Oswald Spengler, German, (29 May 1880 – 8 May 1936) was a German historian and philosopher of history whose interests included mathematics, science, and art. He is best know for his book The Decline of the West, published in 1918 and 1922, covering all of world history. Within "The Decline of the West" (1918-1922), Spengler sets out simply to expound his views on the destinies - the rise and fall - of various peoples throughout history.  He recognizes that each great people that has risen and fallen has done so in a distinctive way, but he sees a general similarity in the process, and he thinks that the final fall can never be evaded."

   "There then succeeds - in the 19th century, in the case of the western world - the phase that is the main subject of the book. The population loses the feeling of "We".  The cities are too large, international, and no longer representative of the people who created the culture.  "International-urban" civilization has arrived, which Spengler regarded as destructive of culture.  The cities are inhabited by the genuine "factual man", lacking in tradition, appearing in shapeless, fluctuating masses, irreligious, sharp, and unproductive, with a deep antipathy to the peasantry.  The spiritual creative force has been lost, and religion begins to be repeated by ethical and practical substitutes that are, in his view inferior.  In politics that whole tendency is away from the individual culture that made the people great, and towards internationalism, pacifism, and socialism. This, for Spengler, is the destiny of all cultures, the final decline.˜

H.G.  WELLS

   H.G.  Wells' (the well-known fiction writer - Time Machine and more) 1200 page "The Outline of the History of the World" published in 1920 is an interesting work. It is a popular book, even today, and has been read by millions.  A few quotations are stated below.

   "The big cities before Rome were trading and manufacturing cities. Such were Corinth and Carthage and Syracuse.  But Rome never produced a very considerable industrial population, and her warehouses never rivalled those of Alexandria.  Rome was a political and financial capital, and in the latter respect, at least, she was a new sort of city.  She imported profits and tribute, and very little went out from her in return.  The wharves of Ostia were chiefly busy unloading loot — “from all the world.

   In this curiously interesting century of Roman history we find man after man asking, "What has happened to Rome?" Various answers are made a decline in religion, a decline from the virtues of the Roman forefathers, Greek "intellectual poison," and the like.  We, who can look at the problem with a large perspective, can see that what had happened to Rome was "money" - the new freedoms and chances and opportunities that money opened out.  Money floated the Romans off the firm ground; everyone was getting hold of money, the majority of the simple expedient of running into debt.

   Money was young in human experience and wild; nobody had it under control.  It fluctuated greatly.  It was now abundant and now scarce. Men made sly and crude schemes to corner it, to hoard it, to send up prices by releasing hoarded metals.  A small body of very shrewd men was growing immensely rich.  Many patricians were growing poor and irritated and unscrupulous.  Among the middling sort of people there was much hope, much adventure, and much disappointment.  The growing mass of the expropriated was permeated by that vague, baffled, and hopeless sense of being inexplicably bested, which is the preparatory condition for all great revolutionary movements.

   During Rome's prosperity and synonymous decline several characteristics appeared.  "Hope had gone." "People refuse to have children.  They did so, we suggest, because their homes were not safe from oppression." A third indication that this outwardly flourishing period was one of deep unhappiness and mental distress for vast multitudes, is to be found in the spread of new religious movements throughout the population." In view of these obvious negligence’s, it is no wonder that the Romans disregard that more subtle thing, the soul of the empire, altogether, and made no effort to teach or train or win its common people into any conscious participation with its life.  By the second and third centuries A.D. the overtaxed and overstrained imperial machine was already staggering towards its downfall.

   When men and women are unlimited and unrestrained, the evidence of history shows clearly that they are all liable to become monsters of self-indulgence (the Roman Empire); when, on the other hand, they are driven and unhappy, then their impulse is towards immoderate tragically resorts, towards wild revolts or towards the austerities and intensities of religion.

   These new world religions, from 600 B.C.  Onward, were essentially religions of the heart and of the universal sky?

   With Caesar, the civilization of Europe and Western Asia went back to monarchy, and, through monarchy, assisted presently by organized Christianity, it sought to achieve peace, righteousness, happiness, and world order for close upon eighteen centuries.  Then almost suddenly it began reverting to republicanism, first in one country and then in another; and, assisted by the new powers of printing and the press and of organized general education, and by the universalist religious ideas in which the world had been soaked for generations, it seems now to have resumed again the effort to create a republican world-state and a world-wide scheme of economic righteousness which the Romans had made so prematurely and in which they had so utterly and disastrously failed.

   Akbar, next to Asoka, was one of the greatest of Indian monarchs, and one of the few royal figures that approach the stature of great men. If India is now anything more than a sort of ragbag of incoherent states and races, a prey to every casual raider from the north, it is largely due to him." (Read this one again!  Then again!)     His (Akbar) distinctive quality was his openness of mind......he became more and more wedded to the principle of toleration for all.

   So far most reasonable men are socialist." (referring to men of his day - his socialism is like Hitler's, not like modern America).

   The idea of the world-State,˜ the universal kingdom of righteousness of which every living soul shall be a citizen, was already in the world two thousand years ago, never more to leave it.

    But men do not begin to act upon theories.  It is always some real danger, some practical necessity, that produces action; and it is only after action has destroyed old relationships and produced a new and perplexing state of affairs that theory comes to its own.  Then it is that theory that is put to the test.

    Communism is the proposal to abolish property altogether, or, in other words, to hold all things in common.  Modern Socialism, on the other hand - or, to give it a more precise name, "Collectivism" - does clearly distinguish between personal property and collective property. The gist of the socialist proposal is that land and all the natural means of production, transit, and distribution should be collectively owned.  Within these limits there is to be much free private ownership, and unrestricted personal freedom.  Given efficient administration, it may be doubted whether many people nowadays would dispute that proposal. But socialism has never gone on to a thorough examination of that proviso for efficient administration.

    An enormous amount of intellectual toil and discussion and education, and many years - whether decades of centuries, no man can tell - must intervene before a new order, planned as ships and railways are planned, runs, as the cables and the postal deliveries run, over the whole surface of our earth.

    The delusion of national sovereignty, with its attendant fanaticisms for "God, King and Country" and the like is the most monstrous of all superstitions at present active in the world.

    Certain conditions, we are now beginning to perceive, are absolutely necessary to such a creation.  We may still think the attainment of these conditions a vastly laborious and difficult and uncertain understanding, but we understand that the attempt must be made because no other prospect before us gives even a promise of happiness or self-respect or preservation of our kind.  The first condition is that there should be a common political idea in the minds of all men.  Moreover, we know nowadays that even a universal education of this sort supplies only the basis for a healthy republican state.  Next to education there must come abundant, prompt, and truthful information of what is going on in the state, and frank and free discussion of the issues of the time.

     Sooner or later mankind must come to one universal peace, unless our race is to be destroyed by the increasing power of its own destructive inventions; and that universal peace must take the form of a government, that is to say, a law-sustaining organization, in the best sense of the word religious - a government ruling men through the educated co-ordination of their minds in a common conception of human history and human destiny.

     And a world state and universal justice do not mean the imprisonment of our race in any bleak institution orderliness.  There will still be mountains and the sea, there will be jungles and great forests, cared for, indeed, and treasured and protected; the great plains will still spread before us and the wild wind blow.  But men will not hate so much, fear so much, nor cheat so desperately - and they will keep their minds and bodies cleaner.

   The weaving of mankind into one community does not imply the creation of a homogeneous community, but rather the reverse; the welcome and the adequate utilization of distinctive quality in an atmosphere of understanding.  It is the almost universal bad manners of the present age which make race intolerable to race.  The community to which we may be moving will be more mixed - which does not necessarily mean more interbred - more various and more interesting community.  Communities all to one pattern, like boxes of toy soldiers, are things of the past rather than the future." 

MADISON GRANT

Madison Grant was Chairman of the New York Zoological Society; Trustee, American of Natural History; Councilor, American Geographic Society, and zoology professor at Harvard.  Mr. Grant's book "The Passing of the Great Race" (1st Edition was 1916) (4th edition was 1936) is an interesting work on the history of the Caucasian race.  A few quotations are below.

    In the democratic forms of government the operation of universal suffrage tends toward the selection of the average man for public office rather that the man qualified by birth, education, and integrity.  How this scheme of administration will ultimately work out remains to be seen but from a racial point of view, it will inevitably increase the preponderance of the lower types and cause a corresponding loss of efficiency in the community as a whole.  While democracy is fatal to progress when two races of unequal value live side by side, an aristocracy may be equally injurious whenever, in order to purchase few generations of ease and luxury, slaves or immigrants are imported to do the heavy work.  The refusal of the native American to work with his hands when he can hire or import serfs to do manual labor for him is the prelude to his extinction and the immigrant labors are now breeding out their masters and killing by filth and by crowding as effectively as by the sword.

   Thus the American sold his birthright in a continent to solve a labor problem.  Instead of retaining political control and making citizenship an  honorable and valued privilege, he entrusted the government of his country and the maintenance of his ideals to races who have never yet succeeded in governing themselves, much less anyone else.

   Associated with this advance of democracy and the transfer of power from the higher to the lower races, from the intellectual to the plebeian class, we find the spread of socialism and the recrudescence of obsolete religious forms.  Although these phenomena appear to be contradictory, they are in reality closely related since both represent reactions from the intense individualism which a century ago was eminently characteristic of Americans.

