where the writers are

Seeing Colin Kaepernbick of the 49ers, saved from abortion by loving adopted parents, inspires re-print of this excerpt from my book "What Is Truth?"

From the “fevered swamp” of World War I, the beginning of a century that would result in 150 million casualties, “rose a Beast, one that played upon man’s yearning for a utopian solution to its abject misery. A quasi-religious criminal, taking the form of a political messiah. The Beast embodied Nietzsche’s will to power, stopping at nothing to achieve its ends. It fed off Mankind’s dark side, his fears, his prejudices. His ancient hatred. Reaching out, first to convert, then turning in to destroy. That was the nature of the Beast. It came with many faces, many names: Bolshevism, Fascism, Communism, Nazism, Lenin, Mussolini, Hitler, Tojo, Stalin; but always and everywhere, regardless of the name or face, the goal remained the same: control of the state and power. Power as an end unto itself.”


- In the Face of Evil


“Radicalism” is a term that echoes throughout human history. Socrates was considered a radical, and for his beliefs he was put to death by the state. Jesus Christ was considered a radical, and He met the same fate. Oliver Cromwell, Thomas Paine, Abraham Lincoln; the list of people whose views were viewed as radical is a long one. Many met tragic ends for their beliefs.

            But radicalism as it is generally understood in modern times is associated with anti-establishment, often anarchist concepts manifesting itself as a protest movement, often in response to war. Radicalism is often viewed as the dangerous uprisings of the lower classes, the poor and the dispossessed, responding to perceived injustices committed against them by the wealthy and the privileged. It invariably strays away from religious, especially Christian precepts, as spirituality is considered a balm of the soul giving one peace and freedom of conscience even as they suffer in silent dignity.

            But radicalism is usually loud, messy and violent. It wants to be heard. Radicals do not like to be told that through prayer to a higher power they can find individual salvation. They are like the Jewish mobs who demanded Christ be executed by the Romans, rather than accept His message that He came not to lead a rebellion against Pontius Pilate, but a rebellion against sin, each believer’s soul winning a private, unseen victory over the devil.

            Radicalism and its related bedfellows – liberalism, anarchism, Socialism, Communism – are traced in large measure to Jean-Jacques Rousseau’s On the Social Contract (1762). This document, more so than the English Magna Carta (1215), had the direct, relatively fast result of spawning revolution. The American Revolution was entirely exceptional from Rousseau, owing itself to John Locke, Edmund Burke, Adam Smith, and libertarian/agrarian economic thinkers with an entrepreneurial bent. However, it was its success emboldening other nations to revolt, albeit for wholly different reasons with results that could not possibly have been more different.

            The term American Exceptionalism traces itself to this reason as much as any other. Of all the revolutions that followed, none were successful in the true sense of the word. Therefore, historians have come to view the American idea as something . . . exceptional. Try as they might, it cannot be duplicated. Even Americans end up making the big mistake of engaging in international adventures meant to make somebody else more like them. To the extent that other nations and peoples do adopt American values of society, government and culture, it is more an organic, even subversive process rather than a heavy handed one that succeeds. Most politicians are not patient enough to see this. Rather, the day inevitably happens, decades later, when one wakes up and sees that some nation, once rejecting a force-fed American way, suddenly starts acting like Americans of ther own free will.

            One case in point might be Vietnam. Militarists said that, “Inside every Vietnamese is an American waiting to come out.” After the war turned disastrously, with Communism becoming the way of the land, it seemed that America had been rejected. But now, decades later, occasional reports surface that Vietnam engages in trade, a middle class is growing, businesses and entrepreneurialism are allowed to thrive. In other words, if Vietnam had simply become in 1964 what it now is today, absent being forced to do so, the United States never would have felt the need to engage militarily.

            Even Germany and Japan, supposedly prime examples of cultures adopting our ways as a “result” of military inter-action – in these cases the only way we could get them to “come around” – nevertheless were influenced as much by organic American culture as the “barrel of a gun,” to quote Mao Tse-tung. General Douglas MacArthur once said baseball player Lefty O’Doul’s goodwill exhibition tours did as much to enhance friendly relations with the Japanese as any other factor. The popularity of rock music and stylish jeans was said to play a major role in the fall of the Berlin Wall. These were certainly not “government programs.”


Charles Darwin’s The Origin of Species, the New Man and “cult of death”

After the French Revolution and Napoleon’s failed attempt to conquer the world, Europe was in turmoil. Germany and Austria stepped in, riding the whirlwind of the Industrial Revolution in what really became global competition with the United States and Great Britain. When the Model T was invented, oil become the commodity of empire, thus modernizing Asia Minor, as it was generally called, into what is now called the Middle East. 

England found itself by virtue of its navy, its colonies and its ability to make trade throughout the world, the greatest modern power, but its small size meant it was always operating on a relatively thin margin, requiring acquiescence among its ruled. Any major revolutions against it threatened the empire. Germany and America eyed Great Britain hungrily, waiting to “take its place.”

