by Revilo P. Oliver
(Liberty Bell, November 1985)
IN THE April issue of Liberty Bell (pp. 15-20), commenting on an article by the Reverend Mr. L. F. de Boer, I discussed briefly the activity of Unitarians in spreading superstition and subversion to incite the revolution that irreparably destroyed the American Republic in 1861. That many Unitarians promoted that calamitous and crazed agitation is indubitable. It is, of course, most unlikely that all of them did. And, so far as I know, there are no statistics to show whether the agitators formed a majority or a minority in the Unitarian churches at that time.
A number of readers have written me about that little article. Several justly observed that the Unitarian doctrine, which denies that the Jesus of the “New Testament” was a piece of the Christian god, was far from being a heresy, as Mr. de Boer supposed, but was, instead, the belief of the earliest Christian sects; it is thus more authentically Christian than the Trinitarian nonsense. That, of course, is quite true. Historically, the absurd notion of a three-in-one god was excogitated by a pack of holy men, led by an agitator named Athanasius, who wanted to have both Yahweh and Jesus as gods, but wanted also to be able to claim that their cult was a monotheism. It required a century of frantic persecution and slaughter to compel a majority of the Christians to pretend to believe anything so absurd as the doctrine stated in what is called the “Athanasian Creed.” (No one who knows anything about the history of Christianity will need to be told that the text of that creed, so commonly recited in churches today, was not written by Athanasius; it was, naturally, a later forgery under his name, although it incorporates, with some modifications, the Trinitarian unreason that he championed.)
There is nothing remarkable about a trinity of gods. Everyone thinks at once of the Hindu Trimurti (Brahman, Vishnu, Siva), the Capitoline Triad at Rome (originally, Jupiter, Quirinus, Mars; later, Jupiter, Juno, Minerva), and the three gods who shared the great temple at Uppsala (Odin, Thor, Frey). A pantheon headed by a trinity of major gods is the natural form of an Aryan religion, and Dumezil is doubtless right in believing that such a pantheon is required by the tripartite thinking that is inherent in the Aryan mentality.(1) Thus a trinity would make a new religion appeal to Aryans by satisfying this subconscious proclivity, and Jesus could have been represented as an avatar of the second of the three gods, just as Krishna was an avatar of Vishnu.(2)
(1. Perhaps the most convenient introduction to the work of Georges Dumezil available in English is his Gods of the Ancient Northmen, translated under the supervision of Professor Einar Haugen, with two scholarly introductions, by C. Scott Littleton and Udo Strutynski, which will give a fairly complete account of Dumezil’s many other writings (Berkeley, University of California Press, 1973; paperback, 1977). The tripartite form of Aryan thinking appears in everything from fairy tales, in which it is always the third attempt that is successful, to the Hegelian model, thesis, antithesis, and synthesis. When Christianity was first peddled to the Norse, they were quite willing to add another god to their pantheon, and seem to have admitted Jesus to the Trinity in place of Frey (see the Eyrbyggja Saga, which, so far as I know, has not been translated; there is an edition by Einar Sveinsson in the Icelandic “Fornrit”). Incidentally, let me remark here that when we speak of the first god in the Hindu Trinity, we should always spell his name Brahman (masculine) to distinguish it from Brahma (neuter), the impersonal force that is the origin of the cosmos and all in it.)
(2. As is well known, quite a few details of the Jesus-myth were taken from the story of Krishna, and it is not a coincidence that the long interpolation in the Mahabharata called the Bhagavadgita, a lecture by Krishna, is the work of Sanskrit literature that most strongly appeals to modern readers who may know nothing of the rest of that literature. It seems “Christian” to them, although it is, of course, much older than the tales in the “New Testament.”)
