Lindsay’s exhaustive autopsy of Nazi mysticism masterfully exposes the danger of replacing objective morality with the fluid, racialized "revelations" of tribalism. It serves as a stark warning that when truth is treated as a dynamic tool of the soul, it inevitably becomes a weapon for total destruction.
Installez notre extension pour rechercher instantanément dans n'importe quelle vidéo
The Myth of the Blood, Vol. 2: Aryan Dynamism and the Living RevelationAjouté :
Hey everybody, it's James Lindseay and you are listening to the New Discourses podcast. And here we are going back into Alfred Rosenberg's The Myth of the 20th Century, extending our new series on this book, which I'm calling The Myth of the Blood. Of course, this is a um a spin-off series um from the Nazi Experiment Podcast series. In volume 13 of the Nazi experiment podcast series here on the New Discourses podcast, I covered some of chapter 1 of Alfred Rosenberg's book, The Myth of the 20th Century. And then I decided that we need to hear more of this. Plus, it is actually interesting in and of itself. This is some stuff we haven't heard, I don't think. So, what is it and why is it important? And then we'll get to the to the next installment. This is the second volume of this spin-off series. We're still in chapter one of this book. In fact, chapter one is virtual or is very nearly 100 pages long. It's a very long book.
It's over 600 pages itself. So, what's going on here? Well, number one, why am I doing this? Why is this interesting?
Is it just interesting in and of itself to read the ravings of Nazis? No, it's not. It's not. It's not edifying. It's not interesting. Nobody should have to do this. Nobody should want to do this.
But here's the problem. It exists and it happened and it was real and we don't know anything about it. I used to go around the country campaigning for this idea of anti-communist education. I've done podcasts about it here on the platform. I have spoken about it in probably over 20 states. I don't know how many. A lot of the states that I've spoken in, I have taken time to address this. I have sat down with um groups directly elected groups of elected representatives in state legislatures in at least a handful of states. I'm trying to think of how many at least four or five come to mind immediately and told them that an anti-communist legislation uh education legislation would be appropriate. I know that Virginia tried to do one and it didn't work. It didn't pass and then there was a giant PR campaign. I understand that um Florida has one. I don't know the state of it and some other states have have started to do this and I've sat down with several other states. I know I've talked to legislators in Indiana and Iowa and Texas and gosh, I could go probably down the list. Utah. Um I don't think I talked to the Idaho people. Um but I have suggested this all over the country. Florida for sure. Georgia, I know I've done South Carolina. I've talked to some people there. I know that I've done this in a lot of places. So why am I on this tangent? Because when I've gone around campa camp campaigning about this, I've mistakenly, erroneously falsely said, incorrectly said I was wrong. James Lindsay was right is the meme, but James Lindsay is not always right. James Lindsay was wrong. I would say things on stage like, "We have relatively decent anti-Nazi education, but we don't have anything about anti-communist education." And I would kind of prove it. I would ask the audience questions. Raise your hand if you've ever heard of and I would list off basic communist points of history or doctrine. And usually singledigit percentages of the audiences would raise their hand on everything but the killing fields from Cambodia. Then I'd get about a quarter of the audience had heard of the killing fields and that's because they made a movie about it as it turns out. It's not because it was covered in education. And so what I said was we have relatively decent Nazi education by comparison. No, we don't. We read a couple of books by people who went through the Holocaust. Night by Elie Vel, Man's Search for Meaning by Victor Frankle. Two very common examples. We talk a little bit about what the Holocaust was a little bit in American history or in world history classes.
That's it. We don't know what the Nazis were about. We don't know why the Nazis happened. We don't know what the Nazis really thought. We actually have piss poor anti-Nazi education. Just enough to know they did the Holocaust, which I guess is something. But when you're talking about totalitarian movements that were a mass movements, mass movements whether communism or Nazism that were able to take by take control of the minds of millions of people in their respective countries and cause mass destruction and cheering fanatics in the cult. Millions of people in these cults. They're cults. Okay.
Communism, national socialism, fascism, and Islamism are cults, and we're talking about millions of people, and they have very distinct signatures to them. And we don't cover it at all. If there is a single lesson from the 20th century that is important for people in the free world to have learned, it is what it looks like when you're getting sucked into these lines of totalitarian cult thinking and we don't do anything to cover it. So yeah, okay, we read a couple books about the Holocaust or have kids read them, but we don't know anything about it. So this book, obviously, the myth of the 20th century is new to me. Alfred Rosenberg was Hitler's chief ideologist. He was the chief ideologist of the Third Reich.
That was his job title. Okay, so this was what he did. And he wrote this book in the n 1930, I think. I need keep needing to go back and look. I'm just assuming 1930 plus or minus 2. Um, he writes this book called the myth of the 20th century to outline what Nazis are supposed to believe. What is Nazism?
Well, it's based on a myth. And this is the myth. And as I've said in the previous episodes, if you count the volume 13 of the Nazi experiment podcast, and you count the first episode in the myth of the blood miniseries here, as I've said in both of those, what it creates is a false tradition, a pseudo tradition that the Germans were caught up into. And then all of that kind of right-wing traditionalist architecture attaches not to the true tradition of their country but to a false tradition written in this mythology. I urge you to understand that this book the myth of the 20th century kind of two things about it. One is that the opening sentence says that it is time to rewrite history. Okay, that's not an exact quote but you can go back and listen to that. I read that in um the Nazi experiment volume 13. The opening sentence says that it is time to rewrite history. This is the attempt by the Nazis to rewrite history in order to create a false openly declared mythology about the reality of human history and how it works, including that the best people all came from Atlantis. Uh that's for real. That's like on page two of the book. And so this is the idea. And the the the first chapter is called race and race soul. So there's a whole racialist mythology. The myth is called the myth of the blood. And it says that human souls or the human foundation really and their souls are located within the race.
Each race has its soul and each soul has its race, he says. And so they created this entire mythological history in order to create a pseudo traditionalist.
In other words, what looks right-wing but is actually still not real right-wing thought. And so this is what this is based in. Okay? So I wanted that to be clear. I'm not going to go through the kind of the whole introduction if you don't. I had this whole kind of introduction to all of this the book, the concept, all the ideas at the beginning of volume one. Go back and listen to it if it's like the first 101 15 minutes. I'm not going to do it again cuz we we get bogged down doing this.
I'm just going to jump in kind of where we are going to explain what's going on and uh get on with it. So in volume 13 of the Nazi series Nazi experiment series I read through kind of a hodgepodge of pieces starting with the beginning and then focusing actually on his thoughts about Christianity overall the history of Christianity from chapter 1 race and race soul from the book the myth of the 20th century by Alfred Rosenberg who is Hitler's chief ideologist I won't keep saying it like that then in the I did a spin-off so in the first episode of this series which is called the myth of the blood I read the section near the end of this first chapter titled the myth of the blood and then the subsequent section um which is talking about the relevance of science and how science and art and all of these things actually are in culture are all emergent phenomena that come from the blood and how the highest values of man are located in the blood and you can't have two different ones together because they conflict with each other or they'll contaminate one another and you'll have a collapse and so purity of the blood purity of the race becomes foundational to what it means to be a human being.
And I made out that this is kind of the extension. Why did this happen? And the answer is, as I jokingly said, is because the 19th century was a mistake.
But that's not really true. What happened in the 19th century was that science began to mature. All of the branches of the sciences except the psychological and sociological sciences began to mature. in the 19th century.
That means they started to step away much more completely from what was called natural philosophy and started to become grown-up disciplines. What are grown what are grown-up scientific disciplines? They're empirical disciplines. It's not about arguments.
It's not about making the case. It's not about describing how things should be or according to this theory or that. theory stops being first and evidence starts getting put ahead of it. So if you want to figure out what rocks are made out of, you look at the rocks.
Novel concept. If you want to figure out how um biological diversity comes about, you go look at the biological diversity coming about in different places. That's what Darwin did. Whether people like this or not, that's what the attempt was. The evidence starts coming first.
