The Nature of The Beas t : What is the Establishment? Why, that ’ s easy, you say: The Establishment is those persons, taken collectively, who run the system. But who are “ those persons? ” What are their names? What, if anything, do they have in common? How did they get into the Establishment in the first place? Is one born into it? Is it something like a fraternity of a secret society? Is great wealth a prerequisite for admission? Or is membership in the Establishment a prerequisite for owning great wealth in America?

There is a great deal of confusion on these questions because of the sloppy but prevalent tendency to equate prestige and status; i.e., social rank, with power in our society. Things don ’ t necessarily work that way.

It is clear that the one meaningful criterion for distinguishing members of the Establishment from non-members is power; power to make independent decisions which directly affect the operation of the System. In applying this criterion, however, it is essential to distinguish between apparent power, or power of a purely formal sort, and real power.

Military-Industrial Complex : As an example, consider the oft-mentioned “ military-industrial complex. ” The standard rhetoric on the subject would lead one to the conclusion that the brass hats; the generals and the admirals who make up the military side of the complex, are powerful men and, hence, part of the Establishment. But, as a matter of fact, this conclusion is false. They can, and do, make men rich through their acceptance of one defensive or offensive system or other. And they destroy companies and the lives of the men and women who work for them through their selective processes, but other than that they are controlled by the desires of Congress, Senators, Representatives who are in control of the money strings. They are also controlled by the one in the White House, whether he be patriot or traitor.

Most generals and admirals exercise virtually no influence on the System. The average general may have a lot of tanks and guns to play with. An admiral may command a mighty aircraft carrier or a whole fleet of secretaries and typists in the Pentagon.

But one thing these men may not do is make independent decisions. All their gold braid does not change the fact that they are mere pawns in the game; and rather rigidly restricted pawns, at that. Being allowed to decide whether next Tuesday ’ s mission will be to blow up village “ A ” instead of village “ B ” in Vietnam or some other place where American troops or navy personnel is committed to combat, does not constitute real power, in the System sense. Neither does having the authority to write a purchase order for one million mess kits, aluminum, collapsible.

This is not to say that there is no truth in the Colonel Blimp caricatures of the military bureaucrat or that much of what ’ s wrong in public life today is not exemplified in the Pentagon hierarchy. But the example of Douglas MacArthur should serve to illustrate what can happen when a general begins to get ideas too big for his brass hat.

Similar considerations apply to much of the industrial side of the military-industrial complex; although the industrialists, because they have money, must be scrutinized more carefully than the generals. There is no denying the fact that any man with $500 million in the bank; provided he is also moderately clever, has a definite potential for calling the tune. Nevertheless, it is surprising how little correlation there is between personal wealth and real power; in most cases.

In the first place, the manufacturer who owns a $100 million tire factory by no means necessarily has $100 million in financial weight to throw around. His liquid assets, available for buying politicians, silencing critics, influencing elections, etc., will generally be much smaller than his fixed assets, such as land, buildings, and machinery. He may find himself hard pressed just keeping his employees ’ union bought off, the IRS off his back, and his yacht afloat.

The average industrialist makes his contribution to the System not so much by pulling the strings as merely by playing along with it through his own money-grubbing self-interest. His control over our lives in largely mechanical; the filth his factories pour into the air we breath and the water we drink, the honking, flashing, screeching asphalt and neon jungle he has built for us to live in.

The control exercised over our lives by the System; and, thus, by the men of the Establishment, is much more profound. It reaches into our minds and our souls and twists our wills to its own ends; it manipulates us and subtly persuades us; it corrupts us and robs us of our strength and our virtue; and, when its purpose is so served, it coldly snuffs out our lives by the millions.

The War-Makers : The military-industrial complex may glory in wars and it may profit from them, but it is the Establishment; not the generals and the factory owners, which makes the basic decision as to whether there will be a war and when and against whom.

American involvement in both World Wars, Korea and Vietnam, as well as the other conflicts such as Grenada, Panama, Bosnia, Somalia, Desert Storm, etc., gives us an excellent example of how the Establishment works. Neither in World War I nor in World War II were the interests of the American people served by intervention in European conflicts. Yet, in 1917 Wilson dragged a reluctant America into a European war, and 24 years later Roosevelt managed the same thing.

In both cases the principal actors had been re-elected to the Presidency immediately beforehand on a platform of pacifism and nonintervention. And in both cases the mass media; principally the press, in that pre-TV era, had played the vital role of swinging public opinion into line behind the newly elected instant warriors.

But neither Wilson nor Roosevelt were the ultimate decision-makers. Nor was it the general or the industrialists. In both cases the decision-makers; the men of the Establishment, worked behind the scenes to further their own vital interests at the expense of the American people. And they exercised the necessary control over the System to prevail.

In World War I those whose interests were served were the Zionists, who received England ’ s pledge, as later expressed in the Balfour Declaration, to deliver Palestine to them. In return they brought about U.S. intervention in the war on the side of England. ("The Communist desire to 'liberate enslaved nations' will come as a surprise to the enslaved nations of Eastern Europe, and the goal of maintaining 'integrity of their territories' rings strangely in view of the Soviet occupation of Czechoslovakia, Afghanistan, and other oppressed nations. Like other announced goals of World War II, the Atlantic Chapter and the Four Freedoms, Stalin's program achieved only one goal, 'the destruction of the Hitlerite regime,' the only government in the world which had opposed the spread of Communist aggression with its military forces.

The 'abolition of racial exclusiveness,' which has (also) been official U.S. Government policy since 1945, was, quite simply, the Jewish Marxist goal of planned genocide of the White Race, because the White Race remained the only possible opposition to the total domination of the world by international Jewish Marxism. No African or Asiatic nation has ever mounted a successful counter-revolution against a Communist regime, nor have they ever desired to.

      One hundred million White People died violently during World War II, but the only Asiatic people to suffer serious losses were the Japanese, who were known as 'the Aryans of the East,' because of their aggressiveness and their highly developed technological abilities. Because of their well known opposition to Communism, the Japanese people were selected by Jewish strategists as the guinea pigs for the testing of the new Jewish Hellbomb, a weapon so horrible that when Hitler learned his scientists had begun work on it, he furiously ordered them to halt its development. He refused to allow his name or the name of the German people to be associated with such an inhumane operation.

This allowed the Jews to develop their atomic hellbomb in Los Alamos for Roosevelt and Stalin, with no competition from anywhere in the world. They developed it in order to exterminate the entire German people, but, with the unlimited funds provided by American taxpayers, they turned it into a typical billion dollar Jewish boondoggle which dragged on until after Germany's defeat. Fortunately, the homicidal maniacs still had one anti-Communist nation left on which they could conduct their atomic experiment, the island of Japan.