Social upheaval in Europe, the writings of Karl Marx, the new concepts posed by Charles Darwin’s The Origin of Species, all led inexorably to a 20th Century that would no longer be entirely dominated by Christian authority, with the Roman Catholic Church holding sway over kings and governments.

The very nature of man would be questioned. In Great Britain, “social Darwinism” took root. The English saw themselves as a tiny minority of extremely intelligent, high class whites whose inheritent destiny, as George Bernard Shaw put it, was to rule the world. How else to explain how a tiny group of British upper class, government officials and military outfits could steadfastly control all of the “great unwashed” of India, to use one example?

There was a huge racial component to this. The notion of “white superiority” was proposed, with scientists bound and determined to “prove” such a thing existed as a fact beyond argument.

Darwinism led to frightening medical concepts. World War I completely changed Mankind’s outlook on humanity. Could we be “perfected”? Could the “defects” that lead man to war, to slavery, to poverty; could these be eliminated in favor of some kind of New Man? In a strange twist of logic begging the question of Satan’s existence, eugenics became something of a new religion.

Abortion, the most unholy of all offenses against God, became the clarion call of sorts within a rising feminist movement. Led by Margaret Sanger, an American “sex educator” and nurse, abortion and eugenics became the “tool” by which racists “justified” the elimination of “undesirables,” whether those be Africans, Asiatics, the lame, the feeble-minded, the retarded, homosexuals, or any other form of human deemed to hold back society from achieving its fullest potential. Sanger spoke regularly at Ku Klux Klan rallies, where audiences were eager to hear of her medical “solution” to the “problem” of African-Americans living within their midst. Naturally, the abortion-eugenics movement was opposed by Christians; thus creating the landscape leading to a “war” throughout the 20th and 21st Centuries between secularists and the religious. Charles Darwin never intended for his theories of evolution to be the adopted theme of atheists, but that is what happened. Humanists thought of themselves as smarter, absent “fairy tales” and “superstitions” of a doctrine they said were meant merely to keep man in thrawl to religious authority.

Adolf Hitler and the Nazis, who Darwin probably would have vehemently opposed had he seen what they did up close, rode to power on the strength of principles espoused as a result of Darwinism. Hitler managed to “convince” those who wanted to believe he was a “Christian,” as he was raised a Catholic. In truth he was a humanist who used heroic Norse mythology (Richard Wagner’s “Ride of the Valkyries”) to create in the German mind the superior Norse-German man, or New Man.

The intellect became a new religion, a god to be worshipped. This created a larger movement, quasi-political in nature, picking and choosing from Plato’s version of a professional political class, a “perfectible” human nature. The mistakes of average humans could be rectified by the state. They alone had the answers to societal problems. Herein lies the origin of the welfare state, Big Government run amok. Herein lies the origins of abortion-as-religion, a dogmatic, cannot-be-argued concept because to logically refute is to force into the discussion morality and Godly judgment, the enemies of the New Man. Herein lies the origins of the environmental movement, the “global warming” phenomenon which swept the world only after the “global cooling” movement died down in the 1970s. Always, a rejection of God, in particular a rejection of the whole Bible, of judgment, of hell, and of the entirety of Christ’s meaning; rather the picking and choosing of a phrase here and there, only to suit a political or social purpose.

None of this would have so swiftly become powerful movements of the 20th Century had World War I not been fought. Never had the world seen such a conflagration, such Total War. It was too big for private citizen-armies, kings, political parties or religions. Only fully mobilized governments could press entire populations into service, on the front and at home, at a cost that only citizens taxed en masse could pay. Out of this, at the Versailles Conference, Paris, 1919, led by a young British economist named John Maynard Keynes, lay the great debate of the future, the role of government. Out of this mindset arose the notion that if only government was big enough to finance and fight a world war, then only government could finance societal “wars”: poverty, hunger, joblessness, economies, race relations, reproductive rights, freedom, happiness, war and peace. Off to the side was pushed Christianity, told its age old role in society was done. They were now, to so many adopting this new religion, a mere opiate of the masses.       


Darwinism believed that elimination of the “poorly endowed” was thought to advance society. "Great lawgivers, the founders of beneficent religions, great philosophers and discoverers in science, aid the progress of Mankind in a far higher degree by their works than by leaving a numerous progeny,” wrote Darwin in The Descent of Man and Selection in Relation to Sex. “In the case of corporeal structures, it is the selection of the slightly better-endowed and the elimination of the slightly less well-endowed individuals, and not the preservation of strongly-marked and rare anomalies, that leads to the advancement of a species. So it will be with the intellectual faculties, since the somewhat abler men in each grade of society succeed rather better than the less able, and consequently increase in number, if not otherwise prevented. When in any nation the standard of intellect and the number of intellectual men have increased, we may expect from the law of the deviation from an average, that prodigies of genius will, as shewn by Mr. Galton, appear somewhat more frequently than before . . .

