Introduction

What follows below are the translations of several excerpts from rare books and essays on race published by prominent German legal scholars, biologists, and medical doctors who were also high ranking members of the National Socialist Party in before and during World War II. The focus of the translated passages is on verbal, legal and sociological analyses of race. It is not TOO’s, or for that matter my intent, to whitewash National Socialism or glorify the works of its academic or military spokesman. The fact that after the NS seizure of power the number of NS party members skyrocketed from the modest 800,000 to 8 million members by 1943, a number which also included a large number of world-known German scientists and academics, proves time and again that opportunism and intellectual duplicity among scholars is nothing new. Dominant ideas, however bizarre, or dangerous they may ultimately sound, as long as they are shielded by the ruling class and its police, will always attract cheerleaders among herds of glory-hungry academics, limelight searchers, and a host of circumstantial sycophants. Many of them will quickly disavow their beliefs when different cultural or ideological trends start lurking on the political horizon.

The great danger, however, lies in the fact that dominant political ideas invariably have an impact on the definition of natural science — and never the other way around. Hence it is a waste of time today trying to convince the political adversary on racial differences by inundating him/her with empirical data, especially if dominant ideas espoused by elites are hostile in advance to any discussion about race. Facts are seldom important—what counts is the interpretation of facts.

The sole intent of these essays is to point out significant semantic and conceptual errors arising today with the usage of former German political and legal concepts related to the issue of race which, while common in higher education and politics in NS Germany, often turned after World War II into demonic misnomers. Following Donald Trump’s election to US presidency, accompanied by the ongoing language distortions in the media and higher education, aka “fake news”, and in light of the mass arrival of non-White migrants to the US and EU, as well as the increased racialization of political discourse, some parallels in intellectual climate between Weimar and NS Germany and the EU and the US today can be drawn.

The beauty and the tragedy of the German language is that as the richest European language it is highly amenable to all sorts of legal and conceptual escapades. Its word formation allows the speaker the luxury of crafting countless compound nouns, each with a specific meaning, often sounding odd and heavy-handed in the ears of a foreign speaker. It is no accident that many Germans continue to consider their language the language of “thinkers and poets” (Denker und Dichter). Many former German words, from the field of legislation to the study of race, when translated into English, have an awkward resonance, let alone that their original meaning today is frequently being distorted. For instance, the widespread derogatory word “Nazi”, was never in the official usage in NS Germany. The word “Nazi” had been coined by the Soviets in the 1930s, obtaining thereafter an infamous popularity all over the world. Imagine a scholarly journal in the USA using a similar derogatory word, such as “commie”, when describing the communist epoch in the Soviet Union!

German compound nouns with a specific meaning, such as Race Studies or Race Theories (“Rassenkunde”, “Rassenlehre”), or genetic endowment (“Erbanlage”) with dozens of their verbal derivatives, when translated into English, often elicit a different, if not a scary meaning. Many words from the field of social science, carrying today a negative connotation, are falsely attributed to the NS jargon. For instance, a popular mainstream media word today, ‘totalitarianism’, was nonexistent in social science in Europe until 1945. In NS Germany, in the study of politics, the word “total state” (totaler Staat) was used instead (cf. Carl Schmitt, here), although its original meaning in the German language differed significantly from its meaning today. A Jewish author Hannah Arendt, shortly after World War II, popularized the term ‘totalitarianism’ in her exhaustive description of National-Socialism and Communism — as if Liberalism was miraculously destined to forever remain immune to totalitarian temptations. Moreover, the word ‘race’, both in the USA and EU today, has practically disappeared from student curriculum and political discourse, after being replaced by a tame, generic and imprecise word ‘ethnic’.

The best-known German racial scholars, even before the NS take over, were Hans F. Günther and Ludwig F. Clauss (see here, here), who in turn influenced the works of the authors whose texts are below. It must be pointed out, however, that the works of Clauss and Günther seldom focused on biological aspects of race. Both thinkers delved, quite in line with the old German scholarly tradition of “learnedness” (Gelehrtheit), into a broader perspective, covering linguistics, ancient Semitic languages, history, study of the old Greek and Latin, all the way to their research of modern political thought and its interrelation with the study of race.

I was trying not to take the translated passages out of their larger context. I am only adding the subtitles and the sources in bold letters, without my comments.