Like most historic Jewish military operations, the great massacres of World War II occurred, not on the battlefield, but in peaceful neighborhood communities. This was in accordance with the dictate of the Book of Esther, which directs the Jews to massacre women and children, and to exterminate the families of those who dare to oppose them.

Thus it was in Dresden, a historic German cultural center, where many thousands of German women and children, refugees from Communism had gathered. They were assured by the Red Cross that they would be safe, even while the Jewish generals were preparing to murder them.

The blood-maddened Jews desired not only to murder as many White civilians as possible but also to erase from history all evidence of Western civilization, the greatest examples of White culture which had been gathered in Dresden, the irreplaceable procelian, the priceless paintings, the baroque furniture, and the rococo mansions with their poetry carved in stone.

All was laid waste in a mass bombing attack in which some 300,000 German civilians died in a city which was not even a military target! The responsibility for this horrible slaughter, in which helpless non-combatants died horribly by flame and explosion, rests with, who else, 'the Americans.' At the last minute, the Soviets prudently withdrew from what was planned as a 'joint-Allied' venture. Today, the Soviets denounce the United States for the annihilation of Dresden.

Like Dresden, Hiroshima was also an ancient cultural center, with no visible military objective. Its non-combatant families also died horribly by the hundreds of thousands. Many were pulverized instantly by the first atomic bomb ever used in a military operation, but thousands of other victims lived on for years, mangled and burned, their limbs and organs slowly rotting away from radiation poisoning.

Even while the Japanese officials were desperately suing for peace, the Jews, through their brother Harry S. Truman, hastily ordered the dropping of a second atomic bomb, this one on Nagasaki, bringing off a second 'test' of their Hellbomb against helpless non-combatants, as prescribed by the Book of Esther. Again, hundreds of thousands of civilians died horribly.

At last, the Jews had achieved the weapon which they planned to use to terrorize the entire world into subjecting itself to their insane frenzies and their frequently voiced goal of world domination of the 'animals,' or non-Jews. As Chaim Weizmann boasted, 'We will never actually have to use this atomic weapon in military operations as the mere threat of its use will persuade any opponent to surrender to us." (Eustace Mullins, Foreword, War! War! War!)

Their agents in this were Louis Brandeis, the Zionist Supreme Court Justice, who exerted his influence directly on Wilson, and a number of Jewish newspaper publishers who controlled a substantial portion of the American press.

In World War II world Jewry was faced with its most serious crisis in centuries as Germany moved to destroy the Jewish power and influence in Europe. Again, the media played an enormously important role in conditioning the American people to accept the necessity of a European war.

In the war hysteria generated after the fortuitous; but not unforeseen, Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor, Roosevelt and the press were able to sweep the public along on a monumentally destructive and murderous “ Crusade in Europe. ” We can see, today, the same process at work where the Middle Eastern area is concerned today.

The Omnipotent Media : It is not the genreals and it is not the industrialists who are responsible for the U.S. backing Israel. Between them they couldn ’ t begin to take the Americna people into another war at the present time. But the media could; and are doing it, along with the help of TV.

The generals and the munitons makers have clearly recognizable spheres of self-interest. Thus, even the most credulous elements of the public immediately discount anything they say. Unfortunately, the same is not true of the media. First, most people do not recognize that the media also, because of the tightly knit nature of the group which controls them, have a definite sphere of self-interest. Second, the media re truly (and inherently) Oriental in their subtlety.

The average American thinks “ propaganda ” is what a plainly labeled spokesman for the System tells the people in order to keep them happy, win their support for a new government program, etc. He simply doesn ’ t think anyone would be devious enough to try to accomplish the same thing with the Wednesday Night Movie, or the Six O ’ Clock News, or an Associated Press release, or the Sunday supplement in his morning paper.

The pride of the media is their ability to create the illusion of a marketplace of diverse ideas and opinions, while in reality always representing only their own interests. Consider, for example the spectrum of views presented by the media on the Middle East conflict. Some editorial writers are hot for all-out U.S. military support for Israel, while others feel a little less commitment whould be more appropriate.

Most commentators refer to the fedayeen as “ terrorists, ” while some use the more neutral term “ guerrillas. ” And while some columnists rage about “ Arab aggression, ” others gently remind us of the miserable conditions in the Palestinian refugee camps.

But can you name a single major newspaper in America which advocates that we back the Arabs rather than the Jews? And when was the last time you heard David Brinkley refer to Israeli commandos as: “ Teoorists? ”

No Choice : Indeed, we never get both sides of an issue from the media, but only various views of the same side. We are given the same sort of “ choice ” in forming our opinions that the Democrats and Republicans present to us every four years.

The administrators, whom we shall choose from among the public, with strict regard to their capacities for servile obedience, will not be persons trained in the arts of government, and will therefore easily become pawns in our game in the hands of men of learning and genius who will be their advisers, specialists bread and reared from early childhood to rule the affairs of the whole world.

As is well known to you, these specialists of ours have been drawing to fit them for rule the information they need from our political plans from the lessons of history, from observations made in the events of every moment as it passes.

The goyim are not guided by practical use of unprejudiced historical observation, but by theoretical routine without any critical regard for consequent results. We need not, therefore, take any account of them, let them amuse themselves until the hour strikes, or live on hopes of new forms of enterprising pastime, or on the memories of all they have enjoyed.

For them let that play the principal part which we have persuaded them to accept as the dictates of science {theory}. It is with this object in view that we are constantly, by means of our press, arousing a blind confidence in these theories. The intellectuals of the goyim will puff themselves up with their knowledge and without any logical verification of them will put into effect all the information available from science, which our agentur specialists have cunningly pieced together for the purpose of educating their minds in the direction we want.

Do not suppose for a moment that these statements are empty words: think carefully of the successes we arranged for Darwinism, Marxism, Nietzscheism. To us Jews, at any rate, it should be plain to see what a disintegrating importance these directives have had upon the minds of the goyim.

It is indispensable for us to take account of the thoughts, characters, tendencies of the nations in order to avoid making slips in the political and in the direction of administrative affairs. The triumph of our system, of which the component parts of the machinery may be variously disposed according to the temperament of the peoples met on our way, will fall of success if the practical application of it be not based upon a summing up of the lessons of the past in the light of the present.

In the hands of the States of today there is a great force that creates the movement of thought in the people, and that is the Press. The part played by the Press is to keep pointing out requirements supposed to be indispensable, to give voice to the complaints of the people, to express and to create discontent. It is in the Press that the triumph of freedom of speech finds its incarnation.

