Death to Liberalism!

germanvictims.com – … Aside from a few individuals, European academics and journalists, let alone politicians, must be the masters of self-censorship and self-delusion, as well as great impresarios of their own postmodern mimicry…

A Message To The Spartans Of The Spirit. . .

Arranged by Dr. Ingrid Zuendel

“ … At present, the “Liberals” are limited to shrieking and spitting when they are confronted with inconvenient facts …”

What Is ‘Liberalism’?

An excerpt from Dr. Oliver’s book America’s Decline: The Education of a Conservative(Londinium Press, London, 1981)

The hypocrisy of the professed devotion to scientific knowledge was made unmistakable when the “Liberals” began their frantic and often hysterical efforts to suppress scientific knowledge about genetics and the obviously innate differences between the different human species and between the individuals of any given species.

At present, the “Liberals” are limited to shrieking and spitting when they are confronted with inconvenient facts, but no one who has heard them in action can have failed to notice how exasperated they are by the limitations that have thus far prevented them from burning wicked biologists and other rational men at the stake. (…)

“Liberals” rant about “human rights” with the fervor of an evangelist who appeals to what Moses purportedly said, but a moment’s thought suffices to show that, in the absence of a god who might be presumed to have decreed such rights, the only rights are those which the citizens of a stable society, by agreement or by a long usage that has acquired the force of law, bestow on themselves; and while the citizens may show kindness to aliens, slaves, and horses, these beings can have no rights.

Furthermore, in societies that have been so subjugated by conquest or the artful manipulation of masses that individuals no longer have constitutional rights that are not subject to revocation by violence or in the name of “social welfare,” there are no rights, strictly speaking, and therefore no citizens — only masses existing in the state of indiscriminate equality of which “Liberals” dream and, of course, a state of de facto slavery, which their masters may deem it expedient, as in the United States at present, to make relatively light until the animals are broken to the yoke.

“Liberals” babble about “One World,” which is to be a “universal democracy” and is “inevitable,” and they thus describe it in the very terms in which the notion was formulated, two thousand years ago, by Philo Judaeus, when he cleverly gave a Stoic coloring to the old Jewish dream of a globe in which all the lower races would obey the masters whom Yahweh, by covenant, appointed to rule over them. (…)

This maudlin preoccupation with biological refuse, usually sicklied over with such nonsense words as ‘underprivileged [!],’ would make sense, if it had been decreed by a god who perversely chose to become incarnate among the most [unpleasant] of human races and to select his disciples from among the illiterate dregs of even that peuplade, but since the “Liberals” claim to have rejected belief in such a divinity, their superstition is exposed as having no basis other than their own resentment of their betters and their professional interest in exploiting the gullibility of their compatriots.  ~ End Part I

“ … When the National Socialists came to power in Germany, they had many enthusiastic adherents of the same type, who, after the defeat of their nation, did not have to be tortured to become witnesses to the “evils of Nazism” and endorse any lie desired by the brutal conquerors.”

What Is ‘Liberalism’? – Part II

In the Eighteenth Century, Christians whose thinking was cerebral rather than glandular, perceived that their faith was incompatible with observed reality and reluctantly abandoned it. A comparable development is taking place in the waning faith of “Liberalism,” and we may be sure that, despite the cult’s appeal to masses that yearn for an effortless and mindless existence on the animal level, and despite the prolonged use of public schools to deform the minds of all children with “Liberal” myths, the cult would have disappeared, but for the massive support given it today, as to the Christian cults in the ancient world, by the Jews, who have, for more than two thousand years, battened on the venality, credulity, and vices of the races they despise.

There is one crucial fact that we must not overlook, if we are to see the political situation as it is, rather than in the anamorphosis of some ‘ideology,’ i.e., propaganda-line, whether “liberal” or “conservative.”

The real fulcrum of power in our society is neither the votaries of an ideological sect nor the Jews, clear-sighted and shrewd as they are, but the intelligent members of our own race whose one principle is an unmitigated and ruthless egotism, an implacable determination to satisfy their own ambitions and lusts at whatever cost to their race, their nation, and even their own progeny.

And with them we must reckon the bureaucrats, men who, however much or little they may think about the predictable consequences of the policies they carry out, are governed by a corporate determination to sink their probosces ever deeper into the body politic from which they draw their nourishment.

Neither of these groups can be regarded as being “Liberal” or as having any other political attitude from conviction. The first are guarded by the lucidity of their minds, and the second by their collective interests, from adhesion to any ideology or other superstition.

Bureaucracies contain, of course, ambitious men who are climbing upward. One thinks of the bureaucrats who, shortly before the “Battle of the Bulge” in the last days of 1944, were openly distressed “lest a premature victory in Europe compromise our social gains at home,” meaning, of course, that they were afraid that peace might break out before they had climbed another rung on their way to real power.

After the defeat of Japan, one of them, a major in the ever-growing battalions of chair-borne troops, too precious to be distressed by such nasty things as fighting battles, frankly lamented his hard luck: if only the war had lasted another three months, and a suitable number of Americans been killed, he would have been promoted to colonel and would also have a “command” that would have qualified him as the foremost expert in his field and thus assured his prosperity after the evil day on which he would have to face the hardships of peace.

This attitude may not be admirable, but it is quite common and a political force of the first magnitude, which it would be childish to ignore. It is not, of course, peculiar to the United States. When the National Socialists came to power in Germany, they had many enthusiastic adherents of the same type, who, after the defeat of their nation, did not have to be tortured to become witnesses to the “evils of Nazism” and endorse any lie desired by the brutal conquerors. ~ End of Part II

“ … Unmitigated egotism, which is necessarily a prime factor on all the higher levels of society in a “democracy,” is a political force with which one cannot cope directly; one can only attack the masks that are worn in public.”

What Is ‘Liberalism’? – Part III

The attitude, though especially prevalent in One thinks of the Popes who are reported to have told their intimates, “How much profit this fable of Christ has brought us!” And the same realistic appraisal of the main chance was doubtless present in many ecclesiastics who did not reach the top or did not have so much confidence in the discretion of their immediate associates.

Unmitigated egotism, which is necessarily a prime factor on all the higher levels of society in a “democracy,” is a political force with which one cannot cope directly; one can only attack the masks that are worn in public. It is, however, an obstacle that can be circumvented and one which could become an asset. The only strategic consideration here is represented by the truism, “nothing succeeds like success”.  Our formidable enemies today will become our enthusiastic allies tomorrow, if it appears that we are likely to succeed.

