(This article was originally written in April, 2020.)

During the last few months, a book has engaged my attention, and following my first full reading of it I have been impelled to spend a considerable amount of time reviewing the contents of it. Some while ago I had read certain parts of the book online. But it wasn’t until recently that I decided to read it fully. Now that I have the privilege of saying that I read the book from beginning to end, my belief that it is one of the most important books for progressive persons throughout the world to read is much more firmly established. The book I am referring to is The Revolt Against Civilization: The Menace of the Under-Man (1922) by Lothrop Stoddard.

The Revolt Against Civilization stressed the importance of heredity at a time when biology was revealing the true nature of all life on Earth – concerning, most importantly of all the human species. This work effectively disproves the still widely held falsehood that environment is what primarily shapes man’s development, and what is responsible for the immense differences in capacities between men. The book describes revolutionary agitation, what precedes it, what follows it, and how practically to prevent it from occurring. Prevention we must work towards, because, as the book reveals, social revolution always comes at a terrible and irreparable price.

I am aware that many might look at the year of publication, and say, The book was written nearly a hundred years ago! Has science not progressed and revived anew the old doctrine of natural equality and the omnipotence of the environment? Has science not “proved” all humans to be equal? On the contrary, the fact that the book was published in 1922 and not 2020 should be a case for further credence to it, rather than rejection. To have a major publishing company in today’s regulated, deprived, and restricted world publish a book like this one would be simply unbelievable. The major publishing companies are today owned and controlled by a certain group – a group that is known for ruthlessly censoring all material it encounters in opposition to its design, a design which it has had in mind since its very existence on Earth. On the contrary, progress of science depends on love for truth; and this love of truth, and the rejection of all doctrines and ideas that have been proven false by facts, is entirely unfamiliar to the group that currently dominates all the major establishments throughout the planet which purport untruthfully to perform their duties in the name of scientific progress alone. The group that I am referring to is, as you might have expected, world Jewry. No, not even the scientific fields today are free from Jewish deception, their lies and propaganda, their false hopes and promises. On the contrary, the Jews couldn’t possibly manage their power over the world as they are now doing without misusing science and erecting pseudoscientific lies to cover for their corruptive schemes.

These fallacies are thousands of years old, and were formed at a time when scientific methods and the tools necessary to advance knowledge had not been developed. Modern science has since discredited the democratic idea of natural equality. But the false belief in environmentalism still lives on, blocks progress, and ultimately foments atavistic revolt to a permanently lower plane of human endeavor. To this end I will quote Stoddard when he writes: “We are now coming to realize that, besides progress, there is ‘regress’; that going forward is no more ‘natural’ than going backward; lastly, that both movements are secondary phenomena, depending primarily upon the character of humans stocks.” In any country which bases its customs and ideas on those false ideas of “environmentalism” and “natural equality” on which democracy is based, which were formulated at a point in time long before the publication of Charles Darwin’s book The Origin of Species in 1859, which laid the groundwork for modern biology, we observe the false ideas prevailing today. So the false ideas of natural equality and environmentalism continue to retain the public grip. Pseudobiology, based on the idea of environmentalism, and democracy, are in today’s world complementary; without applying the one concept, the other would crumble. Both hinder the progress of biology, and in turn, the progress of humanity itself. And progress depends always upon those superior elements of a population, which have always been the minority. The masses today still lovingly hold onto those ideas that were made when science had not yet unveiled the grievous flaws on which the foundation for the idea of “natural equality” is held. As Stoddard states, Lamarckism, the doctrine of the inheritance of acquired characters (merely a modification of the environmentalist dogma), is “an optimistic creed, appealing to both the hopes and sympathies. […] Considering the powerful agencies which society had at its disposal – government, the church, the home, the school, philanthropy, etc. it was easy to believe that a wiser and intenser application of these social agencies offered a sure and speedy road to the millennium.” The truth has been revealed through science, but the democratic creed which forms the political and philosophical basis of many countries today will crumble without the “support by the majority of the people” of its false, yet extremely sympathetic and optimistic design. Nearly a hundred years later, Stoddard’s frank statement on Lamarckism’s influence on social systems still holds true today: “we are still living and acting under the environmentalist theories of the past. Our political, educational, and social systems remain alike rooted in Lamarckism and proceed on the basic premise that environment rather than heredity is the chief factor in human existence.” What is to be done but to uproot the democratic foundation, whose ideas have been proven false by facts?