** ** **

I. Worldview Defines Racial (Un)Awareness

First and foremost, each decline of a clear and cohesive stance in a worldview leads to a proclivity toward biological damage and paralysis in instinctual security. Thus, for instance, a people whose worldview is healthy, with a corresponding lifestyle, is immune to racial defilement. It simply ignores it. A people with a sickly worldview is basically inclined to make compromises, allowing tacitly the spreading of race mixing. As a result, it will tolerate the decomposition of its national body. Upon entering, however, the last stage of its life, it will begin propagating race mixing as a “cultural ideal” („Kulturideal” — emphasis in the text). We have already witnessed various stages of this racial decomposition model among peoples. Its primary cause was always the decomposition of a worldview. Conversely, in the struggle against race mixing, the ultimate goal must consist in the immunization of the national body by means of a worldview safeguarded by the racial laws of life. (Dr. Ferdinand Rossner, “Rasse als Lebensgesetz” (Race as a Law of Life), in Rassenpolitik im Kriege, ed. by Dr. Walter Kopp, (Hannover: Verlag M. & H. Schaper 1941), 70.

ORDER IT NOW

Note: A popular German word ‘Weltanschauung’ (worldview) is often translated synonymously by the word ‘ideology’. This is false. German NS authorities used the term ‘Weltanschauung’ (worldview) exclusively for National-Socialism, a compound noun carrying a largely literary and philosophical meaning radically different from the word ‘ideology’. The term ‘ideology’ was attributed by German scholars and NS authorities to Communism.

II. Racial Self-Conscious vs. Other Races

A very serious situation arises from the fact that other peoples and states, especially the non-Aryan nations, felt that the dignity and honor of their nations had been defamed and offended after the passing of the German Race Legislation and its separation from foreign races. I cannot enumerate all those peoples and countries with whom, on these grounds, serious arguments had occurred. Suffice it to say, for instance, that the entire world in the Far East stood for a long time under the impression that a German man, with his new national-socialist belief, was slanted to portray all of them as non-Aryans. Being depicted as non-Aryans, he was, therefore, likely to regard them on the whole as an inferior rabble. Hence it follows: The Germans discern all of us as inferior, second-class humans, while projecting themselves as the real culture-bearers. Suffice it to say, understandably, that such a belief among proud, self-conscious and sincere national peoples, as is Japan for example, was likely to provoke endless commotion and hatred against such a Nazi-Germany. Similar occurrences we had somewhat experienced in the area of India, as well among the peoples of the Middle East. (Prof. Dr. Walter Gross (Head of the Racial-Policy Office of the NSDP), “Der deutsche Rassengedanke und die Welt (German Racial Thought and the World), (Berlin: Juncker und Dünnhaupt, 1939), p. 24.

What were we supposed to do in regard to this propensity of German racial thought being generally subject to defamation by diverse people? We could do nothing other than place German racial thought, calmly and at our own advantage, into its proper form, making it clear that the essence of racial insight does not consist in the evaluation or devaluation of other human groups of this world, but rather by using a natural science appraisal — in a sober manner, I should add, and without using any other appraisals — of different human groups living in this world. Example: “You are of a different racial kind in your relationship to us” contains no more, or no less a value judgment than a scientific observation of a man walking through the forest and talking to himself: “These are not just trees in the forest, but these trees are spruces, pine trees, birch trees, and over there, there are oak trees.” There is no insult and no value judgment in it. No tree can ever say that it downgrades other trees. This only means a statement of the fact, just as when we make a statement that specific peoples and ethnic groups on this Earth are racially related to us, with some being totally foreign to us. (Ibid, p.26-27).

