Skip to main content

Full text of "Christianity and the Survival of the West"

See other formats


Christianity and the 
Survival of the West 



By Revilo P. Oliver 



(Sterling, Virginia: Sterling Enterprises, 1973) 



Contents 

I. The Religion of the West 

II. The Orient 

III. Christianity Today 

IV. The Predictable Future 

V. The Consequences 

VI. Succedaneous Religion 

Postscript 



A return will set in of the re-active pressure of nature upon mankind. Mankind 
will again be restive under it. . . . But woe to that people which has not men that 
will stand up and fight without flinching. Those countries where the moral decay 
shall have gone deepest, where the proved stock shall have died out and given 
way to poor stock, where the great effeminization of men shall have taken place 
(for the masculinization of women will be no compensation), where the strong 
and the wise and the shrewd shall gain no more of wealth, power, and influence 
than the weak, silly, and incompetent, all being equal, — those will go to the wall. 
And when this fate shall have overtaken most of our western white men's 
countries, our cycle of civilization will be completed. 

— Correa Moylan Walsh (1917) 



Gliicklich wird niemand sein, der heute irgendwo in der Welt lebt. 

—Oswald Spengler (1918) 



Jamais comme aujourd'hui les peuples n'ont eu la sensation d'etre menes par les 
evenements. Jamais ils n'ont ete plus impuissants, plus volontairement 
impuissants devant eux. . . . Et c'est bien ce qui me parait le plus tragique dans 
l'aspect du monde de 1932: on n'y voit qu'une civilisation qui tombe et la nuit qui 
approche. 



-Pierre Loewel (1932) 



The mission of this generation is the most difficult that has ever faced a Western 
generation. It must break the terror by which it is held in silence, it must look 
ahead, it must believe when there is apparently no hope, it must obey even if it 
means death, it must fight to the end rather than submit. . . . The men of this 
generation must fight for the continued existence of the West. 

— Francis Parker Yockey (1948) 



Chapter One 
THE RELIGION OF THE WEST 



You, who are now reading these lines, and I are strangers. I have no means of knowing 
whether you are a Christian or an atheist. That, however, will not matter, so long as we 
talk about facts and not wishes. 

The observed and verifiable facts of the world about us are not affected by religious faith 
or the lack of faith. Christians and atheists must find themselves in perfect agreement 
when they affirm that lead is more malleable than steel, that the earth is an oblate 
spheroid rotating on its axis, that whales are mammals, that Germany was defeated and 
devastated by the many nations allied against her in 1945, and that the Chinese are 
Mongolians. About such matters there can be no dispute among Western men, who 
instinctively accept the reality of the world about us and cannot believe, as do many 
Orientals, that it is merely an illusion in the mind of a dreamer. 

If we would salvage and restore our civilization — the Occidental culture that is peculiarly 
our own and that now seems to be disintegrating and rotting before our very eyes — we 
must do so as Western men, by observing reality objectively and by reasoning from it 
dispassionately. And when we try to compute what resources remain to us, we need first 
of all to determine the actual strength of the Christian tradition at the present time. 

It is a fact, which Christians will regard with satisfaction and some atheists may deplore, 
that Western civilization, for about half of its recorded history, has been a Christian 
civilization in the sense that the great majority of the people belonging to it (though 
never, at any time, all of them) believed implicitly in the truth of the Christian revelation. 
That religious unanimity was for a long time so nearly complete that, after the fall of the 
Roman Empire and the evanescence of hopes for its restoration, we of the West regarded 
our religion as the bond that united us and distinguished us from the rest of the human 
species. During the Middle Ages, our ancestors occupied the greater part of Europe, and, 
until they discovered the American continents, they lived only in Europe, but despite that 
geographical unity, they did not generally refer to themselves as the Europeans. For all 
practical purposes, furthermore, our ancestors belonged to the same division of the white 
race: they, like the true Greeks and the true Romans before them, were all members of the 
great race that we now call Indo-European or Aryan, but they had in their languages no 
word to designate their blood relationship and biological unity. Thus, when they referred 
to the unity of which they were always conscious as something transcending the 
constantly shifting territorial and political divisions of Europe, they called themselves 
Christendom. And for many centuries that word was adequate and misled no one. 

For many centuries the West was Christendom and its civilization was indubitably 
Christian: that, whether you like it or not, is an historical fact. There is a complementary 
historical fact that was less obvious at the time and that even thoughtful men overlooked 



or tried to ignore until the events of the past two decades made it indubitable: Christianity 
is a religion of the West, and, for all practical purposes, only of the West. It is not, as its 
polemical adversaries so often charge, a Semitic cult, for it has never commanded the 
adhesion of any considerable number of Semites, and it is not, as Christians once 
generally believed, a universal religion, for experience has proved that it cannot be 
successfully exported to populations that are not Indo-European. 

Experience has also proved that it does not do the slightest good to deny ascertained 
facts. The men of Classical antiquity knew, of course, that the earth is spherical, and 
Eratosthenes in the third century B.C. calculated its circumference as 24,663 miles. But 
the early Fathers of the Church, living in the age of growing ignorance that shrouded the 
last century of the Roman Empire, decided, on the basis of some statements in the Old 
Testament, that the earth ought to be flat or, at least, no more curved than a shield. 
Lactantius was the most eloquent and probably, therefore, the most influential of the 
many who assiduously demanded that the earth be flat and so imposed on their 
contemporaries the conviction that it was. In the Middle Ages, to be sure, there were 
some learned men, such as Buridan, who knew that the globe is a globe, but they, like 
learned men today, who all know very well that talk about the equality of races is utter 
nonsense, usually refrained from publicly denouncing fashionable delusions. It was not 
until the Fifteenth Century that the truth became again inescapable, but when it did, the 
Christians, being men of the West, who do not deny the lessons of experience, 
surrendered the comfortable error in which they had once generally believed; and since 
that time, no rational Christian has doubted that the earth is spherical. 

Today, as in the Fifteenth Century, Western men have had to discard a congenial 
assumption to bring their conception of the world into conformity with observed reality. 
So long as we of the West held unquestioned dominion over the whole earth, we 
permitted ourselves to assume that our civilization in general, and our religion in 
particular, could be exported and made universal. We did not sufficiently observed that 
talent for mimicry is common to all human beings and indeed to all anthropoids; that all 
human beings stand in awe of those who have power over them; and that a genius for 
dissimulation and hypocrisy is hereditary in the most intelligent Orientals. Even with 
these oversights, the evidence against our assumption was fairly clear, but in the pride of 
our power we felt that we could indulge an assumption that was so congenial to the 
romantic generosity that is a peculiarity of our race. But the events of half a century, and 
especially of the last two decades, have shown us, beyond peradventure of doubt, the 
shape of the world in which we live. We now know what our prolonged missionary 
effort, cultural as well as religious, accomplished — and how its visible effects were 
produced. 

When Cortes and his small but valiant band of iron men conquered the teeming empire of 
the Aztecs, he was immediately followed by a train of earnest missionaries, chiefly 
Franciscans, who began to preach the Gospel to the natives and soon sent home, with 
naive enthusiasm, glowing accounts of the conversions they had effected. Their pious 
sincerity and innocent joy still lives in the pages of Father Sahagun, Father Torquemada, 
and many others. For their sake I am glad that the poor Franciscans never suspected how 



small a part they played in the religious conversions that gave them such happiness. Far, 
far more persuasive than their sermons and their book had been the Spanish cannon that 
breached and shattered the Aztec defenses, and the ruthless Spanish soldiers who slew the 
Aztec priests at their own altars and toppled the Aztec idols from the sacrificial pyramids. 
The Aztecs, Tepanecs, and other natives accepted Christianity, not because their hearts 
were touched by alien and incomprehensible doctrines of love and mercy, but because it 
was the religion of the white men whose bronze cannon and mail-clad warriors were 
invincible. 

That was early in the Sixteenth Century and even then there were not wanting indications 
that should have given pause to a critical mind, but we of the West went on repeating that 
fond mistake for four centuries, as the missionaries whom we sent to all parts of the 
world wrote home glowing reports of the number of "hearts" they had "won for Christ." It 
was only after our enemies' campaign of "anti-colonialism" really got under way that 
most of us realized that what had won all those hearts was primarily the discipline of 
British regiments and the manifest power of the white man. 

We now know what happened. On many a shore of Africa, for example, missionaries 
eager to "win souls for Christ" ventured to land alone, and the aborigines, after mutilating 
and torturing them for a good communal laugh, ate them, cooked or raw according to the 
custom of the local cuisine. Usually, a few weeks or a few months later, a British cruiser 
hove to offshore and lobbed half a dozen 4.5 shells into the native village, and, if not 
pressed for time, landed half a company of marines to beat the bushes and drag out a 
dozen or so savages to hang on convenient trees. Consequently the tribe, if not very 
obtuse, took the hint and respected the next bevy of missionaries as somehow 
representing the god of thunder and lightning. And if the men of God distributed enough 
free rice and medical care with their sermons, they were able to make "converts," as the 
natives learned to utter the words that Christians like to hear. 

That is, in essence, the whole history of "winning souls" among the savages. There were, 
of course, many local variations. If the first missionaries were preceded by troops or 
white settlers, the blacks had already been convinced of the virtues of Christian rifles and 
had learned that white men should not be regarded as esculent comestibles. It often 
happened, however, that the natives, even after many years of preaching and conversion, 
rejected the white man's odd rites very emphatically, and a fresh supply of missionaries 
was needed. In 1905, for example, the Maji-Maji conspiracy in Tanganyika murdered all 
the missionaries and almost all the white men and women in the entire territory, and it 
required a German regiment and several companies of marines to restore the teachings of 
the Gospel. That was done by giving some forty or fifty thousand demonstrations that a 
Mauser bullet could penetrate even a black hide that had been most carefully anointed 
with the grease of a boiled baby. 

The Christian missionaries did teach a ritual and often inculcated a superstition that had 
some superficial resemblance to their religion, but as for teaching the spiritual substance 
of Christianity, they might as well have followed the example of St. Francis and preached 
sermons to the birds. That is why the many, many thousands of devoted Christians who 



expended their whole lives to "save souls" built only an edifice of cardboard and tinsel 
that is now gone in the wind. 

What the vanishing of that flimsy facade has made obvious was predictable from the first. 
The religion of the West has never been comprehensible to the rudimentary minds of 
Congoids, Capoids, and Australoids, races so primitive that they were congenitally 
incapable of inventing a wheel and even of using one without supervision — races that 
could not develop for themselves even the first and simplest preliminaries of a 
civilization. When the missionaries invented systems of writing the crude languages of 
the primitives, they had also to invent words to express such concepts as "God," "soul," 
"justice," "morality," and "religion" — invent them by either creating new words or by 
perverting to such meanings sounds that in the native jargons conveyed impressions that 
were faintly and remotely analogous. That fact alone should have made us think. It was 
clear, furthermore, that the "converts," even those who had been most thoroughly imbued 
with an awe of the god of repeating rifles and locomotives, would conform to the white 
man's morality only under coercion, and that whenever they escaped from the white 
man's supervision they spontaneously reverted not only to their own mores but also to 
whatever form of voodoo they had practiced before. Even if earlier experience had not 
been conclusive, what happened in Haiti at the very beginning of the Nineteenth Century 
should have removed the last lingering doubt. But the missionaries did not learn, and the 
"Ladies' Missionary Society" went on contributing their mites, plying their needles, and 
glowing with tender emotion for the sweet little savages depicted by their romantic 
imaginations. 

Although it is true that in some places in the former colonial possessions missionaries are 
still tolerated, if they are obsequious to the natives and pay very well, we have at last 
learned that the Gospel follows the British regiments in the white man's ignominious and 
insane retreat from the world that was his. 



Chapter Two 
THE ORIENT 



We Indo-Europeans have been Christian for about half of our recorded history, and our 
whole culture was so intimately connected with our religion that we called our world 
Christendom. Today, however, our religion and hence our understanding of ourselves and 
the world about us have been drastically affected by three distinct developments that have 
no necessary relation to one another and that we should be careful not to confuse, viz. : 

(1) The catastrophic decline of religious faith and belief among our own people during 
the past century and a half or two centuries. That is a phenomenon which, although 
perhaps slightly accelerated by alien influences, arose within our culture and was simply 
a revival of the tendency of our Western philosophy before the appearance of 
Christianity. It is therefore a separate topic that we must postpone for later consideration. 

(2) The now obvious failure of our efforts to communicate Christianity to the primitive 
races, which we discussed briefly in our opening chapter. 

(3) The futility of all our efforts to export our Occidental religion to the old and civilized 
nations of the Orient. This is really the most striking phenomenon of all. 

Among the biologically and mentally primitive Congoids, Capoids, and Australoids, 
Christian missionaries attained for a while some specious semblance of success. One can 
only marvel, however, at the illusions that Christendom obstinately entertained, century 
after century, despite its constant and virtually total failure to win converts among the 
highly intelligent and subtle Orientals, both white and yellow, who had elaborate cultures 
of their own. 

Since we are, on the whole, a rational race, there was some basis for those illusions. The 
sacred books of Christianity did not originate in the West. The Old Testament deals 
almost entirely with the activities of Israelites and Jews. The events of the New 
Testament, to be sure, took place in a Roman province in Asia Minor, and largely in 
Galilee, a small territory inhabited by a conglomerate population that the Jews despised 
as inferiors, but the first apostles, whatever their race, were certainly not Europeans, and 
Paul was admittedly a Jew. It was known, furthermore, that in the early centuries there 
had been some small Judaeo-Christian sects,* and that it was not until later that the new 
religion attracted votaries that could be identified as authentically Greek, Roman, and 
Celtic. Although Europeans knew the Christian scriptures only in Greek and Latin, and 
during the Middle Ages only in Latin, the Asiatic origins created a supposition that 
Christianity, the religion of Europe, was not European, even when everyone knew that it 
had no adherents outside Europe except in the territories of the Byzantine Empire, and 
that Byzantine Christianity was so adulterated with Levantine elements that it was 
unacceptable to the West.** 



(* The Ebionites and the Cerinthians were the most important of these sects, but there 
were others, most of which are catalogued in the seven-volume edition of Adolf von 
Harnuck' s History of Dogma. I need scarcely add that the term "Judaeo-Christian" is 
correctly used only with reference to these sects and their antecedents.) 

(** The differences between Western and Oriental Christianity were so profound and 
fundamental that repeated attempts made before 1453 to effect a union of the two 
churches were utter failures despite the Byzantines' desperate need for military aid from 
the West, despite the West's idealistic notion that its religion was "universal," and despite 
a generous amount of hypocrisy on both sides. After the capture of Constantinople by 
Mohammed II, most of the surviving Byzantines devoutly thanked their god that they had 
fallen under the rule of Moslems (with whom they had much in common) instead of 
European Christians, who would have tried to impose on them an alien religion. It is 
significant that the abyss between the two religions that called themselves Christian was 
too wide to be bridged, even though the conglomerate and partly Levantine population of 
the Byzantine Empire had inherited the culture and learning of the ancient (and extinct) 
Greeks.) 

We cannot here analyze the effects of that supposition on Mediaeval Christendom. A 
concise and incisive treatment of that subject may be found in Lawrence R. Brown's 
brilliant work, The Might of the West (New York, 1963). It will here suffice to note that 
even during the high-tide of Christian faith marked by the Crusades, that supposition 
prevented our ancestors from drawing the correct deductions from their manifest and 
perpetual failure to extend Western Christianity beyond the borders of the West. 

Ever since it was founded, the Christian Church has labored incessantly to convert Jews, 
using every method from flattering exhortations and cash rewards to legislative pressure 
and armed coercion, and it has failed utterly. That failure, furthermore, was conspicuous 
in every city and almost every town of Christendom, year after year and century after 
century. It was known even to the most ignorant and isolated peasant. 

In Christendom, as elsewhere, the international race planted its colonies wherever there 
was money to be got from the natives, and it always followed the standard procedure that 
it used, for example, in Alexandria in the fourth century B.C. The colonists filtered in in 
small groups until their numbers were sufficient to take over a part of the city for 
themselves to establish their own ghettos, from which the natives of the country were 
informally, but effectively, excluded. But the main body of colonists, ostentatiously 
exclusive, was usually or always accompanied by a number, smaller or greater as the 
occasion demanded, of Marranos, i.e., Jews who feigned conversion to the religion and 
culture of the nation in which they had come to reside. As they had professed Greek 
philosophy in Alexandria, so in Mediaeval Europe they professed Christianity. They, so 
to speak, covered the flanks of their less versatile congeners. 

Here and there in Europe, Christians sometimes tried to dislodge and expel the Jewish 
colonies, but they never succeeded. By violence or threats of violence some cities and 
territories were able to drive Jews from their ghettos for a few years, but invariably, 



except in Spain and Portugal, the ostentatiously alien Jews returned sooner or later and 
industriously restored their ghettos. The Marranos, sheltered by their professed 
"conversion," eluded all efforts to control them, and in Spain and Portugal, at least, they 
not only entered the highest offices of the state but, despite the frantic efforts of the 
Inquisition, they filled even the Church with nuns, priests, bishops, and archbishops who 
solemnly celebrated in public the rites of a religion they despised and, when they met in 
their secret conclaves, laughed at the stupidity of the gullible goyim. 

The amazing versatility of subtlety of the Marranos, especially in "most Christian" Spain 
and Portugal, has been described by many distinguished Jewish scholars. A History of the 
Marranos, by Professor Cecil Roth of Oxford, is a concise survey; the recent work by 
Haim Beinart, Anusim be-Din ha-Inqwizisiah (Tel Aviv, 1965), unfortunately not 
available in English, is a highly detailed study of a single community at one point in its 
history. 

