Category: Bruce Walker

209170.jpg

The Shrill Silliness of Feminism


What sane person believes feminists today?  Every single time a Republican or conservative stands a chance of being confirmed to the federal bench or elected president, some old story bubbles to the top about a female being sexually assaulted or offended.  Ask Clarence Thomas or Herman Cain or Donald Trump.

These women are lying or delusional or complicit.  What, exactly, happened to the accusation against Herman Cain raised in the middle of the Republican nomination process that he had a long affair with Ginger White, which ended just before his run for the nomination?  Nothing, because her accusation and related accusations by a couple of other women were clearly limp and unsupported by independent sources.

What happened to Anita Hill, who had promised in questioning before the Senate Judiciary Committee that she would not use the fame generated by her attack on Clarence Thomas to write a book and to leverage her prominence into propelling her career?  Well, after Anita Hill used her fame to write a book and to leverage her prominence into propelling her career…

Donald Trump has never made any bones about the fact that he likes beautiful women and has had an active sex life, which has led the shrill silliness of feminism to accuse Trump of liking beautiful women and having an active sex life. 

The pattern is dreary, dull, and despicable.  All feminists, hapless drones of power-mad leftism, have but one purpose in life: keep leftism in power by whatever phony outrage or manufactured offenses by conservative men against women.

Poor Juanita Broaddrick, now in her mid-seventies, never championed by feminists, made a credible claim of violent rape by Bill Clinton against her when he was Arkansas attorney general, the chief law enforcement official of the state, who loudly proclaimed his support of every single feminist cause.  Her claims were supported by friends and coworkers at the time.  This did not just include her statement of what happened, but also the physical battering she endured at the hands of Clinton.

Broaddrick is consigned to the same limbo where women outside the Western world are placed by the spoiled nabobs of feminism.  So despite the fact that in the Islamic world, women are imprisoned or stoned to death for the “crime” of being a rape victim or the continuation in parts of India of the Hindu horror of the suttee, in which a widow is burned alive on the pyre of her dead husband, demanding an end to these ghastly practices does not bring money or power to feminists, so feminists have no interest in these at all.

What is even worse – for those who actually care about women – is that the reflexive support of every spurious claim by neurotic or deranged women (e.g., the Duke Lacrosse “rape” case) means that sensible and moral people are much less inclined to believe women who allege rape or domestic violence or intimidation by men.  More and more men and also more and more ethical women who care more about individual justice than collective group interest view dubiously any sort of claim of victimhood by a woman at the hands of a man.  The harder feminists push for automatic acceptance of whatever a woman claims a man has done to her, the less seriously good and decent people take feminism.

It is rather like the reflexive claims of racism by any black against any white during the last fifty years.  The practical effect of that is to empower genuine white racism by lumping unbigoted white behavior with whites who despise and discriminate against blacks.  When everything is “racist!,” then nothing is truly racist, or, at least, no one can seriously accept the argument of blacks that racism still exists in America.

The beneficiaries of this anti-factual myth of eradicable racism are true racists, who cannot be distinguished from the vast majority of whites in America who wish to move beyond the rhetoric of black racism-hawkers, who, like feminists, support themselves and extend their power and influence by insisting to blacks that racism still haunts America. 

The shrill silliness of feminism, which we are seeing in the Kavanaugh confirmation, is as predictable as it is vile.  It is a mockery of true justice, an enemy of honest facts, and a pathetic distraction from the real problems our nation faces.

What sane person believes feminists today?  Every single time a Republican or conservative stands a chance of being confirmed to the federal bench or elected president, some old story bubbles to the top about a female being sexually assaulted or offended.  Ask Clarence Thomas or Herman Cain or Donald Trump.

These women are lying or delusional or complicit.  What, exactly, happened to the accusation against Herman Cain raised in the middle of the Republican nomination process that he had a long affair with Ginger White, which ended just before his run for the nomination?  Nothing, because her accusation and related accusations by a couple of other women were clearly limp and unsupported by independent sources.

