Posts Tagged ‘intellectuals’

The World’s Tragedy: The Consequences of Godless Secular Humanist Liberalism Upon A Rapidly Deteriorating World

January 19, 2015

He said, “Go and tell this people: “‘Be ever hearing, but never understanding; be ever seeing, but never perceiving.’  Make the heart of this people calloused; make their ears dull and close their eyes. Otherwise they might see with their eyes, hear with their ears, understand with their hearts, and turn and be healed.” — Isaiah 6:9-10

I spotted a liberal op-ed that basically tells us that the tragedy otherwise known as progressive liberalism is as old as the 18th century and quite likely as old as time.

The article is about the “intellectuals'” disappointment with and in Barack Obama.  It begins:

When Barack Obama ran for president in 2008, intellectuals everywhere hailed him as one of their own. So closely was he identified with this elite that many Democrats worried, and Republicans hoped, that voters would reject him: As Richard Hofstadter noted long ago, a strong current of anti-intellectualism has long coursed through American history.

But his pointy head in no way proved an insurmountable obstacle in 2008. Maybe because it wasn’t all that inclined toward pointiness to begin with.

Since he was first elected, Obama has distanced himself from progressive intellectuals. You can expect to hear a few of them sadly critiquing his penultimate State of the Union speech this week.

Translation: We’re completely responsible for campaigning  for this pathetic turd and getting him elected and getting his policies passed.  But you can’t blame us.  Because if he’d just been even more “liberal” than this leftist turd turned out to be, everything would have worked out wonderful.

Mind you, Obama didn’t actually present himself as a far leftist; he presented himself as someone who would “transcend the starkly red-and-blue politics of the last 15 years, end the partisan and ideological wars and build a new governing majority.”  Which is another way of saying Obama lied and the “intellectuals” wish he’d been an even BIGGER liar than he turned out to be and do even MORE to tear the fabric of this nation apart by waging an even more vicious political war against the right than he has.  But “honesty” is no more a virtue of “intellectuals” than objectivity or common sense for that matter.

I won’t bore you with the whole boring piece (you can read it yourself if you’d like by clicking the link); but here is the portion that caught my eye:

In early 1765, Diderot was desperate. Thanks to his herculean efforts as editor of the Encyclopédie, the 17th and final volume of this monument to the Enlightenment was then rolling off the press. Yet the celebrated thinker was in serious financial straits. When Catherine learned of the situation, she made Diderot an offer he couldn’t refuse. She would purchase his personal library of 3,000 books and manuscripts for the then-vast sum of 50,000 livres. Not only would Diderot be allowed to keep his books until his death, but he would also be paid a yearly salary as the collection’s librarian.

The magnanimity of Catherine’s deal struck the imagination of intellectuals across Europe, who believed that true and lasting social reform could be made only from above. Since the great mass of people was mired in superstition and ignorance, enlightened decrees, not popular democracy, was called for. With Voltaire in the lead, the great minds of the age invested their hopes in well-intentioned kings and queens and saw themselves as qualified investment advisors.

Few intellectual ventures seemed as promising as Russia. Catherine had ascended to the throne in 1762 — in a coup d’etat and over the body of her husband, Peter III — determined to haul her vast country from its primitive conditions via Enlightenment ideals. She wrote the Nakaz, or Instruction, translating Montesquieu’s case for a rational and humane legal system into Russian. Her early enthusiasm for such progressive ideas, though sincere, would prove unequal to the challenges presented by her empire.

Okay, so let’s see: the “intellectuals” had an a priori rejection of God, the Bible and anything whatsoever to do with the supernatural.  Anybody who believed otherwise didn’t get to join the “intellectual club.”  They might claim otherwise, but they LOVE their dictators and tyrants because they keep rubbing their own faces into the fecal matter of totalitarianism, which is why they always HAVE loved Russia and totalitarianism and communism and socialism and every form of government control.  In their utter rejection of God, SOMETHING has to take God’s place – and so they worship government with a big ‘G’ and worship the power of the human State and its ability to control and dictate and bypass the democracy the despise and always have despised.  Oh, they’ll cynically use “democracy” long enough to garner the power to bypass the will of the people so they can impose their agenda with the raw force of totalitarianism and sweeping executive orders.

I mean, when Obama said

You go into these small towns in Pennsylvania and, like a lot of small towns in the Midwest, the jobs have been gone now for 25 years and nothing’s replaced them. And they fell through the Clinton administration, and the Bush administration, and each successive administration has said that somehow these communities are gonna regenerate and they have not.

And it’s not surprising then they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy toward people who aren’t like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations.

– He wasn’t saying anything that hadn’t been said by his sort many times before.  The stupid unwashed masses.  One of the great books about wisdom in the Bible states that there is nothing new under the sun and that what has been will be again and what was done will be done again.  And so we have the same moral idiocy we’ve had before because we keep turning to the same sort of fools and the same sort of fool ideas that have failed us before when they weren’t killing us by the millions before.