But the goyim States have not known how to make use of this force; and it has fallen into our hands. Through the Press we have gained the power to influence while remaining ourselves in the shade; thanks to the Press we have got the gold in our hands, notwithstanding that we have had to gather it out of oceans of blood and tears. But it has paid us, though we have sacrificed many of our people. Each victim on our side is worth in the sight of God a thousand goyim)

In today ’ s world many things are important and represent power: money, the military, but the most important and powerful of all in a modern world is the mechanism for creating and controlling public opinion. The group which has this mechanism in its hands wields the ultimate authority. That group is the Establishment; or, at least, the vital core of the Establishment. And, in 20th-century America, that group is predominantly Jewish.

This may be hard to accept for those who have convinced themselves that the Establishment is Standard Oil and the Pentagon. In the world of 100 years ago that would have been the case. But today Mr. Rockefeller,

The Rockefeller Family - Secret Jews! A book overlooked by most people and published for sale mainly within the Jewish community states that the Rockefellers are Jews of Sephardic descent (meaning Spanish and Portuguese Jews). The book is entitled "The Grandees -  America's Sephardic Elite." The author is Stephen Birmingham, who is recognized by the Jewish community as an expert on Jewish history.

The publisher of "The Grandees" is the Jewish owned publishing firm of "Harper and Row" of New York City. Mr. Birmingham also wrote the book "Our Crowd" about the family background of America's wealthiest and most successful Jews. Both books have been hailed by Jewish publications as first class works in the documentation of Jewish history.

In "The Grandees" Stephen Birmingham reveals the existence of a very rare book which was published only for Jews some years ago. The work was published only for Jews some years ago. The work was compiled by the Jewish historian Malcolm H. Stern and entitled "Americans of Jewish Decent."

That book weighed 10 pounds and gave the history of 25,000 Jewish individuals in America. It is extremely interesting to note that only 550 copies of the book were printed and each copy was consecutively numbered. The book was delivered to the top Jewish community leaders in America for their personal reference files in dealing with and contacting Jews who are "Marranos" (those Jews who "PRETEND" to be Christians in their community but secretly hold to their Jewish faith and race when among their own kind).

Mr. Birmingham in "The Grandees" reports: "Who would expect to find the Rockefellers in the book." Stern's work traces what he calls the "Nobility of Jewry - the Sephardim who lived in Spain and Portugal as princes of the land." Many centuries ago the Jews flooded into Spain in great numbers and through usury and stealth became vast land owners. The Jews controlled both Spain and Portugal through their monopoly over the finances of the country.

It was in 1492 that King Ferdinand and Queen Isabella of Spain expelled the Jews from their country and confiscated their ill-gotten wealth. It was during this period that the Rockefeller family moved to the Turkish Empire which welcomed the Jews at that time, believing them to be a "poor persecuted people."

The grandfather of our former Vice-President Nelson Rockefeller, admitted that his family once moved from Turkey to France. It was from France that they moved to America. John D. Rockefeller, Sr., was a wealthy man even before he took over Standard Oil Co., which made their family one of the richest in the world. No one has ever explained how this family came into such wealth as soon as they arrived in America from France.

There is no known information on how the Rockefellers came into huge amounts of money in France. Some think they got their money from the Rothschilds and were originally their agents in buying up Christian businesses in America. "Marranos" are Jews who "PRETEND" to convert to Christianity so as to deceive Christians in their business dealings, but secretly continued to practice Judaism in private rituals. For this reason, a Marrano family like the Rockefellers would make the perfect tool for the Rothschilds of France who have for centuries used secret agents to carry on their work.

"The Thunderbolt" was the first publication to bring Vice-President Nelson Rockefeller's Jewish ancestry to public attention. This information finally explains why he has always been able to work so closely with Jewish interests and why his administration as governor of New York was loaded down with Jews from top to bottom. His political campaigns of the past were always directed by Jews and he was always the support of the Jewish community in all of his political races.

Normally the Jews would not support a Christian multi-millionaire for political office because they would be afraid they could not control him after the election. The fact that Jewish community leaders have long known that the Rockefellers were fellow Jews goes a long way in explaining why the organized Jewish community has always supported the Rockefeller's political ambitions. Now we can see why Nelson and David Rockefeller boosted his fellow Jew Henry Kissinger into the Nixon administration and Kissinger in turn has used his position to bring his fellow Jew Rockefeller into power) despite all his millions and all his talent for deceit and all his conniving, grasping, unprincipled, ambition, wields less power than say, Sam Newhouse, of whom most American have never heard.

Mr. Newhouse, the publicity-shunning son of Jewish immigrants from Russia, doesn ’ t own Standard Oil. But he does own 28 big-city daily newspapers, with a combined circulation of more than five million.

The slanted news in one day ’ s printing of the Washington Post or the New York Times carries more weight than all the memoranda ever issued by all the generals in the Pentagon.

Needless to say, both these papers are in the hands of Jewish families. If one considers not only direct ownership but also indirect control through advertising revenue; which is the lifeblood of any newspaper, virtually every major daily newspaper in America is subject to the dictates of the Jewish Establishment.

Minitru : We are living in the age of the mass media. It is an age in which new rules apply. No longer is it necessary, in order to control a nation, for a ruling clique to have a monopoly on the capital assets and the firepower of that nation.

These days control is exercised more subtly, but all the more surely, by manipulating the thoughts and the opinions of the populace. Universal literacy, which makes every American a potential newspaper reader, and unprecedented prosperity, which has put a TV receiver in every home, insure that that control will ball-pervasive. There is only one way to fight it, and that is to understand what it is and who exercises it; and then to go after them tooth and nail.

Facts of Racial Science Blatantly Suppressed : One of the most memorable features of George Orwell ’ s fascinating politico-fiction novel, 1984, is the “ memory hole. ” Memory holes were the small wall orifices scattered throughout the offices and corridors of the Ministry of Truth (propaganda ministry) and giving access to huge incinerators in the basement of that building. Any document, photograph, book, or whatever containing evidence of any facts displeasing to Big Brother or not in accord with the Party ’ s line of the moment, went into a memory hole.

Then, using the process of “ doublethink, ” the government clerk or researcher who had just dropped something into a memory hole would immediately forget that that evidence had ever existed. Thus, facts became “ unfacts, ” and any scrap of printed matter which might have contradicted Big Brother conveniently disappeared.

Such things are already happening in America today. The books may not be burned at the present time, but they are removed from public view. An example would be the following:

Negro: “ ...among the Bantu, who are also as a rule less tall, less... platyrrhine and less dark. A few tribes in the...Negro domain (the Welle district of Belgian Congo)...tendency to round head, shorter stature and fairer complexion but there seems reason to suppose that they have received in infusion of Libyan or Negrito blood.

