Culture & Lifestyle

Rant

Hitler-Champion of Socialism

Posted 30 months ago|49 comments|1,100 views
Written by
Out Of The Box
 Moderator
The notion that anyone in our current political arena could be compared to a Nazi has been called absurd. Surely, the Nazis were all about the extermination of anyone who didn't fit their nationalistic views. Right wing to the extreme, and willing to do whatever it took to preserve the purity of "the master race."

But like any political movement, there were differing ideals, and internal struggles which could have moved the party one way or the other. If not for Hitler's strength in resisting and beating back those within the party who sought to weaken his vision for the German people, Germany might never have become more than just another generic European country.
So who was Hitler? What made his appeal so irresistible?


Edward Feser wrote this in 2004, called "Profile of a Candidate"

"He had been something of a bohemian in his youth, and always regarded young people and their idealism as the key to progress and the overcoming of outmoded prejudices. And he was widely admired by the young people of his country, many of whom belonged to organizations devoted to practicing and propagating his teachings. He had a lifelong passion for music, art, and architecture, and was even something of a painter. He rejected what he regarded as petty bourgeois moral hang-ups, and he and his girlfriend lived together for years. He counted a number of homosexuals as friends and collaborators, and took the view that a man's personal morals were none of his business; some scholars of his life believe that he himself may have been homosexual or bisexual. He was ahead of his time where a number of contemporary progressive causes are concerned: he disliked smoking, regarding it as a serious danger to public health, and took steps to combat it; he was a vegetarian and animal lover; he enacted tough gun control laws; and he advocated euthanasia for the incurably ill.

He championed the rights of workers, regarded capitalist society as brutal and unjust, and sought a third way between communism and the free market. In this regard, he and his associates greatly admired the strong steps taken by President Franklin Roosevelt's New Deal to take large-scale economic decision-making out of private hands and put it into those of government planning agencies. His aim was to institute a brand of socialism that avoided the inefficiencies that plagued the Soviet variety, and many former communists found his program highly congenial. He deplored the selfish individualism he took to be endemic to modern Western society, and wanted to replace it with an ethic of self-sacrifice: 'As Christ proclaimed love one another,' he said, 'so our call -- peoples community, public need before private greed, communally-minded social consciousness -- rings out! This call will echo throughout the world!'

The reference to Christ notwithstanding, he was not personally a Christian, regarding the Catholicism he was baptized into as an irrational superstition. In fact he admired Islam more than Christianity, and he and his policies were highly respected by many of the Muslims of his day. He and his associates had a special distaste for the Catholic Church and, given a choice, preferred modern liberalized Protestantism, taking the view that the best form of Christianity would be one that forsook the traditional other-worldly focus on personal salvation and accommodated itself to the requirements of a program for social justice to be implemented by the state. They also considered the possibility that Christianity might eventually have to be abandoned altogether in favor of a return to paganism, a worldview many of them saw as more humane and truer to the heritage of their people. For he and his associates believed strongly that a peoples ethnic and racial heritage was what mattered most. Some endorsed a kind of cultural relativism according to which what is true or false and right or wrong in some sense depends on ones ethnic worldview, and especially on what best promotes the well-being of ones ethnic group.

Who was he? He certainly sounds like the ideal presidential candidate of a Pacifica Radio Network listener or Mother Jones subscriber -- or, to make a more timely reference, a contributor to MoveOn.org. It can only add to his appeal for such people that he was a target of American and British bombing raids and had to flee to the safety of an underground hide-out.

And he was none other than Time magazines Man of the Year for 1938: Adolf Hitler."


EMAIL|FLAG THIS POST
COMMENTS
30 months ago: excellent!

Here is Time magazines cover.

http://www.time.com/time/covers/0,16641,19390102,00.html
Rudi Stettner
Rudi Stettner
 Moderator
30 months ago: Dude, that was a home run. You weren't calling names. you were cool, calm and rational. If we felt a trembling as we read your article, it was the resonance of history. Keep it up! You're doing great!
30 months ago: The Man of the Year article.

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,760539,00.html
30 months ago: Rudi,If we felt a trembling as we read your article, it was the resonance of history.

The scary part is that only a few of us can see that history is trying to repeat itself.
JAK Gladney
JAK Gladney
Saint Albans, WV
30 months ago: I'd say, "Not to break up this party", but there's nothing that I'd like better in this case.

You're trying to divorce the rise of National Socialism in Germany from it's foundation in a host of traditions that are unique to Germany, and Prussia before it (incidentally, the same tactic used when "proving" the Holocaust's roots in atheism/agnosticism--which I see you've echoed here). Issues like a congenital insecurity about its borders, hyper-militarism, the fondness for strongmen (Frederick the Great, Bismarck, von Hindenburg, culminating in Adolf Hitler), the humiliation of the Treaty of Versailles and the Weimar Republic (the massive decentralization and demilitarization that prompted Hitler and others to call for "the formation of a strong central power") .

