Studies in Early Genesis

The Doctrine of Man

Professor: Dr. R.J. Rushdoony

Subject: Pentateuch

Genre: Speech

Lesson: 3 of 11

Track: #48

Dictation Name: RR115B3

Date: 1960-1970’s

1Thus the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the host of them.

2 And on the seventh day God ended his work which he had made; and he rested on the seventh day from all his work which he had made.

3 And God blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it: because that in it he had rested from all his work which God created and made.

4 These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the Lord God made the earth and the heavens,

5 And every plant of the field before it was in the earth, and every herb of the field before it grew: for the Lord God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was not a man to till the ground.

6 But there went up a mist from the earth, and watered the whole face of the ground.

7 And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.

8 And the Lord God planted a garden eastward in Eden; and there he put the man whom he had formed.

9 And out of the ground made the Lord God to grow every tree that is pleasant to the sight, and good for food; the tree of life also in the midst of the garden, and the tree of knowledge of good and evil.

10 And a river went out of Eden to water the garden; and from thence it was parted, and became into four heads.

11 The name of the first is Pison: that is it which compasseth the whole land of Havilah, where there is gold;

12 And the gold of that land is good: there is bdellium and the onyx stone.

13 And the name of the second river is Gihon: the same is it that compasseth the whole land of Ethiopia.

14 And the name of the third river is Hiddekel: that is it which goeth toward the east of Assyria. And the fourth river is Euphrates.

15 And the Lord God took the man, and put him into the garden of Eden to dress it and to keep it.

16 And the Lord God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat:

17 But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.

18 And the Lord God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him.

19 And out of the ground the Lord God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof.

20 And Adam gave names to all cattle, and to the fowl of the air, and to every beast of the field; but for Adam there was not found an help meet for him.

21 And the Lord God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept: and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof;

22 And the rib, which the Lord God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man.

23 And Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man.

24 Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.

25 And they were both naked, the man and his wife, and were not ashamed.

We have seen in our studies that the first chapter of Genesis, that there is a great line of cleavage between Biblical thought and all other thinking. Every philosophy or religion which assumes, as all others do, that man evolved out of a primeval chaos the posit that the ultimate power in their system of thought is primeval chaos. But we as Christians, because we believe God created all things by His word, believe that the source of our power is not below but above in God. Thus whenever society needs renewal, whenever man needs regeneration the source of regeneration for us is in God, but in every other philosophy and religion, because their source, their origin is in chaos, when they want social renewal the answer for them is chaos, or revolution. Hence it is every non-Christian religion and philosophy is, in varying degrees, a religion of revolution, a chaos cult. It requires, it calls for, revolution, chaos, on order to revive society. So their answer whenever things begin to deteriorate is to invoke chaos, revolution. Our answer is to establish things again under the law of God, because we look to our renewal to God, they to chaos.

Today we shall consider the doctrine of man, and the doctrine of man is very closely related to this whole backdrop. If men hold, as all none Christian systems do, that man is a product of evolution, evolution arising out of a primeval chaos, then the thing that is least important in man is reason. Why? Well according to them reason evolved last of all. Therefore to understand man you do not look to reason, you look to his emotions. To understand man according to modern psychiatry and sociology and according to every kind of modern thought, you look progressively downward. You look not to the mature thinking man to understand man but you look to the child, and the child’s psychology and say “this will help us understand man” but you don’t stop there. You look then to primitive man, because you say “primitive man is even more basic than the child” he is closer to this primeval chaos. But you don’t stop there either, you go further backward and you look to animals and you look behind animals to primeval chaos, and thereby you understand man. And if it is, for example, in Freudian psychology the reason is nothing. And the basic, primitive impulses in man which are traced downward progressively are all important. This is what Cornelius Van Til, the philosopher of religion has called “integration into the void” to understand man in these systems you have an integration into the void, integration downward.

But if you believe that man was created in the image of God, then you understand man not in terms of the child, or primitive man, or ultimately of chaos, but you understand him in terms of the image of God, knowledge, righteousness, holiness and dominion. So that the standard for man is the mature man, the perfect man and man is not struggling out of a primeval background, but man is in revolt against maturity. So that a Christian psychology would looks at things, not as the Freudian does, not at all non-Christian psychologies do, by an integration downward but by an insistence that man, instead of being a bundle of primitive urges, is a sinner who is rebelling against maturity, that he was created into this maturity, the fall of man was a rebellion against maturity, and the whole of mans being today, when he is outside of Christ, is a headlong flight and rebellion against the requirement of maturity.

