To See Ourselves

By Revilo P. Oliver (1992)

Ah, wad some power the giftie gie us
To see ourselves as others see us!

The gift was given you by a young Canadian lady, the able translator of the very important article, “The USA: World Judge?” published in the November issue of Liberty Bell. It was translated from a well-established German newspaper, which had to print it within the stringent limitations imposed on the German press by the Jews’ government in Bonn. And it is a mirror in which Caliban may contemplate his own features.

The article contains a number of factual errors, almost all of them derived, directly or indirectly, from the pages of the most widely-circulated newspapers in the United States. It also contains what may be called grave philosophical errors, misconceptions about historical causality, springing from Christian delusions about the nature of the real world, all of which again were copied from popular publications in this country. It is, furthermore, a substantially accurate reproduction of the picture of this country disseminated to the whole world by its publications. It portrays the United States and the American people as they are seen by most men and women, not only in Germany, but throughout Europe. With some modifications, this is probably also the view of the Japanese and Chinese, and perhaps of the Russians also. It therefore deserve your ernest attention.

What should concern us is not the errors, but their source, the caterwauling of “Liberal intellectuals,” who are the cancer of our nation, and of Sheenies working to demoralize our race.

The German writer speaks of the “extermination of the American Indians.” It is true that our people, when they extended their conquests over the entire continent, treated the Indians with severity and sometimes unfairly, but that was because they were such racial bigots that they objected to seeing their wives and children butchered and mutilated or sometimes carried into an inexpressibly vile captivity, and they were so selfish that they did not want their homes and farms burned and their livestock killed, and even were unwilling to be butchered themselves. (1) They finally herded the Indians into reservations, where, although some small tribes did become extinct, the Indians as a race, protected from other tribes and from themselves, flourished and are now more numerous than they were before 1492.

The writer, having evidently credited the piffle produced by some especially vicious poison-pen artists, thinks there were 30,000,000 Indians in what is now the United States when the Pale Faces began to take over the continent; actually, according to the estimates of the most reliable anthropologists before lying became profitable, there were not more than 400,000 and possibly no more than 100,000 at any one time. He, perhaps confusing his statistics, says there are only 100,000-200,000 Indians in the United States–much too many.

The fatuous writer thinks how ducky it would be, if the Indians had multiplied to 100,000,000 by 1900! Life for Aryans in the United states would have become flatly impossible, of course. That may be what makes the idea so charming to apostles of Social Justice.

Compounding the factual error, the writer says that “the great country would have been large enough for the long-established native peoples as well as the new arrivals.” It would be hard to imagine a more asinine statement, but remember that the German writer undoubtedly derived it, directly or indirectly from one of our journalistic prostitutes, possibly a perfesser in some academic brothel.

When there were no more than 400,000 Indians in the entire territory of the United States, it was much too small for them. All the tribes, with the exception of some degenerates in part of California, lived in perpetual warfare with each other for the sheer joy of it. A war party from one tribe would, if necessary, travel a great distance through the forests or over the prairie to attack another tribe. The much touted tribes of the Iroquois federation in New York (formed c. 1570 to attack the Whites more effectively) gladly walked to North Carolina to attack the Cherokee. Kenneth Robert’s Northwest Passage has probably been translated into German; the historical background is accurate, and the first part of the book describes the expedition of the rather famous Major Rogers and his Rangers to end killing and scalping of White settlers on the northern border of Massachusetts by a band of Abnaki who came from their village at the mouth of the St. Francis River in Quebec. The German author should consult his excellent German atlas and look at a map to estimate the distance the blood-thirsty savages must have journeyed on foot to assuage their thirst. Except for a short time within federations formed for bigger raids on other Indians or the White settlers, there never was any peace between Indian tribes until they were herded into reservations and kept there by military surveillance.

The asininity is only compounded by the grotesque notion that the Indians could have co-existed with the White settlers before they were thoroughly defeated and subjugated. (2)

The fact is that when two incompatible races come into contact, one must dominate the other, and if it wishes for lasting peace at home, must exterminate or expel the other, as the Jews did in the tales of the “Old Testament.” Whenever the Indians were able to desist from internecine warfare long enough to form conspiracies, as Pontiac’s and Tecumseh’s, the purpose was to exterminate the Whites, and that was also the hope of the Indians who, in the latter part of the Nineteenth Century, imagined that the magic of their ‘ghost dancing’ would accomplish the same end. From the standpoint of the Indians, that goal was simple common sense. What is remarkable is that our people put the Indians on reservations instead of exterminating them. (3)

Then, to complete the idiotic tirade, the writer deplores the bigotry of the Americans who brought women with them and did not, as a rule, commit the crime of miscegenation, and contrasts them with the Noble Spaniards, who left their women at home and settled down to copulate with the lower races and breed the vast population of mestizos that now occupies most of the countries of Central and South America and, in most of them, makes a lasting civilization impossible. (4)

The author is, of course, right about the way in which the stupid Americans were driven into two wars in which they gratuitously attacked nations that had given them no cause for offense and represented the highest level of civilization on their respective continents, but he did not know–or perhaps dared not mention–some of the most telling data, such as the secret attack on Japan by which the foul monster in the White House, virtually forced the Japanese to attack Pearl Harbor. (5) It is quite true that the American boobs, crazed with righteousness, were driven into those two wars by a small gang of conspirators, whom the German writer chooses to call an ‘elite.’

