by Professor Revilo P. Oliver

December 1986

In the "American Atheist" for April 1966, Madalyn O'Hair published an exegesis of one of the early Jewish hoaxes, the preposterous tale called Exodus in the Jew-book. As everyone knows, it is an absurd story of how the vicious and sadistic god whom the Jews created in their own image afflicted the Egyptians, in all the ways a depraved imagination could invent, so that his chosen predators could gloat over the suffering of the goyim. The tale, of course, is no more historical than any story in the Arabian Nights, although it is more disgusting. It is simply fiction of wish-fulfillment, devised so that the Jews could enjoy in imagination a momentary satisfaction of their insatiable hatred of civilized mankind. But it also served as a hoax, comparable in audacity to their recent "Holocaust," by which they indulge their venomous hatred of the Germans, a people who tried to emancipate themselves from servitude to their parasites.

Incredible as it should seem, the Jews, through their Christian subsidiary, put over the hoax about their "exodus" from Egypt, making stupid goyim believe the crude fiction was historical and that the impossible events described in it had actually occurred. Even today, many Christian dervishes claim that the whole of the frowzy and grotesque Jew-book is "the verbally inspired, infallible, inerrant Word of God." Mrs. O'Hair's exegetical paraphrase of the wild story is both accurate and hilarious, and it would be salutary reading for the probably numerous Christians whose minds were not permanently deformed in childhood.

What interests us in the article are the introductory paragraphs in which Mrs. O'Hair reports an experience that is a perfect example of the technique that is used to keep Americans befuddled.

To her astonishment, a radio station invited her to give a half-hour presentation of the case for atheism. When she arrived at the station, however, she found present a Catholic priest, "decked out in the usual black garb, obviously in mourning for the death of his brains," and a rabbi, who "sported a dinky, somewhat dirty, doily on the top of his head." The sleek hireling who was conducting the interview explained that the station had to present "all sides" and give a "balanced" presentation. When it was pointed out that, by that criterion, whenever howling dervishes make their pitch for the Jesus-business, an atheist should participate to "balance" the presentation, the shyster was aghast; he wriggled and explained that there weren't enough atheists to make it good business for the station.

The two hokum-peddlers, the Jew and his Christian understudy, naturally began with a typically dishonest attack on the speaker, and the "moderator" joined them in their yapping. Mrs. O'Hair had about six minutes in which to ward off the attacks, but even so, she evidently made a better presentation than the schemers expected, for the taped interview was never broadcast.

This is a perfect example of what "fairness" and "balanced presentation" mean in the various media of communication, the daily press, the radio, and the boob-tubes, all of which are either owned or otherwise controlled by the predatory race.

The hireling in the radio station who set the trap for the speaker was only one of the innumerable pimps who exploit the gullibility of the ignorant masses. It is possible, of course, that he believed the hackneyed sales-talk of the holiness-vendors, their unproven and dubious claim that their superstition somehow reduces the incidence of crime.(1) He could have been convinced that religion was a "social good," and therefore to be promoted, as the Fathers of the Church promoted their cult, by every sort of trickery and mendacity, the end supposedly justifying the means. But what the mannikin may have believed is irrelevant. There is only one relevant fact: he had a job.

The claim that Christianity is a stabilizing force in civilized society has, of course, been conclusively refuted by the fact that the great majority of its influential holy men, whether Catholic or Protestant, are now Communist agitators, although they prefer to talk, with characteristic hypocrisy, of a "social gospel" or "liberation theology." They have reverted to primitive Judaeo-Christian Bolshevism.

He had a job – and with it, the morality of a slave. He was a creation of the most potent and least noticed device that the Jews use to destroy the civilization and race they hate, poisoning the one and enslaving the other. That device has been presented to the unthinking public as two forms of social organization that are made to seem antithetical, Communism and Capitalism, although they are really complementary and like two sides of one coin, since one implies the other. Thus persons who mistake propaganda for reality fail to see that the function of both is to abolish private property and thus reduce the entire population to effective slavery. The imposition of Communism on Americans has thus far been primarily carried out by the corporations created by financiers with the aid of counterfeit currency. And few have been sufficiently alert to notice what was happening.

Even fifty years ago, after the Jews and their accomplices had already destroyed the primacy of landed wealth, the one sure guarantee of such liberty as is humanly possible, the average American town had its "leading citizens," the owner of the local hotel, the owner of the local department store, the owner of the local foundry or factory, and men similarly situated, who had the power to make their own decisions and hence the independence that goes with the ownership of property. Today they are all gone, replaced by "managers," the hirelings of corporations that are owned by corporations that are in turn owned by the freebooters of what is called "international finance." And, in conformity with the strategy of uprooting Americans, the "managers" are periodically shipped from one part of the country to another, having no real home. If the corporations were replaced, as in Russia, by the state, no one would notice a significant social difference.

