Posts Tagged ‘culture’

A Conversation About Women’s Bodies. Yeah, That’s Right. From a GUY.

October 15, 2014

I am not politically correct.  So life is easy for me: I am actually allowed to see and describe reality as it really is.

It wasn’t all that long ago that I first (inadvertently) tried on my first pair of “skinny jeans” and discovered that I couldn’t even get my CALVES through the thighs, let alone my thighs.

I was buying a new pair of jeans for the first time in a fair period of time – jeans being the sorts of things that generally last a while – and was frankly mystified by all the different styles that had popped out of nowhere while I was in fashion limbo.

I’m a weightlifter, and if that isn’t bad enough, I’ve just got naturally big legs.  So yeah, my solid legs didn’t go through the tiny little leg holes of the death camp pants very well.  I mean, what am I supposed to do, say, “Those lucky Jews in the 1940s…Good thing that nice man Adolf Hitler came along to help them get into those fashionable Brandy Melville clothes?”  I don’t think so.

So, with that experience in my mind, let me address this woman shopper’s experience.  And then let me talk about it after the article:

Teens Love Brandy Melville, A Fashion Brand That Sells Only One Tiny Size – Huffington Post
by admin | posted: October 15, 2014

Paytas described the experience in an email to Brandy Melville: “I didn’t get 10 seconds into the store when I was told ‘I would not fit anything’ and that I wasn’t allowed to try anything on because ‘I would stretch the clothes out.’” She added that many of her viewers have had similar experiences at Brandy Melville shops. Paytas declined an interview request for “legal reasons.”

“We can satisfy almost everybody, but not everybody,” said Longo. “The one-size-fits-most clothing might turn off somebody if they don’t walk into the store, but if you walk in you’ll find something even if it’s a bag.”

Whether fat-shamed directly or not, it’s evident that Brandy Melville customers feel the pressure, even by simply walking into a store. Take this sampling of customers lamenting their weight because of Brandy Melville:

NEW YORK — “Small,” reads the label dangling from the first tank top on the rack at the Brandy Melville store in SoHo. So does the one behind it. And the third, fourth, fifth — they’re all small. In fact, nearly every single piece of clothing in the store is either labeled “small” or “one-size.”

how to feel fat: brandy melville jeans

Typical Brandy Melville girls on Instagram.

brandy melvilleAt Brandy Melville, nearly all the clothes are small, though a medium will pop up here and there. To be able to shimmy into Brandy Melville’s only size of skinny jeans, a girl would need to have a 25-inch waist — that’s around a size 0 or 2, depending on the brand. Most skirts and shorts on the website are about the same size. Similar skinny jeans at teen fashion powerhouse Forever 21 span sizes from 24 to 30 inches. In the U.S., the average 16-year-old girl is approximately 5 feet 3inches tall, weighs about 138 pounds and has around a 31-inch waist, according to a 2012 report from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

The battle to be thinnest could be dangerous. A 2013 study from researchers at Texas A&M found that girls feel the most pressure to be skinny when they compare themselves with their peers. More than half of teenage girls use “unhealthy weight control behaviors,” like skipping meals, fasting or vomiting, according to the National Association of Anorexia Nervosa and Associated Disorders.

Rachel Simmons, co-founder of the Girls Leadership Institute, a national nonprofit group, said Brandy Melville puts teen girls through the “paces of the popularity jungle,” recreating the challenge of having to be the best and coolest in school.

im too fat for brandy melville and it breaks my heart

Brandy Melville is gaining traction with teens. (Data: Piper Jaffray)

I would buy stuff from Brandy Melville but im too fat.

Whereas typically teenage girls need to come up with the money to buy the “cool clothes,” with Brandy Melville, cost isn’t a challenge. The clothes are relatively affordable. Skirts and dresses run from $20 to $40. Plenty of tops cost less than $30, and some halters cost as little as $11.

Since its arrival on the West Coast, Brandy Melville’s clothes have swept through high schools, attracting teen girls who want to be part of the waif club. Lani Renaldo, a freshman at the University of Southern California who graduated from a Santa Monica high school in the spring, said Brandy Melville clothes were unavoidable among teens in the area. They became necessities, she said.

— lauren (@fivesohs) August 9, 2014

“It was really uncommon to know somebody who didn’t have Brandy Melville,” Renaldo, who wrote a blog post earlier this year condemning Brandy Melville for leaving teens as outcasts, told HuffPost. “You had to own something from Brandy, and if you didn’t, it’s really weird.”

crying bc too fat to fit into brandy melville.. sigh

Welcome to the hottest teen clothing retailer in the U.S., where the garments are designed for just one body type: thin. Brandy Melville has stormed onto the teen fashion scene with its “one-size-fits-most” policy and whimsical California vibe. Despite its modest fleet of 18 stores in the U.S., mostly in California and around New York City, it’s one of the brands with the fastest-growing popularity among American teen girls, according to a semiannual survey from research firm Piper Jaffray.

Who is the Brandy Melville girl? One look at the brand’s website and Instagram account reveals her: young, white, skinny and long-legged.

With all the importance it places on teensy waists and thigh gaps, the Brandy Melville culture was bound to court controversy.

Brandy Melville makes me feel fat.

In 2012, YouTube star Trisha Paytas said she’d been shamed at a Brandy Melville store in California. In a video uploaded to her YouTube account, Paytas alleged that a store employee wouldn’t even let her try on clothes because of her size. She said she took down the video after receiving a letter from a lawyer representing Brandy Melville.

Regular teens aspire to one day be one of these Instagram girls, or at least look like them. Diehard fangirls treat the Brandy Melville girls like Internet celebrities, pinning Brandy Melville bags on their walls as decorations and Instagramming their caches of Brandy Melville clothes, explained Sharp. Teens will go to a Brandy Melville store just to take a selfie and share it, she said.

— layn (@yunglaynr) September 27, 2014

Brandy Melville did not respond to requests for comment from HuffPost. But in an interview with USA Today earlier this year, Jessy Longo, an executive at Brandy Melville, addressed the one-size policy, saying that if customers can’t fit in the clothes, at least they can buy an accessory.

Well, certainly most death camp inmates, anyway.

It literally pains me to read this experience of girls and young women: “I’m too fat.”  But they’re not saying it because they are actually “too fat,” but rather because they can’t fit into some stupid clothing label that markets to walking pencils.

I think of the young girls I know and I wish I could grab them and start shaking them until they understand that there are marketers who are trying to profit by catering to “cool kids” and there are “cool kids” who get to be “cool” for incredibly stupid reasons and probably feel as much pressure to stay “cool” as the girls who don’t feel “cool” but want to feel to become “cool.”

It’s a vicious cycle.  And it’s like global terrorism is an easier dilemma to solve.

Women look at a lot of things men do and conclude “How stupid.”  And of course they’re right; we’re flat-out nuts in many ways, aren’t we?  Well, here, the shoe is on the other foot.  And yes, women, don’t tell me you didn’t imagine a beautiful style of “shoe” when I used that expression.  When it comes to your body image, you girls are completely nuts.

Quit being conformed by fashion perverts and start being YOU.

I am a man who DELIBERATELY made my legs to big to fit into “skinny jeans.”  Because “skinny” is NOT what I as a man want to be, nor do I care what that hollow-eyed, scrawny androgynous male model in the ad looks like.  I want to be strong and muscular.  And if “skinny men” want to tell me I’m uncool, well, I will stare at them incredulously with a look of part astonishment and part pure contempt.  Because, no, I DON’T want to look like you, you weak, pathetic little twerp.

This isn’t about me, but here’s a picture of me so you can see the type of body that I have:

Untitled (2)

Please don’t send me “skinny clothes” for my birthday.  They’ll end up in my rag bag.  With the tags still on them.

And rest assured, I couldn’t get my ARMS through those Brandy Melville pants.  And I take that as a badge of personal honor.

I went through my own struggle with “self-image” that reverses many people’s experience.  When I was young, I was naturally lean and naturally athletic.  Never had any “I’m too fat” or “I’m too skinny” problems growing up.  As a young teen, I emulated my older brother and got into weightlifting.  And being bigger and stronger than the other boys never hurt my feelings.

But I got out of the Army with injuries.  In military infantry doctrine, you are what your body can do.  If you’re busted and can’t perform at a high level, you’re worthless.  If you can’t perform, then you’re simply not a man.  And I’d imbibed that without even thinking about it.  And so I hypercompensated when I got out of the Army by training too hard and gave myself new injuries on top of the ones from the Army.  And I gave up.  And I gained weight that was just fat.  And yeah, my body image suffered.  And my self-esteem suffered as a result.

I never wanted to just lose weight because I had never in my life seen myself as a “skinny guy.”

In my soul, I saw myself as fit and muscular.  That was always my vision of myself.

When I returned to that ideal of myself and began to work to make it happen, I was able to succeed in losing weight where I had been failing before.  Because what I really wanted to do was transform myself into my ideal for myself.  I had physical limitations because of my injuries.  But I discovered if I was realistic I could work around them and still advance toward my goals and actualize my vision of myself.  And I found that my body literally WANTED to return to the fitness I’d had as a young man.  It’s called “muscle memory.”  And praise God for being fearfully and wonderfully made according to Psalms.

You can do it if you want to and if you have a plan and have the resolve to make that plan happen.  It’s just a matter of time.  And anything that truly matters takes time and effort.

I never wanted to be like the “cool kids.”  I had higher standards for myself that frankly didn’t involve them.

