You are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

1
0

[–] Joe_McCarthy [S] 1 point 0 points (+1|-1) ago  (edited ago)

His anti-Semitism was definitely that of the conspiracist. If that were the sum of his thought he'd be worthy of only cursory review. Not to say he was necessarily correct otherwise. He often wasn't. But he was an interesting thinker. Particularly on religion.

The Myth of the Twentieth Century can be a difficult read though. If anything Whisker's book should be read as a companion to it.

0
1

[–] 1Iron_Curtain 0 points 1 point (+1|-0) ago 

His ideas on religion were interesting, but he misunderstood the Levant region to some extent, but was mostly right about it. He was claiming how Gargoyles and other corrupted forms of plastic art had an Eastern/Asiatic origin, and I think he is right ultimately, but it expresses the diversity of the European mind in many ways.

I think I like Henri Lammens appraisal of Oriental religions. He claimed the Alawites were lost Christians. I tend to agree with this appraisal and believe that it proves that the origins of Christianity is with the European race, since I believe the Alawites are some sort of hybridized and Asiaticized archaic European type. Yeah, but Rosenberg was mostly right. The religions and cults of the Levant suck. This applies back to North Africa, Anatolia, and Iran, where a lot of weird Gnostic cults existed.

Rosenberg was a noble fellow of sorts, besides of course for his being involved in a genocide, but I do like his pan-Europeanism to an extent with a very, very heavy dose of Germanic to go with it. I also think Streicher was sort of the other end of Rosenberg, neither, especially Streicher, should have been given the death sentence in my opinion.