I mean, listen to liberalism in the words of the LA Times piece that describes the same sort of thinking we see today only near three hundred damn years ago: “the great mass of people was mired in superstition and ignorance”…. “true and lasting social reform could be made only from above”… “enlightened decrees, not popular democracy, was called for.”  And so with the famous atheist Voltaire in the lead, the left charged into Stalinism and has been full-throttle Stalinist ever since.

Leftist “intellectuals” have a pathological naked contempt of the people, whom they see and always have seen as inferior and beneath them.  And so they can lie to the people without shame because the people are stupid sheep and what does it matter if you lie to a farm animal as long as you get the farm animal to do what you want it to do and what you’ve convinced yourself is in the best interest of the farm animal to do.  So the left has its Grubers and yeah, got its Obama’s who with a straight face has claimed he issued far fewer executive orders than any other president when in fact he was issuing MASSIVELY SWEEPING executive orders by another name (executive memoranda).

It’s who these people are.

Before I keep going with this, let me begin with another quote about the nature of intellectuals:

“George Orwell said that some ideas are so foolish that only an intellectual could believe them, for no ordinary man could be such a fool. The record of twentieth century intellectuals was especially appalling in this regard. Scarcely a mass-murdering dictator of the twentieth century was without his intellectual supporters, not simply in his own country, but also in foreign democracies, where people were free to say whatever they wished.  Lenin, Stalin, Mao and Hitler all had their admirers, defenders, and apologists among the intelligentsia in Western democratic nations, despite the fact that these dictators ended up killing people of their own country on a scale unprecedented even by despotic regimes that preceded them” – Thomas Sowell, Intellectuals and Society, p. 2.

That’s right, folks.  The “intellectuals” from the left have ALWAYS loved Russia and Russia has ALWAYS been near and dear to their hearts.  They loved Hitler and his Nazi fascism, too.  They choose the most wicked side in every argument.

“Intellectual” is another word for “fool.”  This is a fact that is stated in the Bible:

Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools… Romans 1:22

And we’re warned about these fools and their fool ideas:

Don’t let anyone capture you with empty philosophies and high-sounding nonsense that come from human thinking and from the spiritual powers of this world, rather than from Christ. — Colossians 2:8

Three of the greatest scientists who ever lived were Sir Francis Bacon, the discoverer of the scientific method and founder of modern science, Sir Isaac Newton, whose physics transformed science and Blaise Pascal, the great mathematician and inventor of the first practical computer.  The man who discovered modern science by devising the scientific method rather than relying upon speculation and opinion wrote:

“There was never law, or sect, or opinion did so much magnify goodness, as the Christian religion doth.”

It is true, that a little philosophy inclineth man’s mind to atheism; but depth in philosophy brings about man’s mind to religion: for while the mind of man looketh upon second causes scattered, it may sometimes rest in them, and go no further; but when it beholdeth the chain of them confederate and linked together, it must needs fly to Providence and Deity. — Sir Francis Bacon

“They that deny a God destroy man’s nobility; for certainly man is of kin to the beasts in his body; and, if he be not of kin to God by his spirit, he is a base and ignoble creature.” — Sir Francis Bacon

Sir Isaac Newton has widely been called the greatest scientist who ever lived.  Albert Einstein credited Newton with his own work and claimed he’d stood on the backs of giants.  He wrote more about Christian theology than he did about science.

And Blaise Pascal – and please think about this while you’re playing games on your smart phone – wrote:

There is a God shaped vacuum in the heart of every man which cannot be filled by any created thing, but only by God, the Creator, made known through Jesus. — Blaise Pascal

Pascal was pointing out something Bacon clearly understood that the left has tried to pervert ever since.  It comes from Ecclesiastes 3:11 that God set eternity in the human heart.  It comes from Genesis 1:27 that humans were created in God’s image as His image bearers.  And the next verse describes God as having given man sovereignty over the world He created for humankind.  Which is why great scientist Johannes Kepler described science as “thinking God’s thoughts after Him.”

G.K. Chesterton put it even better in terms of my point when he wrote:

“For when we cease to worship God, we do not worship nothing, we worship anything.”

In rejecting God as their source for a worldview and for ideas, they believe in utter foolishness.  It may be high-sounding foolishness, but it is all the more foolish to be expressed in lofty words.  The left fills their minds with foolishness.  And that is why their ideas don’t work.

Leftist intellectuals are pure fools whose ideas have no contact with reality.  They have absolutely no understanding whatsoever how power works or how government truly functions or how to achieve peace or how to do anything that is truly meaningful or significant.  All they can do is mock and then mimic and then point fingers for their failures to try to blame others for their failures.

And a leftist like Obama has two choices: he can either reject the foolish and failed liberalism and try a different approach, which the leftist intellectuals claim he is at least partly doing.  Or he can keep trying to apply liberalism and keep failing, as he is very clearly also doing.

Obama is a joke.  And it would have been a funny joke if he had afflicted another country that wasn’t urgently needed in this time as the leader of the free world.  But here he is, plaguing this formerly great nation.  And so the joke is on America and it is on the whole human race.

