Race Research in Germany, 1933-1945
“Two souls, alas, dwell in my breast, / each seeks to rule without the other”
J.W Goethe, Faust, Part I, lines 1112-1113
It is easier to discuss politics and human behavior with biologists and geneticists than with social scientists. This applies in particular when debating the role of racial heredity and how it affects man’s character and his political behavior. The only problem, however, is that even a natural scientist, despite marshaling material and forensic evidence in his research, is also obliged to dance to the tune of dominant political ideas, i.e., abide by the canons of “political correctness,” or what the Germans call the compliance with the Zeitgeist— the spirit of the times. In other words, a geneticist or an evolutionary psychologist, along with his social science colleagues, must also subscribe to the dominant political beliefs and the dominant ideologies of his time. Moreover, he must carefully choose his words, given that, for instance, the noun ‘race’ has become today part of the so-called cancel culture.
Thus, if the dominant beliefs or ideologies are hostile to the research on different racial psychologies of different ethnic groups or, for instance, if the Zeitgeist is not conducive to the study of how genes influence the Bible-thumping of a Southern evangelist or to research on the “communist criminal chromosomes” of a former Bolshevik commissar, it is likely that a researcher will face adverse reactions from his peers and state authorities. Under pressure from the prevailing zeitgeist in the sixteenth century the astrologist Galileo, in order to save his neck, had to recant his discovery that gravity causes objects of different masses to fall with the same acceleration. This counterintuitive discovery is now universally taken for granted by all scientists. Likewise, under pressure from today’s dominant egalitarian beliefs it is risky for an evolutionary biologist to discuss excessively the correlation between man’s genetic fabric and his political affinities. The earth may no longer be flat, but an evolutionary psychologist who stresses the important role of DNA on our character, let alone a historian voicing doubts about the World Wat II victimhood accounts, runs the risk of being flatly denounced as a fascist monster or an extraterrestrial demon. Only antifascist do-gooders can allot themselves the rewarding victimhood role, “the victim having become the true hero of our times.”[i] Basically, since the end of World War II, modern social sciences, along with the media in the West, have operated as the Department of Demonology with regard to citizens of White European extraction, and particularly the German people, serving as occasional household demons.[ii]
It is always a welcoming sign to see rare scholars brave the ukases of self-censorship. By using a scholarly yet comprehensible language the behavioral geneticist Robert Plomin describes in his book how our very being is largely determined by our DNA makeup. In a chapter titled “Gene Hunting” he notes: “The first law of behavioural genetics is that all psychological traits show a significant and substantial genetic influence. Heritability means that inherited differences in DNA sequence cause differences between us.”[iii] Expressed differently, man’s character manifesting itself, for instance, in his infra-, para- or supra-political fantasies, daydreams, or mental disorders, is influenced by his ancestors’ DNA. Certainly, environmental factors and education play an important role – often a secondary one. Similar results on the correlation between heredity and political behavior have been confirmed by other researchers and discussed on numerous occasions (e.g., here), but also in other journals:
The existence of genetic influences on attitude formation raises the possibility that parent offspring resemblance is due to the genes rather than to their common environment.[iv]
Research on DNA by Anglo-American behavior geneticists and evolutionary psychologists, however much it offers a refreshing breakthrough, is not recent. Human genetic makeup, racial psychology, ancestral heritage, genetic endowment and their role in man’s sociopolitical behavior were discussed in great length by hundreds of German psychiatrists, biologists, chemists, lawyers and literati long ago. Of course, the term “behavioral genetics” was nonexistent a century ago in Germany; instead, German scholars and scientists in the Weimar Republic and later on in National-Socialist (NS) Germany used the less arcane word, such as “Rassenseelenkunde” (science or teaching of racial soul, or science of racial psychology), an expression common among German race researchers during the first half of the twentieth century. For obvious political reasons, the results obtained by German race researchers had to be memory-holed following the end of World War II, or simply discarded as pseudo-scientific drivel. Even if one assumes that it was drivel or trash, one wonders why this literature causes so much headache to the ruling class today, and why are the works of those German scholars not allowed to be studied by a wider audience?
Before examining some of those German findings on the correlation between racial heredity and character, one must always keep in mind that thousands of books and essays were banned or destroyed by the occupying Allied authorities [v] and that hundreds of thousands German academics, professors, teachers and cultural workers were subjected to the humiliating Allied questionnaires [vi] regarding their activities from 1933–45. One could fairly well surmise that the ongoing censorship in the U.S./E.U. media and academia regarding race research, the deluge of fake news and “wokism” in the 2020s, and the surge of Covid-inspired fear and warmongering are just logical consequences of post-World War II U.S./U.K./Soviet educational policies.
The Trust in Genes…
The works of some of those former German psychiatrists, medical doctors and geneticists need to be examined, not least as their approach differs significantly from their contemporary American and British colleagues. The German vocabulary on race and heredity is much more descriptive and less prone to conceptual ambiguities, and it avoids the use of foreign Latin-derived neologisms often used by English-speaking scientists. Aside from many overtly political publications on race and heredity published by German SS or NSDAP outlets during the NS epoch,[vii] dozens of academic journals and hundreds of racial scientists in Germany wrote on the subject of race, behavior, and heredity in an academic and very subdued manner. One encounters side-by-side with scholars close to the National Socialist movement apolitical contributors, such as the psychiatrist Ernest Kretschmer and the psychoanalyst Carl G. Jung who had a significant influence on behavioral genetics and racial profiling in post-World War II America and Europe. Rarely does one spot in their works derogatory or xenophobic statements about other races, including Jew baiting. The Hollywood cliché that Germany, during that time, functioned solely as a Lampshade state with German academics obliged to goose-step to a giant soap opera extravaganza must be dismissed.
Out of hundreds of scientists who participated in the research on racial psychology or “racial soul research” (Rassenseelenkunde) and racial characterology, both on the individual level and on the level of separate nations and races, one can single out for instance Walter Rauschenberger. He deals extensively with the hereditary makeup and genealogy of classical thinkers and artists, such as Arthur Schopenhauer, Friedrich Nietzsche, Richard Wagner and many others. “One comes to the conclusion that man is a unit, that his psychological traits are closely interrelated, and that a person’s character affects his talent, just as his talent affects his character.”[viii] Further he states that “someone’s character can only be understood when one gets to know his family tree.”[ix] Schopenhauer, who was of Dutch, German and partly Slavic ancestry had inherited his cultural pessimism from the combined character of his stern and gloomy father and his temperamental mother:
No modern philosopher possessed such an amazing erudition and such a comprehensive knowledge of languages as Schopenhauer did. He spoke German, English, French and Italian fluently and also had a good knowledge of Spanish. He also mastered the ancient languages and was at home in the literature of almost every people and time, which he largely read in the original texts.[x]
Schopenhauer had also inherited mental disorders that showed in his compulsive neuroses which made him feel paranoid from getting poisoned, or going to the barber, or living in a two-story building. “His constant fear of upcoming bad luck was the reason he resided on the ground floor for fear of catching fire.”[xi] His racial and genetic makeup shows traits of an organic and popular thinker, “exuding a down-to-earth attitude and the odor of the soil—key characteristics of Schopenhauer’s philosophy.” [xii]
Humans are just a blank slate or a rootless abstract human being, as has been maintained by Enlightenment thinkers and their modern liberal and communist offspring. In fact, humans have a long line of genetic heritage that can be modified by mutations and natural selection. German prominent psychology professor, later a member of the NS party, Gerhard Pfahler, focuses in his book on the role of education and political environment and how both can either improve or ruin someone’s inborn character strength or weakness respectively:
The first proposition regarding the theory of the hereditary character reads like this: Crucial psychological (soul) functions are inheritable in the strictest sense of the word. They are never the result of the influence of environment on the human being. They are the preconditions and therefore inheritable in the strictest sense of the word.[xiii]
According to Pfahler, freedom of will, a centerpiece of philosophical and theological disputes for centuries, won’t play much of a role even for a high-IQ person of strong will if he carries genes predisposing him to embezzlement, double dealing, political treason or some other felony. If man’s genetic/racial heritage predisposes him to crime, irrespective of his strong will to subdue it, he will act according to his latent criminogenic nature in a given political or historical situation.
