<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>Liberalism &#8211; The American Mercury</title>
	<atom:link href="https://theamericanmercury.org/tag/liberalism/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>https://theamericanmercury.org</link>
	<description>Founded by H.L. Mencken in 1924</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Mon, 07 Feb 2011 02:08:22 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en-US</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>
	hourly	</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>
	1	</sy:updateFrequency>
	
	<item>
		<title>The All Too Real Sexual Frailty of Martin Luther King, Jr.</title>
		<link>https://theamericanmercury.org/2011/02/the-all-too-real-sexual-frailty-of-martin-luther-king-jr/</link>
					<comments>https://theamericanmercury.org/2011/02/the-all-too-real-sexual-frailty-of-martin-luther-king-jr/#comments</comments>
		
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Ann Hendon]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 07 Feb 2011 02:08:22 +0000</pubDate>
				<category><![CDATA[Opinion]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[FBI]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[J. Edgar Hoover]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Liberalism]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Martin Luther King]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Race relations]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Sex]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[U.S. History]]></category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://theamericanmercury.org/?p=1120</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[And why we&#8217;re Lucky it didn&#8217;t get out at the time by H. Braintree AMERICANS LIKE their saints plastered, which is a problem because reality keeps intruding. Most people reading this probably have some inkling that MLK, like John Edwards, Bill Clinton, Newt Gingrich and a host of well-known political figures, was not exactly an unsoiled champion of marital fidelity. <a class="more-link" href="https://theamericanmercury.org/2011/02/the-all-too-real-sexual-frailty-of-martin-luther-king-jr/">Continue Reading &#8594;</a>]]></description>
										<content:encoded><![CDATA[<div><em> And why we&#8217;re Lucky it didn&#8217;t get out at the time</em></div>
<div>
<p>by <a href="http://www.smirkingchimp.com/user/hieronymus_braintree">H. Braintree</a></p>
<p>AMERICANS LIKE their saints plastered, which is  a problem because reality keeps intruding. Most people reading this  probably have some inkling that MLK, like John Edwards, Bill Clinton,  Newt Gingrich and a host of well-known political figures, was not  exactly an unsoiled champion of marital fidelity. Ten to one you have no  idea just how appalling the situation really was. To get the point  across, here are some of Dr. King&#8217;s less known quotes.</p>
<blockquote><p>&#8220;Come on over here, you big black motherf***er, and let me suck your d***.&#8221;<br />
&#8220;I&#8217;m f***ing for God!&#8221;<br />
&#8220;I&#8217;m not a Negro tonight!&#8221;</p></blockquote>
<p>I advise you read the entire following link: <a href="http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/2449/was-martin-luther-king-jr-a-plagiarist">http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/2449/was-martin-luther-king-jr-a-plagiarist</a></p>
<p>People will surprise you, won&#8217;t they? Nothing can ever take away Dr.  King&#8217;s success in tearing down the walls of racial discrimination&#8230; And yet, there was another side to him, the implications of which in  hindsight are utterly appalling. Sexually, MLK led one of the most  astonishing double lives in history. A separate life so at odds with his  public image, it&#8217;s no wonder that it&#8217;s vanished down the old memory  hole; the cognitive dissonance is almost brain-damaging. It should also  increase one&#8217;s appreciation for sex&#8217;s ability to overrule every other  sense, including that of self preservation.</p>
<p>Considering  that Dr. King&#8217;s moral authority rested to a large extent  on his status as a religious figure any revelation that he was cheating  on his wife at all would have been extremely damaging to his reputation &#8212;  never mind multiple sex partners. And the galling hypocrisy of a man  who had successfully staked his reputation on non-violent resistance  punching out a jealous female lover for mouthing off would not have been  lost on all but the most gullible of lefties.</p>
<p>By April 1968 MLK had broadened his message to attacking the war in  Vietnam. He was also starting to form a multicultural coalition of the  poor to expand the safety net even more than it had been under LBJ&#8217;s  Great Society. This posed a threat not just to the embarrassment that  was (and often still is) our southern states but to the Washington  establishment as well. With Nixon coming in, King would have lost a  champion in the White House and there would have been very little  holding J. Edgar Hoover back. The revelation of the Reverend King&#8217;s  spectacular infidelity, not to mention his apparent bisexuality at a  time when homophobia was still popular among liberals, would have been  an absolutely devastating public relations disaster. And things  proceeded badly enough as it was.</p>
<p>The chilling but obvious conclusion is that liberalism dodged a bullet when Dr. King didn&#8217;t.</p>
</div>
<p>Read the full article at <a href="http://www.smirkingchimp.com/thread/26153"><em>The Smirking Chimp</em></a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
					
