1. religion and spirituality

Imagine being given a jigsaw puzzle of over a thousand pieces but you’ve got no idea of what
the complete picture is suppose to be. Slowly, if inclined and curious, you sit down and begin
putting the pieces together and trying to fit each one correctly, to, in the end, discover the whole
picture; an arduous task for such a small and unprofitable return.
This is the project of trying to figure out the Europeans’ hypertrophied, criminal social
organization, deceptions and fronts they hide behind. I began all of this searching, writing and
explaining with no agenda and I still have no agenda except for the complete picture as it truly is.
Though I have conflicting emotions and really only half care of about the next generation of
someone else’s children or, perhaps less than half, but there is still a small spark that says, it is
important to provide something, not for this generation, but several down the road. This time and
YOU people are far too gone, corrupted, dirty to be wasting breath on. I would have better luck
trying teach a lizard English and, would certainly be more entertaining.
The young, until they are indoctrinated, initiate, and accept their role and participation and
continuance of the white man’s evil, will never figure out or bother to figure out some of what I
have. When the young are initiated and accept their roles to continue the evils of the earlier
generations, they do so without having the full knowledge or full understanding of things, in all
areas, the ‘full’ picture. No complete idea of what is right and what is wrong, they are simply
programmed one way or another (role as victim and/or victimizer) making evil so much more
easy to do and worse, attractive and wrongfully believed as necessary. The false pretenses and
the feigned means of justification: money, all against all, survival of the fittest, way the world is,
whatever they may be.
I believe in Nature. I believe in Nature because Nature is fair and I believe in fair play. To make
a decision, and I don’t believe any academic will disagree in any discipline, a person requires all
the facts, truth and sufficient information. Making decisions of high consequence based on false
information and lies, is detrimental and we’ve all been put at risk. When you act you ought to
know who you are acting for, what agendas you are pushing forth, who is hurt and who will
benefit and what is the end result. You ought to know the full truth about the world you live in. If
you’ve been brainwashed all your life and manipulated by hidden agendas through education,
media, entertainment, family, religion, community, government institutions, all areas of this
matrix you plug into as you go through life, how can you make informed and proper decisions?
All that you can know is being fed to you by a system that is controlled by other people and is
false and corrupt and serves their interests. It only serves your individual interests when you
partake, accept your role in the corruption and receive chicken feed tokenism or even less than
that, a pat on the head like a good dog. Never true freedom or knowledge, but then who wants
that? People are like Neo sitting in a tube, being fed the liquefied dead, plugged into an
interactive video that is believed to be ‘real’ life while serving as batteries to the parasites in
power and go through their whole lives like this only to be recycled themselves after breeding
another batch. Another batch for what? Soldiers, Walmart workers, agricultural workers, to be
used to provide government jobs to slightly more privileged government welfare worker class?
Perhaps if allowed something more intellectual and scientific. But people accept this. People
accept the very easy contradiction of America the Revolutionary, the land of the brave and yet
when they shot Kennedy they did nothing, accepted the lies, told their children to accept the lies,
allowed the schools and media to teach it, let the criminals go free and advance in power and
made them heroes in history and perhaps future presidents. This is not characteristic of brave
people, this is characteristic of a coward. But the ego can’t handle that truth, can it? Let alone the
million other similar and perhaps worse or better examples that establish the true characteristics
of the people. I am not suggesting Kennedy was any better. I’m just highlighting an observation.
Most of the history people know is lies or not completely truthful so that one can fully
understand the past, present and where people are going. And where is that? How would you
envision the future to be? Worse than it is now? The same as it is now and has been for
generations? There are people shaping the world to suit themselves and, well, kill off others as
misfits to their idea. I am obviously not one of those people but I understand. I disagree, but yet I
get it. But then you can’t exist around devils without being warped a little. They ‘will’ destroy
you and, ‘cloud’ your judgment. They are like a germ infecting the planet and that is so
pervasive that everyone has got a little in them. Think of yourself with total control (after
suffering the truth and reality) being a little infect with the devils’ social organization and
warped thinking disease and you too will be contemplating genocide not just for land and wealth,
but simple happiness. You’ll be saying to yourself, “If I could just get rid of all this criminal
European devils and the rainbow minions...I might just be able to enjoy sunshine.”
Imagine being the child of a criminal trash perp. You get to join them in all their criminal
adventures as a recruit or you become fertilizer for the schemes. Someone needs to be kept
stupid. Imagine, not trying to sound like John Lennon here (people didn’t care enough about him
to get the truth and full justice either…just cry and fake for the cameras as a show…goodness is
an act to mimic…and I’m not saying he was any better)…but imagine a world where everyone is
dirty, cleverly corrupt, criminal and show it as they must and will: all hawks and no sparrows.
Every interaction nasty, mean and twisted. Something is always going wrong. Litigation is
required for every little interaction because people won’t behave right on their own initiative.
The lawyers screwing over the clients and the judges bought off too, so can’t get any justice.
Doctors infecting the people with sicknesses…Oh, sounds like my life certainly…sounds like
today. So, you see why even the Mafia likes order? They require someone to be a sucker to get
over on or they have to work harder. Even the various criminal Mafias makes use of the Law,
Government and Police and become them. What does that say? Well, many of us were
brainwashed with the wrong understanding of government and various other things related to the
devils’ social organization. If you read the right books and enough books, well, you’re
impressions will start changing even if you have, perhaps, went through life without much horror
and come face to face with the truth and crimes that I have to be jarred into other understandings
and, perhaps you not directly initiated into the crimes, and just act indirectly out of ignorance.
I won’t put up any more quotes or writings related to disintegration book for free or what I’ve
learned. I am sure it gets weary and uninteresting to read pieces to. I would for me and I would
be, “look when you’re finished let me know.” Well, I won’t do that. If I am able to complete it to
my satisfaction I will just self-publish see if I can put someplace public. I am trying to provide
to some other curious person in search of the complete picture how far I was able to take it as a
stepping stone. Think of later generations trying to understand the truth of 9/11. Perhaps there
are videos that are still around and there is a Youtube of some kind still around that serves as a
repository of information. But you won’t be able to understand the ‘times’ fully to understand
how this was accomplished and how the criminals in government were able to get away with it
and the world allowed it as well. The person may asked that question but fail to answer it and
will be ridiculed by others in support of the criminals in control of government because of the
weakness of argument due to the of lack of information. To understand the truth of this and other
events, it must be conveyed to later generations, the very few (one or two) curious people the
social environment of not only the United States but the world. They must understand targeting
and disintegration. They must understand that the whole society and the developed world has
been completely ‘perped out.’ The population is just as corrupt and the criminals that control
government and the people themselves support and cloak the crime of those who control
governments, perhaps that is the truth behind the cowardice of the days of the assassination of
Kennedy. Hard to digest when brainwashed and understand when one breaks the mold of one’s
own times for truth: seems unreal and impossible. The people were criminal trash, ‘perped out,’
and total minions of the criminals in control of government. If you didn’t live during the time
and days of 9/11, you’ll have no idea and no information and no truth about what has happened.
And, that is why people don’t learn from history because the truth to learn from is never written.
Some of the ‘conspiracies’ generated are generated for ‘misinformation’. Some of them
‘conspiracies’ are truths coming out of the mouths of liars who pretend to be victims of the
crimes they are knowledgeable of in order to provide some record, somewhere and somehow.
Some of it is truth mixed in with lies such as, “the government is corrupt, they communicate with
space aliens and hide them in the backroom.” Now, that government is corrupt is very true and
perhaps they’ll tell you some truth and details related to the corruption, but, if I were a space
alien, look, I would go to the people. You’d all see me because there is no ‘chosen few.’
I wanted to provide some information just in general and a few quotes as to some of my
conclusions. My conclusions are developed on my own and just by ‘chance’ I discover quotes
from others that are consistent with my own conclusions. It is really quite amazing and nice. The
most interesting of quotes found from people you’ve never heard from and in books you’d never
expect. Just about all my ideas have been able to generate some sort of consensus and strength is
generated with knowledge. And to the very few curious people, why start from scratch. I take the
historical approach going as far back as I have access to and can find and handle. I do use some
stories and information from say Youtube, those people who I just explained speak ‘half” or ‘less
than half’ truths believing that I can discriminate the facts, based on history and experience and
simple deduction often.
I had a new chapter developing related to Revolutions and the gist of that was simply to show
and provide documentation and quotes, that the average person, the masses are manipulated by
those in control of revolutionary propaganda and because of that have never achieved their
freedom. I make use of the French Revolution but various other revolutions or uprisings to show
that these are simply instigations of some lesser power desiring more power and agitating the
people with professional and hired agitators. They used the masses with schemes, dreams, lies,
falsehoods and their bodies to accomplish this goal. The same is true with the American
Revolution. There was a wealthy class who desired power and got sick of George III and his
gross abuses and loot the place for themselves. They gave the people an illusion, a dream of a
social organization they never intended to implement which is why they broke every idea of the
social contract and today is the advanced stages of their corruption. The document we all love is
the Declaration of Independence. That was the dream, the ‘words’ used to inflame that
imaginations of the people to freedom and get them to fight for and die for, with the most super-
human strength of the fanatic, the idea. Good agitators can do that. Word do not define people
but actions do. After the ambitious achieved power, what did they do? That is how you define
them. But we are not given full truths just lies to make us happy and fine with the world out of
ignorance. History is hide because those who’ve done the crimes don’t desire the justice and they
absolve later generations from the crimes they’ve benefited from. The devil is loved as the
Founding Fathers because they did most of the open and direct crimes, genocide and thefts for
later generations to rest on. Later generations carry the torch and advance the crimes but can do
so more quietly and hidden. People don’t want justice so they hide and lie in history books.
Crimes have been perfected so that they are hard to detect. Targeting is one of those crimes, but
much of it can be caught, which is why they had to get the whole population in support of it. But
targeting is just one aspect of the whole criminal enterprise, as is drugs, and goes even nastier to
child rings and targeting, yuck! No wonder perps desire to live in illusions of unreality watching
CNN. No news is good news! Believe it or not, after doing the crimes, even daily, one is able to
forget because of the pervasive social illusion. Perp one minute, forget the next, back to good
Christian front. And how did being involved in organized devil religion become associated with
‘good’ rather when it is evil and wickedness that is shown? Well, some more illusion to that too.
This is the nature of the social structure of the European and has been pushed on all others. It
services as the basis for the economic system, but, see, they don’t want you to fully appreciate
the crimes because they don’t desire changes to the fraudulent economic system and apparently
neither does the average person. So why protest? Keep hope alive? You’ve accepted slavery shut
up and accept it.
There is useful information in books it just isn’t all in one place and out of certain
‘arrangements’ not everyone tells the full truth of what they know and agrees to fudge. Through
Law, Government and Money, the devil has taken control and forced the whole world into a
collective which is a loss of freedom. So, one can never be free until the down fall and
destruction of what is destroying freedom. As Europe collectivized they were easily controlled as
a collective. If you take all the money and put it in one bag, well, all you got to do is steal that
one bag and you’re in full ownership or complete loss. Collectivize people into whole nations
and into one world with this feigned all of one interests and benefit, well, easier to control you
but not for your benefit. But people have accepted their own slavery and this is without question.
It is crude but it is true, they enjoy being…minions…for lack of a better and vulgar term. For ego
purposes it’s said a little more academic when you watch the news or read textbooks or join the
‘societies.’ Sell the soul to the devil, well, your just willing to be paid to take your part in the
corruption and dirty for a little money and then put on a public front. It’s all just tricks.