If I want to sit at the “cool kids” table now, I’ll sit there and command the skinny little weasels in their skinny pants to get lost.

I tell my story to try to explain to girls why the opinion of the “cool people” shouldn’t matter.  Think outside the box!!!

I wish more girls could have that same attitude if their body-types are different from the death camp inmate girls who think they’re so damn “cool.”

As a weight lifter, I really can’t say I’m in touch with how “handsome” I am.  I’ve never been that in touch with that and what can I frankly do about it one way or the other?  But I do know that I’m what I call “spectacular.”  I invariably see a lot of heads turn when I walk into a room.  I know that there are women who find me attractive because of my physique and I also know that there are women who won’t waste a second glance at me.  I’m admittedly on the extreme side: there are those women who are “turned off” by a big body-builder-type guy; and there are women who are turned ON.

And may God abundantly bless the women who are turned on by a big, strong man’s body.

Now, if you truly prefer the body of Justin Bieber, that’s fine with me.  I won’t even laugh at you (well, okay, I won’t laugh at you much).  Fortunately, this world is big enough for all of us.

Enough about me and my story.

I gave my story just to point out something that it is just a fact of life, girls.  YOU CAN’T PLEASE EVERYBODY.  Which is what too many women too often try to do too much.  You are frankly a fool for trying.  So be who you are, please yourself and your God and your family who love you the most.  And if you do that, you will find that you will be very pleasing to the people who matter most in this world, I promise you that.   If you focus on being the best “you” you can be, rather than try to force-fit yourself into an artificial mold, somebody is going to seriously dig the best “you” you can be.

I gave my story to point out that it’s coming from a man who never wanted to be like everybody else, to fit into the mold of some marketing gimmick like Brandy Melville.  Don’t be a lemming who wants to look like all the other lemmings.  BE YOURSELF.

And I gave my story – as a GUY – to maybe get some woman somewhere to think outside of her “girl box” and consider a different way to look at herself and at her body.

I have come to learn that I don’t have an “ideal woman” when it comes to beauty.  And that’s because I understand that you discover beauty and appreciate it for what it is, you don’t invent it.  I can’t even describe it; I just know it immediately when I see it.

There are slender women I’m sure could wear those Brandy Melville clothes whom I find attractive.  But hot dang, some of the women I find the MOST attractive would NEVER be able to wiggle those magnificently voluptuous hips of theirs through any pair of skinny jeans.

I note that Brandy Melville’s concept of “beauty” means being “white” as well as “skinny” and “long-legged.”  If I may, the most beautiful women I’m seeing in my neck of the woods are Hispanic.  Damn, there are a lot of gorgeous Hispanic girls.  Anybody who thinks that the most beautiful women are European is an idiot whose concept of “beauty” can be casually round-filed.  There are beautiful women all over God’s earth.

You can be Asian, you can be black, you can probably be blue and be beautiful.  And the beautiful women from different cultures also have different body types from whatever the “white girl” ideal is.  What matters the most is that you are YOU.

It literally hurts me that some incredibly gorgeous women are struggling with their self-esteem because they don’t think they’re attractive according to the fashion Nazis.

How the hell did so many girls come to believe this stupid crap???

It’s like something out of “The Emperor’s New Clothes.”  It has absolutely no connection with reality.  It’s completely based on a warped perception of warped people who have anointed themselves as fashion gods.

And it’s only when you ignore them and even outright mock them that they will become irrelevant.

Truly beautiful women come in all shapes and sizes.  And I’m not being “spiritual” and talking about “souls” and I’m not being Disney and talking about “personalities.”  I’m just writing as a man who is appreciating a hot woman’s body here.

Like I said above, I as one guy truly don’t have a “type.”  Girls with big breasts, girls with small breasts, girls right in between, I’ve found some of all of you gorgeous.  Girls with slim figures, girls with full figures, some of you are hot and some of you are not.  If you think all men find all bone-skinny women attractive, you’re just wrong.

Some girls and women have a naturally slender body, but sometimes their bodies tend to lack a womanly shape.  Some girls and women discover that they have a naturally shapely and voluptuous body, but some of these find it harder to keep unattractive excess weight off.  Each body type has its plusses and its minuses.  Go with the flow.

There are three primary types of body for both males and females: ectomorphs who tend to be thin, mesomorphs who tend to be athletic and endomorphs who tend to be more shapely but heavier:

Rather than deceiving yourselves into believing that you should all fit into Brandy Melville clothes, try to realistically determine what kind of body you have and then work to make THAT body the most attractive that you can.

I assure you, endomorph girl, YOU CAN BE SO GORGEOUS IT IS BEYOND UNREAL.

But it starts with you being honest with yourself.  Don’t unrealistically try to force yourself to be something you’re not and then force yourself into clothes that you don’t fit into.

I found a site after a few seconds of searching that I found spot on: http://www.superskinnyme.com/endomorph-body-type.html

Here is the section that I want you girls to see and understand:

There is no way round this issue. Endomorphs will have a harder time losing weight. But lets be clear. No one is saying that endomorphs CAN’T lose weight, but that they will have to work harder to lose the weight. Endomorphs do not have to be overweight. They simply require more determination than perhaps a mesomorph would, to achieve the same goal. Endomorphs have to train hard and must eat healthily most of the time. Endomorphs gain fat quickly when eating the wrong types of foods because their metabolism can be unforgiving. They also find it difficult to lose weight through diet alone.

The good news is that endomorph women are often thought of as voluptuous and sensual because they go in at the waist, have large rounded breasts and have womanly curves in all the right places – when in shape, their curves create an allure likened to that of Jennifer Lopez, Sophia Loren and other celebrated and famous bodies. Some of the most beautiful women in show business today are endomorphs. In shape the female endomorph is unrivaled – toned and fit whilst being soft, sensuous and alluring. It’s a wonderful paradox only the female endomorph can fully achieve. And lets be clear, if you are a female endomorph trying to look like your polar opposite – an ectomorph (e.g. Kate Moss) – a body type that possesses little fat, little muscle and a small frame, producing a linear, narrow body shape. If you do manage to lose a lot weight (fat and muscle!) to somewhat resemble an ectomorph, it will never look as good on you as it will look on her. For her it is a natural state and she looks (and is) healthy, but you have beaten your body into submission, forcing your body to be >something it is not and you will most likely look (and feel and be) gaunt, ill and tired, instead of radiant and glowing. It just doesn’t work. Your goal should be to transform your body into the best it can be, not to reconstruct it into someone else’s body. You can be incredibly slim, lean and toned. You can even be petite. But you can’t be an ectomorph. Read more here about how much you can change yout body type.

Amen.

Please, girls, PLEASE.  Don’t let some ectomorph mafia brainwash you out of realizing your potential.  If you’re an endomorph female, you can literally soar above those most of those pencil girls.

And that isn’t to mock the ectomorph bodies.  If you can fit into those Brandy Melville clothes, goody for you.  Some of you girls look awesome.  And I drool over a fit mesomorph woman.

I take a little bit of personal credit for the woman who I believe became the most beautiful woman in my gym.  She was afraid lifting weights would make her “too big.”  I literally sat her down in the gym and gave her “the talk.”  I made her watch the men and watch them lift weights and tell me which ones were “big.”  And the point I wanted her to understand was that not very many men ARE “big” in the muscular sense.  My point is that it’s hard to put on pure muscle – even for men who have the male hormone testosterone.  It’s REALLY HARD for women to put on thick muscle.  Most women couldn’t do it if they tried.  Rather, weightlifting will sculpt a woman’s body, tighten it, hone it.  She’ll keep her softness where softness matters most on a woman, but her body will firm up in a glorious way.

Anyway, Jacqueline was a hybrid between an ectomorph and a mesomorph.  She was right between the two types.  And that woman started lifting weights with a basic routine I gave her.  And she just got more and more into it.  And she started learning and asking questions and developing her own routine.  And a pretty woman became a jaw-droppingly beautiful one.  She’s in that gym seriously lifting weights three days a week and hot dang they look good on her.

What I would encourage you girls and women to do is to correctly identify your body-type – which might be a hybrid between two types with a tendency toward one more than the other like Jacqueline above – and then look online for examples of beautiful women with your body type.  Get a picture in your mind of what you want to accomplish that’s based on what’s ideal for YOU.  And then work to unlock and unleash the natural potential for your type of body.

Weight loss is a matter of calories consumed versus calories burned.  I hate to diet, but I love to exercise.  The less you like to exercise, the more you better like to diet.  But you need to find the balance that works best for you and you need to find ways to stay active that you most enjoy.

What I hate to see is a girl or woman who has in ignorance believed a load of garbage and feels trapped by an impossible ideal that she can never possibly fit into.  An endomorph girl can never be happy trying to be an ectomorph, or vice versa, for that matter.  If you despair over trying to literally become another woman’s body-type, you won’t be able to succeed and you’ll give up in frustration.

The key is to accept your body’s reality – by which I mean understand your body type and its plusses and minuses – and believe in yourself.

Believe me, I’m rooting for you.  Because I LOVE to see a beautiful woman.  And the more of you beautiful women, the better, as far as I’m concerned.

It starts with recognizing that God didn’t make junk.  When He made you, He didn’t put a thin girl into a fat girl’s body.  Be realistic with who you truly are and it will be the first real step toward becoming the best “you” that you can possibly be.

It may be hard, it may be a struggle, but I assure you, YOU ARE WORTH IT.  YOU ARE WORTH THE EFFORT.  And if you have a goal in your heart and a vision in your mind, you can reach it.