The modern conception of man is one of total irresponsibility, and Henry Miller has said in one of his most expressive sentences “I think it’s bad to think”. Why? Because is a late comer, and he says “The way to restore paradise is to give vent to every desire, every appetite you have” and the more primitive these expressions are, the more powerful they will be and the sooner they will restore paradise. The modern conception of man therefore is one of integration downward into total irresponsibility. The Biblical conception is submission through the grace of God in Jesus Christ to the law of God. It’s interesting to see how irresponsibility is the standard for men today. By looking at movies and T.V. the T.V. and movie male hero is I think best expressed, most popularly expressed if we are to believe the commentators, in the cowboy hero. Now having grown up, or lived rather, in the intermountain area in Nevada and seeing some of Idaho and having served as a pastor there and having been in Colorado also, it’s very revealing to me that the cowboy should be the hero. Because the cowboy is the most immature and irresponsible in our society; the sheepherder is not a hero. In fact in the intermountain country the sheepherder is despised and looked down upon. But the sheepherder is a responsible person. And it’s almost unheard of for a sheepherder to die poor. It’s next to impossible today to get an American to be a sheepherder. The only way we can get sheepherder nowadays, a few come from Mexico, but not to many, most of them under a special immigration quota come from the south of France or North of Spain, the {basts?}, and from Greece. They come here and they make a fair amount of money a month, two, three hundred dollars, sometimes a little more with all their food provided and a sheep wagon to live in, and this is all savings. And they work five, six, seven, eight, nine years, they come over in their late teens and by the time their thirty they have saved up quite a few thousand dollars and go out and by their own sheep ranch, so we have to import another sheep herder. They live alone with the sheep, they have to act as midwives when the ewes give birth to their lambs, they have to be ready at any time of the night or day if any bears or coyotes come around, they do their own cooking when time hangs heavy on their hands they knit or read. They are very responsible, self-sufficient people; but not so a cowboy.

The only cowboy in modern history who ever ended up with any money was Death Valley Scotty, and it was because someone used him as a front, he didn’t make it. And the average cowboy is a drifter and a no-account. He lives just to the day, he makes as much a sheepherder does. But he goes into town, and I’ve given many of them a lift into town and a lift home afterwards back to the ranch, and blow all his savings for three or six months as the case may be. And I’ve had more than one of them tell me that he went into town with two thousand dollars and after the first evening he couldn’t remember what he did, although he went, all he knew was he was now broke and hungry and he had to head back to the ranch. Very often he was so hungry after having been on a long binge that I had to give him a hamburger or something to tide him over until he got back to the ranch. Totally irresponsible, and this is the modern standard and it’s fittingly so because modern man dominated as he is by anti-Christian thinking, by evolutionary thinking, by this concept of integration downward into the void sees as the standard this concept of total irresponsibility, which the cowboy best represents. So many cowboys I knew or buckaroo’s as they were called, was 65 and beginning to fail, and beyond the clothes on their back they wouldn’t have a thing.

It’s ironic is it not, that in our society today and in our T.V. and movies these men are exalted in the glorification of brute strength the emphasis on physical prowess, caveman type of thing is so common place. And yet ironically there was never a time in history when brute physical strength was less needed, when size was less an asset. Ironically the bigger they are the harder it is now to get into the airports and they are out of place in (face?) work because they’re too big. More than ever now unskilled labor is disappearing, more than ever now we are increasingly emphasizing as the ideal for men irresponsibility. When men must, more than ever before, be responsible; and unhappily the effect is appearing. In schools every year the gap between the boys and the girls widens as the boys do more and more poorly and the girls get all the good grades. Man in society at large today is the child; he is more given to tantrums, incapable of meeting responsibilities, emotionally. Given to acting like the child when he must set the pattern for self-control, and steadiness, and thoughtfulness, and above all for worship. In churches across country today there’s no question that the woman predominated, there’s no question that in most homes it is the mother who sees to it that the children get to Sunday school or they do not get there at all. The responsibility is left to the woman, but according to the scriptures the primary responsibility religiously and morally is the man. The man is in a very real sense according to the scriptures a priest under God, who is required to lead in the religious exercises of the family as in the religious worship publically of the family.