What happened to Anita Hill, who had promised in questioning before the Senate Judiciary Committee that she would not use the fame generated by her attack on Clarence Thomas to write a book and to leverage her prominence into propelling her career?  Well, after Anita Hill used her fame to write a book and to leverage her prominence into propelling her career…

Donald Trump has never made any bones about the fact that he likes beautiful women and has had an active sex life, which has led the shrill silliness of feminism to accuse Trump of liking beautiful women and having an active sex life. 

The pattern is dreary, dull, and despicable.  All feminists, hapless drones of power-mad leftism, have but one purpose in life: keep leftism in power by whatever phony outrage or manufactured offenses by conservative men against women.

Poor Juanita Broaddrick, now in her mid-seventies, never championed by feminists, made a credible claim of violent rape by Bill Clinton against her when he was Arkansas attorney general, the chief law enforcement official of the state, who loudly proclaimed his support of every single feminist cause.  Her claims were supported by friends and coworkers at the time.  This did not just include her statement of what happened, but also the physical battering she endured at the hands of Clinton.

Broaddrick is consigned to the same limbo where women outside the Western world are placed by the spoiled nabobs of feminism.  So despite the fact that in the Islamic world, women are imprisoned or stoned to death for the “crime” of being a rape victim or the continuation in parts of India of the Hindu horror of the suttee, in which a widow is burned alive on the pyre of her dead husband, demanding an end to these ghastly practices does not bring money or power to feminists, so feminists have no interest in these at all.

What is even worse – for those who actually care about women – is that the reflexive support of every spurious claim by neurotic or deranged women (e.g., the Duke Lacrosse “rape” case) means that sensible and moral people are much less inclined to believe women who allege rape or domestic violence or intimidation by men.  More and more men and also more and more ethical women who care more about individual justice than collective group interest view dubiously any sort of claim of victimhood by a woman at the hands of a man.  The harder feminists push for automatic acceptance of whatever a woman claims a man has done to her, the less seriously good and decent people take feminism.

It is rather like the reflexive claims of racism by any black against any white during the last fifty years.  The practical effect of that is to empower genuine white racism by lumping unbigoted white behavior with whites who despise and discriminate against blacks.  When everything is “racist!,” then nothing is truly racist, or, at least, no one can seriously accept the argument of blacks that racism still exists in America.

The beneficiaries of this anti-factual myth of eradicable racism are true racists, who cannot be distinguished from the vast majority of whites in America who wish to move beyond the rhetoric of black racism-hawkers, who, like feminists, support themselves and extend their power and influence by insisting to blacks that racism still haunts America. 

The shrill silliness of feminism, which we are seeing in the Kavanaugh confirmation, is as predictable as it is vile.  It is a mockery of true justice, an enemy of honest facts, and a pathetic distraction from the real problems our nation faces.



Source link

Please: Not Another Speaker Pelosi


Nancy Pelosi is an embarrassment to Congress, and most members of Congress are an embarrassment to America.

When Pelosi was speaker of the House, she famously stated that Congress needed to pass Obamacare to see what was in the bill.  She also pondered openly whether the Democrat leadership of the House of Representatives ought to “deem” the Senate version of the bill to have passed the House to avoid having members of the House voting on the bill.

Pelosi six years ago opined that unemployment liberated Americans to become photographers or writers or musicians – unemployment was an opportunity for those lucky enough to lose their jobs.  Yet almost exactly six years later, with Republicans controlling the White House and Congress, Pelosi totally reversed her attitude toward unemployment.  She commented recently on the latest unemployment figures as evidence that “the wealthiest one percent continue to hoard the benefits of the U.S economy.”

This comes out of the mouth of the seventh richest person in Congress, whose estimated wealth is $191 million.  Pelosi’s wealth 25 times greater than the top one percent in America at her age, which is $7.6 million.  Pelosi’s wealth is much greater than the top one thousandth (0.1%) of the nation, which is $43 million.  Pelosi’s wealth is even greater than the top ten thousandth (0.01%) of Americans, which $100 million.