					<wfw:commentRss>https://theamericanmercury.org/2011/02/the-all-too-real-sexual-frailty-of-martin-luther-king-jr/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
			<slash:comments>1</slash:comments>
		
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>The Annihilation of Freemasonry</title>
		<link>https://theamericanmercury.org/2010/09/the-annihilation-of-freemasonry/</link>
					<comments>https://theamericanmercury.org/2010/09/the-annihilation-of-freemasonry/#comments</comments>
		
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Malcolm P. Shiel]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 22 Sep 2010 15:55:44 +0000</pubDate>
				<category><![CDATA[Vintage Mercury]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[American Revolution]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Democracy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Europe]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Fascism]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Freemasonry]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Liberalism]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Nazis]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Revolution]]></category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://theamericanmercury.org/?p=916</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[by Sven G. Lunden from The American Mercury , February 1941 THERE IS ONLY ONE group of men whom the Nazis and the Fascists hate more than the Jews. They are the Freemasons. In Italy, indeed, the anti-Jewish feeling is of recent vintage and largely artificial, whereas the blackshirt hatred of Freemasonry is old and deep. In their own countries <a class="more-link" href="https://theamericanmercury.org/2010/09/the-annihilation-of-freemasonry/">Continue Reading &#8594;</a>]]></description>
										<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>by Sven G. Lunden<br />
from <a href="https://theamericanmercury.org/"><em>The American Mercury</em></a> , February 1941</p>
<p>THERE IS ONLY ONE group of men whom the Nazis and the Fascists hate more than the Jews.  They are the Freemasons.  In Italy, indeed, the anti-Jewish feeling is of recent vintage and largely artificial, whereas the blackshirt hatred of Freemasonry is old and deep.  In their own countries Hitler and Mussolini Inaugurated their respective reigns with outrages against Masons and Masonic institutions, and they have never relaxed the systematic persecution.  Now Nazi conquests of other European nations &#8212; whether by invasion of forcible &#8220;persuasion&#8221; &#8212; are followed automatically by hostile measures against Freemasons.  From Norway to the Balkans, the progress of the Swastika has brought outlawry, and often vandalism and death in its wake for all Masons.  The anti-Semitic excesses have been widely reported, the anti-Catholic outrages have had considerable publicity, but the merciless totalitarian assaults on Freemasonry have not receive a tithe of the world-wide attention they richly merit.  They are practically an unknown chapter.</p>
<p>Nazi and Fascist publications leave no doubt of their belief that all evil in the world, from the high mortality rate among the dinner guests of the Borgias down to the Versailles Treaty, has been the work of Freemasons, alone or with the help of Israel.  In &#8220;Mein Kampf&#8221;, Hitler merges his twin phobias:</p>
<blockquote><p>&#8220;The general pacifistic paralyzation of the national instinct of self-preservation, introduced into the circles of the so-called `intelligentsia&#8217; by Freemasonry, is transmitted to the great masses, but above all to the bourgeoisie, by the activity of the great press, which today is always Jewish.&#8221;</p></blockquote>
<p>And one of the first official statements made by Hermann Goering in his capacity as Prime Minister of Prussia, when the Nazis took over power in 1933, was that &#8220;in National Socialist Germany there is no place for Freemasonry.: That view was not news.  It had run through all the Nazi propaganda and had been an intrinsic part of the Fascist attitude in Mussolini&#8217;s realm.</p>
<p>After the German debacle of 1918, the frustrated man who had been the virtual master of Germany&#8217;s destinies, General Erich Ludendorff, found an outlet for his bitterness in diatribes against Freemasonry.  Right up to his death, Ludendorff devoted himself wholly to propaganda intended to prove that the war, the ensuing German revolution, and most other world ills had been the doing of the Masons.  He published a pamphlet entitled &#8220;Annihilation of Freemasonry Through the Revelation of Its Secrets&#8221; wherein the so-called secrets of Freemasonry were &#8220;revealed&#8221; for the hundredth time since the foundation of the Order in 1717, without, however, annihilating Masonry.  The senile general&#8217;s main thesis was that Freemasonry is a Jewish device intended to make &#8220;artificial Jews.&#8221;  On one page the hand that had led Germany to disaster in 1918 wrote: &#8220;It is cheating the people to fight the Jew while allowing his auxiliary troop, Freemasonry &#8230; to function.&#8221;</p>
<p>The Nazis continued where Ludendorff left off.  But others had preceded them in Mason-baiting.  In 1917, as one of their acts, the Bolsheviks dissolved all lodges in Russia.  In 1919, when Bela Kun proclaimed the dictatorship of the proletariat in Hungary, one of his first decrees ordered the dissolution of Masonic lodges.  In 1925, Spain&#8217;s first dictator of this generation, General Primo de Rivera, ordered the abolition of Freemasonry in his country.</p>