   Throughout history it is only the race of the leaders that has counted and the most vigorous have been in control and will remain in mastery in one form or another until such time as democracy and its illegitimate offspring, socialism, definitely establish the rule of the worst and put an end to progress.  The salvation of humanity will then lie in the chance survival of some sane barbarians who may retain the basic truth that inequality and not equality is the law of nature."

LOTHROP STODDARD

.

REVILO P. OLIVER

    Dr. Oliver was one of the founders of The John Birch Society before its takeover.  He was also a Professor of the Classics at the University of Illinois for 35 years.  His "America's Decline: The Education of a Conservative" is quoted below.

    But the members of the Communist Conspiracy are never more than a tiny fraction of the populations they subjugate; they are a small gang that could in any country be handled by the local police force in a merely routine operation.  The terrible power of the unhumans is entirely obtained by their ability to deceive and manipulate human beings.

    If God in His Mercy were to remove from our globe tonight every member of the International Communist Conspiracy, we would rejoice wildly in our liberation.  But within a century perhaps in half a century – we should find ourselves in our present plight once again, unless we developed powers of resistance to infection that we obviously have no yet developed.                   

                                                                                                                                                                                                               RICHARD SWARTZBAUGH

   Richard Swartzbugh's (an anthropology professor) book, "The Mediator", written in 1973, is a short but concise and scholarly account of how America is "managed" by a group he refers to as the mediators. By logical analysis and explanation, Mr. Swartzbaugh also predicts America's future.  Many quotations are memorable and a few are listed below.

   "Inhabited as it is by disparate ethnic groups and individuals, America has bridged the distance between its citizens with theories and theoretical social structures.  The confusion and unhappiness have come as people depending on the system have tried to justify it as the permanent order of things.

   The mediated society is an "integrated" society.  Integration demands the elimination of personal and instinctual ties of men and women of the same limited regional and racial groups.  These organic and historical bonds of empathy and trust are suppressed in favor of formal contractual ties.

   For the instinctually cohesive family, clan and tribe, which are the containers of history and culture, is substituted an "integrated" but organically dissolved sociological subsystem.  While public suspicion has been commonly directed toward grandiose, fantastic strategies for the integration of whole races, the more subtle ideas implicit in the most innocuous-appearing sociology courses called "the family" have been overlooked.  The ultimate goal of social engineering in family "integration" is the mediation of relationships within the most elemental human groupings.  Family members united through integration are divided personally.  The organically cohesive family is broken down and replaced by the sociological abstraction of a "primary group." Once the abstract social principle has penetrated the family, the last instinctual bond is dissolved.  Mediation is the last resort.

    The conclusion is unavoidable that mediation must absorb and drain away the life energy which would otherwise be devoted to existence as such, that is, to a complete emotional and esthetic involvement with a world in which one feels he belongs.  Structures which are not cultures may be integrative and lump vast masses of people in giant systems.

    But what is the source of these "purposes" and "tasks" for which men come together?........history, tradition, race.  Where these historical and cultural goals are absent, where peoples and individuals are so diverse that they cannot have important tasks in common, they cannot effectively cooperate.  Yet the state exists not for citizens, not even for the impoverished citizens.  It exists rather for the mediator!

   The intellectual has evolved from the priest of the more primitive societies." "But if human relations were derived from fixed and genetically transmitted instincts, and if, despite wide extension through symbols, relations always had to finally come back to instincts, men would ultimately give priority to organic and "pre-logical" groupings.  Instincts therefore challenge the priest's and intellectual bid for universal authority.

    The best mediator is the one who is an outsider with respect to "closed" and "instinctual" society.  Lacking instinctual social relations he must orient himself according to abstractions.

    Cosmopolitanism of the meditative establishment is the depletion and exhaustion of culture rather than its fulfillment.

    If world government is finally to be accomplished the groundwork can perhaps best be prepared by a world money empire.  Warner has correctly seen the impact of money, which, like the symbols of world religion, is universal.  Universal money lays the fundamental structure for the world political order.  Commercial materialism and its world marker underlie a "culture of mankind." Warner saw that the tribal tie which resists such absolute systemization may be demoralized by finance.

   The thesis of the Marxists is this: the world society, an abstraction, is a definite possibility because communication through the medium of money which today connects all men in a world market, is a true social relationship.  That men in a trading agreement exemplify the most general human relationship, which is though contractual in essence, is the "materialist" conception of society.

   The distinction between capitalism (Swartzbaugh is not relating to free enterprise, but the highly controlled finance capitalism of big business and Wall Street) and socialism is an academic and artificial one, although this distinction is a matter of heated controversy for hypertrophied and abstract economic systems.

   When Marx spoke of the capitalist he was thinking of the international speculator.  When speaking of the proletariat he meant the acephalous street mobs such as those presently roaming at will through the streets of the great American cities.  In America, Marxist dialectic would be represented by the expanding colored minorities and the similarly expanding commercialists.  These sociological groups would form a system of oppressor and oppressed.  But these categories also support one another in an equilibrium stabilized by the mediator.  In America, Marxism aims not to supplant the money class with a working class, but to substitute a Hegelian-Marxist (multicultural, pluralistic "contractual" society) dialectic for the organic (homogenous and instinctual) dialectic.

   The mediator is the person who in being between groups cannot be of them.  People are somewhat ill at ease in his presence and would normally avoid intimate contact.  As the priest's status as inverted man isolates him on a personal level, under certain conditions the entire value system of society is turned upside down.  Such Tran valuation usually occurs when discrete groups whose cultures had evolved in antagonism to one suddenly desire cooperation and accord.  In this case the values of courage, self-sacrifice and patriotism suddenly become irrelevant.  The arbiter, however, does not content himself with forgetting these values, he must turn them around!

   The Jewish rabbi is someone quite different, and indeed has an opposite relationship with his community, his purpose is to promote Jewish solidarity.  He ritually defines his people and sets them off rigidly from others.  Far from proselytizing, the rabbi instills a keen awareness of Jewishness which he reinforces with a stern moral code of cleanliness, sexual chastity, and loyalty among Jews, or any precept that promotes inbreeding and group separateness.

   It is precisely the lay Jew who is a "priest" in relation to his host nations.  Having been deported and uprooted for ages from one territory to another, and deprived of territorial affiliation, the Jew has learned to identify with his symbolic and transcendental nationhood." "Jewry is a meditative strategy.  The Jews, moreover, are monotheistic precisely to the degree that they are spatially dispersed. Their Covenant or Contract with God is essentially a contract with one another - a general formalistic agreement which moreover is readily adapted to particular business relations.  Unity of religion – absolute monotheism on an ideal plane - compensates for religion and racial disunity.  They are a special kind of nationality or, really a condition, a "people" oriented by an idea rather than by a concrete familiarity with a place and a sensitivity to race in the narrow biological sense.

   The Jew exists in the "pores and interstices of society," as Marx said.  But it is precisely this outcast status which renders him of values a mediator.   When communication and material exchange between nations contains friction, the Jew prospers.  When the communication ceases, the Jew is ignored or shunned.

   The mediating role is the essence of so-called Jewish liberalism, just as it is his support of mediating structures.  He believes in the principle of formal law and the courts just as he believes in the Law upon which Judaism is based.  But in order to make peace among factions he must to some extent open them to one another.  Mediation explains the Jewish interest not only in trade but also in the communication media, houses, universities, government social agencies and the courts, to which they are irresistibly drawn by virtue of their deeply ingrained sense of caste mission.  The Jews belong to humanity.  Insofar as America is a particularly hectic cross-section of humanity, they are especially involved here.  That Americans have for some time not been able to get along together on a personal and instinctual level has meant that American civilization has become mediation and, in this sense “Jewish civilization.

   America, a civilization of mediation, now poses the alarming possibility that a blue collar-white collar, urban-rural and North-South populist coalition will close in front of Jewry and mediation in general, excluding it as a social force.  The relationship between whites and nonwhite minorities, which has always been artificial, is increasingly insecure.  The nonwhite minorities have been accommodated in a philosophy and social system vaguely designed by the white minorities for the purpose of harmonious relations with one another.

   The fact the Jew is oriented in his social life by an ideal rather than by instincts has profound consequences for his economic behavior. His superiority in the latter realm is a result not so much of a higher intelligence as it is of his freedom from instincts, which allows him to specialize absolutely in an abstract niche.  The strength of the Jew is abstract analysis.  His weakness is lack of intuition.

   The abstract institutions of democracy were merely the scaffolding. They were never intended to be the building itself.

   If race is the basis of any enduring nationhood, it is therefore impossible that the theories of the Enlightenment are the true destiny of America.  Nor is materialism the destiny.

   Economic decline or recession is therefore more dangerous in American than in other more instinctually secure and culturally stable lands, Lacking natural compassion, men are kept from attacking one another only by virtue of the necessity of material cooperation.  The initial breakdown in a recession would be along racial lines, but the deterioration would proceed further to interpersonal relations. Money contracts are a kind of communication which, as the only communication the Americans at this time are capable of, must suffice until a deeper understanding has time to take root.

   Since the American context upheaval means the opposite of what it meant for Europeans, the true revolution has not yet appeared in the external life of the Country, although it has long been under the surface.  It would consist not just in a dismantling of institutions but in the negation of the Universalist "ideas" inherent in them and the reversal of the sequence whereby institutions destroy themselves in order to display these "ideas" more transparently and absolutely.  A true revolt for America would mean the overthrow of the anti-tribal, anti-instinct revolutionism wherein the society was forced to do an unnatural headstand.  Society would regain its natural stance.  It would establish fundamental organic relations among people and between people and land.  Americans would spiritually and culturally incorporate with one another to become, within themselves, whole citizens.

