Starting with first principles and the scientific method
America First Books
Featuring ebooks that find a truer path in uncertain times

Else Christensen Archive

March 1973


We have stated previously in our rendering of Yockey's' philosophy that a High Culture such as our Western Civilization is organic in nature, it has, as he says individuality and soul; it is governed by organic laws, has a life-cycle as all organisms and, it has a certain direction.
This quality of direction we call Destiny. Destiny is the hallmark of everything living and the Destiny-Idea is the central motive of organic thinking. Destiny-thinking therefore is the type of thought which understands Life, and it is the only kind that does.
The other method of thought is that of Causality. This method is used to full effect when dealing with inorganic matters of technical or mechanical nature. The exact sciences use this kind of thinking and could never have reached their fantastic accomplishments with any other type of thinking. But at the same time, scientific exactness is rather grotesque when applied in the realm of Life for Life's happenings are uncontrollable irreversible, never-recurring. Every living organism is something never seen before, it follows an inner necessity, it passes -- never to re-appear.
Every living organism has a set of possibilities within a certain framework, laid out for it at its birth, and its life is the process of realizing these possibilities.
The technique of Destiny -- thinking therefore is simply to study the organism in order to understand its life conditions and necessities; only then is it possible to apprehend what MUST happen.
Let us point out here that Fate is not synonymous with Destiny, but the opposite of it. Fate attributes necessity to external incidents of an organism; Destiny, on the contrary, is the inner necessity of the organism. An incident may wipe out a life and thus accidentally terminate its life-cycle before its destiny was fulfilled; but this event came from outside the organism and was therefore apart from its destiny.
The inner progression of a life is determined at its conception; the life-cycle of an organism can either be helped or hindered by outside incidents, it can either overcome them or succumb to them.
The intrinsic quality of Destiny forces the organism to express its possibilities; outside incidents are blind to the inner compulsion of the organism but may play an important role in either smoothing its way or imposing great hardships.
Destiny-thinking and Causality-think-

[Page 2]

ing are related to one another in that they are both products of Life. Destiny is Life itself whereas Causality is merely a thought pattern by which Culture-man attempts to subjugate everything around him to his understanding. But there is a rank. Destiny-thinking is prior, for all life is subject to it, while Causality-thinking is only an expression of a part of Life's possibilities.
Causality stands still and can only reach satisfactory conclusions with subject matter that also stands still. Destiny-thinking moves along with Life, and man understands Destiny-thinking because he is himself moved by Destiny.

* * *



History, says Yockey, is the record of fulfilled destinies of Cultures, of nations and religions, of philosophies and sciences, of art forms and of people. Only the feeling of empathy is able to understand these once-living souls from the bare records left. Causality-thinking here is helpless, for at every turn of the road a new fact is cast into the pool of Life and from its point of impact, ever-widening circles of change spread out. All the motivating considerations behind the events are never written down; yet every impulse sways the course of the so-called historical facts.
The true understanding of any organism whether a High Culture, a nation or a man is to seek -- behind and underneath the facts of that existence -- the soul which is expressing itself by means of, and often in opposition to, the external happenings. Only then can one separate what is significant from what is unimportant.
It follows that "significant" means having a Destiny-quality; "unimportant" is without relationship to Destiny. It is thus obvious that the feeling for what is Destiny and what is Incident has a high subjective content, and that a deeper insight would consider as Destiny what the mere superficial sees only as Incident.
Consequently, men are differentiated with regard to their capacity for understanding History. The person who understands Destiny-thinking can see underneath the surface of events to the soul that is the determinant; History seen through the historical sense of a human being has this subjectivity. This is one aspect of History.
The other, the "objective" aspect of History is equally incapable of remaining rigid, even though at first glance it may seem to be. The writing of purely objective history is the aim of the so-called reference, or narrative method of presenting history, which attempts to set forth the development with complete impartiality. Nevertheless, it inevitably selects and orders the facts, and in this process the act of making a choice comes into play. If this was totally excluded, the product would not be history-writing but an index of dates, and even that can not be free from selection.
What then is History? Yockey says History is the relationship between the Past and the Present. Because the Present constantly changes, the relationship to the Past changes accordingly, and History changes with it. Each Age has its own History which the Spirit of the Age creates to fit its own soul. With the passing of the Age, never to return, that particular history picture has passed.
An attempt to write History "as it really happened" is historical immaturity and the belief in objective standards of history-presentation is self-deception, far what will come forth is the Spirit of the Age.
The general agreement of contemporaries with a certain outlook an history does not make it objective, but only gives it rank, the highest possible rank it can have -- as an accurate expression of the Spirit of that particular Age, -- true for that time and that soul.
A higher degree of truth cannot be obtained.