<p>Benito Mussolini went about the same business more methodically. Having established his regime, Il Duce proceeded step by step to exterminate the lodges and the influence of Italian Freemasonry.  Even the Nazi apostle, Dr. Alfred Rosenberg, has admitted in his book &#8220;Masonic World Policies&#8221; that the Freemasons had been the creators of the united democratic Kingdom of Italy.  But this did not win them any mitigation of horrors at the hands of ultra-patriotic Fascists.  In 1924, Mussolini decreed that every member of his Fascist Party who was a Mason must abandon one or the other organization.  Thereupon General Cappello, one of the most prominent Fascists, who had held the post of Deputy Grand Master of Grande Oriente, Italy&#8217;s leading Grand Lodge, gave up membership in Fascism rather than betray his Masonic ideals.  He was to pay dearly for this loyalty.  Less than a year later, he was charged with complicity in an attempt on Mussolini&#8217;s life.  It was a palpable frame-up by an OVRA stoolpigeon name Quaglia, but General Cappello was sentenced to thirty years in prison, where he probably still lingers.</p>
<p>In the summer of 1925 Mussolini got around to dissolving Italian Freemasonry.  In an open letter to Il Duce, the Grand Master of the Grande Oriente, Domizio Torrigiani, had the courage to stand up for democracy and freedom of thought.  The price he paid was exile to the Lipari islands.  After nearly going blind there, he died soon afterwards.  Hundreds of other prominent Masons shared the harsh Lipari exile with him.  At the peak of the anti-Mason agitation, in 1925-27, blackshirt strong-arm squads looted the homes of well-known Masons in Milan, Florence and other cities, and murdered at least 100 of them.</p>
<p>The Nazis acted more swiftly.  Immediately on Hitler&#8217;s rise to power, the ten Grand Lodges of Germany were dissolved.  Many among the prominent dignitaries and members of the Order were sent to concentration camps.  The Gestapo seized the membership lists of the Grand Lodges and looted their libraries and collections of Masonic objects.  Much of this loot was then exhibited in an &#8220;Anti-Masonic Exposition&#8221; inaugurated in 1937 by Herr Dr. Joseph Goebbels in Munich. The Exposition included completely furnished Masonic temples.</p>
<p>The persecution was carried over into Austria when the country was captured by the Nazis.  The Masters of the various Vienna lodges were immediately confined in the most notorious concentration camps, including the horrible living hell at Dachau in Bavaria.  The same procedure was repeated when Hitler took over Czechoslovakia, then Poland.  Immediately after conquering Holland and Belgium, the Nazis ordered the dissolution of the lodges in those nations.  It was also Point One on the agenda of Major Quisling in Norway.  It may be taken as part of the same ugly picture that General Franco of Spain in 1940 sentenced all Freemasons in his realm automatically to ten years in prison.  When France fell last June, the Vichy government caused the two Masonic bodies of France, the Grand Orient and the Grenade Loge to be dissolved, their property being seized and sold at auction.</p>
<p>The countries which are still ostensibly independent, but actually under the heel of Germany, must prove their conformity to the Nazi pattern by taking harsh measures against Masonry.  In Hungary the dissolution of the lodges was unnecessary because they were never allowed to resume after Bela Kun was overthrown.  Mason-baiting is one &#8220;principle&#8221; on which White Terrors and Red Terrors have always agreed. Rumania recently prohibited Freemasonry to prove its subservience to Germany.  Bulgaria and Yugoslavia, inhabited by levelheaded and tolerant peasantry, were also obliged to enact the twin sets of laws &#8212; anti-Semitic and anti-Masonic &#8212; that demonstrate &#8220;friendship for Hitler&#8221;.</p>
<p>The summary does not begin to convey the full terror of the Calvary to which Freemasonry has been subjected wherever the totalitarians took power.  Murder, imprisonment, economic looting, social outlawry have been the bitter lot of individual Masons.  Rapine has been the fate of their organizations, their treasures, their institutions of charity.</p>
<p style="text-align: center;">II</p>
<p>Why does this implacable and fanatic hatred of the Order obsess the totalitarian mind?  The answer is in the whole history and temper of Freemasonry.  For more than two centuries its leaders have been consistently on the side of political freedom and human dignity, reaping a harvest of persecution at the hands of tyrants.  Before going into that, however, we must distinguish clearly between two things: Freemasonry and Freemasons.  The chief trick of mason-haters through the generations, a trick followed by the Nazis, is to direct their accusations not against Freemasons personally but against the whole Masonic Order.</p>
<p>Freemasonry is made up of Masonic bodies: lodges, Grand Lodges and other groupings.  All of these scrupulously refrain from meddling in politics or any other subject not directly related to Masonic matters or charity.  The Constitution of the Order stipulates that every member must be a loyal citizen of his country, and it professes adherence &#8220;to that religion in which all men agree&#8221; &#8212; that is, belief in a Divine power, in morality and in charity.  In contrast to narrow nationalism, it believes in serving Humanity as a whole.  That is all that the Masonic Order itself professes and is interested in.  What individual Masons do as citizens of their respective countries to serve the ideals they personally believe is, is their own business.</p>
