Joe McCarthy Was Right

by Don Capron

For fifty years I trust there isn't an educator in either the academy or high schools who hasn't failed to castigate Joe McCarthy as a hate-monger, liar, destroyer of careers, and someone who routinely accused innocent people of wrong doing.

"McCarthyism" has become the reflexive adjective among those on the American Left when accused of anything of less than patriotic motives or, for that matter, taken to task for questionable behavior. McCarthy was not only right, he's been given a bad rap by history.

For four years, from 1950 until 1954, McCarthy was the only voice in America speaking out against those in government that were Communists, fellow-travelers (liberals who believed in but did not join the Communist Party), Russian sympathizers, and Stalin apologists. His enemies, consistent with the Left today, chose to attack the messenger rather than the message.

From the earliest years of the New Deal until the late 1940's the government was deeply infiltrated with Communists and their supporters. There was no shortage of either messages to the President or evidence to support such infiltration. Yet, Roosevelt then Truman chose to ignore such evidence.

Adolph Berle, Undersecretary of State for internal security at State, went to Roosevelt in 1940 with a list of Communists in government provided by Whittaker Chambers, a party member who'd defected. Roosevelt, according to all accounts laughed it off and refused to deal with it.

J. Edgar Hoover, in 1943, informed Roosevelt of Soviet spying both within the government and at the Russian Embassy. On this occasion Roosevelt not only disregarded the evidence, he sent Harry Hopkins, his Domestic Affairs advisor, to warn the Soviet embassy that their phones were tapped.

In 1946 Hoover again went to the White House, this time providing Harry Truman with a list of known Communists and sympathizers still in the government. Truman's response was: "What am I going to do? Give those @#%&* Republicans up on the Hill something to bash me with."

McCarthy's detractors, Communists, and Soviet sympathizers never anticipated two things: One, the Venona intercepts and their subsequent release; Two, the collapse of Communism and the opening of Soviet files.

From 1943 until 1980, unbeknownst to virtually everyone, the National Security Agency intercepted every Soviet message going from or to the United States. It was not until 1994 that their existence was even acknowledged, and 1995 when the first 1,400 of 240,000 intercepts were released to the public. Their content was damning and supportive of the contentions of not only McCarthy but Whittaker Chambers, Elizabeth Bentley, Hoover, and others.

The collapse of Communism opened files of not only internal Soviet spy documents but also gave the FBI, CIA, and American scholars access to the files of the American Communist Party that had been hidden in a Russian warehouse since 1950. The cat was out of the clichéd bag.

Just who was exposed by these documents. Alger Hiss who had been the number three man at State behind Dean Acheson and Dean Rusk, and who, most assuredly, at some point, would have eventually been Secretary of State. Harry Dexter White, Assistant Secretary of the Treasury, who purposely withheld allocated funding for the Chinese Nationalists, during their Civil War, that destroyed their currency and, thus, their efforts against Mao's Communists.

Julius and Ethel Rosenberg had been conduits for even more damaging information than the atom bomb, for which they were executed. Lauchlin Currie, Special Assistant to F.D.R. Samuel Dickstein, member of the House of Representatives from Brooklyn.

William and Martha Dodd, son and daughter of the U.S. ambassador to Germany in the 1930's. Lawrence Duggan, State Department Director of Latin American Affairs. Harold Ickes, Sr., father of Clinton's impeachment flack, who was Secretary of the Interior. Finally, William Weisband, U.S. Army Signal Security Agency. This is just a very few, the most prominent or household names one might say.

Was Robert Oppenheimer, the Director of the Atom Bomb Project at Los Alamos, New Mexico, a member of the Communist Party? Quite emphatically, no! His wife was. His brother was. His mistress was. As were many of his closest associates at the University of California. In addition, Oppenheimer was one of those scientists in the 40's who thought that all scientific information should be shared universally for the good of mankind.

Were any of the aforementioned exposed by McCarthy? Not one. He'd been too late at the spy discovery game. After all, Alger Hiss got Richard Nixon the Vice-Presidency. White had been shifted to that historical ashbin where failures are allowed to "resign" to, the International Monetary Fund.

Hiss, unquestionably the most brilliant of the rising stars at State at the age of 43, in 1947 became the head of the Carnegie E0ndowment for Peace; a position usually held by a senior citizen with insufficient retirement funds. Lawrence Duggan, as the FBI closed in on him, had the presence of mind and good sense to jump from a window and commit suicide. Of course, he was considered a "victim" of a non-existent "Red Scare".

