The Myth of the Twentieth Century

by Alfred Rosenberg

The Myth of the Twentieth Century (German: Der Mythus des zwanzigsten Jahrhunderts) by Alfred Rosenberg, one of the principal ideologues of the Nazi party and editor of the Nazi paper Volkischer Beobachter. It was the most influential Nazi text after Hitler's Mein Kampf. The titular "myth" is "the myth of blood, which under the sign of the swastika unchains the racial world-revolution. It is the awakening of the race soul, which after long sleep victoriously ends the race...

Genres: History, Politics, Philosophy, Nonfiction, World War II, Race, Nazi Party

454 pages, Hardcover

First published January 1, 1930

About the author

Alfred Ernst Rosenberg was the head of the Reich Ministry for the Occupied Eastern Territories and a war criminal during the Nazi era. A Baltic German, he was a theorist and an influential ideologue of the Nazi Party.

Rosenberg was first introduced to Adolf Hitler by Dietrich Eckart. He held several important posts in the Nazi government. He is considered one of the main authors of key Nazi ideological creeds, including its racial theory, persecution of the Jews, Lebensraum, abrogation of the Treaty of Versailles, and opposition to "degenerate" modern art.

He is also known for his rejection of Christianity, playing an important role in the development of Positive Christianity, which he intended to be transitional to a new Nazi faith.

At Nuremberg he was tried, sentenced to death and executed by hanging as a war criminal.

Reviews

[Takethat · Rating 5 out of 5]

Rosenberg is a German Romantic. There is no other way to describe his being. The Myth of the 20th Century represents his moral, ethical, religious, Mythical ideal and vision of what he dreamed to be the potential future of the Nordic German Reich born out of the decadence, excesses and overthrow of the Roman Syrian Jewish Church and the Marxist Banking cartel. It is the most difficult read in its probing depth and breadth of history dating back over 2000 years. The author quotes at length Papal Bulls from the Middle Ages, along with Rathenau, Marx, Goethe, Luther, Nietzsche, Schiller, Kant, Hegel, Schopenhauer, Homer, Aristotle, Plato and the Bible. Rosenberg's command of history and ethical discipline to construct the new necessary heroic Myth based on honour and duty to nation, all to replace the Roman Syrian Jewish materialism and Bolshevism that controls what he defines as four fifths of the world states is beyond measure and comprehension for the modern reader. The enemy of the world according to the author was Bolshevism, Jewish International Finance and the Liberal Democratic materialism that comes with it: money over the spiritual, politics over the Church.
The most important thesis the book presents in excruciating detail to create the new Mythology of the German Nordic Nation is the elimination of the Lie which cripples the individual and the Nordic German race. To quote the author, 'no lying German will be able to call himself good, precisely because lies CONTRADICT the innermost character values which alone provide us (humans) with values and worth. The lie is not only actively willed, but is simultaneously an organic sin. It is the worst enemy of the Nordic race. Whoever abandons himself to it unchecked, perishes inwardly. He also separates himself voluntarily outwardly from the German environment.' Rosenberg equates the lie with the 'vital element of Jewry'. He quotes Schopenhauer who said the Jews are the great masters of the lie. He quotes Kant who said they are a nation of shopkeepers and swindlers. He quotes Luther who wrote the spiritual-prequel to this work, The Jews and Their Lies. Rosenberg lambastes the liars who promote Internationalism and Universalism, International Financiers, Bolshevism, and Jewish Democracy because they attack German honour. These interconnected forces subvert the spiritual for the void of money... 'The lie is vitally connected with a lack of feeling of honour and courage.' (pg 298)
This book is not able to be distilled into palatable intelligible sound bytes but it is coherent in its thesis. It certainly contains a rational hatred that is nothing more than a reaction to the revolutionary Marxist forces that brought war and revolution to Germany in 1914 and succeeded in June of 1919 through Versailles. Yet, with all of its seeming negativity it provides a vast distillation of history of where the Roman church went wrong slipping into the material abyss of Liberalism, Progressivism, Internationalism and the most damaging element, Roman universalism based on humility and weakness. The architects of the Church desperately needed to impart humility and subservience to the figure of Jehovah and then onto its parishioners to maintain control over their flock. Rome had to exaggerate and focus on the theological supernatural nonsense of the resurrection to lead people away from the power of Jesus' revolutionary actions in his life rather than promote strong willed Christians who fight evil. This was they key element that subverted the power of Christianity because the Church and the Jews could not restrain and manipulate Christians who acted like Jesus 'in life' because that force would be beyond the power of the financiers who controlled the economic variables and property in Europe and throughout the world. Jesus wasn't waiting for a savior to help him or do the work for him, he did it himself and he knew he would pay the price with his foretold death - a hero's journey beyond all heroes journeys. Jesus was the active agent against evil 'in life' against the evil conspiring nature of the Pharisees. Remember, Jesus called Peter Satan twice, 'get behind me Satan'. Satan is not a pointy eared red devil running around with a pitchfork. Satan is a person who is without God, turns away from God or tries to make wrong doing, right. This is lost on modern mankind and the Church. Jesus wanted his disciples to know good and evil and stand against and destroy evil in life. The Church, along with the Jews, had to curb Jesus' degree of moralizing and enthusiasm because it would thereaten their profits and range of power. Consequently, the Church today is a shell of what it once was and obviously it's not Christian anymore in spirit because it is Satanic and materialistic in action. Rosenberg successfully presents his ethics as honourable and good because he wants ALL peoples to be free of the international finance which is strangling the world's nationstates. Some of what he says is distasteful and racist, but one can surmise from this work, because he was a National Socialist and second in charge of the party in the 1920s, that the translation is biased and not completely trustworthy. It's not even formatted properly and it has some typos which reveal a lack of seriousness in its overall presentation and potentially, its substance, which to anyone who is serious about the truth, is obviously a shameful and intellectually dishonest tactic wrought on the reader by the publisher. We can see through that. In spite of these obstacles it will be apparent to the reader that Rosenberg is a giant of an historian. But no one wants National Socialists to sound like good guys who have a grasp of morality, sovereignty, criminal international banking and of course, simple right and wrong, good versus evil, lies versus truth. As an example, Ralf Mannheim is guilty of deliberate mistranslation in his translation of Mein Kampf. A simple google of the German put through a translator reveals the lies of the translator and I suspect at some level Rosenberg's 20th Century Myth has been deliberately compromised and sabotaged to maintain the mythology of the Allies being the 'good guys' in WWI and WWII when State department documents and military records prove otherwise. This book is not for the faint of heart and I recommend it to everyone who values truth over lies, sovereignty over International Monetary Bolshevism and good over evil.