And for what it’s worth, when you get that nice figure that is ideal for you and for your personal body-type, you may or may not be able to wear that Brandy Melville label, but you’ll look beautiful in a lot of other labels.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Advertisements

Yes, Barry Hussein: I KNOW We Can ALWAYS Trust YOU To Say Soothing Words To Murderous Palestinian Fascist Terrorists

July 31, 2012

Remember when Obama took his overseas tour prior to his 2008 election?  You’d think he walked on water to get there, the way the mainstream media covered him.  The Marxist Media is showing it has fangs for everyone  who doesn’t think exactly like they do by going after Mitt Romney with the most idiotic charges of “gaffes.” 

So here’s the latest in the neverending world of the endless Two Minutes Hate of liberals for whoever the latest iteration of “Republican candidate Emmanuel Goldstein” is:

Monday, July 30, 2012
‘Palestinians’ seethe over Romney fundraiser comments

At a Jerusalem fundraiser on Monday, Republican candidate Mitt Romney told his Jewish donors exactly what he thinks of the ‘Palestinians’ (Hat Tip: Memorandum).

“As you come here and you see the GDP per capita, for instance, in Israel which is about $21,000, and compare that with the GDP per capita just across the areas managed by the Palestinian Authority, which is more like $10,000 per capita, you notice such a dramatically stark difference in economic vitality,” the Republican presidential candidate told about 40 wealthy donors who ate breakfast at the luxurious King David Hotel.

Romney said some economic histories have theorized that “culture makes all the difference.”

“And as I come here and I look out over this city and consider the accomplishments of the people of this nation, I recognize the power of at least culture and a few other things,” Romney said, citing an innovative business climate, the Jewish history of thriving in difficult circumstances and the “hand of providence.” He said similar disparity exists between neighboring countries, like Mexico and the United States.

The ‘Palestinians’ are seething in response.

“It is a racist statement and this man doesn’t realize that the Palestinian economy cannot reach its potential because there is an Israeli occupation,” said Saeb Erekat, a senior aide to Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas.

“It seems to me this man lacks information, knowledge, vision and understanding of this region and its people,” Erekat added. “He also lacks knowledge about the Israelis themselves. I have not heard any Israeli official speak about cultural superiority.”

A few points. First, Romney understated the disparity. Israel’s GDP is $31,000 and the ‘Palestinians’ GDP is $1,500 per person.

Second, assuming that ‘Palestinian’ GDP is in fact restrained by Israel (an assertion I will challenge below), for an indication of what the ‘Palestinian’ GDP might be without that restraint, one only has to look at other countries in the region. Jordan’s is $5,900. Egypt’s is $6,324, Syria’s is $5,262 and Lebanon’s is $15,600, all far below Israel’s $30,975. It seems far more likely that an unrestrained ‘Palestinian’ economy would be closer to any of those other countries than to Israel.

Finally, with all the seething about Israeli restraints on the ‘Palestinian’ economy (backed up by the politically motivated World Bank), there are many restraints on the ‘Palestinian’ economy that are self-imposed. These include the highly centralized nature of the ‘Palestinian’ economy, the amount spent on several competing ‘security services,’ and the culture that values ‘martyrdom’ over economic achievement and education.

So no, Romney’s assertion was not unreasonable and it wasn’t ‘racist.’

But you all knew that.

The explanation for where I was in the last several hours will be in the overnight music video, which resumes tonight.

Here was the White House’s gleeful reaction:

WHITE HOUSE (AP) – The White House says it appears that Mitt Romney’s comments today in Jerusalem left some people “scratching their heads a little bit.”

Romney told a group of Jewish donors that their culture was part of what allowed them to be more economically successful than the Palestinians are.

A Palestinian official called it a “racist statement,” and said Romney should know that the Palestinian economy is hampered by an Israeli occupation. […]

But the spokesman added that having comments like this one analyzed for “nuance” is “one of the challenges of being an actor on the international stage.”

The comment from the White House in direct response to the terrorist Palestinians being angry was:

“One of the challenges of being an actor on the international stage, particularly when you’re traveling to such a sensitive part of the world, is that your comments are very closely scrutinized for meaning, for nuance, for motivation,” Earnest said, adding, “and it is clear that there are some people who have taken a look at those comments and are scratching their heads a little bit.”

You know, I’m firmly in the Obama foreign policy camp that holds that the more blatantly evil a regime is and the more that regime hates America, the more we should value and credit their anger toward us.  Our historic ally Israel should hate us, and our historic enemy the Palestinians (who fought World War I against us before siding with the Nazis in World War II before they started killing civilians in terrorist attacks) should love us.

It’s those damned miserable piss holes like Israel that have stood by us for the last sixty years that we ought to trivialize.

Oops.  Please excuse me for a moment…

Okay, I’m back.  I had to throw out my tinfoil hat and I’m rational again.

Let me put it this way: Mitt Romney just went to Israel and said that Jerusalem was the capital of Israel.  That after White House spokesroach Jay Carney refused to answer direct questions as to what the capital of Israel was and before the Obama White House said Romney was wrong and that Jerusalem was in fact NOT the capital of Israel as far as all the terrorists and those who thought like them were concerned.

For some strange reason, Israelis are calling Mitt Romney “a true friend of Israel.”  Obama being “a true enemy,” of course.

Obama thinks we should be thinking, “My gosh, if even Palestinian terrorist fascists don’t like Mitt Romney, we should all vote for our Barry Hussein!”

There’s an article with the title, “Romney likely to see warm welcome from Israelis, chilly reception from Palestinians.”  And Obama is out there saying that it needs to be the other way around and the Palestinians ought to be happy with our president while the Israelis think he sucks.

We should all be agreeing with Democrat leader Nancy Pelosi: “Those Money Grubbing Jews Just Want Lower Taxes.”  C’mon.  Obama and Pelosi know what them damn Jews are really like.  After all, Obama’s reverend Jeremiah Wright spent his entire preaching career warning us that the Jews were evil.  And how could the man who spent twenty years mentoring messiah Obama possibly be wrong?  (See here for more on what the reverend that the man who is now president of the United States chose as his mentor believes).

Sorry, Barry H.  I’m with Mitt.  And I’m very definitely with Israel.

Barack Obama, Nobel Prize Winner And Inventor Of The Violent Thieving Flash Mob Entitlement Mindset

August 25, 2011

We are watching our culture morally and psychologically dumbed-down to a level dangerously below retardation.

And a huge new wave of stupid and depraved as recently arisen during and as a direct result of the age of Obama: the flash mob.

We watched (some of us with horror) the devastation of London, in which a socialistic nanny state was powerless in the grip of entitlement-driven young people who burned and looted as law-abiding business owners learned that the state not only could not but would not protect them.

We saw the results of a government that was presented as the answer to everything – the entitlement society and the entitlement mindset.  We saw the results of a generation conditioned by the political left to be dependent supplicants of the government as Savior.

In particular, we saw in Greece and then again in London what happens when – as Margaret Thatcher said in her description of the problem with socialism – “we run out of other people’s money.”

What happens when people who have been trained and conditioned to believe that the government will provide for them discover that the benefits have run out?

The answer is violence.

If the rich owe us, as Obama and the left keeps telling us, and if the rich aren’t forking out what they owe society to keep it functioning, then what conclusion is rational and inevitable but that we have a right to take from the rich what they will not give us?

Enter the Barack Obama Flash mob epidemic of young blacks who parasitically prey on “rich” whites (“White folks’ greed runs a world in need” alert!):

Young Black Men, and The Power of Flash Mobs!!
June 13, 2011 by Staff

(ThyBlackMan.com) We cannot police hopelessness and despair!

There are those who are angered and surprised by the violence of urban “Flash Mobs” (quickly forming groups of young people using technology to organize), especially crowds of young Black men, descending on mostly White, affluent downtown American cities. However, if we analyze this phenomenon, it is not so surprising. In fact, it is highly predictable. While there is no justification for young Black men to rob and beat people of any race, the activities of flash mobs are easily understandable in the context of recent social history and current economic conditions.

Most of these young men are poor, desperate and hopeless. They come from broken families and broken communities. They have been failed by their schools and by social and faith organizations in their communities. They don’t have jobs and many of them will never have jobs. They live at the bottom rung of society. The kind of havoc they wreak among us through “flash mobbing” is the kind of havoc they have lived with their entire young lives. For them, there is a perverse kind of justice and sense of fairness in their ability to create flash mobs that breathe terror into the hearts of other Americans.

Predictive factors for young Black males participating in the activities of violent flash mobs in Chicago are shown by recent data:

  • This summer, 90% of young Black men in Chicago between 16 and 19 years old are unemployed.
  • Only 44% of Black males graduate with a high school diploma from Chicago public schools.
  • Only three out of 100 Black boys who start kindergarten in the Chicago Public Schools earn a bachelors degree by age 25.
  • 70% of Black children in America are born into and live in single, female-headed households that are usually impoverished.
  • Black males are 6% of Illinois’ population but they represent 60% of the state’s prison population.

The power and strength of a flash mob are in its large number of congregants and in its ability to assemble quickly and to disband equally as fast. The word “flash” is an allusion to social media — texting, smart phones Twitter and Facebook. Flash media, an effective tool for organizing a social cause, is the same media that brought down the government of Egypt. Now inner-city youth are using this same media, but instead of toppling governments, they “topple” Macy’s, Neiman Marcus and Old Navy, and they steal IPads and IPhones from defenseless citizens.