So if we go in the German context which is extremely relevant and is you know kind of described here in Rosenberg. If we look at Hegel also although he was born in the 18th century product of the 19th century he had done almost all of his productive writing from 1807 when he published phenomenology of spirit until 1831 when he died. Most of his work was done in that window. And I remind you that the phenomenology of spirit was titled was actually titled was not titled the phenomenology of spirit. It was actually titled system of science volume 1 on the phenomenology of spirit.
Okay. So first things first he thought he was creating a system of science. Second phenomenology is supposed to be the basis of that science. No empiricism is the basis of mature sciences. So here we're looking at 1807 and like I'm saying by the time we get to the 20th century science has matured a long way but it's very important to understand this older concept of science or in the German the vissen shaft which Rosenberg if you listen to the previous episode makes a very clear case that the only real science is German science Jewish science all the other sciences not real science the only real science is the German Nordic Aryan science Okay, where have we heard this before? The communists say the same thing. You know, we can't have bourgeois science. We have to have socialist science visa socialism. So here's the mistake. So the way that that that Hegel or organized the world, Markx picked this up as well with his scientific socialism is that the world of knowing he gets this from Plato by the way. Hegel steals this from Plato. Does it in the German so people don't realize he's just repeating Plato.
But Plato organized ciientia science into two types of knowing. Uh one type the upper type um is called epistem which is where we get the word epistemology from. It's kind of knowing, right? And then the lower of the two was arguably you could call it either techn or dianoa which refers to practical hands-on realistic knowledge or understanding. Understanding the world around you is the lower form of knowing.
Interpreting it through reason is the higher form of knowing and those together form science. Cientia. So Hegel imports this wholesale. He puts it in German. It's no longer called Cientia.
It's called visen shaft. It's no longer called um dionoya and techne on the lower end. It's called firstand understanding. And it's no longer called epistem on the upper end it or reason.
It is called instead fernun which means I think reason capital r. So the idea is that theory is dominant over observation and practicality. And what happened when the sciences started to mature is that flipped over. All of a sudden evidence and practicality trumped the the greatest theories in the world.
As Richard Fineman said middle of the 20th century greatest physicist arguably or one of the I know Albert Einstein, Neils Bore, we've got some other good ones out there. Maxwell I know there's some other big ones. There's some other giants. Richard Feman is one of the best physicists that ever lived. And Richard Feman has this very elegant talk. I recommend you look this up. Um, Fineman and theory is wrong or whatever. Type it into YouTube. You can watch this. You can watch him because he's contemporary enough where you can see it. There was a video and he's writing at a blackboard and he says it doesn't matter how elegant your theory. It doesn't matter how beautiful the math if it disagrees with observation it's wrong. And he says that all of the meaningful everything in science is contained in that sentence.
That's the maturation of science. And so my argument in the previous episode to summarize the whole thing is that at the beginning of the 20th century we hadn't got there yet. The flipping over of Fernunin Ferstand if you want or Rapist and Dianoa was in process. Okay. And people were having to re-reckon their entire freaking world because science was maturing and all kinds of wild ideas, religious ideas, mystical ideas, ideological ideas ran wild with this halfway matured view of the sciences.
Communism is one such example. That's why it calls itself the immortal science of Marxism, which is turns out to just be completely faking wrong. And then these guys with their race science were no different. And so that's very important to kind of have some background. This is what's going on.
That's the upheaval. That's the point of the first episode. The second episode finishes the first chapter. And as I teased you, it starts with a section called the static and the dynamic, which of course is going to make out that their ideology is the dynamic one. And it's going to therefore replace and conquer all of the old dying world as he called it uh that are that are static forms like the Roman Catholic Church, which he's super hostile to. Um, kind of one last point before I dive into this is while this is in fact the Nazi ideology, while this is in fact the destination belief that the Nazi leadership wanted the rank and file Nazi Germans to believe through most of the time that they were in power, which was only a short 12 years, you can add maybe 10 more years of their movement before that when it's significant going back to about 1924.
In that period of time, they were not able to convince the vast majority of rank and file Germans that any of this is true. They did not believe much of the myth of the 20th century. Maybe they believed this and that, but for the most part, they thought the race science was kind of a joke, but the leadership set its sails according to it and held it as dogma. And this was the goal belief for Nazis. And the project ideologically Rosenberg's project was not only to outline this ideology, but to help the Nazi leadership figure out how to get your typical rank and file German on board with this ideology. How to take them off of Christianity and onto Nazism, which is this myth. And that's where Rosenberg creates the concept of positive Christianity as a bridge faith to take them off of their current Christian beliefs which he saw as primitive and bad especially if Catholic and to move them over to this Nazi belief. Okay. So this section, this last two, I think it's one, but it might be two sections. I'll scroll down real quick. This last part of chapter one, it's two sections, uh, has a very different character. Um, and I think it's just better if we just kind of dive into it. It's not really about the sciences. And it starts with this section called the static and the dynamic. So, this is the end of chapter one, race and race soul of the myth of the 20th century by Hitler's chief ideologist for the Nazi regime. The myth, sorry, Alfred Rosenberg was his name. And no, he's not Jewish. The name is a German Rosenberg, not a Jewish Rosenberg. Okay, so the static and the dynamic. He says, "To primitive man, the world appears as a succession of disjointed images in space and sensations in time. Subsequently, the mind creates causal connections and our rationality establishes quote unity in diversity." Isn't that interesting? By laying down intellectual parameters. But what he's saying here is if you were an animal, you have a bunch of disjointed images of the world and you have sensations that occur to you over time, but you don't have a model for what's going on in the world. But he says subsequently the mind creates causal connections. We start to build out a model that understands the world and our rationality establishes unity and diversity. The world is very diverse.
Things are just seeming to happen.
Things are disjointed. But you create unity by laying down a theoretical model to understand it. He says by laying down intellectual parameters the network he says of these activities we call our experience such as the formal basis for all life. However, the latter is employed in basically different ways. An excess of reason in the formulation of ideas will lead to the various unities being restricted to fewer and fewer comprehensive schemes. So if we're too reliant on reason, remember in the previous episode we talked about how he reli he he praises Kant's critique of pure reason. So if we're too reliant on reason which might be that fern then what happens is we end up narrowing our ability to understand what's actually going on in the world. He says the ultimate end of this is a single principle of explanation of the world.
So if we rely too much on reason, we start looking for a single we start to try to collapse everything into a single overarching grand unified theory or explanation of the world. And he calls that single principle of explanation of the world monism which is the belief in one like kind of oneness. There's at the end of the day one fundamental principle of the world that's monism. Okay? It's not quite the same as monotheism.
This formal monism he says expresses itself in different ways according to whether one wishes to interpret the world in terms of matter or in terms of force. The logical mechanist accepts molecules, atoms and subatomic particles as primal substances whose diversity of forms and manifold combinations eventually create spirit and soul. The logical energeticist recognizes in matter only a concentrated form of latent energy which can discharge itself as electricity, light or heat. Both the materialist and the spiritualist monist are dogmatists because they bypass the last seemingly formal as well as the seemingly material primal phenomenon of the world with a single assertion that decides all questions. This is either a philosophic scientific principle or a religious belief. So he is not a fan of this idea of boiling the world down to a single explanation. Doesn't matter if it's materialist or if it's energeticist.
Doesn't matter if it's scientific in style, philosophic, scientific or religious.
The problem is that you boil everything down to a single explanation which makes them dogmatists because they ignore the formal immaterial primal phenomenon of the world by believing they can answer all the questions in one way. The primal phenomenon, he says, after rejecting multiple pluralism is the polarity of all phenomena and of all ideiation. So now, for those of you who are longtime listeners to the Naz or to the new discourses podcast, you understand why I wanted to read this part to you. You understand that this second volume of the myth of the blood reveals something very exciting about the Nazi way of thinking. The primal phenomenon is not monism. He says it's not a single explanation for how things work. It's not in fact even a single god may be out there. No, the primal phenomenon is the polarity of all phenomena and of all ideiation. Polarity shows itself in light and shadow, hot and cold, finite and infinite.