Writing about this age-old dilemma of free will this is how Lothar Stengel von Rutkowski, a renowned anthropologist, medical doctor, poet and a high NS official sees it:
For, at a decisive moment a very specific situation will occur which, given the unique hereditary nature of the person concerned, excludes any further freedom on the part of that person who desires something specific. The dream of free will is over.[xiv]
The human drama regarding free will becomes unbearable when parents are obliged to observe their own camouflaged self in their child’s erratic or violent behavior. “How many parents abhor seeing in their child the return of the unpleasant sides of their own nature!”[xv]
One must dismiss the widespread Hollywood-hyped cliché trotted out by liberal scholars, many of them Jewish, claiming that the German racial researcher extolled only the “blond beast ” of the Nordic racial type at the expense of other European groups — such as Slavs. The popular term ‘Nordic’ was used often as a common denominator for all White subgroups. Nation or ethnicity is never a synonym for race. Most Germans, or for that matter most Whites, were and still are the combination of Dinaric, Nordic, Phalian and Mediterranean type with each subtype showing a predominant facial feature, i.e., phenotype. Prior to 1945 over 10 million Germans lived in the vast area of Eastern Europe and outside Germany’s border. To assume that there were no mixed marriages or no sexual encounters between those ethnic Germans and the majority of Hungarian, Romanian or Slavic populace is outright false. During World War II hundreds of thousands of Russian, Ukrainian, Croat, Slovak volunteers fought in the Wehrmacht uniform. More than half a million SS members, both in the German administration and in various military formations were non-German nationals.[xvi] The chief in charge of a Wehrmacht bloody reprisals against the Allied- and Soviet-inspired Warsaw uprising in the late summer of 1944 was general major Bronislav Vladislavovich Kaminski, a former Soviet citizen of Polish extraction, who had earlier turned into an ardent anticommunist. For his bloody actions against the Polish rioters, he was sentenced to death by his boss—Heinrich Himmler. The high-ranking Wehrmacht jurist and later SS general Lothar von Rendulic, who was in charge of fighting communist partisans in the rugged Balkans and snowy Finland, was a descendant of Croatian peasants. The list of mixed-marriage offspring—i.e., German intra-European “Mischlings” serving in the National-Socialist government goes on and on and on. Carl Schmitt, comes also to mind, a famous and famed German Catholic constitutional lawyer and important political theorist, much admired today by US and European right-wing and Alt-Right activists. Schmitt was married to a Serbian woman.
Spurious research by modern liberal and Marxist scholars dealing with the National-Socialist epoch asserts that the Germans were obsessed 24/7 with their pure Nordic blood only. In fact, the German word “Mischling”, having today a pejorative meaning and denoting a half-breed of mixed White and non-White origin, was a popular rhyme among many National Socialist functionaries who often referred to their own “mixed” inter-European pedigree comprised of various combinations of Phalian, Dinaric and Nordic subgroups. Some high-flown popular self-proclaimed racial researchers (Herman Gauch, Jörg Lanz von Liebenfels, etc.) who combined their race research with their cultic Nordic, Arian brotherhood rituals spiced up with xenophobic remarks, were not considered serious researchers. Not only were their works ignored by the German NS authorities, but they were sometimes ridiculed even by their own colleagues, “given that readers can get from those “racial savants” (Rassenkundler) a false sense of the essence of the science of race.”[xvii] One could draw a parallel with some modern cultic “Hollywood Nazis” in the U.S. whose racial rituals are adorned with bizarre iconography causing more harm than good to the advancement of White people. The role of spiritual and psychological traits in race research was widely discussed by many scientists in Weimar Germany and later on in NS Germany:
Certainly, the physical appearance of man (phenotype) is also the result of basic hereditary dispositions and occasionally those modeling ones which are due to slightly changing environmental forces. But the psyche is much more malleable and more flexible, much more pliable, volatile and softer than any somatic potential. The scope of the outcome, i.e., the results, are bigger, the variability is much wider.[xviii]
The German language makes a sharp distinction between spirit vs. soul (Geist vs. Seele), words often used synonymously in English, leading frequently, when translated, to serious conceptual confusions and incorrect conclusions. The leading racial anthropologist in NS Germany, professor Egon Freiherr von Eickstedt, explains in his books why it is politically dangerous for a politician to project his own perceptions, or wishful thinking on foreign nationals or races, especially when he is about to reach an important political decision.
That applies not only to the individual Self but also to the racial Self. Therefore, the interpretation of spiritual life of a foreigner is all the harder and methodologically more difficult to grasp the more remote the other race stands, that is, the more distant it stands apart from one’s own spiritual fabric. For if there is only one characteristic missing or almost completely missing from my Self, then the corresponding characteristic in the spiritual oscillations of that other person is also missing: “we do not understand each other.” Here lie the ethno-psychological causes of long and often bloody conflicts.[xix]
Most German racial psychologists of that epoch supported the holistic view of race where the “race of the body” and the “race of the soul” were studied together. The duality between the race of the body and the race of the soul was bridged by fusing natural science with social science. In fact, one can observe that the German racial scholars were among the first “sociobiologists” (although the term did not exist then), opposing the compartmentalization of science into distinct and separate fields. There has been a long German scholarly tradition of interdisciplinary research, even producing a derogatory German word ‘Fachidiot’—“the expert idiot”—for a one-track-mind scientist obsessed with his own field of study only. As a side note one must mention that following World War II, particularly in the USA, there has been a steady process of excessive compartmentalization of the educational curriculum, including the intelligence and diplomatic community, often leading to adverse and disastrous results.
Ontologically speaking the physiological and the psychological processes of life are strictly identical. Phenomenologically speaking, they are different, but they are strictly identical in their structural laws and in the rhythm of their development. … It can further be asserted that the body and the soul interpenetrate each other. All motor activity is always the expression of the soul (Seele) at the same time. The eye is the mirror of the soul. The soul appears in the body.[xx]
Race research in National-Socialist Germany was not a monolithic consensual endeavor where scientists were always forced to toe the party line. Modern media commentators, along with countless modern social scientists who critically narrate about race research in NS Germany, often surpass the apocalyptic accounts of the Book of Revelation with their ad hominem assessments. Even authors such as Edgar Allan Poe’s or HP Lovecraft’s surreal horror tales are no match for many modern, often lurid and one-sided prose lampooning German race researchers. Admittedly, the difference in approach of a multitude of German scholars dealing with the race issue, was quite significant. The example of the German philosopher of decadence, Oswald Spengler, who downplays the importance of biological race, is quite telling. Spengler, who is championed today as a major theoretician of radical conservatism by many White nationalists and traditionalists in Europe and the U.S., uses the term ‘race’ in an offhanded, poetic, and generic sense, shrugging off the biological approach of many German racial scientists:
But in speaking of race, it is not intended in the sense in which it is the fashion among anti-Semites in Europe and America to use it today: Darwinistically, materially. Race purity is a grotesque word in view of the fact that for centuries all stocks and species have been mixed. … Those who talk too much about race no longer have it in them. What is needed is not a pure race, but a strong one, which has a nation within it.[xxi]
Nobody in the position of authority in the German NS state harassed Spengler for his critical views about race research and his biting remarks about German anti-Semites. In fact, Adolf Hitler himself invited him to a private chat, lasting more than an hour, on July 25, 1933, which resulted in Spengler’s subsequent shipment of his republished book to him. Spengler’s downplaying of the biological attitude toward race research explains why his works, unlike works by hundreds of other European and American race researchers and theoreticians, who had become victims of purges after World War II, or modern “deplatforming” today, continue to exert interest among mainstream conservatives in the U.S. and Europe.
At the other side of racial research spectrum and more along the NS party line, stands Otmar von Verschuer, a prominent medical doctor, geneticist and later an official in the party, whose works on race were often quoted and discussed in a variety of NS publications. In a similar fashion, Verschuer, while admitting that race is destiny, dismisses the deterministic approach to the study of racial heredity while emphasizing the important role of environment, culture and history:
Therefore, culture and history must not be “explained” by race. The fact that we have recognized the importance of hereditary-biological preconditions for the people and the state is a lasting insight into racial biology. However, the spiritual conditions of culture and history must not be forgotten. This was explicitly confirmed by research on hereditary. It offers absolutely no support to materialism and to determinism—in any form whatsoever. [xxii]
Another racialist scholar, prominent psychology professor Bruno Petermann, deals extensively with the racial soul problem and how it affects man’s future social behavior and his political views. He also underlines the importance of political environment and how it can either positively or negatively alter human behavior:
Compared to the physical characteristics of a human being, we must first of all concede in principle that his mental, his spiritual world is obviously determined to a much greater extent by environment.
