A Journal of Nationalist Thought & History
Volume IX Number
P. 27. LAWRENCE DENNIS APPEALS, Introduction
by Michael Collins Piper
In this powerful essay, the famous intellectual of
nationalism, Lawrence Dennis, warns the West about the incessant
drive of puny intellectuals and politicians to involve America in
endless wars and foreign occupations. It is a perpetual cycle and
Dennis argued in favor of eliminating the whole rotten cycle...
Appeals to Reason
Some 50 years ago an American intellectual with few peers (then
or now) saw the inevitable consequences of global imperialism by
the United States and the dangers of futile wars in the name of
"democracy." Lawrence Dennis made an appeal to reason
tha has immense relevance to the survival of America.
By Michael Collins Piper
During the mid-20th
century — from the early 1930s through the 1960s — the
late Lawrence Dennis established himself, beyond question, as America's
foremost populist and nationalist theoretician.
An outspoken critic of imperial meddling, Dennis warned early on
against American involvement in the affairs of the Third World —
particularly the Middle East — and predicted disaster for
America (and the world) as the ultimate consequence. What Dennis
said during his heyday is so profound and so prophetic that his
commentary is worth reviewing today.
One cannot help but read Dennis's remarks —
as published in his small-circulation (but highly influential) newsletter,
The Appeal to Reason (published from the
1950s through the early 1960s) —
and reflect upon how his comments, even then, would so accurately
mirror the propaganda and warmongering bombast that led up to the
American invasion of Iraq and the events that have followed.
Although Dennis is best remembered today as the towering intellectual
who stood trial for "sedition" for opposing Franklin Delano
Roosevelt's drive to push America into what became World War II,
it is largely forgotten that Dennis was also a forthright and determined
critic of the subsequent Cold War era that followed.
During the Cold War, Dennis was fiercely adamant about the dangers
of saber-rattling against the Soviet Union —
recognizing that communism could not survive and also seeing
(as events of today prove all too well) that American intervention
in the Third World in the name of "fighting communism"
would only make new enemies for the United States, setting the stage
for Russian exploitation of Third World distaste for American adventurism.
Neither a "conservative" nor a "liberal," Dennis
defied (and excoriated) those labels long before it became fashionable
to do so.
It has really only been in recent years that many American nationalists
of the "right" —
signified perhaps most prominently by Pat Buchanan —
have come to recognize the wisdom put forth by thinkers such as
Today even Buchanan is echoing the same anti-imperialist, America
First position that Dennis put forth, calling for critics of "Pax
Americana" of both the "right" and the "left"
to unite against the New World Order, which is —
now all too clearly — a mad, plundering
war-driving amalgam of the forces of international plutocratic capitalism
and Zionism, united in an axis of evil.
However, Buchanan is a late-comer. Long prior to Buchanan's evolution
(indeed his conversion) independent-minded populist newspapers and
journals such as Right, The
American Mercury, The Spotlight,
American Free Press and, of course, THE
BARNES REVIEW, were lone voices recalling and commemorating
the thinking exemplified in the writings of Lawrence Dennis.
In that regard, it is worth noting, by the way, that THE
BARNES REVIEW's publisher, Willis A. Carto, was a personal
friend of Lawrence Dennis and today treasures his rare personal
collection of Dennis' newsletter, The Appeal to Reason,
upon which the following distillation of Dennis' thought was based.
What follows is an extended essay (with annotated commentary) which
is a free-flowing assembly of wide-ranging writings by Dennis in
The Appeal to Reason and which has never
been published in any other publication in such detail before.
Although Dennis's remarks (as compiled) are not in chronological
order, they are duly cited by date and reflect his consistent thinking
on the big issues of war, capitalism, imperialism and expansion
and his opposition thereto.
While one may not necessarily agree with everything Dennis had to
nor would Dennis have expected that —
it is impossible to deny that Dennis was a prophet
with an articulate capacity to cut to the chase and analyze world
affairs in a lively, no-nonsense style.
The reader will be astounded at how truly prescient Dennis was,
writing some 50 years ago. Although Dennis is no longer with us,
he would undoubtedly appreciate the title we have selected for his
essay, which is the same title of his newsletter from which the
following excerpts are taken.