Was a Jew ever converted to Christianity? The learned and candid Rabbi Solomon 
Schindler,* addressing a Christian audience in Boston, was certain that no Jew could 
"submit conscientiously" to so inferior a creed. "There never was a Jew," he said, 
"converted to Christianity who conscientiously believed in the doctrines of his adopted 
religion. They were all hypocrites, who changed their creed for earthly considerations 
merely." And the acute, sagacious, and earnest Maurice Samuel,** after diligent and 
conscientious study, concluded that "Obviously you do not make a gentile of a Jew by 
baptizing him any more than you would make an Aryan of a negro by painting him with 
ocher." Such sweeping generalizations may be too absolute, and there seem to be some 
certain instances of Jews who sincerely defected to Christianity, but they are few. On the 
whole, the failure of Christians to allure or compel Jews has been total and spectacular. 

(* Solomon Schindler, Messianic Expectations and Modern Judaism, with an 
introduction by [the Reverend] Minot J. Savage. Boston, Cassino, 1886.) 

(** Maurice Samuel, You Gentiles. New York, Harcourt-Brace, 1924.) 

Christians often explain that failure by attributing to the Jews some peculiar perversity or 
malevolence, the result of either a divine curse or of conscious collaboration with Satan. 
But in the interests of both fairness and objectivity, we should consider respectfully and 
dispassionately the testimony of the erudite and discerning Jews who have earnestly 
studied and pondered the many and profound differences between their people and ours, 
and who assure us, as courteously as they can, that to their minds our religion and most 
of the standards of our culture appear ludicrous or repulsive and sometimes utterly 
incomprehensible. How can we expect or require a man to believe what is to his mind 
mere nonsense? Would not that be as absurd as to expect the Jews who reside in our 
country to consult our interests rather than their own? 

So long as Christendom knew only the Jewish colonies in its territory and the Semitic and 
Hamitic Moslems on its southern borders, some theory of an obduracy or perversity 
peculiar to Jews and Moslems could perhaps be maintained, but surely Christians should 



have perceived, as their geographical horizons expanded, that their religion has no appeal 
for any Oriental people. 

The name of Christ, to be sure, is used by certain Monophysite cults in the Near East and 
Malabar and by other sects in Egypt and Abyssinia, of which vague rumors reached 
Mediaeval Europe and inspired the romantic legends of Prester John. But actual contact 
with those sects in the Sixteenth Century brought disillusion; the reading of their sacred 
books in Syriac, Coptic, and Geez showed how vastly those conceptions of religion 
differed from the European; and missionaries were dispatched to convert those 
"Christians" to Western Christianity — efforts that always ended in failure and sometimes 
in bloody failure. 

With the exceptions of such isolated and minor cults as the Mandeans and the Yezidis, 
the Semitic peoples of Asia have found their aspirations and their religiosity fully 
satisfied by Islam, and all the exhortations of our missionaries for a millennium induced 
only a handful of Moslems to profess Christianity. In India, where the blood of the Aryan 
conquerors was blotted up long ago, a few outcasts and famished drudges became "rice 
Christians," and some educated babus said they were converts so long as "conversion" 
seemed likely to expedite their advancement in the bureaucracy of British India; and the 
Hindus sent us in return hundreds of sloe-eyed swamis to convert us and care for our 
souls — especially the souls of wealthy dowagers. In China and Japan the seeds of the 
Gospel, though sown over and over again by generations of earnest and often martyred 
missionaries, produced no better harvest. 

In sum, experience has shown us that the Jews, though unique as an international race, do 
not differ from other Orientals in their resistance to the "glad tidings" (euangelium) of 
Christianity. In Asia, as in Africa, though for far different reasons, Christianity is 
evaporating as rapidly as dew in the morning sun, and there is every reason to believe 
that, with a few possible exceptions, the remaining Asiatic "Christians," including native 
clergymen and bishops, are simply Arab, Hindu, Chinese, or Japanese Marranos and 
profess a Western religion for business or diplomatic reasons. 

We have an unbroken record of failure of failure in all our efforts to export Christianity to 
other peoples. That failure has nothing to do with the decline of faith among our own 
people in very recent times as a result of a skepticism based on our science and 
technology. Uniformly since the foundation of the Western Church, Christianity failed to 
attract and convince other races, and in the great Age of Faith in Europe that failure was 
as complete as it is today. Christendom should have understood the reasons for that 
inevitable failure long ago. 

For centuries our clergymen had the strange custom of looking through all the other 
religions and cults of the whole world to find superficial similarities that they would then 
adduce as somehow corroborating our religion. They clutched eagerly at every ghost 
story in the world and used it to "prove" that a belief in immortality was "universal." 
What all the other doctrines and myths really proved was that our belief in immortality 
was something peculiar to ourselves and probably incomprehensible to other races. 



We Aryans have a deep and innate longing to endure forever. But the immortality of 
which the atheist despairs and for which the Christian hopes is a, personal immortality — 
the survival of the individual consciousness complete with all its memories of life on 
earth. For each of us, immortality is the prolongation of his consciousness after the death 
of his body. Although we, if not spiritually sick, desire the survival of our race and 
culture, that is not what we mean by immortality; even if we felt assured that our people 
would eventually own the whole earth and all the other peoples in it, that would seem to 
us to have nothing to do with the question whether or not you and I as individuals will 
live after death. Again, we can believe that at death a man will be either annihilated or 
become a single disembodied consciousness: we cannot believe that he will become five 
or six different and widely scattered pieces of a ghost. Again, if some psychic spark of 
ourselves should survive death but be unconscious, having no knowledge or memory of 
what we were in life, to us that fate would be annihilation, not immortality. Again, if I am 
to live after death, so must my wife: no number of houris could reconcile me to a 
Paradise attained by many millions of men but only four women and one dog. 
Furthermore, we can imagine reincarnation, but only reincarnation as ourselves. If my 
wife has been Napoleon and Richard the Lion-Hearted, she is nothing that I have ever 
known or loved. And if I was ever Aspasia and Nell Gwyn, then I do not exist even now: 
I am just an illusion. 

The kinds of "immortality" posited by the other major religions are inacceptable to us: 
meaningless, absurd, or repulsive to our racial instincts. But obviously such notions of a 
future life are not only satisfactory to other peoples but represent what they instinctively 
desire. To the great majority of the world's inhabitants our conception of immortality is 
meaningless, absurd, or repulsive. That is simply a fact that we cannot change. 

Christianity embodied all the moral instincts of our race, such as our concepts of personal 
honor, of personal self-respect and integrity, of fair play, of pity for the unfortunate, of 
loyalty — all of which seem preposterous to other races, at least in the form and 
application that we give to them. They simply lack our instincts. We think that it makes a 
great difference whether we kill a man in a fair fight or by treacherously stabbing him in 
the back or by putting poison in the cup that he accepts from our friendly hand; to at least 
one other race, we are simply childish and irrational: if you are to kill a man, kill him in 
the safest and most convenient way. Again, we, whether Christians or atheists, have an 
instinct for truth, so that if we lie, we have physical reactions that can be detected by a 
sphygmomanometer (often called a polygraph or "lie detector"). When officers of 
American military intelligence tried to use that device in the interrogation of prisoners 
during the Korean War, they discovered that Koreans and Chinese have no reaction that 
the instrument can detect, no matter how outrageous the lies they tell. We and they are 
differently constituted. 

We can no longer be so obtuse as to ignore the vast differences in mentality and instinct 
that separate us from all other races — not merely from savages, but from highly civilized 
races. The differences are innate, and to attempt to change their way of thinking with 
argument, generosity, or holy water is as absurd as attempting to change the color of their 
skins. That is a fact that we must accept. However one may relate that fact to Christian 



doctrine, if we, a small minority among the teeming and terribly fecund populations of 
the globe, call all other peoples perverse or wicked, we merely confuse ourselves. If we 
are to think objectively and rationally, we must do so in the terms used by Maurice 
Samuel, who, after his discerning and admirably candid study of the "unbridgeable gulf 
that separates Indo-Europeans from Jews, had to conclude that "This difference in 
behavior and reaction springs from something more earnest and significant than a 
difference of beliefs: it springs from a difference in our biologic equipment." 

We cannot reasonably expect beings differently constituted to have our instincts or to 
believe as we do, any more than we can expect dogs to climb trees or cats to bark at 
intruders. And let us beware of the word "superiority." If it means that we are superior in 
terms of our own values, it is mere tautology; if it has an objective and practical meaning, 
it poses a question that can only be answered only when the future has proved which 
peoples will survive and which will go under in the proximate struggle for possession of 
an overcrowded globe. 

This is not a matter of doctrine or wishes, and it does not depend on our faith or lack of 
faith. Whatever may be the meaning of certain passages in the Old Testament, the earth is 
not flat. Whatever may be the meaning of certain passages in the New Testament, 
Christianity was not for "all the world." The earth is spherical. Christianity is an Indo- 
European religion. 



Chapter Three 
CHRISTIANITY TODAY 



If you desire to preserve our country and our civilization, you must face two fundamental 
facts. 

The first of these is that 90% of all the active support of pro- American efforts has come 
from Christians. 

Of that, there can be no doubt. Almost without exception, all of the thousands of 
"conservative" and "anti-Communist" organizations that have come and gone during the 
past fifty years have been specifically Christian, proposing to defend Christianity and the 
Constitution simultaneously. Many of the most active organizations today are evangelical 
and try to revive Christian faith by holding meetings in which the Gospel and patriotism 
are inseparably blended. Some organizations specifically established to resist or promote 
certain legislation do not explicitly raise religious issues, but they take Christianity for 
granted. The only patriotic organizations that are explicitly non-Christian are a small 
periodical, The Truth Seeker, which, having spoken disrespectfully of Jews, is now being 
forced to the wall, and one small "activist" group in California. 

It is true that a very successful promotion was founded by a master-salesman who began 
by admitting, with a show of candor, that he rejected belief in a personal god as childish 
and preferred a vague pantheism that recognized an "upward reach" in "all mankind" that 
was similar to the upward reach of growing plants. But after testing the market, he began 
to claim that he was purveying a doctrine that was a kind of pep pill good for all religions 
and guaranteed to make the purchaser a better Christian, better Pharisee, or better 
Moslem, as the case might be. (There are no Buddhists, Parsees, Yezidis, Jains, Saivites, 
or Tantrists with large bank rolls in the United States at the present time, nor are they 
represented by oil-rich governments abroad.) The only point that need concern us now is 
that the promoter accurately gauged his market. Of all the members who passed through 
his organization in its heyday, at least 80% were Christians — probably 90% of those who 
really worked and gave money to the limit of their resources. 

You have only to attend any "anti-Communist" meeting, including both the most sincere 
efforts and the most fraudulent promotions, and talk to the persons who attend and 
contribute to convince yourself that almost all of them are Christians, and by that I mean 
persons who really believe in Christ, as distinct, of course, from the many persons who 
attend Sunday-morning clubs because they think it good for business, politically 
expedient, or socially amusing. Whether you like it or not, you must accept the fact that 
90% of the active support for patriotic and pseudo-patriotic efforts comes from men and 
women who have a sincere faith in Christ. 



During more than two decades, the active Defense of the West has rested almost entirely 
on the shoulders of Christians in all Occidental nations. And that has been true on all 
levels. I know that comparisons are invidious, but to make my point I will say that if I 
had to pick one periodical on our side as having the highest literary finish and intellectual 
content, I should have to name Decouvertes, the monthly publication of a highly 
cultivated group of staunchly Christian Frenchmen now in Lisbon. 

That is not astonishing. For almost fifteen centuries Occidental civilization was 
Christendom, and, as is shown by the data that we have always examined, Christianity as 
we know it is, and always has been, an Indo-European religion, incomprehensible to the 
rudimentary minds of the primitive races and unacceptable to the subtle minds of the 
Orientals who have civilizations of their own. If that seems to you negative proof, 
consider the conversion of the Norse peoples during the early Middle Ages. They were 
not subject to a Christian government that could coerce them and they needed no 
Christian support against anyone; the Christians whom they plundered on occasion were 
certainly not militarily superior, nor were the institutions and culture of the Dark Ages 
anything that Vikings and Varangians might have envied and wished to imitate. Their 
only reason for abandoning the bleakly pessimistic religion of Thor and Odin must have 
been that Christianity was more congenial to their minds.* Such spontaneous conversions 
are rare phenomena in the history of the world's religions; the closest parallel is the 
adoption of decadent Buddhism by the Chinese who found it congenial to their 
mentality.** 

(* One historical factor often overlooked was Christianity's appeal to the historical sense 
of our race. Norse theology was a collection of inconsistent tales, admittedly mythical 
since the skalds could revise or elaborate them at will, about the adventures of various 
gods in Niflheim, Jotunheim, Asgard and other realms outside the known world and 
inaccessible to men, at dates no more specific than "once upon a time." Christianity 
offered a circumstantial and realistic narrative of events that had taken place in remote 
but specific and well-known towns and geographical areas at precisely stated times 
during the reigns of known Roman Emperors; the historicity of the narrative was further 
guaranteed by the generally consistent and apparently independent statements of four 
eyewitnesses, whose veracity was further guaranteed by the official reports of Roman 
governors who had themselves participated in the climactic scene (i.e., the Acta Pilati, 
Epistula Lentuli, and other forgeries that were accepted as genuine during the Dark 
Ages). It may be relevant that the Epistula Lentuli certifies Christ as unmistakably 
Nordic: tall, fair-skinned, with blonde hair and blue eyes.) 

(** Note, however, the very important difference that although the Chinese adaptation of 
the Buddhist religion eventually made a large number of converts, it never supplanted 
Taoism and other native cults, to say nothing of the widely-held doctrine of Confucius 
(which virtually ignores the supernatural) and the more restricted philosophy of the Fa 
Chia (which regards all religions as myths useful for governmental purposes). It would 
never have been proper to speak of China as a Buddhist country.) 



There is a second fact that you must also face. The Western world is no longer 
Christendom. The religion that once united us has become the faith of a minority. 

That is obvious from what is happening here and in every country of Europe except Spain 
and Portugal. The real question is how small a minority are Christians in the United 
States. 

In 1942, after a very careful study of the situation in England, Professor A. N. Whitehead 
concluded that "in the whole country far less than one-fifth of the population are in any 
sense Christians today." There is very little difference in this respect between England 
and the United States. And today? 

Let us transcend all the doctrinal differences, important as they are, that divide the 
Christian churches. The absolute minimum requirement of a Christian is faith that Christ 
was literally the Son of God. Of course, persons who do not have that faith may have the 
impudence to call themselves Christians, just as they may call themselves elves, 
Martians, or pterodactyls, but if they do, they are obviously intending some hoax or 
fraud. 

How many adult Americans today really believe that Christ was God Incarnate? I have 
consulted discerning Christians of indubitable piety and zeal who have had exceptional 
opportunities to observe in all parts of the country. The lowest estimate was 9%. The 
figure that was best supported was approximately 12%. 

Of the 12% of adult Americans who truly believe in Christ, not all, by any means, are 
active in efforts to defend our nation and civilization. Of true believers, some also believe 
that the End of the World is at hand; others believe that the destruction of the Western 
world has been ordained as condign punishment for its sins, and that it would be impious 
to resist the manifest Will of God; and others quite logically regard the events of the brief 
life on earth as merely preparation for the salvation of their souls. I should be astonished 
if more than half of the remaining Christians are actively committed to the preservation 
of our country. And yet this 6% has provided almost all of the support for anti- 
Communist causes. That is something to think about. 

We must specifically notice that the minority that still believes that Christ was really the 
Son of God does not include the majority of the persons who now talk from the pulpits of 
Sunday-morning clubs, including the propaganda-chain operated by the National Council 
of Churches. The majority of professional clergymen were trained in theological 
seminaries in which they were taught that the Christian Bible is an agglomeration of 
forgeries perpetrated by persons too ignorant to write coherently and patched together by 
persons too stupid to make a consistent story out of it. They were further taught that 
Christ, if he existed and was not merely a myth created by awkward revision of the 
Essene story about the Teacher Yeshu, was a crack-pot agitator to whom were attributed, 
long after his death, some nice remarks about ethics and "social justice."* 



(* Christians who have the courage to contemplate the present status and the now 
inevitable future of all the large organized denominations must read a recent book by a 
highly reputed "Biblical scholar" whose works have been long been respected as 
authoritative in ecclesiastical seminaries: Dr. Hugh J. Schonfi eld's The Passover Plot 
(1965). Although his reconstruction of the way in which a crack-brained Jewish agitator 
named Jesus tried to stage a fake miracle is admittedly conjectural, his interpretation of 
the character and motives of that man (assuming that he ever existed) is now accepted in 
all of its essentials by virtually all educated clergymen, although, understandably, they 
may prefer to envelop it in clouds of misty verbiage when they harangue the persons who 
fill the collection-plates each Sunday. That Jesus, although an ignorant blunderer, is 
thought admirable because he was an early Bolshevik who tried to incite a revolution to 
destroy our race's Classical civilization and realize the old Jewish dream of One World 
ruled, of course, by God's Own People.) 

Believing this but lacking the courage to seek honest employment, the poor wretches are 
ordained and find themselves in a business in which their income depends on their ability 
to keep congregrations awake or, at least, in a donating mood each Sunday, while they 
must curry the favor of both their atheistic superiors and of the Lords of the Press and 
Radio. It is no wonder that they preach the "social gospel." Some of them, no doubt, 
really believe it, for it is a fact that the loss of religious faith merely leaves many minds 
morbidly susceptible to the contagion of the most grotesque superstitions. Some see no 
reason why they shouldn't peddle the brand of buncombe that pays the best. Some 
doubtless thirst for revolution and chaos to avenge themselves on the society that makes 
them exert themselves in pulpits, and, like the Vicar in Daphne du Mauri er's memorable 
novel, Jamaica Inn, picture themselves as clever wolves preaching to congregations of 
uncomprehending mutton-heads. That is the real explanation of what has happened to 
most of our churches, and there is no need to imagine some fantastically large and 
cunning conspiracy of Illuminati or other Supermen to account for the behavior of 
clergymen who do not believe in Christianity. 