* * *


The average reader has no way of knowing that he is misinformed. He has no criteria by which he can judge the accuracy of what he reads or hears in the general news media. Since the mental cage in which he is trapped is invisible to him he sees no reason for searching out other sources of information.

Robert DePugh.

[Page 3]



3. Does Man Need God?


NO, answer the materialists to the question here asked. Man, they say, has acquired all the knowledge formerly attributed to the gods. He is an animal like all other animals and -- the New Biologists add -- he will survive best if he studies the social behavior of animals and applies the lessons learned to himself.
YES, say those who look upon the social and moral ruins of our modern societies and correlate the loss of religion with the evils of a drug-addicted youth, the loss of human dignity in the mass-imprisonment of both communist and capitalist societies.
WHO IS RIGHT? From our standpoint, which includes both animal and God in the evaluation of man -- both are right and wrong. Clearly, a synthesis is needed proceeding from a new definition of man.
From the materialistic or scientific point of view, it is true that we no longer see Thor angrily throwing .his hammer when thunder racks the skies. We no longer believe that an epidemic is God's personal vengeance for sin but look to microbiology for the reason. We have even come to see our own follies in regard to nature and hope to rebuild our old relationships with her. Do we need more?
But were the gods not more than an explanation-crutch to approach inexplicable natural phenomena? Were they not rather the soul of an organic social order? And is the whole religious issue actually not so much one of discarding gods who no longer fill our needs, but rather one of searching for new depths, new horizons in the religious as in every other area?
Those who cannot dislodge Christian concepts from their minds seem aware of this, but their attempts to revitalize Christianity to modern standards cannot but lead to further deterioration. Bringing discussions on God down to street level and seeking to substitute "this" for the "other" world will merely bury the last vestiges of Christianity, in the swamp of materialism that engulfs us. Nor can Christianity, in the face of new indisputable truths advanced by the sciences, be "upgraded" to meet their challenge. Unable to withstand the combined onslaught of science and materialism, the Church, in a desperate struggle for survival, is actually only competing with them.
Does this mean. that, theocracy being dead, the New Biology will determine the needs of man and exclude from him the need of God? Restricted, as is any discipline, to its own territory, it may seek to do just that, and the fate of man's identity will continue to swing back and forth on the seesaw of the faculties juggling their findings in the study of man.
Nor is this unacceptable so far as the basic needs of human social orders are concerned. For the findings of the New Biology (as reported in the books of Robert Ardrey: African Genesis, Territorial Imperative and Social Contract) are a tremendous breakthrough. In one swoop they make debris of Freudian-Marxist theories and the entire school of environmentalist sociology bred by them that for long decades have turned the world upside-down. With equal severity it demolishes the illusions of the egalitarian philosophy of Christian-Masonic origins and sets the record straight on the inequality of all life-forms including man.
For man is, before all else, a biological being, descended from the animal. Facts accumulated by the New Biologists will have a huge hand in pointing out the road to self-discovery. For we are here dealing with seeds and roots, no less important to man than to any other living thing.
But there are some factors on which biologists cannot have a decisive voice for the simple reason that man is not just "another animal" as defined by them. There are components in his nature nowhere existent in animal biology: a free will and a fully developed consciousness i.e. the power of reason and, at the zenith -- genius whose capacity for emo-