<p>This attitude is no subterfuge.  On the contrary, the enlightened Freemason not only admits but prides himself in the fact that modern democracy and human progress owe so much to the heroism and idealism of individual Freemasons.  Unless he is a very naive person he will also admit that the lodge is a place where congenial people meet to gather that moral strength which they need to stand up for the ideals of liberty and equality outside the lodge.  At the same time, however, to true Masons the lodge is hallowed ground, and inside its gates politics and the other concerns of the market-place are taboo.</p>
<p>Some of the less critically-minded Masons like to trace the origins of the Order back to ancient Egypt.  But in its present form, Freemasonry originated in England, probably in the Seventeenth Century, while the first Grand Lodge was founded in London in 1717 and the regulations, by-laws and constitutions of Masonry were laid down in what is known as Anderson&#8217;s Constitutions in 1722-23.  The spiritual elements underlying these precepts were decidedly &#8220;advanced&#8221; for their time, emphasizing as they did tolerance for other men&#8217;s religions and the brotherhood of all human beings.</p>
<p>The intellectual and spiritual foundations of modern democracy, including the American Revolution and the American Constitution, are to be found in large part in the teachings of Jean Jacques Rousseau and in the ideas cemented into the great first Encyclopedia.  And it is a fact that most of the authors of that epoch-making Encyclopedia &#8212; Diderot, D&#8217;Alembert, Condorcet, the famous Swiss philosopher Helvetius, etc.  &#8212; were Freemasons.  The envoy to France from the rebellious American colonies, Benjamin Franklin, also was an ardent Freemason.  So were George Washington, sixty among his generals, John Hancock and a great many of his co-signers of the Declaration of Independence.  Both Washington and Franklin long held the post of Grand Master.</p>
<p>The most distinguished among the Masonic lodges of Paris in the Eighteenth Century was the &#8220;Lodge of the Nine Sisters&#8221; &#8212; that is, the nine Muses &#8212; and its membership included the intellectual cream of France.  When Voltaire paid a visit to Paris in the year of his death, at the age of 79, he was initiated into Freemasonry in this lodge.  The climax of the ceremony came when Brother Benjamin Franklin of Philadelphia handed to Voltaire the Masonic apron which the great Helvetius had worn before him.  Voltaire raised the apron to his aged lips.</p>
<p>Six years before that memorable day, something even more memorable happened in Boston.  It has come down in history as the Boston Tea Party.  And it is no secret that the &#8220;Indians&#8221; who dumped the cargo on December 16, 1773, had emerged from the building which housed the St. Andrews Lodge, the leading Masonic body in Boston.  Their job done, the &#8220;Indians&#8221; were seen to troop back to the lodge building &#8212; and no Indians ever again emerged from the lodge.  Instead, a lot of prominent Bostonians, known to be Masons, did emerge.  And in the book which used to contain the minutes of the lodge and which still exists, there is an almost blank page where the minutes of that memorable Thursday should be.  Instead, the page bears but one letter &#8212; a large T.  Can it have anything to do with Tea?  It is perhaps the only instance in the History of Freemasonry were a lodge, as a body, has taken an active part in politics.</p>
<p style="text-align: center;">III</p>
<p>Practically everywhere, INDIVIDUAL Masons have thus been in the forefront in movements of liberation.  Goethe, who considered himself a European more than a German and so often criticized his fellow-Germans, was a fervent Freemason, as was Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart.  Mozart&#8217;s opera &#8220;The Magic Flute&#8221; is full of allusions and symbolism relating to Freemasonry.  In fact, its theme is the search for truth and the victory of tolerance over the fanaticism that springs from ignorance, a theme which Mozart shared with his brother Masons.  But few Masons today, listening to the delightful tunes of Mozart&#8217;s &#8220;The Marriage of Figaro&#8221;, realize that they are enjoying a &#8220;revolutionary&#8221; play, set to music by a Mason who believed in the &#8220;revolutionary&#8221; principle of the equality of all men.  Beaumarchais&#8217; Figaro comedy was written and staged under Louis XV of France as an attack against the prevalent feudal social system. Mozart&#8217;s choice of this play, at a time when the success of the young American democracy was firing the imagination of the world, was not accidental.</p>
<p>Hebert, Andre Chenier, Camille Desmoulins and many other &#8220;Girondins&#8221; of the French Revolution were Freemasons.  The Masonic ideal of freedom was strong in the heart of a Frenchman who became a Mason while in the youthful United States of America &#8212; the Marquis de Lafayette.  He remained an enthusiastic Mason all his life, and was until his death in 1829 Grand Master of the Grand Orient de France.</p>
