george rockwell

George Lincoln Rockwell on Sociology and College Culture

The following is an excerpt from George Lincoln Rockwell’s book “White Power,” 1967.
It was not until I was a young undergraduate of Brown University in 1938 that I finally made direct contact with these Chart Forgers, whose identification and overthrow would later become my life work. But I didn’t know or even suspect them then. I don’t remember even thinking about such a thing, any more than I did Thugee-ism in India. I was still blissfully and totally ignorant of Communism, Jews, Negroes and the assault of the colored masses of the world against the White Race.

In a way, I am glad of this long maintained ignorance, because today, when I meet young college men and women who are full of conceit because of their liberal “understanding” of our social problems, I can be patient with them. I can imagine my own reaction if I had been told as a college-boy, that there was a Jewish or any other kind of world conspiracy. I was sure, at that time, that my “deep” studies into the profundities of knowledge would have long ago revealed any such monstrous conspiracy and even if not, that my professors and men of learning would surely have known it. I would have been angry at such effrontery, just as most young college kids I meet today are, at first, angry because they’ve heard only one side.

In 1939, I sat in “Sociology 1” class at Brown University and tried my best to make some sense out of it all. I had been happy at the chance to study sociology, as it appeared to me logical that there must be some fundamental principles of the development of the social relationships of life as I had discovered simple basic principles of other affairs I had looked into.

I was most eager to learn these basic principles of the operation of human society so that I could understand the events around me, and perhaps even predict sociological occurrences in accordance with the principles I would be taught. I have since learned that there are such principles, as will be shown later. But it would be many, many years before I would fight my way to the simple, fundamental and logical facts of social life.

In Professor Bucklin’s classroom on society at Brown University, all was the most depressing of darkness and confusion. It all sounded most enlightening, of course. There were lots of brave new terms like “ethnic groups,” but, try as I might, I could not get to the bottom of it all to find any idea, nor could I get hold of any principle. Yet it seemed to me that muddiness of mind was not deplored, but glorified.

I buried myself in my sociology books, absolutely determined to find why I was missing the kernel of the thing. The best I could come up with was that, in sociology, human beings are all helpless tools of environment; that we are all born as rigidly equal lumps, and the disparity of our achievements and stations was entirely the result of the forces of environment such that everybody could, theoretically, be master-geniuses and kings if only we could sufficiently improve their environment.

I was bold enough to ask Professor Bucklin if this were the idea. He turned red with anger. I was told it was “impossible” to make any generalizations, although all I was asking was for the fundamental idea, if any, of Sociology. I began to see that it was different from any other course I had ever taken. Certain ideas produced apoplexy in the teacher – particularly the suggestion that perhaps some people were no-good, biological slobs from the day they were born. Other ideas, although they were never formulated or stated frankly, were fostered and encouraged – and these were always ideas revolving around the total power of “environment.”

Slowly, I got the idea. At first I just used it to get better grades. When I wrote my essay answers in examinations, I poured it on heavily that all hands of the civilization in question were potential Leonardo da Vinci’s: no matter how tribal, no matter if they ate their kin for thousands of years – with a quick change in environment, these cannibals, too, would be writing arias, building Parthenons, and painting masterpieces.

But then I began to wonder “Why is this”? Certainly environment was important. Anybody could see that. But it was obviously negative. You can make a helpless boob out of a born genius by raising him in a dark closet. But you can’t make a genius out of a drooling idiot, even by sending him to Brown. Was it just old man Bucklin who was insisted on this theory of environment? Or was it the whole of Sociology?

I went to the library and read more sociology books. They were universally pushing the same idea. I began to make fun of Sociology in the college paper in my column, and got into more trouble – some of my columns were killed before seeing the light. I was still too ignorant to know that I was fighting Lysenko and Marx and the whole Soviet theory of environmentalism, which has captured and hypnotized or terrorized all our intellectuals. In a way it is laughable: I imagined I was battling just one foolish college course.