I speak, of course, only of members of our race, but the most competent and acute “Liberals,” who today declaim most eloquently about the “underprivileged” and “world peace,” could become tomorrow the most eloquent champions of the hierarchical principle (with which they secretly agree) and a guerre l’outrance against our enemies, if their calculations of the probable future were changed. And, as the Jews well know, the great humanitarian, whose soul shudders today at the very thought of insufficient veneration of the Jews, could become tomorrow grateful to the Jews. (…) As Gracián says, the prudent man will ascertain where power really lies, in order to use those who have it and to spurn those who have it not.

If one wishes to talk about principles or even long-range objectives to the representatives of this extremely powerful political force, one should wear motley and cap with bells; the only arguments that will be cogent to them are of the kind that always taught the Reverend Bishop Talleyrand precisely when it would be profitable to kick his less nimble associates in the teeth.

Some historians claim, and it may be true, that Talleyrand had principles. If so, he never let them interfere with his conduct. He was a man of great talent and perspicacity, and he always found the right moment and right way to join the winning side in time for it to boost him yet higher. When age at last forced his retirement, he was equally adroit in conciliating impressionable historians by simulating regret for the methods by which he had attained eminence. He is one of the comparatively few perfect models for brilliant and pragmatic young men today.

Many of my conservative readers will find this fact disagreeable or even depressing, but I trust they will not dream of resuscitating an etiolated religion, and will not count too heavily on the spiritual effects of a possible restoration of racial self-respect and sanity. If the fact is unpleasant per se, it is also the basis for some cautious optimism, since it leaves open the possibility that movement on behalf of our race, if it ever seems likely to succeed, could quickly become an avalanche.

In certain circumstances — not likely, perhaps, but possible — the despised “racist” of today could be astounded by the discovery that an overwhelming majority of the bureaucracy and of the White men in power above it had always been with him in heart. The sudden conversions will not necessarily be hypocritical, for it is quite likely that there is now such a majority which, ceteris paribus, would prefer to belong to a virile race rather than a dying one. ~ End of Part III

But remember the proviso, ceteris paribus: no personal sacrifices, no risks.

An excerpt from Dr. Oliver’s book America’s Decline: The Education of a Conservative(Londinium Press, London, 1981)

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

CAN ‘LIBERALS’ BE EDUCATED?

By Professor Revilo P. Oliver

(Text of an address to the assembled Citizens’ Councils of America in Chattanooga early in 1966)

The first part of the document is cut off for brevity. The complete document link is below.

…But now let us return from this digression to the four random examples of symbiosis that I gave you a few minutes ago. You noted, I am sure, that lucrative swindles, covering two centuries in time, used the same kind of sucker-bait to trap educated nincompoops. That immediately raises the question of how it is possible for such antiquated frauds to be peddled even in academic communities, which  still contain a very considerable number of scholars, who, defying the precepts and examples set by John Dewey and his kind, still believe in truth and intellectual integrity. The answer, of course, is the vast power that the “intellectuals” have attained and ruthlessly exert. Consider for a moment a typical example.

Eight or nine years ago, an American scholar, Mathurin Dondo, wrote, on the basis of a great deal of research in French archives, a biography of Henri de Saint- Simon, who is generally regarded as the founder of modern Socialism.

Now Professor Dondo conscientiously and accurately reported the evidence,  and he show us what kind of man Saint-Simon was. He was, to put it briefly, a pathological liar who seems never to have told the truth about anything when he could possibly avoid it. He was an unprincipled opportunist who lived under every government in France from the *ancien régime* to the Restoration and, more agile in conscience that the Vicar of Bray, he proclaimed that each new government was the realization of his long-cherished ideals—and went on proclaiming it so long as he had a prospect of getting regular handouts from the treasury.

He was a débauché, given to abuse of alcohol, narcotics, and women, and while we may pardon men for almost any sensuality, our stomachs must turn at the hypocrite who makes his vices odious by claiming that his debauches are the result of a high-minded urge to do sociological research.

Saint-Simon was from the first either a conscious fraud or subject to hallucinations, for he used to go into dark rooms and hold long conversations with Charlemagne, who, he said, was his ancestor. Saint-Simon had wonderful revelations in the dark room, reporting, among other things, that Charlemagne’s ghost had joyfully recognized in Saint-Simon the greatest philosopher of the modern world.

Saint-Simon was also a resourceful man with a fine sense of social values: after he had talked a wealthy business man into endowing him with an annual pension, he went on to seduce or compromise that man’s wife and so increase his income by levying secret blackmail on her.

All this—and more—Professor Dondo reports in his book. But at this point he comes up against the pet superstitions of our contemporary “intellectuals.” For 150 years ago Saint-Simon, while extracting fast bucks from boobs—pardon me, while extracting fast francs from humanitarians—put out a lot of bunk that is still fashionable stock-in-trade. He denounced “colonialism” and said that it was the duty of prosperous nations to provide technical and financial assistance to “underdeveloped countries” so as to industrialize the whole world and make everyone as happy as larks.

He proved how awfully simple it was to abolish poverty everywhere by applying “science” to the twin problems of raising everyone’s standard of living and organizing “social justice” everywhere to ensure world peace. He proved conclusively that by 1814 modern weapons had become so destructive that war was “unthinkable,” and he was a vociferous apostle of a “United Nations” to replace war with “world cooperation.” This stale old nonsense, of course, is still the stock-in-trade of the Liberal Establishment, which hasn’t had a new idea, just as it hasn’t learned anything, in 150 years. So what is a biographer of Saint-Simon to do? I quote verbatim from Professor Dondo’s conclusion:
“Saint-Simon, profligate, impulsive, irrational, a plaything of his sensuous whims, victim of his delusions…belonged to the class of eccentric, unbalanced, unstable individuals from whom are recruited poets, reformers, founders of religion. The world’s…salvation comes from the Saint-Simons.”

There you have it, ladies and gentlemen. You have a serious scholar—who, I suspect, knows better—telling you by implication that ethical responsibility and simple honesty, reason and even the ability to distinguish between reality and hallucination, are merely the trammels of earthbound mortals, petty standards that must not be applied to anyone who has contracted—or says that he has contracted — a sanctifying itch to save the world. You have a responsible scholar telling you expressly that the world’s salvation comes from whims, irrationality, and delusions.