   Both dictatorship and democracy have advantages which suit these systems for different purposes.  Dictatorship tends to bring order and efficiency to society, and is therefore suited to cope with crisis. Democracy, on the other hand, has greater tolerance for the individual. To say that democracy is superior to dictatorship is simply to say that peace and prosperity are better than crisis.  However, no one would advocate authoritarian government when there is a possibility for personal freedom.  Nevertheless it is clear that given enough time, democracy can equal and even surpass dictatorship in suppressing individual freedom.

   Democracy decides issues by a concentration of ballots.  All real politics ultimately come back, however, to a concentration of human will, energy, and passion.  The productive and creative members of society, most of whom are white and have children of school age, inevitably have a basic and long-range political understanding quite apart from their voting habits and voting strengths; they make final decisions on important issues.  The old, the young, and the weak and poor of a society cannot in the last analysis, by simple numerical majority, rigidly coerce and subjugate the solid core of workers and family heads.  At most, the unproductive poor can exert themselves indirectly through a handful of resourceful leaders whose influence, however, is meditative.

   The out-voted man, if he is astute and determined man, if he finds himself working for others and not himself, and if the voting majority has little strength beyond the ballot, accomplishes his individual ends by abolishing the entire system and setting up a new one for his private purposes.  He establishes a dictatorship.  The difference between dictatorship and democracy in this case is the incidental fact that formerly a majority oppressed a minority, whereas now a minority (within which there may be great personal freedom) dominates the majority.  At the time of the overthrow, the democracy was already dead and superfluous, since there were individuals to whom the system was a mortal enemy.

   The individuals become implacable enemies of the so-called democracy and will not rest until the system is destroyed.  They are right in assuming that democracy would eventually crowd them out of existence as surely as would the most pernicious dictatorship, and the fact that under a democracy this process might take a little longer is unimportant.

   In America more than twenty years ago there were crucial productive citizens alienated from the system.  The estrangement was the consequence of block voting in which the individual identified his personal interests with those of this economic, ethnic or racial groups. The system, although perhaps already desperately ill, at the time still had the lucky feature that the voters of the majority imagined themselves to be a majority.  They were therefore satisfied with the existing system, while the voting minority pondered the situation and was meanwhile mollified by its economic prosperity.  The delusion of the "majority" is totally shattered, leaving each voter with the feeling that he is trapped in a hopeless minority and destined to be forever outside the system.  The fallacy of democracy in a pluralistic society is that populations that do not essentially understand one another are potentially uncompromising toward one another.  A true and lasting democracy is possible only when men understand one another.  When they understand one another they do not need democracy.     This is why in America the appearance of new movements with strong racial consciousness, even though there is no clearly defined ideological viewpoint, is a grave portent of the future.

   Leaders can best protect their positions if they disrupt the instinctual solidarity of the men under them.  While encouraging impersonalness among the subordinates by switching them around and shuffling them up them simultaneously implement symbolic and contractual relations among them, over which they, as leaders, are in control.  Even in the early Egyptian kingdoms, bureaucrats and scribes were moved around to prevent them from forming an attachment to any one region.

   With effusive pleas for harmony and peace pouring from all communications systems, the system must, to prevent the inward restlessness of clashing populations from bursting the seams of society, grow still larger and more rigid and doctrinaire.  Meanwhile its internal operation becomes increasingly inefficient, more energy being expended merely in supporting the system irrespective of its special functions.

   Society becomes to live off its own divisions.  Its main business is that of pluralism.  The individual comes to depend on the divisions of society for his livelihood.  In these terms social work and sociology are the make-work projects of postwar America just as the Work Projects Administration was the panacea of the Great Depression.  If depression is defined as a period where there are not enough useful jobs to go around, we are presently in such a depression, one in which men are not given useless menial jobs but useless white-collar jobs.  For the creation of every unproductive job (this is the contemporary notion of "creativity"), a new job must be invented to integrate it with others.

   The most ambitious and perhaps even heroic of these tasks, but ultimately a tragically heroic task, is to make the minority citizen into somebody's, the socialist's or the Adamic concept of a Man and a full human being and an equal.

   The WPA led to the creation of some wonderful parks and zoos.  All we have to show for our present middleclass make-work project is the numerical increase of minority citizens and the consequent need for more social workers and police.  The dispenser of welfare and the receiver live off of each other, a contradiction which grows more apparent as the bureaucracy-welfare syndrome becomes a dominant theme of society.  It remains to be seen how long a society can feed off itself without consuming some vital organ and killing the system.

   To overcome the elemental dialectic of nature through the absolute universal abstraction of a "world society" would be to finally and absolutely negate the fundamental fact of biology and instinct.  Human life, out of blind will to survive, backs away from such a possibility. Total organization of life on earth was achieved immediately following {‘WWII in the opposition of Eastern and Western blocs.  Finally, having absorbed all other national feelings and viewpoints, the ideologies of East and West, the communist and democratic-pluralistic ideologies, confronted one another in an absolute and final opposition.  And yet they were two sides of the same universality, opposites which could not be transcended.  The real barrier to an absolute monolithic world economy and society was not, however, ideology.  It was rather a basic organic and psychological barrier.

   History today aims at particularity and individuality, the immediacy that is the essence of culture.  For that reason, life will ultimately overwhelm "progressive" institutions and replace them with direct and intuitive human relationships.  Life will revive the private and personal bond which the super society has so drastically subverted.

   The wave of the future is regionalism, a continuity of formed, disciplined instincts. The accomplishment of regionalism will be through the level-by-level internalization of violence.  This internal fighting will obviously begin in the super-blocs.  Since they cannot fight between themselves - it is overwhelmingly believed that war on their scale of technology would annihilate all life - their component nations will assert themselves in compulsive struggles of "liberation." Turning away from the absolute barrier dividing the final world-segments ultimately means an increase of local violence, which in isolated cases can be seen breaking out even now.

   Even though history and "social progress" is conspicuously reversing itself, the American institutional viewpoint continues to regard institutions as breaking away from regional and racial societies and toward an absolute world synthesis.  Abstract structures are programmed to expunge and expel from themselves qualities associated with particular peoples and regions.  This is the so-called silent and bloodless revolution of which communications, religious and teaching establishments proudly speak.

   In systems built up around the outside personality of the media the values are inverted.  Today the mass media conspicuously and even militantly tend to idealize ugly, corrosive and demoralizing images and values. Bourgeois sentimentality and patriotism have been turned around as a gleeful nihilism and raised as such to a solemn ethical mission. Pornography is democratic sex which replaces private and exclusive and exclusivist, in other words, "racist" eroticism.  Universalism means anti-nationalism and anti-WASPism, the WASP being the hypothetical "native."  The ethnic is the ideal American in that he is construed as non-American.

   The Negro, then, is the one for whom democratic rights seem specially created.  He is the basic reason for existence of both the mediation establishment and of America's leading institutions. Paradoxically, universities are turning out a class of people-sociologists, poverty workers and civil rights lawyers - who live off the Negro.  Society must not only support him, it must support his nurses and babysitters.  Black people themselves have nothing to say about this since civil rights is welfare of a great and powerful white interest group.

   As an inverted citizen the mediators need the Negro as much as he needs them.  The emerging ideal of American democracy is an abstract priesthood governing an amorphous colored mass.

   It is a mistake of the black man to think he is fighting institutions when in fact he is the content of them, of that his enemy is the policeman who actually protects him from the ominous anarchist violence of the whites!  A grave mistake!  However, the black man will probably survive his mistake if only because he is not an institution unto himself but unto white people.  The full impact of the revolt of life and instincts - we could call it white power - which before the deterioration of the world society was buried and latent, will fall rather upon the hyper-institutionalized man himself.  This person, regardless of ethnic or racial affiliation, is so permeated with the abstractness of the structures with which he identifies that he must fall with them.

   There is now beginning to emerge an inward feeling for a new American population comprised of Europeans who have marginally hybridized racially and culturally.  This new race would still retain great diversity; the American ethnic groups, insofar as they are presently identifiable, would retain a certain identity, perhaps in different regions of America.  Once Americans are again secure in their personal relationships and feel a sense of regional permanence, it may be expected that religion and art will undergo a new efflorescence. Society will break down rather than build up, to the optimum community size for art.

   Existing American institutions are indeed still programmed to continue in this direction (world government, et al), on the assumption that the world society lies in the future.  It is increasingly apparent, however, that the world society has already come and gone."  "This is not to say that world organization was defeated.  It is simply that no unity rooted to any extent in organic realities can transcend the elemental fact of segmentation.  But even this "segmented" unity is now breaking apart.

   This organic reversal does not mean, however, that institutions are reorienting themselves accordingly.  Institutions are always behind the times.  The uncertainty and disorientation in America today is that its hierarchies and ideologies are still programmed in anticipation of a civitas maxima, which in fact is already in the past. Appearing everywhere are regionalist struggles of "liberation."

   The new populism, as before, is hostile to the abstractions of bureaucracy and money, as well as to the bluff of establishment intellectuals.  The "soil" of the new populism is not only the land but, for the urban working man, the elemental tribal and ethnic and racial population.

   The power and fame of the mediator depend on the fact that there are divisions in society.  But they cannot be made to reject one another so thoroughly that they reject the whole idea of mediation.  Nor can they be brought together in such a way that they fuse organically, in which case they would also lose interest in mediation. 