I saw a lot in your posts on HNN’s article that wasn’t unique to Nazism, but was actually rooted in feudalism. Like our Bill of Rights foundation in Magna Carta, English common law, country whig thought, etc. Any takers for arguing against these pillars of American constitutional democracy?

Any modern interpretation that would substitute American liberalism with fascism has to include a proven willingness to use military force to impose this vision. If you know anything about most liberals ambivalence towards everything military, and the deliberately separatist nature of military culture that makes this unlikely, then this paranoia falls apart. What you and others are suggesting is a sort of "velvet revolution".

Nazism didn't pass through a membrane from an alternate universe. It was in many ways a very organic process.
When you see an effort to dramatically reorganize American military culture on an explicitly liberal plan, let me know.

That thing making all of you tremble? It’s the hot air in the echo chamber.
30 months ago: By drab, I knew it!
Out Of The Box
Out Of The Box
 Moderator
30 months ago: I wasn't trying to prove the origins of any Nazi party machinations, I was simply outlining who Hitler was.

I'll try to take this point by point.

The Treaty of Versailles could be compared to slavery, bondage, mistreatment and the Civil Rights movement that followed, in terms of a humiliating experience.
We do have insecurities about our borders that are only awaiting the right push to mobilize the population. Not only do we have the patriots trying to prevent another act of terrorism here at home, we also have the people who were ready to shut down the borders over the swine flu scare. We are already teetering on the edge of separatism, and the "majority", as you like to call yourselves are looking for a government to protect you at all costs.

I would never presume to accuse a lack of religion for the Holocaust, we have seen similar atrocities carried out in the name of religion. There is a difference between religion and a lack of moral structure.
Skip hyper-militarism for a moment and go to the strongman argument. The Chicago style politicians, who are writing letters to governors of states represented by vocal opponents of the stimulus plan, are threatening to withdraw funding to those states if said representatives don't toe the line. We have senate leaders threatening martial law if their plans aren't voted for. I realize this isn't your point, but the worship bestowed a man this time transcends the need for predecessors.

more....
Out Of The Box
Out Of The Box
 Moderator
30 months ago: What we are seeing also, which is perhaps more threatening, is civilian violence at the apparent behest of the government, against those who publicly disagree.

Now for the military.
Certainly, liberals are against the military in the traditional sense, but:
The government has called for the formation of a civilian national security force, of at least equal power and funding as the current military. Why would we need this, unless someone knew that the current military could not be coerced into defying the Constitution and deploying on American soil.

Civilian military
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tt2yGzHfy7s