Understanding the truth of revolutions is important. That things are not as they appear to be. The
people are so debased that starvation doesn’t lead them to revolution. It leads to steal. It leads to
looting, vandalism perhaps, but the interesting thing is these so called revolutions never spring
from the people. You don’t find bands of homeless people or what would be equivalent to the
Walmart worker being elevated to lead a class struggle and revolution. Such people are able to
loot but not put forth a vision and, also, they will not ‘follow’ another homeless person who
would be nothing but ridiculed. So, never does a revolution begin with the lowest classes, those
impoverished and those in control know this well. Images are created and fabricated by those in
power and these people are placed in positions and provided the cult and cultivation of image
through talk-shows and publicity making them important and something to listen to. The devil
creates them as tools and backs them and gives them too you and generates a reason to kill them
later and turns them into heroes. Incidents are manufactured to create ‘rifts’ as it can be easily
done because people are imperfect and those put into positions never had to work, struggle and
earn. They were groomed and all of them feel lucky for the opportunity afford them. This is the
truth. Not saying this truth can’t change, but it remains today. The homeless will never follow a
homeless that is not groomed by those in power to lead them and negroes will never follow
another negro that is not first groomed by those in power to lead them, thus change is impossible.
Other powers come along, such as the Zenj which I quoted, and they are filled with motivations,
they are used as a mob whose only desire is a twist of fate without a vision. And, oddly enough,
fight for a vision as themselves as slave masters, not as enders of slavery. Negroes are the same
today.
If that alone doesn’t provide you with some skepticism into organized religion and those who’ve
copied the Europeans, such as the Arabs with Islam, then don’t know what will. Nature did not
design anyone or anything to be a slave. People are wrongly used as slaves but they were not
created to be. It is not from any Nature or God slavery arises, it arises out of the minds of
mankind. If you’ve a religion that says and supports slavery and money, that tells you it is from a
man. Religion itself is rather benign but when it becomes political and used as a political tool and
organized, it is very bad and dangerous. In earlier days people used religion as a tool to band
together disparate groups of people. Religion can transcend race and other barriers. If one desired
to ‘fight the powers’ well, you needed to organize the people in support of you as Muhammad
did. A means of collectivizing power or a power vacuum from the fall of the Romans. What he
did was copy the European religion and adapted it some to suit himself thus retaining money and
slavery which are inconsistent with Nature and what is natural. To collective the people you had
to convince them that there was something special about you. God spoke with you. He ordained
you and said lead my people. You are the chosen and proofs of this were winning battles and
failures were sins. Most of the people failed and those successful, such as Muhammad, well,
their legacy is with us today. The Europeans were and are collectivized and this has forced the
collectivization of all others. Oddly enough, the European has been able to successfully
collectivize people, no longer with religion which is used as another tool, but in other ways.
Various races work for the advancement of devils’ power to the detriment of their own. Some
simply for economic reasons and just really low standards of ethics, or no standard of ethic and
will do anything to anyone for a fee without question. This is targeting.
Religion also serves as a tool, a secret society for seizing power or plotting which is why
churches are always watched or controlled by those in power. But Christianity, I believe, and
I’ve found some quotes related to this, could be viewed more properly as a secret society
desiring to seize power in its early days and they were successful. Organizing the people in one
state or one religion is a way to make good use of them as long as they believe. It’s like a change
in the mind, one day I am European and the next day I am American just by crossing a border
you lose who you are in your mind and expect to be something different and treated as
something different. One day European and the next day African. No longer is the land
associated with a people by grant of Nature. Collectivize the people in religion and, again, it is
easy to use them to serve your purposes and to your understandings, which advance your
purposes and your control over them and power ambitions. If people are allowed to maintain and
have their own understandings of religion and how things become created, well, they maintain
themselves as distinct, separate and different. They remain individuals with their own histories
and their own cultures and their own language and to themselves and their own advancement of
power, not easy to use for the interests of another group. So these things are broken down and
those of African heritage, well, they are completely broken down and disintegrate without
enough matter to make a smudge on a piece of paper visibly. They completely serve the devils’
interests and yet there is racial tension. Perhaps not enough payment or when they perped out
and their children are shot as they are perped out too and aren’t provided justice and
‘compensation’ because in the agreement the white man does no wrong (the God-man) and you
act in his interests for what you get, not being targeted and allowed to live, well, perhaps that is
the tension. Not enough money going that way. Not standard, money. I no longer watch the news
and I am much happier. What is right before my eyes is all I need to know and quite frankly
enough for me. I care about other people’s troubles in some other part of the world as they care
for mine.
But that is some of the art of it all: collectivizing the people for action and to serve your purposes
and, after all, when in control, you don’t want to die or have your children to die to advance your
own power, you delude others and get them to die so you can enjoy the rewards. I would never
go into the military to advance white man’s power and oppress the lives and freedoms of other
people in ‘their own countries’ and all I get is at best a middle class life if I live. It’s collectivized
criminals stealing and doing genocide and murder and not to sit on the throne but to feed it.
That’s not what Nature intended and how people became enslaves is the same way they get out
of it.
That was some of what I had intended for the other chapter on religion. Various religious crimes
and new understandings of religion and some other good quotes and I think I will just provide.
One of my favorites that I found was one by Hearn regarding the understanding of government
tricks. Understanding truth of organized government is important to having a fuller picture of the
world you live in. Understanding immigration as a tool and that’s a hot button issue of today.
You want to understand it, well don’t turn on Network news, or read school textbooks or watch
Saturday morning cartoons, or even read ‘modern’ books and authors. You have to dig into the
past and it is a lot of work. Another point is the myth the democracy came from the Greeks or
that the white man brought civilization and social order. The white man brought ‘his’ institution
of corrupt government, but is not the originator of order or governing which is the natural
instinct of people and I am sure most creatures of nature. Democracy is also a natural instinct of
people thus created by no one. The devil established ‘his’ government, ‘his’ law, for ‘his’ benefit
and the advancement of ‘his’ power.
Religion.
“It results from these premises that down to the year A.D. 394, when, as alleged, the Senate
reformed the national religion, there was but (p. 108) one chief-pontiff, and one set of priests
with lawful power to superintend or perform the functions of religion in Rome, and that these
priests were pagans. It is conceivable that there existed a secret society of chrestos or christianos,
which gradually increased in numbers, until, venturing to exercise its rites openly, it filled the
army, the senate, and the church; that at length it took part in choosing the emperor; and that if
finally succeeded in acquiring control of the ancient hierarchy; but any theory which asks us to
believe that two popes, of antagonistic creeds, the one polytheistic, the other Christian, the one
armed with almost unlimited power, the other with none, existed contemporaneously and
exercised similar functions over the same community, lawfully and publicly, is simply
incredible. During the three centuries which elapsed between the establishment of the hierarchy
and the reign of Aurelian, the pagan church had acquired, through testamentary gifts, etc., a large
proportion of all the private estates embraced in the empire (p. 108-109).” Del Mar, Alexander.
The Middle Ages Revisited
“Valesius himself, in several passages, admits that there were no christian “popes” until near the
fifth century [sic]. He says that at the council of Antioch, Paul of Samosata was condemned
without the participation of Dionysus, bishop in Rome 37-52, “who was neither ignorant of his
privileges nor disposed to relinquish any right”…Sir Henry Maine in one of his lectures
delivered at Oxford, said that (similarly) the moslem church was endowed with the lands and
livings of the pagan church which it supplanted [sic] (note p. 109).” Del Mar, Alexander. The
Middle Ages Revisited
“The function of religion is to protect the condition of progress for a race by imposing
supernatural and extra-rational sanction for conduct which reason would condemn but which is
necessary for the progress of the race (p. 301).” Hobson, John A. 1895. “Mr. Kidd’s “Social
Evolution.” The American Journal of Sociology. I: 299.
“The true work of religion, as we have seen, is to maintain the intensest form of rivalry among
all the members of a race. It is true, religion also figures as the softening and broadening
influence of the modern democratic and humanitarian movement; it has helped to cast the mighty
from their seats and to raise the humble and meek. Mr. Kidd is careful to remind us that it has
done this not out of simple-hearted consideration for the weak and oppressed, but in order that by
placing all competitors on a footing of equality in the rivalry of life the pain and misery and
failure; but at ensuring that the right persons (i.e., the really unfit), shall be miserable and fail.
The primary object of religion is thus to intensify competition—not competition on a moral
plane—but such competition as shall crush out of physical existence the least efficient members
(p. 304).” Hobson, John A. 1895. “Mr. Kidd’s “Social Evolution.” The American Journal of
Sociology. I: 299.
“In all significant social revolutions, organized religion will necessarily be involved. The Church
and other forms of organized priestcraft thrive in harmony with and, on the whole, sanction the
status quo; in other words, the Church is normally rightist; it is the most lethargic and inert of the
institutions confronting the revolutionists, partly because it is essentially traditional. In fact, the
Church has a vested interest in the status quo and it will fight in the protection of this. Therefore,
the social system cannot be changed radically unless the Church is either overthrown or forcibly
brought into line with the (p. 171) movement…The established religion represents the ruling
class, and it is “used in their interests”…The ascendant political class will invariably take
advantage of the coincident struggle to stigmatize the radicals as God-haters…Historically the
Christian Church has labored in the interests of feudalism; it has defended slavery; it is at the
service of capitalism; and we should expect it to accommodate to any succeeding system (p. 171172).” Cox, Ph.D., Oliver Cromwell. Caste, Class, & Race: A Study in Social Dynamics.
“…men have imperatively required some assurance that they are not altogether helpless and
alone in the face of the gigantic and perilous indifference of the natural forces which surround
them. Such assurance religion supplied by personifying these forces so that, at least, they might
be invoked, cajoled and propitiated. On the other hand, it was imperative to be stability of human
communities of the past that the strongest possible prohibitions should be placed upon some of
men’s strongest instincts. This need religion also supplied, by proving that these very natural
forces of which men were principally afraid should, in their personification form, as the gods, or
as God, forbid the “anti-social” acts…For it was necessary to convince the great majority of
men, by means of a partly conscious act of deception on the part of their rulers that they would in
their own persons be certainly, dreadfully, and eternally punished, if they committed acts which
tended to make the then existing type of community life impossible (p. 159).” Strachey, John.
The Coming Struggle for Power
“Of these religious expressions of the characteristics of the human communities of the past, the
Christian religion has been one of the greatest. Above all, it has been one of the most flexible.
The same elements of mythology, even the same symbolic acts have been capable of wide
adaptations. Different versions of Christianity have served the religious needs of the various
forms of society…different forms of the religion have been used by different classes existing
simultaneously in time and place within the same society. Roman Catholicism has been the
predominant version of the religion during most of the 2,000 years of its currency.
Catholicism…has not been the expression of Christianity especially suitable to the capitalist
form of society evolved by the Western world…the middle class in its first great battle for the
freedom of the market found its major opponent in the Catholic Church…although its established
form was the arch enemy of the new form of society, which a changing technique of production
was making necessary, yet the very authors of this new society fought under the banner of a new
variety of the old religion. The middle class of Europe in their long struggle showed no signs of
inventing a new religion for themselves. The men of the market found that a new form of
Christianity, namely Protestantism, served their purpose…(p. 160).” Strachey, John. The Coming
Struggle for Power
“In…The Future of an Illusion, Dr. Freud…has stated with simple clarity that impossibility of
religious belief for the educated man of to-day… “They [the dogmas of religion] deserve to be
believed: firstly, because our primal ancestors already believed them; secondly, because we
possess proofs, which have been handed down to us from this very period of antiquity; and
thirdly, because it is forbidden to raise the question of their authenticity at all…This third point
cannot be rouse our strongest suspicions. Such a prohibition can surely have only one motive:
that society knows very well the uncertain basis of the claim it makes for its religious doctrines.
If it were otherwise, the relevant material would certainly be placed most readily at the disposal
of anyone who wished to gain conviction for himself and so we proceed to test the other two
arguments with a feeling of mistrust not easily allayed (p. 162).” Strachey, John. The Coming
Struggle for Power
“…Dr. Freud comes to the conclusion that the experiment of educating a generation of men free
from belief in the illusions of religion both must be tried, and may produce startingly good
results. For he attaches the utmost importance to the damage which is done to, what he calls, “the
radiant intelligence of a healthy child” by instilling into the child’s mind the intellectually
untenable dogmas of religion. Indeed, he goes so far as to suggest that it is largely this which
accounts for the relative degeneration to “the feeble mentality of the average adult (p. 169).”