Barack Obama has failed America and he has failed the world.  No one on earth is more responsible for the vicious wave or resurgent Islamic terrorism than Barack Hussein Obama who STILL insanely continues to reject the notion that he is in a war or that the war is against Islamic terrorism.  No one did more to underestimate the threat of terror and falsely and stupidly claim he had defeated it than Obama, no one did more to gut the resources needed to defeat Islamic terrorism while that threat metastasized into a deadly cancer all around him while he selfishly focused on his own personal politics.

And Obama failed America.  He keeps trying to play class warfare when HE is the man who widened the gap between the richest and the poorest beyond any human being who ever lived.  He dishonestly talks about his policies being exactly what the middle class needs when it was HIS policies that have crushed the middle class more than ANYONE’S in history.  Which is why all the day back in August of last year conservative writers RIGHTLY predicted the outcome of November’s election in which Republicans massively kicked Democrat and Obama ass and pointing out it was Obama’s war on the middle class come boomeranging back at his face.  That writer who predicted the result of the election called it “The Murder of the Middle Class.”  By the man who is now about to give a dishonest State of the Union speech claiming once again he is the savior of the very thing he is in fact murdering.

Obama has spent more money on government than any human being in all of human history.  And he is about to have spent more than every American president in all of human history combined from George Washington to George W. Bush.  And his policies have failed unless it was his goal to weaken America abroad and to weaken every American except the very wealthiest.  As even the LEFT that backed Obama is now pointing out.

And Barack Obama – without any question unless you ask the fool “intellectuals” – has done more to destroy democracy and more to destroy the American Constitution than any president who ever lived.  Because he is now the same totalitarian that the left has ALWAYS ended up worshiping whether some of them came to rue the object of their worship or not.

Pretty soon, because of Obama’s spectacular failure, the world will accept the coming Antichrist and worship him as their savior and take his mark of big-socialist-government domination on their right hands or on their foreheads.  And Barack Hussein Obama will have been the Antichrist’s Most Useful Idiot.

And don’t think for one second that the same intellectuals who couldn’t wait to support Stalin before they couldn’t wait to support Hitler before they couldn’t wait to support murderous communist dictator Chairman Mao before they couldn’t wait to support Obama won’t rush to support the Antichrist, too.

Advertisements

The Stupidest Liberals Of All Are The Really ‘Smart’ Ones

April 25, 2012

George Orwell once said that “There are some ideas so absurd that only an ‘intellectual’ could believe them,” because no ordinary man was capable of being such a fool.

The man who warned us about “Big Brother” couldn’t have hit the pinhead any more on the head.

Fellow economist and Keynes biographer Roy Harrod said of famous liberal economist John Maynard Keynes:

“He held forth on a great range of topics, on some of which he was thoroughly expert, but on others of which he may have derived his views from the few pages of a book at which he happened to glance.  The air of authority was the same in both cases” [The Life of John Maynard Keynes, by Roy Harrod, 1969, p. 468].

Those who worship their own opinions have a stark raving fool for a god.

And of course Keynes’ theories that WERE “expert” have been proven utterly wrong – most recently by the spectacular failure of the Obama stimulus that was billed as costing $862 billion but which in reality will cost the American taxpayers at least $3.27 TRILLION and which accomplished NOTHING that was predicted.

Thomas Sowell is on liberal intellectuals like a pit bull is on meat delivery man in his book Intellectuals and Society.

He records that:

Visiting the United States in 1933 [the year Hitler came to power], George Bernard Shaw said, “You Americans are so fearful of dictators.  Dictatorship is the only way in which government can accomplish anything.  See what a mess democracy has led to.  Why are you afraid of dictatorship?”  Leaving London for a vacation in South Africa in 1935, Shaw declared, “It is nice to go for a holiday and know that Hitler has settled everything so well in Europe.”

But of course that wasn’t the end of Shaw’s abject idiocy on the subject of politics.  Because:

In 1939, after the Nazi-Soviet pact, Shaw said: “Herr Hitler is under the powerful thumb of Stalin, whose interest in peace is overwhelming.  And every one expect myself is frightened out of his or her wits!”  A week later, the Second World War began, with Hitler invading Poland from the west, followed by Stalin invading from the east.

For the record, Shaw’s 1933 stupidity was recorded in the New York Times on March 25, 1933 (p. 17) in an article entitled, “Shaw Bests Army of Interviewers.”  His 1935 idiocy was likewise recorded in the New York Times on March 22, 1935 (p. 21) in an article entitled, “G.B. Shaw ‘Praises’ Hitler.”  And the 1939 statement of pure moronic imbecility was recorded in a Letter to The Times of London, dated August 28, 1939 on page 11.

You’d think the man would have the common sense to shut up.  But for liberals common sense is as rare as Mars rocks on this earth.

Socialist George Bernard Shaw also infamously said:

“I don’t want to punish anybody. But there are an extraordinary number of people whom I want to kill… but it must be evident to all of you… you must all know half a dozen people at least who are of no use in this world… who are more trouble than they are worth.”