The wily Fathers of the Church, however, did have a rather difficult problem in formulating their doctrine. Their most urgent task was to exterminate the numerous Christian sects, including the Marcionists (probably the largest of all Christian sects at that time), who rejected the Jews’ ferocious god, and who did regard Jesus as the avatar of a much greater and nobler god. So the Fathers had to canonize the Jew-book as an “Old Testament” to bring in Yahweh, and they couldn’t describe Jesus as just an avatar, because that was what was said by the Christians whom they were going to slaughter as soon as they got their hands on the powers of government. And a trinity could be filled out by including that vaporous figure of legend, the Holy Ghost, whom they chose to regard as male instead of female, as a few Christian sects believed it to be. But a simple trinity wouldn’t do, because the Jews had by this time had the brilliant idea of stealing Graeco-Roman Stoicism by claiming to be monotheists also. The Fathers’ solution was to squash the three gods into one, although even so they couldn’t quite make the cult a monotheism, because they needed an anti-god, called Satan, to explain their chosen myths.
What makes the Fathers’ attempt to have everything both ways at the same time so offensive to rational men is the claim that the three gods are one and the same, existing from all eternity as parts of a single whole, but that one-third of the compound, Yahweh, became the daddy of another third, Jesus, vicariously (!), sending the third piece of himself, the Holy Ghost, to seduce and impregnate a human virgin. That, of course, is simply incomprehensible, but, as that sleazy old shyster, Tertullian, brazenly boasted, Christians must believe such poppycock precisely because it is absurd and impossible. Good Christians should have bird-brains, as they were instructed to have by Jesus in the ranting that Perier aptly calls the Drivel on the Mount, and just stop thinking. If one can suspend thought to believe the “Divine Mystery,” he could also believe the story that Jack climbed the beanstalk to the ogre’s castle in the clouds, but poor Jack does not have swarms of shamans to excite Faith in that Mystery. (If the beanstalk is an impediment, it could be advantageously replaced by one of the ladders on which, as all Christians are taught by their “inerrant” Holy Book, angels climb down to earth for wrestling-matches.) (3)
(3. According to the version of the tale in Genesis, 32.24-30, it was old Yahweh himself on whom Jakob tried to get a half-nelson, and Yahweh won the bout by a foul, trying to cripple his opponent. Yahweh would automatically have been declared the loser and disqualified from further competitions by a modern referee and judges’ committee, but the rules of the sport had not been codified at that early date. Whether Yahweh climbed down the ladder or came down by a different route is not stated, so True Believers must be content with another Mystery at that point.)
Needless to say, there have always been Christians who do not turn off their minds, as they were ordered to do; they could not stomach the Trinitarian rubbish of Athanasius and his successors, and if they were not cowed by the Orthodox threat of fire and sword, they kept executioners and sometimes armies busy during the Dark and Middle Ages, as the Establishment had to suppress heresy after heresy. The Arians and many others could be called “Unitarians,” but it is best to reserve that name for the theological movement that began in Poland with the dissident holy men who identified their doctrine by calling themselves Unitarii and so coining the name by which their theological position has subsequently been known in a cult that more or less directly descended from their writings.(4)
(4. The term Unitarii first appears on a collection of tractates by Crellius, Socinus, and quite a few other “Unitarians” in Poland, published at Amsterdam as the Bibliotheca fratrum Polonorum quos Unitarios vocant in 8 volumes, 1665-1669. In the turmoil that followed the great schism of Luther, a considerable latitude of theological opinions was temporarily and precariously possible in Poland, thanks to the power of the nobility and the weakness of the central government, until the intrigues of the Jesuits put a stop to it. Persons interested in that period would do well to read the De republica and other writings of Andreas Fricius Modrevius, whose Opera omnia were collected and reprinted by the Polish Academy in Warsaw, 1954-1958. They are particularly instructive because Fricius was neither an ecclesiastic nor an amateur dervish; he was a landed gentleman, whose principal interest was in devising some sort of compromise that would end or at least abate the endless logomachies and furious disputaillerie of the many individuals whose imaginations had severally disclosed to them what old Yahweh really had in mind.– It may be significant that Unitarianism seems to have been sparked by the treatise De operibus Dei (Argentorati, 1527), written by Cellarius but often supposed to represent the acroamatic teaching of his master, Johan Reuchlin (Johannes Caponio or Capnio Phorcensis), the eminent Humanist who unfortunately became acquainted with Giovanni Pico della Mirandola, whose heavy purse had been lightened and whose brain had been addled by the Jewish colony in Florence. Reuchlin was infected with a belief in Kabbalistic hocus-pocus by Pico, and it was through Reuchlin that the Kabbalah exerted so great an influence over Protestant theologians and clergymen. We should remember that without Reuchlin, Luther’s Reformation would probably have been squelched in short order. The Dominicans’ ruthless persecution of Reuchlin aroused his admiring and grateful pupil, Ulrich von Hutten, who probably cared much more for Ciceronian diction than for theological fantasies, and it was to defend Reuchlin that von Hutten not only wrote a large part of the Epistolae obscurorum virorum but used his position as a military adviser to lead Franz von Sickingen and the whole Ritterstand in on the Protestant side. Nice arguments are good, but first-rate fighting men are better.)