Strachey, John. The Coming Struggle for Power
“Her schools are hotbeds of superstition. The vast majority of the people are made poor and nonprogressive by the unlimited exactions of the Church. That which she hates and fears most, the
Word of the living God, is the appointed instrument of her overthrow (p. 62).” Perry, Charles E.
Lectures on Orangeism and Other Subjects
“Not only was the religion of Rome supported from the public coffers, it was the lawful duty of
the Senate to maintain it, and of the prætors and ædiles to enforce such of its observances as the
priesthood declared to be essential. In A.U. 327 “the ædiles were instructed to see that no other
deities should be worshipped than those acknowledged by the Romans, nor even these, in any
other modes than those established by the custom of the country.” In A.U. 540, the worship of
Ies having been introducted into Rome, the ædiles and criminal judges were sharply rebuked by
the aristocratic Senate for tolerating the votaries of this popular deity and the city prætor was
ordered to suppress their assemblages, burn their scriptures, and forbid the practice of their rites
without special permission of the Senate. In A.U. 548 the worship of Maia was brought to Rome
from Galatia by authority of the Senate. In 566 the rites of Ies were again introduced into Rome
and supported by “false witnesses, counterfeited seals, forged wills, false evidences and
pretended miracles.” One of the consuls thereupon cited to the Senate, “numberless decision of
the pontiff, decrees of the Senate, and answers of the aruspices,” concerning the right to deal
with this subject, and the “frequent charges that had been made to the magistrates to prohibit the
performances of any foreign religious rites, to banish strolling priests and soothsayers from the
city, to search for and burn books of divination and to abolish every mode of sacrificing that was
not conformable to the Roman practice (p. 108).” Del Mar, Alexander. The Middle Ages
Revisited
“But for all this, the barbarians did not receive Christianity as a gift from on high. To them it was
a phase of the imperial power, and they never accepted it peacefully, nor without a valuable
consideration. They had to be lured into it, coaxed or cajoled into it, tempted into it, married into
it, bribed into it, or else forced into it. In all these efforts the Church had to yield something of
principle in return. The Christianity, as well as the imperialism, of this period, wore many coats,
and underwent many mutations. Ignorance and idolatry are weeds which need a variety of tools
to ensure their extermination. The new name of the church was Catholic, or universal, and its
motto was semper ubique et pro omnibus (p. 170).” Del Mar, Alexander. The Middle Ages
Revisited
“Islam with its thundering proclamations of an Incorporeal and Unital deity and its sweeping
interdict of images, paintings and effigies, was a pointed protest against emperorship; not, as is
commonly supposed, against Christianity. This is proved by the fact that the Koran preserves
many of the Christian mysteries, but not one of those which owes its origin to the hero and
emperor-worship of the Greeks or Romans. Indeed, had there previously existed no emperorworship in the eastern provinces of Rome, the religion of Mahomet would probably have
converted nobody except his wives. Yet even in the provinces and long before the advent of
Mahomet, emperor-worship had disgusted the better class of citizens and these had fallen back
for a religious belief upon astralism and the old anthropomorphic polytheism. The provincial
altars of the fourth and fifth centuries were reared mainly to Mithra or to Jupiter, Mars, Maia,
Bacchus, Neptune or the other divinities of polytheism; few were erected to the emperors; and
none to Jesus Christ (p. 210).” Del Mar, Alexander. The Middle Ages Revisited
“Mahmoud, by breaking up the old traditions, enervated his people, without infusing fresh youth
into them; and the exhaustion of the once so vigorous race of the Osmanlis was itself but a
symptom of the decay of Islamism. Already the dogma of fatalism, admitted by the East, had
given sure signs of its disastrous influence. Condemned by that dogma to remain motionless
whilst the opposite dogma of human liberty breathed irresistible energies into the nations of the
West, the East (p. 74) seemed to ask again of Europe the life it had formerly bestowed upon her,
and it presented itself as a rich and limitless domain, but uncultivated and without possessors (p.
74-75).” Blanc, Louis. The History of the Ten Years, 1830-1840. Volume I.
“Nor had the spirit of the French monarchy, in surrounding itself with all the dignity of absolute
power, failed to secure the support of those auxiliaries which have the most extended influence
upon the public mind, by engaging at once religion and literature in defence of its authority. The
Gallican Church, more dependent upon the monarch, and less so upon the Pope, than is usual in
Catholic countries, gave to the power of the crown all the mysterious and supernatural terrors
annexed to an origin in divine right, and directed against those who encroached on the limits of
the royal prerogative, or even ventured to scrutinize too minutely the foundation of its authority,
the penalties annexed to a breach of the divine law. Louis XIV. repaid to this important service
by a constant, and even scrupulous attention to observances prescribed by the Church, which
strengthened, in the eyes of the public, the alliances so strictly formed betwixt the altar and the
throne. Those who look to the private morals of the monarch may indeed form some doubt of the
sincerity of his religious professions, considering how little they influenced his practice; and yet,
when we reflect upon the frequent inconsistencies of mankind in this particular, we may hesitate
to charge with hypocrisy a conduct, which was dictated perhaps as much by conscience as by
political convenience. Even judging more severely, it must be allowed that hypocrisy, though so
different from religion, indicates its existence, as smoke points out that of pure fire. Hypocrisy
cannot exist unless religion be to a certain extent held in esteem, because no one would be at the
trouble to assume a mask which was not respectable, and so far compliance with the external
forms of religion as a tribute paid to the doctrines which it teaches. The hypocrite assumes a
virtue if he has it not, and the example of his conduct may be salutary to others, though his
pretensions to piety are wickedness to Him, who trieth the heart and reins. On the other hand, the
Academy formed by the wily Richelieu served to unite the literature of France into one focus,
under the immediate patronage of the crown, to whose bounty its professors were taught to look
even for the very means of subsistence. The greater nobles caught this ardour or patronage from
the sovereign, and as the latter pensioned and supported the principal literary characters of his
reign, the former granted shelter and support to others of the same rank, who were lodged at their
hotels, fed at their tables, and were admitted to their society upon terms somewhat less degrading
than those which were granted to artists and musicians, and who gave to the Great, knowledge or
amusement in exchange for the hospitality they received. Men in a situation so subordinate,
could only at first accommodate their compositions to the tastes and interest of their protectors.
They heightened by adulation and flattery the claims of the king and the nobles upon the
community; and the nation, indifferent at that time to all literature which was not of native
growth, felt their respect by the works of those men of genius who flourished under its protection
(p. 8).” Scott, Sir Walter. Life of Napoleon Buonaparte.
“At no great distance eastward from Basra there were (p. 148) extensive flats, traversed by
ditches, in which great numbers of black slaves, mostly from the east coast of Africa, the land of
the Zenj, were employed by rich entrepreneurs of the city in digging away the nitrous surface
soil, so as to lay bare the fruitful ground underneath, and at the same time to obtain the saltpeter
that occurred in the upper stratum…The feeling of affection which in the East binds the slave
very closely to the family in which he lives and has grown up, is here altogether wanting. On the
other hand, among such masses of slaves working together there easily springs up a certain
community of feeling, a common sense of embitterment against their masters, and, under
favourable circumstances, a consciousness of their own strength; thus are combined the
conditions of a powerful insurrection. So it was in the servile wars of the last century of the
Roman republic and so it was here. Ali recognised the strength latent in those black slaves. The
fact that he was able to set this strength in motion, and that he developed it into a terrible power
which required long time and the very greatest exertions to overcome it, conclusively shows that
he was a man of genius. The “leader of the Zenj,” the “Alid,” of the “false Alid,” plays a very
great part in the annals of his time—such a part, indeed, that it is easy to understand why our
main informant, Tabari, should by preference call him “the abominable one,” “the wicked one,”
or “the traitor (p. 148-149).” Noldeke, Theodor. Sketches From Eastern History.
“Before openly declaring himself, Ali had sought out from the lowest strata of the population,
and the freedmen in particular, suitable tools for the execution of his plans. In the beginning of
September 869 he betook himself, at first under the guise of business agent for a princely family,
to the saltpeter district, and began at once to rouse the slaves. Saturday, 10th September 869, is
reckoned as the date at which he openly declared himself. He represented to the negro slaves
how badly they were being treated, and promised them, if they joined him, freedom, wealth,
and—slaves. In other words, he did not preach universal equality and well-being, but reserved
the supremacy for the particular class to which he addressed himself. All this, of course, was
clothed in religious forms. He proclaimed the restoration of true legality. None but those who
followed himself were believers, or entitled to claim the heavenly and earthly rights to the true
Moslem. Ali thus appealed at once to the nobler and to the more vulgar feelings of the rudest
masses, and with complete success. We may accept the statement that he gave himself out for
inspired; at any rate to the blacks he seemed to be a messenger of God (p. 150).” Noldeke,
Theodor. Sketches From Eastern History.
“How comes it that this idea in all ages, amongst all people, has prevailed, of sorcery being
connected with a rage for killing children and feasting on their flesh, or partaking in their blood,
or making an ointment of the residue of those remains to enable Sortilegi, Striges, Lestrigones,
Lamiæ, by friction with it, to “come like shadows, so depart,” ride in the air, and to celebrate
infernal orgies at their nocturnal Sabbaths? It was an early superstition of the Jews. Calmeil
refers to an ancient rabbinical tradition embodying the principal feature of the child killing
diabolical sorcery. Adam, according to this tradition, was first married to a sorceress named
Lilith, or the Mother of devils (p. 69).” Madden, Richard Robert. Phantasmata or Illusions and
Fanaticisms of Protean Forms Productive of Great Evils. Volume I.
“Justin Martyr, whose Apology for the Christians, addressed to the Emperor Antoninus Pius, was
written about 150, A.D. according to Photius, “a man little behind the Apostles themselves,
either in time or virtue”—a contemporary of Irenæus, thus refers to the accusation brought
against the Christians of killing children for their secret banquets (p. 73).” Madden, Richard
Robert. Phantasmata or Illusions and Fanaticisms of Protean Forms Productive of Great Evils.
Volume I.
“In so far as he is Islamized, the negro’s warlike propensities will be inflamed, and he will be
used as the tool of Arab Pan-Islamism seeking to drive the white man from Africa and make the
continent its very own. As to specific anti-white sentiments among negroes untouched by
Moslem propaganda, such sentiments undoubtedly exist in many quarters. The strongest
manifestations are in South Africa, where interracial relations are bad and becoming worse, but
there is much diffused, half-articulate dislike of white men throughout central Africa as well.
Devoid though the African savage is of either national or cultural consciousness, he could not be
expected to welcome a tutelage which imposed many irksome restrictions upon him.
Furthermore, the African negro does seem to possess a certain rudimentary sense of racialsolidarity (97).” Stoddard, Lothrop. The Rising Tide of Color Against White World Supremacy.
“In the article “Socialism and Religion,” V.I. Lenin wrote: “Religion is one of the forms of
spiritual oppression everywhere lying on the popular masses, forced to external labor for others,
to need and solitude. The powerlessness of the exploited classes the struggle with the exploiters
also inescapably gives rise to faith in a better life beyond the grave, just as the powerlessness of
the savage in the struggle with nature gives rise to faith in gods, devils, miracles, and so on to
those who work all their life and are in need, religion preaches docility and patience during the
earthly life, with the hope for a heavenly reward. And to those who live by the labor of others
religion teaches charity during the earthly life, offering them a very cheap justification for all of
their exploiting existences and selling at a low price their tickets to heavenly bliss (47).” Letiche,
John, Basil Dmytryshyn and Richard A. Pierce. A History of Russian Economic Thought: Ninth
Through Eighteenth Centuries.
“The Christian religion is one of the forms of the ideological superstructure strengthening the
base of the feudal society. Completely supporting the feudal form of exploitation of labor and
slaveowning, sanctifying with the dogmas of the Christian religion the division of society into
exploiters and exploited, the churchmen at the same time came out against the extremes of this
exploitation and recogniztion in this a means of strengthening the feudal structure and along with
it, the authority of the church. They wanted to present the church to the toiling masses as if it
were the defender of the interests of the exploited (76).” Letiche, John, Basil Dmytryshyn and
Richard A. Pierce. A History of Russian Economic Thought: Ninth Through Eighteenth
Centuries.
