by Professor Revilo P. Oliver

September 1986

Around the middle of the Eighteenth Century a Puritan holy man named Eleazer Wheelock set out to bring his gospel to the Indians in the yet unsettled parts of New Hampshire and Vermont. His undertaking was not the mischievous meddling that is the usual occupation of missionaries. The horrors of "King Philip's War" had not been forgotten, and it was believed that a good dose of Jesus would make the Indians submit passively to the occupation of their lands by white men. According to the college song, in which his name was changed to 'Wheeler' for euphony, Eleazer equipped himself for his task with "a Bible and a gun, and twelve hundred gallons of good New-England rum," but one may doubt the accuracy of the undergraduates' inspiration.

Like many missionaries, however, Wheelock wanted to supplement soul-saving with education, and founded a school for the Indians, in which he eventually learned that the savages didn't want to be educated. With the assistance of a tame Indian named Occom, whom he had trained to preach sermons, he obtained from soft-hearted and soft-headed Englishmen an endowment of $50,000, a fairly large sum in those days, when, for example, a student at St. Andrews' University in Scotland needed $50 a year to cover the cost of food, lodging, tuition, books, and other expenses. Wheelock prudently used the money to found Dartmouth College in 1769 for whites, retaining just enough of the plan to bring culture to the Indians to avert charges that he had misused the endowment.

In 1815, as a result of the factional in-fighting that is usual in academic institutions, Wheelock's son, who had succeeded him as its head, was dismissed by the Trustees. He and his supporters belonged to the faction of clergymen who controlled the legislature of New Hampshire, which obediently rescinded the Royal Charter of 1769 and made Dartmouth a public institution called the University of New Hampshire. That was the work of the Edwardean Conspiracy of holy men who set out to circumvent the Constitution by political intrigue that would give them control of state legislatures, which would then make their cult each state's established religion and thus enable them to start kicking holiness into the populace.(1)

The Dartmouth College Case, famous as one of the landmarks of American constitutional law, ended in 1819, when the United States Supreme Court, moved by the eloquence of Daniel Webster and the legal authorities found by his associates, held that Article 1, Section 10, of the Constitution forbade states to impair the validity of contracts and that therefore the legislature of New Hampshire had no power to tamper with the provisions of the Royal Charter. This part of the Constitution lasted until 1933, when the proto-Communist government arrogated to itself the power to annul contracts and thus to confiscate property, and was sustained in its usurpation by a corrupt or intimidated Supreme Court.

Dartmouth College prospered, became richly endowed, and acquired a certain prestige. In the 1920s, it was simply taken for granted that privately endowed educational institutions were superior to state institutions because they exercised discrimination in admitting pupils and enforced strict educational standards. This was true of the well-established and highly reputed colleges and universities, with the exception of a few academic subjects in a few state institutions which had attracted scholars and men of science of great ability. The nation's great universities were Harvard and Yale, Princeton's reputation having suffered from its former president, half crackpot and half shyster, who had, in an evil hour, been made President of the United States by the Jews. Certain colleges of limited enrollment were favored by discerning undergraduates, and among colleges for men, Dartmouth, by general agreement, ranked next to Amhurst.

Dartmouth, perhaps inevitably, became infected with the strange superstition called "Liberalism" by the apostles of the fanatical cult that attests the deadly power of the Judaeo-Christian virus to destroy the biological and spiritual immune system of our race. Not long ago, Dartmouth, to the delight of its head wind-bag, achieved publicity in the press for the "innovative talent" of great teachers who had discovered that by behaving like clowns they could temporarily impress a few facts on the consciousness of the sullen louts in their classes. Whether the "professors" at Dartmouth have as yet taken to wearing motley and caps with jingling bells while brandishing baubles, I do not know.

More recently, Dartmouth, to the anguish of the aforesaid wind-bag, was mentioned in the press because a few of its undergraduates, doubtless admitted by oversight, were too intelligent to relish the "Liberal" hogwash dispensed by its faculty. Such publicity is always distressing to an up-to-date diploma-mill, since it encourages suspicions that it is failing in its duty to mummify the brains of all young Aryans that fall into its clutches.

Now the embarrassment has become acute. A horde of young nitwits, incited by the Kikes who form at least 10% of the undergraduates and moan that they are persecuted because they are not 70% (the remaining 30% reserved for niggers and the Aryan zombies that are still needed to keep up appearances), defaced the campus with some filthy shanties, thinking thus to "demonstrate" against the evils of "apartheid" and the more evil reluctance of the South Africans to be murdered by their domestic savages. Now it is likely that most of the young white nitwits were either just having fun by making trouble and thus assuring themselves they were alive or else were not entirely thoughtless but had brains saturated with the concentrated ignorance in which the schools, from the kindergarten to the university, steep the minds of young Americans, without protest from their fatuous parents.

The shanties, it is said, were supposed to incite snivelling over the plight of the niggers in South Africa. If that was the intent, it came from minds whose development was arrested at the age of six. As everyone not totally illiterate knows, the shanties, however ramshackle, were equivalent to the shelters the Congoids construct for themselves and with which they are not only content (when not incited by missionaries and other pests from a superior race) but in which they find an instinctive satisfaction, as is obvious from their conduct in this country, where they are provided with expensive accommodations by the half-witted white taxpayers and immediately set to work to make their living quarters as squalid and filthy as a native hut on the banks of the Zambesi.

