This Time, 9

rockwell

A passage from This Time the World
by George Lincoln Rockwell

 
Without anybody coming out and saying it, the mad scramble for ‘democracy’ has been extended to the sexes and the natural dominance of the male, and the passive submission of the female, which are basic to both natures and absolutely necessary to their happiness, have been scorned as evil carry-overs from our animal natures. A ‘modern’ girl cannot avoid the impression that it is somehow ‘inferior’ to be ‘just a woman’ or ‘just a housewife and mother’, and the corresponding idea, therefore, that she must try to ‘be somebody’ or ‘do something worthwhile’ by having a ‘career’. She receives all sorts of ‘education’, particularly in college, which is not only useless if she becomes a wife and mother, but which irritate and frustrate her natural capacities.

It is not a question of ‘superior’ or ‘inferior’, but a question of possibilities. A girl will grow up to be a woman, a female, no matter what education, ideals, ideas and training she may get. Perhaps it is ‘unfair’ that she was born a woman, physically weak, less able to reason, coldly burdened with the inexorable cyclic functioning of her reproductive system and blessed with the soft, warm, emotional, understanding and patient nature of the machinery designed by Nature for motherhood, above all things.

The effort of feminists and liberals to ‘correct’ what Nature has decreed, whether the effort is ‘good’ or ‘bad’, can lead only to misery for those who attempt to fly in the face of a cold and merciless Nature, and a social agony for a world which is deprived of warm and submissive females and mothers.

It is a mark of insanity for an individual to ignore reality and act as if he were something which he is not. It is no less insane when women pretend that their female natures do not exist, that they are not only the ‘equals’ of men, but the same as men, except for a slight physiological difference. No matter how a few of them manage to succeed in the poses of engineers and steel-workers and fighter pilots and business executives; women today, as a group, are fundamentally acting in the manner of the insane: defying and ignoring reality.

The results are frightfully visible in our whole civilization. The women are becoming masculinized, while the men are getting feminized. One has only to look at a crowd of our teenagers to see how things are going. They wear the same tight pants, the same jackets and the same hats—even the same duck-tailed hairdos. We are breeding and training up a generation of jazzed-up, negroidal, neutered queers.

Our whole approach to women today, as with most of our social attitudes, is that of the Soviets who have women in the army, working in the streets and even in firing-squads, just like men. God save us from such women!

Women are indeed the equal of men, as a group, only when they fulfill the task for which Nature equipped and made them—motherhood. Man was designed, even in the creative process itself, to supply the spark, the drive and the aggressive push of life, while woman is designed to supply the basic building material of new life; nourish, treasure, warm and guide it, until it can sustain its own life. There is no escape from this fate, even if it were bad, which it is not.

If a man is to be honored for making cigars or building bridges or making beer, as our great businessmen are, then surely we ought to honor those who make our people! But the trouble is that our insane ‘liberal’ attitude toward motherhood and homemaking has given women an impossible inferiority complex and frustration about their possible and real achievements in life. We train our girls by the millions to be anything but successful wives and mothers, lead them to believe they are to be an ‘equal’ part of a ‘man’s world’, when the truth is that it is only Nature’s world, and man’s share in it is no greater or more glorious than that of a female-oriented woman who produces, brings up and gives to society a family of happy people.

If our girls were brought up from first consciousness to realize the absolute and total inevitability of their mission in life, but above all to be proud of that mission; train for and then fulfill it joyously, there would be no more talk of ‘achieving’ equality. They would find that Nature has already given them equality in generous measure, if only they will accept it. There can be no sense in discussing the superiority of negative or positive electricity in a battery; they are merely different forms of the same thing, but the difference is vital if there is to be any current. When the male and female potential or voltages are permitted to become ‘equal’, they must be strongly opposite or the current will stop…

It is not women who are at fault in the growing madness of our family and our sexual frustration, it is the men who have permitted it. The women are still born passive and submissive and if our fathers and grandfathers had not failed them as a group, as I failed my first wife as an individual, they would still, as a group, be enjoying their birthright and the honor owed them by society for being the most exalted manufacturers and executives in the world, the manufacturers of Our People!

