Good News From Academia?

by Revilo P. Oliver

COLLEGES AND UNIVERSITIES were established to preserve and perpetuate the culture, and hence the civilization, that is called European, from the geographical designation of the continent on which it arose as a revival of the culture of Greece and Rome, or Western, to include its geographical extension to regions on other continents that were conquered and occupied by Europeans, or Aryan, to identify the race that created it, in accordance with its peculiar racial instincts.

On the whole, the academic institutions served their purpose satisfactorily until the disastrous war of 1914-1918, although the seeds of corruption were already present, as is obvious from such examples as the fact that it was possible for a crackpot like Woodrow Wilson to become a professor (1) in a prestigious university and even the president of it before he, as an academic nuisance, was shunted into politics (2) and was then trained by the Jews to advance their clandestine war against our culture and race.

(1. It is significant that he was a Professor of what is called “Political Science” and naturally made it a species of theology, regarding himself as the evangelist of a divinely ordained cult of what he called “democracy.”)

(2. On this point, see William F. McComb, Making Woodrow Wilson President (New York, Fairview, 1921). To spare Princeton the scandal of having to cashier and discharge its fanatical, unscrupulous, and arrogantly dictatorial president, as would have been done in June 1910, McComb arranged to have Wilson shunted into politics and become a candidate for Governor of New Jersey sponsored by Senator James Smith, who procured the election of Wilson, and whom Wilson naturally stabbed in the back at the first opportunity. McComb seems not to have perceived the covert activity of the Jews, who made Wilson their puppet. The following era witnessed a gradual decline in academic institutions that became an avalanche not long after the catastrophic Suicide of the West in 1945. Colleges and universities today are like a barrel of rotting apples: in some the rot has progressed farther than in others, but one cannot expect to find a single apple that has not been more or less deeply tainted by the contagious decay.)

When one hears news from academic institutions today, one expects to hear that another institution has openly become a colony of intellectual lepers, like Dartmouth and Stanford, or has, in some noteworthy way, further prostituted itself to performing niggers, enemy aliens, and degenerates animated by an organic hatred of the culture which they think to stigmatize with such epithets as ‘Eurocentric,’ exalting one or another barbarism or savagery in its place.

The sickening stench that arises from so many campuses today convinces many observers that the rot can no longer be checked and will soon become total.

It is therefore with reservations that I report, for whatever provisional encouragement it may give you, an item of what appears to be good news from the academic world, warning you that I have no source of reliable information within the institution in question, and know only what was reported in the press.

The Saint Louis Post-Dispatch, 28 April 1991, and a few other papers reported that Washington University has now liquidated its Department of Sociology, transferring professors who had tenure to other departments. The senior among them emitted a wail which proved that the Department had been a pest-hole. He opined that it was “tragic” that the faculty of the university had voted to abolish a department that had “a long tradition of fighting against social injustice, racial discrimination, and for social equality.” He thus not only admitted, but proudly proclaimed, that at Washington Sociology had repudiated scholarship and become a nest of Communist agitators engaged in devising and propagating lies to undermine and destroy our civilization and our race. Its demise, therefore, must mean the elimination of one of the innumerable cancerous growths in American institutions that were once devoted to higher education.

Sociology is one of the divisions of what are called ‘Social Sciences,’ which have become largely, though not entirely, the purveyors of poisonous fictions, mendacious propaganda masked by spurious academic pretensions.

‘Sociology’ is a hybrid neologism coined in French by August Comte, an odd individual who, when not obviously insane and placed under restraint, devised a doctrine which he called ‘Positivism,’ a strange compound of common sense and delusions, complete with a religion for its votaries, who would worship, with hymns and rituals that are simply ridiculous, the Benefactors of Mankind, including, incidentally, the Paraguayan dictator who has the distinction of having sacrificed in war a larger proportion of his male subjects than any other military adventurer known to history. (3)

(3. Lopez had given Comte a substantial sum of money.)

‘Sociology’ as a word and as a separable discipline was made respectable by Herbert Spencer, whose Principles of Sociology (3 vols., 1876-1886) were only a part of his grandiose plan to systemize all philosophically valid knowledge. Although Spencer was inspired by the euphoria of Western culture before 1914, he was a rational man, and most modern practitioners of “sociology” are embarrassed by mention of his name.