In other words, Pelosi is super-rich by almost any reasonable standard, and yet she professes to champion ordinary Americans by attacking those Americans whose net wealth is much closer to the net wealth of an ordinary hardworking American than her own.  Pelosi is so surreally out of touch with reality that she actually thinks the “top one percent,” which largely represents those Americans who are trying to become financially secure by working hard and taking risks, are the problem.

Pelosi is so rich and insulated from the lives of ordinary Americans and even the lives of ordinary millionaires (who still have to work) that she might as well be on the Moon.  There is an utter disconnect between the actual lives of ordinary Americans and people like Pelosi that defies remedy.

What makes this worse is Pelosi’s long tenure in Congress – thirty-one years this June.  She has been deeply involved in politics since she served on the Democrat National Committee in 1976.  Her father was a congressman and mayor of Baltimore, and her brother also served as mayor of Baltimore.  Even her husband’s brother served as a council member of San Francisco.  Pelosi’s college degree – surprise! – is in political science.  

It is also no surprise that Pelosi has hung tenaciously to her leadership position in the House of Representatives, either as minority leader, when Republicans controlled the House of Representatives or as speaker when Democrats controlled the House, positions she has now held for 15 years.  Add to that her tenure as deputy Democrat floor leader, and Pelosi has been in House leadership positions for 23 straight years. 

Nancy Pelosi’s adult life has been spent in New York City; San Francisco; and Washington, D.C., perhaps the three most leftist communities in America, and Pelosi grew up in Baltimore, a Democrat stronghold since before the Civil War.  There is nothing to suggest that Nancy Pelosi has been exposed to anything accept the corrupt cant of Democrat politics or that she has had to live in anything like the world of hardworking Americans, who have to earn their daily bread by getting up and going to a job each day.

As the November 2018 midterms approach, Republicans would be wise to remind voters of just how unfit Nancy Pelosi is to change the direction of American politics and government and to restore trust in Washington, so seedy and noxious today that almost no sane and moral person trusts any member of Congress to be wise and honorable. 

It is hard to imagine, for Republicans, a Democrat leader so utterly out of sync with American voters as Nancy Pelosi.  She represents all of the worst features of career politics and of the Washington insider.  Republicans ought to start making their political ads today with Nancy Pelosi as their poster child. 

Image: Nancy Pelosi via Flickr.

Nancy Pelosi is an embarrassment to Congress, and most members of Congress are an embarrassment to America.

When Pelosi was speaker of the House, she famously stated that Congress needed to pass Obamacare to see what was in the bill.  She also pondered openly whether the Democrat leadership of the House of Representatives ought to “deem” the Senate version of the bill to have passed the House to avoid having members of the House voting on the bill.

Pelosi six years ago opined that unemployment liberated Americans to become photographers or writers or musicians – unemployment was an opportunity for those lucky enough to lose their jobs.  Yet almost exactly six years later, with Republicans controlling the White House and Congress, Pelosi totally reversed her attitude toward unemployment.  She commented recently on the latest unemployment figures as evidence that “the wealthiest one percent continue to hoard the benefits of the U.S economy.”

This comes out of the mouth of the seventh richest person in Congress, whose estimated wealth is $191 million.  Pelosi’s wealth 25 times greater than the top one percent in America at her age, which is $7.6 million.  Pelosi’s wealth is much greater than the top one thousandth (0.1%) of the nation, which is $43 million.  Pelosi’s wealth is even greater than the top ten thousandth (0.01%) of Americans, which $100 million.

In other words, Pelosi is super-rich by almost any reasonable standard, and yet she professes to champion ordinary Americans by attacking those Americans whose net wealth is much closer to the net wealth of an ordinary hardworking American than her own.  Pelosi is so surreally out of touch with reality that she actually thinks the “top one percent,” which largely represents those Americans who are trying to become financially secure by working hard and taking risks, are the problem.

Pelosi is so rich and insulated from the lives of ordinary Americans and even the lives of ordinary millionaires (who still have to work) that she might as well be on the Moon.  There is an utter disconnect between the actual lives of ordinary Americans and people like Pelosi that defies remedy.

