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

Else Christensen Archive

June 1973


In discussing the various aspects of history, Yockey maintains that each High Culture has its own relationship to History which will develop in a certain direction through the life-course of the Culture. Through each stage of a Culture History has a subjective and an objective aspect, each of which can be arbitrary; the determining factor, however, is not one or the other, but the relationship between the two. This relationship is not arbitrary but in keeping with the Spirit of the Age.
The High Cultures are not only differentiated from one another, but the various Ages within the Cultures are distinguishable in their historical sense. One certain Life-tendency dominates any one Age.
In all the High Cultures the religious feeling is uppermost in the first great Life-phase; this is superseded by critical spirituality, which gives way to the historical outlook; this again merges into the final rebirth of religion.
Each Age sees its predecessors under their purely historical aspect and can only in this way feel related to them. -- The fact that a certain Life-tendency is uppermost during a certain period cannot destroy the organic unity of Culture-man who derives his historical sense from the relationship between the Past and the Present.
In all Ages the individuals therein are separated from one another in the varying development of their historical sense. -- A political unit in the custody of an opportunist with no historical horizon will pay with their wasted blood for his lack.
Just as Western Culture has the most intensely historical soul, so does it develop men with the greatest historical sense. It is a Culture which always has been conscious of its history. In any confrontation within the West, both sides have felt that they were saddled with determining the Future, and at each turning-point there were many who understood the significance of the moment. Western men therefore have been under the necessity of having a History-picture in which to think and act.
The fact that the Culture is continually changing means that History is continually changing. -- History is the continuous re-interpretation of the Past. -- Thus the alternatives for History are not true or false, but effective or ineffective. The ruling historical outlook in each Age is the expression of the pro-

[Page 2]

per soul. -- Truth in the religio-philosophical-mathematical sense, meaning timeless, eternally valid, disassociated from the conditions of Life, does not pertain to History.-- History that is true is History that is effective in the minds of significant men.
The History-writers of each Age have the task of setting forth the necessary picture of the Past. This picture then becomes effective in the thoughts and actions of the History-makers of the Age.
There is only ONE History-picture, true for each Age; it cannot be chosen, but is an expression of the Spirit of the Age. Ours is an external, factual, skeptical Age. It is not moved by great religious or critical feelings. The center of gravity is in Politics.
Pure historical thinking is the close relative of political thinking. Both are realistic. Historical thinking seeks to know what was, it does not want to prove anything. -- Political thinking has as its first task to ascertain the facts and the possibilities and then change them through action.
Ours is the first Age in Western history in which an absolute submission to facts has triumphed over all other spiritual attitudes. It is the natural corollary of an historical Age when critical methods have exhausted their possibilities. In the realm of Thought, historical thinking triumph; in the realm of action, Politics occupies the center of the stage. We follow the facts, no matter where they lead, even to the point of giving up cherished ideologies, pet notions or prejudices. Previous Ages in Western history formed their History to fit their soul; we do the same, and our ethical imperative is derived from our historical outlook, not vice versa.
Our History-picture is no more arbitrary than that of any other Age of the West. It is compulsory for us. Insofar a man is an effective representative of this age, he has this particular historical outlook, and no other. It is not a question whether he should or not. -- He has it -- if not in his verbal utterances, then, to be sure, in his feelings and his unconscious valuation of events.

E.C .


* * *

We have often used expressions such as "the religious attitudes of Western man."
In order not to offend Women's libbers we are considering to change it to "religious attitudes of Western persons," --- but somehow it doesn't sound right!