Upon achieving power, one of our first tasks will be an all-out public relations drive to help our entire population—men and women—to see that ‘motherhood’ is not the silly, sloppy thing which is made of it today.

Published in: on November 7, 2017 at 10:33 pm  Comments (31)  
Tags:

Spencer’s shortcomings

Chris, Evan McLaren, Daniel Friberg and Richard Spencer recently gathered in a podcast to talk.

Spencer takes no sides on the Second World War around minute 10. Indignantly, he says that he has never denied the Jewish holocaust. Of course, he does not mention the true Holocaust perpetrated on Germans. (I repeat what I asked on October 19th: Anyone rich enough to send Spencer a copy of Tom Goodrich’s Hellstorm?) He said that in spite of the fact that the Polish government, influenced by Jews, has threatened to ban Spencer from entering Europe for another three years.

What I find bothersome is that Black Pigeon Speaks, who is not even Alt-Right but Alt Lite, gets that the demonising of Germany is at the very root of the West’s darkest hour. Spencer still doesn’t get it.

Later, before minute 20, Spencer continues to believe in his pan-European ideology with no feuds between white nations and continues to imply that all European nations are just equal. ‘The last thing I’d support is German supremacy’ said Spencer. Remember the recent post ‘Against Spencer el al’: ‘Why should anyone care about preserving Polish or Croatian identity if their impact on world history is negligible? How does that advance the interests of Aryan man?’

After minute 50 Spencer said, ‘It is not about…connecting our movement with German National Socialism. It’s really about the opposite of that: it’s about making it new’. The new thing Spencer has in mind is a grotesque pigmy if we compare it with German National Socialism. Seven minutes later he said that NS imagery is ‘never going to appeal…’ completely ignoring what Rockwell said before he was born (more recently iterated by Iron March).

Similarly, Andrew Anglin complained yesterday about optics and even embedded a rant by William Pierce in his article.

I rarely criticise Pierce but in this case I must side Arthur Kemp’s critique when we talked in England: Pierce’s big mistake was not forming a political party. How comfortable for Pierce and Anglin! This is the same Anglin who never goes to the rallies.

Where are your balls?

Fifty years ago, the noblest man born in America was bid farewell with Nazi salutes. Last year, the Roman salute was even condemned by the panel of racialist speakers who, within a few yards, watched Richard Spencer toast after Trump’s triumph. This year the white nationalists have gone further after Charlottesville: they claim in unison that all swastikas must be banned because they give bad optics.

Did the nationalists betray themselves? Rather, the people in general are incredibly more brainwashed than the day they said goodbye to Rockwell. In addition, American nationalists are more cowardly than Ursula Haverbeck, the 88-year-old German woman who has just been sentenced to jail for daring to say anything other than the accepted history of the holocaust.

The day Rockwell was murdered I was a child. Then there were no documentaries on the ‘holocaust’ in the media. Within my life span I have witnessed the holocaust industry grow exponentially to authentically pious levels.

The feminized tactics of today’s racists, to hide the swastikas, must be replaced by the manly tactic of telling the truth about what happened in World War II. But who in the forums of white nationalism constantly talks about the Hellstorm Holocaust committed on the Germans, even from 1945 to 1947? Or does a German old lady have more balls than today’s Americans?

50 years ago…

The noblest American ever was assassinated on 25 August 1967. I was nine-years-old when it happened. Those visitors unfamiliar with the life and death of George Lincoln Rockwell should read this article by William Pierce.

Published in: on August 25, 2017 at 9:38 am  Comments (9)  

Siege, 11

Our reasons for being NSLF

One incontrovertible fact is that the NSLF remains to date the only new development within the Movement in America since Rockwell began it in 1958. It was Joseph Tommasi’s work of the most incredible genius, the POLITICAL TERROR leaflet, that he designed in 1974 and which reached my hands at that time, that provided for those true revolutionaries in the NS Movement what we had been groping towards for years. It was original and unique and Tommasi had DONE IT!

NSLF is not an order of monks sequestered away studying religious tracts and further separating ourselves from reality. We do not wish to get the tiniest handful thinking differently nor do we imagine we can do the same with the masses. We do wish to give the answers to the people that are as plain as the noses on their faces. We preach revolution while the rest preach reaction. We do not wish to rock the boat, we intend to SINK IT!

