Revilo Oliver-Who’s for Democracy?

Who’s for Democracy?

by Professor Revilo P. Oliver
(excerpted from his Populism and Elitism, 1982)

DEMOCRACY, in the correct, Jeffersonian sense of that word, still exerts a great influence over the thinking of our contemporaries, although no example of it in practice can be found in the world today. It is a theory that was first formulated in the democratic states of ancient Greece and has never been entirely forgotten since that time. It engendered the Mediaeval aphorism, vox populi, vox Dei, which, so far as I know, was first quoted by Alciun, who ridicules it; and it reappears in hundreds of modern writers who champion, in one form or another, the concept of majority rule. Although now reduced to a mere theory, it still has charms and evokes some odd tendencies in persons who are intelligent enough to discriminate between democracy and the common practice of running herds of biped cattle through polling places and counting their noses.

‘Populists’ must remember, first of all, that Jeffersonian democracy was not intended for Timbuktoo, Fiji, or Erewhon. It was designed for the thirteen colonies that had just won their independence–for a specific people in an historically unique situation.

Those colonies came close to being a nation in the primary sense of that word, a natio; a large tribe formed of persons related by ancestry and birth, i.e., a racially homogeneous people. The colonies had been peopled by Englishmen, Scots (including some from Ireland), Germans, Dutch, Scandinavians, and Frenchmen. They were all Aryans and most of them were Nordic. The only racial aliens were the Jews, and at that time there were comparatively few, their depredations were stealthy and almost unnoticed, and their contempt for the stupid Aryans was concealed by their barbaric religion and their habitual whining about “persecution.” Among the leaders of the Revolution, only Franklin seems clearly to have apprehended the menace of the covertly hostile enclave.

To be sure, there were many aborigines on the continent, but they were relegated to the unsettled territories and formed no part of the American population. In the colonies, there were numerous Congoids, but they were domestic livestock, and before 1800 very few Americans regarded the animals as dangerous. Even later, many of the most determined opponents of slavery dismissed as emotionally overwrought Jefferson’s prescient opposition to slavery, which he had vehemently incorporated in his draft of the Declaration of Independence.

Most of the opposition to slavery came from sentimentalists and religious fanatics, whom Jefferson viewed with scorn. His opposition was on practical grounds. (7) He recognized the numerous and prolific Congoids as a threat to the racial integrity of the new nation, and he was aware of the potential danger of maintaining in our territory such large and increasing numbers of a biologically inferior and innately savage race. He foresaw that, if emancipated, they would “stain the blood” of our race by copulation with degenerate whites and thus produce unnatural hybrids; it followed, therefore, that “When [a negro] is freed, he is to be removed beyond the reach of mixture.” Jefferson thought it impossible to prevent the eventual emancipation of the slaves in one way or another. “Nothing is more certainly written in the book of fate than that these people are to be free; nor is it less certain that the two races, equally free, cannot live in the same government.” (8) Disaster could be averted only by exporting the rapidly multiplying anthropoids to Africa or to some nearer and more convenient place, especially the island of Hispaniola after it became available. Jefferson drafted several plans to make that necessary safeguard of American liberty economically feasible, but the tragic blindness of his contemporaries prevented the adoption of any of them.

(footnote 7. There was a slight humanitarian element in Jefferson’s attitude. The slaves whom the Congoids sold to entrepreneurs (many, but not all, of whom were Jews) were shipped across the Atlantic packed into slave ships in which they had to exist for weeks and even months in conditions to which Aryans (or, at least, Nordics) would not wish to see any mammals subjected. Jefferson had the strong aversion from gratuitous cruelty to sentient mammals that is characteristic of our race and conspicuously absent in other races. Jefferson was also deeply concerned about the moral effects of slavery on many owners.)

(footnote 8. The Jefferson Memorial is the most beautiful building in the District of Corruption. It is an architectural gem and, what is more, appropriate, since it is what Jefferson himself would have wanted. It is defaced, however, by the inscription on one of the inner walls of the first part of this sentence and the omission of the words I have italicized. It thus defames Jefferson by implication and was, of course, designed to fool visitors who did not know the complete sentence. There is much to be said for the view that “Liberal intellectuals” are compulsive liars.)