* * *



The often used,and misused, peace symbol has been explained by many as the sign of anti-Christ, of Satan, witches, and other strange mystics.
To one familiar with old Nordic traditions it seems that the original Indo-European meaning is missing. In times of long ago there were two equally important symbols, one where the crossbars of the Sun-wheel were reaching upwards and one where :they went downwards, as they do in the so-called peace symbol. The former signified Life and the latter Death. It was even used on headstones in cemeteries; the stone mason would engrave the sign for Life and the date of birth, and just below that he would place the "peace" sign and the date on which the person had passed away.
During the thirties attempts were made in Central Europe to bring this tradition back into use, but the general upheaval caused by the war destroyed this modest endeavor, and has, to my knowledge not been tried again.
To be sure, when the bars of the symbol are turned downwards it means peace and quiet -- the quiet you'll find in totalitarian countries where open dissent is non-existent or punishable with slave labour; -- or the peace you find six feet underground.



* * *


"Give us this day our daily bread," Christians have piously prayed for centuries; of course the idea is not that a loaf of bread should come flying down in to your lap, or that there should rain pennies, say 32 cents, from heaven so that you might go and buy a loaf.
It rather meant that through your prayers you implored 'God' that there would be rain and shine so that crops would grow and you thus would be able to feed your family.
In complex societies "bread" meant work i.e. earning your buying power with which you could acquire your loaf of bread.
But what nobody bargained for was all the additives, chemicals and other poisons you now get in a loaf of bread; the prayer ought to be changed to: "Give us this day our bread without any man-made additives" and you might as well include "and water without poison."

[Page 3]




This is the Age of Biology. It has come upon us almost unaware, and certainly unwanted for existing power structures. All bureaucracies wherever they are established, in government, education and economics, are doing their utmost to keep the age from realizing itself. But it will grow, inevitable as a plant grows; it will come as spring comes to relieve winter, and men will turn to biology as the science of life in seeking answers to problems of a purely human nature that they had not found where they searched heretofore -- in the fields of economic and political science. Both of these have dominated the thinking of Western man for centuries. The revolutions fought -- the French, the American, the Russian were all of the same order. -- The humanizing label of "brotherhood" was false advertising, not so much because of false intentions, at least where the misled masses were concerned, but because the contents thus labeled lacked all ingredients of the subject of life and the laws that uphold life.
They said Equality and had in mind only material things, not yet having learned that nature knows no equality. But the "just" distribution of wealth only ended in shifting ownership from one type of hands to another. So today instead of feudal princes we have princes of money in control of our lives. Instead of beautiful castles gracing the countryside, more and more towers of steel and glass are destroying human life concentrated in cities, blocking out the sunlight and turning people into an asphalt herd. All the while taxation and inflation facilitate disownership of real property, elsewhere already accomplished through Communism.
They said Fraternity and completely ignoring or throwing out hereditary principles in the build-up of nations, created more tension, friction and hostility than had ever existed within nations by destroying the private self of nationhood, crowding together groups incompatible by nature and tradition and therefore naturally ill disposed to or intolerant of each other. Moreover, their fallacious doctrines of environment over heredity had reference to man-created environments only and treated the environments of nature as either non-existent or old-fashioned in points of human needs. Nature instead was perverted into an economic growth factor only in the calculation of material wealth. So today we have more and better causes for revolutions and wars, even to the extent of nature herself being at war with man.
They said Liberty, believing -- granted at least where Rousseau was concerned -- man to be innately good and that he would again become so if only returned to his primitive natural state. They left two things out of their bets on the future: 1. Due consideration for the difference between bondage and discipline. 2. The fundamental fact that man, to be a free and moral being had to have the ability to commit evil to be able to choose either good or evil. Thus man lives not only by natural law, as does the animal, but by moral law, the latter being his own creation with recourse to that part of his consciousness that binds human nature to the nature of what is Godly. He must therefore investigate the nature and status of both natural and moral law to be able to create an order that strives for harmony with both as the best means of serving man. But ignorance of his own nature and designs built on a false premise of liberty have led men into anarchy, allowing vices to flourish in contempt of virtue.
Returning to our assertion that this is the Age of Biology, on what do we base this claim and what can we foresee from its development?
There is no question that man has conquered the material aspect of the world. He has been outward-looking; he has absorbed in the study of manifestations -- phenomena, its shape and appearance and its manifold mechanical functions. Out, although philosophers have for hundreds of years insisted that all knowledge of the outer validity of the world does not reveal a complete and true picture of the world as existence, only experience could teach men with lesser insight. Gradually and by-means of a maturing process, we are becoming more and more inward-looking. Suddenly we realize that the external forms of life -- social, cultural, political, economic -- spring from an inner source and that while learning (from an accumulated store of experience) is necessary and helpful in the business of living, life itself cannot be taught.