Spiritually, it shows itself as true and untrue. Morally as good and evil. A dichotomy that can only be disputed in relation to concrete examples.
Dynamically as motion and rest, and as positive and negative, in religion as divine and satanic. Polarity always manifests itself in the simultaneity of opposites, not as chronologically alternating with one another. Okay? So that stuff if you listen to the earlier two episodes where we've talked about this book where he talks all this time about Zoroastrianism and the relevance of Zoroastrianism is suddenly on the table. The idea of a overwhelmingly dualistic religious concept is praised by Rosenberg as coming from the Aryan Persians who had developed an uh a religion called Zoroastrianism which has as its kind of savior character or religious leader figure one Zoroaster who among other things Rosenberg claims apparently falsely had laid down a principle of preserving the race as a religious duty. Now, this religion, as Rosenberg also relates more correctly, is in fact inherently dualistic. He says that it's based off of a sun god of light called Ahura Mazda. Um there are different ways that this is sometimes conceived of. Uh and then there's his absolute antithesis, which is this chaotic being of darkness called Arian.
And Arian becomes stolen as a concept during Jewish exile in Persia at which point they come back with a concept of Satan that they did not have before. And you see this arising specifically in the book of Isaiah uh in the Bible. Okay. So here he's saying that this dualistic polar polarity structure is correct.
Now, we could argue that he's looking at the Zoroastrian program, or we could argue that he's got some very hermetic thinking boiling into the Nazi program.
And I think in both cases, we would be right. This dualistic uh Gnostic structure even is not completely absent.
as we've kind of already heard you know positive Christianity in many ways actually recreates some of the gnostic uh Martian heresies and that also has been discussed here. Okay. So polarity is actually not not monism not singularity but polarity of all phenomena and of all ideiation is the primal phenomena of existence he says.
Okay. So um in religion he says it's divine and satanic. That's how he characterizes it. So he's not going into the full gnostic expression that you might see which is spiritual and material. Um the concept of good he says is incomprehensible without that of evil and only receives its delimitation by it. Negative electricity always appears simultaneously with positive. Both forms are in fact positive only with their signs reversed. No postulates yes the idea of the spiritual together sorry appears together with the idea of the caporeal. So there you have your spiritual and material or corporeal bodily um uh division polarity there.
And so flavors are floating around uh that we're we're familiar with. All life, he says, however, arises from the continuous antithesis of yes and no.
Okay. So here you have that hermetic, alchemical, dialectical, whichever phrasing you want to use mindset that dynamism is at the center of reality.
Not static monism, not a static single god whose vision and rules don't change.
He says everything creative, even the dogmatic monist, whether materialist or spiritualist, exists only by reason of the persistence of eternal conflict. Now notice the introduction not just of polarity but of conflict here. So just like where Karl Marx writes at the beginning of the communist manifesto that the entire history of man is the history of class antagonism or class struggle. The antagonism of upper class versus lower class in essence a a eternal conflict between them until class is over overthrown completely by communist practice. Here you have this kind of similar idea. The introduction the world runs on dual dualistic polarity. the poles are opposed to one another and in fact they are in eternal conflict and all creativity comes out of that conflict. That's the claim Rosenberg made in his explanation of how Nazis think. Only in the mirror of the body, he says, does the spiritual uh does the spiritualist perceive the spirit. So you can't even see the spirit without looking at the body that it inhabits. Only with the presupposition of differing physical qualities can the materialist deal with variations in form and changes in substance.
Self and universe therefore confront one another as two ultimate polarities and the emphasis that the soul lays upon one or the other determines the nature, complexion and rhythm of its interpretation of the world and of life.
From this primal metaphysical law of being and becoming polarities that are experientially mutually exclusive at any given instant there ensue two kinds of life feeling the dynamic and the static creation of values.
So now he's did you understand what he says? So it's a primal metaphysical law of being and becoming that is defined in terms of this polarity and conflict.
And this gives us two different approaches to life. A dynamic view of creation of values or a static one. In other words, our values can change according to the contingency of the moment or they don't. So the Jewish idea that God laid out his commandments and God keeps his promises and God does not change nor do the commandments. That's the covenant is a static creation of values to be put opposed to the dynamic creation of values in this dialectical hermetic maybe zoroastrian churn maybe gnostic I don't know he says a predominantly static worldview will tend to some kind of monism it will attempt to establish a single spiritual synthesis a single symbol indeed a single form of life against every polarity plurality or mult multiplicity.
This reminds me actually of one of the fake grievance studies papers we wrote about um about feminist AI uh in some funny ways, but I won't get into it. Uh go look it up. It's funny. Uh it's on new discourses.com. Look up feminist AI on the grievance studies portal. You will find it. It's hilarious. Is in religion. Rosenberg says it will insist this monism that arises from the static conception of values. In religion, it will insist on a strict monotheism. Hm.
So, it doesn't he doesn't like that. We don't want monotheism. It will invest this unique god with all features of strength and significance attributing to him all creation. It will even endeavor to explain away the satanic. Jehovah, he says, evolved into this kind of God and then with the aid of the Christian church, broke into western thought as a rigid and narrow system. So let it not be lost on anybody how little this guy thinks of Christianity or God. uh the Nazi ideology whatever individual German Christian or Germans that who were Christian or Nazis believed the Nazi ideology itself is extraordinarily hostile to the idea of Christianity and to God uh because it sees it monotheism itself as a rigid and narrow system.
Originally he says the Hebrews and Jews had been involved in an entirely pluralistic theology. So this is going to kind of butcher the story of pre-exelic exelic and then postexelic views from the Jews. What was their encounter during exile? Zoroastrianism or Persian thought, Persian arryanism as Rosenberg holds. So up until some point he's saying here they had been involved in a pluralistic theology.
God is actually named in the plural.
They have their own god, but he refers to other gods. To be sure, Rosenberg says there, this sounds so much, by the way, like new atheist stuff. It's fun.
But to be sure, their tribal god looked after their interests and they after his, but none doubted that other gods of other peoples were just as real and effective as Jehovah. That's not true.
They definitely did not think that they were equally effective if they believed that they were there. It was under the Persian Empire. He tells us that the Jews first learned of a universal cosmic god, Ahuram Mazda, the god of light, and of his enemy, Dark Arman.
I think I say that right. This duality was transferred over to Jehovah, the universal desperate, and his rival, Satan. So Jehovah, the universal desperate, by the way, the universal tyrant, is the view of Gnostics and his rival Satan. So if Jehovah is the universal tyrant and desperate and his rival is Satan, does that make Satan good or bad? Right? You say, uhoh. But his argument is that there's got to be some dynamism, not the staticism. So we'll see what what he does with this.
The Jew, he said, gradually rid himself of all pluralisms, placing Shadai Jehovah at the center of all things with the Jew as his authorized servant. Thus he created a focal point for himself and this has preserved and bred his thinking, his race and his type, even if purely parasitic up to the present day and despite any marginal racial mixing.
Even when cowardly Jews rejected Jehovah, they only put in his place, did I leave out a word? No. They only put in his place what was essentially the same concept under other names. They called this humanism, liberty, liberalism, class from these. So this is where you get that communism is a uh Jewish construction.
Class becomes the god. There's the story humanism, liberty, liberalism, class.
All the same thing. All Jewish constructs that are actually atheistic from cowardly Jews who have rejected uh God himself as he has argued here. From these he says there reemerged the same old rigid Jehovah breeding his offspring under a variety of designations. Since Jehovah is conceived as being materially effective, the rigid Jewish insistence upon one single God is interwoven with practical material concerns, that is materialism and the most sterile philosophic uh philosophical superstition for which the Old Testament, the Talmud and Carl Marx represent closely related visions. So this is quite the set of wild assertions, but we'll just that's what he says. That's what Rosenberg said.
That was none of my color on that. Back to Rosenberg. This static self assertion is the metaphysical ground for the strength and tenacity of the Jew as well as for his cultural sterility and parasetism. So why did the Nazis hate the Jews? Well, this is how they think of the Jews. There you go. There's some well I mean actually the hatred starts the story and then the hatred creates this explanation and then this explanation justifies the hatred in a circle of hate.