The color of the skin, which is also distinguished by a velvety surface and a characteristic odor, is due not to the presence of any special pigment, but to the greater abundance of the coloring matter in the Malpighian mucous membrane between the inner or true skin and the epidermis or scarf skin. This coloring matter is not distributed equally over the body, and does not reach its fullest development until some weeks after birth; so that new-born babies are a reddish chocolate or copper color. But excess of pigmentation is not confined to the skin; spots of pigment are often found in some of the internal organs, such as the liver, spleen, etc. Other characteristics appear to be a hypertrophy of the organs of excretion, a more developed venous system, and a less voluminous brain, as compared with the white races.

In certain of the characteristics mentioned above the Negro would appear to stand on a lower evolutionary plane than the white man, and to be more closely related to the highest anthropoids. The characteristics are length of arm, propanathism, a heavy massive cranium with large zygomatic arches, flat nose depressed at base, etc. But in one important respect, the character of the hair, the white man stands in closer relation to the higher apes than does the Negro.

Mentally the Negro is inferior to the white. The remark of F. Manetta, made after a long study of the Negro in America, may be taken as generally true of the whole race; “ the Negro children were sharp, intelligent and full of vivacity, but on approaching the adult period, a gradual change set in. The intellect seemed to become clouded, animation giving place to a sort of lethargy, briskness yielding to indolence. We must necessarily suppose that the development of the Negro and white proceeds on different lines. While with the latter the volume of the brain grows with the expansion of the brainpan, in the former the growth of the brain is on the contrary arrested by the premature closing of the cranial sutures and lateral pressure of the ...bone. ” ... (Encyclopedia Britannica, Vol. XIX, page 344)

The Primitive Peoples : The verdict is that the Negro does belong to an inferior race. His brain capacity is poorer, its construction simpler. His psychological type, on the average, is lower, most notably in the matters of judgment and inhibition, or self-control. It is in this respect that alcohol, and other drugs which paralyze self-control, are his enemies.

If the anthropologist could report otherwise, no doubt he would. His study of mankind, and his interest in human types, tend toward humanity and sympathy with those whom he studies; and he has no desire to report anything which would lead to other feelings. But the interests of scientific truth are paramount, not merely because truth is truth, but because w e must know in order to control, and because false hopes are not wirth fostering. Impartial students in the United States report very unfavorably on the influence of the race of lower psychological type upon the less controlled members of what is really the higher race. Many of the least pleasing features of American civilization seem to be due to this vitiating factor. (The Book of Popular Science, Vol. 2, published in 1931 by the Grolier Society)

Negroes : “ ...migration, the latter have been affected mostly by Mongolian movement. The N. Characteristics are deep brown, almost black, skin, cool, velvety, and emitting a peculiar odor; short, black woolly hair of elliptical section; short, flat, broad, snub nose with depressed base and dilated nostrils; black eye, black iris, and yellow scierotic coat; prognathic jaws, facial angle 70^o; thick lips, protruding and showing the inner red; high and prominent check bones; very thick skull, dolicocephalic (index 70^o); cranial capacity, 35 (average European, 45); long arms, weak legs; flat, broad foot with low instep, and ‘ lark heel ’ ; yellowish palms and soles; height (average 5 ft. 10 in.) above the average. A marked feature is the early closing of the cranial sutures, a premature ossification appearing to prevent a full development of the brain. ” ((Advanced Medical Texts on Anatomy and Surgery).

All Featherless Bipeds : Unfortunately for all of us, the memory hole has become more than a figment of Orwell ’ s imagination. It has been in wide use in the Western World for some time now, not only as an aid in rewriting history and politics but also for bringing science into accord with liberal dogma.h

The field of science most blatantly abused n this way is physical anthropology; more specifically, racial science. To the liberal it is axiomatic that all featherless bipeds are “ equal, ” not just equal before the law or in the sight of God, but endowed with equal creative potential, equal intellect, etc. In particular it is unthinkable that there might be inherent intellectual or psychic differences among the races of man.

The quite manifest racial differences in behavior, temperament; and, especially, achievement, are explained away as being due solely to exploitationor repression of the “ disadvantaged ” race. For liberal doctrine holds that race is only skin-deep, stricly a matter of color nothing else. But there are also profound and highly significant physical and anatomical differences; beside color, among the races.

Smaller Brains : Negroes, for example, have brains which are substantially smaller, on the acerage, than those of Caucasians. Negro skulls are thicker, their cranial structure is more primitive, and their cranial sutures fuse at an earlier age than is the case with Whites. This is not racist theory but scientific fact, which had been carefully observed in thousands of autopsies and comparative anatomical studies. It was, until a few years ago, readily accessible to the inquiring reader in any encyclopedia worthy of the name.

Today, however, it has become “ unfact. ” The sectons on race in the latest editions of all major encyclopedias have been rewritten, not for the sake of scientific updating but for the sake of deleting all material which might suggest the possibility of inequality among races, particularly between Negro and White. All the carefully compiled measurements on cranial structure, brain size, etc., have gone down the memory hole.

The 1967 edition of the Encyclopaedia Britannica, for example, offers exactly two sentences on the physical characteristics of Negroes: “ The general characteristics of Negro populations are: a dark skin, woolly hair, thick lips and a high frequency of the cDe (Ro) blood group (see Blood Groups). Most of these populations are characterized by a short and broad nose, a protruding lower part of the jaw (prognathism) and legs that are long compared with the trunk. ” (Encyclopeaedia Britiannica, 1967 edition, Vol. 16, p. 187)

Hoked-up History : After approximately one page of exposition on other matters pertaining to the Negro, there follows a 17-page panegyric on the American Negro. Obscure Blacks with no material or historical achievements are written up as though they were important and great people, giving the impression that the development of the United States has been a matter of more-or-less equal partnership between Black and White Americans. However, the fact of the matter is that nowhere is there mention of the biometric facts given in earlier editions of the encyclopedia.

There can be no doubt whatever as to the reason for this omission. It has certainly not been to save space, for the number of pages devoted to the Negro is larger in the current edition than in any previous edition. No, the intentions of Britannica ’ s editors are quite evident. They want us to understand that Negroes are simply human beings who happen to have dark skins, and any troublesome facts which might distract us from this fundamental theme have simply been fed to the incinerator.

And to take the place of those troublesome facs an entire pseudo-history has been made up. In this pseudo-history a hapless mulatto who wandered into the British line of fire at Boston is elevated into an inspired leader of the American Revolutioin; Admiral Peary ’ s Black manservant, whom he carted along with him on his arctic expeditions, becomes an intrepid explorier and co-discoverer of the North Pole; Black cowboys help tame the West; and Black military leaders play a crucial role in the evolution of the U.S. Army.