You also have an open confession of the intellectual bankruptcy of so-called “liberalism.” It is hard to take the peddlers of such trumpery seriously, so long as one regards them as the merchants of ideas. “Intellectuals” such as Professor Chasles and Mme. d’Urf‚, such as Vrain-Lucas and Casanova and even Saint- Simon, seem, on the whole, harmless, and we may even feel grateful to them for supplying us with many of the funniest true stories in the world. If it were merely  a question of ideas, we could afford to sit back and laugh at the motley carnival of freaks and charlatans that has been touring our world for two centuries and relieving the yokels of their pocket money. If it were merely a question of ideas, such mountebanks could not have seriously disturbed the order and stability of the Western world.

Obviously, we must look beyond the self-styled “intellectuals” so formidable, and here again we find our clearest illustration in the 18th Century. On the first of May, 1776, an elaborate criminal conspiracy was organized by a diseased degenerate named Adam Weishaupt, who was Professor of Law—Canon Law, if you please—in the University of Ingolstadt. The conspiracy was a secret society whose members were known as the *Perfektibilisten*, although they are also called *Illuminati*—a term that we may use so long as we remember that it was also applied to other groups.

Weishaupt’s conspiracy is one about which we know a good deal, because in 1786 the Bavarian government raided one of the local headquarters, seized the files, and published them. The volumes of this publication are now rare, but there are several copies in North America, including one in the Library of Congress.

The purpose of Weishaupt’s conspiracy, as explicitly stated by himself in writing and accepted by his fellows in the inner circle of the organization, was, quite simply, conquest of the world by the destruction of civilization, including specifically in its program such items as the abolition of private property, the abolition of national governments, the abolition of all morality, and the abolition of Christianity and, indeed, of all religion.

Weishaupt’s organization, however, was modelled on the old order of Assassins, which gave to our language that significant word, and was accordingly divided  into grades or degrees of initiation. All members were bound by stringent oaths  and threats of death to both secrecy and blind obedience to all orders that came to them from above, but each grade or degree had its own doctrine. The real purposes of the order were concealed completely from neophytes, and revealed only to  those who had ascended through the preparatory degrees to the inner circle—and promotion from one degree to another was, of course, available only to those who evinced a capacity for progressing at least a stage or two toward the insane  nihilism of the inner circle. The rest were kept, of course, in lower grades proportionate to their capacities. As Weishaupt wrote to his colleagues, urging more intensive recruiting of neophytes:

“These good people swell our numbers and fill our money-box; set yourselves to work; these gentlemen must be made to nibble at the bait…. But this sort of people must always be made to believe that the grade they have reached is the last.” Thus it was that a conspiracy for the destruction of all European nations was able to enlist among its members some of the reigning princes of Germany, and a conspiracy for the abolition of Christianity was able to enlist pious Christians. The latter Weishaupt regarded as the best joke of all. He wrote:

“The most wonderful thing of all is that the distinguished Lutheran and Calvinist theologians who belong to our Order really believe that they see in it the true and genuine mind of the Christian religion. Is there anything that you cannot make men believe?”
The Bavarian branch of the Illuminati was suppressed, at least temporarily, in 1786, but the Bavarian government naturally could do nothing about the branches in other countries, and these preserved their secrets intact.

I am not here concerned with any of the attempts that have been made to sketch the later history of the conspiracy. I am interested only in the ascertained facts attested by the published documents, and in these primarily as an illustration of phenomena that we may expect to find repeated many times in our own society.

Weishaupt’s Illuminati provide us with a perfect working model of conspiratorial activity among “intellectuals,” show how easy it is for adroit criminals to enlist  and manipulate educated suckers, and, above all, bring us face to face with the highly distasteful fact that mankind does produce criminals like Weishaupt and his confederates in the inner circle. All of these are important points, and each would repay detailed examination. In the activities of our so-called “intellectuals” we see time after time clear  indications of conspiratorial cohesiveness and a coordination of efforts that strongly suggests conspiratorial, that is to say central, direction. If, for example, you examine the carefully documented publication of the Veritas Foundation, *Keynes At Harvard*, you cannot escape the authors’ conclusion that “Keynesism is not an economic theory. It is a weapon of political conspiracy.” And you cannot fail to see that the Fabian Socialists have “used the [conspiratorial] techniques of the Communist Party…with the obvious intention of destroying…the [American] Constitution.”

Now without attempting to decide at this time whether the Fabian Socialists are a subsidiary of the Communist Conspiracy or an independent group that happens  to be working for virtually the same ends, we must note the important point that it operates as a conspiracy and ask ourselves whether this coordination of effort can be adequately explained in terms of some blind instinct, such as that which sets a colony of termites to work in harmonious cooperation for the destruction of a house, or whether it can be explained in terms of some preliminary training, such as that which enables a pack of well-trained collies to drive herds of sheep through complicated routes, or whether it presupposes conscious direction from day to day and therefore a secret organization of some kind, formal or informal.

This is an important question, for we see the same kind of phenomenon, less obvious, perhaps, but distinctly perceptible, in almost all areas of activity of our “intellectuals.” They are influential, not as individuals, but as gangs operating for the same general ends, usually with a high degree of coordination. And this coordination becomes really remarkable when it is observed in matters that do not affect an obvious common interest.
Under modern conditions, for example, it may be only natural for a swarm of so-called educators to cooperate perfectly in hunting down their common prey, the taxpayers, and to attack viciously anyone who disturbs them as they sink their probosces deeper and deeper year after year, but what conceivable common interest could they have in abolishing the House Committee on Un-American Activities? What envisaged profit could turn a state-wide gang to turn like a wolf- pack on a superintendent of schools who sponsored a speaker who spoke unkindly of the Communist Conspiracy? Why should one of these packs, as happened in Wisconsin last year, turn of a professor of education and hunt him out of the academic world because he spoke respectfully of the American Constitution and dared to suggest that teachers of American history really ought to read it sometime? How could such a view diminish their annual take from the exploited and enslaved taxpayers of Wisconsin?

I greatly fear that the “intellectuals” shysters are so well organized in the many branches that, whether they all know it or not, are tentacles of a single octopus and therefore subject to a single central control. And, in any case, you can’t hope to educate the shysters: they already know what they are doing. They at least know that they are witch-doctors living by their wits and battening on the credulity of  the American people.

But what about the “intellectual” suckers, the literate and well-meaning dopes like Professor Chasles and Mme. d’Urf‚ and the rest? Can they be educated? Is there anything that we can teach them from books or show them by reason and argument to make them less fatally gullible? Or, if that cannot be done, are they at least intelligent enough to learn from experience when they *see* that they have been hoaxed?

