"To achieve world government it is necessary to remove from the minds of men their individualism, loyalty to family traditions, national patriotism, and religious dogmas."
Need help debunking this quote. It's obviously either a misquote, taken out of context, or a complete fabrication. From a Google book search I've found that it' referenced in quite a few New World Order conspiracy books but I can't find an original source for it. Has anyone here come across it before or know anything about it?
To achieve world government, it is necessary to remove from the minds of men their individualism, loyalty to family tradition, national patriotism, and religious dogmas.
Quoted in: Llewellyn B. Davis, B Davis Llewellyn (1991) Going Home to School, p. 69
I found that one as well. I think the author probably used that quote to show that public schools are meant to "remove from the minds of men their individualism, loyalty to family tradition, national patriotism, and religious dogmas".
I believe that book was published in 1991, the earliest use of the quote I have found so far is in a book by conspiracy theorist A Ralph Epperson published in 1985.
The majority of internet pages that provide a citation claim that the original quote comes from a lecture by Chisholm published in journal called Psychiatry in February 1946, for example:
I have searched the article fairly thoroughly, and I cannot find the quote. If this is its supposed source, the quote appears to be fabricated.
Alternatively, some other pages claim the quote comes from a speech that Chisholm supposedly made at an education conference at the Asilomar Conference Center in California on September 11 1954. I'm not sure how you could verify this.
I've googled the quote, the top hip was to the Wikipedia page on Brock Chisholm:
The Wiki page, however, does not contain this quote, but itwas last modified on 2 September 2015, at 21:24.
PS In the YouTube video (the third hit), the quote is attributed to "Brock Adams, Director UN Health Organization". There is/was a politician of this name, but he did not hold this post.
The majority of internet pages that provide a citation claim that the original quote comes from a lecture by Chisholm published in journal called Psychiatry in February 1946
I've googled the quote, the top hip was to the Wikipedia page on Brock Chisholm:
The Wiki page, however, does not contain this quote, but it was last modified on 2 September 2015, at 21:24.
PS In the YouTube video (the third hit), the quote is attributed to "Brock Adams, Director UN Health Organization". There is/was a politician of this name, but he did not hold this post.
While Chisholm was Director General of the WHO from 1948 to 1953, he was quoted as saying, "To achieve world government, it is necessary to remove from the minds of men their individualism, loyalty to family traditions, national patriotism, and religious dogmas."
I've not done enough digging to see when it was added.
According to the offprint I linked, the full title of the journal is Psychiatry : journal of the biology and the pathology of interpersonal relations. Alternative subtitles over the years include: "journal for the operational statement of interpersonal relations" "journal for the study of interpersonal processes" and "interpersonal and biological processes", but they all appear to be the same journal.
It was founded by the neo-Freudian psychoanalyst Harry Stack Sullivan in 1938, and published by the William Alanson White Psychiatric Foundation in Washington DC. It seems to be still in existence, and is listed on PubMed under its shortened name:
i'm trying to use the index at amazon so i dont have to read the whole book but its not jiving with the text here of the book , he seems to have alot of footnotes so do you know WHERE the quote is in the book?
i'm curious because i found a 'source' from 1995 that has it quoted a bit different
1995
To
achieve one world government it is necessary to remove from the minds of men their
individualism, their loyalty to family traditions and national identification.
RE: Conference on Education citations-
i also cant find a "Conference on education" (1954) in California which is often cited as the original speech location... got a 1970 one but i dont see him speaking at it.
There was a "white House Conference on Education" (1954) which is where federal grants to help local schools was first suggested.
i also see this quote attributed to Chisholm at supposedly the same conference
The people who have been taught to believe whatever they were told by their parents or their teachers are the people who are the menace to the world. (Speech, Conference on Education, Asilomar, California, September 11, 1954)
Religious sites:
I mostly see the quote at religious sites and they list
The Christian World Report (March 1991, Vol. 3, No. 3). p.8; Christian World Report (July 1989. Vol 1. No. 5). p.1
as having the topic quote as well.
Hoping an older source would link a yet older source, but i cant track down any of these publications.
Anyway kinda sounds like something he would say based on the times and his general view i'm reading. But the exact wording doesnt really make sense in an "education topic" setting*. Or a pure "psychiatric topic" setting. So it would be nice to find an original.
*i did find this reference (and it may be pure bunk) but didnt persue it, as SO many men back then made somewhat similar statements, tracking this down can be real tough.