   Consequently the aim of the mediator is not to remain an outsider between groups of insiders, but to make all men outsiders, who are incapable of relationships other than those maintained through mediating symbols.  However, this interference is dangerous business.

   It is not likely that the American liberal actually wants total racial miscegenation.  Rather he wants "integration" wherein men turn away from one another altogether and toward the priests of civil rights. The purpose of bringing the races together in intimate contact and in space originally relegated for social purposes is not to force them together on the level of instinctual society but, on the contrary, to make any such society impossible. 

   The various white nationalities are marginally closing together and developing a sense of common culture and race.  The go-betweens are in haste to disrupt this understanding before it closes them out altogether.  For his part, however, the black man, although violently expressing resentment of this past treatment, shows ever greater reluctance to cooperate himself not only socially but institutionally and symbolically, at first within the very systems which had accepted him through "integration" but more recently in increasingly remote and insular groupings and cults.  These separatist tendencies spell eventual disaster for the mediation establishment, if not for the whole principle of democratic pluralism.

   While he could not be a mediator if he owed allegiance to any nation or people, even perhaps his own abstract "nation" of mediators, he puts himself in a delicate position.  He is inevitably identified with the interests of the opposing party, hence he is regarded as against the in-group.  From the standpoint of the in-group, mediation always has a poisonous element.  It is utterly imperative, if the mediator is to survive in this climate of hostility, that the groups continue to need contact; and that they nevertheless remain separate and even hostile so as to require his services.  The go-between must be clever indeed to preserve this fragile balance in the unpredictable chaos of world politics.

WILMOT ROBERTSON

    Wilmot Robertson wrote “The Dispossessed Majority” but could not find a publisher that would publish it.  So he self-published, and it became a NYT best seller, from word of mouth alone.  It is a seminal work, published in 1975, a prophetic work that has much value for us today.  From Wilmot Robertson's the "Dispossessed Majority".....

    “From the standpoint of the American Majority, the political dogma which served it so well during most of American history has now become one of the chief agents of its decline.  From the standpoint of the minorities, it has become a powerful tool for their advancement.  Almost every political act is now measured against the yardstick of minority interest.  Almost every political event of the past and present is assigned to some way station along the March of Democracy.  The current political struggle is falsely presented as a contest between liberalism and conservatism, exploited and exploiters, tolerance and intolerance, equality and inequality, freedom and oppression.  Since it conceals the real nature of what is happening and the real intentions of the dogmatizers, dogmatic interpretation has become as powerful a force as dogma itself.

    A principle cause of the powerful and pervasive anti-democratic element in modern America democracy is that elections come every two, four, or six years, while the media and pressure groups grind out their propaganda every day.  Every politician is extremely sensitive to the bloc vote (farm, religious, minority, professions, regional economic labor, races, etc.).  The economic blocs which form within the framework of representative government are storm signals of the second stage of democratic growth, the progression from the political to the economic democracy.

   The equalitarian premise of economic democracy is that without an "equitable" distribution of wealth there can be no democracy at all.  Marxism is the midwife of economic democracy. Lately, the third and final stage of democracy, the social phase, has begun to materialize.  Like political and economic democracy, social democracy is not new.  But it seems to come last in the cycle of democratic growth (or decay).  Because it capitalizes on the deeper, by instinctive undercurrents of human behavior, its historical manifestations are not always easy to recognize and do not often penetrate conventional history books.  Its theoretical genesis, however is not difficult to trace, being a composite of the religious concept of the brotherhood of man, Lockean and Jeffersonian assertions about human rights, Marxist class agitation and the pronouncements of modern anthropologists and sociologists concerning human sameness.

   Once political and economic democracy takes hold in a society, the pressure for social democracy is certain to mount.  This is especially true in a multiracial state.  Inevitably, the unwashed, the disadvantaged and the envious will begin to ask, or will be asked to ask by ambitious politicians, "Why, if man is politically equal and getting to be economically equal, should he not be socially equal?" In the context of contemporary democratic politics, such a question has but one answer.

   Social democracy is the thorniest stage of democracy in a multiracial state because more than any other phase it increases the area of contact, the social interface, of the various demographic elements-and the study of racial relations has shown that the greater the social interface, the greater the racial friction.  Political democracy orders members of different populations groups to vote together, legislate together and rule together.  Economic democracy makes it necessary for them to work together.  Social democracy, however exponentially enlarges the area of contact by forcing the most diverse elements of the population to live together.  At present this social mixing is restricted to neighborhoods, schools, playgrounds and clubs.  But there are for cues at work to carry it into the last redoubt of individualism and privacy, the home.

   The inner contradictions of the three phases of both ancient and modern democracy become apparent when it is remembered that political democracy begins as a means of protecting property, while economic democracy seeks to divide it up and social democracy encourages its theft.  In the ironic chain of events that govern the democratic cycle, the same rights which were secured and recognized, often with great difficulty, in the political phase of democracy are deemphasized and frequently revoked in the economic and social phases.  It is hard to believe that the right to privacy, the right to choose friends, neighbors and schoolmates, the right to join fraternal or social organizations, the right to air one's opinion in public and the right of access to one's own culture are not as fundamental to human liberty to the unfoldment of the human spirit as any other.  Yet these are precisely the rights held in low esteem by the most ardent advocates of social democracy.

   The Old Liberalism of Locke and Jefferson was an entirely different breed of ideology from the New Liberalism of today.  The Old Liberalism stressed individual not collective enterprise, less government not more, states' rights not federal control, laissez-faire not welfare, liberty not security, evolution not revolution.  Moreover, none of the great liberals of the past, in spite of their ringing appeals to equality, was willing to admit the equality of the races.

   Public figures whose private lives have been a shambles and who have proved utterly incapable of raising their own children presume to write copious newspaper columns and magazine articles on family life, marital problems and child upbringing.  The mother with a delinquent daughter, instead of improving conditions in her own home, becomes a social worker and attempts to help other families with delinquent daughters.

   In the liberal scheme of things there is a widening gulf between the person and the act, the thought and the deed.  The politician who fights for school integration sends his own children to private schools.  The criminal is not really guilty.  He has merely committed an unfortunate act caused by an unfavorable environment.  Someone else or something else is guilty.  The liberal loves every one of every race, but he flees to the suburbs where he prefers to live among whites, even conservative whites.  It is so secret that liberals are fonder of mankind than men. The tragic view of life-the struggle of one man, not mass man, against the irreversibility of fate-does not fit easily into liberal thought. Nor does patriotism.

   Modern liberalism, of course does not admit to being racist.  In fact, it pretends to be anti-racist.  But every word it speaks, every policy it supports, every program it publicizes, every cause it underwrites, every piece of legislation it introduces is racist to the core.  Modern liberalism, in spite of its bewitching ecumenical clichés, is also dedicated to one segment of the American population, this time the Unassimilable Minorities.

   Its original purpose subverted, its original ideals redirected and reinterpreted, the liberalism of today has become a minority religion. Within, the attack on private ownership grows fiercer, not because, as official socialist doctrine has it, state control of the means of production would bring about greater economic benefits, but because private property is one of the biggest stumbling blocks to the latter-day perversions of democracy and liberalism.  The liberal-minority coalition does not covet property to spread it more equitably.  The affluent minorities and most Majority liberals already have enough possessions and the poor minorities are more envious than greedy.  The aim is not so much confiscation, as revenge.  The declining fortunes of those on the way down provide a kind of ghoulish, satisfaction to those on the way up.

   With the passing of the Melting Pot fantasy has come the anti-fantasy-- the American Mosaic.  The intellectual mis-een-scene has suddenly been rearranged to accommodate a new sociological fad, the pluralistic society, in which all races and nationality groups live harmoniously side by side, all maintaining and strengthening their racial and cultural identity, each making its own contribution in its own way to the total picture of American life.  Like the promoters of the Melting Pot, the salesmen of the pluralism have misread history, which teaches that pluralistic societies are static and caste-ridden and a standing invitation to disorder and disaster.  Historically disoriented, the voices of pluralism are also dramatically contradictory.  They are opposed to racism in theory, but support minority racism in practice.  They uphold group identity, but demand integration.  They approve of racial quotas, but are against racial discrimination.

   Meanwhile, the American social order totters along in the grip of rising racial tension, which is both a cause and effect of pluralism. The Mosaic has turned out to be as great a failure, as great a misfiring of the imagination, as the Melting Pot.  Mosaics are bits and pieces of inorganic matter which once put in place stay in place.  Races are pulsating, organic continuities altering in size and status, now dynamic, now static, as the age dictates and as they dictate to the age. The Darkening Immigrants is not evidence that America is entering an age of pluralism.  He is a harbinger of changing racial hierarchies.

   In spite of all their divergences, Unassimilable minorities (many Southern Italians, miscellaneous Mediterranean and Balkan, Jews, most Mexicans, many Asians, many American Indians, most Puerto Ricans and most Negroes) have joined in an alliance which, with the assistance of Majority "Splitter" of the Ranks, has steered the march of American events for the greater part of the century.  In addition, to combining their votes for carefully selected political candidates, the more dynamic of these minorities have overcome their polar differences to forge the solid ideological front which is destroying the most sacrosanct American institutions.

