Classic EssaysRevilo P. Oliver

Reflections on the Christ Myth, part 10: Creation

by Revilo P. Oliver

IT HAS, of course, long been obvious to rational men that the only explanation of the existence of organic life, including our own precious and unique selves, is biological evolution. Men capable of ratiocination and willing to think will always honor Darwin, to whom we owe the formulation of the theory which, modified in some details by subsequent knowledge of genetics, definitively ended uncritical acceptance of theological hokum.

Biological evolution is not a recent discovery. When our race first emerged from the fogs of primitive superstition, men who thought about Nature objectively perceived that organic life must have been generated from inorganic matter by some natural (chemical) reaction; that the forms of organic life multiplied and evolved to ever increasing complexity, winnowed by the inexorable law that decrees the survival of the fittest; and that the blind forces of Nature eventually produced the several species of anthropoid mammals that are called human. Even a superficial knowledge of Greek philosophy will bring to one’s mind the names of Empedocles, Anaximander, Anaxagoras, Archelaus, and Xenophanes; and everyone who knows anything of Latin literature will remember Lucretius, V. 780-1150.

The religions of the world have produced innumerable myths about a ‘creation’ by some of the supernatural beings imagined by primitive peoples — myths which deal almost exclusively with the species called human, for the crude minds that entertain such stories are not really interested in mammals other than themselves. And all the myths told by literate or semi-literate peoples are as good as, and usually more intelligible than, the tale told in the Christians’ Holy Jew-Book. (1) For example, when Odin and his brothers had a whim to create human beings, they selected the trunks of two ash trees and fashioned Askr and Embla, the first man and the first woman. In the Egyptian story, Khepera created men and women simultaneously from his tears and genesic power. In what is probably a Sumerian myth preserved in a Semitic (Akkadian) text, the goddess Mami simultaneously incubated seven males and seven females. But in the Jews’ story, the old Sheeny, Yahweh, mixed up a mud pie and made a man, complete with the male sexual organs, but didn’t perceive how stupid he had been until the man complained, whereupon Yahweh took one of the man’s spare ribs and made a female out of it. (2) The male and female he created were so dim-witted, however, that their reproductive organs would have been useless, if a clever snake had not told the woman about the famous apple tree that malicious old Yahweh had planted to tempt his creations to damn themselves. This foolish and grotesque story, the Jews’ vulgarization of the Babylonian adaptation of a Sumerian creation-myth, was, of course, distorted by the Jews’ morbid and nasty preoccupation with sex, but there are people who read it without disgust and without ribald laughter.

The most reasonable creation-story that comes to my mind is one told in the fables of Phaedrus. Human beings were created as in the Egyptian picture of a creation that was reproduced in Liberty Bell, September 1984, p. 16, but in the Greek tale the sculptor was Prometheus, who did much of his work at night after he staggered home from drinking parties on Olympus, and his befuddled mind, bleary eyes, and unsteady hands almost ruined both of his artistic creations by incorporating in them the anatomical and physiological blunders that make our bodies so inadequate and now distress us — which, needless to say, no decent god would have inflicted on us, if sober and in his right mind. As Maeterlinck, who believed in immortal souls and a divinity, remarked, “If I were God, I would be ashamed of having created man.”

Now all this should not need to be said, and no educated person would pay any attention to the chicanery by which ‘creation scientists’ try to peddle their hokum to the suckers, if the rabble-rousing barkers who so lucratively vend salvation over the boob-tubes were not becoming a menace to our race, and if it were not obvious that the Jews, who poisoned our race with the Christian virus fifteen centuries ago, are now relying on the terminal phase of that disease to drive to suicidal insanity and extermination the race on which, above all others, the hostes generis humani have focused for millennia their rabid hatred of civilized mankind.

It is ominous that recently two judges in the Revolutionary Tribunal wrote a dissenting opinion in which they hypocritically devised a legal justification of the corrupt legislature of Louisiana’s hypocritical attempt to inject into the public schools the hypocritical sophistry of ‘creation science.’

