Posts Tagged ‘Postmodernism’

Why Liberals And Democrats And The USA They Infest Should Be Subjugated And Enslaved According To Their Own Worldview.

June 6, 2017

Chelsea Clinton is the Great White Hope of the Democratic Party.  You can see that the way the liberal establishment keeps giving her award after award for doing nothing, much the same way they kept promoting and elevating Hillary Clinton for being married to Bill.  Bill was elected Attorney General of Arkansas where he could molest women with the help of State troopers, and the Rose Law firm rather mysteriously first found it expedient to hire a woman who had flunked her first bar exam as their very first female associate and then to just as mysteriously decide to make a lawyer with virtually no legal experience a full partner after Bill got elected Governor.  It’s also just a coincidence that Bill was elected Attorney General in November of 1976 and Hillary was hired by the Rose Law Firm less than a month after Bill assumed office in February 1977.  Just as it was just a coincidence that Bill was elected Governor of Arkansas in 1979 and Hillary suddenly became a senior partner of the firm in 1979.  Yes, leftist boys and girls.  It’s true.  Your Uber Woman is not the ultimate example of wonderfulness you believe: she flunked her exam.  The whole legal system had to degrade for her to pass the dang test.  But somehow there wasn’t a woman on the planet more capable than Hillary.  Either that or it was naked political bribery as a firm hires a wife to curry favor with an attorney general husband.  One or the other, and I very much think it’s obvious it’s the other.  So okay, it WASN’T a coincidence: every damn thing she did was derivative from her husband’s success.  And this pattern has been true Hillary Clinton’s entire without-her-husband-to-hang-on-to-nothing-burger career.

But what a feminist heroine, this woman who stayed by her man no matter how much he humiliated her.  In 1992, she had her “You know, I’m not sitting here, some little woman standing by my man like Tammy Wynette” line.  Only oh-yes-she-WAS “standing by her man” because her man was her meal ticket.  Only Tammy Wynette NEVER would have stood by a pathological lump of crap husband the way Hillary did to suck like a parasitic leach off of his career.  Because liberal feminism stands for feces and not much else.   And that’s the same hypocrite rationalizing process that feminists today have toward the Islamism that seeks to enslave them like no other ideology on the face of the earth but they support it anyway.

But enough of that sick-of-all-the-damn-lies rant about how Trump is an idiot and Hillary is this accomplished genius.  I shall proceed to move on to another fact and rant about that.

Our mainstream media is dominated by “reporters” like the “objective journalist” who publicly offered to give Bill Clinton a blowjob for keeping abortion legal.  Again, this was and still is a “journalist.”  Nina Burleigh is still out there “reporting” the news, folks.  It’s her way of getting on her knees and performing her function for Bill and all the elite white men like Bill.  Because THAT’S the true spirit of “feminism.”  And feminists are only too willing to betray womanhood, motherhood and femininity just for the “right” to murder that baby who depends for survival on the basic humanity and decency that you don’t have any of.

Based on how the news media is “reporting the news” (I call it “perverting the news”), fully 89% of “journalists” would gladly get on their knees and hungrily give Bill Clinton that blowjob.  And Harvard says it’s actually over 90%.  Because these people are warped and biased and have utterly and completely betrayed any sense of objective journalism.  They are using their jobs the same way Joseph Goebbels used his job, as propagandists rather than reporters.

Because it is the nature of liberalism to stand for nothing transcendent or objectively true or good or valuable.  They stand for the pursuit of fascist power and the ability to dominate others by government fiat, and for nothing else.

And in a long pattern of abject liberal hypocrisy, the Clinton Foundation just shut off the lights on their “charity” that was NOTHING but a political favors-for-funds operation based on the political power and influence of the Clinton brand.  Conservatives were screaming it for YEARS and the mainstream media just yawned and yawned, but the moment Hillary got destroyed by Donald Trump, all of a sudden all the wealthy people and human-rights-abusing dictatorships that were giving the Clintons BILLIONS suddenly shut down the “charitable donations.”  Oh, I know what you’ll say, liberal: it was just a coincidence that the whole operation shut down after Hillary lost; no “pay-for-play” here.  I mean, the honest, objective mainstream media would have reported that story and screamed about it for five months the way they’ve gone after Trump, right???  Oh, wrong.

And so now Trump tries to form a coalition to deal with the evil of our time – and that evil is Islamic terrorism – and all of a sudden the same liberal media that couldn’t have given less of a damn when Obama gave BILLIONS to dictatorship Iran, with Hillary and Bill receiving $100 million from human-rights and women’s-rights oppressing regimes – are all of a sudden aghast and appalled that Donald Trump would go to Saudi Arabia and try to get fifty Islamic Sunni states to join him in the fight on terror.  And dang I remember how silent they all were when the Clintons were raking in giant loads of cash from the same and even WORSE regimes.  Oh, and they’re butthurt about Russia having conveniently forgotten about all those deals the Clintons made with Russia and various Russian power-players.  These “reporters” are so far beneath “despicable” it’s beyond unreal.

We got the Anderson Cooper eyeroll to the point where the man’s pupils disappeared into his empty skull.

Here’s another “journalist who would gladly give Bill Clinton a blowjob, fwiw.  And had a conservative-minded journalist done that to Valerie Jarret, it would have instantly been decried as “sexist.”

Is it any surprise whatsoever that such a turd would host a program with a vile terrorist shrew like Kathy Griffen???

And oh, we find that this is a common point of view for CNN hosts.  That and eating human brains.

Liberals are rattlesnakes.  They are utterly incapable of any “charitable” instinct whatsoever.  They gave the Clintons billions which the Clintons set up as a front and siphoned funds at will, and that well kept flowing until the Clintons suddenly had all of their political clout taken away.

Because ultimately liberalism stands for NOTHING but the pursuit of raw power and the ability to shape and control people in their image and for nothing else.

You hypocrites.

So we get to Chelsea.  You need to understand: if there exists in this world a poster child for generational white-power privilege, Chelsea is the “It girl.”

This “feminist” who never did one damned thing for herself once famously said in the quintessential morally-self-unaware self-congratulation, “I was curious if I could care about [money] on some fundamental level, and I couldn’t.”

I was curious if Chelsea would be able to pass up the six-hundred-thousand-dollar-a-year “media” job from leftist NBC where she didn’t even have to bother to show up to get paid.  But she couldn’t.

On the liberal diatribe, that $600,000 could have gone to feeding the poor!  But liberals have never given one flying damn about the poor.

So they’ve given this chick who has produced NOTHING in her life that wasn’t derivative from her daddy’s political clout.

Because that’s liberalism.  To put it in Shakespearean terms: much ado about nothing.

But that hasn’t stopped the liberal establishment – which speaks about the poor from the vantage point of looking down upon the poor like interesting insects with telescopes from high lofty towers in media, in Hollywood, in entertainment, in both Washington and Wall Street, in academia – from giving Chelsea award after award.  Because she is the Great White Hope.

So what does she say that is a simple demonstration that liberals deserve to be subjugated and dominated and destroyed by their very own standards applied against them???

This:

Chelsea Clinton hasn’t won a lifetime achievement award in several weeks, but that doesn’t mean she’s off the speaking circuit. The Presidential progeny has been out promoting her children’s book about her mother, She Persisted, and Monday appeared at the annual conference for Cooperative for Assistance and Relief Everywhere (CARE).

Needless to say, the “activist, thought leader and change agent” as she was described in the program’s agenda,  had a number of worthwhile contributions to the discussion, which centered around empowering the oppressed—something with which the heir to the Clinton legacy has little practical experience.

Her advice to the legions of underprivileged women looking to affect change on a community level wasn’t particularly scintillating—”we have to always start by listening and calling out and giving a platform, and encouraging, particularly, those who are and have been structurally dis-empowered”—but the disgruntled Chelsea had some harsh words for those who don’t share her progressive ideology.

They should be silenced if they don’t agree with Chelsea Clinton.

“I think though that we also have to recognize particularly at this moment that sexism is not an opinion, Islamophobia is not an opinion, racism is not an opinion, homophobia is not an opinion, jingoism is not an opinion,” she told the panel.  

This appears to mean Chelsea doesn’t believe people who she considers racist, sexist, homophobic or Islamophobic—which could be practically anyone moderate-to-right-of-center lacks the basic right to speak their minds.

That could, of course, include her own parents who, at one time, were virulently opposed to the practice of gay marriage, were instrumental in implementing the bizarre “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy that kept gays from open service in the military, who spoke strongly against Islamic fundamentalism, and who once labeled a class of criminal, “super-predators.”

Her thoughts didn’t end there. Asked to comment on “global poverty,” Clinton suggested that climate change and global warming were somehow “interconnected” with child marriage, a practice performed mostly in the Eastern world, and mostly the result of backwards cultural norms, not rising ocean tides and extreme temperature.

Fortunately for Chelsea, CARE is a decidedly progressive organization, that prides itself on encouraging foreign aid and wealth redistribution in the name of social justice, so they didn’t ask too many questions.

These words are amazing: “We also have to recognize particularly at this moment that sexism is not an opinion. Islamophobia is not an opinion. Racism is not an opinion.  Homophobia is not an opinion.  Jingoism is not an opinion.”

Because let me just slightly alter them and let’s see what we get:

“We also have to recognize particularly at this moment that anything that in any way, shape or form contradicts the message of Prophet – blessings be upon him! – is not an opinion.  Refusal to follow peace by submission to Allah is not an opinion.  Disobedience to the caliphate is not an opinion.  Anything that contradicts sharia is not an opinion.”

Islam has the right to attack us, to kill us, to dominate us, to subjugate us.  And the most powerful “opinion” for that innate right does not come from the Qur’an, or from the Ahaddith.  No, it comes from the worldview of liberalism as it is being expressed right now today by Democrats, by liberals in the media, in entertainment culture, in academia and even in the halls of science.

They have the same right to declare that everything America stands for is “not an opinion.”  Not to be listened to.  Not to be acknowledged.  Not to be refuted or even rebutted.

If liberalism and the secular humanism that liberalism is based upon is all we have, we should perish and we most assuredly WILL perish.

We are teaching our children not to tolerate anything they do not want to hear.  We are encouraging them to violently refuse to tolerate anything they do not want to hear.