   What then is the unifying force strong enough to prevail against all this diversity, the centripetal force mighty enough to turn off the racial centrifuge in which these minorities should logically be imprisoned?  To paraphrase Nietzsche, it probably has to do with the will to power and the will to powerlessness---the desire for power by those Unassimilable Minorities who have little, the desire for more power by those who have much, and the desire to give away power by those who have much, and the desire to give away power by deracinated Majority members.  Feeding these desires are such old psychological imponderables and intangibles as envy, insecurity, fear, hate and even, perhaps, self-hate.  These desires have also received some economic nourishment, but not as much as might be supposed.  In recent years, in the ghettos of the big cities, one minority has been looting, robbing, and burning the assets of another, yet the latter continues to put significant amount of its brainpower and money at the disposal of the former.

   The only safe assumption to make about the force that unifies and galvanizes the Unassimilable Minorities is that it is most apparent and most forceful when directed against the Majority.  Accordingly, it may be said that the chief source of minority unity and coordination is that great, sick, floundering, demographic whale, which can be attacked, smashed, bitten and nipped at with impunity.  Above all else, it is opposition to the Majority which has built the effective but uneasy alliance between the Unassimilable Minorities and the Majority Splinters.

   The social democrats attacked the Majority in a way that pleased the Majority's opponents most... race.  The basic plan was to raise minority racism to the boiling point while submitting Majority race consciousness to the numbing ideology of liberalism.  The second plan was to develop a technique whereby the will for the many could be defeated and voted down by the few.  This was to be accomplished in two ways: controlling the vote by managed news, educational indoctrination and the nomination of carefully screened candidates; going around the vote, when necessary, by Supreme Court edicts and secret foreign policy commitments.  Meanwhile, whenever social democracy went too far, too fast, and a spark of resistance flared, it could be taken care of by shouting down the speakers, breaking up their meetings, occupying plants, government offices and centers of learning or, if worst came to worst, detonating a few well-placed sticks of dynamite.

  Certainly if the political phase is ever to be revived through the Herculean efforts of a united Majority party, it must be clearly remembered, as it was once so clearly understood, that democracy makes the highest demands of its participants and offers a measure of freedom only to those who can handle freedom.  It is the rule of a people, not several peoples.  The loftiest and most quixotic of all political ideals, it is even, perhaps, the expression of a racial trait.  If so modern political scientists have been the biggest prospectors of fool's gold in the history of human thought.

  Why have there been no successful proletarian revolutions and very few attempts at any kind of revolution in Northern Europeans or nations with predominantly Northern European populations?  Is it unreasonable to assume that the genetic composition of the Northern European peoples has something to do with this record?  Why is Japan, in spite of a defeat in WWII that involved atomic devastation, the most stable great power in Asia and the least susceptible to revolution?  Is not part of the answer that Japan is the most racially homogeneous of the large Asian nations? Why is Costa Rica the most prosperous and progressive country in Central America?  The fact that it is the one Central American state with a dominant and homogeneous white population may provide a clue.  Why did Germany almost succumb to revolution after defeat in WWI yet become the most affluent and most stable nation in Europe after its much worse defeat in WWII.  Could it be because the dynamic minority which was present in large numbers after WWI could hardly be said to exist after WWII.

The Law & Crime

   Concerning adulteration of the law, Robertson states "As social systems grew more complex, laws were codified and began to spin their web throughout the length and breadth of human activity.  In more sophisticated societies laws became the rules of the game of civilization.  As respect for the law diminished, laws proliferated or rather degenerated into masses of contradictory regulations.  Tacitus described the cause and effect relationship in one of his neater epigrams: "The more corrupt the government, the greater the numbers of laws.

   Nevertheless, an established body of law has a conservative influence on society.  The older laws are, the more inertia they acquire and the more difficult they are to change, particularly when they have the combined support of custom, religion and practicality.  It is a truism that these triple foundations of an effective legal system are far more common in homogeneous than in heterogeneous societies.  A diversity of people means a diversity of customs, which create basic contradictions in the fabric of the law from the very beginning.  As Matthew Arnold once noted: the mixture of persons of different race in the same commonwealth unless one race had a complete ascendancy, tended to confuse all the relations of human life, and all men's notions of right and wrong.

   Over the past twenty five years, the Supreme Court has had a drastic effect on all American lives.  Robertson states: "It was foreseeable that the main wave of the legal attack against the Majority would be launched from the judicial branch of government.  Overriding the will of the greatest number of Americans is more easily accomplished by nine men appointed to office and responsible to no one, not even to each other, than by legislators who are subject to periodic electoral review.  The rulings of the liberal and minority Justices of the Supreme Court offered anti-Majority factions a quasi-legal means of achieving societal goals that could never been obtained through the normal legislation process.

   Mr. Robertson has some very interesting statements on crime in a multi-racial society.  "It is worth repeating that every race and every society have their criminals.  But multiracial societies have more crime, and the multiracial society in which the struggle for power becomes an openly racial struggle has the most crime.  Furthermore, there are some offenses, particularly certain kinds of sex offenses, which could only occur in heterogeneous societies.

   Racial crime is becoming the most common type of crime in America, yet American law refuses to distinguish it from any other kind of crime. Everyone is still equal before the law and entitled to the same legal safeguards, although the racially-motivated criminal no more deserves the protection and benefits of due process than an enemy soldier captured in battle.  Both the enemy soldier and, increasingly, the minority lawbreaker feel their crimes are not crimes in the real sense, but simply acts of justifiable violence against an oppressor.  This is why the odds against the racial criminal's rehabilitation in prison are so high.  To most minority prisoners, the modern American prison is little more than a prisoner-of-war camp-albeit a strange and incomprehensible one from which prisoners are released while the war is still in progress and where the troops of both sides are incarcerate together, as they continue at close quarters the racial conflict being waged outside. In a somewhat related matter, Mr. Robertson speaks racial conflict in the Vietnam War.  He states Many Negro soldiers in Vietnam had special war aims of their own.  Almost half of those questioned said they would use arms to gain their rights when they returned to the States.  There were several military skirmishes between white and black troops during the course of the war, and 305 attacks on whites with fragmentation grenades resulting in 101 deaths.

 Crime in America will almost certainly go on increasing until criminologists and social scientists are willing to consider the genetic ramifications of the problem.  Because of the genetic link, crime prevention should start in the home or, more properly, in the bedroom. There are already too many Americans, and many too many criminal Americans.  For those criminal elements who not only insist on multiplying, but multiplying much faster than non-criminal elements, the only alternative is sterilization.  Professor Samuel J Holmes has stated that the sterilization of 10 percent of the American population would get rid of most hereditary defectives.

The Future

   Mr. Robertson does not have any magic wands to correct the condition of the dispossessed Majority.  In fact he expresses grave doubt for the survival of America as it now exists.  By reading and understanding his thoughts it is easy to reach the same conclusion.  He states "The Majority must look for deliverance and regeneration within the defenses of the mind.  There will be no end to its dispossession until the Majority learns to reject all, repeat all, the main currents of modern liberal thought”, and there can be no such rejection until the non-liberal and anti-liberal forces which engender and direct modern liberalism are clearly understood.  To understand what has happened to the Majority it is first necessary to realize that the deterioration of power is as much the result of success as it is failure.  The hard-pressed society knows better that to let down its guard.  It cannot afford to ignore the motives and acts of its opponents.  Conversely, the successful or affluent society, by virtue of its surplus of life's necessities, has the time to turn away from the grindstone of daily existence.  Less touched by the existential forces of the human condition, its members have the rare and dangerous opportunity of stretching their individualism well beyond the normal societal breaking point.  The successful could afford to share their success, and the Majority did so with indiscriminate prodigality.

   The new Americans began to vote, not as individuals, but as members of blocs.  Many of them prospered greatly in an unrestricted economy, but they spent much of their wealth on group projects that were outside and often opposed to the national interest.  They reveled in the freedom they could never win themselves, but instead of treating it respectfully and responsibly, they took advantage of it.  Their children thronged to the free public schools of a matchless education system, where they learned enough about American civilization to criticize it, but not enough to become a part of it.  It was predictable that the ruling race, having been leveled to equality, would be further demoted to subject status.  It was understandable that the subject races, having been raised to equality, might wish to climb higher, particularly after learned professors flattered their genes and whetted their ambitions with allusions to racial superiority.  It was logical that blacks, having been told they were equal or superior to whites, would blame their social disadvantages not on any innate limitations, but on a devilish white conspiracy.  To smash stirrings of resistance, the liberal-minority general staff opened up all the old stops, the mind-deadening cacophony of Marxist and liberal dogma, the sly equalitarian appeals to minority racism, as well as a few new stops-drugs, pornography, homosexuality, the generation gap and women's liberation.  As usual, the big guns blasted the weakest spots in the Majority's defenses-the children and the young women.  But they zeroed in on the prime target, the Majorities last redoubt, the family. The dignity of the individual.  The triumph of reason.  The rights of man.  The Majority's ancestors had been the first to develop these concepts and apply them to society.  In their perverted modern form they were the killers of society.  Race was still the unspeakable historical determinant, although the loudest denouncers and deniers of race were, as always, the biggest racists.

   To the racial historian, race is the being and the becoming of organized humanity.  As race has been the controlling factor of much of the human past, so it will assume even greater importance in the future. Supreme efforts can only be undertaken by large groups of men with similar political and social reflexes, by great teams’ not great mobs, specifically by great races.  Race, the highest manifestation of the team spirit, may be nature's way of organizing men for the accomplishing of the un-accomplishable.

   Just as the body rejects transplanted organs, races have the habit of rejecting transplanted ideologies.  They may accept them temporarily, but the buildup of "antibodies" is unceasing.

