{"id":273,"date":"2010-09-10T22:02:31","date_gmt":"2010-09-11T02:02:31","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/revilo-oliver.com\/news\/?p=273"},"modified":"2010-09-10T22:02:31","modified_gmt":"2010-09-11T02:02:31","slug":"what-is-%e2%80%98liberalism%e2%80%99","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.revilo-oliver.com\/news\/2010\/09\/what-is-%e2%80%98liberalism%e2%80%99\/","title":{"rendered":"What Is \u2018Liberalism\u2019?"},"content":{"rendered":"<p><img loading=\"lazy\" decoding=\"async\" class=\"alignleft size-full wp-image-274\" title=\"Revilo Oliver, 1963\" src=\"https:\/\/revilo-oliver.com\/news\/wp-content\/uploads\/2010\/09\/rpo_63smi.jpg\" alt=\"\" width=\"170\" height=\"240\" \/>by Revilo P. Oliver (pictured)<br \/>\nAn excerpt from Dr. Oliver&#8217;s book <em>America&#8217;s Decline: The Education of a Conservative<\/em> (Londinium Press, London, 1981)<\/p>\n<p>EDITOR&#8217;S NOTE: Readers who consider themselves conservatives should  be careful not to read too much into this critique of what they may see  as their main social, political, and philosophical opponent. Oliver, by  the time of this writing, had long abandoned conservatism as a cause  both lost and unworthy, so this essay is no justification for &#8220;rightism&#8221;  in any sense. It is, instead, a call for clear vision and an acceptance  of the world as it is and human life as it is: material, biological,  evolutionary, and governed by absolute natural laws which we must accept  no matter how &#8220;unfair&#8221; they may seem or how difficult and daunting the  tasks they ordain for us. &#8212; Kevin Alfred Strom.<\/p>\n<p>&#8220;LIBERALISM&#8221; 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 &#8220;Liberal&#8221; 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  &#8220;Liberalism,&#8221; 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.<\/p>\n<p><!--more--><\/p>\n<p>The dependence of the &#8220;Liberal&#8221; 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.<\/p>\n<p>The votaries of &#8220;Liberalism&#8221; would have much preferred to have the  various human species specially created to form one race endowed with  the fictitious qualities dear to &#8220;Liberal&#8221; 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 &#8220;Liberals&#8221; 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 &#8220;Liberals&#8221; 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.<\/p>\n<p>It is unnecessary to dilate on the superstitions of &#8220;Liberalism.&#8221;  They are obvious in the cult&#8217;s holy words. &#8220;Liberals&#8221; are forever  chattering about &#8220;all mankind,&#8221; a term which does have a specific  meaning, as do parallel terms in biology, such as &#8220;all marsupials&#8221; or  &#8220;all species of the genus Canis,&#8221; but the fanatics give to the term a  mystic and special meaning, derived from the Zoroastrian myth of &#8220;all  mankind&#8221; 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. &#8220;Liberals&#8221; rant about  &#8220;human rights&#8221; with the fervor of an evangelist who appeals to what  Moses purportedly said, but a moment&#8217;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  &#8220;social welfare,&#8221; there are no rights, strictly speaking, and therefore  no citizens &#8212; only masses existing in the state of indiscriminate  equality of which &#8220;Liberals&#8221; 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.<\/p>\n<p>&#8220;Liberals&#8221; babble bout &#8220;One World,&#8221; which is to be a &#8220;universal  democracy&#8221; and is &#8220;inevitable,&#8221; 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 &#8220;Liberal&#8221;  cults, having rejected the Christian doctrine of &#8220;original sin,&#8221; 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 &#8216;underprivileged [!],&#8217; 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 &#8220;Liberals&#8221;  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.<\/p>\n<p>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 &#8220;Liberalism,&#8221; and we may be sure  that, despite the cult&#8217;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 &#8220;Liberal&#8221;  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.<\/p>\n<p>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 &#8216;ideology,&#8217; i.e., propaganda-line, whether &#8220;Liberal&#8221; or  &#8220;conservative.&#8221; 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 &#8220;Liberal&#8221;  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.<\/p>\n<p>Bureaucracies contain, of course, ambitious men who are climbing  upward. One thinks of the bureaucrats who, shortly before the &#8220;Battle of  the Bulge&#8221; in the last days of 1944, were openly distressed &#8220;lest a  premature victory in Europe compromise our social gains at home,&#8221;  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  &#8220;command&#8221; 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 &#8220;evils of Nazism&#8221; 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, &#8220;How much  profit this fable of Christ has brought us!&#8221; 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.<\/p>\n<p>Unmitigated egotism, which is necessarily a prime factor on all the  higher levels of society in a &#8220;democracy,&#8221; 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, &#8220;nothing succeeds like success&#8221; &#8212; a crude  statement, which you may find elaborated with elegance and sagacity in  the Or culo manual of the great Jesuit, Baltasar Graci\u00e1n. 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 &#8220;Liberals,&#8221; who  today declaim most eloquently about the &#8220;underprivileged&#8221; and &#8220;world  peace,&#8221; could become tomorrow the most eloquent champions of the  hierarchical principle (with which they secretly agree) and a guerre  l&#8217;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 &#8220;six million,&#8221; and he would probably find a real personal  satisfaction in putting the idea into practice at last. As Graci\u00e1n  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.<\/p>\n<p>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.<\/p>\n<p>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 <em>per se<\/em>, 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 &#8212; not likely, perhaps,  but possible &#8212; the despised &#8220;racist&#8221; 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, <em>ceteris paribus<\/em>, would prefer to belong to a virile race rather than a dying one. But remember the proviso, <em>ceteris paribus<\/em>: no personal sacrifices, no risks.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>by Revilo P. Oliver (pictured) An excerpt from Dr. Oliver&#8217;s book America&#8217;s Decline: The Education of a Conservative (Londinium Press, London, 1981) EDITOR&#8217;S NOTE: Readers who consider themselves conservatives should be careful not to read too much into this critique <a class=\"more-link\" href=\"https:\/\/www.revilo-oliver.com\/news\/2010\/09\/what-is-%e2%80%98liberalism%e2%80%99\/\">Read More &#8230;<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":"","_links_to":"","_links_to_target":""},"categories":[3],"tags":[46,159,158,155,157,112,156],"class_list":["post-273","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-essays","tag-christianity","tag-conservatism","tag-egotism","tag-liberalism","tag-pragmatism","tag-religion","tag-socialism"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.revilo-oliver.com\/news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/273","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.revilo-oliver.com\/news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.revilo-oliver.com\/news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.revilo-oliver.com\/news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.revilo-oliver.com\/news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=273"}],"version-history":[{"count":4,"href":"https:\/\/www.revilo-oliver.com\/news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/273\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":278,"href":"https:\/\/www.revilo-oliver.com\/news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/273\/revisions\/278"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.revilo-oliver.com\/news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=273"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.revilo-oliver.com\/news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=273"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.revilo-oliver.com\/news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=273"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}