by Revilo P. Oliver (pictured)

THE APPALLING STORY told by Mr. Seelig in the foregoing pages is much more than a personal tragedy that must excite sympathy and pity in every human heart. It is a story that is terrible in the full sense of that word: it should strike terror into the heart of every American who hopes that his children will not regret having been born.

As America’s most eminent journalist suggests in his introduction to the present book, Mr. Seelig’s account should be verified in every particular by diligent and intrepid investigators. But such verification could only confirm what we all know — or would know, if we paid attention to the evidence that has been accumulating for decades.

Mr. Seelig’s narrative confronts us with two facts that cannot be denied, and to which it would be cowardly and disastrous to close our eyes. Those facts are, of course, the ever-increasing perversion of law and judicial process in our country and the epidemic sexual perversion that has brought us to the verge of moral imbecility.

The perversion of law — that is to say, the use of pseudo-legal processes to protect the guilty by destroying the witnesses to their guilt — is both common and notorious. It is so notorious that one can only wonder at the fatuous apathy of a public that does nothing about it because each individual believes that he personally can escape if he, like a rabbit, runs away and silently hides himself in the weeds. In New York City not long ago some forty persons watched from their windows for half an hour while a lone marauder attacked and murdered a woman in the street outside — watched and did nothing, did not even telephone the police, because each was “afraid to become involved.” There have been many incidents like that. The craven spectators belong to a form of life now prolific in the United States, but it requires no learning to see that over-sized rabbits, although able to stand on their hind legs, to jabber, and to vote, are a species that is biologically unfit to survive.

Oetje Rogg

The most notorious and ominous instance of the perversion of law occurred more than twenty years ago, and it has not yet excited the alarm and indignation that such outrages necessarily arouse in nations that are viable. The obscene and tragic farce called the “Sedition Trial” began in 1942 and ended only in 1947. It was an act of Soviet-style terrorism carried out to intimidate Americans. Thirty men and women from all over the country, most of whom had never even heard of one another and who had in common only outspoken criticism of the Communist Conspiracy, were hauled to Washington in hand-cuffs and leg-irons, imprisoned in cells kept dark so that they could not read, and subjected to the most fantastic trial for “conspiracy” ever conducted outside the Soviet Union. The actual trial, based on pretenses so transparent that they cannot have been intended to deceive any intelligent man, was staged in 1944 by the infamous E.E. Eicher, a protege of Felix Frankfurter and Chief Justice of the District Court of the District of Columbia, in open collusion with an incredible Assistant Attorney, Oetje J. Rogge, another protege of Frankfurter and a long-time admirer of the Bolsheviks, whose part in the persecution earned him the distinction of being the personal guest of Stalin in the Kremlin a few years later. The scoff-law judge, Eicher, repeatedly and flagrantly violated the Constitution of the United States, innumerable laws, and the elementary principles of equity and justice on which all laws are based. But the vicious creature that lawlessly presided over a federal court did not succeed in doing the job for which he had been appointed. He died while articles of impeachment for malfeasance in office were in preparation and before he could be brought to trial in the Senate. His sudden death, reportedly from natural causes, averted an investigation and exposure that our enemies in Washington were desperately eager to prevent. The absurd case — ludicrous but for the suffering and irreparable loss inflicted on the hapless defendants and even their attorneys — finally came before an honest judge in 1946 and was dismissed as a “travesty on justice.” But the criminal elements in what is called our “Justice Department,” in an effort to distress their intended victims as much as possible, persisted until the case was finally terminated by order of the Court of Appeals on the last day of July, 1947.[1]

A more recent incident, which to a considerable extent parallels Mr. Seelig’s experience, was the kidnapping of General Edwin A. Walker in Oxford, Mississippi, on October 1, 1962. That crime, although evidently planned with care by the gangsters, was not a complete success, and the main outlines of the story, at least, are now known to everyone. General Walker, a great American and one of our most distinguished military men, had, at great personal sacrifice and with categorical rejection of the bribes offered to him, resigned from the Army so that he could not be silenced by the traitors and international vermin who had taken over “our” Department of Defense. The first attempt to silence him thereafter appears to have been well planned; up to a certain point, everything functioned with the precision of clockwork. In Oxford, Mississippi, one of the professional liars employed by the Associated Press concocted a vicious libel which that “news” service distributed throughout the country. [2] Then goons, many of them recruited from penitentiaries and all holding appointments as U.S. Marshals, went into action under the supervision of one Nicholas Katzenbach, who was on the spot as personal representative of Robert (“Bobby Sox”) Kennedy, then Attorney General of the United States. General Walker’s automobile was illegally stopped on a public highway, and, without warrant or charge of any kind, he was taken before a U. S. Commissioner, who, after practicing shameless deceit on the General, assuring him that he would be released on bond, fixed the bond at the fantastic sum of one hundred thousand dollars. This was evidently a miscalculation, for a bond of twice that amount became available as soon as the General’s friends and relatives were notified, and, to avoid acceptance of that bond, it was necessary for the responsible official of “our” government to go into hiding and to use other dodges until the second stage of the kidnapping was carried out.

That was carried out with exemplary efficiency in less than three hours. In Washington, a person of Russian origins named Kantor, who calls himself Charles E. Smith and holds office as Chief Psychiatrist of the Federal Bureau of Prisons and was therefore another of Bobby Kennedy’s subordinates, dutifully decided that General Walker was probably insane. This man of science later testified that he was able to make this diagnosis at a distance of a thousand miles in a few minutes by simply reading the lies disseminated by the Associated Press. He may, however, have applied the definition devised by Dr. Brock Chisholm, the protégé of Alger Hiss and head of the so-called World Health Organization that was founded under Hiss’s patronage to lead the agitation for “mental health.” Dr. Chisholm officially holds that “mental health” depends on “eradication of the concept of right and wrong,” whence it follows, of course, that anyone who thinks there is a difference between good and evil is obviously insane. Armed with this opinion from “Dr. Smith,” one James V. Bennett, holding office as U.S. Director of Prisons, telegraphed orders to the Marshals in Oxford, who hustled General Walker aboard a plane which at once took off for an unknown destination. It was probably hoped that the destination could be kept secret until the General had been disposed of. It became known, however, that the kidnappers had transported their victim across three state lines [3] to the concentration camp in Springfield, Missouri, that is officially known as a Federal Medical Prison. Mr. Seelig, in a part of his story not included in the present book, says that even before the General’s arrival, word went around among the prisoners, of whom he was one, that the “mental health experts” in charge were gloating over the prospect of having a distinguished American to torture.

Major General Edwin A. Walker

General Walker was stripped of his clothing, thrown into a concrete dungeon, and had his food served to him on the floor — a nice detail which is, in itself, a sufficient index to the mentality of “mental health experts.” [4] The General, however, was too prominent. By midnight, the place where he was being held captive was known. His attorney, General Clyde J. Watts, flew to Springfield at once. Almost simultaneously, Americans all over the country, informed by telephone of what had happened, deluged the prison office with telegrams that indicated, in one way or another, that the prison would be held responsible for the General’s safety. It would have been impossible either to murder the General quietly or to destroy his mind by means of drugs or surgery without arousing national indignation. The Department of Justice made an attempt to hold him for ransom — the ransom demanded being a pledge that he would not tell the public what had happened. When this deal was rejected, the General was released without ransom on the sixth day after he was kidnapped. The plot thus ended in a fizzle, but Katzenbach was later rewarded for his part in it by being made head of the Department of Justice. [5]

There have been many other instances of lawless violence perpetrated by persons who hold office through election or appointment and believe that their status as employees of the American people entitles them to abduct or kill Americans. A case that closely parallels Mr. Seelig’s was that of Mr. Fletcher Bartholomew, who, while “on loan” from his employers (General Mills in Minneapolis) to Radio Free Europe, a crypto-Communist propaganda station secretly operated by “our” Central Intelligence Agency in Munich, Germany, noticed how many homosexual degenerates were on the staff of the radio station. Not knowing what rules in Washington, Mr. Bartholomew thought it his duty to report his observations to the Consul-General of the United States in Munich and to the home office of the Central Intelligence Agency. Accordingly, on July 28, 1956, he was lured into an Army hospital by an Army chaplain and there assaulted by thugs, including a creature who held a commission as Captain in the U.S. Army. Mr. Bartholomew was overpowered by his assailants, strapped to a bed, and reduced to unconsciousness with hypodermic injections. Bound and kept under drugs, he was flown to the United States for incarceration as a “mental patient” in a hospital in which he could have promptly died of a “heart attack.” The plan miscarried, however, because Mrs. Bartholomew refused to be tricked or intimidated, and, when an honorable employee in the office of Radio Free Europe disclosed what had been done to her husband, was able to obtain the support of persons of some influence in the United States. The victim was therefore released. Two years later, in November and December, 1958, the shocking story was made public in a series of radio broadcasts by Fulton Lewis, Jr.

A somewhat similar crime was committed by the Department of Agriculture when an honest attorney first came on evidence of the thefts being committed by little Billie Sol Estes. The attorney, N. Battle Hales, was lured to the office of the Secretary of Agriculture, where he was detained by an administrative assistant while a goon squad was sent to destroy his files. His secretary, Mary Kimbrough Jones, a well-bred lady of fifty-one, tried to protect Mr. Hales’ files and would have been a witness to their confiscation. The Federal gangsters accordingly kidnapped her and hustled her to a “mental health” prison for disposal. An influential and courageous Congressman learned of the crime and intervened in time. The lady was not killed, but her health was for a time broken by the brutality to which she was subjected before her release could be procured. [6]

Many victims of such crimes have had no one to help them. Governmental outrages have become commonplace, and the general public, apparently lost in stupor, seems not to care. When it was disclosed in the Congressional Record (May 4, 1964) that the Attorney General of the United States had tampered with a Grand Jury by sending cases of whiskey and prostitutes (including female Marshals) to the jurors’ rooms, everyone seemed to think that that was just normal. The recent disclosure that blackmailers employed by the Federal government are supplied at our expense with trucks that match those used by local telephone companies so that they can with greater ease violate Federal and State laws and tap the telephones of decent Americans whom the ruling Mafia wishes to harass (see Counterattack, January 28, 1966) — that disclosure, I predict, will stir scarcely a ripple of interest. If people remain indifferent while their scoff-law rulers weave a net of tyranny about them and their posterity, they cannot pretend to be morally superior to the African savages who sold their own children into slavery for a scrap of copper wire or a bit of red cloth.

No one thus far has dared openly to advocate criminal perversion of the law and ostensibly legal authority, and even the most zealous Socialists, if they cannot deny the facts, take refuge in equivocation and sophistry, pretending that each outrage was the result of a “mistake” or “misunderstanding.” Most of us can still recognize evil as evil, and will brook no argument that it is “social good.”

The other perversion with which we are confronted by Mr. Seelig’s tragic story is not so easily understood. Homosexuality is a disgusting and, in some of its aspects, recondite subject, and even the most concise summary of what is known about it would reach the dimensions of a treatise and require the use of languages other than English. There are, furthermore, many reasons why even the most conservative Americans may not recognize it as an evil or may underestimate it.

The American Republic was founded to maximize personal liberty by shackling government, which, as Washington said, is like fire: it is necessary for civilized life, but is devastating whenever it is not kept strictly confined and under control. Our tradition of freedom is still so strong that many American conservatives — especially those who call themselves “libertarians” — believe that police powers should not be used against sexual perverts or persons addicted to the use of opium, cocaine and other hallucinatory drugs. This view, of course, is predicated on the assumption that such vices harm only the individuals who voluntarily practice them — an assumption that is negated by both human history and the social realities of the present.

