Go to Part 1.

Part 2: Review of The Past Is a Future Country

The Past Is a Future Country is a fascinating book. I was introduced to Dutton as an author in my later years. He is a youngish Ph. D who has reinvented himself as an evolutionary biologist of sorts — in the vein of J. Phillipe Rushton and Kevin MacDonald. In the beginning of my foray into banned books, I read and reviewed Dutton’s book, Make Sense of Race, which makes the case that race is real. Parenthetically, I read any number of books about the science of race that were effectively banned merely because they take a heterodox position compared with the prevailing liberal view that race is nothing more than a social construct. This book is different; it touches on race to be sure (and assumes for brevity’s sake the reality of race), but this is a book about genetics, fertility, demography, culture, and politics — and the implications for the future. It is a limited account of the history and future of Western man, at least in selected ways, from a Darwinian perspective. That alone will turn off some readers, and it is discussed a bit more below. However, this evolutionary reasoning is “within-species” human evolution, not speciation; as such, it should not be objectionable to Catholics. But it is much more than that, it is a detailed model of what may come based upon who has children and what this means for the future.

The idea that the religious will inherit the world has special currency in my life as a traditional Catholic. These types of Catholics typically have exceptionally large families by conventional standards because they, among other things, take seriously the Church’s teaching prohibiting birth control. If most Catholics in the West use contraception in much the same way as their secular or non-Catholic neighbors despite the Church’s teaching that contraception usage is sinful, traditional Catholics are uniform in their complete rejection of contraception and their general acceptance of patriarchy. It is common for such families to have six, seven, or more children, and it is further likely that the seriousness and devotion of traditional Catholics means that their children likely will similarly be believing Catholics in future generations. It does not take a demographer to see that the implications for traditional Catholicism are very bright and the likelihood of it eventually eclipsing conventional (i.e., liberal) Catholicism is likewise high — and sooner than people think. Ironically, the phenomenon that the authors tease out in the future of Western societies is at work on a much smaller scale in the Catholic Church. Ergo, she is divided between conservatives and liberals; the liberals have the seats of power, and the conservatives have the faith. Just like the broader society in the West, the Church shifted dramatically in a liberal fashion during the 1960s (Vatican II and its aftermath). Just like the broader society, the anti-social forces of liberalism inside the Church are sterile (producing no children or vocations, and only apostasy) while the faithful and conservative are fecund. We now have hit “peak” liberal Catholicism in the current pontificate, which, like the broader society, is pushing more outrageously in anti-social ways. Thus, what is happening in the Catholic Church fits precisely with what the authors contend is happening (or about to happen) in the broader Western world. Parenthetically, that is why the liberal Catholic hierarchy is trying in vain to crush it. I assume that similar trends exist for other religious groups (like Mormons, Amish, and certain Evangelical branches). Indeed, the liberal mainstream Protestant denominations are in a death spiral by comparison.

Compared with conservative and religious people, the modern misanthropic liberal ideology coupled with feminism produces next to no children. I have seen this up close as well: as someone in a profession overwhelmingly dominated by secularly inclined people, feminist and careerist professional women have surrounded me. Just by anecdote, their fertility is appallingly low. Even for liberal “do-gooders,” like committed social justice warriors and “community activists,” socialists, and environmentalists, their brand of liberalism is just as fatal to fertility as is the liberalism of careerist women and effete beta men. I have always suspected that this dynamic would eventually mean that religious people would swamp liberal people in sheer numbers. In fact, as an example of this in microcosm, Israel, a formerly liberal state, is transitioning to an authoritarian and illiberal state based on demographics and fertility. The religious have many; the seculars do not. While Israel and Jews may not be the best type for comparison (they are congenitally ethnocentric even as liberals), the experience shows the power of who has children and who does not, which has shown up in Israel already because of its small sample size. In fact, this is what The Past is a Future Country is about, and it is a ride filled with fascinating insights and predictions. Indeed, I cannot recall a more gripping book — perhaps because it reads like a plot-twisting prophecy albeit twinged with the science of demography and genetics.

The Past is a Future Country as a prediction for the future world needs to be qualified. Any social science analyses and modeling that make predictions of future human events are likely to be susceptible to attacks from a variety of angles, including bad assumptions, faulty predicates, or missed phenomenon. Even with the inherent problems with social science predictions, we should not assume that they are worthless. If the assumptions are largely correct and if the phenomena are reasonably predictable, then social science predictions about the future should be able to tell us something — not in the exactitude of a mathematical equation but something more akin to an artist’s sketch. The point here is not that things will unfold exactly as the authors predict — it is rather that the authors sought to model what is a known phenomenon: religious and traditionally conservative people outbreed irreligious and liberal people. Similarly, the very stupid and impulsive likewise outbreed irreligious and liberal people. Eventually there must be a political and social reckoning for these facts. This is a book that does what it can to tease all that it can from that reality while filling in the details of why societies and civilizations move as they do.

And this is what they promise in brief:

This book will be a story of exile and abandonment in that context, not triumph and rejuvenation. There will be a ‘Great Escape’, whereby intelligent, conservative people flee apocalyptic chaos to establish refuges of civilization in which they weather the storm of the Dark Age. Those exiled will be conservative, middle class, and white (defined very broadly), set against ‘post-liberal’ areas of mixed ethnic minorities, with some white admixture. Today, the Woke will continue to induce guilt in the white or otherwise ‘privileged’ middle-class population, but tomorrow the underclass will be the frightening majority of the Western population, and too vast in size, and offensive in character, to sustain further sympathy. Lower IQ whites, reluctant or unable to move due to the associations between low IQ and conservatism and between high IQ and migration, will simply merge into the majority non-white populations; dissolving away into extinction like the Neanderthals.

If we are on the cusp of a fundamental reorientation of the Western world in a conservative and religious way, it must seem like the world’s best kept secret. Indeed, from the perspective of the lived experience of someone in the Western world, it seems like an inexorable and unstoppable march to the left. And all the media and conventional news outlets parrot the same thing — we are moving, forever, in a progressive fashion. Those who complain about it are dinosaurs. Western Civilization has undoubtedly been moving in a direction that is irreligious and socially liberal for a long time now and this movement followed history in the West that was not liberal by any standard. Setting aside the historical antecedents for liberalism in the West, the question is why the West shifted from conservative and religious people to an ideology that abhors religion and conservative values. In the first instance, The Past Is a Future Country is an attempt to distill why this happened.

The authors posit that everyone — Westerners included — was once (and always) religious, ethnocentric, and conservative. I am not sure that I agree with that but more on that later. From the author’s perspective, these attributes were adaptive in the Darwinian sense — they made survival and propagation more likely than in their absence. We tend not to think of virtue in Darwinian terms, but virtue — in a man or in a community — is self-evidently adaptive. Delaying gratification, general intelligence, impulse control, respect for authority, sexual ethics (including monogamous marriage), and communitarian sensibilities contribute to a tribe or nation that grows, while the lack of any one of these things, or, catastrophically, all of them, contributes to a tribe’s or nation’s destruction. Piety and a belief in divine justice likewise contribute to a sense of belonging and a rationale for virtue. It does not take a genius to understand that it is easier to do hard things if there is a supernatural or communitarian reason for doing them.