The catastrophic decline of Christian faith is the most important, the crucial event of our 
recent history. Even the dullest members of Sunday-morning clubs know that it has 
happened, but they will try to deny it by informing you that the Seventh Baptopistical 
Church has just moved to a wonderful new edifice that cost half a million dollars and is 
architecturally indistinguishable from a night club, and that St. Olaf s Presbutheran 
Church has just added a hundred-thousand-dollar gymnasium to its sacred facilities. 
Believing Christians, on the other hand, know what has happened and deplore it. When 
they try to account for the catastrophe, however, they, if they recognize a natural cause at 
all, most commonly blame the Jews. That, I think, is unfair and, what is much worse, 
incorrect and therefore dangerous. 

The most comprehensive and scholarly survey of Jewish pressures on, and infiltration of, 
Christianity from the earliest times is the work of one of the most learned ecclesiastical 
historians of our day and is now available in a passable English translation: The Plot 
Against the Church by Maurice Pinay. The virtual capture of the Catholic Church in 
recent years, which has been celebrated in articles in Look and other periodicals, is ably 



described by Vicomte Leon de Poncins in his Judaism and the Vatican. No Protestant 
scholar, so far as I know, has made a comparable study of Protestant denominations. It 
would be difficult to take exception to the reporting of historical facts in the two books 
that I have cited, and let us not question the authors' conclusions. Do they adequately 
explain the decline of Christianity? 

I have no wish to defend the Jews, and I shall not ask whether it is entirely reasonable to 
blame them for forwarding their own interests by their own methods wherever they have 
planted colonies among populations whom they regard as inferior, much as our ancestors 
regarded the aborigines of North America. Let the Jews be as wicked and diabolical as 
you wish, but let us consider the religious question objectively, lest error delude us with 
fallacious hopes. 

If we, from our vantage point in the present, look back over the history of our religion 
dispassionately, we can discern, at a distance of a thousand years and more, the origins of 
our plight today. I do not refer to sectarianism and heresies: they are simply normal in all 
evangelical religions. In Islam, for example, the multiplicity of sects is proverbial, and by 
the time that Buddhism became a religion in the second century B.C., there were already 
eighteen major sects, each claiming, of course, to be the sole repository of the true 
doctrine. Christianity is exceptional only for its relative stability. Over a period of twelve 
centuries, from 325 A.D., when its doctrine had taken form in all essentials, to the 
Protestant Reformation in the Sixteenth Century, the religion of the West was an effective 
unity, not seriously disturbed by such sporadic heresies as the Albigensians, and 
Waldenses, the Patarini, and the Hussites.* 

(* We are not here concerned with the theological convulsions of the Byzantine 
("Orthodox") Church, which, as we observed earlier, was a radically different kind of 
religion, imbued with Levantine elements rejected by the West, and thereby appealing to 
a racially different people. A discussion of the origin, incidence, and relative importance 
of Jewish and other Levantine elements in the early Christian doctrines, the progressive 
supersession of such elements in the West, and their recrudescence in some heresies 
would necessarily be long, involved, and somewhat abstruse. We cannot touch upon that 
topic here, where our concern is with Christianity as it was generally understood and 
accepted by our race. Debates about whether our distant ancestors understood it correctly 
or should have accepted what they did would be, for our present purposes, irrelevant and 
otiose.) 

Christianity is, as we have said, an Indo-European religion and it was therefore accepted 
and understood in terms of the mentality and thought-processes peculiar to our race. Our 
minds, unlike those of other races, demand that all the elements of a doctrine be logically 
consistent with one another and in conformity with observed reality. The intellectual 
efforts of the early Fathers of the Church, who labored to establish texts and resolve 
contradictions, have some analogies in other religions, but the Scholasticism of the 
Middle Ages is unique. This great philosophical effort to understand the world about us 
has nothing to do with heresies or even skepticism; it was, as one of the Scholastics 
defined it, fides quaerens intellectum; it was carried on by churchmen, and, as we too 



often forget, accompanied by mathematical investigations and empirical observation of 
nature. There are many histories of Scholasticism, and a good outline may be found in the 
second volume of Ueberweg's standard History of Philosophy . There are some very 
stimulating observations on late Scholasticism in the first volume of Egon Friedell's 
Cultural History of the Modern Age . The histories of science by Sarton and by Thorndike 
cover the Mediaeval period fairly well. The reader, however, will find the essentials most 
clearly presented in the brilliant work of Lawrence R. Brown, The Might of the West, 
which not only brings together facts that are artificially separated in other works, but 
identifies in its Mediaeval origins the great tension of modern thought. Christianity 
brought with it from Asia Minor alien elements that were generally ignored but remained 
latent in its sacred books and dogmas, incompatible at the limit with Western man's 
innate need to know and master the physical world, and further complicated by historical 
accidents. That is what gave us, as Mr. Brown observes, "a society whose inward 
convictions have been at hopeless variance with the outward professions that the events 
of history have forced it to make." We need only add that the conflict became even more 
acute with the Renaissance and became one of the hidden causes of the Reformation and 
Europe's first Civil War. 

From the Renaissance to the present, we of the West have had to observe an ever 
increasing discrepancy between the tenets of our religion and the observed phenomena of 
the world in which we live, and during the past century the discrepancies became 
catastrophic. 

One can enumerate sixteen intellectual factors that have contributed to the decline of 
Christianity, but the four most important, all of which took effect during the past hundred 
years, are: 

(1) The recovery by archaeological excavation of much of the history of the Near East. 

(2) Perception of the great physiological and anatomical similarity of human beings to 
extinct sub-human species and to existing anthropoids, the whole forming a neat 
evolutionary sequence. 

(3) Determinations that the earth is at least a billion years older than the Creation posited 
by Christian doctrine. 

(4) Most important of all, perhaps, perception of the size of the universe. It is one thing to 
call it infinite; it is another to know that there are galaxies so remote that light from them, 
travelling at more than eleven million miles a minute, has taken eight billion years to 
reach us. 

Christian theologians, to be sure, have offered innumerable explanations of these 
discrepancies. Some are forthright efforts to meet the issues squarely, of which the best 
that I have seen is The Genesis Flood, by Professor John C. Whitcomb, Jr., of Grace 
Theological Seminary, and Professor Henry M. Morris, of the Virginia Polytechnical 
Institute. Some are bizarre efforts to conjure a god from the Planck constant or squeeze 



him out of the (hypothetical) Lorentz contractions. And some reach the level of the books 
that Teilhard de Chardin must have written with tongue in cheek. But we are not here 
concerned with the validity of any of these Christian explanations. The important fact is 
that they convince no one except Christians. Perhaps they should, but they do not. 

That is the principal cause of the recession of Christian faith, and you cannot blame the 
Jews for it. It is most unlikely that the Jews planted every inscribed tablet found by 
excavators in Asia Minor, and it is quite certain that they did not create quasars or even 
the great galaxy in Virgo. The blame, if any, must fall entirely on our race — on the 
philosophical mentality and Faustian will that distinguish us from all other races and that 
alone made possible the abstruse and complex determinations of fact that undermined our 
faith. The four intellectual factors that I listed above and eleven of the twelve that I did 
not have space to enumerate all depend on data that no other race had either the capacity 
or the wish to ascertain — data, furthermore, that all other races either cannot comprehend 
or regard as insignificant and irrelevant to their racial mentality. 

To repudiate the science of the West is simply to blow out our brains figuratively, as our 
fetish-men, witch-doctors, and other "Liberal intellectuals" would have us do. And if we 
of the West do it figuratively, we may as well all do it literally, too, and so escape the 
ultimate misery and degradation in store for us. 

I began this cursory discussion by saying that it did not matter whether we were 
Christians or atheists so long as we faced facts and reasoned objectively about them. As 
rational men, all that we can do is measure the consequences of the disastrous decline of 
faith — for it is a disaster even greater than most Christians suppose — and ascertain by 
what means (if any) we can hope to survive it. 



Chapter Four 
THE PREDICTABLE FUTURE 



Christendom is no longer Christendom. The faith that Christ was literally the Son of God, 
which dominated the Western world for fifteen centuries, and effectively united all the 
men of our race for ten, has become the faith of a minority. 

It is vain to wish that this calamity had not happened, and nugatory to try to blame our 
enemies for it, however cunning and malevolent they may be. For it is our destiny — the 
destiny that is biologically innate in our race and the only source of our greatness and of 
the power than enabled us thus far to survive in a world in which we are a small and 
universally hated minority — to think philosophically about the external and physical 
world, and to seek objective truth, at whatever cost to our vanity or comfort. As 
Lawrence R. Brown says, in the book that I quoted before, "Whatever has been easier to 
believe than to discover has never been what created the unique greatness of our society. 
Not the comforting satisfaction of inward belief, but the potential humiliation of outward 
fact has been the last standard of truth in the West." And that has been the principal cause 
of the waning of what was once our common faith. 

We cannot expect, therefore, within the foreseeable future any increase in the number of 
believing Christians, who now number about 12% of adult Americans; on the contrary, a 
gradual decrease is possible and in some circumstances likely, since the majority of them 
are now in or past middle age.* 

(* I need not remark that no one should take seriously the little bands of hysterical 
adolescents who occasionally try to attract attention by emerging from the communal 
squalor of their kibbuzim and yelling "Jesus!" instead of "Peace in Vietnam!" Although 
some enterprising operators in the evangelical business advertise such outbreaks as 
harbingers of a "revival of faith," it is quite clear that the young derelicts, insofar as they 
are not indulging in mere exhibitionism, are actuated by the hallucinations that normally 
occur in minds that have been rotted by the drugs now commonly used by children in the 
public schools, chiefly marijuana, mescaline, lysergic acid diethylamide, and heroin. The 
febrile excitement of derelicts "hooked on Jesus" is merely a variation of their feeble- 
minded enthusiasm for every kind of occult posturing and mystery-mongering, including 
witchcraft, black magic, Satanism, astrology, oneiromancy, necromancy, and 
innumerable adaptations of various Oriental cults. More disturbing are the reports of 
colonies of youngsters who, reportedly without the help of hallucinatory drugs, exchange 
thoughts with a superior race on Jupiter, chat with visiting spooks, or have at the top of 
their skull a psychic opening through which the Holy Ghost whispers instructions. Like 
the "hippies," these unfortunates are commonly graduates of the cut-rate diploma- 
factories that are still called "universities." That is a fact that will be terribly significant to 
those who are not afraid to think about it.) 



We have no reason to anticipate a drastic and revolutionary change in the scientific 
evidence — a discovery, for example, that the earth ceased to rotate on its axis for a day or 
two when the Israelites invaded Canaan, or that stars outside the solar system are optical 
illusions. Rightly or wrongly, a great many men of intellectual integrity can now discern 
no evidence of the existence in the universe of a conscious power superior to man, and, 
precisely because they are men of intellectual integrity, they are not going to change their 
deductions in the absence of radically new evidence that is intellectually cogent to them. 
And precisely because they are men of our race, who reason from dispassionately 
ascertained data, they are not going to be swayed by the emotions of orating evangelists, 
and they will be simply disgusted by attempts to equate "atheism" and "Communism." 

No one doubts but that the power of man — which, for all practical purposes, means the 
power of our race — is small indeed. We and our planet and our whole solar system are 
infinitesimal motes in a galaxy that is itself an insignificant part of the known universe. 
No one doubts, furthermore, but that for many phenomena we have no satisfactory 
explanation. But knowledge cannot be derived from what is not known, and to deify 
known natural forces is to resort to a mocking evasion, not unlike that of Epicurus. In the 
1930's, Leopold Ziegler thought that the Second Law of Thermodynamics was a quite 
satisfactory "god" and others have applied that term to biological evolution toward more 
complex organic forms, to the fact of human consciousness, to instincts found in one or 
more races that seem analogous to a growing plant's heliotropic striving for sunlight, to 
the theories of indeterminacy or of parity in sub-atomic physics, and a wide variety of 
other phenomena. But no alert Christian will be deceived. His God is a conscious being, a 
personal God, a God who is aware of, and has concern for, the individual] He is a God to 
whom one can pray. 

Men prayed to the Sun when they believed that that incandescent globe was a conscious 
being who could hear them; but nobody prayed to the Great Mystery that [cannot render 
equation — Editor]. Christians rightly regard the difference between an atheist and a 
"pantheist" today as the difference between six apples and half-a-dozen. They can derive 
no comfort from the prudential evasions of some writers. 

Christians are demonstrably right when they insist that if we and the other nations of the 
West were still Christian nations, we should not find ourselves in our present plight. We 
should have other difficulties, of course; we should, no doubt, continue to quarrel among 
ourselves, and we should have to face, as now, the open hostility or covert hatred of the 
rest of the world. But if we Occidentals were still Christian nations, we should have no 
need to worry about International Bankers, Illuminati, Bolsheviks, Jews, "Liberals," or 
any other internal menace that you may choose to name or imagine. Recognition of that 
fact, however, will not produce a religious revival. It is a peculiarity of our Indo- 
European mind that for us truth is not demonstrated by either comfort or self-interest. We 
cannot believe a proposition to be objectively true just because we wish that it were or 
because our personal safety depends upon it. No exposition of present danger, therefore, 
can create faith. 



Is there any hope of a significant increase in the minority that now believes that Christ 
was the Son of God? 

Some Christians anticipate that the trend will be reversed by divine intervention, but there 
is little agreement about the nature of the expected miracle. Some expect the Second 
Coming of Christ, which will provide visible evidence of the truth of Christian doctrine 
and thus start a wave of conversions, while others count on God's application of a 
psychological force that will change men's minds and force them to believe what now 
seems unreasonable. Others as positively expect a virtually total loss of faith with 
miraculous suddenness. Not infrequently one encounters a Christian, usually a lady, who 
is quite certain that on a day in the very near future she and 499 other persons will soar 
aloft into the atmosphere, apparently to a level above the cumulus and below the cirrus 
cloud-formations, and there float in ecstasy while the rest of the earth's population is 
condignly destroyed in a succession of catastrophes. But the majority of Christians, I am 
sure, do not count on impending miracles. 

One common ground for hope is, at best, uncertain. We Americans, thanks to our folly, 
will soon undergo a considerable amount of physical suffering: domestic violence, 
economic collapse, probably some starvation, quite possibly conquest by foreign invaders 
and resident revolutionists. It is true that, as history shows, such afflictions usually induce 
a revival of religion, and many Christians expect such an effect here. That is not likely in 
the future that we can foresee. For one thing, the historical effect requires an unremitting 
and prolonged suffering — thirty years or more. The Crusade to Save the Soviet in 1939— 
45 inflicted great suffering on many nations of Europe, especially Germany and Poland, 
but produced no significant religious revival. Secondly, if there should be such an effect, 
it probably would not benefit Christianity. The Protestant Churches as a whole have long 
been disgraced by the pinks and punks of the National Council. The Catholic Church is 
now committing suicide by repudiating its own doctrines and burlesquing its traditions. 
In the eyes of non-believers now, the religion has been compromised by the antics of the 
greater part of the professional clergy, and despite the admirable loyally of "traditionalist" 
and "fundamentalist" minorities, it is likely that the coming disasters will — unjustly, but 
understandably — make Christianity seem a religion that failed. Thus any revival of 
religiosity will benefit cults that will have the attraction of novelty and a new 
"revelation," possibly including some doctrine of metempsychosis. 

We are left, therefore, with the present situation and very little hope that it will or can be 
soon altered. So we had better reckon with it, whatever our personal desires or 
convictions. 

The visible consequences of the withering of our religion are enormous, overshadowing, 
frightening. Christianity was much more than a religion comparable to the religion of 
Osiris in early Egypt, the worship of the Olympian gods, the Orphic mysteries, or 
Mithraism. Unlike those cults in their time and place, Christianity for a large part of our 
history was the whole formal basis of our entire culture, the absolute from which were 
deduced our moral codes, our laws, and our political systems; it largely informed our art, 



inspired our literature, animated our music, and sustained our men of science. The void 
that has been left is so great that few can peer into the dark abyss without vertigo. 

There is, however, no rational escape from a question to which there can be only two 
answers. Was Christ the Son of God? 

Christians answer Yes. And on that faith they found their lives. 

The majority of adults today, including most of the persons who are doing business in the 
pulpits, answer No. The negative answer cannot be covered with verbiage about "great 
Teacher," "social vision," "moral earnestness," and the like. There is no escape from 
logic. 

If Christ was not the Son of God and an Incarnate God, then he was, on the record, a 
lunatic with delusions that he was. And a lunatic's views on morality and justice are 
simply worthless. From this simple alternative our "modernist" clergy try to escape by 
claiming that all the passages in which Christ speaks of his own divinity, or miraculous 
proof of it is given, are forgeries concocted by clumsy interpolators, but if that is true, 
there is no passage that is exempt from the suspicion of forgery, and we have to conclude, 
as did Father Loisy in his famous work on Le mystere chretien (1930), that there is no 
authentic record of what Jesus said — and, indeed, no certainty that He is not, like the 
words attributed to him, merely an invention of the clumsy "interpolators." At the very 
best, if Christ was not literally the Son of God, his opinions are of infinitely less value 
than the opinions of learned, earnest, and thoughtful men, such as Aristotle, Cicero, and 
Marcus Aurelius in antiquity, and in modern times, David Hume, Schopenhauer, and 
Renan. From that clear alternative there is no escape except in the kind of patter and 
chatter that stage magicians use to distract the attention of the audience from a trick of 
prestidigitation. 