And I know about a system that does an even better job with violence and intolerance.  It’s called “Islamic jihadism.”

And when they come and blow you up until they have enough power to stand over you bound-and-helpless and saw your heads off with a knife because what you stand for “is not an opinion,” well don’t come crying to me.  Because all that is is your own view coming right back to saw your damn stupid demon-possessed head off and it is nothing more.

Let me try to explain something: liberalism is a posture of standing upon nothing with feet firmly planted in midair.  It is the assertion that they alone possess objective truth when these very same people have spent DECADES undermining that anything called objective truth even exists.

“Foundationalism” is a theory of knowledge seeking the answer to the question, “Can human beings know that something, anything is really true?”  And there are all kinds of reductionism- and minimalism-based experiments that would disprove that we in fact can even theoretically know anything is “objectively true.”  Because according to their thinking, we are purely subjective beings to begin with.  We are mere evolutionary animals, and as such products of a completely random, purposeless, valueless descent from the moment the cold, unthinking, unfeeling universe spat our mindless ancestors into existence until the same cold, unthinking, unfeeling universe swallows us all back up again and there is nothing remaining of human civilization but cold, lifeless space.  There ARE no “foundations” for truth, these people have assured us for decades: only cultural determinism (which WE determine!); only the apotheosis of nature (ignoring the fact that “nature” understood this way ought to produce what is commonly called “social Darwinism” where we CRUSH the poor and the weak and the sick as unfit rather than give them welfare for life); only power reductionism where we consider ONLY the aspects of “power” that we want to see and ignore everything else; and above all the project to deny objective, transcendent meaning and value in ever more sophisticated ways.

Foundationalism ultimately rests upon one truth: human beings CAN know truth because a truth-knowing God created us in His image to be able to know the truth, and to be set free by it.

That USED to be what our society and our culture believed.  Which is why our Central Intelligence Agency actually inscribed in their main lobby a passage of Scripture from Jesus in John 8:32 that “characterizes the intelligence mission in a free society“: “And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.”

From free at last to free no more.

Freedom “is not an opinion.”  So shut it down.  Scream it down.  Burn it down.  And Democrats have done precisely that well over a hundred times all across the country just in the last few months.

A foundationalist believes in the correspondence theory of truth, which is this: “the correspondence theory of truth says that a proposition is true just in case it corresponds to reality, when what it asserts to be the case is the case. More generally, truth obtains when a truth bearer stands in an appropriate correspondence relation to a truth maker.”

Democrats are postmodern and anti-foundationalist.  Which means the denial of the correspondence theory, “claiming that truth is simply a contingent creation of language which expresses customs, emotions, and values embedded in a community’s linguistic practices. For the postmodernist, if one claims to have the truth in the correspondence sense, this assertion is a power move that victimizes those judged not to have the truth.”

At least until, of course, THEY can be the ones in power victimizing everyone else as not being able to have the right to even have a damn OPINION.

Years back, as I saw the horror that would be the Obama presidency, as I saw that true intellectual and moral cancer that was enveloping the Democratic Party through his ascension, I wrote three articles:

How Postmodernism Leads To Fascism (part 1)

How Postmodernism Leads To Fascism (part 2)

How Postmodernism Leads To Fascism (part 3)

And no one who sees the Democratic Party and the mainstream media that serves as its propagandist arm, along with the entertainment industry, the academic industry, etc. etc., psychologically unravelling into unhinged lunatic hysteria over the Donald Trump presidency can deny that I did not spake as a prophet in those articles.  Because everything I said would happen is now happening times about a thousand.

And so the same people who would have been self-righteous in holy anger had George W. Bush gone to Europe to undermine President Barack Obama as he went on his first foreign trip of his presidency to visit NATO headquarters are hypocritically lavishing praise on Barack Obama for doing that very thing to Donald Trump.

So Obama – a man personally responsible for a one-thousand-nine-hundred percent increase in terrorist-caused deaths since he took over the presidency – is the living embodiment of saying, “Peace, peace, when there IS no peace.”

Obama’s worldview has bathed the world in blood.  And this coward now says that cowardice is “courage.”  When no, it was the weak, pompous dithering of a pathetically stupid man who lied to the American people and caused his intelligence system under his control to feed the media lies to hide his failures.

And so in the aftermath of the cosmic failure that was Obama, the Department of Homeland Security chief is saying, “If you knew what I know about terror, you’d never leave the house.”

The Europeans know terror full damn well, as a necessary result of their multi-culturalism was the commission of suicide by inviting in people who wanted to dance in their blood as they metastasized their caliphate over the bodies of a people and a culture too stupid and too pathetic and too cowardly and just too damn smug to comprehend what they were doing.

I cited an essay above by J.P. Moreland (a former professor of mine, fwiw) as an expert in the difference between foundationalism and postmodernism.  And I just finished pointing out the nihilist doom the politically correct Postmodern and anti-foundationalist mindset that has overtaken Europe.  So let me end as Moreland ends:

In her provocative book entitled Longing to Know, Ester Meek asserts that humans as knowers exercise a profound responsibility to submit to the authoritative dictates of reality. Thus, “It is not responsible to deny objective truth and reality in knowing; it is irresponsible. It is not responsible to make the human knower or community of knowers the arbiters of a private truth and reality; it is irresponsible.” Again, Meek claims that “Good, responsible knowing brings blessing, shalom; irresponsible knowing brings curse.” In another place Meek warns that “…the kind of freedom implied by the thought that we humans completely determine our reality leaves us with a gnawing sense of the relative insignificance of our choices. I think it leads not to total responsibility but to careless irresponsibility, both with regard to ourselves and with regard to other humans, not to mention to the world. And, paradoxically, it leads not to a deeper sense of [communal or individual] identity and dignity but to a disheartening lack of it.” […]
Meek goes on to point out that the achieving of knowledge and the teaching of it as knowledge “…calls for courageous resolve. And this courageous resolve, when proven true, merits the deep admiration of others.” The need for such courage is especially grave today as we labor in an intellectual milieu in which the worldviews of naturalism and postmodernism both entail that there is no non-empirical knowledge, especially no religious or ethical knowledge.
Faced with such opposition and the pressure it brings, postmodernism is a form of intellectual pacifism that, at the end of the day, recommends backgammon while the barbarians are at the gate. It is the easy, cowardly way out that removes the pressure to engage alternative conceptual schemes, to be different, to risk ridicule, to take a stand outside the gate. But it is precisely as disciples of Christ, even more, as officers in His army, that the pacifist way out is simply not an option. However comforting it may be, postmodernism is the cure that kills the patient, the military strategy that concedes defeat before the first shot is fired, the ideology that undermines its own claims to allegiance. And it is an immoral, coward’s way out that is not worthy of a movement born out of the martyrs’ blood.
And yes, that’s EXACTLY what the secular humanist, postmodernist left has done for decades.  They have attacked the sacred and left us with nothing but the profane.  They have undermined our culture with their pretensions of truth-denying postmodernism and value-and-meaning-denying existentialism.  We are left with our feet firmly planted in midair, with no foundation to provide us with any footing.  And that’s why terrorism skyrocketed by one-thousand, nine-hundred percent under Obama’s catastrophically failed presidency.  We WON the in Iraq and had Islamic terrorists on the run – al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula stated in transmissions “We are defeated.  Don’t send any more foreign fighters.”  And Obama managed to steal defeat from the jaws of victory.  We needed courageous moral leadership and Obama gave us red lines that he backed down from over and over again.  Even Obama’s own Secretary of State acknowledged that Obama’s display of weakness “cost us significantly” by leading other nations to see America as WEAK.  We needed a commander-in-chief and we got Obama instead, who issued incredibly restrictive rules of engagement that literally murdered our troops.  And made it impossible to even fight, let alone win.
Obama is a fool because he is a liberal, and liberals believe in foolishness.  Liberals declared war on God and therefore war on truth.  And now these very hypocrite fools who declared that there IS no “truth” are now purporting themselves to be the ONLY way, the ONLY truth and the ONLY life.  And so they have waged war on the followers of Christ.
I want you to understand so I keep repeating this point: if evolution is all there is there IS no good that we should aspire to.  Rather, we ought to be watching Nat Geo Wild and trying to outdo the lions and the hyenas in predation upon ANY organism including our next-door-neighbors who are in any way sick or weak or unfit.  Because that IS nature; that IS life “under the sun,” as the Book of Ecclesiastes puts it.  And ONLY when we realize – and realize as a matter of official government policy as our founding fathers did and oh-yes-they-DID recognize that we were created in God’s image and as a result and ONLY as a result endowed with inalienable rights by our Creator – that there IS a GOD who CREATED us in HIS image and ONLY as a result of that Imago Dei are we are all precious.  If not, kill the weak rather than giving them welfare and be done with it.  But otherwise, humanity needs an enema and it needs to begin by flushing all secular humanism out of our collective colon.  Because it is moral fecal matter that leads to intellectual fecal matter such that the more degrees someone has today, the stupider they have become.  See Colossians 2:8: “Don’t let anyone capture you with empty philosophies and high-sounding nonsense that come from human thinking and from the spiritual powers of this world, rather than from Christ.”
I continue to remain appalled that the liberal witches on the view actually claimed that Christians – the primary victims of Islamic State horror – are “no different from the Taliban” because we believe in a God who loves us and gave His very life for us so we could be with Him and live like Him when all they believe in is crocodiles and a savage nature that does nothing but hate and kill.
It is simply a genuine fact that while not every Muslim is a terrorist, virtually every terrorist attack today is committed by a MUSLIM.  But like the fact that the emperor happens to be completely naked believing he’s wearing beautiful fashion because he’s a fool, the left is pathologically hell-bent on being oblivious to reality.
In Europe, which the American left dreams we would become because they vastly prefer Hitler’s and Stalin’s to George Washington’s and our founding fathers’ values, political correctness which emerges from postmodernism has become a death pact.  With liberalism, we don’t have “lone wolves,” we have “KNOWN wolves.”  We know who these people are and we know what beliefs motivate them to not only homicide but the intent to commit genocide.  We know over and over again EXACTLY who these people are.  But we can’t do anything about it because the left won’t let us do anything about it.  They can even appear on our television programs and tell us they want to kill us.  And the left demands that we keep importing more and more of them into our countries, importing thousands of them, tens of thousands of them, hundreds of thousands of them.  And ANY attempt to staunch that flood is “racist” or “Islamophobic.”  It requires 20 highly-trained intelligence agents to monitor just ONE terror suspect and there are now TENS OF THOUSANDS of terror suspects.
Terrorists and liberals want the same basic thing: totalitarian control.  And frankly Kathy Griffin let the head out of the damn bag.  Because it is now an indisputable fact that liberals want the President of the United States’ bloody severed head as much as Islamic State want it.  They are the same people with a slightly different crazy religion.
And liberals are THE leading apologists for Islamic terrorists.  Why do I say that?  Obama has done it.  Hillary has done it.  John Kerry has done it.  They’ve ALL along with many other Democrats decried America and American values and Western values as inciting terrorism.  Why shouldn’t we a travel ban?  Because it would be used to recruit more terrorists, they assure us.  Which is what they said about Gitmo.  Or hell just doing anything to fight back.  And consider the constant rhetorical jihad that “climate change” is responsible for terrorism.  So who caused climate change?  Why the WEST of course.  Which means WE cause terrorism.  And terrorists OUGHT to kill us because we’re killing the planet!!!  It goes back to Hitler: the victim is a monster and thetefore the monster who murders the victim is actually a hero.
When President Trump pulled the USA out of the idiotic Paris Accord the mainstram media actually called him a “murderer.” Want to know who the REAL murderer is?  Try the previous president responsible for that one-thousand, nine-hundred percent increase in terrorist-massacre under his regime.
  1. Mind you, electing a woman president as leader of the world where Islam won’t even allow a woman outside by herself or drive a car or get an education wouldn’t do any such thing because NOBODY but NOBODY is more tolerant toward women than Muslims, right?  What’s that, you say?  99.3% of Egyptian women say that’s crazy?  The women of Sweden who have seen sexual assaults skyrocket 500% as Muslim refugees have flooded into their country say that’s crazy?  Well, liberals don’t care about stupid facts.  But anyway, back to the point: the left blames us for terrorism.  They blame global warming they say we cause, income inequality they say we cause, travel bans, intolerance, whatever.  And so they are in the bizarre and frankly evil position of siding with the vicious predatory monsters who are murdering us.  Because Muslim terrorists are the victims and Western Civilization is the one causing all the problems.  It’s so amazing it’s beyond unreal, but here we are.
We are being killed and we are being terrorized.  And response of the same left that gave us and defended pornography and let’s not forget “Piss Christ” as “art” are now giving us this:

Covered-Up Chic: Big Brands Are Waking Up to Modest Fashion
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESSMAY 31, 2017, 4:15 A.M. E.D.T.

LONDON — When Ruba Zai uploaded her first video online, the Netherlands-based Afghan student just wanted to share with other Muslim girls and women how she styled her headscarf. She had no idea that her “hijab tutorials” would be an internet hit, watched by hundreds of thousands worldwide.

The 23-year-old now blogs full time, sharing ideas for how to look trendy yet covered-up with a million Instagram followers. Zai had tapped into a fast-growing market for so-called “modest fashion,” fuelled by young, style-savvy Muslim women from London to Malaysia who have long felt their needs ignored by mainstream designers.

“I just couldn’t relate at all to the clothes you see in the mainstream brands,” she said from her home in Rotterdam. “When we first started talking about our style on social media, there was no interest in the fashion world in this group of people: ‘They’re just Muslims, why should we target them?'”

Big brands have been waking up to that call, and covered-up chic is a niche that’s slowly making its way into mainstream fashion. From exclusive designers to fast-fashion chains, retailers are trying to court millions of Muslim consumers — especially around the month of Ramadan, which started last week, when many Muslims buy new clothes and dress up. In 2014, U.S. fashion house DKNY was one of the first Western brands to launch a Ramadan collection aimed at wealthy Arab shoppers.

Let’s call it what it is, just as we call out every other attempt of liberals to refuse to allow us to fight the war on terror: SUBMISSION.

 

Advertisements

Progressive Liberalism Is Responsible For The Spread Of Islamic State Among U.S. Youth

May 21, 2015

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

I vividly recall a former professor of mine who described the personal impact of his visit to Auschwitz.  The thing that hit him hardest, he said, was when he looked into the rooms where the Nazis had collected all the possessions of the death camp victims: a giant room filled with suitcases here, another room filled with human hair there.  And the thing that hit him at that moment was that ideas have consequences, and that the virus that created Auschwitz and all the camps like it had emerged decades before they were constructed.  It was ideas like atheism, Darwinism, Nietzscheism, existentialism and deconstructionism that became the intellectual foundation upon which those camps were built.  The virus began in the halls of academia – just as our most cancerous and most toxic ideas spread here and now – and spread throughout a German culture which had abandoned belief in God beyond any culture around it.  Because of the work of German liberal theologians such as Julius Wellhausen, Franz Delitzsch, Gerhard Kittel, Paul Althous, Emanual Hirsch, among others, the reliability and integrity of the Bible was stunningly undermined to the degree that the Bible was nothing more than a collection of myths and fables.  Oh, there were true Christian intellectuals such as the great Dietrich Bonhoeffer – who himself would perish in the camps – but these were too few and far between to counter the toxic avalanche of secular humanism all around them.  And as the impact of the vile philosophy and theology of Nazism began to spread, there was simply nothing substantial to counter it.

THAT is precisely where our culture is today and it is coming from the same theological and philosophical traditions.

Martin Heidegger was and actually remains a darling among liberal academia.  It is only a slightly embarrassing fact that the man’s existentialist philosophy enabled him and even drove him to be one of the most ardent Nazis in Germany – such that he first became a member of THE most radical Nazi faction and ultimately lost his rectorate at Frieburg after his political patrons were purged for being TOO extreme before Hitler was ready to take the next step.  Heidegger formally abandoned his Catholicism – which conflicted with both his philosophy and his Nazi politics.  His existentialism drove him to determine to break with “Hebraism” as well as all “metaphysics,” “But to achieve such a rupture, Christian and humanist values would have to be discarded too” [from The German Churches Under Hitler: Background, Struggle, and Epilogue by Ernst Christian Helmreich, 1979, p. 215].

Christian humanism and secular humanism went to war – and secular humanism won in pre-World War II Germany.  And then proceeded to murder all its Christian rivals.

Martin Heidegger was a profound influence upon many of THE most prominent atheists over at least the next thirty years.

Another example of this very same phenomenon is seen in the deconstructionist philosopher Paul De Man.  His work in deconstructionism was adored by the political left and the man was a devout Nazi

And then you’ve got Ezra Pound, the famous literary theorist – and Nazi – who denounced Christianity as something “riddled with semitism” as Hitler himself directly quoted in his Mein Kampf.

These men, along with Hitler, had the project of first tearing Christianity down and ultimately tearing it out by its roots and burning it.  They construed a conflict between “nature” and “anti-nature” (which is one of the reasons why Nazism – and its adherents such as Heidegger – was an environmentalist movement.  On their narrative, Judaism and Christianity were both “anti-nature” because of their focus on a transcendent God and transcendent moral values that restricted the freedom of man and nature.  Whereas nature is immanent.  The Nazi project was to forge a counter-spirituality that would enable the people to find fulfillment even as the Nazis were freed to exercise their power of will.  The Nazis attacked Christianity from hypocritical premises: on the one hand, they assailed Judeo-Christianity for its intolerance and its fostering of guilt even as they, on the other hand, attacked it for its altruism, for its protecting the weak against the strong, for its clear political implications resulting in liberty and equality.  Ezra Pound argued that there was “no sense of social order in the teachings if the irresponsible protagonist of the New Testament” (quoted in The Geneology of Demons, Anti-Semitism, Fascism, and the Myths of Ezra Pound by Robert Castillo, 1988, p. 95].  The Nazis blamed the Protestant Reformation for the revival of Hebrew texts (the Bible) and ways of thinking, and thus for the decline of Europe.  Even though the so-called “Enlightenment” began AFTER and BECAUSE OF the Protestant Reformation.

When the epidemic virus of Nazism became a full-fledged pandemic in German culture, it was because Judeo-Christianity had been weakened, if not eradicated, and because there was no competing intellectual, philosophical, religious, theological alternative to prevent, stop, or even slow down its rise.

And the same thing not only IS happening but already HAS happened in the United States.  And we are seeing the consequences all around us as the National Socialist German Workers Party is reborn as the National Socialist American Workers Party driven by the identical philosophical and religious notions.

The same philosophical traditions – if not the same actual philosophers themselves – that enabled the rise of Nazism continue to dominate the leftist intellectual tradition today: postmodernism, existentialism, deconstructionism, logical positivism, religious liberalism.

It’s all too easy to document the American progressive liberal disdain for Judeo-Christianity and for the integrity and reliability of the Bible which informs it and is its source and foundation:

Obama mockingly asks, “Whose Christianity would we teach in the schools?”  Because Christianity is nothing more than a man-made religion and it is completely relative and totally bound by culture and subject to constant change for the simple reason that there is and can be no eternal, everlasting God to make it permanent.  And Obama mocks, “Which passages of Scripture should guide our public policy?”  Because the Word of God is nothing more than the word of man and bigoted, intolerant, racist man at that.  And it is immoral to allow Judeo-Christianity or the Bible to have ANY role in our culture as a result.

And we all shouted, “Sieg Heil!  Sieg Heil!  Sieg Heil!  Heil Obama!  Heil Obama!  Heil Obama!”  Because there is nothing left BUT Obama to hold this culture or this nation together.  Or to put it another way: if this nation has a God or a moral code that Obama has NOT mocked and undermined and ignored, I’d like to know who He or she or it is.  (In this age where the left has embraced the transgender man-woman shemale, I suppose you have to consider all the myriad possibilities).

So we’re seeing the same deterioration of “God” in the American political socialist left that we observed in the German political socialist left as it rose to power.  Just like Obama, Hitler began talking about his “Christianity,” but it sure didn’t take long before – the same way Obama promised that “as a Christian” he was opposed to same-sex marriage to imposing the very thing he said that “as a Christian” he was opposed toHitler told his inner circle that he was a devout atheist who had abandoned any notions of a God other than himself.  What he said in his speeches wasn’t any more true than what Obama said in his speeches.  And Christianity has been annihilated in America much the way it was in Germany leading up to the Nazis who took the next logical step with the worldview of Darwinism.