Man has been created by God in His image. And man as having the authority under God in the household is called upon to be the principle of authority and order in society. It’s been very interesting lately to see some of the studies that biologists have turned up which so thoroughly militate; incidentally, against their own psychology and against their own evolutionary thinking, that’s why they are disregarding it. But Freud based his theories on man and sex on zoo animals, and so he said sex is the basic factor in animals lives and therefore, since man is an involving animal, in the life of man. But in recent years every study by biologist of animals in their native habitats have shown a very interesting fact, that in the whole of the animal world, when the animals are free and out in nature, sex is a long ways from being the most important thing to the male animal. The two basic drives of animals in nature are status and territoriality, or order and property.

That an animal, a male animal in nature, will have a territory staked out. A rhinoceros will have every rock, tree, and every inch of the river staked out that is his territory and if any other male rhino crosses that, unless they are subordinate and part of his herd, it means a pitched battle. He has a strong sense of order; he enforces order in his group, and a strong sense property. Birds are the same, those of you who have ever done any bird watching know that a portion of your yard will belong to a particular bird, and no other bird of that particular variety dare cross over that area because a particular branch, of a particular tree, in a particular portion of the yard will belong to a bird. There is a very strong and a rigid sense of property among animals. It can be staked out to the last inch. You find this among all wild animals; it’s only in caged animals that sex becomes important above order and property. They live in a welfare economy and they don’t have to worry about these things.

And so when a man begins to live in a welfare society he ceases to be the kind of man God created him to be, the one who is the source of order in the community, a man who has a strong sense of property, he becomes like a caged animal and he lives in terms of sex primarily. But man created in the image of God, which is knowledge, righteousness, holiness, and dominion, must show forth these things in his everyday life. He must show forth the holiness of God in his being, he cannot therefore follow nature; he must follow God and his word. And therefore everything that naturalism and evolutionary thinking says is basic to man and calls for this integration downward is anathema to him. Because essential to his being is, of course to be a material creature and he most never despise the things of this earth, his body and the things around him. That all these things are subject to order and the order comes from God. And man must be the one who establishes order in his family, and in his community. Man therefore cannot be the playboy who lives morality and religion to his wife. He must be, if he obeys the word of God, the most moral member of the family.

In the Mosaic law and very few people are aware of this, but it is spelled out there repeatedly, there are 18 death penalties for men and about 2 or 3 for women. The same crime that brings about a death penalty in men does not in women. Why? Because the greater the responsibility the greater the culpability, and God has given a greater responsibility to man. In Mosaic Law the adultery of a man is a far more serious thing than that of a women. And God punishes it more grievously must as the head of the household, as the source of order in society under God, establish the pattern of conduct. And thus it is that God declared through the prophets that he would not punish the adultery of their wives and daughters when the fathers and sons themselves were so perverse in their morality. Instead he said “I will bring judgment upon this entire generation and this {?}.”

Man is called to exercise dominion, this a part of the image of God. Which means that he has a calling under God to exercise dominion in every area of life, in the scientific area, the agricultural, the religious, the commercial, in every area; Man is to exercise dominion, authority is given to him, and it is significant that in Genesis 2 we read that Adam was created and immediately given a responsibility, the garden of Eden, the care of it; an agricultural task. He was required to name the animals, a scientific task, because the word “name” in the Hebrew means to classify, to identify and to classify, in the Bible names themselves were classifications. A mans name could change a number of times depending on his character. And a name was there for classification. So when Adam was called upon to name the animals it was a work of classification, it perhaps took years, we do not know how long the period was before the fall, it could have been decades, decades. Man must under God first of all exercise dominion over himself, he must govern himself. And if he cannot respect his God-given manhood sufficiently to govern himself he need not be surprised if others fail to respect it. If he cannot be emotionally mature, how can he expect those under his authority to be so?

It is significant that it was only after a long period apparently, after Adam had tended the Garden of Eden and had named the animals that God made Eve for him. And we are told that Adam saw, that there was male and female in all of the world around him, but for Adam there was not found a helpmeet for him. This is significant, Eve was not created immediately, Eve appears on the scene only after a considerable time. Adam has been created, he has been given the responsibility of the Garden of Eden, he has named all the animals, an extensive work of classification. And then and then only is he given Eve, in other words before marriage responsibility. He first proves himself a man in relationship to work, in relationship to his calling and then under God he was ready for marriage. So that marriage came not as a fulfillment of his physical needs, but as the consummation of his fulfillment as a man under God. And it is significant that in the Mosaic law we find the dowry system as a part of marriage.

