Reading from pages 130-176 of Myth of the 20th Century, the 1982 Black Kite Publishing edition

Rosenberg, in his book on how to achieve peaceful industrial coexistence of all peoples on earth via a turning away from globalism, and the implementation of a state religion, begins his discussion ironically by correctly pointing out that 1900 years of religious wars, featuring mass extermination, was chiefly the fault of the Roman system, the ancient imperial will of Rome projected forward via the catholic Church. The author swings back and forth in the early stages of the books in describing the Roman problem. By the latter stages of his work, we will be able to take his mention of the Roman System as essentially Catholicism, a force he sees as being the vehicle by which incompatible African and Asian values corrupted European values through the span of two millennia.

I see this, rather as an effect of scaling up human society, with systems of pyramidal control achieving more power and control over their subjects when distinctions such as race and even gender are blurred or erased under monolithic ethical systems. Rosenberg does correctly note that the famously successful resistance of the Germans against ancient Rome was tragically undermined by the Germanic conquest and assimilation of Rome in late antiquity.

His overall thesis that first heathen and then heretical resistance to pagan Rome, then Cristian Rome, than Catholic Christendom, arose from the Germanic character falters in places and soars in others. The following quote is quintessentially Rosenberg and gives the reader much to ponder:

‘The churches of all denominations declared: as the faith so the man. This was necessary for every church, and promised success, since in this way the value of a man was made dependent on its coercive principles, and men were thus spiritually enchained to the chosen church organization. On the other hand, the Northern European creed—whether consciously or unconsciously—has always been, as the man, so his beliefs.’

This contention is in line with epic poetry of the Western tradition as it ever migrated westward away from tyranny and slavishness from Gilgamesh, Achilles, Odysseus, Heracles, Aeneas, Roland, Beowulf and Arthur, always westward away from Asian ideals of collective servitude under a priesthood, a priesthood now clothed in the vestments of medicine, academia and media oracles. The concept of honor as an inwardly born and disciplined and outwardly and ascendantly active code of duty, as fundamentally incompatible with top-down metaphysics, is Rosenberg’s key lens for examining the implosion of Western Civilization.

Some other notable quotes from the brilliantly blind-to-power and awake-of-soul Rosenberg are quoted below:

[in Hinduism] ‘…the [assimilated] Arуan denied his race, hence his personality, but as a result also the idea of honour as forming the spiritual backbone of life.’

Rosenberg sees race rather than scale of social organization as the singular corrosive element of heroic ideals. His thought is much more primitive than Evola, and hence his valid theory that various races have unique characters, with some honor-based and some not, becomes a deterministic crutch rather than a tool of investigation. However, his survey of metaphysical expression, transmutation and corruption in the Arуan experience, is invaluable for this current investigation.

He goes on to reframe Alexander as pan-Aryan Unitarian conqueror, rather than as the universalist race-erasing god emperor that liberal academics anachronistically present him as.

‘…to admit to his deed was regarded as the first requirement of the Nordic man.’

His case that ‘the religion of love’ was formed by force and fraud, in which examples of Christians slaughtering those of other Christian denominations as Heathens showed tolerance to Christians in the main, was reflected in a conversation I had with a Christian Missionary this past Saturday, 1/2/21, in which he expressed the belief that “The Founding Fathers” meant that freedom of religion only applied to doctrinally pure protestant Christianity.

Though his focus is upon race, he continues to bring up dynamics of scale:

‘The last centuries [300 years of Modernity] have stood under the mark of compromise which did not touch on any fundamental questions of world outlook but only organizational and political power relationships.’

A narrative stitched of anecdotes of heathen symbols and figures being brought into Catholicism are noted as the author tracks syncretism forward in time from the fall of evil Rome to its insidious undeath as a pan-national mind-control forum.

The “corpse-like obedience” demanded of Ignatius of the Jesuit Order, from 1553, is quoted from the rule of the order, including:

-‘Hand over and sacrifice your freedom’

-‘Complete removal of personal judgment’

And my favorite, a rule our current academic, medical and media priesthoods abide by to the letter:

-‘When something appears white to our eyes which the church has defined as black, then this is likewise to be declared as black.’

Gaslighting as the centerpiece of the academic Jesuit Order, has somehow survived as the centerpiece of our post protestant, secular order.

The state religion that Rosenberg hoped to see rise has been achieved, in a reverse form, mocking the religious tolerance he dreamed of.

Rosenberg attempts to insert hope by quoting the Eddas and those heroic values and then suffuses this in the fact that the heroic spirit of the Arуan fighting man was funneled through the orders of knighthood of old Christendom and eventually of nation state soldiery. He charts the skullduggery of the Papacy and the Holy Roman emperors of Germany and the eventual tragedy of the 30 Years War and the eventual salvation of German spirit of heroic cooperation and inner discipline and ascendant Christian values [for he regarded Jesus, not as a Hebrew but an Arуan] at the hands of Frederick the Great in 1740 and then finally ‘…forfeited its unconditional nature; it became poisoned by bureaucratic dynasticism, industrial politics, stock exchange profit economy, typified, thanks to humanitarian stupidity, in the idealless townsman of the nineteenth century, and finally collapsed on November 9, 1918, when its supporters and representatives ran away before a few hordes of deserters and jail birds.’

Is that closing paragraph of Love and Honour not illustrative of the American condition in 2020?