This foolish “intellectual” sentiment was echoed by Clinton Labor Secretary and Obama advisor Robert “Third” Reich:

“Thank you so much for coming this afternoon. I’m so glad to see you and I would like to be president. Let me tell you a few things on health care. Look, we have the only health care system in the world that is designed to avoid sick people. And that’s true and what I’m going to do is that I am going try to reorganize it to be more amenable to treating sick people but that means you, particularly you young people, particularly you young healthy people…you’re going to have to pay more.

“Thank you. And by the way, we’re going to have to, if you’re very old, we’re not going to give you all that technology and all those drugs for the last couple of years of your life to keep you maybe going for another couple of months. It’s too expensive…so we’re going to let you die.”

For the official record, I’m sure that Third Reich Rob doesn’t want to punish anybody, either.

Oopsie.

Liberalism equals fascism.  The ONLY difference between liberalism and fascism is the fact that fascists were able to carry their ideas to their logical conclusion and liberals have to keep grinding their way through the barrier of a democratic republic.

Over the weekend Barack Obama’s senior campaign strategist David Axelrod claimed that the Republican Party was operating under a “reign of terror.”  What makes that beyond laughable and approaching insane is the fact that “the Reign of Terror” was the brainchild of the very left-wing Maximilien Robespierre to implement his überleftwing utopian state by means of fear and force.  And it is simply morally sick that a liberal like David Axelrod would take a phrase that belongs in the left-wing’s hall of fame and use it to deceitfully demonize the conservatives who if anything were the VICTIMS of “the Reign of Terror.”

It has ALWAYS been the tactic of the fascist to demonize its opposition as “extreme” and thus justify the most extreme actions imaginable.  And it is no surprise that such is precisely what the Democrat Party has been trying to argue this campaign.

As we speak, we have fascist Obama out demonizing the United States Supreme Court after he just got done demonizing the United States Congress.  Which is to say that we’re blowing the last necessary puffs of air on the house of cards we call democracy in America.

Liberal Elitists Believe American People Need Their Wisdom; But THEY’RE The Stupid Ones

October 22, 2010

What is modern liberalism, a.k.a. progressivism?

It is the mindset that the unwashed masses are too stupid to govern themselves, and therefore need a nanny state to take care of them.

Given that understanding, it turns out that there is a nexus between Democrat Party liberals, liberal intellectuals and mainstream media liberals.  It is the idea that “They need us.  They need our superior understanding.  They need us to tell them what to think.”

That attitude has one serious flaw, however.

These people are even dumber in their own way than the very unwashed ignorant masses they seek to manipulate.  And whenever the culture becomes ignorant enough, or uncertain enough, that it begins to follow liberals, watch out; because the disaster of “dumb and dumber” is right around the corner.

Ronald Reagan put it best when he said, “The trouble with our liberal friends is not that they are ignorant, but that they know so much that isn’t so.”

Progressives are people who “know” all sorts of things about American history that simply aren’t true.  They “know” all sorts of things about our Constitution that simply aren’t true. They “know” all sorts of things about our economy that simply aren’t true.

From Flopping Aces:

Allegedly unintelligent Republicans make fools of Democrats
Posted by: DrJohn @ 11:35 am

It’s been quite the 24 hours.

Liberals just love trying to beat up on Sarah Palin. They repeatedly question her intelligence. And she just wipes the poop off the floor with them.

Mark Hemingway had a glorious article at the Washington Examiner and I am posting the whole thing:

So the Los Angeles Times reported on a recent Sarah Palin event:

Seeking to channel the sign-bearing, flag-waving enthusiasm of the “tea party” movement into ballot-box victories, former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin told hundreds of supporters Monday they couldn’t “party like it’s 1773″ until Washington was flooded with like-minded conservatives.

Immediately, Palin’s critics leapt into action. Here’s The Daily Kos himself on Twitter:

Sarah Palin to supporters: “Don’t party like it’s 1773 yet”. is.gd/g7rRb…. She’s so smart.

And here’s PBS’s Gwen Ifill, moderator of presidential debates, also on Twitter:

Sarah Palin: party like its 1773! ummm,

Blogger Cuffy Meigs rounds up all kinds of similar “HAHAHAHAHA! She’s so stupid!” reactions to Palin’s reference to 1773. So what did happen in 1773? Oh, right.

That, ummm, would be the Boston Tea Party.

Moulitsas and Ifill were in such an orgasm to insult Palin they stuck their feet not only into their mouths but up where the Sun doesn’t shine as well. Idiots.

Nicely done, Sarah.

Then there’s Christine O’Donnell and her debate with Chris Coons:

WILMINGTON, Del.—Republican Christine O’Donnell challenged her Democratic rival Tuesday to show where the Constitution requires separation of church and state, drawing swift criticism from her opponent, laughter from her law school audience and a quick defense from prominent conservatives.

“Where in the Constitution is separation of church and state?” O’Donnell asked while Democrat Chris Coons, an attorney, sat a few feet away.

Coons responded that O’Donnell’s question “reveals her fundamental misunderstanding of what our Constitution is. … The First Amendment establishes a separation.”

But O’Donnell probed again.

She interrupted to say, “The First Amendment does? … So you’re telling me that the separation of church and state, the phrase ’separation of church and state,’ is in the First Amendment?”

