The article at the bottom of this post – The treason of the liberals – was published in Right Now! magazine in July 1995 (issue 8). It examines the reasons which led Timothy McVeigh to bomb the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City on April 19, 1995 . I attributed the cause to the creation by white liberal elites of circumstances which utterly alienated the white masses in whose interests they supposedly exercised power. T
he permitting of the mass immigration of those who by their nature could not or would not assimilate into white European societies and their overseas offshoots such as the USA by itself undermined national cohesion. If that was not damaging enough, the liberal elites used the upheaval wrought by mass immigration as a launch pad for what has become the rigid ideological creed we know as political correctness. In the name of “anti-discrimination” all the old certainties were overturned: the dominance of the white population in white societies; the traditional place of the man; the distrust of homosexual behaviour all went by the board. The white male who was outside the liberal elite was left high and dry, constantly hemmed in with criticism and accusations about what was permissible.
To enforce the new politically correctly regime the state became ever more intrusive and the white person, and especially the white male, found themselves ever more marginalised. Whites became actively disadvantaged in ever sphere as far as it was in the power of governments to arrange this. Minority groups were given preference in employment (especially state employment) and higher education; political parties and corporate bodies rushed to ensure they could present a “diverse” face to the public and. To speak against this courted loss of employment or even jail.
At the same time Governments throughout the First World wrapped themselves ever more tightly in international treaties such as those of the UN, the WTO and the EU. More and more was taken out of the hands of national governments. More and more liberal elites insisted they could not do anything other than the politically correct because it would breach a treaty or be illegal. Democratic control was sucked from national politics.
It was in this context that McVeigh exploded his bomb. His motives were ostensibly against Big Government, of the Federal US government exceeding its role in incidents such as the Waco Siege . The question which was never properly answered was what could have turned a commonly held view in the USA into murderous intent within McVeigh. The most plausible reason is that he became alienated to the extent that he felt contempt for what his society had become and having lost his natural attachment to his society concluded that only violence would adequately express his anger and make those with power take note.
The Oslo attack on 22 July 2011 (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/norway/8655175/Oslo-explosion-live-coverage.html) which left at least 92 dead and others wounded appears to have been undertaken by one or more native Norwegians. As I write one man, Anders Behring Breivik, has been arrested as a suspect. He is the classic Norseman.
If he is guilty , what created the state of mind which driove him to such extreme action? I would point the finger at the same causes as those which I believe created a Timothy McVeigh. Norwegian society, like the rest of Scandinavia, is a very controlled society because political correctness has a vice-like grip there. Not only that, but Norway has a population of only a few million. The country is still more homogeneous than many first world states, but there are sizeable minorities (http://www.joshuaproject.net/countries.php?rog3=NO) and small populations are vulnerable to rapid conquest by mass immigration in way in which large populations are not. 100,000 in a population of 5 million such as Norway is very differentb to 100,000 in a population of 50m million. The perpretrator(s) of the Oslo killings, if they are native Norwegians, had probably reached the state of mind I attribute to McVeigh. Riobert henderson 23 July 2011
The treason of the liberals
If it is proved that the Oklahoma bombing was the work of white, un-hyphenated Americans, the act may be a harbinger of a growing general rage at the depredations, both moral and material, made on the mass of their respective publics by liberal elites throughout the western world.
For more than half a century these elites have acted ruthlessly to enforce an ideology which is utterly at odds with human nature and doomed by its very tenets to produce, in the course of a generation or two, immense social ills which, because of the liberal mentality, are incompetently addressed by ever more bad, inequitable and restrictive laws and increasingly burdensome government.
During their period of ascendency liberals have acted consistently and maliciously against the interests of those who form the social bedrock of their various nations.
Throughout the western world, if you are white, male and indubitably attached by birth and upbringing to your country and culture, watch out buster because your politicians, laws, legal system, bureaucracy, educationalists and the mass media are energetically opposed to your interests. In particular, if you happen to be an instinctive white patriot in what might loosely be termed the Anglo-Saxon cultures – Britain, the USA, Canada, Australia and New Zealand – then God help you because your own ruling class most certainly will not.
How have liberals brought the West to this unhappy state? By granting legal and de facto privileges to particular races, cultures and women; by an incessant denigration through the media, education and politics of the culture and values of their majority populations; by the remorseless promotion of multiculturalism; by the crippling of public education through the use of “progressive” educational theory to indoctrinate teachers with impractical and inherently destructive teaching practices and ideas which emphasise rights above duties and actively disparage the acquisition of knowledge and intellectual competence; by the promotion of supranational bodies such as the UN at the expense of the nation (what a wonderful toy for every malevolent dictator is the UN); by, above all, the celebration of pseudo-victims – the unable, the unskilled, the uneducated, the stupid, the feckless, the idle, the gratuitously violent, the amoral, the society hating – at the expense of the skilled, the able, the educated, the honest, the moral, the self-supporting, the self-respecting, the peaceable, the patriotic.