Artificial Self-Esteem : Perhaps the motives of Britannica ’ s editors are as pure as the driven snow. It may be that they feel that in an era of increasing racial tension and conflict they can help bring about harmonious relations between the races by artificially providing the Negro with a sense of self-esteem he has previously lacked.

Almost certainly some of those writers and editors who have stretched the truth out of shape in order to write the new Black histories which are coming off the presses these days feel that their altruistic end justifies their rather shady means.

But what of the scientists, the anthropologists? Can they possibly excuse the suppression of the truth and the perversion of their profession simply because it might hurt someone ’ s feeling to teach that Negroes have more bone and less grey matter above their collars than Whites do?

No one asks that the anthropologist label the Negro as “ inferior. ” That requires making a value judgement, which is quite a different thing from simply expounding the facts of racial differences. If it is embarrassing to the professor to have to acknowledge that the Negro skull is more “ apelike ” than the Caucasian skull, he can always point out Caucasian hair is more akin to that of the apes than is Negro hair-or, more properly, Negro wool. So what?

Doctrinaire Obsessions : Are we so frightened of the possibility that the facts of race, if widely disseminated, might lead to some social and political re-evaluations that we must pretend that what is so is not so? Must we make “ unfact ” of fact in order to keep our civilization from coming apart at the seams?

Have we not yet learned, at this late date, that the truth will always win out, sooner or later, and that to persist in ignoring it must inevitably make the day of reckoning more painful? Have our scholars, our scientists, our learned men in this enlightened era so little sense of duty and propriety that they will continue to aid rather than oppose those whose doctrinaire obsessions make them enemies of truth?

The Lie of Lysenkolsm : The sad actuality is that for practically all anthropologists there has been no real moral struggle at all over this issue. It has been very easy for them to “ go along in order to get along. ”

In the Soviet Union those who, for decades, accepted and taught Lysenkoism to their students, knowing all the while they were teaching a lie, at least had the excuse that the NKVD was watching them. Which all goes to prove two things: First, that the threat of being burned at the stake or liquidated by the secret police is by no means necessary to assure doctrinal orthodoxy.

Moral terror and the herd instinct are quite sufficient. It is safe to say that the average American university professor is more afraid of being labeled a “ racist ” and ostracized by the liberal university Establishment than his Soviet counterpart feared that mid-night knock on the door.

And, Second, that the stereotype of the typical professor-scientist as a clear-eyed seeker of the truth is as phony as a three-dollar bill. The true pioneers, rebels, and iconoclasts, who were able to recognize truth amid the prejudices and dogmas of their day and then were willing to make real sacrifices for the sake of that truth; the Brunos, the Galileos, and even the Scopeses, have always been as different from their more pedestrian colleagues as is the day from the night.

On Plutocracy in America : The American people pride themselves on being “ free men, ” pragmatic and rational beings who bow before no man and only slightly, if at all, before gods. Not for them the degraded and obsequious respect for aristocracy, tradition, hierarchical religion, and all the other leftovers from bad, old Europe!

Like all of America ’ s myths, this is so many sheep droppings; for in actuality the American people, taken together, constitute the most credulous, superstitious mass of mindless serfs in the history of the world and the most ignominious mob of grovelers and lickspittles since the Hellots of Sparta.

Americans are taught from birth to believe they live in a free country. However, times change, and America has been changed in many ways by the combined efforts of Judaism, Zionism, Communism and the other enemies of the United States.

Often, old formalities are still observed, but the meaning and inner Christian morality of America has changed, and no one has seen these changes more clearly the author of this work; The Texan A Christian Israelite.

The press, for instance, loves to brag to its victims, the readers and viewers, about its freedom. Yes! The press (media) is free to lie, distort, and suppress, deceive, and malign: But it is not free to tell the truth!

Are we free when an American citizen, in spectacle of a man being framed, and his 13 year old son and wife were murdered by Federal Agents, near Naples, Idaho in August of 1992; his only crime was the "alleged" possession of a shot gun with a barrel 1/4 of an inch too short?; as in the case of Gordon Kahl, murdered by government assassins and the house set on fire to cover up the murder.

Are we free when a citizen can be arrested without a warrant and held in jail without bail on the "unsupported" word of "any" government employee that the person in question is a threat to society.

Are we free when the vultures of the "media" can, with impunity, swoop down upon a victim and deposit lies and scorn upon him and accuse him of things he never did and/or saying things he never said, in an effort to build up "public opinion" against him?

Is America a free country when a patriot can be held in the filthiest of jails with Negro and White Criminals, degenerates and perverts and subject to their abuse when his only guilt was being a White Christian who loves his God, Savior, family and country?

Are we free when such a "criminal" is given the so-called diesel treatment [being moved from jail to jail in an effort to prevent him from contacting his family and friends or even his lawyer], at the same time a group which was supposedly set up to defend the constitutional rights of Americans, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), would rather defend the "rights" of queers, traitors, murderers, rapists, perverts, deviates, pornographers and every other anti-Christian degenerate known to man than a sincere, true Patriot?

Are we free when a judge can rule that a "political" prisoner is not to have a "speedy and public trial by an impartial jury of his peers..." as granted by the Bill of Rights, but, instead, must have a mental examination for the obvious purpose of eliminating a jury trial altogether?

Are we free when a citizen can be stopped for no reason and searched under the auspices of looking for drugs or illegal items, and if they have more money on their person than the police officer or agent thinks they should have; can have that money taken from them and almost never returned?

And finally, are we free when a certain group, vastly more powerful than the ACLU or even the government itself, so powerful that most men dare not speak its name above a whisper, unless in terms of the most groveling and enduring praise; are we free when this same group is able to dictate to the government the exact procedure to be used in disposing of troublemakers. Living in a time when wickedness and sin of every kind abound in the hearts of the people and the public policy and police force of the nation reflects that unrighteousness, it becomes urgent that the Christian remnant addresses the events which are unfolding right before their eyes.

Drugs and American Youth : A few years ago the student who used illegal drugs was likely to be looked upon by his peers as both a criminal and a person with serious personal problems; as was more often than not the case.

Certainly, there were young, White drug users before 1960. But, outside a few communities, they were a rarity. Marijuana was almost as scarce on most university campuses as was heroin. It is, in fact, quite difficult for today ’ s average undergraduate to imagine just how drastically student attitudes toward drugs have changed in a few short years during which drug usage has passed from a curiosity to a fact of everyday life.

Most Significant Development : Other things; attire, jargon, sexual attitudes, also underwent a fairly radical transformation during the 1960s. But the vast and sudden increase in the use of drugs by young people easily stands as the most significant social development, not only of the last decade but of our generation.

One of the four basic points of the NYA program states our unequivocal opposition to illegal drugs and to those who promote their use. This opposition is by no means based on religious or “ moral ” considerations or on any sort of “ conservative ” foot-dragging where something new and different is concerned.