That’s pretty clear. And as any Constitutional scholar should know, the phrase “separation of church and state” does not appear in the Constitution. O’Donnell was right, yet Ben Evans, the author of the piece, characterized the exchange as another controversy to “befall” O’Donnell.

Why is being right something that “befalls” someone? Because she’s a Republican?

Point, O’Donnell.

Then Coons tried again to school O’Donnell.

“He noted again the First Amendment’s ban on establishment of religion” reported Evans.

(There is no ban on the establishment of religion in the Constitution.)

O’DONNELL: “Let me just clarify, you’re telling me that the separation of church and state is found in the First Amendment?”

COONS: “‘Government shall make no establishment of religion’”

O’DONNELL: “That’s in the First Amendment?”

It’s not.

For the record, the First Amendment says:

Amendment I: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Point, O’Donnell.

Then a local law school professor chimed in:

Erin Daly, a Widener professor who specializes in constitutional law, said, “She seemed genuinely surprised that the principle of separation of church and state derives from the First Amendment, and I think to many of us in the law school that was a surprise.”

This is something I despise about both academicians and reporters. Liberal bias.

It’s pretty obvious that O’Donnell was being literal and it’s painfully clear that she was right on both counts. O’Donnell was surprised that Coons, Daly, Evans and the rest of the smug twits in the audience could actually believe that the phrase “separation of church and state” resides in the Constitution and that the Constitution bans the establishment of religion.

Entirely unreported by Evans was O’Donnell’s challenge to Coons:

O’Donnell was later able to score some points of her own off the remark, revisiting the issue to ask Coons if he could identify the “five freedoms guaranteed in the First Amendment.”

Coons named the separation of church and state, but could not identify the others — the freedoms of speech, press, to assemble and petition — and asked that O’Donnell allow the moderators ask the questions.

“I guess he can’t,” O’Donnell said.

Game, set, match- O’Donnell.

Another report of the debate went this way:

Ms. O’Donnell likened Mr. Coons’s position on evolution to those of “our so-called leaders in Washington” who have rejected the “indispensible principles of our founding.”

When Mr. Coons interjected that “one of those indispensible principles is the separation of church and state,” Ms. O’Donnell demanded, “Where in the Constitution is separation of church and state?”

The audience exploded in laughter

One would have to say that an awful lot of law students overpaid for their education and that some law professors are overpaid.

George Orwell said that some ideas are so foolish that only an intellectual could believe them, for no ordinary man could be such a fool.  And Thomas Sowell has pointed out that the record of 20th century intellectuals – precisely the period when liberals began to decide that only they properly qualified as “intellectuals” – was especially appalling in this regard.

Whenever a liberal talks – and frankly most of all when that liberal is an “intellectual” – you should listen very closely to whatever he or she says, and then believe the exact opposite.

The foolishness of liberals is literally biblical:

Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools — Romans 1:22

For God’s wrath is being revealed from heaven against all the ungodliness and wickedness of those who in their wickedness suppress the truth — Romans 1:18

You love evil more than good, Falsehood more than speaking what is right — Psalm 52:3

But he who sins against Me injures himself; all those who hate Me love death — Proverbs 8:36

Woe to those who call evil good, and good evil; Who substitute darkness for light and light for darkness; Who substitute bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter! — Isaiah 5:20

You who hate good and love evil, Who tear off their skin from them And their flesh from their bones — Micah 3:2

In their case, the god of this world has blinded the minds of those who do not believe to keep them from seeing the light of the glorious gospel of the Messiah, who is the image of God — 2 Corinthians 4:4

Such teachings come through hypocritical liars, whose consciences have been seared as with a hot iron — 1 Timothy 4:2

For the time will come when men will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear. They will turn their ears away from the truth and turn aside to myths — 2 Tim 4:3-4

.

 

 

Leftist Thought Led To Fascism – And Is Doing So Again

November 29, 2009

Liberals think that the title of Jonah Goldberg’s book Liberal Fascism is an oxymoron.  They’re wrong.  Goldberg himself writes:

“For more than sixty years, liberals have insisted that the bacillus of fascism lies semi-dormant in the bloodstream of the political right.  And yet with the notable and complicated exceptions of Leo Strauss and Allan Bloom, no top-tier American conservative intellectual was a devotee of Nietzsche or a serious admirer of Heidegger.  All major conservative schools of thought trace themselves back to the champions of the Enlightenment–John Locke, Adam Smith, Montesquieu, Burke–and none of them have any direct intellectual link to Nazism or Nietzsche, to existentialism, nihilism, or even, for the most part, Pragmatism.  Meanwhile, the ranks of the leftwing intellectuals are infested with ideas and thinkers squarely in the fascist tradition.  And yet all it takes is the abracadabra word “Marxist” to absolve most of them of any affinity with these currents.  The rest get off the hook merely by attacking bourgeois morality and American values–even though such attacks are themselves little better than a reprise of fascist arguments” [page 175].

