Liberalism and Our Universities

Liberalism and Our Universities

By Shaun Walker.

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.


http://www.nationalvanguard.org http://www.natvan.com
http://www.thebirdman.org http://www.RealNews247.com