"If the various checks specified . . . do not prevent the reckless, the vicious and otherwise inferior members of society from increasing at a quicker rate than the better class of men, the nation will retrograde, as has too often occurred in the history of the world."

Darwin advocated “natural selection” as necessary for man’s advancement. “Barbarous tribes,” he wrote, were unable to handle the responsibilities of “natural selection,” leading to “infanticide and many other evils, and in civilised nations to abject poverty, celibacy, and to the late marriages of the prudent. But as man suffers from the same physical evils as the lower animals, he has no right to expect an immunity from the evils consequent on the struggle for existence. Had he not been subjected during primeval times to natural selection, assuredly he would never have attained to his present rank."

Margaret Sanger, founder of Planned Parenthood, warned of the danger of “uncontrolled breeding.” "We should not minimize the great outstanding service of eugenics for critical and diagnostic investigations,” she said. “It demonstrates . . . that uncontrolled fertility is universally correlated with disease, poverty, overcrowding and the transmission of hereditable traits . . .

"We are paying for and even submitting to the dictates of an ever increasing, unceasingly spawning class of human beings who never should have been born at all - that the wealth of individuals and of state is being diverted from the development and the progress of human expression and civilization . . .

"Every single case of inherited defect, every malformed child, every congenitally tainted human being brought into this world is of infinite importance to that poor individual; but it is of scarcely less importance to the rest of us and to all of our children who must pay in one way or another for these biological and racial mistakes."

She praised eugenics, the forced sterilization of undesirables in favor of a scientifically altered baby, manipulated by biologists to possess the desirable traits of humankind: good looks, intelligence, Caucasian purity, heterosexual breeding absent the “animal” qualities of blacks, Jews and Asiatics.

"Degeneration has already begun,” she wrote in The Pilot of Civilization. “Eugenists demonstrate that two-thirds of our manhood of military age are physically too unfit to shoulder a rifle; that the feeble-minded, the syphilitic, the irresponsible and the defective breed unhindered; . . . that the vicious circle of mental and physical defect, delinquency and beggary is encouraged, by the unseeing and unthinking sentimentality of our age, to populate asylum, hospital and prison. All these things the eugenist sees and points out with a courage entirely admirable."

Sterilization of the insane and feebleminded was encouraged upon those “afflicted with inherited or transmissible diseases, with the understanding that sterilization does not deprive the individual of his or her sex expression, but merely renders him incapable of producing children."

In "The Principles and Aims of the American Birth Control League," Sanger advocated that birth control was the essential ingredient of a new, educated class of women separating them from the Dark Ages, who she called “submerged mothers.” The underclass served only the purpose of educating elites, who would study their “prophylaxis, hygiene and infant welfare.” She did not see motherhood as a nurturing expression of love between mother and child, but as a form of “self-development and self-realization,” the basis of which “may we improve the quality of the race."

Sanger believed only government had the scope and coercive powers to make society do as she advocated; individual citizens were too free-spirited to be “taught” what she knew was right for them. Conversely, she stated that charity was evil, because it lacked the organizational, all-inclusive qualities of government programs. Only government could assure “fairness.” Charity too often advocated a Christian view that man must suffer as he follows Christ’s path towards what she perceived as a false salvation.

"Even if we accept organized charity at its own valuation, and grant that it does the best it can, it is exposed to a more profound criticism,’ she stated. “It reveals a fundamental and irremediable defect. Its very success, its very efficiency, its very necessity to the social order, are themselves the most unanswerable indictment. Organized charity itself is the symptom of a malignant social disease.”

The worst part of Christian charity was that it advocated the notion that all children were gifts from God. To Sanger, only certain well-bred children were of value. The rest she viewed like horses, too slow to win at the track, too small for plowing, to weak for riding; whose only value was found in a glue factory. This concept certainly found itself in the concentration camps, where the Nazis used the skins of doomed Jews to make lampshades and soap, therefore finding some “value” in them.

 “Those vast, complex, interrelated organizations aiming to control and to diminish the spread of misery and destitution and all the menacing evils that spring out of this sinisterly fertile soil, are the surest sign that our civilization has bred, is breeding and is perpetuating constantly increasing numbers of defectives, delinquents and dependents. My criticism, therefore, is not directed at the ‘failure’ of philanthropy, but rather at its success." In this, Sanger expresses frustration that so many believe in God and give to charity out of Christian duty. She advocated greater taxation to foster her cradle-to-grave vision, which of course would be extremely controlling of all aspects of society.

Sanger’s vision was not merely fodder for evil movements of world history: Nazism, Communism, Socialism, the one-child policy in China today. She was an American who started some of the most powerful liberal organizations in the United States, resulting in abortion-on-demand, that since Roe v. Wade has killed 39 million unborn. Naturally, she had many admirers on the Left. 

            Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes wholeheartedly stated, "It is better for all the world, if instead of waiting to execute degenerate offspring for crime or to let them starve for their imbecility, society can prevent those who are manifestly unfit from continuing their kind . . . Three generations of imbeciles are enough."

