Posts Tagged ‘Nazism’

Why It Really Is EASY To Vote For Donald Trump In The General Election (Because The Other Side Is Openly STALINIST)

April 29, 2016

They say a picture is worth a thousand words.  And in this case it’s true: because this one picture describes EVERYTHING you need to know as you vote in the general election after the primary circus is over:

Liberal Fascism-Trump

There is actually a political party today – the Democrat Party – that widely believes that viciously punching people in the face merely because they went to a political rally and supported a major political candidate at that rally – are good, decent, tolerant people.

When ONE Donald Trump supporter punched a fascist free-speech hater who decided that Donald Trump didn’t have the right to speak and thousands of supporters didn’t have the right to hear him speak, hundreds if not thousands of “journalists” IMMEDIATELY held Donald Trump personally accountable for the actions of that one man.  But THOUSANDS of leftist thugs have been organized and literally bussed in to violently protest free speech political rallies and suddenly nobody is responsible in an amazing act of last-days stunning moral hypocrisy.

They say that Donald Trump is somehow responsible for inciting violence because of his “hateful rhetoric” about groups that the left adores: terrorist Muslim immigrants, vicious criminal illegal immigrants, baby-butchers, feminist-Nazis.  But what about the incredibly hateful rhetoric used to condemn and demonize him?

Let me get this straight: YOU’RE NOT GOING TO ENGAGE IN THE KIND OF LANGUAGE HE USES????  WELL WHAT THE HELL KIND OF LANGUAGE ARE YOU USING!!!???

Doesn’t that “hateful rhetoric” inflame the left?  Very clearly it DOES: BECAUSE THEY KEEP SHOWING UP AND ACTING VIOLENTLY AT TRUMP RALLIES, DON’T THEY???

This is merely something called “the truth.”  This is merely something called “a FACT,” which I know already has the legions of demons inhabiting every single Democrat soul squirming and twitching.  How many times has Donald Trump incited his supporters to go to a Hispanic event, or a Muslim event, or a Democrat Party event, etc., etc., and violently disrupt it?  The answer is ZERO.  And yet DOZENS OF TIMES NOW Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders have incited vile, venomous, vicious VIOLENCE against Donald Trump and his supporters at rallies as they demonstrate again and again and again their Stalinist contempt for free speech and the right of the American people to hear all sides of a debate without stormtrooper Nazi THUGS showing up to scream them down and in fact BEAT them down.

I’ve defined this term multiple times, but let us examine again “political correctness” and see how it works:

Political correctness is not just a leftist way to make overly-sensitive people feel better. It was designed by early Marxists in Russia and the left continues to execute the Orwellian tactic today: if you can control words, you can control thought; if you can control thought, you can control actions.  “PC” is an enormous, sophisticated and highly-coordinated effort by elitist intellectuals to “fundamentally transform” Western culture as we know it by  redefining it – by shaping the “acceptable” language people are allowed to use – and thereby dictating the parameters of cultural arguments.  And people with incredibly radical agendas have been exploiting this tactic for decades and it has succeeded.

This movement is grounded in the philosophy espoused by this Harvard leftist writing for the Harvard newspaper:

“Let’s give up on academic freedom in favor of justice,” states the subtitle of her Feb. 18 column, in which she insists Harvard stop guaranteeing students and professors the right to hold controversial views and conduct research putting liberalism in a negative light.

“If our university community opposes racism, sexism, and heterosexism, why should we put up with research that counters our goals?”

“It is tempting to decry frustrating restrictions on academic research as violations of academic freedom. Yet I would encourage student and worker organizers to instead use a framework of justice. After all, if we give up our obsessive reliance on the doctrine of academic freedom, we can consider more thoughtfully what is just.”

WHOSE “justice”???? OURS and ONLY ours.  And the ends justifies the means.  And my side can scream you down and even BEAT you down.  While YOUR side doesn’t even have the right to complain about it.

Basically, all YOUR organizations that say anything I don’t like and I refuse to tolerate are “hateful.”  So I can demonize you and even physically attack you merely for supporting something I don’t like.  But meanwhile, all MY organizations are totally off limits to you.  So if you say anything “conservative” about illegal immigration, if you say anything “Christian” about abortion, if you say anything “pro-national security” about the very real phenomena of Islamic terrorism, I have not only the right but even the duty to demonize you and yes, even physically attack you and the ends justifies the means as I stop you from even exercising the right to speak.

According to the Democrat Party today, free speech ought to be crushed in the gears of leftist political correctness and the Hillary Clinton or Bernie Sanders big government combine harvester machine.

It’s remarkable.  Under the thug dictator regime of Barack Hussein Obama, it is the official position of the “United States,” under the Democrat Party, it is the political position of the Party, under the leftist administrations of most colleges and universities, under Hollywood, it is the doctrinaire propaganda position of virtually every actor and every movie or TV program… to demonize one group of people while simultaneously claiming that even speech directed at your side is “hate.”  The last time we saw this was in a place called Nazi Germany, where every single aspect of a depraved culture was directed at one group of people.  And every act of violence against that group of people was excused, if not condoned, if not outright celebrated.

And so here we are yet again this time in California as Democrats attack the Constitution and its guarantee of protecting freedom of speech:

Violence follows California Trump rally, 17 arrested
By GILLIAN FLACCUS and AMY TAXIN
Apr. 29, 2016 12:58 PM EDT

COSTA MESA, Calif. (AP) — Raucous protesters of Donald Trump took to the streets in California in violent demonstrations leading to 17 arrests as the Republican presidential contender brought his campaign to conservative Orange County.

While Trump held a rally at a fairgrounds amphitheater, dozens waved anti-Trump signs outside in mostly peaceful protests and traded insults with masses of the candidate’s supporters who had lined up to see him. Later in the evening, however, the protests swelled and grew rowdy and spilled into the streets.

One Trump supporter had his face bloodied in a scuffle as he tried to drive out of the arena. One man jumped on a police car, leaving its front and rear windows smashed and the top dented and other protesters sprayed graffiti on a police car and the Pacific Amphitheatre’s marquee.

Dozens of cars — including those of Trump supporters trying to leave — were stuck in the street as several hundred demonstrators blocked the road, waved Mexican flags and posed for selfies. Some protesters badgered Trump’s fans as they walked to their cars in the parking lot.

Police in riot gear and on horseback pushed the crowd back and away from the venue. There were no major injuries and police did not use any force. The crowd began dispersing about three hours after the speech ended.

Seventeen people were arrested, said Costa Mesa police Sgt. Mike Manson.

Earlier in the evening, a half-dozen anti-Trump protesters taunted those waiting to get into the venue. Trump supporters surrounded one man who waved a Mexican flag and shouted “Build that wall! Build that wall!” — a reference to Trump’s call to create a barrier between the United States and Mexico to stop illegal border crossings.

At one point, seven shirtless women wearing Bernie Sanders stickers over their breasts entered the square outside the amphitheater. They said they were protesting Trump’s lack of engagement on issues of gender equality and women’s rights.

“I feel like he wants to make America great again, but certainly not for women, for the LBGTQ community or for the lower class,” said one of the women, Tiernan Hebron, referencing the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender community. “He has, like, done nothing to help with gender equality or women’s rights or reproductive rights or anything.”

Trump has drawn large crowds across the country as he has campaigned for the White House and some of his events have been marred by protests and scuffles. The Pacific Amphitheatre was filled to its capacity of about 8,000 and a couple thousand more were turned away, said Orange County Sheriff’s Lt. Mark Stichter.

Earlier this week, a Trump rally in nearby Anaheim turned contentious when his supporters and protesters clashed, and several people were hit by pepper spray. Trump was not present.

Ly Kou, 47, of Ontario, said she likes Trump because he has vowed to put the country first.

“It’s obvious that America loves Trump,” said Kou, who is from Laos, as she pointed at the waiting throng. “This thing about him being racist? Look around the crowd.”

Trump was traveling from the rally site to the state’s Republican convention in Burlington in the San Francisco Bay area.

And not long after Democrats mailed what they wanted people to think was anthrax to Donald Trump’s own FAMILY they’re at it again:

9:20 p.m. [April 28, 2016]

Thousands of supporters have turned out for Donald Trump as the Republican presidential brought his campaign to Southern California, predictably sparking shouting matches with counter-demonstrators.

Heated words were exchanged after people wearing expletive-laden anti-Trump shirts began to taunt people waiting in line to attend Trump’s speech in an amphitheater at the Orange County Fairgrounds in Costa Mesa…

9:40 p.m.

Six people are being evaluated by emergency medical crews after an envelope containing a white powdery substance was mailed to a Donald Trump campaign office in New York City.

Emergency crews were called to Trump Tower in Manhattan around 8 p.m. Thursday.

Police say a Trump staffer opened the letter containing the powder and immediately called police. It was unclear if the envelope also contained a letter.

The six people who were isolated and evaluated at the scene included five Trump staffers and a police officer who responded to the call.

In March, an envelope containing a non-hazardous white power and a threatening letter was sent to the Manhattan apartment of Donald Trump’s son, Eric.

As we speak right now this moment, fascist, stormtrooper THUGS from the National Socialist American Workers Party – a.k.a. the Democrat Party, the NAZI Party in the world today, are doing absolutely every fascist thing they can to urinate and defecate on the free speech rights that USED to be SACRED in America until the Democrat Party became toxic enough and treasonous enough to devour everything our founding fathers stood for.

Fox News just played footage of a leftist “protestor” (read “Nazi, fascist THUG”) viciously attacked a Trump supporter wearing a “Make America Great Again” shirt from behind:

One Trump supporter was punched in the back of the head after confronting a group of protesters. After engaging in some heated rhetoric with the group, the man, who was wearing a “Make America great again” hat, turned to walk away when a protester in a black hoodie punched him a few times as other protesters yelled at the assailant to stop. The Trump supporter made his way to a barricade, after a great deal of pushing and shoving, and was escorted by police into the hotel.

I didn’t see or hear “other protestors” yelling at the man to stop.  But without any question nobody stopped the thug from beating a man guilty of the First Amendment and therefore worthy of being physically beaten because he believed in the First Amendment.  And the Nazi Democrat who conducted that beating was not arrested.

Trump supporters are being physically attacked, having eggs thrown at them, spat upon.  by Nazis otherwise known as “Democrats.”  Welcome, New Jews, to rabid Democrat Party Nazi-style hate.  The “protestors” are also throwing eggs at police who are trying to maintain order as Nazis try to physically and violently stop people from exercising their First Amendment freedoms.

I sit in stunned amazement when I read this account of Donald Trump – the now presumed GOP nominee – trying to enter an event to speak to his supporters:

Donald Trump’s Secret Service detail and private bodyguards had the last laugh on Friday as hundreds of protesters swarmed at the front of a San Francisco airport hotel trying to block him from coming in for a speech at the state Republican Party’s annual convention.

Instead of partnering with uniformed police in riot shields trying to push the hordes back, they did a law-enforcement head fake – leading the billionaire across a grass highway median and in a back-door loading dock at the Hyatt Regency hotel in the suburb of Burlingame.

The move left Trump feeling ‘like I was crossing the border, actually.’

When Hillary Clinton has to crawl under a chain-link fence on her belly to get to an event to speak because thug conservatives are determined to stop her using whatever violence is necessary, that will be funny.  Right now, it is proof of something truly demonic having taken over the entire Democrat Party and everything the Democrat Party stands for.

There is one political party and ONLY one political party that is truly EVIL.

As Adolf Hitler and his Nazi Party rose to power, he had his Sturmabteilung, his SA, his Brownshirts, who:

would march in Nazi rallies, assault political opponents, and intimidate voters during elections.

And now we’re seeing them again from the thug ranks of the Democrat Party.

And this naked, liquid hate is happening at virtually every Trump event as outright Nazi thugs show up to support their Democrat Party in an open war against the Constitution of the United States of America.

I simply mock liberals because to be a liberal is to be such an appalling, abject moral hypocrite it is beyond UNREAL to the point of padded-cell-straitjacket-hysterical-demented-psychosis.

As a result of the political correctness that I above defined and showed examples of, this culture has become NAZIFIED.

Democrats are demon-possessed people, and all we have to do is examine the fruits of these Nazi Brownshirts, these Stalinist Commissars, who thuggishly attack people for exercising First Amendment rights that until now every American used to deem sacred.