Some, no doubt. There have been several recent books, by John Dos Passos and Edmund Wilson, for example, by honest “liberal intellectuals” who give most encouraging indications that they are beginning to grow up, now that they are past 60 or 70. But the proportion, I am afraid, is small. I do wish that one of these busy- bodies who are forever making “statistical studies” about nonsense would make a statistical study that would mean something—a statistical study of the capacity of “intellectuals” to learn the obvious.

There is abundant material for dozens of studies of that kind. here is just one example of what could be determined with some mathematical precision and by the expenditure of much less effort than goes into some learned university studies of, for example, the size of pancake preferred by men as distinct from the size preferred by women.

As we all know now, the International Communist Conspiracy, coordinating the efforts of its divisional headquarters in New York, Washington, and Moscow, used your money to install in Cuba, in January, 1959, a notorious Communist agent named Fidel Castro, and started to work immediately to install military and naval bases, including submarine pens and ballistic missiles, 90 miles from our shores.

Of course, the Conspiracy through its various outlets, such as the *New York Times* and other lie-papers, poured out hogwash about “agrarian reformers” and “the George Washington of Cuba.” And it was only to be expected that our “intellectuals” who had swallowed exactly the same swill a few years before when the United States delivered China to the Communist Conspiracy, lapped it up again with relish.

Now, I am not complaining about that. It is true that there was no possible doubt about the fact that Castro was a Communist agent carrying out a Communist operation: In a speech which some of you may have heard, it takes me a full hour to give a condensed r‚sum‚ of the evidence that was available to everyone before 1959—all of it on the public record and some of it in the files of every large newspaper—which proved, beyond all peradventure of doubt, that Castro and all  of his lieutenants were Bolsheviks. But I not going to say that our “liberals” should have looked at the evidence. As we all know, “intellectuals” are equipped with oversize brains that perpetually fizz with “social ideals,” so perhaps it would not  be fair to expect them to find out what they are talking about.

As soon as Castro came to power in Cuba, Mr. Robert Welch and Dr. J.B. Mathews in the pages of *American Opinion*, and, if you will pardon me for mentioning, I, in speeches before the Daughters of the American Revolution and other organizations, pointed out the obvious facts about Castro and the Soviet takeover of Cuba. And you may remember how the “liberal intellectuals” began to shriek and spit at us. But I am not complaining about that.

We all know that “intellectuals” have mighty minds capable of remembering the phrases that the Communists teach them, and so, whenever they are disturbed by facts, they naturally start shrieking “reactionary,” “Fascist,” “right-wing  extremist,” “racist,” and the like. And one shouldn’t mind their spitting. After all, cats do that, you know. And for that matter, benevolent Nature has equipped another puny creature, the skunk, with a means of making itself important.

So I shall not be so extravagant as to suggest that our “intellectuals” could have learned the obvious in 1958 or 1959 or 1960 or most of 1961, although, of course, the evidence not only about Castro but about the Soviet installation of missiles and other weapons aimed at the United States accumulated day by day. Big minds shouldn’t be bothered with evidence. But here is the point that is worth  considering.

During the summer and autumn of 1961 the Communists subsidiary called “Fair Play for Cuba,” which, of course, had been thoroughly exposed as a Communist front by that time, sent up smoke-screens for Comrade Fidel on a national scale, using, of course, a great many “liberal intellectuals” in the faculties of our colleges and universities. Those persons went on record publicly as endorsing Castro, guaranteeing that he was a sweet and lovely “democrat” and “social reformer,” and even demanding in some cases that he be given a pipe-line direct to the Treasury  in Washington. As I say, these people went on record publicly, signing manifestos and inserting full-page advertisements in newspapers. In some universities, as many as 300 individuals connected with the faculty or administration went on record in that way. The total throughout the country must be several thousand.

Now undoubtedly the organizers of those manifestos and some of the signers knew very well what they were doing. They said to one another, “We have got to keep those American boobs quiet until the Soviet bases are all completed; as soon as that is done, we’ll say “Oops, they’s Communists after all in Cuba,” and we’ll run out and scare the boobs by yelling “atomic holocaust,” “annihilation of mankind,” “negotiated peace,” “better red than dead.”

But it is only charitable to suppose that the majority of the signers of those manifestos were just intellectual suckers who actually believed the tripe to which they affixed their names.

Now, as you may remember, in December 1961, sweet Fidel make monkeys out of those supermen by going on the radio and boasting that he had been a  Bolshevik ever since he was a boy.

At that point, the intellectual suckers must have realized that they had been had. The whole list of signers stood exposed before the American public, including their own colleagues and the residents of the communities in which their diploma- mills were located—stood exposed as either traitors or jackasses. I don’t see how the suckers could have failed to feel embarrassed.

When a normally intelligent human being has been swindled, he sits down and reviews very carefully the sources of information on which he relied, the weaknesses in himself, and the tricks of the confidence men who took him in, and he tries to make sure that he will not be caught again in the same way. That’s what ordinarily intelligent and prudent people do, and I should think that that is not too much to expect of “intellectuals.”

But it is a curious and perhaps significant fact that, so far as I have been able to learn, not one peep was heard from all those thousands of super-brains the day after Castro made his announcement—or the week after—or the month after—or the year after—or down to the present time. Now it’s possible, of course, that the poor suckers were so embarrassed that they kept quiet in the hope that their friends and neighbors would charitably forget their humiliation and disgrace.

So that is why I should like to see some investigator make the sociological study that I have suggested. All he would have to do is compile the names, which, as I have said, are all on record in print, and then ascertain how many of the signers are still out Communist-fronting and whooping it up for current and unmistakable Communists operations, such as “disarmament” or the race war now being waged against white Americans.

Until such a statistical investigation has been made, it would be a little venturesome to guess what percentage of “liberal intellectuals” are intelligent enough to learn from their own experience. And certainly those who cannot learn in that way could never be educated in any other way.

Without statistics, any opinion that may be offered must necessarily be a mere guess. Now I certainly do not want to seem discouraging, ladies and gentlemen, but my best guess, for what it may be worth, is that among the honest “intellectuals,” the percentage of recovery is comparatively small. They may mean well, but, like confirmed alcoholics, they have acquired the habit of escape from reality into the Wonderland Behind the Looking Glass. If candid, they would have to say of themselves what one of their idols, Jean- Jacques Rousseau, admitted to Boswell in an unguarded moment: “I cannot tolerate the world as it is; I must live in a world of fantasies.”

Such habits, once acquired, are extremely hard to break. That is why I fear that many “liberal intellectuals,” like so many alcoholics, just can’t get along without their hooch!