What we are seeing today is not happening at light speed. It is evolving slowly, same as before, and to those who are not blinded by the desire to reach their goals, it is patently obvious that we can not go down that road again.
Out Of The Box
Out Of The Box
 Moderator
30 months ago: The point is, after eighty or so years, looking at similarities in minutiae would of course prove nothing. We are not Germany, we are not Germans. We have a considerably smaller world to work with, and a considerably larger power base. I'm not expecting anyone to start wearing an armband, and I don't expect to see any silly little mustaches, although I understand he wore it that way for health reasons.
What I do expect to see are more symbols referencing the man, not the country.
Rudi Stettner
Rudi Stettner
 Moderator
30 months ago: Health care is one of many subjects i am interested in. i mix my topics, sometimes venturing into "fluff stories for the simple reason that they may draw readers to the important stories. I try to work with people's tastes to get them thinking about things that matter. Keep up your great work
30 months ago: First OOTB I have to say outstanding! I was going to use excellent but Cypress beat me to it.
30 months ago: JAK you seem to be overlooking one very important ingredient which ties all socialist / communist governments together and is arising today in our government. The "collective" ideology. The only way Hitler could justify the murder of millions of people in death camps was through the notion that it was to improve the situation for the socialized collective. Stalin had no problem murdering millions of Russians or sending them to die as slave labor because they were no longer "people" they were problems which interfered with the smooth functioning of the "collective"
This ideology is already becoming prevalent in America today. When Christians do not wish to condone homosexuality they become "gay haters" and "prejudice". I don't hate gays I just do not say being gay is necessarily natural, I really don't much care as I will not be the ultimate judge but to force me into condoning it is to force me into submission of the "collective". I do not agree that government health care is the best option for us because inefficient government programs are some of the reasons we are at this place to begin with. Yet as you can see from some posts here even those who oppose it are treasonous and "extremists" which I suspect is only a few steps from "terrorist".
30 months ago: I don't feel Liberals will use military force against fellow Americans but they will use force against "terrorist". The "collective" ideology has no use for the individual in its socialized system and all those which oppose the collective socialist society become enemies which must be eliminated to the benefit of the all. Thus Hitler and Stalin still slept at night while thousands were murdered because the death camps were simply "machines" eliminating waste that would interfere with the smooth operation of their countries. As the democrats have more problems with socialized policy I would bet that people who oppose this type of policy will become more and more treated as people who are trying to "derail" or "destroy" America. Once this begins to happen all types of military action and police activity can take place in order to "save" the country. After all Hitlers' Gestapo police was created to "protect , pure Germans".
Altruist
Altruist
Eugene, OR
30 months ago: This is a good informative post with good comments. I wouldn't get too excited about drawing parallels between Hitler and Obama or any other leaders. I think that Hitler was very popular because of his populist speeches, but he was clearly nuts. The citizens of Germany went along because of hyper nationalism, and because of a need to be told what to do by a strong father figure.
I think that the main problem with most nations is an anachronistic paternalism that comes from thousands of years Kings telling us what to do. Even if rulers are elected power goes to their heads and in many countries like Cuba and Venezuela the leaders believe they are indispensable and they then turn their nation into a monarchy again.
Electing a leader based upon charisma doesn't guarantee good leadership, and having two parties doesn't guarantee choice. In our country you have to be rich and powerful to be elected with Obama being a rare exception. I would prefer a team, maybe one liberal, one centrist and one conservative, and together they could work as a team for what is best for the country instead of what is best for the party. Better still we could get rid of representative democracy altogether and go for direct democracy. For the first time in the history of the world this is finally technologically feasible. ( The Greeks chose 100 citizens at random to represent them and called it direct democracy, but it was also representative).
30 months ago: Some good points Altruist. I think what many Americans are concerned with is the point at which the scales tip from the people being the power of government to the government being in power over the people.
In cases such as Venezuela where Chavez has taken control of the media government now has the power to feed propaganda to the people and strengthen its hold on power.
This is one reason I fear the government having complete control of the health care system. Obama may not abuse the power but should we get a person like Chaves in office who decides he does not want to relinquish power the threat of turning off health care could influence many to "see it his/her way". It is possible to influence people with government hand outs as this is exactly what Chaves did and he will continue until he has complete control as Castro does there is little doubt in my mind of that.
Out Of The Box
Out Of The Box
 Moderator
30 months ago: Altruist,
Thank you for your positive feedback. To your point about the strong father figure, I have heard many times from the left that the reason they think the conservative movement is floundering is the lack of a single, strong figure to lead them, unlike the left, who have found their figurehead. And nobody gives a better populist speech than Obama.
Paternalism is ingrained from birth as a human being, not necessarily geographic or ethnic in origin. Although the socialist would like to break down the traditional family, to substitute the state, in the form of a charismatic leader as the traditional family's father figure, anachronistic would not be the correct adjective. Even our various interpretations of deity demonstrate the inborn need for a father figure. The social mores of many communities in the United States, and the absence of a real father, have left an emptiness, a hunger for a father figure to lead them into a shining new world.
markbyrn
markbyrn
 Moderator
30 months ago: Let's contrast this Christian fundy-gels history lesson with David Neiwert's review of Jonah Goldberg's book entitled, "Liberal Facism" - a similar treatise to Edward Feser's revisionist mythology.

http://www.prospect.org/cs/articles?article=jonah_goldbergs_bizarro_history

To quote a relevant section but do read the entire article:



What these historians record -- but Goldberg variously ignores or minimizes -- is that the "socialism" of "National Socialism" was in fact purely a kind of ethnic economic nationalism, which offered "socialist" support to purely "Aryan" German business entities, and that the larger Nazi cultural appeal was built directly around an open antipathy to all things liberal or leftist. Indeed, whole chapters of Mein Kampf are devoted to vicious smears and declarations of war against "the Left," and not merely the Marxism that Goldberg acknowledges was a major focus of Hitler's animus.

This became manifest in the Italian fascist and German Nazi transformations from a faction of street thugs into an actual political power that seized the reins of government, when fascists gradually shed all pretensions or appeals to socialism and became violently anti-socialist and anti-communist. But it was present all along; "the Left" were the people who were beaten and murdered in the 1920s by the squadristi and the Brownshirts; and the first Germans sent off to Nazi concentration camps like Dachau were not Jews but socialists, communists, and other left-wing political prisoners, including "liberal" priests and clerics."
JAK Gladney
JAK Gladney
Saint Albans, WV
30 months ago: markbyrn, excellent point.

