Posts Tagged ‘bourgeoisie’

Need Proof Democrats Are Un-American? Just Look At Wisconsin And Count The Ways

February 18, 2011

You should be calling them “fascists”; but you probably always hear them described as “Democrats.”

These Democrats and the big unions that dwarf any other special interests (most definitely including the “evil” Republican special interests you always hear about in the news) are as un-American as Marxist pie.  But you won’t ever hear how or why unless you go outside the mainstream media propaganda.

Let’s count the ways.  Just in Wisconsin, and just over the last few days:

1) Even liberal FDR said that the public-sector labor unions that now dominate the Democrat Party are essentially un-American.  Why?  Because – and this according to FDR – the very actions that unionized public employees are right now performing in Wisconsin are “unthinkable and intolerable.”

Government unions should not exist.  It is immoral and un-American.  When someone takes government employment, they have – and this again according to FDR – “the obligation to serve the whole people, whose interests and welfare require orderliness and continuity in the conduct of Government activities.”  What are these liberal Democrat public sector union employees doing instead?  Again, allow me to quote FDR:  they seek ” to prevent or obstruct the operations of Government until their demands are satisfied.”  Which FDR said, again, was “unthinkable and intolerable.”

The employer of the government employee, again according to FDR, is “the whole people.”

But liberals don’t give a damn about the whole people.  They have split America apart one racial group at another’s throats, one income level at another’s throats, and privileged union employees at the throats of fed-up taxpayers.  Unions have been feeding off taxpayers – who get a fraction of the wages and benefits the privileged union pigs get – for decades.  Government employees earn TWICE the wages and benefits of their counterparts in the private sector.  But Democrats don’t care: they view the private sector and everyone who works in it as evil cash cows who are to be exploited and impoverished.

The eyeball-deep-in-red-ink state of Wisconsin is trying to get public union pigs to accept a benefit system that is still TWICE as good as virtually any privat sector employee.  And at the same time begin to brind under control the out-of-control collective bargaining agreement to bring it more in line with other state government and federal government workers’ bargaining powers.

Labor unions are an inherently socialist project.  Consider the words of the Marxist author who makes the one identical to the other:

“The object of the labor movement is to increase the strength of the proletariat to the point at which it can conquer the organized force of the bourgeoisie and thus establish its own supremacy.”

And, of course, that is EXACTLY the object of the labor movement.  Which is EXACTLY un-American.

Obama has come out and made a statement about how wonderful government unionized workers are.  But he’s a liberal ideologue and an evil man.  If you asked Democrats like FDR or John F. Kennedy – who famously said the opposite of what these rabid government unions are doing: “Ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country” – and you learn the truth.

The Democrat Party of today is a depraved and un-American entity.  And if you support it and/or vote for it, you are un-American.

2) Consider the people who are out on the streets rioting against the representatives of the people instead of at their jobs serving the people:

February 17, 2011
Thousands of Union Protesters Storm WI State Capitol; Target Homes of GOP Lawmakers

As four game wardens awkwardly stood guard, protesters, scores deep, crushed into a corridor leading to the governor’s office here on Wednesday, their screams echoing through the Capitol: “Come out, come out, wherever you are!”

Behind closed doors, Scott Walker, the Republican who has been governor for about six weeks, calmly described his intent to forge ahead with the plans that had set off the uprising: He wants to require public workers to pay more for their health insurance and pensions, effectively cutting the take-home pay of many by around 7 percent.

“Target homes”???  How would you like it if me and a few thousand of my thuggish rightwing friends “targeted” your home?  You know, while the people who were supposed to protect you stood by and did nothing because they happened to be rightwingers too?

This kind of vile crap happens more often than you’d think, and it is nearly always vile leftwing slime doing it.  Here’s the story of 14 busloads of “AstroTurf” SEIU mobsters screaming around the home of a bank officer while his terrorized son locks himself in a bathroom and calls his helpless father in tears of terror.  Good old unions.

Don’t forget this fact for a nanosecond: there is a century of genuine evil in the labor union movement.  These are truly bad people with a truly bad agenda.

I’m looking at the screaming mobs of liberal Democrats in Wisconsin and it is impossible to tell them apart from the screaming mobs in Egypt and Yemen and Tunisia.  You know, the “peaceful,” “democracy-loving” Muslims who have repeatedly beaten reporters and in fact gang-raped a CBS correspondent while shouting “Jew!  Jew!”

Oh, are you a liberal who wants to argue with me that there’s no connection between this gang rape and liberals?  Think again.  And don’t tell me that nothing would make you happier than hearing that Sarah Palin got the same treatment.  Because that’s just the kind of moral filth you people are.

3) Consider the activities of elected Democrats.  Suffice it to say by way of introduction that Democrats are fine with the Amerian political process, as long as they can win by any means possible:

Wis. lawmakers flee state to block anti-union bill
By SCOTT BAUER Associated Press © 2011 The Associated Press
Feb. 17, 2011, 9:48PM

MADISON, Wis. — Faced with a near-certain Republican victory that would end a half-century of collective bargaining for public workers, Wisconsin Democrats retaliated with the only weapon they had left: They fled.

Fourteen Democratic lawmakers disappeared from the Capitol on Thursday, just as the Senate was about to begin debating the measure aimed at easing the state’s budget crunch.

By refusing to show up for a vote, the group brought the debate to a swift halt and hoped to pressure Republicans to the negotiating table.