That's the typical way of hate craft. By the way, the hatred justifies the explanation. The explanation justifies the hatred and you have a circle of hatred.
Continuing with Rosenberg, he writes the same static instinct as the central core of the Roman church. So sorry Catholics who want to pretend you don't like Jews.
The Nazis think you're the same people.
The same static instinct is the central core of the Roman church. It sets up a synthesis with itself as the successor of the displaced God's chosen people and develops the same rigidity and formalism as Judaism and as the latter and also smitic Islam. As such systems recognize only the law, which is to say arbitrary fiats, they never acknowledge personality.
When such a system gains power, it necessarily destroys the organic. It only thanks uh it's only thanks to the fact that the system could not attain complete triumph that there still exist peoples and cultures in short real life. Okay. Okay.
So both Judaism and the uh Roman Catholic Church set up a system which is ultimately Jewish or Semitic or whatever which also includes um Islam and I read that sentence wrong. Later came Semitic Islam. Uh these systems only recognize the law. So they set up a static conception of life. The law is theirs to understand which he says come from arbitrary fiats and they control it and everybody is subject to it. They never acknowledge personality. So this is a huge issue for the Nazis personality.
But personality is always subordinate to the Nazi state and it's to your role as a cell in the body of the folk which has the Nazi state with its fur princip as the central nervous system to which it must respond.
So not a big fan. The reaction in Europe, he says, against the crippling weight of the church was powerful enough to force a lasting spiritual pluralism into the Jewish Roman theology. Specifically, he's talking about the Protestant Reformation there. Thus, one can quite justifiably speak of Catholicism and its saints as a polytheistic belief. Sorry, that's not what he was talking about with the Reformation. and he was talking about the proliferation of saints as Catholicism took over um Europe. And so all of a sudden he's making the same accusation that a lot of Protestants make that Catholicism and its saints represent a polytheistic belief system. He says by Catholicism we mean of course the religious phenomenon not the political entity but despite this develop that's because the pope is singular by the way but despite this development the centralized authority of the churches strengthened a static and monistic outlook in Europe and by way of the attached new testament smuggled the spirit of the old testament into a protestantism that was originally individualistic. So the original spirit of Protestantism, which he sees as a German Aryan revolt against the church, by the way, if you remember from the previous episode, um was individualistic, which is an Aryan value according to him, uniquely Aryan, unique to the race of the Aryan Nordics. And so that's how Protestantism began. But nope, the New Testament itself and its smuggling in of the Old Testament, the Bible, in fact, therefore becomes the object that forces this static monotheistic monistic view of life into Protestantism and turns it into the same kind of problem.
static, monistic, monotheistic, not dynamic, not based on polarized ideas, not based on polarization, I guess, not based on um personality, and not based on the dynamism of real life as it changes from moment to moment.
From the outset, Rosenberg tells us Protestantism was spiritually divided, seen as a defensive reaction. It signified the upsurge of the Germanic will to freedom, to a national life, into the primacy of the individual conscience, meaning against the Roman church. Without question, it blazed a path for all that today we regard as our greatest works of culture and science.
Religiously, however, it failed. It stopped halfway. It substituted for Rome, a Semitic Jerusalem as its center.
This sounds like what the Catholics say about the Protestants today. The sovereign authority managed to block the emergence of that spirit which had been preached by Meister Echart, but which could not prevail against the Inquisition and the stake. So it was that when Luther at Verms laid his hands simultaneously on both the Old and New Testaments in 1521, he perform he performed an act that his followers deemed symbolic and holy. The faith and val the values of Protestants were now to be determined by these books which of course are in his opinion Jewish and bad.
The standards of our spiritual life, he tells us, again, lay outside what is German, even though no longer in a strictly geographical sense, as had been the case with Rome and the Antichrist Pope. Luther's encounter with Zwingi, did I get that right? Zwingi, yes, showed how he was still bound by the old chains. Luther's materially oriented communion doctrine had been a millstone around the Protestant creed up to the present day. Much later, Luther did cast aside the Jews and their lies, referencing his book of that title near the end of his life and declare that he had no that he no longer had anything to do with Moses. So the story here in 1529, Luther debated Olrich Zwingley, a Swiss Protestant over the meaning of the Eucharist in an attempt to unify Protestantism, Protestantism, and they failed to agree. And it says Luther published his f his infamous book on the Jews and their lies in 1543.
And it tells you that it's available in a new translation. Um, that's what the footnotes to those two parts say. So the the long and short of that story is that Luther tried to convert the Jews. Now that it wasn't Roman Catholicism, but Protestantism, the Jews being Jews weren't going to have it because they still don't believe in Jesus. And therefore, uh, he flipped out, got mad at the Jews, and wrote a book called on the Jews and their lies. And, uh, cast them aside and declared that he no longer had anything to do with Moses.
Um, I mean, but he's still bound by the Bible when Moses pretty important character there. But by then, Rosenberg tells us the Bible had become a popular work and the prophecies of the Old Testament integral to religion. As a result, the Judaization of listlessness of our life, sorry, the Judaization and listlessness of our life were pushed a step further. And it's no wonder that thenceforth blonde German children were forced every Sunday to sing to you, to you, oh Jehovah, I will sing, for where is such a God as you. So he's not happy about that, by the way, guys. He's saying Luther basically had the opportunity and he botched it by bringing the New and Old Testaments together. He smuggled in that static, monistic, monotheistic, Judeaic, Semitic, Levventine, whatever you want, thought. And Christianity took off in Germany um in a Judeaic form or Judaized form. And that basically ruined that.
The Jews, he said, had quote borrowed, as with so much else, the idea of a universal god from the Persians.
Remember that the Aryans are really the ones who inspired everything good. In this lies the most telling evidence for the religious philosophical recognition of the polarity of being. The great cosmic struggle between light and darkness endures throughout many world epochs until after the climactic battle there comes the world's savior, the Kawhai, to separate the sheep from the goats. So that's um what he alleges and I didn't look into this as the uh uh the the the messiah um but as it's expressed I think in maybe Farsy or Persian I don't know which language that is uh this represents the same figure as did Jesus in later times the drama must naturally reach its climax with victory but nowhere is the spiritual dynamic portrayed more consciously and more splendidly than in the ancient Persian writings.
So again, Judaism and Christianity are Persian knockoffs. Actually, the Jews parasetized it and tried to incorporate it into their own. Already, according to them, broken bad faith, monotheistic faith. Um, and the Christians ran off with it and did the wrong thing and kept it to uh, Judeaic. But only there in the Zoroastrian Persians, James Lindsay was right, do you find what we're really looking for, says Rosenberg. Today, as we begin to slough off the alien and static influence of all that smacks of Jerusalem, the Persian drama appears to us as a primordial and closely related to sorry, the Persian drama appears to us as primordial and closely related to the Nordic sagas. The metaphysical conception is conjoined with a stern moral code and thus and thus fortifies the spiritual community in religion and morality. So, I'm just going to point out like the the woke right has been mocking me for years for talking about literally the Ahura Mazda Arman duality and it being relevant to woke. They accuse me quite incorrectly of they lie and say that I have said that St. Michael the Archangel is as a matter of fact a Zoroastrian demon. I think that this mockery has all along been to distract from the actual relevance of incorporated gnostic themes that have come from Zoroastrian pieces. The Manian uh Gnostic cult for example is in fact heavily influenced by the Zoroastrian dualism. Uh this is not uh in any way uh in question and maybe it's Manakian. I hear different pronunciations and I say it wrong. I think. But at any rate, I think the reason that they've mocked me so much about the Zoroastrian thing is because it's actually the Zoroastrian polarized dualism is actually at the heart of the worldview that they want to bring up. And they were afraid that if I was talking about Zoroastrianism in relationship to the dualistic gnostic structure of woke that it would blow some of their plans when stuff started to come out in the direction they wanted it to go. And I was right. even without realizing that I was derailing them. And so the iron law of woke overreaction, which is that they flip out about things and tell you when you're on to something, bears itself out again, as we hear again and again and again throughout this book and talking about the Persian drama and the Zoroastrian and a Huramazda versus Arian and the dualism at the center of all of it. So anyway, we'll go back to Rosenberg when he first appears on the stage of history. The German is not of a philosophical bent. But if anything is characteristic of his nature, then uh but if anything is, I'm butchering this.