The social milieu into which a person was born obviously determines the fate of his upbringing which will affect him in the course of his life and shape his personality. [xxiii]
An influential NS official, medical doctor, psychiatrist, also the editor-in-chief of a journal of psychiatry, Matthias Heinrich Göring, analyzed the genetic fabric of individuals and how it influences the choice of their political and philosophical beliefs. Being a friend of the renowned psychologist Carl Gustav Jung, who was for a short time coeditor of the same journal, MH Goering gives some credit to Jewish psychoanalysts Sigmund Freund and Alfred Adler for having been among the first to examine the realm of the unconscious. But he maintained that, due to their alien racial makeup, they are not capable of understanding the “depth psychology” (Tiefenpsychologie) of their German subjects.
Unfortunately, no one before Freud had utilized in practice the knowledge of the unconscious. Its applicability is a contribution of F r e u d. His method has become common property of all psychotherapists. Nonetheless, much more important than the method itself is the worldview (Weltanschauung). We must ask ourselves the question: Where does the method end and where does the worldview begin? This question is not difficult to answer. The worldview begins as soon as one starts asking about the content of the unconscious. Therefore, we need to study the soul-life (Seelenleben) of our people in order to obtain a picture of its psyche. I am saying explicitly “our people,” i.e., the German people, because I am of the opinion that within the Aryan race each people has its own spiritual peculiarities. [xxiv]
The word ‘Gemeinschaft’, i.e., community — or what is called an ingroup today—was used by German race researchers of all intellectual approaches. Gemeinschaft was considered a mandatory conceptual and therapeutic framework for studying someone’s individual mental skills, character flaws, political dispositions, or nervous disorders, as well as their cure. Psychoanalyzing (as Freud or Adler did) an atomized, urbanized individual and his political beliefs or his mental troubles, while disregarding or ignoring his racial and national background and his family tree, yields opposite, often negative results:
[Alfred] Adler uses the concept of the community merely as a means. According to him it is not the community that is essential; it is the individual’s healing. For us, the primary and most important thing is the idea of the community, the sense of the community. Subsequently, out of this sense of the community comes spiritual healing.[xxv]
* * *
Racial Language and the Canceled Language: the Jewish Question
From the above, several conclusions can be drawn. Most modern academics and politicians, when critically writing or speaking about the National-Socialist experiment and race researchers of that time resort to the pejorative term “Nazi”. It must be pointed out that the expression “Nazi” was never used in official NS documents, nor in numerous academic publications sponsored by the NS regime. If one follows the logic of this semantic distortion then the term “Nazi” can find its distorted equal in its equally derogatory word “commie” when portraying Communism. However, not a single modern scholar in the US today—unless when quoting or putting the “commie” word in quotations marks—would ever use such a pejorative abbreviation. He wouldn’t look serious or publishable. As a result, as long as the derogatory term “Nazi” is being randomly tossed around in numerous scholarly or media debates, no solid progress can be made in objectively assessing the works of German race researchers in NS Germany. The chief of the NS propaganda office, Joseph Goebbels, did however write a short semi-satirical pamphlet with the title “Der Nazi-Sozi” —quotations marks added by him—in which two actors conduct an imaginary and heated discussion with the main character who is lambasting Jews, Marxism, and the bourgeoisie while extolling the virtues of “German Socialism.”[xxvi] It must be noted that the defamatory, abbreviated term “Nazi” had been launched by German communist agitators in the early 1920s during the Weimar Republic, later becoming, especially after World War II, an all-out, slogan demonized throughout the world and signifying absolute metaphysical evil.
Likewise, the German NS regime in its official self-description, along with thousands of its intellectual supporters, never used the term “ideology” for its own NS experiment: it reserved this term, i.e., Ideologie, only for its mortal enemy: communism. The official reference to the National-Socialist belief system was an old, lofty, romantic German term, Weltanschauung, a compound noun usually translated into the English as “worldview.” However, the German term Anschauung, with its numerous verbal derivatives, is far more nuanced than the English “view” or “outlook”. It has a far-reaching meaning in psychological, philosophical and aesthetic speculations, and of course, in providing a very distinct notion of the political. Being a language that freely allows the construct of countless compound nouns, it’s no wonder that the German language is thought to be best suited for “Dichter und Denker”—poets and thinkers.
The topic of racial hereditary traits and how they are reflected in the use or abuse of language was much discussed by German researchers whose background was in comparative linguistics and knowledge of European folk tales. One must single out here the name of Siegfried Kadner, a linguist and translator, associated with the NS propaganda offices, and a very popular compiler of German folk tales. His book on race and humor discusses the racial “body language” and the joke-making skills of different European racial subgroups. Through the study of someone’s gift for jokes, figures of speech and his or her sense of humor or lack of it, one can fairly well figure out a person’s racial and hereditary background, without even studying his outward physical traits. Kadner observes how individuals of the Dinaric subgroup can be recognized by their boastful and often coarse humor, while the Nordic group excels in pranks, also sporting self-irony, as seen in the German anecdotal medieval big-time prankster Till Eulenspiegel. A European of a predominantly Mediterranean physique is said to be inclined to self-aggrandizing speech and ritzy attire.[xxvii] A passing observer can still notice some of those diverse humorous inclinations of different phenotypes that differentiate individuals of White extraction in the USA and Europe.
Kadner describes the Jewish sense of humor as a form of “Jewish cynicism” which manifests itself in their lack of interracial empathy. He does acknowledge strong verbal skills of Jews, but also their inclination to use convoluted sentences of multifaceted meaning—or what we call today a gift for double-talk.
It is well known and must by no means be denied that the Jew brings out a lot of self-irony and that the most effective Jewish jokes come from Jews themselves. But the case, for instance, is quite different regarding the Nordic inclination to making fun of one’s own kind and of one’s own nature. There [i.e., among Nordics], the cool distance from one’s Self which is averse to any embellishment; over here [i.e., among Jews], the intimate pleasure in oneself and in one’s own kind and the endeavor to remove racially conditioned concerns into a harmless light of amusement.[xxviii]
He illustrates the Jewish joke-making talent for verbal escapades and their attitude of indifference toward other peoples and races by analyzing hateful anti-German verses of the famous nineteenth-century German-Jewish poet Heinrich Heine. In Kadner’s view even the guilt tripping language used by the German-Jewish psychoanalyst Sigmund Freud toward his patients, being full of syntactical twist and turns, shows Freud’s specific racial background:
Nobody, not even a researcher can leave the boundaries of his race and ethnicity. When referring to the depth psychology of his own mixed-race, Sigmund Freud is undoubtedly right.[xxix]
There are literally tons of books published since the end of World War II in different languages dealing with race scholarship in NS Germany. Many of them are well researched and contain impressive bibliographies, but virtually all of them start out with deductive analyses ending in preconceived criminalizing conclusions. The average reader, without even knowing it, is forced to accept demonological conclusion about the past German race researchers. If one accepts the assumption that those former Germans racial scholars—all of them across the board—were indeed pseudo-scientists or quacks, why then are they being resurrected over and over again and portrayed as the archetype of the Absolute Evil? Subconsciously, many contemporary authors of these antifascist and “anti-Nazi” scholarly accounts or tracts, let alone their readers who are fascinated with horror stories about the NS epoch, show their own implicit crypto-fascist nature—while never admitting it in public.
This remains true unless there were some dark secrets in the Allied liberal and antifascist post-World War II narrative which resorted to the language of “weapons of mass destruction” in order to legitimize, but also better hide the Allied own crimes. The fact that the Frankfurt School and its mainly Jewish scholars were so agile, right after the end of World War II, in doubling down on the antifascist narrative and keeping it alive today, is a quite informative fact in thinking about Jewish psychology. The panicky attitude toward the Fascist and NS intellectual heritage by numerous Jewish intellectuals reflects subconsciously their own concerns in dealing not just with a handful of German dimwits of mediocre knowledge, but with many of them being serious researchers. Otherwise, they would have shrugged off the whole topic of the NS epoch long ago.
