This is a severely shortened edition of an essay to appear in the January 2000 edition of the Conservative Intellectual Militia Info-Quest Newsletter. For information, see web site www.globaldialogcom/~jstueber/militia.htm

Copyright 1999 by Jeffrey Stueber, all rights reserved

Paul Kurtz ed., Humanist Manifestos I and II, 1973, Prometheus Books

Paul Kurtz ed., A Secular Humanist Declaration, 1980, Prometheus Books

Humanist Manifestos I and II were signed in the years 1933 and 1973 respectively. These documents were created and signed by people who did not in their words clearly say that non-humanist religious beliefs need to be dislodged from mainstream society - from the "public square" as Catholic writer Richard Neuhaus has called it. They certainly, however, did hint at it. Many of the people who signed the manifestos were people who were, or are, the "elite" in our society - scientists, philosophers, educators, and so forth. Some of those who signed the second manifesto include philosophers like Antony Flew, scientists like Isaac Asimov, Francis Crick, and Andrei Sakharov, "sexologists" such as Albert Ellis and Lester Kirkendall, psychologists such as B. F. Skinner, National Organization for Women (NOW) founder Betty Friedan, and others including economists and labor leaders. These were not a large number of signers, but then again numbers are not always important. These people have or had prominent positions in society, in areas from the psychological to the political to the scientific. Their writings and the writings of their followers touch all facets of society. The effect of what a few of these do would be like the effect of having only the members of congress sign the manifestos and abide by them. Since the congress makes the laws, the very nature of their positions makes their numbers not as important as their influence.

Humanism is very anti-Christian and anti-theist. Humanism is thus founded on atheism and atheist intentions. Paul Kurtz, editor of The Humanist magazine, says, "Humanism cannot in any fair sense of the word apply to one who still believes in god as the source and creator of the universe. Christian Humanism would be possible only for those who are willing to admit that they are atheistic Humanists." (1)

Secular humanism, embodied in these documents, claims an end to the reign of "theism, deism, modernism, and several varieties of `new thought'" religions. Humanist Manifesto I claims "the time has passed" for these. This opens the door for humanism which has been claimed as a religion by many of its adherents and others as well. Lloyd Morain, former president of the American Humanist Association, stated that, "[M]en have been seeking a universal religion or way of life." What religion could fill that bill? It is of course humanism which he says, "shows promise of becoming a great world faith." In the case of Reed vs. Van Hoven it was decided public schools should not favor either humanist religion, theistic religions, and any others. Thomas Jefferson even recognized what we now know today, that unbelief is also a religion. He said that religion includes "all believers and unbelievers in the Bible." (2) Justice Hugo Black, in a decision that declared that Roy Torcaso could not be denied commission as a Notary Public because he refused to profess belief in God, stated, "Among religions in this country which do not teach what would generally be considered a belief in the existence of God are Buddhism, Taoism, Ethical Culture, Secular Humanism and others." (3) The Humanist Manifesto I starts out its claim to fame with a description of humanism as a religion: "In order that religious humanism may be better understood we . . . desire to make certain affirmations which we believe the facts of our contemporary life demonstrate." Edward Ericson agrees that humanism is a religion and argues that "it is possible to base a vibrant religion on Humanistic and ethical faith." (4)

Humanist Manifesto I goes to great pains to explain that religion is something that is not meant to die out. "Religions have always been means for realizing the highest values in life," Humanist Manifesto I says. Traditional religions, however, are of no use and the world needs a new religion, but based on what? We shall shortly see what this is.

Now we go to the meat and potatoes of the issue. Let's see exactly what is in the humanist manifestos, what may be considered the bibles of unbelief. The Humanist Manifesto I states quite clearly that it is founded on evolution (evolution defined as the belief, not fact, the universe is all that exists and it and life owe their origin to natural processes discoverable and not any god). The Manifesto signers establish their cause by affirming several truths. They regard the universe as self-existing, that man is a part of nature and has emerged through a continuous natural process, man's religious culture has evolved into use through evolution, and that modern science makes any cosmic or supernatural overseer no longer necessary. These are several of the first few affirmations they have made, all which derive strictly from the evolutionary perspective.