If Christ was not literally the Son of God, the entire morality on which our civilization 
was consciously based for so long seems to collapse, to vanish as an illusion, to be as 
unfounded as the old nation that the earth was flat. And this apparent dissolution includes 
all of the ancient Indo-European morality that guided our peoples in the many centuries 
that preceded our adoption of Christianity.* That is obviously what is happening — has 
happened today, when we witness everywhere tacit and explicit repudiation of all 
morality — not only Christian teaching, but the antecedent and basic morality without 
which civilization is flatly impossible. And, what is even more disheartening, there seems 
to be no basis left for any morality. 

(* Christianity, of course, introduced very little that was novel in the practical ethics 
governing human conduct in society, most of which were not only traditional in our race 
but were common to most civilized societies, including the oldest of which we have 
adequate knowledge. (Clergymen who impudently talk of " Judaeo-Christian ethics" try to 
give the impression that the prohibition of theft, adultery, etc. in the Ten Commandments 
was some kind of dazzling and miraculous invention, but if they were honest they would 
speak of "Sumerian-Christian ethics" in that connection.) About the only element that can 



fairly be called a Christian innovation was the great emphasis on forgiveness as a duty 
rather than an act of unnecessary generosity. (Its doctrine of rewards and punishments 
after death tended to enforce observance of the whole moral code, but that is another 
matter.) The historical antecedents, however, will not help us now, for our religion was so 
long regarded as the one and only basis for morality and the unique source of all right 
conduct that the earlier traditions have vanished except insofar as we still instinctively 
regard certain actions as dishonorable. Even those feelings, however, may be consciously 
repressed as "relics of superstition" by persons who have reacted strongly against the 
religion and are proud of having "emancipated" themselves from it.) 

For a long time, men, except a few romantic and evangelical atheists, have agreed that a 
viable morality must be based on a religious faith. Hesiod, whom some scholars place in 
the ninth century B.C., warned the judges of his day that Zeus had 30,000 invisible and 
immortal observers who go through the whole earth and report the evil deeds of men. A 
discerning correspondent, whose letter reached me yesterday, remarks that 
"unfortunately, most people need to feel that they are watched by a superhuman power." 

For Aristotle, Plato, and Cicero, civilized society must be based on a generally accepted 
and uniform religious faith. And, with few exceptions, the thoughtful non-Christians of 
our world have held the same opinion. Renan, for example, took leave of Christianity 
with elegiac sadness and deep apprehension: "What is ominous is that we cannot foresee 
for the future any means of giving men a code of conduct that they will generally accept . 
. . I frankly admit that I cannot imagine how it will be possible to restore, without the 
ancient illusions, the foundations of a noble and serene life." 

On a quite different level, the pragmatic and cynical Augustus believed religion the 
indispensable basis of political stability, and many rulers and statesmen, before him and 
after him, had the same conviction. And some of the world's most acute minds have 
drawn the conclusions that Machiavelli, perhaps, stated most bluntly: 

Principalities and republics that would save themselves from decadence must 
above all other things keep uncorrupted the ceremonies of their religion, and hold 
it always in veneration; for there can be no greater symptom of the ruin of a state 
than to see divine rites held in contempt. . . . They should therefore use every 
opportunity to foster and augment their religion, even though they perceive it to 
be false; and the more prudent they are and the more they know about natural 
phenomena, the greater their obligation to do this. 

It is now too late to heed Machiavelli' s warning. The disaster that he apprehended has 
come upon us. 

It is vain to dream of a religion to replace Christianity. Comte's notion of a "Religion of 
Humanity," whereby congregations would throng temples to venerate Henry Ford, 
Thomas Edison, and Werner von Braun as "benefactors," was one of the ideas that 
occurred to him when he was out of a straight-jacket, but it should have suggested to his 
friends and keepers the need to hustle him into one. True, there have been serious 



proposals by eminently sane men, who, however, seem to forget that a religion must be 
based on faith, not speculation or psychological peculiarities. Captain Ludovici is a 
highly intelligent and earnest man, and when he wrote his Religion for Infidels (1961), he 
must have known that his "rational religion" could appeal only to a few, and had no 
chance whatsoever of meeting our society's need for a unifying faith. 

If the faith of Christendom was an error, alien gods can command no true piety — not 
even in the little circles where they may enjoy a passing vogue. The Oriental cults that 
make wealthy dowagers beam and write cheques are not for men. Christianity is 
irreplaceable. 



Chapter Four 
THE PREDICTABLE FUTURE 



Christendom is no longer Christendom. The faith that Christ was literally the Son of God, 
which dominated the Western world for fifteen centuries, and effectively united all the 
men of our race for ten, has become the faith of a minority. 

It is vain to wish that this calamity had not happened, and nugatory to try to blame our 
enemies for it, however cunning and malevolent they may be. For it is our destiny — the 
destiny that is biologically innate in our race and the only source of our greatness and of 
the power than enabled us thus far to survive in a world in which we are a small and 
universally hated minority — to think philosophically about the external and physical 
world, and to seek objective truth, at whatever cost to our vanity or comfort. As 
Lawrence R. Brown says, in the book that I quoted before, "Whatever has been easier to 
believe than to discover has never been what created the unique greatness of our society. 
Not the comforting satisfaction of inward belief, but the potential humiliation of outward 
fact has been the last standard of truth in the West." And that has been the principal cause 
of the waning of what was once our common faith. 

We cannot expect, therefore, within the foreseeable future any increase in the number of 
believing Christians, who now number about 12% of adult Americans; on the contrary, a 
gradual decrease is possible and in some circumstances likely, since the majority of them 
are now in or past middle age.* 

(* I need not remark that no one should take seriously the little bands of hysterical 
adolescents who occasionally try to attract attention by emerging from the communal 
squalor of their kibbuzim and yelling "Jesus!" instead of "Peace in Vietnam!" Although 
some enterprising operators in the evangelical business advertise such outbreaks as 
harbingers of a "revival of faith," it is quite clear that the young derelicts, insofar as they 
are not indulging in mere exhibitionism, are actuated by the hallucinations that normally 
occur in minds that have been rotted by the drugs now commonly used by children in the 
public schools, chiefly marijuana, mescaline, lysergic acid diethylamide, and heroin. The 
febrile excitement of derelicts "hooked on Jesus" is merely a variation of their feeble- 
minded enthusiasm for every kind of occult posturing and mystery-mongering, including 
witchcraft, black magic, Satanism, astrology, oneiromancy, necromancy, and 
innumerable adaptations of various Oriental cults. More disturbing are the reports of 
colonies of youngsters who, reportedly without the help of hallucinatory drugs, exchange 
thoughts with a superior race on Jupiter, chat with visiting spooks, or have at the top of 
their skull a psychic opening through which the Holy Ghost whispers instructions. Like 
the "hippies," these unfortunates are commonly graduates of the cut-rate diploma- 
factories that are still called "universities." That is a fact that will be terribly significant to 
those who are not afraid to think about it.) 



We have no reason to anticipate a drastic and revolutionary change in the scientific 
evidence — a discovery, for example, that the earth ceased to rotate on its axis for a day or 
two when the Israelites invaded Canaan, or that stars outside the solar system are optical 
illusions. Rightly or wrongly, a great many men of intellectual integrity can now discern 
no evidence of the existence in the universe of a conscious power superior to man, and, 
precisely because they are men of intellectual integrity, they are not going to change their 
deductions in the absence of radically new evidence that is intellectually cogent to them. 
And precisely because they are men of our race, who reason from dispassionately 
ascertained data, they are not going to be swayed by the emotions of orating evangelists, 
and they will be simply disgusted by attempts to equate "atheism" and "Communism." 

No one doubts but that the power of man — which, for all practical purposes, means the 
power of our race — is small indeed. We and our planet and our whole solar system are 
infinitesimal motes in a galaxy that is itself an insignificant part of the known universe. 
No one doubts, furthermore, but that for many phenomena we have no satisfactory 
explanation. But knowledge cannot be derived from what is not known, and to deify 
known natural forces is to resort to a mocking evasion, not unlike that of Epicurus. In the 
1930's, Leopold Ziegler thought that the Second Law of Thermodynamics was a quite 
satisfactory "god" and others have applied that term to biological evolution toward more 
complex organic forms, to the fact of human consciousness, to instincts found in one or 
more races that seem analogous to a growing plant's heliotropic striving for sunlight, to 
the theories of indeterminacy or of parity in sub-atomic physics, and a wide variety of 
other phenomena. But no alert Christian will be deceived. His God is a conscious being, a 
personal God, a God who is aware of, and has concern for, the individual] He is a God to 
whom one can pray. 

Men prayed to the Sun when they believed that that incandescent globe was a conscious 
being who could hear them; but nobody prayed to the Great Mystery that [cannot render 
equation — Editor]. Christians rightly regard the difference between an atheist and a 
"pantheist" today as the difference between six apples and half-a-dozen. They can derive 
no comfort from the prudential evasions of some writers. 

Christians are demonstrably right when they insist that if we and the other nations of the 
West were still Christian nations, we should not find ourselves in our present plight. We 
should have other difficulties, of course; we should, no doubt, continue to quarrel among 
ourselves, and we should have to face, as now, the open hostility or covert hatred of the 
rest of the world. But if we Occidentals were still Christian nations, we should have no 
need to worry about International Bankers, Illuminati, Bolsheviks, Jews, "Liberals," or 
any other internal menace that you may choose to name or imagine. Recognition of that 
fact, however, will not produce a religious revival. It is a peculiarity of our Indo- 
European mind that for us truth is not demonstrated by either comfort or self-interest. We 
cannot believe a proposition to be objectively true just because we wish that it were or 
because our personal safety depends upon it. No exposition of present danger, therefore, 
can create faith. 



Is there any hope of a significant increase in the minority that now believes that Christ 
was the Son of God? 

Some Christians anticipate that the trend will be reversed by divine intervention, but there 
is little agreement about the nature of the expected miracle. Some expect the Second 
Coming of Christ, which will provide visible evidence of the truth of Christian doctrine 
and thus start a wave of conversions, while others count on God's application of a 
psychological force that will change men's minds and force them to believe what now 
seems unreasonable. Others as positively expect a virtually total loss of faith with 
miraculous suddenness. Not infrequently one encounters a Christian, usually a lady, who 
is quite certain that on a day in the very near future she and 499 other persons will soar 
aloft into the atmosphere, apparently to a level above the cumulus and below the cirrus 
cloud-formations, and there float in ecstasy while the rest of the earth's population is 
condignly destroyed in a succession of catastrophes. But the majority of Christians, I am 
sure, do not count on impending miracles. 

One common ground for hope is, at best, uncertain. We Americans, thanks to our folly, 
will soon undergo a considerable amount of physical suffering: domestic violence, 
economic collapse, probably some starvation, quite possibly conquest by foreign invaders 
and resident revolutionists. It is true that, as history shows, such afflictions usually induce 
a revival of religion, and many Christians expect such an effect here. That is not likely in 
the future that we can foresee. For one thing, the historical effect requires an unremitting 
and prolonged suffering — thirty years or more. The Crusade to Save the Soviet in 1939— 
45 inflicted great suffering on many nations of Europe, especially Germany and Poland, 
but produced no significant religious revival. Secondly, if there should be such an effect, 
it probably would not benefit Christianity. The Protestant Churches as a whole have long 
been disgraced by the pinks and punks of the National Council. The Catholic Church is 
now committing suicide by repudiating its own doctrines and burlesquing its traditions. 
In the eyes of non-believers now, the religion has been compromised by the antics of the 
greater part of the professional clergy, and despite the admirable loyally of "traditionalist" 
and "fundamentalist" minorities, it is likely that the coming disasters will — unjustly, but 
understandably — make Christianity seem a religion that failed. Thus any revival of 
religiosity will benefit cults that will have the attraction of novelty and a new 
"revelation," possibly including some doctrine of metempsychosis. 

We are left, therefore, with the present situation and very little hope that it will or can be 
soon altered. So we had better reckon with it, whatever our personal desires or 
convictions. 

The visible consequences of the withering of our religion are enormous, overshadowing, 
frightening. Christianity was much more than a religion comparable to the religion of 
Osiris in early Egypt, the worship of the Olympian gods, the Orphic mysteries, or 
Mithraism. Unlike those cults in their time and place, Christianity for a large part of our 
history was the whole formal basis of our entire culture, the absolute from which were 
deduced our moral codes, our laws, and our political systems; it largely informed our art, 



inspired our literature, animated our music, and sustained our men of science. The void 
that has been left is so great that few can peer into the dark abyss without vertigo. 

There is, however, no rational escape from a question to which there can be only two 
answers. Was Christ the Son of God? 

Christians answer Yes. And on that faith they found their lives. 

The majority of adults today, including most of the persons who are doing business in the 
pulpits, answer No. The negative answer cannot be covered with verbiage about "great 
Teacher," "social vision," "moral earnestness," and the like. There is no escape from 
logic. 

If Christ was not the Son of God and an Incarnate God, then he was, on the record, a 
lunatic with delusions that he was. And a lunatic's views on morality and justice are 
simply worthless. From this simple alternative our "modernist" clergy try to escape by 
claiming that all the passages in which Christ speaks of his own divinity, or miraculous 
proof of it is given, are forgeries concocted by clumsy interpolators, but if that is true, 
there is no passage that is exempt from the suspicion of forgery, and we have to conclude, 
as did Father Loisy in his famous work on Le mystere chretien (1930), that there is no 
authentic record of what Jesus said — and, indeed, no certainty that He is not, like the 
words attributed to him, merely an invention of the clumsy "interpolators." At the very 
best, if Christ was not literally the Son of God, his opinions are of infinitely less value 
than the opinions of learned, earnest, and thoughtful men, such as Aristotle, Cicero, and 
Marcus Aurelius in antiquity, and in modern times, David Hume, Schopenhauer, and 
Renan. From that clear alternative there is no escape except in the kind of patter and 
chatter that stage magicians use to distract the attention of the audience from a trick of 
prestidigitation. 

If Christ was not literally the Son of God, the entire morality on which our civilization 
was consciously based for so long seems to collapse, to vanish as an illusion, to be as 
unfounded as the old nation that the earth was flat. And this apparent dissolution includes 
all of the ancient Indo-European morality that guided our peoples in the many centuries 
that preceded our adoption of Christianity.* That is obviously what is happening — has 
happened today, when we witness everywhere tacit and explicit repudiation of all 
morality — not only Christian teaching, but the antecedent and basic morality without 
which civilization is flatly impossible. And, what is even more disheartening, there seems 
to be no basis left for any morality. 

(* Christianity, of course, introduced very little that was novel in the practical ethics 
governing human conduct in society, most of which were not only traditional in our race 
but were common to most civilized societies, including the oldest of which we have 
adequate knowledge. (Clergymen who impudently talk of " Judaeo-Christian ethics" try to 
give the impression that the prohibition of theft, adultery, etc. in the Ten Commandments 
was some kind of dazzling and miraculous invention, but if they were honest they would 
speak of "Sumerian-Christian ethics" in that connection.) About the only element that can 



fairly be called a Christian innovation was the great emphasis on forgiveness as a duty 
rather than an act of unnecessary generosity. (Its doctrine of rewards and punishments 
after death tended to enforce observance of the whole moral code, but that is another 
matter.) The historical antecedents, however, will not help us now, for our religion was so 
long regarded as the one and only basis for morality and the unique source of all right 
conduct that the earlier traditions have vanished except insofar as we still instinctively 
regard certain actions as dishonorable. Even those feelings, however, may be consciously 
repressed as "relics of superstition" by persons who have reacted strongly against the 
religion and are proud of having "emancipated" themselves from it.) 

For a long time, men, except a few romantic and evangelical atheists, have agreed that a 
viable morality must be based on a religious faith. Hesiod, whom some scholars place in 
the ninth century B.C., warned the judges of his day that Zeus had 30,000 invisible and 
immortal observers who go through the whole earth and report the evil deeds of men. A 
discerning correspondent, whose letter reached me yesterday, remarks that 
"unfortunately, most people need to feel that they are watched by a superhuman power." 

For Aristotle, Plato, and Cicero, civilized society must be based on a generally accepted 
and uniform religious faith. And, with few exceptions, the thoughtful non-Christians of 
our world have held the same opinion. Renan, for example, took leave of Christianity 
with elegiac sadness and deep apprehension: "What is ominous is that we cannot foresee 
for the future any means of giving men a code of conduct that they will generally accept . 
. . I frankly admit that I cannot imagine how it will be possible to restore, without the 
ancient illusions, the foundations of a noble and serene life." 

On a quite different level, the pragmatic and cynical Augustus believed religion the 
indispensable basis of political stability, and many rulers and statesmen, before him and 
after him, had the same conviction. And some of the world's most acute minds have 
drawn the conclusions that Machiavelli, perhaps, stated most bluntly: 

Principalities and republics that would save themselves from decadence must 
above all other things keep uncorrupted the ceremonies of their religion, and hold 
it always in veneration; for there can be no greater symptom of the ruin of a state 
than to see divine rites held in contempt. . . . They should therefore use every 
opportunity to foster and augment their religion, even though they perceive it to 
be false; and the more prudent they are and the more they know about natural 
phenomena, the greater their obligation to do this. 

It is now too late to heed Machiavelli' s warning. The disaster that he apprehended has 
come upon us. 

It is vain to dream of a religion to replace Christianity. Comte's notion of a "Religion of 
Humanity," whereby congregations would throng temples to venerate Henry Ford, 
Thomas Edison, and Werner von Braun as "benefactors," was one of the ideas that 
occurred to him when he was out of a straight-jacket, but it should have suggested to his 
friends and keepers the need to hustle him into one. True, there have been serious 



proposals by eminently sane men, who, however, seem to forget that a religion must be 
based on faith, not speculation or psychological peculiarities. Captain Ludovici is a 
highly intelligent and earnest man, and when he wrote his Religion for Infidels (1961), he 
must have known that his "rational religion" could appeal only to a few, and had no 
chance whatsoever of meeting our society's need for a unifying faith. 

