Back To “Blood And Soil”?

Nazi racial theory was the fruit of a shotgun marriage between physical anthropology and linguistics. Although not for lack of trying, the former science was unable to produce any convincing classification of human “races”. So a fatal error was committed, and “race” was defined by language instead. Since there appeared to have been an Indo-European root language, people concluded that there must have been a single ethnicity speaking it – so behold “the Aryans”. The same thing was done with a different group of related languages given the name of “Semitic”, to speak which a “Semitic” ethnicity was then invented. To this scientific nonsense was added the malignancy of virtuous and vicious races, a projection perhaps of Christian eschatology, or perhaps also a projection in the Jungian sense. So, far, so bad; we know better now. We know that “peoples” are mostly constructs, rather than unities in any biological sense, and that a given genetic lineage may change its language, religion and customs many times over the centuries.

And yet a lot of the concern with Blut und Boden later returned through the back door, so that “culture” and “identity” are once again the great universals. Once again we see the aversion to the autonomous individual.

Where the Nazis saw people acting as they did because of their “pure” or “tainted” blood, and wanted them to act in that way, PC seems to see the individual as determined exclusively by a group identity, preferably one that has been explained to them by some besserwisser. What is worse, when someone is adopted from another continent at birth, then according to the progressive paradigm she ought to be an integral part of “our” culture. And yet a great fuss is often made about her “roots” in those far climes that she has never seen, and sometimes it is even implied that she ought not to have goals and maxims and opinions that do not take account of these “roots”. One cannot have it both ways; either “identity” is transmitted biologically or it is not.

Once upon a time, people were more intent on what they ought to do next than on where they had come from. A person could thus build socialism, or pursue capitalist goals, regardless of her ethnic origin. Such reformers harboured the notion that we should do whatever we considered right; now, apparently, we must do whatever our ancestors did before us, even if they were foolish and wicked. It is once again all about “roots” – finding them, reconnecting them, keeping them, cultivating them, and perhaps even considering oneself superior because of them. No, let us rather have mind and its goals, and leave “roots” to the trees.

Leave a Reply