Democrats are demon-possessed people, and all we have to do is examine the fruits of these baby killers who are TEN TIMES MORE MURDEROUS than the Nazis when it comes to denying basic, fundamental humanity and then butchering human life on a scale never before seen in all of human history.  Because every child is human by virtue of its parents and a being by virtue of the simple fact that it exists: IT IS A HUMAN BEING.  That precious little soul that every single Democrat has personally participated in murdering SIXTY MILLION TIMES OVER since 1973 is according to the taxonomic system that has classified every single living thing that has ever existed: That “fetus” (which is merely Latin for “baby” by the way, if you merely look at the ORIGIN of the word: Origin of Fetus: “Middle English, from Latin, act of bearing young, offspring; akin to Latin fetus newly delivered, fruitful“) is classified as follows: Kingdom-Animal; Phylum-Chordata; Class-Mammalia; Order-Primate; Family-Hominid; Genus-Homo; and Species-Sapiens.  Homo Sapiens, just like EVERY human being made in the image of God which every single Democrat Party member on earth is guilty of murdering.

Democrats are demon-possessed people, and all we have to do is examine the fruits of these sodomy-worshiping depraved perverts, sexually twisted perverts who exalt “lifestyles” that are not only immoral and utterly depraved according to every major religious tradition and in fact to all of human history prior to this time the Bible prophetically called “the last days,” but even according to the Darwinian evolution they claim to believe in as “science.”  Because Darwinian evolution very clearly tells us that homosexuality is a biological dead-end for a species every bit as much as the Bible tells us it is the most depraved path to hell and eternal destruction.

The Bible that corrupt, dishonest, demonic, heretic Democrats like Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama claim to follow couldn’t be more crystal clear about the vile “lifestyles” they have blasphemously enshrined in our soon-to-be-destroyed culture:

The New Testament says that homosexuality is a “shameful lust” (Romans 1:26), a “shameful act,” an abandonment of “natural relations” (Romans 1:27), a “wrongdoing” (1 Corinthians 6:9), and “sexual immorality and perversion” (Jude 1:7). Homosexuality carries a “due penalty” (Romans 1:27), “is contrary to the sound doctrine” (1 Timothy 1:10), and is listed among the sins that bar people from the kingdom of God (1 Corinthians 6:9). Despite the attempts of some to downplay these verses, the Bible could not be clearer that homosexuality is a sin against God.

Homosexuality is not the cause of a society’s decline, but it is a symptom of it; it is the result of people making themselves the final authorities. Romans 1 gives the natural digression of a society that has chosen idolatry and sinful pleasure instead of obedience to God. The downward spiral begins with denying that God has absolute authority over His creation (Romans 1:21–23).

The result of a society’s rejection of God’s rule in their lives is that God gives “them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. They exchanged the truth about God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator” (Romans 1:24–25). Verses 26 and 27 say, “Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error.” The phrase “God gave them over” means that when we insist on shaking our fists at God, He finally lets us have the perversion we demand. And that is a judgment in itself. Homosexual behavior is the result of ignoring God and trying to create our own truth. When we defy God’s clear instruction, we reap the “due penalty” of our disobedience (2 Thessalonians 1:8–9; Revelation 21:8).

What the wicked, vile Democrats teach is NOT ONLY anathema to Christianity, to Islam, to every major religion on the face of the earth, and to every single culture that ever existed in the entire history of the human race before our end-times, last-days, terminal generation, it is ALSO anathema to the very “science” the left claims to embrace:

Natural selection is the process by which individuals with characteristics that are advantageous for reproduction in a specific environment leave more offspring in the next generation, thereby increasing the proportion of their genes in the population gene pool over time. Natural selection is the principal mechanism of evolutionary change, and is the most important idea in all biology. Natural selection, the unifying concept of life, was first proposed by Charles Darwin, and represents his single greatest contribution to science.

If homosexuality and feminism aren’t Darwinian dead-ends, then “science” is either a monkey or just a naked liberal fool throwing his feces at a wall and declaring “scientific” whatever happens to stick.

Today, we are seeing a Democrat Party that has embraced the worst kind of Nazi Brownshirt tactics.  We are seeing the embrace of a Marxist ideological tactic having Nazified our society as Democrats define themselves as pure and their opponents as foul and embrace the ends-justifies-the-means to destroy everything our Constitution enshrined to impose themselves.  We see a mainstream media propaganda machine that exemplifies Joseph Goebbels’ Ministry of Propaganda refuse to cover the actual facts.

And I will crawl over broken glass to vote.  Even if I have to go through a gauntlet of Democrat Party Nazi thugs to do so.

 

Advertisements

The Inherent, Pathological Fascism Of The Left. It Took Nazism Decades To Fester In Germany And American Liberals Are Ahead Of Schedule.

April 7, 2014

Back in 2008 I wrote a three part series of articles entitled, “How Postmodernism Leads To Fascism.”  Guess what?  It still does.

Its been nearly three years since I wrote a long article titled, “Why I Call Obama A Fascist.”  And the man has EXPLODED in fascism since I wrote that with his targeting of nearly 300 conservative groups using his thug IRS as a major recent example.  He is a firehose of pure fascist evil and you literally cannot keep up with it unless you stay up 24/7 trying to document it all.

But this article isn’t about Obama per se; it’s about the left that Obama is a creature of.  It’s about the left that is quintessentially fascist.  Which is all-too easy to prove and to document.

In a nutshell, “NAZI” stood for “National Socialist German Workers Party.”  The only difference between fascist “national socialism” and “communism” was the fact that one favored “national” socialism while the other demanded “international socialism.”  But socialism is socialism.  Socialism is always and in every case big government run amok.  Socialism is government dictating to the people what to do and how to live and what to think.  If there was a National Socialist American Workers Party, is anyone actually fool enough to believe it would be the Republicans or the conservatives???  Because conservatism stands for the ANTITHESIS of socialism: we stand for LIMITED federal government, for individual liberty rather than governmental control, for laissez-faire free markets rather than government taxation and regulation.

Gene Edward Veith makes this point:

“Part of the problem in recognizing fascism is the assumption that it is conservative.  [Zeev] Sternhell has observed how study of the ideology has been obscured by “the official Marxist interpretation of fascism.”  Marxism defines fascism as its polar opposite.  If Marxism is progressive, fascism is conservative.  If Marxism is left wing, fascism is right wing.  If Marxism champions the proletariat, fascism champions the bourgeoisie.  If Marxism is socialist, fascism is capitalist.

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

Which is to say that you are already a far-leftist socialist – a communist – merely to believe the lie that the communist propaganda put forward about fascism being “right-wing.”

The notion that fascism/and or Nazism is “right-wing” is utter nonsense beyond this: Nazism and fascism are the extreme right of the far, radical LEFT.  Socialism is inherently LEFT-WING, not right-wing.  The Nazis believed in a fiercely nation-based socialism whereas the communists believed in an international, “workers of the world unite!” brand of socialism.  But they BOTH wanted a giant, all-powerful, totalitarian government that is the heart of not the right but the LEFT.

So “fascism” is NOT “right-wing.”  The next surprise is that “liberalism” is not “liberal” in any classical understanding of the term.

One of the things the reader must understand is how liberals have perverted the term “liberal” and “liberalism.”  Yes, fascism is ideologically the opposite of liberalism; but that is “liberalism” in the CLASSICAL sense of liberalism, rather than what today’s progressive liberals believe and are doing.  What is “liberalism” in the classical sense?

Classical liberalism is a political philosophy and ideology belonging to liberalism in which primary emphasis is placed on securing the freedom of the individual by limiting the power of the government. The philosophy emerged as a response to the Industrial Revolution and urbanization in the 19th century in Europe and the United States.[1] It advocates civil liberties with a limited government under the rule of law, private property, and belief in laissez-faire economic liberalism.[2][3][4]

In other words, a limited proponent of limited government, free markets, individual liberty.  THAT’S a classical liberty.  Which is to say that I as a modern conservative am a classical liberal, whereas modern progressive liberals are – you guessed it – fascists.  Modern liberals, like the fascists, believe in the OPPOSITE of all these things that classical liberals held and hold the most dear.

As you think about fascism and Nazism (which was merely a particular form of fascist socialism, think about some of the tenants and try to understand how what I am going to document that which is coming from the American left today is genuinely fascist.

Only a couple of months ago there was this gem of rabid fascist intolerance from the left:

Harvard writer: Abolish free speech
Woman claims First Amendment threatens liberalism
Published: 1 day ago

A student writer at Harvard University is raising eyebrows after publishing her belief that free speech on campus should be abolished and professors with opposing views be fired.

Sandra Korn, a senior who writes a column for the Harvard Crimson newspaper, thinks radical leftism is the only permissible political philosophy, and the First Amendment only hinders colleges from brainwashing students with her viewpoint.

“Let’s give up on academic freedom in favor of justice,” states the subtitle of her Feb. 18 column, in which she insists Harvard stop guaranteeing students and professors the right to hold controversial views and conduct research putting liberalism in a negative light.

“If our university community opposes racism, sexism, and heterosexism, why should we put up with research that counters our goals?” Korn asks.

“It is tempting to decry frustrating restrictions on academic research as violations of academic freedom. Yet I would encourage student and worker organizers to instead use a framework of justice. After all, if we give up our obsessive reliance on the doctrine of academic freedom, we can consider more thoughtfully what is just.”

Korn’s view grabbed the attention of the nation’s top conservative voice, Rush Limbaugh.

“This is not unique. This is not satire. This is not parody,” Limbaugh said on his nationally broadcast radio program Tuesday. “This woman, Sandra Korn, is real, and she’s serious that free speech needs to be abridged because it is threatening liberalism. It means that liberalism cannot hold up to scrutiny. It cannot withstand a challenge.  If liberalism were infallible, if liberalism were so powerful and automatic, they would welcome challenges to it – and they would welcome the attempt to persuade and to convert. But instead they’re threatened by it.”

When asked of he thought her belief was going to become a movement, Limbaugh indicated it already was one.

“This is what the left is,” he explained. “Why do you think they want to get rid of this program? Why do you think they want to get rid of Fox News? Why do they want to silence criticism? What is Obama’s modus operandi? Eliminate the opposition. This is already a movement!”

“This woman has just written a column about it at Harvard with what appears to be an extreme view of eliminating the First Amendment as a way of silencing opposition. But she’s very honest. The First Amendment, free speech, ‘threatens liberalism,’ meaning liberalism cannot thrive in an open society. Liberalism is totalitarianism. Liberalism is statism. It is authoritarianism. It is all of the horrible Isms, and it cannot thrive when there is open debate. It cannot survive challenges.”

“Ah, the ‘community organizer force’ is strong with this one,” I’m sure Darth Obama – who held a similar position writing for Harvard – must have mused when he heard this.

The question, “Is this already a movement?” – and not merely an intellectual bowel movement – has been powerfully answered in the few weeks since this article came out from Harvard (the brains of the cockroach that is the leftist organism).

This from yesterday at the leftist Mozilla:

Mozilla CEO Brendan Eich resigns under fire for supporting Prop. 8
By Salvador Rodriguez
April 3, 2014, 2:32 p.m.

Just days after taking the job, Brendan Eich has resigned as chief executive of Mozilla, the maker of Firefox, after coming under fire for his 2008 support of Proposition 8, the California constitutional amendment that disallowed the marriage of same-sex couples in the state.

Mozilla announced Eich’s resignation Thursday afternoon in a blog post, saying that his hiring did not reflect the organization’s beliefs.

“While painful, the events of the last week show exactly why we need the Web. So all of us can engage freely in the tough conversations we need to make the world better,” Mozilla Chairwoman Mitchell Baker said in a statement. “We need to put our focus back on protecting that Web. And doing so in a way that will make you proud to support Mozilla.”

The organization named Eich CEO last week after operating under an interim CEO for more than a year. Eich had worked at Mozilla for years and was known as the founder of JavaScript, a popular programming language.

But Eich came under sharp criticism for donating $1,000 to a campaign that supported Poropisition 8, Several Mozilla board members resigned to protest his appointment.