What makes this worse is Pelosi’s long tenure in Congress – thirty-one years this June.  She has been deeply involved in politics since she served on the Democrat National Committee in 1976.  Her father was a congressman and mayor of Baltimore, and her brother also served as mayor of Baltimore.  Even her husband’s brother served as a council member of San Francisco.  Pelosi’s college degree – surprise! – is in political science.  

It is also no surprise that Pelosi has hung tenaciously to her leadership position in the House of Representatives, either as minority leader, when Republicans controlled the House of Representatives or as speaker when Democrats controlled the House, positions she has now held for 15 years.  Add to that her tenure as deputy Democrat floor leader, and Pelosi has been in House leadership positions for 23 straight years. 

Nancy Pelosi’s adult life has been spent in New York City; San Francisco; and Washington, D.C., perhaps the three most leftist communities in America, and Pelosi grew up in Baltimore, a Democrat stronghold since before the Civil War.  There is nothing to suggest that Nancy Pelosi has been exposed to anything accept the corrupt cant of Democrat politics or that she has had to live in anything like the world of hardworking Americans, who have to earn their daily bread by getting up and going to a job each day.

As the November 2018 midterms approach, Republicans would be wise to remind voters of just how unfit Nancy Pelosi is to change the direction of American politics and government and to restore trust in Washington, so seedy and noxious today that almost no sane and moral person trusts any member of Congress to be wise and honorable. 

It is hard to imagine, for Republicans, a Democrat leader so utterly out of sync with American voters as Nancy Pelosi.  She represents all of the worst features of career politics and of the Washington insider.  Republicans ought to start making their political ads today with Nancy Pelosi as their poster child. 

Image: Nancy Pelosi via Flickr.



Source link

Where Are Social Conservatives to Go?


The recent defeat in Wisconsin of a conservative state Supreme Court candidate and the warning issued by Governor Walker ought to be a wake-up call to Trump and the RINO leadership in Congress.   Gallup reports that more than one third of Americans are self-defined “social conservatives,” a large percentage of the population that is essential for any conservative or Republican electoral victory.  Historically, conservatism has been viewed as a three-legged stool:  social conservatives, fiscal (or economic) conservatives, and national security conservatives. 

In fact, these three groups have little in common except a rejection of leftism.  Leftism, by contrast, because it is a soulless and unthinking brute, can be held together with nothing more than a common lust for power and status.  Contradictions within leftism are therefore as irrelevant as the banner in 1984‘s Ministry of Truth: “War is peace.  Freedom is slavery.  Ignorance is strength.”

Today social conservatives, not pseudo-social conservatives who are really motivated by nothing more than naked self-interest, have nowhere to go in American politics.  The Democratic Party is anathema to social conservatives, and it does nothing to attract these American voters.  The Republican Party establishment cynically uses these social conservatives by speaking one thing and doing another. 

More troubling is the fact that the challenger within the Republican Party for its message is President Trump, who is just as cynical about how he plays to social conservatives and whose life is a horror story to these Americans who form a critical part of the Republican Party base.  The two poles of Republican Party leadership, the president and his friends and the Republicans in Congress and their cronies, are equally noxious to social conservatives.

Both these two groups within the Republican Party power structure have tried to finesse social conservatives into supporting them by appealing to issues like economic growth, immigration enforcement, and the war on Islamic terrorism.  This strategy is unpersuasive, and many social conservatives actually find themselves on the other side of the fence in each of these three areas.

Why should social conservatives who are retired or close to retirement care about economic growth more than the left’s promise to protect Social Security, Medicare, and related parts of the federal support for older Americans?  Self-interest, in fact, would lead many of these social conservatives to support the left, even though the long-term consequence for the nation would be bad. 

Remember that Trump and the Republican Establishment are not seeking support on moral grounds.  Indeed, both eschew real morality in place of the faux morality of enlightened self-interest.  By approaching policy this way, voters are invited to vote for whichever party or politician helps them personally the most.  The left is very good at rewarding voter groups who support leftist politics.