[Sunny · Rating 5 out of 5]

there is the obvious racist rhetoric that pulsates throughout the entirety of the book but im a sucker for books that come out with different angles on things that i took for absolute granted. the book is about nordic aryan superiorty and how the berbers of morocco, the Aryan indians, persians, greeks and a few other races all had that blonde haired blue eyed gene amalgamated in with their indigenous genes. The book talks about the warrior races of the nordic past and the myths that evolved around them as supposed to the unchallengeable role of intellectualism that penetrates most of the world today. It's heavily antijewish and claims that the jews and their capitalism that comes with them were responsible for a lot of the corruption that europe was gripped with. The book was very phlosophical in places but at the same time very assumptive about the unchallengable role that the nordic races should have and will one day play in the world. The book references a few other books that i have already ordered (Schleiermacher's soliloquies and language thought and reality). The book also talks a bit about protestantism and the deleterious effect of catholicism on the world. The book covers a lot and is fairly well written, challenging and in places ridiculous but certainly worth a read.

[Beauregard Bottomley · Rating 1 out of 5]

Worst book ever! I heartily recommend it.

Ann Coulter and Laura Ingraham write just as hateful and incoherent books as this one was, but they are only read by watchers of Fox News, Brietbart and other alt-right followers of Donald Trump. This book made a difference and laid a foundation for the Nazis. Just as with Donald Trump it’s hard to say which spawns which, did Trump enable the hate within people, or did the 48% who voted for him enable Trump and his alt-right ravings? Was Rosenberg the reflection or the image? (This book was a mega bestseller in its day).

If you want to understand what’s happening in America and how we got to where we are now, I would strongly recommend this book. I despise ‘exceptionalism’ and ‘patriotism’ as paradigms for virtue. That’s what the author is really getting at with his race based ‘Nordic’ and ‘Aryan’ superiority standpoint. The book is muddled and incoherent, but coherence is not necessary in order to sway people over to hate.

The book reads as if one was watching Sean Hannity. All one needs to do is change Jews or Negroes or Mulatto (that’s Rosenberg’s language of course) for Muslims, Mexicans or Immigrants. BTW, this week Hannity defended pedophilia while defending that Republican judge in the Alabama Senate race (11/15/2017). Even this book, didn’t go that far.

Hannah Arendt in her book ‘Totalitarians’ mentioned this book and gave it a prominent role for its part it had in solidifying the Nazi movement. She also has a definition for the Enlightenment when paraphrased goes like this: “all people are humans”. That is what this author (Rosenberg) and all followers of Donald Trump and fascist can’t stand. Their belief in their own exceptionalism and patriotism means they are special because of who they were born as and therefore are more special, more human, than the other, and they are certain within their cult of epistemic closure and that for any knowledge of fact that disparages their world view it must be an alternative fact and must not be believed even if that means they will support a pedophiliac for senate!

There is a back-to-nature anti-technology theme within this book. This book is probably what Heidegger was referring to in ‘An Introduction to Metaphysics’ when he was defending the Nazi movement in Germany and praising its return to folk ways. Also, the Unabomber within his Manifesto overlaps with a lot of thought that is within this book.

The author is weird. Jesus was not a Jew, he was Aryan, he’ll say. Race is everything and blacks, Jews, and Mulattos are impure and inferior as are women and a whole lot of other such rubbish. Honor, duty, ideas, folk beliefs, and nationalism trump all values and the Pope can’t be trusted and so on and so on. Within his mad ramblings there is large overlap with modern day Trump Republicans, fascist and alt-right haters in as much as they all despise humanism, democracy (equality and fairness), and modernity and believe freedom for the sake of freedom is an ultimate good. To them, only some people are human and those do not include brown, black, Muslim and anyone their special status deem as not members of their selective cult.

The author tosses around a lot of history misleadingly. He muddles his philosophies for his own end purpose of white supremacy. Meister Eckhart is his religious hero for his denial of self for the nation and a return to immanent truths within the individual not the community, he quotes Schopenhauer explicitly for his will as representation of the ideal (in case you haven’t read Schopenhauer, he is very much attuned to Rev. Berkeley and they think it is our ideas that reign supreme not substance. Trump and his ilk dress their hate up in anti-materialism rhetoric also), and Nietzsche implicitly for his primal cry for instinct to return us back to ‘folk values’, Leibnitz for ‘monads’ being the window into the world and other such clap trap.

I would not attack him for his misreading of philosophy (or history) because the refutations would get lost in the trees and the forest is really his monstrous race based beliefs deriving from his German exceptionalism and patriotism (oh, if only the Germans weren’t ‘stabbed in the back’ in 1919 by their Jewish bankers and their own leaders as he states! What a more Nordic world we could have all had! Or equivalently, the Trump backers and alt-righters belief to ‘make America great again’ since it has gone wrong in the past and they are afraid of the future because they don’t understand the present!)