<p>And during the whole of the Nineteenth Century, to be a Freemason was tantamount to being a champion of democracy.  Many of the leaders in the great year 1848, which saw so many uprising against feudal rule in Europe, were members of the Order; among them was the great Hungarian hero of democracy, Louis Kossuth, who found temporary refuge in America. Like Kossuth, another celebrated champion of democracy, Guiseppe Garibaldi, was a thirty-third degree Freemason and Grand Master of the Italian Freemasons.  Most leaders of the Young Turkish Committee, which in 1908 forced Sultan Abdul Hamid &#8220;the Damned&#8221; to give his nation a parliamentary form of government, and who deposed the &#8220;Red Sultan&#8221; in the following year, were likewise Masons.  In Latin America, too, the process of liberation from the Spanish yoke was the work of Freemasons, in large measure.  Simon Bolivar was one of the most active of Masonry&#8217;s sons, and so were San Martin, Mitre, Alvear, Sarmiento, Benito Juarez &#8212; all hallowed names to Latin Americans.</p>
<p>Thus, while the Order as such kept out of politics, it attracted to itself the most democratically minded, the champions of human decencies &#8212; and won for itself the undying hatred of those who feared progress. Yet Masonry has never been a subversive movement.  In countries where democracy is a reality, even Royalty belongs to the Order.  Both King George VI and the Duke of Kent are Freemasons; so is the Duke of Windsor.  His grandfather, Edward VII, was the chief of British Masonry, and he was succeeded in the post by the aged Duke of Connaught.  King Gustav V heads the Freemasons of Sweden.</p>
<p>It is clear, consequently, why the Nazis and Fascist and Bolsheviks must hate an organization so steeped in humanitarian traditions.  They know that Masons, as individuals, have founded a great number of modern democratic states, have drafted the Declaration of Independence and created liberal Constitutions the world over.  But the totalitarian hatred for the Order is not merely emotional.  It is clearly defined in the fundamental divergence between their creed and the Masonic ideal. In his book to which we have already referred, the Nazi Dr. Rosenberg writes:</p>
<blockquote><p>&#8220;Without doubt the Masonic dogma of Humanity is a relapse into worlds of the most primitive conceptions; everywhere where it is put into practice it is accompanied by decadence, because it conflicts with the aristocratic laws of Nature&#8221;.</p></blockquote>
<p>Thus in his own dogmatic terms he indicts Freemasonry for what is its greatest pride, its ideal of equality.</p>
<p>In 1938 Hitler&#8217;s own publishing house, which puts out both &#8220;Main Kampf&#8221; and the official &#8220;Volkischer Beobachter&#8221;, issed a volume on &#8220;Freemasonry, Its World View (Weltanschauung), Organization and Policies&#8221;.  The preface is written by Herr Heydrich, second in command of the Gestapo, and hence an expert on oppression and violence, and hints openly at the seizure of libraries and property of German Freemasonry.  The book itself, by one Dieter Schwarz, discloses that every new Nazi member must &#8220;confirm by his word of honor that he does not belong to a Masonic lodge.&#8221;  In outlining the official Nazi on the subject, it says in part:</p>
<blockquote><p>&#8220;Nordic is the Nazi conception of the world, Jewish-Oriental that of the Freemasons; in contrast to the anti-racial attitude of the lodges, the Nazi attitude is race conscious&#8230;.&#8221;</p>
<p>&#8220;Masonic lodges are&#8230; associations of men who, closely bound together in a union employing symbolical usages, represent a supra-national spiritual movement, the idea of Humanity&#8230; a general association of mankind, without distinction of races, peoples, religions, social and political convictions.&#8221;</p></blockquote>
<p>I have read several hundred books about Freemasonry and scores of original Masonic documents.  But never have I seen masonry&#8217;s basic ideals expressed more clearly than by its mortal enemies in the passage above.  Herr Heydrich and Herr Schwarz are right &#8212; the gulf between their &#8220;Weltanschauung&#8221; and the Masonic Ideals can never be bridged.</p>
<p style="text-align: center;"><strong>___________________</strong></p>
<p><strong>EDITOR&#8217;S NOTE:</strong> This 1941 <em>Mercury</em> article shows some signs of wartime passions, but is  nonetheless quite educational. Masonry may indeed have been a necessary  response to the &#8220;divine&#8221; tyranny of family dynasties, and many great men  and movements were and are associated with it.</p>
<p>But it also shared the faults of  the 18th century Enlightenment of which its rise was a part (though its earliest origins are, in my opinion, to be found in the aftermath of the dissolution of the Knights Templar):</p>
<p>1) a childlike faith in &#8220;democracy,&#8221; which is really just mob rule and can be just as tyrannical as any king or dictator; and</p>
<p>2) a belief in &#8220;equality&#8221; and universalism (that all human beings are essentially the same &#8212; an insane overreaction to the nonsense of hereditary aristocracy &#8212; and that there can be moral rules or governance for &#8220;all mankind&#8221;), concepts that tend to promote multiculturalism and world government, both of which are inimical to to self-determination and freedom.</p>
<p>It is easy to see why Masons were players (and sometimes pawns) in revolutions, both good and bad. They are men with noble instincts, but who use a flawed and confused pseudo-religious ideology to apply them.</p>
<p>&#8212; M.P. Shiel</p>
]]></content:encoded>
					
					<wfw:commentRss>https://theamericanmercury.org/2010/09/the-annihilation-of-freemasonry/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
			<slash:comments>5</slash:comments>
		
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>Liberals Never Learn</title>