It is strange to think of religiosity as a positive evolutionary trait but that is the argument. In fact, upon reflection, it makes perfect sense. The West became great because it was all of these — it was composed of pious, virtuous, and intelligent people who were tribally conscious. Without thinking of it in Darwinian terms, they were people who venerated the past (their ancestors) and made provision for the future (their children) — and the only people they did not think of were themselves. Today, it is all inverted: our age mocks the past, makes no provision for the future (because they have no children), and thinks only of themselves (as the narcissistic people that they are). In a few words, we are irreverent presentists.

The Past Is a Future Country is a proffer of how we got here — considering that liberalism is a destructive force, the authors spend time discussing how it came to predominate our Western societies. The leftward drift that we see all around us was driven by rising prosperity, education, and the collapse of infant mortality in the First World. The authors fix the beginning of this cycle as the Industrial Revolution, when constant environmental pressures began to wane, and an explosion of population began. Controversially, they also argue that maladaptive people — those who never would have survived or been allowed to breed under the harsher conditions of our ancestors — survived and reproduced in this population expansion. They essentially argue that the dystopia we have inherited in the present time is because of an excess of maladapted people propagating maladaptive ideas because life has become safer and easier. They liken us today to degenerate trust-fund babies living off the excess of our industrious parents with the caveat that we have all but exhausted the corpus of the trust sustaining our decadent lifestyle. In a sense, we have all become Paris Hilton. In that way, they treat extreme liberalism (which today is contemporary liberalism), atheism, and the host of social attitudes that accompany them as, in effect, a product of degenerative mental illness. Stated differently, the stupendous advances of the nineteenth century, which the religious and conservative version of Western Civilization created, ironically enough, allowed for an explosion of anti-social and individual extremist personality types to flourish in the aftermath.

Definitions matter: what is key here is how the authors define conservative and religious views versus liberal ones. They even admit that the new virulent multiculturalism and “Woke” views operate like a hyper-puritanical religion unto itself — with assorted dogmas, orthodoxies, heresies, saints, and sinners. For example, the modern concept of “hate speech” resembles blasphemy laws in past generations. From the outside, most of the left today are completely immune to reason or argument precisely because their moralistic views operate like a belief system as opposed to a reasoned ideology. To question them is to question their faith, not their ideas. Even if the religious are moralistic and intolerant (in the positive sense) — and even in favor of authoritarianism in some guise — the authors do not define the religious/conservative groups with respect to those values; as such, the “church” of multiculturism notwithstanding, our liberals today are not grouped with conservativism/religiosity by the authors on account of their shared (albeit vastly different) moralism or intolerance. Instead, the authors break down the differences between the two groups with respect to how they view five aspects of moral philosophy and action that themselves are grouped into two broader categories: binding moral foundations (loyalty, authority, and sanctity) and individualizing moral foundations (care and fairness). In this approach, the authors rely upon the scholarship of Jonathan Haidt. Throughout the competition is between “binders” and “individualizers.” What is interesting is that today’s conservatives rate all five aspects about equally, according to the authors, while liberals tend to only value the individualizing traits. It is why the authors suppose that conservatives can empathize with liberals, but liberals cannot reciprocate, which is another invisible reason that the culture drifts leftwards.

It makes complete sense to me — setting aside the evolutionary language — why “binding” moral foundations are necessary for functioning societies. Individualizers could only predominate in a society that had been built with “binding” capital because their ideas only deconstruct and withdraw from that capital. In a sense, liberalism is parasitical and could never build a civilization itself. Assuming that it is maladaptive on the human evolutionary scale makes sense because it is obviously maladaptive on the civilizational scale. My own acceptance of an interest in “my people” — a tribal instinct, for the lack of a better phrase — fits squarely here. As I became more self-aware and revolted by liberal excesses in my own lifetime, the idea of tribe — or race or ethnicity or whatever you want to call it — has taken hold. Once the scales fell from my eyes, I thought about my family and children in a context that was tribal or racial. I do not want them accosted for being White and I came to terms with the particular gifts of my people, who are Whites or Europeans. Now, every time I hear anything suggesting antipathy towards Whites, I become that much more ethnocentric in favor of them. I am evidently not alone in this reaction; they note:

Consistent with the interpretation that there are fundamental differences between ‘liberals’ and ‘conservatives’, it has been found that when conservatives feel cheated of a reward, they feel that they deserve, then this elevates their feelings of hostility to other ethnic groups. They are group-oriented, so cheating them is cheating their group and that is what they care about. When liberals feel cheated in the same way, it elevates their feelings of hostility to members of their own group. Liberals are ‘individualists’ who are in constant competition with other members of their own ethnic group; conservatives are ‘tribalists’ who are in constant competition with other ethnic groups.

In the view of the authors, I am then an archetype of a “binding” conservative who sees unfairness to my kind as a reason to love and build up my kind. Thus, this book, which can seem like a recitation of social science data can be deeply personal and explanatory of why we react to what we react to.

Religious-conservative people also rate highly on “caring” and “fairness”; this makes sense too because Western Civilization has always given space, to a much greater extent than elsewhere, to the individual and his unique dignity and value. This fits squarely with Kevin MacDonald’s book, Individualism and the Western Liberal Tradition: Evolutionary Origins, History, and Prospects for the Future, which posits the qualitative difference of European people with regard to their capacity for high trust and empathetic societies. One way to look at the maladaptation of liberalism is that it is a gross distortion of the original good of empathy and humanity of European peoples in much the same way that feminism is gross distortion of the original good with respect to how European peoples treated their women generously compared with other peoples. This is also why I resisted — for as long as I did — the very notion of tribalism because not only was I indoctrinated by the predominant liberalism of extreme individualism, but I also empathized with it.

The authors argue that when an ideology reaches twenty percent of the population, a tipping point is reached, and the ideology picks up increasing power in that opportunists join it as something akin to a bandwagon effect. This is why the switch seems so abrupt and startling. We all know that people like winners and the tipping point is an indication of winning. As one might imagine, they identify the 1960s as the period in which we reached our liberal tipping point. Cumulatively over several generations, dysgenic people — people who would have been effectively banished from earlier religious and conservative societies that valued the communal necessity of socially appropriate behavior or would have died because of a high mutational genetic load — thrived without the need for piety, virtue, or tribalism (i.e., ethnocentrism). Eventually the maladapted people took over and the culmination of the maladaptation is what we know of as contemporary liberal society.