Immigration reform is another area in which the Republican bosses base arguments on enlightened self-interest but social conservatives who see America vanishing are likely to look at the character of illegal aliens, who are overwhelmingly Hispanic.  These illegal aliens have historically been more socially conservative than the country club Republicans of the RINO leaders in Congress and President Trump.  True, these would alter the culture of America, but would that necessarily be for the worse to social conservatives?   

The war against Islamic extremism is another example of how social conservatives find all three power bases in Washington – the Democratic Party, the RINO establishment, and President Trump – useless or worse.  Islamic extremism fills the vacuum in Western civilization caused by the steady drift towards godlessness. 

Europe, which has long since abandoned real religious feeling except for a few nations,  finds no means to counter the argument (albeit a perverse argument) by Muslim terrorists for transcendent meaning in life.  These young Muslim men see rampant immorality, religious indifference, and gross materialism infecting the West, and they are right.  The cure they offer is violence and terrorism, which is abominable.

The Christianity of social conservatives, if supported by political parties at least rhetorically and by other means consistent with the Constitution, could answer Muslim extremism with a Gospel of Love and Purpose, but we fight, instead, in a long simmering war of attrition with no guarantee of victory.

Without social conservatives, the Republican Party, the chosen vehicle of both the RINO leadership in Congress and of President Trump, will face calamity in November and perhaps an inevitable decline into a limp second party in an increasingly one-party nation.  These Americans are the key to victory for all conservative policies, but they need real and socially conservative leadership to be their champion.  So far, no such leaders are in sight.

The recent defeat in Wisconsin of a conservative state Supreme Court candidate and the warning issued by Governor Walker ought to be a wake-up call to Trump and the RINO leadership in Congress.   Gallup reports that more than one third of Americans are self-defined “social conservatives,” a large percentage of the population that is essential for any conservative or Republican electoral victory.  Historically, conservatism has been viewed as a three-legged stool:  social conservatives, fiscal (or economic) conservatives, and national security conservatives. 

In fact, these three groups have little in common except a rejection of leftism.  Leftism, by contrast, because it is a soulless and unthinking brute, can be held together with nothing more than a common lust for power and status.  Contradictions within leftism are therefore as irrelevant as the banner in 1984‘s Ministry of Truth: “War is peace.  Freedom is slavery.  Ignorance is strength.”

Today social conservatives, not pseudo-social conservatives who are really motivated by nothing more than naked self-interest, have nowhere to go in American politics.  The Democratic Party is anathema to social conservatives, and it does nothing to attract these American voters.  The Republican Party establishment cynically uses these social conservatives by speaking one thing and doing another. 

More troubling is the fact that the challenger within the Republican Party for its message is President Trump, who is just as cynical about how he plays to social conservatives and whose life is a horror story to these Americans who form a critical part of the Republican Party base.  The two poles of Republican Party leadership, the president and his friends and the Republicans in Congress and their cronies, are equally noxious to social conservatives.

Both these two groups within the Republican Party power structure have tried to finesse social conservatives into supporting them by appealing to issues like economic growth, immigration enforcement, and the war on Islamic terrorism.  This strategy is unpersuasive, and many social conservatives actually find themselves on the other side of the fence in each of these three areas.

Why should social conservatives who are retired or close to retirement care about economic growth more than the left’s promise to protect Social Security, Medicare, and related parts of the federal support for older Americans?  Self-interest, in fact, would lead many of these social conservatives to support the left, even though the long-term consequence for the nation would be bad. 

Remember that Trump and the Republican Establishment are not seeking support on moral grounds.  Indeed, both eschew real morality in place of the faux morality of enlightened self-interest.  By approaching policy this way, voters are invited to vote for whichever party or politician helps them personally the most.  The left is very good at rewarding voter groups who support leftist politics.

Immigration reform is another area in which the Republican bosses base arguments on enlightened self-interest but social conservatives who see America vanishing are likely to look at the character of illegal aliens, who are overwhelmingly Hispanic.  These illegal aliens have historically been more socially conservative than the country club Republicans of the RINO leaders in Congress and President Trump.  True, these would alter the culture of America, but would that necessarily be for the worse to social conservatives?   