I do recommend this book if you hold your nose while reading it. It’s by far one of the most influential books within the 20th century (I don’t believe wiki when they say people bought it in Germany, but didn’t read it. I believe they read it and assumed their neighbors did too) and modern hate differs little from the hate expressed in this book. Trump style Republicans and fascist never really change their core beliefs. Hate never goes out of fashion and they reach to the same playbook that is mostly within Rosenberg’s book, but just with different characters which they make small in order to make themselves feel taller, and they hate seeing all people as humans because they are special and the others are not.

[Lewis Weinstein · Rating 1 out of 5]

This is Rosenberg's incomprehensible, unreadable and I think mostly unsuccessful attempt to cast Hitler's hatred in more scholarly form. He ranges pretentiously over a wide variety of topics with no regard for connection, consistency or truth. UTTER GARBAGE. Some examples ...

• Greedy for the goods of this world, the Jew moves from city to city, from land to land, and remains where he finds the least resistance to his parasitical business.
• The Jew sought domination and, until 1933, seemed stronger than us.
• Where any kind of wound is torn open in the body of a nation, the Jewish demon always eats itself into the infected part and, as a parasite, it exploits the weak hours of the great nations of this world.
• The emancipation of the Jews followed from the preaching of the insane idea of human equality.
• Every German and non German living in Germany who through word, writing and action makes himself guilty of insulting the German people will, depending upon the gravity of the case, be punished with imprisonment, jail, or death.
• the so called old testament must be abolished once and for all as a book of religion.
• England had conquered south Africa for the Jewish diamond dealers ... It had handed over control of all financial transactions to Jewish bankers ... It had allowed the opium trade to fall increasingly into Jewish hands.

Rosenberg reveals a fundamental fear of Jews, based on what I read as a clear sense of his own inferiority, much like Hitler's. All Jewish accomplishments must be viewed as the result of an unfair worldwide conspiracy to take advantage of the German (Christian) people. Only by exterminating the Jews like plague bacilli can the German people flourish.

• The law of the coming Reich will sweep here with an iron broom. It will fulfill the words of Lagarde concerning Jews. He said that one cannot convert plague bacilli, but must render them harmless as quickly as possible.

[Hardman Heydrich · Rating 5 out of 5]

Mandatory reading for any serious person interested in the current state of the world, as well as pre-War German philosophy and politics. Rosenberg's writing has been highly influential in my life, and I strongly recommend it for anyone who finds themselves spiritually lost.

[ET · Rating 4 out of 5]

I Had replayed an audiobook of this many times over. Many passages were powerful and frightful in their force of vision. At times his historical analysis had gone over my head. Revisiting now I question a few of his ideas of racial and foreign myths due to his Christian perspective. But I have to respect this man for the strength of his vision and the force of his insight. Tracking a permenant origin to Indo-European mythology is very difficult and is an objective I will search for most likely till I die. I dream of the progress we could make in such a field if we had an organized state to fund such an expedition. Alas we have no nation, not even our own, who care an ounce for such an historical grounding. I point as prime example to the leaders of Sweden melting down old Viking golden relics. Only foreign peoples are allowed such research in a field in which they downplay our influence.

This book urged me on with a fury to search for the origin of the diverse and global influence of ancient Indo-Europeans. Cruel imperialism or wide and respected mutual influence? Due to the dual nature of many of our myths it can easily be argued that we did not subject many peoples to our vision but it was rather a mutual inspiration. Prime example : Vedic India.

His Analysis of diverse/multicultural Rome and their larpy melting pot cults was an eye opening discovery to me in my youth. Archaic roman religion is a different world when contrasted to that of the diverse republic. Even dumezil admits of such an obvious decay where the auspices of the gods became tools of political initiatives.

[FreeUlsterman Antrim]

This book seems to be so "dangerous" that the Internet Archive web-site has censored it ("This item is no longer available. Items may be taken down for various reasons..."). Also, a local university library (which had a record of it being in their collection at one time) removed it, supposedly under pressure from a powerful special interest group. Therefore, I have not yet found a complete physical copy of it to read. The enemies of freedom of speech must be happy with themselves. Some excerpts of it in english that I have read seem rather poorly translated. Although it may not be easy reading, nonetheless, as an important historical work, I don't think it should be suppressed. "Big Brother" disagrees with me. If you find a complete copy of it on the worldwide web (in any language) please post the link to it here so that others can read it. It's funny how the political left decries book burning and book banning by supposed "Nazis". Then they go about censoring, banning and burning books they don't agree with. Hypocrites! Defend freedom of speech. Your voice might be silenced next if they get their way.

[Sabina · Rating 1 out of 5]

Mind numbing garbage

[Dan Mackay · Rating 4 out of 5]

Historically interesting

Read this due to a historical interest in Nazi Germany. Explains the philosophy of Blood & Soil. Antisemitic and racist, but still an interesting read.

[Крюкокрест · Rating 5 out of 5]

Очень вдохновенная по своему поэтически-романтическому складу работа.
В труде Розенберг представляет читателю концепцию философии крови: "силы расы, души и природы являются вечными предпосылками, бытием, жизнью, из которых складываются сначала цивилизация, тип веры, искусство и т.д."
Текст изобилует пламенными речами в пользу таких основополагающих нордических ценностей, как характер, честь, свобода личности, ответственность, благородство, деятельная сила, самосовершенствование и героизм.
Очень много изобличения христианства, в особенности, закостенелого католицизма. В то же время предложена концепция позитивного христианства, в рамках которого жизнь Иисуса представляется примером героической судьбы, на который и стоит равняться верующему ("Бог в душе каждого из нас").
Весьма любопытные мысли в отношении искусства. Этот раздел читается пожалуй интереснее всего.
Сложный многогранный взгляд на русских и Россию, который мало вяжется с общепринятым тезисом о "русофобии" Розенберга: бывший подданный Российской империи живо полемизирует с Чаадаевым, Достоевским, Толстым, Горьким, и в целом показывает глубокое знание русской литературы, - не похоже на простой шовинизм. Розенберг скорее с сочувствием констатирует победу калмыко-татарского начала в России в лице Ленина, но даже тогда не отказывается от своего основного тезиса о дуальности русской души, в которой постоянно борются между собой азиатское и европейское (на ум тут же приходит "Русь двуликая" П.Н. Краснова).