The manager has a job, not a position. He is told what he must do, and he can "get ahead" only by doing it efficiently to the satisfaction of the manager above him, who is similarly situated and dependent on his superior in a chain that goes back and back to financiers of whom the underlings do not even know the names. And the managers, wherever they are in the chain, have less opportunity for self-respect than their meanest employees. The charwoman can always find another job. Managers may sometimes shift from one corporation to another, but only if they have "made good" in slavish obedience to their preceding masters. The charwoman can always escape from her small debts. The manager, like most Americans, is hopelessly in debt. He is probably married, but does not have a wife: he only cohabits with a woman who has a job of her own. They are probably "buying" an overpriced house, unaware that they are only renting it from tax-collectors and usurers. They are likewise "buying" automobiles, which have been made a necessity, and also elaborate boob-tubes, and a hundred other gadgets they imagine part of a "good life" that is a perpetual discontent with they know not what.

The hirelings who produce radio and television programs have jobs.(2) Their job is to keep the public befuddled, and unless they are very stupid, they know it. A man with such a job may soothe his conscience, if he still has one, by telling himself, or even by believing, that he is promoting a "social good." But as he swallows tranquillizers to quiet his nerves and pills to quiet his ulcers, he knows that his job depends on doing his master's bidding. He must promote religion and shield it from intelligent criticism. He must promote the vast nexus of corruption called "democracy" and prevent exposure of what it really is.(3) And, above all, he must beware of making a Jew frown. Economically he is a slave and intellectually he is a pimp. He hopes to delude observers by chattering about "fairness" and "freedom of information" and "balanced programs," but he knows that his job is to prevent such things. He must prevent atheists from impugning the gospel-racket; he must prevent "racists" from mentioning the simple facts of biology that his unsophisticated audience would recognize as obvious, if they thought about the evidence of their own quotidian experience; he must prevent honest historians from publicly questioning the Jews' great Holohoax, that absurd lie by which they achieved much of their present power. He is expected to employ every dirty trick and dishonest device to keep the public ignorant and deluded. He must neglect no opportunity to ridicule or defame the rash individuals who disobey his masters. And if, despite all the efforts of press, radio, and television, the American pigs become a little restless, he must obey the order to man the pumps and squirt some more sludge on them. The poor pimp knows his job depends on satisfying his owners.

It does no good to rail at the pimps; in their situation, they really have no feasible choice. It does no good to call for accuracy in the media. One may expose a lie here and there, if it is about something trivial, but the effort is like trying to control a flooded river with a bucket. It does no good to wish that the American boobs had not taken "spiritual" bait and given themselves into slavery, making of themselves domesticated animals who have surrendered their freedom in exchange for routinely provided fodder. They are now living on Orwell's Animal Farm. And if you persist in clinging to some hope, realize that it depends on some catastrophic collapse of the intricate but rotten structure at a time when there is still a minority of intelligent Aryans who will recognize their last opportunity when it comes – if it does.

In the meantime, thank Mrs. O'Hair for having given us so clear an illustration of one major factor in our dolorous plight.


(1) A more valid claim for religion was generally accepted in the Nineteenth Century, when faith in the supernatural was regarded as a prophylactic against subversion and revolution. That was largely a consequence of the French Revolution, which is often called "atheistic" because Hebert and his followers, who were stridently atheistic, were prominent in the early stages of the Revolution and until the devious Robespierre had their heads chopped off. In his denunciation of them, Robespierre, appealing to the egalitarian frenzy of the crazed nation, charged that "atheism is aristocratic." (Hebert was the son of a bankrupt goldsmith, but the inventor of World Government for World Peace, Jean Baptiste du Val-de-Grace, alias Anacharsis Clootz, was a Baron of Dutch origin with an estate in Prussia.) Robespierre was a deist who believed in the necessity of religion, and after he cleverly used the "Hebertistes" and the "Dantonistes" to destroy each other and had their heads amputated, he celebrated the return to religion with the famous Fete de l'Etre Supreme (1794), just before the Terror was accelerated into the phase of most intense and wholesale butchery. The savagery and horror of the French Revolution induced George Washington, who was also a deist, to include a strong recommendation of religion in his Farewell Address (1796). He carefully avoided mention of Christianity, but that does not stop Jesus's sales-force from claiming his endorsement.

(2) Years ago, there were a few men who imagined they really owned local radio stations and thus had the freedom to broadcast programs that were not Kosher. They were quickly put out of business by the Federal Communications Commission.

(3) About a quarter of a century ago, a standard trick of professional liars was exhibited in the best cartoon ever published by National Review. The drawing showed an announcer seated between two supposed opponents and saying, as I recall, "Now for our debate. Here on my left is that genial, liberal humanitarian, Joe Doddy, who believes that Foreign Aid should be increased by 300%. And here on my right is his adversary, that arch-conservative reactionary, Jacob Blow, who believes that Foreign Aid should be increased by only 100%.