“Foucault’s “enterprise of Unreason,” Derrida’s tyrannical logocentrism, Hitler’s “revolt against reason.”  All fed into a movement that believes action is more important than ideas.  Deconstructionism, existentialism, postmodernism, Pragmatism, relativism: all these ideas had the same purpose–to erode the iron chains of tradition, dissolve the concrete foundations of truth, and firebomb the bunkers where the defenders of the ancient regime still fought and persevered.  These were ideologies of the “movement.”  The late Richard Rorty admitted as much, conflating Nietzsche and Heidegger with James and Dewey as part of the same grand project” [Goldberg, Liberal Fascism, page 176].

It turns out that most of the moral and philosophical assumptions of liberalism have been shared by not only the Marxists, but the Nazis as well.  NAZI stood for “National Socialist German Workers Party,” and was merely a rival brand of the clearly leftist political ideology of socialism.  And given the fact that Marxism was in fact every bit as totalitarian and murderous as Nazism, in hindsight it seems rather bizarre that “Marxist” was ever an abracadabra word that the American left was willing to bear to begin with.

The purpose of this article is to explore how the foundational ideas that liberals uphold as being the opposite of fascism in fact actually fed the monster of fascist Nazism, and how the modern American left continue to fall prey to fascist premises and outcomes to this very day.

It is particularly interesting that the supposedly highly individualistic and influential school of thought known as “existentialism” became so ensnared by fascism and Nazism.  On the surface, existentialism would seem to be the very polar opposite of fascism and Nazism.  After all, a philosophy of radical freedom centered in the individual would surely be incompatible with a totalitarian social system that denies political liberty in the name of the community.  One would assume that existentialism would be a philosophy of rebellion against all such external authority.  And yet the Nazis quoted Frederich Nietzsche at great length in support of their ideology (see also here).  Martin Heidegger, one of the foremost existentialist thinkers in history, turned out to have been a proud member of the Nazi Party.  And even famed existentialist Jean-Paul Sartre – who fought to resist fascism in his Nazi-occupied France during WWII – ultimately merely chose another totalitarian ideology in its place (Sartre identified himself as a Marxist and a Maoist).

Georg Lukács observed (in The Destruction of Reason, 1954, page 5) that tracing a path to Hitler involved the name of nearly every major German philosopher since Hegel: Schopenhauer, Nietzsche, Dilthy, Simmel, Scheler, Heidegger, Jaspers, Weber.  Rather than merely being amoral monsters, the Nazis emerged out of a distinguished liberal secular humanist intellectual tradition.

Max Weinreich documented in Hitler’s Professors: The Part of Scholarship in Germany’s Crimes against the Jewish People, an exhaustive study of the complicity of German intellectuals with the Nazi regime.  Far from opposing the Nazi regime, we find that German academia actively provided the intellectual justification for Nazi fascism as well as the conceptual framework for the Holocaust.  Weinreich does not claim that German scholars intended the Holocaust, but he argues that the Holocaust would not have been possible without them.

He asks, “Did they administer the poison?  By no means; they only wrote the prescription.”

How could such a thing happen?

Very easily, it turns out.

The existentialists (along with the secular humanists and the liberals), deny the transcendent, deny objective truth, and deny the objective morality that derive from transcendence and objective truth.  Rather than any preordained system – whether moral or theological – existentialist anchored meaning not to any ideals or abstractions, but in the individual’s personal existence.  Life has no ultimate meaning; meaning is personal; and human beings must therefore create their own meaning for themselves.

One should already begin to see the problem: since existentialism, by its very nature, refuses to give objective answers to moral or ideological questions, a particular existentialist might choose to follow either a democrat or totalitarian ideology – and it frankly doesn’t matter which.  All that matters is that the choice be a genuine choice.

Existentialists didn’t merely acknowledge this abandonment of transcendent morality, they positively reveled in it.  In his book St. Genet, Jean-Paul Sartre celebrated the life of a criminal.  Genet was a robber, a drug dealer, and a sexual deviant.  By all conventional moral standards, Genet was an evil man.  But for Sartre, even ostensibly evil actions could be moral if they were performed in “good faith.”  And since Sartre’s Genet consciously chose to do what he did, and took responsibility for his choices and his actions, he was a saint in existentialist terms.

And the problem becomes even worse: by rejecting the concepts of transcendence, objective meaning, truth, and moral law, and by investing ultimate authority in the human will (i.e. Nietzsche’s “will to power”, Hitler’s “triumph of the will”), existentialism played directly into the hands of fascism — which preached the SAME doctrines.  If fascism can be defined as “violent and practical resistance against the process of transcendence,” as Ernst Nolte defined it, then it’s affinities with existentialism are crystal clear.  The two movements became part of the same stream of thought.

Modern Nietzsche followers argue that Nietzsche was not a racial anti-Semite.  For the sake of argument maybe he wasn’t; but he was without any question an intellectual anti-Semite, who attacked the Jews for their ideas and their ethics — particularly as they contributed to Western civilization and to Christianity (which he also actively despised).  And in addition to Nietzsche’s intellectual anti-Semitism was his utter contempt for any form of abstractions — particularly as they related to the transcendental categories of morality and reason.  Nietzsche maintained that abstraction of life resulted from abstraction of thought.  And he blamed Christianity – which he rightly blamed as a creation of the Jews – for the denial of life manifested in Christian morality.