“The plan is to try and slow this down because it’s an extreme piece of legislation that’s tearing this state apart,” Sen. Jon Erpenbach said.

[…]

With 19 seats, Republicans hold a majority in the 33-member Senate, but they are one vote short of the number necessary to conduct business. So the GOP needs at least one Democrat to be present before any voting can take place. Once the measure is brought to the floor, it needs 17 votes to pass.

[…]

The sergeant-at-arms immediately began looking for the missing lawmakers. If authorized, he can seek help from police.

Senate rules and the state constitution say absent members can be compelled to appear, but it does not say how.

“Today they checked out, and I’m not sure where they’re at,” Republican Senate Majority Leader Scott Fitzgerald said. “This is the ultimate shutdown, what we’re seeing today.”

And, yes, the police are looking for these criminals – which is an excellent way to describe “Democrats.”  But these un-American cowards who want to warp the democratic process are likely in another state.  Because they don’t give a damn about the state they were foolishly elected to serve.

There may have been a time when one could have been an honorable Democrat.  But those days are just long gone.

There was an election in November.  The citizens of Wisconsin voted for a Republican governor and a Republican legislature precisely to protect them against vile union pigs.  Unions have despicably taken advantage of their “collective bargaining” to give themselves wages and benefits that are bankrupting most of the states in the union.  There is a democratic process; it involves showing up, saying your piece and voting.  Democrats – like the Nazi fascists of the past and the Islamofascists of today – love democracy as long as they win.  Islamists who want to impose a big-government sharia state say of democracy, “You ride it to your destination, and then you step off.”  And that’s exactly what Democrats have done here.  There’s no place in American democracy for elected officials to flee the state so that the state can’t pass legislation that the people elected them to at least vote on.  There’s no place in American democracy for employees of the government, the public teachers and the state prison guards as just a couple of examples, to refuse to show up for work.  Democrats have jumped off the democracy bus and now they are riding on the fascist train.

If you are a Democrat, you are on the wrong side.  It’s a failure of moral reasoning that you can reverse at any time.

Dare I say it?  Please start thinking right.

Advertisements

Hitler Wasn’t ‘Right Wing’, Wasn’t ‘Christian’; And Nazism Was Applied Darwinism

September 27, 2010

Glenn Beck’s program on Friday, September 24, 2010, was devoted to the subject of Adolf Hitler, Christianity, and the nightmare that ensues when big government seizes religion in order to legitimize, even divinize, its socialist and totalitarian policies.

I have written about this myself, mostly in responses to atheists who want to foist Adolf Hitler onto Christians and Christianity.  I have grown up reading that Nazism represented the threat of a conservative, right wing government.  It’s a giant load of bunk.

To put it briefly, the communist Soviet intellectuals – and all leftist Western intellectuals influenced by them – created a false dichotomy between fascism and communism.  Zeev Sternhall observed how study of fascist ideology had been obscured by “the official Marxist interpretation of fascism” [Sternhall, “Fascist Ideology,” in Fascism: A Reader’s Guide: Analyses, Interpretations, Bibliography, p. 316].  Marxism simply redefined fascism as its polar opposite in order to create a bogeyman: If Marxism was progressive, fascism became conservative.  If Marxism was left wing, fascism had to be right wing.  If Marxism championed the proletariat, then fascism had to champion the bourgeoisie.  If Marxism was socialist, fascism needed to be capitalist.  And the fact that none of the above was even remotely true was entirely beside the point.

“Nazi” stood for “National Socialist German Workers Party.”

As Gene Edward Veith points out:

“The influence of Marxist scholarship has severely distorted our understanding of fascism.  Communism and fascism were rival brands of socialism.  Whereas Marxist socialism is predicated on an international class struggle, fascist national socialism promoted a socialism centered in national unity.  [And in fact, Both movements were “revolutionary socialist ideologies.”  Going on,] Both communists and fascists opposed the bourgeoisie.  Both attacked the conservatives.  Both were mass movements, which had special appeal for the intelligentsia, students, and artists, as well as workers.  Both favored strong centralized governments and rejected the free economy and the ideals of individual liberty.  [And finally,] Fascists saw themselves as being neither of the right nor the left.  They believed that they constituted a third force synthesizing the best of both extremes” [Gene Edward Veith, Jr., Modern Fascism: Liquidating the Judeo-Christian Worldview, p. 26].

And if the Nazis didn’t represent the far left, they were at best the right wing of the extreme left wing.

Jaroslav Krejci demonstrated the inadequacy of the “unilinear imagery” of left wing versus right wing.  He pointed out that the metaphor derived from the seating arrangements of the French Parliament  following the Revolution.  Politically, those seated on the right side favored an absolute monarchy.  Economically, they favored government monopolies and a controlled economy.  Culturally, they favored authoritarian control of the people.  Those seated on the left favored democracy, a free market economy, and personal liberty [see Krejci, “Introduction: Concepts of Right and Left,” in Neo-Fascism in Europe, 1991, pp. 1-2, 7].

Gene Edward Veith points out that these models simply break down in 20th century politics [see Veith, Modern Fascism, p. 27].  In terms of the model above, American conservatives who want less government and trust the free market would be on the left.  Liberals who want more of a government-directed economy would be on the right.  And so, while the Nazis would be “right wing” on this model, so also would the American liberal.  Furthermore, the terms “liberal” and “conservative” are relative, depending upon what one has to conserve.  The classical liberals of the 19th century, with their pursuit of free-market economics and resistance to government control, became the conservatives of the 20th century as they sought to conserve these principles.