   At this particular point in time, the race best suited to shoulder the main weight of the evolutionary burden would appear to be the Northern European.  The Northern European has managed to soar a little higher above the animal kingdom than the other divisions of mankind.  At the moment, two devastating interracial wars within a quarter century and the dispossession of the American Majority, the largest reservoir of Northern European genes, have grounded him.  Permanently or temporarily, it is too early to know.  To put the Northern Europeans back on the evolutionary track-to rekindle the Northern European efflorescence-is a project of monumental complexity.  Should this pooling of the work and thought of a highly gifted but widely dispersed people ever be effected, there would be such a preponderance of power that no external predator would dare so much as touch the remotest corner of the Northern European living space, either in Europe, North America, or Australasia.  The minorities within this living space no longer able to prosper from the divisions of their hosts, might finally learn to look to themselves for sustenance.

  Such is the shimmering prospect of a Pax Americana-a world more encompassing than the Pax Romana and more enduring and more constructive than the Pax Britannica.  There would be emphatically no place for the old-style exploitation of nonwhites or the forcible adaptation of autochthonous civilizations to Northern European cultural norms.

  But everything hangs on the fate of the American Majority.  If its dispossession is not stopped and reversed, there will be no Pax Americana, no halt to the decline of the West.  In fact, there will soon be no America.  History is insistent in pointing out that when the dominant population group goes, the country goes.  As is daily becoming more apparent, the dying fall of the American Majority is the dying fall of America itself.

A.K. CHESTERTON

   A.K.  Chesterton, an Englishman, published "The New Unhappy Lords" in 1970.  It is an exposure of behind-the-scenes power politics.

   “No less indicative of the new power which aspired to take charge of the governance of mankind was the curious circumstance that Paul Warburg, partner in the firm of Kuhn, Loeb, and Co., part financier of the Russian Revolution and agent-in-chief for the founding of the U.S. Federal Reserve system, accompanied President Wilson to the Versailles Peace Conference (1918), where he acted as financial advisor to the American delegation, while the German delegation employed as financial adviser a partner in the Hamburg lending house run by Paul Warburg's brother, Max. Although Versailles has often been described as the scene of a welter of national interest contending one against the other, in truth the dominating interest to be served was infra-national, or what we should today describe as internationalist.

   As a long term policy, the British peoples were being softened-up. Disarmed physically and, through the deliberate denigration of patriotism and a proper pride, spiritually, they were made ready for a takeover bid.  By whom?  Some would say "by the Communists." My own reply would be: by the new world power which saw - and sees – the possibility of using both Communism and Loan-Capitalism as twin instruments with which to subdue and govern, not the British nation alone, but all mankind.

   The Money Power intends that no nation shall be sovereign, that it alone shall exercise sovereign power on earth.  The distance it has already travelled towards the fulfilment of its aims is terrifying.

   This intention is no mere conjecture.  Appearing in 1950 before a sub-committee of the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations in hearings entitled Revision of United Nations Charter, James Paul Warburg of the powerful banking family said, "The past fifteen years of my life (thus including the war years!) have been devoted almost exclusively to studying the problem of world peace and especially the relation of the United States to those problems.  These studies led me, 10 years ago, to the conclusion that the great question of our time is not whether or not One World can be achieved, but whether or not One World can be achieved by peaceful means.  “We shall have World Government whether we like it or not.  The question is only whether World Government will be achieved by consent or conquest.  So, reader, there you are - "Whether you like it or not”.

  On the monarchs of the world Chesterton states, "The reason, no doubt, is that historically the role of the Monarch has been to protect the people against those who were their oppressors, sometimes "wicked barons", at other times the great vested interests, and at yet other times the usurers - particularly the usurers.  That is why Edward I of England, a great King, should be honoured by every Englishman.  To historically informed minions of the Money Power, however, his name is accursed.  After endeavoring to secure fair dealing for his subjects against the extortions of money, by means of a notable piece of legislation called the Statute of Jewry, and after his discovery that the Statute was being circumvented in every possible way, he decided to expel the Jews from England.  This and many other endeavors by the Monarchies in other lands to save their subjects from persecution have built up a strong bias against Kingship in those who today aspire to rule the world, with the result that almost all the crowned heads have disappeared from the face of the earth.

   He further states, "Patriotism and the safeguarding of national interests, together with the national tendency to stand by the men and women of European lineage wherever they may be, are systematically discouraged and scorned.  In place of these traditional values the malign doctrines of internationalism are preached, and children are being brought up in the unnatural and poisonous belief that racial integration is among the most desirable of all human objectives.  Brock Chisholm, the first Director General of the World Health Organization (one of the United Nation's agencies), declared that the ideal skin for a human being is a coffee colored skin and U.N.E.S.C.O. (another United Nations' agency) has brought out several publications to proclaim the lie that there is no fundamental difference in aptitudes between the different races of mankind.  Nobody is encouraged to observe the end results of racial integration in places such as Brazil, the Cape, and the West Indies.  Irresponsible and wicked though the doctrines of U.N.E.S.C.O. undoubtedly are, that does not alter the fact that the Organization's agency in Great Britain is the Ministry of Education, or the fact that New Zealand's Department of Education has taken the lead in disseminating propaganda hostile to national sovereignty and in favor of internationalism and mixing of the races.

   Again on world government..."The merging of the nations is no new idea.  Paul Warburg in the early twenties was calling for a United States of Europe, which he probably saw as a Communist outfit responsible to the dictates of Wall St. In the late thirties much support was forthcoming, from interesting as well as idealistic sources, for the plan ascribed to Clarence Streit of an Atlantic Union, which was to be a federation of the fifteen or so countries with an Atlantic seaboard.  At that time Hitler's Germany was used as a bogey to try to make the countries concerned federate.  When Germany was defeated, the promoters of Federal Union, in no way abashed, made the Soviet Union the bogey in her place.  The BBC, which in any choice between nationalism and internationalism has always backed the internationalist case plugged the Federal Union scheme in programme after programme, not even neglecting the Children's Hour, and every offer by the present writer to secure men of national fame to put the other side of the case was declined.  Atlantic Union (of which Lester Pearson is a champion) still remains one of several schemes for the staged "advance" to World Government.  The creation of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization is itself a functional approach to Atlantic Union.

  Then there was the Strasbourg approach, which worked, and perhaps still works, for a Federated Europe as one of the stepping-stones towards the federation of the world.  Lack of immediate success does not mean the abandonment of the plan.  Strasbourg is still the spiritual home, and indeed the capital city of the European federalists.

  On "One World" & immigration, he states, "So disastrous has been the flooding of the country by the sea of colored immigrants that one wonders what economic motives have prompted its sponsors.  To pass the kitchen entrance to many of the chief catering firms when there is a change of shift provides part, if only a small part, of the answer.  The dominating motive may will have been not economic but political – the conspiratorial plan, everywhere being carried out, of securing the mongrelization of mankind.  More will be said about this later.  What has here to be stated, with the greatest possible emphasis, is that the mixing of White and Black or Colored people results in hordes of unhappy half-castes who feel that they belong nowhere, whose tendency is to embrace the vices of both racial stocks and not to strive after the virtues, and who must eventually, through no fault of their own, bring to an end the tremendous history of achievement which is the heritage of the European nations.

  "Criminality", have I described the sponsorship of these migrations? I understated its significance.  The movement at base is not merely criminal: such destruction of the happiness and contentment of peoples still unborn is more than criminal: in the truest sense of the word it is diabolical.  What is more, it is aimed at the destruction of the great British nation and system of nations.  In times past men were hanged for treason much less full of menace than this treason, but the men responsible for it will go, not to the block at the Tower of London, but to the British House of Lords.

   As more and more colored immigrants make their presence felt, the Government and many hundreds of other organizations are doing everything in their power (including legislation contained in two Race Relations Acts) to force native Britons to welcome them, to integrate with them and to pretend that deep-lying differences of customs and psychological patterns are no impediment to disparate groups functioning as a homogeneous nation.  It is more than intellectually unfashionable, it can even be a crime punished by a prison sentence, for the Anglo-Saxon and the Celts to express a preference for living their own way of life among their own kind.

   J. Edgar Hoover said: "Too often in recent years patriotic symbols have been shunted aside.  Our national heroes have been maligned, our history distorted.  Has it become a disgrace to pledge allegiance to our flag, or to sign a loyalty oath, or pay tribute to our national anthem?”  This work of denigration is no mere fashion: it is calculated policy”.

   Here, indeed is the chief feature in the pattern of world conspiracy which we have been tracing throughout this book.  The "cold war" was a device, not to divide and rule, but to confuse and unify.  The United States and the Soviet Union have been partners in every act of conspiracy.  There is little doubt that this seeming duality is not in fact dual but represents two arms of the same power instrument.  And there is still less doubt that unless the contrived dichotomy is tackled in detail, exposed as fraudulent, and denounced as a pestilence-laden plot, there will be no freedom for the world but only a world doped, stupefied, brainwashed and made ready for spiritual death.

   Let there be no doubt about it, the Royal Institute of International Affairs, although enjoying the Royal cachet, is far more responsive to the views of bodies such as the Rockefeller and Carnegie Foundations that it is amenable to the pursuit of distinctively British interests. Precisely the same comment may be made about the U.S.  Council on Foreign Relations concerning American national interest.

   Chesterton asks the question, "Is the Conspiracy Jewish?" "It is a fact that a minority of Jews, because of their greater intensity or whatever the reason may be, formed the hard core which promoted both the Menshevik and Bolshevik revolutions and have also been prominently identified with Communist movements in every other country.  This support was not greatly diminished even after Stalin "liquidated" most of the Jews who founded the Soviet Union, not ostensible because they were Jews but as alleged Trotskyists.