I also find it striking how liberal Democrats are exploiting race versus how the Nazis exploited race.  Both rose to power by making race and racism an issue and encouraging people of race to politically rise against another race due to perceived injustices.  The Nazis screamed, “The Jews have usurped power and they’re oppressing you!”  The liberal Democrats scream, “The whites (particularly white men) have usurped power and they’re oppressing you!”

Now we’re seeing the assured results of leftist-progressive Democrat Party rule as criminality and violence skyrocket wherever liberalism touches.  Liberals are demagoguing race to turn our justice system against our system of justice – and justice is being raped and tortured and murdered as a result.

I mean, “why is white America so reluctant to identify white college males as a problem population?”  I mean, after all, Hitler showed us how to do it with the Jews.

The Jesus whom the Nazis and whom Obama mocked told us, “In the last days, race will rise against race.”  but what did that white-male-embraced Jew know, anyway?

Crucify Him!  At least that’s what the Nazis did.  That’s what Islamic State is doing now.  And as for liberal Democrats, they not only are fine with crucifying Jesus, they’ll stick Him in a jar of urine while they do it.

Progressive liberals demanded that – back when America was STILL overwhelmingly Christian and believed in God – that in the cause of “free speech” we allow such vileness.

Now the same liberals who demanded the right to immerse Christ in piss demand that now that they’ve got the upper hand free speech should be abolished.  It’s who they are.  Again, because they’re just like the Nazis.  Who are just like Islamic State.

The Christianity of our founding fathers – and our very founding fathers themselves – – have been torn down in scorn.  And so the Constitution based on that Christian worldview is the next casualty.

“I think we can say that the Constitution reflected an enormous blind spot in this culture that carries on until this day, and that the Framers had that same blind spot. I don’t think the two views are contradictory, to say that it was a remarkable political document that paved the way for where we are now, and to say that it also reflected the fundamental flaw of this country that continues to this day.” — Barack Obama, Sept. 6, 2001

To me it is absolutely no surprise whatsoever that our first president to classify America as “a Muslim nation” prophetically declared the complete separation between America and its founding fathers and their Constitution a matter of FIVE DAYS before the very Islam that he would embrace and elevate to a status directly alongside Christianity would attack us.

The rise of Islamic State and the rise of Obama are hand-in-hand.  The former could never have arisen without the latter.

The men who wrote our Constitution declared in their basis for it – the Declaration of Independence – that our rights come from God, not from any government.  But that didn’t work for liberal Democrats who wanted sodomy-perversion marriage and sixty million murdered babies.  So they agreed with the Nazis that there is “no sense of social order in the teachings if the irresponsible protagonist of the New Testament” and threw Christianity out.  So that “social order” could be whatever THEY declared it to by exercising the same power of the human will that Hitler exalted.

Precisely what is it that our liberal-Democrat-hijacked public schools are teaching our children about our God or our culture that will provide a powerful force for them to fight for what is right and fight against what is wrong?  Or to put it in Obama’s mocking terms, “Whose morality would we teach in the schools?”  Do we teach the morality of an everlasting God or do we teach the constantly adapting Darwinian bug morality of Obama?

We are watching the world unravel from without even as we are watching our very cities unravel from within.  Because this is a nation that stands for NOTHING that is transcendent just as Nazi Germany stood for nothing that was transcendent before us.  And we rabidly reject the very NOTION of transcendence because it interferes with our adoration of homosexual sodomy erected upon our altar of sixty million murdered babies.

Kids in liberal Democrat public indoctrination centers aren’t being taught to revere our foundations – they have been taught to mock and despise them.

So why not embrace the values of Islamic State?

Violence is encouraged by liberal Democrats.  First the rioters were given literal permission to riot.  The police were ordered to stand down and allow them to riot.  Then it became racist to criticize the rioters.

Hey, if you like violence you’ll LOVE Islamic State.  Why not join up and spread the love?  You can burn and loot and murder to your heart’s content.

In the rise of Islamic State, we are watching what the liberal-Democrats of Hollywood created: a culture of violence that stands for NOTHING BUT DEATH act out its “values.”

I keep seeing snippets of the numerous videos that Islamic State recruiters are spreading all over the internet.  And you know what I keep seeing?  I keep seeing a video game.  The Islamic State videos look just like what I see when I see the snippets of the video games that liberal Democrats of Hollywood and Silicone Valley pumped into our kids’ brains.

Hey, kids!  You can live our your video game fantasies!  Join Islamic State and you can actually BE in the video game world!

And why not?  Why shouldn’t you?  I mean, murder isn’t really all that “wrong” given that we’ve murdered sixty million babies and that’s “right,” right?  And the same intolerant Christian God who says murder is wrong also says homosexuality is wrong and we ALL know that’s right, right?  And I mean, seriously, whose version of Christianity are we going to teach?  Whose passages of Scripture should guide our public policy?

Come on, why not try the Qur’an instead, kids?  I mean, after all, this IS a Muslim nation, you know.

I’ve been talking about how the liberal-progressive Democrat WORLDVIEW has actually directly participated in the rise of terrorism.  But let’s not forget Obama’s miserable national security and foreign policy performance that have allowed Islamic State to rise from a virtually unheard of tiny offshoot group based in Syria when Bush was president to owning the largest terrorist caliphate in the history of the world because of Obama.  I’ll quote one of my own titles that I back up with facts ad nauseam: No One On EARTH More Responsible For Rise In Islamic Terrorism Than Our Own Terrorist-in-Chief, Barack Hussein Obama.  And it is an easy-to-document FACT that Barack Obama DIRECTLY enabled Islamic State to spread by refusing to deal with Syria after cowardly retreating from his own “red line” AFTER cutting-and-running from Iraq in abandonment of EVERYTHIG his own generals WARNED WOULD HAPPEN if Obama did what Obama in fact did.

You need to go back and remember history – something IMPOSSIBLE for a liberal to do – to see how Obama and his mouthpieces claimed credit for the Arab Spring (and see here and here for more proof of that) that the terrorists used to massively advance their own cause.  It is also a matter of history that the Arab Spring that Obama claimed so much credit for actually WERE the result of Obama in the form of FOOD RIOTS he created throughout the Middle East due to the fact that all the Arab states that sell oil have to be tied to the U.S. dollar – with Obama’s massive debt massively devaluing the values of Arab currencies leading to rioting.

It doesn’t matter HOW you slice it: it comes up Obama and the vicious failure of liberal progressive Democrat Party ideology.

What I’m saying here is that the fact that for all practical purposes, Barack Obama and the Democrat Party have completely surrendered to radical Islam – whether you talk about Obama allowing and even outright encouraging Islamic State to spread by a) doing NOTHING in the Syria that now thanks to Obama controls more than half of that country and b) Obama’s completely cutting-and-running from Iraq in abandonment of EVERYTHING our generals demanded we do to preserve the security of that country; or whether you talk about Obama allowing and even outright encouraging Iran to develop a nuclear bomb and the ballistic missile system to deliver it and therefore encourage nuclear proliferation in the remaining Muslim countries as they talk about their bomb – the real crisis was already present and already metastasizing in our culture.

Islamic State is rising.  And neither so-called “moderate Islam” itself or the defiled formerly “One Nation Under God” America that is now “God Damn America” have anything to fight it with.

Which is why the once greatest nation in the history of the world – a nation that uniquely called upon the God of the Bible – will go down so hard, so violently, in such an ugly, awful manner.

It’s funny.  Progressive liberals claim to be anti-rape, but as a direct result of their moral system, we have seen rapes and sexual assaults SKYROCKET.  And I’m sure it’s a complete surprise to you, unless you first consider that it’s kind of obvious that the inevitable result of teaching children that they are NOT created in the image of God, that they WILL act like the animals their teachers claim they are.  I mean, Muslims love to slander Jews by labeling them “the descendants of apes and pigs.”   But according to evolutionary theory we are that and worse: the descendants of flies and roaches.  And surprise, surprise that our kids would start acting like what liberal progressives have said they are all along.

In the same manner, it’s the same way with the economy: should we really be surprised when the liberal progressive Democrats’ embrace of an economic system based entirely on atheistic godlessness (where omnipotent Government takes the place of God), class-warfare-incited envy and bitterness would necessarily fail every single time it is tried no matter how many times it has failed before?  And yet here we are, with Obama’s miraculous “wreckovery” sinking America year-by-year under Obama into the WORST labor participation rates – measuring the percentage of working-age Americans who actually have a job – we have seen in forty years.  Right now the labor participation rate – six years into Obama’s so-called “recovery” – has more than 93 million Americans without a job and little hope of ever finding one in a rate that is the worst we’ve seen since Jimmy Carter’s socialism was destroying America in 1977.  I wrote about the metastatic spread of the Obama economic cancer in a nice little summary in a different article I wrote in 2013:

Again, I talked about that when I pleaded with the American people to NOT choose stupidity and suicide in the 2012 election:

In 2010 – and this was AFTER we supposedly were out of the recession in Obama’s “wreckovery” –  the labor participation rate was 64.5%, which was at a 25-year low (i.e., lower than it had EVER been under Bush).

In 2011, the labor participation rate dropped to 63.9%, the lowest level in 27 years.

Last year in 2012 under Obama’s failed policies it fell to the lowest level in 30 years.

And here we are today.  You’ve got to go back to the dismal failure of the Carter era in the late 1970s to get such an awful participation rate.  It’s now the worst its been in 34 years.

Now it stands as the worst America has seen in 38 years.  But who does Obama demonize for his fail?  Bush.