What is most disgusting about the promoters of the fraud is the glib hypocrisy with which they pretend that they want to teach ‘creation’ without teaching a religion. They assume Americans are so stupid that they will believe that the shysters will offer the helpless children, as alternatives to biological evolution, at least a selection of two dozen or so representative creation-myths and leave them free to select any story they prefer, such, for example, as the really elaborate ones told in India, which make the Jews’ silly tale seem fit only for vulgar and sub-normal children, but everyone knows that once the conspirators have got their camel’s nose in the tent, they intend to crowd out all factual knowledge. Their only purpose is to ram the Yiddish garbage into every moppet’s mind.

The deceit of the contrivers of ‘creation science’ places them beneath contempt, but one has to respect honest Christians who say what they mean, such, for example, as the Reverend Mr. Dale Crowley, Jr., who, in an article printed in Christian News, 20 July 1987, frankly avows the Christians’ purpose: ‘Throw Evolutionism out of our tax-supported schools and museums.’ (Museums are mentioned with reference to the Smithsonian Institution, which should probably be abolished for having published a scientific account of the development of life, a book which I mentioned in Liberty Bell, September 1986, pp. 14-16.) Mr. Crowley frankly and prudently reprehends the duplicity of the ‘creation science’ hoax as both dishonest and imprudent. “The world is totally aware of our transparent efforts to disguise our creation curriculum in the ‘two-model approach,’ while we reassure them that we are willing to teach evolution too in a ‘balanced approach.’ We bring no credit to ourselves, nor honor to our Lord, through such tactics.” So there are honest Christians! And we must respect them for their integrity and their candor in telling us precisely what they intend.

Mr. Crowley’s distress over scientific studies is echoed by an anonymous colleague, who is “deeply saddened that professors like Victor Stenger are roaming freely in our universities.” The wicked Professor of Physics has published an article in Free Inquiry, Summer 1987, in which he states what is well known to every educated man who is interested in truth and not afraid to investigate and think: “there is not one shred of evidence for a creation,” with the conclusion that “there was no Creator because there was no creation.” (3)

It is quite easy to foresee what will happen if the witch-doctors mobilize the voting boobs and gain control. Now that practically everything (including the shamans’ churches) is tax-supported in one way or another, professors who doubt that old Yahweh stopped the Sun so that his pet bandits could get in a little more genocide can be fired before they are sent to work camps; libraries that contain books that contradict the Jews’ hokum can be abolished and the offending books burned, so that no youthful mind will be contaminated with rationality; and all airplanes should be destroyed lest they disturb old Yahweh while he is snoozing on a comfortable cloud (as is his habit, according to the ‘inerrant’ Jew-Book) — and if old Yahweh gets riled up, he might lose his temper again and smash up the Universe before Jesus has a chance to inflict on mankind the sadistic horrors over which Christians gloat as they read their favorite Apocalypse.

It is not likely that the Christians’ political ambitions will be realized, for the Jews will have attained their goal long before the reforms outlined in the preceding paragraph are fully carried out, but it is well to know that Christians have not changed at heart since the Wars of Religion devastated Europe.

The Jews have long kept their herds of goyim milling about between Communism and Capitalism, relying on the stupidity of the dumb brutes, who do not see that both are just superficially different devices for abolishing private property and the civilization that depends on it, so that the Jews will have unquestioned possession of the whole world, including its livestock. In the same way, they are now sending Christians into a tizzy by making them imagine a fundamental opposition between the purportedly “atheistic” Christianity of the Marxian Reformation and “fundamentalist” Protestantism, which has been stripped of what once made it not utterly intolerable.

In these circumstances, the shoddy scribbling, cheap tricks, and greasy hypocrisy of the “creationists” are more than ludicrous antics. They have become a dire menace. And you will notice a neat reversal of roles in the recent decisions of the Revolutionary Tribunal in Washington; now the danger often comes, not from the “Liberals,” but from the “Conservatives” appointed by the Jews’ President, old Ronnie.