“Popes have succeeded in inducing nations “to believe a lie,” and to submit to their rule as
spiritual chiefs, by clever devices and a continuous succession of ingenious forgeries, dating
from the middle of the ninth century; so now the last advance of all is made, and the Roman
Pontiff is proclaimed, absolutely and without appeal, Lord over all (34).” Newdegate, Charles
Newdigate. Glimpse of the Great Secret Society.
“The following pages contain the Speech and Report, made in the year 1761, to the Parliament of
Bretagne, by the Attorney-General, M. de la Chalotais, who had been ordered to investigate the
constitution of the Society of Jesus, and report the result of his investigations. Some persons may
think it unnecessary to reproduce these documents at the present day, and to publish them in the
English language; but if any one is of opinion, that the (70) great conspiracy against truth and
human freedom, laid bare to the eyes of mankind in this able work, is a thing of the past, we
cannot undeceive him more effectually than by referring him to the words, which we have just
quoted; and begging also his calm consideration of the force and meaning of the following
extract, from a “brochure” of M. Charles Habeneck:—“This party is everywhere to be found, not
indeed with official power, but with a power that assumes an appearance of kindness.” “It does
not strike; it shows its smooth side. It does not assassinate; it stifles, it causes pardons its
enemies, but it keeps following them with its implacable hate. These congregations have found
their way into all departments, whether public or private; they are everywhere, at your very side,
and they entwine themselves around you without your knowing it. They do not occupy the place
of highest importance, but they purchase the greatest part of the inferior offices, and in a
bureaucracy like France, it is the holder of the inferior offices who hinders, or expedites matters,
and ties the hands of superiors, who are often accomplices. One can understand, therefore, that
this association, using for one purpose, magistrates and officials, is the origin at least of acts of
partiality and injustice, and may hinder the action of the tribunals of justice. This Society is,
besides, a political engine. Since 1859, all the electoral difficulties have arisen from this
organisation, little felt in Paris, terrible in the Provinces. Only ask the prefects (71).” Newdegate,
Charles Newdigate. Glimpse of the Great Secret Society.
“Jesuit education tends to develop talent, not character; to fashion efficient and unobtrusive
instruments, not autonomous individuals; the young men trained are never lost sight of, and, so
long as they remain obedient and useful, enjoy protection and rapid advancement. By these
means Jesuit influence in State affairs is rendered far greater than it appears to be on the surface,
and is, in fact, comparable only to the surreptitious influence exercised by the Jews…Jesuit and
the Jewish influences apparently paramount, now opposing, now supplementing, but always
comprehending each other in virtue of a singular psychological affinity. Both are supremely
teleological, or, to employ a less technical expression, both have their eye constantly fixed on the
“main chance,” the immediate object, be it money, power, (111) or the two in conjunction. But
neither can count upon lasting success unless they can control the State and, in the last resort, the
mind of the reigning Monarch (111-112).” Steed, Henry Wickham. The Hapsburg Monarchy.
“If we go back to the beginning,” says Holbach, “we shall find that ignorance and fear created
the god; that fancy, enthusiasm or deceit adorned or disfigured them; that weakness worships
them; that credulity preserves them; and that custom respects and tyranny supports them in order
to make the blindness of men serve its own interests.” Belief in God, said Diderot, is bound up
with submission to autocracy; the two rise and fall together; and “men will never be free till the
last king is strangled with the entrails of the last priest.” The earth will come into its own only
when heaven is destroyed (p. 253).” Durant, Will. The Story of Philosophy.
“During these centuries religion was the handmaiden of the class which ruled. It aided in the
creation of a moral code which kept the masses of the people in subjection, and contented with
their lot. It taught the paralyzing ethics of obedience of reverence, of humility, of duty. All of the
relations of society were created by the class which ruled. And the class which ruled was the
class which owned. Its constant aim was to control the distribution of wealth (viii).” Howe,
Frederic C. Privilege and Democracy in America.
“[Note page 128] Religion is not fixed but fluent—changing from century to century. A new
religion is coming, not based on authority either spiritual or temporal; for the present generation,
while willing to be led, will not be driven. In the new religion there will be no personification of
natural objects of deification of remarkable human beings. A new thought of God will be
characteristic of the new religion, which will be thoroughly monotheistic. God to His creature
will be so imminent that no intermediary will be needed. God will be to every man the
multiplication of infinities. With a human and worthy idea of God as the central thought of the
new religion, creed, dogma, and mystery will disappear. Its priests will try to improve the social
and industrial conditions. The new religion will not attempt to reconcile people to present ills by
promising future compensations. I believe the advent of a just freedom for mankind has been
delayed for centuries by such promises. Prevention will be the watchword of the new religion,
and the skilful surgeon will be one of its ministers. It cannot supply consolation. It may be
difficult to united the world’s various religions under this new head, but I believe it can be
accomplished on the basis of love of God and service to one’s fellow man.” Conflict of Colour.
B.L. Putnam Weale
“All built upon one principle: mutual surveillance, mutual denunciation, perfect contempt for
human nature (a contempt natural, perhaps, at the terrible epoch at which this institution was
founded) (p. 50).” Michelet, Jules. The Jesuits.
“The deification of man is an insult to Nature, who avenges herself by branding the impious
worship with a lasting defect. The unnatural character of an hierarchy is manifested in its
continual tendency to govern vicariously, and therefore to govern badly. It is a form of
government which is born with a fatal disease. It is the product of a blasphemous fiction, to
maintain which it is always obliged to exercise its powers indirectly (p. 79).” Del Mar,
Alexander. The Middle Ages Revisited
Revolutions:
“Had the late government of France paid any attention to the rapid advancement of learning and
science in that country, it never would have dared to persist in its injustice; the severity of the
governments of Italy has gradually yielded to, and been softened by the influence of letters,
which are, now-a-days, so universally cultivated in that country, and the Empire of Germany (p.
70) looks forward to, and indeed touches upon the important moment when some change of
system must take place…It would seem that it requires no great share of political information in
the people, to be able to ascertain their essential rights; but this is not really the case: it would
seem that they need only be made acquainted with the state-trick and juggle of despotic
governments; were that veil of mysteriousness and imposture, which had hitherto concealed their
operations, removed; were nations sensible of the pernicious tendency of the long established
system of warfare, whole sole end was a pretence for imposing taxes, increasing public debt, and
plundering the people; were they to see the profusion and wantonness which prevailed in all the
departments, that shocking inequity, which was supported by extortion, and pressing upon the
labour of the industrious and indigent, could not have existed (p. 70-71).” Hearn, Thomas. A
Short View of the Rise and Progress of Freedom in Modern Europe, As Connected with the
Causes Which Led to the French Revolution.
“Why do we believe in revolution as well as evolution? Most men still believe that they are free.
Then the moment we give a place to human freedom, we realize that the theory of evolution by
infinitesimal degrees insufficient to describe human life. We borrow evolution from nature, but
nature’s categories cannot explain human nature….We must believe, I say, that man is by his
very nature endowed with freedom. If man chooses, he can go wrong. Sometimes he goes wrong
for years together, sometimes whole nations go wrong for decades. Thus begins the downward
process. See how it evolves. Evil appears to triumph everywhere; the wicked prosper more than
the righteous, and the fool says in his heart that the wrong works better than the right. Under all
discouragement, however, the fight for righteousness goes on. There is in this world such a thing
as judgment, and all this time judgment is accumulated. When men have been outraged until they
will stand it no longer, then comes a revolution. Darkness falls. The wind of death wraps the
nations in its wings. Civilizations sink in blood. Once more men see what sin means. All the evil
hidden during the years is dragged out into the light of eternity. It is shown once again that evil
does not succeed in God’s world (15-16).” Dabney, Charles William. Fighting for a New World.
The Abingdon Press. New York: 1919.
“In every doctrine which wins men over to it, the sophistry it contains is less potent than the
promises it makes; its power over them is greater through their sensibility than through their
intelligence; for, if the heart is often the dupe of the head, the latter is much more frequently the
dupe of the former. We do not accept a system because we deem it a true one, but because the
truth we find in it suits us. Political or religious fanaticism, any theological or philosophical
channel in which truth flows, (17) always has its source in some ardent longing, some secret
passion, some accumulation of intense, painful desire to which a theory affords an outlet; in the
Jacobin, as well as in the Puritan, there is a fountain-head of this description (17-18).” Taine,
Hippolyte Adolphe. The French Revolution. Volume II.
“Religion is superstition, monarchy is usurpation, priests are imposters, aristocrats are vampires,
and kings are so many tyrants and monsters (49).” Taine, Hippolyte Adolphe. The French
Revolution. Volume II.
“It is in this way, then, that the first ideas of goodness and of justice and of their opposites are
naturally formed among men, and this is the origin and the genesis of true kingship. The people
ensure that the supreme power remains in the hands not only of the original leaders but of their
descendants, since they are convinced that those who are descended from and educated by such
men will cherish principles similar to their own. But if they ever become dissatisfied with the
descendants, they no longer choose their kings and rulers for their physical strength, but on the
merits of their judgments and of their powers of reasoning, for they have come to understand
from practical experience the difference between the one set of attributes and the other. In
ancient times, then, those who had been singled out for royal authority continued in their
functions until they grew old; they built imposing strongholds, fortified them with walls, and
acquired lands to provide for their subjects both security and an abundance of the necessities of
life. While they were pursuing these aims they were never the objects of envy nor of abuse,
because they did not indulge in distinctions of dress or food or drink at the expense of others, but
lived very much in the same fashion as the rest of their subjects, and kept in close touch with the
people in their daily activities. But when rulers received their power by inheritance, and found
that their safety was well provided for and their food more than sufficient, this superabundance
tempted them to indulge their appetites. They assumed that rulers should be distinguished from
their subjects by a special dress, that they should enjoy additional luxury and variety in the
preparation and serving of their food, and that they should be denied nothing in the pursuit of
their love affairs, however lawless these might be. These vices provoked envy and indignation in
the first case, and an outburst of passionate hatred and anger in the second, with the result that
the kingship became a tyranny. In this way the first step was taken towards its disintegration, and
conspiracies began to be formed. These did not originate from the worst men in the state, but
rather from the noblest, the most high-minded and the most courageous, because such men find it
hardest to endure the insolence of their rules.
Once the people had found their leaders they gave them their support against their rules
for the reason which I have stated above, with the result that kingship and monarchy were swept
away and in their place the institution of aristocracy came into being and developed. The people,
as if discharging a debt of gratitude to those who had overthrown the monarchy, tended to place
these men in authority and entrust their destinies to them. At first the aristocrats gladly accepted
this charge, made it their supreme concern to serve the common interest, and handled both the
private and public affairs of the people with greatest care and solicitude. But here again the next
generation inherited the same position of authority as their fathers. They in turn had no
experience of misfortunes and no tradition of civil equality and freedom of speech, since they
had been reared from the cradle in an atmosphere of authority and privilege. And so they
abandoned their high responsibilities, some in favor of avarice and unscrupulous money-making,
others of drinking and the convivial excesses that go with it, and others the violation of women
and rape of boys. In this way they transformed an aristocracy into an oligarchy, and soon
provoked the people to a pitch of resentment similar to that which I have already described, with
the result that their regime suffered the same disastrous end as had befallen the tyrants.
The truth is that whenever anybody who has observed the hatred and jealousy which are
felt by the citizens for tyrants can summons up the courage to speak or act against the authorities,
he finds the whole mass of the people ready to support him. But after they have either killed or
banished the oligarchs, the people do not venture to set up a king again, for they are still in terror
of the injustice committed by previous monarch, nor do they dare to entrust the government to a
limited class, since they still have before their eyes the evidence of their recent mistake in doing
so. At this point the only hope which remains unspoiled lies with themselves, and it is in this
direction that they then turn: they convert the state into a democracy instead of an oligarchy and
themselves assume the superintendence and charge of affairs. Then so long as any people survive
who endure the evils of oligarchical rule, they can regard their present form of government as a
blessing and treasure the privileges of equality and freedom of speech.