Jakarta: you're right--reframing the issue on an "enemy of the month" basis is a long-standing practice (I anticipate the DHS analysis used as evidence here). But that's hardly exclusive to liberal politicians. Many of the cold war-era policy paranoid groups were never really dismantled: I've written previously about "white propaganda" campaigns in Latin America (active and growing), and the "Committee on the Present Danger"--which has explicitly substituted "terrorism" for communism as the "present danger" motivating its current advocacy. And I've seen no evidence that the formation of these groups, in liberal circles, has accelerated.

Your YouTube link, OOTB, was a 20-second soundbite from a longer speech on civil service/volunteerism, humanitarian aid as a diplomatic adjunct. The full quote, in context:

“…we're going to grow our Foreign Service, open consulates that have been shuttered and double the size of the Peace Corps by 2011 to renew our diplomacy. We cannot continue to rely only on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives that we've set. We've got to have a civilian national security force that's just as powerful, just as strong, just as well‐funded. We need to use technology to connect people to service. We'll expand USA Freedom Corps to create online networks where American[s] can browse opportunities to volunteer.”

The line, "We've got to have a civilian national security force that's just as powerful, just as strong, just as well‐funded" is rhetorical--he's alluding to the earlier statements on recruiting an "army" of linguists, agricultural specialists, engineers, doctors, etc. to serve on the USAID model.
Out Of The Box
Out Of The Box
 Moderator
30 months ago: "transformations from a faction of street thugs into an actual political power that seized the reins of government."

Yep.
Out Of The Box
Out Of The Box
 Moderator
30 months ago: Here are a few of David Neiwert's other highly objective works:

The Eliminationists: How Hate Talk Radicalized the American Right

Death on the Fourth of July: The Story of a Killing, a Trial, and Hate Crime in America

Review - Ventura, Elbert. How Hate Groups Went Mainstream

In God's Country: The Patriot Movement and the Pacific Northwest

And don't forget to check out his totally unbiased blog, 'Orcinus'.

Notice how I could list all these viewpoints without using a single derogatory term.
markbyrn
markbyrn
 Moderator
30 months ago: Out of the Box,

If you think Neiwert isn't credible, how is that you quoted from a Christian demagogue (Edward Feser) who argued that Dr George Tiller (the abortion doctor murdered by a Christian vigilante) was worse than Jeffrey Dahmer, who killed/or ate 17 human beings?


http://www.whatswrongwiththeworld.net/2009/06/two_monsters.html

Quotes from Feser:

"Do I seriously mean to suggest that Tiller was as bad as Dahmer? No, because Tiller was almost certainly a more evil man than Dahmer was."

"Tiller added to his already unspeakable crimes the grave sin of blasphemy, insofar as he was (we now know) a churchgoer who evidently regarded his obeisance to Moloch as fully compatible with the religion of Jesus Christ. To my knowledge Dahmer never had the temerity to claim that a good Christian could be a cannibal."

"This side of the grave, we are, mercifully, spared the knowledge of who is in Hell. As a Catholic, I pray for Tiller’s soul, as I pray for Dahmer’s. But it would be foolish to think it at all likely that either man died in a state of grace. Still, I’d give Dahmer better odds than the other, greater monster."

Perverse equivocations and delusions of blasphemy and hell are consistent with his perversity in comparing liberalism and socialism with Nazism and it's genocidal hatred of non-Aryans and other perceived 'defectives' such as the disabled & homosexuals.

Speaking of the latter, isn't it Christian fundy-gels and other radical religionists that work tirelessly to ensure that homosexuals are treated as pariahs and denied the same rights that Christian fundy-gels demand for themselves?
JAK Gladney
JAK Gladney
Saint Albans, WV
30 months ago: The Feser quote reads like it was ripped from a chain email. It has all of the usual, greasy thumbprints: the slow-reveal for maximum melodramatic effect, framed like a Paul Harvey "Rest of the Story".
markbyrn
markbyrn
 Moderator
30 months ago: JAK, which Feser quote you referring to. The one I quoted from is directly from his own blog articles - see:

http://www.whatswrongwiththeworld.net/2009/06/two_monsters.html

and his bio info at the same site:

http://www.whatswrongwiththeworld.net/author.php?author_id=0&nic=Edward%20Feser

The website he writes for describes it's own purpose:


http://www.whatswrongwiththeworld.net/about.html


"What’s Wrong with the World is dedicated to the defense of what remains of Christendom, the civilization made by the men of the Cross of Christ. Athwart two hostile Powers we stand: The Jihad and Liberalism.