[Page 4]

tional and spiritual experience lie entirely outside the range of animal existence While these strictly human factors are inseparable from their biologic roots, and determine their nature much as a seed determines the blossom, the study of biology alone cannot divulge a complete definition of the complexity of man. It must be complemented and integrated with studies equally deep in the religious-philosophic departments. These must not, however, ignore the roots otherwise they would merely fashion new names for old falsehoods.
The most laudable merit the New Biologists can claim is the proof they furnish for the dominance of heredity over environment in the analysis of animal life and behavior. It is a knock on doors long barricaded by egalitarians. A gentle knock, to be sure, but one bound to become louder as more force is gathered in the knowledge on the laws of life. One day, inevitably, the doors.will swing open to a scientific investigation of the question of race. The time is ripe. For the age of race-consciousness announces its coming birth pangs being observed wherever men have embarked on the road to self-discovery. The truth will help. And men will understand each other better when they realize that each group, whatever its identity, is a sanctity unto itself and must, in accordance with the laws now known, be held inviolate by all others in the right, common to all, for survival and fulfillment. One day it will be seen that the declaration of the equality of all men, has not set men free but was used to transgress against the visible and invisible boundaries that separate the species and their sub-groups guarding against loss of identity.
The invisible boundaries of all human-kind extend into every phase of cultural life. Laws uncovered in the sciences of biology did not stop to function when the soul of man evolved its faculties. While animal societies can indeed be seen as a prelude to nationalism, analogies may prove false unless it is .fully acknowledged that man emerged from natural history, not as "another animal" but as MAN.
The animal lives simply to survive, unaware of any need but to live obedient to the laws that have made its survival possible. Viewed from an altitude that overlooks all of creation, we can see the behavior pattern of every animal society fitted into a general order. But we can not find any evidence that the evolution of any particular species either in appearance or behavior was the result of a free choice. They can be seen only as expressions of an indomitable will in nature to beauty and variety. But man, at some time in this evolutionary process, difficult to determine, stepped over a threshold to enter a new world -his own! And natural history forked off in a new direction: Human history.
Forthwith man has lived not merely to survive. Not only in search of food but in search of a purpose. Being of flesh and blood, he is beset with yearnings that bind him to the earth. But he is pressed no less by yearnings to reach beyond his human limitations and rise to the heights of the gods. One part of his being points in the direction whence he came, the other in the direction whither he is going or meant to go.
For man is a creature betwixt Beast and God. He is destined to travel forever back and forth between these two poles. Therein lies the source of his conflict but also the means of his triumphs and fulfillment.
By his reasoning power, far superseding animal intelligence and supported by a free will, man can out-hunt any animal, inflate his ego beyond all needs, and gorge an appetite no animal could develop. History overflows with examples of men who have thus managed to sink below all standards of the social-moral sense of animal societies. In the animal, however, this moral sense is a subconscious built-in survival feature. Man is conscripted to no such protective survival laws. He is free to throw in his life for adventure, design his fate in competition with other men and manipulate his fate by accruing to himself undue powers, building power-structures,wherewith to destroy all in his path of progress.
We have long accepted this to be a natural consequence of the law that survival is for the fittest. We realize now that in our heterogeneous industrial societies this means only one thing: victory for the most ruthless, by abilities proving not superior human qualities but skilled in the use of tactics based on sub-human standards of morality.
And we realize further that as man