We oppose drug usage because it is harmful to human society in general and because, at this time it presents a clear threat to the survival of our civilization. More inclusively, we feel that the widespread usage of any harmful, intoxicating, or debilitating substance is a social evil; and an indicator of social sickness. Some substances are much more harmful than others, or harmful in different ways, and some types of usage of a given substance represent a greater social evil than other usages.

Tobacco and Alcohol : It may be useful to briefly discuss tobacco and alcohol before going on to the illegal drugs. There can be little doubt that tobacco causes the agonizing death of tens of thousands of Americans every year through lung cancer and emphysema alone. Tobacco is an extremely harmful substance to those individuals who smoke it.

Yet, from the racial or social viewpoint, tobacco is a relatively minor evil. Those whom its long-range effects strike down are nearly always well into middle age and have already sired or borne children. The race is neither harmed nor helped by their departure. Furthermore, cigarettes do not play a really major or significant role in our society, despite their omnipresence. Although they are addictive, they are only slightly intoxicating, and our life mode and social institutions would change relatively little if we did away with them altogether which is not a bad idea.

Alcohol is a different story. Its effect on our gene pool is certainly larger than that of tobacco, but still relatively minor. Its net racial effect is, if anything, beneficial, in that it tends to remove the least fit elements from the breeding population. Its social impact, on the other hand, is vastly greater than tobacco ’ s. Alcoholism must be ranked among the major social problems of our day. It is extremely harmful, not just to the individuals and families it touches directly, but to society as a whole.

And yet it is difficult to condemn alcohol itself as an unmitigated evil. What could be more satisfying than a glass of cold beer on a hot summer evening? Beer and wine have been an integral part of the life of the European peoples since prehistoric times, and there are so many rich and fine traditions associated with them that giving them up altogether would constitute a major cultural trauma.

With alcohol the trouble probably lies more in certain types of usage than in the nature of the substance itself. When alcoholic beverages are consumed strictly as food or refreshment, we can find little to criticize. They become socially harmful only when large numbers of people consume them for their intoxicating effect; when they become a means of escape from reality instead of a relaxing draught or a social lubricant.

Although we can certainly accept the abolition of alcohol if there proves no other way to curb its evil social effects, it would seem that the better approach is to set about building the sort of healthy society in which there will be far fewer people than at present who feel the need to escape into a bottle.

Thoughts About Liberty : “ Is life so dear or peace so sweet as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take, but as for me, give me liberty or give me death! ”

Patrick Henry ’ s impassioned words, over two centuries old now, are perhaps the best known and most cherished ever uttered in America. No true American/ that is, no American of Henry ’ s race, can read those words today without being stirred by them.

Love of Liberty in Our Blood : It matters not how “ liberal ” an education one has had, nor how much of the propaganda of surrender and weakness and defeat that has been crammed into ones skull. The appeal of Henry ’ s words finds it repose in our blood; in our genes, where it has for thousands of years.

The freeborn farmer-warrior, who typified what is best in our race throughout long ages past, may have little place in today ’ s slick, conniving world, but as long as his blood still flows, relatively unpolluted, in our veins, even the most democratically acclimatized urbanite among us must feel the gooseflesh rise along the nape of his neck when the call to take up arms against a tyrant rings out.

Perversion of Liberty : But what has that to do with what today masquerades as “ liberty? ” What has it to do with the raucous demand for “ Freedom now! ” voiced by Blacks who want a bigger slice of the welfare state; or else?

The Latin root from which the word “ liberty ” has spring is prolific; it has also yielded “ liberal, ” “ libertarian, ” and “ libertime. ” All these words share a general implication of “ lack of restraint. ” The range of meaning given to them is enormous, however. For what a gulf stretches between the “ liberty ” of Patrick Henry; meaning freedom from political and economic domination by a foreign tyrant, and the “ liberty ” of our present-day libertarians; meaning the freedom of the individual from every restraint imposed by society. In the one case it is one of Western man ’ s most cherished and valuable possessions; in the other, simply a manifestation of the sickness called liberalism which is carrying Western man swiftly toward his extinction.

Liberty Not An Absolute : As liberty has no absolute meaning, it has no absolute value. To be free from an alien tyranny, so that we can give expression to our own cultural and social forms rather than those not ours; that is good. To carry the quest for “ freedom of expression ” to the point where we reject every social norm and every cultural tradition in favor of a formless, nameless chaos, that is not good.

Freedom to inquire, to explore, to experiment, to invent; that is both good and necessary if our race is to advance and fulfill its destiny. Freedom to ignore every authority, to escape every obligation, to indulge every whim; that is neither good nor progressive.

Libertarian View Simplistic : The great-oversimplification of the libertarian is the assumption that freedom is an absolute; that man is either free or he is not free, that if we want freedom of inquiry, for example, then we must also accept as a necessary concomitant total freedom for self-indulgence.

Thus, the familiar spectacle of Senators, Representatives, editors and educators calling for the military defeat of our nation; of Black criminals calling for the murder of our race; of anarchists of every hue calling for the destruction of our culture while we smile tolerantly, if a bit nervously, for we have been taught that to silence a traitor is to strangle liberty. Even to punch a McGovern or a Kennedy; or a Clinton, in the mouth and denounce him for what he is makes us suspect as enemies of free speech, and a long term in jail for assault and battery.

Jewish Trick : The logic is flawless. And the same argument can be applied to patriotism or any other form of idealism which requires the individual to subordinate his own interests to those of a larger social, national, or racial whole. Libertarianism thus leads naturally to an atomization of society.

To the libertarian the race, the nation are merely assemblages of individuals, nothing more. From this viewpoint, any social structure; a government, say, is justified only insofar as it provides a convenient framework within which a multitude of human atoms can expeditiously gratify their individual desires and ambitions with a minimum of friction with one another.

Freedom Under The System : Liberty, pursued to such lengths, is elusive, and the pursuer deceives himself. Our masters, the men who run the System, are not such blockheads. They better understand the nature of “ freedom. ” They know that in order to compel us to do their bidding it is seldom necessary these days to resort to the whip and the chain. ( “ Putting aside fine phrases we shall speak of the significance of each thought; by comparisons and deductions we shall throw light upon surrounding facts.

What I am about to set forth, then, is our system from the two points of view, that of ourselves and that of the goyim (i.e., non‑Jews). It must be noted that men with bad instincts are more in number than the good, and therefore the best results in governing them are attained by violence and terrorization, and not by academic discussions. Every man aims at power, everyone would like to become a dictator if only he could, and rare indeed are the men who would not be willing to sacrifice the welfare of all for the sake of securing their own welfare.

