Classic EssaysRevilo P. Oliver

A Whiff of Common Sense

William F. Buckley, Jr. and date in 2003

by Revilo P. Oliver

THE CONTENTS OF an issue of National Review are usually predictable, especially since the one for 30 December 1991 was almost entirely devoted to a very long article in which the magazine’s highly intelligent and adroit proprietor, William F. Buckley Jr., pondered the Hauptproblem of modern philosophy: How can there be persons so diabolically perverse that they do not adore Sheenies? Mr. Buckley was incensed by the insolence of his fellow Roman Catholic, Patrick Buchanan, who had temerariously challenged the titular leadership of one side of the Demopublican gang by our War Lord, who is Mr. Buckley’s blood brother in the sacramental bond of Skull & Bones. (1)

(1. Anthony Sutton, I regret to say, is responsible for the prevalent nonsense in the “right wing” to the effect that Skull & Bones is a sinister and secret conspiratorial society that is working for the destruction of the United States. Mr. Sutton discovered the “secret” membership of the dire conspiracy by consulting one of the directories published from time to time by the Russell Trust, which, so far as I know, is just a well-endowed alumni association that keeps track of the members of Skull & Bones and publishes directories with quite brief biographies of all the members since the fraternity was founded at Yale in 1832. The last volume I have seen was published in 1960, but there have doubtless been later editions.

Skull & Bones is just an old-style college fraternity, not to be confused with the numerous fraternities that clutter up the campuses of most colleges and are little more than glorified boarding houses, many of them, indeed, having been founded by the salesmen of manufacturing jewelers to create a market for badges, pins, and rings bearing a club’s Greek letters and symbol.

Skull & Bones, which, when I last heard, selected fifteen new members each year from the junior class at Yale — members who are proud of the distinction thus publicly conferred on them, — is far less exclusive and far less secret than The Seven at the University of Virginia, membership in which is disclosed only at funerals, and then only by a large floral offering in which the numeral 7 in white flowers appears against a background of perennial green. Even the name of the person who commissioned the funerary display is kept secret.

Skull & Bones is merely a real fraternity, an association of wealthy youngsters, products of an apolaustic society, enrolled in a very expensive university, who feel an urge to meet in secret conclaves congenial youngsters of similar tastes and wealthy ancestry, and to form with them, by oaths, ceremonies, and escapades, enduring bonds of fellowship that will endure after they leave the academic womb and, at least ideally, transcend subsequent rivalries. The political activities of members have, of course, varied greatly with changes in the composition of the wealthy class in the United States and with the political functions of Yale University, which, over two centuries, progressed from Calvinism to American nationalism and then regressed to Marxism and Judaic barbarism.)

Mr. Buckley’s vendetta against Patrick Buchanan continues in the issue for 16 March, (2) which, however, is noteworthy for two items in it.

(2. It is printed over a dark green background that will certainly discourage readers, and is remarkable only for embedded contributions from Jews who agree with Mr. Buckley that Jews are wonderful.)

There is an admirable review, by Ronald Bailey, of a new bundle of bound hokum, Earth in the Balance: Ecology and the Human Spirit, “by Al Gore.” (The ‘Al’ is just in the mode of disgustingly spurious familiarity now affected by politicians and other confidence men; the purported author’s real prenom is Albert.) Gore is a member of the upper house of the den of thieves that meets in the Capitol to devise new methods of afflicting the boobs who vote for them. As you would expect, the Senator peddles apocalyptic rhetoric, most of it drivel, and wants you to be especially excited about ‘global warming’ and ‘ozone holes.’ The review quotes him as deploring the wickedness of the press that reports scepticism about the clamors of a small coterie of performing “scientists,” because permitting responsible scientists to speak “undermines the effort to build a solid base of public support for the difficult actions we must soon take” — such as taxing the American boobs for another two hundred billion dollars annually to finance a “global Marshal Plan” (i.e., like the looting of Americans devised by the traitor who helped the desperate Japanese attack Pearl harbor), and a “Stewardship Council” to distribute our remaining resources over a planet that will reek with Bushy’s (i.e., the Jews’) New World Ordure. The tripe published in the Senator’s name deserved a review, because many readers of National Review are probably still so credulous that they would otherwise read propaganda published by a member of the Jews’ Senate.

What is really refreshing in this issue of the magazine is what I hope will be a regular use of the last page in each issue for contributions to what is called “The Misanthropes’ Corner,” a misanthrope, according to the editors’ definition, being a person who has not lost contact with the real world.

Miss Florence King has given us what are probably excerpts from her book, With Charity Toward None, which is to be published in the near future. She has devised a new term, “the High-Strung Class,” to designate the verbose simpletons who like to call themselves “Liberal intellectuals.” If they really believe what they say and are not disguised enemies of our race, they are, in her terminology, ‘Strungleurs.’

“America’s leading Stungleur,” she says, “was Henry David Thoreau, who took it for granted that ‘the mass of men lead lives of quiet desperation,’ because the mere thought of holding down a steady job set his teeth on edge.”

‘Strungleurs,’ as Miss King pointedly observes, are too ‘intellectual’ and stupid to perceive that culture and civilization “could not function without a plodding working class and traditional housewives. These are the people who produce strong families that make for an orderly society.”

Social reformers merely excite discontent and unhappiness in persons who would otherwise be content with their station in life. “Florence Nightingale had no patience with Victorian England’s High-Strung Class, whose passion for improving the lot of the dregs of society she dismissed as ‘poor-peopling.'”

“The mass of mankind,” Miss King continues, “like their lives the way they are and ask only that sensitive thinkers leave them alone. As James Gould Cozzens wrote: ‘When Thoreau judged that most men lived lives of quiet desperation I think he failed to consider the fact that, by a merciful provision of Providence, most men have little or no more imagination than an animal. Good reasons for despair may be all around the average man, but he won’t see them.'”

Miss King also examines the shrieking harridans of Feminism, who, inspired by Betty Friedan (race unmentioned), persuaded gullible American women to abandon their homes, called “concentration camps,” and “shred the social fabric of an entire country” to pursue “careers” as ersatz-workmen — a subject that is more fully covered in Nicholas Davidson’s The Failure of Feminism, which I have yet belatedly to consider in these pages.

Miss King makes many other astute observations and closes with an “incredible statement” by the well-known labor agitator, Samuel Gompers (race unmentioned): “The promise of America for the laboring man is the promise of someday no longer having to work with his hands.” That, of course, is a seditious repudiation of the “work ethic,” which is the very foundation of all viable nations and about which, by the way, there is an instructive article in Christian News, which I shall discuss soon in connection with the complementary and socially devastating Freudian ethic.

National Review, needless to say, was not the place for a discussion of our enemies’ inveterate technique of destroying nations by splitting them into reciprocally antagonistic groups, and making each group intent on exploiting all the others for its own profit or malicious satisfaction. (3)

(3. The Jews’ strategy for destroying nations was fixed some centuries before the Christian Era and must be known to all Christians who read their Bible while awake. In the screed attributed to Isaiah the personification of the Jewish race, Yahweh, boasts (19.2): “I will set Egyptians against the Egyptians; and they shall fight every one against his brother, and every one against his neighbor; city against city, and kingdom against kingdom.”)

* * *

Source: Liberty Bell magazine, April 1992

Previous post

Why Do They Do It?

Next post

Black Female Tortures, Murders Her Own Sons in "Voodoo Ritual"

Notify of
Inline Feedback
View all comments