[Page 5]

does not live by instincts alone, neither can he live by reason alone. For reason without guidance from a moral code is the most destructive weapon of the human intellect.
Man's moral sense is not founded on reason, but derives from that higher awareness quite detached from and by nature entirely unrelated to reason which in another article of this series we have described as the superconscious state of man's awareness.
It is when man experiences God as a reality in his soul that he reaches the true stature of manhood.As the sun transforms a barren earth into sublime beauty so inner man is transformed by the fire that lights his awareness when transcending the physical reality of life to know the unseen inner essence of life -- God. This exalting experience, radiating to all hidden spheres of the self, refines and ennobles whatever animal characteristics are man's heritage which in their "natural" state appear raw and ugly. Sex becomes an incidence of love and union experienced as sacred. Excesses are banned and limitations set where good takes command over evil. The sublime light flooding the superconscious penetrates the hidden chambers of the subconscious and brings to life wisdom stored by the memory of race. Now the self develops a surety of knowledge on such subjects as morality, beauty, justice, truth and social responsibility to kin and kindred that cannot be dissuaded by the barkers of vulgarity parading as defenders of man's freedom, for now man has come to realize the ultimate meaning of freedom and found the ultimate fulfillment.
THIS is why we need God!
Where man withdraws from God, in unbelief, in apathy or hostility, he need not necessarily become evil, but he cannot realize his full potential as man. Where he turns to his sensuous appetites for "human" fulfillment, he may become a victim of vice, with no ability even to realize his degradation.
Ages gone by have known crime and vice not dissimilar from those committed in our own times. But alongside these grew up monuments attesting to man's intimate association with God through immortal works of. art. Ages that will follow when ours has become history will find no such testimony. For all the material accomplishments of this age still do not hide the mediocrity of our so-called life-style. The adjectives with which we are so familiar, lauding this materialistic age -- rational, practical, pragmatic, sensible, still render the rewards senseless and meaningless. There is, especially among the young, a distinct awareness of lack of purpose.
No doubt, without an awareness of God man has indeed the option to become what the materialists prefer to call him: an intellectual animal.
The use of the term God in this context is in itself of no consequence. It need frighten no one who has dispensed with the old gods or with false gods. The term signifies simply the meaning evolved by the ages in our own particular culture, expanded by us to include all knowledge of the laws of nature and in full awareness of our biological and subconscious heritage.
All men are capable of finding and knowing God in the sense we understand the term. But the average man, limited in the mechanics of expression, may find himself released from his personal restrictions and raised to greater heights through the handiwork of God as created by human genius. We will attempt an explanation of this phenomenon in our next article "Genius and the Common Man."



* * *




I am sure you all know where Bethlehem is, but I wonder if any of you have ever heard of Kaupang, even though it at one time figured prominently in the history of our ancestors.
Kaupang is not somewhere in Viet Nam, but the name of a busy Norwegian trading town, important mainly in the ninth and tenth century; it was located on the south coast of Norway at the entrance to Oslo fiord.
The name Kaupang was first mentioned by a Norwegian merchant, Ottar, who in the 9th century, in his report to King Alfred of Wessex, gave an account of how

[Page 6]

