Alfred Rosenberg: The Overthrow of the Gentleman

Translated and introduced by Alexander Jacob

This 1940 essay by Alfred Rosenberg (1893–1946) serves as a supplement to Chamberlain’s 1914 essay on ‘England’ in his Kriegsaufsätze.[2] It continues Chamberlain’s delineation of the degeneration of the aristocratic English gentleman into an unscrupulous businessman with a characteristic National Socialist focus on the Jewish contribution to this degeneration. At the same time, it highlights the socialist, ‘worker’-oriented aspect of National Socialism in general.

Alfred Rosenberg: The Overthrow of the Gentleman[1]

When the French Revolution smashed an old system, there fell, along with the political regime, also a social type that had been exemplary for the French of that time: the chevalier. The chevalier was the perfectly formed courtier of the culture of his time. He represented what was then called French culture. In his attitude, his sceptical way of observing the world, devotion to the king, social sleekness, he was doubtless the model for several phenomena of the eighteenth century. To his honour one can say that this type of gallant nobleman bravely retained itself in the end against the regime of Terror. In France there entered in the place of this chevalier a no longer definable mixture of sated bourgeois and Jacobin imitator, especially a stock-exchange speculator — in short, the ideal of the man of private means.

What played itself out in France a hundred and fifty years ago is repeated now to a greater extent in England. Even here a social type is declining: the English gentleman. This gentleman has become increasingly the ideal of the entire British world empire, but the significance and conception of this gentleman seemed, besides, to be somehow worth striving for even among other states and peoples.

The gentleman was, from the start, a man provided with ample wealth, educated according to the rules of social self-discipline, a privileged man, who could make financial manoeuvres that were not innocent and yet within the limits of that which was accepted by society, a man who offended nowhere and acknowledged all the narrow, even if unwritten, laws of British social intercourse as an obvious principle of life. Becoming such a gentleman had become the ideal not only of some bourgeois English circles but, beyond that, of most Englishmen in general. This striving was doubtless so powerful that no social revolution could emerge with greater force because every leader of such workers’ movements inevitably fell under the spell of the gentlemen, was elevated by them, accepted and then absorbed by them. Increasingly the gentleman became the British type characteristic of a big capitalistic age for his existence was bound to abundant financial means. But abundant financial means were to be striven for in the last decades only through big industrial and financial undertakings, and the latter were once again dependent on the exploitative possibilities of a large colonial possession. In order to maintain a large stratum of such rich gentlemen millions and millions of people had to, all over the world, and in England itself, labour with their slave work. England went to war in 1914 in order to maintain this condition of the gentleman forever, and one has not wrongly said that Great Britain conducted the war for the sake of the leisurely long weekend! The advantages of this British type — considering democracy as a political fact — doubtless lay in the fact that a certain stratum was, on account of their property, politically independent and did not need to become so corrupt as the poor parliamentarian devils in France, whose purse had to be repeatedly filled to make them amenable to great transactions, whether it be the Panama scandal[3] or other great profiteering schemes. But the great disadvantages lie exposed today, for the gentleman stratum wishes in principle for the eternalisation of the world capitalistic condition and it finally implies a contempt for work as a decisive value.

At this point intervenes the National Socialist Revolution, whose vocation it is to replace the type of British gentleman living on the work of others with a modern German type of work, though possible for every nation. Work in this National Socialist ethos has once again been recognised as the great decisive value, the real touchstone of the creative and performative capacity of the individual. And therefore every work that takes place on German soil is worthy of respect. It would be an absolutely false, ‘lordly’, standpoint if one wished to declare that any work in Germany could not be done by a German because it would offend his ‘lordly’ consciousness. This standpoint, explicable in Africa and under tropical conditions, would be intolerable for the German nation because therewith the possibility of a class warfare would enter once again on the horizon. If we wished to represent any work on German soil as unworthy of a German, then immediately so many subjective views would gain ground and nobody knows when the evaluation would pass from a negative to a positive one. We must rather hold fast, precisely now, to our old National Socialist principle that every work honestly performed extends to the benefit of the entire Reich and nation, that therewith also every industrious work, even the smallest, possesses its value and its share in the entire national work. Obviously we are not levelling here in any way and know that social justice does not consist only in giving to each honest worker a social security corresponding to his work and in increasing this according to the increase in performance; but it is equally a part of social justice that great work performances be also honoured appropriately in front of the entire nation with regard to the bearer of this performance. Only this correlation ensures what we call a ranking of life conditioned by value (emphasis added), and it is at the same time a truly national social attitude. Only through this can it be prevented that at any time a caste arise once again, and it be made possible that that hard type of our battle period remains decisive in the future — in another selective form but one still conditioned by work performance — for the National Socialist attitude even in the time of peace that follows.

