Category: Jean-Jacques Rousseau

Reflections of an Aryan woman, 16

Post author By C .T.
Post date September 24, 2021
1 Comment on Reflections of an Aryan woman, 16

But Kant—so independent and so strong in the field of criticism of knowledge—had a moral teacher, apart from the Christian teaching of his family: Jean-Jacques Rousseau, whose influence was still being felt throughout Europe at that time.

I can hardly imagine two men more different from each other than Rousseau, the perpetual wanderer, whose life was somewhat disordered, to say the least, and the meticulous Herr Professor Immanuel Kant, whose days and years were all alike, passing according to a rigorous schedule where there was not the slightest room for the unexpected or the whimsical.

Jean-Jacques Rousseau never misses an opportunity in his works to exalt ‘reason’ as well as ‘virtue’. But he seems to have had no rules of conduct other than his fantasy, or his impulses, with the result that the story of his life gives an impression of inconsistency, not to say imbalance. A poet rather than a thinker, he dreamed his existence; he did not live it—and especially not according to fixed principles.

The love he professed, whenever he could—on paper—for children, didn’t prevent him from putting his five children, one after the other, in the Assistance Publique on the pretext that the woman who had given them to him, Thérèse Levasseur, would have been incapable of bringing them up in the spirit he would have liked. And this abandonment, repeated five times, didn’t prevent him from writing a book about the education of children, and—what is worse—didn’t prevent the public from taking him seriously! He was taken seriously because, while believing himself to be highly original, he reflected the trends of his time, above all the revolt of the individual against Tradition in the name of ‘reason’.

It is not surprising that the enemy spirits of the visible traditional authorities, that is to say of kings and the clergy, should have chosen him enthusiastically as their guide, and placed the French Revolution, which they were organising, under his sign. It seems, at first sight, less natural that Kant should have been so strongly influenced by him.

But Kant was a man of his time, a time when Rousseau had seduced the European intelligentsia, partly by his poetic prose and paradoxes, partly by certain clichés, which come up everywhere in his work: the words ‘reason’, ‘conscience’ and ‘virtue’. It was these clichés that gave Kant’s limited imagination the opportunity for all the flight of which he was capable, and that gave the German philosopher the form of his morality.

The content of this morality—as indeed that of Rousseau himself and all the ‘philosophers’ of the 18th century and, before them, that of Descartes, the true spiritual father of the French Revolution—is drawn from the old foundation of Christian ethics, centred on the dogma of the ‘dignity’ of man, the only being created ‘in the image of God’, out of respect for this privileged being [red by Editor].

In other words, with meticulous honesty and quite Prussian application and perseverance, Kant tried to establish as a system the common humanitarian morality in Europe, because of Christian morality, which Rousseau had glorified in sentimental effusions: that morality which Nietzsche was one day to have the honour of demolishing with his pen, and which we were later destined to negate, by action.

______ 卐 ______

Editor’s note: By ‘later’ she probably meant during the Third Reich. Unlike the Nazis, American white nationalists continue to subscribe to Christian ethics, including atheists. Incidentally, why ‘Rousseau’s babble was utter nonsense’, as Revilo Oliver wrote, can be seen: here.

Does my audience begin to tell the difference between a common white nationalist and a priestess (or priest) of the 14 words?

Charles Darwin Eugenics Exterminationism French Revolution Friedrich Nietzsche Industrial Revolution Jean-Jacques Rousseau

Great personalities defend eugenics, 4

Post author By C .T.
Post date August 8, 2019
2 Comments on Great personalities defend eugenics, 4

by Evropa Soberana

Eugenics is born

From the racial point of view, the effects of the French Revolution are detestable. With the aristocracy traditionally associated with the Nordic aspect, it was common for many individuals to be executed only because they had very Nordish features, even if they were not aristocrats!

Although the Revolution boasted of being a popular reaction against absolutism, sixty percent of the guillotined were simple French peasants. Such level of revolutionary hysteria was reached by the hand of unbalanced and decadent pseudo-intellectuals, belonging precisely to the high social classes, such as Rousseau, alienated and with illuminist pretensions, dazzled by the symbology of their lodges and financed by strange financial circles. A famished and illiterate plebs, elevated to the status of supreme judge, did the rest of the work.

In addition to the French Revolution and Napoleon, other processes marked the end of Christian hegemony: the Enlightenment, the American Revolution, the Industrial Revolution, and the rise of Germany, Great Britain and the United States as great powers, with Russia waiting at the side.

This did not imply, in any way, an improvement of the European race. On the contrary: the race continued to degenerate because of wars and the assistance to the useless. It simply implied that this generation had fewer taboos when it came to expressing itself. Above all, it was the scientific advances and the recovery of the Greco-Roman legacy (as well as the translation of certain Eastern sacred texts of Indo-European origin) what started a more scientific worldview.