We are happy warriors, for our defense is motivated primarily by gratitude for what our ancestors bequeathed to us. We are hardly what the world calls “optimists,” for our sense of the crisis of our age is robust indeed; but despair is among the more fashionable sins today, and our hostility to it, too, is implacable. We put not our trust in princes, but stand on the Solid Rock, against which neither the tyranny of the Crescent nor the blank negations of Liberalism shall prevail"
markbyrn
markbyrn
 Moderator
30 months ago: In fact, Feser was accused of being an apologist for murder based on the article I quoted and denied the accusation. See:

http://blogandnot-blog.blogspot.com/2009/06/dr-tiller-forfeiting-ones-right-to-live.html

and response by Feser:

http://www.whatswrongwiththeworld.net/2009/06/leiter_hits_new_low_in_other_n.html

Feser did condemn the vigilante but his absurd equivocations with Dahmer would seem to infer a contradiction.
Out Of The Box
Out Of The Box
 Moderator
30 months ago: The man who killed Tiller was no Christian. He was as full of hate as a liberal that has been disagreed with. Or a socialist faced by a man who believes in God.
As you don't believe anyone goes anywhere after they die, what difference does it make what he says about Dahmer or Tiller. He has a right to his interpretation, same as you and I. They're both dead. Who do you think is the more evil of the two, and why?
Your juvenile name calling will not goad me into joining you in hysterical antics. Funny how the claws come out when not able to be superior.
I didn't see any greasy thumbprints, JAK. It's a post on a website. Try wiping your monitor.
Out Of The Box
Out Of The Box
 Moderator
30 months ago: Have you ever considered that you can abhor what a man does without condoning his murder? I personally think mid to late term abortion is murder. Am I condoning the murder of an abortionist?
Any time someone even remotely disagrees with abortion, the liberal is sure to accuse him of of being fundy, or an accessory to murder.
A paranoid sentiment that is almost universal among liberals, "If you aren't with us one hundred percent, you are definitely against us."
markbyrn
markbyrn
 Moderator
30 months ago: Out of the Box, as you attempted to do on Neiwert, I rooted out your "Professor" as a highly unobjective Christian propagandist who to quote his website, stands on the "Solid Rock, against which neither the tyranny of the Crescent nor the blank negations of Liberalism shall prevail."

Now as to your fib about Scott Roeder (the murderer of Tiller) not being a Christian, what would you say he was? An Atheist, a Muslim? A Jew? No, he was a Christian:

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/251/story/69151.html

Now he might have belonged to a small fundamentalist denomination that advocated violence but he's certainly a follower of Jesus. That's what the term Christian generally means.
markbyrn
markbyrn
 Moderator
30 months ago: Out of the Box, since you presumably opened this rant as something credible to digest, I would hope you could quote somebody who is rational and partially objective as opposed to somebody who has a religious axe to grind against liberalism and Islam.

The problem is not about Feser being pro-life; it's his wack-a-loon equivocations that I noted previously.
Out Of The Box
Out Of The Box
 Moderator
30 months ago: You have no understanding of Christianity, if you think you can just say you are a Christian, and be one. If he were a true follower of Jesus, a true Christian, he would have applied the teachings of Jesus to his actions, which he did not. Jesus taught to love and forgive, not murder. "Hate the sin, but love the sinner" is a simple way of putting it.
If indeed it were that saying it makes it true, I would say I am a neuro-surgeon, or better yet, an astronaut.
markbyrn
markbyrn
 Moderator
30 months ago: Now who in the Christian religion stated, "Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword"? That would be the founder of Christianity, aka Jesus and thousands of followers, whether it was the esteemed Martin Luther or modern day radicals such as Scott Roeder took those words to heart. Violence in the name of Christ is a historical and current fact. It's no different than radical Muslims committing violence in the name of Allah. Now you can say they weren't following your version of Christianity but that's irrelevant to the fact that they espouced Christianity as their religion.

What was the state religion of Nazi Germany? Was it Atheism? Judaism? Islam? Secular? No, it was Christianity and state tax was collected to pay for the Christian Churches and the clergy.
30 months ago: Where the heck do you get off with the socialist = atheist bullpucky? What does socialism - an economic theory - have to do with religion? That's just a bunch of "I'm right because I'm a believer, and anyone who disagrees is a godless heathen" malarky.
30 months ago: markbyrn, again it seems your actual knowledge of Christianity is shallow at best. The sword Jesus spoke of is the spiritual sword of truth. This "truth" came with Christ and has been with us from that time. The "truth" was that man of his own self would rather nail to a cross and crucify an innocent person who did only good to others rather than face his own iniquity's. The truth is cutting through all aspects of events today and even as we speak. Many become hostile when the truth is presented because just as in Jesus day it is like a light upon their soul and it shows the things they wish to remain in the dark.
It is the same today as it was then. Many people hear the truth but hate it and try to destroy it. Some hear it and follow a short time but go back to their own designs. A few adopt it and seek it as a way of life.
I think OOTB speaks for all who consider themselves Christians. A Christian lives by Christ's' example. Jesus Christ had thousands of followers who "expected" him to raise an army and conquer the Romans. If he asked them they would stand in front of him and defend him to the death without question. Yet Christ walked into Jerusalem, stood before a mock trial which found no fault in him, was traded by his own people (Jews) for a common criminal and then laid himself upon the cross to be nailed there and crucified. One of the many examples Christ gave us being that it is better to lay our own life down than to commit a spiritual transgression that will cost us our soul. We who truly follow that do not murder in his name for any reason.
Out Of The Box
Out Of The Box
 Moderator
30 months ago: HNN