These are all truths which were firmly believed. The first affirmation states the universe is self-existing and not created. This is now, however, a matter of faith. We have seen scientific evidence that the universe is not eternal and not self-existing and does possibly owe its creation to something else which is outside the universe, although this is still hotly debated. The rest of evolutionary arguments rest on assumptions at best not proven. Therefore, their belief in evolution is a faith as much as religious faith ever was. As far as evolution being a natural artifact and not divinely inspired, we do not have sound evidence what the first humans were thinking or what they were doing, and thus cannot conclude that religion evolved into existence the way they claim. Until we have knowledge of what the first humans were writing and thinking, we cannot claim with any dogma that their views came about through any natural or supernatural means. The description in the Bible of how religion came into being is as valid as any these humanists have to offer.

The Secular Humanist Declaration continues with these words:

Today the theory of evolution is again under heavy attack by religious fundamentalists. Although the theory of evolution cannot be said to have reached its final formulation, or to be an infallible principle of science, it is nonetheless supported impressively by the findings of many sciences.

We see here more clearly the meaning of Phillip Johnson's maxim that "Prejudice is a major problem, however, because the leaders of science see themselves as locked in a desperate battle against religious fundamentalists, a label which they tend to apply broadly to anyone who believes in a Creator who plays an active role in worldly affairs. These fundamentalists are seen as a threat to liberal freedom, and especially as a threat to public support for scientific research. . . . For that reason, the scientific organizations are devoted to protecting Darwinism rather than testing it, and the rules of scientific investigation have been shaped to help them succeed." (5) Because humanists see themselves in a battle with fundamentalists for control of how reality is seen, they are unlikely to rigorously test Darwinism or any kind of non- Darwinian evolution not only because their philosophy depends on some sort of atheism but because they are protecting their "rear flank" in a cultural war.

When reading the first manifesto, you might conclude that it was signed by people who are partial to socialist or Marxist ideology. Here is some of the fourteenth affirmation of the first manifesto:

[E]xisting acquisitive and profit-motivated society has shown itself to be inadequate . . . A socialized and cooperative economic order must be established to the end that the equitable distribution of the means of life be possible.

What economic system is profit motivated? It's capitalism. What economic system is concerned with its followers engaging in acquisitive behavior? It's capitalism. The New American Desk Encyclopedia defines capitalism as an "economic system in which the means of production - land, machinery, labor - are privately owned . . . and managed for profit." (6) What economic system is concerned with a socialized and cooperative economy? It's socialism, or perhaps Communism. The New American Desk Encyclopedia defines it as "an economic philosophy and political movement which aims to achieve a just, classless society through public ownership and operation of the means of production and distribution of goods." What economic system is totally against Christianity, has evolution as its philosophical core, and shares the hopes and dreams of a global, socialized, and cooperative order? It's Communism. These people may be very partial to Communist ideals, or at least closet Marxists. What is worse is that many of these people have undoubtedly practiced their craft in the United States or been influential there, the supposed bastion of capitalism, all the while believing that life would be better if this capitalist system was junked in favor of their one-world ideology.

This connection between socialism, liberalism, and humanism is logical to me but I must weave its logical connection more clearly for the reader. To start, I take you to Bradley O'Leary and Victor Kamber's book Are You a Conservative or a Liberal (7) which pits the two head on and gives each a chance to articulate why he is a liberal or conservative (O'Leary is the conservative while Kamber is the liberal). What is interesting is the difference between both. Kamber defines a liberal as "someone who believes that people become liberated when they are strengthened by the bonds of community, and that true freedom is achieved through . . . shared responsibility for our well-being as a people and as a society." Freedom, to Kamber, means the ability to "follow our bliss," a presentation of freedom that's nebulous enough and well within the conservative's meaning of freedom. Where Kamber departs from conservatives is his harsh critique of free-market capitalism when he writes, "Liberals believe that government - as the only social institution accountable to all Americans - is the vehicle not for trampling on the market but for taming it [etc.]." O'Leary, on the other hand, states as one of his first tenets of conservatism that "individuals should be left alone to make their own decisions as much as possible" and says later that the Ten Commandments, not the Code of Federal Regulations, is the greatest law of man. There is a strong anti-government strain running through O'Leary's words in which he presents a society governed by government but with a government as close to the people it represents. There is also a strong pro-Christian feeling running through O'Leary when he approvingly cites the Christian Coalition as a "mainstream force." O'Leary is also critical of abortion while Kamber is for it, which seems to move Kamber into the same crowd as humanists who contain a large portion, as I can tell, who are pro-abortion and against supernatural religion. Kamber seems mainly concerned with ways government fixes problems inherent in society and so government, and the courts, are tools for social change. This same tactic would be repeated in efforts from humanist groups like the ACLU which use the courts to affect social change which the public is unwilling or unable to grasp. Humanists, with their emphasis on a socialized order and global governmental order seem to espouse the very liberalism Kamber represents.