"Just as in cancer the best treatment is to eradicate the parasitic growth as quickly as possible, the eugenic defense against the dysgenic social effects of afflicted subpopulations is of necessity limited to equally drastic measures . . .” stated Konrad Lorenz, an Austrian zoologist and strong advocate that men are merely advanced forms of monkey-animals, some “more equal than others,” as George Orwell wrote.  “When these inferior elements are not effectively eliminated from a [healthy] population, then - just as when the cells of a malignant tumor are allowed to proliferate throughout the human body - they destroy the host body as well as themselves."

“It must be admitted, however, that there are certain dangers,” liberal hero Bertrand Russell, a noted intellectual, noted. “Before long the population may actually diminish. This is already happening in the most intelligent sections of the most intelligent nations; government opposition to birth control propaganda gives a biological advantage to stupidity, since it is chiefly stupid people who governments succeed in keeping in ignorance. Before long, birth control may become nearly universal among the white races; it will then not deteriorate their quality, but only diminish their numbers, at a time when uncivilized races are still prolific and are preserved from a high death rate by white science.

“This situation will lead to a tendency - already shown by the French - to employ more prolific races as mercenaries. Governments will oppose the teaching of birth control among Africans, for fear of losing recruits. The result will be an immense numerical inferiority of the white races, leading probably to their extermination in a mutiny of mercenaries."

He observed that in the dark skinned races, there “would be a little genuine care for the race, instead of the present haphazard higgledy-piggledy ways."

In a letter to Alys Pearsall Smith, he hoped people would grow “less superstitious’” and that “government will acquire the right to sterilize those who are not considered desirable as parents. This power will be used, at first, to diminish imbecility, a most desirable object. But probably, in time, opposition to the government will be taken to prove imbecility, so that rebels of all kinds will be sterilized. Epileptics, consumptives, dipsomaniacs and so on will gradually be included; in the end, there will be a tendency to include all who fail to pass the usual school examinations. The result will be to increase the average intelligence; in the long run, it may be greatly increased. But probably the effect upon really exceptional intelligence will be bad.”

Eugenics, Russell theorized, had “more ambitious possibilities in a more distant future. It may aim not only at eliminating undesired types, but at increasing desired types. Moral standards may alter so as to make it possible for one man to be the sire of a vast progeny by many different mothers . . . If eugenics reached the point where it could increase desired types, it would not be the types desired by present-day eugenists that would be increased, but rather the type desired by the average official. Prime ministers, bishops, and others whom the state considers desirable might become the fathers of half the next generation. Whether this would be an improvement it is not for me to say, as I have no hope of ever becoming either a bishop or a prime minister.

“If we knew enough about heredity to determine, within limits, what sort of population we would have, the matter would of course be in the hands of state officials, presumably elderly medical men. Whether they would really be preferable to nature I do not feel sure. I suspect that they would breed a subservient population, convenient to rulers but incapable of initiative."

The British science fiction writer H.G. Wells felt that only the “better sort of people should intermarry and have plentiful children,” that “inferior” people should not multiply, all the while adhering to Plato's “principle” of a professional political class, and as pre-cursor to the “death panels” proposed by Obamacare, a permanent state to render the hard decisions of life or death, that man is too weak to do for himself.

Francis Galton felt a collection of "noble families" should collect "fine specimens of humanity" around them, employing these fine specimens in “menial occupations of a light and comfortable sort,” essentially giving the betters of society more time for sex and, therefore, multiplication of their superior selves.

Wells advocated sterilization. “The way of nature has always been to slay the hindmost, and there is still no other way, unless we can prevent those who would become the hindmost being born,” he stated. “It is in the sterilization of failure, and not in the selection of successes for breeding, that the possibility of an improvement of the human stock lies."

This was the way the elitist Left spoke, referring to humans as “stock,” or “the masses.” Long before the rise of Stalin and Hitler, Wells saw “dominant men of the new time” presiding over a “naturally segregated” society of “artists in reality, with a passion for simplicity and directness and an impatience of confusion and inefficiency. The determining frame of their ethics . . . will be the elaboration of that future world state to which all things are pointing . . . It is manifest that a reconstructed ethical system . . . will give very different values from those given by the existing system . . . the ethical system of these men of the New Republic, the ethical system which will dominate the world state, will be shaped primarily to favour the procreation of what is fine and efficient and beautiful in humanity - beautiful and strong bodies, clear and powerful minds, and a growing body of knowledge - and to check the procreation of base and servile types, of fear-driven and cowardly souls, of all that is mean and ugly and bestial in the souls, bodies, or habits of men. To do the latter is to do the former; the two things are inseparable.”