Similar to the idea of a “winning team” and the momentum of a new ideology, the authors introduce the so-called “cultural mediation hypothesis,” which is the idea that the smartest people in each society embrace a new ideology (like liberalism or the Reformation) because they are opportunists and first to recognize the change and advantage to themselves first. The new ideology gathers momentum, and the momentum of opportunism takes on a social life itself. Another anecdote to make this opportunism point: I work with a talented White professional man who is in a leadership position in my organization. In one of our mandatory diversity seminars, he continually and obnoxiously virtue-signaled how bad White people were to the glee of the diversity commissariat. What was lost on him is that he, a White man, was dominating the discussion on the topic. He took over a diversity seminar from the putative minority facilitators. The irony of his frequent reminders to the mostly White audience to “listen” to minorities was that he was, in that very moment, not doing what he counseled. He could not help but be a leader even if he led in an obvious anti-social, self-defeating, and misanthropic, self-hating fashion. According to the authors, this man was someone who would have embraced and virtue-signaled his religious or ethnocentric “convictions” if the prevailing cultural ballast had been religious and conservative. As it was, he simply said what he was expected to say (even if with more enthusiasm and relish than was necessary). It is also a reminder that we conservatives will not need anything approaching a majority to win, as it were; there will always be intelligent opportunists waiting to join us once we hit a critical mass.

Virtue signaling is something that the authors harp on several times as a reason why this societal momentum picks up speed in one direction or another — to do it effectively, social climbers have to one-up each other with the signal of greater virtue that is more directionally extreme than the one previously stated — “competitive virtue signaling.” This is why it moves one step inexorably at a time. Parenthetically, I see this among my fellow paleo-conservative friends — in our conversations, at least at times, the dynamic is one in which we are a little more conservative after the conversation because the only thing that moves our discussion is something just a little more conservative than what was said before. In a sense, we all virtue-signal; the only difference is whose opinion we value and thus who we aim our virtue signaling towards. It will be incredible to see this dynamic reversed in the broader culture — that is, virtue signaling moving further rightwards, but that is our destiny after liberalism’s coming implosion.

Religious conservatives fit squarely with the people who built Christendom and Western Civilization in the first place; today’s liberals are a vampiric force that can only destroy it (and are destroying it). As natural destroyers and parasites who are mostly concerned with their own sense of autonomy, it further makes sense that they are anti-natalist while religious conservatives are pro-natalist. Thus, even without parsing the rhetoric and expressions of anti-natalism, we can see why religious conservatives, as normal people who care about piety, family, community, and a sometimes inchoate group loyalty, would have a fertility advantage: the latter embrace family, and liberals as the equivalent of maladapted narcissists do not. Indeed, the authors suggest that narcissism and Machiavellianism are typical “liberal” traits in present-day Western societies which corresponds with elevated rates of their psychopathology and low self-esteem. The idea that liberalism comes from a surplus of genetically maladapted people is compelling and intuitive. Simply put, it fits.

The point here is that our political and religious views are flavored, at least in part, by a genetic predisposition — and our views, such as they are, are heritable to some extent. So conservative and religious people transmit those dispositions genetically — as well as environmentally — to their offspring. The same can be said of anti-social liberals who likewise transmit their maladaptive traits to their offspring — to the extent they have them. But the issue here is that intelligence and educational attainment currently have a negative correlation with fertility — except for religious conservatives. Liberals, who have ruled intelligence and educational attainment for a long time are self-selecting themselves out of existence in the same way as the Shakers did in the nineteenth century; or, in the pithier words of the authors, “devout liberals are going the way of the dodo.” Ergo, conservatives and religious people have more children than atheists and liberals and so do the stupid and impulsive. Both realities underpin the entire analyses by the authors such that they end up predicting both a rise of a huge — and imbecilic — underclass and an eventual takeover of the elites by the fundamentally conservative and religious. But the only people breeding — the religious-conservatives and the very stupid — are doing so for vastly distinct reasons. One breeds intentionally to express a religious commandment and communal values; the other unintentionally because they cannot practice self-control, evaluate the consequences of their actions, or competently manipulate contraceptive devices. Both realities co-exist with each other. The anecdote that started this essay is germane: religious conservatives will be surrounded by a large group of stupid, impulsive, and morally challenged.

What is happening to us, however, is not without precedent — only the scale of the looming collapse is. In the cyclicality and seasonality of empires and civilization, we see birth, youth, middle age, senescence, and death. We see vitality that creates surplus followed by mediocrity that feeds off that surplus, and crisis and death when that mediocrity is forced to fend for itself. From time immemorial elites have had fewer children as they became more prosperous and self-centered in the autumns of their respective civilizations. Our cycle, however, has lasted longer because of the sheer extent of the material advancement bequeathed to us by the Industrial Revolution. Our ancestors bequeathed a material paradise of technology in every conceivable way, but, as any Christian knows, fallen or postlapsarian man will ruin a paradise as soon as he enters it. Paradoxically, it was the great height of our civilization, which itself was animated by intensely felt conservative and religious attitudes, which enabled the advances of the West in the first instance, and which has led the West to where it is today, the most depraved civilization in history. This material excess forestalled nature’s correction that destroyed societies like late-stage Rome or Athens that experienced similar sterility and decadence. The difference between us and them is that our largess was so bountiful that our descent into “maladaptation” was delayed even if it was inevitable.

The authors also argue that more people with psychopathy and other misanthropic pathologies survive and breed in this twilight period following the generations after the Industrial Revolution and this explains why so many people today seem bizarre, unhappy, or both. It is because they are all those things; perhaps we are hitting peak mutational load. Speaking of dysgenics, this collective mutational load operates alongside of an easier environment and has resulted in a decreasing overall level of intelligence that is bound to decrease further given current realities. To be clear, this is not simply an appraisal of the coming underclass — it is an indictment too of the relatively intelligent. All of us, bar none, are getting dumber with each passing generation. The explanation of how we got here, even if offered in starkly Darwinian terms, seems more than plausible:

The collapse in child mortality, and relaxation of selection pressures generally speaking, permitted even greater genetic diversity to arise, something that further exacerbated declining trust. Declining religiousness also led to the rise in influence of females, and thus a greater emphasis on ‘equality’ and ‘harm avoidance’ over systematizing and truth, a coddling moral psychology that goes far in justifying restrictions on free speech in the name of protection from hurt feelings and grim realities. The entire situation led to an increasing evolutionary mismatch, higher levels of mental illness, greater paranoia, and thus, further overall declining trust, feeding into desires to restrict free speech in order to promote ‘safe-spaces’. Declining intelligence itself meant decreasing belief in democracy, declining trust, and increased dogmatism. Genetic diversity also permitted more and more depressed and individualistic people, who would be low on trust, and black-and-white in their thinking; pushing society away from beliefs in freedom of speech and democracy. With no group-selection pressure to keep society united, and with traditional religiousness being weak, these people could hijack the culture — due to the way in which group-oriented people sympathize with individualists — pushing it in an ever-more extreme individualistic direction, and so challenging democracy and freedom of speech, because individualistic values would need to be placed ahead of even truth.