This article originally appeared in Liberty Bell magazine, published monthly by George P. Dietz since September 1973. For subscription information please write to Liberty Bell Publications, Post Office Box 21, Reedy WV 25270 USA; or call 304-927-4486.

see also: Psychology Scam imported to the U.S.A. by Jews, who losing their parasitic opportunities in Germany after they declared War on Germany in 1933, where in heaven twisting and shaping the minds of Americans forever!

https://archive.org/details/CanLiberalsBeEducated

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

*

The Liberal Double -Talk & its Lexical and Legal Consequences

by Tom Sunic on August 25, 2007

Language is a potent weapon for legitimizing any political system. In many instances the language in the liberal West is reminiscent of the communist language of the old Soviet Union, although liberal media and politicians use words and phrases that are less abrasive and less value loaded than words used by the old communist officials and their state-run media. In Western academe, media, and public places, a level of communication has been reached which avoids confrontational discourse and which resorts to words devoid of substantive meaning. Generally speaking, the liberal system shuns negative hyperbolas and skirts around heavy-headed qualifiers that the state-run media of the Soviet Union once used in fostering its brand of conformity and its version of political correctness. By contrast, the media in the liberal system, very much in line with its ideology of historical optimism and progress, are enamored with the overkill of morally uplifting adjectives and adverbs, often displaying words and expressions such as “free speech,” “human rights,” “tolerance,” and “diversity.” There is a wide spread assumption among modern citizens of the West that the concepts behind these flowery words must be taken as something self-evident.

There appears to be a contradiction. If free speech is something “self- evident” in liberal democracies, then the word “self-evidence” does not need to be repeated all the time; it can be uttered only once, or twice at the most. The very adjective “self-evident,” so frequent in the parlance of liberal politicians may in fact hide some uncertainties and even some self-doubt on the part of those who employ it. With constant hammering of these words and expressions, particularly words such as “human rights,” and “tolerance”, the liberal system may be hiding something; hiding, probably, the absence of genuine free speech. To illustrate this point more clearly it may be advisable for an average citizen living in the liberal system to look at the examples of the communist rhetoric which was once saturated with similar freedom-loving terms while, in reality, there was little of freedom and even less free-speech.

Verbal Mendacity

The postmodern liberal discourse has its own arsenal of words that one can dub with the adjective “Orwellian”, or better yet “double-talk”, or simply call it verbal mendacity. The French use the word “wooden language” (la langue de bois) and the German “cement” or “concrete” language (Betonsprache) for depicting an arcane bureaucratic and academic lingo that never reflects political reality and whose main purpose is to lead masses to flawed conceptualization of political reality. Modern authors, however, tend to avoid the pejorative term “liberal double-talk,” preferring instead the arcane label of “the non-cognitive language which is used for manipulative or predictive analyses.”

(1) Despite its softer and non abrasive version, liberal double-talk, very similar to the communist “wooden language,” has a very poor conceptual universe. Similar to the communist vernacular, it is marked by pathos and attempts to avoid the concrete. On the one hand, it tends to be aggressive and judgmental towards its critics yet, on the other, it is full of eulogies, especially regarding its multiracial experiments. It resorts to metaphors which are seldom based on real historical analogies and are often taken out of historical context, notably when depicting its opponents with generic “shut-up” words such as “racists”, “anti-Semites”, or “fascists”.

The choice of grammatical embellishers is consistent with the all-prevailing, liberal free market which, as a rule, must employ superlative adjectives for the free commerce of its goods and services. Ironically, there was some advantage of living under the communist linguistic umbrella. Behind the communist semiotics in Eastern Europe, there always loomed popular doubt which greatly helped ordinary citizens to decipher the political lie, and distinguish between friend and foe. The communist meta-language could best be described as a reflection of a make-belief system in which citizens never really believed and of which everybody, including communist party dignitaries, made fun of in private. Eventually, verbal mendacity spelled the death of communism both in the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe. [*Communism is NOT DEAD, Mr. Sunic!]

By contrast, in the liberal system, politicians and scholars, let alone the masses, still believe in every written word of the democratic discourse.

(2) There seem to be far less heretics, or for that matter dissidents who dare critically examine the syntax and semantics of the liberal double-talk. Official communication in the West perfectly matches the rule of law and can, therefore, rarely trigger a violent or a negative response among citizens. Surely, the liberal system allows mass protests and public demonstrations; it allows its critics to openly voice their disapproval of some flawed foreign policy decision. Different political and infra-political groups, hostile to the liberal system, often attempt to publicly drum-up public support on behalf or against some issue – be it against American military involvement in the Middle East, or against the fraudulent behavior of a local political representative. But, as an unwritten rule, seldom can one see rallies or mass demonstrations in Australia, America, or in Europe that would challenge the substance of parliamentary democracy and liberalism, let alone discard the ceremonial language of the liberal ruling class. Staging open protests with banners “Down with liberal democracy!, or “Parliamentary democracy sucks”!, would hardly be tolerated by the system. These verbal icons represent a “no entry zone” in liberalism.

The shining examples of the double-talk in liberalism are expressions such as “political correctness”, “hate speech,” “diversity,” “market democracy,” “ethnic sensitivity training” among many, many others. It is often forgotten, though, that the coinage of these expressions is relatively recent and that their etymology remains of dubious origin. These expressions appeared in the modern liberal dictionary in the late 70s and early 80s and their architects are widely ignored. Seldom has a question been raised as to who had coined those words and given them their actual meaning. What strikes the eyes is the abstract nature of these expressions. The expression “political correctness” first appeared in the American language and had no explicit political meaning; it was, rather, a fun- related, derogatory expression designed for somebody who was not trendy, such as a person smoking cigarettes or having views considered not to be “in” or “cool.” Gradually, and particularly after the fall of communism, the conceptualization of political correctness, acquired a very serious and disciplinary meaning.

Examples of political eulogy and political vilification in liberalism are often couched in sentimentalist vs. animalistic words and syllabi, respectively. When the much vaunted free press in liberalism attempts to glorify some event or some personality that fits into the canons of political rectitude, it will generally use a neutral language with sparse superlatives, with the prime intention not to subvert its readers, such as: “The democratic circles in Ukraine, who have been subject to governmental harassment, are propping up their rank and file to enable them electoral success.” Such laudatory statements must be well-hidden behind neutral words. By contrast when attempting to silence critics of the system who challenge the foundation of liberal democracy, the ruling elites and their frequently bankrolled journalists will use more direct words – something in the line of old Soviet stylistics, e.g.: “With their ultranationalist agenda and hate-mongering these rowdy individuals on the street of Sydney or Quebec showed once again their parentage in the monstrosity of the Nazi legacy.” Clearly, the goal is to disqualify the opponent by using an all pervasive and hyperreal word “Nazism.” “A prominent American conservative author Paul Gottfried writes: “In fact, the European Left, like Canadian and Australian Left, pushes even further the trends adapted from American sources: It insists on criminalizing politically correct speech as an incitement to “fascists excess.”

