by Professor Revilo P. Oliver
The Winter issue of the "Southern Partisan" contains a number of excellent articles. Dr. Forrest McDonald, Professor of History at the University of Alabama (when I last heard), in "Why Yankees Won't (and Can't) Leave the South Alone," discusses the malevolent righteousness of the Puritans and their morbid itch to meddle in other people's business, and notes that both the malevolence and the itch became more virulent as they lost faith in the bigoted and irrational religion from which they started. The thesis of the article is approximately the same as that of the article in "The Pilgrim" on which I commented in this April's issue of "Liberty Bell".
Dr. Zed H. Burns, Professor of Psychology Emeritus at the University of Southern Mississippi, in his "Fort Sumter," traces the steps by which Lincoln's government gave South Carolina assurances that Fort Sumter would be evacuated while making secret preparations to sneak in "reenforcements" and hold a fort that could prevent ships from entering Charleston harbor. Thus Fort Sumter was an infallible means of starting a war that would produce enough killing and destruction to slake the blood-lust of the Abolitionists and exalt the righteousness of the hate-crazed Puritans.
There are other articles that I could and perhaps should mention, so it may not seem quite fair to consider here a short and unsigned editorial, but I do so, because it illustrates so concisely the topsy-turvy thinking of so many of our contemporaries.
The anonymous editor (several are listed on the masthead) notes that a person named Walter Burns (race unstated, but I have my guess) has emitted a claim that many more murderers are executed in the South than in the North because Southerners are "more vengeful," thus echoing the common view that "Southern culture has always been less enlightened." A little while ago, the same Walter Burns told a Southern audience that they were lucky that the Northern invaders in 1865 didn't just exterminate all the White men and women in the South, as they perhaps should have done.
That, as the editor observes, is the "enlightened" Burns' way of showing that he isn't "vengeful." Burns, of course, is a typical "Liberal intellectual," a species that does most of its thinking with mouth and glands, by-passing the organ for which they have little use after they have been programmed.
The editor has drawn a nice contrast between the two openings of the Burns mouth, and we applaud. Unfortunately, he does not stop at that point. He goes on to opine that it's all the fault of "materialism," because " 'enlightened' people no longer believe in God" and do "believe passionately, desperately in the supremacy of science." He even seems to believe that the poisonous propaganda that is injected into the minds of children in the schools and is called "social science" is scientific. It is, of course, on a par with "creation science" and similar frauds.
There is no scientific basis whatsoever for the drivel about the "sanctity of human life" about which we hear so much today. To be fair, we should note that there isn't any basis for that nonsense in the Christians' holy book either. The notion certainly is not found in the "Old Testament," unless one accepts the Jews' faith that only Jews are human, while Semites, Aryans, Mongolians, and all other races are merely animals to be exploited and slaughtered at will by God's masterpieces. And it certainly isn't in the "New Testament," of which the protagonist, a Jew and reportedly one-third of the Jews' god, explicitly asks to witness the butchery of persons unwilling to become his subjects and slaves. The doctrine certainly wasn't known during the "Bluetezeit" of European Christianity, when no work was more godly than that of slaughtering the paynim, especially Moslems, and men too rational to believe in the wild tales of the Bible had to mask their own intelligence. The gabble about the "sanctity of human life" is a recent invention of the shamans for their own purposes, but they have put over the hoax so efficiently that it is generally regarded as an integral part of Christianity, and carried over into the crypto-Christian cults that pretend to dispense with gods and demons. But our point here is that there is no scientific basis for it whatsoever. In fact, biological evolution teaches us that species survive only by the rigorous elimination of the unfit, of physical and moral weaklings and monsters.
There is no scientific reason whatsoever why a nation, which is by definition an aggregate of persons who are born of the same ethnic division of one race, should tolerate within their territory the presence of alien and necessarily incompatible races unless they have been subjugated by one of them and so live at the discretion of their masters. There is good scientific evidence that a victorious race, if it does not have the racial fanaticism of the Jews, dooms itself to eventual servitude by tolerating in its midst an alien race, even as subjects and slaves. The drivel about "all mankind" and "brotherhood" is the very reverse of scientific: it was invented by Christian medicine-men on the basis of some statements attributed to the Jesus of the "New Testament" tales, which were probably intended to apply only to the Jews, with whom he professed to be uniquely concerned.