In 1947, the American Education Fellowship (formerly known as the Progressive Education Association) called for the “establishment of a genuine world order, an order in which national sovereignty is subordinate to world authority…”
if he was speaking at an event like this group the wording would make mroe sense.
Anyway kinda sounds like something he would say based on the times and his general view i'm reading. But the exact wording doesnt really make sense in an "education topic" setting*. Or a pure "psychiatric topic" setting. So it would be nice to find an original.
Some elements of the alleged quote appear consistent with Brock Chisholm's oft-stated views. Chisholm fought in WW I and was Director General of Medical Services in the Canadian Army during WW II. In the post war period he believed (like many) that an even more catastrophic WW III was inevitable unless the causes of the first two wars could be addressed. As a psychoanalyst in the emerging field of interpersonal theory he believed that blind nationalism and enforced adherence to religious dogma and tradition were at the heart of the psychopathology that led to the two wars he lived through.
The "establishment of a genuine world order, an order in which national sovereignty is subordinate to world authority" was a popular aspiration in the immediate post war period as people dealt with the trauma of the second world war and faced the prospect of an even more devastating nuclear WW III, and was something Chisholm would have been fully on board with. But the idea of removing "from the minds of men their individualism" was anathema to him. On the contrary he strongly advocated that lasting peace could be achieved only by allowing people to grow up free of the authoritarian restrictions imposed by religious dogma, nationalism and excessive parental control.
Which perhaps explains why he might be demonised by some in the religious right.
According to the offprint I linked, the full title of the journal is Psychiatry : journal of the biology and the pathology of interpersonal relations. Alternative subtitles over the years include: "journal for the operational statement of interpersonal relations" "journal for the study of interpersonal processes" and "interpersonal and biological processes", but they all appear to be the same journal.
It was founded by the neo-Freudian psychoanalyst Harry Stack Sullivan in 1938, and published by the William Alanson White Psychiatric Foundation in Washington DC. It seems to be still in existence, and is listed on PubMed under its shortened name:
I'll see if I can find the full text of his 1948 publication in American Journal of Psychiatry in a Medical School Library nearby. It probably was the first Chisholm's paper since his taking the helm at WHO.
As I paw through all this, early on a Sunday morning, I keep having the same thought:
"What a wonderful world this would be, if those using this "quote" to justify their panicky
claims, spent even 1/10 the effort this lot has, to confirm that anyone actually said this."
I know, I know...it's a lot more fun to be worried/outraged about something than to actually lift a
finger and look into the claim that anyone of significance ever actually said it...but wouldn't it be nice?
p.s. Of course, any and everyone is free to hold the opinion expressed in the quote...it would only be noteworthy if someone with enough power and inclination (to act on it) began doing so. Since there's zero evidence of this, it kinda looks like hysteria for the sake of the fun of angry hysteria...to me.
As I paw through all this, early on a Sunday morning, I keep having the same thought:
"What a wonderful world this would be, if those using this "quote" to justify their panicky
claims, spent even 1/10 the effort this lot has, to confirm that anyone actually said this."
I know, I know...it's a lot more fun to be worried/outraged about something than to actually lift a
finger and look into the claim that anyone of significance ever actually said it...but wouldn't it be nice?
p.s. Of course, any and everyone is free to hold the opinion expressed in the quote...it would only be noteworthy if someone with enough power and inclination (to act on it) began doing so. Since there's zero evidence of this, it kinda looks like hysteria for the sake of the fun of angry hysteria...to me.
"To achieve world government it is necessary to remove from the minds of men their individualism, loyalty to family traditions, national patriotism, and religious dogmas."
and to think "context", i'm speculating now too, but to me.. if he has any training in psychiatry - even way back then- to me it sounds like he is more 'lamenting' that a [paraphrasing now] 'world governement would be impossible BECAUSE you would have to 1. remove individualism form the minds of men (good luck) 2. and loyalty to family traditions (good luck) 3. and loyalty to nationalism (good luck) 4. AND remove religious dogmas (good luck).
and to think "context", i'm speculating now too, but to me.. if he has any training in psychiatry - even way back then- to me it sounds like he is more 'lamenting' that a [paraphrasing now] 'world governement would be impossible BECAUSE you would have to 1. remove individualism form the minds of men (good luck) 2. and loyalty to family traditions (good luck) 3. and loyalty to nationalism (good luck) 4. AND remove religious dogmas (good luck).