The Appeal to Reason
BY LAWRENCE DENNIS
The dynamics of religious wars are
hate (of sin) and fear (of the foreign devil). This we have. The
American people were never adequately told that World Wars I and
II and our Korea fiasco were all religious wars [although] I have
been very much alone harping on the religious war nature of World
Wars I and II and of the post World War II state of permanent cold
This aspect of America's wars since 1914 has to be seen in the light
of history and of analogy with the religious wars of the 17th century
and earlier. It was not so obvious in World War I as in World War
II. The Kaiser and Emperor Franz Joseph of Austria Hungary had no
counterparts of Hitler's Nazism or Mussolini's Fascism or of Russian
and Chinese communism today.
World War I was turned into a sort of religious war as a matter
of practical necessity in order to sell the American people intervention
in that war on the side of the Allies. They could not have been
lined up for that war by being told it would be good business for
the U.S., or that it was necessary for American defense.
The Americans had to be told it was a war to end war. That made
it for them a religious war. Selling World War II to the American
people as a religious war was rendered easy by Hitler and his "ism."
Before each of the last two world wars and before the next one,
Americans have had the delusion that foreign devils can be prevented
or deterred from doing evil if only we do the right things. The
right things are building up a tremendous war potential and constantly
denouncing the foreign devils for being what they are and doing
what they do.
When these delusions prove wrong and when the foreign devil refuses
to comply with one of our ultimatums, as did the Japanese before
Pearl Harbor, and when the foreign devil at last strikes, as at
Pearl Harbor, then the American ideology dictates, as up to that
point, what action we, as a nation, must take. [footnote 2]
The road block to debate is that almost no one of stature with a
career or a livelihood to worry about is willing to risk it by telling
the American or British people that they made a mistake by fighting
two world wars which most of them still think they won.
To say anything like this is to invite the charge of defending the
German devils and of arguing that it was not worthwhile to save
the world from German conquest and domination.
The answer, of course, is that the results of fighting to save the
world from one devil have been far worse than would have been the
results of letting the Germans and the Russians fight it out or
of letting the Chinese and the Japanese do likewise.
The answer is that there never was and there never will be just
one devil from whom the world is to be saved by crusaders who, by
defeating this one devil, can usher in the Millennium. [footnote
There is a strong and strongly nationalist opinion in West Germany
favorable to a rapprochement with Russia and unfavorable to a third
war with Russia. The end sought is German unification. The means
preferred is a deal rather than an atomic third world war. The deal
would involve the future neutrality of Germany as between the U.S.
and the USSR and the withdrawal from Germany of American occupation
troops. [footnote 4]
Non-interventionist America was a great success in the 19th century.
An interventionist America has been a failure in world affairs since
World War I. In world affairs since World War II, the U.S. has bitten
off more than it can chew. The idea that the British, the Germans
or the Americans could, in the 20th century, repeat the Roman Empire
of two millennia earlier was widely heralded in this country and
the Western world. But it was always absurdly unrealistic.
World unification under anyone formula seems every day less and
less possible. Law and force offer no formula for world peace. More
tolerance is the only constructive approach to the war problem.
War is becoming unacceptable by reason of nuclear weapons. Nuclear
war can only be averted by appeal to reason and self-interest. [footnote
What is U.S. foreign policy or Mideast policy? It is intervention
with force and money in every major foreign crisis or conflict in
the name of abstractions like collective security, the world rule
of law, defense, and the United Nations.
The United Nations are not united. Retaliatory co-annihilation is
not defense. An interventionist policy is unpredictable and uncontrollable.
Intervention can't succeed. Only non-intervention and playing a
balance of power game could serve the United States.
The U.S. invented nuclear weapons and launched nuclear war ... our
contribution to the decline of the west. Therefore, the U.S. must
prevent nuclear war by deterring those with nuclear weapons from
using them. Absurd! We predict, once the atomic trigger is pulled,
total war is on.
A non-interventionist or a neutrality policy, now so often miscalled
an isolationist policy, gives a nation like the U.S. far more initiative
and power to shape events and determine results than our present
policy of unlinrited and unpredictable intervention. Thanks to 40
years of American world meddling since 1917, the world is now in
a bigger mess than ever.
American intervention with money or force creates a situation or
balance of forces which can only be maintained with continued and
often increasing deployment of American force and money.
The latest in the international situation is the passing of the
buck of defense to the United States by the British as well as by
the Israelis. American foreign policy of intervention everywhere
serves well only one major purpose, that of maintaining full employment
through inflation and maximum spending by our government.