to get to this important Scandinavian trading town.
The location of the town provided an excellent protection against intruders and was also an ideal harbour for the Norwegian trading fleet. In our time the waters surrounding the area are rather shallow, but a thousand years ago, the water level was at least five to six feet higher and therefore comfortably accessible for the. Viking ships with their shallow draught.
The row of small islands forming the archipelago served as an insurance against unwanted visitors, and the surrounding hills afforded excellent vantage points from which watch could be kept over the sea and thus give advance notice about ships entering the harbour.
In the nineteen fifties excavations were begun on a massive scale and many artifacts have been unearthed. They show the usual burial sites with potsheds, ornaments and many other objects proving that accounts of the brisk trading at Kaupang had not been exaggerated.
Many fragments of various kinds of metal, mostly iron, bronze and some gold show, that the area had a thriving metal industry. Also textiles were produced in quantity and findings of cooking pots indicate that these were produced on a scale larger than just for local usage. Wine seems to have been imported, evidenced by the findings of large pottery containers, mainly from the Rhineland area, thought to be the equivalent of today's wine barrels.
Most of the burial mounds indicate that cremation was the commonly used form for interment; in many graves costly objects showing a high quality of workmanship, most of native, Anglo-Saxon or Indo-European origin, were included with the remains of some rich merchant or chieftain.
The harbour itself has been excavated and remains of two piers have been found they were slightly rounded out against the ocean, narrowing towards the land, providing a second protection against strong winds and high seas. The piers seem to have been of a permanent structure, reinforced with stones on the land side.
The soil of the surrounding area consists of the so-called Black Earth which also was found around the well-known Swedish trading town of Birka. Remains of animal and fish bones are evidence that not only was Kaupang a central point for trading, but its citizens also brought loads of fish to the market place, and undoubtedly farming was carried out in the areas back of the town.
Kaupang enjoyed prosperity and prominence for at least two hundred years; but as the sea level dropped from year to year, the town had to be abandoned as it no longer was possible for larger ships to enter the harbour. The merchants had to move to a better location and today only archaeologists move around in the area which at one time was a teeming trading town.



* * *



Because of the great influence Christianity has had on our civilization and the practice of naming children at the same time they are christened i.e. taken into the Christian community, it has been common for parents to seek out biblical names for the babies; and many John's, Mary's, Ruth's and David's today work our fields, produce our goods and operate our machines.
However, as the importance of Christianity diminishes and our old ancestral heritage comes to the fore, it seems proper to suggest that parents-to-be explore the cultural treasures of our Western nations when considering names for the little new additions to the family.
This may well be a problem as to our knowledge there never has been compiled a list of boy's and girl's names with old Nordic or Indo-European origins. As most names from pre-Christian times are derived from the same sources, it does not matter much from which of the present Western countries such name lists come since, with only small variations, a great number of them are common to all Northern European languages.

[Page 7]

Let us for example take the name Albert; originally the first part of it was Adel- meaning noble, in German it still has that meaning and is the origin to names like Adelbert and Adalhart; this was shortened to Al-; Albert therefore means 'of noble birth.' Edel- has the same meaning - noble, pure, giving rise to names like Elbert, Elmar or Elmer; Elfriede was in times past Edalfrith, the first part of which we now recognize as 'noble' or 'pure', the second part has in Old Anglo-Saxon the meaning of peace or protection, but is now only used in British dialects about a small wooden area, which probably at one time meant peace and some form of protection. Atheling (Adeling) or Etheling can still be found in Webster's dictionary and means a person of noble birth; the Name Ethel derives from it.
Another short form for 'Adel' or rather 'Edel' is Ed- as in Edward; the last part -ward means defender, i.e. someone who is good at warding off intruders; Edward therefore means defender, but it is not clear whether the defender himself is of noble birth or those he defends are of course Edgar was originally Edelguard.
Harald (or Harold) is an old Nordic name; the first part Har- most likely comes from 'heer' which in both German and Scandinavian means an army; the last part -ald or -old is thought to derive from -wald or walt which is an old Indo-European word meaning to rule, master; Harald freely translated thus means `commander of the army'.
Norman of course is 'the man from the North;' Norbert -- 'born in the North;' -- Norma seems also to derive from 'north,' although the last part of the name is not clear.
`Rich' in old Anglo-Saxon meant not only to own wealth but also to be powerful and influential, so in Richard (Richguard) we again have an old name with the proud meaning 'influential defender.'
Other names with origins from our forgotten past are: For boys - Arne, Bjarne, Charles, Detmar, Donald, Erik (Eric; Erich), Frank, Frode, Karl (Carl), Otto, Thor, Waldemar, Walter, Werner; -- for girls: Astrid, Ebba, Erna, Frieda, Gertrud, Gudrun, Helga, Ida, Ingrid, Karla, Ragna (Ragnhild), Sigrid, Thora, Wilma.
Here as well as in many other fields, the experts do not all agree, and some linguists may question our explanations. Nevertheless, there are many beautiful names reaching back into antiquity, and we are depriving ourselves of an important part of our ancestral heritage, if we disregard this fountain of inspiration.



