Where Frederic is Taking Us
Bret Ludwig
default win. Because despite its obvious internal contradictions, it
will at least make some sense. Unlike Frederic who makes none.
>> Liberalism and Our Universities
by Shaun Walker
American Dissident Voices Broadcast of October 15, 2005
Stanford University
Liberalism is a strange thing. On the one hand, purely on a
philosophical level, it has its attractions: just think how nice
everything would be if every person on earth were compatible with each
other; if everyone meant well; if everyone shared the same values; if
there were indeed no differences at all between people that were even
worth worrying about. Such a society would actually be quite nice to
live in.
Imagine a place where the educational system did not withhold facts
from you because the teaching authorities did not like those facts.
Imagine a place where it was safe to walk down any street, anywhere,
anytime. Imagine a society where everyone was prosperous; where there
was no exploitation of any sort. Imagine a society where everyone
shared the same good standard of living. Imagine a society where
everyone was always allowed to do their best, where there were no
conmen, no people with any ill intent at all. Imagine that. Yes, that
would be a nice society.
But as I said right at the beginning, liberalism is a strange
thing. It holds up a seemingly nice ideal, but it fails to take into
account the realities of the world. It is an illusion, built on what
some people would like the world to be, rather than what is.
And this is why liberalism is all too often fatal -- deadly to its
believers and others unfortunate enough to be caught up in the dream
world which liberalism creates.
One of the foremost examples of this sort of insanity was the case
of Amy Biehl. Even though Dr. Pierce discussed her on a previous
American Dissident Voices broadcast in September 1998, it is worthwhile
to delve into the full details here again, as they reveal much about
this social cancer called liberalism. For those listeners that don't
remember, or who didn't hear that broadcast, Amy Biehl was an American
girl who graduated from Stanford in 1989, and she received a Fulbright
Scholarship to study in South Africa.
Amy was, by all accounts, a bright girl, born to a typical upper
middle class American family. Blond, blue-eyed and pretty, she could
easily have been the typical "California Blond" (although those are
becoming rarer these days, but that's another topic).
Instead, apparently through her parents, Amy became infected with
the disease of liberalism. She became a member of the National
Democratic Institute for International Affairs.
In Amy's world, there were no differences between the races; in
Amy's world, there were no horrible people, just people who had been
misled, and who, once shown the truth, would become good at the drop of
a hat. In Amy's world, everything was fine and good, if only we worked
at it hard enough. And so when she graduated from Stanford, she caused
a stir by writing in chalk "Free Mandela" on the top of her graduation
cap, bowing to the audience at an appropriate moment during the
ceremony.
Within a few years, her dedication to the anti-Apartheid cause
resulted in her move to South Africa, to start work helping the ANC
prepare for the first all race elections in 1994. In Amy's world, there
were no bad Black people, only a few bad White people, and they too
would likely change their opinion if they could only see how good Black
people were.
With those liberal beliefs, Amy began spending more and more time
in the Black townships of South Africa, hob-knobbing it with leading
ANC activists, helping to register voters, and generally trying to be
the all round nice person that she believed everyone else was.
And, so it was that on the 25th of August, 1993, that the
26-year-old Amy was driving some of her wonderful Black friends to
their homes in a township outside Cape Town. It is important for
listeners to remember, that by this time Apartheid had been dismantled,
the ANC was a legitimate organization in South Africa, and their
so-called 'armed struggle' had been formally stopped. There was, in
other words, no reason for violence.
Amy's White face stood out in the township, and it was not long
before her car came under attack by a large mob of Blacks. Stones were
thrown which smashed the windscreen and side windows of her car. One of
the stones hit Amy on her head, causing her to bleed profusely. Unable
to drive any further, she stopped the car and staggered out, dripping
blood in the road, to a filling station, perhaps there hoping to find
help of some sort. None came; her attackers pursued her and continued
throwing stones at the White woman, ignoring the Blacks in her car.
They wanted to kill the White woman, not because of what she had done,
but because she was White.
One of the attackers tripped Amy, causing her to fall. While lying
on the ground, the crowd continued to stone her. One of the attackers
drew a knife and plunged it into her heart, while she was lying barely
moving on the floor. The knife was withdrawn, and then plunged further
three times into her chest. By now her head had been smashed open by
repeated blows with a brick. In the Negroes brains, the White woman had
to die, and she did, begging for mercy, begging not to be killed. It
was a pathetic, lonely and frightening death. Amy Biehl was murdered in
a brutal fashion because she was White, not for any other reason. Her
death symbolizes the reality check which always, always, destroys the
liberal myth.