I apologize. But if anything is characteristic of his nature, Rosenberg writes, then it's an an aversion to all kinds of monism and a distaste for the kind of ecclesiastical rigidity that was forced upon him by Rome's technical and diplomatic superiority at a time of weakness. It's kind of funny that he's saying that the German disposition intrinsically is anti-monistic. And then he's appealing to philosophers like Kant and Hegel who were trying to write out systematic philosophies that ex or kind of grand unified theories of everything whatever. And Hegel specifically hammered his into a Christian motif following various mystical traditions including a lot of hermeticism that he had picked up at the Tubigen Stiff, which was a um Lutheran uh seminary that had an awful lot of alchemy and mysticism and hermeticism going on inside. Uh and this same very self-same Gerta that he keeps, you might pronounce his name Goth or Goth or whatever, but it's Gerta. Um, if my German doesn't suck, it's probably not. Forget it.
German. Uh, anyway, he was he was also somehow connected to what was going on at the stiff. I'd have to go read McGee again on that to find out. But if you want to read Hegel and hericatic tradition, you can get a lot of insight about this. And it was by Glenn Alexander McGee. It's a long, fairly hard book. All right, we go back to Rosenberg. So if anything was characteristic of the Germans nature then it is an aversion he says to all kinds of monism and a distaste for the kind of ecclesia ecclesiastical rigidity that was forced upon him by Rome's technical and diplomatic superiority at a time of weakness. So Rome came in and oppressed the ger the the Catholic Church came in and oppressed the German and made him contrary to his own nature.
He says it was a time when the pristine youth of the German race was ending and the old gods were dying while new ones were being sought. If the struggle between Europe and Rome ended in a compromise that for all the upheavalss has endured for over 1,500 years. Europe means Germany by the way and Rome means the Catholic Church. Nonetheless, this compromise has proved impossible in the realms of art, philosophy, and science.
I'll just point out that like Beethoven's best symphonies were all dedicated to Jesus. the ninth symphonies. Um, ode to joy. Uh, you've got yeu joy of man's desiring. Was that Bach or Beethoven? I mean, we're This is idiocy. I'm just reading idiocy. It is precisely in these areas, meaning art, philosophy, and science, that the struggle has been most consciously and tenaciously pursued, and it has ended with the defeat of the menace of the index and the terror of the stake. Okay, to be fair, I'm not reading total idiocy because he's mad at the Catholic Church and he believes that the reformation opened the door to culture and that's where those things like Beethoven and Bach and so on came in. Um, but then so they're a Protestant, but then he still thinks the Protestant spoiled it all.
This is true even if the fact has not yet permeated the sluggish minds of the masses or indeed those of the super super uh superficially educated. The entire dynamic of the European spirit stands revealed in this together with its clear analytical grasp of the polarity of being. So if you're wondering were the German were the Nazis kind of pagan? Yes. Yes, they were. Yes, there it is. Yet at the same time he says it shows that a battle for form has stirred the north European less than the inward character value of truthfulness as the prerequisite for science and philosophy. He now continues in another section called nature and mythology and this finishes the first chapter which again is titled ominously race and race soul. Maybe not ominously maybe just uncomfortably.
So consciously or unconsciously writes Rosenberg, the Nordic spirit distinguishes between the two worlds, the world of freedom and the world of nature with Emanuel Kant. This ancient determined, this ancient determinant of our vital thought was brought to the fullest level of contra. I am sorry guys. Let's start again with Kant with Emanuel Kant. This ancient determinant of our vital thought was brought to the fullest level of conscious apprehension and can never thereafter be lost to our understanding. But this awakening involved quite a unique view of reality.
So where did Kant get his beautiful crazy great idea that he keeps going back? The critique of pure reason. The late Indian he says dissolved the entire universe into symbolism. The self became ultimately only an indication of an eternal oneness. For the Indian metaphysician, reality was not a describable fact that could be fitted into the chain of cause and effect or action and consequence as is the way with our thinking. For him, it was purely subjective postulation in relation to an event or a narrative.
Thus the Indian doesn't demand belief in the fabulous deeds of Rama or Krishna as actual events. For him they become real in so far as they are believed on the basis of this interpretation of reality. Girls transform themselves into flowers in the Indian theater. Their arms change into lyana vines. Gods appear in a variety of quasihuman shapes since it is dependent on belief. as symbolism, the miracle is divested of its material significance. So now we're going to set that against he says this is not the case for the people of the eastern Mediterranean.
Where is the eastern Mediterranean?
Israel.
There freedom was injected into nature through magic. And the history of those lands is packed with real miracles which are believed to be literal events. A clear example of the consciousness that he was ruling two different worlds is given to us by the emperor Hadrien in the Germanic northwest of the empire. He was a heroic servant of the state, enduring all the rigors of travel as a simple soldier. He was lord and ruler but not god and miracle worker. But it was precisely the latter that this clever judge of men allowed himself to be portrayed during his travels through the African Levventine and Henistic regions.
Thus he was worshiped in the south and southeast of the empire as a savior and was accepted as the director of the Elusian ministries. Elusinian sorry mysteries. So, the Elucinian mysteries are allegedly how you got to learn all your magic stuff. There's probably a big giant sex, right? That um probably involved the mysteries probably involved discovering boy love. We'll kind of leave it at that. He blandly permitted himself to be worshiped as Helios. In Egypt, he introduced Antigonos as a god.
Antigonos. Antigonos. So he introduced Antigonos as a god whose death and resurrection was taught by the priests.
At the time this was as truly believed as the death and real resurrection of Jesus. Hadrien healed the sick and made cripples whole by the laying on of hands. Stories about his miraculous deeds spread through all the lands of the eastern Mediterranean as an indisputable chronicle. In a similar way, Christian legends are also derived from the superstitions about magic that are characteristics uh characteristic of certain peoples. They are still solemnly proclaimed uh sorry, they are still today solemnly proclaimed to Europeans.
There is the doctrine of the virgin birth, the various transfigurations of the Catholic saints to whom the Virgin Mary appeared, or the report of the Jesse at Mansonius that Jesus appeared in the flesh to the Virgin Joanna of Alexandria on 7 June 1598 and expressed his gratification with the work of his society.
So he's accusing Christianity and Catholicism in particular of being magical thinking that borrows off of legends that were endemic to the region that were embodied in the emperor Hadrien who allowed for political reasons people to believe crazy stuff like that about him. While in the Germanic northwest of his realm, the Roman Empire, Hadrien allowed no such nonsense because it wasn't necessary because the Germans were more sensible.
So he continues, "Evidence of just how greatly this magical world of Asia Africa had oppressed Europe." Notice all this victim oppression language about uh all the other schools of thought in the world. um particularly Jewish, Levventine, Christian and uh the various superstitious and magical its role had been to oppress Europe which he holds fell for no such nonsense because it was actually Nordic Aryan. So evidence of how how just how greatly this magical world of Asia Africa had oppressed Europe and threatened to suffocate all thought even of the freest is shown in Luther's verdict upon Capernacus whom he called a swindler and a cheat just because the magical Bible said that things were otherwise than as Capernicus taught. Even today, millions have not yet fully grasped that Capernicus, by replacing the static world picture of the motionless Earth disc and heaven above and hell below with the dynamism of an eternally revolving solar system put to an end once and for all to the church doctrine of blind belief and to the entire mythology of hell and resurrection. So here he's claiming that Capernacus with the heliocentric model ended Christian belief being a serious thing. The Nicing Creed, Rosenberg says, which was decided by a majority of the quarreling priests at the command of the Roman Emperor. Let me just before I go into the nice and creed part and you can hear it's going to sound an awful lot like uh it's really funny reading this because it's like a lot of this stuff that I'm reading here came out of the new I saw this stuff in the new atheist movement and I don't know if they're kind like is it like they were using the same sources as Rosenberg or using Nazi sources? I don't know. Probably probably some of both. I have no freaking idea but it's sort of hilarious um to read it here.
