May 22nd 09, 05:11 PM
What Is 'Liberalism'?
There is a little-recognized force within human nature, which may well
help us as it has
helped all movements that were poised for growth and expansion.
by Revilo P. Oliver
An excerpt from Dr. Oliver's book America's Decline: The Education of
a Conservative
(Londinium Press, London, 1981)
"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 2 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 'underprivileged [!],' 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 Gracián.
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 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.
There is a little-recognized force within human nature, which may well
help us as it has
helped all movements that were poised for growth and expansion.
by Revilo P. Oliver
An excerpt from Dr. Oliver's book America's Decline: The Education of
a Conservative
(Londinium Press, London, 1981)
"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 2 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 'underprivileged [!],' 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 Gracián.
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 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.