He shared his generation’s glowing confidence in the progress that was aborted by the disaster of 1914, but he understood that that progress depended on an ever increasing reliance on reason and on eugenic improvement of our race. His chapter on “State Tampering with Money and Banks” is anathema to the criminals who operate, and the dunces who approve, the Federal Reserve swindle. One of his many aphorisms, “The ultimate result of shielding men from the effects of folly is to fill the world with fools,” is an adequate appraisal of the Hellfare State that our implacable enemies, with the help of sentimental nitwits, have foisted upon us. The “sociologists” who are engaged in destroying us don’t want to hear of the founder of the discipline they profess.

Sociology as a valid discipline is merely history focused on the origin and development of human societies concerning which we have reliable historical information, and a comparative study of the ways in which they arose, flourished, and disintegrated. It will therefore necessarily illumine the similarities and differences between Aryan societies and those formed by other races. As an academic discipline, it may perhaps come as near to the present as 1900, but if it does, it will require a stern self-discipline to maintain the strict objectivity that must be requisite in all academic teaching, unperturbed by uncritical acceptance of, or emotional revulsion from, the society of the immediate present.

Sociology may become strictly scientific as an aspect of the science of genetics, now known as ‘sociobiology,’ which, as a scientific and objective study, makes the hokum-peddlers who now defile academic institutions foam at the mouth and resort to their favorite forms of expectoration, such as “Nazi” and “racist,” sounds which are as meaningless as the articulated screams of parrots and other avian intellectuals.

In practice, however, sociology, like other “social sciences,” has often become, as at Washington, an academic disguise for scabrous agitators who are either our alien enemies or venal and slavish Aryans who prostitute themselves intellectually for a few shekels and the joy of having captive audiences to hear them make noises with their mouths.

That “social sciences” should presume to deal with contemporary affairs is in itself a travesty of academic learning, which, by definition is limited to matters that can be investigated with strict objectivity. Among rational men there will be no emotional involvement in determining the chemistry of the elements and their compounds, the physics of motion and thermodynamics, the varieties of mammalian life and their known evolution, the strata of the rocks that compose the shell of the earth, celestial mechanics in the solar system and the various galaxies, the palaeography of Latin manuscripts, the reading of Egyptian hieroglyphics, and similar matters.

Rational men also know that the high degree of probability that, for all practical purposes, amounts to certainty cannot possibly be attained in matters in which their own judgment may be affected by their opinions about contemporary society. Such matters, therefore, are by definition excluded from academic subjects in honest schools and universities.

When I was a youth, Harvard University was still an institution of higher learning, and a professor of French informed me that while his department had begun to accept doctoral dissertations that were investigations of the life and works of a given French author, only authors who lived before 1700 were acceptable; works written after that date were too close to the present to be considered with strict objectivity.

The very presence of Woodrow Wilson at Princeton before 1910 was in itself a scandal, because his gabble about “democracy” was published as the work of a Professor of Political Science and therefore conveyed to most readers the fraudulent impression that there was something scientifically valid in his propagandistic lucubrations. Had he been a professor of Geology or Physics, he would not have been invoking and prostituting academic prestige, and readers would have understood that they had before them no more than personal opinions.

Contrary to what you are told in contemporary complaints about the perversion of universities, the rot, disguised as “social science,” was far advanced before 1941. I have often mentioned a clear example. In a large state university, three perfessers (4), of whom only one, I was told, was a Kike, set out, like the “sociologists” in Washington University more than fifty years later, to “fight discrimination.” When they found in their classes a young woman so filled with bigotry and prejudice that she did not yearn to copulate with niggers, they called her in for a “conference” at which one would in hectoring tones ask her a question, and when she tried to answer it, another punk would interrupt with a different question. She was never permitted to finish any statement and the three bullies yelled at her until she burst into tears, or better yet, had hysterics — which was regarded as proof that she had been cured of her wicked bigotry. In those far-off days, had the state university opened a whorehouse on its campus, the taxpayers who supported it would have protested; as it was, they countenanced far greater and more vicious depravity, as the president of the pseudo-academic cancer on the state must have known — but, of course, he was an “educator,” practitioner of another subversive “social” racket.