[Page 4]

Life is as God is. To be or not to be is only in part for us to decide. We have not chosen to be. We can only choose not to be. We can also choose how to be. To be able to do so we must know about life we must understand ourselves as part of the stream of life. But while the decision to be was made for us, it was not done haphazardly but proceeded from a basis of laws that had bound the entire universe into an overall order through a system of gradually unfolding laws from which no being, including man, can escape. There is no escape from life except through death. And all forms of illness, personal or social, if not attended to properly and in accordance with the laws of life, must culminate in death. --- To live, we must respect the laws of life, we must know them, for ourselves, for our nation, our race and our culture.
As our soul-life is inextricably bound up with our physical being, it is inevitable that the studies of biology, above all those in the fields of genetics, will lead to philosophic insights long clarified by those advanced in the knowledge of the science of life, to a new understanding of life and ourselves as part of it.
We of the Odinist Faith, staunchly supporting the new findings and keenly aware that they reveal only our deepest instincts, take pride in the knowledge that we bear within ourselves the germination of the new age - the Age of Biology.



* * *


Some of our readers may think that we are too theoretical and place too much emphasis on the Odinist philosophy. Of course you may have a point there, but we are of the opinion that action without plan and purpose is, at best useless, at worst even harmful; it tends to let people, spiritually, float back and forth with the direction of the winds like a ship without a captain on the bridge. We are equally aware that even the best intentions and the finest speeches are of no consequence if they do not lead to action.
But make no mistakes about it; we are quite action-minded; -- in no way are we just fuzzy-heads, sitting around discussion and philosophizing. We are very much concerned with what can be done, and how we can do it.




There are more ways than one to commit genocide. Suicide, for instance. But can a people, a race, commit suicide? We are certainly making a valiant effort under the banner of Birth Control. First there was the "pill." High pressure salesmanship sold a motivation that could by no means be interpreted as selfish. Oh no! The whole world was taken into consideration -- overcrowded India, the surplus millions in China, the suppressed peasantry in South America. In addition to the pill there is now abortion, promoted with equal zest and persistence. Here the motive is more personal: it serves the liberation of woman! Too long has she been chained to demeaning household chores. She must be freed to fulfill her self! And since machines have largely taken over household chores, what need is there still for a woman to stay in the home unless, of course, it were to raise a family, since machines have not taken over the manufacture of babies. But has woman herself not been a breeding machine long enough and aren't there more than enough babies in the world? (Mark: the WORLD!) Hence, only one solution for woman's liberation: no more births. Furthermore, why raise children only to breathe polluted city air, eat poisoned foods? There is no denying the existence of city ills, but where else is it possible today to earn a living? How :many couples young enough to raise children can afford to buy a home in the suburbs? How many apartment buildings will accommodate children?
No, it's not a case of living at all. It's a case of dying. Dying out. It's almost as if a conspiracy of death had gripped Western civilization and the new merchants of death, the birth controllers have every reason to exult over the records of new births marking zero.
Yet something is radically wrong. Did we not only recently hear a clarion call sounded by a Canadian' minister for the need of more people -- all fifty million of them -- to fill the empty land called Canada (Canada, not the world!)? But if Canadians continue to breed themselves out of existence, who else is to fill these empty spaces? Immigrants from over crowded foreign lands? And just why are they not heeding the call of birth control since it is they themselves who are overcrowding their lands?
Leaders of today's Germany are trying steadfastly to set a precedent. By the