If you think everyone seems to be getting stupider, these authors agree. And I double-checked this point on my own: mainstream research now acknowledges that there is in fact a “reverse Flynn effect,” in which IQs have been declining dramatically for the last three decades. When coupled with a degenerate culture that plays openly to man’s basest instincts, we are well on our way to Mike Judge’s comedic dystopia, Idiocracy. Because the only remaining intelligent left who breed are religious-conservative (even if they are on a cognitive decline), there must be a transformation of elite class in a conservative-religious direction. But alongside of the ascendant religious-conservative elite will be a staggering underclass who will exhaust the modern Western welfare state within several decades from now. The implications for the West filled with an abundance of stupid and impulsive people is that we cannot possibly maintain the standard of living we have grown accustomed to — the accumulated capital from the advances of the Industrial Revolution and its aftermath will be fully depleted. The authors argue that we will not be intelligent enough to maintain the technology — let alone invent new ones — that will allow us to continue as we are. While the authors do not predict the precise consequences of this social breakdown (whether it takes the form of the West becoming a Third World country or simply breaking apart), they nonetheless project that things as they are cannot continue. The Western world will see a rise in religiousness and conservatism while it nonetheless deteriorates materially over the next few generations. It leads somewhere dramatically different although where that will be is not clear.

As an aside, I have a super-bright friend who said something almost verbatim regarding our future as it relates to technology. While I said I was worried about nuclear war as a final and dystopic conflagration (apropos to the Russian-Ukraine-NATO conflict), he countered that he did not think it would end that way. Going further, he said that we will eventually become so stupid that we will not even be able to maintain the existing nuclear weapon stockpile we have accumulated and the threat from nuclear war will abate from our own incompetence. He thought that after this dumbing down and loss of technical knowledge and competence, we would end up in a civilization much like the one before the Enlightenment — religious, conservative, and tribal. He — and the authors — are on to something. The future will be less technologically based because we will be too stupid to live with it — and when we become smarter again in the far-off future, another Industrial Revolution will be impossible to accomplish because we will have exhausted all the easily available resources that made the initial one possible in the first place.

The Past Is a Future Country is most interesting in its modeling and projections for the immediate future. Even if it seems that liberalism is at its most potent now, the authors contend that we have reached, in essence, “peak liberalism.” The excesses of liberalism today that should be obvious to anyone are actually signs of disintegration — like the anti-communist crusades of the 1950s were a sign of weakness before the great liberal tide. It is like what financial analysts call a “dead cat bounce,” which is an ephemerally positive market during an otherwise steep decline. It is a last gasp, in other words. What will happen — and is happening already — is that the demographic reality of rising conservatism is already taking hold. So, there will be a shift — one that will be dramatic and sudden — when the ballast permanently shifts to a religious and conservative future, which matches the way in which human beings, including in the West, previously related to each other and the world. This shift should not be confused with a superficial conservative backlash like Margeret Thatcher’s election as Prime Minster of the U.K in 1979 or Ronald Reagan’s election as President in 1980 — what they are suggesting is a world in which pre-modern and perhaps pre-Enlightenment values predominate again. Unlike those conservative cycles within a broader liberal cycle, the authors suggest, however, that Donald Trump’s election and the Brexit vote, both in 2016, were harbingers of a more fundamental shift.

I found the death of liberalism to be fascinating from a Darwinian evolutionary perspective. Again, religious conservatives are suspicious of Darwinian thought and liberal atheists love it — would the grandest irony of all be that Darwinian thought vindicates conservative religiosity and condemns liberal atheism? From the authors:

The ability to resist leftist-induced dysphoria is the new crucible of evolution. Where once the crucible of evolution was child mortality it is now Woke morality. Where evolution was formerly selecting for resistance to genetically-based diseases, the emphasis has now switched to ‘memetically’ based diseases; ideological mind viruses that induce infertility in their nonimmune hosts. Those who resist leftist ideology, and its direct and indirect inducements not to procreate, are those who survive. In significant part, this will be those who are, for mainly genetic reasons, religious and conservative.

This coming world will be profoundly religious and much more ethnocentric. The fact that we who are religious cringe at the association of Christianity and ethnocentrism is because we ourselves are so tainted by invisible liberal pretensions. But in the future, as in the past, the preservation of our tribe will be self-evidently worthwhile, and that we should have to apologize for it will seem insane, which, of course, it is. I see this now with greater clarity — and if I see it, someone who has already achieved success as a professional in a liberal, secular world, others must be seeing it too.

While this newly ascendant religious and conservative intellectual class will be indeed swamped by a massive underclass, the authors predict that something they call the new Byzantiums will emerge. These will be havens of civilization and will be necessary given the risk of overall increasing stupidity, the collapse of the welfare state (and the stupid who rely upon it), and the impoverishment of First-World conditions. They put this in stark dysgenic terms: we will be awash in rising psychopathy, criminality and violence and need to escape it. This collapse, they contend, will not be like the fall of the Roman Empire but something weightier — something like the Late Bronze Age collapse. The new Byzantiums will be places where mostly Whites and “White-adjacent” minorities will bind together with religion and conservativism predominating in something like a wasteland straight of The Walking Dead (sans the zombies).

End Part 2 of 3.

Messages to the Youth of Europe: Prince Friedrich Christian & Léon Degrelle
Translated and edited by Alexander Jacob
Uthwita Press, 2024

Léon Degrelle (1906–1994) began his career in Belgium as a Catholic journalist who worked for the conservative Catholic periodical Christus Rex. In 1935 he founded the populist Rexist Party, morphed from Christus Rex, which was increasingly influenced by Italian Fascist doctrines. When the Germans invaded Belgium in 1940, the Rexists were mostly in favor of the German presence in Belgium, even though they had earlier advertised a position of neutrality in the war. Consequently, along with various Communist groups, Rexists too were arrested in May 1940 as anti-national elements and imprisoned first in Belgium and later in France. Degrelle was spared extreme persecution on account of the belief of the French that he may be useful in providing them information regarding Hitler. When he was freed in July 1940, Degrelle tended towards an increasing devotion to National Socialist ideals. Finally, when the Germans undertook their invasion of Russia in June 1941, he volunteered, as a mere corporal, in the German army in its fight against Communism.

Degrelle demonstrated extraordinary courage during the war and was decorated with the Iron Cross in 1942. Degrelle’s ‘Légion Wallonie’ was also transformed into the Wallonie Division of the SS in June 1943 but only after Degrelle had signed an agreement with Himmler that the Walloons, whose autonomy he had earlier insisted on, would eventually be incorporated into the Germanic Reich.[1] With the liberation of Belgium in September 1944, the Rexist Party was banned and, at the end of the Second World War, many of its members were imprisoned or executed.

However, Degrelle had, in January 1944, been promoted Hauptsturmführer and decorated in Berlin by Hitler with the Knight’s Cross of the Iron Cross. In April 1944 he was promoted Sturmbannführer and in August of that year received, again directly from Hitler, the Knight’s Cross of the Iron Cross with Oak Leaves. In November 1944, he was named Volksführer der Wallonen by Hitler.

At the end of the war, in April 1945, Degrelle — whose SS Division Wallonie had been fighting in Pomerania in February 1945 — managed to get away to Norway, where he found a Heinkel jet in Oslo in which he was able to fly to Spain. In Spain he succeeded in obtaining protection from persecution by Franco’s government largely because the Belgian Foreign Minister Paul-Henri Spaak and Franco were not able to agree on the conditions under which Degrelle would be extradited to Belgium.