This however led the writer into the preposterous inference–too absurd, perhaps, for even the most brazen liars in our press and colleges (6)–that it was an elite, “not the ordinary settlers…who were to blame for the extermination of the Indians.” Nothing could be farther from the facts. It was the “ordinary settlers,” people living on the frontier, most of them comparatively uneducated and often crude, who learned from the experience the rule, “The only good Indian is a dead Indian,” the exceptions being few and negligible. Sentimentality about imaginary Indians was the specialty of fairly well educated Christian writers, who, sitting in the comfort of their book-lined studies in New England, which had long been secure from all danger from aborigines, had never seen Indians, except a few tame ones, displayed by vendors of snake oil or holiness or ‘education,’ or tethered in reservations, and were accordingly free to let their imaginations run riot.

The writer properly exhibits indignation over the Americans’ righteous itch to meddle with other people’s business, a residue of Christian world-improving drivel, and rightly waxes indignant over the foul murders the Americans committed at Nuremberg. But he connects this with the only morally justified war in our history, the Mexican War. For this, of course, he is relying on ranting by our journalistic vermin, but he ignores a fundamental fact of history and, for that matter, biology.

History is made by nations, not by countries, which are only geographical areas. A nation is, so to speak, an enormous tribe, an aggregate of persons of the same race, the same ethnic division of it or several very similar and compatible ethnic stocks, and the same culture. A nation may permit a few aliens to reside on its country, but if it admits large numbers of them, as did Britain and the United States, and as all Aryan nations are now doing, it has become irremediably decadent.

A nation has a kind of biological life of its own. When it is vigorous and growing, it expands its territory at the expense of weaker and alien nations; like a man, it may know a brief period of stability–a kind of middle-age, if you want to press the analogy–in which its earlier vigor is temporarily balanced by loss of ambition, but results in a craving for peace, which is simply senility and decay, a terminal disease.

In 1848 the Americans, whether or not they were culturally admirable, were a nation and a vigorous one. They naturally took territory from Mexico, as they had taken it from the Indians, by the right of conquest, the only valid right to territory of any kind, and the only right by which any people now occupy the territory under its jurisdiction. Sniveling about an abstraction called ‘justice’ in such cases is mere foolishness. There is no ‘justice’ in nature or among races and nations, because justice is a moral code on which a nation has agreed to regulate relations between its own members. In international affairs, there was a moral code by which civilized nations, for mutual benefit, regulated relations with each other, in peace and in war, but that moral code was repudiated and flouted by the Jew-controlled British and Americans and is now no more than a datum in history.

To ignore this fact is to be incapable of understanding the past or the present. The German writer extends his Platonic vaporings to the purchase of Louisiana territory, which was undoubtedly an act of real politics. Napoleon, who had taken the territory from Spain by military force, sold it to the United States because he was unable to defend it militarily and feared that a war with the United States would disrupt his constant milking of the Spanish colonies in the Western Hemisphere. The vast territory was purchased “in blatantly imperialistic and undemocratic fashion,” according to a Sheeny named Kohn whom the German author quotes. That means that it was an historically sound act.

The German writer correctly describes the aggression against the Southern states as “one of the most dreadful wars in the history of the world,” and he is almost always right about the recent past, when the Americans, mentally rotted with the deadly virus of Christian righteousness, permitted themselves to be made the judges and policemen of the world for their Yiddish masters, after they had become so imbecile that when a crackpot talked about a “war to end wars” they did not clap him into an insane asylum, and when one of the most loathsome bipeds known to history gabbled about “quarantining aggressors,” they did not recognize the traitor, impeach and convict him, and, having exposed what he intended, hang him.

Such was our folly. Our guilt is undeniable. It cannot be palliated. We made the Yids our masters, and it was our power that consummated the Suicide of the West. And it is only natural that Europeans now take satisfaction in the decay and coming dissolution of the contrivers of their ruin. (7)

The foregoing sufficiently characterizes the article by the German editor of National-Zeitung. It were bootless to waste space on detailing derivatives of the blunders noted above or in correcting minor errors of fact. (8)

The important thing to remember is that while the German writer is generally right when he disregards the propagandistic hogwash in our press (and schools!) and exercises independent judgement, all of his gross errors of fact and interpretation were taken from verbal slop published in this country and disseminated by the Jews’ “public opinion” throughout the world to create the image the German writer has shown us. But surely we are ugly enough without the mud that is spattered on our faces by our present masters and which we see so clearly in the mirror that has been held up before us.


This article originally appeared in Liberty Bell magazine.