Eugenics, which was born in England, really became a mainstream issue and commonsense, fully supported by most of the scientific community that at that time was not coerced by politically correct interests.

It was also supported and by such notable characters as Harvard professor and famous scientist Louis Agassiz, the English philosopher Herbert Spencer [1], the French F.A. Gobineau, American President Woodrow Wilson, British economist J.M. Keynes, French writer Émile Zola, American tycoon W.K. Kellogg, Scottish anthropologist and anatomist Sir Arthur Keith, British Prime Minister Arthur Balfour, famous American aviator Charles Lindberg, the Swedish composer Hugo Alfven and the British politician Sidney Webb.

All or almost all of the men that will be mentioned in this section—mostly English and American—were considered geniuses, laid the foundations of many modern scientific disciplines and were highly respected by the society of the 19th and early 20th centuries. Moreover, eugenics really was put into practice in countries considered advanced in the industrial, cultural, economic, technological and military sense, such as several states of the USA, Canada, Germany, Austria, Sweden, Denmark, Finland, Norway, Iceland, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Hungary, Switzerland and Japan.

We should not feel excessive sympathy for the social system of this era, dominated by voracious and heartless capitalism. The Industrial Revolution, which began in England spreading to Belgium, northern Germany, France, the United States and the entire West, uprooted millions of good-natured farmers from the healthy and quiet countryside, who were crowded into filthy working-class neighbourhoods, where they gradually degenerated and they became burned-out proletarians, resentful and without identity.

On top of it, the ruling class that benefited from the misery of these individuals allowed themselves the luxury of considering them inferior, while having tea with speculators and usurers. To a certain extent it is necessary to understand that this was the perfect breeding ground for the emergence of Bolshevism, and that the ruling classes of the time did not know how to provide it properly. Only the German Nazis, which I will deal with in the next section, finally had the keenness to reverse this process in a truly socialist way with their doctrine of Blut und Boden.

Another reason why I am partly glad that the eugenicists did not fully apply their policy is that the individuals mentioned here often based their selection on economic, social, cultural and productive criteria. Thus, they would not have hesitated to sterilise a tramp, perhaps even if such a tramp was not a ‘genetic homeless man’, but a worker who had bad luck and ended up in the street.

In short, they did not attempt to apply a biological criterion for the creation of a superior man, but a social criterion for the creation of a productive citizen. And the mass production of exemplary sheep without noble blood is something that does not inspire sympathy, as the goal of a true bio-policy should be the production of free and perfect human specimens physically, mentally and spiritually.

Even considering these unpleasant issues, it is unquestionable that thanks to the conditions enjoyed by the upper classes, a taste for classical literature and the absence of politically correct obstacles, science and philosophy advanced hand in hand thanks to very prepared and creative individuals who had all the time in the world to do some research.

The most alarming factor found by the first eugenicists was that, in the modern world, intelligence and fertility are inversely proportional to each other. That is to say, intelligent people have few children; they do not mate, which is a calamity. Conversely, stupid and weak folks tend to procreate prolifically, which doubles the calamity. This trend, already observable in the 19th century, continues to this day magnified as never before.

Sir Charles Darwin (1809-1882), English naturalist, explorer, rigorous and thorough scientist, and also a good writer and family man, famous for postulating the theory of evolution and natural selection.

I find funny the Darwin case. Today, liberals quote him and mention him as if Darwin’s sole objective had been to stagger the Church, trying to make it ‘progressive’, when the only archetype that Darwin embodies is that of the scientist without prejudice.

Progressives who trash Darwin’s name should know that both Darwin and natural selection are anti-progressives. Darwin, like Nature, advocated the selection and survival of the most gifted. That beauty is the outcome of sexual selection is a phrase that largely offers us the quintessence of his mentality. His book On the Origin of Species has a revealing subtitle, very politically incorrect and very little known: The Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life.

Darwin, like every good scientist, did not care about the moral dilemmas and the taboos around the ‘art of looking good’. Darwin applauded the ‘fascist’, ‘anti-Semitic’ and ‘racist’ ideas of his cousin Galton as soon as he read them, while Galton was also decisively influenced by Darwin. We can conclude, therefore, that the current PC progressive-socio-democrats who try to put Darwin in their same bag have not read Darwin:

It is very true what you say about the higher races of men, when high enough, replacing & clearing off the lower races. In 500 years how the Anglo-Saxon race will have spread & exterminated whole nations; & in consequence how much the Human race, viewed as a unit, will have risen in rank. (Charles Darwin to Charles Kingsley, 6 February 1862).

At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilised race will almost certainly exterminate, and replace, the savage races throughout the world… The break between man and his nearest allies will then be wider, for it will intervene between man in a more civilised state, as we may hope, even than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as a baboon, instead of as now between the negro or Australian [aborigine] and the gorilla. (Charles Darwin, The Descent of Man, 1871).