What has restrained the beasts of prey who are called men? What has served for their guidance hitherto? In the beginnings of the structure of society they were subjected to brutal and blind force; afterwards ‑‑ to Law, which is the same force, only disguised. I draw the conclusion that by the law of nature right lies in force.

Political freedom is an idea but not a fact. This idea one must know how to apply whenever it appears necessary with this bait of an idea to attract the masses of the people to one's party for the purpose of crushing another who is in authority. This task is rendered easier if the opponent has himself been infected with the idea of freedom, so‑called liberalism, and, for the sake of an idea, is willing to yield some of his power. It is precisely here that the triumph of our theory appears; the slackened reins of government are immediately, by the law of life, caught up and gathered together by a new hand, because the blind might of the nation cannot for one single day exist without guidance, and the new authority merely fits into the place of the old already weakened by liberalism.

In our day the power which has replaced that of the rulers who were liberal is the power of Gold. Time was when Faith ruled. The idea of freedom is impossible of realization because no one knows how to use it with moderation. It is enough to hand over a people to self government for a certain length of time for that people to be turned into a disorganized mob. From that moment on we get internecine strife which soon develops into battles between classes, in the midst of which States burn down and their importance is reduced to that of a heap of ashes.

Whether a State exhausts itself in its own convulsions, whether its internal discord brings it under the power of external foes; in any case it can be accounted irretrievably lost; it is in our power. The despotism of Capital, which is entirely in our hands, reaches out to it a straw that the State, willy‑nilly, must take hold of: if not ‑‑ it goes to the bottom.

       Should anyone of a liberal mind say that such reflections as the above are immoral I would put the following questions: If every State has two foes and if in regard to the external foe it is allowed and not considered immoral to use every manner and art of conflict, as for example to keep the enemy in ignorance of plans of attack and defense, to attack him by night or in superior numbers, then it what way can the same means in regard to a worse foe, the destroyer of the structure of society and the commonweal, be called immoral and not permissible?

Is it possible for any sound logical mind to hope with any success to guide crowds by the aid of reasonable counsels and arguments, when any objection or contradiction, senseless though it may be, can be made and when such objection may find more favor with the people, whose powers of reasoning are superficial? Men in masses and the men of the masses, being guided solely by petty passions, paltry beliefs, customs, traditions and sentimental theorism, fall a prey to party dissension, which hinders any kind of agreement even on the basis of a perfectly reasonable argument. Every resolution of a crowd depends upon a chance or packed majority, which, is its ignorance of political secrets puts forth some ridiculous resolution that lays in the administration a seed of anarchy.

The political has nothing in common with the moral. The ruler who is governed by the moral is not a skilled politician, and is therefore unstable on his throne. He who wishes to rule must have recourse both to cunning and to make‑believe. Great national qualities, like frankness and honesty, are vices in politics, for they bring down rulers from their thrones more effectively and more certainly than the most powerful enemy. Such qualities must be the attributes of the kingdoms of the goyim, but we must in no wise be guided by them.

Our right lies in force. The word "right" is an abstract thought and proved by nothing. The word means no more than: Give me what I want in order that thereby I may have a proof that I am stronger than you.

Where does right begin? Where does it end? In any State in which there is a bad organization of authority, an impersonality of laws and of the rulers who have lost their personality amid the flood of rights ever multiplying out of liberalism. I find a new right ‑‑ to attack by the right of the strong, and to scatter to the winds all existing forces of order and regulation, to reconstruct all institutions and to become the sovereign lord of those who have left to us the rights of their power by laying them down voluntarily in their liberalism.

Our power in the present tottering condition of all forms of power will be more invincible than any other, because it will remain invisible until the moment when it has gained such strength that no cunning can any longer undermine it.

Out of the temporary evil we are now compelled to commit will emerge the good of an unshakable rule, which will destroy the regular course of the machinery of the national life, brought to nought by liberalism. The result justifies the means. Let us, however, our plans, direct our attention not so much to what is good and moral as to what is necessary and useful.

Before us is a plan in which is laid down strategically the line from which we cannot deviate without running the risk of seeing the labor of many centuries brought to naught.

In order to elaborate satisfactory forms of action it is necessary to have regard to the rascality, the slackness, the instability of the mob, its lack of capacity to understand and respect the conditions of its own life, or its own welfare. It must be understood that the might of a mob is blind, senseless and unreasoning force ever at the mercy of a suggestion from any side. The blind cannot lead the blind without bringing them into the abyss; consequently, members of the mob, upstarts from the people even though they should be as a genius for wisdom, yet having no understanding of the political, cannot come forward as leaders of the mob without bringing the whole nation to ruin.

Only one trained from childhood for independent rule can have understanding of the words that can be made up of the political alphabet. "The founding prophet of the leftist faith, Karl Marx, was born in 1818, the son of a Jewish father who changed his name from Herschel to Heinrich and converted to Christianity to advance his career. The young Marx grew into a man consumed by hatred for Christianity. Internationalizing the worst antichrist stereotypes, he incorporated them into his early revolutionary vision, identifying Jews as symbols of the system of private property and bourgeois democracy he wanted to further. 'The god of the Jews had been secularized and has become the god of this world,' Marx wrote. 'Money is the Jealous God of the Jews , beside which no other god may stand.' Once the Revolution succeeds in 'Destroying the empirical essence of Christianity , he promised, 'The Jews will become the Rulers of the World ! This early Marxist formulation is the transparent seed of the mature vision, causing Paul Johnson to characterize Marxism as 'the antichristian of the intellectuals.'

The international Communist creed that Marx invented is a creed of hate. The solution that Marx proposed to the Christian 'problem' was to eliminate the system that 'creates' the Christian. The Jews, he said, 'are only symptoms of a more extensive evil that must eradicate capitalism. The Jews are only symbols of a more pervasive enemy that must be destroyed; capitalists.'

In the politics of the left, racist hatred is directed not only against Christian capitalists but against all capitalists; not only against capitalists, but anyone who is not poor, and who is White; and ultimately against Western Civilization itself. The Marxist revolution is antichrist elevated to a global principle." [1]

A people left to itself, i.e., to upstarts from its midst, brings itself to ruin by party dissensions excited by the pursuit of power and honors and the disorders arising therefrom. Is it possible for the masses of the people calmly and without petty jealousies to form judgments, to deal with the affairs of the country, which cannot be mixed up with personal interests? Can they defend themselves from an external foe? It is unthinkable, for a plan broken up into as many parts as there are heads in the mob, loses all homogeneity, and thereby becomes unintelligible and impossible of execution.