This clearly is a matter of great importance regarding the well-being of humanity. As Stoddard remarks, “for civilization to arise at all, a superior human stock is first necessary; while to perfect, or even to maintain that civilization, the human stock must be kept superior.” The masses see themselves standing before “vast accumulations of instruments and ideas, massed and welded into marvelous structures rising harmoniously in glittering majesty”, and assume that such accumulations will remain with them as valuable devices necessary for human progress. This is fine and well – but a glance at the people who created and discovered these instruments and ideas reveals that these were primarily the work of a superior minority. Progress within society depends upon the work of superior individuals, who have always constituted a minority in even the most “civilized” countries. The percentage of really superior individuals, as Stoddard remarks, “has been always statistically negligible. Their influence, however, has been incalculable. Athens was not made up of Platos or Xenophons; it had its quota of dullards, knaves, and fools – as is vividly shown in the immortal satires of Aristophanes. Yet the dynamic power of its elite made Athens the glory of the world, and only when the Athenian stock ceased to produce superiors did Athens sink into insignificance.” Thus, when a “superior” race (according to Stoddard) is spoken of, this does not mean all the members of that race are “superior”. It merely means that the average of that race fares better than the average of other races. This higher average, in turn, produces a relatively high number of very superior individuals, “characterized by unusual energy, ability, talent, or genius. It is this elite which leavens the group and initiates progress.”

One witnesses how greatly our knowledge of the world has increased within the relatively short period of the past several thousand years of mankind’s existence. Such a vast increase in knowledge, however, was not met by a corresponding increase in superior hereditary endowment. Instead, the degenerate and inferior elements of the population disproportionately increased their numbers, while the superior elements left fewer children as a result of civilization’s burdens, which weighed most heavily upon them. Throughout history are records of peoples who have fallen by the weight of advancing knowledge and increasing obligations which their innate capacities were incapable of maintaining, let alone accelerating. “The knowledge of fact”, says the American biologist William Kellicott, “historic and scientific, of literature, of art, of custom, and manner, and all that goes to make up the culture and education which are the distinctive traits of our human lives – all this is no possession of ours when we make our first bow to society. Nor do these things become ours through a simple process of growth and development while we remain the passive subjects. All of these things represent the active individual acquirement of the racial accumulation of tradition and learning – what the biologist would call the results of modification. Our troubles begin when we realize that in the acquisition of this load each generation does not begin where the preceding left off, not at all – but we begin where our parents did. The first thing we do toward advancing our places in the world is to absorb what we can of the same kind of thing our forbears absorbed, learn over again their lessons, repeat their experiences; and then we proceed straightway to increase the difficulties for the next generation by writing more books, discovering more facts, making a little more history, and so it goes: the load of tradition increases with every successive generation, and so it has gone since the beginning of man’s civilization” (The Social Direction of Human Evolution: An Outline of the Science of Eugenics, 1911).

The dependence of society upon gradually increasing intellectual capabilities to meet its demands explains why the Lamarckist branch of environmentalism has in particular held, and still does hold powerful support. Lamarck believed that characters acquired by humans during their lifetimes are heritable and passed on to future generations, so that to these generations a gradually increasing hereditary endowment would be capable of matching society’s increasingly numerous demands. Prior to the last quarter of the 19th century, the Lamarckist belief was supported by the great majority of biologists. Leading scientific men of the 1800s, including Charles Darwin and Herbert Spencer, held onto Lamarck’s theory of inheritance of acquired characters. The idea of unending, illimitable human progress was certainly emotionally comforting. The work of the German biologist August Weismann has, however disproved this fanciful notion. Weismann’s work has shown that the germ-plasm, or the “genotype” of an individual, is fixed the moment conception has taken place. In other words, an individual’s heredity is not modified or changed by the environment. Though the body-plasm of an individual can be influenced by the environment, the germ-plasm, or hereditary constitution, is not similarly influenced to permanently alter future generations. As Stoddard notes, “an abundant weight of evidence proves that, during the entire historic period at any rate, mankind has made no racial progress in either physical power or brain capacity. […] Can we show greater philosophers than Plato or Aristotle, greater scientists than Archimedes or Ptolemy, greater generals than Caesar or Alexander, greater poets than Homer or Hesiod, greater spiritual guides than Buddha or Jesus? Surely, the peoples who produced such immortal personalities ranked not beneath us in the biological scale.” Historical evidence alone conclusively shows that as a society advances and as its burdens increase for its superior minority – its builders and advancers – the quality of the aggregate who are its bearers does not correspondingly increase in order to meet the necessary demands of that society, not to even mention advancing it. And to quote Karl Pearson: “Selection of parentage is the sole effective process known to science by which a race can continuously progress. […] Where the battle is to the capable and thrifty, where the dull and idle have no chance to propagate their kind, there the nation will progress, even if the land be sterile, the environment unfriendly and educational facilities small.” Thus, a nation can only sustain itself insofar as the racial character that built it is not impoverished through intermixture with foreign or unsound stocks or strains. And if it wants permanent advancement on a higher plane than that upon which it currently rests, it must see that its living foundations are improved through careful, planned selection of its best elements and by curbing the reproduction of the inferior.