http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/pdf/sar.pdf

The Executive Committee of the Socialist Party of Great Britain

"An explanation of the Socialist position on this question is the more urgent now, because the hypocritical and time-serving procedure of so many professed Socialists has enabled those who are frankly our opponents to keep the anti-religion aspect of Socialism effectively to the fore. Politicians angling for votes and office, and organisations scheming for members and subscriptions, have almost all evaded the charge that Socialism implies atheism and materialism, either by PRETENDING that religion is in no way related to the question of Socialism, or by ASSERTING that Socialism is the outcome of religion, and is indeed, true Christianity!"

"In the first place, all religious teaching is directly opposed to the scientific materialism, or monism, which is an integral part of Socialist philosophy."

"The Christian ideas of free will and supernatural interference therefore become absurd, and give way to determinism."

"But the Socialist knows that a paradise people could only be born of paradise conditions. Unlike the Christian, he does not expect figs to grow on thistles.
Even among those Christians who nominally accept “Socialism” this cleavage in ideas is not less marked.

more...
Out Of The Box
Out Of The Box
 Moderator
30 months ago: Their “philosophy” inverts the natural order."

"Clearly, then, the basis of Socialist philosophy is utterly incompatible with religious ideas; indeed, the latter have been reduced to their logical absurdity in what is called “Christian Science.” Moreover, the consistent Christian (if such exists) could only look upon the existing world as an essential part of God’s plan, to be accounted for only through God, and modified at God’s pleasure. He could only regard those who sought the explanation of social conditions in purely natural causes, and who also sought to take advantage of economic development in order to turn this vale of tears into a pleasant garden, as men who denied by their acts the very basis of his faith.
The concept of God as an explanation of the Universe is becoming entirely untenable...."

"The contrast between Socialism and Christian teaching is plain even where the Christian precept is otherwise admirable."

"Not only, indeed, is the struggle against religion intellectually useful, but it cannot conscientiously be avoided, for religion is used against the Socialist movement by the possessing class in every country. But to abolish religion is not to abolish exploitation, because only one of the enemy’s guns will have been silenced. The workers have, above all, to dislodge the capitalist class from power, and the religious question, and indeed all else, is secondary to this. To say this is not to belittle the specifically anti-religious fight, but to indicate its rightful place in the greater struggle"
markbyrn
markbyrn
 Moderator
30 months ago: Out of The Box,

Hold on hoss. You bristled when I corrected painted Scott Roeder as an espouced Christian yet here you are painting the broad brush and falsely implying that all socialists are anti-religious. In fact, the 'Socialist' Party of Great Britain espouses Communism and Marxism.

But let's quote from from the Socialist Party USA:

http://socialistparty-usa.org/statements/relfreedom708.html

"In reaffirming our commitment to freedom of religion, we reiterate that the Socialist Party believes in freedom of religious choice, freedom from religion, and is welcoming to people of all faiths and to people of no faith."

Just like Christianity is an umbrella terms which represents multitudes of denominations and theological distinctives (to the point of contradicting each other), so are individual political parties.
markbyrn
markbyrn
 Moderator
30 months ago: Jakarta99,

Your post about an apolitical Jesus is nice, and if all Christians believed that, we would not be having this discussion. The problem is you have a huge number of Christian Dominionists who do believe in the pursuit of worldly political party to achieve the Kingdom of God on earth.

In fact, I'll take the liberty of quoting from another rant and comment by Siempre Solo:

"That is why Jesus said “my kingdom is not of this world.” Because he did not come to establish some earthly kingdom with corrupt arbitrary authorities. He came to be the sacrifice for the sins of all humanity. That is why I find it utterly shameful the so called Christians ally themselves with temporal earthly powers in the name of their savior to supposedly affect Christian change in American politics. Shameful utterly shameful. As an American I am glad that I live in a country where I can choose the life I want to live for myself and that means that I have to be accepting of others as well no matter what they believe."

