by Professor Revilo P. Oliver
Under the rubric "The World in False-Face" in a recent issue of "Liberty Bell," I quoted from the "Special Office Brief" part of a trenchant article which described the normal technique of government in a 'democracy,' .in which the herds of voters are kept content by letting them elect as Presidents or Prime Ministers manikins, artificial personalities created by experts in the show-business and sold to the stupid public by experts in advertising, using a slight modification of the methods by which they make the biped sheep buy hamburgers and beer. The article was particularly directed at Maggie Thatcher, now Prime Ministress of Britain, who was created by theatrical experts and marketed to British voters by Saatchi & Saatchi, a pair of porcine Sheenies who operate one of the world>s largest advertising agencies. That was an excellent article, making it clear that England's Maggie, like our Ronnie, is just a puppet manipulated in a kind of big Punch-and-Judy show by the unseen puppet-masters who fashioned and own her.
Now the same "Special Office Brief," obviously in the hands of the same anonymous editor, in the issue for 24 April 1986 speaks disparagingly of persons who criticize Maggie adversely and informs us that all major decisions are made by "Mrs. Thatcher" herself on the basis of ultra-supersecret information of which the "crucial material" is seen only by her and "perhaps two others." Mrs. Thatcher, the sapient editor opines, must now "master the vast crisis in world affairs which is now approaching crisis [sic!]." If she succeeds in that Atlantean task, the editor predicts that she and all that she has done "will be given great prominence" in the history of the world. Maggie has thus been transformed in a few weeks from a mannikin to a great Statesman! (Perhaps I should have written 'Statesperson' to avoid offending the delicate sensibilities of all the thousands of militant wopersons who are perpetually and "hysterically" screaming about 'sexism.')
Now what made the editor and chief of what he himself modestly describes as "an Early Warning Intelligence System" so suddenly stand on his head, without even taking time to apologize for what he had said about Maggie a few weeks before_assuming that he remembered it?
So far as I can see, the total reversal of his "intelligence system" was caused by just one thing, his admiration of Maggie because she, on the basis of the "crucial material" that was seen only by her keen eyes and, perhaps, those of two of her most-trusted advisers, wisely supported the inspiring statesmanship of the great American President when he so courageously sent his aeronautical terrorists to terrorize the Libyans by blowing up their homes and their one real city in a sneaking raid that took them by surprise and without even a reasonable chance to defend themselves or send their women and children to some place of possible safety.
Should I be unfair, if I suggested that the chief of the "Early Warning Intelligence System" perceived the error of his ways and was enlightened about Maggie the Great when he heard voices, not ancestral, prophesying doom, and remembered what happened to Kenneth de Courcy when he rashly divulged information that was not Kosher?
Perhaps such a suspicion would wrong the editor, who merely changed his mind as innocently as a weathercock changes direction. But in either case, I must confess that I, who can generally resist the temptation to despair when I consider the magnitude of the overwhelming forces that we must confront, and calculate how slight are our chances of success, yield for a time to utter despair when I contemplate the mentality (or morality) of the "conservatives" and "rightists" whom we perforce regard as our comrades or allies.