But as soon as a new generation has succeeded and the democracy falls into the hands of
the grandchildren of its founders, they have become by this time so accustomed to equality and
freedom of speech that they cease to value them and seek to raise themselves above their fellow
citizens, and it is noticeable that the people most liable to this temptation are the rich. So when
they begin to hanker after office, and find that they cannot achieve it through their own efforts or
on their own merits, they begin to seduce and corrupt the people in every possible way, and thus
ruin their estates. The result is that through their senseless craving prominence they stimulate
among the masses both an appetite for bribe and the habit of receiving them, and then the rule of
democracy is transformed into government by violence and strongarm [sic] methods. By this
time the people have become accustomed to feed at the expense of others, and their prospects of
winning a livelihood depend upon the property of their neighbors; then as soon as they find a
leader who is sufficiently ambitious and daring, but is excluded from the honors of office
because of his poverty, they will introduce a regime based on violence. After this they unite their
forces, and proceed to massacre, banish and despoil their opponent, and finally degenerate into a
state of bestiality, after which they once more find a master and a despot.
Such is the cycle of political revolution, the law of nature according to which
constitutional change, are transformed, and finally revert to their original form. Anyone who has
a clear grasp of this process might perhaps go wrong, when he speaks of the future of a state, in
his forecast of the time it will take for the process of change to take place, but so long as his
judgment is not distorted by animosity or envy he will very seldom be mistaken as to the stage of
growth or decline which a given community has reached, or as to the form into which it will
change. Above all, in the case of the Roman state this method of examination will give us the
clearest insight into the process whereby it was formed, grew, and reached the zenith of its
achievement as well as the changes for the worse which will follow these. For this state, if any
ever did (as I have already pointed out), takes its foundation and its growth from natural causes,
and will pass through a natural evolution to its decay….
The fact, then, that all existing things are subject to decay is a proposition which scarcely
requires proof, since the inexorable course of nature is sufficient to impose it on us. Every kind
of state, we may say, is liable to decline from two sources, the one being external, and the other
due to its own internal evolution. For the first we cannot lay down any fixed principle, but the
second pursues a regular sequences. I have already indicated which kind of state is the first to
evolve, which succeeds it, and how each is transformed into its successor, so that those who can
connect the opening propositions of my argument with its conclusion will be able to make their
own forecast concerning the future. This, in my opinion, is quite clear. When a state, after
warding off many great perils, achieves supremacy and uncontested sovereignty, it is evident that
under the influence of long-established prosperity life will become more luxurious, and among
the citizens themselves rivalry for office and to other spheres of activity will become fiercer than
it should. As these symptoms became more marked, the craving for office and the sense of
humiliation which obscurity imposes, together with the spread of ostentation and extravagance,
will usher in a period of general deterioration. The principal authors of this change will be
masses, who at some moments will believe that they have a grievance against the greed of other
members of society, and at others are made conceited by the flattery of those who aspire to
office. By this stage they will have been roused to fury and their deliberation will constantly be
swayed by passion, so that they will no longer consent to obey or even to be the equals of their
leaders, but will demand everything or by far the greatest share themselves. When this happens,
the constitution will change its name to the one which sounds the most imposing of all, that
freedom and democracy, but its nature to that which is the worst of all, that is the rule of the
mob.
Now that I have described the formation of the Roman state, its rise, the attainment of its
zenith, and its present condition, and likewise the differences for better or worse between it and
the other constitutions, I will bring this study to an end (162, Poliybus, Histories, VI. 7-9, 57).”
Grant, Michael. Readings in the Classical Historians.
“The English Puritans, the Jacobins, the Bolsheviks, were in each case simply power-seekers
using the hopes of the masses in order to win a privileged position for themselves. Power can
sometimes be won or maintained without violence, but never without fraud, because it is
necessary to make use of the masses, and the masses would not co-operate if they knew that they
were simply serving the purpose of a minority. In each great revolutionary struggle the masses
are led on by vague dreams of human brotherhood, and then, when the new ruling class is well
established in power, they are thrust back into servitude (p. 1).” Orwell, George. James Burnham
and the Managerial Revolution
“In The Machiavellians, Burham insists that politics is simply the struggle for power. Every great
social movement, every way, every revolution, every political programme, however edifying and
Utopian, really has behind it the ambitions of some sectional group which is out to grab power
for itself. Power can never be restrained by any ethical or religious code, but only by other
power…The masses, it seems, have vague aspirations towards liberty and human brotherhood,
which are easily consists of a series of swindles, in which the masses are first lured into revolt by
the promise of Utopia, and then, when they have done their job, enslaved over again by new
masters…Political activity, therefore, is a special kind of behavior, characterized by its complete
unscrupulousness, and occurring only among small groups of the population, especially among
dissatisfied groups whose talents do not get free play under the existing form of society…In
effect, therefore, humanity is divided into two classes: the self-seeking, hypocritical minority,
and the brainless mob whose destiny is always to be led or driven, as one gets a pig back to the
sty by kicking it on the bottom or by rattling a stick inside a swill-bucket…And this beautiful
patter is to continue for ever (p. 12).” Orwell, George. James Burnham and the Managerial
Revolution
“There were two legal doctrines long invoked by the English courts against combination
action—doctrines that became a heritage of the United States and have had a profound effect
upon the labor movement in America. The first of these was the doctrine of conspiracy, a
doctrine so ancient that its sources are obscure. It was the natural product of a government and of
a time that looked askance at all combined action, fearing sedition, intrigue, and revolution. As
far back as 1305 there was enacted a statute defining conspiracy and outlining the offense. It did
not aim at any definite social class but embraced all persons who combined for a “malicious
enterprise.” Such an enterprise was the breaking of a law. So when Parliament passed acts
regulating wages, conditions of employment, or prices of commodities, those who combined
secretly or openly to circumvent the act to raise wages or lower them, or to raise prices and
curtail markets, at once fell under the ban of conspiracy. The law operated alike on conspiring
employers and conniving employees (p. 15).” Orth, Samuel P. The Armies of Labor: A
Chronicle of the Organized Wage-Earners
“An ignorant and unlettered people can patiently submit to the most outrageous acts of violence
and oppression, and sleep over their chains with an indifference bordering on brutally stupid; the
most fertile and favoured region of the earth, where freedom, joined hand in hand with liberal
knowledge, had once brought forth, nurtured and matured the faculties of man, where genius
smiled and civil life had gained (p. 24) its ultimate perfection, where polished Greece had reared
the empire of refinement and of reason, have for ages languished in decay and hopeless
servitude, and bend beneath the iron sway of haughty Ottoman; the plains, where Tyre and
Carthage stood, are now the prey of rue barbarians, and the sport of ruffian power; the peaceful
Hindoo has, from the remotest time, submitted calmly to the yoke of successive tyrants, and
seems to have taken no interest in the scenes of rapine and slaughter that constantly surrounded
him: the influence of a mild climate, an abundant soil, his habits of life, religion, and rigid
temperance, together with his contented ignorance, all contribute to enervate his mind, and
render him incapable of resistance; yet it could seem unreasonable to believe, that all these
physical and moral causes would not alone be sufficient to retain him in that state of shameful
humiliation, were his mind enlightened; were the art of reasoning known in his country, were
seminaries, colleges, universities, academies of science and belles letters, libraries, and a public
education established, it may be presumed that even the Hindoo himself would be roused from
his lethargic inaction, and stand forth in bold vindication of the rights of humanity (p.24-25).”
Hearn, Thomas. A Short View of the Rise and Progress of Freedom in Modern Europe, As
Connected with the Causes Which Led to the French Revolution.
“If we reflect upon the Independency of the subjects, the limited authority of the Sovereign, and
the different interest of the several orders that compos’d the State, ‘twill not appear strange, that
the Kingdom was almost perpetually harass’d with insurrections and civil wars. Most of the
Kings aspir’d at a more absolute authority, and some of ‘em, by the assistance of their friends
and creatures, endeavour’d to make themselves masters of the Government, and to shake off
their dependence on the Senate: But the people were so far from being unconcern’d spectators of
an open violation of the liberties and privileges of the nation, that the very shadow and least
appearance of arbitrary power occason’d an universal revolt, and re-united all the States against
the King (p. 8).” De Vertot, Mons. L’Abbe. The History of the Revolution in Sweden.
“The lords and gentlemen, who were already jealous of the riches and power of the clergy, cou’d
not without grief and indignation behold this new addition to their authority; but they were forc’d
to content themselves with repining in secret during the life of the Queen. For that wife and
powerful princess entertain’d private spies among the disaffected party; ad by that means was
acquainted with all their resolutions, and enabl’d to break all the measures they cou’d take to
shake off the yoke she had impos’d upon ‘em. After hear death, King Eric succeeded in the
Three Kingdoms, but did neither inherit her power nor her prudence. He retir’d to Denmark, and
sent Governors to Sweden, who treated the people of the kingdom, rather as disarm’d enemies,
than as free subjects (p. 19). The Nation was over-loaded with taxes, and fill’d with soldiers, who
domineer’d over the wretched inhabitants, and not only rob’d and plunder’d ‘em without control,
but added scorn and insolence to their avarice and barbarity. The officers conniv’d at theses
disorders, and rather encourag’d than check’d the offenders. From whence it may be reasonably
concluded, that either they receive’d a share of the booty, or had secret orders to tolerate these
abuses. The complaints of the oppress’d did not reach the ears of the Prince, or were rejected
with disdain: nor cou’d they hope to see an end, or so much as an alleviation of their misery,
without an entire alteration of the government (p. 19-20).”, Mons. De Vertot L’Abbe. The
History of the Revolution in Sweden.
State:
“The key to this moulding of fitness, whether in official, cows, or pouter pigeon, is man’s power
of selection. We disobey the unbending law of evolution in the choice of our rulers and higher
officials because we do not exert an adequate power of selection, and consequently have not
accumulated a useful breed of either. Instead of adjusting our practice of obedience to the laws of
natural selection, we have inverted them in dealing with our civil and military service. There is
little or no struggle for existence in the higher ranks of State servants. They hold office on a
freehold tenure. The inefficient members are not ruthlessly destroyed. The bulk of those who are
potentially efficient are artificially excluded by the cast system (14-15).” White, Arnold.
Efficiency and Empire.
“I think that a sort of society ‘Ring’ undoubtedly does exist, and if a person happens not to
belong to it they have small chance of entering the professions which are falsely suppose to be
open to all. As the members of this ‘Ring’ are no better morally or intellectually than other
people this narrowing of the selection is in every way to the disadvantage of the nation.” (p. 157158).” White, Arnold. Efficiency and Empire.
“And if the inferior races obstinately refuse to acknowledge their position and to accept the
blessings, they must, unfortunately, be conquered and killed until they accept the law of God and
of the conquerors (16).” Woolf, Leonard. Economic Imperialism.
“Mr. Rhodes has a supreme contempt for individuals; he looks on humanity as a complex body,
to be dealt with for the good of the majority (p. 183).” Scoble, John. The Rise and Fall of
Krugerism: A Personal Record of Forty Years in South Africa.
“Society, Lippmann argued, should be divided into the great vulgar masses of a largely ignorant
‘public,’ which is then steered by an elite or a ‘special class,’ which Lippmann termed the
‘responsible men,’ who would decide the terms of what would be called ‘the national interest.’
This elite would become the dedicated bureaucracy, to serve the interests of private power and
private wealth, but the truth of their relationship to the power of private wealth should never be
revealed to the broader ignorant public. ‘They wouldn’t understand.’ The general population
must have the illusion, Lippmann argued, that it is actually exerting ‘democratic’ power. This
illusion must be shaped by the elite body of ‘responsible men’ in what was termed the
‘manufacture of consent.’(p. 178).” Engdahl, William. A Century of War: Anglo-American Oil
Politics and the New World Order.
“The world aristocracy originally signified the empire of the strong…applied to those who were
physically the most powerful; then they were used to designate the most influential, the richest,
and finally the best, those possessing the most ability or virtue. This is the history of the
successive acceptations of the word in the language from which it is borrowed; the same terms
which were first applied to force, the superiority of force, came at length to designate moral and
intellectual superiority—virtue (65).” Guizot, M. The History of the Origin of Representative
Government in Europe.