1. For some sentimental maundering about Indians by American writers who had no practical knowledge of the savages, and some impudent hoaxes by our domestic enemies, see Liberty Bell, July 1991, pp. 19-41.

2. The professional liar who was, directly or indirectly, the source of the German writers’ notion probably alleged, as in commonly done, the example of the peaceful Cherokee, whom we admittedly dispossessed unjustly if one does not invoke the raison d’‚tat, and concealed from the reader the fact that even the Cherokee became so peaceful only after they had been thoroughly defeated and convinced that they could not destroy the Whites and came to understand the value of White protection from the Iroquois and other tribes. The liar, I am sure, did not tell his dupes that the prosperity of the Cherokee before they were dispossessed was to a considerable extent provided by their negro slaves. The liar probably mentioned the really admirable accomplishments of Sequoia, who is regarded as the most intelligent Cherokee, but concealed the fact that Sequoia was half Irish and probably three-quarters White.

3. Major Rogers killed about two hundred Indian men in their village at the mouth of the St. Francis, and that, for all practical purposes, ended that band of savages. He, however, spared females and children. When other savages heard of that, they said “Pale Faces, crazy in the head.”

4. There are exceptions, notably Argentina, where the Spaniards and other Europeans, for some reason, had the good sense virtually to refrain from miscegenation and to exterminate the natives, who are now merely a nuisance. In part of Chile, according to a reliable observer several decades ago, the hybrids seemed a stable, useful, and not unintelligent part of the population (that raises questions about the Araucanas), which may be why our rulers and the chief dervish in Rome are working so hard to afflict Chile with more ‘democracy’ and excite a civil war, such as the United States so successfully incited in Nicaragua and San Salvador, and is now fomenting in Guatemala.

5. See Liberty Bell, July 1989, pp. 1-9. The account there reported has been subsequently confirmed.

6. It is true that our literate vermin like to stigmatize as “greed” the ambition of the settlers to better their lot in life. The German author has read the popular bundle of buncombe about a “massacre” at Wounded Knee. It is possible that the killing of two hundred Indians there was unnecessary, but one must remember that the soldiers had had repeated experience of the innate treachery of savages, including their use of their women as screens after they learned that the Pale Faces had incomprehensible scruples about violence to females.

7. Americans who do not read European periodicals are often unaware of how complacently our plight is generally regarded. For example, a columnist in the Sunday Times (London), 10 February 1991, discussing, not politics or economics, but a recent American motion picture, remarked obiter on the myth of American unity. “America celebrates its unity because it is really a spectacularly disunited agglomeration of races, classes, and religions…Now, with the industrial base eroded, the underclass expanding, the deficit growing…the myths may be about the collapse in the face of the unpleasant reality of the end of the Age of America.” I quote the foregoing because it is significant as a passing comment by a journalist who is sure that his readers will agree with him. In Liberty Bell, April 1985, pp. 1-8, I reported the opinions of some of the best minds in France and England that “the United States is now beyond all question the enemy of Europe, politically, militarily, and above all, culturally,” and that it is the “single nation which has succeeded in debasing intelligence, morality, and the quality of humanity on practically the whole surface of the globe…perpetrating a continuous crime against mankind.” They find some consolation in the fact that “the United States is doomed.” The writers overlook or do not stress the contributions European nations themselves made to the collapse of civilization and avoid direct mention of the Jews’ covert but overshadowing power and determination to liquidate our race and its culture, but if you will refer to my article, you will see that the German whose article we are here discussing was relatively kind to the United states, which has made itself despised, feared, and hated by all the civilized and semi-civilized nations in the whole world, including the nations that are especially profiting from our insane demolition of our industry and sabotage of our once adequate technology.

8. E.g.: President Johnson was not responsible for the savagery that began in 1865 and was called “Reconstruction.” On the contrary, he did what he could, which was not very much, to mitigate the sadistic enormities perpetrated by the scabrous gang of thieves and hate-crazed mattoids who formed the Republican Administration, whose power was virtually absolute after their masterly assassination of Lincoln, which was marred by only a few mishaps. The German author, by the way, perceives the hypocrisy of the pretense that the South was invaded “to save the Union.” That pretext reminds one of the man who had religious scruples against divorce and accordingly saved his marriage by murdering his wife. — The “‘liberated’ Negroes” in the South were not “channeled into the industrial North” during the “Reconstruction,” but only a century later, some years after 1945, when the dismantling of American industry began. In the North they did not “sink into a new kind of slavery,” but became an intolerable bane that is making civilized society impossible. — The part of Columbia taken to form Panama (because the Columbian whom we hired to pose as the ‘leader’ of a fake revolution exceeded his instructions) was much less than “half” of the country–was approximately one-sixteenth of it in area and in population even less. Et cetera multa.

Source Article from http://www.renegadetribune.com/to-see-ourselves/

You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

Leave a Reply

Powered by WordPress | Designed by: Premium WordPress Themes | Thanks to Themes Gallery, Bromoney and Wordpress Themes