The message from the flash mob to us is even more threatening than the mob itself. That message is, “You can’t control us! You don’t scare us! Your police don’t scare us! Your prisons don’t scare us! We are mightier than you! We will take what you have because you have given us few other options in life for earning similar things. And most importantly, we will take your peace of mind. Just as we in our communities cannot ever feel secure, now neither can you! We are more afraid of continuing to live our lives as they are than we are of you locking us up. What do we have to lose? For once, we are more powerful than you!”

Flash mobs are not new. In Black communities across America for the past 30 years, large groups of Black males have attacked others. In the past few years, jobless, desperate, hopeless youth have rioted in France, Greece, Belgium, Sweden, Denmark, Tunisia, and Egypt in efforts eerily similar to America’s flash mobs, but on a much larger scale and with politically clear motives and demands. These youth have taken over business districts, cities and countries and they have destroyed billions of dollars in property while toppling governments. The same root causes for these youth riots and disturbances in Europe and Northern Africa are producing similar actions, and possibly similar politically conscious attitudes, in the youth of Chicago, New York City, Charlotte, Baltimore, Boston, Philadelphia and other American cities.

Politicians and the police are working under the false and dangerous assumption that hopelessness and despair can be policed. The police are out-numbered and out-maneuvered in this battle of minds, spirits, bodies and technology. Even as thirty-three flash mobbers were arrested in Chicago this past week, the communities in Chicago were producing a thousand more potential flash mobbers to replace them. When Black boys are not reading at grade level by the third grade, we are creating conditions for a flash mob. When Black teenagers cannot find meaningful work, we are creating conditions for a flash mob. When young Black boys do not have suitable role models and mentors, we are creating conditions for a flash mob.

The best way to deter a violent flash mob is to stop it from forming. The best time to stop it from forming is when the potential congregants are 2 and 3 years old, not when they are 16, 20 and 30 years old. The best weapons against flash mobs are jobs, not police with guns; education, not incarceration; and positive guidance and direction, not threats or curses. Can flash mobs be stopped? Absolutely. Is America working properly to stop them? Absolutely not.

Welcome to the year 2011 where ethics, sociology, economics, criminology, politics and technology cross! The flash mobbers are trying to tell us, “You can’t stop us, but with your help, we can stop ourselves!”

Written By Phillip Jackson

Founder and Executive Director

The Black Star Project
3509 South King Drive
Chicago, Illinois 60653
773.285.9600 office
312.771.1010 cell
Blackstar1000@ameritech.net

“Flash mobs are not new,” the article says, pointing to incidents in Europe.  But we never saw one in America until the age of Obama.  Liberaism brought Europe to America, while conservatives did everything they could to try to prevent that cultural nihilism from ariving.

Decent people call it mob looting; liberals call it “the redistribution of wealth.”  Decent people call it anarchy and the breakdown of society and civiliation; liberals call it “social justice.”

The hero of liberalism and of the Democrat Party is the black person.  But consider:

The most dangerous possible place for a black child to be in America is in his or her mother’s womb.  Nearly HALF of all black babies are aborted.  The depravity of American blacks since 1973 DWARFS the holocaust that the shocked and horrorfied the world in the genocide that took place in Rwanda.

“Nobility” is defined by the left as killing your own baby.

For liberals, “nobility’ is defined as being a convicted criminal.  Nearly 40 percent of young black men are under the control of the criminal justice system.  Conversely, as the leftist black leadership puts it, more blacks are in prison than were in slavery in 1850 (as blacks have literally placed THEMSELVES in the chains of bondage).

Nearly seventy percent of blacks are in single parent households, as their culture is collapsing all around them.

And I am constantly lectured that white people are the ones who are immoral.  And we’re bad people because 96% of us didn’t vote for Barack Obama the way blacks did.

And I am beyond sick and tired and disgusted with black leaders presiding over a community in total moral depradation calling me a racist when they are people consumed by race and dedicated to the ideology of taking more from other races and giving it to themselves.

You look at the cities that have voted Democrat for a hundred years, and they are ALL in complete collapse and in total despair.  And all they can do is turn their rage outward – ignoring the consequence of their own lifestyles and their own voting record – and lash out at “white folks’ greed.”

Having said all that, this isn’t a failing of “the black race”; it is a total failing of the direction that black leaders have taken their community in America.  Failed leaders have led their people to failure.

Conservatives predicted that Obama’s “hope and change” policies would lead to food stamps and unemployment.  But now we’re seeing that Obama is leading to even more: it is leading to predation and collapse.

Ground Zero Mosque And Moral Idiot ‘Tolerance’

September 7, 2010

The New York City Community Center – with its proposed site being just two blocks from Ground Zero – is moving forward.

The basis of that forward movement is political correctness and “tolerance.”

New York Mayor Bloomberg told us why our soldiers are fighting in Afghanistan and Iraq:

“I think our young men and women overseas are fighting for exactly this,” Bloomberg said. “For the right of people to practice their religion and for government to not pick and choose which religions they support, which religions they don’t.”

It might be news to our soldiers that their real motivation for fighting overseas is so Muslims can build a giant mosque virtually on top of the site where Muslims murdered 3,000 Americans.

CAIR leader Nihad Awad has repeatedly said that Muslims didn’t have anything to do with 9/11.  And, of course, anyone who suggests that Muslims had anything to do with 9/11 is a bigot.

But the religion whose culture would murder a Christian for giving a Muslim a Bible – let alone building a Christian church near one of their hallowed locations – turns out to be quite judgmental, indeed.

Sorry, Nihad, but here’s the real face of Islam:

This is the latest Time Magazine cover, featuring the face of a woman whose story makes me want to vomit, then cry:

The Taliban pounded on the door just before midnight, demanding that Aisha, 18, be punished for running away from her husband’s house. Her in-laws treated her like a slave, Aisha pleaded. They beat her. If she hadn’t run away, she would have died. Her judge, a local Taliban commander, was unmoved. Aisha’s brother-in-law held her down while her husband pulled out a knife. First he sliced off her ears. Then he started on her nose.

Nihad says that Islam had absolutely nothing to do with 9/11 (the terrorists were like Barney the Dinosaur worshipers, rather than Muslims), and that all Muslims were appalled by the destruction.  The thing is, I remember it very differently.  I remember that the name “Osama bin Laden” was so popular after bin Laden murdered 3,000 Americans and brought the Twin Towers down that many embarrassed Muslim countries banned it.  And I remember footage from all over the world such as in the Palestinian territory and in Barcelona of Muslims literally cheering in the streets in celebration of the 9/11 attack.

So please don’t insult me by trying to tell me something so profoundly stupid that Muslims had nothing to do with 9/11.  I’m not that dumb.

9/11 was a religious act, committed in the name of Allah and Islam (which means submission, not “peace”).

And please don’t insult my intelligence with politically correct nonsense, suggesting that it is my “tolerance duty” to enable a Muslim shrine to be erected on top of an act of Muslim horror.

Let’s say – by way of analogy – that some Jewish group bombed the Dome of the Rock.  Let’s say that, oh, ten years later, another Jewish group – saying that it had absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with the group that bombed the Dome of the Rock – wanted to build a temple there.  You know, to advance the cause of understanding between Muslims and Jews.  And let’s just say that the rabbi behind the project had made a number of incredibly controversial statements (more here), having been frequently caught saying one thing in Hebrew to Jewish audiences, and another thing in English for media consumption.

Do you think that would fly?  Or do you think that the Muslim world would erupt in the greatest outrage the world had ever seen?

Would Nihad Awad or CAIR condemn as “bigoted” any Muslim who opposed that construction?

Anyone who says that Muslims would allow such construction is a liar, a fool, or, more likely, a lying fool.

Germany – which had experienced the bitter ultimate results of Nazism – banned the Nazis from their culture.  They never wanted to experience that evil again.  But our liberal progressives in the ACLU fought hard for the rights of Nazi groups to flourish here in America.

This isn’t about “tolerance.”  It’s about political correctness.

Political correctness is not merely an attempt to be more inclusive or to make people feel better about themselves.  It’s a large, coordinated effort to change Western culture as we know it by  redefining it.  Early Marxists implemented this tactic long ago and continue to execute it today — and now the American liberals who share the Marxist worldview are picking up the same tactic: to control the argument by controlling the “acceptable” language and hence the “acceptable” ideas and values.  Those with radical agendas understand the game plan and are taking advantage of an oversensitive and frankly overly gullible public.

Radicals who want “fundamental transformation” push for anything that will destabilize the hated current system.  They begin in revolutionary mode, inviting change, attacking the status quo.  They are permissive, attacking established and transcendent authority, advocating total sexual freedom, and promoting radical artistic and cultural experimentation.  But once they gain power, however, they are determined to defend the new status quo that they have created.  The questioning of all authorities gives way to the supreme elevation of a new authority that must not be questioned.  Permissiveness gives way to ruthless suppression.  Subversion of order gives way to the imposition of a new order.  And the previously “tolerant” revolution will systematically and ruthlessly suppress any “change” that “hopes” to overcome the big government totalitarian system they have imposed.

Both the Soviet communist (“Union of Soviet SOCIALIST Republics”) and the Nazis (“National SOCIALIST German Workers Party”) were socialist.  Both came from the radical left.  The only major difference between the two was that communism was an international socialist movement, whereas Nazism was a national socialist movement.