The war against Islamic extremism is another example of how social conservatives find all three power bases in Washington – the Democratic Party, the RINO establishment, and President Trump – useless or worse.  Islamic extremism fills the vacuum in Western civilization caused by the steady drift towards godlessness. 

Europe, which has long since abandoned real religious feeling except for a few nations,  finds no means to counter the argument (albeit a perverse argument) by Muslim terrorists for transcendent meaning in life.  These young Muslim men see rampant immorality, religious indifference, and gross materialism infecting the West, and they are right.  The cure they offer is violence and terrorism, which is abominable.

The Christianity of social conservatives, if supported by political parties at least rhetorically and by other means consistent with the Constitution, could answer Muslim extremism with a Gospel of Love and Purpose, but we fight, instead, in a long simmering war of attrition with no guarantee of victory.

Without social conservatives, the Republican Party, the chosen vehicle of both the RINO leadership in Congress and of President Trump, will face calamity in November and perhaps an inevitable decline into a limp second party in an increasingly one-party nation.  These Americans are the key to victory for all conservative policies, but they need real and socially conservative leadership to be their champion.  So far, no such leaders are in sight.



Source link

Justice Stevens Unholsters a Dopey Idea


Retired Supreme Court justice John Paul Stevens has proposed repealing the Second Amendment.  If we needed more proof of the pathetic stupidity of most jurists these days, Stevens’s dopey idea is a prime example.  State governments already have wide discretion in controlling the sale of guns, and if there were a co-relationship between gun control and violent crime, then the degree to which state governments limited gun sales should show a correspondingly low violent crime rate.

But that just is not so.  Slate has a table in which it rates how tight gun control laws are by giving each state a grade, with the highest grade being an  “A-.”  Six states – California, Connecticut, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, and New York – received that highest grade.  Yet four of those six states – California, Maryland, Massachusetts, and New York – were in the top twenty-five states in terms of violent crime. 

Among the ten safest states – Maine, Vermont, New Hampshire, Virginia, Connecticut, Idaho, Kentucky, Rhode Island, Minnesota, and Utah – Maine, Vermont, Idaho, Kentucky, and Utah received a grade of “F,” the lowest possible score.  This does not mean there is a positive correlation between relaxed state gun control laws and violent crime, but it does mean that there is no meaningful correlation at all regarding state gun control laws and violent crime.

What can be said with absolute assurance is that repealing the Second Amendment will diminish individual liberty.  Is diminishing individual liberty by amending the Constitution justified if the purpose is to reduce violent crime?  Surely, there are more useful abridgements of liberty through constitutional amendment if our purpose is to reduce violent crime.

Any veteran prosecutor or policeman can tell you that Supreme Court interpretations of the Bill of Rights created a monstrous problem in convicting savvy criminals.  Really bad and dangerous people are turned loose and have been turned loose over the last fifty years because the Supreme Court elevated individual liberty, even for the patently guilty and nasty criminal, to higher importance than protecting the public against violent crime. 

Justice Stevens, during his tenure on the Supreme Court, routinely voted to protect and even expand the rights of criminals at the expense of public safety.  Indeed, if a positive correlation between violent crime and public policy needs to be found, the best indicator is the doubling of the violent crime rate from 1965 to the present.  This did not seem to bother Justice Stevens at all when he was on the Supreme Court. 

What makes this particularly galling is that the Supreme Court decisions from the mid-1960s through the next decade let manifestly guilty monsters go free, because their individual liberties under the Constitution were considered, by Justice Stevens and his ilk, to trump the safety of the public.  No conservatives are arguing that violent criminals should be allowed to buy handguns.  Indeed, violent criminals are not dissuaded at all by gun control laws, which inhibit only innocent citizens trying to protect themselves.

The curtailment of other constitutional rights might also produce a much lower crime rate.  The breakup of families, as this Heritage Foundation report shows, contributes more than any other factor in causing violent crime.  Should we amend the Constitution to reduce the rights of parents to divorce and to allow states to take children born out of wedlock away from unwed mothers?  Those constitutional changes might well reduce crime rates dramatically, but they would limit the liberty of those who wish to raise children in single-parent homes.  

