Liberalism
by
Professor Revilo P. Oliver (Londinium Press, London, 1981)
(Excerpted
from America's Decline: The Education of a Conservative)
"Liberalism" is a succedaneous religion that was
devised late in the Eighteenth Century and it originally included a vague deism.
Like the Christianity from which it sprang, it split into various sects and
heresies, such as Jacobinism, Fourierism, Owenism, Fabian Socialism, Marxism,
and the like. The doctrine of the "Liberal" cults is essentially
Christianity divested of its belief in supernatural beings, but retaining its
social superstitions, which were originally derived from, and necessarily depend
on, the supposed wishes of a god. This "Liberalism," the residue of
Christianity, is, despite the fervor with which its votaries hold their faith,
merely a logical absurdity, a series of deductions from a premise that has been
denied.
The dependence of the "Liberal" cults on a blind
and irrational faith was long obscured or concealed by their professed esteem
for objective science, which they used as a polemic weapon against orthodox
Christianity, much as the Protestants took up the Copernican restoration of
heliocentric astronomy as a weapon against the Catholics, who had imprudently
decided that the earth could be stopped from revolving about the sun in defiance
of Holy Writ by burning intelligent men at the stake or torturing them until
they recanted. Pious Protestants would naturally have preferred a cozy little
earth, such as their god described in their holy book, but they saw the
advantage of appealing to our racial respect for observed reality to enlist
support, while simultaneously stigmatizing their rivals as ignorant
obscurantists and ridiculous ranters.
The votaries of "Liberalism" would have much
preferred to have the various human species specially created to form one race
endowed with the fictitious qualities dear to "Liberal" fancy, but the
cultists saw the advantage of endorsing the findings of geology and biology,
including the evolution of species, in their polemics against orthodox
Christianity to show the absurdity of the Jewish version of the Sumerian
creation-myth. 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.
It is unnecessary to dilate on the superstitions of
"Liberalism." They are obvious in the cult's holy words.
"Liberals" are forever chattering about "all mankind," a
term which does have a specific meaning, as do parallel terms in biology, such
as "all marsupials" or "all species of the genus Canis," but
the fanatics give to the term a mystic and special meaning, derived from the
Zoroastrian myth of "all mankind" and its counterpart in Stoic
speculation, but absurd when used by persons who deny the existence of Ahuru
Mazda or a comparable deity who could be supposed to have imposed a
transcendental unity on the manifest diversity of the various human species.
"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 bout "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. And the
"Liberal" cults, having rejected the Christian doctrine of
"original sin," which, although based on a silly myth about Adam and
Eve, corresponded fairly well to the facts of human nature, have even reverted
to the most pernicious aspect of Christianity, which common sense had held in
check in Europe until the Eighteenth Century; and they openly exhibit the morbid
Christian fascination with whatever is lowly, proletarian, inferior, irrational,
debased, deformed, and degenerate. This maudlin preoccupation with biological
refuse, usually sicklied over with such nonsense words as 'under*privileged*
[!],' would make sense, if it had been decreed by a god who perversely chose to
become incarnate among the most pestiferous 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.
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. The attitude, furthermore, though especially prevalent in our
demoralized age, is not peculiar to it. 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"—a crude
statement, which you may find elaborated with elegance and sagacity in the *Or
culo manual* of the great Jesuit, Baltasar Graci n. 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
only for the wonderful idea about gas chambers that was incorporated in the hoax
about the "six million," and he would probably find a real personal
satisfaction in putting the idea into practice at last. As Graci n 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...
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.