[Shortsman]

I'm going to be fair and not offer a rating, since I couldn't even finish it. I only got 200 pages in, which to be fair is almost half the book. An incredibly dry read, it felt like Rosenberg always extrapolates more than necessary, and my impression is that it was repetitive as well. I can't be bothered to go back and find examples.

Some quotes were good though, such as:
"Only a Socrates could preach such insanity as: virtue could be taught and imparted to all men, an idea further refined by Platon" which he considers "the axe laid at the roots of Greek life".

His anti-Russian views are fun to quote just because I love that kind of dismissiveness to other peoples, it's just hilarious to me:
"The Russian is a world exception in that he has not introduced a single new idea into the multitude produced by mankind, and everything which he has received of progress has been distorted by him. The Russian admittedly moves, but on a crooked line, which does not lead to any goal, and he is like a small child which cannot think correctly."

[Sebastian Sandino · Rating 4 out of 5]

Es un libro bastante tedioso de leer, complicada escritura que algunos momentos uno se puede perder del hilo del escritor y hasta aburrir. Lo sorprendente de este libro es la ilustración de la gran inteligencia de Rosenberg, en realidad era un persona muy preparada, muy estudiada y un conocedor de antropología, teología y filosofía. Es admirable la visión que tenía del futuro (Inclusive de sucesos que han pasado en el Siglo XXI) basado en la estructuración de la historia y de hechos del pasado. Un escrito interesantísimo si uno logra omitir algunos pasajes o capítulos del libro.

[Mehran · Rating 5 out of 5]

CHAPTER 1: RACE AND RACE-SOUL

Racial history is natural history. The history of the blood is the great world-story of the rise and fall of peoples, their heroes and thinkers, their inventors and artists.

Rosenberg, the poet of Nordic racial awakening, architect of 'Blood and Soil'.

A must-read!

[Kenny · Rating 4 out of 5]

Don’t read Rosenberg without a thorough knowledge of history. He refers to a lot of things that will confuse you if you don’t know western civilization.

[Tim · Rating 1 out of 5]

The Myth of the Twentieth Century: The Apology of the Weltanschauung of the NSDAP

I remember reading St. Lewis' commentary on the months he spent writing The Screwtape Letters- which was written from the first-person perspective of the demons Screwtape and Wormwood- where he described how the process put him into spiritual depression. Spending months inhabiting the mind-space of a demon devitalized him, even a theoretical demon. And so it is with reading Rosenberg's books. It's an encounter with a malevolent force made manifest through a knowable personality- a dæmon which is not theoretical but walked in the same cities we inhabit now. Sitting with his works is akin to sitting alongside a demon and seeing the world through its eyes. And it exacts a toll.

This particular ‘demon’ was led to the gallows of Nürnberg on the morning of 16 October 1946. When asked for any final words, he replied ‘No”, and met his end bitter, defiant, unrepentant of his sins and self-righteous until his last breath.

Der Mythus was presented as the central piece of evidence that convicted him of crimes against humanity at Nürnberg. The court argued that he built the intellectual foundation and moral justifications for Nazism. That's how historically important Der Mythus is. It is his magnum opus, where he systematically breaks out the philosophic origins and structure of the National-Socialist creed, making it an invaluable read. Second only to the Mein Kampf, this was the most influential publication in outlining the “National Socialist Weltanschauung [worldview]”. Alfred Rosenberg was the chief ideologue and ran the Office of Foreign Affairs (an appointee of Hitler). Rosenberg was a primary developer of the entire Nazi Ideology- much more than Hitler. His views solidified, intellectualized, and fleshed out the dominant party lines of the Nazi Race-Religion.

But here I want to avoid the knee-jerk reaction to insult and belittle the intellectual side of the Nazi thinkers; whether Rosenberg is insane or an idiot is neither here nor there. I think it's cheap to ridicule the fallacious logic Rosenberg uses here. Even if his science was perfectly accurate, his philosophic analysis on point, his historical arguments reasonable, and his Epistemology sane, he would still be equally evil. Intelligence has absolutely no correlation to goodness. Plato was a big fan of pedophilia, for example. Some of the most immoral minds I've ever met are articulate, bright Erudites, and some of the best humans I've ever encountered have never picked up a book in their life. We ought not to respect intellect, but respect Saintliness. We do not need intelligent men, rational men, we need good men. And the inverse is also true; we ought to condemn someone not for their intellectual faults, but for their moral force of character.

So I won't spend much time mocking Rosenberg's outlandish statements and arguments. He thinks Atlantis is the ancestral home of the Arian race. He sees the “Marginalist Internationalism” of the Treaty of Versailles as a devious plot by the Catholic church to destroy Protestantism (all of his Geo-Political analysis is based on a belief in the conspiratorial “Jewish” influence of Rome). He oddly venerates a shady medieval mystic, Meister Eckhart, whom he seems to think was "silenced" by the Catholic church. He mentions Marcionism and a handful of other obscure neo-gnostic interpretations of the teachings of Christ, but he is not clear what the "true interpretation" is, exactly. He's certainly a fan of Gnosticism, which coincides with his mystical crypto-historical worldview. He randomly mentions a Swabian cult that thought the end of the world was happening in 1800? I couldn't find anything about that on the internet. And a whole host of half-baked ideas and anachronistic mythologization of historical events which he tries to tie together into a coherent Weltanschauung.