Just a moment or two on this because our time is limited. What did the dowry system involve? Well normally it required that the equivalent of three years wages be supplied by the groom to the bride, he handed it over to the bride to be, or to her father who turned it over to the bride to be. This was a considerable sum; he had to work a number of years and to save what he earned in order to accumulate the equivalent of three years wages. This money however was not for the wife then in the marriage to spend at her whims. This was the family’s capital, the husband could take it and use it for business reasons, but he had to repay it and he had to give her an allowance for the use of it. She could not alienate it, it went to the heirs. But if he should wrong her and contrary to the law of God divorce her, then it was her money if it was justifiable divorce according to the Mosaic Law, then the money returned to him. But this gave the family a great deal of security because a man did not lightly break up a marriage when his bankroll was tied up in it. And before he married he had proved his sense of responsibility by accumulating that dowry.

The image of God, as we have said, is knowledge, righteousness, holiness, and dominion. Knowledge. Man must show forth God’s image in knowledge. He should be therefore the student above all others of the word of God; he should be the most knowing, the most capable where wisdom is concerned in the family. There is a difference between wisdom and learning. Learning is the accumulation of data; wisdom is the insight to discriminate. And a man must exercise knowledge in this sense. Unfortunately men today are usually the most ignorant of the word of God, the most unwilling to learn. It is significant that in pornography trials the defense attorneys want men on the jury, because they can be sure of this, that the men have not read a book since they left college and they’re not going to read the book that’s on trial. They’ll take the word of one or another of the attorneys. The women will take the book into the jury room and sit up nights and read it. The men won’t.

Man was created by God to be the responsible creature. And yet today because men are brought up and taught what is a religion of revolution, an evolutionary faith, they are the irresponsible members of society. It’s amazed me over the years to encounter people in prominent positions, and I’m thinking of one person in Northern California who is one of the most prominent citizens in the area, who is so irresponsible that his wife has to dole him out a little bit of money each day, and no more because he is not capable of handling money. She cannot allow him to handle any business, because despite his excellent income they would be very quickly bankrupt, without her they would be in very serious trouble. He is nothing but a facade. And this is commonplace. Men today are dominated by this sense of irresponsibility. By this feeling that they are a man if they fulfill the modern T.V. and movie idea of irresponsibility. But God created man in His image, and He created women not to be his equal, but as a helpmeet before him.

We shall examine on another occasion the meaning of the word “helpmeet’’ a very startling and very important one. But for the present one of the greatest needs of our generation is for Godly men, responsible men. Men who know that they exercise authority, already who exercise it under God and who are the heads of their households and the sources of order and stability in society at large; God give us more such men. Let us pray.

Almighty God our heavenly Father we thank Thee that Thou hast made us, that Thou hast created us in Thine image, into perfect maturity. We thank Thee that Thou hast summoned us in Jesus Christ from our irresponsibility and our rebellion against maturity, and has given us the responsibility of exercising dominion unto Thee, and we pray that by Thy blessing every man here present may grow in grace, in knowledge, in holiness, in righteousness, and in the exercise of his God given dominion. In Jesus name, amen.

[Chalcedon advertisement interruption]

[Rushdoony] But the religion of revolution; of this total irresponsibility which these men have been taught by our modern prophets of revolution. And the end result will only be the total destruction of everything in Africa, there is no future in Africa there is only every increasing ruin ahead. So that you can write Africa off, it’s going to be a desert before to many decades as a result of this drift.

Any questions then?

[Audience member] You had indicated that the difference between Christian religion and non-Christian religion, that non-Christian religion leads to chaos and revolution?

[Rushdoony] Yes.

[Audience member] How would you…let’s see if I can get my own question straightened out… Using the good Christian religion, how can they fend off the attack of the un-Christian religion? They have no proof of it, we do and this is our weak spot.

[Rushdoony] Good question. One of the most important steps is to begin teaching our faith. And this means teaching it first of all to the young. The Christian school movement to me is therefore central, to withstand these revolutionary forces, because the basic socialism as I pointed out in my book The Messianic character of American Education puts Socialist a hundred and fifty years and more ago sets forth with the socialization of the child. Put him in a state controlled school and the future is ours that is their principle. Now we need to continue to develop these independent Christian schools, whether parochial, whether independent Christian day schools, or whether independent private schools. And as I have pointed, and some of you have heard me say, today 25% of grade school children are outside the state controlled school. They’re in parochial, private, or Christian day schools. That’s one out of every four, and those figures are two years old, and the percentage is growing annually. The percentage in high school is not as great, but it’s increasing every year. This is important. And as we strengthen such schools we will recapture a tremendous amount of ground. We don’t have to worry about going out and bringing adults to our position and converting them to Christ, we’ve got them from childhood. Then the next step, and this is what interests me as many of you know, and is my private hope and project, to establish a Christian college, where they can be trained in terms of the mature Christian beliefs.