If anyone can claim to be the “legitimate successor” to George Lincoln Rockwell’s American Nazi Party it is NSLF and no other! NSLF is the true, logical extension of everything Rockwell believed in and fought for. Petty legalisms and political chicanery aside, were Rockwell alive today, he would not be retrogressing holed up with sterile bureaucrats. He would be found FIGHTING IN THE STREET! His call would still be TO ACTION and not inaction on the part of eccentrics and fakers who studiously claim to have the “right way”.

Of all those who have come along since the death of Rockwell with pretensions of being an NS leader, all but one have been totally lost within themselves and their fantasy world of “Fuhrer-dom” and many have shown themselves to be downright crooked and incapable of dealing as men and as National Socialists. One has turned out to be a racial alien and a sexual pervert and currently is serving a prison term for the latter [Mason here is referring to Frank Collin, the Chicago Nazi leader in the 1970’s who is mainly infamous for his plan to demonstrate in Skokie, IL].

It remains today that the measure of a group is the measure of the man who founded or who leads that group. Joseph Tommasi, as founder of the NSLF, was the first of a new breed. A hero and a martyr to the Cause. What he wanted most was to provide the Movement with its much overdue HIT TEAM and not to set himself up as some sort of cheap, tin horn demigod like the rest. Tommasi personified the kind of man we MUST have: those desiring to serve the Movement with great facility, and not pose around in gaudy uniforms as “Hollywood Nazis”.

NSLF is not taken lightly by the Reds, the Blacks, or the System. We are not laughed at. We have taken the already-formidable reputation of the ANP—built up by Rockwell at monumental human cost—and ENHANCED IT by removing all pretenses of conservatism and legalism while the rest have made laughing stocks of themselves and their sphere of the Movement. A White Man can take pride in being part of the NSLF. It is the ONLY place for a White Revolutionary to be found!

In terms of longevity and resiliency, we have more than pulled even with the closest runner-up to the old Party, which had been the NSPA [National Socialist Party of America, headquartered in Chicago]. The death of our founder and the most severe tribulations still see us today in the best shape we have ever been.

Finally, we are NSLF because we want no part of cut- and-dried, hard-and-fast, locked-in bureaucracy like the others. We see the need for absolute flexibility as we struggle towards revolution in America. We recognize the need for a certain formality of concept and effort but until we have the pool of human resources large enough to draw selectively from, we REJECT any “rules and regulations” that would keep us from that pool.

The rest will tell you that they are “It”; we tell you that we are the only ones with the potential—with your help—of BECOMING “It”. We are not among the “Great Pretenders”. We are not part of the System or the Establishment in any way, shape, or form, as most of the others are with their charters, corporations, legalisms, etc.

We are REVOLUTIONARY!

Vol. XI, #5 – May, 1982

Order a copy of Siege (here)

Published in: on July 30, 2017 at 2:50 pm  Comments (3)  

Siege, 7

Something that will work

This would almost call for a “mass” movement but here again we must carefully watch our definitions and understanding. By “masses” we need at most only a few hundred thousand more-or-less hardcore people committed to revolution and, to get and keep this discussion down-to-earth, we have been on the verge of going after these few hundred thousand twice before in the history of the Movement in the United States. Not only in theory but in actuality as newspaper headlines and membership rosters showed. First in 1966 and again in 1973.

As strange as it may sound, the opportunities of 1966 were lost well before Commander Rockwell was assassinated. And certainly there was no such single incident in 1973 [comparable to assassination of the leader] that could be easily blamed for the downward trend that next set in. In both instances the revolutionary political groundwork had not been tended to in advance of the laborious and painstaking street work which was eventually—and all too fleetingly—crowned with the reward of some significant numerical clout.

I’m sure also that had the pitfalls of having no solid chain-of-command reinforced and ready for the sudden challenge of hard success somehow been accidentally avoided, then still the moment would have been lost due to a lack of greater direction—a revolutionary plan—when suddenly called for.

And such a thing can rarely be supplied by accident. Getting into the rut of rolling with the blows is dangerous because it gets habit-forming and it numbs the senses and imagination. We have to know exactly what we’d do with a real political machine if we had one right now, for if we were handed one—or the means of getting one and did not know precisely what to do with it, we’d quickly blow it.