* * *



by Rod


WHY ARE WE HERE? This is the main question in life for all human beings, whether they are aware of it or not; there is an instinctive desire in all human souls to find the answer to this basic problem even in primitive or depraved individuals who may not actively seek an answer, but the instinctive desire to know why they exist is still there, no matter how submerged. Man's reaction to this rather basic life-urge takes one of three paths.
The first path, and the least commendable, is the one I call 'animalistic.' -- In this group are found, not primitives from lower civilizations, but mainly people from more advanced cultures. They are the ones who act as if they care not why they are here; they pretend life is only to be enjoyed, gratifying every whim and every physical pleasure. However, in the end these lost souls fail to do even this, for the difference between man and animal is that man is designed to think abstractly and have abstract goal in life, such as mastering the knowledge of his environment and himself; animal goals will not sustain a human being for very long, no matter how "educated" or sophisticated he may be. Out of sheer soul boredom, and an instinctive awareness that something is wrong, he may turn to drink, dope, perversion or any combination of these to escape the nagging feeling that all is not well. These types are often encouraged to continue their deplorable life style by the destroyers of the particular culture to which these lost souls belong. Or it may happen that they break away from their low-grade existence by stumbling upon one of the other two routes to answering the question we have before us.
The second path, higher than the first but mentally speaking not much better, is the one I call 'primitive'. In this group is found most of the inhabitants of the lower civilizations and, unfortunately, also many individuals from higher cul-

[Page 8]

tures. These people instinctively sense that there is more to man than just the animal part. However, whether they do not have the necessary insight, as with persons from a lower culture, or, with regard to people from a higher culture, they do not have sufficient inner motivation, in either case they fail to use their abstract reasoning powers to solve the fundamental question of why they exist. Instead they soothe their unsatisfied vague impulses by accepting whatever mystic mumbo jumbo that happens to came their way, no matter how ridiculous or illogical the belief may be. This applies not only to the primitive with his voodooism etc. but also to the high culture religionist with his respectable establishment faith. The danger here, particularly for a high culture, is that while some members of the culture may be satisfied with this answer to our question, the youth will not accept any religious dogmas which are not in harmony with man's present scientific knowledge. These citizens of the future are thus left "floating" to fend for themselves as far as human identity is concerned. --These young people without any proper moorings are fair game for those who would have them regress to the first or 'animalistic' mode of life.
Last is the third way, which I call the 'reasoning' path. Here we mostly, but not always find people from a higher civilization. These are the individuals who, even with limited formal education, try to use their abstract reasoning powers to arrive at an answer to life's mysteries. They understand that they are both animal and man ('man' = an organism having self-awareness and a faculty for abstract ideas) and they realize that the man-part of them must have a sense of identity in relation to the universe.They are always conscious of the great human life-question: Why are we here? Why do we exist?
The way in which people answer these questions places them in one of two groups. The minority, of which I am a member, believes that man was created through evolution (hence in tune with science) by an intelligent Supreme Being; the majority, to which many of my fellow Odinists belong, believes that man was a creation of the forces of nature. Both factions believe that it is man's duty and purpose in life to advance his civilization to greater heights, or, under the present circumstances to prevent it, from sinking any lower. With our present knowledge I believe both viewpoints are valid.
The one common outlook of people who I take the 'reasoning' path of existence is, that their civilization should be protected and sustained and that they, to the best of their ability, should advance it along the line of its natural temperament.
This I believe is the main purpose of existence.