		<link>https://theamericanmercury.org/2010/07/liberals-never-learn/</link>
					<comments>https://theamericanmercury.org/2010/07/liberals-never-learn/#comments</comments>
		
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Ann Hendon]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 21 Jul 2010 21:46:29 +0000</pubDate>
				<category><![CDATA[Vintage Mercury]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Albert Jay Nock]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Economics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Franklin D. Roosevelt]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Liberalism]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Libertarianism]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[New Deal]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Tyranny]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[U.S. History]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Walter Lippmann]]></category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://theamericanmercury.org/?p=813</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[by Albert Jay Nock from The American Mercury, vol. XLI, no. 164 (August 1937), pp. 485-90. THERE IS NO question that the Liberals and Progressives are in the political saddle at the moment, fitted out with bucking-straps and a Spanish bit, and are riding the nation under spur and quirt. Liberalism became the fashion in 1932, so for six years <a class="more-link" href="https://theamericanmercury.org/2010/07/liberals-never-learn/">Continue Reading &#8594;</a>]]></description>
										<content:encoded><![CDATA[<div>by Albert Jay Nock</div>
<div>from <em>The  American Mercury</em>, vol. XLI, no. 164 (August 1937), pp. 485-90.</div>
<div>
<p>THERE IS NO question that the Liberals and Progressives are in the  political saddle at the moment, fitted out with bucking-straps and a  Spanish bit, and are riding the nation under spur and quirt. Liberalism  became the fashion in 1932, so for six years every esurient shyster who  was out to rook the public has had to advertise as a Liberal and a  Progressive. None other need apply. Hence we now have a hundred-per-cent  Liberal Administration backed up by Liberal State, county, and  municipal placemen, and a solid nation-wide Liberal bureaucracy running  close to a million, all frozen tight in their jobs.  One would hardly believe there could be as many Liberals in the world  as are now luxuriating with their muzzles immersed in the public trough.  They are a curious assortment, too, differing widely in race, color,  and previous condition of servitude, but they are all Liberals. Mr.  Farley is a Liberal, Governor Murphy is a Liberal; so is Mr. Ashurst,  Mr. Ickes, Mr. Wagner, Mr. La Follette, Mr. Black, Mr Wallace, and over  all – God save us! – stands the smiling figure of Liberalism&#8217;s Little  Corporal in person.</p>
<p>It  is an impressive array, if you don&#8217;t mind what you look at, but nothing  to waste words on. We have seen its like before. When Mr. Taft left the  Presidency in 1912, political Liberalism descended on the country with a  leap and a whistle, under the banner of Mr. Wilson, who being a  North-of-Ireland Scotch Presbyterian pedagogue, was ideally fitted by  birth and training to give a first-class demonstration of Liberalism in  action; and believe me, he gave one. It was the  first chance the country ever had to see the real thing in Liberalism,  and we certainly saw it dished up with all the modern improvements.  When Uncle Sam finally staggered out from under that experience with  genuine old-vatted, eighteen-carat, stem-winding, self-cocking  Liberalism, most of us thought the poor old man had had enough of it to  last him all his life, but in 1932 he was back at the nut-factory again,  clamoring for more.</p>
<p>But as I  say, speaking seriously, all this is not worth wasting words on, because  as everybody but Liberals and unborn children might be presumed to  know, a jobseeker&#8217;s professions of Liberalism are simply so much in the  routine work of electioneering. They are a routine device in the general  technique of what my friend Mr. Mencken calls boob-bumping. Hence when  Liberalism is in the saddle, as at present or as in 1912-1920, you get  substantially the same thing that you get from any other stripe of  politics: <em>i.e.</em>, you get it in the neck, and get it good and  hard. Liberalism gives you a little more exalted  type of flatulence, a more afflictive self-righteousness, and in its  lower reaches you get a considerably larger line of zealous imbecility;  but otherwise the public gets about as much and as little for its money  from political Liberalism as it gets out of any other species of  organized thievery and fraud.</p>
<p>What I do think is worth looking into for a moment is the working of  the Liberal mind as displayed by persons in private life; persons, that  is, who are not jobholders or jobseekers, but who have an interest in  public affairs – such persons, let us say, as are likely to be found in  the Foreign Policy Association or who expound the Liberal point of view  in the correspondence columns of the press. I have known many such in my  time, and the curious workings of their mentality always interested me  profoundly. They were, and are, excellent people, and their public  spirit is admirable. They are sincere, as far as their intelligence, or  their lack of it, permits them to be; that is to say, they are morally  honest, their motives and intentions are impeccable; but intellectually  they are as dishonest a set of people, taking one with another, as I  ever saw. Chiefly for this reason I have long regarded them as the most  dangerous element in human society; and it might be worth a reader&#8217;s  while to let me specify a little, by way of showing cause for the  belief.</p>