In fact, I would say that 'shameful' Christian's attempting to affect change in American politics is the rule rather than the exception.
markbyrn
markbyrn
 Moderator
30 months ago: Now if you don't believe that America endeavored to go on a modern day Christian crusade (i.e. Iraq and Afghanistan), take a gander at these Pentagaon Intelligence slide show briefings that were prepared for Bush:

http://men.style.com/gq/features/topsecret

Onward, Christian Soliders is right.

After viewing the briefing, check out video evidence direct from Afghanistan:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oCR9pOcjOJ8 (US Military Soldiers Conspiring to distribute Afghan language Bibles in Violation of Military Orders)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jq0liBFiuL4 (US Military assisting 'gonzo' evangelical missionaries to proselytize)
30 months ago: markbyrn, we are all to some degree pursuing change. There seems to be a thought among people who are not familiar with Christianity that Christians should be perfect or perceive themselves as perfect. The truth is Christians are subject to the same material desires and weaknesses as anyone. So what is the difference? the difference is that Christ came because man was failing. Man which is a divine spark of God placed in a material shell with the capacity to grow spiritually was not going to make it. So Jesus came into the physical realm knowing full well man hated the sword he brought and would eventually kill him because of the truth he spoke. And of course we did and not even a quick and merciful death but we made sure it was a long and painful one in order to show him how much we hated that light he shown on us, those words which pried open our soul. However Christ defeated death because his spirit was pure. And through this victory he bestowed the holy ghost to us which is basically something of a spiritual gyroscope. Unfortunately many Christians or most I would say at one time or another, tend to be like children of which we are spiritually and not listen to our Dad. This I feel is what you see in respect to Christians going after power or trying to manipulate power for a selfish reason. Keep in mind however that these Christians are somewhat like commercial airline crashes. We see news about a commercial plane crashing with hundreds of deaths and it is awful and frightening. We tend to focus on these crashes at times rather than focus on the fact that there are thousands of planes in the air right now and everyday making successful flights. There will be Christians who become misguided and there will be people who are just crazy and claim to be a Christian or from the planet nebulous5. Most true Christians are however out there living and getting along quite nicely with everyone and only want to live a "true" spiritual life and grow and develop spiritually.
JAK Gladney
JAK Gladney
Saint Albans, WV
30 months ago: markbyrn, that argument only becomes more compelling, when you read the recent indictments of Blackwater in Iraq, widespread Christian proselytizing and antisemitism at the Air Force Academy, the endorsement of McCain's candidacy by Rod Parsley, an unapologetic propagandist for modern-day crusading, strange ecumenical millennialist movements.

OOTB, your excerpt:

"Moreover, the consistent Christian (if such exists) could only look upon the existing world as an essential part of God’s plan, to be accounted for only through God, and modified at God’s pleasure."

This is an argument against Christianity--actually, most organized religions--as a tool of the status quo. And it's been a useful tool: the slave owner preached a docile religion to the slave, the Catholic church has used it throughout Europe & Latin America to squash people's movements, etc.

"But to abolish religion is not to abolish exploitation, because only one of the enemy’s guns will have been silenced. The workers have, above all, to dislodge the capitalist class from power, and the religious question, and indeed all else, is secondary to this."

Religion and socialism are not mutually exclusive, as the liberation theology preached by many Jesuits has proven. Christian socialism was once an immensely popular movement within the United States: Francis Bellamy, author of the Pledge of Allegiance (every conservative reformer's favorite test oath), was an avowed Christian Socialist, and saw no contradiction; his cousin, Edward Bellamy, wrote one of the best-selling novels of his generation--"Looking Backward," which outlined a socialist utopia in America.

There's a history here that's completely lost to most Americans--a time when "socialism" was more than an easy pejorative, used to create a sense of "foreignness" for one's enemies.
Out Of The Box
Out Of The Box
 Moderator
30 months ago: Markbyrn,
If there is a particular point in the original post you would like to take issue with, please, by all means, do. Do not resort to character assassination, though. Re-read the Rave itself, and if there is a point you would like to contend, or try to prove false, I would welcome your input.
30 months ago: Don't be confused. That is the american socialist game plan.

MarKie. it seems that you believe by posting several pages of usleess diatribe you might make your point.