The task of the liberal has been greatly eased, particularly in those countries which previously enjoyed great racial and cultural homogeneity, by both a deliberate dilution of the majority populations through immigration policies which discriminate against those settlers who would most easily integrate into the cultural mainstream and by a refusal to enforce effective measures against illegal immigrants, who are overwhelmingly drawn from those peoples which are most alien to the traditions of the majority populations of the recipient countries. These actions of commission and omission have a happy consequence for the liberal elite for once an immigrant group reaches a good size – say 50,000 – it becomes virtually impossible for any government with any pretensions to maintaining personal freedoms and equality before the law to enforce a meaningful immigration policy towards that group because by then it represents a very real threat, both in terms of its ability to pursue legal action against the government on behalf of thwarted immigrants and by an ever present threat of disorder ranging from rowdy demonstrations to calculated violence. The term fifth column is used disparagingly by liberals but that is what any sizeable immigrant group which cannot or will not integrate necessarily becomes. The whole business is made more certain by the widespread liberal control of the mass media.
In their results the effects of the liberal elites’ immigration policies are indistinguishable from treason because mass immigration which results in the formation of ghettoes – and mass immigration of particular racial and cultural groups invariably creates ghettoes – is equivalent to settlement by conquest accompanied by an ethnic cleansing of the original inhabitants. It is in fact conquest by other means. The full enormity of these immigration policies can be seen if we pose a question: suppose a government agreed to cede – without any threat whatsoever from a foreign power – part of its territory whilst leaving the inhabitants of that territory utterly to the mercies of a foreign power, what would it be reasonable to call such an act? I suggest the most high treason as the only appropriate phrase. If immigrant groups are fifth columnists, the liberal elites represent a sixth column.
In truth, modern liberalism is a crude fantasy built on the absurd premise that men are essentially the same and may live in harmony regardless of massive differences in culture and Man’s innate tribalism. That much beloved liberal ideal – the multicultural, multiracial society – is a literal nonsense. Without a shared culture and instinctive sense of identity you have no more than an empire, which is essentially series of competing national ghettoes. The multiracial state is a practical possibility: a multiracial nation a contradiction in terms.
I said at the beginning that the liberal elites act maliciously. Perhaps it might be better to say that they act as every selfish aristocracy has acted since time began: their natural instinct is to ignore the interests of the mass of those they rule. Concerned only with the satisfaction of their own desires; always confident that they may escape the unpleasant consequences of their actions -which the poor are forced to bear – by their wealth, social position and political power; protected from frequent, powerful and coherent criticism through their control of the mass media; emotionally bolstered by hyperbolically false claims to a moral superiority; always able to browbeat and control political opponents by either excluding them from the media or by turning them into “useful idiots” who are allowed just enough exposure to permit the liberal media to claim, at least to its own satisfaction, that it is “balanced”. They are become as replete with stupid arrogance as the later Bourbons, the stench of their gross hypocrisy matched only by the rankness of their moral humbug, humbug which is epitomised so sweetly in Clinton’s words after the bombing: “We still will have freedom of speech, we’ll have freedom of association, we’ll have freedom of movement, but we may have to have some discipline in doing it so we can go after people who want to destroy our very way of life. (Translation: we will curtail all these activities, as far as the Supreme Court will allow us, for those people of whom liberals disapprove.
Thank your lucky stars, Americans, that you have a constitutional right to freedom of expression and the bearing of arms. Without those bulwarks, the liberal triumph in America would be near complete and unassailable because of the absence of disciplined national political parties). And don’t you just love that “people who want to destroy our way of life” from a man who supports an ideology and practices which are all about doing precisely that for the majority of Americans?
Perhaps the Oklahoma bombing is the first sign that the majority populations of the West are close to rebellion. In Britain and the continent of Europe the immediate catalyst to revolt will be the still untrammelled arrogance of the various national liberal elites who have made not merely common cause in their sympathies, but created a commonalty of formal power within the ever more oppressive and expensive European Union. In the USA, Canada, Australia and New Zealand, the first engine of change will be provincial revolt against national governments. But all western peoples will be driven by the same basic ills: an arrogant, selfish and incompetent ruling elite, patently unfair laws and systems of justice, overburdensome government, frighteningly high taxation, privileges granted to minorities and, most fundamental and intractable, the creation, by selective immigration policies (official and unofficial) and the promotion of multiculturalism, of countries which are no longer nations but empires. Of all the cruelties inflicted upon the masses by liberals, the denial of the security of racial and cultural homogeneity is the greatest for without that a nation’s privacy is lost. It is this sense of belonging, this tribal feeling, which liberals have fractured.
Terrible as the death of those in Oklahoma City was, let it serve as a warning shot to the liberal elites to abdicate and as a beacon to draw those who have seen the strange perverted political creed that is modern liberalism in its true lights into the legitimate political process. If the bombing had been undertaken by, say, negro political activists, the American liberal elite would be in paroxysms of the exquisite self-indulgent self-hatred from which the liberal obtains so much joy. Loud would be the cries for “dialogue” with the “Afro-American community”. Lavish would be the calls for financial redress of their “grievances”, which in a manner unknown to moral philosophers date back to generations long since dead and whose burdens of atonement fall upon the shoulders of the blameless. How much more cause is there to bring into the political process those who are instinctive American patriots?
Will the lesson of Oklahoma City be learned? Probably not for ruling elites of any political colour rarely if ever hold up their hands at the first sound of gunfire. Moreover, the power of the modern state is immense. I fear we are in for much further grisly violence before the lesson is learned through that most wonderful of political teachers, fear. But eventually liberalism will fail because it is an unnatural system of government. Then the liberals will do as the Nazis did in 1945 and the Communists in 1990, lie low with their spoils whilst trimming their sails to the new ideological wind and trying to pretend that the immediate past was not their child. But they will not change their spots. Those who take their places in the political process must remain ever vigilant.