Expert lawyering or advocacy with words for any one side whether
for a nation in the world contest or for a pressure group or movement,
domestically, will not contribute to peace or better relations and
Internationalism, universalism and one worldism are all unrealistic
and dangerous concepts or tools of thought. American universalism
or internationalism is phony. We respect any sincere and consistent
believer in and crusader for his particular cult of one worldism
or universalism, be it religious, political or otherwise, ideologically
or operationally, provided he does not propose to put over his one
world order by the sword, as did the Christian Crusaders of yore
and so many other brands of historical crackpots, or religious fanatics.
But to have American southerners, now as in the past, against racial
integration or assimilation, preach internationalism, one worldism,
the world rule of one law, and a mushy sort of universalism, well,
that really nauseates any rational person.
The same goes for the leaders and voices of organized labor, all
professing the deepest attachment to the values and norms of a one
world internationalism or universalism, but all opposed to lowering
our immigration barriers so as to allow our labor market to be flooded
with millions of cheap workers from the colored world.
The organized labor internationalist is a phony just like the southern
internationalist and one worlder who is against integration but
who would have U.S. forces stationed all over the planet to enforce
the world rule of law, while he is now flouting or denying the decision
of our Supreme Court on integration. [footnote 6]
When the liberals and internationalists were crusading for our entry
into an anti-Nazi war, were they any less extremists than are the
now so-called conservatives who are preaching anti-communism? The
Revisionists are not and never were extremists. The extremist label
should usually be applied to those in the war party.
The most extreme factor now operative and to be feared is war, including
preparations for war. War has progressively been becoming a more
extreme factor since the middle of the 19th Century. War rolled
the national debt up from $43 billion in 1940 to $279 billion in
1945. The Cold War has rolled it up to over $300 billion at present.
Can the extremism of war be successfully met with moderation? Must
one extremism always be met with another extremism? [John F.] Kennedy
seems to be more of a moderate than an extremist.
Photograph of Lawrence Dennis
Above, Lawrence Dennis. Dennis was one of the defendants
in FDR's Mass Sedition Trial of 1944 where anyone of prominence
who opened his mouth to criticize FDR's bellicose war aims
was put in jail or brought to trial for sedition. Many patriots
were ruined by this abrogation of civil rights. Read the story
of the Mass Sedition Trial in the November/ December 1999
issue of TBR available for $10 each or two for $15. Send payment
with request to TBR, P.O. Box 15877, Washington, D.C. 20003.
See page 80 for our handy ordering form.
that is to say, some form or type of extremism usually has more
mass appeal than a course of moderation. Kennedy is coming under
considerable fire or criticism because he is not talking or acting
tough enough for the taste of most people. Most people still do
not accurately or rationally evaluate the new war factors. [footnote
[This was written on June 7, 1963, just less than six months before
John F. Kennedy was killed in Dallas. In fact, Dennis' commentary
foreshadowed, in many respects, the subsequent widespread belief
that JFK was indeed assassinated precisely because of his refusal
to adopt the "tough" line of the Zionists and their Cold
Warrior allies who today make up the ruling "neo-conservative"
clique at the highest levels of the American government. - Ed.]
Most of the current criticism of Kennedy is based on his failure
to make achievements for the United States or to display what the
masses of our people like to think of as world leadership.
The Boobus Americanus or the American
hick cannot understand why his country, the winner of World War
II, should not now be the world leader and in control of the world
Obviously, neither President Kennedy nor anyone of his spokesmen
can tell the Boobus Americanus that America
did not win World War II but that Russia and communism, only, thanks
to American aid, won the war. And this is something that neither
the American conservatives, so-called, nor the American liberals,
so-called, are disposed to say openly or publicly.
The American conservatives talk tough against the foreign devil
and against more government at home. This is paradoxical and irrational.
What could be more absurd than the demand of the American conservative
for a tougher policy against Communist Russia and China along with
less government intervention, control and taxation at home?
What could be more paradoxical than being for war and against socialism?
The great weakness of most American conservatives and liberals is
their failure or inability to take an operational view of big modern
war. They just cannot get it through their thick heads that big
modern war has to be socialistic.