After observing what was left of the bombed out, scorched and dismembered Germany and Europe in the mid-1945, it was predictable for the Western Allies to attempt to find a way to restore their clean consciences. This is the reason they launched, all along with Frankfurt school re-educators, massive propaganda on the “authoritarian personality” pointing to an alleged inborn authoritarian character trait of all European peoples. [xxx] Freda Utley, an American-English scholar witnessed firsthand the mindset of the new architects of the new liberal and communist world-improvers, shortly after the end of WWII:
United States military authorities on entering Germany and seeing the ghastly destruction wrought by our obliteration bombing were fearful that knowledge of it would cause a revulsion of opinion in America and might prevent the carrying out of Washington’s policy for Germany.[xxxi]
Predictably, the writings of those German racial psychologists had to be countered by the opposite political-psychological offensive in an effort to reset the entire Western society—not just in Germany, but in the entire Europe and the USA. This process, as of 2022, is still in progress. Its political, social, educational results can be observed on the daily basis.
[i] Alain de Benoist, Les Démons du bien (Paris: P.G de Roux), p.33.
[ii] T. Sunic, Titans are in Town, pref. by K. MacDonald (London: Arktos, 2017), p. 190-200.
[iii] Robert Plomin, Blueprint – How DNA Makes us Who We Are (MIT/Allen Lane, 2018), p. 117-129.
[iv] Emily A. Willoughby et al., “Parent Contributions to the Development of Political Attitudes in Adoptive and Biological Families”, APS (November 18, 2021).
[v] Liste der auszusondernden Literatur (Berlin: Zentralverlag, 1946).
[vi] Cf. Novel by Ernst von Salomon, Der Fragebogen (Hamburg: Rowholt, 1951). In English: Fragebogen; The questionnaire (NY: Doubleday, 1955).
[vii] „Preservation and increase of the Nordic blood share is therefore the most important part of the breeding goal of the German people. This does not mean the devaluation of other Europoid races that have contributed to the building of our nation.“, Rassenpolitik (Berlin: Hauptamt (Main Office) Reichsfuehrer SS – SS, 1942), p. 64.
[viii] Walter Rauschenberger, Erb- und Rassenpsychologie schöpferischer Persönlichkeiten (Jena: Verlag von Gustav Fischer, 1942), p. 3.
[ix] Ibid, p. 16.
[x] Ibid., p. 187.
[xi] Ibid. p. 218.
[xii] Ibid. p. 210.
[xiii] Gerhard Pfahler, Warum Erziehung trotz Vererbung? (Leipzig, Verlag BG Teubner, 1940), p. 35
[xiv] Lothar Stengel von Rutkowski, Was ist ein Volk? (Erfurt: Verlag Kurt Stenger, 1940), p. 157.
[xv] Gerhard Pfahler, Warum Erziehung trotz Vererbung? (Leipzig: Verlag BG Teubner, 1940), p.55.
[xvi] Cf. Franz W. Seidler: Avantgarde für Europa: Ausländische Freiwillige in Wehrmacht und Waffen-SS (Selent: Verlag Pour le Merite, 2004).
[xvii] Gisela Meyer-Heydenhagen, ” Arisches Weistum?“, in Volk un Rasse, 11/3 (Leipzig: 1936), p.462.
[xviii] Egon Freiherr von Eickstedt, Grundlagen der Rassenpsychologie (Stuttgart: Ferdinand Enke Verlag, 1936), p. 33.
[xix] Ibid., p. p. 38-39.
[xx] Paul Bruchhagen, Allgemeine Rassenseelenlehre (Leipzig: Verlag Quelle und Meyer, 1940), p.14.
[xxi] Oswald Spengler, The Hour of Decision, translated by Charles F. Atkinson (London: London George Allen and Unwin, 1934).p. 219.
[xxii] Otmar von Verschuer, Erbanlage als Schicksal und Aufgabe (Berlin: Walter de Gruyter & Co, 1944), p. 24
[xxiii] Bruno Petermann, Das Problem der Rassenseele (Leipzig: Verlag, Johann A. Barth, 1935), p. 122-123.
[xxiv] Matthias Heinrich Göring, „ Weltanschauung und Psychotherapie “, Zentralblatt für Psychotherapie, IX/5, (Leipzig, 1936), p. 292.
[xxv] Ibid., p. 295.
[xxvi] Joseph Goebbels, „Der Nazi-Sozi“ (Elberfeld: Verlag der Nationalsozialistischen Briefe, 1927).
[xxvii] Siegried Kadner, Rasse und Humor (München und Berin: JF Lehmans Verlag, 1939); Reprinted, Verlag der Schelm, 2018), p. 60.
[xxviii] Ibid, p. 186.
[xxix] Ibid, p. 190.
[xxx] T. Sunic, Homo americanus; Child of the Postmodern Age, pref. by K. MacDonald, postface A.de Benoist (London; Arktos, 2018), „Brainwashing the Germans“, pp.74-86.
[xxxi] Freda Utley, The High Cost of Vengeance (Chicago: Henry Regnery, 1947), p. 183.
Always incredibly great writing. Thank you.
A truly brilliant exposition by the redoubtable Tom Sunic
I couldn’t agree more, tito perdue! I’m impressed by Dr Sunic’s erudition and honesty.
Our world is ruled by a bunch of lunatics and is sinking into chaos. Nothing is safe or predictable anymore. In every second it wants to convince us that some insidious deity directs the destinies of mankind. When we believe to have grasped a corner of truth, it eludes us again to the same extent like a reluctant virgin.
Is all this still real, or have I long since found myself in a parallel universe, a clownish version of the former true world? Is the virtual illusory world, which permanently asks us to throw all ideals and values overboard and secure for ourselves only a temporary moment of individual life possibility, perhaps long since the terminal phase of our existence?
A Jewtube streetshitter named “Sadhguru” claims that people who have a “vocation” are sick and destroy the world. If it’s pointless to put out fires as a firefighter, school children as a teacher, and heal people as a doctor, we should all put on an orange turban and happily shit together in the street. That alone is true wisdom!
I was always told I was “uneducated” if I were to discuss any serious issue, like differences in cultures, ethnicities or a race. Fair enough, but I read several hundreds of books, still reading. But they also say ‘Being informed without the education is not enough.” But I tried several times at Pre-Med in the early 90s, than Art. But didn’t have a drive or endurance (pre-College Algebra became unavoidable at some point). My daughter is the first in my family to get a college degree, and she is an only couple of months from completing a Masters in Psychology (her attendance at the private Catholic college, was one of the biggest Red Pill moments for me, but that’s another story). However, my company offered the free College program from the UNLV, and I applied for the BS in Anthology. I wanted to see the levels of the ideology that guides the science of Humanities today. But I remember the class in Sociology, I had long time ago, it surprised me how the American capitalist society was portrayed in bad light. But I suppose if your intention is to remake Society – you will want to present the current one in a bad light. Anyway, I never enrolled, I found out later, after paying a non-refundable application fee, the online course is not available for that program. Being in my 50s, I would most likely never complete it, and probably end up in trouble by asking too many unacceptable questions.
Professor Sunic is the most important modern European intellectual- and even my fellow Balkanoids truly don’t have a full appreciation of his genius. Even less my brothers from Croatia (within the exception of Niccolo Soldo) and Serbia, who are unfortunately still stuck in the 90s.
Genetic truth encounters great resistance. Perhaps it was Spengler who asserted “A negro can be German in the spiritual sense.”
The old mind-dichotomy does not want to let go. They think any reduction in free will is like like claiming that free will is illusory. The jewish “Objectivists” agree with the Christians- there can be no limits to volition. Man is a being of self made soul. But wait, doesn’t that soul have to be already in existence. . .a great circularity is produced. Virtue and vice are from free will ONLY, according to them. I know no actual evidence to support these views. Yet these “Objectivists” bitterly oppose the mind-body dichotomy. There are false binary choices- one either has free will, or doesn’t. What if there are degrees- homosexuality may be partially inborn, and partly freely chosen? Difference in degree, or difference in kind. Many want to make everything in-kind differences. The individualists assert wealth is from individuals ONLY. Marxism asserts wealth is from society ONLY.
A light switch can be on or off, in contradistinction to a dimmer switch WHICH CAN BE PARTLY ON OR PARTLY OFF. The evidence supports the latter view. Sometime black/white analysis is called for, sometimes shades of gray analysis is called for.
50 years to change my mind. . .
What I wrote recently about visuospatial skill- it would be ridiculous to claim this is all or nothing. Of course there are degrees. Bur at the end [of the scale] it may be black and white- zero visuospatial skill may imply 100% nihilism/communism/liberalism.
Recent research [as of 2000] shows the effects of environment [on individual development] to be a gigantic goose-egg- ZERO.
That unqualified research most likely has ZERO validity .