Now, one would think, this would surely be more than enough for
most people. Surely, one would think, that this would be enough to
teach even the most well-meaning person that there was something more
in the world than the rosy tint which liberalism puts on everything.
But no, this is where the disease of liberalism really becomes
gangrenous in nature. Amy's parents, Peter and Linda Biehl, then flew
to South Africa to meet her murderers, who had in the interim been
arrested. The famous meeting between the senior Biehls and their
daughter's murders took place in 1998 before South Africa's infamous
"Truth Commission," at which they were all granted amnesty for the
murder of Amy Biehl.
Biehl Sr. read a poem to the Black youths who had stabbed and
stoned his daughter to death, and then actually embraced these
murderous scum. They said this was Amy's "vision of forgiveness and
reconciliation that we have honored."
The parents then started a foundation in Amy's name: a foundation
-- you guessed it -- dedicated to helping Blacks in South Africa. The
disease spread, outliving its victim. Today, there is even a school in
New Mexico named after Amy, dedicated to what it calls 'social
justice.'
Amy's parents have been paraded back-and-forth in America in a
hand-wringing liberal fest, all trying to outdo each other in honoring
the very misguided, liberal girl who was murdered because she was
White.
Those of us, who are not liberals, stand back aghast. We cannot
even contemplate forgiving the murders of one of our children, much
less embracing them and then spending the rest of our days trying to
help them. Hell no, most decent people would actually want revenge!
And now the thought enters our minds: What is wrong with people
such as the Biehls? How could they have gone so far off the track that
not only have they raised their own child to be openly anti-White, to
be openly working against her very own interests, but now that this
evil delusion has seen her brutally murdered, they carry on by pushing
the same cause even further than before? Is there hope for these
people?
Sadly, the Biehls are not alone. How many times have we seen
liberals, when confronted with the obvious failure of racial
integration, in schools, residential suburbs, in the workplace and
elsewhere, dismiss these failures as being due to alleged "White
racism."
The problem, these seemingly insane people tell us, is not racial
integration, but rather that there is too little integration. We need
more for this problem to be solved, they tell us, and always ignoring
the fact that it might be the very 'medicine' which they prescribe
which is the cause of the problem in the first place.
But it was not always like this. Liberals are the end result of 60
or 70 years of academic 'reeducation,' as carried out by the largely
Jewish school of anthropology and sociology at our institutions of
higher learning.
A hundred years ago, liberal academics were almost unknown.
Academic study was based on academics, not on dreams of what the world
should ideally be like. Take for example, the famous Encyclopedia
Britannica's 11th edition, published in 1911, which was the product of
the finest minds at the University of Cambridge in the UK. The 1911
edition of the Encyclopedia Britannica is still today held up as the
standard by which all encyclopedias are measured.
I would like to read verbatim, extracts from the entry under
"Negro" in the 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica. (The encyclopedia is, by
the way, online at: http://77.1911encyclopedia.org/N/NE/NEGRO.htm)
This is what the White race's finest academic minds had to say
about the Negro in 1911:
"NEGRO (from Lat. niger, black), in anthropology, the
designation of the distinctly dark-skinned, as opposed to the fair,
yellow, and brown variations of mankind. . . Mentally the negro is
inferior to the white. The remark of F. Manetta, made after a long
study of the negro in America, may be taken as generally true of the
whole race: 'the negro children were sharp, intelligent and full of
vivacity, but on approaching the adult period a gradual change set in.
The intellect seemed to become clouded, animation giving place to a
sort of lethargy, briskness yielding to indolence.'
We must necessarily suppose that the development of the negro
and white proceeds on different lines. While with the latter the volume
of the brain grows with the expansion of the brainpan, in the former
the growth of the brain is on the contrary arrested by the premature
closing of the cranial sutures and lateral pressure of the frontal
bone.