Just how many did McCarthy catch? Darn few. Of the 10,000 government employees who were exposed as Communists, security risks, or of questionable loyalty and lost their jobs, at the least, only forty can be attributed to McCarthy.

Any of the major players? None, as most had either been moved laterally by Truman or snared by the FBI.

Most of the forty were small time functionaries such as Owen Lattimore, John Stewart Service, Philip and Mary Jane Keeney, and Howard Shapley; and these were the most prominent. In every case, of the forty, they were all accorded trials and attorneys before their dismissal.

Lattimore had been Director of the School Of International Relations at Johns Hopkins University, advisor to FDR on China in 1941, advisor at State in 1946-1947, preached that Mao's Communists were "agrarian reformers", in 1948 encouraged George Marshall to stop aid to Chiang Kai-Shek and his Nationalists, and in 1949 urged U.S. withdrawal from Korea.

Lattimore was a McCarthy "coup". Lattimore was the individual who coined the term "McCarthyism" in response to and defense of the charges brought against him. In a feeble attempt to attack the messenger, Lattimore went so far as to write a book declaring his innocence while, at the same time, attacking McCarthy.

There was only one problem in all of this for Lattimore: Hoover had given Lattimore's FBI file to McCarthy and McCarthy had Louis Budenz as a witness, a former Communist, who'd worked with Lattimore. McCarthy carried the day but was forever stuck with the sobriquet "McCarthyism".

John Stewart Service was another who had managed to hang on, long past FBI and other snares, only to be "outed" by McCarthy. Service was at State and had leaked secret documents to a "front" magazine called "Amerasia" that were used to damage the Chinese Nationalist cause. Again, Service was caught only as a result of a Hoover/FBI "black bag job" (breaking into the offices of "Amerasia").

Philip and Mary Jane Keeney had been fired from the University Of Montana in 1938 for subversive activity. In spite of this Philip, within two years, was at the Library of Congress and, during the war, was with the OSS (forerunner of the CIA). Mary Jane, meanwhile, was at the Bureau of Economic Warfare during the war and subsequently became part of the U.S. delegation at the United Nations. Again, when McCarthy was challenged on these charges, Hoover had already provided him with their FBI files.

McCarthy's discoveries were in inverse proportion to his notoriety. What McCarthy really did was breach the gentlemen's agreement and game of using Communists prior to and during the war while they were slowly dispatched after the war. Many of these were part of the Eastern Establishment in that they came from the "right" families, went to the correct prep schools and universities, belonged to the right clubs, and had the right connections.

Hiss had gone to Johns Hopkins, Harvard Law, and had clerked at the Supreme Court for Felix Frankfurter. They all had impeccable credentials.

It was one thing to catch a handful of Communists outside of government, as in the case of the Rosenbergs. It was quite another to expose the dirty secrets of the 1930's and 40's. That was McCarthy's sin.

Was he a pillar of virtue? Hardly! He was a dreadful alcoholic and eventually died from cirrhosis of the liver. He was a bully, unkempt, crude, and a lout. He once unmercifully pummeled Drew Pearson, his antagonist in the press, after a dinner party, in the coat room of a Washington doyenne. He had many physical and character shortcomings. But he was right.

For all those rushing to put pen to paper to denounce any of the above, you'd be best advised to first do your "homework". Read "Venona" (Yale University Press); "The Secret World Of American Communism" (Yale University Press); "The Haunted Wood" (Random House); "The Venona Secrets" (Regnery); "The Secret History Of the KGB" (Basic Books); "Whittaker Chambers: A Biography" (Modern Library); and "Joseph McCarthy: Reexamining the life and legacy of America's most hated Senator" (Free Press). If at first you haven't read the above, then you are coming unarmed for a battle of wits.

Source

Rethinking History: Were the Nazis Really Nationalists?