The permanent cold war now being carried on must downgrade the white
world and upgrade the colored world, something our dumb Southerners
for Woodrow Wilson's war to make the world safe for democracy never
saw. DeGaulle sees this and wants to end the futile French war in
[In fact, in 1962 DeGaulle surrendered French imperial control of
Algeria — much
to the dismay of Israel —
and set in place a major new independent Arab republic. During the
same period DeGaulle began severing his long-time alliance with
Israel and withdrew his support for Israel's pivotal nuclear weapons
programs, at precisely the same time when American President John
F. Kennedy was adamantly protesting Israel's drive for nuclear supremacy.
The day of profitable exploitation by the white man of Africa or
Asia is now over. From here on profitable cooperation only is a
rational and practical objective.
The idea or ideal of world unity has for over a half century been
promoted by our subsidized foundations. It was never supported by
history or current events. Today it is more discredited than ever.
The American people were sold two world wars on a general theory
which was most irrational and contrary to the logic of past history
and which has been continuously and conclusively proved fallacious
by events since 1917.
According to this general theory a war to end war and the world
rule of law could enforce peace with justice. As we have so often
repeated, the craziest phrase or idea of the 20th century was that
of a war to end war. Anyone who thought a war could end war should
have been sent to a mental hospital for psychiatric analysis and
One of the great insanities of America in the 20th century has been
prohibitionism: Prohibit alcoholic drinking, prohibit war. If it
is sin, it has to be stopped or prohibited. [footnote 9]
The big U.S. idea: the world must be unified by force: ours or theirs.
This idea is factually and logically all wrong. But is now accepted
as a 100 percent American idea. If you want to be a conformist and
not a non-conformist, a dissenter or a subversive, security risk,
you must subscribe to this wrong idea.
The generation that started reading Mahan on sea power, Kipling
on the white man's burden and the lesser breeds without the law,
and numerous others on America's and Britain's manifest destiny,
also began getting subsidies for embracing these ideas.
The subsidies came from British millionaires like Cecil Rhodes and
Andrew Carnegie and from American millionaires like John D. Rockefeller.
Technological trends and scientific progress were seen to support
this we-or-they-must-rule-the-world ideology.
World unification by force cultists who are against sharing are
phonies. These internationalists have a great time denouncing nationalism
as selfish, predatory and generally immoral. They are even more
violent in their attacks on certain extreme exponents of racism,
that is, of a racism other than their own. But they are just as
guilty as those whom they attack when it comes to sharing or to
setting up a world order based on equality of opportunity and access.
We are prepared to join with fellow Americans in the defense of
this country against any invasion by foreigners in search of living
But we are indisposed to fight or have Americans fight to protect
any other area of people from similar wars or attacks. For such
wars, our advice is that we should keep out of them, try to keep
them localized and limited, try to avert or to end them by the use
of good offices and negotiation with both sides.
We want no part of wars to liberate other peoples. Let them liberate
themselves. We want no part of wars to defend the status quo in
other areas. [footnote 10]
Government intervention in all phases of life on the home front
has been on the rise since World War I. The Negroes on the warpath
in the South are exploiting this trend. They are riding the wave
of the future, really started by World War I and greatly accelerated
by World War II.
The Southerners who are now fighting desperately the rising tide
of color were all for the United States getting into World Wars
I and II to make the world safe for democracy. They lacked the imagination
or intelligence to foresee the consequences of the crusades the
United States embarked upon. [footnote 11]
[Citing a speech by General Douglas MacArthur] "Global war
has become a Frankenstein, to destroy both sides. No longer is it
a weapon of adventure —
the short cut to international power. If you lose, you are annihilated.
If you win, you stand only to lose. No longer does it possess even
the chance of the winner of a duel. It contains now only the germs
of double suicide." The MacArthur approach to war is not pacifist
but operationalist, the line we have taken for over three decades.
The dynamics of hate and fear have run the West in two wars. To
get America into two world wars, it was necessary to mobilize and
utilize the dynamics of hate and fear. These factors, of course,
were always present and operative in the nationalistic wars of the
two centuries and a half preceding the 20th century and following
the era of the religious wars.
But these factors were never, during the two centuries and a half
from 1648 to 1900, as important as they have been in the western
world during the 20th century. Democracy only came to maturity at
the end of the 19th century.
Whipping up mass hate and
fear is the easiest and surest way for a political leader in the
western world to come to power and to wield power. It is now the
approved way to get a country into a war or to keep it in a state
of permanent war such as we are in right now.
The west in the 20th century taught Afro-Asians hate, fear. Now
they hate and fear white rule —
not communism. They never knew White Russian colonialism. The strength
of [Egyptian Pan-Arab nationalist leader Gamal] Nasser today is
that he has the rising tide of anti-colonialism or of hate and fear
of the white intruders in Africa and Asia to ride.