(3) The first conclusion one can draw is that liberalism can better fool the masses than communism. Due to torrents of meaningless idioms, such as “human rights” and “democracy” on the one hand, and “Nazism” and “fascism” on the other, the thought control and intellectual repression in liberalism functions far better. Therefore, in the liberal “soft” system, a motive for a would-be heretic to overthrow the system is virtually excluded. The liberal system is posited on historical finitude simply because there is no longer the communist competitor who could come up with its own real or surreal “freedom narrative.” Thus, liberalism gives an impression of being the best system – simply because there are no other competing political narratives on the horizon.

What are the political implications of the liberal double-talk? It must be pointed out that liberal language is the reflection of the overall socio-demographic situation in the West. Over the last twenty years all Western states, including Australia, have undergone profound social and demographic changes; they have become “multicultural” systems. (multicultural being just a euphemism for a“ multiracial” state). As a result of growing racial diversity the liberal elites are aware that in order to uphold social consensus and prevent the system from possible balkanization and civil war, new words and new syntax have to be invented. It was to be expected that these new words would soon find their way into modern legislations. More and more countries in the West are adopting laws that criminalize free speech and that make political communication difficult. In fact, liberalism, similar to its communist antecedents, it is an extremely fragile system. It excludes strong political beliefs by calling its critics “radicals,” which, as a result, inevitably leads to political conformity and intellectual duplicity. Modern public discourse in the West is teeming with abstract and unclear Soviet-style expressions such as “ethnic sensitivity training”, “affirmative action”, “antifascism”, “diversity”, and “holocaust studies”. In order to disqualify its critics the liberal system is resorting more and more to negative expression such as “anti-Semites”, or ” “neo-Nazi”, etc. This is best observed in Western higher education and the media which, over the last thirty years, have transformed themselves into places of high commissariats of political correctness, having on their board diverse “committees on preventing racial perjuries”, “ethnic diversity training programs”, and in which foreign racial awareness courses have become mandatory for the faculty staff and employees. No longer are professors required to demonstrate extra skills in their subject matters; instead, they must parade with sentimental and self-deprecatory statements which, as a rule, must denigrate the European cultural heritage. By constantly resorting to the generic word “Nazism” and by using the prefix “anti”, the system actually shows its negative legitimacy. One can conclude that even if all anti-Semites and all fascists were to disappear, most likely the system would invent them by creating and recreating these words. These words have become symbols of absolute evil.

The third point about the liberal discourse that needs to be stressed is its constant recourse to the imagery of hyperreality. By using the referent of “diversity”, diverse liberal groups and infra-political tribes prove in fact their sameness, making dispassionate observers easily bored and tired. Nowhere is this sign of verbal hyperreality more visible than in the constant verbal and visual featuring of Jewish Holocaust symbolism which, ironically, is creating the same saturation process among the audience as was once the case with communist victimhood. The rhetoric and imagery of Holocaust no longer function “as a site of annihilation but a medium of dissuasion.”

(4) The Legal Trap. Other than as a simple part of daily jargon the expression “hate speech” does not exist in any European or American legislation. Once again the distinction needs to be made between the legal field and lexical field, as different penal codes of different Western countries are framed in a far more sophisticated language. For instance, criminal codes in continental Europe have all introduced laws that punish individuals uttering critical remarks against the founding myths of the liberal system. The best example is Germany, a country which often brags itself to be the most eloquent and most democratic Constitution on Earth. This is at least what the German ruling elites say about their judiciary, and which does not depart much from what Stalin himself said about the Soviet Constitution of 1936. The Constitution of Germany is truly superb, yet in order to get the whole idea of freedom of speech in Germany one needs to examine the country’s Criminal Code and its numerous agencies that are in charge of its implementation. Thus, Article 5 of the German Constitution (The Basic Law) guarantees “freedom of speech.” However, Germany’s Criminal Code, Section 130, and Subsection 3, appear to be in stark contradiction to the German Basic Law. Under Section 130, of the German criminal code a German citizen, but also a non-German citizen, may be convicted, if found guilty, of breaching the law of “agitation of the people” (sedition laws). It is a similar case with Austria. It must be emphasized that there is no mention in the Criminal Code of the Federal Republic of Germany of the Holocaust or the Nazi extermination of the Jews. But based on the context of the Criminal Code this Section can arbitrarily be applied when sentencing somebody who belittles or denies National- Socialist crimes or voices critical views of the modern historiography. Moreover a critical examination of the role of the Allies during World War may also bring some ardent historian into legal troubles.

The German language is a highly inflected language as opposed to French and English which are contextual languages and do not allow deliberate tinkering with prefixes or suffixes, or the creation of arbitrary compound words. By contrast, one can always create new words in the German language, a language often awash with a mass of neologisms. Thus, the title of the Article 130 of the German Criminal Code Volksverhetzung is a bizarre neologism and very difficult compound word which is hard to translate into English, and which on top, can be conceptualized in many opposing ways. (Popular taunting, baiting, bullying of the people, public incitement etc..). Its Subsection 3, though is stern and quite explicit and reads in English as follows:

“Whoever publicly or in a meeting approves of, denies or renders harmless an act committed under the rule of National Socialism… shall be punished with imprisonment for not more than five years or a fine.”

If by contrast the plight of German civilians after World War II is openly discussed by a German academic or simply by some free spirit, he may run the risk of being accused of trivializing the official assumption of sole German guilt during World War II. Depending on a local legislation of some federal state in Germany an academic, although not belittling National Socialist crimes may, by inversion, fall under suspicion of “downplaying” or “trivializing” Nazi crimes – and may be fined or, worse, land in prison. Any speech or article, for instance, that may be related to events surrounding World War may have a negative anticipatory value in the eyes of the liberal inquisitors, that is to say in the eyes of the all prevailing Agency for the protection of the German Constitution (Verfassungschutz). Someone’s words, as in the old Soviet system, can be easily misconstrued and interpreted as an indirect belittlement of crimes committed by National-Socialists.