[Page 5]

same methods, Germany, too, has achieved a regression in population growth. There are more deaths than births. With that achievement, the government is being called upon to open Germany to immigration (until now, foreign labour was granted permits for restricted residence only). There is more than irony in the declaration that "the wives of non-German guest workers' are more prolific" than the wives of native Germans. With such reluctance on the part of German women to swell the labour ranks that would fight for higher standard of living, it is proposed that aliens are extended a greater welcome and that instead of working papers they be given citizenship papers.
But what is the reaction of the prolific races themselves to the problem of biologic over-production? Apart from India who is making some feeble attempts to prevent births of babies that might have to starve soon after birth, there has been no announcement of the zero-success we have so proudly proclaimed. -- American Negroes are responding the way a nation would respond whose instincts are still life-directed, despite the fact that they are being considered the most underprivileged of a rich nation. Here is the view of Jean Noble, executive director of the National Council of Negro Women: "To many blacks abortion is genocidal, a method of limiting the black population. Muslim groups, for instance, say that the role of the black woman is to produce warriors for the revolution." (Blacks and Feminists, Time, Mar. 26, 1973).
Could it be that the coloured races of the world have something more to live for than a high living standard? Could it be that despite poverty and crime and wars, as the case may be, they still treasure life? Could it be that THEY still dare to dream of a future?




We have earlier mentioned two important trading towns, Birka and Kaupang, in Viking Scandinavia; a third one was, already early in the 8th century, a thriving center for commerce and industry. It was however not until the year 804 that it was mentioned in writing. The town was known under several names, but the one used by posterity is 'Hedeby' which means 'the town on the heather.' How to get there by boat was described in detail both by the Norwegian merchant Ottar and by an Anglo-Saxon, Wulfstan, in accounts given to King Elfred of England.
The town was accessible from the Baltic Sea and was located on what then was Danish territory, on the east coast of Jutland, right at the bottom of the peninsula, just a few miles north of the eastern entrance to the well-known modern seaway, the Kiel Canal; at that time Hedeby was close to the border between Denmark and the Kingdom of the Franks.
It is not known exactly when the town was founded; it seems that originally there had been three small villages but, probably for practical reasons, the two outer ones were abandoned in preference to the one in the middle where conditions perhaps were better for establishing a serviceable harbour; under the combined efforts of the towns people Hedeby flourished during the 8th century and became 'known from Iceland to Baghdad' as the Arab Ibrahim al-Tartushi reported.
Hedeby in many ways enjoyed a desirous position. To get to the harbour from the Baltic Sea, you had to sail up a long, narrow fiord to the mouth of a small river Slien (Schlei); there was thus plenty of room for ships to anchor and the harbour itself was well protected from storms and sudden attacks from the sea.
As protection against unwelcome visitors from land, the citizens had built strong earthworks, forty feet high, formed in a semicircle and covering some sixty acres; two gateways in the walls controlled the traffic in and out of the town.
In the late 8th century the famous Danish King Godfred was on rather unfriendly terms with the King of the Franks, Karl the Great; as a protection against invasion of land troops the Danes built strong earthworks across the peninsula at its narrowest point, from the marches in the West over to the east coast where they were connected up with the walls around Hedeby; the earthworks, later given the name Danevirke, were begun by King Godfred but went on for many years and finished by later kings.
Being so close to the border to the Franks, Hedeby was in a position to control much of the commerce between north and south; it also had the advantage of being in control, to some degree, of the

[Page 6]