Numerous Mozilla staffers also took to Twitter to call for his resignation. One popular online dating site OKCupid displayed a message on its website asking Firefox users to access the Web using a different browser.

“We took the stand because it seemed like the right thing to do,” a spokesman for OKCupid said.

Mozilla said it is still discussing what comes next for its leadership.

This guy Eich was incredibly well qualified to run this company, which he’d helped found.  But liberals hold religious purity tests having nothing to do with corporate performance – and Eich was found to be a heretic and blasphemer.

If you ask the question, “Is Sandra Korn running Mozilla?” the answer is, “She might as well be.”  Because fascist leftist who are rabidly intolerant of ANY point of view that differs from their own and cannot emotionally or intellectually handle dissent are what they are whether they’re at Harvard or at Mozilla.

Imagine the fallout had a corporation purged a CEO for the death penalty-worthy crime of having exercised his or her freedom to donate to the No on 8 campaign.  And said they were doing it out of a spirit of “inclusiveness” and “diversity” (which they would have as much to claim as the opposite side).  But for the most part, the propaganda mill that constitutes “journalism” simply ignored this story.

What is rather fascinating is that one particular paragraph in the print article (on page B2 of the LA Times’ Business section) – was purged from the online article that you see here.  It immediately follows the “did not reflect the organization’s beliefs” line of crap.  Here it is:

“Our organizational culture reflects diversity and inclusiveness,” Mozilla Chairwoman Michell Baker said in a statement.  “Mozilla supports equality for all.”

You can see that statement from Mozilla in broader form here.

What is funny – and I mean laugh-till-you-pee-your-pants-funny – is how these Nazis actually view themselves as “inclusive.”  You can understand why the uberleftist LA Times would purge that: it is so obviously self-refuting that it could not stand the light of day and had to be hidden the way ashamed parents would hide a child molesting freak in the basement.

Hell, I still remember when Barack Obama stated the following when he was lying his way to the presidency:

“I believe that marriage is the union between a man and a woman. [big audience applause] For me as a Christian it’s also a sacred union, you know, God’s in the mix….I am not somebody who promotes same-sex marriage.” — Barack Obama, Saddleback Church debate moderated by Rick Warren, August 20, 2008 

The ONLY reason the left didn’t go after Obama the way they have rabidly gone after everyone who said the same words is that they understood that – being one of them – Barack Obama was a pathological liar who said one think until it was time to say the opposite of the thing he said.

Pathological dishonesty goes hand in hand with pathological fascism.

When “inclusive” means, “If you don’t think exactly like I do, I will destroy you,” you have arrived at the spirit of Orwellianism.  And the soul of the left skinny dips in Orwellian anti-thought.

If you are a Democrat, if you are a liberal, you DON’T think.  You double-think.  You unthink.  You anti-think.  Which is why you are such a complete moral idiot.  And why you have no shame, no honor, no virtue, no integrity of any kind whatsoever.

Sandra Korn was also apparently running the National Young Feminist Leadership Conference – which was (laughably) all about “inclusiveness” too.

Stormfront – from where I found the Youtube video below – also found this beauty of self-contradicting liberalism:

Its “safe space policy” promised the event would be “structured around inclusivity … with a focus on representing various perspectives,” according to the event’s official website (feministcampus.org).

Watch how “inclusive” they are the moment they discover “the other” and tell me about that “safe space policy” again.  Tell me how this is what “structured around inclusivity” looks like.  Tell me that this is what it looks like to have “a focus on representing various perspectives”:

Here’s a write-up from Campus Reform, which sent the reporter to be treated like a leper by “the tolerant and inclusive” people:

Campus Reform’s Katherine Timpf attended the National Young Feminist Leadership Conference (NYFLC) — an event which promised to be about “inclusivity” and welcoming everyone — only to be told that “conservative” women were not welcome.

Timpf attempted to ask students’ their opinions on feminism, but conference organizers made an announcement advising participants not to talk to Campus Reform because it was a “conservative” outlet.

“You guys aren’t wanted here.”

The organizers also followed Timpf around the conference to interrupt her conversations with students to tell them the same thing.

“They’re a group that’s conservative, so what we are fighting for is not something…” one organizer told a student who was talking with Timpf, prompting the student to walk away.

“You’re just assuming that based on where I work,” Timpf told the organizer.

“Yeah, we are,” the organizer stated.

“You guys aren’t wanted here,” a participant told the reporter after the warning.

“I thought this was supposed to be an inclusive thing, why am I being excluded because of where I work?” Timpf asked another organizer after another interruption.

“Because the place that you work is not inclusive,” the organizer responded.

“You don’t know that,” Timpf said. “You don’t know anything about me or my personal beliefs, I’m just being labeled and excluded based on a label.”

Its “safe space policy” promised the event would be “structured around inclusivity … with a focus on representing various perspectives,” according to the event’s official website.

“We will not tolerate, allow, or encourage behavior which makes folks feel uncomfortable, threatened, or demoralized,” the policy continued.

The NYFLC conference was held March 29-31 at the DoubleTree by Hilton in Crystal City, VA.

The Nazis couldn’t have done it any better.  One female editorialist described it as “Mean Girls with ugly women.”

But hey, I’m not done yet detailing how the left self-refutes themselves and documents their OWN rabid hypocrisy and intolerance.

Try this bit of “Sandra Korn” at other liberal universities like UC Santa Barbara and Oberlin, which are beginning to impose “trigger warnings” that would allow students to opt out of anything that might harm a liberal mind (you know, like reality or the truth):

‘Trigger Warnings’ Are Antithetical to College Life

You can’t bubble wrap students against any and all possible moments of discomfiture.At the Los Angeles Times, a rare outstanding editorial, “Warning: College students, this editorial may upset you“:

The latest attack on academic freedom comes not from government authorities or corporate pressure but from students. At UC Santa Barbara, the student Senate recently passed a resolution that calls for mandatory “trigger warnings” — cautions from professors, to be added to their course syllabi, specifying which days’ lectures will include readings or films or discussions that might trigger feelings of emotional or physical distress.

The resolution calls for warnings if course materials will involve depictions and discussions of rape, sexual assault, suicide, pornography or graphic violence, among other things. The professors would excuse students from those classes, with no points deducted, if the students felt the material would distress them; it is left unclear how students would complete assignments or answer test questions based on the work covered in those classes.

The student resolution is only advisory, a recommendation that campus authorities can turn into policy or reject. They should not only choose the latter course but should explain firmly to students why such a policy would be antithetical to all that college is supposed to provide: a rich and diverse body of study that often requires students to confront difficult or uncomfortable material, and encourages them to discuss such topics openly. Trigger warnings are part of a campus culture that is increasingly overprotective and hypersensitive in its efforts to ensure that no student is ever offended or made to feel uncomfortable…

More.

Keep in mind that this development is something that derives entirely from the radical feminist left.

For more on that, see Robert Stacy McCain, “‘Fat Justice’ Feminists Blame Reagan, Praise ‘Communism and Socialism’.”

May I please have my liberal reality inoculation please?  Because reality really, really upsets me and I have to be protected from it at all cost.  That’s why I went to college where I could swim in a protective ocean where only fascist liberalism is allowed.

Accompanying this at UC Santa Barbara is a leftist professor who came unglued because somebody thought they had the right to be opposed to abortion and grabbed the sign away as her inner Nazi erupted:

The police report regarding UC Santa Barbara Professor Mireille Miller-Young has been released. Miller-Young made news after tearing a sign away from an anti-abortion activist in the university’s Free Speech Zone. Here is the PDF, and here is a rather illuminating quote.

Mireille Miller-Young

It’s worth a reminder that this professor’s areas of study include “Pornography; Sex Work; Black Film, Popular Culture and Art; Feminist & Queer Theory; African American & African Diaspora Studies,” all of which require confronting potentially upsetting material. So what exactly is the limit on what is permissible on university campuses?

Outside of Santa Barbara, this story is receiving the most attention from conservative outlets. I’m curious to know what mainstream left-of-center outlets think about this.

This post was provoked by Donald Douglas, who writes, “America’s college campuses: literally the most f-ked-up places in the nation.”

Read more at the Santa Barbara Independent.

Instapundit and Jim Treacher also have some choice words.

So if I’m upset by something, I have the right to employ violence?  Only if I’m a liberal.  If I’m a conservative, I’m going to get hauled away and prosecuted to the very fullest possible extent of the law just for SAYING that a liberal cockroach doesn’t have a right to be somewhere.  That’s the kind of double-standard that also went on as “Germany” became “Nazi Germany.”  Only the fascist thugs had the right to beat the hell out of somebody they didn’t like.

Understand: college and university faculties are THE most intolerant establishments in America, bar none.  If you are a conservative, you won’t be hired.  If you’ve already been hired and you’re a conservative, you’ll get the “Mozilla treatment” and lose promotions if not your positionProfessors openly ADMIT they discriminate against conservatives.  They take the amazing position that it is literally discriminatory for them to hire anyone who does not think exactly like they do.  If you so much as try to speak as a conservative at a college or university, you will be shouted down by rabidly intolerant “tolerance” hypocrites.

And don’t tell me that university faculty and students are some “fringe” element within the Democrat Party or the liberal movement.  Don’t tell me the violent and vicious Occupy movement fascists – and yes I truly do mean “violent and vicious” – that violated and just plain polluted the property rights of damn near everybody not long ago are some “fringe” element.  Don’t tell me that the union thugs who either beat people up or shake people down aren’t at the heart of the liberal bowel movement.  These people are all IT – whether you mean “Democrat,” “liberal” or “fascist.”  They’re all part of the fascist army of liberal goose-steppers.  Don’t tell me that the black people who make up the heart of the Democrat Party to the tune of voting 95% Democrat aren’t anything other than vicious.  When they aren’t murdering their own babies or murdering one another, they are beating the fascist hell out of innocent white people in unprovoked racist attacks.

And if white kids had a game called “black bear hunting” in which they sucker punched little old black ladies, I have a damn feeling that the media and the courts would treat these racist young punks differently and call it for what it clearly is.  But it’s black thugs, and Eric Holder says, “Never bring a lawsuit against a black” on my watchSo we’ve got this “knock out game” a.k.a. “polar bear hunting” going on all over America, and of course it can’t be “racist” for a black thug to sucker punch a white person.

The amazing thing is that THESE ARE THE PEOPLE WHO CALL ME A NAZI.  And they’re so pathologically dishonest and they’ve so completely deceived even themselves that they actually do it with a straight face.

You wonder how their skulls don’t explode from trying to hold so many massive contradictions, but they manage to pull it off.  Because they anti-think when un-thinking or double-thinking fails them.  And they are the most rabidly intolerant people that there are – and you literally have to be a full-fledged NAZI to be more rabidly intolerant than these liberals.  And it is my observation that liberals are “progressives” who are progressing quite rapidly toward being full-fledged Nazis.

Do you want to know what is interesting?  It is that when the Nazis came to Germany, it was these same university professor-types who were the FIRST to knuckle under and collaborate with their Nazi masters:

Holocaust survivor Eli Wiesel:

“Within the system of the concentration camp, something very strange took place. The first to give in, the first to collaborate—to save their lives—were the intellectuals, the liberals, the humanists, the professors of sociology, and the like. Because suddenly their whole concept of the universe broke down. They had nothing to lean on.”

Albert Einstein (a Jew who fled before the Nazis could capture him):

“Having always been an ardent partisan of freedom I turned to the Universities, as soon as the revolution broke out in Germany, to find the Universities took refuge in silence. I then turned to the editors of powerful newspapers, who, but lately in flowing articles, had claimed to be the faithful champions of liberty. These men, as well as the Universities, were reduced to silence in a few weeks. I then addressed myself to the authors individually, to those who passed themselves off as the intellectual guides of Germany, and among whom many had frequently discussed the question of freedom and its place in modern life. They are in turn very dumb. Only the church opposed the fight which Hitler was waging against liberty. Till then I had no interest in the church, but now I feel great admiration and am truly attracted to the church which had the persistent courage to fight for spiritual truth and moral freedom. I feel obliged to confess that I now admire what I used to consider of little value.”

Modern liberalism and those who cling to it had no answers or courage against Nazism.  And in fact their philosophies, the values they hold today ARE the same as that of the Nazis they bowed down to when their moment to stand heroically came.