And the quote also sets up the demonisation of a sceptical or scientific viewing of those things, which may be the context it is intended to be used in now; as a useful retort to youtube and facebook arguments. It's just another way of saying 'sheeple!'
I'm speculating now too, but to me.. if he has any training in psychiatry - even way back then- to me it sounds like he is more 'lamenting' that a [paraphrasing now] 'world government would be impossible BECAUSE you would have to 1. remove individualism form the minds of men (good luck)...
Brock Chisholm's argument in The Reestablishment of Peacetime Society - The Role of Psychiatry is actually the exact opposite of what the alleged quote implies. He wrote the paper within months of the dropping of atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, in which he addresses the pressing problem of how to prevent the next world war. He identifies three key issues: the need to suppress national aggression by an overarching "world government" (which he sees as only a temporary solution):
It would appear that at least three requirements are basic to any hope of permanent world peace.
First - security, elimination of the occasion for valid fear of aggression. This is attainable, at least temporarily and as a stopgap until something better can be arranged, by legislation backed by immediately available combined force prepared to suppress ruthlessly any appeal to force by any peoples in the world. The administration and command of such a force is a delicate problem but can be devised if and when the great powers really want it.
as well as the need to redistribute resources more fairly:
Second - opportunity to live reasonably comfortably for all the people in the world on economic levels which do not vary too widely either geographically or by groups within a population. This is a simple matter of redistribution- of matenal, of which there is plenty in the world for everybody, or of which plenty can easily be made. This can easily be attained whenever enough people see its necessity for their own and their children's safety if for no more mature reason.
but as a psychoanalyst, Chisholm's main argument was that the root cause of war was human neurosis, which was the result of the crippling of emotional maturation by arbitrary authority:
It follows inevitably then that the third requirement, on which the attainment and the effectiveness of the others depend, is that there should be enough people in the world, in all countries, who are not as we are and always have been, and will not show the neurotic necessities which we and every generation of our ancestors have shown. We have never had enough people anywhere who are sufficiently free of these neurotic symptoms which make wars inevitable.
All psychiatrists know where these symptoms come from. The burden of inferiority, guilt, and fear we have all carried lies at the root of this failure to mature successfully.
Chisholm believed this "failure to mature" was caused by blind loyalty to family traditions, national patriotism, and religious dogmas. He was actually advocating a radical form of individual freedom - especially for children - the exact opposite of "remov[ing] from the minds of men their individualism":
Man's freedom to observe and to think freely is as essential to his survival as are the specific methods of survival of the other species to them. Birds must fly, fish must swim, herbivorous animals must eat grasses and cereals, and man must observe and think freely. That freedom, present in all children and known as innocence, has been destroyed or crippled by local certainties, by gods of local moralities, of local loyalty, of personal salvation, of prejudice and hate and intolerance -frequently masquerading as love - gods of everything that would destroy freedom to observe and to think and would keep each generation under the control of the old people, the elders, the shamans, and the priests.
I'll see if I can find the full text of his 1948 publication in American Journal of Psychiatry in a Medical School Library nearby. It probably was the first Chisholm's paper since his taking the helm at WHO.
I have found it, and it does not contain the quote (see attached photos of the journal pages with the Chisholm's paper). There is a vaguely reminiscent paragraph on the World Health Organization to be (emphasis mine):
…from the International Congress on Mental Health there should develop a permanent organization largely for this purpose.
Perhaps never before in history has there been a more important meeting of any kind than that Congress can be, if all people qualified and obligated to attend, do so, and if they can at the same time ignore all sectional interests, all local or national loyalties, all matters of personal or individual prestige or advantage, and by a free pooling of their knowledge and experience, offer even a little, but concrete, hope for a frightened world.
However, there is no mentioning of the alleged quote in this book. An interested party may try to obtain the full text of the book and then to trawl through the cited sources for more details of the Chisholm's speeches advocating this idea in order to prove, or, possibly, to debunk the quote, but I am not that interested.