That, of course, is only a very minor matter. The important point_a point that, quite literally, is "vitally" important for us_is the sheer immorality of any and every attempt to ameliorate the lives of the Congoids. The enunciation of that fact will make "Liberals" and other Christians shriek like banshees in a ruined castle, but the screams will not alter the fact. Our race, with the witless sentimentality to which it is prone, meddled with the ecological balance of Africa and created a havoc of which it has only now become aware and which it knows not how to redress. And no amount of humanitarian maundering and moaning will alter the grim and ineluctable result of that unthinking violation of nature.

No one knows how many Congoids there were on the continent of Africa in 1800, before "do-gooders" had really started their deadly work. At a guess, 40,000,000 would be a very generous estimate. By 1900, the dastardly efforts of the colonial powers – and herein lies the real evil of "colonialism," which the "Liberal" chatterboxes never mention – had imposed some measures of sanitation on the Congoids and provided them with medical services and with gainful employment, with the result that their numbers increased to about 120,000,000 by 1900. By 1960, there were 210,000,000. Today, they number at least 385,000,000. On the basis of that probably too low estimate, however, by 1990, there will be 451,000,000 of the creatures, and twelve years from today, in 1998, Africa will be cursed with 600,000,000 of the anthropoids. By that time, of course, the human locusts will have made the whole continent of Africa as barren of other animal life and perhaps even of vegetation as the sands of the Sahara, unless the Aryan nations, who, after all, are responsible for the calamity, find some drastic way to contain it and limit its effects. And let us not delude ourselves with hypocritical circumlocutions. That means, bluntly, that we must devise some means of greatly increasing among the Congoids the death-rate from disease, famine, and other natural causes or simply slaughter large numbers of them as we slaughter locusts and grasshoppers. (Being a compassionate race, having, as a racial peculiarity and perhaps weakness, an aversion from unnecessary slaughter, we would opt for the first alternative, which could be easily attained by agreement among White nations. Withdraw all subsidies, cancel all educational and commercial efforts to improve the lot of the Congoids and so make the calamity worse, and isolate the continent. The Congoids will themselves soon take care of the overpopulation. The only difficulty is that before they do, they may exterminate mammalian species whose extinction would be a great and irreparable loss to the civilized world.)

Before the simple statistical facts, jabber about the "sanctity of human life" and the "brotherhood" of all anthropoids sinks to the intellectual level of a child who trustingly perches on the knee of Santa Claus without wondering how he happens to be present in a Jewish department store. Even the howling dervishes can think of nothing better than to assure us that old Jesus will wake up from his two-thousand-year snooze and do something about it, and they don't know whether he will double the size of our planet or reduce all anthropoids to the size of Lilliputians.

The mud races of Asia are multiplying with the same terrible fecundity, and nothing can be more obvious than that, barring some miraculous good fortune, such as a racially specific and enormously lethal epidemic among the innately savage and barbarous races, we face a future of wars of extermination as the several incompatible races fight for space and sustenance on a planet that is already frighteningly overcrowded.

If it is the reasoned decision of our race to become extinct to gratify the Jews, let us admit and proclaim that frankly, so that tender-hearted members of our race can poison their children and thus save them from more painful deaths in coming years. If we are not willing to disappear from the world, then we have only a few years, at most, in which it will still be possible to cleanse our minds of humanitarian slop and to act with an awareness that our "only" duty is to our own race, and that, in the terrible circumstances of the present, it is biological treason to give assistance of any kind to any one of the other races.

Now it would be unfair to expect knowledge of or thought about these facts of the white boobies who joined the Jews and niggers in the "demonstration." We may judge them as innocent as a pack of fox terriers, who bark from sheer exuberance at they know not what. But I think we may reasonably require of the faculty of an ostensibly academic institution that in their moments of leisure, when they are not clowning or intriguing or enjoying marijuana and wife-swapping, they inform themselves about the real world and think about it. It will not be unfair to suppose that they know what they are doing.

Now this is what happened, according to both "National Review" and "Instauration." The administrators of Dartmouth forbade the defacement of the campus; the "canaille" defied them and erected their malodorous shantytown; the administrative twerps, from cowardice or malice, did nothing. The filthy rabble invaded and occupied the administration building, including the office of the president, and the mannikins cringed and even invited a second incursion. And Dartmouth today is proud of its vermin and cannot bear the thought of rebuking such idealistic cockroaches.

There were, as I have already indicated, some White "men" on the campus – out of place, no doubt, but there – and they, a dozen or so in all, defied the human garbage and dismantled the dirty shanties on the campus. The learned faculty of Dartmouth promptly expelled them for the offense of having manhood and self-respect – qualities abominated by "Liberal" energumena – and one raucous professorial jackass brayed about the horrors of 'Fascism' and 'Nazism' and implied that millions of Sacred Sheenies were about to be stuffed into gas chambers. Thus the faculty of Dartmouth has considerately removed any doubts we might otherwise have charitably felt about their characters and intellectual attainments. They would dishonor an opium den in old Limehouse or a brothel in Singapore.

Now it is a nice irony that the situation could be remedied, if the part of the Constitution that Daniel Webster vindicated had not been deleted in 1933. If the courts were still obliged to respect and enforce contracts, as they were in 1819, the heirs of the many persons who contributed land and money to endow Dartmouth could recover the contributions that were made with an implied contract that they were to be used to support an educational institution, not a sinkhole of degeneracy and treason.


(1) On the Edwardean Conspiracy, see the Reverend Mr. John Cosen Ogden's expose of it in his booklet, "A View of the New England Illuminati" (Philadelphia, James Carey, 1799; reprinted several times thereafter). The idea of thus subverting our culture to impose superstition and righteousness has occurred frequently since then to self-styled Conservatives (for one example, see "America's Decline," pp. 140ff.).