It is a fact that “If the workforce participation rate today were as high as it was on the day Barack Obama was inaugurated, the unemployment rate in this country would be 9.7 percent.”  His current unemployment rate is based entirely on statistical shenanigans and outright lies.  Under Barack Obama’s economic miracle “The yearly income of a typical US household dropped by a massive 12 percent, or $6,400.”  Obama has literally robbed us blind while telling us he’s making us rich – and pure fools believe his lies.  Meanwhile, in spite of the fact that Obama has demagogued class-warfare more than any president in history, his actual record has produced the widest gap between the rich and the poor in his economy EVER MEASURED.  Meanwhile, Obama’s destruction of our health care system is closing down hospitals, driving doctors out of medicine and leaving the poor with “insurance” that leaves them unable to get healthcare outside of clogging up our emergency rooms.  The scourge of chronic homelessness is a giant plague beyond anything we’ve seen in the most liberal-Obama-friendly citiesHomeless camps are sprawling across the city of the Angles.   In fact, “the number of tents, makeshift encampments and vehicles occupied by homeless people soared 85%, to 9,535, according to biennial figures from the Los Angeles Homeless Services Authority.”  Cities are going BANKRUPT with debt in numbers not seen since the Great Depression under Obama.    I wrote about that massive problem in 2012.  It was still a massive problem in 2013.  It’s still a massive problem now as Chicago goes bankrupt under one of Obama’s chief acolytes due of course to Obama-style debt and insane socialist spending policies.  Cities like Detroit look like World War II bombed out war zones.  Race riots dominate the Obama presidency as the vile, toxic bitterness of the left metastasizes in violence.  I wrote about the liberal stupidity of liberal Baltimore  and how liberals have proved last-days prophecy is coming upon us – and look at the impact of their foolish, wicked “management” of the crisis they created.  Obama depicting himself or his policies as being the savior to the poor is rather akin to Adolf Hitler depicting himself and his Third Reich as the savior for Jews.  And I state that as a categorical FACT that I just documented at length above if you look at the FACTS.

To the extent that the economy or jobs has anything to do with the rise of terrorism and the Islamic State, as liberal progressives keep telling us, again, look no farther than at THEM for producing the miserable economy and the awful jobs performance.

The beast is coming.  And he is coming because liberal progressives have “fundamentally transformed” America into a nation that WILL NOT reflect the image of a good God, but will rather exalt their will over Him.  Which is a prescription for judgment and doom.

 

Don’t Be Captured By The Strongholds Of Human Reasoning

January 23, 2015

Obama yes we can to WHAT

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

We are human, but we don’t wage war as humans do. We use God’s mighty weapons, not worldly weapons, to knock down the strongholds of human reasoning and to destroy false arguments. We destroy every proud obstacle that keeps people from knowing God. We capture their rebellious thoughts and teach them to obey Christ. – 2 Corinthians 10:3-5 NLT

MSNBC Adds Bigoted To Its Bias: ‘You’re Ignorant Because You’re White’

March 19, 2011

This is just absolutely stunning.

MSNBC‘s Lawrence O’Donnell shows us how totally over the top rabid liberal non-Fox News networks truly are.

Here is a transcript of what this fool passes off as “journalism” today:

O’DONNELL: Perhaps all of Michele Bachmann’s staff come from her district, which may be the most ignorant Congressional district in America. In 2010, 52 percent of that district voted for Michele Bachmann to represent them in Congress. Now, she had already proven time and time again to her district and to America that she is unworthy of representing any Congressional district in America. But 52 percent, the same percentage in that district who voted for John McCain for president, voted for Michele Bachmann in 2010.

What makes those voters so ignorant? Well, for starters, they are whiter than the average district. 92 percent white in fact.

Noel Sheppard at Newsbusters continues to take the “sane” out of O’Donnell’s insanity:

What? They’re ignorant because they’re white? Are you kidding? O’Donnell continued:

O’DONNELL: But that explains nothing. Missouri’s 8th Congressional district is 91 percent white and has been represented by Jo Ann Emerson since 1997. We do not have a litany of imbecilic comments by Congresswoman Jo Ann Emerson. In fact, we have none. If we’ve missed any, please submit them to our website, thelastword.msnbc.com, and we’ll see if they compare to Michele Bachmann’s.

Well, if that “explains nothing,” why bring it up? It’s almost like O’Donnell and his staff knew they were going too far with the 92 percent white remark, and felt they needed to soften it a little by bringing up Emerson’s district.

But the damage was already done. After all, imagine for a moment Bachmann was black, Emerson was black, these were black districts, and the commentator was a conservative:

What makes those voters so ignorant? Well, for starters, they are blacker than the average district. 92 percent black in fact. But that explains nothing. Missouri’s 8th Congressional district is 91 percent black and has been represented by Jo Ann Emerson since 1997. We do not have a litany of imbecilic comments by Congresswoman Jo Ann Emerson. In fact, we have none. If we’ve missed any, please submit them to our website, thelastword.msnbc.com, and we’ll see if they compare to Michele Bachmann’s.

You think that would have gone over well in the black community, or would there be calls Tuesday for said conservative commentator’s immediate termination?

I guess along with feeling comfortable attacking white women as long as they’re conservative, O’Donnell now feels it’s acceptable to go after all white people.

I am so sick and disgusted with liberals.  They are completely depraved people with a completely warped view of the world.

Liberals like Lawrence O’Donnell are totally committed to postmodernism, multiculturalism and pluralism.  It’s not that they are intellecutally brainless idiots as much as it is that they have totally committed themselves to totally false theories about the world.  Like the whole “Emperor’s New Clothes” story, these “intellectuals” have convinced themselves that their theories are the stuff of genius.  Only the more they try to explain their genius theories, the more utterly idiotic they start sounding.

Let’s talk about liberals and God; more specifically about MSNBC, Lawrence O’Donnell, and God.  Said O’Donnell on his MSNBC soapbox:

The book of Revelation is a work of fiction describing how a truly vicious God would bring about the end of the world. No half-smart religious person actually believes the book of Revelation. They are certain that their God would never turn into a malicious torturer and mass murderer beyond Hitler’s wildest dreams. Glenn Beck, of course, does believe the book of Revelation.

There is a reason why the Bible says, “The fool says in his heart, ‘There is no God'” (Psalm 14:1).  And that is because any worldview which does not begin with a divine worldview is already wrong, and can only go more and more wrong as it continues to postulate bad answers to fundamental questions.

Our founding fathers understood this, and their understanding enabled them to found the world’s oldest democratic republic.  They realized that democracy – a limited government of the people – demanded that people be able to govern themselves.  And that only a moral and religious people could pull that off. 

They fought a war over this principle encapsulated in the Declaration of Independence:

“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.” – Declaration of Independence

And so we have the words of Adams:

“We have no government armed with the power capable of contending with human passions, unbridled by morality and true religion. Our constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.” — John Adams

And Washington:

“Of all the habits and dispositions which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports.  In vain would that man claim the tribute of patriotism who should labor to subvert these great pillars.” — George Washington

But liberalism fundamentally denies this principle, and constantly seeks for the results of the French Revolution rather than the American Revolution.   They refuse to realize that the atheism-based French Revolution inevitably resulted in first chaos and madness, and then a dictator (Napolean seized power within a decade); and that France has had 11 separate Constitutions since 1793, and at least fifteen different governments.  Thomas Jefferson rightly said that, “With all the defects in our Constitution, whether general or particular, the comparison of our government with those of Europe, is like a comparison of Heaven with Hell.”

But multiculturalist, pluralist, postmodernist secular humanists that dominate liberalism like Lawrence O’Donnell literally seek hell.

Can a white man be an anti-white male-bashing bigot?  You’d assume not, until you realize that people like Lawrence O’Donnell are so damn arrogant that they view themselves as transcending their own race and gender even as they claim that everyone else beneath them is a slave to their own.  But the fact of the matter is – to quote Barack Obama – “yes, we can.”  We can believe a theory that necessarily makes us hate ourselves.

Take Karl Marx.  The man was profoundly anti-Semitic.  He was also a Jew.

Here are some quotes from the VERY Jewish “intellectual” Karl Marx:

“The Jews of Poland are the smeariest of all races.” (Neue Rheinische Zeitung, April 29, 1849)

“Ramsgate is full of Jews and fleas.” (MEKOR IV, 490, August 25, 1879)

“What is the Jew’s foundation in our world? Material necessity, private advantage.

“What is the object of the Jew’s worship in this world? Usury. What is his worldly god? Money.

“Very well then; emancipation from usury and money, that is, from practical, real Judaism, would constitute the emancipation of our time.” (“A World Without Jews,” p. 37)

“What was the essential foundation of the Jewish religion? Practical needs, egotism.” (Ibid, p. 40)

“Money is the zealous one God of Israel, beside which no other God may stand. Money degrades all the gods of mankind and turns them into commodities. Money is the universal and self-constituted value set upon all things. It has therefore robbed the whole world, of both nature and man, of its original value. Money is the essence of man’s life and work, which have become alienated from him. This alien monster rules him and he worships it.

“The God of the Jews has become secularized and is now a worldly God. The bill of exchange is the Jew’s real God. His God is the illusory bill of exchange.” (“A World Without Jews,” p. 41)

And what about the most rabid anti-Semite of all time?

Hitler ‘had Jewish and African roots’, DNA tests show
Adolf Hitler is likely to have had Jewish and African roots, DNA tests have shown.
By Heidi Blake 6:25AM BST 24 Aug 2010
 
Saliva samples taken from 39 relatives of the Nazi leader show he may have had biological links to the “subhuman” races that he tried to exterminate during the Holocaust.

Jean-Paul Mulders, a Belgian journalist, and Marc Vermeeren, a historian, tracked down the Fuhrer’s relatives, including an Austrian farmer who was his cousin, earlier this year.

A chromosome called Haplogroup E1b1b1 which showed up in their samples is rare in Western Europe and is most commonly found in the Berbers of Morocco, Algeria and Tunisia, as well as among Ashkenazi and Sephardic Jews.

“One can from this postulate that Hitler was related to people whom he despised,” Mr Mulders wrote in the Belgian magazine, Knack.

Just as Caucasian and male “journalist” Lawrence O’Donnell is clearly related to people he despises.

Can you be of a certain race and yet actively despise that race?  I think we’ve established that you most certainly can, if you’re vile enough.

So yes, we’ve got Lawrence O’Donnell, anti-white bigoted man-despising white male.

Lawrence O’Donnell is a pathological liberal ideologue.  Progressive liberal pseudo-intellectualism is rabidly anti-white and anti-man.  And so O’Donnell is those things, too.  And the fact that O’Donnell is the very things he despises is at best a minor detail to him.  Because liberals NEVER worry about inconvenient things like facts.