Socialism is a germ that can easily become viral and violent.  It’s in the very DNA of socialism.  And those that play with it play with fire (given that it is a political philosophy that has been responsible for the murders of more than 100 million people in peacetime alone).  I say that in recognition of the fact that 55% of Americans now recognize that Barack Hussein Obama is a socialist (as were both his parents and all his mentors before him).

American liberals and progressives served as the useful idiots for communism – including Stalinism – just as they served as useful idiots for fascism – including Nazism.  All one has to do is look at the 1920s and 30s, when Democrat progressives were cheering first Marxism and Joseph Stalin, then Italian fascism and Benito Mussolini, and, yes, Nazi fascism and Adolf Hitler.  FDR‘s cabinet was filled with admiring bureaucrats who had gone to Germany and Russia and Italy to study the “marvelous developments” that were taking place in these planned societies.

And now they are useful idiots for Islamic radicalism as well.  Imam Faisal Abdul Rauf has Muslim Brotherhood provenance, and is an adept practitioner of Islamic taqiyya — deceptive speech and action to advance the interests and supremacy of Islam.

And only useful idiots wouldn’t understand that.

What we are seeing is that it’s not “religion” that Democrat progressives hate per se; it’s orthodox Christianity, which has been the guiding force that shaped the American cultural history they now wish to “fundamentally transform.”  And if these progressives can use Islam to undermine and supplant Christianity, they will do so.  They will use Islam to attack the Christian hold on American culture.  They will use anything at their disposal to burn Christianity out of American culture.  So they can fill the vacuum with themselves and their poisonous ideology.

Christian conservatives [and Christians are conservative because our Messiah revealed Himself and His teachings two millennial ago, rather than a two-year election cycle ago] are “intolerant,” say Democrat progressives.  “Just look at how they are treating these wonderful Muslims who merely want to build a mosque as close as possible to Ground Zero.”  You don’t want intolerant – and therefore bigoted and evil – people like that leading America. Liberals then hold themselves up as morally superior to their “intolerant” conservative opponents, hoping that no one perceives enough to ask why liberals are so tolerant of Islamic fundamentalism but so profoundly intolerant of Christian conservatism.

That’s the real reason the ACLU fought for Nazism in the town of Skokie, where Nazi death camp survivors lived after fleeing the horror of Europe.  And that’s why the ACLU is fighting for Islamic jihadism today.  Because, as their founder said, “communism is the goal” – and anything that undermines the current Christian and free market system of America takes them closer to their cherished “goal.”

The problem with the ideological left trying to harness Islam to destroy the even more hated enemy Christianity is that the left don’t realize that they have a tiger by the tail.  They have bought into their own rhetoric that they can satisfy Islamic jihadism by appeasing them (by serving them Israel on a platter, for example).  But Islam is even more determined to have its way, and even more determined to employ whatever means are necessary – including catastrophic violence – to get it, than the socialist left.

In inviting Islamic fundamentalism to come into America and take root (as it is already doing in our “tolerant” prison system), it is as though the left are using a deadly plague to destroy their opponents, not realizing that they have no cure for the plague themselves.

As for the New York City Community Center, the Muslims certainly should be able to build their mosque (or community center, or whatever they want to call it).  But they should build it elsewhere, rather than near the site of the worst Islamic terrorist attack in history.  They should not be allowed to build a shrine commemorating their conquest of the Twin Towers.

If they are determined to build their “center” two blocks from Ground Zero, then they should be required to live up to their own disingenuous rhetoric: build a multicultural religious center that features a Jewish synagogue and a Christian church, such that men and women of all three monotheistic faiths may come and worship side-by-side together.

The fact of the matter is that they most certainly WON’T do the above.  Which proves that their stated goals are lies, and that what this construction really is is a political act.  If the “community center” is built, it will be a symbol of coming victory for radical Islam; it will be a demonstration that our enemies can violently bring our mightiest buildings down, and then erect mosques on top of their destruction.  And we’re such weak, insipid, pathetic moral fools that we actually help them supplant us.

The Ground Zero mosque (I don’t care if the mainstream media won’t use the most accurate description anymore) is provocation.  That is the entire idea: to suggest doing something despicable, and then point a finger at the American people over their “intolerant” reaction.

Meanwhile, the real insult to the American people is the giant hole where the World Trade Center used to be.  Because there was a time when we were the sort of people who would have immediately built an even greater building there – and defied our enemies to knock that one down.  Now we’re the sort of people who spend ten years twiddling our thumbs (both of which seem to be left thumbs) and listening to useful idiots lecture us.

Much the same way those ACLU attorneys lectured the Jewish Holocaust survivors living in Skokie, Illinois during the Jimmy Carter era.

Obama ‘believes that words are a substitute for reality’

April 8, 2010

Newt Gingrich gave the following sober assessment of Barack Obama:

“It’s a nice fantasy. It sounds good. It would be wonderful. It just doesn’t fit this particular planet. And, over here you have North Korea, Pakistan, Iran, Al-Qaeda and a whole host of potential enemies…

I think if you were to say, “He’s potentially the most dangerous because he completely misunderstands reality.” …You get an embrace if you are Hugo Chavez. You get acceptance if you’re Ahmadinejad in Iran. But, if you’re an American ally, somehow you’re not acceptable. He can bully you.

And, I think this is a typical pattern on the left. Jimmy Carter did it to some extent. The other thing that Obama does on a scale that Carter never dreamed of, is he believes, maybe because he believes in his own rhetoric… He believes that words are a substitute for reality.

Youtube:

I wrote a 3-part series on postmodernism and the danger it poses to Western civilization:

How Postmodernism Leads To Fascism (part 1)
How Postmodernism Leads To Fascism (part 2)
How Postmodernism Leads To Fascism (part 3)

That final assessment by Gingrich – “He believes that words are a substitute for reality” – couldn’t be more spot-on.  And it literally is the quintessence of postmodernism.

Postmodernists base their relativism and the view that all meaning is socially constructed on a particular view of language taken from a literary technique known as “deconstruction.”  As such, they begin with the assumption that language cannot render truths about the world in any kind of objective way.  On their view, language, by its very nature, shapes what we think.  And since language is a cultural creation, meaning must be nothing more than a social construction.  Thus, for postmodern linguists, the very meaning of words constitutes a self-contained system.  Words merely refer to other words.  And as human beings, we are unable to step outside of the boundaries, limits, or demands of language.  And since language is bound up within culture, it is therefore largely beyond our control, and we can’t even think for ourselves.

Postmodernists believe there is no objective meaning, no realm of absolute truth, that exist beyond the bounds of human language.  As a postmodern slogan puts it, “We are incarcerated in a prison house of language.”  And our language thinks for us.

Thus you understand how a Barack Obama believes that words are a substitute for reality.  On his view, what else is there but words?

Postmodernists along with deconstructionists view meaning as a social construct, which is to say that societies construct meaning through language.  But they also view societies as inherently oppressive.  They draw upon Frederich Nietzsche, who contended that human life and culture are only expressions of an innate will to power.  They draw upon Karl Marx, who reduced culture to economic class conflict and exploitation.  And they draw upon Sigmund Freud, who interpreted culture in terms of sexual and gender repression.  Postmodernists assume that the true significance of culture lies beneath the surface, and that institutions are really simply “masks” for a sinister conspiracy.

Modern liberalism is every bit an offshoot of postmodernism.  Take one of the most powerful tools of liberalism, “political correctness.”  Being politically correct is not simply an attempt to make people feel better.  It’s a large, coordinated effort to change Western culture as we know it by  redefining it. Early Marxists and fascists designed their postmodern takeover long ago and continue to execute that plan to this day: to control the argument by controlling the “acceptable” language. Those with radical agendas have been taking advantage of an oversensitive and frankly overly gullible public for decades.

This is where the fundamental elitism of postmodernism rears its ugly head.  They believe that all of the above is true for everyone else.  But they alone have the intellect, the courage, the foresight, and the academic tools to decipher the codes and understand language and culture.  They are the priests who can get beyond the limits they ascribe to all other human beings.

And so they alone have the right to rule the world.

It should be obvious why this point of view has been so dangerous every single time it has been imposed in history.

My response to all this is agreement with George Orwell, who once said that some ideas are so foolish that only an intellectual could believe them, for no ordinary man could be such a fool.

Obama believes that he can “fundamentally transform” reality with his words.  And yes, in agreement with Newt Gingrich, that makes him a profoundly naive and ultimately incredibly dangerous fool.

The Manhattan Declaration As The New Barmen Declaration

November 25, 2009

Christians are hearing about the Manhattan Declaration with great excitement.  It is a tremendous document with tremendous support from some tremendous Christian figures.

The actual declaration (linked to above) is some 4,000 plus words long, and is available to read at the link above.  But here is the nutshell version:

Christians, when they have lived up to the highest ideals of their faith, have defended the weak and vulnerable and worked tirelessly to protect and strengthen vital institutions of civil society, beginning with the family.

We are Orthodox, Catholic, and evangelical Christians who have united at this hour to reaffirm fundamental truths about justice and the common good, and to call upon our fellow citizens, believers and non-believers alike, to join us in defending them. These truths are:

  1. the sanctity of human life
  2. the dignity of marriage as the conjugal union of husband and wife
  3. the rights of conscience and religious liberty.

Inasmuch as these truths are foundational to human dignity and the well-being of society, they are inviolable and non-negotiable. Because they are increasingly under assault from powerful forces in our culture, we are compelled today to speak out forcefully in their defense, and to commit ourselves to honoring them fully no matter what pressures are brought upon us and our institutions to abandon or compromise them. We make this commitment not as partisans of any political group but as followers of Jesus Christ, the crucified and risen Lord, who is the Way, the Truth, and the Life.