Stoddard’s book proves that men are profoundly unequal in regards to their capacities and abilities. The author shows that these differences are largely the product of heredity. Stoddard cites several scientific studies of eminence running in families. I will mention one of the more noteworthy studies here. Numerous studies were undertaken by Francis Galton to determine whether eminent persons were more likely to produce offspring of eminence than is the general population. One of these was a study concerning the eminence of the adopted children of popes. “For centuries it was the custom for a Pope to adopt one of his nephews as a son, and advance him in every way. Now, if opportunity is all that is necessary to advance a man, these adopted sons ought to have reached eminence in the same proportion as the real sons of eminent men.” On the contrary, Galton’s study of the adopted sons of popes showed that the likelihood of nephews of popes reaching eminence was merely as high as the statistical expectancy of eminence by nephews of eminent individuals – which statistic has shown that the likelihood of nephews of eminent individuals reaching eminence is much lower than the expectancy for the sons of great men.

Stoddard also mentions that the influence of the environment on a species depends upon the biological rank of that species. Biology has discovered that the higher a species is on the evolutionary scale, the less amenable it is to differences in the environment. “Man is, therefore, least affected by, and most independent of, environmental influences.” One of the causes for this diminishing influence is the fact which has been pointed out by Frederick Adams Woods, that the influence of the environment decreases with the organism’s power of choice. Environmental influence is only great if escape from that environment is impossible. Such a condition can hardly be said to be applicable to humans. Man has the greatest power in choosing the surroundings most suitable to his needs, and is therefore least influenced by outward conditions. It is man’s predispositions, his nature, which will largely determine his surroundings; rather than surroundings making man, man is most apt to choose surroundings which are most suitable to him as predetermined by that vast undercurrent we know as heredity. To follow the apt words of Karl Pearson (Nature and Nurture, 1910): “it is essentially the man who makes his environment, and not the environment which makes the man.” And as Woods observes in this connection, “The occasional able, ambitious, and determined member of an obscure or degenerate family can get free from his uncongenial associates. So can the weak or lazy or vicious (even if a black sheep from the finest fold) easily find his natural haunts” (Frederick Adams Woods, “Laws of Diminishing Environmental Influence”, Popular Science Monthly, April 1910).

Stoddard mentions the interesting fact that the level of a society does not correspond with the level of each of its living members. Within society are a small minority of clearly superior individuals, a minority of distinctly inferior individuals, and a majority of mediocres. The social level, as Stoddard writes, “is a sort of compromise – a balance of constituent forces. This very fact implies that individuals must be differentially spaced. And so it is.” The superior individuals stand above the current social level, and are its advancers. But what about the inferiors, who are incapable of keeping pace with the current level of society? The inferior strata of society are what Stoddard refers to collectively as the Under-Man. By “Under-Man”, Stoddard refers not just to degenerate individuals, but to all those elements within society who are incapable of adapting themselves to the current social level. As “degeneracy” and “inferiority” are often confounded, Stoddard feels the need to explain the difference between the two terms. Degenerates, while belonging to the “inferior” category, have produced degeneracy for centuries. Their degeneracy lies in defects in the germ-plasm, defects which affect all races and nations, and who as such have always been sundered off from the rest of the population. But as a society advances as a result of advancements made by the superior individuals, bringing that society to a higher stage, those of the mediocre class, persons who fared “well enough” in society’s earlier stages, are brought to a lower, inferior plane within that society. Individuals who would have been considered “mediocre” in a more primitive stage of society are placed in the “inferior” category as a society progresses. As a society advances, the number of inferiors within that society will increase. These “inferiors”, while not degenerates, are incapable of adapting themselves to “meet the sterner demands of high, complex civilizations”. The Under-Man, according to Stoddard, is “the man who measures under the standards of capacity and adaptability imposed by the social order in which he lives”. The social order is beyond their limits of capability.