Here’s what you need to know about the university liberals who endlessly lecture us:

Soon after the end of World War II, the Jewish scholar Max Weinreich published Hitler’s Professors: The Part of Scholarship in Germany’s Crimes against the Jewish People.  This exhaustive study of the complicity of German intellectuals with the Nazi regime documents how the scholarship of the time provided the intellectual justification and the conceptual framework for the Holocaust.  This is not to say that these intellectuals necessarily intended the Holocaust, but, argues Weinreich, it would not have been possible without them.  “Did the administer the poison?” he asks, “By no means; they only wrote the prescription.” — Veith, Modern Fascism, p. 79-80

Ask yourself if “Professor” Mireille Miller-Young did far more than “write a prescription” justifying violence.

Weinreich establishes that these many academics who supported Hitler were sophisticated thinkers.  Their problem was that the “value-free” assumptions with which they pursued their research resulted in a mendacity inherent in any scholarship that overlooks or openly repudiates all moral and spiritual values.  Which is THE same cancerous flaw that modern progressive intellectual liberalism suffers from today.

Now that I have documented the fascism in the left’s behavior, allow me to proceed to develop a new point about the fascism central to the left’s philosophy.  Jonah Goldberg, in his great work Liberal Fascism makes this point:

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 exception and complicated exceptions of Leo Strauss and Allan Bloom, no top-tier American conservative intellectual was a devotee if 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 left-wing 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. — pg. 175-176

The solidly left-leaning (as acknowledged even by the leftist BBC) Prospect Magazine published an article titled, “In Defense of Heidegger.”  If you want more proof that it is leftist, consider that it considered the EXTREME leftist Noam Chomsky as its greatest of its 100 Greatest Intellectuals.  Most of the other 99 were quite leftist too, by the way.

The left now acknowledges that it is “common knowledge” that Martin Heidegger was a Nazi.  But it’s funny that they spent most of the last eighty years denying that “common knowledge.”

Even a socialist publication admits out the following:

The same methods—suppression of evidence, evasions and falsifications—were employed by the legions of Heidegger interpreters and apologists. They were, until the publication of Farias epochal book, largely successful in preventing any critical scrutiny of Heidegger’s ideas and their relation to his politics. An ironic chapter in this enterprise was played out by the deconstruction theorist, Paul De Man. De Man did much to publicize Heidegger among the American intelligentsia in the 1960s. Then there came the posthumous revelation in the late 1980s that De Man’s hands had not exactly been clean. He had been a Nazi collaborator in occupied Belgium during World War II and in that capacity had written some anti-Semitic articles for a Nazi-sponsored literary magazine. After De Man’s war-time essays were published there ensued a lively controversy about the relationship between De Man’s war-time activity and his subsequent ideas on deconstruction.[

And my exploration of the above distortion of Marxist scholarship of fascism and Nazism at the beginning of this article is merely part of that intellectual tradition of deceit.  The left “suppressed evidence” and employed tactics of “evasions and falsifications” to conceal the “common knowledge” of their intellectual hero for most of the last century until one courageous scholar finally blew the doors off the lie.  And of course then the left instantly proceeded to apologize and rationalize the man’s heart and mind of pure evil.  And of course it is pointed out that the left did the exact same thing with ANOTHER hard-core Nazi intellectual hero of the left named Paul de Man.  You can goose step down the list of numerous leftist intellectual heroes such as Herbert Marcuse, Frantz Fanon, Georges Sorel, Michel Foucault, Jacques Derrida, Carl Schmitt, and others to see the same damn thing.  And frankly even documented PROOF of the hatefulness of these men and their ideas – and the CONSEQUENCES of their ideas – don’t matter.

The paragraph that follows the one cited above in Liberal Fascism therefore points out that:

In a seminar there may be important distinctions to be made between, say, Foucault’s “enterprise of Unreason,” Derrida’s tyrannical logocentrism, and Hitler’s “revolt against reason.”  But such distinctions rarely translate beyond ivy-covered walls – and they are particularly meaningless to a movement that believes action is more important than ideas.  Deconstruction, existentialism, postmodernism, Pragmatism, relativism: all of 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 ancien 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, Modern Fascism, p. 176

And it is simply a FACT that all of those intellectual traditions and worldviews are at the very heart of the left and in radical rejection of the Classical Enlightenment foundationalism and Judeo-Christian religious worldview of the right.  You can ignore it with your constant exploitation of crisis and demand for action all you want, liberal, but hateful ideas have hateful consequences.  And it has been the hateful ideas that you CONTINUE to espouse to this very day that had those hateful consequences that resulted in the gas chambers and the Holocaust of Nazism AND the purges and massacres of MILLIONS of communism.

You OWN it.  Even though you are too much of a hypocrite and a liar and frankly a coward to ADMIT that you own it.

One of the primary reasons that the left’s “enterprise of Unreason” (remember how I referred to the left’s “un-thinking” and “anti-thinking” and “double-thinking”?) consistently leads to moral horror boils down to this:

David Hirsch, in his study of Holocaust literature, concludes that one of the most striking characteristics of those who have carried out the exterminations was their inability to have empathy with an “other.”  Hans Ebeling criticizes Heidegger in similar terms: “the power of acknowledging the other as the other, as essentially equal, is missing, and for that reason it only remains to oppress the other without any leniency.”  Since existentialism focuses upon the individual consciousness, “the other” is necessarily minimized. — Veith, Modern Fascism, p. 103

At thus I reintroduce the demonization and purging of Brendan Eich for no other reason than that he gave a small financial contribution to a view of marriage that Barack Obama was HIMSELF hypocritically and dishonestly claiming at the time.  Because it is the NATURE of the left – particularly the “intellectual” left – to lie without shame and cover up the truth and to suppress and to evade and to falsify the FACTS.

It ought to go without saying that if a more conservative-friendly corporation’s CEO had been found to have donated $1,000 to the “No on 8” campaign – as I’m frankly sure many have – he would still be there.  Because unlike the left we value intellectual freedom.

So when Barack Hussein Obama routinely demonizes “the other” – that is absolutely everybody who doesn’t think exactly like he does – it’s what they call in golf “par for the course.”  It’s who he is and what he does because the man is a fascist who has acted like a fascist his entire adult life as a “community agitator” and who very much THINKS like a fascist.

Just a few days ago, Obama said this incredibly demagogic and frankly hateful thing as his Republican straw man/bogey man:

A lot of times folks would prefer the devil they know to the devil they don’t. But this law is doing what it’s supposed to do. It’s working. It’s helping people from coast to coast, all of which makes the lengths to which critics have gone to scare people or undermine the law, or try to repeal the law without offering any plausible alternative so hard to understand. I’ve got to admit, I don’t get it. Why are folks working so hard for people not to have health insurance? Why are they so mad about the idea of folks having health insurance?

Everything Obama says is a lie, so why should this be any different?  Republicans DO have an alternative to ObamaCare.  They’ve been talking about their alternatives for years now.  Hell, I wrote a post in 2009 describing the Republicans’ alternative and pointed out that even at that early date they had already offered THREE alternative bills to ObamaCare.  So Obama just lies like the devil and then demonizes his enemies.

He has repeated his lie about Republicans offering no alternative to his fascist health care hijack act even more times than he lied about people being able to keep their doctors and their health plans.  And he lied about those things a LOT.  But Obama believes in the Big Lie just like Hitler believed in it – which is why he fascistically and rabidly keeps sticking to his lies even when it is beyond obvious that they are lies.

The Big Lie is how Obama has governed.  It is his ONLY “leadership technique.”  And because he kept repeating the same lies his Big Lie governance literally got him elected and re-elected.

Find ONE Republican who would say he or she is opposed to ObamaCare because – and I quote Obama’s lie from hell here – “I don’t want people to have health insurance.”  Just find ONE Republican who has said, “I’m mad about the idea of folks having health insurance.”

Obama has ALWAYS hated and demonized “the other” while maintaining the exact same hatred for the truth and willingness to engage in the “suppression of evidence, evasions and falsifications” that I cite as at the heart of the fascist intellectual tradition above.

Obama is the man who has so much rabid hate for “the other” in his heart that as far as he is concerned, Republicans are people who want dirtier air, dirtier water and children born with Autism and Down Syndrome.

Tell you what: I challenge any liberal to a “hate contest.”  It’s Bush hate vs. Obama hate.  If I can find more examples of Obama demonizing Republicans than you can find of Bush demonizing Democrats, I get to use you as proof – with your consent no less – that all Democrats are Nazi liars who participate in Obama’s campaign of hate against “the other.”

Obama does to Republicans what Hitler did to Jews on a nearly a daily basis.

And again, Obama is the worst kind of self-righteous liar without shame who says one thing and then proves that he’s a hater according to his own dishonest standard with the next thing that comes out of his mouth.  And again – that is part and parcel of the leftist tradition.

I’ve been saying it and saying it.  The beast is coming, the Antichrist from the Bible.  He will be the ULTIMATE Democrat in that he will be the ultimate big government totalitarian who creates the State in place of God and demands worship in place of God.  He will do what Democrats have tried to do and he will succeed in completely taking over the economy such that no man or woman may buy or sell without his stamp of approval (a.k.a. the mark of the beast).

Nazism didn’t just fly out of nowhere.  It took DECADES for the evil in the German spirit to metastasize to the point where they were willing to murder six million Jews and five million other helpless human beings in their government extermination center.

It was from the minds of thinkers whom the American left still adores and follows today – thinkers such as Nietzsche and Heidegger and Derrida – from which the thought process that led to the death camps and the gas chambers and the ovens.

And Obama has taken that liberal descent into true fascism that will ultimately have the ugliest and darkest consequences a giant step forward.

Update, 4/7/14: Well, it doesn’t take very long for liberals to prove even further that they are true fascists, does it.  Yes, we just had a liberal UC Santa Barbara professor described above inciting violence against someone for the crime of peacefully holding a viewpoint different from hers.  We just had the same uberliberal UC Santa Barbara student body demonstrate that under the leadership of such “professors,” they are rabidly intolerant of any ideas that they don’t like and demand that they should never have to listen to anything that disagrees with their preconceived liberal fascism.  And being liberals and being fascist, they just got through documenting that they are as violent as hell: 100 young liberal fascists were arrested for rioting.

And of course it’s nothing new when a mob of black liberals (blacks voting so overwhelmingly Democrat that to be black IS to vote Democrat) beat a white man into a coma.  So it shouldn’t be any surprise whatsoever that blacks – who are fascist because they are liberals – would beat yet another white man into a coma for the crime of being white.

 

 

 

 

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

September 27, 2010

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

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

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

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

As Gene Edward Veith points out:

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

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

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

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

And, to quote myself:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Quote:

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

Quote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Gene Edward Veith says:

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

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

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

Of Protestant Christianity, Hitler wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Listen to these words and tell me who wrote them:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Why is this so?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.

This ‘Blame Bush’ Crap Has Just GOT To End

August 23, 2010

Are you sick of Obama and the left unrelentingly blaming Bush for everything that is happening going on two years after he left office?  Do you think that Obama will ever man-up and actually become responsible for his presidency?

Me too, and me neither, respectively.

I went more than a little off on a liberal who dredged up this demagogic rhetorical garbage:

In Europe people laugh at us leaving in false dreams, wall streets spending false money, Bush starting a false war etc.

America is the land of dreams, how come? Idiots like George Bush can get elected to president. If he can Become president, then what can the smart people do? Jump to pluto?.

Do you really expect Obama to fix the worst recession in 80 years in a bit more than 18 months? Which was created by 8 years of Reagan, 4 years by bush, Clinton’s last period and 8 years by Bush? What is he some kind of god?

I didn’t vote for Obama but I expect him to put us in the right direction in this 6 years (he most likely) has left. in 2007-2008 they estimated that the recession will peak in 2012, so there is still a lot left. Just imagine how it would be with Palin/McCain. McCain who wanted to keep Bush’s politics moving and Palin who thought Africa was a country.

Here was my response:

First of all, I must pause to mock you for making Europe the gold standard of measurement. I guess if you like Nazism, fascism, Marxism, socialism, and genocide up the wazoo, Europe must be the coolest place on earth.  I can see why you lefties love it so much.

