rosenberg offers us a breathtaking grasp of history and humanity, casting his ideas in a new, racialist light – one with more scientific support than he could ever have imagined.
Some Drawbacks
The book is not without its drawbacks. Rosenberg, like Hitler, is a good – but not great – writer. This is hardly a crime, especially considering that many of the greatest thinkers and philosophers in history have been less than sterling writers. One’s ability to think penetratingly and creatively does not guarantee brilliant literary skills. Rosenberg’s style is, at times, a bit rambling and overly verbose. His logic does not always follow a clear, sequential plot; rather, it often resembles a stream-of-consciousness style of writing. He certainly could have used a strict editor, one who would have stripped away extraneous text and tightened the arguments.
The original structure of the book is also a bit unusual for modern readers, and therefore I, as editor of this volume, have taken some editorial license. The original has three ‘books’ (parts), each of which contains three, four, and seven chapters, respectively. But the chapters are renumbered in each book, such that there are three ‘chapter ones,’ three ‘chapter twos,’ and so on. This is awkward for a modern reader, so I have retained the 3-part structure but numbered all chapters sequentially, without restarting. More importantly, and not without reservation, I have completely eliminated an entire chapter of the original. Chapter 4 of Book Two – „The Aesthetic Will” – is truly a mess: incoherent, rambling, touching on myriad topics with no real focus. The book is challenging enough without a lengthy, tiring digression that adds little to the main thesis. In my opinion, any good editor would have stricken that chapter entirely, and so I took the liberty to do so here. My apologies to Dr. Rosenberg. Should the reader be curious of what was eliminated, he will have to refer to one of the other extant translations. Rest assured, nothing of value is lost.
Also unusual is the fact that the book underwent some four editions, beginning in 1930 and ending with a final revision in 1937 (it is the final edition that is translated here). This is significant because it covers years before, and after, the National Socialists came to power. Thus, some passages read like „if we ever have the power to...” whereas others read „now that we have the power to...” Rosenberg didn’t bother to revise the entire text; he just inserted new passages, or altered selected paragraphs. This is generally not a problem, but the reader needs to be aware that some portions of the text were written from a different power-perspective than others.
A few final points of note:
1. Rosenberg, like most National Socialists, is either uncritical or laudatory toward modern technology. Contemporary German thinkers like Dessauer and Juenger had other thoughts, and today it is clear that industrial technology is far more problematic than Rosenberg realized. But we can scarcely hold this against him.
2. He has a generally reverential and unquestioning attitude toward Jesus, in assuming (a) that he actually existed and (b) that he was a non-Jewish Aryan. Both of these points are today in serious doubt. There is a fair possibility that Jesus was a pure myth, a fictious creation of Paul and his fellow Jews; but even if not, everything we know about Jesus indicates that he was a Jew, if only because of his mother Mary, a full-blooded Jew. In any case, any such Jesus would have been raised in a thoroughly Jewish milieu, and deeply inculcated with Jewish thinking and values. The ‘Aryan Jesus’ thesis is unwarranted.
3. Rosenberg is perhaps surprisingly anti-Greek. The ancient Greeks, he said, were not ‘us’ – not German. They may have been Aryans, or partial Aryans, but they were distant relatives at best. Their aesthetics and their values cannot be German. This was a point of contention with Hitler, who saw the ancient Greeks as exemplary role models.
4. Rosenberg is also anti-Schopenhauer. It seems that Schopenhauer, in striving for universal truths and a monistic worldview, fell afoul of racial particularism. For Rosenberg, there are no universal truths, per se. Each race creates its own truths, its own universe, its own reality. Universalist philosophers are doomed to failure.
5. For all his strengths, Rosenberg is not a philosopher. He has only a fair grasp of philosophical ideas, even relatively recent ones, such as those by Schopenhauer and Nietzsche. Again, we cannot blame him for this shortcoming; but it is unfortunate, given his propensity to address explicitly philosophical topics.
In the end, Rosenberg offers us a compelling social vision. Racialism, as we might call it, is a kind of golden mean, a middle way. On the one end lies individualism – every man for himself, to each his own. At the other end is globalism, or humanitarianism – we are all one big human family. But neither extreme, he argues, can serve as the basis for a prospering society. Race or ethnicity is precisely the right level for constructing a society, a culture, and ultimately a civilization. In fact, it is the only such basis in history. All cultural achievements have occurred within the confines of a distinct and well-defined national (racial or ethnic) society. As Rosenberg demonstrates, once ethnic nations lose their sense of racial identity, they decay and collapse. This is the „iron law” of history, and we neglect it today at our own peril.