And, to quote myself:

And just what on earth do liberals who call Nazism a form of conservatism even think Hitler was trying to “conserve”?

Adolf Hitler was a violent revolutionary out to overthrow the current system and impose his own radically different system in its place.  He was hardly a “right wing conservative” in any way, shape, or form.  Rather, Adolf Hitler was, as Jonah Goldberg accurately described him in Liberal Fascism, a “man of the left.”

Further, many American leftists embrace communism as though that somehow precludes them from guilt – even though many of their ideas and actions have been objectively fascist in spite of their rhetoric.  But even aside from this fact, don’t forget that communism itself was the single most evil ideology in the history of human civilization.

Were Hitler and Nazism among the greatest evils in the history of the world?  Of course they were.  But actually, Hitler and his Nazism were only the third worse mass murderer in all human history, behind Joseph Stalin and Chairman Mao, who were both communist leaders of officially state atheist governments.

With that said, let us discuss Hitler and Nazism in terms of Christianity.

Did Adolf Hitler package some of his public remarks as “Christian”?  There is no doubt that he did precisely that at different times his rise to power, and even during his regime.  But that hardly means that Adolf Hitler was a Christian believer.  Politicians often have had clear and obvious reasons to say things that they didn’t really believe for political expedience.  And it is obvious on its face that Adolf Hitler was a liar and the worst demagogic political opportunist in human history, and that Nazism was utterly evil and based almost entirely on lies. Thus, to cite the propaganda of such a regime as evidence that Hitler or Nazism were somehow “Christian” is itself both sick and evil.

Germany had at one time been the seat of the Protestant Reformation.  But by the late 19th century Christianity in Germany had devolved into a near meaningless official state religion.  And Germany was the LEAST Christian nation in all of Europe.  The most prominent German theologians embraced a form of theological liberalism that disconnected the foundational elements of Christianity from historical fact, in what amounted to a sustained attack on the Holy Bible.  The school of “higher criticism” attempted to undercut traditional views about the authorship, composition and legitimacy of the Bible.  This project weakened biblical authority by assuming that the Biblical text and the events described were to be explained entirely in naturalistic terms, and rejected completely the possibility of supernatural revelation.  And it was almost entirely an undertaking of German scholarship (just look at the names: Eichhorn, De Wette, Wellhausen).

The Germany that voted for Adolf Hitler was influenced by an academic elite that had a total hatred for orthodox Christianity.

Given the state of our own university intelligentsia, one of Hitler’s more terrifying comments is this:

“Nothing makes me more certain of the victory of our ideas than our success in the universities” – Adolf Hitler, 1930

And so, yes, Hitler tried to package his Nazism in a way that superficially “Christian” Germany would accept, just as the Marxist Sandinistas deceitfully packaged their godless communism into “liberation theology” in order to deceive the overwhelmingly Catholic population of Nicaragua to support them.  As to the latter, the Catholic church said from the start that it wasn’t legitimate Christianity; but that it was a heresy. And the Cardinal Ratzinger who went on to become Pope Benedict even called the movement “demonic”.

Quote:

“…it would be illusory and dangerous to ignore the intimate bond which radically unites them (liberation theologies), and to accept elements of the Marxist analysis without recognizing its connections with the (Marxist) ideology, or to enter into the practice of the class-struggle and of its Marxist interpretation while failing to see the kind of totalitarian society to which this process slowly leads.
— (Author: Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, Prefect, now Pope Benedict XVI; written in 1984)

Quote:

“Wherever politics tries to be redemptive, it is promising too much. Where it wishes to do the work of God, it becomes not divine, but demonic.” — Pope Benedict XVI

And Hitler also packaged his hard-core of Nazism with a candy-coating of lies in order to fool the people. And the people were fooled indeed:

….Any opposition to Hitler is ruthlessly eradicated.  Tens of thousands are imprisoned.  Journalist Stephan Laurent dared to criticize The Fuehrer…..

“I am writing this from cell 24. Outside a new Germany is being created. Many millions are rejoicing.  Hitler is promising everyone precisely what they want. I think when they wake to their sobering senses, they will find they have been led by the nose and duped by lies.”

Soon, the next wave of profoundly anti-Christian German scholarship took the next logical step in their attack against Judeo-Christian ideals which had stood for two millennium.  Friedrich Delitzsch, a biblical scholar from the University of Berlin, published a work arguing that the Old Testament published a book arguing that the entire Old Testament was dependent upon Babylonian culture and mythology.  Delitzsch concluded that:

“the Old Testament was full of deceptions of all kinds – a veritable hodge-podge of erroneous, incredible, undependable figures, including those of Biblical chronology…. in short, a book full of intentional and unintentional deceptions (in part, self-deceptions), a very dangerous book in the use of which the greatest care is necessary.”

But it soon becomes clear that the reason that Delitzsch believed the Old Testament was “a very dangerous book” was because it was Jewish, and Delitzsch was an anti-Semite first, and a scholar second.  Delitzsch went so far as to argue the plain historical fraud that Jesus was not Jewish, arguing that there was some difference between “Jews” and “Galileans.”  He also maintained an equally bogus distinction between Jesus as a warm humanitarian versus Jewish moral intolerance.  Thus Delitzsch “de-Judaized” Christianity, and “contended that Christianity was an absolutely new religion, totally distinct from that of the Old Testament” [See Gene Edward Veith, Modern Fascism: Liquidating the Judeo-Christian Worldview, p. 53-54].