During his ‘retirement,’ Degrelle maintained contact with other SS officers like Otto Skorzeny (1908–1975) and also supported several neo-Fascist movements and nationalists like Jean-Marie Le Pen.

Degrelle wrote several works before, during, and after the Second World War. In Spain he wrote, among other works, a detailed account of the Soviet campaign, La Campagne de Russie 1941–1945 (1949), Hitler pour mille ans (1969) and an unfinished series of works on Hitler called Le Siècle d’Hitler of which nine volumes were planned but only five have been published. Degrelle’s accounts of Germany’s Russian campaign in the first two works are indeed worthy contributions to the war literature of the last century.

The present pamphlet, written in 1992, is addressed to the young people of Europe focuses on the political dishonesty and terrorist tactics of the so-called democracy established at the end of the war by the Anglo-American victors as well as on the ruthless greed of the hyper-capitalism which they seek to impose on the world. In this context, Degrelle particularly points to the duplicities of the Americans during the First Gulf War and the Yugoslav Wars. In Russia, the fall of Communism has created a new field of operations for the international drug mafia which threatens to corrupt European society in tandem with the corporate representatives of American capitalism. The essential challenge facing the European youth today is to recognize and surmount the false attractions of the predominantly urban world of capitalism. This it can do only by returning to the virtues of a society based essentially on a strong agrarian foundation. At the same time, it must also master the technology of the present and future if it wishes to constitute a new elite that, unlike the technocrats of the present-day, will be able to bring about not only the unification of Europe but also its spiritual elevation and ennoblement.

*   *   *

From Léon Degrelle, An Appeal to Young Europeans (1992):

Ch. I – Against the democratic jokers

We also were twenty years old once. Our days will not return. But our minds, our hearts, are still vibrating with ideas and spiritual impetuses which no doubt inflame you still, you, our young European comrades of today.

Fervent nationalists, we stirred the soul of our fatherland to the depths of its conscience. We wished to remove it from the political swamps in which it suffocated, give it faith in its mission, reestablish order in its institutions, reestablish social justice in an indissoluble collaboration of the classes and, above all, realize the revolution of souls that would free men from an invading materialism.

Then, in June 1941, sounding from bell-tower to bell-tower, the hour of great European possibilities rang out.

A simple soldier, then corporal, then sergeant, then officer, then commander of the 28th Division of the Waffen SS Wallonie, I had, like hundreds of thousands of volunteers of our old continent, helped, on the Eastern Front, in the creation, little understood in the beginning but inevitable, of a Europe federating the diverse but complementary forces of our fatherlands. They were at that time threatened with death by Soviet Communism determined, since 1917, to pass under its whip all the peoples of the world.

To be sure, in the beginning, we, the non-German combatants, were all very different from one country to another: the Spanish from the Norwegians, the French from the Bosnians, the Dutch from the Estonians. But quickly the hardships, the sufferings, brought us together. Then it sealed our unity.

Friendship, but diversity. Europe breathed in us. After the torment, each of our fatherlands, proud of the honor of its arms and the sacrifice of its dead, would have caused the personality of its people to radiate and be magnified in the bouquet of our reunited civilizations.

Defeated, covering our drums, we saw our nascent Europe of 1942 shriveled after 1945 in banality and mediocrity, delivering itself desperately – without even guessing its ephemeral fragility – to a furious need to have fun.

The latter tarnished its soul. It disintegrated its moral and spiritual characteristics.

Tomorrow everything will have to be recreated.

*   *   *

For this devotion to our fatherlands and to the Europe that will federate them we, the old men of the Second World War, paid a terribly high cost. We were bruised, we received a thousand blows, experienced streams of bitterness. They dragged us  through the mud. Our most senior people were assassinated. We were hunted everywhere with a demoniacal rage. But our faith has remained intact. Not only that but, in enduring that, we do not regret anything. In spite of our aged bodies, if the opportunity to raise our flags were to return, we will march to our duty without impetuosity, with the same vigor, the same pleasure and the same unshakeable resolution.

If we must still champ at the bit at present buried in an exile as interminable as it is cruel, we remain, we will remain, dear comrades of Europe, your companions until our last breath.

*   *   *

To tell the truth, you too do not have an easy life today. In every country, busy and servile judges, cackling, gurgling, pursue you with their skirts fluttering. They reinvent the civil code and the penal code every day to discover – democratically, of course! – new pretexts allowing them to trap you in their jails, and to overwhelm under inscrutable fines those who do not agree to piously kiss the feet of the sacrosanct virago that is their worthless ‘democracy.’

In fact, the entire acrobatic system of parliamentarism rests on the maintenance of its rituals. In this brigandry of voting somnambulists, hundreds of members of parliament are elected, or re-elected, only by supporting themselves on a preliminary polling of millions, of hundreds of millions, or even billions, who ensure the survival and the financial conditioning of their electoral machinery.

The crowds, bored, believe less and less in these farces where one must give a lot in order to get a little.

Tracked down to their cottages, the troop of politicians – this is seen everywhere – begin to bark. They debate about thorns. One votes increasingly less because one no longer believes, anywhere, these flashy shows.

One does not bray with the asses any more; in the new freed states of the east, in Poland, which should still be surprised about its very recent ‘democratic’ gift, 65 percent of the public did not go to vote! The same in Hungary! As for Lebanon, the voters said they were on strike! In 1992 France, only 18 percent of the voters – Socialists – constituted by themselves the official base of the government. It is, besides, the son of a Ukrainian Jew[2] flanked by the son of another Jew extracted from the Polish ghettos who have granted themselves the responsibility of ensuring the happiness of a stupefied France.

*   *   *

These good-for-nothings with crooked intellects defend with an almost ridiculous fury their increasingly shaky power.

But if you dare to tell them to their face that their governmental teams are papered with false invoices and fed on extortions covered in the blood of hemophiliacs, that, in Belgium notably, a Socialist ex-prime minister called Cools,[3] with a too greedy paw, caused himself to be shot by a hitman of one of his ministerial colleagues specialized in rackets, you will be considered straightaway as a ‘fascist criminal.’

To remark that nine-tenths of the members of parliament, unknown and incompetent, do not serve any purpose except to pocket sumptuous emoluments makes you an intolerable killjoy.

The opponents who denounce the sterility of the prattle of the assemblies with three hundred, four hundred, or five hundred heads (most often empty) are forbidden all constructive access to the television, thus to the huge meetings where they could enlighten the cheated public.

In order to defend their democratic virginity in front of the stupid masses, the governmental intriguers pompously decorating their paunches with big official blue, white and red ribbons stir up hordes of multiracial and multi-colored parasites who have come chaotically from their burnt deserts!

*   *   *

Everywhere politically, socially, economically, morally, it is a mess; 68 percent of the French, according to the last press surveys, say that they are sickened.

Every country is overburdened with crazy taxes that kill every desire to create something new.

Twenty thousand irresponsible and haughty functionaries, that nobody elected, deck with their impotence the shaky semi-Europe of an autocratic Common Market, tossed around in repeated crises, choked fully by the orders of the trade-union potentates wielding demagogic firecrackers.