By: Robert Locke

IT IS AN OPEN SECRET among people who realize the importance of ideology that the great hidden issue being debated in America today is nationalism vs. globalism. This debate has a logical (or illogical) core and a penumbra of emotional associations. Attacks on nationalism as an ideal are made not only in the form of actual assertions of principle, but in the form of ugly archetypes that are used to manipulate opinion. The advantage of an archetype is that it carries an emotional, and thus persuasive, charge without actually asserting facts or principles that would be subject to counter-argument. Balkan nationalism has been used in recent years, but the tacit bogeyman is always the same: the Nazis. Therefore it is fair to ask whether the Nazis were really nationalists. It is very arguable that they were not. Having a correct analysis of what they really were is essential to us because the ideological settlement that emerged from WWII is the foundation of our present political order, a fact that remains despite the end of the Cold War.

Any analysis of an historical ideology must look at two things: first, what does the ideology claim in theory, and second, what do its believers actually do in practice? By the first criterion, the Nazis were clearly not nationalists. Their professed ideal was not German nationhood but the Aryan Master Race (whatever that is). Hitler did not take Germany seriously as a nation qua nation, but merely as a vehicle for his racial fantasy. He explicitly says in Mein Kampf that the nation is just a vehicle for the fulfillment of the destiny of the race. It is an arbitrary historical accident that can be discarded at any time if it fails to serve that purpose. The Bolsheviks said the same things about the USSR as a vehicle of class struggle. The Left today seems to feel the same way about America as an arbitrary vehicle for realizing liberalism that can be disposed of when its highest form, globalism, is secure. Worse, the "capitalism is everything" faction of the Right likewise views America as merely a vehicle for imposing free markets on the world. Thus nationhood is a moderating ideal that restrains the extremes of ideology.

The Nazis did several things that clearly show that when forced to choose between Germany and the Aryan race, they set a higher value on the latter. Hitler could never bring himself, for example, to rule Scandinavia, for which he felt an unrequited racial affection, with the iron fist that was applied to other conquered territories. His admiration for Britain's imperial racial ascendancy and his belief that Anglo-Saxons were Aryans led him to seek friendship with Britain up to the point of quite possibly costing him the war at Dunkirk. He intended to eventually incorporate, under conditions of full citizenship, those sections of the Low Countries that he felt were racially suitable, though these people were not Germans.

Hitler also held Germany and its culture in contempt in a number of ways, unlike an authentic nationalist like Churchill, who genuinely loved the Britishness of Britain and at most made fun of its foibles. He despised Germans' Christianity, their bourgeoisness, their intellectualism, their cultural refinement, and their traditional sexual values which interfered with his racial stud farms. He openly complained about the defects of Germany in these areas in the table talk that has come down to us. In the context of German history, Bismarck, who sought to weld a nation out of a culture divided into squabbling principalities, was a nationalist. He took the idea of a German nation seriously, and did what it took to create one. Hitler was something else entirely.

The fact that Germany was to Hitler merely a means to an end, worthless in itself, was shown by his odd behavior, unique in the annals of modern warfare, when it was clear that Germany would lose. He gave the order, aborted by Albert Speer, that the nation essentially be burned to the ground. His openly stated justification, beyond the military excuse of presenting scorched earth to the enemy, was that Germany had been found weaker than the Slav enemy and deserved to perish on grounds of the Nazi doctrine of survival of the fitter nation. It is inconceivable to imagine a French, Polish or Japanese patriot, to name three militarily-overrun nations famed for their authentic nationalism, doing such a thing. These nations are what nationalism looks like, because they take their nationhood, its concrete content, its well being, and its survival seriously. Hitler isn't, because he didn't. It is worth pointing out that the conservative nationalist aristocrats who tried to assassinate him seem to have considered him a traitor; I would agree.

More surprisingly, it is even questionable whether Hitler was a real racist. There is for a start the fact that his "Aryan" race, though all Aryans are white, doesn't coincide with the observable biological fact of the white race or any coherent subdivision thereof. Blond-and-blue Poles, Jews and Russians, whose racial credentials wouldn't have been questioned for a second in the Jim Crow South or Apartheid South Africa, were lumped with Africans as "slave races." (I gloss over the fact that in Nazi mythology, the Jew is not technically a slave race but inhabits the unique category of the culture-destroying race or negative ubermensch.) This was, of course, because they occupied territory the Nazis wished to invade. Nazi doctrine also expressed doubts about the oddest people: the French, for example, were supposedly "mongrelized" and racially inferior to the Dutch, who counted as Aryan, but were not so inferior as to deserve extermination, only conquest. And the two European nations in whom the casual eye (not to mention the history of African slave importation into Sicily and the anti-Moorish Reconquista) detects the greatest deviation from the Aryan ideal? Hitler took Italy for his ally and gave military and ideological aid to Spain.