One hears Rehnquist lauded because be has said some nice things that soothe the ears of tax-paying boobs who imagine that their servitude can ever be eased in a Jew-governed ochlocracy, and have forgotten that even nicer things were said by the foul monster called Franklin Roosevelt when he was lying to the Americans whom he tricked into voting for him. Whether Rehnquist means any part of his verbal paregoric, I do not profess to know, but I estimate his character by what he does. He, with his “conservative” pal, wrote the infamous dissenting opinion in favor of the ‘creation scientists’ confidence game. He is also the author of an opinion (in which three of the “Liberals” joined) that would have sustained the corrupt legislature of Kentucky in directing that all public schoolrooms be posted with advertisements of Yahweh’s bluff, the so-called “Ten Commandments,” which begin with threats against persons who worship gods that are in competition with Yahweh. (4) And Rehnquist was such a hypocritical twister that he pretended that such an advertisement was not intended to get customers for a religion and its howling dervishes! (5)

The danger from thoughtless Christians today is such that we must welcome with more than critical satisfaction the new book by Dr. Richard Dawkins, an eminent zoologist and Fellow of New College, Oxford, The Blind Watchmaker (New York, Norton, 1987). The work should be conclusive, even for Christians who can read — but remember that while most Christians know the alphabet and quite a few English words, many of them seem quite incapable of reading and understanding anything that does not reek with their favorite hallucinogen.

Dr. Dawkins proves logically, in admirably lucid language, that the evidence of the biological record categorically excludes all notions of teleology in the operations of Nature, which are determined by natural laws that cannot conceivably have a purpose, such as only thinking organisms can form in their own minds. One very important point is his elucidation of what we call blind chance. It is chance, certainly, that the peculiar conditions necessary for the chemical production of life occurred on one of the lesser planets of our Sun, but it is also not fortuitous, since the chance was produced by the uniform operation of physical laws, which, at this point in space, resulted in the formation of the Sun and the widely differing satellites that revolve about it, one of which was so constituted and located that the biogenetic chemical reaction could and did occur. The Universe is indeed the nexus of cause and effect that the Greeks called heimarmene.

This point has crucial importance when one considers biological evolution. Unwary persons are often taken in by the sciolistic claim that mere chance could not have produced so complicated an organ as an eye or so complicated an organism as an anthropoid, to say nothing of so perfect an organism as a rabble-rousing, money-grabbing evangelist. The fundamental fact to keep in mind is that an organism’s potentiality for further development is limited by the structure it has already attained. I suggest as a very crude and simplified analogy the drawing of cards from a shuffled deck: The first cards that are dealt may be regarded as dealt by chance, but in any further dealing of cards chance is limited by the absence from the deck of the cards already dealt. Or, if you remember Lucretius, call to mind his argument that while the blind concurrence of atoms probably produced many strange forms of life that were eliminated by the survival of only the fittest, there were forms that could not have been produced, e.g., centaurs or hippocamps, because they would have combined incompatible organs.

The evolution of an organism is determined by the adaptability of the form it has already attained and the law of the survival of the fittest, which rigorously and properly eliminates species that are defeated in the perpetual struggle for life at the expense of other species. Now all the evidence proves that living organisms evolved in precisely this way, often with help from mutations caused by exposure to chemical substances or to radiation, solar or cosmic.

The unvarying and inexorable laws of biological evolution apply uniformly to all living organisms, including the species of mammals that are called human and designated taxonomically as varieties of Homo sapiens, although an observer of the present must think that insipiens would be a more appropriate adjective. That, of course, is the fact that incites the real promoters of the “creationist” hokum today. We are a part of Nature and subject to its laws, and among races, as among all other organisms, the fittest will survive and the unfit will perish. It is a simple fact that today Aryans are no longer fit to survive, and will become as extinct as the dodo and the moa, unless by some miracle they recover the will to live, which in human affairs is simply the will to conquer. (6)

Our implacable enemies fear, I know not how correctly, that a perception of this fact of Nature might stimulate thought in the consciousness of a sufficiently large number of befuddled Aryans to make the race recover its lost will to live. The one real argument behind all the twisted sophistries of the “creation scientists” is one they are avowing with increasing frequency: ‘Evolution leads to racism.’ Of course it does!