*   *   *

Even the British gentleman, before he disappears now from the stage as a social ideal, has undergone a change. He was earlier predominantly the independently operative politician; with increasing capitalistic development he became to a decisive degree a businessman, the business idea became finally predominant,[4] until Edward VII[5] allowed even the rich Jews to enter increasingly into this capitalistic gentlemen’s society and, in the end, helped, through clubs and the press, to bring in a quick degeneration. The German language has already observed this change through certain nuances. Whereas earlier one spoke of a gentleman in a certain respectful tone, one speaks today of ‘gents’, and certain types of the present ruling Englishmen arouse in us only contemptuous laughter. In this way it has proceeded to such an extent that ‘honourable man’ and ‘gentleman’, which were perhaps similar concepts a hundred years ago, are today so differentiated that they often signify opposites. And when they emphasise ever so eagerly in London that they are fighting for the ‘old British’ and ‘humanitarian’ ideal, the present age is sufficiently enlightened about the actual facts of the social and political development to be able to view certain types of Great Britain today as real representatives of phenomena that were possible and understandable earlier. For, earlier, even dubious lapses were tempered by a certain moderation; today, British representatives have lost all form, and therewith all synoptic vision and attitude.

Today, we may say, to speak personally, that many outstanding people are definitely not honourable men but recent ‘gentlemen’ who are bound to the Jews. That is, personally, an insult but, in a social sense, a symbolic confirmation of an actual condition of social and political degeneracy. Whether it can still be changed is a question for the future. And so the faded gentleman must, like the French chevalier in the eighteenth century, disappear as an ideal worthy striving for, because the nations search for and wish to develop out of a new ethos also a new form of life.

[1] “Die Überwindung des Gentleman,” Völkischer Beobachter, 30 June, 1940.

[2] See “Houston Stewart Chamberlain’s England ,”Occidental Observer, December 13, 2021.

[3] The Panama scandal resulted from the floating of a lottery loan by the French Panama Canal Company to overcome a financial crisis in 1888. French parliamentarians were accused of taking bribes to vote for this loan, and the bribery was organised principally by the Jews, Baron Jacques de Reinach, Léopold Arton and Cornélius Herz. The loan itself proved incapable of preventing the collapse of the Panama company in 1889.

[4] Cf. H.S. Chamberlain’s comment on the degeneration of the British gentleman in A. Jacob, ‘Houston Stewart Chamberlain’s “England”, Occidental Observer, December 13, 2021: ‘This crudeness has slowly imbued almost the entire nation from the bottom to the top — as is always the case. Even fifty years ago it was an offence against class dignity if a member of the nobility took part in industry, trade and finance; today, the head of the oldest and greatest house of Scotland, brother-in-law of the king, a banker!’

[5] King Edward VII (1841-1910) was the eldest son of Queen Victoria was groomed by his parents to be the ‘first gentleman of the country’ and became an arbiter of men’s fashions in his time (see Maurice Muret, The Greatness of Elites, tr. Alexander Jacob, Arktos, 2022, forthcoming, Ch.V).


37 replies
  1. Andre-Hans von BREMEN
    Andre-Hans von BREMEN says:

    For a better understanding of Rosenberg, I advise the book “THE SPINOZA PROBLEM” from Irvin Yalom. It present a theorical discovering of SPINOZA by Rosenberg. It also illustrates how SPINOZA was accusing Religions (mainly Monotheists) are manipulating People… Interesting.

  2. James J O'Meara
    James J O'Meara says:

    It would be interesting and valuable if someone — perhaps Dr. Jacob — examined from this viewpoint Josef Pieper’s essay “Leisure: The Basis of Culture,” which has been lauded by Rightists from T. S. Eliot to Roger Scruton. Pieper outlines and lauds the Greek/Mediaeval ideal of leisure (the Greeks had only “un-leisure” to mean “work”) and locates the modern crisis in the gradual transition, largely due to Marx, to the idea the all must work, only the product of effort has value, etc. Writing in postwar Germany, and as a Catholic, National Socialism is of course Pieper’s bete noire, as we see above, with Rosenberg’s idea that all must work, all kinds of work are honorable, etc. Rosenberg, on the other hand, does well to emphasize the implicit wage slavery and colonialism that makes “the gentleman” economically possible, and the intrusion of the Jew both economically and socially this makes possible. Pieper explicitly denounces Junger, but sees Heidegger as an ally. Is the Right’s goal the society of Plato, St. Thomas, H. Hesse (The Glass Bead Game), or Marx, Junger and Hitler?