Then of course there is the alliance with Japan, in which the Nazis supported a yellow power against the French, British and Dutch empires in the far East, two of which nations had admittedly impeccable Aryan credentials in the Nazis’ eyes. Not to mention the United States, a racially-mixed power (albeit with a racial ascendancy admired by Hitler) but surely more Aryan than the Japanese. Hitler destroyed the British and French empires, the two most extensive exercises in white colonial ascendancy then existing. So the Nazis were at best wildly hypocritical in their professions of racism. It would be more accurate to describe them not as white supremacists but as supremacists of a pseudo-race cobbled together out of ethnic, national, linguistic and geographic characteristics. Japanese "Yamato" ideology worked in a similar way, and Japan to this day professes a racial purity that the variety of features on the Tokyo subway belies.

One must remember that white supremacism was in Hitler’s day respectable and to some extent constituted an attempt to assimilate Nazi goals to those of the established powers. At that time, the British and French empires were still functioning and America was practicing Jim Crow segregation. The Nazis had every reason to pretend to be doing the same even if they were doing so at best in a highly equivocal way.

So what did the Nazis really believe in, if not the nationalism and racism that is the received explanation of the liberal historical consensus? It is arguable that what they really believed in is war. Primed by the Marxist ideal of progress only through struggle, brutalized to madness by the trenches of WWI, warped by a lumpen Darwinism, they made it their highest end. Seen from this perspective, Hitler's three puzzling decisions that cost him WWII have a twisted but comprehensible consistency. He let the British escape at Dunkirk so they could fight another day. He insisted on subjugating the Ukraine rather than taking it as an ally against the USSR because he intrinsically preferred social relations based on domination. And he declared war on the US because he wanted world war Gotterdammerung as an end in itself.

Race and Nazi Racism, and the Latter's Impact on Anthropology

by R. Gayre of Gayre

It would be avoiding the difficulties which have beset the growth of anthropology in the last few years if we did not treat briefly, but at sufficient length, the effect of the impact of Nazi race propaganda and anti-racialist doctrines against it.

One reason why it has been necessary to devote a complete chapter to the subject of the reality of race (which would not have been called in question a few decades ago, and which is fundamental to ethnological studies) is due to a wide misconception which has developed in people’s minds. This was largely due to the growth in Germany of certain pseudo-ethnological theories, and the reactionary counter-blast against them which they provoked, and what, in our opinion, was, unfortunately, in many quarters, no less pseudo-science, which reaction, in trying to destroy Nazi ideas of race, confounded the study of race and heredity with Nazism, sometimes, it has seemed to us, willfully, and called in question the basic principles of anthropology.

This was, perhaps, largely because the attack upon what were conceived to be Nazi ideas came principally from that small but vocal influential section of philosophers, who, in a greater or lesser degree, accepted or leaned towards principles of Lamarckism, and for whom any ideas of an absolutely fixed hereditary character of race was repugnant. By their confounding the basic and orthodox conceptions of anthropology with racism, the very foundations of this science have been called in question.

This was entirely unjustified and unscientific. But it has left for us the imperative necessity to correct what is in fact a distorted conception, namely that the fixity of race and heredity gave rise to Nazi racial philosophy, and that, as that was false, so is the concept of heredity and race.

The naiveté of this conclusion is obvious. It is based on an erroneous over-simplification, which runs something like this: the Nazis taught that there was a Herrenfolk race—this was the “Aryan” or Nordic—the Nazis were wrong. Therefore, there is no such thing as race, let alone a Nordic race, and under no circumstances must the term Aryan be used from now onwards. To talk of race, Nordics and Aryans, is to be a Nazi. Anthropology inherently demands the study of race—therefore it is either a bogus science or else it must be reformed and the racial basis of it expunged.

Here in India, where these words are written, one forms the impression this confounding of race and racism has hardly, if at all, seriously affected its philosophers or reacted on ethnological work. But this cannot be said to be the case in the Western world where, in some quarters, from publicists to some anthropologists themselves, there has been a competition to out-vie each other in denying these foundations, which up to 1933, when Adolf Hitler came to power in Germany, had been the basis of anthropological work, except among the relatively unimportant school of neo-Lamarckism.