<p>In the first place, I never knew a Liberal who was not incurably  politically-minded. Those whom I have known seemed to think not only  that politics can furnish a cure for every ill the social flesh is heir  to, but also that there is nowhere else to look for a cure. They had an  extraordinary idea of the potency and beneficence of political remedies,  and when they wanted some social abuse corrected or some social  improvement made, they instinctively turned to politics as a first and  last resort.</p>
<p>The upshot of this addiction is that the Liberal is always hell-bent  for more laws, more political regulation and supervision, more  jobholders, and consequently less freedom. I do not recall a single  Liberal of my acquaintance who impressed me as having the least interest  in freedom, or a shadow of faith in its potentialities. On the  contrary, I have always found the Liberal to have the greatest nervous  horror of freedom, and the keenest disposition to barge in on the  liberties of the individual and whittle them away at every accessible  point. If anyone thinks my experience has been exceptional, I suggest he  look up the record and see how individual liberty has fared under the  various rÃ©gimes in which Liberalism was dominant, and how it has fared  under those in which it was held in abeyance. Let him take a sheaf of  specifically Liberal proposals for the conduct of this-or-that detail of  public affairs, and use it as a measure of the authors&#8217; conception of  human rights and liberties. If he does this I think he will find enough  to bear out my experience, and perhaps a good deal more.</p>
<p>Being  politically-minded, the Liberal (as I have known him) is convinced that  compromise is of the essence of politics, and that any conceivable  compromise of intellect or character is justifiable if it be made in  behalf of the Larger Good. Hence he does not reluct at condoning and  countenancing the most scandalous dishonesties and the most revolting  swineries whenever, in his judgement, the Larger Good may be in any way  served thereby. He assents to the earmarking of a  large credit of rascality and malfeasance, upon which jobholders may  draw at will if only they assure him that the improvement or benefit  which interests him will be thereby forthcoming. Thus, for  example, he tacitly agrees to the debauching of an entire electorate –  to the setting up of an enormous mass of voting-power, subsidized from  the public treasury – because it will insure the election of Mr.  Roosevelt, and electing Mr. Roosevelt will in turn insure the triumph of  the Larger Good.</p>
<p>Consequently, in his unreasoning devotion to the Larger Good and his  inability to see that this kind of service really produces nothing that  he expects it to produce, the Liberal is always being taken in by some  political peruna that anyone in his right mind would know is inert and  fraudful. This gullibility is perhaps the trait which chiefly makes him  so dangerous to society; he is such an incorrigible sucker. He whoops up  some political patent medicine, say the Wagner Act or the AAA, gets  other unthinking persons to indorse it, and when its real effect and  intention becomes manifest, he learns nothing from his disappointment,  but flies off to another synthetic concoction, and then again to another  and another, thus keeping himself and his whole entourage in an  unending state of befuddlement. He was keen to Save the World for  Democracy; he was strong for the War to End All War, self-determination  of nations, freedom of the seas, the rights of minorities, and all that  sort of thing. He was red-hot for the League of Nations, and now he is  all in favor of The More Abundant Life, social security, and soaking the  rich in order to uplift and beatify the proletariat. He does all this  as an act of faith, according to the little Sunday-scholar&#8217;s definition  of faith as &#8220;the power of believing something that you know isn&#8217;t so&#8221;;  for if he would listen to the voice of experience alone, it would tell  him in no uncertain tones that such stuff is but the purest hokum, and  that taking any stock in it merely puts him in line for another brisk  run of disappointment precisely like the many he has incurred already in  the same way.</p>
<p>The typical Liberal not only puts his confidence in  bogus political nostrums and comes to grief; he puts it also in the Pied  Pipers who devise these nostrums, and thereby he regularly comes to  grief again. For some inexplicable reason he persists in believing that a  politician who is enough of a linguist to talk the clichÃ©s of  Liberalism fluently, one who knows the Liberal idiom and has its  phrase-book pretty well by heart, is trustworthy. He has the  naÃ¯ve expectation that such a politician will act as he talks, and when  he finds that he does not so act, he is very sad about it. Thus the  Liberal fell for Roosevelt I; he fell for Woodrow Wilson; he fell for  Ramsay MacDonald and even for Lloyd George; he fell for Roosevelt II;  and as one after another of his gonfaloniers turned out to be  cotton-backed, he lifted up his voice in lamentation and great woe.</p>