That's the connection between liberalism and humanism and we move on to grasp the connection between these two and socialism, but we must rely on the words of Norman Thomas to do it. Thomas has expressed a faith in socialism which he defines as that which has always seemed primarily a doctrine and movement consciously concerned with the common good. Therefore, Thomas says, it requires planning. Around the turn of the century, there was tremendous faith in progress and socialism turned out to be part of it. "Social ownership seemed a tool, a means, not an end," he says but this alone does not solve the economic problems or how democracy is to be used in a socialist system. Thomas later says that much socialism is anti-church and anti-revealed religion and it is not hard to see why when Thomas throws these words across our face:

Already in my youth . . . organized Christianity and the churches has lost something of the hold they once possessed. But our faith in progress, usually identified with "scientific progress," supplemented when it did not supplant faith in a living God. Whether in the church or in the service of progress, the individual has a sense of vocation and usefulness which today comes hard to us who are caught in the vast web of impersonal forces. Progress, scientific progress, had not yet betrayed itself and us by manifesting its most stupendous power in the atom bomb. The post-Hiroshima man is as skeptical of science as of God as a source of blessing or even security to him. (8)

Socialism has to do with the growing government control of private goods. Now, Thomas says Christianity lost its hold and faith in "scientific progress" took over, but was destroyed after Hiroshima. Now, science can be as much a blessing as a curse; it can be used to produce medicine or an atom bomb. So why was Thomas' faith in science destroyed after the atom bombs were dropped, and why did he have such a faith in science in the first place? The only explanation I can offer is that when Christianity was divorced from reality, we lost the belief in the innate sinfulness of man. Because supernaturalism is debunked, science is assumed to be the only source of truth. Whatever is true must by necessity be good and hence scientific enterprise is seen as capable of only good. Humanists have faith in science and what is produced by it, the same faith that Thomas seems to have embraced. Yet, if socialism is involved in government control, then what sort of scientific faith is wrapped up on socialism? Obviously those in power, like in the government, have the capability to direct resources and ideas among the public and promote change and it is here that science finds its use among the elite for by their guidance positive change is meant to flow. This same bias exists today when the public debates assisted-suicide and euthanasia, genetic engineering, and cloning - recent scientific advances - and finds the debate framed in terms of fundamentalists vs. "visionaries" who take note of fundamentalists' worries about them "playing god."

Humanist Manifestos I and II find themselves advocating a nebulous flavor of socialisms and one might wonder how their bias against Christianity and their socialism go hand in hand. We look to humanist Corliss Lamont for the answer. Lamont says in Africa and Asia Western imperialism has been identified with the Christian faith. (9) Capitalism, in modern day America, is the child of such a tradition. After reading quite extensively, I have found out why capitalism is considered an extension of Biblical religion. The ninth commandment says that we shall not covet our neighbor's possessions. This commandment would only apply if people owned possessions. Owning possessions and gaining more property only occurs in capitalism, or, at least, is strongly encouraged in capitalism. This same reasoning of linking Christianity to capitalist ownership is followed among abortionists who often say that men who discourage abortion do so to treat women as their possessions, not allowing women to do as they please. Because anti-abortionists consider abortion Biblically wrong, and women are kept from getting abortions because they supposedly are kept as property by men, therefore Christianity and the capitalist mentality are linked. These assumptions are wrong, of course, but the analogy is made nevertheless.

I also see this same thread about ownership in William Davis' book that explains "it's no sin to be rich." He seeks to make the case for private enterprise and says he is biased because to him "free society - that is, liberal capitalism - is the only system that can uphold and protect individual rights." He says "Rights" is a moral concept. (10) It is interesting to me that Davis juxtaposes the idea of capitalism with rights and really there should be no surprise because to assume people automatically possess some type of property is also to assume that there may be certain rights they possess - inalienable rights as the constitution says - that cannot be infringed. Yet the only way to possess some rights is to be granted them and the only granter of rights, and enforcer of them, there can be is God.