THE SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE FOR RACE
HAS NOT CHANGED

Yet nothing new has come to light to change the classical concepts of race fundamentally. The synthesis of biological anthropology must still, if it is to remain a science, continue to be based on heredity, and its inspirations do not lie in Lamarck, but rather in Darwin, and in Mendel, whose work teaches the importance of heredity.

In order to restore the perspective in this matter, and to see anthropology, and the knowledge it provides for us, as it has developed from its classical foundations, it is essential to repudiate both the suggestion that the concept of race does not exist and that the distortions of truth do not lie with anthropology itself. As far as the permanence of heredity is concerned we believe the facts speak for themselves, if anyone will but study them. In order, however, to clear away the distortions, both those created by the Nazi propagandists, and those reactions to Nazism which have arisen and which we believe to be equally, if not so culpably, in error, it is therefore necessary to go to the root of this matter and to trace the growth of those travesties of anthropology which ultimately came to be called racism.

NAZI RACISM BASED UPON LAMARCKISM

One of the significant things which, curiously enough, will be found to arise from such an examination is that it will become evident that Nazi racism had its roots, not from anthropology as is so often alleged, and not in Mendel and Darwin, but actually in a form of Lamarckism, in those very conceptions and philosophies on which the doctrines of modern neo-Lamarckist anti-racialists are based.

This somewhat surprising fact will become apparent as we proceed.

THE BEGINNINGS OF NAZI RACISM

The beginnings of this distortion of anthropology in modern times at the instance of a political philosophy can be traced, as most anti-racialists are not slow to point out, to Count Gobineau and Houston Stewart Chamberlain. This point is so important that it is absolutely essential to follow the development of the Nazi racial doctrines from those of Chamberlain, when it will be seen that there is a world of difference between their views and those of orthodox ethnological scientific investigation and teaching. Furthermore, and as a consequence, it will become apparent that it is a mischievous distortion of truth to allege that any work which, or researcher who, starts from the assumption of a biological basis to race is treading in the footsteps of the philosophies of Nazi racialism.

THE EXPOSURE OF THE NON-RACIAL BASIS
OF NAZI RACIALISM BY KONRAD HEIDEN

Great credit is due to the socialistic writer, Konrad Heiden, in his work Der Fuehrer for being one of the few who has realized that a completely distorted conception of anthropology is to be found in the early writings that gave rise to Nazi racial thought.

CHAMBERLAIN RIDICULED THE CONCEPT
OF A PURE RACE

Indeed, so little did the father of Nazi racialism believe in a biological entity called race that we find him saying, as Konrad Heiden (pp. 189-190) points out:—

Race is made by man—this is Chamberlain’s key to the secrets of history.

Chamberlain ridicules the legendary “pure race.” It is a mystical concept, an “airy phantasm”!

In fact Chamberlain never taught the conception that there were pure races, which by remaining pure-bred, have as a consequence, made any valuable contribution to mankind.

CHAMBERLAIN TAUGHT THE DESIRABILITY
OF MISCEGENATION

On the contrary he taught (like many “progressives” today) that racial mixture was desirable, for, according to him, it was only out of racial mixture that the gifted could be created. He considered that the evidence of this was provided by the Prussian, whom he saw as the superman, resulting from a cross between the German (or Anglo-Saxon “German”) and the Slav. From this Chamberlain went on to argue that the sum of all these talented people would then form a “race,” not of blood but of “affinity.”

Of course, his notion was fantastic, and a travesty of terms, because it reduces the term race to meaning at one time something quite different from what it does at another. But in this Chamberlain was only just a little ahead in time of those writers who boggle at the word race, and do their best to use it loosely, denying to it the more precise definition which earlier scientific workers established.

From these impossible premises Chamberlain was prepared to argue, in answer to questions of whether men were related by blood ties, that he did not know and did not care! “No relationship creates a closer bond than elective affinity.”

Here we have the doctrine of “election,” in a travestied form, of some of the older theologians, but the latter never dared to preach more than an election of those who would enter the earth, earthy, and he taught an ideological election for rulership in this world.