And, unlike most pseudo-intellectuals of today, Nietzsche was consistent: in his attack against Christianity, he attacked Judeo-Christian morality.  He attacked the Christian value of other-centered love, and argued that notions of compassion and mercy favored the weak and the unfit, thereby breeding more weakness.  Don’t you dare think for a single nanosecond that Hitler didn’t take the arguments of this beloved-by-liberals philosopher and run down the field with them toward the death camps.

The Nazis aligned themselves not only against the Jews but against the the Judeo-Christian God and the Judeo-Christian morality the Jews represented.  A transcendent lawgiving God, who reveals His moral law on real tablets of stone for mankind to follow, was anathema to the fascists.  They argued that such transcendence alienates human beings from nature and from themselves (i.e., from their own genuine choices).  The fascist intellectuals sought to forge a new spirituality of immanence, focused upon nature, on human emotions, and on the community.  The fascists sought to restore the ancient pre-Christian consciousness, the ancient mythic sensibility in the form of the land and the blood, in which individuals experience unity with nature, with each other, and with their own deepest impulses.

Gene Edward Veith in his book Modern Fascism: Liquidating the Judeo-Christian worldview writes:

The fascist rebellion against transcendence restored the ancient pagan consciousness.  With it came barbarism, a barbarism armed with modern technology and intellectual sophistication.  The liquidation of the transcendent moral law and “Jewish” conscience allowed the resurgence of the most primitive and destructive emotions, the unleashing of original sin (page 14).

Nietzsche argued that God is dead, and Hitler tried to finish Him off by eradicating the Jews.  What is less known is that he also planned to solve the “church problem” after the war.  Hitler himself  said:

“The war is going to be over.  The last great task of our age will be to solve the church problem.  It is only then that the nation will be wholly secure” [From Hitler’s Tabletalk (December 1941), quoted in The Nazi Years: A Documentary History, ed. Joachim Remak, 1990, page 105].

Hitler boasted that “I have six divisions of SS composed of men absolutely indifferent in matters of religion.  It doesn’t prevent them from going to their deaths with serenity in their souls.”  And Himmler said, “Men who can’t divest themselves of manners of previous centuries, and scoff and sling mud at things which are ‘holy’ and matters of belief to others, once and for all do not belong in the SS.”

With the creed “God is dead” and the resulting “death of God,” Nietzsche predicted that energizing conflict and revolution would reemerge in a great wave of nihilism.  Human beings would continue to evolve, he said, nodding to Darwinism.  And man would ultimately give way to Superman.  And Nietzsche said that this Superman would not accept the anachronistic abstract, transcendental meanings imposed by disembodied Judeo-Christian rationalism or by a life-denying religion.  Rather, this Superman would CREATE meaning for himself and for the world as a whole.

The Superman, according to Nietzsche, would be an artist who could shape the human race – no longer bound by putrefying and stultifying and stupefying transcendence – to his will.  “Man is for him an un-form, a material, an ugly stone that needs a sculptor,” he wrote.  Such a statement did not merely anticipate the Darwinist-based Nazi eugenics movement.  It demonstrated how the exaltation of the human will could and would lead not to general liberty, as one might have expected, but to the control of the many by the elite — with those of the weaker in will being subjugated to the will of the Supermen.

Nietzsche’s new ethic became the rationale for all the Nazi atrocities that would follow.  As Nietzsche himself put it, “The weak and the failures shall perish: the first principle of OUR love of man.  And they shall even be given every possible assistance.  What is more harmful than any vice? Active pity for all the failures and the weak: Christianity” (in “The Anti-Christ” in Portable Nietzsche, p. 570).  We see here also the exemplification of yet another legacy left behind by Nietzsche that was picked up by the Nazi and afterward by secular humanist atheists today: the Nietzschean attitude of flippant, sarcastic contempt for all the ordinary human values that had resulted from Judeo-Christianity.

One of the ordinary human values that had resulted from Judeo-Christianity was the fundamental sanctity of human life.  But the Nazis had their own concept – Lebensunwertes Leben (“life unworthy of life”).  And nearly fifty million of the most innocent and helpless human beings have perished as a result of an existentialist philosophy that survived the fall of the Nazis in liberal thought, which celebrates pro-existentialist “pro-choice” above human life.

Nietzsche’s philosophy underlies the thought of all the later existentialists, and the darker implications of his thought proved impossible to ignore.

And Martin Heidegger, in his own personal choice to commit himself to National Socialism, did not ignore them.

There is more that needs to be understood.

Martin Heidegger invoked Nietzsche in his 1933 Rectoral Address, in his speech entitled, “The Self-Assertion of the German University,” in which he articulated his commitment to the integration of academia with National Socialism.  He began by asking, if Nietzsche is correct in saying that God is dead, what are the implications for knowledge?