The way to fix these problems for humanists is to abolish capitalism and Christianity. But in the process we may give up many of our rights because, even though liberalized secular society speaks much of rights (gay rights, women's rights to choose, etc) there can be no property of rights because all property becomes public domain. Then humanist "science" can proceed among those who are the elite - like the ones who signed these documents - who can master a socialist state and produce the "paradise" religion cannot.

There's something of humanism's outlook to science as the cure in A Secular Humanist Declaration.

The modern secular humanist outlook has led to the application of science and technology to the improvement of the human condition. This has had a positive effect on reducing poverty, suffering, and disease in various parts of the world, in extending longevity, on improving transportation and communications, and in making the good life possible for more and more people. It has led to the emancipation of hundreds of millions of people from the exercise of blind faith and fears of superstition and has contributed to their education and the enrichment of their lives.

Of course the same sort of scientific revolutions can occur in a Christian nation provided scientists there address illness as a result of natural causes. Here is not the place to state the historical record of scientific cures of atheists and Christians although I know that both have been involved in science and helping the poor. What jumps out at you in that last paragraph is the assumption the religious rely on faith cures while humanists rely on science, and thus science "emancipates" hundreds of millions from the "exercise of blind faith" and so forth. Yet, there are Christian doctors as well as atheist ones and science here can be practiced by both. Humanists seem to confuse science which gives us medicine (operational science) with science that tells them evolution happened (origins science) so that they assume to believe religious doctrines is to forsake science that gave us medicine - a gross non sequitur if there ever was one.

Humanist Manifesto I was signed in 1933 and indeed promoted a bright future for us. But these hopes were dashed with the actions of some people who took evolution and the unlimited potential of man to their logical conclusions. World War II was a rather uncomfortable occasion for the humanists. They had declared the wonders of progress in man's attempts to further himself to the limits and found that bad things resulted. Paul Kurtz, in his introduction to the second manifesto, states, "Events since then make that earlier statement seem far too optimistic." Kurtz goes on to list what he calls "totalitarian regimes" that have shown the depth of pain and suffering they can inflict in attempting to take their unlimited potential to its fullest. You might think that at this time Kurtz would have acknowledged that the humanists got it wrong. Not so! The answer to these problems is more of the same. Kurtz declares that we now need "an affirmative and hopeful vision." If you doubt that the humanists have wavered in their belief that traditional God-serving religions are useless, Kurtz assures us that, "[H]umanists still believe that traditional theism, especially faith in the prayer-hearing God, assumed to love and care for persons, to hear and understand their prayers, and to be able to do something about them, is an unproved and outmoded faith."

These are all great visions, but haven't they been tried before? Man has, throughout the centuries, attempted to craft a world order with human wisdom at the center. Each time it has failed. Do these humanists, after having their hopes dashed by Hitler and other "totalitarian regimes," grasp the idea that man can never establish a world order built around faulty human wisdom? Apparently they don't. At this time, we should consult the wisdom of a man who once was an atheist, but converted to Christianity. This man has some profound wisdom of his own, and this man is none other than the former atheist C. S. Lewis.

Now God designed the human machine to run on Himself. He Himself is the fuel our spirits were designed to burn, or the food our spirits were designed to feed on. There is no other. . . That is the key to history. Terrific energy is expounded - civilizations are built up - excellent institutions devised, but each time something goes wrong. Some fatal flaw always brings the selfish and cruel people to the top and it all slides back into misery and ruin. In fact, the machine conks. It seems to start up all right and runs a few yards, and then it breaks down. They are trying to run it on the wrong juice. (11)

The civilization these humanists want to extend is no better than the civilizations Lewis describes, ones which expend terrific energy only to "conk" out. Why? It's because the cream of the crop, the truly selfish people who wish only to further their idealistic goals and selfish desires, rise to the top. Those few who do rise to the top are not unlike the humanists in these manifestos who would do no better with society than the totalitarians of old who presided over nations and states which eventually fell into ruin, simply because they, as Lewis says, ran on the wrong juice. That juice is human greed and ambition and not God's will.