THE “ARYANS” OF CHAMBERLAIN

It was this fantastic election of the ideologies who were, for Chamberlain, the so-called “Aryans.” As Heiden points out in answer to the question: “What is an Aryan?” Chamberlain gave the startling answer:—

One must know nothing of ethnography to venture a definite [my Italics] answer to this question. . . . The peoples we learned to combine under the name of Aryan vary greatly from one another; they show the most varied cranial structure, and different colours of skin, eyes and hair; and supposing there had been a common Indo-European mother race, what argument can we offer against the accumulating evidence to the effect that other, totally unrelated, types have from time immemorial been represented in our present so-called Aryan nations? At most we might call individuals, but never a whole people, Aryan.

It is needless to say that no reputable ethnologist has ever denied that the cultural and linguistic term Aryan can be equated with race, on the other hand, every anthropologist realizes, if he has given any thought to the matter, that the earliest speaker of an Indo-European or Aryan language must have had some sort of ethnic foundation, and that evidence of this persisted for a long time.

Above all things, an ethnologist would have to insist that even if Aryan and the Nordic race are not equivalent terms, no satisfactory discussion of the origins of the Aryan peoples, cultures and languages can take place without reference to ethnology and race.

If therefore, we want to find parallels to these expressions of the father of Nazi race philosophy, we will find their echo in the writings of those allegedly democratic philosophers who have made it their preoccupation in this last generation to attempt to destroy and otherwise minimize the fundamental biological and racial conceptions upon which the scientific study of man must rest. For it is in their works that we read that the study of heredity, and of race. is unnecessary, indeed undesirable, to understanding human behavior.

THE NATIONALIST BASIS OF THE CHAMBERLAIN'S PHILOSOPHY

The intense nationalism of the German in the past, being as it was, clipped the wings of Chamberlain’s flights of fancy. He had to maneuver within the limitations placed on him by that nationalism.

This is the essential departure between Chamberlain and Marxism. Whereas the latter enunciates its political “biology” on a world-wide scale, Chamberlain had to cast his doctrine within narrower limits. As a consequence, it had to be propounded that, in a quite inexplicable and mystical manner, the supermen (who are the same as Nazis’ “Aryans”) were greater in number among the Germans, and as a consequence it followed that it was Germany’s duty to breed and inbreed these supermen (of mixed race ancestry), until all the Germans became as the Prussian Junkers—supermen or “Aryans.”

THE DEPARTURE BETWEEN CHAMBERLAIN AND MARXISM

While Chamberlain had to have the bulk of his supermen located within a nation state, the German philosopher Marx, thought more internationally and was not so restricted. Despite this divergence of views, as we have just seen, Chamberlain ignored race as we understand it, just as much as any Marxist anti-racist does.

CHAMBERLAIN—THE FOUNDER OF NAZI RACIALISM

It is from Chamberlain that the whole structure of Nazi racialism was developed. It is true that the beliefs of Chamberlain are so devoid of any consistent or logical factual content that they presented difficulties to his followers, and part of the confused utterances of the Nazi propagandists on racial questions was due to the attempts of others, such as Rosenberg, to bring his “race” and “Aryan” doctrine back to some semblance of reality. As a consequence, for example, sometimes the Nazis really meant Nordic when they said Nordic, but they also confused the term with Chamberlain’s “Aryans” (the elected supermen) to refer to the German nation and all the assumed descendants of the earliest speakers of the Aryan or Indo-European languages. The same confusion existed throughout the whole of their racial pronouncements.

THE MYSTICAL DOCTRINE OF RACE

However, no matter how great the confusion of thought, the contradictions, the mixtures of scientific truths and facts with untruths and fiction in the doctrine of Chamberlain and the Nazis who built on his foundations, of one thing one may always be sure, and that is that at the core of these teachings there was always the mystical doctrine of Chamberlain. It seems incomprehensible that in an age when facts are demanded in all branches of reasoning that a whole philosophy could be erected that rejected the factual methods of physical anthropology, in favor of something entirely without foundations.

It is because this is so, that we find a man like Kossinna, the distinguished German anthropologist, talking nonsense about a “German soul” in a non-German body.

ROSENBERG’S TEACHINGS

The Nazi propagandist/philosopher Rosenberg, faced by the overwhelming facts of anthropology, attempted in his The Myth of the Twentieth Century to try to swing the Nazi racial doctrine towards a more orthodox use of racial terms, but he failed to get away from this mystical elective conception of the “Race.” Therefore, it follows that we find him talking in the same kind of language: “Racial history is thus at the same time natural history and soul mystique” (my italics). Thus, speaking of the Dinaric racial type, which is distinct from the Nordic, but constitutes a very important strain in much of southeastern Germany, Rosenberg pompously intoned the “dinarisch has often been inwardly formed in a Nordic mode.”

