WDH Radio Show – Episode 3

Anti-white exterminationism

— Listen to it here! —
 
WDH hosts: Joseph Walsh, Jake F. and yours truly
Special guest: Tom Goodrich

“The multicult has absolutely nothing to do with either reality or liberal, universal values of non-discrimination. The multicult is not anti-racist. The multicult is disguised anti-white racial hatred. And combined with open borders and forced integration it becomes genocidal.”

—Wandrin

 
This is the most important subject of all. If whites don’t recognize that what the Allied forces did to the Germans when my parents were children was a true Holocaust, whites will become extinct. The most serious sin of all history must be recognized and expiated.

Pay special attention to Goodrich’s Hellstorm at the sidebar’s top of this page and follow the white rabbit through the real hell that the US, the SU and the UK created for the best Aryans of modern times.

Donate button has been relocated to the bottom of this page.

Titans, 2

Food for thought from chapter 2 of March of the Titans: The Complete History of the White Race:
 
These three groups: Proto-Nordics, original Mediterraneans, and Alpines, settled large parts of Europe and the Middle East, a situation which remained stable until the entire continent was subject to invasions by Nordic tribes—called the Indo-European peoples, which started around 5000 BC.

The Indo-Europeans, the original European groups, and the Alpines, together form the basis of the white race which today inhabits Europe. These three white subgroups eventually combined to dominate territory which stretched from Britain to the Ural Mountains: from Scandinavia to North Africa and the Middle East.

Published in: on June 22, 2017 at 9:39 am  Leave a Comment  
Tags:

Siege, 5

Above a whisper

My own formal initiation into the ranks of the “hard-core” took place in the barracks and the ward rooms of the American Nazi Party headquarters in Arlington, Virginia, during the latter half of the 1960’s. There, amidst the off-hours high jinks, the “smokin’ ‘n’ jokin” typical of the paramilitary style of the day, would come forth expressions of unsanctioned, forbidden ideas of violence and revolution more closely resembling those of the Enemy we were regularly fighting in the streets of Washington, D.C., as the Vietnam War raged ten thousand miles away. We believed in what we were doing but most of us felt uncomfortable, left wanting with the current program and strategy. We wanted to attack the real Enemy, and, furthermore, we were more than tired of knocking down Enemy minions only to have them get back up later.

We openly confided among ourselves—the duty officers, the pressmen, the clerks, shippers, the rank-and-file troopers—that what was required was a gaping hole knocked in the System order-of-things so that blood could be splashed from one end of the country to the other. None of the officers ever voiced these same opinions and, to be sure, they never inquired of ours. Nothing was open for discussion between these two sharply distinct levels.

It was Right Wingism at its darkest. It was never spoken, never printed and was, in fact, taboo in official Party dealings. In those days we were still wasting our time—and our blood—defending the honor of an all-but-dead Republic against a mob of vile Jews, Liberals, Blacks, etc., demonstrating for its final demise and, in our printed propaganda, taking a futile and sado-masochistic trip by dredging up the most recent outrages committed by Blacks in the streets and Jews and traitors in the government.

The loss of Commander Rockwell was so recent and his memory so fresh then that we carried on in his absence as though we expected his eventual return. As it turned out, no one had the vaguest idea of what to do or how to do it. The prevailing school of thought was that of “Professionalism & Orthodoxy”, in other words, to continue the “1933 approach”. I recall one heated occasion when I crossed ideological and strategic swords with one junior officer at the headquarters building. I was talking then a very adolescent version of what I’m talking now and his response was that I would one day have to be “restrained”… by the Party. He hasn’t been active now in many years.

But just as vividly I recall the first snapping of the ice in the earliest springtime of our Movement as we have it today. The refreshing and invigorating changes were first provided by Dr. William Pierce, as our propaganda chief then, in his hugely effective and widely listened to “White Power Messages” that thousands of people across the country would call in to hear. He had recorded a message in reference to a certain clique of Senators and Congressmen who were busy selling-out the soldiers in Vietnam.