I hope you stand with me – and with (at last count as of November 24, 2009) 106,738 other believers – and sign this declaration.

It reminds me of another time, and another declaration: the Barmen Declaration of 1934, which was a point-by-point denunciation of the fascist and racist ideological doctrines of Nazism and a positive expression of true Christian faith against a government and a culture that had become evil.

Adolf Hitler attempted to redefine – or “Nazify” – the Church and transform it into a component of his ideological agenda.  At one point in its history Germany had been the seat of the Protestant Reformation, and while Germany had since become the most secular humanist nation in Europe, there was still a vestige of Christianity remaining.  And Hitler wanted to harness that still-influential vestige toward his own ends.  The government thus passed resolutions to limit the influence or dictate the agenda of the church.  One demanded the purging of all pastors who rejected “the spirit of National Socialism.”  Another resolution categorically rejected the very foundations of Judeo-Christian transcendent morality even as it tried to conflate “being a German” with “being a Christian”:

“We expect that our nation’s church as a German People’s Church should free itself from all things not German in its services and confession, especially from the Old Testament with its Jewish system of quid pro quo morality.”

The German Confessing Movement was a reaction against the German government’s attempt to impose its agenda upon the Christian Church in Germany.  As Gene Edward Veith put it in his book Modern Fascism: Liquidating the Judeo-Christian Worldview:

The Barmen Declaration thus sets itself against not only the German Christian aberration but against the whole tradition of modernist syncretism that made it possible.

[Article 1 affirmed Christ as the transcendent authority and source of values (as opposed to the German race, the Nazi revolution, or the person of Adolf Hitler)].  Article 2 asserts the sovereignty of Christ over all of life.  Article 3 asserts Christ’s lordship over the church and rejects “the false doctrine, as though the Church were permitted to abandon the form of its message and order to its own pleasure or to changes in prevailing ideological and political conventions.”  That is to say, the world does not set the agenda for the church.  Article 4 teaches that church offices are for mutual service and ministry, not for the exercise of raw power.  Article 5 acknowledges the divine appointment of the state, but rejects the pretensions of the state to “become the single and totalitarian order of human life, thus fulfilling the Church’s vocation as well.”  Article 6 affirms the church’s commission to proclaim the free grace of God to everyone by means of the Word and the sacraments.  “We reject the false doctrine, as though the Church in human arrogance could place the Word and work of the Lord in the service of any arbitrarily chosen desires, purposes, and plans [pp. 60-61].

One article, entitled “Hitler’s Theologians: The Genesis of Genocide,” takes time to describe how various key German liberal theologians systematically tore apart the Bible and orthodox Christianity – and in so doing systematically undermined the ethics and morality of the German people in preparation for the hell to come.  The author begins with Friedrich Schleiermacher, called “the founder of Liberal Protestantism,” and profiles the “contributions” of Friedrich Nietzsche, Julius Wellhausen, and Adolf von Harnack.

Georg Lukacs has observed that tracing the path to Hitler involved the name of nearly every major German philosopher since Hegel: Schopenhauer, Nietzsche, Dilthy, Simmel, Scheler, Heidegger, Jaspers, and Weber [page 5, The Destruction of Reason].  And Max Weinreich produced an exhaustive study detailing the complicity of German intellectuals with the Nazi regime entitled Hitler’s Professors: The Part of Scholarship in Germany’s Crimes Against the Jewish People.  Ideas have consequences, and it was the ideas of these liberal theologians, philosophers and scholars who provided the intellectual justification and conceptual framework for the Holocaust.  Thus Nazism did not merely emerge from a liberal theological system, but from a distinguished secular humanist intellectual tradition as well — a distinguished intellectual tradition that had repudiated all the moral and spiritual values inherent to the orthodox Christianity of the Confessing Church.

Josef Hromadka wrote that:

“The liberal theology in Germany and in her orbit utterly failed.  It was willing to compromise on the essential points of divine law and of “the law of nature”; to dispose of the Old Testament and to accept the law of the Nordic race instead; and to replace the “Jewish” law of the Old Testament by the autonomous law of each race and nation, respectively.  It had made all the necessary preparation for the “Germanization of Christianity” and for a racial Church.”

Veith subsequently says, “in deciding whether or not to sign the Barmen Declaration … the dividing line was clear.”  And he states, “The German Christian theologians predictably denounced the confessional movement as being ‘narrow’ and ‘fundamentalist.'”  He rightly described the opponents of the Barmen Declaration as being “modernists,” “existentialists,” and “dialectical” in their thinking.  The theologians who rejected Barmen were men like Emanuel Hirsch, who taught that the resurrection of Christ was only a spiritual vision, and that the idea of a physical resurrection distorted Christianity by focusing attention to the hereafter rather than to the culture and community of the present.

In short, it was Christians who thought like the evangelicals and fundamentalists of today who signed the Barmen Declaration and openly opposed Nazism, and it was “Christians” who thought like the mainline liberals of today who stood for the German Christian Nazification of Christianity and for the resulting Nazification of German ethics and morality.

Confessing Church pastors and priests who resisted this Nazification of the church paid dearly.  Thousands of clergymen were hauled away to the concentration camps.  According to the Niemoller archives, 2,579 clergymen were sent to Dachau alone – and 1,034 of them died in the camp.  And that only refers to the priests and pastors – not the untold thousands of devout Christians such as the Ten Booms who perished in the death camps for their opposition to Nazism.

An article entitled “Asking ‘Why Nazism?’” reviewing a book by Dr. Karla Poewe has this:

“One of the dangers of liberal Christianity, where all sorts of interpretations are permitted, is that it can easily slip into becoming a new religion,” Poewe says. “This is what happened. In a bid to rid Germany of what it saw as Jewish Christianity, several home-grown practices sprang up, including some that incorporated Icelandic and pre-Christian sagas, as well as ideas from German Idealism.”

Although initially these new religions were separate and disorganized entities, they eventually came under the umbrella of what was known as the German Faith Movement. Hitler saw in it a mechanism for transmitting and reinforcing the National Socialist worldview. “He shaped its followers into a disciplined political force but dismissed its leaders later when they were no longer needed,” Poewe says.

We’re clearly not to the point where Jews, or Christians, or anyone else are being gathered by the thousands and placed in death camps.  But we’re beginning to see a trend that is frightening, as government, with the assistance of liberal “Christian” churches and organizations, are trying to impose their will upon the church and its agenda.

We’ve had a “hate crimes” law imposed upon us that makes homosexuality a protected behavior.  And one evangelical expresses the Confessing Church position in a nutshell:

Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council, said in a written statement the bill “is part of a radical social agenda that could ultimately silence Christians and use the force of government to marginalize anyone whose faith is at odds with homosexuality.”

In another recent case, a Christian mother who has homeschooled her child is being forced to put her ten-year old child in public school, not to improve her academic education, but to limit her exposure to Christianity and forcibly expose her to a government-approved “public” point of view:

According to the court order, the guardian concluded that Amanda’s “interests, and particularly her intellectual and emotional development, would be best served by exposure to a public school setting in which she would be challenged to solve problems presented by a group learning situation and…Amanda would be best served by exposure to different points of view at a time in her life when she must begin to critically evaluate multiple systems of belief and behavior.”

This is a shocking case, in which the government is usurping both parental and religious freedoms.  And there are many similar usurpations today, in which our government is actively opposing Christian values.

Nearly fifty million babies have been killed in this country by a government-sanctioned “pro-choice” system.  Gene Edward Veith addresses the “pro-choice” movement and its philosophical underpinnings:

Existential ethics brackets the objective issues on abortion entirely.  At issue is not some transcendent moral law, nor medical evidence, nor a logical analysis.  The content of that choice makes no difference.  If the mother chooses to have the baby, her action is moral.  If she chooses not to have the baby, her action is still moral.  If she bears a child against her will or aborts a child against her will — then and only then is the action evil.  Those who believe that abortion should be legal do not consider themselves “pro-abortion.”  They are “pro-choice.”  The term is not only a rhetorical euphemism but a precise definition of existential ethics.

Existentialism is also reflected in those who are “pro-choice” but personally oppose abortion.  They do not believe in abortion for themselves, but refuse to impose their beliefs on others.  In this view, a belief has no validity outside the private, personal realm of each individual.  Moral and religious beliefs are no more than personal constructions, important in giving meaning to an individual’s life, but not universally valid.  Or, to use another commonly accepted axiom, “what’s true for you may not be true for me.”

Such a view of truth flies in the face of all classical metaphysics, which sees truth as objective, universal, and applicable to all” (page 96, Modern Fascism: Liquidating the Judeo-Christian Worldview).

We can return to the historical analysis of Nazism presented by Karla Poewe, and what happened when such “anything goes” belief systems were allowed to rule.  [I have written an article describing how existentialism became a primary component of Nazism, and link to it HERE].

Before we leave the issue of abortion as a vile violation of Christian ethics and morality, let us consider one more voice:

“But I feel that the greatest destroyer of peace today is abortion, because it is a war against the child – a direct killing of the innocent child – murder by the mother herself. And if we accept that a mother can kill even her own child, how can we tell other people not to kill one another?” — Mother Teresa

Christians should fight for life.  And allowing a human being to live should not be a “choice,” but a duty.

In 2003 one David Allen Black wrote an article bearing the question, “Do We Need A New Barmen Declaration?”  No Christian with a knowledge of history can answer any other way than, “YES!