Only rotten eggs can be laid there.

A braggart, the Common Market drags piteously behind its tomfoolery sixteen million unemployed people who are beyond help.

You, young boys, young girls of real Europe, you wish to substitute for this waste and this ruinous swindle a union of healthy states, under the authority of a true leader, loved, respected and chosen freely by the people.

It will be socially just and racially protected.

It alone will put an end to the arbitrary domination, the persecutions and the bickering of usurpers who are not worth even the water that they drink and who have profited from the defeat of 1945 to boast and lie every day, to make the nations stupid and tame them.

*   *   *

But, to tamper with the omnipotence of the ‘democratic’ pashas, brewing intrigues in their mound of snail-shells, is to play with dynamite. Often you must have had it up to here to have to brave so many spongers and vagabonds. That does not matter, you have to confront, with an unshakeable constancy, and never forget yourself. The people should know that our doctrine – responsibility, endurance, the cleanliness and competence of a strong power, intelligent cooperation of the classes, exaltation of the fundamental virtues of the society – is necessary. Life is not worth anything unless it is directed towards perfection and towards greatness. We believe in the scintillation of the stars.

The manhunt that you experience at the end of this century, the tortures that you must endure, we, your elders, have known just like you, or even perhaps more than you. We also were deprived many times of the use of public liberties. Our courage could have been blunted. Even though a million Belgians, for example, had chosen Rexism and, in 1936, thirty-three members of parliament and senators had, under my banner, been democratically elected under universal suffrage, we were never able to use a single time, from 1936 to 1940, the official radio which was at the disposition of all the parties haunting the parliamentary house!

Such was, already before the Second World War, the imbecile intolerance and the intellectual exclusion in the ‘democracies’!

Even at that time we were pariahs because we wished to substitute for a corrupt, anarchic and ruinous regime a clean, strong and popular state.

And also because – the worst crime! – we refused to be accomplices in the unleashing of a “useless and imbecile” (dixit Spaak)[4] Second World War, the one which the firebrands of Marxism and of International Jewry, supported by a stateless hyper-capitalism with canine appetites, imposed, through hatred and fear, on Europe in September 1939.

*   *   *

We had to confront this enormous civil war, especially when Communism set out towards our Western countries determined to convert the bloodied Europe of 1940–1941 into its select repast.

We fought hard, offered for terrible years our youth and our blood. We knew the cold, hunger and interminable sufferings in the frozen expanses of the Eastern Front. Several millions of combat comrades fell. Thousands of others, after so many sacrifices, endured for years the horrors of prisons in their own fatherlands.

The crooks of that which is called ‘democracy’ often speak to the duped of the cruelties of that time. And take great care to have their adversaries suffer them!

In cruelties it is indeed the USSR, the very dear ally, who, beating all records, had perpetrated them since 1917, in dozens of millions, on its own soil!

The English, the first comers from the Atlantic, and the American newcomers had tried their hand by massacring, in the new USA, more than four million Indians (200,000 survivors out of 5 million) in order to extirpate this race through this enormous genocide. It is they, besides, who had also branded several million Blacks in order to stamp their slavery on their skin.

They had inaugurated, in Europe and Asia, between 1941 and 1945, their unique war tactic of the twentieth century: terrorism, massacring hundreds of thousands of civilians in their gigantic bombings in Hamburg, Cologne, Berlin, Dresden, and then in Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

It is they too who, after 8 May, 1945, delivered to the tyranny of the Soviets, for close to fifty years, the hundreds of millions of our compatriots of the east!

It is they again who, in 1945 and 1946, caused a million German prisoners to perish of hunger in their camps in the Reich and France when their depots overflowed with deliberately unused food.

It is they, finally, who, after the war, permitted several million fleeing civilians, Prussians, Silesians, Germans, Sudeten folk, to be exterminated in the course of a terribly savage ‘ethnic cleansing’!

The Americans, the English – and their Russian friends recently whitewashed in the laundromat! – may denounce the racism of the Serbs murdering the civilian populations of Croatia and Bosnia in order to possess ‘racially purged’ territories again, but it is only the mathematical repetition of the exterminations that the ‘democracies’ had deployed during the genocide of more than four million Indians, and then, after the Second World War, on the lands confiscated from the German state! One knows at present the horrible figures: nearly 2,280,000 refugees from the Reich perished on their way to exile, dying of hunger or murdered by the Soviets and their henchmen; 80,000 others disappeared; more than a million survivors were deported to Siberia. The historian Jacques de Launay has narrated in detail these abominations in his famous book, La Grande Débâcle.[5]

One understands that, in Croatia and Bosnia, in 1992, the Americans and the English – the Russians keeping a low profile! – reacted against the Yugoslav conquerors only by resorting to denial. What the Serbs did they and their dear Soviet allies had done several times and on a large scale, or had allowed to happen! Their hypocritical tears were those of old crocodiles. The Serbs, by emptying the lands that they invaded of their civilian populations, in 1992, had been only their humble imitators!

Stalin, Churchill, Roosevelt had been their masters, their master-killers, of the first half of the twentieth century.

---

Prince Friedrich Christian of Schaumburg-Lippe (1906-83) was the youngest son of Prince Georg of Schaumburg-Lippe and Princess Marie-Anne of Saxe-Altenburg. Appalled at the quick abdications of the German princes during the German Revolution of 1918-19, and the compromises entered into by the latter, Friedrich Christian, like his brother Prince Stephan, decided to join the National Socialist Party and became a member of it officially in 1929. In fact, ten members in all of the royal house of Schaumburg-Lippe joined the party.[6]

Hitler appointed most of the royal adherents of National Socialism to the SA (Sturmabteilung) since he wished to include in it members of all sections of German society. Friedrich Christian espoused the leftist, socialist cause and considered the National Socialist party to be the ‘true heirs of the old nobility’ since he believed that it had a closer contact with the people.[7] He worked closely with Dr. Joseph Goebbels in the newly created Ministry of Public Education and Propaganda and became his adjutant in April 1933.

During the war, Hitler grew increasingly suspicious of the aristocratic members in his party, whom he feared for their potentially dangerous international contacts. Through Goebbels’ personal mediation, however, Friedrich Christian was able to retain his position, although he resigned from the SA in July 1944.

After the war Friedrich Christian was interned in the Soviet occupation zone until 1948 and cleared in the Denazification process in 1950. He was also brought in to the Nuremberg trials in 1947 to testify in some of the trials of high-ranking war criminals.

Even after the war, Friedrich Christian remained loyal to the principles of National Socialism and published several works during and after the Third Reich. These include [Where Were the Aristocrats?] (Berlin, 1934); Deutsche Sozialisten am Werk. Ein sozialistisches Bekenntnis deutscher Männer [German Socialists at Work] (Berlin, 1935); the autobiographical Zwischen Krone und Kerker [Between the Crown and Prison] (Wiesbaden, 1952); a biography of Goebbels, “Dr. G.” Ein Porträt des Propagandaministers (Wiesbaden, 1964); and War Hitler ein Diktator? [Was Hitler a Dictator?] (Kathagen, 1976).