He concluded that one doesn’t talk against people like these, one doesn’t vote against them in the next election, one kills them. About that same time, during one of his addresses to the First Party Congress in 1969, after he had invited questions from the floor and one naive delegate asked what we should do with the White race traitors, he spoke not a word but, gesturing with thumb and index finger forming the barrel and hammer of a pistol being fired, brought the entire assembly to its feet in the loudest outburst of cheering and applause heard during that three-day gathering.

So it was out, above a whisper, and, more than that, it was official. In less than one year. Dr. Pierce was out of the Party and on his own with the endeavor he still currently heads. Through a number of cosmetic and tactical changes in style and technique, he has never in thirteen years compromised his stand as being among the foremost of the Hard Core Idealists. And whose name and organization carries more weight in Movement circles today than Dr. William Pierce and the National Alliance?

Vol. XII, #8- August, 1983

On the white sharia meme

I don’t use the white sharia meme but in my soliloquies I constantly say to myself in humorous vein: “Lo más importante de todo en la vida es que las mujeres sean lindas Caperucitas (Most important of all in life is for women to be cute Little Riding Hoods).

Yesterday Irmin Vinson, the author of an important pamphlet about Hitler, had his latest article published at Counter Currents. He cannot understand why The Daily Stormer dislikes a photo of three modern white women showing their legs. The answer is simple: because that means that they are not lindas Caperucitas.

Vinson is ten years younger than I. Younger generations are so alienated from their past that they completely ignore that old-time marriage was a rock-solid institution in the Greco-Roman world even before Christian takeover. Vinson says that he doesn’t feel the tiniest bit of hostility to the three women in the picture that the Stormer article tags as “Skanks having the time of their lives whilst their cities are conquered by foreigners?”

What Vinson cannot see is that presently women are exempted from their former responsibilities—marriage, motherhood and submissiveness. Let’s forget the white sharia meme if its Islamist implications offend you. Use instead the European fairy tale about a young girl and a Big Bad Wolf. Vinson and the effete commenters on Counter Currents are clueless that when traditional marriage is abandoned (the above pic is taken from the television adaptation of Pride and Prejudice) Western society collapses. The welfare state will become overburdened and finally crash. The demographic winter of whites will reset back to traditionalism, but this time it will be a traditionalist Sharia for a white Europe turned into a brown Eurabia.

To compete with the brown barbarians whites won’t have any choice but to return to the brutality of Ancient Rome, when the father was the judge, jury and executioner of the family (pater familias), wife included. Those who have read the newest edition of The Fair Race’s Darkest Hour will remember this passage:

In Rome the problem started right after the Second Punic War, when a vital law was abolished. Lex Oppia restricted a woman’s wealth. It forbade any woman to possess more than half an ounce of gold. Unsuccessfully, Cato the Elder opposed the abrogation of that law and Roman feminists harvested other triumphs, even in the Senate, and the trend smoothly continued up to the Christian era. By the time of the Byzantine Empire even brownish women could inherit property.

The Roman Empire disintegrated but the Middle Ages rectified Rome’s mistake throughout Europe by getting back to patriarchy. After the Enlightenment the cycle that Cato opposed started again, with women “reclaiming their rights” and writing pamphlets. The eighteenth century influenced the nineteenth century. In the United States the turning point occurred when women obtained the right to vote in 1920, although the women’s movement had started in 1848. The welfare state initiated in 1935 with Social Security and was expanded in 1965 to include Medicare. “No fault divorce” was another escalation of feminism, in addition to the 1967 initiative for affirmative action for women.

This informative piece can be read: here. Alas, many white nationalists will continue to deny that women’s lib has been as lethal ingredient for the brew that’s killing whites as Jewry.

We demand

by Joseph Goebbels

The following essay was published in the fourth
issue of Der Angriff, dated 25 July 1927.

The German people is an enslaved people. Under international law, it is lower than the worst Negro colony in the Congo. One has taken all sovereign rights from us. We are just good enough that international capital allows us to fill its money sacks with interest payments. That and only that is the result of a centuries-long history of heroism. Have we deserved it? No, and no again!