Now this is the way, it is not something that is going to be done overnight and people who want an easy victory over subversion don’t realize that these things are thousands of years old. You can trace the hammer and sickle identified with revolution back to pre-Christian times. There have been communist revolutions centuries and centuries ago. And sometimes I intend in the area to speak about the religion of Mazdok, one of the high priest in Persia, and the total communism he instituted. Communism of money, property, and women, that’s what destroyed that great country, which was a great Aryan and outstanding nation. It was forever destroyed after about fifty and seventy years of that, the Muslims took it over and they’ve been living in poverty since that they never would of dreamt of in those days. This is an ancient movement, it can only be overthrown by the power of God and by faith and by patience, but it will be because God is on the throne.

Have we other questions?

[Audience member] {?}

[Rushdoony] Well this issue is very obvious, if they go into the Peace Corps they are missionaries for the state, the program that believes that dollars and goods will save the world. If they believe that tell them to join, encourage them to join but to get out of the church. Tell them that if they believe that it is Christ who is going to save the world they have no business with this dollar diplomacy and give away diplomacy. That there is no difference between was criticized rightfully some years ago in China as rice Christians, and these Peace Corps projects. There are two rival concepts of salvation at work here. And the peace Corp is very open and honest about its decision. And the Peace Corps will not accept anyone who is rigorously and systematically a Christian, and knows his ground. They will accept kids who think they’re Christians; it’s a good way of brainwashing them out of their faith. But it is a religion, it is a program of salvation, it is anti-Christian, and they’ve got to make up their mind whether it’s the state or Christ who is the Savior. If it is the state then by all means urge them to join and get out of church.

[Audience member] They say “well wouldn’t it be better than nothing?” In other words they supposedly have a Peace Corp {?} in some countries, and you will have missionaries there, well shouldn’t they show them how the United States is {?} helping people that way, if missionaries are not there, or else work in conjunction with missionaries.

[Rushdoony] It’s worse than nothing, that’s the answer. Now Kennedy, I believe it was who used the expression very favorably “the revolution of rising expectations” that’s the revolution we’re creating. We’re going to these places and we’re putting up exhibits and telling these people “this is how Americans live”. And then we’re ladling out all kinds of aide to them and telling them “this is how you should live”. And we create revolution. People who are completely lacking in any sense of responsibility, in any wisdom, expect to live exactly as we do. The Congo is an excellent example. In much of the battle there one of the ironic facts is that the mercenary soldiers have been able very often to walk in open country against the enemy.

Why? Because the native troops that are firing guns believe that it’s the noise that kills. And these people are given high powered guns; they believe the noise will kill them. They are also expecting, because they’ve been converted to this religion of rising, or revolution of, rising expectation, that the minute they take the country they are all going to turn white, and have beautiful homes, and white wives, and it will be heaven on earth. Now this is what we have done. I don’t believe we have any business sending anything there except missionaries, who will first change the hearts and minds of these people and then they will be able themselves to create something. But you are creating a destructive revolutionary force; you are destroying the native families which are the only sense of stability there. You have the kind of thing I described where 70% of the men on the country side pour into the cities and are living there on our handouts. Actually the Peace Corp is far worse than nothing, far worse. It’s a dangerous and a deadly thing to unleash on these people.

Yes?

[Audience Member] You talk about starting a Christian college, don’t they now have Dordt or something in Iowa or Idaho?

[Rushdoony] Yes, Dordt college in Iowa is a Christian college and there are some good men there, but this is the weakness, it is denominationally oriented. And they are bound and determined they are going to maintain their denominational ties, and as the denomination goes progressively downward the school will also because it isn’t going to break that tie. It already has on its faculty Dr. Monkman {?}, from the University of Mississippi, who was one of the strongest champions of civil rights there during the Meredith case, and it has two or three other men who are thorough going liberals, to put it mildly. But they happen to belong to the church and therefore they are there. Now a college must be Christian, but it cannot be under Ecclesiastical jurisdiction, because then it will not be primarily and educational institution but a church institution, and I believe it should be free of both church and state, just as I believe church, state, and school have an obligation under God to be Christian, but to be Christian does not mean to be under the church, and that’s the tragedy of Dordt college, and one or two others like it.