It's interesting the humanists we find on board these manifestos. Joseph Fletcher signed the second manifesto and was a former Dean of St. Paul's Cathedral in Cincinnati and professor of social ethics. He argues for situation ethics which is supposed to be an offshoot of Christianity. (12) Fletcher's disdain for moral absolutes can be shown in his statement "The old morality with its classical absolutes and universals is a form of Pharisaism." (13) Fletcher seeks to ground his philosophy in the Biblical concept of love; certain problems demand unique solutions which we may entertain if our philosophy is based on love. Fletcher is quoted by euthanasia advocate Derek Humphry as saying "We should look at every case on its merits and refuse to be bound indiscriminately by universal rules of right and wrong, whether they claim to rest on religious or pragmatic grounds." (14) Fletcher doesn't like the Biblical command "thou shalt kill" and proceeds to sketch out how this problem impacts the abortion debate. (15) In 1962 an unmarried girl who was a patient at a mental hospital was raped and impregnated by a fellow patient. Shall the fetus be aborted? "The legalists would say NO [Fletcher's emphasis]," and this bothers Fletcher who thereafter heaps scorn on Catholic theology for even denying the use of therapeutic abortions. The Church appears merciless, Fletcher states, but it is not the Church that is merciless. It is the Church's logic which is merciless. The situationists, he informs us, would support the decision to abort this girl's baby. (Not surprisingly we are told many humanists agree with Fletcher.) The problems start when Fletcher states that situationists would also favor abortion for the sake of the patient's physical and mental health and also for the sake of the victim's self-respect or "simply on the ground that no unwanted and unintended baby should ever be born [his emphasis]." There can't be many reasons not to abort a baby now especially when Fletcher leaves this wide a philosophical hole to crawl through, or should I say "drive a truck through"? He even goes on to say abortion can't be killing because there is no person or human life there and furthermore "The embryo is no more innocent, no less an aggressor or unwelcome invader!" Termination of the pregnancy is considered a loving act, but loving for whom? Fletcher wants to base his philosophy on love, but the only time love seems to become important is when its love for personal autonomy devoid of responsibility for a young life or for control of one's sexual actions.

Fletcher won Humanist of the Year award and also, according to William Donahue, favors infanticide if newborns don't measure up to fifteen "indicators of personhood." Newborns are not "persons," just "human lives." (16) That Fletcher won Humanist of the Year award I am not surprised, but I was surprised that he was described by Gloria Lentz as being partial to the Communist cause. Writing before 1972, Lentz cites an undercover FBI agent who states that Communist parties used numerous churches for their business and it was impossible for Fletcher not to know because he was a Reverend at a church possibly used by the Communists. Fletcher was also a big supporter of the sexual relativism of SIECUS (the Sexual Information Education Council of the United States). (17)

There are more surprises for you, the reader, but not for me. A Freedom from Religion Foundation flyer I received in the mail approvingly quotes Margaret Sanger as saying "No Gods, No Masters." Sanger, who founded Planned Parenthood, was a rebel, a utopian socialist, was obsessed with sex, and called marriage a "degenerate institution" and sexual modesty "obscene prudery." She got involved with Malthus' theories of population control and believed the "unfit" - whatever that means - should be eliminated. She did marry, but only for the money. While married, she flaunted her sexuality; her husband had to call her just to get a dinner date. She became associated with the scientists that helped put together Nazi Germany's "race purification" programs. (18) Corliss Lamont, who signed Humanist Manifesto II, was the "leading light," in Dr. Carroll Quigley's words, in a Communist organization which started in the 1920's as the Friends of the Soviet Union but which was reorganized, with himself as the chairman, as the National Council of American- Soviet Friendship. He was one of the chief spokesmen for the Soviet point of view. In January of 1946, Lamont was called before the House Un-American Activities Committee to give testimony on his group's activities, but refused to produce records, was subpoenaed, refused, and therefore was charged with contempt of Congress. (19)

This is certainly no scientific study of the views of humanists, but given the favoritism toward Sanger and Lamont and Fletcher's views, we should seriously take a look for I believe a most fruitful investigation of their views will turn up an idiosyncratic blend of relativistic pragmatic reductionism of bias against Judeo-Christianity, favoritism toward abortion with a very anti-choice pro-abortion position, and utopian socialism. These are the people who want to be the trend setters in our society. They are not the free thinkers they believe themselves to be. Talking about Marxism, writer Robert Hughes states, "[B]ut all the same it is highly improbable that large numbers of people, in the imaginable future, will submit themselves to the yoke of a political ideology that assumes that mankind is capable of objectively discerning, judging, and controlling everything that exists in terms of a "rational," "scientific" program, a single model propagated by central planning." (20) Obviously these humanists think that people will indeed someday be willing to live under such a regime.