And so it became an easy next-step for Nazi propagandists such as Ezra Pound (who is also known as the godfather of modernism) to state that the Jewish religion began when Moses, “having to keep a troublesome rabble in order, scared them by inventing a disagreeable bogie, which he called a god.”  And Pound concluded “the greatest tyrannies have arisen from the dogma that the theos is one, or that there is a unity above the various strata of theos which imposes its will upon the substrata, and thence upon human individuals.”

And Adolf Hitler could then state in his Mein Kampf that:

“The objection may very well be raised that such phenomena in world history [the necessity of intolerance] arise for the most part from specifically Jewish modes of thought, in fact, that this type of intolerance and fanaticism positively embodies the Jewish nature” [Hitler, Mein Kampf, p. 454].

The chain began by German scholars was complete: Hitler argued that it was okay to be intolerant of intolerant people, and that the Jews literally epitomized intolerance.

And none of this was “Christian”; it was a project straight from hell.

Friedrich Nietzsche – a patron saint of Nazism – correctly pointed out the fact that:

“Christianity, sprung from Jewish roots and comprehensible only as a growth on this soil, represents the counter-movement to any morality of breeding, of race, of privilege: it is the anti-Aryan religion part excellence” [Nietzsche, “The Twilight of the Idols”].

And so, a good Nazi was a Gottglaubiger.  Rather than putting “Christian” on personnel forms they wrote down “Gottlaubig” – representing a “vague pseudo-philosophical religiosity” – to indicate that, while they were not “godless communists,” they were most certainly not “Christian.”

So Hitler publicly said what he needed to say in speeches to deceive a mass population who had been bombarded with anti-Christian heresy and anti-Christian anti-Semitism, to bend them to his will.  But to his inner circle he said very different things than what he said publicly.  Hitler described to them that “after difficult inner struggles I had freed myself of my remaining childhood religious conceptions. I feel as refreshed now as a foal on a meadow” (Ernst Helmreich, “The German Churches Under Hitler,” p. 285).

What else did those closest in Hitler’s inner circle say about his “Christianity”?

From Joseph Goebbels’ diary, dated 8 April 1941 (Tue):

The Fuhrer is a man totally attuned to antiquity. He hates Christianity, because it has crippled all that is noble in humanity. According to Schopenhauer, Christianity and syphilis have made humanity unhappy and unfree. What a difference between the benevolent, smiling Zeus and the pain-wracked, crucified Christ. The ancient peoples’ view of God was also much nobler and more humane than the Christians’. What a difference between a gloomy cathedral and a light, airy ancient temple. He describes life in ancient Rome: clarity, greatness, monumentality. The most wonderful republic in history. We would feel no disappointment, he believes, if we were now suddenly to be transported to this old, eternal city.”

Goebbels also notes in a diary entry in 1939 a conversation in which Hitler had “expressed his revulsion against Christianity. He wished that the time were ripe for him to be able to openly express that. Christianity had corrupted and infected the entire world of antiquity.” [Elke Frölich. 1997-2008. Die Tagebücher von Joseph Goebbels. Munich: K. G. Sauer. Teil I, v. 6, p. 272].

Hitler also said, “Our epoch will certainly see the end of the disease of Christianity.” [Hitler’s Table Talk, Enigma Books; 3rd edition October 1, 2000, p. 343].

Author Konrad Heiden quoted Hitler as stating, “We do not want any other god than Germany itself. It is essential to have fanatical faith and hope and love in and for Germany.” [Heiden, Konrad A History of National Socialism, A.A. Knopf, 1935, p. 100].

Albert Speer – another Nazi who worked extremely closely with Hitler – reports in his memoirs of a similar statement made by Hitler:

You see, it’s been our misfortune to have the wrong religion. Why didn’t we have the religion of the Japanese, who regard sacrifice for the Fatherland as the highest good? The Mohammedan religion too would have been much more compatible to us than Christianity. Why did it have to be Christianity with its meekness and flabbiness?” [Albert Speer. 1971. Inside the Third Reich Translated by Richard Winston, Clara Winston, Eugene Davidson. New York: Macmillan. p 143; Reprinted in 1997. Inside the Third Reich: Memoirs. New York: Simon and Schuster. p. 96. ISBN 0-684-82949-5].

Adolf Hitler sounds like an atheist to me. Certainly, Hitler was absolutely not a Christian. He cynically used Christianity like he cynically used everything else that was good; he took ruthless advantage of it as simply another means by which to package his lies to the German people.

The fact of the matter is that Fascism and Nazism were quintessentially hostile to Christianity, and even to monotheism.

Hannah Arendt describes Nazi spirituality in her book Eichmann in Jerusalem:

When convicted Nazi war criminal Adolf Eichmann went to the gallows, “He was in complete command of himself, nay, he was more; he was completely himself. Nothing could have demonstrated this more convincingly than the grotesque silliness of his last words. He began by stating emphatically that he was a Gottglaubiger, to express in common Nazi fashion that he was no Christian and did not believe in life after death” [p. 252].

One of the leading experts on fascism, Ernst Nolte, defined fascism as “the practical and violent resistance to transcendence” [Nolte, Three Faces of Fascism: Action Francaise, Italian Fascism, Nazi Fascism, 1965, p. 429].  Fascism was anti-God, anti-supernatural and anti-transcendence.