Therefore we demand that a struggle against this condition of shame and misery begin, and that the men in whose hands we put our fate must use every means to break the chains of slavery.

Three million people lack work and sustenance. The officials, it is true, work to conceal the misery. They speak of measures and silver linings. Things are getting steadily better for them, and steadily worse for us. The illusion of freedom, peace and prosperity that we were promised when we wanted to take our fate in our own hands is vanishing. Only complete collapse of our people can follow from these irresponsible policies.

Thus we demand the right of work and a decent living for every working German.

While the front soldier was fighting in the trenches to defend his fatherland, some Eastern Jewish profiteer robbed him of hearth and home. The Jew lives in the palaces and the proletarian, the front soldier, lives in holes that do not deserve to be called “homes.” That is neither necessary nor unavoidable, but rather an injustice that cries out to the heavens. A government that stands by and does nothing is useless and must vanish, the sooner the better.

Therefore we demand homes for German soldiers and workers. If there is not enough money to build them, drive the foreigners out so that Germans can live on German soil.

Our people is growing, others diminishing. It will mean the end of our history if a cowardly and lazy policy takes from us the posterity that will one day be called to fulfill our historical mission.

Therefore we demand land on which to grow the grain that will feed our children.

While we dreamed and chased strange and unreachable fantasies, others stole our property. Today some say this was an act of God. Not so. Money was transferred from the pockets of the poor to the pockets of the rich. That is cheating, shameless, vile cheating!

A government presides over this misery that in the interests of peace and order one cannot really discuss. We leave it to others to judge whether it represents Germany’s interests or those of our capitalist tormenters.

We however demand a government of national labor, statesmen who are men and whose aim is the creation of a German state.

These days anyone has the right to speak in Germany—the Jew, the Frenchman, the Englishman, the League of Nations, the conscience of the world, and the Devil knows who else. Everyone but the German worker. He has to shut up and work. Every four years he elects a new set of torturers, and everything stays the same. That is unjust and treasonous. We need tolerate it no longer. We have the right to demand that only Germans who build this state may speak, those whose fate is bound to the fate of their fatherland.

Therefore we demand the destruction of the system of exploitation! Up with the German worker’s state!

Germany for the Germans!

Published in: on June 20, 2017 at 8:18 am  Comments (6)  
Tags:

Greg Johnson

“Greg, you do good sermons. Perhaps you missed your calling.”

Johnson’s fan

Swedenborgian Church (San Francisco, California)

It’s true what I said earlier today: that in a dispute between White Nationalists I don’t take sides—because I am not a WN. But I’d like to rephrase what I already wrote on December 2012 about Johnson:

Take note of what he said in a 2010 lecture at the Swedenborgian Church of San Francisco. The lecture was “outed” in the WN community, much to his embarrassment. At the Swedenborgian meeting Johnson said:

“What most inspired me was his [Emanuel Swedenborg’s] discussion of the life of Christ and the meaning and the mystery of that… Swedenborg gave us the means to understand that mystery.”

After quoting Scripture Johnson asked, “What does it mean to say that ‘God is with us’?” and went into a theological peroration where he added:

“…a child was born. A child that somehow was the God of eternity. This unique incarnation is the great mystery. It is the conundrum of theologians and metaphysicians. Why was Jesus born? Why did God become man? Swedenborg claims that this was not part of Plan A… Jesus was Plan B… because of certain contingencies that [should not have] happened.”

Johnson then used autobiographical vignettes mentioning his childhood and his father to illustrate “Plan B,” presumably what God felt obliged to do when mankind fell into the original sin. He even mentioned the word “salvation.” At some point Johnson seemed to endorse the infinitely monstrous belief that it’s within God’s freedom to send us to Hell. (As an aside, see my piece on eternal damnation: here.) After speculating on the Second Coming, Johnson finished his lecture with an “Amen” and the Swedenborgians started to pray.