Wells’s reference to a New Republic was very popular with the Left, mirroring the Darwinian notion of a New Man that Hitler and others espoused. So popular, in fact, that the leading liberal opinion magazine then and now remains The New Republic. Years later the Christian author of Witness, Whittaker Chambers, felt that Ayn Rand’s works echoed these sentiments, even though there is nary a word in Atlas Shrugged advocating anything remotely close to these early 20th Century elitists. Chambers was alarmed enough, however, to say of Atlas Shrugged “. . . a voice can be heard, from painful necessity, commanding: ‘To a gas chamber – go!’ ”

Rand, who escaped Communist Russia, was the ultimate individualist, the opposite of these Darwinist and post-Darwinist thinkers and mass exterminationists. The words of Darwin, of Sanger, of Russell, and many more, obviously seem to be not merely opening the door to Hitler’s transport trains of masses of undesirables to the camps, but more so: they are intellectuals from free societies with all the imprimatur of academe and intellectuality indeed begging him to do their dirty work.

In the “new vision of death,” Wells wrote, there was no “inexplicable horror, no pointless terminal terror to the miseries of life, it is the end of all pain of life, the end of the bitterness of failure, the merciful obliteration of the weak and silly and pointless things. The new ethics will hold life to be a privilege and a responsibility . . . and the alternative in right conduct between living fully, beautifully, and efficiently will be to die.”

A “multitude of contemptible and silly creatures,” who he felt had no hope of happiness or achievement, and if Christians were hordes who were “fear-driven and helpless and useless, unhappy or hatefully happy in the midst of squalid dishonour, feeble, ugly, inefficient, born of unrestrained lusts, and increasing and multiplying through sheer incontinence and stupidity, the men of the New Republic will have little pity and less benevolence.”

The New Republic, “will not be squeamish, either, in facing or inflicting death, because they will have a fuller sense of the possibilities of life than we possess. They will have an ideal that will make killing worth while.”

Sexual questions, he went on, were “of no more importance than the morality of one's deportment at chess, or the general morality of outdoor games . . .” In this, Wells echoes the tools of Communist recruitment, so often the hook that sunk many liberals joining front organizations “because of a girl.” This form of non-judgmental immorality is also found in the later works of Upton Sinclair. As for the “black, or yellow, or mean-white squatter on the move . . .” the “men of the New Republic . . . will rout out and illuminate urban rookeries and all places where the base can drift to multiply; they will contrive a land legislation that will keep” the child rearing “hopeful speculation.” The lower classes were “the weak and sensual.” All of this would be “planned and achieved" by an all-powerful state.

While Wells and other high-minded philosophers of England were making these plans for their fellow man, a young Army officer and conservative politician-in-the-making, Winston Churchill, listened in horror. His Christian sensibilities outraged, Churchill correctly deduced that if the “right” circumstances were to occur – war, famine, revolution, depression – demagogues would be able to mystify a populace seduced into thinking such intellectuality was their obvious master, following it into conflagration and mass gravesites. His plans and philosophies, his manner and way of speechmaking, were being formulated then and there, to someday be used, as if a tool of God Himself, as a bulwark against such evil. He knew, too, that the original high thinkers of these thoughts would not be judged by history; their crimes would be associated with others. Their godly intellects would merely be diverted to other causes which the 20th and 21st Centuries revealed: environmentalism, feminism, homosexual politics, and beyond.

As the views of these English academics made their way to America, echoed by Oliver Wendell Holmes, Margaret Sanger, and the feminists, another man of the 20th Century, a young college student in the Midwest named Ronald Reagan, listened to all of it with alarm. Influenced by his devoutly Christian mother, Reagan came to believe that of all Christ’s precepts, his example of compassion toward the poor and the lame, the Biblical admonition that “the meek shall inherit the Earth,” was the greatest. Out of this was formed his core philosophy, and ultimately his driving opposition to a view of “the masses” in Communism; that each individual life has meaning and purpose, imbued by a God who wishes all men to seek a personal relationship with Him.  

Today, indeed, these men and women are conveniently given a pass. But in a new world of high technology and mass information, no longer were intellectuals crusty old men with granite faces and snow-white hair. Any jock or amateur historian with a library card and basic cable carrying the History Channel now has access to this information, if they are willing to take the time to find it.

One “average Joe,” Glenn Beck of Fox News, dared expose the “death cultists” of the late 19th and early 20th Century West. Among the footage he aired on his show was a grainy, but generally good film of George Bernard Shaw, as kindly-looking an old gentleman as can be conceived; a man with the countenance of Santa Claus who, with a perfect upper class English accent said things like, extermination of the “socially compatible” was a fine goal of society.

"The notion that persons should be safe from extermination as long as they do not commit willful murder, or levy war against the Crown, or kidnap, or throw vitriol, is not only to limit social responsibility unnecessarily, and to privilege the large range of intolerable misconduct that lies outside them, but to divert attention from the essential justification for extermination, which is always incorrigible social incompatibility and nothing else,” the old gentleman said with a wry smile and, literally, a little hop in his step.

"We should find ourselves committed to killing a great many people whom we now leave living, and to leave living a great many people whom we at present kill. We should have to get rid of all ideas about capital punishment . . .” Shaw felt killing people before committing crimes was a waste of effort when those likely to be criminals could so easily be identified by the state, then easily be deposited in gas chambers.