Gene Edward Veith says:

It is particularly important to know, precisely, why the Nazis hated the Jews. Racism alone cannot explain the virulence of Nazi anti-Semitism. What did they see in the Jews that they thought was so inferior? What was the Jewish legacy that, in their mind, so poisoned Western culture? What were the Aryan ideals that the Nazis sought to restore, once the Jews and their influence were purged from Western culture?

The fascists aligned themselves not only against the Jews but against what the Jews contributed to Western civilization. A transcendent God, who reveals a transcendent moral law, was anathema to the fascists” [Gene Edward Veith, Jr., Modern Fascism: Liquidating the Judeo-Christian Worldview, p. 13].

By killing the Jews, Hitler intended to kill the God of the Bible.

Of Protestant Christianity, Hitler wrote:

Protestantism… combats with the greatest hostility any attempt to rescue the nation from the embrace of its most mortal enemy, since its attitude toward the Jews just happens to be more or less dogmatically established. Yet here we are facing the question without whose solution all other attempts at a German reawakening or resurrection are and remain absolutely senseless and impossible” (Hitler, Mein Kampf, p. 113).

Hitler talked about solving the “church problem” after he’d solved the “Jewish problem.” He said:

“The war is going to be over. The last great task of our age will be to solve the church problem. It is only then that the nation will be wholly secure” (Hitler’s Tabletalk, December 1941).

Hitler boasted that “I have six divisions of SS composed of men absolutely indifferent in matters of religion. It doesn’t prevent them from going to their deaths with serenity in their souls.”

Martin Bormann, head of the Party Chancellery and private secretary of the Fuhrer, said pointedly:

National socialist and Christian concepts cannot be reconciled. The Christian churches build on the ignorance of people and are anxious so far as possible to preserve this ignorance in as large a part of the populace as possible; only in this way can the Christian churches retain their power. In contrast, national socialism rests on scientific foundations” (cited in Ernst Helmreich, The German Churches Under Hitler, p. 303).

At a Nazi rally a speaker proclaimed: “Who was greater, Christ or Hitler? Christ had at the time of his death twelve apostles, who, however, did not even remain true to him. Hitler, however, today has a folk of 70 million behind him. We cannot tolerate that another organization [i.e., the church] is established alongside of us that has a different spirit than ours. We must crush it. National socialism in all earnestness says: I am the Lord thy God, thou shalt have no other gods before me.”

Nazism was pagan to its very core. Carl Jung (a onetime fascist sympathizer himself) described Nazism as the revival of Wotan, who had been suppressed by Christianity but now was released. Germany was being possessed by its archetypal god. (Odajnyk, Jung and Politics, p. 87-89). The Farmer’s Almanac of 1935, published by the Ministry of Agriculture, replaced the Christian holidays with commemoration days for Wotan and Thor. And Good Friday was replaced with a memorial for those killed by Charlemagne in his efforts to convert the Saxons.

In addition, at the very heart of the Nazi’s race programs and at the center of the Holocaust was the belief in atheistic Darwinian evolution. The principle rationale for the Holocaust was that the Jews were biologically inferior, and interfered with the Nazi scientists’ efforts to aid evolution by creating a master race.

Listen to these words and tell me who wrote them:

“At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilised races of man will almost certainly exterminate, and replace, the savage races throughout the world. At the same time the anthropomorphous apes, as Professor Schaaffhausen has remarked, will no doubt be exterminated. The break between man and his nearest allies will then be wider, for it will intervene between man in a more civilized state, as we may hope, even than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as a baboon, instead of as now between the negro or Australian and the gorilla.”

It was none other than Charles Darwin himself (Darwin, C.R., “The Descent of Man and Selection in Relation to Sex,” [1871], John Murray: London, 1874, Second Edition, 1922, reprint, pp.241-242).  Charles Darwin literally predicted that someone would come along and extend his Darwinism to its logical conclusion – and thus literally predicted both the Holocaust AND the motivations FOR the Holocaust.

Charles Darwin spake as a prophet, and Adolf Hitler was the messiah who fulfilled the demonic prophecy.

But it wasn’t just the Jew that Hitler was willing to exterminate as being “biologically inferior.”  Adolf Hitler – who had made the Holocaust of the “biologically unfit” and “sub human” Jew the centerpiece of his campaign to create a “Master” Aryan race – ultimately made his “master race” the victim of his hateful Darwinian views:

“If the German Volk is not strong enough and is not sufficiently prepared to offer its own blood for its existence, it should cease to exist and be destroyed by a stronger power.”

How is that not the World War II that Adolf Hitler started not being explained into a test of Darwinism that the German people had to pass to justify their existence?  The simple FACT of the matter is this: that Adolf Hitler thought in entirely Darwinian terms.  He decreed the Jew had failed the test of Darwinism, and believed that if the German people could not prevail in his war that THEY TOO should be exterminated.

Why is this so?

Gene Edward Veith points out that Darwin’s theory of evolution by natural selection had implications far beyond biology.  What must be true for nature must likewise be true for the individual and society.  If nature progresses by competition, struggle, and the victory of the strong over the weak, then clearly all progress must come the same way (unless we are not part of the natural system, which would mean that we were the product of divine Creation).  According to Zeev Sternhall, social Darwinism in Nazi Germany “stripped the human personality of its sacramental dignity.  It made no distinction between the physical life and the social life, and conceived of the human condition in terms of an unceasing struggle, whose natural outcome was the survival of the fittest” [Sternhall, “Fascist Ideology,” in Fascism: A Reader’s Guide: Analyses, Interpretations, Bibliography, p. 322].