The Barmen Declaration was written in 1934, but in many ways it was already too late: The Nazis were already in power.  Hitler was in his second year of power; and the ideas of the liberal theologians, the existentialist philosophers, and the amoral intellectuals were already firmly in place.

It is my fervent hope that we finally have that “New Barmen Declaration” to answer the evils of our own day.  If we already should have written one, then every day that passes is one more day wasted; if we are acting pro-actively, then let us thank God that we acting before it is too late.

From the UK Telegraph:

At last, Christians draw a line in the sand against their PC secularist persecutors

By Gerald Warner UK Last updated: November 24th, 2009

At long last, Christian leaders have faced up to their persecutors in the secularist, socialist, One-World, PC, UN-promoted axis of evil and said: No more. In the popular metaphor, they have drawn a line in the sand. For harassed, demoralised faithful in the pews it will come as the long-awaited call to resistance and an earnest that their leaders are no longer willing to lie down supinely to be run over by the anti-Christian juggernaut. This statement of principle and intent is called The Manhattan Declaration, published last Friday in Washington DC.

It is difficult to believe that so firm an assertion of Christian intransigence in the face of persecution will not have some beneficial effects even here. For this Declaration is no minor affirmation by a few committed activists: on the contrary, it is signed by the most important leaders of three mainstream Christian traditions – the Catholic Church, the Orthodox Church and Evangelical Protestants. For an ecumenical document it is heroically devoid of fudge, euphemism and compromise.

The Manhattan Declaration states that “the lives of the unborn, the disabled, and the elderly are severely threatened; that the institution of marriage, already buffeted by promiscuity, infidelity and divorce, is in jeopardy of being redefined to accommodate fashionable ideologies; that freedom of religion and the rights of conscience are gravely jeopardized by those who would use the instruments of coercion to compel persons of faith to compromise their deepest convictions”.

For Barack Obama, the PC lobby, the “hate crime” fascists and, by implication, their opposite numbers in Britain, the signatories have an uncompromising message: “We pledge to each other, and to our fellow believers, that no power on earth, be it cultural or political, will intimidate us into silence or acquiescence.” That is plain speaking, in the face of anti-Christian aggression by governments. The signatories spelled it out even more unequivocally: “We will fully and ungrudgingly render to Caesar what is Caesar’s, but we will under no circumstances render to Caesar what is God’s.”

In a world where a Swedish pastor has been jailed for preaching that sodomy is sinful, similar prosecutions have taken place in Canada, the European Court of Human Rights (sic) has tried to ban crucifixes in Italian classrooms, Brazil has passed totalitarian legislation imposing heavy prison sentences for criticism of homosexual lifestyles, Amnesty International is championing abortion, David Cameron has voted for the enforced closure of Catholic adoption agencies, and Gordon Brown’s government has just been defeated in its fourth attempt to abolish the Waddington Clause guaranteeing free speech – this robust defiance is more than timely.

The signatories are unambiguously expressing their willingness to go to prison rather than deny any part of their religious beliefs. Those signatories are heavyweight. On the Catholic side they include Justin Cardinal Rigali, Archbishop of Philadelphia; Adam Cardinal Maida, Archbishop Emeritus of Detroit; the Archbishops of Denver, New York, Washington DC, Newark, Saint Paul and Minneapolis, Kansas City, and Louisville; and other Bishops. The Orthodox include the Primate of the Orthodox Church in America and the Archpriest of St Vladimir’s Orthodox Theological Seminary. There are also the Anglican Primates of America and Nigeria, as well as a host of senior Evangelical Protestants.

In terms of influence on votes and public opinion, this is a formidable coalition. It has served notice on the US government that further anti-Christian legislation will provoke cultural trench warfare and even civil disobedience. As regards the sudden stiffening of resistance among the usually spineless Catholic leadership, it is impossible not to detect the influence of Benedict XVI.

We need more declarations like this, on a global scale, and the requisite confrontational follow-up. This is Clint Eastwood, make-my-day Christianity – and not before time. From now on, any governments that are planning further persecution of Christians had better make sure they have a large pride of lions available for mastication duties. The worm has turned.

As a young Christian, I was inspired by the music, lyrics, and album cover of Keith Green’s album, No Compromise.  The cover says it all:

The Manhattan Declaration – like the Barmen Declaration – calls for Christians who are willing to stand up and be singled out even in the face of persecution or punishment.

I hope you are willing to be one of those Christians.

Coca Cola, Typical Pluralistic (Except for Christianity) Company

August 20, 2008

Bob McCarty came across this:

The crescent moon and star — yes, the same symbol featured on the flags of so many Muslim countries — is an internationally-recognized symbol of the Islamic faith in much the same way as the cross represents Christianity and the star of David Judaism. When I learned the symbol of the Islamic faith will appear on Coca-Cola packaging during Ramadan 2008, I found myself wondering whether or not the Atlanta-based soft drink maker will soon include the Christian cross and Jewish star of David in future holiday packaging designs targeting people of those faiths.

Here’s what the new cans look like:

Coca Cola – ever the profit-seeking enterprise – puts cute polar bears on their cans to “celebrate” Christmas. Jews don’t even receive the token snub that Christians get for their Hannukah.

In the name of pluralism and multiculturalism we are downright hostile to our own religious traditions even as we eagerly celebrate others.

Coca Cola and companies that now shun “Merry Christmas” greetings in favor of the neutral “Happy Holidays” pursued this reverse discrimination tactic only after years of lawsuits and judicial-activist government rulings.

World Net daily had an article titled “‘Five pillars of Islam’ taught in public school” that begins:

Another school has been “teaching” Islam by having students study and learn Muslim prayers and dress as Muslims, and a lawyer who argued a previous dispute over this issue to the U.S. Supreme Court said such methodologies wouldn’t “last 10 seconds” if it were Christianity being taught.

Educational Issues has an article titled, “Muslim Prayer in Public Schools: Are Public Schools Accommodating Islam Over Christianity?” And the answer is clearly, “YES.”

The ACLU, so vigilant of any “intrusion” of Christianity into public life, make it a point to look the other way when Islam is thrust upon us even when public funding is used to do the thrusting.

It is frankly amazing how liberals and secular humanists are so unrelentingly hostile toward Christianity in the name of “multiculturalism” and “separation of church and state” even as they embrace religions such as Islam in the name of the very same things!

As government creates a “gulag-like” mentality about expressing Christianity in public, corporations like Coca Cola follow the trend and go where the most money – and the least controversy – is.

And we continue to surrender everything that made this nation – and the Christian religious tradition that both formed and informed it – great.

How Postmodernism Leads To Fascism (part 1)

May 1, 2008

It is hard to talk to talk to people who believe that truth is relative. And there are more and more such people all the time.

C.S. Lewis described the fallacy of any theory that rejects the connection between thought and truth. In his book Miracles he said “All possible knowledge … depends on the validity of reasoning,” and developed his argument thus:

No account of the universe can be true unless that account leaves it possible for our thinking to be a real insight. A theory which explained everything else in the whole universe but which made it impossible to believe that our thinking was valid would be utterly out of court. For that theory would itself have been reached by thinking, and if thinking is not valid that theory would, of course, itself be demolished. It would have destroyed its own credentials. It would be an argument which proved that no argument was sound – a proof that there are no such things as proofs – which is nonsense.

To disbelieve in truth is patently self-contradictory. To “believe” means to think that something is true; and to say, “It is true that nothing is true” is fundamentally meaningless nonsense. The very statement, “There is no absolute truth,” is a statement of absolute truth. In the past, this pseudo-intellectual exercise was little more than a parlor game for the vacuous and simply not taken seriously. But it is very serious today, indeed. Today these views are held not only by much of academia, but by the average man on the street.

The rejection of absolutes is not merely a fine point of philosophical debate. Relative values accompany the relativism of truth. Today, we are a morally velocitized culture. What was unthinkable decades ago is openly practiced today; and what is unthinkable today will surely be openly practiced within a few years’ time.

What we have today is not merely immoral behavior by virtually all previous standards of conduct, but an abandonment of moral criteria altogether. More, we have an abandonment of meaning itself; and so today, we look for meaning in ways that would have bewildered, saddened, and shocked our forefathers.

The intellect is being replaced by the will. Reason is being replaced by emotion (which is one reason our kids are falling so far behind in math and science, and why so many are so passionate about a political candidate whose positions they cannot even begin to articulate). Morality is replaced by relativism. Reality itself is becoming viewed as little more than a mere social construct that can be manipulated by language. It all depends on what the meaning of the word “is” is.

Today, I frequently encounter people who hold mutually inconsistent ideas. I literally wonder how their heads do not explode from the contradictions they spout. It might simply be ignorance or confusion, but it really doesn’t matter: holding to mutually inconsistent ideas is a sure sign of believing that there is no such thing as absolute truth.

Where did all this come from?

Postmodernism as any form of coherent intellectual discipline largely developed from the field of literary criticism, especially from deconstructionism. So it is no surprise that postmodern scholars stress the importance of “contextualizing,” putting an author or an idea in the context of the times and showing its connections to all of the other “texts” that constituted the culture. But it turns out that one can deconstruct this deconstructionism to see where this thinking has been before, and where it will surely go again unless we turn away from these ideas. It is revealing, for instance, to contextualize Martin Heidegger, who originated the anti-humanism of both the academic theorists and the environmental movement that is so significant in the postmodernist academic circles of today. David Levin has written that Heidegger criticized humanism for tolerating totalitarianism. But Levin was quite disingenuous; the fact is, we now know that Martin Heidegger was a Nazi (see Victor Farias, Heidegger and Nazism, tr. Paul Burrell (Philadelphia: Temple University Press, 1989), p. 253).