No political leader in Africa or Asia can have a better asset than
to be disliked or denounced by us Americans. That we are "agin"
communism, is communism's greatest asset in Africa and Asia. The
fact we are for a local ruler or regime in Africa or Asia is the
worst liability for that ruler or regime.
The world minority of whites should have the brains to understand
that exploiting or trying to exploit and use the dynamics of hate
and fear never was and never will be good business for a privileged
"have" minority. The dynamics of hate and fear can, in
the long run, only prove fatal for the minority. The white West,
or the haves, are the minority. [footnote 13]
Permanent Mideast crisis has great headline news value for policy.
How could our power elite in Washington get from 40 to 50 billion
dollars a year for defense spending and foreign aid if they did
not have war-crisis headlines from the Mideast and other areas in
our papers most of the time? It is wonderful having a "colored
world Hitler" who is nowhere near so dangerous or powerful
as was Adolf. [footnote 14]
The end result is certain. Time, numbers and space are with the
colored world. They are with the Muslim nationalists and against
the Israeli nationalists. What the colored world has lacked has
been unity and dynamism for war on the whites.
Well, Israel, like America's big soap operas in the Pacific, is
contributing to the unification and activation of the colored world
for war against the colonial and other outsiders.
The [Russians] can't control but will aid and encourage Afrasians
versus the U.S.-Israel. Our patriots and fanatical "antis"
who want to bear the white man's burden over Asia and Africa now
that the Europeans are being driven out are naive to suppose that
Moscow controls or directs every trouble-making power factor or
behavior pattern now giving Uncle Sam, the UN, the western colonial
powers or Israel a headache. That is nonsense. It is one thing to
aid and encourage a trouble maker and to profit from his operations.
It is another to control or direct him.
America, western and, apparently, recent Israeli policy and action
have been proceeding on the irrational premise that the coloreds
only respect force, wherefore, their white opponents have only to
mobilize enough force against the coloreds. What makes this basic
premise about force and the coloreds so asinine is simple arithmetic.
The white colonial powers and the Israelis, certainly, can never
achieve ultimate and decisive force superiority over the colored
world and the vast areas it populates.
The western or white world, however, if it were guided by operational
rationalism and calculation instead of mystical legalism, moralism
and traditionalism, could easily formulate and work out propositions
or deals with the colored world mutually advantageous to both or
to all concerned. This is our "constructive" word.
Only a return to neutrality, as counseled in Washington's Farewell
Address, could really ensure against our government starting and
fighting a third world war against overwhelming numerical odds.
Only the substitution of diplomacy or negotiation for trying to
play God or world policeman can provide an operationally practical
alternative to total all-out war, if some day, some wild man, somewhere
goes too far. Only rational operationalism and the logic of enlightened
national self-interest instead of obeying the imperatives of legalistic,
moralistic and traditionalistic absolutes can avert World War III
and with it, possibly, the extermination of most of the human race.
As war in the Mideast is stepped up, the U.S. is going to have to
send hundreds of thousands, and, eventually, possibly, millions
of American soldiers into that area to protect the oil wells and
the thousands-of-miles-long pipelines carrying oil to the Mediterranean
for export to the Europeans who must depend on it. The American
people, of course, will not be told that American troops must be
sent to the Mideast to protect the oil stakes. They will be told
American intervention in that area is necessary to defend America
by stopping communist aggression.
[Although, of course, Dennis wrote this in 1955 —
at the height of the Cold War —
his remarks remain still valid; today, some 50 years later, the
communist enemy has been replaced, alternately, by the "Islamic
fundamentalist" bogeyman or the "Middle East dictators
with weapons of mass destruction." —
If the colored world nationalist leaders can force the U.S. to deploy
in perpetuity millions of American soldiers over the colored world
to stop communist sin [or today, Islamic fundamentalists, terrorists
etc — Ed.], what
have those leaders to fear or worry about? The more natives the
American or foreign troops kill, the better for the long run interests
of native nationalisms now on the warpath against outsiders.
How can the U.S. ever hope to pressure peoples living so near the
margin of bare subsistence? The pressure will be only on the American
taxpayers and conscripts for the wars of perpetual foreign intervention
with no loot pay-off. [footnote 16]
Hollywood couldn't have picked a more fitting war stage than Palestine.
