>>103420
>I knew you would pull something like this, I said Culture comes from Race not that it was one in the same. A peoples Culture arises organically both because of the environment they evolve in but mostly due to their genetics which is the core of their being.
Looking back on it, I don't think I was too harsh in my assessment at all. What you write later on sounds exactly like you trying to reduce culture to race. Of course, you formally acknowledge other factors, but:
>Religons reflect the inherent values of the people that adopt them.
Religion is a reflection of "inherent" (in other words racial) values. That's what you reduce it too. Yes, you also acknowledge that it's a way for foreign influences to enter a culture, apparently, but that still leaves it relatively unimportant.
Now a few words on this, and that will bring me to my main point:
>You're comparing people like the pre-Christian Germanic tribes who had intricate metallurgy and ships capable of travelling to North America to Niggers? Come on now, thats E. Michael Jones tier shit. Turks and Slavs were only able to adapt and evolve to create civilizations because they had some modicum of intelligence inherent in them even if it's lower than Northwest Europeans. Whereas pure African Niggers have been surrounded by High-cultures for thousands of years and have never improved.
It's not that there was no difference between Slavs and niggers, it's that no racialist would've acknowledged that, comparing the two groups back then. Between sacrificing people to Czernoboh and constantly fighting among each other, they didn't seem very civilized. Obviously, they've proven themselves capable of higher civilization, while the niggers haven't, but that doesn't change the important fact that back then, the two were practically indistinguishable.
And that brings me to my major point: Racialist theories of history have no explanatory power, and without a racialist theory of history, racialism as an ideology looks plain silly, like economics without history of economics. I have read the mess that was The Myth of the 20th Century, every single word, and I was astounded just how arbitrary Rosenbergs assessments were. My favorite is still how he fawned over the Huguenots, these great aryans, while decrying the Taborites, those darn semites. Nevermind that the Huguenots were among the pioneers of caribbean piracy, and that the rebellion of the Taborites, for all its brutality, as easily fits a narrative of stronk aryans protesting against the semitic spirit of the Catholic Church as does the passive-aggressive bullshit of the Huguenots. He did not have any sources in his work, he never derived the heritage of the leading Taborites or Huguenots, he never undertook an honest analysis why their character was necessarily aryan or semitic. His book was basically a history book, yet throughout it, he never once made mention of any historical source.
I have also read some Evola, Metaphysics of War, and was greeted by much the same thing: Him fawning over heroism in battle, getting all euphoric over how cool Hindu sagas were, and breaking his head over how the Franks could be so badass despite being Christians and thus having adopted a "semitic" religion. The answer, of course, was that the Franks were still aryan at heart, and like you said, their religion reflected their "inherent values". Yet, the First Crusade was regarded as a pilgrimage at the time, it strongly bore on themes of penitence and redemption and was in fact regarded as a penitential enterprise. "Semitism" and "aryanism" did not seem in conflict at all, then, it looked rather more like blatant semitism brought out the most aryan that the aryans had to offer. If there were really two hearts beating in the chest of the Franks, you wouldn't have expected them to do so in such unison.
Lastly, I've read some of the relevant passages in Mein Kampf. Hitler doesn't try to deal with the history at all, he pretty much says he will leave that to the historians, then he describes his theory in the abstract, that aryans are the only race capable of creating culture and everyone else just jumps the bandwagon or actively destroys culture. Again, he does this without any historical data, and in fact, earlier, he said the despised learning historical data and only cared about narratives.
So that's three of the major proponents of the racial theory, and none of them was capable of anything approaching a half-decent historical analysis using his theories.