Why Parenting May Not Matter and Why Most Social Science Research is Probably Wrong
[Please post all, it is crucial information]
c that your parents did not shape you as a person. Despite how it feels, your mother and father (or whoever raised you) likely imprinted almost nothing on your personality that has persisted into adulthood. Pause for a minute and let that heresy wash across your synapses. It flies in the face of common sense, does it not? In fact, it’s the type of claim that is unwise to make unless you have some compelling evidence to back it up. Even then it will elicit the ire of many. Psychologists especially get touchy about this subject. I do have evidence, though, and by the time we’ve strolled through the menagerie of reasons to doubt parenting effects, I think another point will also become evident: the problems with parenting research are just a symptom of a larger malady plaguing the social and health sciences. A malady that needs to be dealt with.
In terms of compelling evidence, let’s start with a study published recently in the prestigious journal Nature Genetics.1 Tinca Polderman and colleagues just completed the Herculean task of reviewing nearly all twin studies published by behavior geneticists over the past 50 years. For some background, behavior genetics is the field devoted to studying human differences, and let’s be honest, whether you are a scientist or not you are interested in why people are different from one another. Besides being inherently fascinating, the reality of those differences impacts your life daily. The knowledge that some people are more trustworthy, honest, violent, impulsive, and aggressive than others is essential to navigating life. It’s simply not a good personal policy to assume that everyone you stumble upon in life has your best interest at heart.
It doesn’t matter if you’re a behavioral scientist or a plumber; we’re all theorists about these differences. People speculate about human variability in their free time constantly (think about how often you’ve wondered why your boss is such a huge…source of inspiration). Parenting effects usually play some role in our conception of why some people behave differently than others. Behavior genetics, luckily, provides us with meaningful insight regarding the sources of human differences in the population (unfortunately I can’t say anything about your boss specifically). So what about the results of that massive review of twin research? Genetic factors were consistently relevant, differentiating humans on a range of health and psychological outcomes (in technical parlance, human differences are heritable). The environment, not surprisingly, was also clearly and convincingly implicated, but interestingly it wasn’t the “environment” you might have anticipated.
Before progressing, I should note that behavioral geneticists make a finer grain distinction than most about the environment, subdividing it into shared and non-shared components.1,2,3,4 Not much is really complicated about this. The shared environment makes children raised together similar to each other.3 The term encompasses the typical parenting effects that we normally envision when we think about environmental variables. Non-shared influences capture the unique experiences of siblings raised in the same home; they make siblings different from one another. Another way of thinking about non-shared environments is that they represent the parts of your life story that are unique from the rest of your family. Importantly, this also includes all of the randomness and pure happenstance that life tends to hurl in our direction from time to time. Returning to the review of twin research, the shared environment just didn’t matter all that much (that’s on average, of course, for some traits it mattered more than others). The non-shared environment mattered consistently.
The pattern of findings mentioned above is nothing new.1,2,3,4,5 The importance of genetics and the non-shared environment (and the relatively minor importance of the shared environment) was already so entrenched in behavior genetics that years before the Polderman study was published it had been enshrined as a set of “laws.”2 The BG laws, though, are based largely (but certainly not completely) on twin studies, the meta-analysis by Polderman et al. was comprised of twin studies, and if you pay attention to this sort of thing you’ve probably heard some nasty things about twin studies lately.3 You’ve read that twin studies contain an insidious flaw that causes them to underestimate shared environmental effects (making it seem like parents matter less than they do). The assumptions of twin research, however, have been meticulously studied. The methods of twin researchers have been around for decades and have been challenged, critiqued, refined, adjusted, and (perhaps most importantly) cross validated with other techniques that rely on different assumptions entirely.3,4 They work, and they work with impressive precision.
Based on the results of classical twin studies, it just doesn’t appear that parenting—whether mom and dad are permissive or not, read to their kid or not, or whatever else—impacts development as much as we might like to think. Regarding the cross-validation that I mentioned, studies examining identical twins separated at birth and reared apart have repeatedly revealed (in shocking ways) the same thing: these individuals are remarkably similar when in fact they should be utterly different (they have completely different environments, but the same genes).3 Alternatively, non-biologically related adopted children (who have no genetic commonalities) raised together are utterly dissimilar to each other—despite in many cases having decades of exposure to the same parents and home environments.3
article by Brian Boutwell
…” studies examining identical twins separated at birth and reared apart have repeatedly revealed (in shocking ways) the same thing: these individuals are remarkably similar when in fact they should be utterly different (they have completely different environments, but the same genes).”
It would seem obvious that those similarities refer to something that is predominantly determined by genes .
” Alternatively, non-biologically related adopted children (who have no genetic commonalities) raised together are utterly dissimilar to each other—despite in many cases having decades of exposure to the same parents and home environments.”
It would seem obvious that those dissimilarities refer to something that is not predominantly determined by environment .
The two basic parts of an AI robot are software and hardware . Likewise , the two basic parts of humanity are programmatic/software and genetic/hardware .
The two basic parts of human behaviors are programmatic and genetic ; where some programmatic behaviors are more environmentally determined ( such as for instance language ) than other behaviors which are more geneticly determined ( such as for instance two side-by-side racially disparate persons learning the same language at the same place at the same time where IQ , which is mostly by far geneticly determined , would be a major factor in any difference of their learning ability ) .
An excellent article, well written by a rational contemporary thinker. Congratulations Dr. Sunic.
I commend Tom Sunic for taking on this subject of Race Research in National Socialist Germany.
I’m specially pleased to learn about Mathias Heinrich Goering, who said that, “due to the alien racial makeup of Jews, they are not capable of understanding the “depth psychology” (Tiefenpsychologie) of their German subjects.” Just another reason, as if we needed one, that Jews and Germans cannot, should not mix — it’s only good for Jews, never for Germans.
Now that I’ve learned what consciousness truly is, and its essentiality to Life, I can no longer accept there is such a reality as the Unconscious. This was an invention of Freud, according to Sunic. How could something so basic to human existence be “invented” in the nineteenth century? It had to have been known all along if it existed. It just shows how ludicrous our academia is — it will believe any Jewish fable.
NS psychiatrist M. H. Goering is also quoted: “I am saying explicitly “our people,” i.e., the German people, because I am of the opinion that within the Aryan race each people has its own spiritual peculiarities.” [xxiv] I agree with that. It’s so sad that we are being deprived of this information and type of beliefs. God forbid Germans should be proud of anything. Thanks again to Tom for giving us this article. Maybe I’ll have more to say later.
I was at one time very interested in Carl Jung … it was in the sixties. I had 8 to 10 of his collected works. I read them too. I still have a few of them, but am no longer interested in finding out what’s inside me. There’s no end to it. The only thing that’s really interesting is being-consciousness.
On the ‘unconscious’, look at Russell’s book ‘The Philosophy of Liebniz’ (written near the end of 19th century).
‘Leibniz pointed out the absolute necessity of unconscious mental states. He distinguished between perception, which consists merely in being conscious of something, and apperception, which consists in self-consciousness, i.e. in being aware of perception …. An unconscious perception is a state of consciousness, but is unconscious in the sense that we are not aware of it, though in it we are aware of something else.’
The unconscious was used to refer to mental events which practice or custom or learning had smoothed out for everyday use.
Very likely Freud assumed that anything unconscious was disgusting or furtive or in need of secrecy. Just as would be expected from Jews addressing ‘goyim’.
Bert Russell? The one who called for “diet and injections” to make it impossible to challenge authority [The Impact of Science on Society, 1952]?
That you no longer believe in an “Unconscious” seems to suggest that you’re more than uninterested in Carl Gustav Jung now, after having been interested enough to read eight or 10 of his books. You must also think him quite mistaken, since, if my memory serves, he’s famous for affirming a “Collective Unconscious.”
You may be right, and maybe someday I’ll see that you are; but for the time being I can’t imagine that a Liszt or a Paganini is consciously playing all the notes in a concerto he plays without the score before his eyes. Without thinking, he still does know all the notes–he knows them “by heart”: they’re part of his psyche, and seemingly below a surface of consciousness.
I don’t believe that a spider has to think in order to weave a web, nor that an eel hatched in the Sargasso Sea finds its way to Europe’s rivers, through thousands of miles of the Atlantic, by taking thought. But they do KNOW how! Instinct seems, to me, subconscious knowledge; and it seems less erring than conscious knowledge.
