And "I" am superior not by virtue of what I do but by virtue of what I am, of what my ancestors were before me, of what God, or nature, made me.

Historically, this philosophy is exemplified by such expressions as "chosen people," "salt of the earth," "Herrenvolk;" and, conversely "pariahs," "untouchables," "non-Aryans." Scientifically, it is grounded in the doctrine of inherited characteristics. The foundation is none too solid, for biological heredity is modified by innumerable factors, particularly that of scientific crossings to improve breeds. Moreover, as regards man, the existence of any "pure" breed whatever, at the present time, is doubted.

Psychologically, this belief is the most effective on which a propagandist can play. "We are by nature and birthright," he says, "superior to them." And something invariably responds.

This harsh, yet all too appealing, philosophy had its most recent vogue under Hitler. It is at present in fairly general disfavor, at least in the world's official circles. But let us not deceive ourselves. It has appeared too many times in the past -in the guise of "God's Elect," of slaves and masters, of "Judge Lynch," of a world divided in ad

vance between sheep and goats, of people predestined to be saved and others predestined to be damnedto have made its final bow from the world's stage. It still springs up in the hearts of men in a stream of racial and religious intolerance as well as in the exaggerated forms of nationalism that surprisingly arise in countries that have never experienced them before. Nations like Communist China and resurgent India, groups like the Mau Mau of Kenya and the Destour of North Africa, would not be satisfied with equality even if it were offered to them. They really aim at supremacy.

The second philosophy magnifies the importance of environment and education. It is the reverse of the first. It holds that, given the proper surroundings and upbringing, an individual can be turned into anything we want to make him. Take slaves and the children of slaves, this doctrine asserts, give them the proper environment and education, and they will grow up to be masters. The human race can thus be reshaped by careful planning.

The process of change by environment and education is necessarily slow. To hasten it, a clean sweep of existing conditions must be made. But existing conditions are themselves the product of a slow process of evolution, growth, environment,

education. They are deep-rooted and difficult to eradicate.

Therefore the Communists deport and destroy not as Nazis did, to rid themselves of inferior creatures destined to remain forever inferior, but to hasten the success of their planned world. The Communists profess to believe that their victims could be reclaimed, but there is not enough time to change them. It is better that those who are hard to reclaim should disappear.

The broadening scope and influence of government in most of our Western democracies tend to encourage the growth of philosophy even among people who are strongly individualistic by nature and tradition. Social planning here begins. through individual initiative and proceeds slowly. Then as projects become more and more ambitious, so that small groups cannot handle them, government is persuaded to take them over; they proliferate and become rigid. The fruits of this transfer of endeavor have a narcotic effect, so that people go to sleep under the illusion that government is their servant and may wake up to find that it is their master.

When the planning becomes the function of a single group of people, either in or outside of the government, these people set themselves up

as a superior caste. Rule is by an aristocracy of brains, and the situation differs from Communism only in degree, not in kind. Under such a system the individual ceases to exist as such and becomes part of a Plan. The characteristics that make him diffreent from other people are not important and tend to disappear. The Planner emerges as a superman to whom all inferior intelligences must bow. But there is evidence, in Soviet Russia, and even in the democracies, that the aristocracy of brain, in endeavoring to perpetuate itself, becomes an aristocracy of blood or at least of a closed class. Human nature, with its inherent selfishness and egotism, triumphs again.

The third philosophy has gone in religion by the name of free will. Socially, it is known as individualism. Politically, it is libertarianism (not democracy, which is a method, or machinery, of governmental administration).

Under this philosophy, each individual is, within limits prescribed by the equal rights of other individuals, a law unto himself. Despite limitations of heredity, environment and education, he is nevertheless believed to be possessed of a divine spark which makes him responsible for his own actions. All men are

equal before the law; all are equal in the sight of God. All are held to account for their own individual actions and for no one else's. Their

race, language, nationality, religion heredity does not matter; their color and family are secondary; so are their respective environment and education. It is what the individual chooses to make of himself that counts.

This philosophy glorifies individual effort and initiative and upholds the individual's right to enjoy the fruits of his own labor. It allows full play for mutual help and cooperation, for projects carried out in common, for charity and social aid freely given of one's own volition. It believes in government as a moderator, coordinator and protector of individual activities, but not as director.

The individual is the significant basic unit under this philosophy. It differs from the other philosophies precisely in that it gives the individual a paramount role. In the others, the individual is supine. He receives the blessings or the curse of his heritage, or of the environment and education conferred upon him, and he acts as he is directed by forces outside of himself. But the free-willed member of an open society reacts upon his heredity and environment.

He has a soul which is equal among equals, and before God.

Shall we, in our poliical and social thought, accept one of the two biological philosophies wherein man is a slave to his heredity or to his environment, or shall we espouse the metaphysical philosophy that makes man free, responsible, the supreme arbiter of his own destiny? The question is one on which the future may well hinge. If the world becomes one, as the signs seem to indicate, shall it be a world of free human beings or a world of regimented ants?

As we, the adherents of the philosophy of freedom and representative government, face this issue we must be fully aware that democracy is an ongoing process under which human beings maintain themselves as free men. We must also realize that this process and spirit which have been our bulwarks of freedom could also be utilized by democracy's adherents to vote themselves into slavery.

The true answer lies in ourselves, in our own individual conscience,

in our firm resolve to continue to be free individuals, even at the cost of giving up some of the material benefits which the Planners dangle before our eyes and which invariably turn out to be snares and delusions.

The peasant of Russia or China who sold his birthright of individual freedom for the pottage of land reform quickly found himself a slave on a collective farm, with neither land nor freedom. The Italian peasant who listens to the siren song of the Communist party of his land may end the same way if he does not heed the warning of what has happened elsewhere.

We of America enjoy the inestimable advantage of having begun our

life as a nation under the philosophy of free will. With us, it is not so much a question of gaining individual freedoms as of maintaining them and regaining in full those that have been encroached upon in recent years. The philosophy of freedom is one of the cornerstones of this Republic. It is our duty and our privilege to retain it for ourselves and to use it so well that we shall become a persuasive example to the rest of the world. -Think.