Let me just point out again we have that theme that I I focused on in the previous episode though of the emergence of mature sciences destroying the old ways of thinking and grasping out for new ways of thinking is coming up over and over and over again. So I think that is the intrinsic condition of the uh end of the 19th century, the cataclysms of World War I and then in Germany the the collapse of their currency in 1924 and then the great depression as kind of a stage setter for all of this. Um there sciences are maturing. The old world doesn't seem believable. They're looking for a new myth, a myth of the 20th century. and they've they've decided that uh this pseudocientific racial eugenics program is the foundation they're looking for. So everything else now has to be discarded. That's the rewrite of history. And you can hear how it's based on this kind of dynamic dualistic polarized thinking which is very hermetic as opposed to the statusism or the staticness of monotheism which it he's claiming oppresses true Nordic Europe.
Nordic of course means Aryan and the Germans are the most of that. Just to make sure we're not talking about Sweden here. The Nicing Creed, he continues, which was decided by a majority of the quarreling priests at the command of the Roman emperor, that would be Constantine, by the way, and the dogmas that were formulated at Senods, where religious questions were settled with vicious brawling, are inwardly false and fake. There's your nine creed, inwardly false and fake. Nothing reveals more clearly the futility and falseness of our churches, he says. How did the Nazis feel about Christianity?
Nothing, he says, reveals more clearly the futility and falseness of our churches than that they pratt about things that have nothing to do with religion and that they still defend doctrines in which they no longer believe. They are entirely correct when they argue that if the Old Testament or the Nying creed were pried out of the structure of the church, the cornerstones would be gone and the whole building would collapse. True enough, he says.
But the collapse has never been prevented for more than a few decades by a threadbear expediency. And the later the collapse came, the more terrible it would be. Gods who are no longer believed in become mere idols. So here's your total inversion of the Judeo-Christian belief structures. When life becomes a matter of empty forms, spiritual death or revolution is imminent. There are no alternatives, says Rosenberg. Quote, I have come not to bring peace but a sword. End quote said the rebel from Nazareth in Matthew 10:34.
and quote, "I came to cast a fire on the earth and I wish that it burned already." End quote. From Luke 12:49.
His life was one revelation. This is what he's saying about Jesus. His life was one revelation, but the priests concerned with preserving their authority announced that this revelation happened only once in history and supported this claim with ingeniously fulfilled prophecies and illusions to the future. They made strenuous efforts to turn life into death. Okay, so remember in a dynamic view there's not one single unchanging static truth.
There are new truths. There are new revelations. There are new things unfolding. And guess who? He doesn't say it, but guess who the Nazis believed was unveiling a new revelation? Hitler. The furer was giving a new revelation of what? The myth of the blood to the world. So they have to get rid of this idea that there are no more revelations.
That's turning life into death. Instead they have a dynamic lifeoriented sounds like the communists, right? How the communists say that all of the like what did what did Paulo Freedes say about Easter? The resurrection is just a commemorative date on the calendar that it's actually dead unless you're re giving rebirth to yourself on the side of the oppressed. Right? And so same thing and he actually calls the Christianity that's practiced in the churches as necrilic uh necrophilic or deathloving conception of life as opposed to the biofilic or lifeloving conception of life of the communists. So it's the same story. The old religions ser basically worship death and our absolute death cult worships life because we have the new revelation. Sounds familiar, right? He's already called Jehovah the absolute tyrant. So the gnostic pieces are there.
He's already appealing to um to the to the zoroastrian dualism as the fundamentally correct structure. So the elements that create the manian or manachian struggle in the world are there as well. The nature of the static ideal he tells us is that it demands stillness. But the this denial of all the dynamic demands of life cannot be realized in the face of the eternal flux of nature. So it can't be true that there's one God with one set of policies for all people in all places at all times because of the dynamic demands of life. It's a progressive ideology. You don't just need a living constitution.
You need a living Bible. You need a living revelation that just keeps coming out and coming out. This is intrinsically deeply progressive ideology, guys. You can call it reactionary till the cows come home, but this is as progressive as it gets. The nature of the static ideal is that it demands stillness. But this denial of all the dynamic demands of life cannot be realized in the face of the eternal flux of nature. It turns therefore to the non-temporal concepts. These are revelations that are proclaimed as long as possible as that which is as eternal truth. He who is aware of the dynamic on the other hand while consciously or unconsciously acknowledging being concerns him concerns himself with becoming as the expression of being as he does not consider magical or spurious revelations as essential to his spiritual experience. So that was a hell of a bit right there. There's a lot that just happened. Let's break that down.
Okay, so these are the revelations that are proclaimed as long as possible as that which is as an eternal truth. So he's like, okay, these static conceptions of life like Judaism, Christianity preach are static and they cling to what they're doing as as long as they can as eternal truth. They they can't face reality which is changing. So they have to claim no no these are deeper spiritual hidden eternal truths and that is to be contra. So they're s playing this. So Christians, Jews, etc. or people with the static conception of life are playing this longunning game of cope.
The world is changing, life is changing, revelation is changing, but they refuse to change. So they cope and cope and cope. So these revelations that are proclaimed as long as possible as that which is as eternal truth. And he says, but the people who understand the dynamic view of life, the dialectical view of life maybe see it differently.
He compares them. He who is aware of the dynamic on the other hand in comparison to the copers that are say Christian or Jew or anybody with a belief that there's a single static human nature uh and moral set of moral principles and factual scientific truths. Anybody who's static in comparison to him, he who is aware of the dynamic on the other hand, and this is deep, right? While consciously or unconsciously acknowledging being, so you Yeah. Yeah.
Yeah. Yeah. We're we we're here. We're we are, right? Consciously or unconsciously, we acknowledge being. He doesn't care about it. He concerns himself with becoming as the expression of being. So there's your full-blown Hegel as and so your hermeticism, your alchemy, it's an alchemical process of becoming something new with a new revelation as time goes on. And he does not consider magical or spurious revelations as essential to his spiritual experience. So all that rubbish in the Bible is not important.
It's not relevant.
This permanent condition of being pagan, whoops, that's not what it says. this permanent condition of becoming as a struggle for being. Could you be more communist or fascist than that? No. This is the this is the statement. This permanent condition, the only thing that's permanent is that nothing is permanent. Right? This permanent condition of becoming as a struggle for being is the Germanic religion that still asserts itself even in the midst of world rejecting mysticism. Revelation to the Nordic can only be a heightening and crowning of the process of becoming, not a destruction of natural law. But the Jewish concept of God, alike with the Romanist, wills the latter. So there you have it, ladies and gentlemen. The severest blow to that outlook, he says, is delivered by Germanic science and Nordic art. The Jehovah of the church is as more abund as Votan was 1500 years ago. Maybe it's Wan. I don't know. It's how Richard Dawkins pronounced it. Wan cracks me up. The Nordic spirit gained philosophical consciousness in Emanuel Kant whose fundamental achievement lies in the separation he established between the forces of religion and science.
Religion is concerned with the kingdom of heaven within us and the true and true science only with physics, chemistry, biology, and mechanics.
Again, my hypothesis that we're watching people grappling with the maturation of science and not doing a particularly good job. And that is a warning, a cautionary for the fact that we're watching the emergence of AI and other kinds of technologies that are here to for conceived of before. and we have we probably don't want to be grasping at weird ideologies like our favorite AI CEOs.
This distinction, he says, is critical as a precondition for a Nordic culture true to its own intrinsic nature. It signifies the overthrow of the Syrian Jewishly inspired dogmas and the freeing of our dynamic polarity as free mysticism and natural mechanics. This alone, so remember it was freedom and nature are the two spheres that he was talking about. And so the Nordic understands this. And we have our dynamic polarity is free mysticism as the freedom side and the nature side is natural mechanics which are done by true science. So the dynamic polarity as free mysticism is the German religion the Nordic culture on its religious side.
