Myth of the 20th Century – James LaFond

“With the departure into the study of modernist philosophy as a psychotoxin hostile to ethnic identity and masculine solidarity, Rosenberg is creeping up the steps to the final crime scene of WWI that his quest is calibrated to somehow reverse. He is the coroner invited by his conscience and his own well- tempered sword of reason to conduct the inquest concerning the death of Western Civilization, who somehow convinces himself that he can reanimate the corpse once he has ascertained the cause of death. Rarely has a more heroic work of literature been attempted than The Myth of the 20th Century, marking this effort as quintessentially Aryan and about as likely to succeed as Leonidas and his 300 at The Hot Gates or the stand of Roland against the Saracens.” -James LaFond, writing nearly a century after Rosenberg, in a civilizational point that is in many ways heading into a repeat of the cataclysm that consumed the Western World, and in particular Weimar Germany, by the 1930s.

— Brought to you by —

Very special guest James LaFond –
James LaFond on Facebook –
Lynn Lockhart & The Crackpot Podcast
– BitChute –
– YouTube –
Hobo History:
New: Pulp Fiction Renaissance

Books by James LaFond –

Myth of the 20th Century – Episode 203 – Myth of the 20th Century – James LaFond

— References —

6 Comments Add yours

  1. Suburban_elk says:

    Good job getting your mic levels, or internet connection issues, or whatever, on more better equal terms, especially for that one guy.


  2. Suburban_elk says:

    I am skeptical of the Big Idea as presented on this show, and apparently promulgated by Rosenberg, that the Aryans are the light of the world and the earlier European Farmers (among others), were the darkness. And that further, what we are seeing now is the same struggle in an age old battle that is the same one as between Rome and the Carthaginians. However it makes for good epic stories. And it may be true. Just saying, that it sounds a little too “neat.”


  3. Anon89 says:

    While I understand you have some deference for your guest (and title), I still would have liked to have seen a bit more critical of an approach here, given that some of the claims made by Rosenberg are pretty far out there. It’s something you usually do very well, so the lack of much push-back was a bit surprising.

    Just a couple inaccuracies off the top of my head, purely in areas I know a bit about:

    -Stoicism was not at all a “holding pattern” and the idea of it being so is just as much a modern caricature as believing honor is nothing more than “me smash” barbarism. It was a quest for perfection through detached rational inquiry, with God representing the Supreme Intellect.

    -In the same vein, claiming Dante’s religion and conception of Hell are “semitic” is pretty odd given that the Christian concept of Hell is quite openly Greek in origin. These kinds of mistakes are inevitable when your view of Catholicism is literally indistinguishable from that of a fedora-wearing Redditor.

    -Arianism: it had nothing at all to do with some idea that Christ was “born a man and then rose to become God.” Any real Arian would have been disgusted at such a thought and considered it an appalling heresy. Arians, like orthodox Christans, believed Christ to be present at the creation of the universe. Unlike orthodox Christians, they believed Christ was ‘subordinate’ in essence to God the Father. This is a significant distinction but in no way relates to the philosophical idea of trying to tie Arianism to “heroism” or whatever.

    -Finally, Rosenberg’s racial dualism is frankly bunk. The bloodthirsty, child-sacrificing Celtic Gauls who accompanied the Carthaginian menace were just as Aryan as the Romans themselves. Upholding the Iranians as some kind of romantic Aryan brotherhood is especially laughable as the Greeks considered Persia to be the epitome of oriental decadence and slavery, to the point where the word “slave” could be casually used to refer to a Persian citizen. On the other hand, the Egyptians, Minoans, and Sumerians, the forbears of what we call “civilization,” were all non-Aryan (with Coptic being conclusively linked to the Semitic language family btw.)