In this century we have gone forward to nuclear war and backward
to holy war. This is the century of religious wars. For the opening
of the third great religious war of one lifetime, no area could
be more appropriate than the Holy Land, the birth place of two,
if not of three, of the world's truly great religions, Judaism,
Christianity and Mohammedanism. The staging and casting are superb
Zion is the subject of Torah, Prophets, Psalms, Lamentations and
many of the great classics of history like those of Joseph and Maimonides.
It is the chosen land of the chosen people. It is under the special
personal care of God, or rather, Yahweh, the God of Israel.
Now Uncle Sam has taken over. Of course, Allah, the God of the Moslems,
is in the other camp, that of the Arabs. Yahweh helped the children
of Israel take over the Promised Land more than once in the past
four thousand years. But he never stopped their several expulsions
and dispersions. This is what Uncle Sam must do in the future.
For reasons which we, like the theologians, are unable to give,
Yahweh allowed the Chosen People to be driven out of the Chosen
Land more than once. But Uncle Sam cannot permit anything like that
to happen to the new Israel. Uncle Sam is no defeatist. He does
not put up with war, sin or aggression. He fights wars to end war.
He is a perfectionist.
The believers in the great
religions with a Messianic Promise used to wait and pray for the
coming of the Messiah and the dawn of the Millennium. Americans,
however, today must not just wait and pray for the Millennium; they
must fare forth and fight for it —
all over the planet .... This is the new internationalism.
God never stopped war or evil in all history as Uncle Sam now must
do. We do know that Uncle Sam is committed to not allowing war or
aggression to happen without getting in to stop war. He cannot allow
the Chosen People to be driven out of Israel as they were, more
than once, in the past. How fitting to have World War III start
in the Holy Land.
What will be the nature, the extent, the duration and the end results
of America's third war in one lifetime to end war and to stop evil?
Well, it is going to be interesting to watch the American casualties
pile up in the Mideast as Uncle Sam tries to stop what Yahweh did
not stop in the distant past. And it is going to be even more interesting
to follow American mass reactions to the killed and wounded notices
from the Crusade in the Holy Land.
America's contribution to religious war in the 20th century [was]
mono-diabolism [i.e. the designation of a single "devil"
enemy - Ed.].
Now that Uncle Sam has taken over and is trying to do a job Yahweh
never did, Uncle Sam can never admit any imputation of sin or evil
against one of his allies or proteges. One ism has to get security
clearance. The other has to be branded as subversive. It won't be
long now until Judaism and Mohammedanism will be up for security
rating in the permanent war.
Nowadays, when Uncle Sam gets into a war, he resolves quite simply
and decisively the whole issue of sin or as to who and what are
good or right and who and what are evil and wrong. Sin is always
and only on the side of the enemy. This was settled by the Nuremberg
and other war crimes trials. There is just one devil that against
Uncle Sam or not with him. [footnote 17]
The build-up of World War III goes on in the Mideast over Israel,
oil, western colonialisms v. colored world nationalisms and the
rationalization that the contest is one between the free world and
communism. Israel and our western, colonial powers are our bulwark
against communism and the colored world. This pattern is what Sir
Norman Angell called in the April 15 (1956) London Times:
"The Suicide of the West."
In the 20th century religious war pattern of the suicide of the
West, the West is crusading, inflating and "technologizing"
itself to death. It is ending itself trying to end war. It is preparing
with nuclear fission weapons to render the world uninhabitable by
way of trying to make the world safe for democracy. The leitmotif
is the idea that foreign sin and devils cannot be lived with but
must be wiped out.
Well, if man's know-how cannot end war or sin, it can now end the
human race. We now have an infinite potential for annihilation.
How long can our idealists hold in check their impulse to do good
by pulling the global annihilation trigger.
If only we did not have nuclear fission and so much know-how, the
current wave of madness might result in nothing worse than the bloody
futilities ofthe Crusades or the religious wars of the 16th and
The German ex-Nazi military men, technicians and capitalists are
quietly moving [into the Arab world] to cooperate and assimilate.
If this does not make monkeys of people in America and Britain who
fell for World War II propaganda about German "racism,"
we don't know what could!
[It is interesting that Dennis also commented that Hitler was "not
rational enough" to have allied with the Arab world, for example,
"having too high an opinion of the British and the white race"
— a comment that
will astound many who view Dennis as an unabashed admirer of Hitler.-Ed.]