Listen this audio to hear, in Johnson’s own voice, his traditional homily. It sounds like the Catholic doctrine I was taught as a kid before my First Communion.

Johnson has been both a critic of Christianity on his webzine, and a pious Christian at his church in San Francisco. He literally had it both ways before his activities with the Swedenborgians were outed. As to his other persona, take note of what Johnson commented on The Occidental Observer:

[Christianity] did undermine racial exclusivity for nearly 2,000 years. Racial and subracial differences were no bar to marriage, as long as both parties were Christian.

And on another WN forum:

Christianity will not be dead until its secular offspring, liberal universalism, is dead as well. But you know that, don’t you? Christian fanatics are precisely the ones who believe that blood differences don’t matter.

See my brief collection of anti-Christian comments authored by Johnson: here. Even today, five years after I wrote the above, Johnson still can’t see that misleading both his WN readership and his church was wrong.

Published in: on June 19, 2017 at 5:09 pm  Comments (3)  
Tags:

Raciology, 4

Eugenics

Joseph Deniker’s contribution to racist theory was La Race nordique, a generic, racial-stock descriptor, which the American eugenicist Madison Grant (1865-1937) presented as the white racial engine of world civilisation. Having adopted Ripley’s three-race European populace model, but disliking the “Teuton” race name, he transliterated la race nordique into “The Nordic race,” the acme of the concocted racial hierarchy, based upon his racial classification theory, popular in the 1910s and 1920s.

Statens institut för rasbiologi and its director Herman Lundborg in Sweden were active in racist research. Furthermore, much of early research on Ural-Altaic languages was coloured by attempts at justifying the view that European peoples east of Sweden were Asian and thus of inferior race, justifying colonialism, eugenics and racial hygiene.

In the United States, scientific racism justified African slavery to assuage moral opposition to the Atlantic slave trade. Alexander Thomas and Samuell Sillen described black men as uniquely fitted for bondage, because of their “primitive psychological organisation.”

At the time of the American Civil War (1861-65), the matter of miscegenation prompted studies of ostensible physiological differences between Caucasians and Negroes.Early anthropologists, such as Josiah Clark Nott, George Robins Gliddon, Robert Knox and Samuel George Morton aimed to scientifically prove that Negroes were a human species different from the white people species; that the rulers of Ancient Egypt were not African; and that mixed-race offspring (the product of miscegenation) tended to physical weakness.

After the Civil War, Southern (Confederacy) physicians wrote textbooks of scientific racism based upon studies claiming that black freemen (ex-slaves) were becoming extinct, because they were inadequate to the demands of being a free man—implying that black people benefited from enslavement.

In South Africa white scientists, like Dudly Kidd, who published The essential Kafir in 1904, sought to “understand the African mind.” They believed that the cultural differences between whites and blacks in South Africa might be caused by physiological differences in the brain. Rather than suggesting that Africans were “overgrown children,” as early white explorers had, Kidd believed that Africans were “misgrown with a vengeance.” He described Africans as at once “hopelessly deficient,” yet “very shrewd.”

Madison Grant’s The Passing of the Great Race (1916) was “the most influential tract of American scientific racism.” In the 1920s-30s, the German racial hygiene movement embraced Grant’s Nordic theory. Alfred Ploetz (1860-1940) coined the term Rassenhygiene in Racial Hygiene Basics (1895), and founded the German Society for Racial Hygiene in 1905. The movement advocated selective breeding, compulsory sterilisation, and a close alignment of public health with eugenics.

Racial hygiene was historically tied to traditional notions of public health, but with emphasis on heredity—what philosopher and historian Michel Foucault has called state racism.

In 1869, Francis Galton (1822-1911) proposed the first social measures meant to preserve or enhance biological characteristics, and later coined the term “eugenics.”

Galton, a statistician, introduced correlation and regression analysis and discovered regression toward the mean. He was also the first to study human differences and inheritance of intelligence with statistical methods. He introduced the use of questionnaires and surveys to collect data on population sets, which he needed for genealogical and biographical works and for anthropometric studies. Galton also founded psychometrics, the science of measuring mental faculties, and differential psychology, a branch of psychology concerned with psychological differences between people rather than common traits.