This explanation is reasonable and even probable as a
contributing cause; but evidence is lacking on the subject and the
arrest or even deterioration in mental development is no doubt very
largely due to the fact that after puberty sexual matters take the
first place in the negro's life and thoughts. At the same time his
environment has not been such as would tend to produce in him the
restless energy which has led to the progress of the white race; and
the easy conditions of tropical life and the fertility of the soil have
reduced the struggle for existence to a minimum. But though the mental
inferiority of the negro to the white or yellow races is a fact, it has
often been exaggerated; the negro is largely the creature of his
environment, and it is not fair to judge of his mental capacity by
tests taken directly from the environment of the white man, as for
instance tests in mental arithmetic; skill in reckoning is necessary to
the white race, and it has cultivated this faculty; but it is not
necessary to the negro.
On the other hand negroes far surpass white men in acuteness of
vision, hearing, sense of direction and topography. A native who has
once visited a particular locality will rarely fail to recognize it
again. For the rest, the mental constitution of the negro is very
similar to that of a child, normally good-natured and cheerful, but
subject to sudden fits of emotion and passion during which he is
capable of performing acts of singular atrocity, impressionable, vain,
but often exhibiting in the capacity of servant a dog-like fidelity
which has stood the supreme test.
Given suitable training, the negro is capable of becoming a
craftsman of considerable skill, particularly in metal work, carpentry
and carving. The bronze castings by the tire perdue process, and the
cups and horns of ivory elaborately carved, which were produced by the
natives of Guinea after their intercourse with the Portuguese of the
i6th century, bear ample witness to this. But the rapid decline and
practical evanescence of both industries, when that intercourse was
interrupted, shows that the native craftsman was raised for the moment
above his normal level by direct foreign inspiration, and was unable to
sustain the high quality of his work when that inspiration failed.
Cannibalism is found in its simplest form in Africa. In that
continent the majority of cannibal tribes eat human flesh because they
like it, and not from any magical motive or from lack of other animal
food. In fact it is noticeable that the tribes most addicted to this
practice inhabit just those districts where game is most plentiful.
Among the true negroes it is confined mainly to the Welle and Ubangi
districts, though found sporadically (and due to magical motives) on
the west coast, and among the Bantu negroids in the south-western part
of Belgian Congo and-the Gabon.
Pottery-making is almost universal, though nowhere has it
reached a very advanced stage; the wheel is unknown.
A characteristic feature of the western culture area, among
both negro and Bantu negroid tribes, is the belief that any form of
death except by violence must be due to evil magic exercised by, or
through the agency of, some human individual; to discover the guilty
party the poison ordeal is freely used. A similar form of ordeal is
found in British Central Africa, to discover magicians, and the
wholesale 'smelling-out' of 'witches,' often practiced for political
reasons, is a well-known feature of the culture of the Zulu-Xosa
tribes."
That was the opinion of academics then. By 1966, a mere 50 years
later, the Encyclopedia Britannica had completely excised all
references to Negro intellectual ability and lack of cultural
achievement, and had contained only a physical description of Negroes,
nothing more. The question which immediately springs to mind now is
what on earth has happened to academia in the past 70 years? How could
our finest academic minds go from telling such hard-hitting racial
truths to saying nothing at all?
The cause of this turnaround is the exact same thing that led Amy
Biehl to her death: an infectious social cancer has taken hold, and
subverted the Western World, the disease of liberalism. And as you
know, infectious diseases are caused by bacteria or a virus: a foreign
antigen. And the virus which infected Western Academia, and which has
sapped it to its core, came in the form of a Jew by the name of Franz
Boas.
Boas is the grandfather of modern anthropology and was the first to
actively promote the idea that race did not exist and was merely a
'social construct' not found in nature. Boas' influence on the 20th
Century ranks alongside that of his fellow Jewish tribesmen, Karl Marx
and Sigmund Freud. As a professor at Columbia from 1899 to 1942, he
virtually created modern anthropology, and the students he trained --
almost all Jews -- went on to spread his poison throughout the Western
World.
Boas' students included the most famous names of modern
anthropology: Frank Speck, who founded the anthropology department at
the University of Pennsylvania; Edward Sapir, who developed the
anthropology program at the University of Chicago; Alexander
Goldenweiser, who started the anthropology program at the New School
for Social Research; Leslie Spier, who started the anthropology program
at the University of Washington; Melville Herskovits who started the
anthropology program at Northwestern University; and Esther Goldfrank,
who traveled with Boas to New Mexico in 1919 to conduct research among
the Pueblo Indians. Boas strongly influenced the French Jew Claude
Lévi-Strauss, who developed structuralism as a method of interpreting
culture. Several of Boas's students went on to serve as editors of the
American Anthropological Association's flagship journal, American
Anthropologist.
