Classic EssaysWilliam Pierce

Evolution and Conservative Beliefs

Charles Darwin 2by Dr. William L. Pierce

SINCE THE “Who We Are” series began appearing in NV, the National Office has been receiving complaints from subscribers who are unhappy because the account of man’s origins given there doesn’t jibe with the Jewish account in the Book of Genesis. (ILLUSTRATION: Charles Darwin)

Some readers have sent curt notes, such as, “You evidently don’t believe in the Bible. Don’t you know that evolution is the work of Satan? Cancel my subscription immediately!”

Others have been more patient, explaining either that (a) the first White people were placed on earth via flying saucer somewhere around 7,000 years ago, or that (b) the Creation occurred as described in Genesis, but Adam and Eve were Whites, not Jews, and that the people of the Old Testament eventually migrated to northern Europe and were the ancestors of the European race.

Complaints were definitely in the minority, with most readers indicating an approval of the race-history article, but there was no intention of offending any of our readers’ religious sensibilities with the “Who We Are” series. On the other hand, the Alliance never hesitates to print the truth — even when the truth conflicts with cherished myths. The racial history and prehistory in “Who We Are” are in accord with the presently known facts, whereas the account in the Old Testament and subsequent migrations form Eden to Scandinavia are not.

But the objections to presenting the facts of biological evolution, and our insistence on doing so, go deeper than a quibble over Jewish mythology. Evolution is not just a scientific concept which helps us understand race history; it is an idea which is absolutely fundamental to our whole way of thinking. The doctrine of the Alliance is based solidly on the evolutionary concept.

Throughout recorded history the prevailing idea of the world has been a static idea. The world existed. People were born; they grew old; they died. The seasons changed. But year after year, the world remained essentially the same. The stars always returned each year to their same places in the sky. There were always the same animals, the same types of weather, the same cycles. The world did not change. So it had always been, and so it would always be. That was the central fact of life.

For the last thousand years in Europe, in particular, there has been a static view of the creative process. The Christian religion, just like the Jewish and Moslem religions, regards the creation of the world, not as an ongoing process, but as something completed. Both the material and the spiritual worlds were finished long ago. In particular, God is finished, already a perfect being — hence, incapable of improvement or change. And man, of course, has also been viewed as an unchanging creature, with a fixed relationship to the unchanging Creator.

A century ago Charles Darwin shattered forever this static view of the world — although many people didn’t realize it at the time, and many apparently still don’t. Darwin, of course, was not the first man to see the world as an evolving reality rather than as a static reality. And his work was flawed in several respects: He made some errors, and he failed to understand the mechanics of evolution. (The explanation of that — at least, as far as biological evolution is concerned — we owe to Johann Mendel and his successors in the fields of genetics.) Nevertheless, Darwin did overturn the old, static worldview, and he replaced it with the evolutionary view. That is the greatest revolution in human thought which has ever taken place.

Life, of course, goes on, more or less, as before. People are born; they grow old; they die — but now we see each generation as slightly different from that which preceded it. The seasons still follow the familiar cycle — but now we know that the average climate also changes slightly from year to year, carrying the earth into a new and different climatic epoch. Even the stars do not return to exactly their same spaces in the sky each year; the whole pattern of the heavens is shifting, changing into something altogether new and different. The universe is evolving.

Because the pace of Cosmic evolution is slow, compared to the pace of human life, we are able, as mentioned, to go on more or less as before. But our vision, our understanding, is now altogether different. We no longer see ourselves or the world around us as a finished product. We no longer see the process of creation as something which ended long ago, or the universe as complete and static, ruled by a being with perfect knowledge.

We see instead a dynamic, evolving Whole, of which we are parts. We see an uncompleted world. We see a universe, a Cosmos, which is perfect neither materially nor spiritually, but each is striving toward perfection, toward perfect knowledge, toward perfect consciousness.

This is an exciting vision, vastly more exciting that the old view of the world, but it is a vision which makes conservatives uncomfortable. They don’t want excitement; they want the feeling of security which comes from a sense of permanence. They want to be comfortable and safe and sure.

Our vision takes in not only the world as it is, but also the world as it was and the world as it can be in the future. We see the Cosmos moving upward along a path which climbs without limits through more and more highly evolved states.

That is a view which gives the conservative vertigo. To be sure, even we cannot see the whole path which lies ahead of us. Beyond a few hundred years it becomes lost in the clouds of uncertainty which lie ahead of us and above us. But we know it is there, and we form our plans, choose our values and our goals accordingly. The conservative, instead, fixes his gaze on that portion of the path immediately under his feet and tells himself that that’s all there is. And he makes his plans and chooses his values and goals accordingly. And they are, of course, different from ours.

An understanding of the evolutionary nature of reality makes us radicals. We see that tendencies — which may be deeply buried beneath surface appearances now — can, nevertheless, have profound effects on the way things develop in the long run. In evils which may seem small and tolerable to the conservative we recognize the potential for great damage, if their effects are allowed to accumulate long enough.

The conservative would like to patch things up superficially, to alleviate the immediate and obvious symptoms of the social and political and racial problems around him. With a static view of the world, he believes that things swept under the carpet will stay under the carpet.

We, with our evolutionary view of the world, know that treating the symptoms of a disease is not enough. We know that the world is dynamic, and that the causes of a disease will continue festering under the surface until we go after its roots and tear them up.