If the faith of Christendom was an error, alien gods can command no true piety — not 
even in the little circles where they may enjoy a passing vogue. The Oriental cults that 
make wealthy dowagers beam and write cheques are not for men. Christianity is 
irreplaceable. 



Chapter Five 
THE CONSEQUENCES 



No more than 12% of adult Americans believe that Christ was the Son of God. No more 
than half of this minority has thus far provided from 80% to 90% of all the support given 
to "conservative" and "anti-Communist" efforts. So there is another fundamental fact that 
you must face, if you desire to preserve our country and our civilization. 

If most of the men included in that 6% were physically robust and vigorous, disciplined 
and well trained in the techniques of guerrilla warfare, equipped with the necessary 
weapons (including, in addition to automatic rifles, machine guns, and land mines, such 
devices as infra-red projectors), and willing to fight ruthlessly under a unified command, 
they could recapture the United States. 

If the 6%, though not capable of military action, formed a group that would not only 
contribute money and work to the very limit of their powers and vote as a solid bloque, 
but would also, at the command of their leaders, endorse and propagate the propaganda 
line that those leaders judged most expedient at any given time, even though that line was 
mendacious and contrary to all that they as individuals believed, and would furthermore, 
at command, work politically for candidates whose political patter suggested the very 
opposite of what they as individuals want, it might be possible for them, by persistent 
effort over many years, to recapture the country with conspiratorial tactics. 

Obviously, however, the active Christian minority is incapable of either of the only two 
kinds of action that could bring success. It is, furthermore, incapable of even sentimental 
agreement, for it is fragmented by real and important doctrinal differences, and any 
accord that may be established among Christians can always be quickly disrupted by 
even the crudest incitation of sectarian emotions. Even now, one of the most influential of 
the Christian "anti-Communist" preachers varies his message from time to time with clear 
intimations that the Pope is the Antichrist. The remaining Christians in the Catholic 
Church, having faith in its traditions, are more sensitive than ever to Protestantism now 
that they see their church resorting to cheap parodies of Protestant services as part of its 
effort to commit suicide. "Fundamentalist" Protestants frequently quarrel over the 
question whether or not certain tribes of Israelites migrated to northern Europe or the 
British Isles after they were supposedly captured by the Babylonians. And one evangelist 
with a very well-known name and small following is currently urging that all the Jews 
residing in the United States be killed "county by county" without delay, and most 
vehemently denounces all who have so little faith in Scripture that they have doubts about 
the feasibility of carrying out the proposed purification successfully this year. 

Seeking the most inclusive definition, we defined Christians as persons who have an 
abiding faith that Christ was in fact the Son of God. But each Christian necessarily 
believes more than that, and the diversity of faith in other tenets reduces the Christian 



minority to a multiplicity of groups that are incapable of sustained unity of purpose and 
could not act effectively, even if they had the means of action. Crusades were possible in 
ages in which Faith in Christ could bring together large and well-equipped armies of 
veteran warriors ready to smite and slay the paynim and to vindicate their faith with the 
sword, but today a suggestion that Christians could launch a Crusade is simply ludicrous. 

If Christians and other Americans really want to survive as Americans rather than as 
brutalized and stultified fellahin, the despised slaves of an alien and international super- 
state, they had better think seriously about the 88% of non-Christians of their race in the 
United States. We are here concerned only with Christians who are willing to make that 
effort, and we are well aware that many will find it much more entertaining to continue 
orating to one another, pounding their typewriters, quoting Scripture and wrangling about 
what it means, and contributing their money to every clever promoter who promises to 
produce with talk precisely the kind of miracle that would make them happy. 

So what of the 88%? 

The most logical alternative to Christianity is obviously atheism, by which we mean the 
belief that, in all probability, there does not exist in the universe a personal god to whom 
one can address prayers and who has conscious purposes. If the faith that was well nigh 
universal among members of our race for so many centuries was a fiction and a delusion, 
then it is a priori highly improbable that Apollo, Odin, Vishnu, Dionysus, or any other 
Savior God is less of a myth and fantasy than the Christian God. If the faith that inspired 
our race for so large a part of its recorded history was merely a figment of overwrought 
imaginations, it is highly probable that faith in any substitute for Christianity is likewise a 
product of the same overheated fancy. He who finds Christianity unbelievable should at 
least equally suspect all other revelations, and conclude that, so far as we can ascertain, 
there is no god, no conscious power in the universe superior to man. That is only 
reasonable. 

It is odd, therefore, that we hear so little of atheism today. There is, to be sure, a small 
number of evangelical atheists, who devote themselves to spreading the glad tidings that 
there is no god. They are best represented by the little periodical, The Truth Seeker, that 
does not enjoy enough support to continue publication in conventionally set type and has 
had to resort to photo-offset reproduction from copy prepared on a quite ordinary 
typewriter. It would be a gross exaggeration to estimate the avowed and active atheists at 
one-half of one percent of our adult population. And one suspects that their number is 
steadily dwindling. 

It is true, nevertheless, that doubt and denial of religion is a long-standing and ancient 
tendency in our race, and is very closely connected with our peculiar capacity to think 
objectively about the world in which we live and our experience of it.* I shall not argue 
that atheism is distinctively Indo-European like Christianity, for I doubt that such an 
argument could be maintained, nor shall I advance the more defensible claim that the 
atheism of Occidental minds differs generically from the manifestations of irreligion in 
other races, for that would entail a long excursus on China, with particular consideration 



of the doctrines of Confucius, Mencius, Hsun Tzu, and, most important of all, the Fa 
Chia;** a second excursus on the falasifa who flourished briefly in the world of Islam 
and included true Semites from southern Arabia; and, at least, a third excursus on the 
atheism that is so wide-spread among the Jews today. I shall merely remind you of two 
items in the history of India, and suggest that you reflect on their significance. 

(* It may be pertinent to recall that during the Viking Age many men, including even 
some kings, confessed that they were atheists (godlauss) and openly derided the Norse 
theology; many more, no doubt, were content to keep their opinions to themselves.) 

(** I remark in passing that although the Fa Chia, which I mentioned in an earlier note, 
was a political philosophy confined to an intellectual elite in positions of power, it 
effectively dominated the practice of Chinese governments from the third century B.C. to 
the present, except for comparatively brief intermissions. It appears to be totally unknown 
to the journalists, both "Liberal" and "anti-Communist," who manufacture books about 
the present regimes in Formosa and on the mainland, ignoring the racial determinants of 
the Mongolian mind and pretending that the Chinese have a yen for "democracy" and the 
other abstractions that are effective bait for voters in this country. The best thing to do 
with such books is to drop them in the wastebasket unopened; that saves time and 
eyestrain.) 

If you search the annals of mankind for a parallel to the strict materialism and 
concomitant atheism that is the premise of a very large part of the dominant thought of 
our time and simply taken for granted by many of our best minds, you will find the 
closest parallel in the philosophy called Lokayata, of which traces remain in the next-to- 
oldest parts of the Mahabharata, in the Arthasastra, and in a few other ancient works in 
Sanskrit. It is quite clear that this virtually scientific materialism flourished while the 
Aryan conquerors of India were in the plenitude of their power, and vanished as 
completely as though it had never been when the natives of that sub-continent succeeded, 
by such devices as miscegenation, military imitation, and exploitation of rivalries, in 
breaking the Aryan power and racial consciousness. 

Late in the sixth century B.C. a young Aryan prince named Siddhartha, doubtless 
influenced by the Lokayata prevalent in intellectual circles, evolved an atheistic 
pessimism that differed from a strict materialism only in the assumption that an 
individual's will-to-live (as distinct from his mind and personality) could survive his 
death. This palingenesis of the will (which must be sharply distinguished from the 
reincarnation of a soul) strikingly resembled the basis of the modern philosophy of 
Schopenhauer, and Siddhartha, yielding to our racial instinct to deduce and formulate 
universal laws, presented it as true for all men. His doctrine therefore appealed to 
sentimental Aryans who were concerned for "all mankind" and had an itch to "do good" 
for the lower races by pretending that those races were their equals. They accordingly 
preached the philosophy of Siddhartha and gradually transformed that bleak pessimism 
into a religion complete with gods, saviors, and innumerable angels and demons, and they 
called Siddhartha "the Enlightener of Mankind" (Buddha). As an odd mixture of 
philosophy and religion, Buddhism became the Established Religion of India, 



consummated the mongrelization of the Aryans and their submergence in the prolific 
native races, and then, its work of subversion accomplished, it disappeared from India 
and survived only as a grossly superstitious religion in Tibet, China, Japan, and adjacent 
Mongolian territories, and, with many doctrinal differences, in Ceylon and Southeast 
Asia, where it appears to have become as decadent as Christianity among us.* 

(* When Arnold J. Toynbee visited Burma he was impressed by the "spiritual light" that 
is particularly radiant in Buddhist friars who assemble in mobs and, when the spirit 
moves them, start killing people with the clubs, revolvers, and hand-grenades they carry 
under their sacred yellow robes. This social gospel, however, is a very recent innovation. 
On the other hand, much that is old survives, as was evident a few years ago when our 
propaganda-machine for political purposes exhibited on television the spectacle of some 
Buddhists who incinerated themselves. The yokels who gawked at the exhibition did not 
know that it was merely the observance of an ancient custom, much older than 
Christianity and even older than Buddhism itself.) 

If we consult the direct tradition of our civilization, we find from the earliest recorded 
times to the present eminent men who reject the popular religion of their day and the god 
or gods of that religion, believing that the world is uncreated and eternal and holding, in 
keeping with the mentality of our race, that the world operated by natural law, that is to 
say, the uniform and automatic processes of a nature that is independent of supernatural 
intervention. What is rare is not thinking that dispenses with gods, but proselytizing 
atheism. That rarity cannot be entirely explained by fear of persecution, and it must be 
attributed in part to a reluctance to destroy the religion of the people. 

In the seventh century B.C., Thales, who was regarded as the founder of both astronomy 
and natural philosophy, and is believed to have been the first who could predict eclipses 
of the sun by mathematical calculation, appears to have identified the gods with what we 
should call kinetic energy, gravitation, magnetic force, and, perhaps, chemical processes. 
Such a definition cannot have been either instructive or encouraging to persons intent on 
praying for mercy or favor from Zeus or one of his divine associates or subordinates, but 
Thales was not technically an atheist, and he disturbed established beliefs less than did 
Xenophanes, whose rigorous monotheism required him to ridicule all anthropomorphic 
gods. Democritus, one of the greatest minds of antiquity, explained all phenomena in 
terms of atoms governed by uniform natural forces, and he left nothing for gods to do, 
although he cheerfully conceded, for the benefit of those who felt strongly about the 
matter, that the same natural forces that produced man could have produced superior 
races, more perfectly formed of a more tenuous matter and so possibly exempt from some 
of our ills and limitations. Epicurus argued, perhaps sincerely, on the basis of 
epistemological considerations, that gods probably existed, but must dwell outside our 
world and must, by their very nature, have no interest in or concern for human beings. It 
is obviously folly to try to attract the attention of such superior beings, and it is 
preposterous to think that a god would have cared who won the Trojan War, or that a son 
of God (Dios nysos, i.e. Dionysus) could have suffered, been slain, and have arisen from 
the dead to save mankind, but Epicurus was not technically an atheist. Euhemerus 
blandly devised evidence and argument to show that Zeus had been a King of Crete and 



that the notion of worshipping gods was merely a development of men's natural tendency 
to venerate the memory of great men after they are dead. Many an ancient writer 
explained religion in the terms most generally accepted by modern anthropologists: 
primus in orbe deos fecit timor. Primitive men personified and tried to placate forces of 
nature that they did not understand. Intelligent readers could draw their own deductions, 
but ancient writers refrained from preaching atheism as such, and addressed themselves 
only to very limited and select audiences. 

There may have been an intermission of such skepticism during the Roman Decadence 
and the darkest part of the Dark Ages, but by the Thirteenth Century men knew of the 
famous book De tribus imposteribus that is now lost. (The extant work is a forgery 
produced in the Eighteenth Century.) The three impostors, of course, were Moses, Christ, 
and Mahomet, charlatans who imposed on the credulity of their ignorant contemporaries, 
but so far as we can tell, the author of that doctrine did not specifically deny the existence 
of a god. From the Thirteenth Century to the present, the chain of such thinking is 
unbroken, and it is easily recognized under the various forms that it successively 
assumed. During the Renaissance, for example, a favorite precaution was the doctrine of 
"two truths," which enabled a philosopher, such as the most illustrious of the Paduans, 
Petrus Pomponatius, to affirm that by faith he believed to be true precisely those 
propositions (e.g., the immortality of the soul) that he had just demonstrated to be false in 
the light of reason and observation. After the Reformation, the modern method appears. 
For example, Sir Walter Raleigh's friend, Thomas Hariot, now chiefly remembered for 
his work on the mathematics of navigation and cartography, simply ignored Christianity 
(except that he thought it good for the American Indians); his contemporaries suspected 
him of atheism, but they couldn't prove it. Today, you may pick up any serious treatise 
on astronomy, geology, biology, or almost any science, and you will find that the author 
simply ignores religion as irrelevant and does not even take the trouble to mention as 
curious myths the Christian beliefs that are tacitly refuted by his findings. Authors today 
have nothing to fear from the rage of Christian divines, but they are content to let 
intelligent readers draw their own conclusions. A formal profession of atheism would be 
in bad taste, and, what is more, many of the authors really do not want to destroy what 
religion is left to our people. 

Our whole tradition, therefore, deprecrates gratuitous and unnecessary offense to 
religious beliefs, and one of the strongest reasons for that restraint is, and long has been, a 
conviction that a belief in gods who punish moral transgressions is the most efficacious, 
and possibly the unique and indispensable, means of maintaining in a large population the 
morality without which a civilized society would become impossible. Machiavelli did not 
originate the doctrine that he expressed with brutal frankness in the passage from his 
Discorsi that we quoted above. The idea is ancient; it appears in Herodotus, the "Father 
of History," and was probably old in his time. It is not even confined to Aryans. Although 
he was doubtless influenced by Greek thought, the great Arabian poet, Abu'l-' Ala al- 
Ma'arri, gave the idea an epigrammatic expression in verses that may be translated thus: 

The Moslems stumble; Christians are astray; 



The Jews are mad, and Magians grope their 
way. 

We mortals are composed of two great 
schools — 

Enlightened knaves or else religious fools. 

"Enlightened knaves" will flout and circumvent the ethics imposed by religious sanctions, 
and no society can support more than a small proportion of them. Such, at least, has been 
the conclusion of careful observers of human society. 

An infidel, to be sure, is not necessarily a scoundrel, but even if we claim that a system of 
ethics can be so logically deduced from objectively ascertained data that it will be cogent 
to every rational reader, we cannot reasonably expect that the demonstration will sway 
any very large part of the population. How many persons, for example, would be willing 
to read the Nicomachean Ethics or the De officiis, or would understand them, if they did 
read them? Even if we could construct an intellectually irrefragable code of morality, we 
should still find religion indispensable, as Aristotle said, "in order to persuade the 
majority." Or as James Burnham, who is certainly one of the best minds in conservative 
circles today, expresses it: "The political life of the masses and the cohesion of society 
demand the acceptance of myths. A scientific attitude toward society does not permit 
belief in the truth of the myths. But the leaders must profess, indeed foster, belief in the 
myths, or the fabric of society will crack." 

That conclusion always has been widely accepted by men who, naturally, refrain from 
proclaiming it in public. I knew a gentleman who, although not wealthy in the usual sense 
of that word, contributed some five thousand dollars a year to his local church. "Of 
course, I don't believe in immortality and the rest of that bunk," he told me, "but belief in 
a hereafter is the only thing that will keep most people straight, so I do what I can." That 
opinion was based, not on reading, but on his own observation of men. Essentially the 
same opinion is held by some clergymen. I have conversed with one, who is certainly not 
one of the "social gospel" shysters. He is a very well educated and thoughtful man, who 
believes religion necessary for social stability, although he regrets that a series of 
historical accidents made so confused and vulnerable a cult as Christianity the religion of 
the West instead of the form of Buddhism found in the Mi linda-panha (c. 125 B.C.), 
which, incidentally, he has read in the original Pali. That, of course, is not what he tells 
his congregation, but he holds that since a belief in the supernatural must be fostered for 
the comfort of the majority, it is best for society that the doctrine be dispensed by men 
who can take an honest and coldly rational view of their task and will not be carried away 
by fanaticism or exhibitionism. That view is not unique, and we should remember, for 
example, that in this century the staunchest and most eloquent defender of the Christian 
faith in France was the genial Charles Maurras, who, perhaps indiscreetly, confessed that 
he personally was an atheist. 



One of the most striking proofs of the extent of irreligious support of religion as a social 
utility is the current rash of books and articles that urge Christians to unite with all other 
religions in "combating skepticism," because the important thing is to have "a faith," 
chosen from the contemporary flowerbed that provides nosegays to match any 
complexion or ensemble. That, of course, is the equivalent of saying that it does not 
matter what you believe, provided that you believe it hard enough. Just as the antithesis 
of love is not indifference but hate, so the opposite of a true religion is not skepticism but 
a false religion. So far as there is any honesty in this campaign to "save religion" — so far 
as it is not a swindle — it must be based on the premise that the beliefs of all Christians, 
Pharisees, Kabbalists, Theosophists, Moslems, Buddhists, etc., are equally false, but 
should be encouraged because such superstitions may serve to restrain men's natural 
propensity to crime. Obviously, the "interfaith" cuddling that is so much in the vogue 
among professional clergymen these days is possible only for those who have no faith in 
their own religion, and we can only hope that some of them are thinking in terms of 
social utility rather than promoting a racket — or a conspiracy. 