<p>I read an article by Mr. Walter Lippmann some time ago, which  faithfully reflects this naÃ¯ve and inveterate trait of the Liberal. It  was printed in the New York <em>Herald Tribune</em>, and by an odd  coincidence it appeared in the issue of April 1 – All Fools&#8217; Day –  though too much probably should not be made of that circumstance. Mr.  Lippmann rehearses in detail his support of Mr. Roosevelt&#8217;s various  candidacies, and his indorsement of almost all the New Deal policies. In  the Summer of 1935, however, he saw signs that Mr. Roosevelt &#8220;had  acquired the habit of emergency action; that he was not disposed to  relinquish his extraordinary personal powers and restore the normal  procedure of representative government.&#8221; As time went on, these signs  multiplied; &#8220;expenditures and subsidies did not decline&#8221; and &#8220;vested  interests had been created which the Administration could not or would  not resist.&#8221; Then came the Supreme Court proposal and the  Administration&#8217;s &#8220;tolerant silence&#8221; about the sit-down strikes; and  these appear to be the last straws that broke the back of Mr. Lippmann&#8217;s  confidence. He goes on in a despondent strain to say, &#8220;So what I see is  a President establishing the precedent that his will or the will of the  party in power must prevail, and that the law may be manipulated to  carry out their purposes.&#8221;</p>
<p><em>Sancta simplicitas!</em> One reads this with amazement. Is it  possible that Mr. Lippmann actually <em>expected</em> Mr. Roosevelt to  relinquish voluntarily any personal power that could be made to come his  way? Did Mr. Lippmann actually suppose that Mr. Roosevelt, and more  than any other professional politician, cares two straws about &#8220;the  normal procedure of representative government&#8221; or would turn his hand  over to restore it unless and until it were politically expedient so to  do? Why, really, did Mr. Lippmann think there was the faintest  possibility that expenditures would decline and bureaucratic vested  interests be resisted by the Administration? If it were quite urbane to  do so, one might ask what Mr. Lippmann thinks the Administration is  there for. As for &#8220;establishing the precedent&#8221; that Mr. Lippmann cites,  the answer is that Mr. Roosevelt is establishing that precedent because  he can get away with it, or thinks he can, and it is simply silly to  suggest that he might have any squeamishness about imposing his will  upon all and sundry – the more, the better – or any shadow of  compunction about manipulating the law to carry out his purposes. Mr.  Lippmann&#8217;s article, in short, is based on the assumption that the  commonly-accepted codes of honesty and decency are as applicable to  professional politicians as they are to folks; and while this does great  credit to Mr. Lippmann&#8217;s qualities of heart, one must say in all  conscience that it does precious little credit to his qualities of head.</p>
<p>But of such pre-eminently is the kingdom of Liberalism. Mr. Lippmann  says he is &#8220;deeply disquieted,&#8221; not because he apprehends the  dictatorship of either Mr. Roosevelt or Mr. Lewis, or the rise of an  organized Facism. What he sees in the present state of the Union is &#8220;the  makings of a fierce reaction against Mr. Roosevelt and the whole  Liberal and Progressive movement, and against all Liberal and  Progressive ideas. This is what I dread.&#8221; I can not share Mr. Lippmann&#8217;s  sentiments; indeed, I hope he may be right. What I have seen of the  Liberal and Progressive movement gives me no wish for its continuance –  far from it – and if it be disintegrated tomorrow I should be disposed  to congratulate the country on its deliverance from a peculiarly  dangerous and noisome nuisance. With regard to &#8220;all Liberal and  Progressive ideas,&#8221; I have never been able to make out that there are  any. Pseudo-ideas, yes, in abundance; sentiment, emotion, wishful dreams  and visions, grandiose castles in Spain, political panaceas and  placebos made up of milk, moonshine, and bilge-water in approximately  equal parts – yes, these seem to be almost a peculium of Liberalism.  But ideas, no.</p>
<p>P.S. – As the foregoing goes to press, Mr. Lippmann comes out with  another article in the same vein, in the <em>Herald Tribune</em> of June  26. In the course of his writing he says:</p>
<blockquote><p>&#8216;I wish I could recover the belief that the President  really is interested in democratic reforms and not in the establishment  of irresistible power personally directed. It is not pleasant to have  such fears about the Chief Magistrate of the Republic. But for many long  months nothing has happened which helps to dispel these fears. Many,  many things continue to happen which accentuate them.&#8217;</p></blockquote>
<p>I have no wish to bear hardly on Mr. Lippmann, for his conclusions in  both the articles I have cited are sound and true, and I wish the  country would heed them. Nevertheless the sentences just quoted are  probably, I think, entitled to the first prize as an exhibit of the  Liberal&#8217;s imperishable naÃ¯vetÃ©. Why, one must ask, should any  vertebrated animal ever have entertained the fantastic belief which Mr.  Lippmann has lost; and having lost it, why should he wish to recover it?</p>
<p style="text-align: center;">_____</p>
<p style="text-align: left;">This original <em>American Mercury</em> article was first brought to digital form by the good folks at <em><a href="http://economics.org.au/">Economics.org.au</a></em>.</p>
</div>
]]></content:encoded>
					
					<wfw:commentRss>https://theamericanmercury.org/2010/07/liberals-never-learn/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
			<slash:comments>3</slash:comments>
		
		
			</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