I would like to make some comments on Stoddard’s term “Under-Man”. After reading Stoddard’s book, I truly believe his usage of the term “Under-Man” could be replaced by “the Jews and their sympathizers” – plain, efficient, and correct. However, it is important to mention that the world has changed for the worse since Stoddard’s book was published in 1922. When we speak of a man who is incapable of adapting himself to the demands of the current social order, we must be careful in realizing that the nations of the world have not been progressing – not intellectually, not morally, not spiritually. On the contrary, because of the influence of the Jews, the world has been intellectually, morally, and spiritually regressing. Thus, the “current social order” of countries today cannot be considered “superior” to that of America, or even the world in general, when Stoddard’s work first appeared in the early 20th century. Times have changed, the world has changed, but we must not fool ourselves: Things have not changed for the better. Societies throughout the world have been regressing, not progressing. In that case, I feel that a number of previously appreciated societal reforms would actually lead to an infinitely more desirable and nobler course than the current state of affairs which the world at large is following, as the result of Jewish world corruption and degeneracy. For example, Stoddard clearly presents himself as an advocate for birth control in his work. (Stoddard was a member of the American Birth Control League, whose founder was Margaret Sanger. Sanger was a Jew-sympathizer and was married to a Jew named William Sanger.) He describes birth control methods as modern devices which are necessary for nations that have medically advanced so that a far lower death-rate of newborns is found today as compared to past centuries, when such a birth-rate would have been offset by a high death-rate due to the lack of modern medical knowledge. On this point I would disagree. Following mass-scale birth control in the United States and all other developed countries, can the masses who live in these countries be called “advanced” in regards to intelligence, virtue, morality, and character? Are the men and women who use the Jews’ modern birth control devices, and who engage in sexual intercourse simply for the pleasure factor, mentally, morally, and spiritually “advanced” as a result? Obviously not. Rather, it’s quite the opposite. History has shown, and common sense would show, that when the masses of a nation become morally weak, the nation itself will decline and decay. What has resulted from the Jewish birth control movement has been a massive loosening, an unleashing of the basest of appetites previously restrained by the customs and morals of the spiritual and philosophical minds of past times, men whose ideas and ideals must still be held with firm regard today. In regards to moral and spiritual questions, it would seem the Ancient Greeks might offer progressive individuals the best path towards such development. Morally and spiritually, we must be bound by many of the same principles of right and wrong as formulated thousands of years ago by men like Plato and Aristotle. Much of their idealism must guide us for as long as we have a system of ideal morals and character at all.

Now, these Under-Men, what is their reaction as they continue to grow both in numbers and in hatred towards society, towards societal standards which they are incapable of attaining? “What but instinctive opposition and discontent? These feelings, of course, vary all the way from the dull, unreasoning dislike to flaming hatred and rebellion. But, in the last analysis, they are directed not merely against imperfections in the social order, but against the social order itself.” Thus, however much the Under-Man may “rationalize” his intentions by arguments against real, existing defects in the social order, what he ultimately desires is regression to a lower level of society congenial to his inferior nature. The result is revolutionary agitation. Stoddard’s description of what exactly happens to the individual members of a society during a social revolution is highly informative, and a warning for all of us. During social revolution, not only is society under the control of its Under-Men, but each member of that society will relapse into a state of savagery, even bestiality: “For, in this respect, the individual is like society. Each of us has within him an ‘Under-Man’, that primitive animality which is the heritage of our human, and even our prehuman, past. This Under-Man may be buried deep in the recesses of our being; but he is there, and psychoanalysis informs us of his latent power. This primitive animality, potentially present even in the noblest natures, continuously dominates the lower social strata, particularly the pauper, criminal, and degenerate elements – civilization’s ‘inner barbarians.’ Now, when society’s dregs boil to the top, a similar process takes place in individuals, to whatever social level they may belong. In virtually every member of the community there is a distinct resurgence of the brute and the savage, and the atavistic trend thus becomes practically universal.” A warning for all! Let us work so that such a resurgence of bestiality never will take place. And how can we accomplish this but by permanently diminishing the source of the degenerate stream?