“A part of eugenic politics would finally land us in an extensive use of the lethal chamber. A great many people would have to be put out of existence simply because it wastes other people's time to look after them.

"The moment we face it frankly we are driven to the conclusion that the community has a right to put a price on the right to live in it . . . If people are fit to live, let them live under decent human conditions. If they are not fit to live, kill them in a decent human way. Is it any wonder that some of us are driven to prescribe the lethal chamber as the solution for the hard cases which are at present made the excuse for dragging all the other cases down to their level, and the only solution that will create a sense of full social responsibility in modern populations?"

Perhaps the ultimate statist and fear monger on the issue of world over-crowding was Thomas Malthus. His philosophies probably popularized the idea of “natural selection” even more than the man who created the theory, Charles Darwin. Marx and Engels, toasted among the Left-wing political intelligentsia of pre-World War I England, influenced him. John Maynard Keynes followed many of his economic principles. After the carnage of the Great War Malthus seemed to “make sense” to elites: if millions of potential war-makers could be exterminated before making war, war could be avoided.

"The power of population is indefinitely greater than the power in the earth to produce subsistence for man,” he wrote. “Population, when unchecked, increases in a geometrical ratio. Subsistence increases only in an arithmetical ratio. A slight acquaintance with numbers will shew the immensity of the first power in comparison of the second. By that law of our nature which makes food necessary to the life of man, the effects of these two unequal powers must be kept equal.”

Stalin took Malthus seriously when he used food as a weapon via mass starvation.

 “This implies a strong and constantly operating check on population from the difficulty of subsistence,” continued Malthus. “This difficulty must fall somewhere and must necessarily be severely felt by a large portion of mankind. Through the animal and vegetable kingdoms, nature has scattered the seeds of life abroad with the most profuse and liberal hand. She has been comparatively sparing in the room and the nourishment necessary to rear them. The germs of existence contained in this spot of earth, with ample food, and ample room to expand in, would fill millions of worlds in the course of a few thousand years. Necessity, that imperious all pervading law of nature, restrains them within the prescribed bounds. The race of plants and the race of animals shrink under this great restrictive law. And the race of man cannot, by any efforts of reason, escape from it.”

God, Malthus observed, was an obstacle, “. . . That great law of our nature which must constantly keep their effects equal, form the great difficulty that to me appears insurmountable in the way to the perfectibility of society."

Large families were not blessings, gifts of children from a benevolent God, but rather, "Impelled to the increase of his species by an equally powerful instinct, reason interrupts his (i.e. man's) career and asks him whether he may not bring beings into the world for whom he cannot provide the means of subsistence.” All they did was increase the “state of equality.”

Man’s duty to the state was not to rise and succeed, selfish concerns, but rather “other considerations occur. Will he not lower his rank in life? Will he not subject himself to greater difficulties than he at present feels? Will he not be obliged to labour harder?”

Malthus did not like large families because the father of one would work to his “utmost exertions” in order to support them, likely raising the standard of living for his family instead of to his true master, the state, who he owed all fealty. Malthus preferred that his offspring be “in rags and misery, and clamoring for bread that he cannot give them? And may he not be reduced to the grating necessity of forfeiting his independence, and of being obliged” to the state, the only power capable of handling his needs, if indeed it deemed that he and his offspring should live at all.

His prescription to large families and large populations was famine and euthanasia.

"The redundant population, necessarily occasioned by the prevalence of early marriages, must be repressed by occasional famines, and by the custom of exposing children, which, in times of distress, is probably more frequent than is ever acknowledged to Europeans," he wrote.

"But as from the laws of our nature some check to population must exist, it is better that it should be checked from a foresight of the difficulties attending a family and the fear of dependent poverty than that it should be encouraged, only to be repressed afterwards by want and sickness."

Echoing “global warming,” he preferred that a “few people, and a great quantity of fertile land, the power of the earth to afford a yearly increase of food may be compared to a great reservoir of water, supplied by a moderate stream. The faster population increases, the more help will be got to draw off the water, and consequently an increasing quantity will be taken every year. But the sooner, undoubtedly, will the reservoir be exhausted, and the streams only remain."


Charles Darwin has been excoriated for “starting” much of this, but in truth his “theory of evolution” was a scientific study of plants, animals and selection meant, with all good purpose and worth studying today, to broaden man’s minds. In this it was a noble purpose.

            To the Christian, who believes in good vs. evil, who believes that Satan is loosed upon the Earth and uses man’s foibles and vanities to promote his way, there is a cosmic conspiracy at hand. No matter how one views it, the movements and massacres spawned by these notions are atheistic. Man, intellect, knowledge; these are their gods. A strange “cult of death” emanated from the thinking of Sanger, of Shaw, of Malthus, and so many others. It found a happy home in Leninism-Stalinism, in Nazism, and in offshoots of mass psychology. Lenin, who took statism to a whole new level, said that it did not matter if three-quarters of the world perished in a revolutionary war, so long as the remaining one-quarter who survived were Communists.