    • Pierre de Craon
      Pierre de Craon says:

      I detect the familiar sound of an ax being ground.

      Whether your oversimplification of “Leisure, the Basis of Culture,” Pieper’s detailed, thoughtful, and well-attested study, is the product of misapprehension or mischief hardly matters. The thesis its title proclaims should be taken as original only in the sense that, prior to the era of its composition, it had never been necessary to defend an observation so obvious. That is to say, prior to Marx, the claim for the pre-eminent and indeed exclusionary value of work was a cultural and moral absurdity that no one had had the temerity or vulgarity to advance. Marx’s absurdity then required a germination period of a further three generations or so before the time was ripe for its subsequent profiteering exploitation by Bolsheviks and other socialists, national and international and what you will.

      Even today—or should that be especially today?—one hears virtue-signaling complaints about generalized elitism or about the horror of our rulers’ still having failed to eliminate society’s rich, privileged, and overeducated snobs. In their shallow petulance, the complainers reveal an inability to see that a properly functioning society—a morally, intellectually, and culturally sound society—must accommodate for its own good a segment that consists of, shall we say, rich, privileged, and overeducated snobs. Without people for whom a surfeit of leisure permits the cultivation of profound delight in rarefied attainments (i.e., “the higher things of life”), there would be no useful example for anyone less well endowed with leisure to emulate.

      Finally, as I am unfamiliar with the referred-to denunciation of Jünger (presumably Ernst rather than his brother Fritz) by Josef Pieper, I would be grateful for a citation. It is forty years since I read “Leisure,” but I would be extremely surprised to be told that Jünger was even mentioned therein.

      • James J. O'Meara
        James J. O'Meara says:

        The only surprise here is that you see fit to publicly comment on a book you haven’t looked at in 40 years. According to my kindle, Pieper refers to Junger 5 times over 25 pages.

        “Ernst Junger uses [the term ‘worker’] to outline an ideal image that, according to him, has already begun to mold the man of the future.”

        Distinguishing contemplation from observation: “Observation is a tense activity; which is what Ernst Jünger meant when he called seeing an “act of aggression”.

        “The worker’s world, as Ernst Junger puts it, is ‘the denial of free scholarship and inquiry.'”

        [Konrad Weiss] refers to the characteristically precise style and thought of Ernst Junger, with his fanatacism for the truth — Junger, who really seems to tear the mystery out of a thing, coldly and boldly, and then lay it out, neatly dissected, all ready to view. His passion for tidy formulae ‘is surely the very reverse of the contemplative, and yet there is something idle in it, idleness concealed within the sublime exactitude of thought — as opposed to true idleness which lets God and the world and things go, and gives them time….”

        Junger, principally in The Worker, outlines the image of the New Man, The Worker, which is the antithesis of everything Pieper presents as the traditional understanding of man and his relations with the world. More importantly, Junger welcomes the new image. There is no going back to Pieper’s world of tradition, even if one wanted to (and Junger doesn’t); there is only the way forward, and the hope that by totally accepting the new world, identifying with the Machine and willingly becoming a mere cog, one may achieve some measure of transcendence. Anything, Junger thinks, rather than the stuffy “bourgeois” world of idleness, contemplation, “letting go,” etc.

        “Denunciation” may or may not be the correct term, but to the extent that Junger not only describes but endorses, even welcomes, the world of Total Work, he is a bad hombre. Pieper is a Good German of the postwar era, and Junger represents the hysterical modernism of Fascism and other “iron men” movements, which led to the German disaster, and is no better than Marxism (led by Stalin, the man of steel).
        I myself first read Pieper’s essay in 1973-74, where it was intensively studied over two semesters under the guidance of a notable Thomist, Dr. John Underwood Lewis. So, in the words of the NYU professor standing behind Woody Allen in Annie Hall, “I think my opinions have a great deal of merit.” (And just as Woody pulls Marshall McLuhan out from behind a movie poster, I have just pulled out my own Canadian professor). “Over-simplification” better describes your attempt to score a debate point by simply ignoring what Pieper wrote and hoping your readers don’t check for themselves.