The Under-Man longes for conditions in which he feels he would be more at home. The discovery of the importance of heredity in shaping individuals and countries as a whole; the more the Jews and their sympathizers come across the knowledge that their defects and deficiencies are due largely to heredity rather than environment: to “nature” and not “nurture”, the more discontented they become. When these inferiors are left to breed and freely propagate their kind, as is happening at this very moment, revolutionary agitation, which results in the destruction of the best elements of the race and the permanent decline of a nation, gets nearer to realization pari passu. “Defective persons are more or less unfit for holding useful places in the social order and tend to sink into the social depths, where they form those pauper, vagabond, and criminal elements which are alike the burden and the menace of society.” For the last several thousand years of human existence prior to the modern “biological revelation”, the Under-Man was able to turn to the dogma of natural equality and lack of opportunities for success as excuses for his failures. With the lack of modern biological knowledge, the Under-Man could delude himself and his superiors into believing that if “the world were properly ordered he would be much better placed.” Yet discontent is loudest among those who are incapable of grasping opportunity when it is offered; and now that biology has discredited the environmentalist theory, the Under-Man takes refuge in mysticism and appeals to emotion as his only hopes for survival within the existing society.

The Jews and their sympathizers are trying their best to hide the truth from us! And with the truth so hidden, these degenerates have their opportunity to disrupt those social ideas and ideals which they naturally find incompatible.

The outstanding cases of degeneracy with which the people have to eugenically deal are, Stoddard says, the feeble-minded, the germinally insane (e.g. schizophrenia, manic-depressive insanity, etc.), and the epileptics. Besides those plainly suffering from such defects are the mass of individuals who, while not clearly “committable” hospital cases, nevertheless show their defective nature through habitual crime, beggary, prostitution, neuroticism, intemperance, lasciviousness, shiftlessness, stupidity, improvidence, etc., who are much more widely distributed within society and who are frequently to be observed throughout the general population. It might be only by observing these superficially less outstanding cases of degeneracy that we begin to realize “the truly terrible action of inherited degeneracy, working generation after generation, tainting and spoiling good stocks, imposing heavier burdens, and threatening the future of civilization.” As Stoddard justly remarks, “The presence of vast hordes of congenital inferiors – incapable, unadaptable, discontented, and unruly – menaces the social order with both dissolution and disruption.” The public’s interests are turned towards achievement, success, strength; its back is towards those who lack the ability to achieve or succeed, until sheer numbers forcefully bring them to the view of the public. Gravely Stoddard says, “the social revolution will depend more and more upon brute force, relying upon the materialism of numbers and racial impoverishment to achieve final victory.” And the hereditary taints are still here today and in greater prevalence than ever, however many euphemisms the Jews may use to cover up for them (mental defectives now “autistic”, tramps now “the homeless”, harlots now “sex workers”, nymphomaniacs now “sexually active women”, drunkards now “alcohol dependent”, asylums now “mental health treatment centers”). The defects that cause degeneracy are largely inborn and hereditary and will continue to be passed on to future generations unless the superior individuals of all nations take action to prevent the ability (paradox!) of the degenerate classes to produce children to impair later generations of mankind. To quote Charles Davenport: “We have become so used to crime, disease and degeneracy that we take them for necessary evils. That they were, in the world’s ignorance, is granted. That they must remain so, is denied.”

With this unchecked flood of degeneracy social unrest and social revolution comes. Stoddard explains the social revolutionary process and its symptoms. The symptoms of incipient revolution are:

1. Destructive criticism of the existing social order;
2. Revolutionary theorizing and agitation;
3. Revolutionary action.