* * *




Many years ago a story was told about an old man who was making himself a desk His grandson was watching as the old man diligently polished the back of the desk which was to go up against the wall.
"Gramps," said the boy, "why do you bother polishing that side? Nobody is going to see it?"
The old man looked at the boy. "Son," he said softly, "even if nobody else in the whole world would see the back of this desk, we would know about it."
This man had something that seems to have gone out of style these days: He had self-respect; he had pride; he had the quiet dignity that comes when a person is willing to accept his duties and responsibilities to himself and his family. A man of this calibre has the inner impulsion of doing his work to the best of his ability in utter disregard to whether he will ever get money or praise in return; and he also accepts the importance of setting a good example for the next generation.
We do not intend to moralize; Odinists know that self-respect is necessary to be at peace with oneself.
Unfortunately, far too many people are afraid to take up their responsibilities. Instead they bounce on some "cause"; they get busy with social concerns, but in reality they are running away from what they ought to be doing right in their own homes.
Many of these people turn into professional "do-gooders" who are so eager to have a finger in every pie, trying to boost their importance by identifying with some great religious or social enterprise. These "do-gooders" have forgotten that the only way they will ever do something really good and important, is by first fulfilling their duties to themselves and to those closest to them.

[Page 9]

It is far from us to say that people should not be concerned with what is going on around them; on the contrary, we think it is of the utmost importance to take part in the big issues of the day.
What we are saying, however, is that before you can be of any possible help in the community, you must be in harmony with yourself; if you are at ease with your own soul, then you have the spiritual courage and balanced judgment that is necessary in dealing with the problems facing your community, your country and Western Civilization.




In an earlier article about THE CLANS we touched lightly upon the fact that in the old European Continental aristocracy it was common practice that both partners in a contemplated marriage were supplying an official certificate stating what sort of people their eight great-grandparents were, the so-called Seize-Quartiers; this was done for the simple purpose of forming a shrewd opinion about the prospects and desirability of the marriage and estimate the compatibility of the two persons concerned and whether the union would profit both families; and here the thought was not so much on financial gain, but more directed towards the possible offspring who would be the future carriers of the family tree.
In many parts of Europe, particularly in the South, it has until recently, and. in some locations still is the rule, even amongst ordinary people, that parents chose the future marriage partners for their children. Often times this seems to work even better than when the young people do their own choosing. Our divorce statistics bear out this fact abundantly, particularly in regard to teen age marriages where about 50% end up on the rocks.
This way of entering into marriage was also common in Northern Europe when the Clan System was still honoured.
The most important reason for this practice was the fact that in older days before our industrialized society, most people were farmers. They were closely linked to nature and knew well her laws. Through observation more than from knowledge about-eugenics,they knew that wild animals only mate within their own group. They knew equally well that if they wanted to retain certain traits in their farm animals, they should not indulge in mixing the breeds, but rather take good care that their valuable stock would be kept pure.
With all these well known facts before them, it would seem sheer folly and callous stupidity not to be equally or even more concerned about whom their sons and daughters were to marry; a marriage was not thought of as just companionship and sex, but promised the possibility of bringing children into the family, and it was therefore of great importance who the future carriers of the family name would be. Naturally more care would have to be taken where the family tree was concerned than with their cows and horses. With our present knowledge about eugenics it seems a very logical and necessary precaution our wise ancestors took, in carefully choosing the marriage partners for their children.
I can hear screams going up: Do they want to decide whom I'm going to marry? -- They must be kidding! -- Parents don't understand a thing! --None of my friends are good enough for Mom and Dad! -- They haven't got the foggiest where it's at! -- and so on.
Would the young people of today, with all the scientific knowledge we have then not be able, wisely,to choose their marriage partners? Looking again at the divorce statistics it does not seem so.-- I hear more screams going up and I will hasten to say that I do not believe the youth of today is less intelligent or less concerned about finding a good mate than previous generations. I would suggest however, that never before have so many been confused so much by so few. -- What today, consciously or unconsciously is peddled off as facts about being `happy,' 'falling in love', and 'love, sweet love' is much more dangerous to the future of our civilization than any epidemic we so far have experienced. And this holds true not only for the West but for all peoples.
Love is being confused with sex, marriage with 'having fun,' and bringing up children is compared to playing with dolls. Unfortunately, it just ain't so! -- Many things have to be taken into consideration before the odds for a reasonably successful marriage are acceptable.