        My comment was simply a suggestion that — at the risk of oversimplifying — the rift on the Right between those who want a return to Tradition, or even just the Victorian era, and those who demand we throw ourselves fully into Modernity.(Autobahns, V-2s, Dr. J. R. Jorjani’s breakaway civilization of time-travel and Antarctic UFO’s, etc.), be examined by Dr. Jacob, in the light of the Rosenberg essay above.

        • Pierre de Craon
          Pierre de Craon says:

          The only surprise here is that you see fit to publicly comment on a book you haven’t looked at in 40 years. According to my kindle, Pieper refers to Junger 5 times over 25 pages.

          James O’Meara is plainly right that I failed to recall the five mentions of Ernst Jünger. Of that there can be no doubt.

          I do not have access to the translation (by Alexander Dru) that I read in a sixty-year-old paperback edition, but I have downloaded the newer translation (by Gerald Malsbary), to which I am pretty sure O’Meara refers to. Having done so, if the Moderator will permit, I can share with readers all of Pieper’s references to Jünger.

          1) p.28. It is with this meaning in mind that Ernst Niekisch spoke of the “worker” as an “imperial figure,” and Ernst Jünger sketched a portrait of that “worker”-type which has already begun to determine the future of humanity. [A note callout, numbered 5, follows Jünger’s name.]
          —p.28, n5. Ernst Jünger, “Der Arbeiter. Herrschaft und Gestalt” (Hamburg, 1932).
          2) p.30. But all the same, it [i.e., looking at a rose] is a “relaxed” looking, so long as we are merely looking at it and not observing or studying it, counting or measuring its various features. Such observation would not be a “relaxed” action: it would be what Ernst Jünger termed an “act of aggression.” But simply looking at something, gazing at it, “taking it in,” is merely to open our eyes to receive the things that present themselves to us, that come to us without any need for “effort” on our part to “possess” them. [A note callout, numbered 1, appears at the end of the quote.]
          —p.30, n1. “Blätter und Steine” (Hamburg, 1934), p. 202.
          3) p.39. The un-related nature of this readiness to suffer is the decisive difference because in this case someone does not ask why. Such readiness to suffer (in which the ultimate meaning of all “discipline” has been seen to consist) is radically different from the Christian understanding of self–sacrifice … [A note callout, numbered 26, precedes “is radically”.]
          —p.39, n26. Ernst Jünger, “Blätter und Steine,” p. 202.
          4) p.43. Can human existence be fulfilled in being exclusively a work-a-day existence? Or, to put it another way, from the other direction, as it were: Are there such things as liberal arts? The architects of the total world of work would have to answer, “No.” In the world of the worker, as Ernst Jünger put it, there is a denial of free research. [A note callout, numbered 33, appears at the end of the quote.]
          —p.43, n33. “Blätter und Steine,” p. 176.
          5) p.51. … there is in [leisure] something of the “trust in the fragmentary, that forms the very life and essence of history.” The same journal entry of the poet Konrad Weiss, from which that last quotation was taken, speaks of Ernst Jünger’s precise style of thinking and writing, which, with its “fanaticism for the True and the Official,” pursues things as an act of aggression, to steal their secret from them and then to place them under inspection as if they were antiseptically prepared microscope slides – this is what Weiss observed: such “formulated” description is “the very opposite of all contemplation, and is like an idleness pushed to a sub lime level of exactitude … as distinct from the typical idleness, which gives its time to everything: God, things, the world, everything, whether good or evil – letting everything go by in indifference.” [A note callout, numbered 10, precedes “The same journal entry”.]
          —p.51, n10. Sept. 12, 1939. I owe my knowledge of this passage to the kind permission of the poet’s widow.
          6 & 7) The remaining two references to Jünger are found in the author’s and translator’s indexes. They consist of page numbers and nought else.

          As can be observed, the sole substantial reference to Jünger’s thought is a quotation from the poet Konrad Weiss. Anyone who doubts that Pieper’s interest here is more in Weiss than in Jünger is invited to do what I did: download the entire translation from this site.

          It’s no secret that O’Meara, like Woody Allen’s cartoonish reduction of Marshall McLuhan, thinks that his opinions have a great deal of merit. In light of his frequent and well-attested insistence in this regard—and despite my own shameful temerity in referring to a book whose largely trivial and passim and notably unhostile references to Ernst Jünger I admittedly failed to recall—I repeat my earlier charge that, as usual, he has an ax to grind. I think that this opinion of mine also has a great deal of merit, and I also think that it possesses rather more foundation than O’Meara’s pretensions to scholarly insight do.