What was it that Jefferson said? “The comparison of our governments with those of Europe, is like a comparison of heaven and hell.” Not that you give a damn what Jefferson said about anything.

Let me assure you that the Iraq War – which 60% of Democrat Senators voted to authorize (just for the record) – was a REAL war indeed.

Here’s a record of how Democrats were for that war before they were against it:

Truth or Fiction
Freedom Agenda
Snopes

And at least Bush had the decency to actually WIN his war. Barack Obama demonized the Iraq War and demonized the surge strategy that enabled us to win it. And Obama made Afghanistan “his war” in order to maintain the facade that he really wasn’t a weakling on foreign policy.  Bush did so well in Iraq that the Obama administration actually tried to take credit for the victory. And now we’re “floundering in Afghanistan” under Obama’s failed leadership.

That Sarah Palin who thought Africa was a country thing? False, you demagogue. It was a made-up “fact” that was reported as truth. And the ONLY documented “source” behind it has been revealed to be a hoax.

Now, you want to see a REAL idiot in action? How about a guy running for president who thinks there are 58 states? This is a man who is so fundamentally ignorant he doesn’t even know jack squat about his own country.

Youtube:

Quote:

It is wonderful to be back in Oregon,” Obama said. “Over the last 15 months, we’ve traveled to every corner of the United States. I’ve now been in 57 states? I think one left to go. Alaska and Hawaii, I was not allowed to go to even though I really wanted to visit, but my staff would not justify it.”

So let’s talk about what a total and absolute ideologue you are to condemn Sarah Palin for a bogus fabricated quote that she didn’t even say, and to then defend a guy who is on video saying something about 20 times as stupid.  Because that’s how the Democrat Party operates, in a nutshell.

For the factual record, Obama actually called Europe a country.  How is that not just as stupid as calling Africa a country?

Youtube:

Quote:

“One of the things that is a huge advantage for America compared to countries like Europe is, actually, we’re constantly replenishing ourselves with hungry, driven people who are coming here, and they want to work, and they start a business, and our population is younger and more dynamic, and that’s a good thing!”

Which is to say that Obama is unfit to be president by your own deceitful example.

And as for Bush being an idiot, at least he didn’t need a pair of damn teleprompters to say his name right. Maybe Bush would have sounded more “intelligent” to you if he read absolutely everything he said at every venue he went to off his teleprompters.

Here’s Obama without his teleprompter for one minute:

Which is why he needs to bring one everywhere – even to sixth grade classrooms – to not sound like the gibbering idiot he truly is.

So, oh, yeah, the country is much better off with its “Genius-in-chief,” isn’t it?

You don’t give one damn about the truth; you live in your own self-created reality in which Sarah Palin is stupid for something that she never said, while Barack Obama who said something stupider than Sarah Palin ever said in her life is still brilliant.

You would be completely ashamed of yourself, if you were capable of that attribute of moral character.

I write an article that shows how BY THE DEMOCRATS VERY OWN STANDARD OF MEASUREMENT Obama is the worst president in American history. And you’ve got nothing to say about that. Nothing but more “blame Bush.”

Another demonstration of your rabid leftist ideology that will NOT be fair: the economy goes into an absolute TOILET under Obama, but he’s not responsible for any of his policies.

The unemployment rate was 7.6% when Bush left office. But Obama is not responsible for the fact that it’s near 10% now and by most expert accounts will rise higher after he pissed away $862 billion (actually $3.27 TRILLION) in his boondoggle “stimulus”???

Why is it that you refuse to hold Obama to any kind of standard at all – even the standard he set for himself? The Obama administration said this was a terrible economy, but he had the solution, that his stimulus would keep unemployment from going over 8%. And by his own administration’s standard did he not utterly fail? Wasn’t he elected to make the economy better, instead of far worse?

And what do we say about the fact that unemployment is going up, rather than down?  Wasn’t Obama supposed to make things better rather than worse?

Jobless claims rise to highest level in 9 months
By CHRISTOPHER S. RUGABER, AP Economics Writer – Thu Aug 19, 2010

WASHINGTON – Employers appear to be laying off workers again as the economic recovery weakens. The number of people applying for unemployment benefits reached the half-million mark last week for the first time since November.

It was the third straight week that first-time jobless claims rose. The upward trend suggests the private sector may report a net loss of jobs in August for the first time this year.

Initial claims rose by 12,000 last week to 500,000, the Labor Department said Thursday.

Construction firms are letting go of more workers as the housing sector slumps and federal stimulus spending on public works projects winds down. State and local governments are also cutting jobs to close large budget gaps.

The layoffs add to growing fears that the economic recovery is slowing and the country could slip back into a recession.

Isn’t Obama kind of going the wrong way, Mr. “Blame Bush”???

We’ve got all kinds of measures showing that things are far worse than they ever were under Bush. But you, total rabid fundamentalist leftist ideologue that you are – can only shout “blame Bush!” all the louder.

Here’s one example from August 21, 2010 in the LA Times:

With consumers and businesses keeping a lid on expenses, more and more small and mid-size restaurants are throwing in their dish towels and closing up shop. […]

Nationwide, the number of restaurants dropped in 2010 for the first time in more than a decade, according to NPD, falling 5,202 to 579,416.

So, wow. That means that things haven’t been this bad since Bill Clinton was president and the Dot-com bubble he created blew up. That means that things were NEVER this bad under George Bush.

Bush inherited a terrible economic situation, too. First of all, the Dot-com bubble that Clinton passed to Bush created huge economic upheaval – to the tune of Nasdaq losing 78% of its value. Trillions of dollars of Clinton economic growth were just blown away like a fart in a hurricane.  The mainstream media didn’t report the facts of Clinton’s recession because they are shockingly biased liberal propagandists. Which is why so few Americans trust them anymore. Clinton took all the credit for the Dot-com build-up; Bush got all the pain when it blew up, suffering a huge recession that was all on Clinton’s tab. Then you add to that the 9/11 attack, which crippled the airline and tourism industry for months, and you should understand how bad Bush had it. But he didn’t blame Clinton a gazillion times; he manned up and solved the problem. He took an economic lemon and made 52 consecutive months of job growth.   In contrast, Obama hasn’t solved anything. All he’s done is blame and demonize.

Here’s another one from the August 21 2010 Associated Press report:

In the wake of news about a spike in new applications for unemployment benefits comes another potentially troubling sign: A record number of workers made hardship withdrawals from their retirement accounts in the second quarter.

What’s more, the number of workers borrowing from their accounts reached a 10-year high, according to a report issued Friday by Fidelity Investments.

Wow. Again, things haven’t been so bad since the last time a Democrat was president. Again, it was NEVER this bad under George Bush’s presidency.

How about trade deficit figures? From November 19 2009 Reuters:

WASHINGTON: The US trade deficit widened in September by an unexpectedly large 18.2 per cent, the most in more than 10 years, as oil prices rose for the seventh straight month and imports from China bounded higher, a US government report showed on Friday.

Hey, again, things weren’t so bad since a Democrat president last ran things. And it was never so bad under George Bush.

How about all the foreclosures? Surely Obama has made that better? Oops. Again, things were NEVER this bad under Bush’s presidency:

US foreclosures up 4%; top 300000 for 17th month on the trot
by Jaspreet Virk – August 12, 2010

Foreclosure crisis doesn’t seem to be loosening its hold on the housing sector. After declining for the last three consecutive months, foreclosure activity is back up in the United States.

As per the ‘Foreclosure Market Report’ released by RealtyTrac, an online marketplace, giving insights into foreclosures, 325,229 houses received foreclosure filings in the nation, 4 percent up from June.

Not only there has been a jump in the number of houses receiving filings, the foreclosures have exceeded 300000 for the 17th straight month. One in every 397 houses received foreclosure notice from the lenders in July.

Hmmm. Obama’s been president for all of those 17 months. And Bush was president for none of them. But it’s all Bush’s fault, anyway, isn’t it? At least if you’re a hypocrite liberal, it is.

Under Obama, and ONLY under Obama, foreclosures are up 75% in the major metropolitan areas:

NEW YORK (Reuters)Foreclosures rose in 3 of every four large U.S. metro areas in this year’s first half, likely ruling out sustained home price gains until 2013, real estate data company RealtyTrac said on Thursday [in its midyear 2010 metropolitan foreclosure report].

Unemployment was the main culprit driving foreclosure actions on more than 1.6 million properties, the company said.

We’re not going to see meaningful, sustainable home price appreciation while we’re seeing 75 percent of the markets have increases in foreclosures,” RealtyTrac senior vice president Rick Sharga said in an interview.

Has Obama done anything to solve this problem – which was why our economy blew up in the first place? Absolutely not.

Obama failed – because he is a failure, and failing is what he does:

WASHINGTON – Nearly half of the 1.3 million homeowners who enrolled in the Obama administration’s flagship mortgage-relief program have fallen out.

The program is intended to help those at risk of foreclosure by lowering their monthly mortgage payments. Friday’s report from the Treasury Department suggests the $75 billion government effort is failing to slow the tide of foreclosures in the United States, economists say.

More than 2.3 million homes have been repossessed by lenders since the recession began in December 2007, according to foreclosure listing service RealtyTrac Inc. Economists expect the number of foreclosures to grow well into next year.

The government program as currently structured is petering out. It is taking in fewer homeowners, more are dropping out and fewer people are ending up in permanent modifications,” said Mark Zandi, chief economist at Moody’s Analytics.

There’s “hope and change” for you.  A failed president with failed policies.

As an update (August 24), I add the following headline:

Instant View: Existing home sales plunge to 15-year low
Tue Aug 24, 10:28 am ET

NEW YORK (Reuters) – Sales of previously owned U.S. homes dropped in July to their lowest pace in 15 years, implying further loss of momentum in the economic recovery.

Existing home sales dropped by a massive 27% in July.  And, again, omigosh.  We haven’t seen terrible numbers like this since the last time a Democrat was president.  We NEVER saw anything like this during the Bush era.

How about budget deficits? Bush never had a trillion dollar deficit in his entire presidency, and the Democrats still blamed him for his spending; but the CBO now says that Obama will run a trillion-plus dollar defict next year, making it three years in a row. And we will have massive trillion-plus dollar deficits for as long as the eye can see because of Obama’s reckless unsustainable spending programs and the debt they will create. How about this? Obama’s deficit for July alone was more than Bush’s entire 2007-year deficit! And how about this one? Obama outspent Bush’s entire eight-year presidency’s deficit in just 20 months – after demonizing Bush for his spending!!!

From The Wall Street Journal, which, unlike the New York Slimes, the LA Slimes, the Chicago Tribune, and other major liberal papers, ISN’T actually financially and morally bankrupt:

Mr. Obama cannot dismiss critics by pointing to President George W. Bush’s decision to run $2.9 trillion in deficits while fighting two wars and dealing with 9/11 and Katrina. Mr. Obama will surpass Mr. Bush’s eight-year total in his first 20 months and 11 days in office, adding $3.2 trillion to the national debt. If America “cannot and will not sustain” deficits like Mr. Bush’s, as Mr. Obama said during the campaign, how can Mr. Obama sustain the geometrically larger ones he’s flogging?

Bush’s deficits were 2-3% of GDP.  Obama’s are at 12.8% of GDP – which is five to six times higher and bringing us closer and closer every day to the point of collapse.

Are the people better off under Obama than they were under Bush? I don’t think so:

More Americans are on food stamps now under Barack Obama’s failed presidency than at any time in history. And that certainly includes George Bush’s presidency.

But now Obama and the Democrats are going to raid the Food Stamp program to pay for their pet liberal projects. Because “Let them eat cake.”

How about bank failures? We kind of need banks for a healthy economy unless we want to go back to the barter system, you know:

Banks are failing at double the rate of last year.  During 2009, which the government claims was the peak of the recession, the total number of bank failures at this point in the year was 40.  It is already 83 for this year.

For the record, only 25 banks failed under Bush in 2008.  That number soared to 140 banks under Obama’s watch in 2009.  And now we’re already past 118 bank failures this year in 2010 with four more months to go.