The present speech focuses on the harm done to the German people after the war by various forms of enemy propaganda whose ulterior aim is to sustain the unnatural materialism of Marxism for the benefit of international Capitalism. Exposing the harmful artificiality of the attractions of the present world the prince exhorts his youthful audience to develop instead a socialism that corresponds to their own nature as Germans and to Nature in general.

---

From Prince Friedrich Christian of Schaumburg-Lippe’s 1967 speech at the University of Marburg, “If I were 18 today”:

Today as an 18 year-old I would be of the opinion that I am standing along with my generation at the beginning of a new epoch of German history. And that for the future of my people the best of the history of my fatherland is indeed good enough. One who must and wishes to begin anew needs, much more than anybody else, experiences and models. And indeed not from anywhere but from his own treasure-chest!

But what does one do? German youth of today should not have toy soldiers. No German ones at any rate. One only needs to look into the toy shops to know in what direction the wind is blowing. For boys, these shops  offer masses of Indians and American soldiers and knights from the Middle Ages.

For German girls, ‘sex dolls’ and negro dolls are recommended in German shops.

It has already become hard to buy the world-famous German fairy tale and saga books for our children. Grimm’s, Hauff’s and Andersen’s fairy tales, the Nibelung sagas, the Amelungen sagas, the Grail narrative, and so many others. But, on the other hand, countless books about Indians and gangster stories are to be had.

Has it not struck you yet, you 18-year-old of today, that for years now the illustrated magazines in Germany present whenever they can reports of royal weddings? Certain families are admired as if they still had something to say — as if they are still reigning. But the spirit that fills the other pages of the same papers is a very different one. It is much rather the spirit of those people by whom these very families were once driven away. How do you explain that, you 18-year-old? As a distraction strategy? Then perhaps you may be right.

Our families have for many centuries represented the state. For me it has always and under the most diverse circumstances been something taken for granted to respect the state as such fully and completely. To the state means to insult the people. That was always my conception. Monarchy, republic and others are different forms of the state, state-forms, and as such less significant than the state itself. The relationship of the citizen to the state-form can change and be different — but not to the state as such, unless the citizen is an anarchist. The attitude of the state to its citizens thinking and acting in this way must naturally be a corresponding one. The greatest of the kings of Prussia was proud, as is well-known, to call himself ‘the first servant of the state.’¹⁵

If I were an 18-year-old today I would certainly think in this way — but the state would perhaps welcome this attitude of mine but not understand it. Many of my fellow citizens would reprimand me as a reactionary for that reason.

Without a respectful attitude towards the state an orderly society is not possible. The people and the state together form the foundation of the nation. Serving the state is the most integral way of serving the people.

But all that presupposes that the state is conducted in a corresponding manner, and politics is there to take care of that.

The leadership of the state is a matter of individual responsibility and not of anonymous strategy.

One who thinks that he has to lead his state with computer- and market-research proves thereby that he lacks the consciousness of responsibility, the civil courage for this highest task. He is not worthy of the trust of his people, which can never be established solely through expressions of one’s opinions and machines. Indeed, in decisive phases of the life of the community it is not a matter of the recognition and realization of a status but of dynamic forces of very changeable and at least initially incalculable intensity.

One who thinks he is capable of leading men by leaving men out as much as possible is inhuman and, therewith, a great danger for mankind. We are approaching an epoch in which this problem is for the first time in the history of mankind becoming eminently significant. The Marxist-materialist view that is currently still ruling the thinking of the masses is, in this connection, a great danger for mankind.

For us Germans — the people of poets and thinkers — therefore the general egalitarianism and disrespect of models, of the heroic, of geniuses, originating from Marx is especially dangerous.

Daily life in Western Europe is today determined by Marxist-materialistic thought — on Sundays and holidays one borrows for oneself the remains of the glory of those ages that one was once ready to throw overboard. How would a thinking youth of today understand that? It is indeed inconceivable.

It would be good to be clear on the fact that the cultured nations of the Western world are for the most part ruled not by old men but by very old men. And that at a time when everything pushes forward to a new and better order, because the old is completely opposed to progress.

No wonder that all parties vie for the favor of the youth in a striking manner even though it would of course be thinkable that a youth that is revolutionary in the best sense of the word generally would not wish to have anything more to do with parties of either the old or new style.

For this youth is far too removed from Kaiser Wilhelm — and Ebert[9] and Thälmann[10] — and Hitler — yes, even from Adenauer — to be able to connect with any of them. If it has the capacity to recognize the situation, it will rip the masks from all the reactionaries from the Left to the Right with joyful youthful vigor — and proceed from the only basis that was always and is under all circumstances the natural one: One’s own people. Then it will wipe away therewith also the long moth-eaten concepts of ‘left’ and ‘right’ and ‘center’ and ‘conservative’ and ‘liberal,’ etc. because in this modern world only the people as a whole — as a community — can exist. The questions that will have to be decided tomorrow are always about the entire people — and not about individual parties. So much more will every people have to establish themselves among other peoples so that thereby mankind as a whole can also be helped.

If I were 18 years old today, I would be able to easily determine that those of more or less the same age have similar views in any context. And indeed, significantly, not only in Germany – East and West – but also in other countries. And these views are not really related to what is called politics today, which is only political strategy. These views are directed more or less consciously against the older age groups. And, interestingly, not on account of their past but on account of their present.

Today as an 18-year-old I would have the feeling of living in a straitjacket. A condition that is so much more oppressive in that — considered from a purely materialistic point of view — I feel well or even very well, or too well, in this straitjacket. This straitjacket is the present-day order. In every context. In good as well as bad. It is precisely that which Communism needs in order to make me an anarchist. But, on the other hand, I bristle in a way that is quite understandable. However, nobody helps me here. That which the others offer me as help is always, grotesquely, the straitjacket itself, that is, the system of wealth Which is basically not a social order at all because it lost its sovereignty — through the victory of materialism.

I feel this social order as a straitjacket because I am through it captured by a system that abuses my life. I am in this system not a man but a number. That corresponds to the purely materialistic view of the masses and their dictators. I cannot in any way live as I wish to. The more people gabble about freedom the more illusory is the latter. In every context I become a consumer, a consumer of mass products. Of more or less artificially produced food that harms our health. Of the breathing of air that is corrupted, just like the water that I drink. Of objects of enjoyment of the most diverse sorts which I am recruited to through a state-subsidized advertising even though they are addictive, me of my decision over my own body, and are more or less poisonous. Nobody protects me from life in nerve-destroying noise, in senseless restlessness, in the maze of clauses, forms, jurisdictions. Nowhere and never can I be through my own will where I would like to be – after 25 years even my corpse can be dislodged from the cemetery. My whole life long the state takes a major part of the income of my work, of that for which I wear out my body and soul, to finance things which I will perhaps never experience and which, in some circumstances, even entirely contradict my convictions, my life, the actual interests of my family. I am the slave of a confection that is not dictated by natural taste and Nature-given necessities but by the sale of goods and which I must accept even if it would turn me into a clown. Even opinion has been turned into a consumer product. Nobody tells me where it has been fabricated. Its only advantage is that it is cheap. Since all obtain the same opinion automatically it is extremely strenuous and even dangerous to complain about it. Hundreds of millions of men could in this way have one opinion – if that were not so, they would have none – but they must have one and indeed a certain one – so that they may demand that which is offered. A Satanic circle – in the ‘free world.’ In every context: Earlier the supply was directed to the demand – today the demand is oriented to the supply.