            When Ronald Reagan heard that, it changed his life. He looked around him and saw American citizens, of their own free will, choosing to promote Communism. He was convinced they had to be dupes, they could not possibly, willingly believe three-quarters of the world’s population being killed could have any benefit. His sunny disposition and natural nature did not allow for such a thing, but his study of mass thinking over time convinced him otherwise. He chose to fight the Beast. 110 million murdered men and women later, Reagan was proved prescient, the “death cultists” Sanger, Shaw and Wells seen as perverse “original thinkers” of a most monstrous of evil that, had they really been given a vision of it, as with John of Patmos in Revelation, they would have turned from their sins to God. Or so one hopes. As for President Reagan, he could not stop 110 million deaths, but was able to free billions more who, left to the devices of their captors, were bound for the same fate.

            Whether they be British elites, American abortionists, Left-wing legal scholars, Fascists, Russian Revolutionaries, or Nazis, the single thread holding all these 20th Century New Men together is a firm disbelief in the divinity of God. We are all alone. We are our own gods, our own saviors. Government, the state, is our father or, as George Orwell called it in 1984, Big Brother. Logically, these notions would by all intent and purpose be so thoroughly discredited by exposed Communism and Nazism nobody would think like this any more. The Christian knows Satan is real, and therefore knows why these ideas simply take new forms, take on new causes, and are mouthed by new generations. They are eternal evils, briefly stopped by George Patton’s tanks, by Ronald Reagan’s “peace through strength”; never destroyed.

            Quasi-religions like “global warming,” which hearken back to centuries-old pagan Earth worshipers; the abortionists, the atheists, the new “death cultists”; the statists who see socialized medicine as salvation; the welfare state acting as a false messiah for the masses; the homosexual lobby determined to resist the notion that their lives are sinful; all these and more are the pride and vanity of the New Man, who says his way is better than God’s way.


Sigmund Freud: Influential contrarian  

It is a testament to the importance of Sigmund Freud that his findings in the field of human psychology find a legitimate place in a book about politics. Freud's findings have had their ups and downs, but for the most part, he remains the pre-eminent figure in his field. His theories help explain the motivations of some of the most important figures in history.

                 In Civilization and Its Discontents, Freud expresses a pessimistic view of man. This contrasts with what some see as the “optimism” of Rousseau and Marx, who “envisioned” a utopian society of happy workers. If it had existed, it more resembles Heaven than anything a reasonable man could ever foresee on Earth. But he should be held responsible, because surely he could have seen, if not the murderous acts of Soviet Communism, a perverted, twisting of his ideas.

                 Freud was another German-speaking Jew of enormous intellect. Whereas Rousseau believed that human nature was inherently compassionate, and Marx thought that nature could be channeled into a harmonious society, Freud goes in the opposite direction. He saw people wrought by three irremediable personalities, all battling with each other. These are the id, theego and the superego. These human traits might be considered metaphors for all of humanity, although this is not necessarily Freud's view. But the battle within every person is like the battle between nations, in that there is a constant struggle for domination.

                 The id is the most powerful. This is the part of our personality that lusts for aggression over others. The id might be the part of our personality that comes out when we try to get ahead of another car on the road and cut them off. Freud thought man suffered from psychic alienation and victimization from others. All efforts to avoid this predicament lead to more suffering.

                 Their Judaism influenced neither Freud nor Marx. Marx probably felt it was too stifling. Freud probably disdained it because it did not meet the needs of his high ego intellectualism. He lived before Judaism and politics became fascinations. One theory holds that the ultimate guilt and pessimism of Freud explains why Jews, in may ways natural conservatives, in the U.S. at least vote Democrat. However, in Israel, they vote conservatively, for the Likud Party, which consistently holds power. As a general rule, very religious Jews are conservative, while less-religious Jews are liberal.

But not only do Freud and Marx reject Judaism, they reject all religion. Marx seemed to feel that there is some kind of heaven on Earth. Freud thought concepts of a fatherly God or a martyred son are just plain silly, the work of lesser minds than his! Marx predicted a happy ending, while Freud's view seems particularly prescient in light of Communism and Nazism. Marx's “happy ending” classless society has never happened and never will. To make the allegory of the baseball fan out of these two people, Freud would be the Red Sox fan before 2004 (Babe Ruth’s “curse”), Marx an old Brooklyn Dodger guy before 1955 (“wait 'til next year”).

                 Freud's id is the center of our sexual and aggressive instincts. It unconsciously dominates all the other parts, but creates frustration by making demands that are not fulfilled. The ego is rational and cautious, and concerns itself with reality. It is our negotiator to the external world, but is ultimately dominated by the id. Pressured by the id and the superego, theego generates anxiety. The heart of Freudian therapy is the strengthening of the id against the other two. The superego is our conscience, and this is where our mostly unattainable moral standards come from. It is irrational and the adversary of the id.

                 These values of our psyche have been described in many ways. Our good side and our bad side. The devil on one shoulder, the angel on the other. The superego is more powerful than the ego, less so than the id. Its main weapon is guilt, instilled by parents. Pain and suffering is found trying to fulfill the superego.