As regards destructive criticism, “Its range is much wider than is commonly supposed, for it usually assails not merely political and social matters but also subjects like art and literature, even science and learning.” And what do we see throughout the world today? We see world Jewry declaring openly to degenerates, and to the supple minds of youth: “Rebel against the old social order! Do whatever you wish to do, with no regard for the future well-being of society! Dress yourself with tattoos, ameliorate your suffering with drugs, howl and swear indecent words with every statement, sleep with whomever you like whenever you like, so long as both approve, watch obscene videos, heed the desires of yourself and the degenerate above others!” These behaviors have been so imprinted and socially adjusted to such a degree within the last hundred years or so that the crowd thinks less of them each passing year, and they are being regarded as part of “custom”. Just as in the revolutions of the past, the signs of incipient revolution are here. The “forces of chaos” are gathering strength, and now, even the “normal” masses are readily joining company with the minority of distinctly degenerate elements. The very fact that the public sees nothing wrong with current excess trends, practices, and ideas, by itself is an ominous sign that something really is wrong, that the world is degenerating into a state of savagery, even bestiality, and is on the path towards social revolution. To this end I will quote Stoddard when he describes the situation in Russia preceding the Bolshevik Revolution in November 1917: “Could there be a better description of that breakdown of social controls and upsurge of savage instincts which, as we have already seen, characterizes the outbreak of social revolutions?”

As stated before, during the revolution itself each individual resembles society in that his primitive urges dominate his actions. Before this peak is reached, there is readily observed a gradual loosening of morals and ideals expressing itself in government, politics, school, the home, language usage, social customs, art, literature, and music. During this period only exceptionally strong and able individuals refrain from succumbing towards what the masses now welcome, and which the distinctly degenerate classes have always welcomed.

The masses are incapable of effectively guiding themselves. For good guidance they need the help of superiors, without whom they would be, as Stoddard says, “as sheep without a shepherd”. Without such guidance, the masses, when left to do whatever they want, without the superior individuals to guide, control, and subdue them, will strive only for the basest forms of activity. When left to themselves, each individual of the mass feels that by acting against social ideas and ideals, he is really expressing “liberty” and “freedom” and “progression”. Behind this “rationalization” of emotion, the fact is that what each of the mass does is exactly in harmony with what the other members of the mass do. Almost every man, without exceptional strength of character and moral will-power, will turn towards the pleasures and activities which are easiest to attain and which are shared with the lesser animals of the earth. “The special traits of intelligence which distinguish man from the animals appeared only a few hundred thousand years ago, and have developed strongly only in a few human stocks. Biologically speaking, therefore, intelligence is a very recent trait, which is still comparatively rare and which may be easily lost.” However much it may claim to act in the names of progression and a “New Age”, rebelliousness against strong social controls is as primitive as the first appearance in the world of animals some hundreds of millions of years ago.

In relation to the problem of revolutionary agitation, I believe it is important to mention one aspect which Stoddard doesn’t in his book. That is the aspect of the woman. For ages world Jewry has seen the woman as a highly effective ally for the overthrowing and revolting against social standards. The woman is a particularly attractive target for Jewish revolutionists and agitators. The Jew, with his innate dramatic and musical ability, possesses a fluency in speech and persuasion which attracts the crowds, which the woman is more susceptible to follow than the man. This, combined with his thirst for compassion and sentimentality, and his claims of suffering and persecution, makes a particularly strong emotional mark on the woman. For these reasons the Jew has an easy task in drawing into his hands the more susceptible, more emotionally inclined elements of society, including womanhood. Womanhood, composing half of the world’s population, with her tendency to look with pity at every unfortunate exception, at every individual drunkard or feeble-minded child, could be very easily molded by the Jews into a highly effective disturber of the social order. Furthermore, unlike cases of degeneracy, the woman will and must always be with us, an integral part of us; but of course this does not mean she has been especially helpful in the promotion of eugenic fitness: Rather, her contribution in this direction has been rather minimal, and often harmful, owing to her increased sentimentality. (We may say the same with certain races too, but I will not delve on these here.) With more freedom and rights granted to women, the greater an effect the woman’s tendency to look at unfortunate exceptions with pity and emotion would have on society and all the devices in its control. And so history, and the present world situation prove it. The Jew intensified the announcement of women’s persecution. He cried for the need for the improved social status of the woman throughout the 19th and 20th centuries. The Jews used women and feminism to promote their revolutionary aim. In one instance, the Jewish propagandist Bernays declared that women in America should start smoking cigarettes. (Women had for the most part avoided smoking.) In 1929, Bernays distributed propaganda and implored the female masses to hold their cigarettes as feminist “Torches of Freedom” at the Easter Sunday parade in New York. The campaign was a success. (Bernays himself didn’t smoke, and tried to induce his wife to quit smoking.) During the Prohibition, Jews persuaded the women of America to wear shorter dresses, to drink freely, to listen to jazz music, and to rebel against the social order. These, of course, are not mere isolated instances of Jews influencing the behavior of the more susceptible elements of the population. Of course, we must not ignore the immense individual differences that exist between women as in men, but the averages are significant too and we cannot ignore these. What do we see today, but feminism endorsed by Jewish agitators, and women throughout the world carrying out their demands for “leveling equality”? Jewish agitators (I will quote Stoddard, but justly will replace his use of “Bolshevism” for “Jewry”) have “whispered in the ears of the discontented their gospel of hatred and revenge. Every nationalist aspiration, every political grievance, every social injustice, every racial discrimination, is fuel for [Jewry’s] incitement to violence and war.”