In short, all the follies of the "enlightened," of which the editor of the "Southern Partisan" complains, directly contradict the findings of materialistic science, and are only poisonous weeds sprung from the compost-heap of decaying religion. That swindlers call their hokum "scientific" means nothing: one has only to think of Mary Baker Eddy's lucrative promotion called "Christian Science," the version of Jewish messianism that Marx invented and called "scientific," the chicanery that is peddled as "creation science" to trap the ignorant, and the prosperity of the manufacturers of "scientifically tested" good-luck stones.
The editor has everything upside-down.(1) He indicts 'materialism' for the mawkish desire to spare criminals on the pretext that "no one is responsible for his own actions."
A materialist who has freed himself from our endemic superstitions would tell you that it does not in the least matter whether or not a criminal is responsible for his own actions, any more than it matters whether or not a cobra has evil intentions when it strikes. A materialist is content with the fact it is folly for an individual to cuddle a cobra and for society to cuddle criminals. Only minds that have been taught by Christianity to dote on whatever is diseased, deformed, and degenerate snivel over the execution of murderers, and it is noteworthy that they snivel only over criminals who represent our biological refuse. Although this spiritual sickness did not become epidemic before the Nineteenth Century, it is only a recrudescence of what was inherent in Christianity in its origins as they are described in the tales of the "New Testament," in which a Jesus exalts bird-brains that "take no thought for the morrow," boasts that he will "make folly of the wisdom of this world," and declares that rich men have no more chance of escaping eternal torment than a camel has of walking through the eye of a needle. The Jewish agitator, who recruited his apostles from the dregs of the populace, promised his followers post-mortem bliss in a Heaven that would be filled with swarms of squalid proletarians, who could exult forever over the sufferings of their betters and thus salve with triumphant malice their consciousness of their own inferiority. And the prevalent Christianity of today, which espouses the "social gospel" of Marx, who merely dispensed with spooks in his version of the Jewish attack on civilization, is by its very nature hostile to a high culture, hostile to learning and science (although it may use technology for its own assault on the civilization that made technology possible), and hostile to the stability of a society that is necessarily based on private property, hating the wealth that gives leisure for culture, although it has no objection to rich gutter-snipes and even admires Teddy Kennedy for his cleverness in disposing of a redundant female by having her slowly suffocate in an immersed automobile. Or, if it does not really admire that boyish prank, disregards it in its enthusiasm for the "idealist" who wants to impose "social justice" on South Africa by turning the savages loose on the White population.
A materialist, observing the scientifically ascertained facts of biology, will tell you that it is suicidal for a nation to nurture offspring that are physically or mentally deformed, to coddle criminals, and to subsidize its domestic enemies. And it is a nice irony that the editor, who deplores "the supremacy of science," becomes himself a strict materialist when he justifies the execution of criminals by remarking that the South has a much lower rate of recidivism than the rest of the country: "We have found that 0% of our executed murderers kill again."
(1) This may be explained by an editorial, doubtless by the same hand, that exalts the late Eric Voegelin, a refugee from "radical Nazi Germany," as "the most important thinker of the twentieth century," because "he wrote a magnificent history of the world's greatest civilizations, demonstrating conclusively that what made them great was not economic or political predominance, but an essentially religious vision of life." I was, I believe, scrupulously fair to Voegelin in my brief summary of his philosophy of history, written after the publication of his first three volumes (see the reprinting of my article in "America's Decline," pp.213 F.). As I then observed, it is to Voegelin's credit that he discerned the source of the deadly delusions of our society in "the metastatic will to transform reality by means of eschatological, mythical, or historiographic fantasy." I also remarked that it would not be fair to judge his theory until after the publication of the three remaining volumes, in which, as I said, he would "come to the three points that will most severely test the validity of his hypothesis: the origin of Christianity, the fall of the Roman Empire, and the Renaissance." I was right. The three volumes, promised for 1958-1959, were never published, and only many years later was "Order and History" summarily concluded with an incoherent fourth volume that it would not be charitable to examine in detail. Voegelin's analysis broke down at the critical points I identified, and when I wrote in 1963, I thought that was likely, although I refrained from expressing my misgivings about a grandiose work that began with the ravings of Jewish "prophets" about what they imagined to be the purposes of their tribal gods, and ended (when I wrote) with a volume that exalted the fantasies of Plato and degraded Aristotle because he did not "issue the call for repentance [!] and submission to the theocratic rule of the incarnate truth." We may respect Voegelin as a man who correctly identified a disease from which he did not know he was himself suffering. His "Order and History" was only another manifestation of the cancerous "will to transform reality by means of ... fantasy."