                 Freud's anti-religious side is an important consideration in addressing these theories. According to him, we do not have “morals” in the sense of “goodness.” Goodness is something that comes from God, but there is no God to Freud. Instead of God, Freud sees only guilt, imposed by our parents.

                 In the song “The Seeker” by The Who, the lyrics are, “I got values, but I don't know how or why.” What are values? Why do people have good values in the first place? Freud would postulate all kinds of answers, without ever addressing the possibility that they come from a benevolent God. He disdained the values and substituted only guilt, saying this is where our unhappiness comes from.

            The good feeling a man has when he enjoys the simple pleasures of hearth, home and family, often more satisfying than fame and money, are natural feelings that have absolutely nothing to do with guilt. Freud misses this. This is not in him, so he disdains its presence in others. Maybe he was too smart for his own good.

Freud also misses the mark even when he has identified it. Guilt is unquestionably a driving force in our psychology, but he views it only as a negative. However, guilt may well be the saving grace of civilization. Heaped upon Mankind by God for first eating of the Tree of Knowledge, then having killed His only begotten son, guilt keeps people in line. Absent guilt one is likely a psychopath, if not a killer then a person lacking compassion and feeling, forced to put on an act for society’s sake. But the guilt a boy feels for disrespecting his mother; a friend for betraying his pal; a businessman for cheating a partner; these are the driving forces that make for confession and honesty. None of this eliminates sin, but it does allow for the most important of Christian principles, atonement. If Freud attached guilt to innocent events then it says more about his character than his patients.

Freud says the superego imposes “unreachable” standards. But he is basing his analysis on people in therapy. Suffering comes from our own bodies, the external world, or personal relationships. All are inevitable. The personal relationships provide the most painful suffering. Freud said we are doomed to suffer, and we desperately want to hurt others. We do not admit this to ourselves because the superego will not allow us to. We cope through intoxication, isolation or sublimation. Isolation is impractical to most, and sublimation is the aggressive impulse we live out through work or sports.

                 Religion is the mass superego, a collective ethical organization devised to suppress lust and aggression. The id will triumph over civilization. Men are “wolves,” inclined to wage war and persecute minorities. Marx's benign view of human nature is hogwash, according to Freud. He sees private property as all the neat little homes that are hiding places for our natural hatreds, and also things that we use to register aggression against others. Freud's view makes the Holocaust seem inevitable. In this many have agreed over the decades.

                 Differences between Marx and Freud, however, outweigh the similarities. Freud felt that the id not only dominated the self, but did so unconsciously. He said humans are unaware of it. Freud's “ego” is not the same as the way we usually evaluate the term. We think a person with a “big ego” has an inflated view of himself. But in Freud's original definition, the ego is not proud, but rather cautious and rational. The id and the superego master it. The superego is also irrational, but stern and strict. This is the area that Freud calls guilt, and others might call morality, or our Godself. Freud says it is developed out of socialization, but it is manifest within us, that it is the “good” that opposes “evil.” The ego, in the Christian view, is the choice that lies at the heart of the constant battle between good and evil. Freud felt that religion was created simply to serve the superego.

                 Alienation was the common phrase of Marx and Freud, but what are we alienated from? Marx said from our essence, Freud said from our personality. Their remedies differ. Marx felt that we could overcome alienation by becoming one with our communities. Freud said that analysis could give individuals power over their individual id/ego/superego struggles, but his predictions are bleak. Analysis is only available to a select few. The masses, he said, would destroy us all eventually.

                 While historians have pointed to Communism and Hitler as obvious results of Freud's predictions, he had more mundane thoughts on his mind. Predicting genocide and world destruction is tricky. One finds scant evidence that Freud's theories are meant to do that. Yes, his conceptions of the battle between conflicting human emotions are instructive in the study of individual leaders like Hitler. They do not take into account the precise “moments of history” that must occur in order for a Hitler, a Mao Tse-tung, a Pol Pot - or for that matter an Abe Lincoln or a Dwight Eisenhower - to rise to full power and exact change on the world.

                 Freud studied individuals. It is in individuals that we can best study his predictions. In this regard, the id seems to have made its presence known. It has done so throughout history, and continues to do so. Reformation and the Age of Enlightenment might be the id part of our personalities asserting itself. The superego may have dominated early man because it operated as a survival mechanism. But as life became easier, the id established itself. The paintings depicting Christ, angels and beautiful women were frowned upon by the church as being heretical. We chose to pursue pleasures of the flesh that manifested itself in art and changes in the social structure.

Since Freud's time, the id has been the dominant force behind drug abuse, the sexual revolution, pornography, music, movies, gay rights, women's rights, and many other forms of “evolution.” In this regard, Freud provides us some hope. Analysis and therapy can help people whose id has turned them into addicts of drugs, sex and even violence. Addiction seems to be the id run wild. Moderation, the ego self, is best in all things.