Marxo-Sorelian Mysticism

Rosenberg, as with most Nazi thinkers, revised Marxist thought through Sorelianism. The “great struggle” can only be achieved through resurrecting the power of the Myth. In keeping with Marx, Rosenberg ascribes all of the evil and oppression in the world to a mythologized "other" category. Georges Sorel is never mentioned explicitly by Rosenberg, but you see the foundations of fascist mythology throughout his writing. Hitler himself was a Rationalist and didn't agree with the mysticism Der Mythus included, and boy, does it include mysticism. It's a sprawling historical epic, uber-romanticized, ultra-mythologized. It reads like a religious text… I wouldn’t say the tone is hateful or murderous, but it is bitterly angry. It's a kaleidoscopic assortment of historical-religious theories trying to defend a rational and scientific Neo-Pagan "religion of the blood".

His theories here all fit within the basic framework of German idealist metaphysics. This oceanic view of a unified human history tied together by a super-rational "Geist" he gets directly from Schopenhauer. His “Race-Soul” is a perversion of the Kanto-Hegelian Weltgeist. The basic dialectical view of Progressive, rational history he holds is deeply Hegelian. But in Hegel, Kant, Schopenhauer, and Nietzsche, this unified view of humanness is a cause for brotherhood and love for all humans throughout all time, for we all share the same Spirit, regardless of race or other superficial distinction. Rosenberg perfectly inverts this Weltbild and uses it as a tool of hate and division; he manipulates it into a vertical hierarchy.

Nietzsche & the Nazis

Hitler is the Nietzschean hero to him. Rosenberg reflects Nietzsche's hatred for "orthodox" Christianity and how it makes people weak, emotional, and "crippled" with morals and ethics, as well as his "trans-humanist" ethos (the anthropological Telos to evolve into something post-human). He borrows the lexicon of this trans-humanism like the will-to-power/ Wille zur Macht, "übermensch"/ super-people and "üntermench"/Inferior-people. The Nazis fancied themselves as the realization of Nietzsche's mythical Supermen. But the similarities stop at their hate for the "Platonism for the masses" and love of intellectualized Misanthropy. Nietzsche passionately condemned racism writ large and specifically anti-Semitism (he called the Jewish population the best thing about Germany). He bore down his formidable intellect against Anti-Semites in Germany. Rosenberg notes that the Catholic church condemned Nazism as being godlessly Nietzschean: "Die römisch-katholische Kirche muß nach ihrem Wesen zu dieser zweiten Gebärde des Antichrist noch unversöhnlicher stehen als zum radikalen Sozialismus. Denn dort ist ein Wille zum Menschen, hier nur ein Wille zur Machte."

“Now depart, thou wretched, damned, blasphemous Rome!”

First off, this is a Polemic, first against Catholicism, which declared itself a bitter enemy of the Nazi regime, but secondly against the confessing Lutheran church which started to follow suit:

“Neben der Flut römischer Schriften gegen mein Werk…. Neben einer unübersehbaren Zahl von Broschüren und Aufsätzen hat sich ferner zu den amtlichen römischen Versuchen auch der ämtliche evangelisch-kirchliche Angriff hinzugesellt, der eine für eine deutsche Geisteshaltung derartig gefährliche Anschauung offenbart, daß ich als der unmittelbare Veranlasser dieser Selbstzeugnisse nicht mehr schweigen konnte.”
//
“The flood of Roman Catholic writings against my work… In addition to an immense number of pamphlets and essays, the official Catholic attempts were joined by the official Evangelical-Ecclesiastical attack, which revealed such a dangerous view for a German attitude of mind that I, as the direct initiator of these self-testimonies, could no longer remain silent.”

Der Mythus has the goal of “shaking off the anti-socialism and anti-state sectarians… [to help] Protestant orthodoxy would find its way back to the people.” He is raging against “protestantischen Orthodorie” (orthodox Protestantism) but has no qualms against the liberal free churches which did not speak out against National-Socialism. Protestantism must return to its roots, he argues, and re-embrace the correct teachings of Luther. He sees Nazism as true Protestantism which correctly opposes the Antichrist (The Catholic church). He is horrified that “one day a black bishop would celebrate mass in Cologne Cathedral” if Catholicism is not stopped. These race-ignorant Catholics are engaging in “a fight against the foundations of German existence and against the unified, honor-conscious German Reich, which has been fought for with so much sacrifice.”

In the Chapter titled “Die Gemeinsamkeiten”/ “The similarities”, he piggy-backs on the classic Though-Ending Clichés or “bumper sticker apologetics” (as I like to call it) of Protestants to the ancient liturgical churches: they don’t follow the Bible, they worship Saints and believe in “unbiblical” doctrines and sacraments. Rosenberg expands on these and argues that opposing the Nazis is a renunciation of “believing the Bible” and is joining the evil Papists who hate the Gospel. He repeats this argument over and over. His argument is two-fold and Luther-centric:

(A) Rejecting the National-Socialist ideology is forming a new “alliance of Rome and Wittenberg” and a betrayal of Reformed Theology. Protestants who do not embrace Nazism are fake Protestants that are in secret allegiance to Catholicism and also hate the Bible.

This is his primary argument against the Confessing Church: that they are undoing the Reformation and are trying to make “Bible-believing” Christianity submissive to Rome again. He writes “Does Martin Lüther still represent a force for the authoritative leadership of Protestantism, or has Ignatius of Loyola become the spiritual head of the confessing church?” and later “here the parallel phenomenon between Rome and the so-called, professing Protestants can be shown…What would Luther, Calvin, and Knox say to these "Protestants”?”