trade between east and west. Hedeby, as we have said, was located at the neck of Jutland and the distance from east to west was only about ten miles. A small excellent harbour, Hollongstedt, was conveniently located on the North Sea and the road between the two towns was not bad. It was therefore much easier to unload goods in Hedeby, transport it over land to the other side and again load it aboard ships that could bring the cargoes to England or the west coast of Europe, than it was to chance the several hundred mile journey north around Jutland, often through treacherous waters.
Hedeby therefore not only occupied an important commercial position but also became politically influential.
Excavations have shown that many warehouses, shops and other buildings were spread over the whole area within the town walls. Many finds of pottery, soap-stone, ornaments and coins show that commerce was carried on with far away places as well as all of Scandinavia, England and Western Europe. Various metals, glass and other raw materials have been found in the craftmen's area and it seems that they might even have minted their own coins.
Hedeby also had the doubtful honour of being the gateway through which Christianity entered Scandinavia. In the year 823 some monks came to Hedeby; they did not have much luck with their missionary work, but in 826 a monk by name Ansgar came; he made some progress in disseminating the new religion, being helped by the fact that some of the foreign merchants already were Christians. Ansgar therefore was able to hold services for these foreigners and thus attract the towns people who out of curiosity would listen to him. Just the same, he was not able to overpower beliefs in the old gods and left after a few years. However he never forgave Hedeby for not accepting the new god and a few years later he came back; he was allowed to build a church although the town council would not allow him to ring the church bell because they were afraid that it would offend their own gods. After the death of Ansgar, in the year 967, Christianity was not heard of in Hedeby for almost a hundred years.
About the turn of the millennium the town was a colourful, busy commercial center with industry playing an important role; by that time Christianity was tolerated and the two religions, the old and the new, existed side by side; the political picture, however, was not very stable. The territory was still Danish but wars were being waged and the times were far from peaceful.
Because of its strategic position and its trade, Hedeby was important both to friends and foes; in 1050 the town was burned down by the Norwegian king Harold and it was finally destroyed in 1066 by an army of Slavs.
Its role as a center for commerce in the region was taken over, first by the town of Schleswig and later by Hansa.

* * *


A hardy intelligent race of people move into a new land. They force out or subjugate the inferior people that they find there. Soon great cities appear, fantastic advances are made in the sciences, in the arts, in the philosophies, and a noble new High Culture is born.
This new great civilization continues to progress and advances to higher and higher heights and than, something happens.The progress continues but is joined by a new growth, a growth of moral and spiritual decay. At first, the degeneration caused by the spiritual decay is less than the rate of progress, but soon degeneration growth equals, and then surpasses progress, growth. The advancement of the still great civilization grinds to a halt, its aware citizens fighting to at least hold the present level of achievement. But all is to no avail, the rate of decay feeds on itself, multiplying, destroying all the advances of the past until only a rotted-out shell of the once great civilization remains. A shell that is unable to defend itself against the surrounding primitives, who pounce on the remains. Another high civilization becomes mere history.
How many times have we seen the above sequence happen in history? Just look at the list of high civilizations that once were, and are no more. Is ours, the West-

[Page 7]