[Page 10]

I realize that it is no longer possible and maybe not desirable either to return to the old days when the family council decided who should marry whom; -- I did not leave it up to my parents either and the young people of today can think for themselves. There are lots of scientific facts available to them if only they would take the trouble, or maybe I should rather say be allowed to learn about them BEFORE they enter into a marriage contract.
All this means that even when dating, a young person should use his head. Of course not all dates end up in marriage, but the purpose of dating is quite naturally the initial stages of looking for a mate. There is an old saying that `Birds of a feather flock together'. With all the equality propaganda we endure these days it seems almost blasphemic to mention it. But, as Ted Garner Armstrong says: "It is not racism to realize there are many differences between the races. If people could only wash their minds of feelings of racial inferiority or superiority -- racism, and come to realize that there ARE basic strengths and weaknesses among the races!"
Even within each race there are many differences between the various groups. -- I am reminded of the story about the Englishman, the German and the Frenchman who each were to write an essay about the elephant. The Englishman went on a safari to study the animal in its natural habitat, the German went to the library to read all the books he could find about the subject and the Frenchman put on his coat and hat and went to the zoo. This does not mean that a marriage between any two members of these three nations would not be desirable, it only shows that even between persons who are racially closely related there are differences. And then think of the problems one would encounter when the two partners are racially further removed.
But not only racial differences are a hazard to a happy marriage and fine and healthy children; also social and religious differences often pose intolerable problems and put a strain upon a young couple, accounting for many heartbreaks that could have been avoided if only common sense had been used, and scientific facts had been consulted before the union was a fait accompli. It is a proven, but at present an unpopular statement, that the odds are against the success of a marriage between partners of two different cultures. The difference in cultural heritage, social background and level of insight are all factors which must be carefully considered and evaluated, and in most cases the two persons concerned are the ones most unlikely to have a clear understanding of the problems involved. If a marriage is intelligently decided upon, the young people concerned will experience the most important and also the most rewarding adventure of their lives.



* * *

Combined subscription for 4 issues of
----- $2.00 -----
Back issues available *
Free sample copies on request

Canada now has a new postal code system. Our address is:

P.O. Box 731
Adelaide St. Stn.,
Toronto, Ontario
Canada M5C 2J8

*America First Books Editor's Note: These publications, prices, and addresses are no longer applicable, and are reproduced on the web solely as historic artifacts.


YOU HAVE NOW read our publication and we hope you agree with the viewpoints expressed; but, dear kinsman, don't slump further back in your armchair and think that you activity for today is over!
It is so easy and harmless to write articles -- the paper is patient; and it is effortless and safe for you to sit in your comfortable home and read our essays; but that won't get us very far.
The Word Is Action! I'm sure each one of us could give our activities still another notch. When you have taken your stand, please let your opinions be known, let your MP hear about your dissatisfaction with the present situation; tell your House representative how you feel about the important issues; urge your friends and neighbours to get off their fannies and become activists.
Only through our collective efforts will our expressed views have enough impact; let us, in no uncertain terms, tell our present political and spiritual leaders in which way we want our countries governed, our cultural heritage preserved, and our Western Civilization advanced!




Reenactment at the Centennial Pageant, Minneapolis, Minnesota, 1925,
photo taken from The Promise of America

The America First Institute

Please visit our donation page
and support our cause.

Short URL for this web page:

Flag carried by the 3rd Maryland Regiment at the Battle of Cowpens, S. Carolina, 1781

© America First Books
America First Books offers many viewpoints that are not necessarily its own in order to provide additional perspectives.