Similarly, Sternhall pointed out how scientific positivism “felt the impact of social Darwinism, and underwent a profound change.  In the latter half of the [19th]century its emphasis on deliberate and rational choice as the determining factor in human behavior gave way to new notions of heredity, race, and environment” [Sternhall, 322].

“Nazism was ‘applied biology,’ stated Hitler deputy Rudolf Hess.”

Nazism was also a direct attack against Christianity and Christian humanity.

Friedrich Nietzsche blamed Christianity, which he described as a creation of the Jews, for the denial of life that was represented in Christian morality.  Gene Edward Veith points out that, in his attack on Judeo-Christian morality, Nietzsche:

“attacked the Christian value of love.  Notions of compassion and mercy, he argued, favor the weak and the unfit, thereby breeding more weakness.  Nature is less sentimental, but ultimately kinder, in allowing the weak to die off.  The ideals of Christian benevolence cause the unfit to flourish, while those who are fit are burdened by guilt and are coerced by the moral system to serve those who are beneath them” [Veith, Modern Fascism, p. 82].

Nietzsche, epitomizing the spirit of Darwinism as applied to ethics, wrote:

We are deprived of strength when we feel pity … Pity makes suffering contagious….  Pity crosses the law of development, which is nature’s law of selection.  It preserves what is right for destruction; it defends those who have been disinherited and condemned by life; and by the abundance of the failures of all kinds which it keeps alive, it gives life itself a gloomy and questionable aspect” [Nietzsche, “The Antichrist”].

In short, the Christian ethic of compassion is a kind of sentimentality that violates the laws of nature, in which the strong thrive and the weak die out.

Speaking of this new, Nazi, anti-Christian, Darwinian view of morality and ethics, Reichmaster Alfred Rosenberg said:

“Justice is what the Aryan man deems just.  Unjust is what he so deems” [Alfred Rosenberg, as quoted in Victor Farias, Heidegger and Nazism, 1989, pp. 205-206].

“Justice” for the Jew according to the Aryan mind possessed by Darwinism meant extermination as racially inferior and biological unfit to exist.

Thus, whatever you might want to say about whether Hitler was an atheist or not, his Nazism was inherently opposed to Judeo-Christianity, opposed to Judeo-Christian monotheism, and opposed to Judeo-Christian transcendent morality. The spirituality that resulted was intrinsically pagan, and inherently anti-Christ and anti-Christian.

And in stark contrast to Adolf Hitler’s big government totalitarian Nazi atheism, here’s what our religious founding father’s believed:

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”

A 1954 Air Force Training Manuel had this commentary on these great words which founded the greatest nation in the history of the world:

The idea uppermost in the minds of men who founded the United States was that each and every human being was important. They were convinced that the importance of the individual did not come from any grant of the state, that the importance of the individual did not come from any position that he had achieved nor from any power he had acquired nor from any wealth he had amassed.

They knew that the importance of man came from the very source of his life. Because man was made in the image and likeness of God, he had a destiny to achieve. And because he had a destiny to achieve, he had the inalienable right and the inherent freedom to achieve it” (FTAF Manual 50-1).

Thus the question, “If God doesn’t exist, who issues rights to man?” becomes profoundly important.  Because the answer is, “Whoever has the power to issue those rights.”

It becomes the State which issues rights to man. And, welcome to come and crush the human spirit, next dictator.

Postscript: you can go here to see how this question about who issues rights to man is becoming increasingly important right here in the USA.

Barbara Boxer Caught In The Act Exhibiting Classic Liberal Racism

July 17, 2009

As we reflect upon the profound racial bias exhibited by Sonia Sotomayor in both her speeches (a wise Latina woman can reach a better conclusion than a white male) and her rulings (the New Haven firefighters case), stop and think that she is well within the liberal mainstream in her racism.

It’s liberal racism.  And liberal racism is multiculturalism, pluralism, identity politics, moral relativism, a profound hostility to American exceptionalism, and the most cynical kind of demagoguery for partisan political benefit all rolled into one incredibly self righteous package.

Reflect for a moment on a situation that was going on simultaneouosly to Sonia Sotomayor’s hearing:

Black Business Leader Charges Sen. Boxer With Racial Condescension
The president and CEO of the National Black Chamber of Commerce accused Sen. Barbara Boxer Thursday of racially condescending to him during an Environment and Public Works hearing.

FOXNews.com

Thursday, July 16, 2009
Recommendations by Loomia

The president and CEO of the National Black Chamber of Commerce accused Sen. Barbara Boxer on Thursday of racially condescending to him during an Environment and Public Works Committee hearing.

Republican members of the committee had sought the testimony of Harry C. Alford, an opponent of a climate change bill that narrowly passed in the House.

Alford said in his opening statement that he spoke on behalf of his organization when he argued that the bill would have devastating consequences for small and minority-owned businesses.

But he took offense when Boxer countered his statement by quoting an NAACP resolution that approved the climate change bill and putting it on the record.

Clearly agitated, Alford asked why Boxer would cite that group’s resolution.

“Sir, they passed it. They passed it,” Boxer responded. “Now, also, if that isn’t interesting to you, we’ll quote John Grant, who is the CEO of 100 Black Men of Atlanta.”

Alford protested that Boxer was condescending to him.

“I’m the National Black Chamber of Commerce and you’re trying to put up some other black group to pit against me,” he said angrily.

Boxer claimed that if Grant was there, he would be proud she was quoting him.