ern, to be added to this list? I believe that it is important to know what causes the disease called 'social degeneration' and also important that we do not confuse symptoms of the disease with the cause.
Why does a great civilization grow sick and die? Because they interbred with inferior races," says the pure racist; "because it was a natural aging process, perhaps speeded up by alien culture distorters," say the Yockey people; "the government became too big," claim the Birchers; "the economic system," cry the Marxists and some economists; "urbanization," scream the 'back to the soil'
people; "liberalism," state the Fascists, "because responsible citizens are being smothered by lazy unproductive bums," claim the conservative. Which, if any, of these are the cause of the disease of social degeneration, and which are only symptoms?
Interbreeding with inferior races? Surely the pure racist must admit that when a high civilization allows itself to breed on a mass scale with inferior stock considerable degeneration must already be present. Interbreeding with inferior races will speed up social decay, and will be the final death blow, but it is only a symptom, and not a cause. A natural aging process? Perhaps, but surely if we know what causes the aging we can prevent or reverse it. Let us not forget that the other high civilizations did not know of their built-in aging processes. The government becomes too big and smothers the individual? A healthy civilization will have a healthy form of government; for the government to be allowed to become too dominant implies degeneration already present in its citizens. Still a symptom, not a cause. The economic theory is in the same boat as 'big government,' another symptom but not a cause. Urbanization killing the social spirit which is linked to the soil? That a culture is linked to the soil is probably true, and massive urbanization does cause culture damage; but again, a healthy civilization is aware of this intuitively and can take steps to rectify or prevent it. Social degeneration must already be present to allow it to get out of hand. Also, the soil link is not by any means the whole aspect of civilization. Here we have another symptom. Liberalism? Once more we have a symptom, not a cause, for too much liberalism is only the result of a previous break-down of responsible authority. Unproductive parasites becoming the majority? This can only happen in a society that already has become sick. Again only a symptom. What then is the cause of social degeneration in a High Culture? I believe the cause of this social illness is both very basic and very simple.
Aside from his abstract thinking, man is physically an animal. The same natural laws that apply to animals apply also to man. Any animal strain can be improved by selective breeding, or can be degenerated by poor breeding. Observe any group of animal life, or for that matter insect life, in their natural environment. Be it deer, bears, bees, ants, or any selection, as long as their natural environment does not change, neither do they. A herd of deer that exists in a natural forest new is just as hardy and strong as the herd that existed in that same forest when man was building his first civilization. Why? -- Why would the deer herd stay as strong as ever while a human society next to the forest would collapse and degenerate even lower than it started? The answer is simple. The genetic strain within the deer population was kept strong; weak and inferior animals were killed off by natural selection before they could breed down the quality of the herd. Nature kept the herd strong through natural selection; the strong survived, the weak did not. This same law also applied to the men next to the forest, but only as long as they were in their natural environment. The moment they set up their civilization they were removed from this main law of nature. The weak and genetic inferior survived by being protected by the strong. They not only survived but reproduced more of themselves, and at a faster rate than the strong responsible citizens. The basic law of nature no longer held, and the human 'herd' down-bred itself. The penalty for breaking this law is degeneration. This, I believe, is why all high civilizations were so vigorous and full of vitality at their beginnings, slowed down and ceased to progress at mid-age, and then grew weaker and weaker until they died from conquest or simply fell apart.
Mankind did not survive and evolve because of its physical strength, but because of its mental strength. Human genetic inferiority does not mean physical

[Page 7]

inferiority, but inferiority of the mental and spiritual processes. It was man's mind, not his fists, that defeated the fangs and claws of nature. In a natural environment, man is kept genetically strong by nature, but living protected in a high civilization, he must devise means of his own to keep up his spiritual and intellectual strength.
Can we, of the great Western civilization, defeat this challenge of inborn social aging that has laid low every High Culture before us? Even though we are now past the mid-age mark, and even though we have powerful culture distorters (cancers) trying to rush our civilization-death, I believe that with a supreme effort we can not only regain our youthful strength, but can go on to advance to ever higher heights. For we have one advantage that all other High Cultures did not have: we know what causes our 'aging.'


Genius or Fraud?