I could show fight on natural selection having done and doing more for the progress of civilisation than you seem inclined to admit. Remember what risks the nations of Europe ran, not so many centuries ago of being overwhelmed by the Turks, and how ridiculous such an idea now is. The more civilised so-called Caucasian races have beaten the Turkish hollow in the struggle for existence. Looking to the world at no very distant date, what an endless number of the lower races will have been eliminated by the higher civilised races throughout the world. (Charles Darwin to William Graham, 3 July 1881).

Friedrich Nietzsche (1844-1900) barely needs an introduction. One of the most read philosophers of all time, and demonstrator of ‘how to philosophise by hammering’, there are many idiot nihilists, leftists or individualists who have tried to appropriate his legacy while a reading of Nietzsche reveals, without any doubt, a pre-Nazi, racist, anti-Semitic, anti-democratic, anti-anarchist and anti-communist mentality.

1.- My demand of the philosopher is well known: that he take his stand beyond good and evil and treat the illusion of moral judgment as beneath him.

2.- A first, tentative example: at all times morality has aimed to ‘improve’ men—this aim is above all what was called morality.

To call the taming of an animal its ‘improvement’ sounds almost like a joke to our ears. Whoever knows what goes on in kennels doubts that dogs are ‘improved’ there. They are weakened, they are made less harmful, and through the depressive effect of fear, through pain, through wounds, and through hunger, they become sickly beasts. It is no different with the tamed man whom the priest has ‘improved’.

In the early Middle Ages, when the church was indeed, above all, a kennel, the most perfect specimens of the ‘blond beast’ were hunted down everywhere; and the noble Teutons, for example, were ‘improved’.

But how did such an ‘improved’ Teuton look after he had been drawn into a monastery? Like a caricature of man, a miscarriage: he had become a ‘sinner’, he was stuck in a cage, tormented with all sorts of painful concepts. And there he lay, sick, miserable, hateful to himself, full of evil feelings against the impulses of his own life, full of suspicion against all that was still strong and happy. In short, a ‘Christian’…

3.- Let us consider the other method for ‘improving’ mankind, the method of breeding a particular race or type of man. The most magnificent example of this is furnished by Indian [Aryan] morality, sanctioned as religion in the form of ‘the law of Manu’. Here the objective is to breed no less than four races within the same society: one priestly, one warlike, one for trade and agriculture, and finally a race of servants, the Sudras.

Obviously, we are no longer dealing with animal tamers: a man that is a hundred times milder and more reasonable is the only one who could even conceive such a plan of breeding. One breathes a sigh of relief at leaving the Christian atmosphere of disease and dungeons for this healthier, higher, and wider world. How wretched is the New Testament compared to Manu, how foul it smells!

Yet this method also found it necessary to be terrible—not in the struggle against beasts, but against their equivalent—the ill-bred man, the mongrel man, the chandala. And again the breeder had no other means to fight against this large group of mongrel men than by making them sick and weak. Perhaps there is nothing that goes against our feelings more than these protective measures of Indian [Aryan] morality.

Manu himself says: ‘The chandalas are the fruit of adultery, incest, and rape (crimes that follow from the fundamental concept of breeding)’.

4.- These regulations are instructive enough: we encounter Aryan humanity at its purest and most primordial; we learn that the concept of ‘pure blood’ is very far from being a harmless concept. On the other hand, it becomes obvious in which people the chandala hatred against this Aryan ‘humaneness’ has become a religion, eternalized itself, and become genius—primarily in the Gospels, even more so in the Book of Enoch.

Christianity, sprung from Jewish roots and comprehensible only as a growth on this soil, represents the counter-movement to any morality of breeding, of race, privilege: it is the anti-Aryan religion par excellence. Christianity—the revaluation of all Aryan values, the victory of chandala values, the gospel preached to the poor and base, the general revolt of all the downtrodden, the wretched, the failures, the less favoured, against ‘race’: the undying chandala hatred is disguised as a religion of love. (Twilight of the Idols, section ‘The “Improvers” of Mankind’).

Clémence Royer (1830-1902), self-taught and French anarchist who wrote and lectured on feminism, economics, politics and science. She is best known for her translation of On the Origin of Species in French.

The data of the theory of natural selection leave us no doubt that the higher races have appeared gradually and that, therefore, under the law of progress, they are destined to replace the inferior races still in development, and do not mix or merge with them, at the risk of being absorbed by them by miscegenation, reducing the middle level of the species.

In short, human races are not separate species, but rather well marked and of very uneven varieties, and it must be thought twice before promoting political and civil equality in a country with a minority of Indo-Europeans and a majority of blacks or Mongols. (Preface to her translation of On the Origin of Species, 1862.)