   The attraction for a certain type of Jew of subversive activities cannot in honesty be gainsaid.  Most defendants in the spy trials in Canada, following the revelations of Gouzenko, who defected from the Soviet Embassy, were Jews, and Gouzenko in his evidence affirmed that Moscow looked upon such people as being inherently suited for espionage work.  The men charged with espionage relating to nuclear weapons in the subsequent United States trials were also mostly Jews.  So were Jews the moving spirits in the espionage ring which sought out Admiralty secrets in Great Britain.  Blake, for instance, despite the immaculately British name he adopted, was a Dutch Jew who had been given sanctuary in England when his family fled from the Nazi invasion of Holland.  There is no evidence that he showed remorse at betraying the country which harbored him.  Eighty per cent of the White defendants in the sabotage trials in South Africa were Jewish, although Jews form only a small part of the Republic's White population.  Their strong sense of solidarity causes the law-abiding members of the Jewish community, whose outlook is often conservative, if not to defend the subversive elements, at any rate to embark upon rather slippery arguments that Jews are a religious and not a racial group, so that apostates are not to be looked upon as Jewish. Such arguments are specious and deceive only the simple.

   There is evidence that Zionism has ambitions far beyond the creation of a Jewish State in the Levant.  David Lilienthal, deviser of the Tennessee Valley project and of the Franco-German steel iron and coal merger, and at one time chairman of the U.S.  Atomic Energy Commission wrote of the Jew that it was his destiny to lead mankind into universal brotherhood under a World Government.  Here, I suggest, is the major Zionist objective - One World.  It is a concept which appeals to the idealistic side of the Jewish mentality, but it appeals still more to that side of the Jewish mind which is preoccupied with the drive towards monopoly, above all a world monopoly of political power.

   It is from New York that the master manipulators exercise direct power over Finance-Capitalism and indirect control over Communism.  Are these master-manipulators and master conspirators Jewish?  Because of the power of the purse afforded by the control of credit and by preponderant participation in America's most powerful industries and commercial firms, and because of commercial preponderance in the economies of the so-called "free world", the answer is almost certainly "yes".  Whether or not One World is the secret final objective of Zionism, World Jewry is the most powerful single force on earth and it follows that all major policies which have been ruthlessly pursued through the last several decades must have had the stamp of Jewish approval.  Indeed, common sense applied to such facts as have come to light must lead to the conclusion that the policies, directed against the most cherished Gentile values, were incubated by adroit Jewish brains and fulfilled, or carried to the verge of fulfilment, by the dynamism of the Jewish spirit.  At the same time, so many Gentiles are associated with the conspiracy, both directly and through the formation of fronts, there are so many Gentiles agents and agencies, and so many Gentile governments which have acquiesced in the conspiracy by falling into line with policies inimical to their own national interest, that it would be ludicrous to offload upon Jewish shoulders responsibility for the destruction, or near destruction, of Christendom and the Western world.  Nevertheless, it would be equally ludicrous to deny the Jewish part, especially where it is admitted.

  The idea of so large a conspiracy seems preposterous, it is not nearly as preposterous as the assumption that the post-war shaping of the world is innocent of design.

  However, in the world take-over bid and the conspiracy underlying it, there are certain overtones and undertones which cannot be thus explained.  There is nothing natural in allowing the larger part o 'Africa to lapse into savagery, even though the disorder may be planned as the prelude to the imposition of a new order devised by the monopolists.  There is nothing natural about the flooding of colored immigrants into the British Isles.  There is nothing natural in the universal cry for the integration of disparate races, the effect of which - as all experience teaches - is disastrous.  And although national governments may be an obstacle to the exercise of international political power, there is nothing natural about the emotionally charged attack on national sovereignty and with by one privileged exception (Israel) the frenzied assault on patriotism.

  When Hitler rebelled against the Money Power there arose an urgent necessity to smash him and his barter system.  What must have appalled the manipulators of international finance was that a nation state, especially after compliance of the corrupt Weimar Republic should dart to control its own financial affairs.  Mussolini had done much the same thing in Italy when he made speculation in the lira a criminal offence. In centuries past, a similar hostility was shown against monarch because the money manipulators had been driven out of one country after another by royal decree.  Hence the numbers of monarchies liquidated after each of the world wars.  If nation states, even without benefit of monarchy, were to opt out of the international financial network, then there was an inherent danger in nation states as such, and after the liquidation of Hitler's Germany and Mussolini's Italy all remaining nations had to be softened up with a view to their absorption in federal bodies - such as the European Economic Community - any ultimately in a One World Federation.  This could be done only by deriding the values of patriotism and nationhood and exalting in their place what are called internationalist ideals but which in reality are the slogans used by the power-addicts to make acceptable their supranational plans.

  Then there is "race." Hitler's Germany had to some extent been founded on a concept of race, not a very clear concept in its positive aspect, but exceedingly clear in its negative aspect.  It was anti-Jewish.  If the Gentiles were not to be allowed to attach value to race, obviously all racial concepts had to be eradicated and - not only that - the races themselves had to become so inter-mixed, so integrated that no further pride in them would be possible.  Hence the efforts of the Oppenheimer-backed Progressives in South Africa.  Hence the extraordinary contortions in Australia to involve the aborigines in the White community and the relentless undermining of the White Australia policy.  Hence the exhortation to New Zealanders "to embrace an Asian destiny." Hence the moves against "racial discrimination" in Great Britain.  Hence the cry for integration everywhere on earth – except among the Jews.  Tackled on this subject, Jewish spokesmen say, not very convincingly, that the Jew is neither a national nor a racial entity, but a religious entity.  I believe, and have reason for my belief, that the Jews are the principle promoters of the idea of integrating peoples of disparate racial stocks.  They have the mysterious power to mold public opinion, decide public attitudes and set intellectual fashions.

  As nature abhors a physical vacuum, so does it abhor a power vacuum? The world having become conditioned to accept the international exercise of power, it would be remarkable, indeed incredible, if that power were not exercised.  What is more, as policy objectives and the means for their attainment are seldom if ever, openly avowed, it follows that the planning is conspiratorial.  Here and there may be hitches and setbacks in the fulfilment of any one plan or plans, but either they are overcome or alternative plans are put into operation.

  Stated in other terms, and bearing in mind the constant urge towards power in the human psyche, all the factors which favor a conspiracy are present.  Because the money and credit monopoly is controlled by a very few men, because all the other factors favoring a monopoly are provided by institutions created for that purpose, because time and again national governments have shown themselves submissive, one can only ask why, if there is no conspiracy, world policy ever since the war should have followed the same broad pattern.  In brief, if there is no conspiracy, why is there no conspiracy?  Why should nature abhor all power vacuums except this particular vacuum?  If the means of controlling the lives and destinies of mankind exist, as undoubtedly they do exist, why should use of them go by default?  It is not as though there was any shortage of unscrupulous manipulators.  There would be no such power vacuum if nations held tenaciously to their sovereign independence, but as we have seen, this independence has been bartered by venal politicians in return for the mere trapping of power and the opportunity to posture on the stage of public life.

  I ask the reader to accept my thesis that the control is fully operative, and that, although Burns was right in saying that the best-laid plans of mice and men gang aft agedly, given constancy of purpose the controllers are able to jettison plans which miscarry and substitute others which serve the same ends.  In other words, I ask the reader to accept my assurance that a conspiracy of world-wide dimensions does exist and that unless we manage to defeat the conspirators, no matter how great the odds against us, we shall have nothing to pass on to our successors except the certainty of enslavement”.

LOUIS R. BEAM - www.louisbeam.com

    Mr. Beam, from East Texas, was a Huey door gunner in Viet Nam, speaker, white activist, communist fighter, lots more.  He was tried for sedition against the United States government in 1986, acquitted at Fort Smith by a jury of American people.  He was referred to by the Leftist organization, The Southern Poverty Law Center, as the most dangerous man in America.

    Fall1991, From his newsletter the "Seditionist". - Now that Communism as a political force has met an ignoble and well deserved demise in all parts of the world where Whites live, and is only extant in a few scattered colored countries, what will be the issue of main concern for conservatives, right-wingers and nationalists in the United States?  Further, what will the myriads of single issue anti-communists occupy themselves with now that Communism is a dead issue?  Will some other political/social concern now rise to the same prominent position that the Marxist ideology formerly held the minds of most people?

   In Russia it is now illegal to belong to the communist party. The Soviet military, KGB, news media, and most government ministries have been purged of all communist party members.  Statues of Lenin and his murdering accomplices of the Bolshevik revolution have come crashing to the ground to be urinated on by exuberant Russians anxious to baptize Lenin in the only holy water fit for a communist. The Soviet Union for the foreseeable future will be nothing more than a loose federation of conflicting interests.  The Baltic's are now free from their masters, and other republics will no doubt join them.

   So, what do anti-communists now concern themselves with?  This is no idle question.  Anti-communism as a political tenant and bedrock of faith has been second only to belief in freedom by those in America who are to the political right of Karl Marx.  It has been the one single issue that all who love liberty have agreed upon. Now that the threat of a communist take-over in the United States is nonexistent, who will be the enemy we all agree to hate?