Men of our race naturally view with contempt the creatures who, though anatomically male, find a perverse and incomprehensible satisfaction in sexual relations with one another. And it is only natural to regard what we despise as ineffectual and therefore harmless, except, perhaps, to weaklings. This instinctive attitude is confirmed by the reasoned arguments of what is now called “Social Darwinism,” a term that is inappropriate since it suggests that the doctrine is of recent origin. Ever since men have reflected on the nature of civilized society, it has been obvious that the human race produces inferior beings that are, culturally and socially, waste products, so that the health of a high civilization, like that of a large city, depends on the provision of an adequate sewage system. That is something for which every rational political theory has had to make provision, not only in the West, but in other civilizations. [7] It can be argued, therefore, that society should not attempt to check such vices as homosexuality and addiction to narcotics, since the more freely persons with such tendencies are allowed to indulge them, the less likely they are to leave offspring. In this way, it is hoped, society will eventually be improved by elimination of the unfit. What this theory overlooks, apart from the practical difficulties that we need not enumerate, is that morality is not simply hereditary. Although there are born criminals, it is very unlikely that there are persons who are born with such innate qualities that they cannot be made criminals during their formative years by education, degrading associations, and insidious solicitation. Even if we grant that the faculty is hereditary, we must number moral integrity, like the ability to see or life itself, among the things that man can easily destroy, but never create.

Christianity, aside from a few bizarre but strangely recurrent heresies, has always used Sodom and Gomorrah as examples of what is justly abominated by both God and man. But it is the tragedy of our time that Christianity no longer provides the social cohesion that made our modern world possible. For a considerable part of our population, including a very influential part of it, the faith of our fathers has become a primitive myth, explicitly or tacitly rejected by those who would think in scientific or practical terms. More important than the number of agnostics and atheists, however, is the fact that the Christian churches have been invaded, and many have been captured, by so-called “modernists,” who in their pulpits cynically exploit what they privately regard as superstition, and, by peddling the sentimental hokum called “the social gospel,” pervert and destroy the very foundations of the Christianity in whose name they profess to speak. They are the worthy successors of the priests of Cybele that Apuleius described in the eighth book of his Metamorphoses, and it is not remarkable that they, instead of expounding the Christian doctrine concerning homosexuality, use their pulpits to defend or even commend a vice of which some, at least, have a more than theoretical knowledge.

Sexual desire, although not so strong a force as hunger, greed, or vanity, is undoubtedly a biological force in every human being, and this fact has made it throughout history a favorite means of manipulating and exploiting men and women. It has been used for that purposes by witch-doctors and shamans of every age, including our own. When Sigmund Freud crawled from the sewers of Vienna with the discovery that persons not so degenerate as he were “sick” and needed to be cured by sexual magic, he founded an extremely profitable racket. In an age of waning religion, the notion that sex is virtually the whole of human life and the only source of happiness fascinated the credulous; and, to an extent seldom equaled in the most orgiastic cults of barbarism, the indulgence of the sexual appetite has become the religion of our contemporaries. The cult has, of course, been propagated enthusiastically by the disciples of John Dewey, who have made the public schools an instrument for promoting “democracy” by injecting into the tender minds of children the belief that life is merely a series of animal satisfactions. As a result, our nation is now suffering from an erotic monomania that ominously resembles the sexual frenzy that swept over France immediately before the insane blood-bath that is euphemistically called the French Revolution. In this context, homosexuality seems to be but one aspect of a much larger problem — an aspect which, since it is particularly repulsive, it is easy to ignore.

Finally, many Americans still regard homosexuality as a moral and social problem that has little relation to politics and to our most immediate and terrible danger, the Bolshevik takeover which, despite all the protests and activity of belatedly awakened Americans in recent years, seems to be progressing with the methodical velocity of an irresistible Juggernaut. In fact, very few saw a connection between the two evils before the publication of R.G. Waldeck’s concise and excellent article, ”Homosexual International,” in Human Events, September 29, 1960. It was only then that people began to notice that, in the Western world, the lairs of treason are invariably also the nesting-grounds of degenerates.

Perverts are disgusting, but you cannot afford to ignore them. Mr. Seelig’s story will give you some indication of the power that those furtive and foul creatures have attained over you — and there are a thousand pieces of evidence to confirm that estimate.

The cause of the dark perversion of human instincts is obscure. Homosexuality is found among many tribes of savages, but that fact has little relevance here. Civilization is by definition the process whereby human beings repress and prevent the conduct and behavior that is characteristic of savages.

The most common explanation of homosexuality in societies that can be called civilized is that advanced by the great traveler and ethnological observer, Sir Richard Burton, in the commentary appended to his famous translation of the Thousand and One Nights. For Sir Richard, the prime cause is geographic and racial. He speaks of the Sotadic Zone, that is to say, the Near East, which is dominated by the Semitic and Hamitic peoples among whom the vice is inveterate and taken for granted, together with the adjacent areas of the Mediterranean basin that those peoples occupy or have penetrated and influenced. It is true that among those inhabitants of the Sotadic Zone, homosexuality is regarded as normal, and Sir Richard believed that that was the consequence of certain anatomical peculiarities that are generally found in males and females of those races. Other observers, especially those who, during the French occupation, observed behavior in the Jewish and Moslem quarters of cities in North Africa, believe that anatomical differences are much less important than the prevalent custom of subjecting infants to sexual abuse by adults and of sanctioning among children in their earliest years an animal-like and perverse sexuality of which most Americans would believe children of three to ten years physiologically incapable. For some of the highly unpleasant details, see The Cradle of Erotica by Allen Edwardes and R.E.L. Masters (New York, Julian Press, 1963).

Whatever the reason, homosexuality is normal in the Sotadic Zone. [8] That merely means that we shall have to restrict our inquiry to Western man, who seems naturally to regard the perversion with instinctive abhorrence.

That does not mean that the problem can be reduced to simple racial terms. For one thing, we know virtually nothing about our ancestors in the stages of savagery and barbarism through which we assume that they must have passed. The nearest we can come to them, perhaps, is by considering the Germanic tribes who lived on the borders of the Roman Empire, which they later overran and sacked, and then occupied. Homosexuality was not unknown among those tribes, but they disapproved of it, and they signified their disapproval by simply hanging perverts to the nearest tree or, preferably, sinking them in mud under a weight of stones, if a swamp was conveniently available. In recent years, archaeologists have recovered quite a number of such bodies from peat bogs in which they were preserved. Those tribes were, of course, pagans, and I insist on that detail because the persons who distort history to poison our culture will assure you that disapproval of homosexuality is something peculiar to Christianity.

Among the Greeks, the extraordinarily gifted people who were the real creators of our civilization, homosexuality appears to have been an alien corruption. It was unknown in the Homeric epics, although in later times perverts, who are incapable of understanding masculine friendship and always seek any pretext to justify themselves, tried to read homosexual implications into the comradeship of Achilles and Patroclus. The aetiological myths all suggest a foreign origin: one states that the vice was invented by Laius in Thebes (where there was a pre-Greek Semitic element), and another claims that it originated in Crete (where the Mycenean Greeks ruled a native population of undetermined ethnic origin) — and we know that centuries later, as Aristotle (Pol., II, 10, 9 = 1271a) remarked with astonishment, on that island homosexuality was permitted by law, perhaps as a means of avoiding overpopulation.

At Athens, homosexuality appears to have been rare before the demoralizing Peloponnesian War, and certainly did not receive any kind of general sanction until long thereafter. It was forbidden by one of Solon’s laws, which was still enforced as late as 346 B.C., when one of the most prominent Athenian politicians, Timarchus, was prosecuted under that law and was probably convicted, although one account says that he committed suicide before the jury brought in its verdict. Plato has himself been suspected, not without reason, of homosexuality, but it is noteworthy that when he elaborated a model constitution for a city-state, he absolutely forbade (Leg., VIII, 8 = 841d) sexual relations between males.

At Sparta, where, we are told, paederasty flourished early, it was forbidden, under the same penalty as incest, by a law attributed to Lycurgus that was still in force in the time of Xenophon (De rep. Lac., 2, 13). It would be tedious to make the rounds of the other Greek states, or to try to determine at what time and under what influences the old legislation and the attitudes that seem to have been natively Greek were made obsolete by toleration and corruption. We may all suspect that first the tolerance and finally the vogue of homosexuality had much to do with the decline of the Greek world, but we cannot prove that, for we cannot show what Greek history, turbulent with internecine, and, in the end, suicidal wars, would have been without that factor. [9]

The Romans, to whom we owe more than to the Greeks, felt Western man’s natural abhorrence of homosexuality. Although degenerates were doubtless born from time to time, the contempt universally felt for perverts probably sufficed to restrain their tendencies, and when it did not, the stern ethos of the nation made short work of them. As late as 125 B.C., when the old paternal authority had been greatly restricted, a Roman of the old school, Q. Fabius Maximus Servilianus, who had held the highest offices in the Roman Republic, peremptorily put his own son to death for homosexuality. Such was the unflinching moral code that made the Romans great. It was only after Rome had become a dominant power in the world by decisively defeating the Carthaginians (202 B.C.), the Macedonians (197), and the Seleucid Empire (188), and had suffered a great influx of aliens, including Orientals, that we see the beginning of moral decay.

In 186 B.C., just two years after the Roman legions had shattered the power of the richest and most populous empire of the Hellenistic Age, the Roman Senate, by a still extant decree, tried to suppress the Bacchanalian rites of a cult that, originating in Asia Minor, had reached Rome by way of Etruria, and used the traditional “freedom of worship” as a cover for nocturnal orgies of promiscuity and perversion. Investigation disclosed that the alien “religion” was really a secret conspiracy that worked systematically to seduce and corrupt adolescent boys and girls, and practiced, in addition to sexual profligacy, such associated arts as the forging of wills and murder by poison. And, significantly, a majority of the physiologically male members of the Bacchanalian conspiracy were homosexuals, although the cult made available to them a copious supply of young and libidinous women ready and eager for anything. (For a full account, see Livy, XXXIX, 8-19). All that sounds quite modern, doesn’t it?

In 186 B.C., therefore, we have the first clear instance in recorded history of a clandestine conspiracy engaged in a revolt against civilization by using sex to entice adolescents into a life of depravity and crime — evidently for the sheer pleasure of dragging human beings down to the moral nihilism in which the conspirators find a strange satisfaction. And homosexuality was a major part of a phenomenon that was to be repeated over and over again in the subsequent history of Western civilization.

In 186 B.C., intelligent Romans had to face a truth that few Americans are willing to face today: perverts are formidable, not because they practice a disgusting vice among themselves, but because they are driven by a demonic urge to corrupt and defile all mankind, to propagate not only perversion but every form of crime. From 186 B.C. to 1966 A.D. the evidence constantly indicates that for many degenerates the physical pleasure that they derive from their perversion is quite secondary to the pleasure they derive from ensnaring and degrading children and adolescents who would otherwise become decent men and women.

At Rome, the repression of the Bacchanalians checked the infection for a time, but not permanently. In 149 B.C. or thereabouts the Romans enacted the Lex Scantina de stupro cum masculo, which provided a heavy penalty for perversion. As everyone knows, such laws cannot prevent; they can only discourage, and their most important force is expression of the standards of the society that enacts them. Rome, however, was suffering from creeping moral paralysis that the Senate and conservative magistrates to the very end of the Republic sought to combat by such measures as the expulsion of subversive aliens (which was only temporary, since they, aided by wealth and influence, began to filter back almost at once) and measures to limit the spread of Oriental cults.

The Lex Scantina remained on the books; there were prosecutions under it as late as the Second Century after Christ and perhaps later. But the feeling that had inspired it was gradually eroded, and although homosexuality was never officially legalized, as has now been done in the State of Illinois and will probably be done in our entire nation as soon as Earl Warren gets around to it, the law became virtually a dead letter. Before the end of the Republic, Roman writers who wanted to be thought “intellectual” and “sophisticated,” imitating the literary fashions of Alexandria, which was the New York of the ancient world, did not hesitate to confess — perhaps falsely in some cases — that they were paederasts. And, paralleling what happens in the United States today, one of Cicero’s correspondents thought it a delightful joke when a homosexual pervert was prosecuted under the Lex Scantina before a presiding judge who was himself a pervert. Such a society is fit only for despotism, and despotism was, of course what the Romans got — a despotism under which the old Roman families quickly died out and were replaced by the descendants of their slaves.