If the Germans now gang up with [Russia] and the colored world anti-white
nationalists, whom will the British and the French find to sign
up for their third Holy war? Is the answer, Just the U.S. and Israel?
If it is, the cards will be heavily stacked against the third Anglo-American
crusade." [footnote 18]
[Note: Dennis obviously did not know at that point that France,
under Charles DeGaulle, would eventually break its strong alliance
with Israel or that, ultimately, in the period prior to the beginning
of the second U.S. war against Iraq, France would emerge as an ally
with Germany and Russia against the United States and Britain and
Israel. [As we shall see, Dennis also noted Russia's capacity to
exploit Third World tensions with the United States and, indeed,
foreshadowed Russia's defeat after its invasion of Muslim Mghanistan.
Russia has 21 million Muslims or over ten percent of its population,
mostly concentrated in areas from which Russia gets most of its
oil. The idea that Russian communists can convert to communism and
control from Moscow the two hundred million natives of Africa and
the thirteen or fourteen hundred millions of Asia seems to us too
silly to merit serious consideration. But Russia, as the only great
power besides the U.S., can profit from the revolt of the colored
world against the western powers. [footnote 19]
The new religious war rationalization is to call it law enforcement.
Attempts at an unattainable world rule of one law insure permanent
religious war, inflation, and socialism.
About the only subject of general agreement among the shapers of
American opinion and policy today, so far as war and power politics
— inter or intra
national — are
concerned, is that there must be no return to neutralism.
Most of the rightists, criticizing the Supreme Court's desegregation
decision and the use of federal armed force to enforce it, are,
inconsistently and amusingly enough, all for American world leadership,
American intervention, and American liberation by force of the people
enslaved by the red devils of the Kremlin. [footnote 20]
The Kremlin Kommunist Kommissars are now making out their former
peerless leader and our noble war ally Stalin to have been a devil,
a monster and guilty of all sorts of crimes or sin. As to Stalin,
the Kremlin communists are following the line of the American anti-communists.
The American anti-communists are following the Kremlin communist
This is really funny. But it is significant. The point being proved
is that our allies under Stalin's successful and victorious leadership,
in partnership with us, were just as big and just as bad devils
as the Nazis and the Fascists. Stalin's sins were operational inevitables
The biggest crime of the 20th century may turn out to be the eventual
extinction of the human race by nuclear radiation in a war fought
with the weapons which we, peace-loving, good Americans are now
having our scientists perfect. We are developing these weapons to
end war, communism and sin on this planet and thereby usher in,
the Millennium. [footnote 21]
..1 The Appeal to Reason, June 15,
. 2 Ibid.,
Sept. 25, 1954.
Oct. 15, 1955.
March 26, 1961. 6 Ibid., April 6, 1957.
June 1, 1963.
Oct. 7, 1961.
Sept. 23, 1961.
10 Ibid., May 14, 1955.
11 Ibid., May 4, 1963.
12 Ibid., July 15, 1961.
13 Ibid., April 27, 1957.
14 Ibid., March 2, 1957.
15 Ibid., Nov. 5, 1955.
16 Ibid., Nov. 12, 1955.
17 Ibid., April 14, 1956.
18 Ibid., May 5, 1956.
19 Ibid., August 2, 1958.
20 Ibid., Sept. 21, 1957.
21 Ibid., June 9, 1956.
Related Reading from
Populist & Nationalist Thinker
The Dynamics of War and Revolution, by
Lawrence Dennis —
First published in 1941 when America hovered
on the brink of war and Europe was already in flames, it
was a milestone in American political-philosophical outlook.
A great patriot with unusual prophetic vision. Limited stock!
#24, softcover, 257 pgs., $18.95.
The Coming American Fascism, by Lawrence
Dennis. The author
condemns, among other financial evils, the national debt
system. First published in 1936, in the middle of the Roosevelt
revolution and five years before the war he predicted, this
book was Dennis' second attempt to explain the nature of
capitalism, and warn of the consequences of it. Mr. Dennis
was indicted in the infamous sedition trials —
the global elite recognized an enemy! Preface by WA Carto.
#23, softcover, 320 pgs., $18.95.
Order from TBR BOOK CLUB. TBR subscribers get 10%
off list prices. Call 1-877-773-9077 toll free to charge
to Visa or MC or use the coupon on page 80 of this issue.