When Picasso died the press donned deep mourning. But, though eulogies rode on waves of a long-established business build-up, they could not stifle a note of bafflement. Swaying back and forth between the two, one obituary, trying hard to stay with the former, nevertheless hit the nail on the head in assessing the worth of the late "genius." It took one sentence to say it:
"He was probably the world's highest paid piece-worker, and there were many years in which he garnered more than $1-million."
Piece-worker! Manufacturer - that Picasso was. Artist, no! Whatever talent he may have possessed and used originally, he perverted and sold.The high pressure salesmanship of his "art" dealers artificially created a market for his merchandise, worth no more than its inflated price tag. No, not quite. It served also to infuse the meaning of art with their own perverted interpretation, thus to be used as a powerful instrument in debasing the value of true art in the life of Western Culture.
The common sense man of the people, guided by his own healthy instinct, rejected Picasso's works and those similar to his. But his chances of counteracting money, politics and soul-forsaken intellectual arguments, were slim. There is, however, one who has repeatedly spoke, for him and did so again recently: Canadian artist Kenneth Forbes. His judgment on so-called modern art does not only pack a wallop but Authority! Twice a winner of the Thos. Proctor Prize from the National Academy of Design and his reputation as a distinguished artist, confirmed by famous men and museums, he knows whereof he speaks. Appropriately, he defines the Henry Moore statue 'The Archer' at Toronto City Hall simply as "garbage" and modernistic art as "international swindle." Hated and maligned by those involved in this swindle he will not be intimidated, convinced that "the cult of the ugly must be exposed with its hordes of charlatans, neurotics and incompetents." He made this clear in a recent interview, when he said in part:
"I have never known one first class artist who has taken up modernism. Behind all the highbrow language applied to modern art you simply find shoddy work . . .. I noticed it was the least talented students who became the strongest advocates of the new fads. They were quick to realize it did not require any great workmanship . . . Cults of the ugly have dethroned beauty in painting and sculpture today. For cash, not for art, men of little or no talent have been selected schemers to produce and promote hideous monstrosities which some of the public have been persuaded to buy through the influence of the press and so-called experts. Lurking behind these henchmen are greedy international art dealers."
Now 81, Mr. Forbes has not given up fighting the international swindle parading as modern art, but neither has he lost faith. "There are signs, he says, "that traditional art is coming back" and he points to two artists around whom enthusiasm such as his can rally for faith and hope: Andrew Wyrth, the American painter whom all the seductive offers of Madison Avenue could not lure from the quiet country life where he finds fulfillment, and Duncan Macpherson, "a magnificent artist who is also one of the finest cartoonists of all time."
Mr. Forbes' book Great Art to the Grotesque can be obtained by writing to him at 153 Burbank Drive, Willowdale,Ontario Canada, and sending $1.20 which is the price it cost him to have the book published.
Send for it! It may serve you well in your fight to preserve our Western Culture.


[Page 9]




Very recently the Federal Government of Canada passed a bill which in effect renewed an earlier one, placing a moratorium on the use of the death penalty except for the killing of policemen or prison guards.This bill has been controversial, though not a matter of partisan politics since Members of Parliament were allowed to vote according to their consciences.
Though the issue is settled for the time being (138 to 114), I would like to explore the question of capital punishment a little further. This problem like most others, has two extreme points of view as well as every shade of opinion in between.
The "For" people, in favour of capital punishment, make these points:
1) The death penalty is a stronger deterrent to crime than life imprisonment, or more generally, the deterrent effect of a penalty is directly related to its severity.
2) Each individual must assume responsibility for his actions.
3) It is just and correct to seek retribution from the criminal for his crime.
4) Reformation of the criminal, if practicable, is desirable but in no way more important than retribution or deterrent.
5) There is no moral problem in imposing the death penalty on a criminal who has himself taken another person's life.
By contrast the "Against" faction take these opposed points of view:
1) The death penalty is not necessarily a more effective deterrent than a prison sentence; there is only a slight relationship between the severity of punishment and its deterrent effect.
2) Society as a whole must assume prime responsibility for the criminal behaviour of its members.
3) Retribution should not in any way be a deciding factor in the imposition of criminal penalties.
4) Reformation of a criminal is at least as important an objective in dealing with law breakers as is deterrence. The individual must be given every opportunity to reform.
5) The death penalty is the taking of human life and therefore wrong in itself.
I suppose my own attitude may classify somewhere between these extremes since I agree with some arguments on both sides. What is important to me, however, is that I believe my opinions are consistent with Odinist philosophy, although I do not expect every Odinist, necessarily, to agree with me.
As an Odinist and Culturist I must accept the responsibility of society to educate and train its members in righteous conduct. The prime deterrent to anti-social behaviour must necessarily be the upbringing a Culture gives its members; criminal punishment cannot be expected to substitute for it. If, in a healthy society which is fulfilling this responsibility, an individual behaves in an anti-social manner, society must prima facie assume responsibility for that person's behaviour and further, should give him a reasonable chance and guidance to reform. The seeking of retribution is almost always at odds with the aim of reformation and has no place in punishment of crime. However, it is likely that fear of punishment will deter the unprincipled person from carrying out his criminal act, in which case so much the better. -- Furthermore, if a criminal cannot be reformed for what ever reason then society surely has the right to protect itself from the possible future acts of such a person.
I have just spoken of the nature of society's responsibility for the individual and society's failure in case of his misbehaviour. Notice, however, I predicated this upon there being a healthy society. Our society is hardly a healthy one. The reasons for its ill health are complex but we, as Odinists, are acutely aware of the decay of moral standards and values, both in the home environment and in public education. Radical liberalism, the linear but debauched descendent of nineteenth century laissez faire liberalism, has only succeeded in replacing old dogmas with new ones. Individual conscience has been replaced by "group" mentality. The high principle of freedom accompanied by responsibility has given way to licence. The dubious doctrine of absolute biological equality of races has caused Western society to become the dumping ground for opportunistic riff raff of less vital cultures who have forsaken their own people. This growing cosmopolitanism and its concomitant mentality together with the inflexibility of certain Western institutions have left our people without a sense of identity or purpose. We have become listless, alienated and despondent. We have failed