Catholicism Rosenberg despises bitterly and entirely (he was raised Reformed, so his Nazi ideology and Anti-Theism seems to have just amplified his pre-existing hatred for Catholicism). He spends a significant amount of time ranting about how evil Catholicism is, all to build comradery with Protestants. He has a particular bone to pick with a “Father Muckermann”. I had never heard of Muckermann before but he was a great Google... he was one of the most famous Catholics in Germany at the time and dedicated his life to opposing the Nazis. He fled to the Netherlands and continued his work, directly interfacing with the Vatican to ensure the Papacy knew what was going on in Germany, and helped shape the Vatican’s condemnation of National-Socialism. Absolute badass. Rosenberg writes about how the Catholic Church led the way in opposing the Nazi ideology and protecting the Jewish population:

only necessary to point out that the Roman Church has led the way here fundamentally and politically. It immediately sounded the charge against the German sense of honor, which had been strengthened by the state, as a neo-pagan phenomenon, and then, at the Catholic Congress in Prague, it tried to crush the foreign Germans in their struggle for unity by uniting all "Catholics"... In former times it was natural for German Catholics to put religion above everything, even above the fatherland... At that time it was not dangerous to say such a thing, and so they said it and received rich applause. Today it is dangerous to speak like that

Thus, the Protestant churches which follow the Catholic lead are betraying the foundations of the Reformation. To prove this he quotes a range of Protestants such as Peter Bockemühl who wrote that the Nazi party “has correctly recognized Christianity. He has recognized it as a faith which, however, has sin and grace, the inferiority of man and substitutionary dying of the Lamb of God as its content.”

These Reformed pastors he praises as true followers of Reformed theology. Then he turns to the pastors who wrote against the Third Reich, whom he argues have been corrupted by Rome. He quotes at length Hermann Otto Erich Sasse, a prominent Lutheran Anti-Nazi Theologian and friend of Dietrich Bonhoeffer who helped pen the Bethel Confession of 1933, condemning the demonization of Jews who wrote against Rosenberg: “We are of the opinion that not only the Jewish-materialistic, but also the German-idealistic spirit in and outside of us must be fought, as our confession does when it excludes the great German mysticism from the church as false doctrine.” I find these lengthy quotes hilarious because they are perfect refutations of Rosenberg’s arguments. A Lutheran apologist, Walter Künneth, he also spends many pages on, and essentially argues that he is “historically ignorant”.

He naturally insults and attacks the “smug” Karl Barth several times, calling his writings “ecclesiastical infantilism”. Barth was one of the authors of the Barmen Declaration condemning the “positive Christianity” of the Nazis, and Rosenberg correctly identifies him as one of the reasons the Swiss churches were slow to adopt Nazism:

Swiss Calvinist Karl Barth… was a dialectician who saw in the play of words the great foil fight with the possibility of success….The simple Bible faith of the Reformation period began to crumble away in increasing measure in the 19th century… what Karl Barth says is the last helplessness, such a misunderstanding of the things of today's world, such a craziness that one can doubt his full sanity. With such remarks, he and his kind cut the last threads that still connect this strange Protestantism with the soil from which it once sprouted and where alone it has still preserved itself. Of Luther, the German, nothing at all is left; his bloody genuine confession has become a bloodless but obstinate babbling, which repeats itself again and again uniformly like a Tibetan prayer wheel. Karl Barth and his followers are no longer Protestants, but stunted scholastic medievalism. Protestantism as a world movement threatens to become a narrow-minded sect.

Second (B) The Third Reich is a further manifestation of the ever-continuing Protestant Reformation, and true followers of the Doctrine of Sola Scriptura & Luther embrace Nazism

Rosenberg sees himself as the savior of Protestantism and tries to start on a positive note to convince Protestants who are on the fence to see Nazism as not only congruent with their creeds, but the fulfillment of the Protestant Spirit/ Geist. He argues against the “character decomposition of the Reformation” and for a return to 16th-century theology. He sees the Catholic counter-reformation (römischprotestantische Gegenreformation) as an attempt to wipe out the Ethno-conscious teachings of Luther. He confirms the mainstream Reformed romanticized and mythologized view of Luther, a veneration that nearly comes to the point of worship:

He childlike took the Bible as God's word and wanted to be honestly guided by it, even after he had been outraged against Rome and Papism. No matter what opinions he came to after going through the problems at that time, they were results of a great inner cleanness and truthfulness… ! Luther just as an inwardly truthful man immediately and fearlessly drew the necessary conclusions… Luther, however, demanded and fought for this Germanic freedom of conscience… If Dr. Martin Luther would stand up today, he would beat their tracts around the ears and as boldly as before announce the unbroken protest of the whole Germanic world against Rome and Jerusalem as once 400 years ago.

Rosenberg identifies the Catholic concept of Original Sin as one of the fundamental problems with its adoption of Nazism. He cannot co-exist with the idea that “The highest Germanic people, however, belong to a fallen humanity, we all stand in the guilt community of sin”. However, Protestantism’s understanding of Hamartiology is inconsistent at best and should be “de-catholicized” to be congruent with the Third Reich. He argues that Luther’s articulation of Original Sin is simply a misstep on his part due to his Augustinian training. He argues that “original sin is not found in the Bible at all”.

He redefines what "Satanic" is, arguing racial equality is a betrayal of the evolutionary reality of the genetic spectrum. The Teutonic people are, of course, at the top of the ladder. Thus, the Judeo-Christian insistence on the sin of Racism is itself "demonic" to him. And the modern Christian branches are all "possessed" because they see all humans as valued by God, as the real demons are the "inferior races'': "Nowhere in the world have the churches been able to overcome these "demons": not the Orthodox in Russia, not the Catholics in Italy and Spain, not the Lutherans in Germany. He makes the same logical sequence with Theism, concluding that "real religious attitudes'' must exclude Theism, and that deification of genetic perfection is the true fulfillment of the geist of Christianity.