Freud gets lots of credit for talking of the unconscious; and so it’s understandable that the idea should have a bad odor for some realists re the JQ. But is he, or is Jung for that matter, the main wellspring of the concept’s currency? There’s not only Leibniz, as R. West points out, but the much more influential thinker who, Freud himself said, knew himself better than anyone who ever lived–Friedrich Nietzsche. FN characterized consciousness as “surface” only.
“God forbid Germans should be proud of anything.” As Leibniz and Nietzsche were both von ihre Vaterland, they’re certainly accorded credit here.
Thanks for this reply, Lucius, even though I think you are totally wrong and don’t know what you are talking about. It gives me a chance to clarify. Though it’s true I’m no longer (at all) interested in Jung’s findings, it doesn’t necessarily mean I think he’s mistaken. It’s more that he followed mistaken ideas about Consciousness is in the first place.
I didn’t explain further in my original comment bc it seemed beyond the scope of this article (which it is). I found Jung fascinating when in my twenties, and now I’m 80, so a lot has gone under the bridge in this time.
Jung’s “work” was designed to help clinically disturbed people, not someone like me. We try to universalize these findings and turn them into dogmas. It’s important to remember that whatever is “observed” is influenced by the observer. When the observer wants to see something, the “observed” tends to comply. This is why I said, “Learning about yourself, finding stuff in you, will just go on and on.” Thoughts are associated with the mind; they ‘come from’ the mind, and there is no end to them. Literally. Thought is forever. One can get pretty tired of their own thoughts! Thoughts can also drive you mad.
The point is: How valuable are they? Likewise, how important is the mind–that the type of people who come here think they know so much about? Mind is nothing but a generator of thoughts, and includes a function of memory. None of this is limited to the brain, btw.
I once had an out-of-body experience in which I found myself viewing my surroundings from a vantage point up by the ceiling of my dining room. I had attempted a meditation and this resulted! It was totally real-life. I saw myself from behind, sitting in my dining chair, with my feet resting on another chair, holding the book I’d been reading, with all the remains of dinner on the table and in the kitchen. I lived alone, no pets, so everything was completely still, I didn’t more at all but it was not a dream or vision. I was amazed, and when I began to question how this could be, I was back in my body again. What came up for me later was the astonishing fact that I could see everything as it was but I was not looking through my physical eyes.
It tells me sight is not limited to the body, or the eyes. And consciousness is not limited to brain-body either. Do you have an answer to that?
Consciousness is awareness. That’s all. It’s not “thinking” or the intellect. We are never not aware, including in “death” or in deep sleep. Then we’re not aware of “the world” but the world is only a result of the ego and mind. So let’s understand that Mind is not necessary for awareness-consciousness.
Why there is no Unconscious? Because consciousness always is; it is not possible to be without it. Being-Consciousness is God; there cannot be a no-God or an un-God. We’re only talking about ignorance – that is, not-knowing, or mis-identifying. Do you think that is the state Freud had in mind with the Unconscious? I don’t think so. ‘Ignorance’ does not exist as reality but only as a thought that vanishes upon investigation.
The problem comes from not understanding what consciousness is.
Hm, lemme see: you say that “I can no longer accept there is such a reality as the Unconscious. This was a creation of Freud….” But Jung, who affirmed an Unconscious, is perhaps not mistaken?
And the innate knowledge enabling a salmon to find and spawn in the very gravel bed in which it was hatched, all without GPS lol, after being thousands of miles away in the ocean, is the same thing as the conscious effort involved in reasoning with a syllogism?
Well, I don’t know what YOU’RE talking about, and I’m not at all sure you do either.
By the way, I too have some background in disciplines similar or identical to those you seem to have pursued, having studied among other things Advaita Vedanta–a real Aryan religion–for decades, though not in the recent past. So I’m not unacquainted with some of your language.
“I too have … studied among other things Advaita Vedanta–a real Aryan religion–for decades.”
You studied it — but it didn’t take? Well, of course, because you can’t get past your Western ego that believes mental concepts are the real thing, and keeps Reality at a distance. This is the same conversation I had with “Poupon Marx” about Buddhism that he likes to promote to others but does not practice. Sincere practice is the only way to gain direct experience, thus conviction. Of course, a person has to be ready (ripe) for it.
As for the innate knowledge within a salmon, an eel or a spider, it is not found in its ‘collective Unconscious,’ which could not be accessed without some kind of psychotherapy or hypnosis (if actually then). No, it is more like its built-in Salmon-eel-spider instincts, and humans have the same if left to their own devices. We find our way to where we need/want to go also.
Instincts are natural, not found in Freud’s Unconscious Mind.
The meaning we place on words and terms has to be agreed upon first, such as “what is Consciousness?” before any further discussion can be meaningful. You are mixing the terms as it is convenient for you:
“But they do KNOW how! Instinct seems, to me, **subconscious** knowledge; and it seems less erring than conscious knowledge”
I can agree with that, but “subconscious” is not ‘”unconscious,” which is what you and I started with. Then you return to “unconsciousness” again, as though they’re the same. That shows lack of discipline. Another problem is an inability or unwillingness to deal with the subjective. You’re only comfortable with objective knowledge. You may reject that observation, but if so, show it! You didn’t respond to any of what I wrote in answer to you, as though its unimportant. I even asked direct questions you do not answer, because now you’re afraid you can’t bluff me.
You have not convinced me, or anyone, of a reality of an Unconscious.
I agree with the Advaitins (proponents and adherents of Advaita Vedanta, i.e., Non-Dualistic Hinduism) that in some sense or other the world is Spirit, the Self, Brahman or God. Remaining powerfully meaningful for me are “Atman ca Brahman” (“the individual soul is the World-Soul”) and “Tat tvam asi” (“that art thou”–a refrain from the Upanishads that identifies the life-essence in an animal or a leaf as one with one’s own life-essence, as one Spirit).
I don’t take issue with you concerning consciousness’ being fundamental to existence. A stone is cold, smooth and hard; it may seem antithetical to consciousness, but coldness, smoothness and hardness are conscious states. Perceptions. If a tree falls in a forest and there’s no one around, there IS NO sound.
And long ago I wrote a religio-philosophical novel in which the sagely pivotal character tells the seeker-protagonist, “The world is God-consciousness. YOUR consciousness.” And I believed that.
What’s most at issue here, at least for me, is whether there is indeed consciousness that’s not conscious of itself–such as the spider has in lol knowing how to weave a web without being taught. That to my mind would qualify as unconsciousness, though it’s not the unconsciousness which we conceive a stone as embodying. And I perceive that it does exist.
Leibniz, in that passage from Russell quoted by Raeto West, doesn’t mean that unconscious states are categorically contrary to consciousness, only that they aren’t self-conscious–that they’re not apperceptive; they don’t involve the awareness of being aware.
It’s this kind of reflection that perhaps led me away from Advaita’s absolute monism–and in point of fact I did end by leaning toward Ramanuja’s Visistadvaita Vedanta–“Qualified Non-Dualism,” which argues unity in multiplicity, multiplicity in unity.
As for my or THE ego, it’s the sense of separateness, and of course it’s ignorance. But another thing my sagely pivotal character said was “Thank God for ignorance,” because it’s the creative principle, without which the Cosmic Melodrama or Unfolding can’t transpire–because in order for the world of contraries and absolute multiplicity to exist, it there must be belief in it—yes, error! The world as we know it is essentially theatrical but I think it’s a Terrific Show (!!!), and am not interested in renouncing it, in meditating till I perceive on all levels that there’s just the Self and I’m that.
Say, do you have somewhere, in more systematic form, what you wrote in your first reply to me? I’m not at all averse to considering it further.
My first reply? Isn’t it this: March 6, 2022 at 5:41 pm — above. Seems systematic enough to me. But we haven’t at all solved the wrong-think about the Unconscious “invented” by Sigmund Freud.
We’ve run out of time and space here. You can email me at my website or I could try your mailer return address. But I’ll add this:
“… it’s a Terrific Show (!!!), and am not interested in renouncing it, in meditating till I perceive on all levels that there’s just the Self and I’m that.”
That pretty much says it all. “Just the Self” is not enough for you. For myself, I’m no longer interested in the Show and am drawn to take refuge in the Self.
There must be a differentiation between a Jew ( a protected religious class in the US ) and a Hebrew ( a protected racial class in UK.)
The Religion is Judaism and the Race is Hebrew , and always “the twain shall meet”.
The Germans did not want war in 1939/1940
The Russians have been forced into a corner by Yankee controlled NATO
I hope the Russians are not killing children with their bayonets as the Americans did when they invaded Vietnam.
HERE WE NEED CIPOLLA!