A genuine idea, a righteous insight, as well as good will to do good for its own people, can be eventually reconciled with the interests of other peoples and in some way have them united. But no conciliation is possible with the systems of thought of international brand, because these systems, at their final intellectual stage, are neither genuine nor honorable. These systems are based on horrendous lies, that is, the lie of the equality of people. (Ibid. p. 30)

III. On the Jewish Question

If we wish to understand the past Jewish influence on the legislation, then we need to know first what specific features characterize the Jews. We need to be aware of the Jewish racial makeup, just as we need to know what this racial makeup means from the perspective of the teaching on the racial-soul [Rassenseelenkunde]. We are never going to solve the Jewish question through rabid “anti-Semitism,” as has been shown to us by Jewish history, not just in Germany, but by the world history as well. The solution to the Jewish question is solely and exclusively possible with a satisfactory fulfilment of the race idea by each race. We shall never fulfill the race idea unless we make the distinction between race and the people ( Rasse und Volk — italics in the text). There is no such thing as the German race, and there is no such thing as the Jewish race. There is the German people, and there is also the Jewish people. It must also be taken into account that the German people has obtained its intrinsic traits from the Nordic race, which is its binding element. The binding element of the Jewish people, however, is not the European race, but a non-European, Oriental race. Given that each race has its intrinsic style, the German people and the Jewish people, due to their different racial makeup, need to make a fundamental distinction from each other. Oftentimes this is not acknowledged. Frequently, only the distinction in a body appearance [Erscheinungsbild; i.e., ‘phenotype’ in English] is taken into account, forgetting that each race possesses, based on its own intrinsic style, its own scale of values. We must be careful not to impose the scale of values of the German people on another people with a completely different racial makeup. Such views lead to adverse effects. National-Socialism is not anti-Semitic; it is a-Semitic” [bold in the text]. (Prof. Dr. Falk Ruttke, F. Wilhelm Univestität, Berlin, “Judentum in Recht” (Jews in the Legislation) in Rasse, Recht und Volk (Race, Law and the People), (Berlin: F. Lehmanns Verlag, 1937), p. 12.

What follows are more translated excerpts on race, taken from rare and difficult-to access books written by prominent National Socialist legal scholars, with the focus on “acquired traits” vs “inborn traits” and how they interacted in the proposed NS racial legislations. This explosive topic, particularly in modern and highly multiracial USA and the EU has been covered recently in more details by prominent sociobiologists, aka “race scholars,” Richard Lynn, J. Philippe Rushton, Arthur Jensen, Kevin MacDonald and others. The main intent of this essay, however, is not to glorify National-Socialism or absolve it from some of its crimes, but to indirectly point out that in the so-called free liberal democracy there are subjects that are carefully being avoided by humanities professors and studiously shunned by politicians of all colors. As long as historical truth, particularly in the analyses of various World War II vicitmhoods, is being defined by state attorneys and judges and not by social scientists and historians, and as long as the discussion about race is being left over to rabble-rousing ideologues and college agitators, the much vaunted free speech in the West will remain an empty buzzword.

** ** **

According to these examples there can hardly be any doubt that man’s hereditary endowment, having been examined in diverse areas of human genetic predispositions, has been subject to well-established regulations for the rest of living nature. These findings, however, have a far-reaching and decisive significance for the assessment of the doctrine that all men are equal. This doctrine is known to be one of the main pillars of the teaching structure of Marxism. The adherents of Marxism have found in the dogma of equality of all people the justification for their internationalist attitude. In fact, if all people are indeed equal, one must logically come to the conclusion that the segregation of peoples and nations against each other is a condition defying any inner justification, and therefore needs to be dismissed. Thus, Marxists of all colors cling to the hopeless equality dogma as their last straw of hope. Certainly, they cannot seriously dismiss the overwhelming abundance of the already examined Mendel’s case studies on the effectiveness of the laws of inheritance. But they (Marxists) know how to help themselves by providing themselves with another dogma: namely, that in human heredity there could be other rules designated for humans, which may also come into play . Dr. Gustav Franke, Vererbung und Rasse: eine Einführung in Vererbungslehre, Rassenhygiene und Rassenkunde (München: Deutscher Volksverlag, 1938, 1943), (Heredity and Race; An Introduction to Heredity Teaching, Racial Hygiene and Race Studies), p. 97.

The presumption about the heritability of acquired traits is a prerequisite for the dogma of equality of all people. This dogma, however, is the main pillar of Marxist teaching. However, if equality of all people is laid out as an internationalist worldview, then the tearing down of all barriers set up by national awareness (“Volkstum,”n.b.) and race, becomes feasible. Hence, Marxism was compelled to adopt, without any reservation, the excesses of environmental theories in order to certify that all visible inequalities among mankind could be traced back to environment factors, that is, to defects, damages and shortcomings of the “society.” In addition, Marxism was, therefore, obliged to search for rescue in Lamarckism, whose presumption of the heritability of acquired traits was considered to be, from the biological point of view, a scientific foundation. For Marxism, the doctrine of the heritability of acquired traits is a question of life and death. This is what the Soviet rulers recognized with all seriousness. Therefore, in Russia, the denial of acquired hereditary traits is punished with death, or at least with a long-term exile . (Ibid. p 113).

