Conspiracy or Instinct?
Revilo P. Oliver
Late Professor of Classics at the University of Illinois at Urbana
This summary of the Jews’ most useful devices leaves us, of course, with the question how it is possible for the dispersed and widely scattered members of the race to act with what amounts to unanimity and perfect coördination. It is scarcely credible that so large a number of individuals, many of them showing a low order of intelligence, could carry out such operations according to a consciously formed plan on which they have all previously agreed. The great mass of Jews seem to be, almost without exception, under the tight control and discipline of their fairly numerous leaders, who could, in turn, be equally subject to the orders of a supreme and secret directorate, which plans and directs a conscious strategy as set forth in the famous “Protocols.” This is possible, although Aryans are apt to think most unlikely an operation of which they would be utterly incapable – of which they are, we must believe, genetically incapable, since their earliest records, in the Homeric traditions, the Norse legends, and even the Vedas, attest the great difficulty of maintaining an effective consensus within even compact and comparatively small bands for specific, immediate, and limited ends. It is a pernicious and perhaps fatal error, characteristic of our race, to assume that other races have approximately the same nature as ours, so that argument against a conscious and concerted conspiracy must be discarded. The alternative to that theory, so far as I can see, can be only an hypothesis that the Jews are directed by instinct, at least to a large extent. They may represent a complex and highly advanced form of the biological phenomenon of which a simple manifestation is seen in mammals that hunt in packs or bands. As is well known, wolves and African wild dogs, for example, hunt in organized packs and stalk and bring down their game by a kind of strategy that is carried out by the pack as a unit but with each individual in it having a definite function and adapting himself to the needs of a specific situation. This activity we attribute to instincts operating entirely below the level of real consciousness. African baboons form bands that are really small tribes having an oligarchic government, and their survival under very adverse conditions is proof that they adapt their presumably instinctive methods to new conditions, and that they learn by experience and observation. It is assumed, however, partly from the structure of the baboon’s brain and the absence of a real language, that the species is not capable of conscious thought. On the other hand, we are aware that, although we may, on strictly objective grounds, identify our race as having a peculiar capacity for objective thought, many of our actions are determined by instinctual and subconscious reactions (e.g., our perception of beauty, fear of death, reaction to odors and sounds, etc.), however much we may consciously try to rationalize them or to alter them by efforts of the will that are likely to produce schizophrenia.
It is entirely possible, therefore, that a species could have been formed by biological selection that automatically preys on our species as instinctively as wolves prey on caribou, although, of course, with much greater cunning and versatility.
Chapter 8 of Oliver’s The Jewish Strategy, Palladian Books, 2002