Stoddard devotes one of the later chapters of his work, “The Rebellion of the Under-Man”, to the Bolshevik Revolution of November, 1917 in Russia. The chapter title is suggestive of Stoddard’s assertion that Bolshevism in Russia is not a “purely Russian problem, but […] a local phase of something which must be faced, fought, and mastered in every quarter of the earth.” Just as with the term “Under-Man”, Stoddard’s reference to the Bolshevik may be replaced with “Jewry and its followers” for a much more effective understanding of the actual source of world rebellion and agitation. Stoddard wrote in 1922 that world agitation “is persistently and insidiously going on”, and it holds true to the present day. However much Jewish leaders may claim their doctrines and ideas to be “ultramodern”, revolutionary agitation and action have taken place in many periods and places throughout the world, with the same fundamental symptoms and largely the same results. Whatever new names and attending modifications social revolutionary phenomena may carry, there is “always the same violent revolt of the unadaptable, inferior, and degenerate elements against civilized society, in atavistic reaction to lower planes; the same hatred of superiors and fierce desire for absolute equality; finally, the same tendency of revolutionary leaders to become tyrants and to transform anarchy into barbarous despotism.” Whatever are the means, the purpose is always the same. Every wrongdoing, every crisis may be seized to ultimately further the Jewish goal of world disturbance and unrest. “No possible source of discontent has been overlooked. Strictly ‘Red’ doctrines like the dictatorship of the proleteriat are very far from being the only weapons in Bolshevism’s armory. Since what is first wanted is the overthrow of the existing world order, any kind of opposition to that order, no matter how remote doctrinally from Bolshevism, is grist to the Bolshevist mill.”

Stoddard’s proposal to eliminate social chaos is one that aims at a practical and permanent improvement, rather than mere social and political reforms. Social and political reforms should “no longer be regarded as having specific virtue in themselves”; rather, they should be applied “only in so far as they tended to better the race. […] Thus a new criterion of policy and action is set up for every field of human activity, thereby involving a general revaluation of all values.” As regards the Bolsheviks (i.e., the Jews, and all the sympathizers and supporters of Jewish ideas, doctrines, and ideologies): “Knowing, as we do, that Bolsheviks are mostly born and not made, we must realize that new social rebels will arise until their recruiting grounds are eliminated. When society takes in hand the betterment of the race, when degenerates and inferiors are no longer permitted to breed like lice, the flood of chaos will soon dry up.” According to Stoddard, “race cleansing”, rather than “race building”, should be eugenics’ primary concern. Here, he writes, is scientific knowledge most advanced: “The whole weight of scientific evidence shows that degeneracy is caused, not by environment, but by heredity; that the degeneracy with which we have to deal is an old degeneracy due to taints which have been carried along in the germ-plasm for generations. If, then, this mass of degeneracy, the accumulation of centuries, could be once got rid of, it would never again recur.” Race cleansing, says Stoddard, is where the need for action is most apparent, since degeneracy “not only handicaps society but threatens its very existence”. And if “social stability can be maintained and a cataclysm averted, there is every reason to believe that our world will soon take a decided turn for the better.”

All nations and races have the duty to preserve their most healthy, productive, and useful elements, and to curb the reproduction of the weak, the lazy, the dissolute, the inefficient, the incapable. The upstanding members of all races must join together in the struggle against international Jewry. “The world is to-day the battleground of a titanic struggle. This struggle has long been gathering. It is now upon us and must be fought out. No land is immune. Bolshevik Russia is merely the standard-bearer of a revolt against civilization which girdles the globe.” Shall we continue to accept the Jewish corruption and degeneracy which assails everything that is noble, or should their poisonous ideas and doctrines be put practically to an end? Whatever happens it will, to be sure, be “strong dynamic minorities, not passive majorities”, who will enact change. Do you have the strength and the courage to bring that change?