In 1901 Galton, Karl Pearson (1857-1936) and Walter F. R. Weldon (1860-1906) founded the Biometrika scientific journal, which promoted biometrics and statistical analysis of heredity.

Charles Davenport (1866-1944) was briefly involved in the review. In Race Crossing in Jamaica (1929), he made statistical arguments that biological and cultural degradation followed white and black interbreeding. Davenport was connected to Nazi Germany before and during World War II. In 1939 he wrote a contribution to the Festschrift for Otto Reche (1879-1966), who became an important figure within the plan to remove populations considered inferior from eastern Germany.

Published in: on June 19, 2017 at 9:58 am  Leave a Comment  

Books for Germans

Germans who want to read relevant literature in their native language can purchase books here (my humble Daybreak Publications only has one title in German, William Pierce’s Jäger).

Update: Today Richard Spencer and Greg Johnson are fighting over the forums (see e.g., Spencer’s Twitter and Facebook accounts and Johnson’s webzine). Of course: those of us who sympathize with National Socialism don’t take sides in personal disputes between white nationalists. We have more important stuff to read…

Published in: on June 19, 2017 at 9:44 am  Comments (2)  

Julian, 4

Julian presiding at a conference of Sectarians
(Edward Armitage, 1875)

 

Libanius to Priscus

Antioch, April 380

You cannot imagine the pleasure I experienced when your letter was brought to me this evening. So eager was I to hear your voice again, as it were, that I fear I ripped the fastenings and tore the long-awaited page itself. But rest assured, your precious letter will be mended with glue and cherished, since any utterance of your genius is an essential reflection of the Hellenic spirit to be passed on to those who come after.

Let me say right off how pleased I am to learn of your unflagging sexual vigour. It is always inspiring to the rest of us to learn that in certain rare human beings the usual cycle of sad decline does not obtain. You have been indeed favoured by the gods and in your obvious enjoyment of that favour will never sigh at eighty, as did Sophocles, “At last I am free of a cruel and insane master!”

Your master is obviously a good companion, made even more enjoyable by Hippia’s acquiescence. Not many wives of philosophers would allow their husbands freedom to consort with those deliciously civilised ladies of Athens whose evening parties used to delight me in my student days. Now of course my life is devoted to philosophy and affairs of state. I leave to younger men the charms of Aphrodite… to younger men and now, Priscus, to you, who have held at arm’s length the villain time! Fortunate man! Fortunate girls to be so loved!

Since I wrote you last, I have not been idle. Through the office of the praetorian prefect at Constantinople, I have proposed myself for an audience with the Emperor. Theodosius has met very few people of our set, coming as he does from Spain, a country not noted for culture. He also belongs to a military family and there is no evidence that he has ever studied philosophy.

Outside of politics, his principal interest is breeding sheep. But he is only thirty-three and his character, according to the best information available, is mild. Though we should not count on this. How often in the past have we been horrified by princes reputed to be good who, when raised to the throne of the world, have turned monstrous before our eyes! The late Valens for example, or Julian’s own brother, the Caesar Gallus, a charming youth who brought terror to the East. We must be on our guard, as always.

The question that now faces us is: how seriously will Theodosius enforce the edict? It is customary for emperors who listen to bishops to hurl insults at the very civilisation that created them. They are inconsistent, but then logic has never been a strong point of the Christian faith. The extraordinary paradox is the collusion of our princes with the bishops.

The emperors pride themselves on being first magistrates of the Roman imperium, through whose senate they exercise their power; and though in reality we have not been Roman for a century, nevertheless, the form persists, making it impossible, one would think, for any prince who calls himself Augustus to be Christian, certainly not as long as the Altar of Victory remains in the senate house at Rome.