Brock Chisholm's argument in The
Chisholm believed this "failure to mature" was caused by blind loyalty to family traditions, national patriotism, and religious dogmas. He was actually advocating a radical form of individual freedom - especially for children - the exact opposite of "remov[ing] from the minds of men their individualism":
Man's freedom to observe and to think freely is as essential to his survival as are the specific methods of survival of the other species to them. Birds must fly, fish must swim, herbivorous animals must eat grasses and cereals, and man must observe and think freely. That freedom, present in all children and known as innocence, has been destroyed or crippled by local certainties, by gods of local moralities, of local loyalty, of personal salvation, of prejudice and hate and intolerance -frequently masquerading as love - gods of everything that would destroy freedom to observe and to think and would keep each generation under the control of the old people, the elders, the shamans, and the priests.
Thanks, Snout! I think that pretty much settles it. It's a bogus quote that clearly isn't in keeping with Chisholm's well articulated perspective on individuality and personal freedom.
And thanks to everyone else who looked into it, I really appreciate the help.
Can I add 'Debunked' to the title or do the mods take care of that?
i'm not sure you can say 'debunked'. most of the sources i saw claim he said it in a speech in 1954. He still could have said it. I started reading how "individualism" was being used in different contexts during that time period, but i got bored.. but its possible he meant 'individualism' as say pro-socialism/pro 'world governement' vs. seperate gov type thing. I'm probably not saying that clearly.
Anyway, i dont consider it debunked so far.Then again you cant prove a negative.
I'm not sure you can say 'debunked'. most of the sources i saw claim he said it in a speech in 1954. He still could have said it. I started reading how "individualism" was being used in different contexts during that time period, but i got bored.. but its possible he meant 'individualism' as say pro-socialism/pro 'world governement' vs. seperate gov type thing. I'm probably not saying that clearly.
Out of all the elements of the quote "it is necessary to remove from the minds of men their individualism" is what seems to jar the most, given what we know of Chisholm's views on the freedom of individuals to mature free of the dictates of the arbitrary authority of parents, local cultural norms and religious dogma.
Most people reading that quote would assume would assume that "individualism" meant something like "libertarianism" does today - that is, a political position in opposition to communitarianism.
But "individualism" actually has a different nuance of meaning in the context of psychoanalysis and personality theory. Traditional Freudian theory held that personality development was primarily inherent to the individual, and that social factors were secondary. Among critics of this view (called Individualism) in the mid 20th century were the neo-Freudians such as Eric Fromm and Harry Stack Sullivan, who held that social, cultural and interpersonal influences - parents, religion, local culture, etc were far more important factors (both positive and negative) in the development of a mature, non-neurotic, fully realised individual. Chisholm was definitely of that latter view.
So "it is necessary to remove from the minds of men their individualism" in this context does not mean removing individuality - on the contrary, it could mean something like "we need to recognise the negative impacts of social institutions on psychological development, rather than pretend that these are not important".
Obviously, we would need to see the quote (if it exists) in its context to see exactly what Chisholm meant by it. But I suspect that part of the problem might be confusing the words individualism (a theory of personality development) with individuality (a state of free personhood).
Obviously, we would need to see the quote (if it exists) in its context to see exactly what Chisholm meant by it. But I suspect that part of the problem might be confusing the words individualism (a theory of personality development) with individuality (a state of free personhood).
Ultimately, it is up to the people making the claim that he said it, to produce the actual source.
But if it was a speech, it is also quite possible the person writing it down messed up a bit. (Reporters tend to do that at times). "Individual idosyncracies" would make more sense to me in that sentence, from what little ive read on him than "individualism". But as you said perhaps the "reporter" who wrote it down figured they were the same thing.
Or he misspoke-sounds like he spoke on this topic rather often.
I personally always find it a bit suspicious when it seems noone uploaded the original source, but then again it could be in some old off line book from the 1960s. Which is the only reason i'm feeling it cant be considered 'debunked' per se. The SOURCES claimed could maybe be debunked,ex if we could find a "conference on Education in CA 1954 and show he did not speak there, i didnt have much luck finding much in that respect. Although i still cant figure why he'd be speaking about "world government" at a Conference of Education (maybe a unesc thing?).
The majority of internet pages that provide a citation claim that the original quote comes from a lecture by Chisholm published in journal called Psychiatry in February 1946, for example:
I have searched the article fairly thoroughly, and I cannot find the quote. If this is its supposed source, the quote appears to be fabricated.
Alternatively, some other pages claim the quote comes from a speech that Chisholm supposedly made at an education conference at the Asilomar Conference Center in California on September 11 1954. I'm not sure how you could verify this.
The original document is a copyrighted article, so anyone posting the whole thing is in violation of copyright. This is where Huxey, Hiss, and Chisholm were coming from. It's a "real thing", as they say.