The incidence of disbelief in a personal god — atheism, although many atheists escape 
social disapproval by using such euphemisms as agnosticism and pantheism — cannot, 
therefore, be estimated, even roughly. It is not limited to strict materialism. The structure 
of the human consciousness is at present so little understood, and so many psychological 
phenomena (e.g., hypnotism, the effects of hallucinogenic drugs, possible instances of 
telepathy, certain instincts of civilized men, many of the mental peculiarities of our race) 
remain unexplained that a belief that we have an immaterial and spiritual component is 
widely held, often associated with hypotheses concerning a fourth (or, if time is the 
fourth, a fifth) dimension. This spiritual element, thought yet mysterious in the way that 
the observed effects of radioactivity were mysterious before radium was isolated and 
identified, is regarded as subject to natural laws yet unascertained, and therefore as 
involving no presumption that a deity is responsible for those phenomena. Some of our 
contemporaries, indeed, consider probable a doctrine similar to that of the "godless" 
Yogins of India (Nirisvara-samkhya) and posit cycles of reincarnation governed by moral 
laws that are as automatic and impersonal as gravity. And Captain Ludovici, in his well- 
known Religion for Infidels, believes in the efficacy of prayer even in the absence of a 
god or other conscious force to hear it. 

For many earnest Americans, religion has become a private matter, a system of ethical 
conduct reposing on metaphysical premises, hopes, or conjectures that they are unwilling 
to discuss and might have difficulty in defining precisely even to themselves. All that is 
certain is that there must be the greatest variety in their conceptions of the praeterhuman. 
It is impossible, therefore, to estimate the persistence in our time of the Stoic conception 
of a deity that is the Soul of the Universe, which reappeared in the Deism of the late 
Eighteenth Century, which was professed by some of the founders of the American 
Republic — just as it is difficult to be certain to what extent that Deism was more than a 
way of rejecting Christianity without incurring the stigma of atheism. Many of its 
pronouncements, indeed, such as Voltaire's famous dictum, si Dieu n'existait pas, il 
faudrait Vinventer (particularly when read in context), suggest much more concern for 
the stability of society than faith in the unnamed god. 



One suspects that a numerical majority of our population has simply lost interest in 
religion as such and does not think about it at all, except as a kind of social convention, 
regarding the existence or non-existence of a god as something that cannot be 
determined, so that thought about it is impractical and profitless — a waste of time that 
can be used more advantageously in thinking about how to get a raise in salary, and more 
pleasurably in watching a baseball game or a prize fight. The conventions must, of 
course, be observed; indeed, some corporations when they send an "executive" into a new 
territory, perhaps as District Sales Manager for Charnel House cosmetics or Bloaters' 
beer, stipulate that he must promptly join a country club, a church, and a local business 
men's association. I am told that at least one corporate monstrosity has thoughtfully 
compiled a catalogue of the churches that are best for business in each section of the 
country, so that its "executives" and their wives (who must be "college graduates" 
without intellectual interests and active in "community work") won't have to worry about 
a choice. "Fundamentalist" churches, I hear, are streng verboten: being suspected of 
taking Christianity seriously would be, like atheism, bad for sales. And that, I fear, is 
symptomatic of what religion has become for a large section of our people: not a matter 
of belief or disbelief, not a subject that excites either emotion or thought, but just a social 
gesture, to be made perfunctorily and with indifference. 

All this, I know, is acutely painful for Christians, but it will do them no good to weep or 
to curse infidels or to hire an evangelist to tell them that they must "fight atheism" by 
booking him for a return engagement. The facts are but little less distressing to non- 
Christians who want to preserve what is left of our culture and our race, and who 
desperately wish that there were some way to restore the faith that was our bond of unity 
when the West was Christendom. But we were born into the Twentieth Century, not the 
Eleventh or the Thirteenth, and, unless we prefer to retreat into a dream-world or 
passively await our doom, it is with the realities of the present that we must cope, if we 
can. 



Chapter Six 
SUCCEDANEOUS RELIGION 



The loss of Christian faith as the West's bond of union was a disaster; the spiritual 
vacuum thus created was a catastrophe. 

Since the later part of the Eighteenth Century, we have had among us bands of 
evangelical atheists, numerically small but at times very influential, who, either openly or 
under the euphemistic appellation of "anti-clericals," worked to destroy Christianity. 
Although they were used by political conspiracies with which they sometimes knowingly 
collaborated, and although they were certainly encouraged and often subsidized by the 
Jews, who always profit from the misfortunes of the peoples among whom they have 
planted their colonies, most of the polemists against our religion were quite sincere and 
many were men of good moral character. Let us, for our own instruction, disregard here 
the scabrous plotters who appear so often darkly in the background, and let us disregard 
also the often funeste consequences of the anti-religious agitation. Let us reduce to the 
simplest terms the principles of every society for the promotion of atheism, whatever it 
was formally or informally called. 

There are just three basic propositions. Let us examine them, remembering that we are 
trying to reason about a desperate situation in which we find ourselves, whatever our 
beliefs. If we feel a need to indulge orgiastic emotions, let us do that elsewhere and after 
we have concluded our serious business. 

(1) Christianity is false. This conclusion is drawn from (a) a critical examination of the 
Christian Scriptures to discern the innumerable internal inconsistencies and 
contradictions, and to weigh the innumerable and equally contradictory attempts of 
theologians to explain them away; (b) comparison of Scriptural accounts, so far as 
possible, with historical records; (c) examination of Scriptural statements in the light of 
known natural laws; and (d) consideration of the discrepancies between Biblical 
statements about the world and the observed nature of that world. Obviously, we cannot 
here consider the data and arguments adduced by the atheists under each of those four 
headings, but the important point is that, with no exceptions worth mentioning, this first 
step is intellectually sound. Each writer reports the facts correctly (except insofar as they 
were supplemented by later discoveries) and reasons from them with strict logic to 
rigorously drawn conclusions. Christians, to be sure, surmount these conclusions by 
various acts of faith, and their faith is entitled to every respect, but although it is asking 
much of them — as it is asking much of any man to ask him to be objective and just to his 
opponent — I hope that they will be able to admire the intellectual processes by which the 
conclusions were obtained. They cannot deny the facts without lying; to throw 



themselves on the floor, kick with their heels, and scream "blasphemy!" is unworthy of 
adults. 

(2) Religion is therefore an imposture on the ignorant perpetrated by priests for their own 
profit. This conclusion is drawn from (a) the long, long history of fraudulent simulation 
of supernatural phenomena, from the witch-doctors among the Congoids, who excite the 
awe of their tribesmen with some of our simpler parlor-tricks, to the elaborate machinery 
and drugs used in ancient Egypt, Asia Minor, and even Greece to show the ways of god 
to the suckers; (b) the manufacture of relics and the forgery of decretals and donations in 
Christianity; (c) the power-politics of the established clergy in many historical periods; 
and (d) the corruption and scandalous profligacy or dishonesty of many churchmen of 
exalted rank, including some Popes. Here, however, we have gone a little fast, haven't 
we? There is no conduct attributed to the clergy, even to its worst members, that is not at 
least matched by conduct that is common enough among laymen, including rulers and 
members of a nobility or aristocracy, and while believers may be distressed that their 
religion does not transform men, how can atheists think it very significant that 
ecclesiastics are human beings? And have we not excluded some data here? Does not the 
record show a very large number of well educated and highly intelligent men, both 
churchmen and laymen, who, if not insane, must have held the faith they professed? And 
can we suppose that religion answers no natural need or desire in men? That it serves no 
purpose in civilized society? That it would never have existed, if the equivalent of our 
stage magicians and our confidence men had not imposed on the credulity of our 
ancestors? 

(3) Let us, therefore, destroy religion, that monstrous engine of deception and 
exploitation — ecrasez I'infdme! — and men, governing their conduct by clear-sighted 
reason alone, will enjoy the infinite progress that Science makes possible. This 
conclusion is based on — what? History provides no example of a people that governed 
itself by cold reason, and, for that matter, not many examples of leaders and governors 
who behaved reasonably even in terms of their own personal advantage or the advantage 
of their family or other small group. It provides no example of a civilized people without 
a prevalent religion.* If, in our society, religion is a fraud, it is only one of the hundreds 
of frauds currently practiced by playing on ignorance and emotions, usually with appeal 
to such constant human incentives as greed and malice. So what is the basis of the 
atheists' third proposition? Faith. Faith in a statement that is completely unsupported by 
data or by logical deductions, and even contrary to the indications of all the relevant 
evidence that can be found.** It is a faith that can be based on no revelation other than 
the effervescence of an overheated imagination, and that can have been accepted for no 
reason other than that it promises a miracle that seems delightful. 

(* I speak, of course, of nations as a whole. It is true that small and essentially aristocratic 
groups, delimited by birth and education, such as Victorian gentlemen, found in a code of 
personal honor an adequate substitute for religion, and there have been times when 
incredulity was normal among an upper and politically dominant group, but it may be 
significant that the incredulity was most open and notorious in the periods that 
immediately preceded a great national catastrophe. Even during those periods, however, 



the mass of common people remained religious. In Eighteenth Century France, 95% of 
the population practiced Christianity until the Revolution. In the late Roman Republic, 
before the great Civil Wars, the Capitoline gods suffered some neglect, but the religiosity 
of the populace was increasing as shown by the importation and spread of various 
Oriental cults, and the local deities of the countryside seem to have enjoyed about as 
much veneration as ever. We shall come to the situation in the United States today 
below.) 

(** For example, Robert G. Ingersoll was a very intelligent and well-read man, but 
readers of his famous orations and of his collected letters (which will guarantee the 
candor of the speeches) can only marvel at the facility with which his evangelical 
eloquence disregards the French Revolution, which should have provided him with an 
unforgettable lesson of what Gibbon termed "the danger of exposing an old superstition 
to the contempt of the blind and fanatic multitude." Ingersoll must have read, in one of 
the three historians whom he most highly esteemed, the passage from which I have 
quoted, and he must have read many reports, written by non-Christians and so acceptable 
to him, of the orgy of sadism, savagery, and homicidal mania in France, but the lesson 
was evidently lost on him, perhaps because he had faith in institutions that have now 
disappeared in all but name from the United States — and yet he had himself fought in the 
fratricidal madness commonly called the Civil War, and he had himself witnessed the 
sadistic reprisals carried out by hate-crazed fanatics on the civilized inhabitants of the 
conquered and helpless Confederacy!) 

What has happened to the evangelical atheists without their being aware of it is clear. 
When they expelled their faith in Christianity, they created within themselves a vacuum 
that was quickly filled by another faith. And the fervor with which they hold that faith is 
of religious intensity. They preach the joyful tidings that there is no God with as much 
ardor and sincerity as ever a Christian preached his gospel. They sacrificed themselves, 
and some even underwent martyrdom, for their faith. If we wanted to indulge in paradox, 
we could describe them as the zealots of an anti-religious religion, but it is more accurate 
to say that their faith in a religion, which was rational in that it expected miracles only 
from the supernatural power of its invisible deity, was replaced by a superstition that 
expects miracles from natural causes that have never produced such effects — a 
superstition that is totally irrational. 

Societies for the promotion of atheism as such are relatively innocuous and merely 
exhibit on a small scale a psychological phenomenon that has catastrophic effects when it 
occurs on a large scale, much as sand spouts and dust devils are miniature tornadoes. 
When religious faith is replaced by materialistic superstition on a large scale, the 
consequences are enormous devastation. 

The great wave of anti-Christian evangelism swept over Europe about the middle of the 
Eighteenth Century, and its natural results were most conspicuous in France, where 
decades of strenuous social reform imposed by a centralized government under a king 
whose mediocre mind had been thoroughly addled by "Liberal" notions, naturally 
triggered the outbreak of insanity and savagery known as the French Revolution. Since 



the shamans and fetish-men of the new superstition control our schools and universities 
today, the history of that event is little known to the average American, who is likely to 
have derived his impressions, at best, from Carlyle's novel, The French Revolution, and, 
at worst, from the epopts and fakirs of Democracy. Obviously, we cannot here insert an 
excursus of a thousand pages or so on what happened at France at that time, nor need we. 
The efforts at social uplift through economic and political reforms during the reign of 
Louis XVI are well summarized by Alexis de Tocqueville in The Old Regime and the 
French Revolution* The best short account in English of the underlying forces of the 
disaster is the late Nesta Webster's The French Revolution, supplemented by the two 
volumes of her biography of Marie Antoinette and Louis XVI and the pertinent chapters 
of her World Revolution . * * 

(* The reader should remember that de Tocqueville wrote at a time (1856) when the 
recrudescence of religion that followed the French Revolution permitted him the illusion 
that Christianity had been "definitely reestablished" and that the climate of his time was 
"highly favorable to Christianity.") 

(** Mrs. Webster wrote as a Christian and so, although she was a woman of great 
learning and penetrating mind, her interpretations of the facts that she correctly reports 
are colored by (a) failure sufficiently to allow for the fact that while the publication of the 
great French Encyclopedie was undoubtedly subversive of both church and state, it was 
nevertheless an accurate report of the science, technology, and historical knowledge of 
the time, so that if we deplore the publication of encyclopaedias, we must logically 
demand that accumulated knowledge be made accessible only to a restricted and small 
elite; and (b) the Christian conception of a universal conflict between God and Satan, 
whence it follows that whatever is anti-Christian is morally evil and wicked. Many of the 
early colonists in North America, especially the English, accordingly thought that the 
Indians must have been incited by the Devil not to surrender their hunting grounds to the 
Christians, and today many think that Jews are Satanic and wicked because they act in 
conformity with the interests, instincts, and beliefs of their race. Non-Christian readers 
should make allowance for this tendency without illogically rejecting Mrs. Webster's 
report of the facts.) 

We need not here concern ourselves with the sinister and mephitic conspiracies that 
clandestinely incited and contrived so much of the disaster, for our interest is not in the 
manipulators but in the men of our race who were manipulated. Our problem is not what 
was done to them, but why they let it be done. Adam Weishaupt, the founder and titular 
head of the homicidal conspiracy of the Illuminati,* was undoubtedly a cunning creature, 
who was able to enlist some of the kings and princes of Europe in a conspiracy to abolish 
monarchy, to enlist Christian clergymen in a conspiracy to destroy Christianity, and to 
enlist tender-hearted sentimentalists in a conspiracy to murder thousands of cultivated 
men and women, but however subtle his methods of deceit, his success argues some 
fundamental weakness, mental or moral, in his victims. 

(* We must, of course, be careful to avoid exalting Weishaupt to the rank of Satan by 
making him and his scabrous crew responsible for the whole of the catastrophe to which 



they (and many others) undoubtedly contributed. In my Conspiracy or Degeneracy? ', note 
19, 1 commented sufficiently on the notion, popular in some circles, that the Illuminati 
were and now are an incredibly powerful gang of Master Minds who have conspired and 
labored for hundreds or thousands of years, and have caused all the woes of the world for 
some purpose of their own. The underlying premise, sometimes explicitly but often left 
latent these days, is that the terrible but unidentified Illuminati are engaged in a 
Conspiracy Against Christianity, presumably with the active cooperation of the Devil. If 
those diabolic conspirators had not done their dirty work, there would now be no nasty 
skeptics and awful atheists, and everyone in the whole world — well, everyone in the 
United States, at least, would believe every word in the Bible and conduct himself 
accordingly. Now, as I have indicated above, if you accept that idea, you must accept its 
necessary corollary, that most of the physical world about us is an illusion that we 
mistake for reality — an illusion somehow contrived by the Illuminati or their immortal 
Superintendent. And if you believe that, the best thing to do is to retire, as did the well- 
known group of Byzantine monks, and contemplate your navel (assuming that it is not 
also an illusion).) 

No historical period is more instructive than the half-century in France during which the 
yet numerous members of the hereditary aristocracy and the more numerous nouveaux- 
riches with their purchased titles worked so assiduously to produce the cataclysm in 
which they perished. They spoke proudly of their time as the Enlightenment, the Siecle 
des Lumieres, the Age of Reason. Most of them saw the light at last when they faced a 
new humanitarian machine for amputating their heads; and many did not live until 10 
November 1793, when they could have seen Reason finally enthroned and incarnate in 
the person of a nude whore seated on the high altar of Notre Dame. The results proved 
that, taken as a whole, the French aristocracy, which included much of the best (and some 
of the worst) blood in the nation, was the most spectacular collection of boobs seen 
anywhere before Twentieth-Century America. 

The Eighteenth Century saw great and solid achievements in all the basic sciences, in 
industrial technology, and in historical scholarship. It is indubitable that almost all of 
those brilliant achievements in science and scholarship directly or indirectly impugned 
the tenets of Christianity. Although comparatively few men had a thorough understanding 
of those discoveries, a superficial knowledge of their implications was communicated, 
usually by witty popularizers, to the entire educated class. That sufficed to destroy their 
religious faith, which was accordingly replaced by the weird superstitions of the self- 
styled philosophes. That gabbling crew could no longer believe in God, but they could 
believe in World Peace, which was to be magically produced by either the Abbe de Saint- 
Pierre' s project for a "United Nations" or by tobacco, which, if smoked by everyone, 
would infallibly so soothe men's nerves that they would no longer lose their tempers and 
want to fight. They could not believe in Christ, but they could believe that an oleaginous 
Jew who impudently called himself the Comte de Saint-Germain had witnessed the 
Crucifixion and had remained in good health ever since by abstaining from all food and 
extracting his nourishment directly from the air — and they thought it the most natural 
thing in the world that such a long-lived genius should be installed in the royal palace as 
a personal adviser to the king. They could not believe in the immortality of the soul, but 



they could believe that a sleazy Jew named Balsamo, alias Mr. Bacthymore, alias Comte 
Pellegrini, alias Comte de Cagliostro, etc., could conjure up the dead, foresee each 
person's future, make diamonds grow bigger, and distill an elixir that would rejuvenate 
old men and convert young men into infants.* 

(* In this connection, we should perhaps mention the Cardinal de Rohan, a model 
ecclesiastic who was so intellectual that he discovered how profitable it was to 
collaborate with the Cerf-Beers and other Jewish banking houses. He knew, of course, 
that Christianity was a "silly superstition," but after he saw the "Comte de Cagliostro" 
manufacture a potful of gold out of dross, he logically concluded that the conjurer was 
Divine and perhaps an incarnation of God, and must therefore have the power to help the 
Cardinal seduce Marie Antoinette and cuckold the King.) 