We may take our leave of the Romans by reminding ourselves that the Emperor Nero, after murdering his mother in 59 A.D. and his first wife soon thereafter, officially and with all legal and religious ceremony married one of his slave boys, whom he had castrated for the purpose, and also posed himself as a timid and blushing bride when he was, with equal solemnity, married to a lusty slave whom he had emancipated to have as husband. It is not quite certain whether these auspicious nuptials were solemnized before or after he kicked his second wife to death, but it is clear that Nero was as free of prejudices as progressive educators are trying to make our children. The imperial animal was finally eliminated by the Army, but the really significant thing is that his youthful zest, exhibited in these and a hundred other exploits of equal charm, made him a symbol of “democracy,” and he was so beloved by a large part of the populace that for decades after his death the Empire was disturbed by imposters who, claiming to be Nero, had no difficulty in attracting a large and enthusiastic following and flourished until regular troops were sent to put them down. A Great Society always knows its own.

Nero: a degenerate pervert, even by modern standards

I cannot pretend to trace the history of homosexuality in the Western world. Before the inevitable fall of the Roman Empire, Christianity, which explicitly identifies homosexuality as an offense against God, became the established religion, and when the worm-eaten fabric of the Empire collapsed, its territory in Western Europe was occupied by fresh and vigorous peoples, and since many of them were Germanic they brought with them an instinctive repugnance toward perversion that re-enforced the teachings of the Church. As a generalization, therefore, we may say that in the Western world, from the fall of the Roman Empire to the time of the French Revolution, homosexuality was forbidden and punished by very stringent laws, both ecclesiastical and civil. And those laws were enforced, even against persons of high rank. In England, for example, Lord Audley, Earl of Castlehaven, was convicted of sodomy and executed in 1631. And as late as 1810, at least, a commissioned officer in the British Army and an enlisted man were executed for the same offense. That may have been the last time the death penalty was enforced. In the same year, the persons caught by the police in a raid on a homosexual brothel in London were merely sentenced to the pillory, but that was not exactly light punishment since an indignant populace saw to it that they returned to prison looking more like heaps of garbage than human beings.

Of course, during the fourteen centuries covered by our generalization the laws and the social standards they represented were frequently violated. That is merely what we should expect, since violations could normally be detected only when the violators themselves advertised their offenses. But there were many corrupting influences at work. It would take pages to list them, but it should be noted that some of the most important were anti-Christian movements disguised as Christian heresies or as occult “science.” As everyone knows, a common English term for sodomists is bugger, which is derived from the French bougre, which in turn comes from a slurred pronunciation of Bulgar. The reference is to a sect of heretics, more properly called Bogomils, who held Manichaean doctrines, a few of which, such as denial of the divine birth of Christ and insistence on social and racial equality, are now held by leaders of the National Council of Churches. The Bogomils, who were notorious buggers, were transported from Asia Minor to Bulgaria by the Byzantine Empire, and from their new home they sent streams of zealous missionaries both eastward into what is now Russia and westward into Europe, where, from the Tenth to the Fourteenth Centuries, they planted various local heresies, notably the Patareni in northern Italy and the Albigenses in southern France. One need not believe that all members of the latter sects adopted the sexual practices of the evangelists, but the Bogomil missionaries must have exerted a very considerable influence. Again, along the shifting boundaries of Europe and especially during the Crusades Europeans came into contact with the Semitic peoples among whom homosexuality is accepted as normal, and one result was that the powerful order of Knights Templar, who held strongholds and rich fiefs throughout Europe until they were suppressed, were not only noted as homosexuals but evidently made sexual perversion a part of their ritual. [10] Throughout the Middle Ages and even in the Renaissance systems of magic, including necromancy and most of alchemy, derived from the Kabbalah, were peddled throughout Europe, partly by enthusiasts who were victims of their own (often drug-induced) hallucinations, but principally, we may be sure, by “intellectuals” who had found a convenient means of exploiting the credulity of wealthy suckers. From such occultism it was an easy and natural progress to witchcraft and Satanism, and, as two examples — the infamous Gilles de Rais, Marechal de France in the Fifteenth Century, and the notorious Aleister Crowley in the Twentieth [11] — will suffice to remind us, the worship of evil has always included the practice of homosexuality as an emphatic repudiation of the prejudices that prevent normal men from joyously wallowing in every kind of filthy self-debasement and disgusting crime.

There were other influences, less spectacular but equally insidious. No one can deny that some perverts have a high degree of intellectual ability, including literary talent — one could, for example, compile a very large anthology of well-written poems by homosexuals from Straton of Sardis (Second Century) to Walt Whitman, Oscar Wilde, and Paul Verlaine; and many of our contemporaries attribute high literary merit to the novels of Andre Gide, who is the foremost apologist for homosexuality in our time, and to the morbid maunderings of Marcel Proust, who slightly disguised his activities by giving his boyfriends feminine names. I can here mention only two men of letters of the Fifteenth Century in Italy, where, perhaps because the population was so heterogeneous, the perversion seems to have been especially common. Antonio Beccadelli, better known as Panormita, in the collection of obscene poems entitled Hermaphroditus, describes paederasty in terms which suggest that it was, like addiction to opium or hashish, a pleasurable habit that could not be broken — but it is uncertain whether he was writing a description or propaganda. More significant are the confessions of Pacificus Maximus in his Hecatelegium: as a child he was sent to a grammar school in which the headmaster, a secret but enthusiastic paederast, insisted on freeing all his pupils from their inhibitions so that he could have fun with them. In the Fifteenth Century, parents were evidently as negligent or as awed by educational experts as they are today, and I regret to report that the progressive headmaster was not hanged. In fact, he seems to have flourished. And there were many like him.

Perhaps the most important factor of all was one that the new science of genetics has only partly explained: biological degeneration. Here is an example. Louis XIV of France, although he brought on France such evils as highly centralized government and military defeats, was undoubtedly a man. He had, however, a brother, who was almost certainly legitimate, Philippe, Duc d’Orleans, who always wore women’s underclothing and was only with difficulty restrained from appearing at court in skirts. This engaging creature was, as protocol required, married to an English princess, but became furiously jealous of his legal wife because he thought her attractive to men whom he wanted to love him. So important a personage as the King’s brother naturally had no lack of ambitious courtiers willing to use him as a mistress, and we are not astonished to find him — or, to be more precise, it — engaged in scabrous political intrigues and suspected of having instigated several secret assassinations. Louis disliked Philippe, but he was not enough of a Roman to purge his own family, nor was he enough of a Christian to feel effective concern at harm done to others. The royal pervert was like an open sore on the body of France when that nation was dominant in Europe. No one can estimate how much harm was done by the conspicuous creature, not merely in spreading perversion, but in exciting every kind of demoralization, including contempt for the whole society and even the religion that permitted so despicable a being to hold rank next to the very highest and to receive honor and flattery, however hypocritical.

We must always bear in mind the fact that homosexuality is commonly associated with perversion of all the faculties and instincts normal to Western men. One example of many is Enrique el Impotente, who was King of Castile from 1454 to 1474. It is significant, I think, that this pathological specimen, who admitted that he could not stand women and had his queen impregnated by an obliging courtier, had an olfactory sense such that he considered the odor of burning leather the most delicious smell in the whole world, with the possible exception of the aroma emanating from the skull of a long-dead horse. It is probably not a coincidence that he had a tender heart for criminals, preventing the execution of murderers and other malefactors whenever he learned of their crimes in time to pardon them, and recruiting those who had distinguished themselves by the number or the sadistic ferocity of their murders into his own bodyguard, which was otherwise composed of imported Moslems. Like the modern “Liberal,” however, Enrique had a heart that was tender only for criminals and felt no compassion for decent people. When Enrique “farmed out” the extremely lucrative privilege of apportioning and collecting taxes (for a percentage) to a wealthy usurer, Rabbi Josef of Segovia, and one of the latter’s colleagues, he authorized those remarkable officials to put to death without even a hearing any citizen who was remiss in paying whatever they chose to demand as taxes. Enrique was also, of course, a pacifist, although he was cunning enough to reach a secret understanding with Spain’s enemies and then declare a fake war as a pretext for extorting more taxes from his suffering people. Enrique, who was also an expert at inflating currency and debasing the coinage by adulterating the silver, had many other progressive ideas. He undoubtedly knew what he was doing when he placed his twelve-year-old half-brother, whom he later poisoned, under a tutor who was a notorious pervert and who is said to have been successful in that branch of education, although there is some doubt and the boy had manhood enough to defend his sister, Isabella, a few years later when Enrique tried to make her promiscuous at the age of fourteen. Whatever hereditary taints account for Enrique, they evidently did not reach his half-sister, who eventually succeeded him on the throne and through whose courage and ability the Kingdom of Castile became the Kingdom of Spain.

The foregoing comments are not a history of perversion, nor are they intended to show (what it would be obviously impossible to prove) that all homosexuals are inhuman monsters. But for at least twenty-two centuries in the Western world, homosexuality has consistently been a factor in repudiation of all morality and hence of civilization itself, which is obviously impossible without a general and instinctively accepted moral code. It is not a question of individuals who indulge in private practices that we consider loathsome and that are, in Christian terms, offenses against the Creator. What we must consider is a species that derives joy from the corruption of our children to its own level and seems driven by an urge to destroy us. As the author of the article in Human Events that I cited above concisely puts it, the members of the Homosexual International “constitute a worldwide conspiracy against society.” And that conspiracy is in our time a subsidiary or ally of the International Communist Conspiracy, not because homosexuals are subject to blackmail, as charitable people are inclined to suppose, but because their instincts lead them to the same frenzied hatred of Western civilization.

That — I repeat — is not to say that all homosexuals are sadists. Of the literary men whom I mentioned above, Wilde seems to have had no criminal tendencies; Verlaine, it is true, tried to kill his lover, Rimbaud (who had participated in the Communist outbreak in Paris in 1870), but he probably had good reason; Gide eventually became “disillusioned” with the Communists and even criticized his former pals; and Proust was virtually a hermit.

It is entirely possible, even probable, that there are more than a few secret homosexuals who have no desire or impulse to destroy mankind, and we should all explicitly recognize that probability. Furthermore, it would be wrong to claim that the more violent homosexuals are all Communists. One thinks, for example, of two wealthy and brilliant undergraduates in the University of Chicago named Loeb and Leopold, who are still remembered because in Chicago in the 1920’s they kidnapped and killed a young boy of their own race and social circle just for the perverted fun of killing him. One thinks also of their contemporary, Fritz Haarman, another distinguished homosexual who attracted some attention in Germany when it was discovered that for many years he had been disposing of his boyfriends, as soon as he became tired of them, by tearing their throats open with his teeth and then grinding them up for sausage, which he sold in a delicatessen. There is no indication that Loeb, Leopold, or Haarmann were affiliated with the Communist Conspiracy, although they certainly had the right instincts for leadership in the international revolution.