I note that the Jews’ endless yammering today not infrequently attributes to Darwinism the Germans’ gassing of six or sixty millions or billions of Yahweh’s Masterpieces, as described in their wild and blatantly inconsistent fictions about a ‘Holocaust.’ Now if they make everyone believe that the big Sheeny up in the clouds is running everything and wants Aryans to follow the commands of the crucified Jew-boy and have bird brains that take no thought for the morrow, the hated race, drugged with hallucinatory superstitions, will go blindly to its final extinction, loving its enemies and executioners.

That is why the only hope for our race — if there is a hope — now depends on our ability to accept the grim but unalterable laws of Nature and act upon them — our ability, in other words, to recover from the irrational superstitions foisted on us by an alien religion. Dr. Dawkins cites, with perfunctory apology, a passage in which Darwin merely noted what was obvious and indubitable in his day, the great biological difference between Aryans and Congoids, and that serves to remind us that, as I have noted often before, Darwin expected the savages to become extinct as civilized peoples took over their territories. That, in turn, will remind us how suddenly — in less than a hundred years — our race went into a coma; how suddenly the terminal symptoms of Christianity appeared, like the symptoms of the tertiary stage of syphilis, and destroyed our race’s mentality and vital instincts, making it throw away its virtual dominion over the Earth, so that it is now the Aryans who will be eliminated as less stupefied peoples takeover their territories.

The later part of Dr. Dawkins’ brilliant book is devoted to exploring and explaining the theoretical controversies among biologists, many of which are idle and somewhat childish quarrels over taxonomy. The vanity of some scientists, plus a polemical tropism that makes some of them indulge in hyperbolic pronouncements which are then magnified by the sensational press, has provided the “creationists” with many quotations which, taken out of context and distorted, they use to lend a sickly semblance of scientific authority to their ignorant or fraudulent bunkum. I do not mean to embarrass Dr. Dawkins in his retreat in Oxford, which seems to have become a polluted and dangerous environment (cf. Liberty Bell, August 1986, pp. 9-14), but I am grateful to him for his exemplary clarification of the facts with which Aryans must reckon if they are to have a chance of escaping the extermination to which they have doomed themselves — a chance, if there is any, of belatedly reviving their racial immune system and recovering from the Christian virus.

The Sunday Times published on 31 May 1987 twenty photographs of Labour candidates for the Parliament in the then imminent elections. The pictures must have given nightmares to sane Englishmen for weeks thereafter. There was scarcely a face that did not either show patent traces of racial decay or identify aliens or mongrels masquerading under British names. One candidate’s face was that of a ferocious nigger; his counterpart was a Black female (named Diane Abbott!), who was quoted as saying, ‘All White people are racist.’ If only she were right!


1. I here appraise creation-myths as intelligible explanations of the origin of our species. My comparison, however, holds true (for our race) if we take as a criterion either moral quality or literary and aesthetic value. I know of no other creation-myth that is as grossly immoral in its implications as the tale in the Jew-Book. It is also ugly. From the aesthetic standpoint, few creation-myths can match the story of Deucalion and Pyrrha, which we read in the sonorous hexameters of a poet who combined elegance with wit. The episode in the first book of Ovid’s Metamorphoses inspired Lorado Taft, one of the most distinguished of American sculptors, when he planned the Fountain of Time which was to be the crowning masterpiece of his artistic life. He unfortunately did not live to complete it, but the disjecta membra, now scattered over the campus of the University of Illinois, enable one to perceive what the completed work would have been.