That is why the conservative, for example, has always been willing to settle for racial segregation as a goal, while we have not. More generally, it is why the conservative turns away from difficult questions with harsh and unpleasant answers; he does not see the necessity of doing unpleasant things now in order that life may be on a higher plane in the future. It is why even the racially conscious conservative finds it so difficult to make sacrifices. He sees only the men and women around him, with all their imperfections, and he says to himself, “I should sacrifice myself for them?

We on the other hand, see not just our race as it is today, but our race as it can become, and it is this ideal for which we sacrifice.

* * *

National Alliance BULLETIN, May 1978

Previous post

Miscegenation: The Morality of Death

Next post

An Introduction to Sir Arthur Keith


  1. Joshua Johnson
    24 February, 2015 at 10:55 am — Reply

    I am a National-Socialist, but I am also an orthodox calvinist and it seems that the critique of the Genesis account as “Jewish” lends itself to a degree of theological ignorance (since racial identity has been historically understood as a biblical teacing). Likewise, the insistence on Darwinism lends itself to historical ignorance since the two most influential far-right thinkers were either anti-darwinist or openly non-darwinists (Spengler and Yockey).

    The Theory that races were distinct and to remain separate and that certain races had natural superiority is a concept that was justified by the use of scripture for centuries prior to Darwin ever lifting his pen to blaspheme God Almighty. R.L. Dabney, the prominent reformed theologian and Confederate chaplain defended slavery not by a theory of evolution, but based on the biblical theory of race (since Hammitic peoples were cursed with inferior qualities).

    Likewise, the Jews were cursed in the bible as well for being a “hard-hearted” people and in Romans 11 their rejection of Jesus Christ resulted in their being cut-off from Salvation which is now being overwhelmingly given to non-Semites and especially Europeans.

    Likewise, the far-right Afrikaners were, by-and-large, far-right and sympathetic to National Socialism in Germany during the time of World War II and based their political philosophy on Calvinist theology, NOT Darwinism, with their arguments being identical to that used by R.L. Dabney mentioned above.

    Now, historically speaking, Darwinism has been seem as a seditious anti-traditionalist theory by those who forged the philosophy of National Socialism and far-right groups today. Spengler, for instance, is very critical of Darwinism and sees it as an ideological blight symptomatic of the decline of the west with no disagreement coming from F.P. Yockey in this regards.

    An unashamedly historic approach to magisterial reformation (Reformed, Lutheran, Anglican) Christianity is the only real solution to uniting an nation-people racially and ideologically (which Hitler attempted, but failed to do with his Reich Church Project). Such unity cannot and never will be realized through the anti-spiritual, undignified, and unverifiable theories of Darwin, which by the way, were highly revered by that Jew, Karl Marx (who wanted to dedicate his work to Darwin), and the Jewish-Bolshevism of the Soviet Union.

    The Bible is not Jewish, it condemns the Jews for apostasy and gives salvation to the gentiles. Rather, rejecting a plain reading of Scripture and accepting unmitigated Darwinism has far stronger roots in Jewish thought and propaganda, especially with the Marxists.

    So, in sum, my response is this; rejecting the bible is, historically and theologically speaking, a more Jewish and Marxist approach than accepting the bible as the Word of God. This being biblically defensible, and historically demonstrable.

  2. Rosemary
    12 April, 2015 at 2:02 am — Reply

    In response to your saying that Darwinism has roots with the Marxists, I disagree. That is an absurd statement:

    Also, Adolf Hitler was not very fond of Christianity himself. He did not know what to do to deal with his constantly battling Protestant churches in Germany either.

    As quoted from David Irving’s The War Path:

    “He believed in what he usually referred to as “Providence,” to which he attributed the same mystic powers of explaining the inexplicable as Christians do to God.”

    “In 1939, Hitler regarded the Church as a vast and impersonal corporation of unscrupulous methods, drawing colossal state subsidies at the same time as it viciously attacked the state and strove to divide the people that Hitler had spent six years trying to unite.”

    “As for the Bible, ‘that Jewish artefact,’ Hitler regretted that it had ever been translated into German. “Any sane German can only clutch his head in dismay at how this Jewish outpouring, this priestly babble, has persuaded his fellow-Germans to cavort in a manner that we used to ridicule in the whirling dervishes of Turkey and the Negro races.”

    Notes taken by Hewel after evening discussion:

    “…Only Christianity has created a vengeful God, one who commits man to Hell the moment he starts using the brains that God gave him. The Classical was an age of enlightenment. With the onset of Christianity scientific research was halted and there began instead a research into the visions of saints, instead of the things that God gave us. Research into nature became a sin. The tragedy is that to this very day there are thousands of “educated” people running around believing in all this claptrap-they deny that Nature is all-powerful, they glorify the weak, the sick, the crippled and the simple-minded…”

    “Excerpts from unpublished records like these show that Hitler was inspired by purely Darwinian beliefs-the survival of the fittest, with no use for the moral comfort that sound religious teaching can purvey. ‘Liberty, equality and fraternity are the grandest nonsense,’ he had said that evening. ‘Because Liberty automatically precludes Equality-as liberty leads automatically to the advancement of the healthier, the better, and the more proficient, and thus there is no more equality.'”

    “The Party must never aspire to replace religion. One ought not to combat religion but to let it die of its own accord.”

    There are more, from pages 216 to 223.

  3. 13 April, 2015 at 8:18 am — Reply

    Rosemary, I do agree, and Ben Klassen had it right:

    Also, Christianity and Communism are Jewish Twins,
    as these both do come from the exact same sources:

Leave a reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Slander, crude language, incivility, off-topic drift, or remarks that might harm National Vanguard or its users may be edited or deleted, even if unintentional. Comments may be edited for clarity or usage.