In 1912, Boas published his most famous work -- a study which
claimed to show that the skull shapes of the descendants of European
immigrants to the United States altered from those of the original
immigrants. This study served to lay the foundation for modern
liberalism's greatest pillar: that there were no real fixed different
racial and ethnic types as far as physical characteristics went. It was
the start of the 'nurture rules over nature' argument; an argument
which was to form the basis of the attack on racial realism and science
from then till now because Boas' argument claimed they changed
according to environmental circumstances like climate or diet or even,
he asserted, gynecological or swaddling practices.
Here was the start of the disease: the academic world had been
infiltrated by a Marxist-sympathizing Jew who, with the aid of his
network of fellow religionists, succeeded in turning the academic world
on its head and moving it from racial realism to racial fantasy.
Boas' influence cannot be underestimated: the environmental theory
of racial development still holds sway to this day, and was most
recently exemplified in the books Guns, Germs and Steel and Collapse:
How Societies Choose to Fail or Succeed, written by the Jew Jared
Diamond. Both these works, which are now being studied at universities
and colleges across the Western World, claim exactly as Boas did, that
environment alone determines racial achievement and not a race's
inherent make-up.
It matters nothing that a 2002 study at the University of
Pennsylvania showed that Boas had manufactured his findings and they
were not supported by the measurements taken during the course of his
original study. The damage had been done and that was the intention.
The disease entered the academic community, and from there it
spread through society. Today, American students who are only exposed
to these Jewish lies become in denial on the subject of race. Slowly
but surely -- over a period of decades -- these Jewish infiltrators
drove out truth in anthropology, in history, in sociology, and replaced
it with their version. This liberal version is the impossibility of
equality, mixed with malevolence, lies and intolerance for other
opinions. This is all packaged up and called "liberalism."
Now it is ironic that most liberals are in fact the most intolerant
of all people on earth. Listeners might know for example, the horror
story of Ernst Zundel -- imprisoned for over three years without trial,
by the so-called liberal democracies of Canada and Germany. But Ernst
Zundel is not the only case: thousands of German patriots have been
imprisoned over the years for daring to think or write things with
which the "liberal democracies" did not agree. This phenomenon is not
limited to Germany either, but is widespread across all of Europe. They
even have laws which state that truth is no defense, even if what
someone says is the truth, they are still fined or imprisoned for
saying it in public.
Even here in the USA, people are victimized for saying things which
liberals do not like: people lose their jobs, their incomes, are
railroaded out of schools and colleges as punishment for daring to
dissent with the great liberal lie.
The liberal is, we can conclude, a seriously mentally ill person,
who suffers from a schizophrenic condition. On the one hand, the
liberal says everyone is equal, and there must be freedom for all. But
on the other hand, if anyone dares venture an opinion with which they
differ, especially on the topics of race or Jews, then those same
liberals are the first to argue in favor of depriving that person of
their civil liberties such as freedom of speech or association. In
short, liberals appear to be quite genuinely crazy, and at the same
time, their openly stated desires are tyrannical.
After so many years of studying liberals, we are forced to the
conclusion that, with only a few exceptions, they cannot be cured.
Their brainwashing has apparently caused some hardwiring within the
brain to go haywire; and to bring any mental health to them will
require them to actually disengage from the mental disease which has
engulfed them.
Politically speaking, liberals have to be written off. And as
terrible as it sounds, the only way we will be rid of the worst
afflicted, that is the Liberal Orthodoxy, is when they immolate
themselves on their own lies, similar to what happened to Amy Biehl. We
must not waste our time trying to teach let alone recruit liberals. We
must aim our recruiting efforts at the youth, at those people without a
strong opinion either way and those that have similar beliefs as ours.
These are our target group, and there are millions and millions of
them. We can break though the conspiracy of liberal lies. All we need
is enough dedicated activists who are prepared to put all their
available time and effort into saving their race and nation.
In this battle, each and every person who cares about their race's
future, about the future which faces their children and grandchildren,
has a holy duty to take up the challenge. Join with us in this holy
quest.<<