America after the Holy War, part 10

part 1 • part 2 • part 3 • part 4 • part 5 • part 6 • part 7 • part 8 • part 9

by Revilo P. Oliver

IN 1955, if rational criticism were to have a political effect, it would have to be directed against the three obvious targets: the “Liberal” cults in general, the Communists in particular, and the Jews. The first of these, although as multiform and elusive as Proteus, was the most important in the United States, since its mythology, administered in the public schools, shielded the other two.

Communist doctrine represents, of course, a schismatic “Liberalism” standing in much the same relation to the orthodoxy as the Puritans stood to Catholicism. It was, however, a particularly inviting target in 1955, because the general public was to a certain extent then aware of it as a menace. When the American cattle began to recover from the great stampede into Europe and to show signs of restlessness, their drovers decided to distract and further exploit them by discovering that the Soviet, which so many Americans had died to save, was a danger, after all, and that the Bolsheviks were not really archangels come to Earth. Thus was begun the “cold war,” with much rhetorical fustian and a few token gestures, such as the ostentatious disposal of two worn-out tools, the Rosenbergs, to create the illusion that treason was no longer normal in the District of Corruption. The “cold war,” needless to say, was devised to bleed the American economy and to subsidize the enemies of America under the idiotic pretext that “poverty breeds Communism.” An official simulation of hostility toward the Communists was also necessary to permit intensive squandering of American resources in military operations primarily designed to degrade the Americans and so to advertise their degradation as to make them contemptible in the eyes of even the most stupid races on Earth. The Korean War, for example, was made possible only by assuring the suckers that they were “fighting Communism” and by deploying squads of brainwashed rabble to howl Communist slogans in protest, thus neatly estopping rational criticism of the covert treason by making it seem that the critic was acting in the interests of the Communists, who were, for the nonce, recognized as our enemies. The success of the Korean War was momentarily endangered by a nasty general named MacArthur, who did not have wit enough to understand that his duty was to get as many stupid Americans killed as possible, and to waste as much of American resources as he could, without serious inconvenience to the BoIsheviks. But as soon as MacArthur was eliminated, everything went according to the plan that had been agreed upon in Washington and Moscow, and it was easy to herd the cattle into other disgraces until the bloody farce in Vietnam finally exhausted the utility of the hoax about “fighting Communism” and prepared the boobs for more open submission to their “invincible” enemies, now reconverted into friends by crude, but effective, propaganda.

In the meantime, however, and so long as it was desired to put the hoax over on the American peasantry, it had been expedient to permit some of them to say unkind things about the real beneficiaries of the “cold war,” who, of course, did their part by pretending to take it seriously. And although this permission was always subject to the stringent limitation that the unkind remarks must be superficial, Americans who hoped to recover control of their country were encouraged, and for a number of years the populace was allowed to feel some vague alarm over the obvious threat to their national survival. The carefully rationed pro-Communist agitation in the United States fostered the illusion that some real struggle to decide national policy was under way. This gave worried individuals the exhilarating distraction of campaigns, often successful, to elect “anti-Communist” candidates, most of whom, aware of political realities, were amused by the naïveté of their supporters.

In these circumstances, the most direct means of revivifying and focusing the Americans’ instinct of self-preservation was a direct attack on the Bolsheviks, elucidating their nature and purposes, explaining their seizure of Russia and other territories, and, above all, pointing out that the major base of their power had always been located in the United States. And in 1955, when the United States was still a world power, one could hope that an aroused people might exert such pressure as would convert their government’s pretense into a reality and force a military confrontation with the Soviet, which would either prudently retreat or rashly commit itself to a war in which we would probably be victorious.

So much was clear, but the third target of political criticism, the Jews, presented a problem, of extreme difficulty and exasperating delicacy. The rare individuals who perceived the extent of their covert power were desperately afraid of them, and said that to offend the Jews openly was to exhibit temerity pushed to the verge of madness. But that was not the real problem. A man who wished to serve his race might be as audacious and foolhardy as you please, but he would find his utterances nevertheless confined within very narrow limits by the factors we have already reviewed. There were only two things that he could do.

He could speak of Bolsheviks, and since a large proportion of the Jews involved had not concealed their race by assuming distinctively Aryan names, and the real names of many who had adopted such aliases were matters of public record, he could hope that the names would suggest a significant fact to minds that were not hopelessly sluggish or hebetated. He could also suggest rational thought about current propaganda by avoiding use of the absurd term “anti-Semitic” that the Jews, yielding to their instinct for concealment and disguise, had foisted into use when it was expedient to confuse the stupid Europeans by pretending that Jews are of the same race as the Semitic peoples of the Near East. And there was then the additional advantage that the notion that criticism of Jews residing in Europe was tantamount to hostility toward the Semitic race would help to excite disaffection among the Semitic peoples, who were, until 1945, all either directly under European jurisdiction in the various colonies or under European influence (even in the Turkish Empire before 1914). Such disaffection, naturally, facilitated destruction of the European empires. When the deceitful term was invented, of course, the Jews did not anticipate the situation today, when the nations of the Near East have been alarmed by the bandit state of Israel, and even unthinking persons are jolted by the ludicrous paradox that the real Semites are vehemently “anti-Semitic.”

Even a cowed American could venture to insist on an honest use of words, and ask people to say “anti-Jewish” when that was what they meant, but even the most temerarious critic could not go beyond such oblique hints. He was simply impaled on the two horns of a dilemma. Even if he were willing to become a propagandist and, like a radio announcer, try to say with conviction what he did not believe, he could not echo the polemics of anti-Jewish Christians without exciting the derision of the readers whom he most needed to convince. But factual and objective criticism of the Jews would automatically provoke the Christians to the most violent antagonism.

(to be continued)

part 1 • part 2 • part 3 • part 4 • part 5 • part 6 • part 7 • part 8 • part 9

* * *

Source: America’s Decline