At this time, let me argue for my own manifesto. It's not that lengthy and wordy. It's actually very simple. It goes like this:

                  +


Man cannot live by human intuition alone, as far as knowing right from wrong. Man can only function if he is aware of an external absolute moral rule, that which emanates from God. Only when man embraces the type of love and laws embodied in the lesson Christ displayed in the New Testament can man ever hope to fully prosper.

Notes:

1. Quoted in James Hitchcock, What is Secular Humanism, 1982, Servant Books: Ann Arbor, MI, p. 14-15
2. Tim LaHaye, The Battle for the Mind, 1980, Fleming H. Revell Co.: Old Tappan, NJ, p. 126-140
3. Corliss Lamont, The Philosophy of Humanism, 1949-1965, fifth ed., Frederick Ungar Publishing: New York, NY, p. 24; Lamont mentions this after his discussion of "religious" humanism which was derived mainly from the ranks of Unitarian clergymen. This makes it seem like there are different brands of humanism, yet the philosophy of humanism is strictly atheistic and hence the decision by Justice Black would render atheistic humanism a religion.
4. Edward Ericson, The Humanist Way: An Introduction to Ethical Humanist Religion, 1988, The Continuum Publishing Company: New York. The quotation is from the book jacket. Ericson quotes the same text as LaHaye that says that humanism, Buddhism, and other faiths can be classified as religions in the way Christianity can. Ericson says it has not been established that humanism is a "religion" as some "fundamentalists" believe. Certainly humanists and theists may be able to have quite a debate on the issue of to what extent humanism is a religion. Paul Kurtz, another well known humanist, is quoted as saying organized humanism is failing because of lack of "charismatic leadership" and "an inspiring message of sufficient clarity and drama to command public attention." He adds that the strategy of trying to become another religious organization rather than a broad-based educational movement has hurt humanism. [Christianity Today, (June 15, 1984), from the Religious News Service] Kurtz also, according to James Davison Hunter, contradicted himself by claiming humanism was not a religion while writing in Defense of Secular Humanism: "`Religion' for the humanist refers primarily to a quality in human experience. It is centered around man and his concerns. . . . Thus we have a `religious experience' when we are aware of our basic values and aims." [Hunter, Culture Wars: The Struggle to Define America, 1991, BasicBooks, p. 380]
5. Phillip Johnson, Darwin on Trial, 1991, 1993, Intervarsity Press: Downer's Grove, IL, p. 155
6. The New American Desk Encyclopedia, 1977-1989, Penguin Books: New York, NY
7. Victor Kamber and Bradley O'Leary, Are You a Conservative or a Liberal?, 1996, Boru Publishing: Austin, TX
8. Norman Thomas, A Socialist's Faith, 1951, W.W. Norton: New York, NY, p. 11-12
9. Lamont, p. 59
10. William Davis, It's No Sin to Be Rich, 1976, Thomas Nelson Publishers: Nashville, TN
11. Carol S. Lewis, Mere Christianity, 1943-1952, Macmillan Publishing: New York, NY, p. 54
12. Joseph Fletcher, Situation Ethics: The New Morality, Westminster Press: Philadelphia, PA
13. Harvey Cox, The Situation Ethics Debate, The Westminster Press: Philadelphia, PA
14. Derek Humphry, Final Exit, 1991, The Hemlock Society: Eugene, OR, p. 101
15. Fletcher, p. 37 ff.
16. Quoted in William Donahue, The New Freedom: Individualism and Collectivism in the Social Lives of Americans, 1990, Transaction Publishers: New Brunswick and London, p. 62
17. Gloria Lentz, Raping Our Children: The Sex Education Scandal, 1972, Arlington House, New Rochelle, NY, p. 23-24
18. George Grant, Grand Illusions: the Legacy of Planned Parenthood, 1988, Wolgemuth & Hyatt: Brentwood, TN
19. W. Cleon Skousen, The Naked Capitalist: A Review and Commentary on Dr. Carroll Quigley's Book: Tragedy and Hope - A History of the World in our Time, 1970, p. 43- 44