We must all face the highly unpleasant fact that homosexuality is usually associated (either as cause or effect — it would be hard to say which) with sadism, [12] and that sadism in turn, when it does not find an outlet in acts of brutal violence, inspires the passion for “equality” and “social justice” that masquerades as “idealism” and is accepted as such by unsuspecting persons who do not see that the only purpose of the “idealists” is to incite the violence and brutality that will give them a vicarious delight even if they have no opportunity to participate in it personally. [13] The very word sadism, by which we designate the lust to inflict pain and degradation on others, is derived from the name of an infamous pervert, the “Marquis” de Sade, author of what are probably the vilest books ever written, who was precisely what we should expect: a great apostle of the doctrine that all men are born equal (“La nature nous a fait naitre tous egaux”), a vociferous advocate of what his successors call “economic democracy,” and a close associate and collaborator of Marat, Robespierre, and other blood-thirsty leaders of the French Revolution. De Sade’s career is merely typical: he was twice condemned to death for atrocious crimes of the kind to which he has given his name, but the sentences, unfortunately, were not carried out; he was in prison in 1790, when he was released by fellow idealists to participate in the “struggle for human rights,” and, in addition to orating about egalite and fraternite, he personally had lots of fun for thirteen years until Napoleon came to power and sent him back to prison. Also typical of the born agitator is the undergraduate at the University of Chicago who in his diary deplored his “inability to control society” and to “run the world.” He determined to make reprisals for the social injustice of which he was thus a victim, commenting “Since I have devoted more time to psychology, it should be easy. . . .I shall attack human nature to my fullest extent.” [14] He could have had a brilliant career as an “intellectual” undermining civilized society in the name of “brotherhood” and “the underprivileged,” but the pervert was so impatient that he committed three murders and was eventually caught.

Homosexuality is only one of several factors in the decline of the West, but it is an important one. As is well known — at least since the publication of Anatoli Granovsky’s I Was an N.K.V.D. Agent (New York, Devin-Adair, 1962) — the Communist Conspiracy maintains in Russia two training schools for sexual athletes. The graduates of one college are heterosexual experts and specialize in the capture and manipulation of promiscuous females who, through wealth or marriage, hold positions of political power or influence in Western Europe or the United States. The graduates of the other school, which may be the more important, are perverts trained to attract perverts. The agents thus trained are, of course, a part of the elaborate mechanism by which the Bolsheviks now control and paralyze civilized nations. But the Conspiracy is thus exploiting a condition that it has helped create. It is undoubtedly true that the international vermin have been working for centuries, with the secrecy and patience of termites, to destroy Western civilization by eating away all its beams and rafters — by debauching and defiling every part of our culture from art and music to science and philosophy; and they have worked above all to destroy morality, the foundation on which all civilization must rest. That much is certain. The only question is how much of our present plight is the result of the termites’ work and thus reparable, if we still have the will and strength to act in time, and how much is the result of natural rot, through biological deterioration or human unwillingness to bear for long the burden of high civilization, and therefore inevitable. And that is a question that I see no means of answering with precision and certainty. [15]

Confronted, as we are, by cunning, insidious, and implacable enemies in our midst, we dare not disregard the ever increasing prevalence of homosexuality in our society. As R.G. Waldeck summarized it in Human Events, “the (homosexual) conspiracy has spread all over the globe; has penetrated all classes; operates in armies and in prisons; has infiltrated into the press, the movies, and the cabinets; and it all but dominates the arts, literature, theater, music and TV.”

So long as the degenerates were furtive and discreet, the American public had no conception of their number and power.

Sumner Welles

To be sure, ever since Franklin Roosevelt led his great horde of traitors and degenerates into our capital, everyone who knew anything about the operations of Washington knew that perverts held important posts, and after the Acting Secretary of State, Sumner Welles, was beaten by one of his Negro “husbands” in a fit of jealousy, people began to suspect that there was more than wit to the Washingtonian humor [16] that took it for granted that “our” State Department was dominated by perverts. But even so, Americans, with their habitual optimism, encouraged by the silence of the newspapers and magazines, liked to believe that the infection was more or less confined to that one department of government or, at least, was not very widespread. And, of course, ever since the establishment of Roosevelt’s conception of the Presidency as an office to be used to impose a totalitarian dictatorship on the American boobs and to beat them into slavery to “world government,” the great and illegal powers of that office have been used to protect perverts. In 1950, for example, an investigating committee under the chairmanship of Senator Hoey (see Senate Document 241, Eighty-first Congress) ascertained that there were at least seven thousand perverts in positions of importance in all agencies and departments of the Federal government (including, nota bene, the Department of Justice), but the testimony was suppressed by an Executive Order from the White House, in open and flagrant violation of the Constitution, and the Senate of the United States, a once august body, supinely submitted to that usurpation.

The general public had little comprehension of such matters until the perverts, with arrogant confidence that they — or, to be more precise, their Bolshevik masters and protectors — already had the Western world by the throat, began to advertise themselves and to claim openly their “civil rights” as a “minority group” comparable to Jews and Negroes. This concerted crawling out from the woodwork seems to have begun in 1951 with the establishment of the “World Federation for the Rights of Man” and the publication in West (yes!) Germany of a magazine for perverts, Die Insil. (By this time, of course, every Western country, including the United States, has a number of periodicals published in its own language and specifically addressed to perverts.) Even so, most Americans were astonished, or even shocked, when the President of the Washington chapter of a league of “male” perverts, the Mattachine Society, [17] under oath before a Congressional Committee, testified that there were a quarter of a million homosexuals in Washington, and that at least two hundred thousand and probably more were employed in the Federal government. There was, perhaps, some slight additional shock at the discovery that the Mattachines’ head was seconded by Professor M.H. Freedman of the Law School of George Washington University. (Alas, poor George! He was not a “fellow of infinite jest,” and I fear that his gorge would rise, if he knew that Freedmans were capering under his name.) Prof. Freedman, a choice fruit from the hothouse of Harvard University, refused to state under oath whether or not he was a Mattachine, but appeared on behalf of the hoary old American Civil Liberties Union to argue that associated perverts have a right to pose as a “charitable” organization and solicit contributions from the public to disseminate propaganda for perversion. It was that impudent solicitation in the District of Columbia that brought the matter before the Congressional Committee of which the Honorable John Dowdy of Texas was chairman, and so led to the published hearings on House Resolution 5990 in August, 1963, and January, 1964. Congressman Dowdy is a Democrat, but I need not add that the Democratic Administration in Washington used every resource of the United States Treasury to prevent his re-election in November, 1964.

The perverts became even bolder when, on May 29, June 26, and July 31, 1965, they threw a line of pickets around the White House, the Pentagon, and the Civil Service Commission to “protest” against “discrimination.” Most of the pickets, including clergymen, [18] wore trousers; a few wore skirts. There was no medical examination to determine to what sex, if any, they belonged. Their banners claimed that — despite the discreaminashion of which they complained — there were a quarter of a million of them ensconced in the Federal government’s bureaucracy, another quarter of a million snugged down in the Armed Services, and a total of 15,000,000 of them in the United States, all, presumably, ready to vote for their heart’s desire. The first figure is probably correct; the second probably counts former members of the Armed Services, including the many direct commissions directly ordered by Franklin and Eleanor Roosevelt; and the third is undoubtedly an exaggeration for purposes of political blackmail, since the organized perverts, who have long maintained secret slush funds to elect secret perverts to high political office, especially in California, came partly into the open in 1965 with the establishment of a “Society for Individual Rights” (more commonly designated as SIR — fawncy that!) for the avowed purpose of establishing “a homosexual voting bloc as a political factor to be reckoned with.”

“Fifteen million” is certainly an exaggeration, but there seems to be no way of determining how gross an exaggeration it is. [19] If, for example, we deducted ninety percent for enthusiasm and political purposes, would the figure of 1,500,000 be too high or too low? Perhaps the latter, but one can only guess. We certainly must not underestimate the efficiency of the perverts in their “missionary activities.” [20] Many of them carry on such activities compulsively, and many of them in comparatively high positions take risks that no sane man would take — and do so for no conceivable reason other than an urge to make converts. When, for example, the rector of the wealthiest church in a large town was finally arrested because, after repeated warnings, he persisted in hanging around the gates of an Air Force training school to accost young recruits and offer them homosexual fun, we cannot suppose that His Reverence was just lonely. He belonged to a club or circle of fellow perverts, and the only explanation is that he felt a call to spread a gospel that he found much more attractive than the New Testament, a Book which he was accustomed to mention on Sundays. When the managing editor of a daily newspaper, long known as a leader in a little clique of his kind, tried to drug and rape a young plain-clothes policeman, we can only suppose that he felt an overwhelming urge to recruit for his cult, although he, of all people, should have been aware of the risk he was taking. Most incidents of this kind are “hushed up” by political and other pressures so that they are seldom known outside the community in which they occur and provide a subject for amused comment, but occasionally, since “Liberal” censorship of our press is not yet complete, some typical episodes become more widely known. For example, the United Press in a dispatch from Philadelphia on October 21, 1965, noted that the Professor of Sociology (and head of the department) in a well-known college had overplayed his luck in his avocation of riding street cars to pick up young boys and entice them to an apartment in which, after plying them with alcohol, he could help them overcome their inhibitions. Of course, the Big Brain could have found plenty of partners — including juveniles — without the slightest risk of arrest, had he been so minded. In England, according to a Reuters dispatch from London, April 30, 1965, a slight stir was occasioned when Baron Moynihan, who had been chairman of Britain’s Liberal Party, was arrested by the police while he, in the capacity of a “male” prostitute, was accosting men on the streets of London and soliciting business at bargain rates. [21] His Lordship, we may be sure, lacked neither money (he had amassed a fortune as a stockbroker) nor safe opportunities. What sent him into the streets was the same compulsion that led to the several arrests of a far more powerful and influential individual, Walter Jenkins, who was Lyndon Johnson’s closest assistant until Abe Fortas, now Justice of the Supreme Court, failed in a strenuous attempt to keep news of the arrest entirely out of the press. [22] So far as I know, however, the really significant detail in that affair was noted only by American Opinion (July-August, 1965, p. 79), which commented:

The degenerate’s strange urge to practice perversion in public . . . should not be overlooked in forming an estimate of the creatures. Like Jenkins, many of the perverts in the highest levels of our government have been arrested several times for such offenses. They draw some of the largest salaries paid in this country, and no one can argue that they cannot afford a dollar for a cab-ride home or three dollars for a room in a cheap hotel, where, under the laws of the District of Columbia, they would be immune to arrest. Instead, some strange compulsion drives these creatures to practice their perversions in public parks and in public buildings, such as the Y.M.C.A., where they are subject to arrest when caught in the act.

Walter W. Jenkins resigned on October 14, 1964, as a special assistant to U.S. President Lyndon Johnson after it became known that he had been arrested the week before on a charge of disorderly conduct involving “indecent gestures” in a men’s restroom, where, it was eventually revealed, he had been arrested on similar charges in 1959.

Part of that compulsion, no doubt, is missionary zeal.

The assiduous “missionary activities” of the perverts would be much less successful, if the way for them had not been prepared by concerted propaganda designed to benumb the normal American’s abhorrence of perverts and to prepare adolescents for degrading debauchery. In recent years this propaganda has increasingly included an open apology for, and laudation of, homosexuality, but the most effective form is still the “panel discussion” or sham controversy carefully rigged so that the audience or readers will be left with the impression that they must be “open minded” and “tolerant.” The propagandists need not be perverts themselves, and it is likely that many or most of them are not. It is a basic axiom of subversives, formulated by Adam Weishaupt when he organized the conspiracy of the Illuminati in 1776 and reaffirmed by his successors, including Lenin, that the best way to destroy a nation is to undermine its morality. And that, of course, is what the secret and implacable enemies of our civilization have been doing for centuries.

The propaganda comes over every medium of communication. If you are one of the few who read the testimony taken by the Senate Subcommittee on Internal Security, you will not be astonished that the radio stations operated by the Communist-infested Pacifica Foundation try to “educate” the American public on the joys of Bolshevism, addiction to marijuana, and homosexuality. [23] Given the power of homosexuals in the cinema and television, as stated in the article in Human Events from which I quoted above, one may be sure that few opportunities for subtle propaganda, including, no doubt, the devices that Vance Packard described in The Hidden Persuaders, are overlooked. In some parts of the United States, at least, that hoary old bulwark of subversion, the American Civil Liberties Union, sponsors public lectures on the delights of perversion to “promote understanding.” The mumbo-jumbo of our fashionable witch-doctors is accepted as “scientific” by those who know nothing about scientific method. For example, Dr. Albert Ellis, formerly director of the New Jersey State Hospital and now one of the brightest blossoms in the great pansy-bed called the State Department, in his best-known book, The American Sexual Tragedy, opined that all men who are not homosexuals are “fetishistic” and suffer from the delusion that women are more fun — and hence must be treated as “victims of psychiatric illness.” It is quite possible that there are people who believe Doc Ellis — he’s got a college degree, hasn’t he? More effective, however, are the many tomes of “sexology” that are not so blatant and merely take it for granted that homosexuality is a “problem” to be solved in terms of what is the most fun, while they tacitly or explicitly ignore as irrelevant such old fashioned considerations as right and wrong, good and evil.