          • Al Ross
            Al Ross says:

            Pierre , your resolute defence prompted me to learn more about this topic.

            What more is required of a learned gentleman.

          • James J O'Meara
            James J O'Meara says:

            I am happy to have given M. de Craon the impetus to reacquaint himself with Pieper’s book, and hope that any readers here who haven’t read it do so. On a recent Counter-Currents podcast I recommended it as one of the 5 books most worth reading, and as I did there, allow me to pass on Dr. Lewis’s suggestion that the following passage, from the second essay, be underlined or otherwise highlighted, as being — at the risk of “oversimplifying” — the key to the entire work:

            “And so it comes to the same thing if I say that the act of philosophizing transcends the world of work, or if I say that philosophical knowledge is unusable, or if I call philosophy a ‘liberal art.'”

            As for Junger, I am afraid we are speaking at cross purposes, for M de Craon apparently judges a reference to be “substantial” purely in quantitative terms. Fr. James Schall, in his introduction to the edition quoted, notes the “Pieper is amazing in the way that he finds brief, pithy statements about his point from Aquinas, Plato, Goethe, Aristotle, and others,” Junger being among the others. Anyone in postwar Germany, where the cult of Junger still held sway, could tell he was being “placed” (as F. R. Leavis would say) as a representative of the cult of Work, and thus dismissed. That’s how one writes a short essay, in which Pieper excelled.

            I fail to grasp how “his interest is really in Weiss”. Weiss is the source of the the quote, and is never referred to again; I suppose when he quotes Goethe from Eckermann’s Conversations with Goethe, it’s Eckermann he’s really interested in?

            Adding up names to judge what is “significant” and assuming quotes are a secret way to refer to the editor of the source of the quote, these ways of reading seem very Straussian, very pilpul. Not very “gentlemanly” at all! As is claiming I “oversimplify” Pieper and “have an ax to grind,” while not bothering to actually, you know, give any reasons. This has gone on too long already, otherwise it would be interesting to have M. de Caon’s one-sentence version of Pieper to compare with my own, to see who is “simplifying”.

          • Pierre de Craon
            Pierre de Craon says:

            I too intend to conclude, and in doing so, I remind anyone with an interest in gentility generally or in Josef Pieper’s defense of leisure as a sine qua non of culture particularly that in my previous comment, I linked to the text of his articulate study of the matter. I include this reminder in the confidence that few, if any, who avail themselves of the opportunity to read Pieper will come away from the experience with an inclination to second James O’Meara’s desperate and spiteful suggestion that I am a (((Straussian))) hawking pilpul.

            Even a somewhat casual reader will, I think, note the lucidity of Pieper’s thought. A man who had read comprehensively in the ancients and the moderns and whose book unfailingly refers to relevant authorities not just germanely but appositely, Pieper yet wore his learning lightly. Indeed, since I have already been upbraided for “adding up names to judge what is ‘significant,'” I might as well add—in the spirit of “in for a penny, in for a pound”—that one has to get probably fifty pages into the book before the number of names Pieper refers to equals the number that O’Meara dropped in his three prior comments in this thread!
            @Al Ross: h/t.

    • Emicho
      Emicho says:

      “Is the Right’s goal the society of Plato, St. Thomas, H. Hesse (The Glass Bead Game), or Marx, Junger and Hitler?”
      Absolutely the latter. We’re going to need their energy. First things first.
      After that, the elites can knock themselves out trying to create something that resembles “Plato, St. Thomas, H. Hesse”.

    • anonym
      anonym says:

      Feels like a strange either/or categorization. As if we have to choose between doing boring chores, or a permanent vacation with quiet contemplation, water color painting and writing poetry.

      Seems to me that “leisure”, in Pieper’s meaning, more or less encompass everything cultural: a creative or spiritual mindset that artists, scientists and poets have. A more meaningful distinction perhaps, would be to focus on the difference between an activity that you “pour your soul into” vs. an activity that’s only feeding your ego (or suck the life out of you).

      The latter is the rat race of a crass business man who has no genuine interest for what he invest in – the only thing that matters is the financial winning. Or the situation of a debt slave who has to do soul killing chores all his life, with no passion or interest for what he’s doing.

      The former is work that gives meaning and satisfaction in and of itself. The skill and craftsmanship of a farmer, carpenter, gardener, author etc. Where the job becomes an artform – with the same kind of passion, joy and pride as an inventor or an artist has – albeit not as advanced and complicated.