When I did searches using Chisholm, G Brock and G Brock Chisholm, the Nashville TN public library said no results. When I searched the title of the book, same result.
Honestly, I think the ideologues who favor this don't want people who are scandalized it to be able to find it. I couldn't find a way here to upload an image at first, so I went back to tandfonline to get a link to the book, and they didnt have it either! But I found a way to upload the screenshot i took earlier, after all!
The original document is a copyrighted article, so anyone posting the whole thing is in violation of copyright. This is where Huxey, Hiss, and Chisholm were coming from. It's a "real thing", as they say.
I don't think there was much doubt that the document existed, the issue is that the quote doesn't appear to be in it.
Honestly, I think the ideologues who favor this don't want people who are scandalized it to be able to find it. I couldn't find a way here to upload an image at first, so I went back to tandfonline to get a link to the book, and they didnt have it either! But I found a way to upload the screenshot i took earlier, after all!
Not sure what you mean? It came straight up in search on www.tandfonline.com, and there's a (paywall'd) link to download it. Were you using a 'phone? Uploading images here is hardly black magic.
"To achieve world government it is necessary to remove from the minds of men their individualism, loyalty to family traditions, national patriotism, and religious dogmas."
Need help debunking this quote. It's obviously either a misquote, taken out of context, or a complete fabrication. From a Google book search I've found that it' referenced in quite a few New World Order conspiracy books but I can't find an original source for it. Has anyone here come across it before or know anything about it?
Tal Brooke refers to a lengthier version of this quote in the introduction of his book When the World Will Be As One (Mar 1989). Here is the full quote:
To achieve world government, it is necessary to remove from the minds of men their individualism, loyalty to family tradition, national patriotism and religious dogmas....
We have swallowed all manner of poisonous certainties fed us by our parents, our Sunday and day
school teachers, our politicians, our priests, our newspapers and others with vested interests in controlling us.
The reinterpretation and eventual eradication of the concept of right and wrong which has been the basis of child training, the substitution of intelligent and rational thinking for faith in the certainties of the old people, these are the belated objectives … for charting the changes of human behavior.
The source is cited as The Utah Independent, Sep. 1977, so it sounds like a newspaper or magazine publication. I found nothing about the publication in an online search but, admittedly, I wasn't thorough.
Many old newspaper and magazine quotes like this one have unverifiable sources but that doesn't mean they've been debunked--only unverified. I'd be grateful to any sleuths here who could verify the quote as I'd like to use it.
Tal Brooke refers to a lengthier version of this quote in the introduction of his book When the World Will Be As One (Mar 1989). Here is the full quote:
We have swallowed all manner of poisonous certainties fed us by our parents, our Sunday and day
school teachers, our politicians, our priests, our newspapers and others with vested interests in controlling us.
The reinterpretation and eventual eradication of the concept of right and wrong which has been the basis of child training, the substitution of intelligent and rational thinking for faith in the certainties of the old people, these are the belated objectives … for charting the changes of human behavior.
I found a college History Thesis written, that does refer often the The Utah Independent in the 1970's as source for her quotes. So it did exist in the mid 1970's.
A week after its organization was reported, The Utah Independent, a conservative newspaper affiliated with the American Party and the John Birch Society...
Out of all the elements of the quote "it is necessary to remove from the minds of men their individualism" is what seems to jar the most, given what we know of Chisholm's views on the freedom of individuals to mature free of the dictates of the arbitrary authority of parents, local cultural norms and religious dogma.
ok... i think it's fair to say The Utah Independent, which is the primary found source of that OP quote, might be a tad bit biased about Chisolm. and may have paraphrased him a bit
1970, Hunter and Cannon became founding editor and assistant editor of The Utah
Independent: The Conservative Marketplace of Utah which was written by and for Mormon
members of the Birch Society.
See Byron Cannon Anderson, "Open Letter to Utah Citizens,"
Mar. 1966, folder 5, box 184, Frank E. Moss papers, Western Americana, Marriott Library;
"Young, But Eager, He Looks for Political Chance," Deseret News, 30 Sept. 1965, B-l; "Welch
Raps "Senseless' U.S. Policy," Salt Lake Tribune, 8 Apr. 1966, B-l; Anderson, "Church and
Birch In Utah"; "David O. McKay: Prophet-Patriot," and staff list, Utah Independent, 12 Feb.