But you can’t hold Barack Obama responsible for the fact that things are far, far, FAR worse under his presidency than they ever were under Bush’s. The ONLY reason you’ve got to “blame Bush” is that the 2008 economic meltdown happened under Bush’s presidency. You don’t even offer an actual reason or state an actual policy reason for the failure; you just blame Bush because he was there.  You don’t consider the fact that things were great until Democrats took control of both the House and the Senate in 2006 and royally screwed up the country (the unemployment rate before Democrats took over Congress in January 2007 was 4.6%).  Nope. Bush was president in 2008, so it was all his fault. Even though he warned SEVENTEEN TIMES that we needed to reform Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae or have an economic disaster on our hands, and even though Democrats were in lockstep refusal to deal with the landmine that caused us to implode in the first place.  But you are way too much of a twisted unhinged ideologue to apply the same argument to Obama now. What happened while Bush was president was Bush’s fault; and what happened while Zero was president is still Bush’s fault.

Do I want to go back to Bush’s “failed policies” when unemployment never got above 7.6% and averaged 5.2% for his presidency? As opposed to “moving forward” with Obama and his 10%-and-rising level? Pardon me, but I’ll take Bush.

Democrats are currently saying, “Do you want to go back to the way things were when Republicans were in control?”

When Republicans were last in control prior to 2007, we had full unemployment with an unemployment rate of only 4.6%.

So, yeah.  I WOULD like to go back to the way things were when Bush and Republicans were in control.  And I frankly want to know what idiot wouldn’t?

As for your question as to whether Obama is some kind of a god, I can’t help but point out that it wasn’t conservatives who kept putting the halo on Obama’s head:

A funny video provides a giant montage of Obama halos.

We weren’t the ones who said “This is the moment when when the rise of the oceans began to slow and the planet began to heal,” either.

We weren’t the ones who said, “You can divide history. BB Before Barack. AB After Barack.”  So don’t blame us for Obama not living up to the ridiculous expectations he and his liberal minions fed to the culture.

The fact of the matter is that Obama is such a miserable, total failure that I see that even you can’t admit you voted for him.

Amazing: Liberals Show They Are Even MORE Intolerant And Violent Than Neo-Nazis

April 20, 2010

This is a really amazing story.  As loathsome as Neo-Nazis are, and as hateful as they are, they are actually surpassed by garden variety American liberals.

Do you remember mostly Hispanic protesters marching to demand amnesty for illegal immigrants (and also see here)?  Well, Neo-Nazis think they have a right to protest too.  And, of course, American liberals thought that Neo-Nazis had every right to march when they were marching through a town filled with Jewish death camp survivors.

The same First Amendment free speech rights that gave the one group the right to protest give the other group the right to protest, too.  At least, that has always been how it was supposed to work.  And that was what leftist protesters proclaimed when they were out protesting a message that many others didn’t like.

Not that liberals give a damn about genuine fundamental rights that apply equally to all citizens.  They want total power and total control, and to hell with anyone who opposes any part of their agenda.  They launch protest after protest until they gain power, and then they move to squelch the right to protest.

The thing I want to emphasize today is – when we consider Neo-Nazis and American liberals qua protesters – which side is actually more fundamentally intolerant and reactionary?

Apr 17, 2010 11:45 pm US/Eastern
Neo-Nazis, Counter-Demonstrators Square Off In LA
White Supremacists’ Rally Against Immigration Meets Resistance From Hundreds Of Demonstrators

LOS ANGELES (AP)

Police block an angry crowd of counter-protesters after the neo-Nazi group, The American National Socialist Movement, held a rally in front of the Los Angeles City Hall, on April 17, 2010.

Let me interrupt this article with a very important message:

Note that this isn’t the right wing versus the left wing.  This is, rather, the left wing versus another group of the left wing.  You might say that it is the right wing of the extreme left versus the left wing of the extreme left.

I would also point out that Nazism is and always HAS BEEN a leftwing movement.  The primary difference between Nazis (i.e., the “National Socialist German Workers Party”) and Marxists (e.g., the “Union of Soviet Socialist Republics”) was that the former group wanted socialism in a nationalist manner, and the latter wanted socialism in an internationalist manner.

The Marxists said, “Workers of the world unite!“, which was just what Andy Stern of the SEIU – who visited Barack Obama in the White House more than ANYONE – said.

Which is to say that, currently, Marxism is the form of radical socialism most in vogue with the American left.  It is the form of socialism that the current occupant of the White House clearly favors.

The last thing I’d point out is that the Neo-Nazis of “The American National Socialist Movement” want socialism for white nationalist Aryans; conservatives don’t want socialism for ANYBODY in America.  We want the socialism that the Nazis, fascists, Marxist and communists wanted the hell out.

Sorry for interrupting.  Let’s continue.

A white supremacist group rallied against illegal immigration in downtown Los Angeles Saturday as hundreds of counter-protestors gathered to shout them down in a tense standoff that included several arrests, thrown rocks and police in riot gear.

Oops.  Have to stop again.  And not just to point out that the Associated Press should have people who at least know how to spell “protesters” to write about protests.

Are the Neo-Nazis a white supremacist group?  Of course they are; only a fool would argue that they aren’t.  Then again, there ARE a great many fools in the country.  So, yeah, while many of these Neo-Nazis would deny being “white supremacists” and pontificate and filibuster about other issues ad nauseum, let’s just agree that they are white supremacists.  But what about the other side?

What we have on the other side are “Latino supremacists.”  There’s the powerful Latino group “La Raza,” which means “the race.” Can you even imagine how a racial group that calls itself “The Race” isn’t racist?  There’s the term “reconquista” being dragged out again, which means “reconquest” of Southwestern America by Mexicans.” There’s thousands of Mexican protesters marching on American soil and demanding rights and privileges and concessions be granted to them by “white” Americans.  Among other things, they argue that the Mexican government has a right to diligently protect ITS southern boarder from illegal immigrants, but that the American government has no right to similarly protect ITS southern boarder from illegal immigrants.  They argue that Mexico and other Latin American countries have a right to be sovereign nations, but that America must become an “open borders” non-country.  There’s the waving the Mexican flag above an American flag which they hang upside down in mockery.

I don’t mind for a second the media calling Neo-Nazis “white supremacists.”  Just be honest and call BOTH SIDES what they are.

And let’s also realize that the theme of one group of leftists opposing another comes up again.  The so-called “pro-immigration” events were organized by COMMUNISTS.

Sorry to interrupt again.  Moving on:

Police officers stood between the white supremacists and counter-demonstrators on the south lawn of Los Angeles’ City Hall, where about 50 members of the National Socialist Movement waved American flags and swastika banners for about an hour.

The white supremacists, many of them wearing flack helmets and black military fatigue uniforms, shouted “Sieg Heil” before each of their speakers took the podium to taunt counter-protestors with racial, anti-Semitic and misogynistic epithets.

“We will meet you head on,” one of the white supremacists, whose name could not be made out over the fuzzy public address system, warned the crowd from behind several phalanxes of police in riot gear.

Members of the Detroit-based group said they picked the location for their rally because of Los Angeles’ large immigrant population. They accused some of the immigrants of stealing jobs and committing crimes.

Group members also said they were reacting to the recent number of street marches across the country encouraging legislators to enact reform that includes amnesty for some illegal immigrants.

Oh, oh.  Have to stop again.  Just long enough to point out that all the pro-immigration and pro-amnesty street marches are apparently fine.  It’s just the any street march that in any way opposes the leftwing agenda that must be attacked and vilified.  Whether it’s Neo-Nazis advancing their favorite form of socialism or whether it’s little old ladies who want to advocate limited government.

Moving on.

National Socialist Movement regional director Jeffrey Russell Hall announced that the group would begin backing political candidates who agreed with their anti-immigrant message.

But much of the white supremacists’ words were drowned out by such chants as “Hey hey, ho ho, Nazi scum have got to go” from the larger crowd of about 500 counter-protestors who held signs that read “Nazis: Get Out of Los Angeles” and “Racists Are Ignorant.”

There was a brief flare-up of violence before the speakers arrived. A shirtless man was seen being escorted to safety behind police lines by a plainclothes officer as counter-protesters punched and grabbed at him. Blood could be seen at the base of the man’s neck.

National Lawyers Guild executive director James Lafferty, who attended both as a legal observer and counter-protestor, said he saw the man get into a fight with crowd members who saw his Nazi lightning bolt tattoos.

Police Commander David Doan said a second man who crowd members believed was sympathetic with the white supremacists was also assaulted during the rally. Both men were treated for minor injuries at a hospital and released.

As the rally ended, counter-protestors hurled rocks, branches and other items over the police line and into a parking lot where the white supremacists’ had left their cars.

Some members of the group had trouble starting a black Ford Mustang and attempted to hook up jumper cables to their engine. They protected themselves from the flying debris by holding up swastika-emblazoned shields.

The white supremacists eventually gave up and pushed their car away so they could jump-start it out of range of the projectiles
.

Doan said three or four counter-protestors were arrested for throwing items.

Yes, that’s right.  The group that peacefully protested, the group that followed the rules, was the Neo-Nazis.  The group that was violent and intolerant were the liberals.

This sentence is particularly heartbreaking:

“They protected themselves from the flying debris by holding up swastika-emblazoned shields.”

Can you even imagine that swastikas actually became the superior moral symbol during the day in that it was employed as a protective shield against a group who was using employing a violent symbol of rocks designed to attack and create injury?

Who ever would have thought that there was a group more loathsome than Neo-Nazis?  Personally, I never would have dreamed such a thing could ever happen in America.

But it happened.  And it happened even as peaceful Tea Party protesters are routinely targeted as somehow being tied to “violence.”

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.

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.

The Proof Of Planned Health Care Rationing And Denial Of Care To Senior Citizens

August 10, 2009

People are being told that the crowds of people who are going to town halls to angrily protest the Democrat health care plan are “un-American” as well as being swastika-carrying fascists.  It is terribly malicious and hateful demagoguery.  It is amazing that Democrats demonize tactics that they themselves are pursuing and have been pursuing for YEARS.  And then we come to learn that not only are Democrats organizing, but they are in fact literally PAYING people to show up and fight for the Democrat health care plan.  Talk about “manufactured outrage“!!!

The Speaker of the House decided to make this a debate about who is more Nazi.  I welcome that argument.  Just look at the Democrats’ own tactics!

But there is a far deeper issue at stake when we talk about “Nazism” than mere political rhetoric.  There is a very real issue of life and death at stake.

Mike Sola angrily confronted his Congressman over his fear that the Democrat system would not cover his son, who is in a wheelchair suffering from cerebral palsy.  He has since received death threats and vandalism at his home from Democrat supporters.

Should people fear for their lives under ObamaCare?  Should people like Mike Sola fear for their loved ones’ lives?

Let’s get away from the rhetoric, and reflect on the words of key Obama health care architects.

Consider a New York Post article:

Start with Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel, the brother of White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel. He has already been appointed to two key positions: health-policy adviser at the Office of Management and Budget and a member of Federal Council on Comparative Effectiveness Research.

Emanuel bluntly admits that the cuts will not be pain-free. “Vague promises of savings from cutting waste, enhancing prevention and wellness, installing electronic medical records and improving quality are merely ‘lipstick’ cost control, more for show and public relations than for true change,” he wrote last year (Health Affairs Feb. 27, 2008).

Savings, he writes, will require changing how doctors think about their patients: Doctors take the Hippocratic Oath too seriously, “as an imperative to do everything for the patient regardless of the cost or effects on others” (Journal of the American Medical Association, June 18, 2008).

Yes, that’s what patients want their doctors to do. But Emanuel wants doctors to look beyond the needs of their patients and consider social justice, such as whether the money could be better spent on somebody else.

Many doctors are horrified by this notion; they’ll tell you that a doctor’s job is to achieve social justice one patient at a time.

Emanuel, however, believes that “communitarianism” should guide decisions on who gets care. He says medical care should be reserved for the non-disabled, not given to those “who are irreversibly prevented from being or becoming participating citizens . . . An obvious example is not guaranteeing health services to patients with dementia” (Hastings Center Report, Nov.-Dec. ’96).

Translation: Don’t give much care to a grandmother with Parkinson’s or a child with cerebral palsy.

So, yeah.  Mike Sola has every right to be fearful of what will happen to his son.  Just as I have every reason to be afraid of what will happen to my parents.