In the interest of objectivity and to forestall certain criticism of this essay by our opposites, a couple of sentences on the SS-initiated LEBENSBORN organization would have been warranted.
The Party’s adoption of the extant, Virginia-centered Eugenics practices might also have found brief mention.
WIKIPEDIA is objective on LEBENSBORN and very relevant for those seeking a deeper understanding of that period.
01 The splendid research offered up here by Dr. Sunic, the names, ideologies, programs, institutions, contemporaneous research, etc., in my opinion, would have called for a few sentences regarding their implementation.
02 LEBENSBORN was anything but reprehensible. It was headed by Himmler and sought the multiplication of the German people. Racially certified SS men of additional stamina and good looks were encouraged to have offspring with German, unmarried women of equal qualifications. This offspring was then offered to their mothers or put up for adoption, with financial inducements. From the male side: nice work if you can get it.
03 As an undergraduate, my advanced Psychology class visited a state-run asylum, in the early sixties.
I will never forget a ca. three year old boy in a quasi cage enclosure. He had never knelt, much less stood erect. He was lying on his stomach and of course peered up at us. His head was of enormous size, almost equaling the remainder of his body. It was severely flattened because of his permanently prone position.
Wouldn’t an injection have been the kindest thing to do for him ? Even eugenics had its place.
To Tom Sunic:
I wrote a couple of comments to Ron Unz at Unz Review yesterday and today about this essay of yours. They were not welcomed by him, to say the least, and he “hid” the bulk of each one of them. Just now, however, he writes this to me:
March 4, 2022 at 6:54 pm GMT • 3.9 hours ago
“Thanks for bringing that interesting article by Tom Sunic to my attention since I’d previously missed it, and was glad to republish it here.
Since he’d indeed mentioned something about the disputed use of the term “Nazi” I dropped him a note describing my own opinion on the question, and he seemed to agree with me entirely.
He also agreed with me that this sort of subject attracted huge numbers of cranks and crackpots all over the Internet.”
Is this how you recall it or is he blowing smoke? Did he mention my name?
[Unz’ own opinion is that “Nazi” is a perfectly proper term that he prefers to use (I can’t say what his reasons are bc he never gave them to me, or to anyone that I know of. But I’ve never seen him use National Socialist or NS — only Nazi, all the time. And I’ve read a lot.)]
Tom — thanks also for introducing me to behavioral geneticist Robert Plomin’s book “Blueprint.” He basically proves it IS Nature over Nurture, which I have firmly believed for many years now.
You describe his book as explaining how “our very being is largely determined by our DNA makeup. In a chapter titled “Gene Hunting” he notes: “The first law of behavioral genetics is that all *psychological traits* show a significant and substantial genetic influence.” And “The existence of *genetic influences on attitude formation* raises the possibility that parent offspring resemblance *is due to the genes rather than to their common environment.* ”
This is the antidote to the largely false Libertarian-ism that has taken over this country and even the world to some extent. It’s not based on facts but on some kind of individualistic wishful thinking (which leads to disaster, as we see happening now with Ukraine).
I looked up his book on Amazon where I could read Chapt. 1 and half of 2. I ordered it and look forward to reading it. Also watched/listened to his video interview https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wiDWj_idj8w
He’s a German-Polish mix who grew up in Chicago, born 1948. Typical hard-working, high output German.
you describe left-libertarianism, which is despised by right-libertarianism
to assert that Libertarianism has taken over, evidence please, further comment is unprintable
TJ says: “to assert that Libertarianism has taken over, evidence please, further comment is unprintable”
I should have used the term ‘individuality” — the cult of individuality — instead of Libertarianism. So I take it you fancy yourself a Libertarian, as so very many do and that’s why I noted it taking over this country.
Some would say–and you may be among them– that the USA was founded as a land of liberty. True enough, but it has changed as it’s grown and is now an unwieldy contradiction.
We certainly profess the self-governance and independence of the individual citizen. Yet as we mix in totally different cultures and races that aren’t capable or inclined to self-govern, and calling it “liberating people,” “offering hope to the world” and/or “enrichment,” we end up with the expected disastrous results. But no matter how disastrous, we refuse to blame it on the cult of individuality because the majority of white people now cling to their passionate belief in it, and have fear of differentiating between culture/racial groups.
I do not share that thinking.
” It’s not based on facts but on some kind of individualistic wishful thinking (which leads to disaster, as we see happening now with Ukraine).”
You seem to have lost the plot on this Ukraine crisis .
It is the prevailing Judaic collectivist mindset of the globalist NWO oligarchy that pushed Russia to invade the Ukraine .
Judaic collectivist leaders or leadership groups assume supremacy over any and all others in this world ; in particular , it assumes a supreme collective right to cancel any and all other a priori “unalienable Rights” to “Life , Liberty , and the Pursuit of Happiness” and to cancel even without a formal public due process of law .
In other words , Westernworld oligarchs ignored Putin’s “Pursuit of Happiness” in trying to keep NATO off the front porch of Russia .
Moreover , individualism is neither anti-social nor anti-organizational ; and it is not about a single person foolishly attempting to prevail against the will of a collective or any other kind of group of gangsters .
The following links are to synoptic expository articles on the Ukraine prelude to WWIII :
Here is an excerpt from the directly above linked article ___
” However, it certainly appears that world leaders are deliberately pushing us into World War III.”
Here is an excerpt from the directly above linked article ___
” Perhaps best known for the book he wrote with Stephen Walt, “The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy,” Mearsheimer is a proponent of great-power politics—a school of realist international relations that assumes that, in a self-interested attempt to preserve national security, states will preëmptively act in anticipation of adversaries.”
Here is an excerpt from the directly above linked article ___
” Now that it is obvious that (1) NATO’s purpose is aggression, not defense,”…
Below is a link to an article which includes numerous identified quoted warnings from Kissinger to Meirsheimer over a twentyfive year period up to the present ___
This is an excerpt from the directly above linked article ___
” Most fascinating thing about the Ukraine war is the sheer number of top strategic thinkers who warned for years that it was coming if we continued down the same path.”
Have you ever consulted the disastrous historical record of the slaughter of humanity by millennia of collectivist pursuits of dominion over the world “for the greater good” ?
“You seem to have lost the plot on this Ukraine crisis .”
No. I have no interest at all in following the “Ukraine war.” I feel too much physical revulsion at all the news coverage that is available. Nor do I want to read your links about it and discuss that. I have far better opportunities for where to place my attention. It’s kind of like the old joke about ‘what if they had a war and nobody came.’ I’m not coming to this one.
…” ‘what if they had a war and nobody came.’ I’m not coming to this one.”
Then your side would lose by default ;
and may even be slaughtered by the victors-over-defaulters since there cannot be a war without an aggressor whom soon would be the victor already there at the battlespace whereby your absence would be a defeat-by-default .
Clearly , if there is no aggressor/(war challenger) and no defender/(challenged party) at the expected battlespace , then “they” do not have and never “had a war”.
That renown cute expression that you asserted , which is quoted at the top of this reply , is nothing more than potentially disastrous silly sheeple nonsense when taken seriously by anyone and when there is in fact a war challenger .
it cannot be overstated
that a crucial part of the Fabian or any other kind of genocide against nonjewish White cultures is
the existential threat ,
to any and all individuals in this world ,
posed by what is in essence Judaic collectivism
which invalidly assumes
that a leader/(leadership group) of any Jewish sponsored or approved collective
has a right to cancel
the a priori “unalienable Rights” of both
the life and the sovereignty over legitimate personal/private property of an individual ;
and to cancel a life and the commensurate property rights even without any formal public due process of law .
In other words , Collectivism ( ipso facto of group numerical superiority versus any individual ) assumes absolute supreme authority over the life and property of any individual without regard to laws contrary to that assumption of supremacy ; whereas Individualism repudiates the legitimacy of that collectivist supremacy assumption and thereby rejects , at least hypotheticly if not in actuality , unjustifiable exercises of collectivist power ; and thus Individualism limits inevitable collectivists abuses of political powers of cancellation
( where abuses are any kinds of injury from psychological up to and including physical death ) .
Have no doubt , that Wikipedia is the most important encyclopedia because of worldwide accessibility and unequalled voluminous content ; and it is a wholly owned/controlled jewish enterprise .