But confusions of this sort are as inconsequential to the Christian mind as clouds to a day in summer, and as a teacher I no longer try to refute them; since most of my students are Christian, I suppose I ought to be grateful that they have chosen to come to me to be taught that very philosophy their faith subverts. It is comedy, Priscus! It is tragedy!

Meanwhile, we can only wait to see what happens. The Emperor grows stronger in health every day, and it is thought that later this spring he may take the field against the Goths, who as usual are threatening the marches of Macedonia. If he decides to go north, that means he will not return to Constantinople till late summer or autumn, in which case I will have to attend him at Thessalonica or, worse, in the field. If so, I am confident the journey will be my last. For my health, unlike yours, continues to deteriorate.

I have coughing fits which leave me weak and longing for the grave. I have also developed a curious rash on the backs of my hands and forearms which may be the result of eating a bad flounder last week (shades of Diogenes and the fatal raw octopus!), or it may be the outward sign of a corruption in the blood. How I wish Oribasius were in Antioch! He is the only physician I ever trusted, in which I follow Julian, who used to say, “The god Asklepios gave Oribasius secrets known only to heaven.”

Over the years I have made a number of notes for a biography of Julian. I have them before me now. All that remains is the final organisation of the material—and of course the memoir. Please send it to me as soon as the copy is ready. I shall work on it this summer, as I am no longer lecturing. I thought it wise to go into seclusion until we know which way the wind blows.

I don’t need to tell you that Antioch has ignored the edict. Never in my memory has Antioch obeyed the imperial authority except at sword’s point. I have often warned the local senate that emperors do not like disobedience, but our people feel that they are beyond law and reprisal. The folly of the clever is always greater than that of the dull. I tremble for Antioch, even though I am currently a beneficiary of its absence of reverence for the decrees of Caesar.

There have been no incidents so far. My Christian friends come to see me as usual (rather a large number of my old students are now bishops, a peculiar irony). Colleagues who are still lecturing tell me that their classes are much as usual. The next move is up to Theodosius, or, to be exact, up to the bishops. Luckily for us, they have been so busy for so long persecuting one another that we have been able to survive. But reading between the lines of the edict, I suspect a bloodbath.

Theodosius has outlawed with particular venom the party of the late Bishop Arius on the grounds that Galileans must now have a church with a single doctrine to be called universal… a catholic church, no less! To balance this, we must compose a true life of Julian. So let us together fashion one last wreath of Apollonian laurel to place upon the brow of philosophy, as a brave sign against the winter that threatens this stormy late season of the world. I want those who come after us to realize what hopes we had for life, and I want them to see how close our Julian came to arresting the disease of Galilee.

Such a work, properly done, would be like a seed planted in the autumn to await the sun’s awakening, and a new flowering.

Apparently, the cost of copying at Athens has gone up incredibly since I had some work done there last year. I find eighty gold solidi exorbitant for what you say is a fragment, or a book of moderate length. Only last summer I paid thirty solidi for a Plotinus which, in length, must be treble that of Julian’s memoir. I send now by a friend who embarks tomorrow for Athens thirty gold solidi and this letter. Again my best wishes to the admirable Hippia, and to you, my old friend and fellow soldier in the wars of philosophy.

Published in: on June 18, 2017 at 12:01 am  Leave a Comment  
Tags:

This Time, 8

rockwell

A passage from This Time the World
by George Lincoln Rockwell

But then, in 1939, I sat in “Sociology I” class and tried my best to make some sense out of it all. I had been happy at the chance to study sociology, as it appeared to me logical that there must be some fundamental principles of the development of the social relationships of life, as I had discovered simple basic principles of other affairs I had looked into. I was most eager to learn these basic principles of the operation of human society so that I could understand the events around me and perhaps even predict sociological occurrences in accordance with the principles I would be taught.