This alone he says assures true unity.
The historical task of the movement of national renewal that now arises in Germany is to strengthen the foundations of our culture despite their subsequent perversion by Roman Jewish doctrines and Syrian African worldviews and to assist in the victory of Nordic values.
All these racial, psychological, that's hyphenated. All these racial, psychological, and percept perceptively critical considerations and historical references display a great multiplicity of the forces of racial soul or racial chaos, struggling with each other for predominance. You could see almost racial soul like the Ahuram Mazda and racial chaos almost like the race version of Arian, right? But they also show a certain consistency in the conduct of the Nordic or mainly Nordically conditioned elements. All the gods of the Indo-Uropeans are gods of the heavens, of light and of day. The Indian Veruna, the Greek Urinus, I won't say Uranus. Oh, I did. There are two kinds of people, ladies and gentlemen.
People who laugh at Uranus jokes and woke people. There's only two types. the Indian Varuna, the Greek Uranus, Zeus, father of gods, and Odin, god of the heavens. Sura, the radiant one of the Indians, Apollo, Helios, Helios, and Ahura Mazda. They all share the same essence at the same characteristic stage of development. In this religion of light, the patriarchal principle confronted the various chonic this a mega. This is as German as it could possibly be because it's three huge words with hyphens between them.
Chathonically matriarchaloriented racial elements. Remember, chithonic means subterranean or from the underworld. So the religion of light of the Aryans and the Germans and the true Europeans uh their patriarchal principle had to confront the matriarchal chathonic underworld oriented racial elements of ultimately subhumans. That's the that's the conflict in the myth of the blood.
At another level, he says mythology is permeated with the heroic and it's linked with the inquiring spirit and yearning for knowledge. In this way, the gods became the representatives of various impulses of will and spirit. The sun god of the ancient Indians was prayed to in the early morning, not only for fertility, but also for wisdom, while Odin sacrificed one of his eyes in the quest of knowledge. At the high point of philosophical problem solving, we find the upanishads, Plato and Kant who def who despite profound differences of approach arrive at identical answers concerning the ideality of space, time and causality. It was thus perceived that quote diversity did not mean chaos, nor a quote perceived unity mean merely an amorphous sameness. This is all sounding a little communist, right? This was extremely important because it places us not only in the sharpest opposition to all absolutist and universalist systems which on the supposition of an ostensible humanity seek to establish a utilitarianism of all souls for all time, but also brings us into conflict with genuinely new forces of our own time that have likewise buried their dead and with whom we often have sympathetic contact.
Yet such forces in justifiable defense against a vile I wonder if it's supposed to be vile.
Yeah, I guess so. Yet such forces, this sounds very woke, right? Yet such forces in justifiable defense against a vile, sterile, and suffocating rationalism now seek refuge in a return to the primal depths. They declare war on the spirit as such in order to find their way back to a unity of body and soul that lumps together all reason, intellect, and will under the term spirit. One is immediately reminded of the sentimental quote return to nature and the glorification of the primitive that appeared in the late 18th century. But this view is far too moderate and reasonable when confronted with the assertions of people such as Ludvig Claudes Cla Clogis I don't know or Melture Pelagi. What uh I don't know actually the story of either of those people. So my apologies for not looking that up. What depth psychology and character study is striving for lies much deeper. its demands in fact call for a basis in a racial soul in order to provide an organic substructure for the whole concept. Okay. So they've got these ideas these these gentlemen are are providing these ideas. I'm guessing that this is late 18th century protocsychology or something like this and because it's talking about depth psychology and character study and he says no no no they're missing the point because they're not talking about race soul. The racial soul is at the bottom of it. Really, the emergence, he says, of a sharply defined consciousness must be seen to have constituted the first alienation of the heroic primitive man from his creative natural state with its feeling of awe and reverence.
Interesting statement. This natural state is represented as alone being true life and as having been corrupted by purely rational ideas and concepts. At once we see how closely yet how totally our racial spiritual worldview and the new psycho cosmogyny confront one another. This intellect is as it is propounded only a formal tool and thus is devoid of content. Its task is simply to establish the sequence of causality.
However, once it is enthroned as a legislating sovereign, it signifies the end of a culture and is proof of racial and as proof of racial poisoning. Up to this point, there is much agreement.
However, it's quite unnecessary that reason and purpose be enimical to spirit. We have now seen in contrast to Semitic peoples the Nordic attitudes of soul will and reason toward the universe were essentially in harmony. We are not therefore concerned with the abstraction of primitive man to whom one might justifiably assign a confidence and worldly existence but with uh a clearly defined racial character. So all this very complicated looking back to primitive man blah blah blah is actually him rejecting Russo by the way. This is all rejecting Rouso's look back at the savages and the state of nature of man and he says we don't need any of that.
We have race science.
The curious fact, he says, emerges that the most embittered enemies of modern anti-life rationalism, he's still talking about the jackabins there, have themselves created an unconsciously creative and heroic primitive man. Still bashing Rouso, but the nature of primitive man, as far as we can reasonably conjecture, was not particularly heroic.
Jewish legends, he says, begin with stories about cattle raising, not of heroic deeds. So, where are the heroes, right? Well, not in the Jewish stories.
It's about raising cows. The biblical account of the Jewish Exodus from Egypt is accompanied by the tale of all the treasures that they had stolen from the Egyptians. Even among themselves, their swindling and parasitic behavior in the promised land is the antithesis of the heroic. Genuine heroism is also lacking among the Phoenetians. despite their lengthy voyages conducted along the sea coasts. And the pure Semite, the Arab, for example, though he is capable of courage and ferocity, is almost wholly uncreative. The Atruscans, to be sure, have left a record of obscene practices and monuments, but nothing that would permit us to assume any creative spiritual faculties. So here he is now bashed all of the lesser races of the Mediterranean. On the other hand, he says heroism is basic to the Nordic character. It's just what we are. We're just we're just heroes. We're just heroes. All of us. We're just heroes.
This is who we are. This heroism of the ancient mythic period, and this is the decisive point, he says, has never been lost despite reverses of fortune so long as the Nordic blood was still alive.
Heroism, in fact, took many forms. From the warrior nobility of Sigfrieded or Hercules to the intellectual nobility of Capernicus and Leonardo, the religious nobility of Echart and Lagard or the political nobility of Frederick the Great and Bismar, but its substance has remained the same. Notice how he just went all over the place throughout Europe in its history and basically claimed all the good people were all the all the big famous people were actually Nordics who are the people in his racial bloodline history of the world. The quote universal character he says that has been postulated as existing in antiquity is a facious modern abstraction. So there is no universal man. There are races and there is the Nordic race and there are inferior races and then there's the Jew. Even after the conclusion of the age, he says the age of natural instinct, reason and will are not divorced from the living blood unless they are asphixxiated in the spiritual jungle of the near east. So even if we did go back to the state of nature of man before to the age of natural instinct, he says even there still then reason and will are rooted in race. They are not divorced from the living blood. He says, "Unless they are esphyxiated, strangled asphixxiated in the spiritual jungle of the near east, things are not as the new body soul doctrine seeks to represent. Namely, that only the earthbound man of intellect is close to nature and is more of an integrated being and more vital while that while what is spiritual belongs to another sphere. Again, it is not true that the Chathonic idea, this underworld idea stimulated by the intoxicated poetic imaginings of Baken that inspires this new doctrine testifies to a greater profoundity of life and certainty of existence. The peoples who began with the sun and light myth and developed it further are consequently linked to the visible creator and protector of everything organic. So they worship the sun, which is why one of their symbols is the sun.
You know, the the what is it? I forgot what it's called, but it's the bunch of it's this something sun. Probably the dark sun. One of their key Nazi symbols is the sun. Um it's a sun rune, as a matter of fact. It's like a bunch of Z-shaped lines going around in a circle.