As [Fritz[ Lenz, one of the most important racial hygienists aptly describes, Soviet leaders cling to the doctrine of the heritability of acquired traits for yet another specific reason. They need this doctrine in order to calm their conscience. Because, if everything boils down to environmental influences, the Bolshevik slaughter of so many carriers of valuable hereditary traits does not signify an irreplaceable loss, but rather an environment regulated by the state, requiring particularly high expenditures for teaching and education that would generate sufficiently valuable progeny among lower classes. What a pious thought, indeed! (Ibid, p. 114 ).

Also interesting are Lenz’s earlier remarks that the proponents of the doctrine of the heritability of acquired traits are for the most part Jews. The inclination of Jews to Lamarckism, writes Lenz, is evidently borne out by the desire that there should be no irreconcilable racial differences. And further he says: “if there was a heritability of acquired traits, Jews could then, in their lifetime in the Germanic environment and their appropriation of the Germanic culture, become real Germans.” Such thoughts may be proper to some Jews. Yet, here we must face the facts: The Jew remains the Jew, even if his ancestors had lived among Germans for one thousand years (Ibid., p. 114).

Racial Laws and “Mischlings”

There are not just racially purebred people, just as there are no racially pure nations. Should this be the case, one would have had to skip much earlier over the fact of race differences, as well as over different race legislation. Most people today are half-breeds (“Mischlinge” in the text, n.b. ), most nations are made up of mixed people. The mischling differs from a racially pure man by his emotionally-split world (“Two souls, alas, are dwelling in my breast.“ cf. J.W. Goethe, Faust; lines: 1112–1117). This means that his emotional life is not unequivocal, harmonious, or pure. A racially pure man makes decisions in an uncontrived, firm, and instinctively righteous manner. The mischling must always choose between the two opposing possibilities. He lacks a secure feeling, a clear self-conscience. He does not sense what is good and bad; he must evaluate it first.

Such a mischling is primarily a Jew. According to [Hans] Günther, the essence of Judaism can only be comprehended from its manifold racial crossbreeding. Therefore, the Jew clings to external commandments, to the law, to the dogma, and to the letter of the law. He does not have the feeling for what is right and what is appropriate; he must first explore it through reason. It must be told him first from without. That is why the Jewish man must provide himself with legislative machinery (“Gesetzgebungsmaschine“, N.b.), telling him what is forbidden and what is allowed respectively. He sees in the state, or in some other external organization, the source of law. That is why he worships the power that enacts laws and conceives of justice as the external fulfillment of these commandments (Ibid. p.29).

ORDER IT NOW

We come across the view among all racially crossbred peoples that the law must be “set “ from “above” or from the “outside,” by the state, or by some power. This was the case in the last days of Hellas [ancient Greece], in the late Roman Empire, and this is also the course of recent developments that have come to us. The more crossbred a people is, the more jewified ( “verjudet” in the text, n.b.), it is, the more salvation it expects from “good laws” which should hold together scattered, mongrelized, low-spirited masses with their manifold and insensitive desires. The written law, i.e. the “positive” law, appears then as the alpha and omega of all wisdom. “Positivism” must carry the upper hand, and in its wake it alters the scholastic proceedings of the law, that is, the complete renunciation on the righteousness of a specific legal provision, turning thus the judge into the slave of legal clauses. The independent-minded person is being henceforth shoved aside and in his stead enters the paragraph-seeker, who believes that justice could be served by correctly interpreting the letter of the law (Ibid., p.29 ). Dr. Helmut Nicolai, District President of the Government in Magdeburg (Die rassengesetzliche Rechtslehre (Racial Jurisprudence), (München: Herausg. G. Feder; Verlag Frz. Eher Nachf. Gmbh, 1933).

Sunic’s latest book, Titans are in Town (Arktos, 2017), prefaced by Kevin MacDonald, consists of a separate novella and essays on ancient myths.