Sir Francis Galton (1822-1911), Darwin’s cousin, anthropologist, geographer, explorer, inventor, meteorologist, statistician and English psychologist. Galton, impressed by the theories of natural selection and survival of the fittest observed by his cousin, was the one who coined the word Eugenics (‘good birth’, or ‘birth of the good’) around 1884.

Galton advocated the prevention of the reproduction of morons, the mentally retarded and the insane—calling these measures ‘negative eugenics’ or limiting the growth of the worst—and granting certificates and economic funds to young men and women who were ‘suitable for civilisation’ so they could marry young and procreate an abundant offspring—‘positive eugenics’ or favouring the best.

Galton, a representative of a ruling Anglo-Saxon class that would remain healthy until 1939, wrote that blacks were inferior to whites and incapable of any civilisation, while Jews could only aspire to ‘parasitism’ within more gifted and capable nations.

Galton intended that eugenics (‘being well born’) become a religion, which would eventually replace Christianity. He accused Christianity for the fall of the Roman Empire; for having seriously damaged Western Civilisation by preaching pity and charity towards the useless and that ‘the weak will inherit the Earth’. He carried out an exhaustive, rigorous and scientific study of entire genealogies of illustrious characters, elaborating detailed statistics and finding—unsurprisingly—that genius is derived by inheritance and, therefore, from family.

Under his patronage the British Eugenics Society was founded in 1908, which would soon strengthen ties with similar groups in the United States.

I propose to show in this book that a man’s natural abilities are derived by inheritance, under exactly the same limitations as are the form and physical features of the whole organic world. Consequently, as it is easy, notwithstanding those limitations, to obtain by careful selection a permanent breed of dogs or horses gifted with peculiar powers of running, or of doing anything else, so it would be quite practicable to produce a highly-gifted race of men by judicious marriages during several consecutive generations. (Hereditary Genius, opening statement of the introductory chapter.)

What nature does blindly, slowly, and ruthlessly, man may do providently, quickly, and kindly. As it lies within his power, so it becomes his duty to work in that direction. The improvement of our stock seems to me one of the highest objects that we can reasonably attempt. (‘Eugenics: Its Definition, Scope, and Aims’, 1904).

[Eugenics] must be recognized as a subject whose practical development deserves serious consideration. It must be introduced into the national conscience, like a new religion. It has, indeed, strong claims to become an orthodox religious, tenet of the future, for eugenics co-operate with the workings of nature by securing that humanity shall be represented by the fittest races (Ibid).

It is neither more nor less than that the development of our nature, under Darwin’s law of Natural Selection, has not yet over-taken the development of our religious civilisation (Memories of my Life).

I take Eugenics very seriously, feeling that its principles ought to become one of the dominant motives in a civilised nation, much as if they were one of its religious tenets. I have often expressed myself in this sense, and will conclude this book by briefly reiterating my views (Ibid.).

Jack London (1876-1903), famous American writer of socialist tendency but racist, patriot, an apologist of the Anglo-Saxon and Nietzschean civilisation.

For a time he operated a cattle farm, where he became convinced that the farmers had been practicing eugenics since immemorial times.

I believe that the future human world belongs to eugenics, and will be determined by the practice of eugenics. (Letters, 376).

________

Note

[1] Herbert Spencer coined the famous phrase survival of the fittest in addition to launching the current of thought that posterity knows as ‘social Darwinism’.

1st World War Americanism Christendom Crusades Democracy Deranged altruism Egalitarianism Enlightenment Fair Race’s Darkest Hour (book) France French Revolution Jean-Jacques Rousseau Liberalism Psychology Revilo Oliver

Succedaneous religion

Or:

A race that has become too imbecile
to be biologically viable

by Revilo Oliver

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 Régime 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.

* * *

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.

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 philosophes were able to attain in their own capacious minds a far more total isolation from reality.

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 charity, 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.

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. (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.) 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 Baghdad 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.

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. (Of course, we did not actually fight Great Britain, France, and Russia, our ostensible allies; they were defeated in other ways.) The crusade was irrational, however, because it was prompted, not by religion, but by the debased and debasing superstitions represented by Rousseau.

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 above article has been excerpted from chapter 6 of Christianity and the Survival of the West and chosen for my compilation The Fair Race’s Darkest Hour.

Revilo Oliver (1908-1994) taught in the Classics Department at the University of Illinois from 1945 until his retirement in 1977. He was a master of twelve languages and especially noted as a scholar of Latin and Sanskrit. Dr. Oliver was a founder of the John Birch Society but he resigned from that organization in 1966 after its refusal to deal forthrightly with the issues of Jews and race. In 1970 and 1971, he served on the advisory board of the newly formed National Youth Alliance. During his final years of life, Dr. Oliver was on the board of directors for The Journal of Historical Review. Most movement activists, however, will remember Dr. Revilo P. Oliver as a contributor of regular articles in the monthly Liberty Bell publication.