Elsewhere, Rosenberg made it clear that the foundation of what he envisaged as a future Nazi aristocracy lay in men who had stood, in a spiritual, political and military sense (my italics) in the front of the battle for the coming Reich; and, while he thought 80 per cent of them would be of the Nordic type, nevertheless, he made it clear that lack of Nordic characters would not be a bar to joining the new aristocracy (which Chamberlain had called “Aryan”) and he said “With the others (i.e. the non-Nordics) the inheritance, which exhibits itself in action, outweighs the personal appearance” (my italics).

Gottfried Neese similarly reflected Chamberlain’s nebulous conceptions of “race”—for he talked of the uniformity of “blood” resulting in a similarity of nature, which manifests itself in a common language and a feeling of community “and is further molded by land and by history.”

We should not lose sight of the fact that in the pre-Chamberlain era, German nationalists had tried to explain away the frequent occurrence of their broad, non-Nordic, types of skulls as a result of their environment. The land or soil (Boden) has always had a mystical influence with the Germans, and so we get the Nazi cry of “Blood and Soil.” Whatever shortcomings there might be in this mixed racial ancestry, the Nazi relied on the mystical influence of the Holy German soil to put that right.

THE CHAMBERLAIN FOUNDATION SURVIVED
TO THE END

It is not our purpose to go further in discussing the Nazi conceptions of “race.” It is sufficient to say, in conclusion of this matter, that as expounded by one or another of the Nazi philosophers and hierarchs and were often contradictory, depending on whether their expositor attempted to root himself in some semblance of factual anthropology or in the ideas of Houston Stewart Chamberlain, the Chamberlain foundation is there all the same.

It was this which led the Nazis to ally themselves, in expediency, with racially different non-European Japanese, and the non-Aryan Finns and Hungarians, while at the same time excluding even the near-Nordic Sephardim Jews and Poles (of whom there were many).

NAZI RACIALISM THE ANTITHESIS OF
RACE SCIENCE

This Chamberlain basis is the antithesis of any belief in the biological basis of society, and it springs from the same fountain head as all those philosophies which believe that man is above biology, and that by changing his environment he can create Utopian society.even if, as in Russia, he has to wade through blood to do it.

In these respects, therefore, Nazi ideas of race lay close to Lamarckism and the strange notions of Chamberlain,which are a denial of the force of heredity and a crying up of the influence of environment, which was expected either to develop acquired characters, or at any rate nullify the force of inheritance.

THE STUDY OF RACE IS NOT RACISM

It is hoped that enough has been said to indicate that an exponent of the role of race and heredity in the study of man and culture is not a Nazi racial philosopher because his interest lies in the manifold differences between human populations and in a biological conception of race and of humanity.

From what we have said it is self-evident that far from the idea of biological race being at the basis of a foundation for Nazi racial philosophy, the reverse is actually true. Nazi racial philosophy was fundamentally the same as the views of so many of its opponents, namely, a belief in Lamarckism. While many German scientists knew better, the Nazi philosophy effectively ignored the importance of race in its biological or racial sense.

This brief review has been sufficient, we hope, to establish the point which we made at the beginning namely, that the Nazi doctrines were rooted, as are those of the Communists, in the very same beliefs as those who, while attacking Nazism, have made it their business to attempt to undermine the classical teachings—teachings which rest upon the reality that race exists, and the need to study and analyze it as scientifically as we can.

In countering Nazism, by attacking the role of heredity in shaping human potentials and human behavior, we believe that these protagonists have laid themselves gravely open to criticism.

It is important that the social sciences must steer between these two pseudo-philosophies, that of the Nazi philosophy of race, and the arguments of those who seek to deny the reality of race and the importance of genetic differences in man.

As already pointed out, space has only been devoted to these pseudo-ethnological views, in order to repudiate, once and for all, the allegations that the biological approach to the study of man is the root and the cause of race problems. Indeed it can be well argued that, on the contrary, it was the disregard of biological anthropology and not the belief in it, which made the Nazi “racial” ideology possible.