The early Unitarians claimed–I know not how sincerely–to be expounding the true meaning of Holy Writ, the infallible Word of God, and quibbled (as did Socinus) about the kind of religious respect that should be shown to Jesus, but Aryans whose moral sense has not been anaesthetized are naturally repelled by the Jewish ethics of the “Old Testament,” e.g., by the shocking tale that when Israelites were running out of Egypt, laden with all the loot they had obtained by pilfering and swindling the stupid Egyptians who had trusted them, their accomplice up in the welkin not only miraculously parted the waters of the Red Sea and instantly dried the mud on its bottom to help his pets escape, but used his miracle as a trap to drown all the pursuing Egyptians, who were trying to recover their stolen property, thus providing a lesson for goyim who are so filled with prejudice that they do not appreciate the honor of being robbed by Jews. So vicious a god is unacceptable to our moral standards, and the Unitarians soon came to a position of Deism, retaining a tenuous link with Christianity by according to selected tales in the Holy Book the value of moral stories that convey ethical lessons and examples. That is obviously what Thomas Jefferson understood Unitarianism to be.
I do not know whether it would be possible to trace precisely the development of Unitarian doctrine from a Scriptural exegesis to a complete Deism, modified only by a rather sentimental esteem for the morally acceptable parts of the pronouncements attributed to the protagonist of the “New Testament.” The English Unitarians moved most rapidly toward Deism, but avoiding persecution, legal and social, and a constantly increasing tendency to let doctrine depend on the individual’s conscience and reason, make it hard to be certain how far toward unmitigated Deism a given individual went.
From England, Unitarianism spread rapidly to the Puritans of New England with the decay of their Calvinism and the loss of faith in strict predestination. By c. 1810, Unitarians, nominally Puritans, controlled almost all the churches in Boston and the theological studies at Harvard. A noted Unitarian, said to have had great influence, was the Reverend “Dr” Theodore Parker, the well-known conspirator and sponsor of the much-admired homicidal maniac, John Brown. Parker never stated his religious doctrine explicitly, as he could have in one sentence: “There is but one god, the one who has wisely given his power-of-attorney to Theodore Parker.”
In sum, since the tradition of Western Christianity made Jesus a god, Mr. de Boer is entirely correct in regarding the Unitarians of New England as heretical. But since they rejected the authority of the “New Testament,” they are saved from the guilt of calculated deceit, of which we must convict all the Abolitionists who were Protestants and claimed to base their doctrines on the text of the “New Testament,” but pretended mendaciously that their god had not specifically authorized slavery.(5)
(5. There can be no question about what the “New Testament” says on this point, on which I touched briefly in Liberty Bell, April 1985, p. 19. In the period before 1860 and even thereafter, there were many honest clergymen who admitted that the “New Testament” explicitly sanctions slavery as an institution, which must therefore be approved by all Christians, but in the Northern states they were howled down by the revolutionary agitators, who lied brazenly, if they claimed religious sanction of their subversion of the Republic.)