1970,1-2; "Birch Society PR Speaker," Utah Independent, 9 Apr. 1970,1; "What Is The John
Birch Society," Utah Independent, 28 May 1971, 6-7,9; "The Communist Attack on The John
Birch Society," Utah Independent, 21 Apr. 1972, 4-7; "Birchers Ask Economic Sanctions on
Communists," Utah Independent, 19 May 1972, 4; and the regular column from Birch
headquarters in Belmont, Massachusetts,
......
The newspaper published by Mormon members of the Birch Society
was significant for what lay between the lines of its report of April 1970
conference. The Utah Independent began with the comment that church
members will remember this general conference "for decades to come" and
noted: "Despite persistent rumors to the contrary, no violence took place
at the conference. No opposition was manifest by Church members when
the names of general authorities were presented for sustaining." Of Lee's
talk two days before this vote, the Utah Independent observed: "Special
interest has centered around the talk given by President Harold B. Lee at
the Saturday evening general priesthood session," and quoted excerpts
....
281. Byron Cannon Anderson, "LDS General Conference Sustains Pres. Smith," Utah
Independent, 9 Apr. 1970, 1, 4. Mormon Birchers had edited this newspaper since its
founding in 1970. Its connection with the national society became obvious in 1976 when its
regular column from national headquarters in Belmont, Massachusetts, was formally
named "The Birch Log" as of Utah Independent, 5 Aug. 1976, 3.
"What basic psychological distortion can be found in every civilization of which we know anything? It must be a force which discourages the ability to see and acknowledge patent facts, which prevents the rational use of intelligence, which teaches or encourages the ability to dissociate and to believe contrary to and in spite of clear evidence, which produces inferiority, guilt and fear, which makes controlling other people's personal behavior emotionally necessary, which encourages prejudice and the inability to see, understand and sympathize with other people's points of view. Is there any force so potent and so pervasive that it can do all these things in all civilizations? There is-just one. The only lowest common denominator of all civilizations and the only psychological force capable of producing these perversions is morality, the concept of right and wrong, the poison long ago described and warned against as "the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil."
CHISHOLM, G.B., The Reestablishement of Peacetime Society, Psychiatry, 1946, I, p. 7.
In the old Hebrew story God warns the first man and woman to have nothing to do with good and evil. It is interesting to note that as long ago as that, "good" is recognized as just as great a menace as "evil." They are the fruit of the one tree and are different aspects of the same thing.
We have been very slow to rediscover this truth and to recognize the unnecessary and artificially imposed inferiority, guilt and fear, commonly known as sin, under which we have almost all labored and which produces so much of the social maladjustment and unhappiness in the world. For many generations we have bowed our necks to the yoke of the conviction of sin. We have swallowed all manner of poisonous certainties fed us by our parents, our Sunday and day school teachers, our politicians, our priests, our newspapers and others with a vested interest in controlling us. "Thou shalt become as gods, "knowing good and evil," good and evil with which to keep children under control, with which to prevent free thinking, with which to impose local and familial and national loyalties and with which to blind children to their glorious intellectual heritage. Misguided by authoritarian dogma, bound by exclusive faith, stunted by inculcated loyalty, torn by frantic heresy, bedevilled by insistent schism, drugged by ecstatic experience, confused by conflicting certainty, bewildered by invented mystery, and loaded down by the weight of guilt and fear engendered by its own original promises, the unfortunate human race, deprived by these incubi of its only defences and its only reasons for striving, its reasoning power and its natural capacity to enjoy the satisfaction of its natural urges, struggles along under its ghastly self-imposed burden. The results, the inevitable results, are frustration, inferiority, neurosis and inability to enjoy living, to reason clearly or to make a world fit to live in.
The crippling of intelligence by these bandages of belief, in the name of virtue and security for the soul, is as recognizable as that of the feet of the Chinese girl who was sacrificed to the local concept of beauty. The result is, in both cases, not beauty of character or of feet, but distortion and crippling and loss of natural function. Intelligence, ability to observe and to reason clearly and to reach and implement decisions appropriate to the real situation in which he finds himself, are man's only specific methods of survival. His unique equipment is entirely in the superior lobes of his brain. His destiny must lie in the direction indicated by his equipment. Whatever hampers or distorts man's clear true thinking works against man's manifest destiny and tends to destroy him.
He's not opposed to morality in the simple sense of doing good. He's arguing against "authoritarian dogma"