I would add one other element to the mix: the ingredient of self-hatred which is so necessary to liberalism.

Understand: liberals constantly agitate for policies that will bring about their nation’s certain destruction.  You don’t do that sort of thing unless you hate yourself, hate the next generation, hate your country, and literally embrace your own extinction.

At some deep subconscious level, liberals like Lawrence O’Donnell recognize that they are swine, that they are nasty, nasty people.  And from that point forward everything else just sort of oozes out of them like toxic slime from a poorly-designed container.

MSNBC has the right to broadcast.  Unlike the fascist liberals who constantly agitate to force Rush Limbaugh and Fox News off the air with oxymoronic legislations such as “the fairness doctrine,” I accept that right.  But that doesn’t mean anyone but fools need to watch it.

Obama ‘believes that words are a substitute for reality’

April 8, 2010

Newt Gingrich gave the following sober assessment of Barack Obama:

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

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

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

Youtube:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.

Some Thoughts On The Russian Invasion Of Georgia

August 12, 2008

Vladimir Putin – who is most likely as much in control of Russia as he ever was – has said that the collapse of the U.S.S.R. ranks as “the greatest political catastrophe in history” and claimed that its reintegration was a matter of “historical destiny.” And he has been working for years toward reunifying and synchronizing the former Soviet empire under Russian rule.

But this was an empire that Ronald Reagan described as evil. The great and just passed Soviet dissident Alexander Solzhenitsyn provided the intellectual and moral grounds for that assignation in his Harvard address, “A World Split Apart.” Solzhenitsyn began by saying, “Harvard’s motto is Veritas” (i.e., truth). And then he proceeded to launch into a sobering examination of Veritas.

It was a speech that excoriated not only the Soviet Union, but also the West for its immorality, materialism, and godlessness. It provoked outrage among liberal academia and sparked indignant editorials in the liberal media. “He believes himself to be in possession of The Truth,” the New York Times editorialized in what amounted to the ultimate postmodernist condemnation, “and so sees error wherever he looks.” But other columnists, such as Michael Novak, called the address, “The most important religious document of our time.”

Solzhenistsyn’s address raised postmodern issues and examined history in a distinctly Christian way. Its very title alluded to the postmodern condition: “A World Split Apart.” He affirmed traditional cultures against the all-encompassing mass culture of Western secularism. He dissected the West’s materialism and concern for comfort and pleasure, which he argued had drained away our capacity for courage and sacrifice. he deplored the way our laws had been disconnected from morality. “Society has turned out to have scarce defense against the abyss of human decadence, for example against the misuse of liberty for moral violence against young people, such as motion pictures full of pornography, crime, and horror,” he said. He blasted the irresponsibility of the news media and the West’s “TV stupor.” Your scholars are free in the legal sense,” he said, “but they are hemmed in by the idols of the prevailing fad.” He attacked “humanism which has lost its Christian heritage,” and cited the obsolescence of the “ossified formulas of the Enlightenment.”

Solzhenistsyn’s point was that the West had largely forfeited the moral and intellectual resources needed to confront genuine evil. With no absolute canons of objective truth, the moral and even the rational is replaced by the aesthetic. We believe in what we like. Today, people unused to thinking in terms of absolute, objective truth still have opinions and strongly held beliefs. In fact, their beliefs prove to be even more difficult to dislodge, because they admit to no ultimate external criteria by which they can be judged and be shown to be wrong. Since their beliefs are a function of the will, they cling to them willfully. Since their beliefs will tend to have no foundation other than their preferences and personality, they will interpret any criticism of their beliefs as a personal attack. Engage practically anyone in a discussion of some controversial issue today, and this problem will show itself.

As evil rises on the march, how do we confront it, when we do not even believe that it exists or know what it is? How can we unify to stop it when we are fractured into this identity group or that? How do we rise up and sacrifice to stop such evil when we are focused on our immediate comforts and environments?

Russia under former KGB officer Vladimir Putin has largely eradicated the fledgling democracy that had slowly been building and embracing a totalitarian state.

We are in a malaise. And I believe that it is the outrage over that malaise that prompted Paul Zannucci to write what he described as “an unadulterated rant.”

It sounds like the Russians are ceasing their military operations. Whether they will now consolidate their gains, or withdraw, is an open question. Very likely they will do the former, and the democratically elected government will give way to a Russian-installed puppet government. Certainly the two Georgian provinces that were leaning toward Russia will be seized from Georgia.

But this is very likely not the end of Russian maneuvers in their former satellites. Ukraine is very likely next. After the dust-up from Georgia begins to settle, I believe we will see Russia begin to exercise the same under-the-radar political strong-arm tactics that it used against Georgia prior to the shooting.

Ultimately, I believe that a coalition based on mutual self-interests will form between Russia and Islam. Russia wants its former satellites back; Muslims want Israel to be wiped off the map. And the large Muslim populations of eastern Europe may agree to Russian headship if Russia helps them annihilate the state of Israel.

We can already see this alliance forming, as Russia increasingly forms a military alliance with the rogue Islamic state of Iran.

And that is probably a major part of the America hesitation in dealing with the Russian invasion of Georgia: if we alienate Russia, they won’t help us reign in the nuclear ambitions of Iran.

My view is this: if we are counting on Russia – which has actively been aiding Iran’s nuclear ambitions by providing equipment and expertise – to help us dissuade Iran from doing what it has repeatedly asserted that it is intent upon doing, then we might as well be waiting for a cold day in hell.

Do we have the moral will to prevent these frightening scenarios from unfolding?

If we look back to Hitler’s Nazi Germany, we see Hitler boldly moving on one of his neighbors (e.g., Czechoslovakia, Poland), and then waiting to see what the international reaction would be. When he sensed the reaction was weak, he moved again. And he kept moving in bolder and bolder fashion until a pacifistic West finally woke up to a global conflagration that it had failed both to prevent or even to prepare for.

Most of the world – including our “allies” in the West – have succumbed to a malaise that is frighteningly similar to that of their ancestors. Our European allies have come to believe that we can appease evil by compromising and bargaining with it. Military action is to be avoided at all cost.

Meanwhile, our enemies feel no such similar constraints about using military action and/or terrorism to obtain their ends.

We can no longer count on our allies to truly stand with us. It is up to the United States to realize that evil can no more be contained than cancer, that cancer spreads unless destroyed, and that force must be met with force. Meanwhile, more and more of our enemies and former enemies are beginning to take steps that will lead to terrifying consequences in the years to come unless they are stopped.

Let me say, by way of a political observation, that the United States cannot prevent or stand against evil by becoming more like our European allies. Both the history of human civilization and a study of the great religious systems of man tell us that we cannot compromise with evil. Winston Churchill did not argue that we should be like Europe when it surrendered and compromised and ignored the storm that was overtaking it; he argued that Britain had to stand against Nazi fascism with everything it had. We must stand against evil. Even if that means standing alone.

It’s going to be up to the United States and Israel to contain Iran’s nuclear ambitions. And it’s primarily going to be up to the United States to contain Russia’s ambition to restore its former Soviet-era territorial greatness.

Can we mobilize the awareness, the courage, and the willingness to sacrifice to prevent these things from happening?

Only if we begin by listening to the warning of the late, great Alexander Solzhenitsyn.

Lord Nelson And Captain Cook Throw More Cold Water On Global Warming

August 5, 2008

Fox News Special Report ran this story yesterday:

Ahoy Alarmists!

The ship logs of Lord Nelson, Captain Cook, and other British sailors are casting more doubt on the theory that global warming is man-made.

The Telegraph newspaper reports that a group of British academics and scientists has examined more than 6,000 logs which describe an increasing number of storms over Britain in the late 17th century.

Many scientists currently believe such storms are caused by global warming. But these storms occurred during a period known as the Little Ice Age which affected Europe from about 1600 to 1850. The records also show Europe experienced a spell of rapid warming during the 1730s, well before man could have had any impact on climate change.

Sunderland University researcher Dennis Wheeler says, “Global warming is a reality, but our data shows climate change is complex. It is wrong to take particular events and link them to carbon dioxide emissions.”

The Telegraph story is here.

I have written two articles specifically pertaining to the science (and pseudo-science) surrounding global warming:

What the Science REALLY Says About Global Warming

What You Never Hear About Global Warming

There is virtually no question that the moderate global warming we see today is the result of 1,500 year (+/- 500 year) climate cycles that have virtually nothing to do with carbon dioxide. It is also becoming clear that out magnificently created planet has the capability to deal with excess carbon by means of such”natural theormostat” capacities as a tropical climatic heat vent.

What we should realize is that warming is generally a good thing. Human civilization has historically flourished when the climate was warm – even warmer than now – and struggled through ice ages.

I have come to realize that the people who are screaming about “the crisis” of global warming – including the scientists – are the same people who would be avidly pursuing the exact same socialist redistribution policies if there weren’t any global warming. In other words, their politics are the cause of their scientific conclusions, rather than the result of them.

What is truly frightening is not global warming, but the fact that in this age of postmodernism, politicians, scientists, and journalists are increasingly willing to pervert science and misrepresent reality in order to advance a political agenda. The pursuit of leftist ideology is replacing the pursuit of truth in institution after institution. It is increasingly being considered okay to engage in revisionism, whether it is in history, anthropology, journalism, or science, as long as it is for a “good cause.” Hence we have Al Gore, who clearly engaged in extremist and paranoid bogus fact claims, receiving a Nobel Prize alongside “scientists” for his film.

That’s the real reason for alarm over “global warming.”

How Postmodernism Leads To Fascism (part 3)

May 3, 2008

[See Part 1 of this article here.]

[See Part 2 of this article here.]