      In other words: a society run by Jewish usurers and “investors”, who’s idea of leisure is various forms of schweinerei, and an enormous underclass of goy servants. As per Isaiah’s prophesy.

      Or a normal European society, with the kind of leisure that leads to science, art, inventions, philosophy, a deeper understanding of nature, and meaningful work. And if we were allowed to reap the benefits of automatization – as a society – we would get more leisure time, when the boring chores is done by machines.

      (Theodore Roszak har written a book, “Person/Planet”, with ideas similar to Pieper’s, although with some tiresome social justice nonsense added.)

  3. Valerie Protopapas
    Valerie Protopapas says:

    While no doubt what is presented here is in fact true, the real cause of the cancer is little mentioned, if at all. What died FIRST in both Europe and then, later, America, was our Biblical morality. Even non-Christians such as Ben Franklin admitted that the US wouldn’t work as a society without being based on what used to be called “Judeo-Christian” (that is Scriptural) morality. And doubtless, the same was true of Europe. When Christianity was abandoned in the “Enlightenment,” eventually, the cultures that that Faith undergirded were also overcome. Communism is the perfect “secular humanist” understanding of mankind and his government. It wasn’t cultural habits that denigrated the West, but moral atrophy and eventually the abandonment of what made the West what it once was ~ that is, great. No amount of “social instruction” will undo what we presently have unless it involves the return of Jesus Christ as the standard to which people hold themselves and their societies.

    • Liosnagcat
      Liosnagcat says:

      I’m fine with “return of Jesus Christ as the standard to which people hold themselves and their societies,” but I fail to see what that has to do with the “Judeo” part of the construction “Judeo-Christian.”

      • RockaBoatus
        RockaBoatus says:

        That’s because there really is no “Judeo” in relation to the Christian Faith, at least not in the way many American Christians imagine. It’s a poor expression, and one I suspect designed to make Christians sympathetic to Jews, Israel and Judaism.

        • Alieu
          Alieu says:

          As someone from Europe, I’ve never heard anybody outside America use the term Judeo-Christian. I’m sure it was promoted by the Jewish media in America to get Christians to support zionism. Even though both religions have common origins, the morality of Christianity is the polar opposite of Judaism. Christianity teaches that you should treat others the way you would want to be treated, Judaism teaches that you should treat others the exact opposite of how you would want to be treated.

          Christianity teaches that the ten commandments apply to your interactions with all other people, Judaism teaches that they only apply to your interactions with other Jews. Judaism encourages murder, theft, adultery etc. so long as it’s committed against non-Jews, with a particular hatred reserved for Christians. The Jewish religious authorities (Pharisees), feared that too many of their followers were converting to Christianity, and as a result they imbued them with an intense hatred for Christianity ever since. The “Jews” (Pharisees and their descendents) are the original and most obstinate enemies of Christianity, and have been througout its entire 2,000 year history.

          Jews in America promote the idea that “Judeo-Christians” (in reality only Christians) need to fight against their common enemy of “Islamo-fascism”. Islam teaches that Jesus is in heaven and is considered to be the second-holiest prophet after Mohammed. Judaism teaches that Jesus was a sorceror who is burning in excrement in hell for all eternity. Who are the bigger enemies of Christianity?

          • Flo
            Flo says:

            You’re exactly right re: the now-ubiquitous “Judeo-Christian.” The term was unheard-of until a decade or two ago. It was heavily promoted by prominent Jewish radio talkshow hosts until it became a regular part of the neocon vocabulary. Its history is a bit like the term “holocaust,” which came to prominence only decades after WWII.

          • Pierre de Craon
            Pierre de Craon says:

            … the now-ubiquitous “Judeo-Christian” … was unheard-of until a decade or two ago.

            Flo: As you say, the term “holocaust,” at least as applied to the Jewish extermination fantasy, does indeed date from the mid-sixties, when its use became the object of a full-court press by the (((New York Times))) and other propaganda outlets.

            The self-contradictory adjective “Judeo-Christian,” however, is found in print as far back as the 1930s, when it became an arrow in the quiver of those pushing Americans to make war on Germany. I myself heard politicians use the term regularly and freely in the 1950s, when I was in grammar school and high school.

            The Jews invariably play a very long game.