By its cumulative effect over many years, this propaganda has prepared the way for what is, so far as I know, the most shameless attempt to annex the United States to the Sotadic Zone — a book that is almost incredible. Ten years ago, I am sure, and probably even five years ago, the most pessimistic observer of our rotting nation would have refused to believe that such a work could have been published in the United States, much less accorded glowing reviews and widely circulated. It is the work of a college professor, who, as still happens, is also a man of learning: that makes him the less excusable and the more dangerous. Using the pen-name of J.Z. Eglinton and the insidious title, Greek Love, he has written and published (New York, Oliver Layton Press, 1964) a five-hundred-page panegyric of paederasty, extolling its delights in perfervid and even eloquent terms, condemning such pervert-cliques as the Mattachine Society as timorous and reactionary, and boldly claiming that all men, being created equal, have a perfect right to seduce male children. Professor “Eglinton” believes that boys between the ages of twelve and sixteen provide the most fun, and he proves his point by recounting, in the style of a romantic novelist, the wondrous fun thus had by university professors, scout masters, graduate students, rabbis, and the like. It would be supererogatory to argue with Professor Eglinton. If you are an American and have children for whom you care, or if you are under seventy and hope that the United States will last your time, it will be obvious to you that his species and ours cannot long coexist in the same territory.

The total effects of homosexuality on our society are really incalculable. The power and activity of the filthy mass of perverts and traitors in Washington is too well-known to require comment here, but there are other effects of which we know so little quantitatively that we can do no more than speculate about their social importance. Consider, for example, the distinguished clergyman (and fervent apostle of “racial equality”) whose tastes are described by the experienced police-investigator, Hubert J. Badeaux, in his authoritative book, The Underworld of Sex (New Orleans, privately printed and distributed only to responsible subscribers to the Civic Review, 1959). This Shepherd of Souls is a pervert and has, what is extremely common among his species, a passionate predilection for Negro “husbands.” He also maintains, as do many perverts, a wife as protective covering. [24] He is thus able to enjoy not only the services of his black “lover,” but also the added titillation of watching and participating, while his legal wife serves as a whore for his Congoid “husband.” The reverend animal whose delectations are described by Mr. Badeaux is by no means unique. Some observers think it probable that similar amusements account for otherwise inexplicable enthusiasm for the “Civil Rights” movement in clerical circles, and this view is to some extent supported by the behavior of the vermin that the Communist Conspiracy sent into Selma, Alabama, last year. [25] It must be emphasized, however, that all such explanations, given the paucity of specific and authenticated data available, can be no more than speculative.

I have commented at some length on homosexuality because that is directly relevant to Mr. Seelig’s report of what he and his beloved children have suffered at the hands of organized degenerates and the vast criminal apparatus of which they are an important part. I do not mean to give the subject undue prominence and I hope that the reader will remember that we are dealing with only one of the components of a complex of subversion, the various parts of which fit into one another as do the pieces of a Chinese puzzle.

There are very significant sexual perversions that are not, strictly speaking, homosexual, but, in contemporary society, at least, combine with it to form part of a larger unit. For example, although most of us do not know it, we American taxpayers maintain a Whore Corps to entertain Communists and Cannibals whenever they come to Washington to haul another load of our money out of our Treasury. That, of course, is merely the kind of service to “underdeveloped nations” that everyone takes for granted, but what is significant is that there are real difficulties in maintaining morale in the Whore Corps. Some of the distinguished internationalists who come to promote “world law” by taking our gold do prefer women, but only when they have been suitably prepared with a buggy-whip so that their bodies are covered with the blood that oozes or gushes from welts and wounds thus inflicted. Now although it is doubtless deplorable from a One-Worlder’s point of view, it is, I think, understandable that even females who have been thoroughly emancipated from “bourgeois prejudices” and imbued with a desire for “international understanding” quail when the lash bites into their flesh. In fact, it was in consequence of such weakness that many Americans received their first notice of that form of recreation. A woman, sent by “our” State Department to entertain one of our parasites in the suite we had provided for him, lost her nerve when the whip was produced as soon as she stripped for the occasion; she ran nude through the corridors of the hotel, thus attracting some attention, although the establishment was one frequented by the creme de la creme of our governing ochlocracy. The incident was therefore reported in the press.

The press, however, has not thus far seen fit to comment on the very expensive establishments in Washington and Florida in which the more masculine members of our elite begin by selecting from a rack the jewel-handled whip that will make the female of their choice sexually attractive. Now the great-hearted humanitarians who share the “Marquis” de Sade’s passion for “human equality” and related matters are not, in that aspect of their activity, homosexuals, but Americans who have not yet attained “mental health” will regard them as perverts.

Perversion, in turn, is but one phase of the erotic mania that has been cunningly induced in our country, largely through the public schools, and is now being whetted to exasperation by the flood of pornography which, under the patronage of Earl Warren and his acolytes, is now flooding our newsstands for the instruction of those children and adolescents who do not have it forcibly administered to them in their classrooms. [26] Most of this sewage is not specifically homosexual; it is simply Sotadic, and could have as its motto the remark attributed to a notorious actress of the past generation: “Male sex? Female sex? What do I care, so long as it is sex?” In this connection, of course, one thinks of the ferret-faced Ralph Ginzberg, who edited the lush pornographic periodical called Eros and now edits a possibly more pernicious thing called Fact while he, having been sentenced to seven years in prison for his lewd publications, is out on bond and waiting for Comrade Earl to think up a pretext for turning him loose. It must be admitted that Ginzberg’s excretions, both in themselves and because they were somewhat expensive, were probably not so poisonous as the incredibly filthy novel, The Awakening of Cindy, which was spread over the newsstands as a “paper-back” for the instruction of every schoolchild who had seventy-five cents.

According to Newsweek (April 12, 1965), the author of that printed orgy of homosexuality and promiscuity was, by chance, discovered to be the Reverend Dr. Arthur Edwin Shelton, pastor of the Wesley Memorial Methodist Church of Norfolk, Virginia. Readers of that report must have wondered whether the Man of God was merely trying to spread degeneracy for a fast buck or found some deeper satisfaction in his labors for his Lord.

It would require a volume, however, to treat pornography and erotic mania in our time, and that, in turn, would be merely one phase of the universal sabotage of our culture and our nation by our enemies. To discuss that, we should have to try to trace the dark history of the Communist Conspiracy.

Whether Americans have, by blind optimism and gross negligence, permitted that crafty and subtle sabotage to go too far for the nation to be preserved is a question both difficult and painful. It will be answered by the events of the next two or three years, at most. For the purposes of this commentary, however, let us assume that the completion of the Bolshevik capture of our country is averted by divine intervention or an almost equally miraculous arousal of our long dormant instinct for self-preservation.

On that assumption, what shall we be able to do about the epidemic of homosexuality? It seems to me that four conclusions emerge from the foregoing discussion, viz.:

• We cannot prevent by legislation the practice of homosexuality. Laws are obviously ineffectual when violations of them can be discovered only by rare accidents or in very unusual circumstances.
• By simply enforcing the penalties now provided by law in most states, we can inhibit and hold to a minimum the perverts’ compulsive “missionary activities.” Furthermore, if existing laws were enforced, the control of our Federal government and deep penetration of many state governments by the combined Homosexual International and International Communist Conspiracy could be completely broken. While it would probably be impossible completely to eliminate secret perverts, they could be rendered powerless.
• We can stop the present use of the public schools as a vast machine of demoralization designed to create the population of fellahin, brutalized and stultified beings that live without hope and without self-respect, needed as livestock in the Socialist State of which our “Liberals” dream — and which they have almost created.
• All our efforts will be futile, unless we succeed in doing what no nation before us has ever done — succeed in reversing the process of demoralization and decay and in recreating a national morality and morale — standards of personal conduct and self-discipline that will be accepted without debate by all Americans, except, of course, the underworld of human refuse that seems biologically inevitable, but which healthy societies know how to quarantine and render socially and politically powerless. And we must accept these standards of conduct and self-discipline with enthusiasm and pride, recognizing them as part of the superiority that is evinced by our physical power.

Is it possible that we, men of the West, members of the only race that has had the intelligence and discipline to master many of the powers of nature, are too stupid to preserve our own civilization? Is it not fantastic that we, who alone can create such intricate mechanisms as electronic computers and automatic factories, should so demean ourselves as to grovel among savages in the filthy hole called the “United Nations”? That we, who have mastered the atom and hold in our hands the lightnings of nuclear power, should cower before the brutish hordes of Genghis Khan — cower in the insane act of handing our weapons to our eternal enemies? That we, who alone of all races can look far into the infinite universe and can now measure with precision the vast quasi-stars (quasars) that lie at the unimaginable distance of six billion light-years, should enslave ourselves to creatures whose rudimentary minds can never truly comprehend the simple principles that we learn in childhood?

Those are the questions that every man must answer for himself now.

It may be, of course, that Poland’s greatest poet, Zygmunt Krasinski, who lived on the frontiers of Europe more than a century ago, was prescient and prophetic when he composed an epitaph for the Christian West:

To the errors accumulated by their forefathers they added yet others which their forefathers knew not: hesitation and timidity. And so it came to pass that they vanished from the face of the earth, and ever since their vanishing there has been a great silence.

–Revilo P. Oliver, January, 1966, Urbana, Illinois

Notes

1 – The fake “Sedition Case” is a blot on our national history, and the details, which I do not have room to mention here, deserve careful study. The most concise and lucid account is The Sedition Case, compiled by the Lutheran Research Society and first published in 1953. The book is now out of print, and although two thousand copies were said to be in the hands of various dealers when I mentioned the book in American Opinion for September, 1964, the stocks have been exhausted and I do not know where a copy may now be obtained. A Trial on Trial, by Maximilian St. George (one of the attorneys) and Lawrence Dennis (one of the defendants), was published in Chicago in 1946, before the defendants succeeded in having the case finally adjudicated, and was therefore written with a certain circumspection. I understand that some booksellers still have copies in stock. I Testify, by Robert Edward Edmondson (another defendant), contains a personal account of the trial, but the greater part of the book is devoted to recapitulation of the author’s criticisms of the Roosevelt Administration for which the “Justice Department” sought to take vengeance. The book, which is not well organized, was published by the author in 1953 and twice reprinted, but it is now extremely rare.

2 – Since General Walker survived, the attempt at character-assassination is apt to prove expensive. Impartial juries have already returned verdicts of $3,800,000 (reduced by the courts to $2,750,000) against the Associated Press and newspapers that published the malicious fiction. Many other suits are pending. For the details see The American Mercury, September, 1965, pp. 13-15.

3 – Since all federal employees are personally responsible for acts committed ultra vires, this has the interesting consequence that the persons primarily responsible for the kidnapping would be subject to the death penalty if the Federal statutes were enforced.

4 – This is not to be construed as an indictment of all psychiatrists. There are many who are both sane and honest, including the one who, although paid by the Federal government, later testified in court that General Walker was “functioning at the superior level of intelligence” (as, of course, everybody concerned knew throughout the affair). On the “mental health” hoax, currently being promoted by the Communist Conspiracy as a weapon of terrorism and conquest, see the excellent book by Ellen McClay, Bats in the Belfry (Los Angeles, Rosewood Publishing Co., 1964; $1.75).