Today, in universities across the country, we are seeing honored faculty fired for no better reason than that they disagree with one or another tenet of “political correctness.” Lawrence Summers was essentially fired from his position as president of Harvard University for raising the possibility that many factors apart from discrimination or bias could explain why there were more men than women in high-end science and engineering positions. Guillermo Gonzalez, as assistant professor at Iowa State, was denied tenure and fired for having written articles arguing that a purposive cause is the best explanation for certain features of our cosmic habitat. David Eaton said, “As alumni at ISU, we are appalled that the current Iowa State administration would stoop to expelling a brilliant young scientist and gifted instructor from the classroom, not for teaching about intelligent design or even mentioning it in his classroom, but for simply committing the thought crime of advocating it [in a research paper] as science.” The documentary film Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed presents scientist after scientist who were fired merely for advocating the possibility of an intelligent cause to the universe. Ben Stein calls attention to the terrifying process of such a stifling of academic and scientific freedom. Fascists and Marxists had no qualms persecuting and stifling unwanted thought among their intellectuals; Western universities should have great qualms over such persecution, but increasingly do not.

Might similar restrictions to individual freedom spill over from the university campuses to the society as a whole? Bureaucracies, legislatures, and the courts are exhibiting similar “sensitivity” in their zeal to fight “harassment” and in their ever-widening application of civil rights laws. If we ever come to the point of “affirmative action laws” forcing churches to ordain women against church teachings; or “anti-discrimination laws” requiring Christian organizations to hire homosexuals; or “political-lobbying laws”; or the laws we’re even now seeing in Europe forcing churches to remain silent on social issues such as abortion or homosexuality; then religious freedom will have been extinguished. Already some postmodernist sects explicitly advocate and demand such measures; all they lack is the power to impose their will. Still, they are gaining more and more power every single day. Brigitte Bardot went on trial in France for the fifth time for “inciting racial hatred” for insulting Muslims. She’s hardly alone: a number of writers and journalists such as Oriana Fallaci and Michel Houellebecq have likewise been pursued by the French government over the law against “insulting Islam.” Christians there still seem to be quite fair game, however.

Postmodernist theorist Stephen Conner acknowledges that there is “a strange dialectic which pushes renunciation of authority and of unified form to a point of absolute impotence, which may then loop back into a renewed assertion of nihilistic power” (Conner, Postmodernist Culture, p. 213). In other words, for a growing number of postmodernist advocates, “There is no valid authority whatsoever, but you had still better do as we say if you know what’s good for you.” Leftist revolutions tend to follow a very predictable order: At first, the revolutionaries renounce all authority and all established structures. Once the authorities are overthrown and the structures demolished, the revolution enters a new phase. New authorities and new structures are imposed. Most revolutions, however, at least had some criteria for their new societies – the French Revolution’s Enlightenment rationalism, the Russian Revolution’s Marxist economics, the Iranian Revolution’s commitment to Islam. A postmodernist revolution, however, rejecting all such absolutes, would be completely arbitrary; self-consciously constructing a society governed only by the nihilism of power.

“Theoretical extremity,” “rage,” “nihilistic power” – such recurrent themes of postmodernism – do not bode well for maintaining a free, democratic society. Most people do not realize that the tenets of postmodernism have been tried before in a political system. Social constructivism, cultural determinism, the rejection of individual identity, the rejection of humanism, the denial of the transcendent, power reductionism, the rejection of reason, and the revolutionary critique of the existing order are tenets not only of postmodernism but of fascism. We embrace these ideas at our most deadly peril.

Many of the ideas that came together in the fascism of the 1930s survived Word War II and continued to develop in postmodernist thought, hidden away from overt identification with fascism due to a desire to put behind an ugly past. Fascists taught that reality is a social construction, that culture determines all values. Particular cultures and ethnic groups therefore constitute their own self-contained worlds, which should be kept uncontaminated, although these groups will often compete w/ each other. Individuality is a myth; particular human beings can only find fulfillment when they lose themselves in a larger group. “Humanistic values” are a myth; there are no absolute transcendent moral laws by which the culture can be judged. These are “Jewish” – i.e., Biblical – ideas that are responsible for the alienation, guilt, and instability of Western culture. Strength, not love and mercy, must be the true expression of a culture’s will to power. Collective emotion, not abstract reason (another “Jewish” contribution), must be cultivated as the culture’s source of energy.

It is interesting to ask precisely why the Nazis hated the Jews. The reflexive answer is racism, but that is not nearly adequate enough. There were many other racial groups that did not face such Nazi hatred. What did the Nazis see in the Jews that they thought was so inferior and so dangerous? What was the Jewish legacy that, in the Nazis’ minds, had so poisoned Western culture? Precisely what were the “Aryan ideals” that the Nazis sought to restore, once the Jews and their influence were purged from Western culture?

One must realize that the fascists aligned themselves not only against the Jews but against what the Jews contributed to Western culture. The idea of a transcendent God, who revealed a transcendent moral law, was anathema to the fascists. (Interestingly, it is increasingly anathema to many individuals and intellectuals again today. Political figures, actors, television personalities, and journalists routinely demonize religion as oppressive). Such transcendence, the Nazis argued, alienates human beings from nature and from themselves. Fascist intellectuals sought to forge a new spirituality, focused upon nature, human emotions, and the community as directed by the state. The fascists sought to restore the ancient pre-Christian consciousness, ancient myth sensibility, in which individuals experience unity with nature, with each other, and with their own deepest impulses and desires.

Thus fascism was essentially a spiritual revolt against the Judeo-Christian tradition and against the Bible. Those who simplistically blame Nazism on Christianity because Adolf Hitler had been baptized a Catholic as a baby could not be more wrong or – for that matter – more of an example of the very sort of propaganda that Nazis had thrived upon. Some Nazis proposed keeping Christianity as long as it was completely stripped of its “Jewishness,” but ALL Nazi intellectuals demanded a rebellion against the transcendence that is at the very heart of both Judaism and Christianity (hence the term “Judeo-Christian” to denote the worldview). George Steiner wrote, “By killing the Jews, Western culture would eradicate those who had “invented” God… The Holocaust is a reflex, the more complete for being long inhibited, of natural sensory consciousness, of instinctual polytheistic and animist needs” (In Bluebeard’s Castle: Some Notes Towards the Redefinition of Culture (New Haven, CT: Yale Univ. Press, 1971), p. 41). And we are seeing the same profound hostility being directed against transcendent values and the Judeo-Christian tradition which upholds those values today.

As Hannah Arendt describes, 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.” In her next sentence, she goes on to complete her thought, “He then proceeded: “After a short while, gentlemen, we shall meet again. Such is the fate of all men. Long live Germany, long live Argentina, long live Austria. I shall not forget them.” In the face of death, he had found the cliché, used in funeral oratory. Under the gallows, his memory played him the last trick; he was ‘elated’ and he forgot this was his own funeral. It was as though in those last minutes he was summing up the lesson that this long course in human wickedness had taught us – the lesson of the fearsome, word-and-thought-defying banality of evil” (Hannah Arendt, Eichmann in Jerusalem (New York: Viking Penguin, 1977), 252).

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. And as we increasingly abandon the same worldview the Nazis so utterly despised and embrace in its place the same basic worldview the Nazis sought to replace it with, we will have a similar return of just such an emotive state of rage, and just such a “word-and-thought-defying banality of evil” as intellectuals unleash the monster yet again. History repeats itself, precisely because fools refuse to comprehend the lessons of history.

Many people at the time saw fascist ideology as liberating. Just as with the postmodernism of today, fascism was the favored view of both the intellectual elite and the avant garde artistic movement of yesteryear. Martin Heidegger, Paul De Man, Ezra Pound, D.H. Lawrence, W.B. Yeats, George Bernard Shaw, Wyndham Lewis, T.E. Hume, Roy Campbell, T.S. Elliot, Carl Jung, Margaret Sanger are among the many who supported fascism in the 1930s. Stephen Spender acknowledged, “Some of the greatest modern writers sympathized with fascism” in his introduction to Alastair Hamilton’s book, The Appeal of Fascism: A Study of Intellectuals and Fascism, 1919-1945. These intellectuals of yesterday – just as the vast majority of our present intellectuals today – simply had no idea of the consequences of the ideas they so naively embraced. But their social constructivism and social determinism, put into practice, meant totalitarian oppression. Its rejection of the individual meant the extinction of liberty. Its rejection of objective moral values meant that there could be no restraints on the actions of the state, resulting in eugenics programs, secret-police terrorism, and the euthanasia of the handicapped and “unwanted.” Its ideological hostility to the Judeo-Christian tradition led to the co-opting of the church by syncretistic theologies, the suppression of confessional Christianity, and mass extermination of the Jews.

Ideas have consequences. The worldview that resulted in the Holocaust death camps and a war that ignited the world was born in the minds of German intellectuals and supported by intellectuals across the oceans. Postmodernism – which frighteningly shares fascist presuppositions, is far more dominant today than fascism ever was. In the United States alone, we have exterminated nearly 50,000,000 human beings out of an attitude that is eerily similar to the mindset of Lebensunwertes Leben (literally, “life unworthy of life”) that led to so much horror when the worldview captured a nation last time.

“National Socialism” would institute a controlled, state-directed economy that would work for the good of the nation. The state would solve all of the people’s problems. The organic state, conceived as the source of all values and of all good, would acquire a mystical status, taking the role of God and receiving the devotion of all of its members. As in the ancient pagan societies, before the alienation brought into the West by the Bible, the culture would be fully integrated with nature and with the gods. [Compare this with the sharia-based state dreamed of by Islamic fascist jihadists to understand the linkage between fascism and this frightening understanding of Islam]To react against modernism is in many ways to revert to the primitive, the barbaric. The fascism of the 1930s was never a conservative movement (despite Marxist propaganda that polemically defined fascism as its polar opposite), but it was a reaction against the objectivity, rationalism, and alienation of the “modern world,” a reaction structurally parallel to that of the postmodernists. Fascism, like postmodernism, had its origins in romanticism, with its primitivism and subjectivity, and existentialism, with its rejection of absolutes and with its “triumph of the will.” Hitler may have failed because he was ahead of his time. He would have a much larger and much more global following were he to return today.

Which is precisely why I believe another Hitler will return, again with the cheers of the masses.

“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.” – Journalist Stephan Laurent, who had been imprisoned for questioning the Fuhrer.

How Postmodernism Leads To Fascism (part 2)

May 2, 2008

[See How Postmodernism Leads To Fascism, part 1.]