    • RockaBoatus
      RockaBoatus says:

      I agree very much with the spirit of your comments, and I think it comports in some ways with what John Adams had to say: “Avarice, ambition, revenge, or gallantry, would break the strongest cords of our Constitution as a whale goes through a net. Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”

      Although some of the Founders of our Constitutional Republic were distinctly Christian, others were not (mostly deistic in belief). It was really a mixed bag. The U.S. was not officially established as a ‘Christian nation’ in the way we think of many European nations (e.g., it never displayed a cross in its flag, and some early government officials expressly denied they were a ‘Christian nation,’ particularly in the context of trade with Muslim nations). Yet there can be little doubt that our country was deeply influenced by Christianity and its value system.

      As I understand it, our Founders wanted its citizens to be ‘good moral religious people’ because this would have a stabilizing effect on the newly formed nation. It would help contribute to good order, honesty, and the sort of virtues that would be beneficial to all. But whether they envisioned a country of Bible-believers committed to Jesus Christ and His Gospel is doubtful. Our Founders, though generally good and law-abiding persons, were not always the most moral of people. While some of them belonged to a church and were registered members, they were mostly just church goers, nominal Christians at best (yes, there were some exceptions).

      While it’s true that some zealots have claimed America to be a ‘shining city on a hill’ along with other biblical expressions (John Winthrop in 1630 used this term in a sermon minus the word “shining,” and Reagan used it in a political speech in 1989), this is not quite how the Founders envisioned the country at least in terms of America being an exclusively Christian nation in which biblical morals rule everyone’s lives. They wanted citizens of good character, law-abiding, and civic minded, but they were not required to be Christian nor attend church.

      I think, however, that you are correct in this sense: The loss of this basic civility, good character, and uprightness from our country is due, in large part, to our abandonment of God. Mass non-White immigration and Jewish cultural subversion for the past seventy years has also greatly contributed to our national decline. Whenever a nation is foolish enough to permit foreigners with differing values, culture, and religious beliefs to immigrate (especially in large numbers), it won’t be long before the host nation starts to lose its own identity.

  4. Angelicus
    Angelicus says:

    Edward VII was a disgusting fat slob who surrounded himself with Jews eager to fund his corrupt and lavish lifestyle. The fragment I reproduced below is my translation of a book never published in English. Is the biography of the multimillionaire Maurice de Hirsch, better known as Baron Hirsch. It was published in France in 2002 under the title “Le Moise des Ameriques” (America’s Moses) and its author is the Jewess Dominique Frischer.

    “As he was not much interested in art or reading, the Prince of Wales, who detested loneliness, was particularly demanding with regard to the personality of his friends, whom he chose for being funny, brilliant talkers, perfect bridge players and excellent shooters. Curiously, it seems that these qualities were better distributed among his Jewish friends. Since he found these people to be faithful, loyal and, in general, more intelligent and generous than others, he ignored the derogatory comments made about his friends. Furthermore, his sympathy for his Jewish friends lasted until the end of his reign. Thus, in 1905, four years after his coronation, the House of Lords had 34 bankers among its members! ” (page 232)

    • Emicho
      Emicho says:

      “Edward VII was a disgusting fat slob who surrounded himself with Jews eager to fund his corrupt and lavish lifestyle.”
      That’s how I understand him as well. I read(and believe) he was the biggest force that prevented the new Germany, who we had hunders of years of alliences with, who the British people are most like and most respect, from coming to a proper understanding with us.
      Instead pushing us into a foolish, doomed alliance with France of all people, the ancient enemy.
      For that, he is the worst thing to ever happen to these islands after Churchill(probably his bastard son).
      I’d guess he had this anti-German policy not because of the Jews he surrounded himself with, but because he was a total beta-male, and was taking taking out revenge on his German father, who he was a great man, and to whom Eddy was a massive disappointment.
      Yeah, he was more than a disappointment as our kind as well.

  5. Hitmarck
    Hitmarck says:

    “would be intolerable for the German nation because therewith the possibility of a class warfare would enter once again on the horizon.”

    There’s a practical reason too. In case we had a leader, that was so incompetent and helpless without servants, he might one day stand in front of the world and shit himself and we all would day of collective Fremdscham.

    Under the Biden Regime the Anglo can indeed be glad he aint made out of the same wood as we are.