In 1966 Commander Rockwell was unable to EXPLOIT the God-given opportunity that presented itself in Chicago that summer and fall. He always considered and referred to himself as being the spearhead of the Right Wing and when the historic moment arrived during the time of the Black riots in major cities, when Commander Rockwell was doing his best spearheading activities, he was LET DOWN AND BETRAYED by his own side.

They failed to act in support even when, as the Commander himself pointed out, they stood to gain more from his efforts than he did because in the main, those people recruited by an intensive, unified Right Wing drive would naturally gravitate toward the “softer”, “easier” names and approaches like the NSRP [National States’ Rights Party] and various Mans. The Commander said all along that he only wanted and would only get what any true spearhead outfit must have: FIGHTING MEN! The apex moment of the 1960’s was thus lost.

In 1973, through constant activity nationwide and through some admirable policies of professionalism, the Movement stood ready to break into what Commander Rockwell would have called “Phase Three”, or the phase of mass action. We then had more leaders than had been on the scene in 1966. Rather than wait for a moment to come, we made our own. Not only that but we also chose the place: Cleveland. Over one hundred uniformed, helmeted Troopers marched down the middle of Euclid Avenue that Labor Day and formed-up in a public square for a rally.

And though the opposition was there—from the System and from the Reds—we were too strong. Had that sort of show of strength and discipline been maintained and repeated in various other cities it most likely would have, first, broken the “spell” of thousands who were hovering on the brink of committing openly and, second, prompted panic reactions on the part of every aspect of our racial Enemy thus providing obvious and inescapable openings for further and greater EXPLOTATION.

What set in next, both in 1966 and 1973, is what we must now learn to recognize and make our new effort far less vulnerable—if not altogether immune—to. There seemed to be no absolute commitment to REVOLUTION. No one seemed to know what the goal really was. The prevailing leadership at both times used the term “White Revolution” copiously in their propaganda but they thought only in terms of a revolutionary ideal or of a revolutionary social change far down the road somewhere.

They did not fully subscribe to TOTAL REVOLUTION NOW! And not only the men at the very top. The one-man show has proved it can’t get to first base. To be legitimate, a revolutionary political movement must have at least about a dozen or more leading, prominent figures. No one among the cadres being built at those times (with the single outstanding exception of Joseph Tommasi) was thinking purely revolutionary.

Everyone had their own ideas, and were bent on doing their own trip. When the “fun” stopped, when the “thrill” wore off, when the self-gratification halted, they split. Also because they had their own conceptions, most of the rules of good common sense got walked all over—primarily during and after 1973—resulting in petty bureaucracy followed closely by alienation and the effective destruction of the one party.

Had everyone concerned been completely committed to REVOLUTION OVER THE SYSTEM then it would have been a much easier task to sublimate the personal feelings and weaknesses which destroyed their efforts ultimately. The most incompatible of personalities can work together effectively for revolution but hardly for a damned thing else.

The most limited and klutzy individual can understand the common sacred drive to SMASH THE SYSTEM. Everyone can find his or her proper place in the WAR AGAINST THE ESTABLISHMENT. The Communists have proven this in a dozen historic cases, all of them recent. Once we get our fallible and undependable selves sublimated to REVOLUTION then the rest should come easy when compared to the endless, nowhere drag of past years.

Once accomplished, then all the “right” and the high ideals will have some meaning and can be put to some use. Instead of the current hindrance, they will have become the “end” that justifies whatever “means” may be necessary.

Vol. XI #1 – January, 1982

Order a copy of Siege (here)

Raciology, 7

After 1945

In April 1966, Alex Haley interviewed American Nazi Party founder George Lincoln Rockwell for Playboy. Rockwell justified his belief that blacks were inferior to whites by citing a study by G.O. Ferguson showing that the intellectual performance of black students was correlated with their percentage of white ancestry, stating “pure negroes, negroes three-fourths, mulattoes and quadroons have, roughly, 60, 70, 80 and 90 percent, respectively, of white intellectual efficiency.” Playboy published the interview but botched it with a pseudoscientific editorial note. The next year Rockwell was assassinated.