“He should have been invited,” Alford exclaimed. “All that’s condescending and I don’t like it. It’s racial. I don’t like it. I take offense to it. As an African-American and a veteran of this country, I take offense to that.”

When Boxer asked if he was offended that she would quote Grant, Alford said, “You’re quoting some other black man. Why don’t you quote some other Asian. You are being racial here. And I think you’re getting to a path here that’s going to explode.”

Boxer defended herself by saying she believes statements by the NAACP and 100 Black Men, who acknowledge the threat of global warming, are relevant.

“There is definitely differing opinions in the black community, just as there are in my community,” she said, adding that she was trying to show the diversity of support behind the climate change bill.

But that didn’t satisfy Alford.

“We are referring to the experts regardless of their color,” he said. “And for someone to tell me, an African-American, college-educated veteran of the United States Army that I must contend with some other black group and put aside everything else in there. This has nothing to do with the NAACP and really has nothing to do with the National Black Chamber of Commerce. We’re talking energy and that road the chair went down, I think, is god-awful.”

Boxer’s office later declined to comment about the exchange.

Harry C. Alford is a great American patriot.  And may God bless him for his integrity and his courage.

Why was he so outraged?

It bothered him that a liberal white elitist like Barbara Boxer would cite other blacks to dismiss and undermine him.  Like race is a card you can deal in a game and say, “I’ve got the Ace of Spades in my hand.  I win.”

What you say really doesn’t matter, Harry, because I’ve got blacks on my side, giving me political cover.  My blacks are better than your kind of black, Harry.  Just like Sonia Sotomayor’s conclusions are better than a white man’s – at least as long as both continue to oppose traditional or conservative principles.

What was Alford’s argument?  Let’s see that opening statement again:

Alford said in his opening statement that he spoke on behalf of his organization when he argued that the bill would have devastating consequences for small and minority-owned businesses.

It wasn’t, “Look how black I am.  Look how black my group is.”  He said, “You’re going to hurt small businesses, including minority-owned small businesses.”  And there are facts galore to back up the devastation Democrats are going to reap among small businesses.  And red or yellow, black or white, small business owners are going to get nailed by these massive tax increases.  They are going to experience a double whammy, seeing the taxes on their earnings shoot up with higher rates and surcharges even as they get nailed with an 8% payroll tax to fund health care.

And Barbara Boxer’s response was none of that matters, because she’s got even BETTER blacks (liberals universally agree the NAACP raises the best blacks, after all) on her side.  Her blacks cancel out Harry’s blackness and make it so it doesn’t even matter that Harry C. Alford happens to be black.

We’ve seen what liberals think of the “other kind” of black.  Clarence Thomas, Condoleezza Rice, Thomas Sowell, and others: they’re “House negroes.”  They’re “Uncle Toms or Aunt Jemimahs.”  They’re “Oreo cookies.”  Or as Janeane Garofalo contemptuously dismisses them, they are stupid negroes with Stockholm Syndrome, slobberingly kissing the feet of their massahs.  Nothing to see here, folks.  These black people don’t count.  It’s okay to demonize conservative blacks in the most racist fashion imaginable because we’ve got our own blacks.

Colin Powell and Bill Cosby seem to leap in and out of their “house negro” status, depending on what they say on any given day.  Today, as long as they spout the language of global warming alarmism, they are not house negroes.  But they had damn well better tow the liberal line.

Barbara Boxer wants “her kind” of house negro.  And that nasty Harry C. Alford doesn’t want to be her house negro.  My gosh.  That uppity black man doesn’t want to be anybody’s house negro.  He wants to be his own man, if you can believe it, and stand up for legitimate business principles that will benefit anybody of any color.  That kind of attitude will get him in trouble.  Because liberalism is the new “bus.”  And conservative blacks had better get in the back and stay quiet if they know what’s good for them.

Barbara Boxer’s “kind” of house negro is Al Sharpton.  Think of Al when confronted by the fact that the Tawana Brawley “assault” was the worst kind of racist hoax:

‘The Brawley story do (sic) sound like bullshit, but it don’t matter. We’re building a movement. This is the perfect issue. Because you’ve got whites on blacks. That’s an easy way to stir up all the deprived people, who would want to believe and who would believe—and all [you’ve] got to do is convince them—that all white people are bad. Then you’ve got a movement…It don’t matter whether any whites did it or not. Something happened to her…even if Tawana don’t (sic) it to herself.’

Ah, now THIS is the kind of negro white liberal elitist like Boxer wants.  She can use them like laborers in the liberal plantation to spread the message of Marxist class warfare turned identity politics.  Bourgeoisie versus proletariat, white versus black, it’s all the same to us: We can exploit both versions in our big government narrative just the same.  “You’re a helpless victim!  Let us help you!  Let us grow government to encompass your entire world to create a cocoon of safety for you!”

Some years back, philosopher Francis Beckwith related a story of participating in a radio talk program with the subject under discussion being rape.  A woman calling in said Francis had no right to an opinion because he was a man.  And Francis asked her, “How do you know I’m a man?  My name is Francis.”  The woman said, “You have a deep voice.”  And Francis said, “So does Bea Arthur.”  Francis continued to object to being called a man, until finally the woman was resorted to shouting, “You’re a man!  You’re a man!” over and over again.

As Francis later related, actually that felt pretty good.

Francis Beckwith IS a man.  But his point was that arguments don’t have testicles.  An argument is true of false by virtue of whether it corresponds with logic and reality; it is not dependent upon the gender of the one making the argument.