Germany is a half-sovereign country still legally at war with the USA, and whose Constitution was written under the auspices of the Allies. Yet unlike other countries in the European Union, Germany has something unprecedented. Both on the state and federal levels it has that special government agency in charge of the surveillance of the Constitution. i.e., and whose sole purpose is to keep track of journalists, academics and right-wing politicians and observe the purity of their parlance and prose. The famed “Office for the Protection of the Constitution” (“Verfassungschutz”), as the German legal scholar Josef Schüsselburner writes, “is basically an internal secret service with seventeen branch agencies (one on the level of the federation and sixteen others for each constituent federal state). In the last analysis, this boils down to saying that only the internal secret service is competent to declare a person an internal enemy of the state.”

(5) In terms of free speech, contemporary France is not much better. In 1990 a law was passed on the initiative of the socialist deputy Laurent Fabius and the communist deputy Jean-Claude Gayssot. That law made it a criminal offence, punishable by a fine of up to 40,000 euros, or one year in prison, or both, to contest the truth of any of the “crimes against humanity” with which the German National Socialist leaders were charged by the London Agreement of 1945, and which was drafted for the Nuremberg Trials.

(6) Similar to the German Criminal Code Section 130, there is no reference to the Holocaust or Jews in this portion of the French legislation. But at least the wording of the French so-called Fabius-Gayssot law is more explicit than the fluid German word “Volksverhetzung.” It clearly states that any Neo-Nazi activity having as a result the belittling of Nazi crimes is a criminal offence. With France and German, being the main pillars of the European Union these laws have already given extraordinary power to local judges of EU member countries when pronouncing verdicts against anti-liberal heretics.

For fear of being called confrontational or racist, or an anti-Semite, a European politician or academic is more and more forced to exercise self-censorship. The role of intellectual elites in Europe has never been a shining one. However, with the passage of these “hate laws” into the European legislations, the cultural and academic ambiance in Europe has become sterile. Aside from a few individuals, European academics and journalists, let alone politicians, must be the masters of self-censorship and self-delusion, as well as great impresarios of their own postmodern mimicry. As seen in the case of the former communist apparatchiks in Eastern Europe, they are likely to discard their ideas as soon as these cease to be trendy, or when another political double-talk becomes fashionable.

The modern politically-correct language, or liberal double-talk, is often used for separating the ignorant grass-roots masses from the upper level classes; it is the superb path to cultural and social ascension. The censorial intellectual climate in the Western media, so similar to the old Soviet propaganda, bears witness that liberal elites, at the beginning of the third millennium, are increasingly worried about the future identity of the countries in which they rule. For sure, the liberal system doesn’t yet need truncheons or police force in order to enforce its truth. It can remove rebels, heretics, or simply academics, by using smear campaigns, or accusing them of “guilt by association,” and by removing them from important places of decision – be it in academia, the political arena, or the media. Once the spirit of the age changes, the high priests of this new postmodern inquisition will likely be the first to dump their current truths and replace them with other voguish “self-evident” truths. This was the case with the communist ruling class, which after the break down of communism quickly recycled itself into fervent apostles of liberalism.

This will again be the case with modern liberal elites, who will not hesitate to turn into rabid racists and anti-Semites, as soon as new “self evident” truths appear on the horizon. (Empresas Politicas (Madrid) n°10/11, 1er/2°, semester 2008, pp. 229-234)
……………………….
This article is based on Dr. Sunic’s speech at the Sydney Forum, Sydney, Australia, August 25, 2007. Dr. Tom Sunic is a former US professor in political science and author. His latest book is: Homo americanus: Child of the Postmodern Age (2007).

http://www.amazon.com/Homo-americanus-Child-Postmodern-Age/dp/1419659847

Notes:
1. A. James Gregor, Metascience and Politics (1971 London: Transaction, 2004), p.318.
2. Alan Charles Kors, “Thought Reform: The Orwellian Implications of Today’s College Orientation,” in Reasononline, (March 2000). See the link: http://reason.com/0003/fe.ak.thought.shtml
3. Paul Gottfried, The Strange Death of Marxism (Columbia and London: University of Missouri Press, 2005), p.13.
4. Jean Baudrillard, The Evil Demons of Images (University of Sydney: The Power Inst. of Fine Arts, 1988), p.24.
5. Josef Schüsslburner, Demokratie-Sonderweg Bundesrepublik (Lindenblatt Media Verlag. Künzell, 2004), p. p.233
6. See Journal officiel de la République française, 14 juillet 1990 page 8333loi n° 90-615.

[* comment by the poster]

LIBERALISM LEADS TO COLLAPSE

A Message To The Spartans Of The Spirit. . .

Arranged by Dr. Ingrid Zuendel

“ … At present, the “Liberals” are limited to shrieking and spitting when they are confronted with inconvenient facts …”

What Is ‘Liberalism’? – Part I

 

An excerpt from Dr. Oliver’s book America’s Decline: The Education of a Conservative(Londinium Press, London, 1981)

The hypocrisy of the professed devotion to scientific knowledge was made unmistakable when the “Liberals” began their frantic and often hysterical efforts to suppress scientific knowledge about genetics and the obviously innate differences between the different human species and between the individuals of any given species.

At present, the “Liberals” are limited to shrieking and spitting when they are confronted with inconvenient facts, but no one who has heard them in action can have failed to notice how exasperated they are by the limitations that have thus far prevented them from burning wicked biologists and other rational men at the stake. (…)

“Liberals” rant about “human rights” with the fervor of an evangelist who appeals to what Moses purportedly said, but a moment’s thought suffices to show that, in the absence of a god who might be presumed to have decreed such rights, the only rights are those which the citizens of a stable society, by agreement or by a long usage that has acquired the force of law, bestow on themselves; and while the citizens may show kindness to aliens, slaves, and horses, these beings can have no rights.

Furthermore, in societies that have been so subjugated by conquest or the artful manipulation of masses that individuals no longer have constitutional rights that are not subject to revocation by violence or in the name of “social welfare,” there are no rights, strictly speaking, and therefore no citizens — only masses existing in the state of indiscriminate equality of which “Liberals” dream and, of course, a state of de facto slavery, which their masters may deem it expedient, as in the United States at present, to make relatively light until the animals are broken to the yoke.

“Liberals” babble about “One World,” which is to be a “universal democracy” and is “inevitable,” and they thus describe it in the very terms in which the notion was formulated, two thousand years ago, by Philo Judaeus, when he cleverly gave a Stoic coloring to the old Jewish dream of a globe in which all the lower races would obey the masters whom Yahweh, by covenant, appointed to rule over them. (…)

This maudlin preoccupation with biological refuse, usually sicklied over with such nonsense words as ‘underprivileged [!],’ would make sense, if it had been decreed by a god who perversely chose to become incarnate among the most [unpleasant] of human races and to select his disciples from among the illiterate dregs of even that peuplade, but since the “Liberals” claim to have rejected belief in such a divinity, their superstition is exposed as having no basis other than their own resentment of their betters and their professional interest in exploiting the gullibility of their compatriots.