But it would be many, many years before I would fight my way into the intellectual sunshine of such simple, fundamental and logical presentations of the facts of social life. In Professor Bucklin’s classroom on society, all was the most depressing darkness and confusion. It all sounded most enlightening, of course. There were lots of brave new words, ethnic groups, etc., but try as I might, I could not get to the bottom of it all to find any idea or principle I could get hold of. Everything was “by and large” and “in most cases” and “on the other hand” and “So-and-so says, but Dr. So-and-so says absolutely not.” Muddiness of mind was not deplored, but glorified. I buried myself in my sociology books, absolutely determined to find out why I was missing the kernel of the thing.

The best I could come up with was that human beings are all helpless tools of the environment; that we are all born as rigidly equal lumps and that the disparity of our achievements and stations was entirely the result of the forces of environment—that everybody, therefore, could theoretically be masters, geniuses and kings if only we could sufficiently improve everybody’s environment. I was bold enough to ask Professor Bucklin if this were the idea and he turned red with anger. I was told it was “impossible” to make any generalizations, although all I was asking was for the fundamental idea, if any, of sociology.

I began to see that sociology was different from any other course I had ever taken. Certain ideas produced apoplexy in the teacher, particularly the suggestion that perhaps some people were no good biological slobs from the day they were born. Certain other ideas, although they were never formulated nor stated frankly, were fostered and encouraged—these were always ideas revolving around the total power of the environment.

Slowly, I got the idea. At first, I just used it to get better grades. When I wrote my essay answers in examinations, I poured it on heavily that all hands in the civilization in question were potential Leonardo da Vincis, no matter how black they were, nor how they ate their best friends for thousands of years; and that with a quick change in environment, these cannibals too would be writing arias, building Parthenons and painting masterpieces.

But then I began to wonder “how come”? Certainly, environment was important. Anybody could see that. But it was obviously negative. You can make a helpless boob out of a born genius by bringing him up in a dark closet, but you can’t make a genius out of a drooling idiot, even by sending him to Brown [University]. Was it just old man Bucklin who was insane with environment? Or was it the whole subject? I went to the library and read more sociology books. They were universally pushing the same idea.

I began to make fun of sociology in the college paper in my column and got into more trouble. Some of the columns were “killed” before seeing the light. I was still too ignorant to know that I was fighting Lysenko and Marx and the whole Soviet theory of environmentalism—which has captured and hypnotized or terrorized all our intellectuals—and I imagined I was battling just one foolish college course!

During my second year at Brown, my picture of the world darkened as I discovered more and more intellectual dishonesty in this university which had first seemed almost heaven itself to me. I still knew little or nothing about Communism or its pimping little sister, “liberalism”, but I could not avoid the steady pressure, everywhere in the university, to accept the idea of massive human equality and the supremacy of environment. In every course, I was repelled by the intellectual cowardice of the faculty in failing to stand up for any doctrine whatsoever.

I majored in philosophy and, while I admired the intellectual brilliance of my professors, particularly Professor Ducasse, I was hugely disappointed in the headlong retreat of all the faculty whenever they were asked their own opinions as to the objective truth in any matter. I was told that “eternal seeking” is the way to knowledge and there is no denying that, but lively discussion is also vital to any advance of knowledge and you cannot have any lively discussion where the opposition either doesn’t exist or melts away like a wraith when you seek to take hold of it.

I was running into the disease of our modern life: cowardice and pathological fear of a strong personality or strong ideas. Dale Carnegie has codified and commercialized this creeping disease as “how to win friends and influence people”, which boils down to the essential principle of having no personality or strong feelings or ideas and becoming passive and empty so that “the other fellow” can display his ideas and personality. But he, too, is trying to become popular by being passive and dispassionate, so that the result is like connecting two dead batteries: no current. Such human robots are suited to enslavement by a 1984-type society, but not to life in a bold, free society of men. This is the way women should be, perhaps, but not our men and especially not our leaders.

I found the same feeble feminine approach in every subject except in the sciences, and for these last, I was very grateful. In geology and psychology I could find a few principles and laws which stayed there when I reached out to grasp them, and so I reveled in these subjects and rebelled to the limit of my capacity in the others. In sociology I went so far as to write an insolent examination paper which almost got me thrown out of Brown.