The Wiki article on “Individualism” leaves a lot to be desired . Apart from errors , ambiguities , and omissions , it pitches this patently false and misleading assertion , in presumed favor of collectivism , in the second sentence of the first paragraph where it asserts that Individualism advocates
…” that interests of the individual should achieve precedence over the state or a social group while opposing external interference upon one’s own interests by society or institutions such as the government.”
Not true .
Individualism necessarily rejects any presumption of legitimacy for the collectivist assumption of a supreme right to cancel
a priori “unalienable Rights”
of any and all individuals in this world and
to cancel without formal public due process of law
; that is all and nothing more that Individualism necessarily repudiates .
The Judaic collectivism assumption of absolute supreme authority over individuals is believed to exist mostly , but not exclusively , in some if not all military organizations , in some if not all police organizations , and to exist in some if not all intel agencies worldwide . This collectivism supremacy assumption has been and still is a foundational justification for collectivist slaughter of humanity in their pursuit of dominion of the world .
Make no mistake , Individualism is not per se about being anti-social , nor anti-organizational , nor anti-governmental , and most definitely is not about an individual foolishly attempting to prevail against the will of a collective of murderous gangsters .
“Then your side would lose by default ; ”
Lose what? The world (side) you are speaking for is already lost; has been losing for a long time while people like you blah-blah on and on, concerned only with your own egoic thoughts and intellectual theories that you utilize for entertaining yourself.
The only way to defeat the pro-Judaic collective is with an anti-Judaic collective, but you recommend against that without having a valid argument. All I can find is this assertion:
“Individualism necessarily rejects any presumption of legitimacy for the collectivist assumption of a supreme right to cancel a priori “unalienable Rights” of ANY AND ALL INDIVIDUALS IN THIS WORLD and to cancel without formal public due process of law the life and the sovereignty over legitimate personal/private property of an individual.”
This is like a statement of idealism, not something that can be enforced in real life. That’s why it just goes over everyone’s head.
” That’s why it just goes over everyone’s head.”
Dear Carolyn Yeager ,
It definitely goes over your head but not because of your claim that it is an idealism .
I’m with you 100% where my desire is concerned! I was determined to ignore it, and to urge others to do likewise.
But though we didn’t go to the war, it’s come to us–the world seems to be inching toward World War and we don’t have another world to flee to, and must go where it goes. It may be too late, and our voices may be too few and puny, but SOME people must raise a fuss and decry these idiots and lunatics who seem bent on creating a catastrophe.
“Must we die for a ‘Soros Puppet’?”
“But though we didn’t go to the war, it’s come to us”
It’s been BROUGHT to us, by the usual suspects. It’s up to us whether we accept it or not. If we think or act like we have no choice about these things they bring to us, and must get involved, we fall right into their plan (which they’ve used again and again), as stupid mice or sheep with no intelligence or will of our own.
The fact is, more Americans are FOR some involvement than are against it–by a long shot. Even those commenting on this forum. My voice or your voice will not carry any weight. Thus, I choose to save myself the anguish and to ignore it is the only way I can do so. I’ve been through every U.S. crisis beginning with the rise of the Iron Curtain in the late Nineteen Forties. They all end the same way, with a return to the status quo when the energy to keep them going runs out.
I have remarked often enough (no doubt here too) that every development that has harmed the European majority in our Western nations, in my lifetime, has appeared at the time to be without an alternative choice!! It was always a case of the public being railroaded into accepting what we had previously thought unacceptable , but — suddenly discovered we could not speak out against except as a cold, uncaring “Bull Conner,” neo-nazi, or other demonized ignoramus. It’s all set up this way in advance. Thus waiting until the final blow is ready to fall is too late to do anything about it. But doing something about it before that point is reached is never done either because the PTB are in control, not the ‘people.’
I did read your article. I concur almost entirely with it but I also know it won’t change anything. You are, however, missing the #1 problem that MUST be corrected first, and that is removing the power of the Jews over us. Since you, the writers and commenters here, and Whites in general are not even close to doing that, or even recommending it (!), we have to let the current scenario play out. For myself, I have no sympathy with Ukraine, who has been playing a devil’s game, and so prefer to avoid all the emotional misinformation that’s being called news-coverage. Let Ukraine fall; Putin will be satisfied; the war will be over. It’s the selfish propagandized Ukrainian (incl. their disgusting Jew leader Zelensky) who, just like the Poles were in 1939, are putting the world in peril. That’s my bottom line.
The anti-white Golem created by Jews has been very successful in degrading and destroying the West and white identity.
What a very fine article this is, with so much content, new and juicy to me, that I was immediately rapt in the richness of the lesson.
I was unaware that National Socialist race research could be discussed at all, without recourse to hyperbole and hysteria.
As an induction into a wider perspective, (from a personal point of view,) the author’s scholastic flair, the integrity of his reasoning and his moral insightfulness, amounted to educational Shangri-La.
It’s the measure of the value of a piece of writing that the reader harrumphs when it ends too soon and immediately needs to know more. Like Oliver Twist at the library.
Thank you, Dr. Tom Sunic.
I second Andyay’s comment above. This piece is a keeper that I will return to.
regulation destroys contracts. . .bad folks hide under regulation FOR SELFISH REASONS all regulation is criminal, all regulation violates property rights marx’s big demand- abolition of private property. the reset is (((marxist))) freedom is private property with contract- that is a voluntary society. moving away from this has destroyed out once great country a “democratic” society is still criminal and is NOT voluntary- the majority does not have the right to enslave the minority i’ve known these ideas for 50 years- that is why i stopped voting in 1968. the entire system has been trash since the beginning- see the anti federalists writings- they told us what would happen. see lysander spooner the constitution of no authority.
see the hologram of liberty by kenneth royce. the constitution has enough loopholes to energize 10000 special interests [regulate interstate commerce] the existing system is the hated hamiltonian MERCANTILISM let us start rebuilding by GETTING GOVERNMENT- THE STATE- COMPLETELY AND TOTALLY OUT OF EDUCATION. THEN OUT TOTALLY FROM HEALTH CARE. THEN REMOVE ALL INFORMATION MONOPOLY CONTROL SUCH AS FCC. TAKE A CRASH COURSE IN LIBERTARIANISM AND OR OBJECTIVISM. WE FIGHT FOR FREEDOM WHICH IS PRIVATE PROPERTY WHICH IS UNDER PRIVATE NOT GOVERNMENT CONTROL. WE NEED RADICALISM REMEMBER RADICAL SIMPLY MEANS FUNDAMENTAL and the minority has no right to enslave the majority [as seen on MERCOLA]
This is one of the most insightful pieces of writing I have read in a long time. It is obviously the fruit of a lifetime of highly independent thinking and work. My deepest gratitude to Professor Sunic for bringing all of this to light. May the ripples he has created in our collective consciousness with this essay turn into a wave.
“… a bloody Wehrmacht reprisals …”
I work hard at reading good, serious stuff like this article. Pity mere (lack of) editing makes it so much harder. I don’t have the stamina I used to have for this. I move on to something easier.
It’s been over a decade since I read an article on this site in earnest. I am much older now, and wiser. I have different ideas and positions on issues. And yet, I feel an overwhelming sense of nostalgia the explanation for which must be the connection I have to other people who share my racial characteristics.
This doesn’t affect the content of this essay, which was engrossing, but Galileo recanted that the earth moved around the sun. That was what got him in trouble with the church because it contradicted the Aristotelian dogma that the earth was the stationary center of the multiverse. The law of falling bodies is connected with that, but that was probably too abstruse for the church authorities to get upset about. Just FYI. As he walked away from the inquisition, he famously said quietly, “and yet it moves!”
I get into the article with great interest—spurred in part by the glowing comments below it–and before I’ve gone through the second paragraph I see LOL that Galileo was an astrologist and that his recantation was of his assertion about objects falling at the same speed….
Lol the great scientist Galileo did not practice astrology—he didn’t do any horoscopes—he was a mathematician, astronomer and physicist.
And the reason he got into trouble with that monstrous global crime-syndicate, the Catholic Church, is that he taught the Copernican, heliocentric theory, according to which of course the Earth revolved around the sun and was in motion, contrary to the Church’s customarily false teaching. My fellow Tuscan recanted because he wasn’t keen on being burned at the stake, but an oft-repeated story has him muttering to himself as he was dismissed, “Eppur si muove”—“It moves alright.”
AND his recantation occurred well into the 17th C., not in the 16th!
Did I not think TOO the most percipient White-Advocacy site, I too would’ve muttered a half-hour ago, only I’d have said “Falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus” and gone my way. I figured there must be value in the rest of the work.