    I’m a race realist but it’s quite obvious that the white race was created through millennia of evolution, not a single invasion. Rosenberg’s attempt to construct an “Aryan vs non-Aryan” narrative is just a post-hoc way to separate arbitrary groups of people into those he considered virtuous and accomplished against those he considered debased. The real-life Aryans did indeed conquer much of Eurasia, but there is no particular correlation between where they conquered and where successful ancient civilizations rose, except insofar as they happen (like most of the peoples they replaced) to be Caucasian. Ironically, the later success of Western Europe is most likely due to the eugenic effects of Feudalism and the very Church he so hated.

    -More generally, espousing so-called “freedom” as the primary virtue and clinging to the myth of the noble savage are both common leftist tropes that Rosenberg takes up fervently. I’d immediately view him with suspicion for that reason alone. All that being said, still a decent dish, just needs to be taken with quite a bit of salt.


  4. Evola says:

    Great episode, the last song at the end… who is it?


  5. Steven Romo says:

    One should always be wary of any argument that begins with the premise:

    “All that is good is me and all that is against me is bad”

    Any fool can read his own heroism into history and suggest that whatever race or creed or identity he calls his own to be the masculine, virtuous, creative, virile force of progress and cast those ideologies to which he is opposed as the effeminate, decadent and weak. There will always be some example to which one can draw parallels, and if the gnat is strained enough then swallowing the camel becomes not only possible, but an inevitability.

    I won’t attempt to refute Rosenberg or LaFond’s history, though it is suspect. I won’t even attempt to refute their theology and ecclesiastical history, which is laughable.

    I won’t do these things because Rosenberg did not look at history and come to the conclusion that the Aryan was the progenitor of all that was good and holy. Rather, he began with the assumption that the Aryan man was the source of all good and went to history to find the evidence of his assumption. Therefore his baseline premise is not historical, but metaphysical and philosophical.

    Much is made about the “blood” of the Aryan man. A clever word, because it is simultaneously spiritual and physical, but we are still led to ask: exactly what constitutes this “blood”? Is it the soul or is it genetics, or some admixture of both?

    If it is the soul, is it individual? No, it can’t be because it is presented as a racial attribute. So it must be some facet of the soul that is common to the Aryan but also unique to him. From whence does this movement or attribute of the soul come? From whence was it born, and how is it passed down? Which of the gods put this fire of virility and honor into the Aryan and why did no other diety put it in his own people?

    Or is it purely genetic? Then where in the body is this uniqueness found? Since it is a movement of will and intellect, it must be the brain… but exactly which part of the brain? Which lobe or wrinkle or synaptic pattern is responsible for this habit toward “honor”? It would be forgivable for Rosenberg to hide behind the psuedo-spiritual language of “blood” given that the science of neurology was less advanced in his own time, but it is hardly forgivable for his disciples today to continue hiding. Announce this uniqueness in the Aryan brain and have it tested in the open light and compared to that of other races. Make your claim falsifiable.

    But of course, one might claim it is both soul and brain, but this hardly solves the problem because one must still account for this difference and describe its origin. And even further, given that it is a synthesis, one must also describe the relationship between the soul and brain.

    For all the supposed antipathy toward dogma, the claim amounts to nothing more than a dogmatic assertion. It is to be taken on faith that the Aryan is a child of the light and that all flaws in his character or in the character of his societies can be reduced to the corrupting influence of less divine humans. And once this dogma is accepted, one simply reads history in the light of the dogma, ignoring that which does not comport and emphasizing that which could be interpreted as supporting the dogma.

    For all the mocking of the scholastics and the dusty theologians and priests and councils, there is one thing that cannot be denied them.

    They actually did the work to flesh out their claim and provide theological, historical, and logical arguments for their position. They took it to its logical end and staked out a position. And if it be opposed, even the opponent must admit that there is a solid and practical application to oppose. It is not simply a collection of bare assertions hiding behind grandiose language and selective interpretations.

    But then, that is ultimately the point of racial supremacist ideology. That it requires no thought or action to become the blessed is not a bug, but a feature.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s