Arguments don’t have melatonin, either.

Unless of course, you are a liberal.  If you are a liberal, nothing counts as being “true” unless it is said by a member of an official, certified victim group.  And then it becomes irrefutable whether it has anything to do with logic or reality.

Truth doesn’t matter.  Facts don’t matter.  The quality of the arguments being presented don’t matter.  Only the status of being a minority or a victim matters.  I am victim.  Hear me whine.

And if the fact is that a white male would have without question been crucified upside down for saying, “I would hope that a wise white male with the richness of his experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a Latina woman who hasn’t lived that life,” so much the worse for the facts.  Blatant discrimination is fine, as long as the one being discriminated against isn’t a member of a liberal victimhood group.  Or as long as you have your very own blacks to draw upon.

Harry Alfred, thank you.  And not, “Thank you as a white man to a black man,” but rather, “Thank you as a man for standing up for values that transcend race because they equally apply to all men and women of all colors.

Allow me to say one final thing.  And if someone wants to tell me, “You’re just like Barbara Boxer, playing the ‘My black is better than your black’ game,” so be it:

Martin Luther King was a Republican who stood for the content of peoples’ character and the quality of their ideas being far more important than the color of their skin.  Does anyone believe that Dr. King would have been anything other than appalled that a man like Al Sharpton would be a leading figure in the movement he gave his life to advance?  Does anyone believe that he would have been anything other than outraged that a Latina woman could utter such profoundly racially biased words with such aplomb?  Tragically, Martin Luther King embodied transcendent principles that have largely been dismissed and even reviled by the left in favor of their near polar opposites.

Jeremiah Wright Follows in the Footsteps of Marxist Leaders

April 19, 2008

When you read about “liberation theology,” you swiftly discover that it has deep roots in Marxist thought. When you read about liberation theology, you quickly see that the “redistribution of wealth” is a central pillar of the movement. And, when you read about “black liberation theology,” you find out that the typical class distinction between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie is extended to include the race distinction between the blacks and the whites.

The problem with Marxism from the outset has always been that the beatific potrait of a classless society – with the evil bourgeoisie purged from its ranks – has in actual reality never amounted to more than a sick joke. When we looked at how Stalin and his Communist Party hierarchy lived in relation to the poor, simple proletariat in the U.S.S.R., or whether we looked at how Mao Tse Tung and his Communist party hierarchy lived in relation to the poor, simple proletariat in the People’s Republic of China, we saw the same rampant, arrogant, hypocritical corruption and oppression.

And – of course – the oppressor class of rich, wealthy bourgeoisie was immediately replaced by an oppressor class of rich, wealthy Marxists who swiftly employed levels of brutality and control that dwarfed the wildest imaginings of any political system that had come before. In the name of “the people,” a State system whose leaders lived unimaginably more luxurious lives than those in whose names they ruled engaged in campaigns of disinformation and brutal terror to keep “the people” under their abject dominion.

It didn’t matter where you turned – Kim Jung Il’s North Korea or Fidel Castro’s Cuba – it was invariably the same thing. Marxism had a perfect track record. The leaders of Marxism preached an idyllic “Absurdity of Hope”-style message promising “change” as the policies of the redistribution of wealth took root thoughout the society. But all the while, they were in fact hoarding that wealth for themselves even as they demonized economic and political systems that were in fact far superior to Marxism in producing and providing economic benefit for the poor.

So now we turn to Jeremiah Wright, who has been an advocate of black liberation theology throughout his 35 year-plus tenure at Trinity United Church of Christ. For all those years, he railed against white greed, and the oppressive white society that oppressed the poor class of blacks and usurped its wealth for themselves. He implemented a black value system that included a “Disavowal of the Pursuit of Middleclassness.”

And now – just like Joseph Stalin, just like Mao Tse Tung, just like Pol Pot, just like Fidel Castro, just like Kim Jung Il and his father before him, just like so many Marxists leaders – Jeremiah Wright gets to enjoy his moment when he lavishly lives just like the people he spent his life demonizing.

Jeremiah Wright gets to live large, just like all the Marxist leaders who came before him.

The Reverend Jeremiah Wright is retiring to a 10,000 square foot, $1.6 million home on the fairway of high-class Tinley Park, courtesy of his loving flock. And the same loving flock has provided him with a $10 million line of church credit to live on.
http://www.slate.com/id/2188414/

The gated country club community, by the way, consists an elite population consisting of 98% lilly white rich people.

Now, I am perfectly willing to admit that I may be the only human being on the face of the planet who thinks he sees massive hypocrisy here.  But somehow I just don’t interpret “Disavowal of the Pursuit of Middleclassness” to mean, “Bypass middleclassness altogether and go straight for filthy rich.”

Jeremiah Wright spent his career screaming for a massive redistribution of wealth. And he got one: from all the families of the mostly poor black congregation to his own wealthy estate on a nearly all white country club. He railed for black separatism under a black value system. But it appears that his black value system simply doesn’t suit him any more.

Had Reverend Wright NOT embraced black liberation theology, there would have been nothing wrong with his retiring to such wealth. But when you become the very thing you rail against and urge others to abandon, you become the very definition of “hypocrite.”

This doesn’t in any way directly condemn Senator Barack Obama, of course, other than to point out just how flawed his judgment truly was in aligning himself with a man like Jeremiah Wright, and to raise the legitimate question as to whether Obama’s own “Audacity of Hope” message is as hypocritical and self-serving as the man who was the source of that message turned out to be.