“But such has not been the historical signification of the word aristocracy. If we take the word
according as facts have interpreted it, we shall find its meaning to be, a government in which the
sovereign power is placed at the disposal of particular class of citizens, who are hereditarily
invested with it, their only qualification being a certain descent, in a manner more or less
exclusive, and sometimes almost completely exclusive (66).” Guizot, M. The History of the
Origin of Representative Government in Europe.
“A second consequence of the principle of aristocratic governments is their avoidance of
publicity. When each one of those who participate in the rightful sovereignty (67) possesses it by
the mere accident of birth, and exercises it on his own individual responsibility, he need not
recognise any one as claiming a right to call him to account. No one has any right to inquire into
the use which he makes of his power, fore he acts in virtue of a right which no one can contest,
because no one can deprive him of it (67-68).” Guizot, M. The History of the Origin of
Representative Government in Europe.
“What then is the first social law?...justice, reason, a rule of which every man has the germ
within his own breast. If many only yields to a superior force, he does not truly submit to law;
there is no society and no government. If in his dealings with his fellows, man obeys not only
force, but also a law, then society and government exist (57).” Guizot, M. The History of the
Origin of Representative Government in Europe.
“The condition of America and of the world can only be understood when we understand these
elemental facts. The greater powers of the world are ruled by a class, by a class that enjoys
power and wealth through and by control of the economic state. They control the lawmaking
agencies, the administrative agencies, and international relations as well. At the outbreak of the
war the governing and the owning classes in the greater powers were substantially the same.
They owned the same things; they had the same interests and the same point of view. They
shaped the psychology and the policy of their governments to the same ends. Financial
capitalism replaced landlordism in political power. In Europe the financial and the landed classes
were merged into a ruling group. They controlled the state, not only to protect the privileges they
had secured at home, but to extend their power through imperialism over the outside world (x).”
Frederic C. Howe. B.W. Huebsch, Inc. New York: 1921.
“There must be a new renunciation of privileges, or there will be something like a revolution that
will destroy the privileges that those who posses them will not themselves voluntarily relinquish.
Explanations by a thousand thongs explain only the superficial facts. The truth is that the life of
the world is being strangled by a privileged group of men possessed of national and imperialistic
grants and interests, which they have sought to make inviolate through the treaty of peace. It is
these interests that have insisted on the destructive indemnity from Germany; that sought control
of the eastern Mediterranean and of Africa. It is those interest that seized on Mesopotamia and
the Mesopotamian oil fields, and on similar resources in South Russia. It was they that divided
South Africa. They stripped Germany and embargoed Russia (xvii).” Frederic C. Howe. B.W.
Huebsch, Inc. New York: 1921.
“A new class began to emerge about 1890. It sprang from the tariff, the railroads and the ground
landlords. More recently the banking group has become ascendant. This class exploits the wealth
produced by others. Year by year it takes an increasing share of the annual output. It takes it in
rent, in interest and in profits. Within the last ten years, and especially as a result of the war, this
class has been increasing in numbers and in power. It has become the dominant class in the
nation. No one wants to be a producer if he can avoid it. To be a manual worker is a badge of a
lower caste. To be a farmer is no longer a mark of respectability. The producer has been
displaced in public esteem by the exploiting type (93-94).” Frederic C. Howe. B.W. Huebsch,
Inc. New York: 1921.
“The state has become an agency of sabotage. It discourages the production of wealth. It
determines its distribution as well. It paralyzes social and individual effort. It violates the laws of
biology. This has been true in large measure from the beginning (98).” Frederic C. Howe. B.W.
Huebsch, Inc. New York: 1921.
“The origin of the state. We see the artificial nature of the state when we examine its beginnings.
It has its origin in force. For centuries it was an instrument of oppression. It has no other
function. The state came into being to resist attack from without and to prevent protest from
within. That is all the state was from the tenth to the middle of the last century. It denied
expression to the average man. And it performed little, almost no social service whatsoever
(99).” Frederic C. Howe. B.W. Huebsch, Inc. New York: 1921.
“The term proletariat, divorced from its original meaning, is used by collectivists to designate
that section of society which, although it depends upon manual labour for its existence, does not
possess the instruments necessary for that labour. Men thus situated, it is said, cannot be free;
they are compelled to rely upon others for the means of work, without which they could not
exist, and are therefore forced to accept as remuneration a fraction only of the product of their
toil. Another argument advanced in favour of the collective ownership of all means of production
is, that to allow capital, described as being inert or dead matter, to dictate the conditions of
labour, is an insult to humanity; it is rather labour that ought to direct the employment of capital
(7).” Collectivism. Paul Leroy Beaulieu
“So runs the current of yellow patriotism. But if the Anglo-Saxon has a destiny incompatible
with morality and which cannot be carried out in peace, if he is bound by no pledges and must
ride roughshod over the rights wand wills of weaker people the sooner he is exterminated the
better for the world (93).” Imperial Democracy. David Starr Jordan
“Election is made the instrument of legislative patronage, and a nation seems to be the author or
its own ruin, whilst that ruin proceeds from the operation of a paper system, corrupting talents,
enriching a faction, and impoverishing the mass of the nation; yet the people will be kept patient
by election itself, from an erroneous opinion, that the government is administered according to
their will. Against this species of tyranny there is no remedy, except that of preventing its cause,
as the people have no mode of discovering the individuals corrupted by legislative patronage;
other forms of tyranny are seen in the persons of kings, nobles and priests; executive sinecure
and patronage; are visible; and a visible enemy may be subdued; but an invisible enemy cannot
ever be assailed (245).” Inquiry. John Taylor
“So I am free here and now to say to you, and you will consider it for what it is worth, that in my
opinion the granting of universal suffrage to the Negro was the mistake of the nineteenth century.
I say that, believing myself to be a friend to the Negro, willing and anxious that he shall have fair
play and the fullest opportunity under the law to develop himself to his upmost capacity.
Suffrage wronged the Negro, because he could only develop by practicing industry and
economy, while learning frugality. It was a mistake to tempt him away from the field of labor
into the field of politics, where, as a rule, he could understand nothing that was taught him except
the color line. Negro suffrage was a wrong to the white man of the South, for it brought him face
to face with a situation in which he concluded, after some years of trial, that in order to preserve
his civilization he must resort to fraud in elections, and fraud in elections, wherever it may be
practiced, is likely the deadly upas tree; it scatters its poisons in every direction. Universal
suffrage in the South has demoralized our politics there. It has created a bitterness between the
present generations of whites and blacks that had never existed between the ex-slave and his
former master. These are among the complications of the problem you are studying (99).”
American Academy of Political and Social Science. America’s Race Problems: Addresses at the
annual meeting of the American Academy of Political and Social Sciences, Philadelphia, April
Twelfth and Thirteenth.
“Machiavel, in deciding that a “free government cannot be maintained, when the people have
grown corrupt;” and in admitting monarchy, “to be the proper corrective of a corrupt people,”
has reasoned from false principles to false conclusions, because he had not discerned this
distinction. He supposes orders proper to maintain liberty, whilst the people are virtuous; and
that they are hurtful, when the people become corrupt; and taking it for granted, that liberty
cannot exist without virtue, nor without orders, he dooms all nations to orders or to monarchy. If
virtuous, he saddles them with political orders; if vicious, with an avenger instead of a reformer.
History has neither related, nor fable feigned, that monarchs or demons reform the wicked
committed to their durance (437).” Inquiry. John Taylor
“In his Treatise on Legislation, Bentham says: “For the enjoyment of that which I regard as
mine, I can only count on the promises of the law which guarantees it to me. Property and the
law were born together, and will perish together. Before law, there was no property; banish law,
and all property ceases”…more recently, M. Laboulaye, in his Histoire de la propriete en
Occident, formulates it with great exactness: “Detention of the soil is a fact for which force alone
can compel respect, until society takes up the cause of the holder. The laws not only protect
property, they give birth to it…The right of property is not natural but social”…The law creates
property, we are told; but what is this law, and who establishes it? The right of property has
assumed the most diverse forms: which one must the legislator sanction in the cause of justice
and the general interest? To frame a law regulating property, we must necessarily know what this
right of property should be…Formerly the master was recognised as owner of his slave (345);
was this legitimate property, and did the law, which sanctioned it, created a true right? No:
Things are just or unjust, institutions are good or bad, before a law declares them such, exactly as
two and two make four even before the fact be formulated. The relations of things do not depend
on human will…It cannot be maintained that in human society, as in the physical Universe, the
existing order is necessarily the best, unless we pretend that all social iniquities are legitimate,
because they are necessary, and that ever attempt at reform is a folly, if not an attack on natural
law. In this case, we should also have to admit that slavery, confiscation and robbery are just
directly they are enjoined by law; and then the greatest attacks on right would have to be
regarded as the true right. The law does not create right; right must dictate the law (345-346).”
Primitive Property. Emile de Laveleye.
“Of course pauperism is no natural product of modern civilisation, but is the outcome of
mischievous laws, which have disgraced, and do disgrace, our statute-book (5).” Cobden and
Modern Political Opinion. James E. Thorold Rogers
[Just as a note, if you want to kill of those you’ve made poor and homeless to either feed the
system, love of suffering, just to have a poor class to establish and understanding of
power…whatever reason, perhaps, if you’re killing them, it is not in your interests of profession
to have them, well, don’t blame them while you kill them. Believe it or not, many evils that are
done secretly and for a specific agenda, could be done openly. Rather than secretly sterilizing
people, well, educate the people as to the truth of their lives and the hopes of their children under
the white man and his social schemes, perhaps they won’t desire to bring children into the world.
Rather than quietly kill people openly say who ever wants to go in peace and without pain, come
get this pill and see how many come. Even Carroll Quigley felt such schemes should be open
rather than secret. Accomplishes the same thing but real and honest.]
“As centralization advanced with the acceleration of human movement, forced expressed itself
more and (p. 20) more exclusively through money, and the channel in which money chose to
flow was in investments in land. The social system fostered the growth of large estates. The
Romans always had an inordinate respect for the landed magnate, and a contempt for the
tradesman. Industry was reputed a servile occupation, and, under the Republic, the citizen who
performed manual labour was almost deprived of political rights. Even commerce was thought so
unworthy of the aristocracy that it was forbidden to senators. “The soil was always, in this
Roman society, the principal source and, above all, the only measure of wealth (p. 21).” Adams,
Brooks. The Law of Civilization and Decay: An Essay on History.
“…war of extermination against the barbarians so as to enable true humanity to find room upon
and spread over the earth. No European will feel that he is justified in considering another
European as a barbarian. The utmost which might be asked is whether we are not entitled to
consider ourselves a superior race in comparison with certain undeveloped races, such as the
Andamans or Tierra del Fuegans. What will undoubtedly occur is that these people will
gradually be exterminated by the white race, though it has long been clear that it would be
extremely foolish to make war upon them. They die out of themselves wherever they come into
contact with whites, bloodless warfare being always more effectual than bloody. There is only
one race for which this question of racial superiority might be profoundly important—the
Mongolian. I do not know who are the superior, the Mongolians or we ourselves, but I can quite
understand our looking on the Mongolian race as enemies, and that, for instances, Europeans on
the highest plane would not easily be induced to have a child by a Mongolian woman, at any rate
not to own it. I can therefore also fully understand that we or the Mongolians might (p. 85) say,
“Only one of us two races can rule over the world, and we want that race to be ours.” In this case
the biologically weaker race—that is, the one which may rest assured that in ordinary course it
would fall a victim to natural selection—might perhaps be justified in saying, “As there is no
change of our getting the upper hand by natural and lawful means, we will try to take by force
what nature withholds from us.” This shows very plainly that for the really strong war is
superfluous; and as obviously it is generally folly for the weak, it is self-evident that, save in the
rarest instances, there can be no possible object whatever in it. Now, it is possible that one such
rare instance may be afforded by the Mongolians, for, unlike all the other colored races, they
seem to be in certain respects fitter than Europeans, although it is impossible to know exactly
how they will be affected when once they are drawn into the vortex of modern civilization (p.