Heidegger’s active involvement in the Nazi party and his shameless promotion of its ideology puts a very different light on his rejection of the individual, his repudiation of traditional human values, and his glorification of nature and culture. We find that EVERY SINGLE ONE of these postmodernist concepts were central tenets of fascism. It should be no surprise that the deconstructionist critic Paul de Man has also been revealed as an apologist of Nazism (for the connection between Heidegger’s Nazi ideology and his philosophy, see Tom Rockmore, On Heidegger’s Nazism and Philosophy (Berkeley: U of California Press, 1992). The fact is, postmodernism as a philosophy shares the same underlying concepts as fascist thought.

Postmodernists of today and the fascist intellectuals of the 1930s BOTH embrace a radicalism based not so much on economics but on culture. They BOTH reject identity in favor of cultural determinism. They BOTH reject moral values in favor of the will to power. They BOTH reject reason in favor of irrational emotional release. They BOTH reject a transcendent God in favor of an impersonal, mystical nature.

In Gene Edward Veith’s book, Modern Fascism: Liquidating the Judeo-Christian Worldview, he discusses in detail fascist ideology, its intrinsic opposition to the biblical worldview, and its survival in contemporary culture and postmodernist thought. He demonstrates that the irrationalism, the cultural reductionism, and the anti-human values of the postmodernists have already been tried once, and the result was catastrophic. Fascism is coming back. Communism has fallen, but throughout the former Soviet empire democracy is opposed by a new alliance of ex-Marxists and nationalists, who are trying to forge a new National Socialism (witness Vladimir Putin’s shutting down a newspaper for publishing his secret divorce and remarriage to a young Russian gymnast). American academics see themselves as pro-Marxists (or neo-Marxist, or post-Marxists, or however they sell this utterly failed system to themselves), but their desire for a government controlled economy, their cultivated irrationalism, and their reduction of social issues to questions of culture and race are actually more similar to Mussolini (i.e. fascism) than to Marx. If Marxism is modern, fascism is postmodern. And, as per the title of another of Veith’s books on the subject, we are living in Postmodern Times.

In addition to Gene Edward Veith’s insightful works, a further excellent reference is the book The Seduction of Unreason: The Intellectual Romance with Fascism from Nietzsche to Postmodernism by Richard Wolin (whose study substantially agrees with this paper). A review of Wolin by George Crowder available online is also very much worth reading. Although Crowder disagrees with the conclusion that fascism is implicit in postmodernism, he nevertheless acknowledges that the philosophical premises between the two ideologies are virtually identical. There is a genuine interrelatedness between fascist and postmodernist thought that simply cannot be denied.

For all their earnest championing of the oppressed, and their politically correct sensitivities, postmodernist intellectuals, no doubt without realizing it, are actually resurrecting the ways of thinking that gave us World War II and the Holocaust. Perhaps the postmodernists think their good intentions will mitigate the implications of what they are saying. But intellectuals thought this once before, with terrifying consequences. David Hirsch has warned, “Purveyors of postmodernist ideologies must consider whether it is possible to diminish human beings in theory, without, at the same time, making individual human lives worthless in the real world.” Ideas have consequences.

The Tenets of Postmodernist Ideology and The Political Implications of Postmodernism (Understand that this is a presentation of what postmodernists believe and the corresponding implications of these beliefs):

  • Existentialism. Existentialism provides the rationale for contemporary postmodernism. Since everyone creates his or her own meaning, every meaning must be equally valid. Religion becomes merely a private affair, which must not be “imposed” on anyone else. The context of one’s meaning makes no difference, only the personal commitment – to give otherwise meaningless life some subjective degree of meaning. Jean Paul Sarte chose communism; Martin Heidegger chose Nazism; Rudolf Bultmann chose Christianity. Everyone inhabits his or her own private reality. Thus, “What’s true for you may not be true for me.” In today’s youth culture (and video/computer games are a classic example), we find a growing dark side to this existential subjectivism; we see a growing cynicism, pessimism, and dislike for reality as more and more people elect to create their own private realities and “tune out” to the world around them.
  • Moral Relativism. Moral values, like all other kinds of meaning, are created by the self. The best example of this existential ethic can be found in those who call themselves “pro-choice” in their advocacy of abortion. To them, it makes no difference what the woman decides, only that she makes an authentic choice (whether or not to have her baby). Whatever she chooses is right – for her. “Pro-choice” advocates are astonishingly disinterested in any objective information that might have a bearing on the morality of abortion or the status of the unborn. Data about fetal development, facts about the despicable ways abortion is performed, philosophical argumentation about the sanctity of life – all such objective evidences from the outside world are meaningless and can have no bearing on the woman’s private choice. As we can see in the “One child per family” policy of forced abortion in China, however, this view of individual choice cannot stand for long in a larger community that accepts the premises of abortion. Ultimately, as we shall see, one’s will must be subsumed into the will of the majority.
  • Social Constructivism. Meaning, morality, and truth do not exist objectively; rather, they are constructed by the society. The belief that reality is socially constructed is nothing less than the formula for totalitarianism [as David Horowitz pointed out in “The Queer Fellows,” American Spectator, January 1993, pp. 42-48. For a similar discussion applied to Hollywood values in K.L. Billingsley, The Seductive Image: A Christian Critique of the World of Film (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 1989), pp. 112-113)]. Democracy presumes that individuals are free and self-directed. They are capable of governing themselves. But postmodernism holds that individuals are NOT free and in fact are directed by their societies. If the members of a society are passively and wholly controlled by societal forces, then self-governance would be impossible. Furthermore, if reality in fact is socially constructed, then the power of society and those who lead it becomes unlimited. We see this carried out to its logical extreme in Orwell’s 1984, in which the all-powerful state totally shaped the culture and controlled the very thoughts of the masses.
  • Cultural Determinism. Individuals are wholly shaped by cultural forces. Language in particular determines what we can think, trapping us in a “prison house of language.” Whereas Christian religion teaches that God constructs reality and creates man in His image to comprehend that reality, to see society as the creator (of reality) is to divinize culture. With these postmodern assumptions, every problem must have a societal solution, and nothing would escape the control of those who direct such a society. “Totalitarian” means that the state controls every sphere of life, which is exactly what postmodernism implicitly assumes in its presuppositions!
  • The Rejection of Individual Identity. People exist primarily as members of groups. The phenomenon of American individualism is itself a construction of American culture with its middle-class values of independence and introspection, but it remains an illusion. Identity is primarily collective. Postmodernism minimizes (even subsumes) the individual in favor of the group. This can only result in a collectivist mentality in which the claims of the individual are lost within the demands of the group. An ideology that that believes that personal liberty is an illusion can hardly be expected to uphold, allow, or tolerate human freedom. Subscribing to the former view ultimately must rule out the latter.
  • The Rejection of Humanism. Values that emphasize the creativity, autonomy, and priority of human beings are misplaced. There is no universal humanity since every culture constitutes its own reality. Traditional humanistic values are canons of exclusion, oppression, and crimes against the natural environment. Groups must empower themselves to assert their own values and to take their place with other [human as well as non-human] planetary species.
  • The Denial of the Transcendent. There are no absolutes. Even if there were, we would have no access to them since we are completely bound to our culture and imprisoned in our language. Moreover, excluding transcendent values places societies beyond constraints of moral limits. There is no God outside, above, or transcendent to society that holds a society accountable. Society is not subject to the moral law; it makes its own moral law.
  • Power Reductionism. All institutions, all human relationships, all moral values, and all human creations – from works of art to religious ideologies – are all expressions and masks of the primal will to power. If there are no absolutes, the society can presumably construct any values that it pleases and is itself subject to none. All such issues are only matters of power. Without moral absolutes, power becomes arbitrary.
  • The Rejection of Reason. Reason and the impulse to objectify truth are illusory masks for cultural power. Authenticity and fulfillment come from submerging the self into a larger group, releasing one’s natural impulses such as honest emotions and sexuality, cultivating subjectivity, and developing a radical openness to existence by refusing to impose order on one’s life. Since there is no ultimate basis for moral persuasion or rational argument, the side with the most power will win. Government becomes nothing more than the sheer exercise of unlimited power, restrained neither by law nor by reason. One group achieves its own will to power over the others. On the personal level, the rejection of all external absolutes in favor of subjectivity can mean the triumph of irrationalism, the eruption of raw emotion, and the imposition of terror.
  • A Revolutionary Critique of the Existing Order. Modern society with its rationalism, order, and unitary view of truth needs to be replaced by a new world order. Scientific knowledge reflects an outdated modernism, though the new electronic technology holds great promise. Segmentation of society into its constituent groups will allow for a true cultural pluralism. The old order must be swept away, to be replaced by a new, as yet undefined, mode of communal existence.

(Note: Although I do not provide citations, and my own ideas are interspersed throughout this paper, much of this three part series emerges directly from the influence of two works by Gene Edward Veith, Jr.: Modern Fascism: Liquidating the Judeo-Christian Worldview, and Postmodern Times: A Christian Guide to Contemporary Thought and Culture. At some future time I intend to add page references. Veith’s penetrating analysis of culture needs to be considered as we enter into what are incresingly perilous times.)

See How Postmodernism Leads To Fascism (part 2)

How Postmodernism Leads To Fascism (part 3) is available here.