[Page 10]

our own people, and it should be no surprise that crime is on the rise.
We Odinists are concerned with the the fundamental reform of Western society, and yet that is a long-term objective and we may have to make do in the present circumstances for a while. As a matter of pragmatic necessity we have to do what we can to resist the growth of crime, lest the phenomenon of crime itself undermine the proper functions of society. In large measure we will have to rely on the deterrent effect of punishment. There has been a great deal of debate as to whether severe punishment can actually deter crime. Of course it seems only common sense that the more severe the punishment the less likely the prospective criminal will risk it; yet common empirical evidence does not conclusively support this. Perhaps the most important factor from the criminal's point of view is the probability of being caught. This of course argues for better trained and equipped police forces. Nevertheless, we may be quite sure of one thing: the criminal, once apprehended and subjected to the death penalty, will not commit any more crimes. We have had a very poor record of rehabilitating our law breakers, and there is a large portion of repeat-criminals. Clearly, we must free ourselves of this menace somehow. Life imprisonment is an alternative but economically a burdensome one in view of the rapidly increasing prison population. Also, there is the matter of frequent escapes. I am sure you can see where this line of reasoning leads.
I advocate the wider use of the death penalty within the concept of a new principle of law, the penalty should suit the individual rather than his specific offence. Each criminal would be subject to a careful examination of his motivation, temperament and social attitude; the method of dealing with him would be prescribed on the basis of these findings. -- Nor would there be anything wrong in principle with examining persons who had not yet actually committed any crimes, but had shown criminal tendencies; (this would of course restrict the freedom of persons with propensities to crime); and at the same time letting off lightly the criminal who had acted under extraordinary criminal who had acted under extraordinary circumstances not likely to be repeated. Under this new principle the reason for withholding the death penalty for fear the convicted might be innocent would be less relevant. Finally, I must dismiss of errant nonsense the sentiment that human life, even of a sadistic murderer cannot be taken in the interest of society.



* * *


About three years ago U.S. Senator Margaret Chase Smith said in the U.S. Senate:
"It is time that the great center of our people, those who reject the violence and unreasonableness of both the extreme right and the extreme left, searched their consciences, mustered their moral and physical courage, shed their intimidated silence and declared their consciences.
"It is time that with dignity, firmness and friendliness, they reason with, rather than capitulate to, the extremists on both sides -- at all levels -- and caution that their patience ends at the border of violence and anarchy that threatens our American democracy."
What Senator Smith said then is even more appropriate today and we would have liked dearly if she also had appealed to her peers, as well as the U.S. Congressmen and parliament members from all other countries in the West to "with dignity and firmness muster their moral and physical courage, shed their intimidated silence and declare their consciences," for we refuse to believe that all members of all governments in the West are unable to see the writing on the wall; --we also refuse to believe that ALL of them are part and parcel of the obvious and brazen efforts to deliver their unsuspecting constituents to collectivism and universalism, thus deliberately wipe out the very foundation on which our society rests, destroying the very essence of freedom and individuality which is the fibre of Western Culture.



* * *


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.



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.