A corollary to this is the fact that a multiracial, multicultural nation cannot survive. A ‘multiracial nation’ is an oxymoron, a self-contraction. It is a sign of degradation and decay, as it always has been. As Rosenberg amply demonstrates, Greek and Roman aristocrats could see this, and they railed against it, but to no avail. Multiracialism inevitably gives way to collapse. It is almost as if Nature herself intervenes, saying „You are too foolish to survive. You ignore my fundamental laws, and therefore you will perish.” Then Nature patiently waits for leaders and creators who understand her iron laws, and she rewards them with success.
By Rosenberg’s standard, the contemporary United States is in terminal decline. The Trump phenomenon was perhaps a last, incoherent gasp, a final striving for something approaching a racialist governance. The new American administration is heavily multiracial, and is hellbent on promoting multiracialism throughout the country. American whites will become a minority by 2045, at which point social decline will only accelerate. To be fair, American decline was built-in from the start, with the early importation of some 1 million black African slaves by 1800; this, as Hitler understood, was itself a fatal mistake. But then allowing the immigration of some 2 million Jews between 1880 and 1930 truly put the last nail in the coffin. At that point, it was only a matter of time. Americans are now witnessing the inevitable consequences.
The Jewish Problem is especially relevant today. Hitler’s great fear, and great warning, has now come to pass: the „Bolshevization ” of the world.[9] „Jews rule the world by proxy,” said Malaysian prime minister Mahathir Mohamad in 2003.[10] Ideologies of humanitarian universal- ism, of universal human rights, and of materialistic individualism dominate the civilized world. Anti-Semitism and racialist philosophies, even basic principles of nationalism, are routinely denounced and attacked by the powers that be. Free speech and open debate are actively stifled – a sure sign of their efficaciousness. And vast segments of society have been brainwashed or stupefied into compliance. Decay and collapse will inevitably come, though perhaps it is for the best. At that point, Nature will elect a few visionary leaders to rise up, brush away the debris, and start anew – creating a new society that is once again based on eternal and immutable laws of biology.
Many today would agree: Race is destiny; biology is destiny; genetics is destiny. These basic facts hold for any living organism, and humans are not exempt from such laws of nature. It is such an obvious truth about the world, and yet it is almost unsayable in the present day. Such is the state of our decay.
Today, many would say that the myth of the 20-th century is identical to the myth of the 21st century – both are the Myth of the Blood. Indeed, this can be seen as the guiding truth of every century. Those who recognize and respect this truth will inherit the world.
But now, we must turn to the brilliant exposition by our esteemed author. Let us give his ideas a fair hearing. We have much to learn.
[1] Bird lived his whole life in England, spending much of his early life as a book translator and author living and working in London, until around 1980, when he opened a book shop in Bath and then another in Exeter. He died in Exeter in 1992. Bird was a prolific author and translator, and his work on National Socialist and Holocaust-related translations caused a sensation in the late 1980s.
[2] I set aside without comment other obscure knock-off versions, like the 2017 edition by “Black Kite Publishing.”
[3] For the full story, including his actual testimony on the Jewish Question, see Streicher, Rosenberg, and the Jews: The Nuremberg Transcripts (2020).
[4] “You will understand when I tell you that this staff is about 75% Jewish” (Thomas Dodd, 2007: 135).
[5] For citation of many of the following dates and facts, see Hanel and Carlberg (2020).
[6] See Atzmon et al (2010). See also Ostrer (2012).
[7] In Sternhell (1998: 47-48) and Samuel (1924: 155), respectively.
[8] Some argue that sexual selection – meaning a mate-preference for white skin – caused the proliferation of the light-skin genes. It seems that high latitudes were not decisive for the emergence of white skin.
[9] Speech of 30 January 1939.
[10] FoxNews (16 October). For more on all these issues, see The Jewish Hand in the World Wars (Dalton 2019) and Eternal Strangers: Critical Views of Jews and Judaism through the Ages (Dalton 2020).
No comments:
Post a Comment