85-86).” Nicolai, G.F. The Biology of War.
“There are now in the world five hundred millions of us Europeans or white men originally from
Europe, and a thousand millions of various colored races. I believe we have even now the
technical means at our disposal for exterminating these thousand millions in the course of the
next twenty years. After twenty years, however, we shall no longer be in a position to do this, as
soon, that is, as China has armed her whole population, constructs her own dreadnoughts, and
manufactures here own cannon and shells, as Japan is already doing (p. 87).” Nicolai, G.F. The
Biology of War.
“At a time when fate of so many men is hanging in the balance, Europeans may, perhaps must,
be asked whether on careful consideration they mean to declare all colored races barbarians, and
then begin a struggle for existence, in other words a war of extermination, and not a ridiculous
war for power, against everything non-European (p. 87).” Nicolai, G.F. The Biology of War.
“Training to Hate. The ugly aspects of these calumnies is that on both sides they are
increasing…Let us even assume that the righteous German had none but chivalrous motives for
taking the field. Now he hears that the enemy sometimes kill and sometimes do violence to
defenseless women, old men and children, and sometimes send them on in front in order to
protect themselves against German bullets (p. 125).” Nicolai, G.F. The Biology of War.
“Training to lie. This change of attitude to all old-established conceptions must be called a form
of mental affection which has seized upon a whole people. This was discussed by Herr Albert
Moll in an article published in the very early days of the war, in which he mentions the wellknown fact that at times of universal excitement even person who believe themselves to be
speaking truth in reality bear false witness. He shows how the terrors of war, the hatred
artificially engendered by government against those who began the war, people’s desire to help
their country by accusing the enemy, and many other like tendencies cannot fail to have
disastrous effects (p. 129).” Nicolai, G.F. The Biology of War.
“He, too, will be classed with those “who believe they are speaking truth, although their evidence
is in reality wholly false.” The hypnotizing effects of war, indeed, are terrible, and no one can be
reproached with lying when so many others are doing likewise. Only no one ought to assert that
it is good to abandon oneself unconsciously to this frenzy of lying (p. 130).” Nicolai, G.F. The
Biology of War.
“Now, the Government holds that it, like a skilful physician, is entitled to tell the people lies and
therefore it has always, and particularly during the war, endeavored to defend official methods of
reporting events. Over and over again we have been told that we have been forced into a critical
position, in which, to use the “technical expression,” we must “hold out”’ and in such
circumstances, it was added, there was only too much justification for lying being considered
allowable. The belief prevailed that the people would be capable of more resistance if they had
no suspicion of the true state of affairs and it was therefore considered justifiable to prevent their
becoming acquainted with the situation. War is thus a training in lying, and every conceivable
subsidiary moral purpose (p. 130) vanishes, since this lying is done solely for the benefit of
ourselves and our own nation (p. 130-131).” Nicolai, G.F. The Biology of War.
“We mean the liberty which men can only enjoy in organised societies, wherein each is
strengthened and protected by the co-operation of all. Real liberty is not the mere absence of
restraints; it is security in doing, by a man’s free choice, all or any of the things that are worth
doing, and that are not harmful to his fellows; and it can only be enjoyed in its fullness in a
society where all men are equally free, because equally protected by the common action and
opinion of the community (p. 19).” Muir, Ramsay. Liberalism and Industry: Towards a Better
Social Order.
“Martin:…For every privileged section, while it is oligarchic in relation to those below it, is
ochlocratic in relation to those (p. 31) above. It despises and dreads its inferiors, and wants to
keep them under; but of its superiors it is jealous and full of hate. Those privileges, it thinks, by
which it is debarred from rising higher, are iniquitous and undeserved; those only by which it is
prevented from sinking lower are legitimate and correspond to merit…(p. 31-32).” Dickinson, G.
Lowes. Justice and Liberty: A Political Dialogue
“Stuart. That might be all very well for an isolated nation; but it does not allow for the struggle
between races. For example, if the West doesn’t increase its population in the same proportion as
the East, it is bound to go under in the competition./Martin. Why? Efficiency in such contests
tells far more than numbers. Did numbers help the Indians to overthrow the British rule? Has not
a minority everywhere, always, dominated the world? Poor, uneducated, unintelligent masses are
no strength to any community./Stuart. Perhaps not. But even supposing it were desirable to limit
numbers, how do you propose to do it?/Martin. It is doing itself before our eyes. In the upper and
middle classes, and among the more intelligent artisans, parents do actually now fix the number
of children they will have, in proportion to their resources. And so far, and on the face of it, that
is a think to be commended (p. 37).” Dickinson, G. Lowes. Justice and Liberty: A Political
Dialogue
“The fact is that the word “liberal” acquired its popularity when its meaning was clear. It was
associated with the word “liberty” and meant the opposite of authoritarian or coercionist. Then
certain authoritarians attempted the time-worn trick of coming forward and saying that the real
liberals were, after all, not those who believed in liberty but those who believed in the beneficent
(p. 121) exercise of authority or coercion…no two words could be more antithetical than the
words “liberal” and “socialist”…Now the word “liberal” is not opposed to the word
“conservative” any more than to the word “radical.” Radical and conservative are opposite and
antithetical terms…The word “liberal” is opposed to the word “authoritarian (p. 121-122).”
Carver, Thomas Nixon and Hugh W. Lester. This Economic World and How It May Be
Improved
“Under authority, large numbers of men can be compelled to act according to a great plan, and
their efforts organized, coordinated, and all made to bear upon a common purpose (p. 132).”
Carver, Thomas Nixon and Hugh W. Lester. This Economic World and How It May Be
Improved
“The right to work, to pursue a profession, business, or calling is property. The labor and skill of
the workman, the plant of the manufacturer, the equipment of the farmer, the investments of
commerce, are all property (p. 235).” [McGehee, Due Process of Law, 335 and cases
cited]Carver, Thomas Nixon and Hugh W. Lester. This Economic World and How It May Be
Improved
“As for the social system desired and upheld by the bourgeoisie, it has been marked by a
complete abandonment of the poor. “Every one for himself; charity begins at home,” has been
the maxim of their leaders; loathsome, base maxim, which contains all oppressions, until it gives
birth to all disorders. The error of the bourgeoisie has been this, that it believed freedom to be
sufficient for progress (p. 651) and justice, under circumstances of no equality in the means of
development. But what signifies it that the right to acquire wealth be granted to all, when the
instruments of labour, and when credit belong only to a few? What signifies a right to prosperity
without the possibility of realising that right? What matters a broad and level road to the wretch
who cannot move? True freedom consists, not in the right, but in the power, granted to every one
to develop his faculties. Freedom is there but a lure, but the hypocrisy of despotism, wherever
the possession of the instruments of labour is a monopoly; wherever the doling out of credit is in
the hands of private individuals who lend only to the rich; wherever competition leaves the small
capitalist at the mercy of the great one; wherever there are commercial dealings between wealth
and hunger; wherever the lives of citizens depends not on their good conduct and forethought,
but on the visitation of a disease, on the cessation of a commercial demand, or the invention of a
new method; wherever the children of the poor are forced away from the school where they
would be instructed, and buried alive in the factory, where they are starved and stinted;
wherever, in fine, there are children of seven years of age working twelve hours a day for their
bread, girls of sixteen prostituting themselves for bread, vagrants found asleep on the steps of
inhabited palaces, infanticide from the penury, journeymen whom the discovery of a machine
turns into the streets to starve, and thousands of working-men who wake up some day with pale
faces and raging hears, and rush to the fight with this cry: “Let us live by our labour or die
fighting.” And in this the fault is not in men but in things. Feudal tyranny was composed of
proper names, it could be looked in the face, it could be touched with the finger. There is nothing
of the sort in that tyranny which is only liberty misunderstood. Mysterious, impersonal, invisible,
almost defying all effort to grasp it, it enfolds the poor man, compresses and stifles him, without
his being able even to comprehend the nature of the evil against which he struggles, miserably
and in vain. The destruction of a despotism of this sort is, therefore, an affair of science, not of
revolt. It is the principle that is impious; it is the situation that is guilty. Men do not take
vengeance upon a principle, they supersede it for a better; men do not punish a bad state of
things, they change it. Fierce appeals to the wrathful feelings of the oppressed would, therefore,
be as frivolous as they would be mischievous; the more so, as the bulk of the people is not now
enlightened enough to have a clear idea of what it ought to seek, and of what is possible (p. 651652).” Blanc, Louis. The History of the Ten Years, 1830-1840. Volume II.
“Since 1932 the Communist Party had publicized itself as the leading opponent of fascism. It had
used the emotional appeal of anti-fascism to bring many people to the acceptance of
communism, by posing communism and fascism as alternatives. Its propaganda machine ground
out an endless stream of words, pictures, and cartoons. It played on intellectual, humanitarian,
racial, and religious sensibilities until it succeeded to an amazing degree in conditioning
American to recoil at the word fascist even when people did not know its meaning. Today I
marvel that the world communist movement was able to beat the drums against Germany and
never once betray what the inner group knew well: that some (p. 86) of the same forces which
gave Hitler his start had also started Lenin and his staff of revolutionists from Switzerland to St.
Petersburg to begin the revolution which was to result in the Soviet totalitarian state. There was
not a hint that despite the propaganda of hate unleashed against Germany and Italy, communist
representatives were meeting behind the scenes to do business with Italian and German fascists
to whom they sold materiel and oil. There was not a hint that Soviet brass was meeting with
German brass to redraw the map of Europe. There was no betrayal of these facts until one day
they met openly to sign a contract for a new map of Europe—a treaty made by Molotov and Von
Ribbentrop (p. 86-87 ).” Dodd, Bella V. School of Darkness: The Record of a Life and of a
Conflict Between Two Faiths.
“Those who produce every thing enjoy nothing, while those who produce nothing enjoy every
thing! (p. 300).” Van Evrie, J.H. White Supremacy and Negro Subordination; or, Negroes a
Subordinate Race, and (so-called) Slavery Its Normal Condition.
“What is called a republic, is not any particular form of Government. It is wholly characteristical
of the purport, matter, or object for which Government out to be instituted, and on which it is to
be employed, Res-Publica, the public affairs, or the public good; or, literally translated, the
public thing. It is a word of a good original, referring to what ought to be the character and
business of Government; and in this sense it is naturally opposed to the word Monarchy, which
has a base original signification. In means arbitrary power in an individual person; in the exercise
of which, himself, and not the res-publica, is the object. Every Government that does not act on
the principle of a Republic, or in other words, that does not make the res-publica its whole and
sole object, is not a good Government. Republican Government is no other than Government
established and conducted for the interests of the public, as well individually as collectively (p.
30).” Paine, Thomas. The Rights of Man; Being an Answer to Mr. Burke’s Attack on the French
Revolution. Part II.
“Those who have said that a republic is not a form of Government calculate for countries of a
great extend, mistook, in the first place, the business of a Government, for a form of
Government; for the res-publica equally appertains to every extent of territory and population.
And, in the second place, if they meant any thing with respect to form, it was the simple
Democratic form, such was the mode of Government in the ancient Democracies, in which there
was no representation (p. 31).” Paine, Thomas. The Rights of Man; Being an Answer to Mr.
Burke’s Attack on the French Revolution. Part II.