If there is any one individual who can be regarded as a perfect representative and, as it 
were, archetypal symbol of the Enlightenment, it is the famous Marquise d'Urfe. She was 
a high-born, wealthy, and intelligent woman who evidently had a serious interest in 
chemistry and is credited with the invention of a self-regulating laboratory furnace for 
use in her experiments. She also believed that it would be much nicer to be a young man 
than an old woman, and accordingly she took steps to have herself transformed. She took 
one important step on the advice of Querilinthos, a Genius then residing in the Milky 
Way, and at the exactly calculated astrological moment she, after a solemn prayer to 
Selenis, the Spirit of the Moon, cast into the Mediterranean a casket which she had filled 
with fifty pounds of gold, silver, mercury, and other metals, and diamonds, rubies, 
emeralds, sapphires, chrysolites, topazes, and opals. (Casanova, of course, had 
thoughtfully substituted fifty pounds of lead before the lady cast into the waves her 
offering to the Seven Planets.) This devotion so moved Selenis that she sent from the 
Moon an immortal Undine (one of Casanova's mistresses in green tights) to give the 
Marquise a ceremonial bath. The Marquise d'Urfe, I need not say, was a true intellectual, 
who had emancipated herself from vulgar prejudices. 

It is not astonishing that a society of such intellectuals took seriously a crack-brained 
vagabond who was given to snivelling ecstatically as he meditated on the Virtue that 
filled his Pure Heart, and to denouncing the corruption of the Christian Churches that 
maintained the orphan asylums at which his bastards were surreptitiously abandoned. 
Rousseau, unfortunately for us, had the ability to write an emotional prose that gave spice 
to his balderdash, and he seems on occasion to have been capable of a forced lucidity (as 
in his Considerations sur le gouvernement de Pologne), but he himself summed up his 
whole career when, in a moment of candor, he told Boswell, "I live in a world of 
fantasies, and I cannot tolerate the world as it is."* 

(* Not by any means his only confession; cf. his letter to Malesherbes, 4 January 1762: 
"Je trouve mieux mon compte avec les etres chimeriques que je rassemble autour de moi 
qu'avec ceux que je vois dans le monde." One could collect at least a dozen more or less 
candid admissions that he could not bear to think about the real world.) 



We should not damn Rousseau for his influence. The real gravamen of guilt falls on the 
educated, skeptical, intellectual society that did not laugh at his fantasies about the innate 
Virtue of hearts uncorrupted by civilization, the Noble Savage, the Equality of all human 
beings, who can become unequal only through the wickedness of civilized society, the 
sinfulness of owning property of any kind, and the rest of the tommyrot that you will find 
in the thousands of printed pages of Rousseau's whining and ranting. You can read all of 
it — if you grit your teeth and resolve to go through with it — and you really should, for 
otherwise you will not believe that books so widely read and rhapsodically admired can 
be so supremely silly and so excruciatingly tedious. 

What Rousseau's fantasies produced is an amazing superstition. It is not exactly an 
atheism, for a vague god was needed to create perfectly noble savages to be corrupted by 
civilization, and to inspire perfectly pure hearts, like Rousseau's, that overflow with 
Virtue and drip tears wherever they go; but for all practical purposes, Rousseau's creed 
substituted "democracy" for God, and put civilized society in place of the Devil. It 
replaced faith in the unseen and empirically unverifiable with faith in the visibly and 
demonstrably false. 

We cannot afford to smile at poor Mme. d'Urfe. Her instructions came from Querilinthos, 
but that great Spirit had been conveyed to the Milky Way by seven salamanders, so 
naturally she could not expect him to come in person for her to see. You may think that if 
the noble lady had been really shrewd at the time that the immortal and voiceless Undine 
was giving her a lustral scrub, she would have jabbed that Moon-maid with a pin, but, 
after all, a woman who has just thrown a fortune in gold and jewels into the sea is apt to 
be a little excited, and something must be allowed for the impatience of an old woman 
eager to become a young man. No such apology can be made for the mighty minds that 
were stunned by Rousseau's drivel. They could have tested the proposition about natural 
Equality by just walking down the street with their eyes open, looking inside the nearest 
prison, or paying a little attention to the conduct of any one of the score of really 
noteworthy degenerates of very high rank.* They must have met every day military men 
and others who had observed savages in their native habitat and could comment on the 
innate nobility of the dear creatures. And some conversation with a few footpads and 
cutpurses would have elucidated the problem whether or not Society was responsible for 
their having been born without a conscience, wings, and other desirable appurtenances. In 
fact, no rational person could have escaped a daily demonstration that Rousseau's babble 
was utter nonsense — except, perhaps, by confining himself in a windowless and 
soundproof room. But the phi losophes were able to attain in their own capacious minds a 
far more total isolation from reality. 

(* Including, by the way, the great Apostle of Democracy to whom we owe both the word 
Sadism and the nonsensical dictum that "All men are created equal" ("La Nature nous a 
fait naitre tous egaux"). This favorite dictum of the Marquis de Sade is elaborated early in 
the first volume of his Justine, where he expounds the doctrine, now tacitly or explicitly 
espoused by our "Liberals," that the most revolting crimes are always justified as a form 
of social protest and receive the special approbation of Providence, since it is only 
through every form of criminal action that we can restore the blessed state of perfect 



equality intended by our Creator ("l'etat ou elle [la Providence] nous a crees est 
l'Egalite"). De Sade was twice condemned to death for revolting crimes of which it had 
been possible to convict him in the courts, but under the decadent government of Louis 
XVI, as in the United States today, political influences were always available to save the 
utterly depraved from execution, and De Sade was held in a comfortable prison until he 
was released by the French Revolution. He became one of the most fervent orators for 
Social Justice and Brotherhood, and continued to exercise his phenomenal ingenuity for 
torturing and mutilating the men and women whom he kidnapped for his private 
amusement, throughout the Revolution. The degenerate creature was clapped into an 
insane asylum as soon as Napoleon came to power.) 

How was this possible? There are two obvious factors. 

Of the first of these, let us take one of the innumerable examples that have no political or 
religious implications. 

Many of the novels of Dickens were published serially in periodicals, and naturally each 
installment was published in England before it appeared in the United States. In 1840, 
ships arriving from Britain found awaiting them on the dock little knots of well-dressed 
men and women who, as soon as the vessel came within hailing distance, inquired with 
tearful anxiety, "Is Little Nell dead?" Now those who asked that question with bated 
breath were literate and presumably educated persons of what is called the leisure class. 
They were neither drunk nor insane, so they must have know that Little Nell was a purely 
fictitious product of Dickens' imagination and that she appeared in a tale set quite some 
time before the present. If they had any acquaintance with human life, they must have 
further known that the fictitious Little Nell was a paragon that resembled no child ever 
born of woman. A minimal amount of reflection would have assured them that Dickens 
was contriving with conscious art a tear-jerking story of which the peripeties and 
denouement would be determined by his judgement of what would most excite the 
sentimentality of his readers within the limits of length that he thought most 
advantageous for his magazine. 

The inquirers were not idiots; they knew all that. But the imaginations that Dickens had 
stimulated were so vivid and powerful, and were reenforced by sentiments of generosity 
and pity so strong, that the rational mind was, so to speak, put on a chain, like an 
inconvenient watchdog, and a part of the consciousness luxuriated in the illusion that 
Little Nell was a real being and in anxiety over her fate. 

The hypostatization of Little Nell was merely an extension or, rather, perversion of a 
psychological process common to our race and that we all experience whenever we read a 
work of imaginative literature, in prose or verse. When we take up a work of poetry or 
prose fiction, we begin with what literary critics commonly call the poetic suspension of 
doubt. We resolve that during our reading we will believe that whatever the author tells 
us actually happened, and that we will vicariously be present when it happens and will 
experience the emotions that we would experience if we were physically present. That is 
the literary experience of great literature — and, indeed, our experience when we read any 



fiction that is sufficiently well written to keep us from throwing the book in the fireplace. 
When we read tales of the marvellous and praeternatural, we make a temporary act of 
faith and accept the world that the author has created. Only the poor in spirit will refuse 
to believe in hippogriffs when they read the Orlando furioso or doubt Prospero's power 
when they read The Tempest. We make what is essentially the same act of faith when we 
read fiction written in more realistic terms. It is a faith of strictly limited duration, and, 
unless our minds have slipped a cog or two, when we put down Hardy's greatest novel 
we no more suppose that we have read the biography of a man named Jude the Obscure 
than we expect to find hippogriffs mingling with the traffic on the street outside after we 
have read Ariosto. 

Literature provides us with emotional and spiritual experience of which we have a racial 
need, for we Indo-Europeans inherit genetically vivid imaginations that are apt to get out 
of control if we try to repress or ignore them instead of exercising them rationally and 
thus satisfying our inner yearning for worlds brighter, more beautiful, and more dramatic 
than the one in which we live. Our first great literature was the poems of Homer, both the 
Iliad, with its eternal figuration of the unalterably tragic fate that only men of the West 
are strong enough to meet knowingly, and the Odyssey, with its magic casements opening 
on the foam of perilous seas. And that literature we shall need so long as we endure as a 
race. The power of our imagination, while not, perhaps, unique, as is the capacity for 
philosophic reasoning that enables us to know and partly master the physical world, is a 
part of our racial being, and we can deny it only at our own peril. 

The danger comes, of course, when imagined scenes are so vivid that we ignorantly 
mistake them for reality. That is what makes "historical" and "thesis" novels as dangerous 
as nitroglycerine and to be handled with the same caution. Many a person who has not 
read in the historical sources has been left with the impression that Dickens' Tale of Two 
Cities describes the French Revolution. Many readers of Cooper' s Tast of the Mohicans 
have thought that they had learned something about Indian tribes that had actually lived 
in North America. And, incredible as it seems, the sentimental drivel exuded by the 
infected imagination of Harriet Beecher Stowe so inflamed weak minds that it became 
one of the causes of national insanity and a fratricidal war that permanently impoverished 
our nation and may yet prove to have been suicidal. 

On a vulgar and prosaic level, we see constantly cases of imaginative intoxication that 
match anything produced by alcohol. The good ladies of the local church's sewing circle 
read the prose of some missionary or journalist, and lo! each sees in her imagination 
sweet little black boys and girls just like her Johnny and her Mary, only a little nicer, and 
her heart yearns to equip them with trousers and dresses and a copy of the New 
Testament, and to supply them with ice-cream cones. And so she plies her needle for 
their sake and puts her mite in the collection box, blissfully unaware that the darling 
objects of her concern are no more real than Lewis Carroll's Sylvie and Bruno. It is also a 
commonplace phenomenon that whenever some particularly vicious young brute has 
rearranged his wife's anatomy with an axe, a certain number of females will generate 
pictures of a dear misunderstood boy and write him offers of marriage, and a much larger 
number of females, seeing the same vision but less impulsive in their behavior, will hope 



that, at the very worst, the parole board will turn the lad loose in a year or two so that he 
can resume his amateur surgery. The phenomenon is not by any means confined to the 
more lachrymose sex, and we see instances of it every day. We enact laws to discourage 
people who see pink elephants on the wall from driving automobiles, but we do nothing 
about the far graver problem of preventing people who see World Peace around the 
corner from voting. 

Our hyperactive imaginations usually act in concert with the generous impulses that are 
peculiar to our race — so peculiar that no other race can understand them except as a kind 
of fatuity from which they, thank God! are exempt. Long before we began to indulge in 
international idiocy on a governmental scale, it was virtually routine for Americans to 
hear that the Chinese in some province were starving, and within a few weeks numerous 
individuals, many of them comparatively poor, made private contributions, and food was 
bought and shipped to the starving (if the collections were honestly made). Now I do not 
deprecate that exercise of charily, which is a virtue that we instinctively admire, but we 
should understand that although the Chinese gladly ate the food and politely said "thank 
you," they privately concluded that we must be weak in the head. They would never have 
done anything of that sort, not even for men of their own race in a neighboring province. 
The White Devils, they decided, must have maggots in their minds. Sympathetic 
generosity, however, is a virtue or vice of our race, and we shall have to live with it. 

What happened in the Eighteenth Century was that Rousseau's fantasies so excited 
imaginations and generous impulses that the reasoning mind lost control. The nobility's 
collective heart bled for Little Nell. 

There is, however, a second factor more important for our purposes here. You will find a 
clear illustration in our recent history, during the presidency of Woodrow Wilson, who 
appears to have been a not uncommon combination of mental auto-intoxication with 
corrupt ambition, and who was appointed President after the resident General Manager, 
Barney Baruch, and his crew had (as one of them boasted to Colonel Dall) led him 
around "like a poodle on a string," taught him to sit up and bark for bonbons, and made 
sure that he was well trained. As we all know, Baruch eventually decided that it would be 
good for the Jewish people to prolong the war in Europe, so that more Indo-Europeans 
would be killed and more of their countries devastated, and that the time had come to 
repay Germany and Austria for their generosity toward the Jews, who had been given in 
those countries more of economic, social, and political dominance than in any other 
European nation. It followed therefore that the thing to do was to stampede an American 
herd into European territory. 

Our concern here is with the herd: what set it in motion? We all know how credulous 
individuals, many of whom had visited Germany and knew better, were impelled to 
imagine pictures of the evil War Lord, Kaiser Wilhelm II, and the terrible Huns — pictures 
that were as vivid and convincing as the vision of the monster Grendel that we see every 
time we read Beowulf. And, of course, there was much rant about supposed violations of 
a code of chivalry that no one even remembered a few years later. A college professor 
with some reputation as an historian was hired, doubtless for a small fee, to prove that 



wars are caused by monarchies, although he somehow forgot to mention the terribly 
bloody war that had taken place on our soil some fifty years before and which had 
obviously been caused by the dynastic ambitions of King Lincoln and King Davis. And, 
naturally, the press was filled with many other ravings. So pretty soon the Americans 
found themselves engaged in a "war to end wars" and a "war to make the world safe for 
democracy." It would probably have been a little more expensive — good propaganda 
costs money — to make them fight a "war to end selfishness" and a "war to make the 
world safe for goblins," but it doubtless could have been done. Green snakes are not 
much harder to see on the wall than pink elephants. 

We must not tarry to discuss either the methods of the conspirators who so easily 
manipulated the American people or the folly of those who were manipulated. Let us 
consider our enthusiastic rush on Europe as an historical movement. 

If, taking the larger view, you ask yourself what that movement most resembled, you will 
see the answer at once. It was a crusade — or, to be more exact, an obscene parody of a 
crusade. It was a mass movement inspired by a fervor of religious intensity. 

The Crusades, which mark the high tide of Christianity, were (given our faith) entirely 
rational undertakings.* It was obviously desirable that Christendom own the territory that 
was a Holy Land, where its God had appeared on earth and whither many pilgrims 
journeyed for the welfare of their souls. The Crusades were, furthermore, the first real 
effort of European unity since the fall of the Roman Empire, and they were also a 
realistic missionary effort. It was impossible to convert Orientals to Christianity, but it 
was possible to make Orientals submit to Christian rulers. The Crusaders established the 
Kingdoms of Cyprus and Jerusalem and the Principalities of Edessa, Tripoli, and Antioch 
— and eventually they found it necessary to capture Constantinople. But they could not 
take Bagdad and their high emprise ultimately failed for reasons which need not concern 
us here. The Crusades were, as we have said, the high tide of Christianity. 

(* Except, of course, the so-called Children's Crusade, which is significant only as 
evidence that even at that early date some members of our race had a pathological 
propensity to have hallucinatory imaginations.) 

Wilson's fake crusades against Europe evoked from the American people the energies 
and spirit that the real Crusades had aroused in Europe, and while we must deplore their 
delusions, we must admire the unanimity and devotion with which the Americans 
attacked and fought the Europeans.* The crusade was irrational, however, because it was 
prompted, not by religion, but by the debased and debasing superstitions represented by 
Rousseau. 

(* Of course, we did not actually fight Great Britain, France, and Russia, our ostensible 
allies; they were defeated in other ways.) 

From about the middle of the Eighteenth Century to the present we have witnessed the 
spread and propagation throughout the West of a superstition that is as un-Christian as it 



is irrational, as obviously contrary to the Scriptures and tradition of Christianity as it is a 
blanket denial of the reality that all men see and experience every day — a superstition by 
which faith in an unseen God is replaced by hallucinations about the world in which we 
live. After that grotesque superstition inspired the most civilized and intelligent part of 
France to commit suicide, and loosed the frenzied orgy of depravity, crime, and murder 
called the French Revolution, its influence was contracted by a resurgence of both 
Christian faith and human reason, but recovering its malefic power over the imagination 
and sentimentality of our people, it grew again and as a succedaneous religion it 
gradually supplanted Christianity in the consciousness of both unintelligent non- 
Christians and infidel Christians, paralyzing both reason and faith. 

This grotesque caricature of religion is now the dominant cult in the United States: its 
marabouts yell from almost all the pulpits; its fetish-men brandish their obscene idols 
before all the children in the schools; its witch-doctors prance triumphantly through all 
the colleges and universities. And virtually everyone stands in fearful awe of the fanatical 
practitioners of mumbo-jumbo. Both the God of Christendom and the reasoning mind of 
our race have been virtually obliterated by the peculiar system of voodoo called 
"Liberalism." 

It is obvious that this mass delusion is leading, and can lead, to but one end. James 
Burnham named it correctly in his generally excellent book, Suicide of the West. 