When Dr. Emanuel says “communitarianism,” it is impossible for me – given the man’s writings – not to think “communist” plus “totalitarianism.”

And Obama appointed this man.  How can he distance himself from a guy who he himself appointed?  As Glenn Beck put it, “I wouldn’t let these people bring me a can of Coke, much less allow them to write a national health care plan.”

In January of THIS YEAR, Dr. Emanuel – who is a principal architect of the Democrat’s health care plan – wrote:

“When implemented, the Complete Lives system produces a priority curve on which individuals aged between roughly 15 and 40 years get the most substantial chance, whereas the youngest and oldest people get chances that are attenuatedThe Complete Lives system justifies preference to younger people because of priority to the worst-off rather than instrumental value.”

“Attenuated” means, “to make thin; to weaken or reduce in force, intensity, effect, quantity, or value.”  Attenuated care would be reduced or lessened care.  Dare I say it, in this context it clearly means, “rationed care.”

Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel included a chart with his work (available here), which shows how he wants to allocate medical resources under a government plan:

When you’re very young, or when you start reaching your 50s and 60s, you start receiving less and less priority.

Take Cass Sunstein, Obama’s Regulatory Czar, who wrote in the Columbia Law Review in January 2004:

“I urge that the government should indeed focus on life-years rather than lives. A program that saves young people produces more welfare than one that saves old people.”

Barack Obama’s Regulatory Czar explains:

“If a program would prevent fifty deaths of people who are twenty, should it be treated the same way as a program that would prevent fifty deaths of people who are seventy? Other things being equal, a program that protects young people seems far better than one that protects old people, because it delivers greater benefits.”

Which very much jives with what Obama told a woman concerning her mother:

“At least we can let doctors know — and your mom know — that you know what, maybe this isn’t going to help. Maybe you’re better off, uhh, not having the surgery, but, uhh, taking the painkiller.”

As I wrote in my last article, “Don’t let the coffin lid hit your face on the way out, Grandma and Grandpa.”

Incredibly, that’s not all.  There are other writings that President Obama’s appointed architect Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel have said.  I thank Jeff Head for bringing his own blog citing other statements by Emanuel to my attention:

Is the “Final Solution” wording that was added to this revamped Obama Health Care graphic warranted? Some might see it as a simple play on words.

But before you decide how to consider that wording, please read the following shocking quotes from Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel, the chief health-care policy adviser to President Barack Hussein Obama, and (not coincidentally) the brother of Obama’s chief of staff, Rahm Emanuel.

From: Principles of allocation of scarce medical interventions, January 31, 2009
Also see: Deadly Doctors, New York Post, June 24, 2009

Strict youngest-first allocation directs scarce resources predominantly to infants. This approach seems incorrect. The death of a 20-year-old woman is intuitively worse than that of a 2-month-old girl, even though the baby has had less life. The 20-year-old has a much more developed personality than the infant, and has drawn upon the investment of others to begin as-yet-unfulfilled projects…. Adolescents have received substantial substantial education and parental care, investments that will be wasted without a complete life. Infants, by contrast, have not yet received these investments…. It is terrible when an infant dies, but worse, most people think, when a three-year-old child dies, and worse still when an adolescent does.”

Unlike allocation by sex or race, allocation by age is not invidious discrimination; every person lives through different life stages rather than being a single age. Even if 25-year-olds receive priority over 65-year-olds, everyone who is 65 years now was previously 25 years. Treating 65-year olds differently because of stereotypes or falsehoods would be ageist; treating them differently because they have already had more life-years is not.”

“Ultimately, the complete lives system does not create ‘classes of Untermenschen whose lives and well being are deemed not worth spending money on,’ but rather empowers us to decide fairly whom to save when genuine scarcity makes saving everyone impossible.”

“When implemented, the complete lives system produces a priority curve on which individuals aged between roughly 15 and 40 years get the most substantial chance, whereas the youngest and oldest people get chances that are attenuated”

Every favor to a constituency should be linked to support for the health-care reform agenda. If the automakers want a bailout, then they and their suppliers have to agree to support and lobby for the administration’s health-reform effort.”

From: Journal of the American Medical Association, June 18, 2008

“Doctors take the Hippocratic Oath too seriously, as an imperative to do everything for the patient regardless of the cost or effects on others”

From: Health Affairs Feb. 27, 2008

“Vague promises of savings from cutting waste, enhancing prevention and wellness, installing electronic medical records and improving quality are merely ‘lipstick’ cost control, more for show and public relations than for true change,”

From: What Are the Potential Cost Savings from Legalizing Physician-Assisted Suicide? New England Journal of Medicine, July 1998

(These quotes add new context to the “End-of-Life” Counseling sessions required every 5 years for all seniors over 65 in Obama Care.)

“There is a widespread perception that the United States spends an excessive amount on high-technology health care for dying patients. Many commentators note that 27 to 30 percent of the Medicare budget is spent on the 5 percent of Medicare patients who die each year. They also note that the expenditures increase exponentially as death approaches, so that the last month of life accounts for 30 to 40 percent of the medical care expenditures in the last year of life. To many, savings from reduced use of expensive technological interventions at the end of life are both necessary and desirable.”

“Many have linked the effort to reduce the high cost of death with the legalization of physician-assisted suicide. One commentator observed: “Managed care and managed death [through physician-assisted suicide] are less expensive than fee-for-service care and extended survival. Less expensive is better.” Some of the amicus curiae briefs submitted to the Supreme Court expressed the same logic: “Decreasing availability and increasing expense in health care and the uncertain impact of managed care may intensify pressure to choose physician-assisted suicide” and “the cost effectiveness of hastened death is as undeniable as gravity. The earlier a patient dies, the less costly is his or her care.”

“Although the cost savings to the United States and most managed-care plans are likely to be small, it is important to recognize that the savings to specific terminally ill patients and their families could be substantial. For many patients and their families, especially but not exclusively those without health insurance, the costs of terminal care may result in large out-of-pocket expenses. Nevertheless, as compared with the average American, the terminally ill are less likely to be uninsured, since more than two thirds of decedents are Medicare beneficiaries over 65 years of age. The poorest dying patients are likely to be Medicaid beneficiaries. Extrapolating from the Medicare data, one can calculate that a typical uninsured patient, by dying one month earlier by means of physician-assisted suicide, might save his or her family $10,000 in health care costs, having already spent as much as $20,000 in that year.”

“Drawing on data from the Netherlands on the use of euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide and on available U.S. data on costs at the end of life, this analysis explores the degree to which the legalization of physician-assisted suicide might reduce health care costs. The most reasonable estimate is a savings of $627 million, less than 0.07 percent of total health care expenditures.”

From: Where Civic Republicanism and Deliberative Democracy Meet, Hastings Center Report, Nov.-Dec.1996

“This civic republican or deliberative democratic conception of the good provides both procedural and substantive insights for developing a just allocation of health care resources. Procedurally, it suggests the need for public forums to deliberate about which health services should be considered basic and should be socially guaranteed. Substantively, it suggests services that promote the continuation of the polity-those that ensure healthy future generations, ensure development of practical reasoning skills, and ensure full and active participation by citizens in public deliberations-are to be socially guaranteed as basic. Conversely, services provided to individuals who are irreversibly prevented from being or becoming participating citizens are not basic and should not be guaranteed. An obvious example is not guaranteeing health services to patients with dementia.

[….]

Do not fall for the platitudes and the revisionism or assurances of the people pushing this plan.  It is a radical plan and it will lead to single payer, complete governmental control of health care.  A command economy of health care much more akin to what someone like Karl Marx would implement to go hand and hand with his political philosophies.

The president, in a less-guarded moment before running for the Presidency outlined his true goals with respect to Health Care, and now he has the congress and the advisers he thinks will lead him there.

“I happen to be a proponent of a single-payer universal health care program. I see no reason why the United States of America, the wealthiest country in the history of the world, spending 14 percent of its gross national product on health care, cannot provide basic health insurance to everybody. And that’s what Jim is talking about when he says everybody in, nobody out. A single-payer health care plan, a universal health care plan. That’s what I’d like to see. But as all of you know, we may not get there immediately. Because first we’ve got to take back the White House, we’ve got to take back the Senate, and we’ve got to take back the House.

When you see “angry mobs” of Democrat health care plan opponents, realize that they aren’t angry because of “disinformation” or “fishy” emails; they are angry because of what they KNOW.  They are angry because of what Obama’s own architects have STATED.

Some of what we have seen here has far more in common with Dr. Mengele than with medicine.

The Nazis had a term, Lebensunwertes Leben, that meant “a life unworthy to be lived.”  The Nazi agenda was not about goose-stepping soldiers; it was about a complex of ideas that de-valued individual human life and exalted the power of the state to control the lives of the people.  And those who were deemed unable to produce sufficient societal benefit were deemed unworthy of life.  And the men who created this system did not regard themselves as evil men; they regarded themselves as doing what was necessary to implement their vision for their country.

Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel would never agree that he is a Nazi.  He would point out that he is Jewish; how on earth could he be a Nazi?  But his plan comes right out of the heart of Nazi ideology; it is Lebensunwertes Leben rearing its ugly head all over again.  Does he want 6 million Jews to die?  Of course he doesn’t.  But my question is, “Does he not want 60 million senior citizens to die?” And the only difference is that he would prefer to kill them by neglect due to rationed medical care, or due to a more humane but every bit as evil death by suicide.

The Nazis’ “final solution” was to eliminate an alleged crisis by eliminating the Jews; Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel’s “final solution” is to eliminate an alleged crisis by eliminating unhealthy children and senior citizens.

And, again, if Barack Obama doesn’t want this vision himself, then why on earth did he appoint Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel – who has been arguing for this “Complete Lives program” for YEARS, and who has an article urging for it as late as January of THIS YEAR – to write large swaths of the health care bill?  And any of Obama’s protestations to the contrary only fly in the face of what he himself has said and what he himself has done.  Don’t trust him.

A video montage explains precisely how the Democrats have organized behind the scenes to use the currently-proposed plan to necessarily lead into the kind of system that will produce the kind of “care” outlined by Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel above.

Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel and Cass Sunstein tell us what government health care will ultimately look like; and the video explains in Democrat health care strategists’ own words how they propose to get us to that point.

Watch it – and then join the fight against this monstrosity.

Health Care Debate: As Charges of Nazism Abound, Which Side Is Right?

August 9, 2009

Nancy Pelosi upped the ante in the health care debate when she responded to a media question in the following manner:

Interviewer: Do you think there’s legitimate grassroot opposition going on here?

Pelosi: “I think they’re Astroturf… You be the judge. “They’re carrying swastikas and symbols like that to a town meeting on healthcare.”

That being in addition to her reference to town hall protesters as “simply un-American.”

Well, first of all, Nancy Pelosi calls health care opponents “Astroturf,” and the propagandist mainstream media have duly found evidence of one or two emails from conservative groups instructing opponents of health care how to have maximum effect.  Overlooked by both Pelosi and her media lackeys is the fact that liberal organizations are literally PAYING people to “defend Obama’s health care.”

The image she tries to project is a bunch of goose-stepping Nazis bringing their beloved swastikas with them like lucky charms.

Conservatives immediately complained: thousands of conservatives have attended town hall meetings around the country, and most of them hadn’t even SEEN a swastika at a town hall, much less carried one themselves.

But even the uber uber uber leftist Media Matters, trying to document that at least SOMEBODY really was carrying a swastika, end up inadvertently demonstrating a very different picture.

So there are your “swastika-toting conservatives.”  A frightening mob of Nazis, they aren’t.

The thing is, what they are clearly saying is that they DON’T want Nazism or Swastikas.  And they’re afraid that we’re seeing something in this health care agenda that smacks of the things they’re afraid of.

So a very, VERY few conservatives have brought signs that express their connection of ObamaCare to incipient Nazism.  Is that so awful?  First let us compare it to how Barack Obama, Dick Durbin, and Democrat protesters have used the word “Nazi.”

Democrat Sen. Dick Durbin compared American soldiers to Nazis:

“If I read this to you and did not tell you that it was an FBI agent describing what Americans had done to prisoners in their control, you would most certainly believe this must have been done by Nazis, Soviets in their gulags, or some mad regime—Pol Pot or others—that had no concern for human beings. Sadly, that is not the case. This was the action of Americans in the treatment of their prisoners.”