For Jeffersonian democracy, an independent and racially homogenous population of Nordics is but the first requisite, for there is great inequality within our race. It is true that Jefferson put into his Declaration of Independence a wild rhetorical flourish, as dramatic as a war-cry, claiming that “all men are created equal.” He was not a moron, and cannot have meant anything so absurd as is sometimes supposed. What he meant was that all Englishmen should be equal before the law. He was reacting against the class structure of English society and an aristocracy, of which the greater part had been created by kings and ennobled parvenus, often for the most discreditable services, so that socially and morally worthless individuals were given special privileges because they were descended from men who had, rightly or wrongly, been elevated to the peerage. Jefferson recognized, of course, the biologically inequality of all men: “There is a natural aristocracy among men. The grounds for this are virtue (9) and talents…There is also an artificial aristocracy, founded on wealth and birth, without either virtue or talents; for with these, it would belong in the first class.”

(footnote 9. In Jefferson’s time “virtue” still retained its proper meaning, denoting manly excellence, including courage and integrity as shown by both moral and intellectual honesty. It is sad that so useful a word has been perverted by the gabble of Christian propagandists.)

To ensure the dominance of a natural aristocracy, Jefferson relied on his project of an educational system that would progressively identify the superior men by eliminating at each stage after the very first the innately inferior; a rigorous discrimination would prevent the advancement of men beyond the status for which they were fitted by nature. So vital to the survival of the nation did Jefferson consider this system of selection that he, as in his famous foundation of the University of Virginia, believed a strictly secular and cultural education, based on the Classics, history, and science, and excluding all superstitions, should be financed and maintained by taxation. The English language contains so few words of reprobation and invective that I cannot imagine what Jefferson would have said, had he foreseen the moral and mental rot that made possible the capture of the public schools by the vast gang of swindlers, saboteurs, and dolts that has made of those schools a terrible machine for inculcating the most bizarre and noxious superstitions and deforming the minds of children with what amounts to infantile paralysis of the cerebrum.

[Four sections omitted here. See Populism and Elitism for the extended passages. --Ed.]

I have tried, not to give a synopsis of Jefferson’s thought, but only to show what conditions are prerequisite for the democracy he championed. If we wish to institute such a true democracy, we shall first have to create the conditions in which it is possible.

The proponents of democracy will have to begin by deporting, vaporizing, or otherwise disposing of the swarms of Jews, Congoids, Mongoloids, and mongrels that now infest our territory and are becoming ever more numerous and audacious in their unappeasable hatred of us. I cannot suggest offhand a convenient way of effecting that indispensable epuration of the population, but I am willing to believe that it could still be carried out.

Let us assume that you have reduced the population to Aryans, so that we once again have racial homogeneity. Forgive me, dear patriot, but I must be so tactless as to remind you that more, much more, than half of those excellent Aryans will be persons who are now writing checks whenever Falwell and his malodorous kind pitch the woo at the glassy-eyed suckers; who happily pay bureaucrats hired to hector the masochists; who happily send their children into the degradation and filth of “integrated” schools; who, like born slaves, cringe before the goons of Infernal Revenue and hope only to be able to chisel a few bucks here and there without incurring punishment by their owners; who are now determined never to think about the survival of their voluntarily debased and defiled race; who are so lost to manhood that they endure the most abject servitude. These are the newly freed citizens who you expect to govern themselves by free elections in which a majority will make an intelligent choice! Are you counting on some miracle of leadership and inspiration that will make men out of mice? Or, do you intend to disenfranchise, most undemocratically, the Aryan majority in the hope that they, like men maimed by accident or war, can transmit to their offspring a genetic heritage free of their own deformity, so that a future generation of our race will recover the manhood, the self-respect, the intelligence that their sires of today have so blatantly lost?

I know that what I have just said will send many well-meaning and sentimental Americans into a tizzy or a tantrum. I am sorry, but I remind them that I did not design the universe. I did not create the realities of biology and history. And a would-be democrat, like an elfin princess who marries a mortal, must take the bitter with the sweet.
http://www.revilo-oliver.com/news/1982/01/whos-for-democracy/