Yes?

[Audience member] {?}

[Rushdoony] Yes the term for example in the first chapter of Genesis, that is used “God” as “God” and translated simply as “God is Elohim” This is a very significant usage because it is the plural of God “el” is God “Elohim” is Gods. Now Elohim is used throughout the Old Testament for God, but it takes a singular verb. So you have therefore a very plain intimation of the doctrine of the trinity because God is three persons, one God. And Elohim the plural verb is used for God, the plural noun with a singular verb. Which I think is a most significant fact. Now whenever “Elohim” is used a pagan God, in which case it is plural for gods, it takes a plural verb. Is that point clear cut? The word God as we meet it in the first Chapter of Genesis and throughout the Old Testament is the plural form of God in Hebrew, but it is clearly singular because it takes the singular verb.

Yes?

[Audience member] {?}

[Rushdoony] Their basic premises are wrong, sorely wrong. And as Christians we cannot believe that they are good. Now they are often law-abiding people in terms of their countries. But this doesn’t make them good in the sight of God, because basic to their premise is that they are going to transcend humanity and creatureliness and become gods themselves, and this is the process of being save for them. So, yes there is a tremendous and a demonic pride in this idea of aspiring to be your own God. And this is the basic sin, as we shall see in a couple of weeks. Man tries to be his own God. And one of the best illustrations by the way of man aspiring to play God you can find in the last four issues of Life where a man is described, a man of scientist today, is planning to create life, to give birth to children in test tubes, totally to control man. Now all this is inescapable, I will be speaking on this in the creationist conference because my subject there will be “man in 1984”. And they make no bones about what they’re trying to do.

Now very briefly this is the thing about it, I’m giving you just a starting premise of what I’ll be saying then. To be God means to be in control. A true God is the one who has created and controlled and destined all things. There’s no real argument among any philosopher or scientist about predestination. People who argue against it are just ignorant of the basic issues. The real issue in predestination is “predestination by whom, God or the state?” Who’s going to control? Is the government going to be upon God’s shoulders or upon the scientist? When the scientist today and the sociologists and planners are talking about predestination by man, by the elite; now the predestination of God, according to scripture, is the very ground of our freedom. Freedom is not alien to predestination but basic to it from the Biblical perspective. But scientific socialism means total control. Because scientific socialism means an experiment scientifically in a sociological type of planning called “socialism”.

Now in an experiment the basic factor, and it isn’t an experiment, and it isn’t scientific if you don’t have total control of all factors. Scientific socialism is therefore the socialism of total control. And Marx was delighted when the Origin of Species was published by Darwin and he said “This book has saved scientific socialism, we got a ground for it now, because we can say science is with us” and total planning by man is necessary, therefore you have to have the ant hill society. And this is what modern man today are demanding increasingly. You’ll recall I cited you last time the statement of Lawrence Durell one of these writers in which he said that his goal, his desire was, well I believe I have it here and can give it to you again, because I think it’s so telling that the goal of man is the ant hill. “Why are we afraid of becoming insects? I can imagine no lovelier goal, the streets of paradise are not more lovely than the highways of the ant heap, let the hive take my responsibilities I am weary of them.”

Now this is the goal of modern man, and this is the goal of scientific socialism. To remake man so he will desire this. So that there will be no longer, and this is the common term it comes from Karl Marx and it’s common to virtually every form of psychiatry now, to overcome alienation. And what is alienation? Well that means self consciousness. We are alienated from the commonality, the oneness of being by self-consciousness, by reason, by individualism and we are to overcome this alienation through the scientific socialism until we are no longer aware of ourselves as individuals. Until we have a society, and very few people who talk about Marx are aware of this, in which there would no longer be any wages. Because wages pay personalized man, they individualize man and this must be overcome, so the goal is no wages ultimately, the ant-heap society. And hence one book titled “Post-Historic man” has been written by Roderick Seidenberg, in other words in this future man will no longer have a history because he will no longer have self-consciousness, he will be like the ant and the ant heap whose life is the perpetual cycle without variation. And man, when alienation is overcome, will live in that kind of scientific socialism.

Well our time is up so we stand dismissed, if you have any questions ask them directly of me after.