2. The story about Eve comes from a confused recollection of the Sumerian story about Ninti, the ‘rib-woman,’ created by the goddess Ninhursag to relieve pains in the chest. ‘Eve’ (Hebrew, HWH) in the meaning given to it by the Jews when they produced the Septuagint, is a translation of Ninti, but the original meaning of the word was probably ‘snake’ and in the earlier form of the myth (cf. Genesis, 1.27), in which either Adam was an hermaphrodite or, as is more probable, it was admitted that the several gods (’LHM) who did the creating were a divine consortium that included both gods and goddesses (as did the pantheon of five deities whom the Jews worshipped at Elephantine in the fifth century B.C.), HWH was probably the snake who made trouble for mankind.

3. It is unfortunate that Professor Stenger, in his article in Free Inquiry, seems to regard this conclusion as a modern discovery; he should have remarked that when the Aryan mind in Greece first emancipated itself from superstition, it reached the common-sense conclusion that the Universe had existed from all time and therefore could not have been ‘created.’ There is even a glimmering of this fact in the Sumerian myth and the Jews’ adaptation of it: At the beginning of Genesis it is assumed that matter always existed but was ‘formless’ (i.e., Chaos; the Hebrew term appears in the French word, tohu-bohu), and that what the gods (elohim) did when they ‘created Heaven and Earth’ was to organize the pre-existing matter. In Gen., 1.2, we are told that the creation began when the gods’ agent, RWH (probably imagined as a great bird, the prototype of the roc (rukb) of the Arabian Nights), flew over the already existing and therefore uncreated waters in the abyss.

4. That’s what the Jews claimed the command meant in the first century B.C., after they had decided to become monotheistic in imitation of Graeco-Roman Stoicism. It is likely that the older meaning was preserved in the Vulgate: “you shall not worship foreign gods in my presence.” That fits the Judaism of the fifth century B.C. The command was, of course, intended only for Jews, and Jews today must find it difficult not to guffaw when they see the Jesus-jerks thinking it applied to themselves after the deal they suppose the wily old Jew in the clouds made with them by tearing up his old bargain with his Chosen Ones.

5. For a good essay on Rehnquist and the Kentucky legislature’s attempt to cadge votes from the yokels, see the article by Frofessor Frank R. Zindler in the American Atheist, June 1987, pp. 37-41. I learn from it that the legislature provided that the advertisements contain the lie that the ‘Ten Commandments’ were adopted ‘as the fundamental legal code of Western Civilization and the Common Law of the United States.’ I do not know whether it would have paid the bottlers of flavored water to hire the legislature of Kentucky to add to the advertisement, “And Yahweh says, drink Coca-Cola.” That could have been explained as the fundamental social code of the United States.

6. The Russians, who are largely Aryan, seem not to have lost the will to survive, even under a Judaeo-Communist regime. Their future is problematical, but they have a chance to remain in the world after we have perished.

* * *


Previous post

Five Top Tips for Jews on Making Your Hate-Hoax a Big Success

Next post

Curb Your Enthusiasm

Notify of
Inline Feedback
View all comments
1 November, 2021 12:06 am

While it is all too obvious that institutionalized religion is a crimpling virus for any human society, it is simply arrogant and short-sighted for the author or anyone to assert certainty for, and even to assign any likelihood to either the evolutionist of creationist scenario. As we find nothing without a cause behind it, the universe is either infinite (and evolutionary by the laws we know so far) or tracing to an origin without a cause behind it, which we would call an intelligent hand, or higher entity. In the latter, equally speculative scenario, it is reasonable to assume it possible for such hand to act in undetectable, deterministic ways, and for people to form any such personal beliefs, while any adherence to a simplistic business of faith (i.e. institutionalized… Read more »

Matthew Miller
Matthew Miller
Reply to  Guest
22 December, 2021 9:53 pm

Totally agree

Reply to  Guest
23 December, 2021 6:55 am

What the….? I couldn’t have said it worse myself, whatever it was that you’re trying to say.