   In years past, while facing the perceived threat from Moscow, Americans have had their backs toward Washington D.C.  As a result, more harm came to this country from Washington than from Moscow; the threat to freedom that the Soviet Red Army posed has been realized not by their force of arms or nuclear power, but by their having drawn our attention away from Washington and toward Moscow.  A distraction that allowed criminal politicians to stab us in the back.  Perhaps that was the plan all along.  Those who make the laws in this country, corrupted by power, money, greed, and false ideology, have done far more to strangle the life out of freedom in this country than all the commissars in the Soviet Union combined.

  The above being the indisputable case, will Washington D.C. now get the attention it deserves from patriots...the same attention that one would give to a large black snake that came slithering into bed?  Considering all the real, as opposed to threatened evil that has emanated from La Cesspool Grande over the years since the election of Franklin Roosevelt, might it not be that the whore capitol of the world should now get our undivided concentration?

  The death of Communism spells the death of anti-Communism, freeing up millions for a more important battle with Washington.  The death of anti-communism will fertilize the political ground that produces the birth of anti-Federalism in the United States.  The evil empire in Moscow is no more.  The evil empire in Washington D.C. must meet the same fate.  Then we can rest.

IVOR BENSON

    Ivor Benson was a journalist, right-wing essayist, anti-communist and racist conspiracy theorist. He fanatically supported apartheid in South Africa. He also wrote frequently about a global Jewish/Communist conspiracy; his main book on the subject, This Worldwide Conspiracy, was supported by the right-wing London Swinton Circle and recommended by the neo-Nazi National Front. Benson blamed the BBC, Wall Street banking interests, the government of the Soviet Union, and the World Council of Churches as drivers of a global conspiracy to wipe out his preferred nationalism.

   We have had a century in which virtually all great power has been exercised through the instrumentality of an alliance of money (pure finance capitalism) and intellect (rootless, disoriented intellect). This alliance of money and intellect has, since shortly before the commencement of World War II, been almost entirely under the ultimate direction and control of a Jewish nationalism, better known as Zionism.

   It is this triple alliance which has given the world an age of conflict and suffering without any precedent in recorded history, as it sought to undermine and smother every manifestation of national self-determination except its own Zionism.

   As we approach the end of the 20th century, we can see that two of the components of this alliance have begun to undergo an important process of change which could profoundly affect the progress of the world government ambition.

  The change in the realm of money consists of a shift of the center of gravity of industrial production, therefore of all real wealth production, from the west, where it had its origin in the Industrial Revolution, to the Pacific area.  The United States, for long the world's leader in industry and finance, is now a major debtor nation. Tokyo is replacing New York as the financial capital of the world.

  Simultaneous with this resurgence in the east, we see social and political disintegration in the west, some of it the price to be paid for a century and a half of imperialism and colonialism but most of it the result of a deliberate campaign of cultural undermining and poisoning conducted at great profit by the world's would-be new masters, the Zionists.

  By all the present signs, the West could quite soon cease to be the stronghold of wealth and influence from which it has been possible for the greater part of this century to conduct a one-world imperialism.

  Equally important and wholly unpredicted was the change which has occurred in the realm of the intellect, that second component of the triple alliance which has given us the kind of world in which we now live.  Simultaneously all over the world, on both sides of the so-called Iron and Bamboo curtains, the educated classes find it impossible any longer to believe in socialism as a personal faith and program of world improvement.

  We see in the Soviet Union, in Red China and in nearly all the communist countries what a transformation occurs when an entire leadership class, leaders, bureaucrats, police, army and all, suddenly cease to believe in what they are doing.

  A great idea which at the turn of the century was loudly acclaimed by the educated as "the wave of the future" can now be seen on all sides as “the wave of the past."

  Socialism, which was to have been the political and economic blueprint for all mankind, could not be made to work, being out of register with the imponderable realities of human nature.  Even in the "capitalist" west, where applied by parliamentary means, as in Britain, its works have had to be dismantled.  All the educated classes are left with now is a vague one-world Universalist idealism, unsupported by any idea about how this could possibly be achieved.

   As a widespread rejection of Christian orthodoxy created a vacuum in the western mind which socialism was quickly able to fill, so now the untenability of socialism was quickly able to fill, so now the untenability of socialism has created another vacuum just waiting to be filled.  We have not had to wait long to find out how the operation will be attempted--the new "religion substitute" is evidently to be Greenpeace, an internationalist, Universalist creed and movement supposedly designed to rescue the world's environment.

   The seemingly boundless quantities of money suddenly made available for this movement and the enormous sympathetic media exposure given to its activities around the world should have warned us immediately.  What is evidently intended is to set up innumerable "Green" parties, or establish a strong internationalist and Universalist factor in all the existing "Socialist," "Democratic" and "Labor" parties.

   The world government ambition, of which so much has been said and written and which is now even mentioned in Congress, is perhaps better understood as something we have had for a long time, rather than as something that could be imposed on us in the future, something to be avoided if possible.

   What has made it hard to recognize as world government is the fact that its role has been almost exclusively destructive; and we are not inclined to regard destructiveness as a form of government.

   Some have preferred to call it the 20th-century world revolution. Quigley has called it a "network" and has given us some account of its secret and subterranean nature.  It was what Toynbee had in mind when he wrote that, "We are working discreetly but with all our might to wrest this mysterious force called sovereignty out of the clutches of the national states of the world."

   Whatever it is and whatever we care to call it, this 20th-century imperialism, which has swallowed up and succeeded all the separate national imperialisms of the 19th century and earlier, has exhibited a marvelous continuity of purpose.

   One of the most conspicuous features of this world government, or whatever we care to call it, is its obvious inability to create or set up anything that works.  The USSR, which was to have set an example to the world, is now threatened with disintegration as all of its Captive Nations begin to struggle for freedom and self-determination.

   Only a massive flow of aid, both in money and trained personnel, now prevents scores of new states of the Third World from collapsing into total anarchy and famine.  Hundreds of billions of dollars, pounds, etc., in loans have had to be written off, with no possibility of any improvement in any of these countries in sight.

   How much longer can this go on?

   For "this worldwide conspiracy," as Winston Churchill once dared to call it, the greatest single aggrandizement of power came with the dispossession of the American "majority," descendants of the people who with their energy, enterprise and intelligence raised America to the status of the wealthiest and most powerful nation in history.  Those who wish to understand what the concept of world government means only need to know what has happened to the United States of America--who finances the politics, who controls the mass media, who dominates the institutions of higher education, the book trade, etc.

   Of almost equal importance was the overthrow, dispossession and virtual genocide of the traditional ruling class in czarist Russia. There, however, a huge power-political thaw seems to have set in; and the situation in the Soviet Union today is very different from what was confidently expected by those western bankers who financed the Bolshevik Revolution.

   Vanished forever is the dream of the Soviet Union as the working model for a "world workers socialist republic."  The Soviet Union may cease quite soon to be "a riddle, wrapped in a mystery inside an enigma," as Churchill once called it.

   Russian emigres with lines of communications into Moscow, Leningrad and other centers of power are convinced that it is Russian hands which now rest on the levers of power in the Kremlin and Russians who now control a much-altered KGB. It would be hard otherwise to explain the vastly increased freedom of published expression and of public protest in the Soviet Union.

   Indeed, there is undoubtedly more freedom of expression in the Soviet Union today than in most western countries, where an invisible and arcane censorship is just as effective as any ever imposed by the KGB and its predecessors.

   Altogether unpredicted, too, is another development of rapidly increasing significance: a resurgence of the religion of Islam, the faith of an estimated 1 billion people.

   Any influence which the Islamic faithful can exert in world power politics is greatly enhanced, even compounded, by the way in which Moslems are distributed around the world, including nearly all the countries of the west and the Soviet Union.  Britain alone is said to have close on 2 million Moslems, organized in communities around some 2,000 mosques.

   It is reasonable to suppose that Israel's agonizing problem in Palestine would have been snuffed out long ago were it not for the fear of an immediate chain reaction of grave consequences in many other places.  A fundamentalist Islam in Iran has demonstrated as never before in this century the potential power of religion as a means of marshaling popular political resistance.

   The question is often asked how and why it has been possible for people in the west to be so unresponsive to repeated warnings about a world-government conspiracy which could plunge the whole world into another prolonged dark age.

   One part of the answer, we may be sure, is that all the peoples of the west have been caught up in an unprecedented prodigality of production and wealth creation made possible by modern science and technology--opening up new possibilities for the exploitation of human nature's inherent defects.

   Another and much deeper part of the explanation may perhaps be drawn out of a timeless Shakespearean quotation: "By an instinct divine, men's minds mistrust ensuing danger."

   In other words, we are required to learn through experience, because experience is the turmoil, sometimes even the chaos, out of which all real innovation and progress are born.  And it has evidently needed the most painful experience to convince millions of the educated that intellect, with its powers of reason, is of strictly limited utility in the life process.

   (We see in the Soviet Union today, more clearly than anywhere else, what learning through experience can achieve and what happens when an affronted instinct fights back.)

   This brief discussion of the subject of world government would be incomplete without mention of a form of resistance which could produce some highly dramatic effects in the next few years:  namely historical revisionism.

   As George Orwell succinctly put it, "Who controls the present controls the past; who controls the past controls the future"--meaning that we cannot understand what is happening now and we have no control of what happens in the future unless we understand what has happened in the

past.   It only needs the demolition of one or two of the 20th century's most elaborately contrived and most vigorously promoted falsehoods, the "holocaust" lie, for example--to shake the foundations of that third component of the triple alliance which has given the world an age of conflict and suffering unprecedented in recorded history.