Moreover, even in nations with strict gun control laws, like the United Kingdom, the breakup of the nuclear family is closely related to criminal behavior.  A study in Britain shows that children of broken homes are nine times more likely to engage in criminal behavior than children from stable homes.

What this means is that the left is utterly hypocritical when it comes to protecting constitutional liberties and protecting public safety.  Although there is no real evidence that tougher gun control and public safety are positively correlated with each other, this is the first reflexive response of the left to any discussion of crime – and the left’s plans control only the law-abiding citizen.

On the other hand, any efforts to reduce the individual liberties of clearly guilty criminals or promiscuous unwed mothers, both of which contribute significantly to the breakdown in public safety, are either ignored by the left or attacked when conservatives raise the subject.

The bottom line?  The left does not care a whit about public safety.  It cares about limiting the liberties of law-abiding citizens.

Image: Paul Swansen via Flickr.

Retired Supreme Court justice John Paul Stevens has proposed repealing the Second Amendment.  If we needed more proof of the pathetic stupidity of most jurists these days, Stevens’s dopey idea is a prime example.  State governments already have wide discretion in controlling the sale of guns, and if there were a co-relationship between gun control and violent crime, then the degree to which state governments limited gun sales should show a correspondingly low violent crime rate.

But that just is not so.  Slate has a table in which it rates how tight gun control laws are by giving each state a grade, with the highest grade being an  “A-.”  Six states – California, Connecticut, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, and New York – received that highest grade.  Yet four of those six states – California, Maryland, Massachusetts, and New York – were in the top twenty-five states in terms of violent crime. 

Among the ten safest states – Maine, Vermont, New Hampshire, Virginia, Connecticut, Idaho, Kentucky, Rhode Island, Minnesota, and Utah – Maine, Vermont, Idaho, Kentucky, and Utah received a grade of “F,” the lowest possible score.  This does not mean there is a positive correlation between relaxed state gun control laws and violent crime, but it does mean that there is no meaningful correlation at all regarding state gun control laws and violent crime.

What can be said with absolute assurance is that repealing the Second Amendment will diminish individual liberty.  Is diminishing individual liberty by amending the Constitution justified if the purpose is to reduce violent crime?  Surely, there are more useful abridgements of liberty through constitutional amendment if our purpose is to reduce violent crime.

Any veteran prosecutor or policeman can tell you that Supreme Court interpretations of the Bill of Rights created a monstrous problem in convicting savvy criminals.  Really bad and dangerous people are turned loose and have been turned loose over the last fifty years because the Supreme Court elevated individual liberty, even for the patently guilty and nasty criminal, to higher importance than protecting the public against violent crime. 

Justice Stevens, during his tenure on the Supreme Court, routinely voted to protect and even expand the rights of criminals at the expense of public safety.  Indeed, if a positive correlation between violent crime and public policy needs to be found, the best indicator is the doubling of the violent crime rate from 1965 to the present.  This did not seem to bother Justice Stevens at all when he was on the Supreme Court. 

What makes this particularly galling is that the Supreme Court decisions from the mid-1960s through the next decade let manifestly guilty monsters go free, because their individual liberties under the Constitution were considered, by Justice Stevens and his ilk, to trump the safety of the public.  No conservatives are arguing that violent criminals should be allowed to buy handguns.  Indeed, violent criminals are not dissuaded at all by gun control laws, which inhibit only innocent citizens trying to protect themselves.

The curtailment of other constitutional rights might also produce a much lower crime rate.  The breakup of families, as this Heritage Foundation report shows, contributes more than any other factor in causing violent crime.  Should we amend the Constitution to reduce the rights of parents to divorce and to allow states to take children born out of wedlock away from unwed mothers?  Those constitutional changes might well reduce crime rates dramatically, but they would limit the liberty of those who wish to raise children in single-parent homes.  

Moreover, even in nations with strict gun control laws, like the United Kingdom, the breakup of the nuclear family is closely related to criminal behavior.  A study in Britain shows that children of broken homes are nine times more likely to engage in criminal behavior than children from stable homes.