5 – The foregoing account is based on the summary, certified by General Walker as “a factual, accurate account,” published by the American Eagle Publishing Co., Box 1560, Dallas 21, Texas (15 cents; eight copies for $1.00), and General Walker’s article in The American Mercury, March, 1965, pp. 17-19. See also the article by Judge Robert Morris in The Greater Nebraskan, Christmas, 1962, pp. 9, 19-20. It may be coincidence that the next attempt to silence the General was made by a Communist assassin, Lee Harvey Oswald, who missed because his intended victim happened to turn his head at the very instant the shot was fired. Oswald was assisted or supervised by a person who has not been officially identified, although it is widely believed in Dallas that there is evidence to show that this person was the Jakob Rubenstein, alias Jack Ruby, who silenced Oswald after the assassination of President Kennedy.

6 – For a fuller account, see Clark Mollenhoff, Despoilers of Democracy (New York, Doubleday, 1965), a book which deals with the comparatively few activities of our master-thugs that, through various accidents, have come to light. Mr. Mollenhoff concludes, with careful understatement, that “we are in real danger of losing the enlightened concern needed to save ourselves.”

7 – For example, the Arthacastra, a political treatise composed in India sometime before 300 A.D., proposes a rather drastic solution — that an army of detectives, disguised as teachers, heretical priests, gamblers, mendicants, bandits, and the like, should act as agents provocateurs and try to induce the morally weak to commit crimes, such as burglary, in which they could be easily apprehended and for which they would be speedily executed.

8 – Since Sir Richard Burton’s translation of The Perfumed Garden by the Shaykh Muhammad ibn Umar an-Nafzawi has been reprinted by several vendors of pornography, the reader of that version or of the anonymous French translation should be warned not to draw conclusions ex silentio. The Arabic original contains a long and enthusiastic section on homosexuality, including the abuse of young boys, that the translators thought it best to overlook. There were, of course, thoughtful Moslems who understood the consequences of such customs. The greatest of the Arabian historians, Ibn Khaldun, in his Muqaddama (most easily accessible in the French translation by MacGuckin de Slane, Prolegomenes, Paris, 1863-68) held that homosexuality was one of the principal causes of the decline and fall of civilizations.

9 – We can list a number of coincidences between homosexuality and treason but we cannot show that one was a cause, or even a factor, in the other. And to be fair, we must record on the other side of the ledger a peculiar and inexplicable phenomenon: it seems certain that in the Greek world there were homosexuals who were men — even men of honor. We are assured (cf. Plutarch, Vit. Pelop., 18) that in the Fourth Century the flower of the Theban army was, for an odd religious reason, composed of homosexuals. With his superior forces and superior strategy, Philip of Macedon finally won at Chaeronea, but when he did, the Sacred Regiment lay dead to a man in their unbroken ranks. That is true greatness. If the story of their customs is true, there must have been in one respect a fundamental difference between their world and our own, in which perversion and treason are almost synonymous. The Honorable John Dowdy of Texas, who is in a position to be very well informed, stated bluntly, “As far as I know, all of the security risks that have deserted the United States and gone over to the Communists have been homosexuals.” (See the hearings on House Resolution 5990, August 8, 1964, p. 17). There have been many such cases in Western nations. A typical instance in the United States is that of two “geniuses, ” Bernon F. Mitchell and William H. Martin, who, trained at the Universities of Washington and Illinois and Stanford, where they were known to be degenerates, ensconced themselves in positions of strategic importance in “our” National Security Agency (which, for vital reasons, should be our most secret intelligence agency) while the Director of Personnel was a scabrous alien named Maurice Klein, who had falsified his own record through perjury and forgery. Mitchell and Martin high-tailed it for Mother Russia in 1960, and it is rumored that the damage done by their treason has not yet been repaired. For a comparable incident in Britain’s Military Intelligence, see Burgess and Maclean by Anthony Purdy and Douglas Sutherland (New York, Doubleday, 1963); the book makes it clear that those “intellectuals” were known perverts and traitors when they were installed in Military Intelligence by degenerates in higher governmental positions who protected them for twelve years, enabled them to escape when exposure was imminent, and remained in power in the highest offices of the government of the Britain that once was Great.

10 – That much seems certain. I cannot here examine the long-debated and intricate question of the extent to which the Templars, before they were suppressed by the Pope and the Kings of France, England, Aragon, and other countries in 1307-12, were a political conspiracy, possibly derived from, or affiliated with, the Assassins.

11 – A conveniently accessible biography of Crowley is Daniel P. Mannix’ The Beast (New York, Ballantine, 1959).

12 – For some case-histories, see Dr. James M. Reinhardt’s Sex Perversion and Sex Crimes, a monograph in the Police Science Series published for the use of police officers by Charles C. Thomas, Springfield, Illinois (1957).

13 – For example, many Americans are only now becoming aware of the only object of the agitation for “Civil Rights,” although that should have been obvious fifty years ago — or, at least, thirty years ago, when everyone knew that the agitation was led by such “do-gooders” as William Z. Foster, Elizabeth Gurley Flynn, and Felix Frankfurter.

14 – Quoted by Dr. Reinhardt, op cit., pp. 232 f.

15 – Some of our contemporaries, I know, deprecate or deride a “conspiratorial theory of history,” and insist that all that is wrong is that our “Liberal intellectuals,” who presumably are dominant just because they are the best we have, are ignorant and stupid. The only thing that is astonishing is that the persons who hold that pessimistic view argue and write so much to defend it, for if they are right, concern for the future of the West is as futile as concern for the future of a rotting apple.

16 – Here is a specimen, c. 1944:

Assistant Secretary of State: We mustn’t appoint X to that post; he’s a queer.

Secretary of State: A queer? Are you sure?

Assistant Secretary of State: Of course! Why, everyone knows that he has sexual relations with his wife.

17 – The name is probably an Anglicization of the Italian mattaccino, which means both ‘a jester’ (similar to a harlequin) and ‘a gay ball.’ In the argot of perverts in the United States, gay means homosexual. In Italian card-games, a matta is a ‘joker’ or ‘wild’ card, which can have any value at the option of the person who plays it. The ‘gay bars’ or ‘gay clubs’ that are found in every sizable city in our country are places of rendezvous for perverts, but many local citizens are unaware of what the term really means.

18 – A detail oddly omitted in the daily press; see the photograph on the cover of The Ladder, A Lesbian Review, October, 1965.

19 – The figures for Washington, if correct, cannot be taken as representing a national percentage, since our capital has been for decades a cesspool into which vice and crime naturally drain from all over the country. Next to Washington, the highest incidence will probably be found in the very large cities, in which large masses of human refuse are nurtured and subsidized for voting purposes, and in college towns, which are apt to contain a concentration of internationalists and other advanced thinkers.

20 – This is the term used in police circles, where, of course, the perverts’ strange compulsion has long been recognized; cf. Reinhardt, op. cit., p. 43. That is why our local police, although their work has been greatly hampered by corrupt courts, criminals in positions of political power, and nincompoops who snivel over “underprivileged” dregs of society, keep an eye on known perverts: the first concern of the police is to prevent the “homos” from corrupting other people, especially the young. It is a great pity that so many Americans try so hard to avoid learning anything about the many kinds of human garbage with which their police must deal constantly; if our citizens were not so resolutely ignorant, they would know what to do whenever a “Liberal” begins his usual spiel about “equality” and “brotherhood.”

21 – This choice flower of Britain’s new aristocracy is now defunct, but has left a worthy heir. According to the press, the present Baron Moynihan is usually to be found in what are euphemistically termed “hot spots,” where His Lordship, if sober, bangs the bongo drums while Lady Moynihan, a female of Malaysian extraction, does a belly-dance.

22 – At latest reports, dear old Walt was flourishing in plush offices in Austin, Texas, where he was believed to be supervising the training of young thugs in the “Job Corps.” He was regarded as politically the most powerful individual in Texas, since it was believed that he could (if so minded) get anything for anyone with just one telephone call to Washington, D.C.

23 – The hearings, held on January 10, 11, and 25, 1963, were published in three parts under the title “Pacifica Foundation.” More significant, perhaps, than the antics of the Comrats who dodged behind the Fifth Amendment and insolently played peek-a-boo with the Committee was the testimony of the leading director of the Foundation, one Dr. Peter Odegard, Professor of Political Science in the University of California, formerly President of Reed College in Oregon, and before that Assistant to the Secretary of the Treasury in Washington, when that office was held by Morgenthau and controlled by the Bolshevik agent who called himself Harry Dexter White. Professor Odegard swore that he had no faintest suspicion that there was Communist influence in the operations of Pacifica Foundation, and if you choose to believe him, you will have before you a measure of the amount of intelligence now needed to hold a quite important office in the Federal government, the presidency of a fairly well-known college, and the headship of the Department of “Political Science” in one of the largest universities in the nation. You will then conclude that the prediction made by Lothrop Stoddard a quarter of a century ago, that our civilization would collapse for sheer lack of brains, has already been fulfilled.

24 – This is extremely common. The self-advertised homosexual, Donald W. Cory, in The Homosexual in America, says that for members of the species “marriage is looked upon as a ‘front,’ an artificial facade … the almost perfect silencer of talk which is slanderous, although truthful.” Cory demands legalization of marriage between persons of his/its sex. He is modest. Earl Warren, by applying the logic of his infamous “Black Monday” decision, could simply forbid marriage between a man and a woman on the grounds that such a marriage would make perverts unhappy and make them feel inferior. Lawrence Lipton of the University of California in Los Angeles in The Erotic Revolution (Los Angeles, Sherbourne Press, 1965) is principally interested in showing that he has mastered the vocabulary seen on the walls of latrines in the slums, in yelling that all morality is “obsolescent,” in whooping it up for universal promiscuity (with wife-swapping clubs for those who are so ultra-conservative as to marry at all), and a general return to the standards of savages. In passing, however, he does recommend a household in which two “male” homosexuals and two “Lesbians” form a foursome, so that joy may be unconfined.

25 – On the behavior of the mangey rats that descended on Selma to promote the Great Society, see Albert C. Persons’ booklet, The True Selma Story (Birmingham, Alabama, Esco Publishers, $1.00). The animals, by the way, were hired at a hundred dollars a head; see the pay-check with authenticating affidavit reproduced in The Birmingham Independent, September 15, 1965.

26 – Pornography is a business which now grosses more than two billion dollars a year in the United States (see United Press dispatch from Washington, April 18, 1965); it appears to be largely in the hands of aliens. Many of the vermin engaged in it are notorious Communists and Communist-fronters; see the articles by John Benedict in the American Mercury, January, 1960, pp. 3-15, and February, 1960, pp. 3-21. The vermin retaliated by driving the Mercury from the newsstands throughout the nation. See also the bulletin, “Communism and Pornography,” by Captain Robert A. Winston of the U.S. Navy, author of The Pentagon Case.

Read more by Revilo P. Oliver

reviewed by David Chambers

FROM AUGUST 3, 1948, until today, America has had to wait to learn more about the head of Soviet espionage in Washington during the 1930s.

On that day, Whittaker Chambers (my grandfather) told the House Un-American Activities Committee (HUAC) under subpoena:

The actual head of the group–well, the elected head of the group–was either [Nathan] Witt at one time or [John] Abt, and the organizer of the group had been Harold Ware. The head of the whole business was J. Peters.

Only a few Americans then knew the name “J. Peters”–among half a dozen or more pseudonyms. By that time, however, both the FBI and the INS had taken active interest in his hidden career and that of an alter ego, “Alexander Stevens.” Like most good spies, Peters hid in plain sight. In fact, his definitive Communist Party’s Manual on Organisation (1935) was available in larger cities, predating William H. Whyte’s best-selling The Organization Man by 20 years.

At last, a sleuth has picked up the cold trail. Dr. Thomas Sakmyster is a professor emeritus of history at the University of Cincinnati. His expertise lies in Early 20th Century Hungarian affairs. His revelations in Red Conspirator are riveting.