(4. This spelling is needed to distinguish such scum from legitimate members of a university faculty.)

I must not take time here to review the whole gamut of “social sciences,” in all of which the parts that are intellectually legitimate inquiry are obfuscated and often obliterated by blatant propagation of the Marxian superstition. There need, however, be no confusion between academic honesty and pretentious fraud.

In all the “Social Sciences” (Psychology, Sociology, Political “Science,” Economics, perversions of Anthropology, and the racket called “Education”) there is a simple criterion by which you may discriminate between serious inquiry worthy of your attention and the floods of poisonous hogwash spewed forth by our enemies and their hirelings. You have only to ascertain whether the writer or speaker specifically accepts an obvious and fundamental fact of nature, that we can destroy but can never create.

An oak tree can spring only from an acorn that has the potentiality of becoming a full grown specimen of its species, but could never be made to become a pine or a palm. We can prevent the acorn from becoming a sapling; we can stunt the sapling by depriving it of sunlight and nutriments; we can distort it with obstacles; we can mutilate it by lopping off its branches; we can infect it with diseases; and we can cut it down. What we cannot do is alter its nature as an oak.

We cannot create a horse, but we can abort it in the womb of a mare, stunt or cripple it as a foal, and kill it any time. If it is genetically sound, we can make it docile or vicious by appropriate treatment. By selective breeding, equine eugenics or dysgenics, we can produce horses that have more of some given quality and even hybrids, but what we can do is always strictly and unalterably limited by the genetic potentiality of the sires and dams.

A human being is born with a potentiality that is unalterably fixed by the quality of the ovum and sperm that engendered the fetus. We can abort it or malform it even in the womb; we can mutilate it physically; we can blight its mind with drugs or public schools; we can kill it, but we can never make it what it was not potentially when it was born.

We can blind a child, but we can never give sight to the blind. We can never give to individuals an intellectual or moral capacity that they did not have potentially at birth. The pressures of environment, circumstances, and education, especially in youth, can debauch and deprave, but can never ameliorate the character that was fixed by heredity. (5) As all men who lived on our frontier knew, “You can make an Indian out of a White man, but you can never make a White man out of an Indian.” Anyone who refuses to accept that fact is abysmally ignorant, irrational, or malicious.

(5. Human genetics are so complex that, as is well known, no two offspring of a given man and woman, except identical twins, have the same heredity, and siblings usually differ greatly from one another. Before genetic processes were scientifically ascertained, this fact was the only rational basis for an hypothesis of astrological influences.)

It is characteristic of the noxious creatures who call themselves “Liberal intellectuals” today that they deny nature and reality, and, witlessly or maliciously, erect a screen of flatulent verbiage and vapid superstitions to hide the real world from their victims and, sometimes, even from themselves. They most commonly preach the Marxist religion in one form or another. They usually profess to be irreligious, but they are the creations and continuators of Christianity, which, as Nietzsche saw, “grew up as a sort of war on reality.” If they are members of our race, they are the equivalent of cancerous cells that revolt against the body that nourished them and of which they are a part. They are your enemies, and if not excised, will kill you or your progeny.

The simple test I have suggested will enable you infallibly to identify them, whatever their race and whatever academic honors and prestige they may have usurped. It will enable you to discriminate between the conflicting forces that are now shaping your future and the fate of your posterity.

In the meantime, the abolition of a nest of cultural vermin, agitators for “equality” and other toxic nonsense, may be a slight harbinger of a possible return of academic responsibility and honesty. But it may also be merely an administrative manoeuvre to serve some local purpose in a university at which I know no one to whom I could appeal for confidential and reliable information.

Although there is that limiting uncertainty, I thought I should report the event to readers of Liberty Bell. If you have not become totally pessimistic, you may see in it one of the very rare reasons for encouragement found anywhere in our darkling world today — but keep your fingers crossed.

* * *

Source: Liberty Bell magazine, August 1991