We can begin to see that the presuppositions of postmodernism lead us inexorably toward a totalitarian – and ultimately a fascist – state. And yet these philosophical principles are held by a growing number of today’s intellectuals. The fascist ideas of the 1930s and 40s did not begin in the mind of Hitler; rather, they slowly germinated in the minds of German intellectuals until the ideology attained a sufficient following such that a Hitler could ignite his culture.

To be completely clear, the vast majority of postmodernists today do not explicitly advocate totalitarianism, nor do they even want it. On the contrary, they actually intend their positions to be liberating, freeing oppressed groups from the “one truth” view proclaimed by what they suppose to be oppressive cultural forces. But it is extremely difficult to see how their premises could in any way support a free society as the implications of those premises begin to manifest themselves. Clearly, democracy rests on the precise OPPOSITE of postmodernist tenets – on the freedom and dignity of the individual, on the foundation of human values, on the validity of reason, on God rather than the state as the source of all values, on a transcendent moral law that constrains both the tyranny of the state as well as the tyranny of individual passions.

Thoughtful postmodernists are themselves becoming aware of the dangerous political implications of their ideology. Steven Conner recognizes that rejecting universal values leads either to “the adoption by default of the universal principle that might is right; or to the sunny complacency of pragmatism, in which it is assumed that we can never ground our activities in ethical principles which have more force than just saying, “this is the sort of things we do, because it suits us.” (In the end, in fact, the pragmatic option will always turn into the agonistic, since it will only work satisfactorily until somebody refuses to agree with you, or refuses to allow you to disagree with them” (Steven Conner, Postmodernist Culture: An Introduction to Theories of the Contemporary (Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1989), pp. 243-44).

By “agonistic” Conner means struggle. (And here we arrive at the example of the typical liberal Muslim contextualizer’s blithely muddying the waters with alternative speculations regarding the word “jihad,” even as tens and even hundreds of thousands of “jihadists” openly talk about violence and/or carry out incredibly violent acts). The end result of postmodernism is necessarily violent struggle. The only alternative to transcendent values is a power struggle in which might makes right. Many postmodernists do in fact proudly claim to be pragmatists – they will work to solve particular problems and adjust to life in a flexible way, without any kind of overarching moral code. Conner realizes that pragmatism alone must turn into a power struggle whenever it confronts opposition. Conner notices also “the apocalyptic inheritance from Nietzsche… which suggests that the only form of value is to be found in the embrace of theoretical extremity” (Ibid., p. 212), which is simply another catch phrase for “violence.”

This is to say, postmodernists tend to be extremists. [We see this today in pro-abortion and pro-gay groups, who consistently steer away from objective argumentation and justify their actions simply by saying “it suits us to do this.” Then they employ crushing political and legal power in an attempt to destroy their opponents]. We are seeing such tactics with increasing frequency at universities (which are supposed to be bastions of free speech). The very people and groups who demanded a voice because of the human right to free expression now oppose by any means the right of others to have such freedom. Students are now routinely shouting down invited speakers (such as former California University of California regent Ward Connerly over his stance on affirmative action policies) or use even more aggressive measures to shut down or intimidate speech they oppose. The most terrifying development of all is that universities – once bastions of academic and intellectual freedom – are now themselves routinely shutting down conservative speech as well.

Groups opposing (and oppressing) free speech for conservative-friendly ideas claim that such speakers and organizations are “intolerant,” and thus do not deserve free speech. But they merely demonstrate their own profound intolerance; the conservatives, after all, are doing nothing more than disagreeing with them. The whole point of tolerance has always been to tolerate those with whom you disagree. But such is no longer the case. Now the “tolerant” feel perfectly justified in shouting down and intimidating the right of others to even speak.

While classical Marxism has been discredited in former communist countries, it still appeals to Western intellectuals, partly out of sheer rebellion against their own societies. But theirs is a different form of Marxism from that of Engels and Lenin. Classical Marxism believes that economic change, culminating in socialism, will transform the culture. The new Marxists – following the teachings of Italian Communist Antonio Gramsci – teach that cultural change must precede socialism. Today’s left emphasize cultural change. Changing America’s values is seen as the best means for ushering in the socialist utopia. This is why the Left today champions any cause that undermines traditional moral and cultural values and why leftists gravitate to culture-shaping institutions such as education, the arts, and the media (for influence of Gramsci on the American left, see Carl Boggs, Gramsci’s Marxism (London: Pluto Press, 1976), and S. Steven Powell, Covert Cadre: Inside the Institute for Policy Studies (Ottawa, IL: Green Hill Publishers, 1987).

Post-Marxist radicalism constructs new revolutionary ideologies by replacing Marx’s concern for the oppressed working class with other oppressed groups (such as blacks, women, and gays). Status and moral legitimacy come from being “excluded from power.” The victim has the favored role (see Charles Sykes, A Nation of Victims: The Decay of American Character (New York: St. Martin’s Press, 1992). As an example of this line of thinking, much current postmodernist thought views racism as a power relation, rather than as an attitude. Since blacks are not and were not in a position of power in America’s racial scheme, they claim, they cannot cause racially disparate effects and thus cannot be racist. No matter how much they might despise or even injure people merely on account of the color of their skin.

Because of the “romance of the marginal,” even affluent university professors cast themselves in the role of victim of oppressive power (take, for example, former University of Colorado professor Ward Churchill. This is a man who lied about his resume, lied about his ethnic background to obtain preferential treatment, plagiarized the works of other scholars, routinely engaged in fraudulent un-American hate speech in the name of scholarship; and yet was still held up by the left as a martyr-figure, persecuted for his views). Scholarly papers today quiver with outrage, self-pity, and “theoretical extremity.” To be black, female, or gay is to enjoy a sort of secular sainthood. But even these categories are segmenting and unwinding into ever-smaller sects of victimology. Interestingly, this is a complete reversal of Nietzsche’s “eagle vs. lamb” presentation: on this view, it was weak (and frankly pathetic, on Nietzsche’s view) Christian morality using guilt and shame to attack the superior, essentially postmodernist view that he championed. Today, postmodernists – who embrace Nietzsche’s premises – have made themselves the “lambs” and those advocating Christian morality the “eagles.” That’s a rather fascinating study of self-contradiction in itself, especially given the fact that Christianity today is far less culturally influential than it was during the time that Nietzsche wrote!

Amongst postmodernists, as John Leo reporting on an academic conference at a California University (“Today’s Campus Politics Seems Right Context for Meeting on Rage,” Milwaukee Journal, 6 July 1993, p. A9) “There was a general agreement that America is inherently oppressive and that the only correct response is to organize around group victimization and rage.” Individual groups, fueled by their self-righteous indignation and recognizing no moral constraints beyond the interests of their groups, are not a genuine threat to society beyond the constant threat of terrorism (but consider tree-spiking environmentalist groups and lab-bombing animal rights organizations). However, as an entire movement, postmodernism is exerting its power and influence over society. And once its advocates are able to obtain power, they proceed to use every oppressive means to hold that power and prevent the ones they continue to call “oppressive” from having a voice.

An article in National Review by Allen Levite begins, “Is there a prevailing liberal bias among the major news media? Until now, this has been largely a matter of opinion. Conservatives typically complain of it, while liberals often deny its existence. It is usually admitted, however, that political liberals are much more heavily represented among people working for the major media than among the general public. The well-known study by S. Robert Lichter, Stanley Rothman, and Linda Richter, The Media Elite, based on in-depth interviews with 238 major-media journalists, found that liberals outnumbered conservatives by 54 per cent to 17 per cent. A nationwide Los Angeles Times study (August 11, 1985) administered its own poll to 3,000 reporters and editors and got almost exactly the same result: 55 per cent liberal and 17 per cent conservative. (The Times survey, which also polled 3,000 members of the general public, found that in the latter group 24 per cent were liberal, 29 per cent conservative, and 33 per cent ”neither,” a striking contrast to the findings for journalists.)” The article titled, Bias Basics: the data clearly demonstrate that liberal journalists report the news liberally, proceeds to document just that fact. While a biased media does not itself entail fascism or totalitarianism – which invariably controls the media and uses it for propaganda purposes – it does present yet another troubling sign: a willingness to allow an agenda to prevail over objectivity under the very masquerade of objectivity.

Already free speech (condemned as “B.S.” by the gay activists at the “Rage!” conference) is being restricted on campuses – both by informal pressure and by statute – in the name of sensitivity to aggrieved groups. The anti-democratic implications of postmodernism are evident in the explicit rejection of “free speech” and presumably other human rights (See Stanley Fish, “There’s No Such Thing as Free Speech and It’s a Good Thing, Too” in Debating P.C.: The Controversy over Political Correctness on College Campuses, ed. Paul Barman, (New York: Laurel, 1992)). Stanley Fish, a literary theorist and administrator at Duke University who is at the center of the “politically correct” controversies, argues that universities should censor offensive speech. Fish admits that he has no objective standards by which to judge. Robert Lundin summarizes Fish’s thinking: “Since all principles are preferences – and only preferences – they are nothing but masks for the will to power, which is the ultimate source of what we call “values.” Instead of appealing to authority outside of ourselves, we can only seek to marshal our rhetorical abilities to wage the political battles necessary to protect our own preferences and to prohibit expressions of preference that threaten or annoy us. Fish is candid about the groundlessness of his own beliefs and about his willingness to wage political battles to silence those of whom he disapproves” (Lundin, Culture of Interpretation, p. 25). “Someone is always going to be restricted next,” says Fish, “and it is your job to make sure that someone is not you” (Anderson, Reality Isn’t What It Used to Be, p. 13). In other words, scream first, scream loudest, and be willing to go to any lengths – including violence – in order to obtain your own will to power over and against competing voices.

Arthur Pontynen summarizes the connection between postmodernism and “political correctness” policies on the university campus: “Because there is no wisdom, we are told, there is no such thing as free speech (and policies are put into place to limit free speech on campus). We are told that there is no such thing as individual responsibility and dignity (and policies are advocated which promote the treatment of persons not on the basis of individual merit but on the basis of such restrictive categories as race, gender, and class…). We are even told that there is no such thing as science, only meaningful fictions; that there is no such thing as culture, only paradigms of oppression” (Arthur Pontynen, “Oedipus Wrecks: PC and Liberalism,” Measure, February 1993, p. 2).

[Continue to How Postmodernism Leads To Fascism, part 3.]