Barack Obama compared our entire country to Nazism:

“…just to take a, sort of a realist perspective…there’s a lot of change going on outside of the Court, um, that, that judges essentially have to take judicial notice of. I mean you’ve got World War II, you’ve got uh, uh, uh, the doctrines of Nazism, that, that we are fighting against, that start looking uncomfortably similar to what we have going on, back here at home.”

And of course images linking George W. Bush to Hitler or the devil are a dime a dozen.  Here’s a picture at a liberal protest that manages to do both at once, giving Bush both devil horns and a Hitler mustache:

There’s a rather substantial compilation of Bush-as-Hitler comparisons here.  But given the vast quantity of Bush derangement syndrome, it isn’t – and frankly can’t possibly be – anywhere near complete.

So on one hand you have to simply laugh (as in the kind of intense and sustained laughter that could literally cause you to die) at the sheer galling in-your-face hypocrisy and demagoguery of Nancy Pelosi and the left.  The self-righteous, “How dare you?  How DARE you?” tone doesn’t suit them at all.

But while the above deflates any liberal claim to outrage, it doesn’t justify throwing around Nazi Swastikas or using the word “fascist” at the Democrat’s health care plan.  Do these protesters have any better justification than that?

I believe they do.  And here’s why.

Reason One: Rush Limbaugh added a little gasoline to the fire that Nancy Pelosi started when he pointed out the visual similarity between the ObamaCare symbol and the Swastika.  His point was that if pointing out Swastika symbols was good for the goose, it ought to be good for the gander as well.

Of course, the mainstream media came completely unglued.  Rush Limbaugh played a rather lengthy montage of talking-point media outrage on his August 7 broadcast.

But apart from the obvious surface artistic similarities that people either recognize or refuse to recognize, there is a somewhat deeper and much more profound  issue: Obama is essentially taking the symbol for medicine, and combining it with his own political campaign symbol.  The result is the ostentatious politicizing of health care as ideology. It truly IS ObamaCare as Obama’s own symbol for it reveals!!! We haven’t seen anything like that in this country since the LAST time we embraced significant elements of fascism in our politics over 70 years ago.  And it is dangerous.

And a growing number of people are realizing it.

Reason two: Politically, there are some rather frightening political developments from within the Obama administration.  Former “journalist”-turned Obama hack Linda Douglas reveals both how corrupt journalism has become and how fascistic Obama can truly be in this pitch:

There is a lot of disinformation about health insurance reform out there, spanning from control of personal finances to end of life care.  These rumors often travel just below the surface via chain emails or through casual conversation.  Since we can’t keep track of all of them here at the White House, we’re asking for your help. If you get an email or see something on the web about health insurance reform that seems fishy, send it to flag@whitehouse.gov.

When was the last time you were asked to turn in people practicing their free speech rights to the White House?  The White House is asking people to turn in emails, web sites, and even people in “casual conversation.”  Can you imagine if the Bush White House had taken this course to collect information on protesters against the Iraq War?  The New York Times would have run a 300-part series detailing it as rabid fascism.  In this case, the blatant paranoia – and yes, the fascism – is being carried out by Barack Obama.

Reason three: But that’s not the only connection Democrat-activists now have with fascism.  Now there’s also the “new Fascisti” in the form of union thugs who are coming in to intimidate and even beat conservatives at town halls.  In fascist Italy, the Fascisti were the Blackshirted men who broke up opposition rallies with fists and whatever else was needed.  In Hitler’s rise to power, it was the SA Brownshirts.  Now it’s the SEIU Blueshirts.  This certainly isn’t the first time Democrats have relied on union thuggery to accomplish their goals.

After decrying town hall health care protesters as an “angry mob,” Democrats are now bringing in goons to physically intimidate health care protesters.

It was Barack Obama who said:

“If they bring a knife to the fight, we bring a gun.”

And this former community organizer who is so outraged that communities have been organizing has brought a gun in the form of union thugs to the “knives” of mostly elderly ObamaCare protesters.

Democrat Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid accused elderly health care protesters “of trying to sabotage the democratic process,” by showing up at Democrat politicians town halls and demanding answers and shouting when they don’t get them.  But look at what’s happening:

Over 1,000 St. Louis Tea Party Taxpayers showed up to attend the Russ Carnahan town hall meeting in South St. Louis. They were Locked Out! But… The Carnahah staff was sneaking in SIEU members in the side door marked “handicapped.”

Is shutting out American citizens and barring them from access to their elected leaders not the REAL “sabotage of the democratic process”?  How is stacking the political deck with your own people while deliberately shutting out your political opponents not fascist?  And as we’ll also see, how is bringing in burly union thugs to physically manhandle people for trying to express their political opinions not fascist?

In Tampa, Fla: Kathy Castor’s burly union thugs manhandled a small elderly man (in the green shirt) with stage 4 cancer and shut the doors on protesters’ faces to prevent opposing opinions from being heard.

The above footage is a little confusing.  One of the protesters who was physically manhandled by the four burly thugs shoving them around at the same event tells his story.

Kenneth Gladney, a black conservative, was beaten by four thugs at another event as he offered “Don’t Tread on Me” flags while trying to get into a town hall meeting in Missouri.

Is that the only thing that prompts people to compare ObamaCare to Nazism via their homemade posters of Swastikas with the red line through of “NO!” through them?

Not even close.

Let us explore the real reason that so many people – both Republican and Democrat – are so virulently opposing this health care plan.

Reason four: There’s more than ample evidence that – contrary to Obama’s and the Democrats’ denials – that they very much DO want a government takeover of health care.  And more and more people are realizing that this massive influx of pure socialism is not the American way.

Nearly three out of four (72%) Americans believe ObamaCare will add to the deficit, according to the most recent Quinnipiac University poll.

The current number being thrown around for Obama’s health care is $1.6 trillion over ten years.  But government routinely massively underestimates its costs, as I’ve documented in the past.  The CBO was off by 633% in its estimate of the cost of Medicare; and off by 10,900% in estimating the cost of Medicaid special hospitals.  A reasonable figure – based on an average of past CBO underestimation of government cost to fund government programs – is that ObamaCare will cost about $13 trillion over ten years.

Our debt has exploded under Barack Obama.  As the Wall Street Journal’s Michael Boskin put it:

Mr. Obama’s $3.6 trillion budget blueprint, by his own admission, redefines the role of government in our economy and society. The budget more than doubles the national debt held by the public, adding more to the debt than all previous presidents — from George Washington to George W. Bush — combined.

And that explosion is going to have huge consequences down the road.

If we put our health care system under government control, it is absolutely unavoidable that we will have to massively ration our health care resources down the road.  And there’s the rub.

Somebody is going to suffer from neglect down the road, as scarce medical resources are allocated to some rather than others.  And the elderly – who 1) are no longer represented in the work force while 2) consuming the lion’s share of medical resource – are going to start getting the short end of the stick.

The Obama administration may not want to admit it, but they have already embraced the idea of denying medical care to senior citizens, given their president’s choice of czars and top advisers.

Take Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel (White House Chief-of-staff Rahm’s brother) – PLEASEDr. Emanuel is the health-policy adviser at Obama’s Office of Management and Budget and is also a member of Federal Council on Comparative Effectiveness Research.

In January of THIS YEAR, Dr. Emanuel – who is a principal architect of the Democrat’s health care plan – wrote:

“When implemented, the Complete Lives system produces a priority curve on which individuals aged between roughly 15 and 40 years get the most substantial chance, whereas the youngest and oldest people get chances that are attenuated… The Complete Lives system justifies preference to younger people because of priority to the worst-off rather than instrumental value.”

For those of you who don’t know what “attenuated” means, let me save you from heading for your dictionary.  It means, “to make thin; to weaken or reduce in force, intensity, effect, quantity, or value.”  Basically, in Dr. Emanuel’s usage, it means, “Time to make room for the next generation and shove off, Grandma and Grandpa.”

Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel included a chart with his work (available here), which shows how he wants to allocate medical resources:

When you’re very young, or when you start reaching your 50s, you start becoming toast.

Take  Cass Sunstein, Obama’s Regulatory Czar, who wrote in the Columbia Law Review in January 2004:

“I urge that the government should indeed focus on life-years rather than lives. A program that saves young people produces more welfare than one that saves old people.”

Barack Obama’s Regulatory Czar explains:

“If a program would prevent fifty deaths of people who are twenty, should it be treated the same way as a program that would prevent fifty deaths of people who are seventy? Other things being equal, a program that protects young people seems far better than one that protects old people, because it delivers greater benefits.”

Which very much jives with what Obama told a woman concerning her mother:

“At least we can let doctors know — and your mom know — that you know what, maybe this isn’t going to help. Maybe you’re better off, uhh, not having the surgery, but, uhh, taking the painkiller.”

Don’t let the coffin lid hit your face on the way out, Grandma and Grandpa.

Glenn Beck brought out these statements on his August 6 TV program, adding that he wouldn’t let these men bring him a can of Coke, much less give them the power to make health care policy and determine who lives and who dies.

Right now the decision as to how to allocate medical resources is divided up between innumerable people and organizations, both government and private.  But if the “public option” wins the day, it will be centralized by men like Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel and Cass Sunstein.  And as the government takes over health care, and as debt eats up government funding, men and women like Emanuel and Sunstein are going to be choosing death by denial of medical resources to increasingly more and more people.

THAT’S your big Reason.  Rationed care.  Denial of resources to the elderly.  Death by neglect.  THAT’S why health care protesters are screaming and shouting.  THAT’S why people are carrying signs saying NO to the Swastika symbol of Nazi fascism.  And with all due respect, it is a damn good reason to be frightened and pissed off to no end.

Keep your damned fascist paws off my parents’ health care, Obama.

Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, liberal judicial activist of liberal judicial activists, had this to say about valueless life on the younger side (as opposed to Emanuel’s and Sunstein’s valueless life on the older side):

Ginsburg: Yes, the ruling about that surprised me. [Harris v. McRae – in 1980 the court upheld the Hyde Amendment, which forbids the use of Medicaid for abortions.] Frankly I had thought that at the time Roe was decided, there was concern about population growth and particularly growth in populations that we don’t want to have too many of.”

Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel wrote in 1996:

“Conversely, services provided to individuals who are irreversibly prevented from being or becoming participating citizens are not basic and should not be guaranteed.”

Enter Eugenics right out of Margaret Sanger, the founder of Planned Parenthood, and right out of Adolf Hitler, the architect of Nazism.  Enter the reason why so many Planned Parenthood clinics are STILL primarily located in black neighborhoods all over America – i.e., “growth in populations we don’t want to have too many of.”  Enter the reason Planned Parenthood is STILL comfortable with the idea of selectively aborting black babies.

And lest you forget, the infamous 1930s-era Tuskegee experiment – the racist and eugenics-based study that studied the effects of syphilis on deliberately untreated black men – ran straight through FDR’s New Deal, and through the course of his entire presidency.

Democrats are working to build a state in which it is the state which decides whether or not classes of people have the right to life, or the right to health care resources.  They want to centralize decision-making, and make health care decisions for everyone so they can further control the economy (health care is 1/6th of the economy) and further control individual behavior.

The late (and very, very great) Dr. D. James Kennedy once prophetically said:

“Watch out, Grandpa; because the generation that survived abortion will one day come after you!”

One need only look at Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel’s chart depicting the odds of receiving medical care versus age to see that the day Dr. Kennedy warned us about is now coming with a vengeance.

So who’s right in throwing out comparisons of Nazism?  If the choice is between Barack Obama and Nancy Pelosi and the health care plan they’re pushing versus the angry crowds showing up at town hall meetings to oppose the plan, it’s not even close.  First of all, let no one forget that “NAZI” stoof for the “National Socialist German Workers Party.”  It was national socialism, as in the sort of socialism health care protesters are afraid of.  Ronald Brownstein, senior writer at the National Journal, said recently that “The defining gamble of Barack Obama’s presidency is that the public today is willing to accept more government activism…“.   Don’t think for a second that the Nazis did not build a vast government health care system, which they then used to advance their political agenda.  And the German national government medical system under Nazism looked far more like the system that Barack Obama and Nancy Pelosi want to impose than anything that the people shouting at town halls want to see.