It makes sense to me Rosenberg would venerate Luther: both were delusional megalomaniacs who fancied themselves the “Lord of Scripture” and “little gods”. Erasmus pointed out the irony of Luther condemning the Pope when Luther exercised more ecclesiological authority than any pope ever has (he successfully removed 7 books from the OT, tried to remove Esther and Hebrews, James, Jude, and Revelation). No Pope has unilaterally re-written the Bible before. Rosenberg likewise acts with the same arrogant god-like attitude, believing his interpretation of history as the obvious and infallible one. His revisionism is a continuation of the Reformed historical revisionism he was taught in his youth. He ends his book with this final plea for Protestants to be true to their tradition:

Aber das Tragische ist es ja, daß aus der deutschen Revolution Martin Luthers ein Hausen sich befehdender Pfarrergruppen geworden ist, die in ihrem Gehaben und Tun drauf und dran sind, das große Erbe der Reformation zu verspielen… Dann wird auch das Werk des deutschen Bauernsohnes Martin Luther nicht umsonst gewesen sein, sondern weiter in die Zukunft Europas weisen.
//
But the tragedy is that Martin Luther's German revolution has become a house of feuding groups of pastors who, in their behavior and actions, are on the verge of squandering the great heritage of the Reformation…. the work of the German farmer's son Martin Luther will not have been in vain, but will continue to point to the future of Europe.

[Panu-Petteri Väänänen · Rating 2 out of 5]

One of the hardest books to stay motivated 'till the end that I have ever read. It's certainly not unreadable, but the learnedness of the author is clear and the book is obviously written not for the common man but for people as learned as Rosenberg.

Starts out like a sword and sorcery novel from the 1930's, where Rosenberg looks far to the past to seek proof and foundations for the myth of the superiority of the aryan man. He examines religion, art, architecture and the role of the state and the man of honor. It feels strange and yet understandable when you look at fascism and creeds of hate in general, how far from honorable the deeds of the so called men of honor were in the end.

One thing that stood out was that it certainly was not world conquest that Rosenberg advocated and his thoughts on race were more inclusive than for example Hitlers, e.g. slavs were considered at least partly Aryan by Rosenberg. The myth, the realpolitik and the propaganda did not see eye to eye, and he was in the end swept away by the waves he helped to summon.

[Matthew Callis · Rating 3 out of 5]

A correct acknowledgement of the decay of the Christian and pagan mythos, and what would result as a consequence. Unfortunately, the proposed solution was based on a poor understanding of the relationship between memetics and genetics. The racial “type” is a very poor, fragile, and unnecessary basis for the creation of a new mythos.
Overall, an excellent insight into the founding philosophy of Nazi Germany. Highly recommended for anyone that would like have an educated opinion on them that extends beyond mere sentiment.

[Claudia · Rating 1 out of 5]

Ach du lieber Himmel... *feeling insulted*

Ich habs immer schon irgendwie gewusst, dass ich ein kulturell zurückgebliebener barocker alpenetrusker bin...

sowas krauses hab ich selten gelesen...

aber das mit den geflügelten etruskischen dämonen in den katholischen kirchen... das könnt doch irgendwie hinkommen...

[Peter J. · Rating 1 out of 5]

This book was garbage. It is full of the old flawed science of the day which ignored the “nurture” aspect of behavior and painted everything with the broad brush of “nature.”

[Björn Klemm · Rating 2 out of 5]

Nützlich als Originalquelle. Inhaltlich weit hergeholt und unbelegt.

[Tommy · Rating 3 out of 5]

Rosenberg is more readable than Hitler; he's was the #1 Nazi public intellectual after all... he was basically the Jordan Peterson of his day e.g. ‎Jungian racial depth psychology and his "creative" use of metaphor. Tries to set up a whole honour/duty vs. humility/piety thing in developing the idea of a racial organic statism that justifies private property and attacks organized labour. He really likes the idea of the Catholic Church being the great Whore of Babylon and Luther saving Europe, I'm guessing something to do with his upbringing? Sees a global race war coming out of Asia against the West and has opinions on Marcus Garvey, W.E.B. Du Bois and American racial laws! Somehow works crankish pseudo-archeological ideas like Atlantis into this. He works in all the classic Nazi hits on plutodemocracy, mongrelization, modern art, feminization, living space, November criminals, Freemasonry, etc. He had a thing for Meister Eckhart and Gothic architecture but really hates Phallic cults, Socrates, Dionysus, Saint Paul, matriarchy and the French? Central importance is rejecting life denying or parasitic activity and embracing "creativity" by uncritically exploiting Germanic folklore and Hellenic art.

[Biblioworm · Rating 1 out of 5]

Политическая кричалка - много громких фраз, не подкрепленных ссылками.
По сути фикция под видом научной работы.

Из забавного Иисус - ариец, это "доказывается" очень нудно и подробно, но как и все остальное в книге без каких-либо фактических подтверждений.

Мощная идея - индусы и прочие арийцы вышли из могучей Атлантиды.
Самое смешное, что начинается эта глава с осторожного "Атлантида могла существовать, но точно мы не знаем, может ее и не было", а потом автор постепенно себя накручивает до того, что кончается описанием как арийцы являются наследниками мощной цивилизации затонувшей Атлантиды.
По сути это типичная ситуация с ораторами, которые постепенно сами себя заводят.
Но в книге, которую можно перечитать и спокойно изучить не в пылу митинга, выглядит забавно.

[Michael Pearce · Rating 3 out of 5]

How do you write a review of an evil book? How many stars do you give such a thing? I gave it three stars because I gained a great deal of understanding about Nazi art and thought from reading it, especially aesthetic thought, and in that sense this is an excellent book. Rosenburg was a nasty bastard, and had a great deal of power. An excellent insight into the mentality of a senior member of the hierarchy that controlled the arts in Nazi Germany.

[William Sariego · Rating 3 out of 5]

I'd often heard Rosenberg was boring and unreadable. That simply is not true. It is not the messenger in question here but the message. What you get is early 20th Century pseudo-science and social Darwinism to the nth degree. The Aryan race originates in ancient Hyperborea? I almost wanted to put in the soundtrack to Conan the Barbarian in places.

[P · Rating 4 out of 5]

Ironically extraordinary abstraction of historical phenomena with paradoxical interpretation of Roman declension.

[A · Rating 4 out of 5]

8/10.