    • Emicho
      Emicho says:

      That’s a interesting comment. I thought most of the middle American powerless class was ethnically German.
      We are all cursed with leaders seemingly purposely designed to enflict maximum humiliation on us.
      The horse lady in New Zealand. Jimmy Cranky in Scotland. Slob/Jew/Turk/Twit ‘Boris’ in London. A flamboyant homosexual married to his mother in France. A gay Indian in Ireland. Another queer, this time a dress-up/blackface fetishist in Canada.
      But none of them come close in my opinion to the monstrosity that is Angela Merkel. What even is that? It’s not a tranny, as I consider myself something of an expert at spotting them. But it must be some sort of hermaphrodite monstrosity.
      I always just presumed ‘she’ was cooked up in some lab in a test-tube in some dark, God-forsaken corner of communism. To be unleashed later as a ‘leader’ of Germans, as part of some sick Jewish revenge-fantasy joke plot.
      The rest, Brandon as well, we could just pass off as cartoon villains. But Merkel is something different, something frighteningly unhuman. Her policies were just the logical extension of this.
      Sorry if I have this wrong, but surely no German can laugh at anyone else’s leader.

      • Angelicus
        Angelicus says:

        Very true. The Germans are the most despicable people out of this disgusting lot known as the White race. Most Whites deserve everything they get. I never saw such a repulsive lack of dignity and moral courage.

        • Emicho
          Emicho says:

          That’s funny, true and harsh at the same time.
          But no people in human history have been so tortured and humiliated, made to hate themselves as Germans.
          You might think, well, wasn’t in rough in ancient times? Didn’t slaved races have it bad?
          It’s worse now because of all the modern psychological destruction of the German people. Not to mention all the garbage in everyone’s food & the stuff they’re bombarding us with electronically.
          The collapse in sperm count and testosterone is no accident. So no, not even ancient or medieval slaves would have been treated in such a way. Why would you want your male slaves to be fragile, neurotic, cowardly wrecks? It doesn’t make sense.
          A good comparison is the Great War, hyperinflation then Weimar degeneracy. The Germans suffered through that to become like the world’s best, fittest, healthiest soldier nation.
          Now look at them. So their treatment post-WWII must be something about 10-100x crueler than those disasters.

          • Angelicus
            Angelicus says:

            Very good observation, with which I agree 100%. The sadistic punishment of the German people is unbelievable unless one is aware of the sadistic, spiteful nature of the Jews who will NEVER forget and forgive them for the glorious and peaceful revolution that they achieved between 1933 and 1939.

            A friend of mine who visited Germany nearly 15 years ago was shocked by the physical demeanour of the Germans, clearly a race of lackeys who have been spiritually and culturally castrated. Most people do not know that the huge majority of the German males between 18 and 40 were killed during and AFTER WW2 (Eisenhower’s death camps accounted for nearly 1.500.000 between 1945-1947)

            WW2 or “WWJew” was a genocidal one, with the German people as the victim. After the horrendous killing of the war years and the immediate postwar came the spiritual murder/destruction of the German people through “re-education”.

  6. Peter London
    Peter London says:

    A noted 13th century rabbinic author made this interesting comment:
    “Israel is like the lady of the house to whom her husband brings the money. Thus Israel is without the burden of labour and receives the money from the people of the world.” Yalkut Shimoni 75,2.

    • Emicho
      Emicho says:

      Yeah, they’re just off-the-charts brilliant, aren’t they?
      That’s why they run everything you know, because they’re just so damn clever.
      “It’s an IQ thing, goy. Don’t worry about it.”
      Though at least he does admit that at bottom, Jews represent the female spirit. He’s right about that.

  7. Pierre
    Pierre says:

    There are great insights on the fall of English aristocracy in the books of English aristocrat Anthony M. Ludovici : The False assumptions of Democracy, The Third Reich and Fascism contra Liberal Democracy, The Specious Origins of Liberalism, at Ostara Publications. Jews played a role without a doubt, but also lack of education, no oversight, lust, bad mariages which led to a genetic degeneration. It would be well worthwhile for someone to review his ideas for TOO.

      • Al Ross
        Al Ross says:

        Neither of the two world wars could have been won without American involvement.

        The British officer class in both wars included Aristocrats but was mainly comprised of the upper middle class’s sons .

        These boys , thanks to their mainly commercial forebears , were sent to English public schools ( and a few facsimile Scottish ones ) because emulation of one’s Aristocratic social superiors was , at that time , deemed the highest expression of society’s stability and traditions.

  8. Peter
    Peter says:

    This is Alfred Rosenberg’s Wikipedia entry from Estonia, where he was from. It’s very interesting, in particular the part at the end where a Jewish group complains of the display they had on him. I was not sure if other countries Wikipedia could be different than the US and this one is very different. This is their native son and some Estonian professors and journalists don’t want to turn their back on him. You have to translate it from Estonian using a translator.

Comments are closed.