Two of the persons who wrote me were particularly interested in the status of the Unitarians today. They visited local Unitarian churches and asked friends in other parts of the country to do likewise. The reports agree that congregations are small and probably declining; that the members represent a level of education and social decorum markedly higher than could be found in other churches; that there is nothing of the proselytism that makes other cults so often offensive; and that the clergy are civilized men who pointedly abstain from fanaticism and such vulgarity as that of the holy men who are constantly agitating for free advertising of their businesses in the schools (“prayers”). There is no talk about gods and other holy spooks; and wedding ceremonies, for example, do not pretend that some supernatural being is authorizing the marriage. The anthems are based on the traditional ones, the words being rewritten to eliminate “the usual nonsense.” The ministers were generally praised as “a gentleman,” “an extremely well-educated scholar,” “a fine man,” etc. The emphasis of sermons was heavily on brotherhood, “love,” and good relations between people. Biological evolution was generally accepted, and there was never a hint of the tomfoolery called “creation science.” And despite the prevailing notion about “brotherhood,” one clergyman deprecated the activity of the pulpit punks who are committing treason by reviving the “underground railways” of the Abolitionist conspirators and using them to import enemy aliens and give them “sanctuary” by a fraudulent pretense they are reviving the practices of Mediaeval Catholicism.
One report was extremely interesting, and I have mentioned contemporary Unitarianism here as an introduction to consideration of it. It comes from a man who had obviously never heard of Liberty Bell and probably had never seen any publication of what is called the “right wing.” He was, however, a man of native intelligence.
He was much pleased by the learning and civility of the Unitarian minister, whom he met before attending a service in the church, and by the assurance he would hear nothing about God, Jesus, or similar nonsense. But when he attended the service on Sunday, “it happened to be some sort of anniversary or other of what the Jews have called the Holocaust, when Hitler murdered some six million of them.” Accordingly, “the minister preached a sermon on the inhumanity of the Nazis and the tortures inflicted on the Jews. He had everyone practically in tears as he described the atrocities. At the end, everyone was simply oozing with pity and sympathy for the poor persecuted race. On the face of it, that was logical and natural and I was sympathetic and realized, as I always have, that that was no way for the Nazis to behave, in the name of common decency and humanity.”
So far, the writer of the letter and the minister are on the same footing. Obviously, neither had ever heard of Professor Butz’s definitive Hoax of the Twentieth Century or any of the many books and articles that tell the truth about what happened to the Jews during the National Socialist regime in Germany. That is not remarkable. The Jews are using every resource from open terrorism to their control of all the media of communication to force their Aryan cattle to believe their great hoax. And whenever there are any indications that White Americans might be beginning to use their brains, the word goes out to the media of communication, “The swine are becoming restless. Man the pumps and squirt more sludge in the faces of the dumb brutes.” And well-coached “survivors” appear from the woodwork to tell everyone how they saw their dear poppas and mamas and their so sweet Schwesterlein and all their so innocent uncles and aunts and dear little cousins stuffed into the ovens by the horrid Nazis, who, unaccountably, overlooked the Sheeny who “survived” and is now wailing in public. And there are even Germans so despicable that they perform for the Jews on well-paid lecture-circuits and beat their breasts on the stage as they confess to collective guilt for having killed all of the six million Jews who are now in the United States and paying them to lie to the stupid goyim. In Canada, the courts are already being used to teach Aryan curs that they must not presume to have thoughts that do not bear the Kosher seal of approval, and pseudo-legal terrorism is already well under way in the United States. Most Americans have the stinking swill squirted in their faces every day, and it is not remarkable that they believe at least some part of what they are not only told but are shown in motion pictures produced with all the technical expertise of Hollywood. Few even notice that the actors who impersonate the poor, brave, persecuted Jews are Aryans, whereas the actors who impersonate the nasty Nazis are Kikes who have only to exhibit their natural personalities to seem repulsive and inhuman.