[Ana Lopez · Rating 5 out of 5]

I found it on archive.org

[Miltiadis Michalopoulos · Rating 3 out of 5]

Ο Μύθος του 20ου αιώνα (ορισμένες σκέψεις και παρατηρήσεις )
1. Η θεώρησή του περί υπάρξεως μιας Υπερβόρειας Ανώτερης Φυλής η οποία περιλαμβάνει τους μεγάλους αρχαίους πολιτισμούς μεταξύ των οποίων Πέρσες, Ινδούς, Έλληνες και Ρωμαίους, είναι στην καλύτερη περίπτωση αστήρικτη και χρειάζεται τεκμηρίωση.
2. Εύστοχες οι επισημάνσεις του σχετικά με τους Εβραίους. Το μίσος του προς αυτούς διάχυτο.
3. Ποταμοί επιχειρημάτων εναντίον Καθολικής Εκκλησίας αλλά και κατά του Χριστιανισμού. Σπαταλά πολύ μελάνι γι αυτό, χωρίς ιδιαίτερο λόγο.
4. Η διαφωνία του με τον Σπένγκλερ: α) ο Σπένγκλερ ορθά διαχώρισε την αιτιότητα από το πεπρωμένο, αλλά ενώ απέρριψε την αιτιότητα, αποδέχτηκε το πεπρωμένο. Τον ψέγει γι αυτό δριμύτατα. Για τον Ρόζενμπεργκ, η ύπαρξη αιτιότητας, πολύ περισσότερο ενός πεπρωμένου, είναι σημιτική μοιρολατρία. β) δεν του συγχωρεί την άρνηση της έννοιας της φυλής. Τον κατηγορεί για την στάση του ως προς τους Άραβες: σύμφωνα με τον Σπένγκλερ οι Άραβες είναι ένας υψηλός πολιτισμός ο οποίος εγκλωβίστηκε και εν μέρει συνεθλίβη ανάμεσα σε δύο άλλους μεγάλους πολιτισμούς: τον δύοντα Απολλώνιο και τον ανατέλλοντα Φαουστικό πολιτισμό. Το ότι ο Σπένγκλερ αποδίδει μεγάλη αξία σε ένα σημιτικό πολιτισμό ενοχλεί βαθύτατα τον Ρόζεμπεργκ. γ) του καταλογίζει το ότι δεν αναγνώρισε την επερχόμενη σωτηρία του πολιτισμού μέσα από την εθνικοσοσιαλιστική επανάσταση και μέσω του γερμανικού Έθνους.
5. Η βασική του θέση είναι ότι όποτε το ανώτερο Αίμα των Υπερβορείων μείχθηκε με ξένο αίμα, προέκυψαν τερατογενέσεις ή κατώτεροι πολιτισμοί. Αναφέρει ως κορυφαίο παράδειγμα τον ελληνορωμαϊκό πολιτισμό αλλά και τους Ινδούς και τους Πέρσες. Για τους Έλληνες ισχυρίζεται ότι οι δυνατότητές τους εξαντλήθηκαν από τις προσμίξεις τους με την Ανατολή. Τα βάζει με τους Ετρούσκους, τους οποίους θεωρεί ξένη φυλή από τους ευγενείς Ρωμαίους και ισχυρίζεται ότι η καθαρότητα των Ρωμαίων μολύνθηκε με τις προσμίξεις με τους Ετρούσκους αλλά και αργότερα με το άνοιγμα προς διεθνισμό, μέσω της απόδοσης του δικαιώματος του Ρωμαίου πολίτη σε όλους τους υπηκόους της αυτοκρατορίας.
6. Η ανάλυσή του για τον Σοπενάουερ είναι εξαιρετικά διεισδυτική: η ερμηνεία του όμως σχετικά με τις δύο βουλήσεις, την βούληση του ενστίκτου και την «ανώτερη» βούληση των εκλεκτών να αλλάξουν τον κόσμο, δεν νομίζω ότι ανταποκρίνεται στην αντίληψη του Σοπενάουερ… πρέπει να το ξανακοιτάξω αφού διαβασω καλά τον Σοπεναουερ.
7. Η ανάλυση για τον Ρέμπραντ και τον Ρούμπενς πολύ δυνατή. Όπως και για τον Μάιστερ Εκαρτ, την Υπερβόρεια Μυθολογία, η οξυδερκής κριτική του Ντοστογιέφσκι κ.λπ.
8. Το πρόβλημα του βιβλίου είναι ότι δεν έχει προσανατολισμό: είναι άνισο και σε πολλά σημεία ανερμάτιστο για να θεωρηθεί επιστημονική εργασία, αλλά είναι πολύ βαθύτερο από ένα πολιτικό-φιλοσοφικό δοκίμιο. Μάλλον επιχειρεί να θέσει τις βασικές ιδεολογικές αρχές πάνω στις οποίες θα οικοδομούσαν τον εθνικοσοσιαλισμό.
9. Έχει το βασικό μειονέκτημα του Σπένγκλερ: έλλειψη συστηματικής αποδεικτικής μεθόδου: συμπληρώνει τα ορθολογικά κενά με γλαφυρά επιχειρήματα. Το πρόβλημα δυστυχώς είναι ότι �� Ρόζενμπεργκ δεν έχει την ποιότητα του Σπένγκλερ.
10. He hates everything feminine: considers it Levantine, Eastern, Semitic.

[Tobias Wolfram · Rating 2 out of 5]

Unreadable romantic nonsense. German idealism at its worst.

[Leonardo]

"El tenebroso trasfondo ideológico que estaba en la raíz del nazismo apareció claramente, más que por el libro Mein Kampf'[Mi lucha] de Hitler, por la obra de Alfred Rosenberg, Mythus des 20. Jahrhunderts [Mito del siglo XX]. Este escrito vio la luz en 1930 en Munich, pero no empezó a gozar de celebridad hasta 1934." Franzen (pág.374)