“ … When the National Socialists came to power in Germany, they had many enthusiastic adherents of the same type, who, after the defeat of their nation, did not have to be tortured to become witnesses to the “evils of Nazism” and endorse any lie desired by the brutal conquerors.”
 

What Is ‘Liberalism’? – Part II


In the Eighteenth Century, Christians whose thinking was cerebral rather than glandular, perceived that their faith was incompatible with observed reality and reluctantly abandoned it. A comparable development is taking place in the waning faith of “Liberalism,” and we may be sure that, despite the cult’s appeal to masses that yearn for an effortless and mindless existence on the animal level, and despite the prolonged use of public schools to deform the minds of all children with “Liberal” myths, the cult would have disappeared, but for the massive support given it today, as to the Christian cults in the ancient world, by the Jews, who have, for more than two thousand years, battened on the venality, credulity, and vices of the races they despise.

There is one crucial fact that we must not overlook, if we are to see the political situation as it is, rather than in the anamorphosis of some ‘ideology,’ i.e., propaganda-line, whether “liberal” or “conservative.”

The real fulcrum of power in our society is neither the votaries of an ideological sect nor the Jews, clear-sighted and shrewd as they are, but the intelligent members of our own race whose one principle is an unmitigated and ruthless egotism, an implacable determination to satisfy their own ambitions and lusts at whatever cost to their race, their nation, and even their own progeny.

And with them we must reckon the bureaucrats, men who, however much or little they may think about the predictable consequences of the policies they carry out, are governed by a corporate determination to sink their probosces ever deeper into the body politic from which they draw their nourishment.

Neither of these groups can be regarded as being “Liberal” or as having any other political attitude from conviction. The first are guarded by the lucidity of their minds, and the second by their collective interests, from adhesion to any ideology or other superstition.

Bureaucracies contain, of course, ambitious men who are climbing upward. One thinks of the bureaucrats who, shortly before the “Battle of the Bulge” in the last days of 1944, were openly distressed “lest a premature victory in Europe compromise our social gains at home,” meaning, of course, that they were afraid that peace might break out before they had climbed another rung on their way to real power.

After the defeat of Japan, one of them, a major in the ever-growing battalions of chair-borne troops, too precious to be distressed by such nasty things as fighting battles, frankly lamented his hard luck: if only the war had lasted another three months, and a suitable number of Americans been killed, he would have been promoted to colonel and would also have a “command” that would have qualified him as the foremost expert in his field and thus assured his prosperity after the evil day on which he would have to face the hardships of peace.

This attitude may not be admirable, but it is quite common and a political force of the first magnitude, which it would be childish to ignore. It is not, of course, peculiar to the United States. When the National Socialists came to power in Germany, they had many enthusiastic adherents of the same type, who, after the defeat of their nation, did not have to be tortured to become witnesses to the “evils of Nazism” and endorse any lie desired by the brutal conquerors.


“ … Unmitigated egotism, which is necessarily a prime factor on all the higher levels of society in a “democracy,” is a political force with which one cannot cope directly; one can only attack the masks that are worn in public.”

What Is ‘Liberalism’? – Part III


The attitude, though especially prevalent in One thinks of the Popes who are reported to have told their intimates, “How much profit this fable of Christ has brought us!” And the same realistic appraisal of the main chance was doubtless present in many ecclesiastics who did not reach the top or did not have so much confidence in the discretion of their immediate associates.

Unmitigated egotism, which is necessarily a prime factor on all the higher levels of society in a “democracy,” is a political force with which one cannot cope directly; one can only attack the masks that are worn in public. It is, however, an obstacle that can be circumvented and one which could become an asset. The only strategic consideration here is represented by the truism, “nothing succeeds like success”.  Our formidable enemies today will become our enthusiastic allies tomorrow, if it appears that we are likely to succeed.

I speak, of course, only of members of our race, but the most competent and acute “Liberals,” who today declaim most eloquently about the “underprivileged” and “world peace,” could become tomorrow the most eloquent champions of the hierarchical principle (with which they secretly agree) and a guerre l’outrance against our enemies, if their calculations of the probable future were changed. And, as the Jews well know, the great humanitarian, whose soul shudders today at the very thought of insufficient veneration of the Jews, could become tomorrow grateful to the Jews. (…) As Gracián says, the prudent man will ascertain where power really lies, in order to use those who have it and to spurn those who have it not.

If one wishes to talk about principles or even long-range objectives to the representatives of this extremely powerful political force, one should wear motley and cap with bells; the only arguments that will be cogent to them are of the kind that always taught the Reverend Bishop Talleyrand precisely when it would be profitable to kick his less nimble associates in the teeth.

Some historians claim, and it may be true, that Talleyrand had principles. If so, he never let them interfere with his conduct. He was a man of great talent and perspicacity, and he always found the right moment and right way to join the winning side in time for it to boost him yet higher. When age at last forced his retirement, he was equally adroit in conciliating impressionable historians by simulating regret for the methods by which he had attained eminence. He is one of the comparatively few perfect models for brilliant and pragmatic young men today.

Many of my conservative readers will find this fact disagreeable or even depressing, but I trust they will not dream of resuscitating an etiolated religion, and will not count too heavily on the spiritual effects of a possible restoration of racial self-respect and sanity. If the fact is unpleasant per se, it is also the basis for some cautious optimism, since it leaves open the possibility that movement on behalf of our race, if it ever seems likely to succeed, could quickly become an avalanche.

In certain circumstances — not likely, perhaps, but possible — the despised “racist” of today could be astounded by the discovery that an overwhelming majority of the bureaucracy and of the White men in power above it had always been with him in heart. The sudden conversions will not necessarily be hypocritical, for it is quite likely that there is now such a majority which, ceteris paribus, would prefer to belong to a virile race rather than a dying one.

But remember the proviso,ceteris paribus: no personal sacrifices, no risks.

An excerpt from Dr. Oliver’s book America’s Decline: The Education of a Conservative(Londinium Press, London, 1981)

This entry was posted in Bolshevism-Bolshevismus, Communism Jewish-Kommunismus Juedisch, Ingrid Rimland Zuendel, Kevin MacDonald, Liberalism, Political Philosopies-Politisch and tagged , . Bookmark the permalink.