Today, the term “scientific racism” is used to refer to Raciology: research seeming to scientifically justify racist ideology. The accusation of scientific racism often is cast upon the raciologists that discovered quantifiable differences in intelligence among the races, especially if said differences are partly genetic in origin.

Post WW2 researchers include Arthur Jensen (1923-2012), Philippe Rushton (1943-2012), Chris Brand (1943-2017), Richard Lynn (1930-); and also Charles Alan Murray (1943-) and Richard Herrnstein (1930-1994), the authors of The Bell Curve, among others. These authors, while seeing their work as scientific, may dispute the term “racism” and may prefer terms such as “race realism” or “racialism”.

Presently Jared Taylor’s American Renaissance is internet’s premier race-realist site.

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

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.

This Time, 7

rockwell

A passage from This Time the World
by George Lincoln Rockwell

I read and reread the Bible, as I had not done before, from beginning to end. I was appalled at the demand by God for human sacrifice, for the eating of human body waste by the Lord, for the horrible cruelties and atrocities demanded by the Lord, according to the Old Testament…

Most of all, I wondered at the idea that if there were a few simple ideas and facts to be understood to enjoy eternal life and happiness, here and later on, and God were all-powerful, He had made it impossible for me to believe those ideas and facts because of the very mind which he gave me! And then I am to be threatened with eternal damnation for not believing that which I cannot believe! My first reaction was atheism.

I did something I deeply regret and shall never do again. I had begun to discover my own power of persuasion and, in the eternal bull sessions of a boys’ school, religion is not exempt as a topic. I was genuinely sorry I had lost my belief in Christianity, for it has truly marvelous power to sustain and help one in times of tribulation. I began to discuss the matter with a devout Catholic boy who tried with all his heart and might to make me see my error. We skied five miles over to his church to see a priest he said could straighten me out and I was truly anxious to be shown my error, if error it was.

But the matter turned out differently. Coldly and scientifically I argued with the priest, refusing to let him lead me into the inevitable non sequiturs, redundancies, etc. and brutally holding to logic. He was reduced, eventually, to exclaiming, “You just must believe. You have to believe!” I told him I could not believe and asked him if he were not able to help me do what he said I must. He shook his head sadly, no doubt convinced that I was determined not to understand.

The effect on my friend was something I had not counted on. All the way back to the school we skied in silence. When we got back, he said not a word and for days avoided me. I felt a secret shame for which I could see no reason. Eventually, he told me that he had been forced to agree with me and had lost his faith. That he was no happier about it than I, with my own loss of faith, was obvious. In fact, he was even more stricken. The result was to set me thinking on what I had done and whether it was right.

I saw then what I believe all great religious teachers knew, but could not and did not say. The ordinary man is too weak and too helpless in the whirling vortex of life to sustain himself on his naked human will and his cold human reason. Only with some kind of deep belief in an all-powerful magical being of some kind can the masses of humanity maintain social and reasonably worthwhile lives. Without such a belief, they can see no reason for not immediately indulging themselves in their most animal and immediate desires and they despair in the face of death unless they can imagine something further.

As long as men are thus ignorant and weak-minded, they must have some such spiritual crutches. So religion, far from being an “opiate”, is truly the sustainer of the masses of people. He who destroys religion before humanity has progressed far beyond its present primitive intellectual state is helping to destroy civilization.

I am an agnostic, which means that to all proposals and explanations of the mysteries of life and eternity, I say, “I do not know and I don’t believe you or any other human does either.”

At the same time, I stand firmly for positive, ethical religions, whatever they may be and believe they must be protected and given the greatest freedom to do what they can to lessen the awesome burden of human misery on this tiny planet. I know there will be many intellectuals who will reply that religion has caused untold torture and suffering to stamp out “heresy”, but in view of man’s need for emotional catharsis in today’s immensely frustrating world, and in view of Pavlov’s experiments, I believe that religion is the poor man’s “psychiatry”, his only “escape” from intolerable pressures of society.

Since that ski-trip to the priest up in Maine, I have never tried to argue anybody out of his religion and have given strict orders in the American Nazi Party that religion is simply not permitted as a subject of discussion for anybody. We have Protestants, Catholics, atheists and agnostics among our membership and all of them are equally welcome and valuable.