As Heidegger explained, if God is dead, there is no longer a transcendent authority or reference point for objective truth.  Whereas classical thought, exemplified by the Greeks, could confidently search for objective truth, today, after the death of God, truth becomes intrinsically “hidden and uncertain.”  Today the process of questioning is “no longer a preliminary step that is surmounted on the way to the answer and thus to knowing; rather, questioning itself becomes the highest form of knowing.”

Heidegger’s conclusion became accepted to the point of becoming a commonplace of contemporary liberal thought: that knowledge is a matter of process, not content.  With the death of God, there is no longer any set of absolutes or abstract ideals by which existence must be ordered.  Such “essentialism” is an illusion; and knowledge in the sense of objective, absolute truth must be challenged.  The scholar is not one who knows or searches for some absolute truth, but the one who questions everything that pretends to be true.

Again, one would think that such a skeptical methodology would be highly incompatible with fascism, with its practice of subjecting people to an absolute human authority.  And yet this betrays a fundamental misunderstanding of fascism.  In fact, Heidegger’s Rectoral Address was warmly endorsed by the National Socialists for a very good reason: the fascists saw themselves as iconoclasts, interrogating the old order and boldly challenging all transcendent absolutes.

We find that in this same address in which Heidegger asserts that “questioning itself becomes the highest form of knowing,” Heidegger went on to advocate expelling academic freedom from the university:

“To give oneself the law is the highest freedom.  The much-lauded ‘academic freedom’ will be expelled from the university.”

Heidegger argued that the traditional canons of academic freedom were not genuine but only negative, encouraging “lack of concern” and “arbitrariness.”  Scholars must become unified with each other and devote themselves to service.  In doing so, he stated, “the concept of the freedom of German students is now brought back to it’s truth.”

Now, the claim that freedom would somehow emerge when academic freedom is eliminated might be sophistry of the worst kind, but it is not mere rhetorical doublespeak.  Why?  Because Heidegger was speaking existentially, calling not for blind obedience, but for a genuine commitment of the will.  Freedom was preserved because “to give oneself the law” was a voluntary, freely chosen commitment.  Academic freedom as the disinterested pursuit of truth shows “arbitrariness,” parking of the old essentialist view that truth is objective and transcendent.  The essentialist scholar is detached and disengaged, showing “lack of concern,” missing the sense in which truth is ultimately personal, a matter of the will, demanding personal responsibility and choice.  In the new order, the scholar will be fully engaged in service to the community.  Academic freedom is alienating, a function of the old commitment to moral and intellectual absolutes.

And what this meant in practice could be seen in the Bavarian Minister of Culture’s directive to professors in Munich, that they were no longer to determine whether something “is true, but whether it is in keeping with the direction of the National Socialist revolution” (Hans Schemm, quoted in Hermann Glaser, The Cultural Roots of National Socialism, tr. Ernest A. Menze, 1978, p. 99).

I point all of the above out to now say that it is happening all over again, by intellectuals who unknowingly share most of the same tenets that made the horror possible the last time.

We live in a time and in a country in which the all-too modern left has virtually purged the university of conservatives and conservative thought.  This is simply a fact that is routinely confirmed.  And as a mater of routine, conservative speakers need not apply at universities.  If they are actually invited to speak, they are frequently shouted down by a relative few liberal activists.  And leftwing censorship is commonplace.  Free speech is largely gone, in a process that simply quashes unwanted views.  We have a process today in which a professor who is himself employing fascist tactics calls a student “a fascist bastard.”  And why did he do so?  Because the student gave a speech in a speech class choosing a side on a topic that the professor did not like.

We live in a society in which too many of our judges have despised a system of objective laws from an objective Constitution and have imposed their own will upon both.  Judicial activist judges have largely driven transcendent religion and the transcendent God who gives objective moral laws out of the public sphere.

Today, we live in a society that will not post the Ten Commandments – the epitome of transcendent divinely-ordained moral law – in public schools.  And why not?  Because judges ruled that:

“If the posted copies of the Ten Commandments are to have any effect at all, it will be to induce the schoolchildren to read, meditate upon, perhaps to venerate and obey, the Commandments,” which, the Court said, is “not a permissible state objective under the Establishment Clause.”

One can only marvel that such justices so cynically debauched the thought of the founding fathers whose ideas they professed to be upholding.

Justices of the Supreme Court agreed with this fallacious ruling even as the figure of Moses holding the Ten Commandments rules atop the very building in which they betrayed our nation’s founding principles.

And thus the left has stripped the United States of America bare of transcendent moral law, just as their intellectual forebears did prior to WWII in Nazi Germany.   And thus the intellectual left has largely stripped the United States of America from free debate within academia largely by pursuing the same line of reasoning that Nazi philosopher Martin Heidegger employed to do the same in Nazi Germany.  We saw this very feature evidenced by leftist scientists who threw aside their scientific ethics in order to purge climatologists who came to a different conclusion.

The climate that led to fascism and to Nazism in Germany did not occur overnight, even though the final plunge may have appeared to be such to an uninformed observer.  It occurred over a period of a half a dozen decades or so, with the transcendent and objective moral foundations having been systematically torn away.  And after that degree of cancer had been reached, it only took the right leader or the right event to plunge the world into madness.