“J. Peters” was born Sándor Goldberger, a secular Jew in an Austro-Hungarian border town in 1894. Trained as a lawyer, he entered a long career as a Communist Party functionary. He immigrated to the United States in 1924. Peters was a decidedly efficient and shrewd party bureaucrat and passionate in his belief of Communism. He rose quickly to leadership back in his homeland district, and again in the States to the party’s national committee. Had Peters applied himself to capitalism instead of Communism, he might have headed a very different business. Chances are we would speak of him today among prominent Hungarian-Americans entrepreneurs like George Soros, Calvin Klein, Estée Lauder, and John Hertz.

Instead, in 1931 Peter’s skills in party organization led him to Communism’s meccas, Moscow and Berlin. He trained as “Org Praticant”–and spy. In Moscow, he came to know many people who would figure in Federal investigations in the 1940s and 1950s, like Gerhard Eisler (first husband of Hedde Massing) and Jacob Golos (handler of Elizabeth Bentley). In Berlin, he became an expert in passport forgery.

Back in the US in 1932, Peters continued to work on organization practices during the 1930s. In this period he wrote and published his Manual. He also began to establish his “illegal apparatus.” He concentrated on “special mail” (secure communications) via “mail drops.” The network extended around the country, seeking to minimize detection by American government authorities. He also began to establish his “secret apparatus.” He concentrated on infiltrating the US Federal government. This task fell to him in part due to earlier association with Max Bedacht, a previous underground go-between. Bedacht seconded Whittaker Chambers to the underground, then Peters succeeded Bedacht. Chambers served Peters, first in mail drop activities, then in the Ware Group. Thus, Chambers found himself in 1948 under subpoena before HUAC, talking about Peters.

Most tantalizing in Red Conspirator is the thwarting of one Federal agency by another. In the 1940s, HUAC and the FBI were working to flush out Peters’s role in the Soviet underground. Meantime, the INS was trying to deport him. (Peters chose to leave of his own free will prior to deportation.) Rounding out the book are scrapbook-like anecdotes about Peters in Hungary, from his return in 1949 to his death four decades later.

In 1983, Peters began to write a memoir for the Hungarian party’s secret files. Since the fall of the Soviet empire, it has become available to the public–for those who know of it. The memoir fills in many gaps in Peters’ life. It also helps Dr. Sakmyster weigh what to accept, interpret, and reject in Peters’ own self-assessment.

Red Conspirator represents a major contribution to scholarship in 20th Century American and International Communism. The approach and tone are scholarly. The findings are electrifying. Perhaps the most dramatic is the author’s conclusion: J. Peters operated his own infiltration networks, namely the Ware Group and its successive apparatuses. He cooperated with and supported the KGB (in those years, the OGPU and then NKVD) and GRU (Soviet military intelligence). However, as a model organization man, he prepared for the future and formed his own secret apparatus as well. This was “the whole business” that he headed, “conducted by largely on his own initiative,” Sakmyster concludes. “No Soviet agent ever served directly as his handler.”

THE TWO GREATEST VISIONS of a future dystopia were George Orwell’s “1984” and Aldous Huxley’s “Brave New World.” The debate, between those who watched our descent towards corporate totalitarianism, was who was right. Would we be, as Orwell wrote, dominated by a repressive surveillance and security state that used crude and violent forms of control? Or would we be, as Huxley envisioned, entranced by entertainment and spectacle, captivated by technology and seduced by profligate consumption to embrace our own oppression? It turns out Orwell and Huxley were both right. Huxley saw the first stage of our enslavement. Orwell saw the second.

We have been gradually disempowered by a corporate state that, as Huxley foresaw, seduced and manipulated us through sensual gratification, cheap mass-produced goods, boundless credit, political theater and amusement. While we were entertained, the regulations that once kept predatory corporate power in check were dismantled, the laws that once protected us were rewritten and we were impoverished. Now that credit is drying up, good jobs for the working class are gone forever and mass-produced goods are unaffordable, we find ourselves transported from “Brave New World” to “1984.” The state, crippled by massive deficits, endless war and corporate malfeasance, is sliding toward bankruptcy. It is time for Big Brother to take over from Huxley’s feelies, the orgy-porgy and the centrifugal bumble-puppy. We are moving from a society where we are skillfully manipulated by lies and illusions to one where we are overtly controlled.

Orwell warned of a world where books were banned. Huxley warned of a world where no one wanted to read books. Orwell warned of a state of permanent war and fear. Huxley warned of a culture diverted by mindless pleasure. Orwell warned of a state where every conversation and thought was monitored and dissent was brutally punished. Huxley warned of a state where a population, preoccupied by trivia and gossip, no longer cared about truth or information. Orwell saw us frightened into submission. Huxley saw us seduced into submission. But Huxley, we are discovering, was merely the prelude to Orwell. Huxley understood the process by which we would be complicit in our own enslavement. Orwell understood the enslavement. Now that the corporate coup is over, we stand naked and defenseless. We are beginning to understand, as Karl Marx knew, that unfettered and unregulated capitalism is a brutal and revolutionary force that exploits human beings and the natural world until exhaustion or collapse.

“The Party seeks power entirely for its own sake,” Orwell wrote in “1984.”  “We are not interested in the good of others; we are interested solely in power. Not wealth or luxury or long life or happiness: only power, pure power. What pure power means you will understand presently. We are different from all the oligarchies of the past, in that we know what we are doing. All the others, even those who resembled ourselves, were cowards and hypocrites. The German Nazis and the Russian Communists came very close to us in their methods, but they never had the courage to recognize their own motives. They pretended, perhaps they even believed, that they had seized power unwillingly and for a limited time, and that just round the corner there lay a paradise where human beings would be free and equal. We are not like that. We know that no one ever seizes power with the intention of relinquishing it. Power is not a means; it is an end. One does not establish a dictatorship in order to safeguard a revolution; one makes the revolution in order to establish the dictatorship. The object of persecution is persecution. The object of torture is torture. The object of power is power.”

The political philosopher Sheldon Wolin uses the term “inverted totalitarianism” in his book “Democracy Incorporated” to describe our political system. It is a term that would make sense to Huxley. In inverted totalitarianism, the sophisticated technologies of corporate control, intimidation and mass manipulation, which far surpass those employed by previous totalitarian states, are effectively masked by the glitter, noise and abundance of a consumer society. Political participation and civil liberties are gradually surrendered. The corporation state, hiding behind the smokescreen of the public relations industry, the entertainment industry and the tawdry materialism of a consumer society, devours us from the inside out. It owes no allegiance to us or the nation. It feasts upon our carcass.

The corporate state does not find its expression in a demagogue or charismatic leader. It is defined by the anonymity and facelessness of the corporation. Corporations, who hire attractive spokespeople like Barack Obama, control the uses of science, technology, education and mass communication. They control the messages in movies and television. And, as in “Brave New World,” they use these tools of communication to bolster tyranny. Our systems of mass communication, as Wolin writes, “block out, eliminate whatever might introduce qualification, ambiguity, or dialogue, anything that might weaken or complicate the holistic force of their creation, to its total impression.”

The result is a monochromatic system of information. Celebrity courtiers, masquerading as journalists, experts and specialists, identify our problems and patiently explain the parameters. All those who argue outside the imposed parameters are dismissed as irrelevant cranks, extremists or members of a radical left. Prescient social critics, from Ralph Nader to Noam Chomsky, are banished. Acceptable opinions have a range of A to B. The culture, under the tutelage of these corporate courtiers, becomes, as Huxley noted, a world of cheerful conformity, as well as an endless and finally fatal optimism. We busy ourselves buying products that promise to change our lives, make us more beautiful, confident or successful as we are steadily stripped of rights, money and influence. All messages we receive through these systems of communication, whether on the nightly news or talk shows like “Oprah,” promise a brighter, happier tomorrow. And this, as Wolin points out, is “the same ideology that invites corporate executives to exaggerate profits and conceal losses, but always with a sunny face.” We have been entranced, as Wolin writes, by “continuous technological advances” that “encourage elaborate fantasies of individual prowess, eternal youthfulness, beauty through surgery, actions measured in nanoseconds: a dream-laden culture of ever-expanding control and possibility, whose denizens are prone to fantasies because the vast majority have imagination but little scientific knowledge.”

Our manufacturing base has been dismantled. Speculators and swindlers have looted the U.S. Treasury and stolen billions from small shareholders who had set aside money for retirement or college. Civil liberties, including habeas corpus and protection from warrantless wiretapping, have been taken away. Basic services, including public education and health care, have been handed over to the corporations to exploit for profit. The few who raise voices of dissent, who refuse to engage in the corporate happy talk, are derided by the corporate establishment as freaks.

Attitudes and temperament have been cleverly engineered by the corporate state, as with Huxley’s pliant characters in “Brave New World.”…

We increasingly live in Orwell’s Oceania, not Huxley’s The World State. Osama bin Laden plays the role assumed by Emmanuel Goldstein in “1984.” Goldstein, in the novel, is the public face of terror. His evil machinations and clandestine acts of violence dominate the nightly news. Goldstein’s image appears each day on Oceania’s television screens as part of the nation’s “Two Minutes of Hate” daily ritual. And without the intervention of the state, Goldstein, like bin Laden, will kill you. All excesses are justified in the titanic fight against evil personified.

The psychological torture of Pvt. Bradley Manning–who has now been imprisoned for seven months without being convicted of any crime–mirrors the breaking of the dissident Winston Smith at the end of “1984.” Manning is being held as a “maximum custody detainee” in the brig at Marine Corps Base Quantico, in Virginia. He spends 23 of every 24 hours alone. He is denied exercise. He cannot have a pillow or sheets for his bed. Army doctors have been plying him with antidepressants. The cruder forms of torture of the Gestapo have been replaced with refined Orwellian techniques, largely developed by government psychologists, to turn dissidents like Manning into vegetables. We break souls as well as bodies. It is more effective. Now we can all be taken to Orwell’s dreaded Room 101 to become compliant and harmless. These “special administrative measures” are regularly imposed on our dissidents, including Syed Fahad Hashmi, who was imprisoned under similar conditions for three years before going to trial. The techniques have psychologically maimed thousands of detainees in our black sites around the globe. They are the staple form of control in our maximum security prisons where the corporate state makes war on our most politically astute underclass–African-Americans. It all presages the shift from Huxley to Orwell.

“Never again will you be capable of ordinary human feeling,” Winston Smith’s torturer tells him in “1984.” “Everything will be dead inside you. Never again will you be capable of love, or friendship, or joy of living, or laughter, or curiosity, or courage, or integrity. You will be hollow. We shall squeeze you empty and then we shall fill you with ourselves.”

The noose is tightening. The era of amusement is being replaced by the era of repression. Tens of millions of citizens have had their e-mails and phone records turned over to the government. We are the most monitored and spied-on citizenry in human history. Many of us have our daily routine caught on dozens of security cameras. Our proclivities and habits are recorded on the Internet. Our profiles are electronically generated. Our bodies are patted down at airports and filmed by scanners. And public service announcements, car inspection stickers, and public transportation posters constantly urge us to report suspicious activity. The enemy is everywhere.

Those who do not comply with the dictates of the war on terror, a war which, as Orwell noted, is endless, are brutally silenced. The draconian security measures used to cripple protests at the G-20 gatherings in Pittsburgh and Toronto were wildly disproportionate for the level of street activity. But they sent a clear message–DO NOT TRY THIS. The FBI’s targeting of antiwar and Palestinian activists, which in late September saw agents raid homes in Minneapolis and Chicago, is a harbinger of what is to come for all who dare defy the state’s official Newspeak. The agents–our Thought Police–seized phones, computers, documents and other personal belongings. Subpoenas to appear before a grand jury have since been served on 26 people. The subpoenas cite federal law prohibiting “providing material support or resources to designated foreign terrorist organizations.” Terror, even for those who have nothing to do with terror, becomes the blunt instrument used by Big Brother to protect us from ourselves.