Both the writer of the report and the minister believed that the Holohoax was not just a filthy fiction, but was instead a veracious account of what had actually happened. Neither noticed that the hoax describes events that are physically and chemically impossible; one needs a little knowledge about poison gases and cremation of bodies to see that. But there was a great intellectual difference between the two men. At that point, the minister turned off his mind and started emoting. The other man did not. “I could not help thinking,” he said, “that Hitler must have had some reason for what he did. Why did he do it? Then the answer struck me: the Jews are the last word in clannishness. Jews usually intermarry, to the extent that there are some specific illnesses among them due to inbreeding. All else being equal, a Jew will only do business with another Jew. All Jews feel that first they are Jews and only incidentally citizens of their country. But if I state some of these things, I will instantly set off screams of ‘Racist!’ The Jews are a power-hungry and money-hungry race. That sort of minority is not good for any country, and Hitler decided to do something about it. Most emphatically I disagree with his methods, but still I can see his reason for them. Regardless of whether we consider Hitler a genius, a lunatic, an evil aggressor, or whatever, he certainly needed a united Germany to attain his ends, and I can see clearly that he must have figured that with such a clan as the Jews in the country, Germany could never be united, especially as the Jews had probably cornered most of the wealth in Germany and would undoubtedly have tried to corner the remainder in the turmoil of a war. It is well-known that the Jews grabbed vast amounts of wealth in Central Europe over the centuries.
“If six million Jews were slaughtered in Germany, what about all the other fine people who were killed in the lunacy of that war? Several nations participating in the Second World War lost several million people each, in addition to vast numbers who were wounded and maimed, for whom life was hardly worth living thereafter. Maybe someone should remember them as having given their sweet lives for nothing in a war which solved no problems but only left the world much worse than before.”
The writer went on to protest that he did not hate Jews and to mention Einstein, Disraeli, and others as great men. He even added, “I have several good Jewish friends who are quite willing to admit that the Jewish attitude may some day mean the end of their race, but, once again, that seems to be one of the things that everyone agrees is wrong but nobody does anything about.”
The foregoing is an object lesson that we must all perpend. It is, in a way, an epitome of our racial dilemma. We have here two men of our race, equally uninformed, equally ignorant of the historical facts, equally deceived by the intensive brainwashing to which the Jews subject Americans from the cradle to the grave.
The Unitarian minister is an intelligent man. He is much too intelligent to believe in the foolish miracles of Christian mythology– too intelligent to take seriously the great hoax called the “New Testament.” But he gullibly accepted an equally flagrant hoax. It is true that he evidently did not have the very elementary knowledge of chemistry and physics that would have shown him that the Jews’ tales about their “Holocaust” were as physically impossible as a claim that a man who had been very dead for three days was able to sneak out of his tomb when no one was looking, but he presumably had the common sense that prevents a rational man from believing that Satan picked up Jesus, a piece of God, carried him to the top of a mountain, and tempted him by offering a lot of money and a job as a king. But the minister’s common sense did not warn him that if Hitler did try to rid Germany of Jews, he, a man of great and undeniable accomplishments, which presuppose a very high degree of prudence and practical knowledge amounting to genius, must have done so for rational and cogent reasons, and not because Satan inspired him to slay a Holy and Blameless Race.
The minister must have shut up his common sense in a closet and locked the door before he started orating to whip up the blind emotions of his captive audience. He might as well have stirred them up with rhetoric about how Jesus-God had himself killed so that he would not punish them for the sins they were going to commit after they were born, two thousand years later. One subject is as useful as the other for exciting mindless emotions, and I have seen a salvation-huckster reduce the females in his congregation to sobs as he intoxicated their imaginations with artfully rhetorical embellishments of the silly story. If that had been the Unitarian’s purpose, he would have done better to stick to the old hokum, but given the high opinion of him expressed by an intelligent man, we may assume that the preacher was sincere and really believed that the Holohoax had actually happened, contrary to all of human experience, and so presumably through some supernatural agency!
How shall we explain the startling contrast between the preacher and the man who heard him but had not left his own common sense in the deep freezer at home? Needless to say, we may not generalize from a single instance, but I shall suggest a tentative hypothesis. The preacher had emancipated himself from most of the Christian superstitions, but he had retained a blind and unthinking faith in what may be the most pernicious of all of them, the illusion of a “brotherhood” that denies the biological facts of race and implies something so patently absurd as the equality of races and even the equality of individuals, since the great difference between individuals is attributed to what they have been taught, not to genetically innate qualities. And, as I have so often remarked, a person who narcotizes his common sense so that he can enjoy undisturbed the comforting hallucinations that human beings are not subject to the laws of biology, has so weakened his mind that he can also believe any kind of hokum for which clever con men whet his appetite.