It is only with a despotic ruler that plans can be elaborated extensively and clearly in such a way as to distribute the whole properly among the several parts of the machinery of the State; from this the conclusion is inevitable that a satisfactory form of government for any country is one that concentrates in the hands of one responsible person. Without an absolute despotism there can be no existence for civilization which is carried on not by the masses but by their guide, whosoever that person may be. The mob is a  save and displays its savagery at every opportunity. The moment the mob seizes freedom in its hands it quickly turns to anarchy, which in itself is the highest degree of savagery.

Behold the alcoholized animals, bemused with drink, the right to an immoderate use of which comes along with freedom. It is not for us and ours to walk that road. The peoples of the goyim are bemused with alcoholic liquors; their youth has grown stupid on classicism and from early immorality, into which it has been inducted by our special agents, by tutors, lackeys, governesses in the house of the wealthy, by clerks and others, by our women in the places of dissipation frequented by the goyim. In the number of these last I could also the so‑called "society ladies" voluntary followers of the others in corruption and luxury.

Our countersign is, Force and Make‑believe. Only force conquers in political affairs, especially if it be concealed in the talents essential to statesmen. Violence must be the principle, and cunning the make‑believe the rule for governments which do not want to lay down their crowns at the feet of agents of some new power. This evil is the one and only means to attain the end, the good. Therefore we must not stop at bribery, deceit and treachery when they should serve towards the attainment of our end. In politics one must know how to seize the property of others without hesitation if by it we secure submission and sovereignty.

Our State, marching along the path of peaceful conquest, has the right to replace the horrors of war by less noticeable and more satisfactory sentences of death, necessary to maintain the terror which tends to produce blind submission. Just but merciless severity is the greatest factor of strength in the State; not only for the sake of gain but also in the name of duty, for the sake of victory, we must keep to the programme of violence and make‑believe. The doctrine of squaring accounts is precisely as strong as the means of which it makes use. Therefore it is not so much by the means themselves as by the doctrine of severity that we shall triumph and bring all governments into subjection to our Super‑Government (U.N.). It is enough for them to know that we are merciless for all disobedience to cease.

Far back in ancient times we were the first to cry among the masses of the people the words "Liberty, Equality, Fraternity," words many times repeated since those days  by stupid poll‑parrots who from all sides round flew down upon these baits and with them carried away the well‑being of the world, true freedom of the individual, formerly so well guarded against the pressure of the mob.

The would‑be wise men of the goyim, the intellectuals, could not make anything out of the uttered words in their abstractness; did not note the contradiction of their meaning and interrelation; did not see that in nature there is no equality, cannot be freedom; that Nature herself has established inequality of minds, of characters, and capacities, just as immutably as she has established subordination to her laws; never stopped to think that the mob is a blind thing, that upstarts elected from among it to bear rule are, in regard to the political, the same blind men as the mob itself, that the adept, though he be a fool, can yet rule, whereas the non‑adept, even if he were a genius, understands nothing in the political, to all these things the goyim paid no regard; yet all the time it was based upon these things that dynastic rule rested; the father passed on to the son a knowledge of the course of political affairs in such wise that none should know it but members of the dynasty and none could betray it to the governed. As time went on the meaning of the dynastic transference of the true position of affairs in the political was lost, and this aided the success of our cause.

In all corners of the earth the words "Liberty, Equality, Fraternity" brought to our ranks, thanks to our blind agents, whole legions who bore our banners with enthusiasm. And all the time these words were canker‑worms at work boring into the well‑being of the goyim, putting an end everywhere to peace, quiet, solidarity and destroying all the foundations of the goya States.

As you will see later, this helped us to our triumph; it gave us the possibility, among other things, of getting into our hands the master card, the destruction of the privileges, or in other words of the very existence of the aristocracy of the goyim, that class which was the only defense peoples and countries had against us. On the ruins of the natural and genealogical aristocracy of the goyim we have set up the aristocracy of our educated class headed by the aristocracy of money. The qualifications for this aristocracy we have established in wealth, which is dependent upon us, and in knowledge, for which our learned elders provide the motive force.

Our triumph has been rendered easier by the fact that in our relations with the men whom we wanted to have always worked upon the most sensitive chords of the human mind, upon the cash account, upon the cupidity, upon the insatiability for material needs of man; and each one of these human weaknesses, taken alone, is sufficient to paralyze initiative, for it hands over the will of men to the disposition of him who has bought their activities.

The abstraction of freedom has enabled us to persuade the mob in all countries that their government is nothing but the steward of the people who are the owners of the country, and that the steward may be replaced like a worn‑out glove.

It is this possibility of replacing the representatives of the people which has placed them at our disposal, and, as it were, given us the power of appointment)

So they let us run about freely, say what we want, vote for whom we choose. The United States is a “ free ” country. All the system cares about is that the net aggregate of our opinions, the result of our elections, shall be what they have predetermined they should be. It is no more possible to put a truly anti-System man into the Presidency in this country than it is to talk the System into cutting its own throat. But the System men don ’ t mind if we fool ourselves into thinking it is possible. In fact, they prefer it that way.

Donkeys and Men : One can get a donkey from point “ A ” to point “ B ” by tyring a rope around his neck and pulling hard enough. Or one can accomplish the same thing by placing the donkey ’ s oats and water out in plain sight at point “ B, ” taking care that no other source of provender is readily accessible.

Is the donkey really any “ freer ” in the second case than in the first? It is idle to argue that in the second case the donkey could have decided not to go to the oats. The fact is that one is able to predetermine the donkey ’ s behavior, almost with certainty, by a simple manipulation of external stimuli.

When dealing with people instead of donkeys one must be more subtle, but the principle remains the same. We like to think that we make our own decisions, form our own opinions, but in most cases we don ’ t. Even outside the realm of politics and the public-opinion manipulators man ’ s supposedly “ free ” choise is subject to a thousand determinants beyond his control.

Even a sole inhabitant of the earth, free of every social constraint and inhibition, would remain a slave to the weather and all the other limitations on his will imposed by Nature. Such limitations are just as effective in reducing man ’ s freedom; in restricting the scope of his actions; as are the walls of any man-made prison.

Division of Labor : Thinking of freedom in these terms, it is easy to see that a sole inhabitant may be considerably less free than a member of a social group. Although membership in a group inevitably carries with it certain restrictions, it may, for a properly constituted gourp, result in a far greater scope of action than is possible for the unaffiliated individual.

As an example, a sole inhabitant may wish to devote his life to music or to the study of mathematics. But the daily necessities of providing himself with food, clothing and shelter would certainly leave him little time for indulging such whims. And it is quite clear that these natural restrictions just as truly limit his freedom of choice as, say, a “ repressive totalitarian ” government.

Only the divisionof labor made possible by social organization, with its saccompanying channeling of individual energies into raather restricted areas, can open up for anyone the choice of a career in music or mathematics.