“When Mr. Burke says that “His Majesty’s heirs and successors, each in their time and order,
will come to the crown with the same contempt of their choices with which his Majesty has
succeeded to that he wears,” it is saying too much even to the humblest individual in the country
part of whose daily labour goes toward making up the million sterling a year, which the country
gives the person in styles a King. Government with insolence, is despotism’ but when contempt
is added, it becomes worse; and to pay for contempt, is the excess of slavery. This species of
Government comes from Germany; and reminds me of what one of the Brunswick soldiers told
me, who was taken prisoner by the Americans in the late war: “Ah!” said he, “America is a fine
free country, it is worth the people’s fighting for; I know the difference by knowing my own; in
my country, if the Prince says, Eat straw, we eat straw.” God help that country, thought I, be it
England, or elsewhere, (p. 74) whose liberties, or whose properties are to be protected by
German principles of Government, and Princes of Brunswick! …M. de la Fayette, in speaking to
France, says, “For a Nation to be free, it is sufficient that she wills it. But Mr. Burke represents
England as wanting capacity to take care of itself, and that is liberties must be taken care of by a
King holding it in “contempt.” If England is sunk to this, it is preparing itself to eat straw, as in
Hanover, or in Brunswick (p. 74-75).” ).” Paine, Thomas. The Rights of Man; Being an Answer
to Mr. Burke’s Attack on the French Revolution.
“It is a melancholy truth that the body of the people in all regions of the earth and in all times
have been doomed, probably from the limitedness and imperfection of human nature, taken on a
general scale, to be the prey of faction, oppression, and tyranny: to this imperfection and the
mutability of all temporal institutions must be attributed the successive decline and fall of all
governments and empires which have been raised by ambition, and supported by fraud and
rapine, until the period when accumulated corruption had sapped their foundations, and
precipitated their ruin: this painful, this distressing fact we shall leave to be deplored by the
humane and enlightened philosopher, whilst we return to the walk of unempassioned [sic]
enquiry (p. 8).” Hearn, Thomas. A Short View of the Rise and Progress of Freedom in Modern
Europe, As Connected with the Causes Which Led to the French Revolution.
“…anarchy is preferable to despotism and slavery…(12).” Campbell, John. A Theory of
Equality; or, The Way to Make Every Man Act Honestly.
“…if left to themselves, men would push their own interests to the detriment of the general weal;
and life would become a scramble, in which justice and right would be at the mercy of brute
force or individual caprice (128).” Crozier, John Beattie. Civilization & Progress.
“No illusion is at once more seductive and more fatal. Individuals, though raised to the purple,
may go back to the plough; but classes, once possessed of power, never, without compulsion,
relax their grip (277).” Civilization & Progress. John Beattie Crozier
“At first sight we seem here to have a frank recognition of the utilitarian and interested character
of civil law, and might feel inclined to think that Paulus must represent that tradition which so
much angered Cicero, that law is merely that which is convenient to those who have power in
any State (p. 60).” Carlyle, R.W. A History of Medieval Political Theory in the West. Volume I.
“…Cicero maintains that all law is derived from the one eteral law of God, which is the same as
the principle of justice and reason in man’s heart; we have seen how indignantly and scornfully
he repudiates the notion that unjust laws are true laws (jura), how emphatically he maintains that
neither kings nor people can make that to be law which is not the expression of the eternal
principles of justice (p. 55).” Carlyle, R.W. A History of Medieval Political Theory in the West.
Volume I.
Other quotes:
“Monarchs have great wealth and honour which are objects of desire to all mankind. The attacks
are made sometimes against their lives, sometimes against the office; where the sense of insult is
the motive, against their lives. Any sort of insults (and there are many) may stir up anger, and
when men are angry, they commonly act out of revenge, and not from ambition (p. 219).”
Jowett, Benjamin. Aristotle’s Politics.
“As tyrannies, they are preserved in two most opposite ways. One of them is the old traditional
method in which most tyrans administer their government…There are also the ancient
prescription for the preservation of a tyranny, in so far as this is possible; viz. that the tyrant
should lop off those who are too high; he msut put to death men of spirit: he must not allow
common meals, clubs, education, and the like; he must be upon his guard against anything which
is likely to inspire either courage or confidence among his subjects; he must prohibit literary
assemblies or other meetings for discussion, and he must take every means to prevent people
from knowing one another (for acquaintance begets mutual confidence). Further, he must compel
the inhabitants to appear in public and live at his gates; then he will know what they are doing; if
they are always kept under, they will learn to be humble. A tyrant should also endeavour to (p.
225) know what each of his subjects says or does, and should employ spies, like the ‘female
detectives’ at Syracuse, and the eavesdroppers whom Hiero was in the habit of sending to any
place of resort or meeting; for the fear of informers prevents people from speaking their minds,
and if they do, they are more easily found out. Another art of the tyrant is to sow quarrels among
the citizens; friends should be embroiled with friends, the people with the notables, and the rich
with one another. Also he should impoverish his subjects; he thus provides money for the
support of his guards, and the people, having to keep hard at work, are prevented from
conspiring. The Pyramids of Egypt afford an example of this policy…and the building of the
temple of Olympian Zeus by the Peisistratidae, and the great Polycratean monuments at Samos;
all these works were alike intended to occupy the people and keep them poor. Another practice
of tyrants is to multiply taxes…The tyrant is also fond of making war in order that his subjects
may have something to do and be always in want of a leader (p.225-226).” Jowett, Benjamin.
Aristotle’s Politics.
“Hence tyrants are always fond of bad men, because they love to be flattered, but no man who
has the spirit of a freeman in him will demean himself by flattery; good men love others, but they
do not flatter anybody. Moreover the bad are useful for bad purposes; ‘nail knocks out nail,’ as
the proverb says. It is characteristic of a tyrant to dislike everyone who has dignity or
independence; he wants to be alone in his glory…Another mark of a tyrant is that he likes
foreigners better than citizens, and lives with them and invites them to his table; for the one are
armies, but the others enter into no rivalry with him (p. 227).” Jowett, Benjamin. Aristotle’s
Politics.
“Such are the notes of the tyrant and the arts by which he preserves his power; there is no
wickedness to great for him. All that we have said may be summed up under three heads, which
answer to the three aims of the tyrant. These are, (1) the humiliation of his subjects; he knows
that a meanspirited man will not conspire against anybody; (2) the creation (p. 227) of mistrust
among them; for a tyrant is not overthrown until men begin to have confidence in one another;
and this is the reason why tyrants are at war with the good; they are under the idea that their
power is endangered by them, not only because they will not be ruled despotically, but also
because they are loyal to one another, and to other men, and do not inform against one another or
against other men; (3) the tyrant desires that his subjects shall be incapable of action, for no one
attempts what is impossible, and they will not attempt to overthrow a tyranny, if they are
powerless. Under these threet heads the whole policy of a tyrant may be summed up, and to one
or other of them all his ideas may be referred; (1) he sows distrust among his subjects; (2) he
takes away their power; (3) he humbles them (p. 228).” Jowett, Benjamin. Aristotle’s Politics.
“Also he should appear to be particularly earnest in the service of the Gods; for if men think that
a ruler is religious and has a reverence for the Gods, they are less afraid of suffering injustice at
his hands, and they are less disposed to conspire against him because they believe to have the
very Gods fighting on his side (p. 230).” Jowett, Benjamin. Aristotle’s Politics. [Today, also,
such pretense, in the minds of those whose minds are dim to the art of deception, believe people
who are religious to be ‘good men’ or good people. Those who blabber amount about how
Christian they are or much of an ardent follow of Islam…the holy blabbers,well, they are
typically the worst liars and more fraudulent people. Gullible people often put aside their better
judgment when they hear someone say they are religious, wear religious paraphanalia]
“Government,” he [Herbert Spencer] says, “is the offspring of evil, bearing about it the marks of
its parentage (p. 36).” Leacock, Stephen. The Elements of Political Science.
“Similarly a despot might grant to one of his underlings the “right” of life and death over the
people of a subjugated province. It will follow that in the organization of the state the individual
can have no “rights” against the state itself. For this, since it is the state which creates a legal
right, would involved a contradiction in terms (p. 55).” Leacock, Stephen. The Elements of
Political Science.
“No individual citizen has any (legal) “rights” which the sovereign power of Parliament could
not annul; no local body or colony has any powers of self-government which an act of
Parliament could not abolish (p. 57).” Leacock, Stephen. The Elements of Political Science.
“Lastly, France was actually recruiting black, brown, and yellow hordes for use on European
battle-fields; while Italy, by her buccaneering raid on Tripoli, outraged Islam’s sense of justice
and strained its patience to the breaking-point (204).”
Rising Tide of Color. Lothrop Stoddard
“The native American has always found and finds now in the black men willing followers who
ask only to obey and to further the ideals and wishes of master race, without trying to inject into
the body politic their own views, whether racial, religious or social. Negroes are never socialists
or labor unionists and as long as the dominant imposes its will on the servient [sic] race and as
long as they remain in the same relation to the whites as in the past, the Negroes will be a
valuable element in the community but once raised to social equality their influence will be
destructive to themselves and to the whites. If the purity of the two races is to be maintained they
cannot continue to live side by side and this is a problem from which there can be no escape (8788).” Passing of the Great Race. Madison Grant
“Any Negro who shows ability or talent for leadership in diplomatically separated from the black
group and his loyalty to the government and to the ruling whites assured by a political or other
honor proportional to his danger as a disgruntled agitator among the blacks. Such political honor
or the accumulation of a considerable amount of property will allow him entrance to “colored”
society and, if the honor or the fortune be sufficient, assure him a mulatto wife. The larger the
fortune, the whiter the wife. In this way the black race is separated from its natural leaders and
remains a black and happy, a contented and helpless mass. The mulatto, dependent upon the
white aristocracy for his political position and business opportunities and flattered by a racial
designation that separates him from the peasantry and implies his superiority to it (333)
maintains that obsequious and respectful attitude of mind toward his superiors which is a
universal characteristic of the dependent and the unfree. Harmony between the races is
maintained at the price of a helpless peasantry and an intellectually prostituted middle-class
group (333-334).” Mulatto in the United States. Edward Byron Reuter
“One of the most persistent laments among Negroes in the United States is that the race has no
great leader. There is a sort of vague expectation that someday he will arise. But Negroes will
not have a “great leader” because, in reality, they do not want him. The destiny of Negroes is
cultural and biological integration and fusion with the larger American society…Therefore, a
great leader, whose function must be to bring about solidarity among Negroes, will facilitate the
purpose of the opposition…At present, however, the most that the race can hope for is many
small torchbearers showing the way upon innumerable fronts. These leaders cannot give Negroes
a “fighting” cause. None can be a Moses, George Washington, or Toussaint L’Ouverture; he
cannot even be a Mohandas Gandhi—a Lenin will have to be a white man. The task of leaders of
the race is far more delicate. They must be specialists in the art of antagonistic co-operation.
Their success rests finally in their ability to maintain peace and friendship with whites; yet they
must seem aggressive and uncompromising in their struggle for the rights of Negroes. They dare
not identify all whites as the enemy, for then they will themselves be driven together into a
hostile camp. This tentative nature of Negro solidarity presents a particularly baffling problem
for the Negro leader (p. 572).” Cox, Ph.D., Oliver Cromwell. Caste, Class, & Race: A Study in
Social Dynamics.
“He must be a champion of the cause of Negroes, yet not so aggressive as to incur the
consummate ill will of whites. He knows that he cannot be a leader of his people if he is
completely rejected by whites; hence no small part of his function is engaged in understanding
the subtleties of reaction to the manipulations of the whites of his community. No contemporary
Negro leader of major significance, then, can be totally void of at least a modicum of the spirit of
“Uncle Tom”; ingratiation, compromise, and appeasement must be his specialties. Hence, “a
great leader,” who might with one blow realize the racial dreams of Negroes, will never appear;
he is destined to remain a fantasy of Negroes (p. 573).” Cox, Ph.D., Oliver Cromwell. Caste,
Class, & Race: A Study in Social Dynamics.[negro leader, persuasion]
“In particular the negro “intellectuals,” who have powers that enable them to appropriate the
social heritage of their time, complain bitterly of the starving of personality which results when
they are debarred from the complete enjoyment of privileges necessary to their highest spiritual
development (p. 12).” Mecklin, Ph.D. John Moffatt. Democracy and Race Friction: A Study in
Social Ethics
“The whites have set up Booker Washington as in a former day they set up Frederick Douglass,
as the divinely appointed and anointed leader of his race, and regard as sacrilege all criticism and
even candid discussion on the part of those whom he has been sent to guide (p. 23).” Miller,
Kelly. Race Adjustment: Essays on the Negro in America