It can be argued — and argued very plausibly — that a race that could long accept the 
"Liberal" voodoo-cult as a substitute for both its religion and its powers of observation 
and reason — a race capable of such mindless orgies as a "war to end wars" — a race that 
has for decades worked to commit suicide — is a race that has become too imbecile to be 
biologically viable. It is entirely possible that our unique capacity for science and 
technology will, after all, be no more effective in the struggle for life than was the vast 
bulk and musculature of the dinosaurs. It may be that any attempt to reason with a people 
seemingly in the grip of suicidal mania is itself the greatest folly, and that the vainest of 
all illusions is the hope that anything can save men who evidently no longer want to live. 

If we permit ourselves as Christians any hope this side of Heaven, and if we permit 
ourselves as atheists any hope at all, we must base that expectation on the hypothesis that 
the collapse of Christendom, the loss of faith in the religion of the West, was a traumatic 
shock to our racial psyche that stunned but did not kill. If that is so, then there is hope not 
only that we may revive from the shock and survive, but also that the unique powers of 
our unique race may again be exerted to give us a future that will be brilliant, glorious, 
and triumphant beyond all imagining. If that is so. . . . 

The question is one that only the future can answer. But a significant indication will be 
given by the attitude and action of the Christian minority that has thus far been the only 
defender of our race, the only champion of our embezzled heritage. Will they be willing 
to face, as did their ancestors in the great Crusade, the fact that wars are won only by 
mobilizing and directing superior force against the enemy; that pious sermons, Scriptural 
citations and benevolent intentions never turned a single spear or blunted a single blade; 



and that if Christians had put their trust in miracles, they would long since have 
disappeared from the face of the earth? Christendom survived at Chalons, and at Tours, 
and at Vienna, and in many another crisis, not by book, bell, and candle, but by grace of 
the shining sword in a mailed fist directed by a dauntless heart. 



POSTSCRIPT 



The foregoing pages were written in March and April, 1969, as a sequel to my article, 
"After Fifty Years," and were to be published first as a series of articles and then as a 
booklet on behalf of the newly formed National Youth Alliance. The first chapter 
appeared in the Summer (1969) issue of the American Mercury, but the rest of the work 
was withdrawn as soon as I had reason to apprehend that the Youth Alliance, contrary to 
the assurances given its sponsors (Professor Austin J. App, Mr. Richard Cotten, Admiral 
John G. Crommelin, General Pedro del Valle, the Reverend Mr. Ferrell Griswold, and 
myself), would be turned into one of the sucker-list operations that now constitute the 
principal business of the American "right-wing."* 

(* My apprehensions were soon verified and the original Alliance came to an end. What I 
have said above implies no criticism of the legitimate successor organisation, the 
National Youth Alliance headed by Dr. William Pierce, which has my best wishes, 
although I have no connection with it.) 

I was unwilling to have the booklet published under other auspices because conversations 
with some very influential Christians showed me the futility of trying to talk sense to 
them. Their plan for salvaging the nation consisted of cursing the Jews and repudiating 
reason by reciting the mantram, "A little child shall lead them." They could not remember 
that precisely that phrase had been the inspiration of the Children's Crusade, which 
succeeded only in filling the slave-markets of the Near East with a choice breed of biped 
cattle. 

I also observed that, on the whole, American "conservatives" and "anti-Communists" 
seem to be either unwilling or unable to learn anything from the total and unmitigated 
failure of all their efforts for the past fifty years. They have dwindled to a little band of 
aged and aging men and women who now can talk only to themselves, repeating ever 
more shrilly their futile anachronisms, closing their eyes more tightly to avoid seeing the 
world of today, and retreating ever farther into a realm of fantasy filled with good fairies 
and wicked witches who can be summoned or exorcised with magic words. And they 
have, inadvertently and unwittingly, made patriotic organizations almost a monopoly of 
confidence men who cynically sell them fallacious hopes and comforting fictions. 

Many well-meaning, estimable, and voluntarily blind Americans seem to derive 
satisfaction from writing cheques whenever a sucker-list operator has his computer write 
them an "urgent" letter promising the impossible; from imagining that they can hire a 
lobbyist so glib that he can talk 370 congressmen into committing political suicide; from 
going to cozy little chapter-meetings to hear the latest version of Little Red Riding-Hood 
and the Bad Old Wolf, composed by an expert with just the right sequence of phrases to 
excite their imaginations, flatter their egos, soothe their nerves, and stimulate their hands 
as they reach once again for the well-worn billfolds. No one would question their right to 
purchase consoling illusions, any more than he would question their right to put their 



money on the horses at Saratoga or to make the rounds of the clip-joints on Montmatre, 
but their very eagerness for such distractions seemed evidence of an invincible 
determination never to find out that the United States passed the point of no return in 
1964. 

As Professor Andrew Hacker cheerfully assures us in The End of the American Era 
(1970), the United States has ceased to be a nation: "What was once a nation has become 
simply an agglomeration of self-concerned individuals." Despite the assumptions made 
by jabbering politicians and journalists, the United States has become a territory filled 
with bewildered individuals who have in common only a geographical area inhabited by 
incompatible races. Our "history as a nation has reached its end" because "the American 
people have never developed a feeling for history." We have been so crazed by the 
debasing superstitions of "democracy" and "humanitarianism," our minds have been so 
thoroughly sabotaged by the witch-doctors in the public schools, and our society has been 
so rotted by feckless sentimentality that we have reached "a juncture at which it becomes 
pointless to call for rehabilitation or renewal." Professor Hacker optimistically thinks it 
likely that our amorphous horde can continue to exist for some time in ever increasing 
discomfort, disorder, degradation, and danger — provided no healthy nation desires our 
territory and sees the advantages of using its present population to fertilize the depleted 
soil. 

Although our people will not believe it so long as the routine of their personal lives is not 
suddenly and violently disturbed, we have ceased to be a nation because Americans no 
longer have the will to be one. That is the conclusion reached by Professor Hacker, a 
diligent observer who cannot be suspected of having the slightest taint of "conservatism" 
(to say nothing of horrid "racism"!), and whose sympathies, evidently, lie with the very 
forces that he identifies as the cause of our national decease. 

The last years of the late Whittaker Chambers were overshadowed by a bleak pessimism 
of which some adumbrations appear in the pages of his Witness and the posthumous 
book, Cold Friday (1964). He was convinced that the American people are actuated by a 
subconscious, but ineradicable and irresistible, death-wish — a subliminal longing for 
extinction that makes them turn in fury on anyone who tries to make possible their 
survival. Before his death in 1962 so drastic a conclusion, extending the effects of morbid 
psychological states and degenerative diseases to an entire population or even an entire 
race, seemed highly improbable and could be dismissed as a reflection of the bitterness of 
his own experience. But another decade has produced no evidence that Chambers was not 
right. We usually tell ourselves that our domestic enemies have stealthily captured all of 
our means of information and communication, and now administer through the schools, 
the liepapers, and the boob-tubes a corrosive brainwashing that accounts for the ovine 
apathy of our people as they are herded toward national suicide, but it seems a little odd 
that our people should have been so obtuse as to permit that capture, and we cannot 
categorically deny that what we optimistically attribute to systematic brainwashing may 
have a deeper and hidden cause. 



Our race is a biological species and it would be the wildest megalomania to pretend that 
we are exempt from any of the laws of nature, including those that we cannot yet 
precisely define. Innumerable other species, less loquacious than ours, have become 
extinct because they did not have the intelligence to cope with relatively slight changes in 
their environment. The dinosaurs, the pterodactyls, the mammoths, the Neanderthals, and 
the moas cannot have had the capacity for ratiocination on which we pride ourselves, but 
it is not impossible that when their environment no longer matched the conditions in 
which the species had become dominant, the resulting frustration of some inherited 
instinct produced in the individuals of the doomed species behavior that resembled a 
subconscious awareness that they were biologically obsolete. In some species that are 
now becoming extinct, notably the mountain gorilla, we can observe a depletion of the 
vital energies and a resulting apathy that can be described as loss of the will to live. 

A gorilla cannot reason. As he shambles toward a new growth of esculent young bamboo, 
his dim consciousness doubtless is filled by satisfaction with himself and feels no 
concern for the future; when he slinks away from some challenge that would have roused 
his ancestors to combat, he does not need to cover his cowardice with a pretense that he 
has become morally superior and a peace-lover. He cannot know that his contented 
apathy manifests a genetic deterioration that dooms his species to proximate extinction. 

Our race is a biological species, and our peculiar intelligence, like the gorilla's mighty 
shoulders, once gave us dominance over other species. But what we must now 
objectively observe in our behavior is not really the gorilla's apathy. It is something 
much worse: a perverse and idiotic delight in whatever weakens us and strengthens our 
enemies. This morbid racial masochism is now most conspicuous in the United States and 
Britain, where we are not only doing everything in our power to subsidize and accelerate 
the breeding of voracious parasites to impoverish, degrade, and destroy us, but are also 
applying the most effective biological techniques to breed ourselves into imbecility and 
eventual extinction. 

Six years ago in my Conspiracy or Degeneracy? I asked the one crucial question: Have 
we, the men of the West, lost the will to live? 

Nothing, certainly, has happened since then to suggest a negative answer. To be sure, 
after some sensationally flagitious outrage to our race, a considerable number of men, 
invariably the least "educated," mutter angrily among themselves; and in a city of almost 
two million some fifty men and women may boldly assemble to voice their protest, thus 
embarrassing the vast majority of Aryans, who hasten to assure the world that their heads 
are so stuffed with mush that they love their Enemies and hope for nothing better than the 
privilege of being spat-on and kicked some more. And if the outrage is widely reported, 
the computers will whirr more loudly as they churn out appeals to patriotic suckers, and 
the travelling salesmen will drive harder as they rush from chapter-meeting to chapter- 
meeting to meet a temporarily increased demand for patriotic paregoric to soothe nervous 
stomachs. Nowhere can one discern the slightest indication that in the great majority of 
our people the racial instinct of self-preservation has not been lost. 



The question remains unanswered, however, for we cannot yet determine whether the 
instinct has been extinguished or is merely in abeyance while our people are in a kind of 
cataleptic trance from which they may be roused by physical suffering and acute 
privation when the times comes, as it assuredly will in a few years. In the meantime the 
question remains open, although our fragmentary data point to an affirmative answer — to 
the loss of the will to live. The laws of biological processes, like the law of gravitation, 
are constant and unalterable; they cannot be evaded by magic or oratory or whimpering; 
and it would be supremely silly to expostulate with a people that is not biologically fit to 
survive. 

All these considerations confirmed my decision to withhold these pages from the press. 

This booklet is now published at the instance of Mr. Richard Cotten, who refuses to 
despair of the future, and who has himself set an example of perseverance in the face of 
great odds. 

There are a few encouraging indications. The greatest of these is the publication and 
increasingly wide distribution of a very important volume, entitled The Dispossessed 
Majority by Wilmot Robertson. This is the first attempt to survey the present plight of the 
American people coolly and objectively in terms of fact and logic, without mysticism or 
sentimentality, transcending the self-imposed and self-defeating limitations of the "anti- 
Communists" who have failed totally and continuously for fifty years. It is addressed to 
the large number of highly intelligent and scientifically trained men who find it 
impossible to believe in Christianity, and who should find it impossible to tolerate the 
preposterous and fetid superstitions of our "Liberal" witch-doctors and fetish-men — 
superstitions, by the way, that "anti-Communist" buncombe-artists have always been 
careful not to offend. 

The author, who is a man of keen and discerning intellect, and who has devoted ten years 
of his life to his task, believes that it is yet possible to salvage much from the ruins of our 
nation. In a man of his intelligence, such optimism is in itself grounds for some hope. 

There are some corroborative indications. I am reliably informed that a number of 
"Liberal intellectuals," who seemed to be devotees of their orgiastic cult, have read 
Robert Ardrey's new book, The Social Contract, and, instead of howling execrations and 
trying to scalp the author, as is the custom of "Liberals" when confronted with 
inconvenient facts, they not only understood it but have begun to talk rationally about the 
structure of human society. That could be the beginning of a true enlightenment. 

There are signs that many thoughtful men are becoming skeptical or disillusioned, and 
question, at least in their own minds, the prevalent superstitions. I cannot believe that so 
staunch a "Liberal" as Professor Hacker, whose book I mentioned above, is really pleased 
with the results that he observed and felt obliged to report. Recently Professor William 
Shockley of Stanford and Professor Arthur Jensen of California dared to suggest openly 
that the scientific method and the known laws of biology were applicable to blacks; of 
course, mobs of Professors of Voodoo and Doctors of Obeah rushed out of their lairs, 



screaming, spitting, and wildly flourishing their fetishes. The obscene exhibition, 
however, and the bold claim that it is the function of universities to paralyze the 
American mind with lies, disquieted many men who, preoccupied with other studies, had 
not taken time to think about egalitarian idolatry. 

This one exposure of "Liberal" charlatanry, obscurantism, and fanaticism may have done 
more good than all the preaching of "anti-Communist" evangelists for half a century. 

There are also some encouraging signs of a disposition in some "conservative" circles to 
discuss questions normally charged with emotion by dispassionately considering the 
evidence. In my Conspiracy or Degeneracy? ', note 45a, I mentioned the existence of data 
that may indicate that our race is mentally inferior to the Jews, and I intimated that it 
would be futile to haul in Satan to explain away evidence of crucial importance that 
needed to be examined with all of our race's capacity for objective thought. It is 
gratifying, therefore, that the problem has been considered coolly in the light of social 
structure and biological forces by Mr. Ivor Benson in a short but very valuable article that 
has been reprinted in this country in Conservative Viewpoint (July, 1972) and in the 
British periodical, Spearhead (July, 1972). The reader may also profit from this reminder 
that the dereliction and "alienation" that is destroying a large part of our genetically 
sound youth is mainly caused by ignorant or cunning frustration of basic human instincts 
of which the biological origin was clearly explained in Robert Ardrey's The Territorial 
Imperative (1966) as well as in his latest book. Benson's monthly bulletin, Behind the 
News, is peppered with Scriptural quotations and evidently addressed primarily to a 
Christian audience. That makes the article particularly encouraging. 

These and some other indications that I need not enumerate may warrant some hope, but 
we must understand that it is hope of surviving the calamities that we in our folly have 
brought upon ourselves. There can be no hope of escaping them by floating back to 1928 
on the magic carpet that the travelling salesmen of pseudo-patriotic businesses promise 
their customers. What is gone cannot be restored by telling how nice it was; what is dead 
cannot be resurrected by necromancy, no matter how eloquent the incantation. 

It is true that the part of our population that pays taxes still works, receives bogus money 
that it can still spend, can still amuse itself in its hours of leisure, and, with the exception 
of individuals who have been robbed, raped, or crippled, can still pretend that everything 
is nearly normal and will stay that way forever. But no one who gives a moment's 
thought to the news that cannot be kept out of the daily papers can fail to see the extent of 
our social disintegration and decay, or to guess how deep the rot goes. 

The limits of what can now be accomplished by "political action" were clearly 
demonstrated a few days ago, when many American watched, in addition to football and 
with almost as much interest, the staged game that was played to make it seem that "the 
people" were selecting an office boy to run errands in the White House for Commissar 
Kissinger or whomever our masters may appoint to succeed Kissinger as Chief 
Executive. The "conservative principles" of the "American businessman" are now 
exhibited by his joyous expectation that he can make a few bucks out of trading with our 



enemies in Russia and China at the expense of the taxpaying serfs in the United States. 
The economic status of our ruined nation is apparent to professional economists, who 
now speculate only about the date at which the counterfeit dollars printed by the Federal 
Reserve will be declared worthless and replaced by new counterfeits. And the goals of 
"education" are made more obvious by the "university" in California that has proudly 
established a special "curriculum" for homosexuals. 

If you listen perceptively to the young who have not yet been permanently deranged by 
drugs and depravity, you will see that their febrile emotionalism, their promiscuity, their 
ostentatious clamor or indifference, their mercurial inconstancy, all mask an underlying 
and subconscious despair that is terribly significant. And now everyone knows that the 
peace-lubbers' efforts to sabotage our army and navy and to reduce us to military 
impotence have been successful, and that even if we had the will, we should not have the 
capacity to defend this country against the Soviet Union, should its masters order an 
attack on us. 

Our situation is desperate, and we can afford no illusions, no retreat into a land of 
dreams. Now, more than ever, optimism is cowardice. 

We are born into this time, and there is no escape from it save in death. If the courage of 
our ancestors was not entombed with them, if their ability to meet desperate perils with 
clear-sighted resolution was transmitted to their heirs, if their will to live is not extinct in 
us, our race and our civilization may yet survive. 

If, as I am told, this little booklet can make even the slightest contribution to our survival, 
its publication is justified. 

I have consented to the publication in the hope that it may clarify for some readers the 
function of Christianity in our history, and also that it may persuade some of the 
remaining Christians that, however strong and assured their personal faith may be, and 
however perfect the peace and beatitude they will enjoy in Heaven, they are now living in 
a world that is governed by impersonal and immutable laws of nature from which there 
can be no derogation and no appeal, and of which it is childish to complain. If they wish 
to provide, if possible, a place on this planet for their progeny, their only hope must be 
based on our science and technology and on our race's capacity for objective thought, 
which our shamans and howling dervishes have been intensively sabotaging for decades 
under the guise of "education" and "social science," and which will shortly be attacked by 
a carefully planned epidemic of occult hocus-pocus and orgiastic irrationality, designed 
to destroy forever what is left of our sanity. 

The behavior of the Christian remnant at this juncture and the extent of its ability to 
subordinate religious emotions to the grim task of racial survival will be a datum to be 
considered if you try to guess whether the future holds for us more than a day on which 
the crucial question will have been definitively answered — when the Americans will have 
been the only people in history compulsively and yet knowingly to commit suicide, and 
when all that is left of them will lie forgotten in dishonored tombs. 



20 November 1972