If a person breaks out of this circle – for example, in politics – then he is called a ‘radical’ and that is supposed to mean: Against everybody. In truth it means: Against all who hold on to the old order because they fear a better one – or already consider it as no longer possible.

If I were 18 and thus had my life before me, this condition would infuriate me much more than now. I would recognize that my enemies are the enemies of my existence and that of my relatives and my people. That it is not at all a question of different opinions, of social estates or class differences, of social questions in the traditional sense, of religious faiths, labor unions, parties – but of existing or not existing. Henceforth, to be a Socialist means to preserve men from their biological annihilation. That lends politics an entirely different visage. In this way the Socialist becomes that which he originally wished to be – the enemy of Capitalism – thus, against the abuse of capital. For this battle neither capitalist trade unions nor capitalist churches are suited. They are basically to blame for the fact that it has reached this point. They should have confronted this development of the materialistic worldview at the right time instead of becoming Capitalists themselves.

I can very well understand that an 18-year-old of today inwardly rebels – perhaps without fully knowing why – against this old social order that stands so seriously in contradiction to life. There are for him indeed only two possibilities: Either to become a slave of progress and think in a correspondingly materialistic manner and subject himself to Capitalism for better or for worse. That means in the final analysis: To help to bring about the downfall of mankind and the destruction of Nature on this earth. Or: to raise anti-matter against materialism and return to Nature and its eternally valid values. In this way to give man once again the dignity that gives him primacy above matter so that he may become the master of progress and lead back the latter to the service of mankind.

Only the second way corresponds to the character of the youth. And only the youth can actually follow it. But that should not happen in a vague way but must be well prepared and considered in the best way. For, nothing would be more disastrous for all than to stamp out the last vestiges of a once-good social order before the better new order is visible. One should be very careful to push forward from a void – for that would necessarily lead to a void – namely, anarchy.

Some of the concepts that were always good – because they correspond to Nature – remain acknowledged: Mother, family, one’s people. And these are not to be separated from: Love, loyalty and faith. If these remain unshakably firm as guarantors of a new social order, then duty, truth and justice are produced by themselves.

Then it would be superfluous to praise ‘success’ – instead of performance. And to idolize ‘freedom’ which remains a phantom so long as it is possible only for the benefit of some but for the disadvantage of others.

In this way would I – if I were an 18-year-old – try to develop a Socialism along with like-minded people that would be so modern – so completely different from the Marxist – that nobody could fail to personally participate in it. I am certain that a major part of the German working youth are waiting to overhaul with such Nature-compatible and thus healthy ideas a world that is reactionary to the core. I am certain that the German youth, if they write such ideas on their banner, would elicit the greatest interest among the youth of all cultivated nations and find many comrades. I am certain that our youth has it in them to develop in such an evolutionary world of ideas – to develop it themselves and to disseminate it with an enthusiasm that would do honor to the German name.

That is not a matter or a task of a party – but of a popular movement. Its avant-garde can – and therefore must – be only the youth.

Let this talk be a call to that. Let destiny take its course!

The more you respect the state as such, the more it can and will be you. Do everything out of love for the people, out of loyalty to Germany, and in a belief in the victory of the good!

The situation is serious. Nobody in the world – however powerful he may be – can in the long run act against Nature. Not Capitalism, and its hangers-on. Their opponents indeed proceed not just from their intelligence but from their experience. The day is approaching when the greatest injustice will be discovered and judged. This time the people whom one wished to annihilate in the Second World War will not stand as the accused but count among the prosecutors. This time industrious, decent people will not sit in the dock but exploiters. This time it will not be a matter of business but about justice and honor. This time – and that is the point – one will not proceed from philosophical and religious platitudes but from the facts of natural science. Thus from that which could not be more logical and exact and clean than it is. From the proof of God itself, who stands much higher than all religions. In this way – only in this way – can one say: ‘It is so’ and judge correspondingly.

But the way thereto is not easy for any of us. We must take care not to commit injustice. Especially the older generations are still so rooted in the belief in which they grew up that it is hard for them, in spite of all doubts, to free it from all the ballast of human accretions. To free it to such an extent that in reality only that remains which can stand up by all means even to the scrutiny of the most modern researches. Thus, to leave as remainder only that which, exactly like the natural sciences, is anchored in the eternal laws of Nature.

Thereby there will be no miracle necessary any more as proof of a theology. For Nature is overabundant in the really miraculous! It offers mankind much much more of incomparable beauty, of things ordered in an exemplary way, things that are actually all-powerful, and truly noble. Either the divine apparition to men is everywhere – or nowhere. Everywhere it is present only in Nature. There where man cannot yet disfigure, or corrupt it.

By allowing jazz music to be played in Christian churches one does not lead the youth to the Nature of God – but systematically away from it. By selling the host [11] in automatic machines and defending contraceptive pills one does not come closer to the laws of Nature but in ever greater contradiction to them. One should wish to do service, and not earn money, with the faith of men.

---

[1]See Martin Conway, Degrelle: Les années de collaboration 1940-1944, Ottignies, 1994, pp.206ff.

[2] Pierre Bérégovoy (1925-1993), whose father was Ukrainian, was Prime Minister of France from April 1992 to March 1993.

^[3] André Cools (1927-1991) was a Walloon Parti socialist and Deputy Prime Minister of Belgium from 1969 to 1972. His assassination was probably directed by a rival from his own party.

^[4] Paul-Henri Spaak (1899-1972) was a Belgian Socialist politician who served as Foreign Minister under van Zeeland in 1936. He was Prime Minister of Belgium between 1938 and 1939 and, from 1940, served as Foreign Minister in the Belgian government in exile in London. At the outbreak of the war he advocated Belgian neutrality with regard to the developments in Germany and France.

^[5] Jacques de Launay, La Grande Débacle, 1944-1945, Paris: Albin Michel, 1985.

^[6] Petropoulos, J. (2006). Royals and the Reich: The Princes von Hessen in Nazi Germany. New York: Oxford University Press, p. 100.

^[7] Gossman, L. (2009). Brownshirt Princess: A Study of the “Nazi Conscience,” Cambridge: OpenBook Publishers, p. 69.

^[8] King Frederick the Great (1712-1786) regularly referred to himself in this manner.

^[9] Friedrich Ebert (1871-1925) was a Social Democrat who served as the first president of Germany from 1919 to 1925.

^[10] Ernst Thälmann (1886-1944) was leader of the Communist Party of Germany during the Weimar Republic. He was arrested by the Gestapo in 1933 and held in solitary confinement until 1944, when he was shot on Hitler’s orders.

^[11] The sacramental bread used in the Christian Eucharist.