Um only, he says, from the sun impregnated soil arise Aphrodite and Deir, Isis, and Aarte. The Aryan sun myth is not only transcendental but also a universal law of nature and biology.
To reject it on behalf of universality of instinct and even with yearning glances toward the near east with yearning glances toward the near east, sorry, no pause there, no comma, is a regression into spiritual and racial chaos very similar to the unh wholesome conditions of late Rome. Much as our modern characterology and doctrine of body soul unity may differ from the na naive naturalism of a rousoe or a tooltoy, two things are common to both schools. A cultural pessimism and a touching belief in a world certainty and of a man still unspoiled by intellection. The refined lifestyle and the athletics of spiritual equilibrium of the great encyclopedists of the enlightenment created a spiritual aridity and called forth an inward and then outward resistance to all previous religious and social principles.
Um he's going on a bit uh well I guess I won't skip any. It's he does go on a bit here. Actually I will skip quite a bit.
So, he starts talking about the Sturman Drung uh movement and blah blah blah.
But this goes on and on. I've already read a bunch of going on that didn't need to be uh gone on with. Um let's just skip down. So, at the very end, I think that section ends and he has this kind of uh summary to the end of the the first chapter. Today he says it is necessary to break the hypnotic spell and not deepen the sleep of our generation nor to preach the irreversibility of fate but to assert those values of the blood. That's an italics which once understood can give a new direction to the younger generation and make possible a renaissance of culture and breeding. So that's got some stuff going on there, right? So we're going to assert the values of the blood.
That's key. And once that's understood, it will reinvigorate the youth to want to do things. So it'll create a cult of enthusiasm as Robert Lifton would call it in the younger generation and which will create a possible renaissance of culture and breeding which I assume has to mean a eugenics a belief in eugenics like hybriding from a clear understanding of the nature of the past struggles of the organically determined Indo-Uropean peoples against alien forces and after comprehending the development of our own natural life and our characteristic attitudes to the universe. verse we feel and understand the longing of our generation to reject the transitory present day and will recognize an eternal now. That's positively weird.
Thus, we can bring reason and will into harmony with our Germanic current of soul and spirit indeed if possible with that true Nordic tradition handed down to us from Helas in ancient Rome. Now notice the true Nordic condition you may have figured out is this myth that he's writing that is fake. Philosophically this means to give the aarent modern uh will give an uh got to be killing something grammatically here. Philosophically this means to give the aarent modern will will aarent modern will. Got it? Will as in like your will to do things.
Philosophically this means to give the aarent modern will a noble motivation in accordance with its primal nature. And so there you're gonna have a you want to take the aarent modern will and you want to give it a noble motiv motivation and the virtues of the blood. What did he call it? Yeah, the values of the blood and that will put it back in accordance with its primal nature. So you still have this idea of synthesizing, right?
the modern man and the primitive man just like we have in Russo which he claims to be rejecting. He just doesn't want to do Rouso's style of analysis. In heroic conduct, he says whether of warriors, philosophers, or scientists, we see what is of essential nature. And we know that all heroism groups itself around a supreme value. This has always been the idea of honor, both spiritual and mental. with the idea of honor like its corporeal representatives was and is involved in a war of soul and spirit against the values represented by alien races or the misogynated offspring of racial chaos. Isn't that one hell of an ending there for that? Um, this book is bonkers. I once again indicate that this book is bonkers. And so this is this is the myth of the blood. This is what Nazis believed. were trying to fill in the the question, what in the hell did Nazis believe? Right now, your average everyday Nazi believed he was finally getting over unemployment and that the internationalists and the Jews and the French probably caused this problem and he's getting, you know, back to work and he's got a better deal and it's probably good to hate the Jews. Um, but your your typical Nazis not buying into all this But these higher level Nazis, this is the crap they believe. This is the This is the belief system. This is totally bonkers. Here's a paragraph of part of the stuff that I skipped. The Germanic West has not allowed itself to be robbed of this kind of vitalism by the Roman church despite excommunication poison and the stake. And this vitalism was both cosmic and at the same time earthly because Germanic man felt in a cosmic solar way. It enabled him to discover the rule of natural law upon the earth which is what the myth of the blood right. Perhaps it was precisely this very profound feeling that enabled him to shape the patterns of science and to evolve symbolic ideas that alone afforded him the tools necessary despite the intermittence of continually formative consciousness to approach so closely to the eternal flux.
I mean, isn't it just unbelievable this stuff? He's talking about the Germanic science did not arise amid the martyrdom of 9 million heretics as if the the greatest allegory of inward freedom is either to be condemned along with its essential components and methods or be idolatrously worshiped. So he's talking about how Germans were basically put to a 9 million person genocide and by the church because they were daring to be German and thus be scientific yada yada yada. So anyway, what you see here is that there's a deep spiritualism in the myth of the blood. There's a deep belief in a polarized or uh dualistic um structure to the way that life is supposed to be organized. We're going to reject the static. We're going to reject the Jewish, the Roman Catholic, even the Protestant. Even though the Protestants started off dynamic, it got contaminated by the Old Testament and the New Testament, which seems to be the only thing it's about. I mean, literally, their motto is solar scriptorera, which would refer to the New Testament and the Old Testament. But I digress. Um, and so all of that, he says, stands in opposition to the Nordic Aryan German program, which is actually polarized dynamism. So the dialectic, a living scripture, a living revelation. Uh, in other words, making it up as you go along. Um, uh, changing the rules in accordance with what you need and calling it adapting to reality. And this is, um, this is this is inherent to their totalitarian system that they installed. So, these are the beliefs of the Nazis. The point of this series, the myth of the blood, as I go through this crazy pants book, is to show you what the Nazis believed. And it's really something, right? And maybe you heard some stuff that's echoes of the things you're running into out in the world today. Maybe this is just on background for you. But I'm happy that you're letting me share this with you and coming with me on the ride. So once again, we have just read the last two sections of the first chapter of Alfred Rosenberg's The Myth of the 20th Century.
And the first chapter is titled Race and Race Soul. The next chapter is titled Love and Honor if I'm not mistaken. And let me double check that real quick.
Yeah, love and honor chapter 2. We'll turn to that soon just as a preview for future episodes. I'll just tell you love is not good. Okay, that's love and honor are being contrasted. Love is what Jesus teaches and it's not good. Honor is what you need. And the honor of a totalitarian system is sacrificing yourself and binding yourself totally to that system. So being a perfect little Nazi is honor. That's good. Doing exactly what brings strength and benefit to the nation, to the state, that's good. In the name of the folk, that's good. That's your honor. The the the folk is like your extended family that you're going to honor and not see dishonored. That's honor. So you're going to live up to your duty to do what you're supposed to do according to what the state demands of you because you're a cell in that body. That's the corporatist understanding of fascism.
And that's to be contrasted against sappy, stupid, weak, soft stuff like love, like guess who teaches it? The Jews and the Roman church, which are therefore bad. What a fun thing. So, like I said, thank you for joining me on this journey. I hope this is edifying and instructive and eyeopening. Uh, but we're going to continue going through this book and other books um subsequent to it to see what the Nazis really believed.
Heat up here.
Vidéos Similaires
BSA Goldstar - I gave up! And why animals beat humans!
thebingleywheeler
102 views•2026-05-31
don't put shein's responsibility onto individuals #shein #neoliberalism
ScintillaePod
231 views•2026-05-30
3 Dreams That Changed Philosophy Forever
mommyplus24
731 views•2026-05-31
I Cringed Watching These Protestants Critique Catholicism
jaynijackson
458 views•2026-06-05
Scholar Explains: WHAT IS A GNOSTIC?
fightbackpodcast
965 views•2026-05-31
When They Ignore You, Do This Instead | Stoicism
ZenithWisdom-e3k
615 views•2026-05-31
Why Pure HEDONISM Is IRRATIONAL
qnaline
12K views•2026-05-31
Nietzsche's Last Man Explained in Minecraft
twozziii
117 views•2026-05-30