Sorry to tell you that if you can't answer a question in less that three sentences, you have lost the arguement.
markbyrn
markbyrn
 Moderator
30 months ago: Jack, I already responded to your Feser article with an article from David Neiwert. Your response was to question Neiewert's credibility (not the points that he made), and so I questioned Feser's credibility. As far as playing the Hitler card, I suggest you google 'Reductio ad Hitlerum'

Cypress Dung, speaking of logical fallacy, where did you dream up this imbecilic quote about three sentences?
Out Of The Box
Out Of The Box
 Moderator
30 months ago: Well, you responded with a review of Jonah Goldberg's book.
Is there any point, fact, or statement in the Rave that is not true?
markbyrn
markbyrn
 Moderator
30 months ago: Jack, I called it a Christian fundy-gels history to mock it's attempt at religious right inspired revision of history. Just as one example, Feser laughably tries to paint Hitler as an advocate for Gay rights, and thus painting those who advocate for gay rights today as following after Hitler. As the supposed thinking man you are, wouldn't it behoove you to crack open the history book and see how Nazi Germany actually treated homosexuals? If you had, you would of readily dismissed Feser's deceit.

Here's a timeline of historical events as chronicled by a German government website with respect to Nazi's and homosexuals:

http://www.gedenkort.de/eng-chronicle.htm

28th June 1935 Paragraph 175 (§ 175) of the penal code is made more severe. From now on any form of "unnatural" sex between men is liable to draconic punishment. With this measure all homo-sexuals are made criminals. The judgements against male homosexual rise rapidly. During the Nazi period around 50,000 men are sentenced for "unnatural sex".

10th October 1936 Heinrich Himmler establishes a Government Department for the Fight against Homosexuality and Abortion. Its task is to gather information and lead an effective fight against both forms of the "population-plague".

12th July 1940 Himmler orders that all homosexuals sentenced under Paragraph 175, "who have seduced more than one partner", should be taken into "preventive detention" after they are released from prison". In reality that means they are sent to a concentration camp. Those incarcerated there for § 175 offences are forced to wear a pink triangle in order to make them identifiable.
Only a minority survived the terror of the camps.

15th November 1941 In a „Decree of the Fuehrer for the Cleansing of the SS (Secret State Police) and the police force", Hitler orders the death penalty for homosexual activity by members of the SS and Police.
Out Of The Box
Out Of The Box
 Moderator
30 months ago: Many homosexuals are homophobes, butt that is beside the point. He he.
You haven't answered the question, you have just given anecdotes.
markbyrn
markbyrn
 Moderator
30 months ago: Jack, you got it mixed up. Feser was the one making anecdotes about Hitler being a closet homosexual who thought it wasn't anybody's business and I cited historical facts that suggested the anecdote was BS. Feser was lamely attempting to paint Hitler as some kind of erudite leftist that Mother Jones and MoveOn.org would support.

Hardly, but I'm sure many right wing Christians (including self-loathing closeted Christian homosexuals) would agree that homosexuality should be criminalized and no doubt a subset would support the death penalty for such behavior. Now why is that? Well the Christian Bible says as much and Christianity was the state religion of Germany during the Nazi era. The Christian Bible states in Leviticus 20:13, "If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death. Their blood shall be upon them."
Out Of The Box
Out Of The Box
 Moderator
30 months ago: Well, I guess that is why so many open homosexuals engage in such self-destructive behavior, such as hyper-promiscuity and rampant drug use. It could be also the reason for so many married-with-children homosexuals.

So I'm assuming that your obsession with homosexual thing indicates that you disagree with Feser's statement that either A) Hitler associated with homosexuals.
or B) Many scholars think Hitler might have been homosexual or bisexual.
garryck
garryck
England
15 months ago: Hi
My understanding is that Hitler was neither homosexual or bisexual, there is no evidence he had sex with Eva B but there were reports that he got the thrill from power, adoration and young women urinating on him. History indicates he rarely signed anything most of his orders were done during walks at his mountain retreat. He appeared to turn more vicious after dec 1941 when he heard of the Japanese attack at Pearl Harbour. At that same point his army was frozen outside Moscow.

I believe he at this point knew he had missed his opportunity to win and approved revenge on those his enemies. especially the implication of proper death camps. After this point he even betrayed his own people by as much destruction of Germany as possible before committing suicide. His greatest Triumph was return to Berlin in 1940 after defeating France.

I believe somebody evil who manipulates evil people makes their actions much worse by his manipulations. Jesus said he was the Devil and it was recorded that the Devil offered Jesus ALL the kingdoms of the world, if he did one act of worship to him. Luke 4:1-8 Jesus reveals that the Devil was a wicked angel who told the first lie in Eden to Eve via a snake/serpent causing rebellion against God. Jesus can to defend his Father's name and reputation and rescue Adam and Eve's descendants. Read More : www.ppe.0rg/WhyStudyBible

Bye
garryck
garryck
England
15 months ago: Sorry its www.pp-e.org/whybiblestudy

Post a Comment
Sign in or sign up to post a comment.