“Do you begin to see, then, what kind of world we are creating?” Orwell wrote. “It is the exact opposite of the stupid hedonistic Utopias that the old reformers imagined. A world of fear and treachery and torment, a world of trampling and being trampled upon, a world which will grow not less but more merciless as it refines itself.”

Read the full article at TruthDig

WHILE THE TERM “Religious Right” is one of the most frequently used terms in the political lexicon, notably since the rise of what is usually referred to as the Evangelical Churches, the Political Left is alive and well and a strong crutch for the Democratic Party… During the first term of the Eisenhower administration, the role of American churches in politics became a major issue and helped precipitate the campaign to defame and censure Senator Joseph McCarthy of Wisconsin.

Joseph Brown Matthews (pictured) was an important witness for McCarthy, testifying before Congressional committees and had the advantage of personal experience as an organizer for communist front organizations before World War II. He took pains to explain that naïve and busy people of good will — including many clergymen — were often duped into signing petitions and lending their names to what appeared as ostensibly good causes,  unaware that the leading personalities in these organizations were fronting for the Communist Party.

In June 1953, Matthews was appointed as McCarthy’s research director and in July published an article called “Reds in our Churches“ in the [then] conservative American Mercury magazine. In it, Matthews referred to the Protestant clergy as “The largest single group supporting the Communist apparatus in the United States.” The result was a public outrage at Matthews as well as “his boss,” Senator McCarthy. Time Magazine led the charge against Matthews and what it called “this astounding and inherently uncheckable statement.”

Reds in Our Churches

His authorship of the controversial article “Reds in Our Churches “exposed sophisticated communist manipulation to promote religious dissension in the United States. McCarthy’s critics seized the opportunity to label his efforts as a “Crusade against all Protestant ministers,” a view that Matthew certainly had not intended.  In his Mercury article, he specifically pointed out that the great majority of all clergy in America were loyal but that a highly visible minority operating under the guise of “social justice” lent the support of the Religious Left to a variety of “liberal” causes. Exaggerated and inaccurate commentaries about his intentions were used to get many U.S. congressmen to lend support to censure of McCarthy as an extremist.

J. B. Matthews was born in Hopkinsville, Kentucky in 1894 and attended Asbury College. He became a Methodist missionary in Java after which he returned to the United States and studied in several different seminaries. He then joined the faculty of Scarritt, a Methodist training college in Nashville, Tennessee where he became the center of a “scandal” due to the fact that he had held an interracial party at his home where Whites and Negroes had danced together. He was a brilliant linguist, but as a missionary, his sympathy for Indonesian nationalists made him unpopular with the Dutch administration in the islands and the executives of his own mission. In spite of this background, which would certainly be labeled as “liberal” today, Matthews was pilloried in the press as “a McCarthyite” following his article in the Mercury.

After his tour of missionary work, Matthews settled in New York City where he became an “avowed Socialist” and the executive secretary of the pacifist Fellowship of Reconciliation. He wrote that “The policy of a united front with Communism was the way to end the war,” and, due to the popularity of these views with the Roosevelt administration, he was chosen as the first head of the American League Against War and Fascism.

He later would label this organization and his own participation in it as “probably the most successful ‘front’ ever organized by the American Communists.” He wrote a book, Partners in Plunder, in which he attacked several of the mainline Protestant Churches — notably the Episcopal and Presbyterian denominations — as being in the pocket of millionaires J. Pierpont Morgan and Andrew Mellon respectively.

Matthews was regarded by many in the clergy at the end of World War II as the Communists’ No. 1 fellow traveler. A major change in his political outlook occurred soon afterward as a result of an industrial dispute and strike at Consumer’s Research, an organization where he had become a Director and Vice-President.  Employees of the firm went on strike, defying Matthews who had called upon them to reach a settlement. He became embittered, and convinced that the workers’ demands had been fomented by the Communist Party.  For Matthews, the workers’ grievances were a front and morally “they were mutineers.” He also was particularly aggrieved at what he regarded as the automatic “liberal” reactions of some of the same mainline churches he had previously attacked for being subservient to the very wealthy.  Matthews regarded himself as the victim of a Communist plot and went on to become the chief investigator for Martin Dies’ new House Committee on Un-American Activities.

If one wants to understand the censure motion against McCarthy in the Senate, much of it has to do with a backlash of influential politicians, predominantly belonging to the mainline Protestant churches, who were stung by what they perceived to be a wholly irresponsible and demagogic charge that these churches harbored potential traitors. White House operatives close to Eisenhower jumped on an opportunity to eliminate McCarthy for his embarrassing revelations about upper class appointees inherited from the previous Democratic administrations with dubious links to the USSR and the Communist Party that Eisenhower had seen fit to retain.

McCarthy, falsely accused by the Left of anti-Semitism

McCarthy, falsely accused by the Left of anti-Semitism, had taken the lead in demanding to know why the Voice of America had cancelled its Hebrew language broadcasts at precisely the time when anti-Semitism was at the top of Stalin’s agenda and the “doctor’s plot” in the USSR and Slansky trial in Czechoslovakia had pointed the finger at “subversive Jews” within the Communist bloc who had been charged with links to American imperialism….

It is necessary to take a brief detour into the increasingly leftward tilt of the Religious Left among mainline Protestant denominations (The Death of Protestant America by Joseph Botturn in FIRST THINGS, August/September, 2008), and the career of Senator Joe McCarthy to really understand the irrational behavior of so many American Jews, as part of the Religious Left, who court their enemies and spurn their friends and has passed on from one generation to the next since 1932.

Contrary to almost universal opinion among the so called “enlightened” supporters of the American Jewish Left, Senator McCarthy evinced no anti-Semitism whatsoever throughout his career. Their vilification of him is a classic example of “guilt by association,” the same charge ‘liberals’ continually hurl at detractors of Obama. Among Irish-American Catholics who were profoundly anti-Communist and therefore supporters of McCarthy and his role in the Army hearings, there were undoubtedly some anti-Semites incensed at what seemed to them as the preponderant presence of many Jews among Democrats and those who espoused a militant anti-anti-Communism. The American Jewish liberal establishment fell prey to this guilt by association and in 1954 the Conference of American Jewish Rabbis condemned McCarthy and “unanimously” called for him to be stripped of his committee chairmanship.

McCarthy’s close associates and advisers were Jewish — Roy Cohn, G. David Schine, Alfred Kohlberg and columnist George Sokolsky. McCarthy’s investigation aimed toward exposing communists and their sympathizers did not single out Jews. No anti-Semitic statement or act has ever been alleged to have been committed by Senator McCarthy. Much of the anti-McCarthy sentiment that resulted in his being censured by the Senate and President Eisenhower had to do with his revelation that among the most prominent subversives his research correctly uncovered, were a high percentage of major figures who were appointees of the Roosevelt and Truman administration and were arch-WASPS — with Ivy League educations and representing some of the most elite families at the top end of American society, including several notable Protestant clergy of the mainline churches.

McCarthy’s attack on Left-wing activists

Jews were not involved at all in this controversy but many had been upset at the sight of Jewish writers, film producers and directors who had also appeared before the House un-American Activities Committee and easily believed that McCarthy’s anti-Communism had run amuck and defamed American Jews as a group as well as the Protestant clergy. It is simply impossible for many liberal Jews today to accept that there was more than a grain of truth in McCarthy’s attack on Left-wing activists (in the same vein as the charges against Reverend Wright and Father Pfleger today) who hid behind their clerical collars, nor can many of these same Jews believe that there was considerable prejudice against McCarthy by refined, wealthy and polished Ivy League types in Congress and the White House — for his Catholicism, Irish-Midwestern background, frequent grandstanding, boorish behavior, and hard drinking….

The aftermath of the Matthews incident still casts a long shadow over American politics. The Religious Left today, as then, is so determined to support what it perceives as the pursuit of “social justice” that it has often lent support to those whom it automatically regards as the “oppressed and downtrodden” — whether illegal immigrants who defy the law and even pro-Jihadi Muslims anxious to win additional privileges and special considerations under the guise of tolerance.

Read the full article at Canada Free Press

by F.C. Etier

“Glenn Beck attacks Sandra Bullock over donations to Haiti and New Orleans…” Can you imagine the fallout from a headline like that?

A nationally popular activist/commentator attacking an acknowledged hero that recently won major awards would raise eyebrows in each of their camps — and stir up a mushroom cloud of controversy.

Senator Joseph R. McCarthy delivered a speech in Wheeling, West Virginia, in 1950 in which he attacked Secretary of Defense, author of the Marshall Plan, and eventual Noble Peace Prize recipient, George Catlett Marshall. McCarthy’s speech was published in book form in 1951 as America’s Retreat From Victory. The subtitle was The Story of George Catlett Marshall. It only seems logical that if you’re going after someone with the stature of a Sandra Bullock or a George C. Marshall, you better have your ducks in a row. Certainly the analogy with Beck and Bullock was fictitious, but McCarthy’s attack was not.

McCarthy’s speech revealed little known — and well documented — facts about the Nobel Peace Prize winner.

Marshall’s Secret Past

According to McCarthy, a friend warned, “Don’t do it, McCarthy. Marshall has been built into such a great hero in the eyes of the people that you will destroy yourself politically if you lay hands on the laurels of this great man.” Did the senator throw caution to the winds? His reply, “The reason the world is in such a tragic state today is that too many politicians have been doing only that which they consider politically wise — only that which is safe for their own political fortunes.” McCarthy pressed ahead, encouraged by a 1943 article in the New York Times magazine by Sidney Shalett. Shalett quotes Marshall as having said, “No publicity will do me no harm, but some publicity will do me no good.” McCarthy says in the book/speech, “This perhaps is why Marshall stands alone among the wartime leaders in that he has never [as of June 1951] written his own memoirs or allowed anyone else to write his story for him.”

Thorough Research

Throughout America’s Retreat From Victory the reader will notice that McCarthy makes most of his more noteworthy (alarming/controversial) points by quoting other authors. Under the heading of “Source Material”, Appendix A lists more than two dozen bibliographical references from such authors as Winston Churchill, General Omar Bradley and General Claire Chennault….

Walter Trohan of the Chicago Tribune (later to become president of the White House Correspondent’s Association) published a story in the American Mercury titled, “The Tragedy of George Marshall.” According to Trohan’s story, in 1933, Marshall, a captain at the time, via an intercession of General Pershing, asked Chief of Staff General Douglas MacArthur if he could be “fast-tracked.” Marshall’s record lacked sufficient time with troops so he was put in charge of one of the Army’s finest regiments (the Eighth; Fort Screven, GA) to prove himself. In less than a year under Marshall’s command, the Eighth Regiment dropped to one of the worst in the army, making promotion impossible. Six years later, President Roosevelt placed George C. Marshall in command of the entire United States Army….

Consistently quoting credible sources and using documented research to make his points, McCarthy leads the reader through a series of events managed or strongly influenced by Marshall to assure the fall of Eastern Europe and China to Stalin and  the communists. The situation reached a terminal point in Tehran where Marshall and Stalin defeated a stubborn Churchill in what McCarthy describes as “the most significant decision of the war in Europe,” “…to concentrate on France and leave the whole of Eastern Europe to the Red armies.”

McCarthy chronicles Marshall’s efforts through the Yalta and Potsdam meetings and the post war “Marshall Plan” to diminish American influence.  McCarthy details a complicated and far-reaching conspiracy, naming names….  In the end, Marshall finished his career as Secretary of State, won a Nobel Peace Prize and died a hero.  McCarthy was censured by the U.S.Senate and died in Bethesda Hospital supposedly of liver complications from long-term alcoholism.  In the seventies, stories surfaced that the “power elite” had taken McCarthy to Bethesda to “get rid of him,” prompting his supporters to advise avoiding Bethesda.

Ironically, a 1997 report by liberal Senator Moynihan’s commission on government secrecy vindicated McCarthy’s claims of Communist infiltration.

Read the full article at F.C. Etier’s site

Read McCarthy’s book online