What this means is that the left is utterly hypocritical when it comes to protecting constitutional liberties and protecting public safety.  Although there is no real evidence that tougher gun control and public safety are positively correlated with each other, this is the first reflexive response of the left to any discussion of crime – and the left’s plans control only the law-abiding citizen.

On the other hand, any efforts to reduce the individual liberties of clearly guilty criminals or promiscuous unwed mothers, both of which contribute significantly to the breakdown in public safety, are either ignored by the left or attacked when conservatives raise the subject.

The bottom line?  The left does not care a whit about public safety.  It cares about limiting the liberties of law-abiding citizens.

Image: Paul Swansen via Flickr.



Source link

Fifty Years after the Prague Spring


March 22 marks the fiftieth anniversary of the first flowering of the Prague Spring, when Marxism in Czechoslovakia tried to end the abuses of power and to grant to the people a measure of the sort of freedom so solemnly promised in the charters of every communist regime in the world.  The Soviet-led invasion of Czechoslovakia demonstrated to anyone who could be convinced by facts that leftism seeks only power and nothing else.

The Prague Spring did not begin with a repudiation of Marxism.  Indeed, the slogan used by the Czechs involved in the Prague Spring was that they wanted to create “Socialism with a Human Face.”  These reformers were careful not to criticize communism or the Soviet Union and not to pull out of the Warsaw Pact.  Dubcek, the first secretary of the Communist Party, having ousted the prior first secretary, was actually using the Communist Party as an agent of reform.

This allowed Svoboda in late March of 1968 to become president of Czechoslovakia, which meant both the party and the government were now behind the reforms.  What sort of reforms were sought?  Reducing the power of the secret police, allowing freedom of speech and of the press, making the economy more focused on the needs of consumers rather than mass industrialization, and friendly relations with all nations.

When Svoboda became the head of state in Czechoslovakia after Dubcek was made first secretary of the Communist Party, the reformers were in control, and the reforms they sought proceeded.  Unlike the Hungarian Revolution a dozen years earlier, which was a war against the communist rulers of that unhappy nation, the Prague Spring was entirely peaceful and offered no threat to anything that ought to have mattered to the Soviets, if the Soviets actually cared about what Marxism preached.

Moreover, Czechoslovakia was the one nation in Eastern Europe that had a long history of friendly relations with the Soviet Union, dating back before Hitler’s rise to power, and this attitude more or less compelled the Soviets to treat Czechoslovakia differently when the war ended, allowing other political parties, for a few years, anyway, to exist and to participate in the life of the nation. 

While Hungary, Romania, and Bulgaria had declared war on the Soviet Union and while Poland constituted a real dilemma for the Soviets because of its traditional hostility to Russia and its size and population, Czechoslovakia, both as an independent state and as a vassal territory of the Third Reich, had behaved about as sympathetically to the Soviet Union as any nation in Europe.  Dubcek himself fought against Nazism as part of the Underground in Czechoslovakia. 

When the Soviets and the whipped dog nations of the Warsaw Pact invaded Czechoslovakia, Dubcek asked the people to offer no violent resistance, and that request was honored by the Czechs, presenting Brezhnev and the Politburo with a problem.  Dubcek was briefly taken into custody and eventually drummed out of the Communist Party, but the Soviets had him made ambassador to Turkey.  When the Soviet Empire was dismantled beginning in 1989 with the overwhelming non-Communist victory in the first free elections Poland had since the end of the war, Dubcek was not forgotten by the Czechoslovakian people, who made him chairman of the Federal Assembly in the post-communist era.

The Prague Spring was a noble experiment to test the true tolerance of leftism and the true goal of leftism.  Dubcek and his fellow Czechs simply wanted genuine liberty of mind and conscience, restraint of the brutal power of statism, and real democracy.  They failed in a way that the Solidarity Movement in Poland did not fail because Dubcek and his allies in Czechoslovakia assumed that by offering no threat to communism, they could actually humanize leftism.

But the reality is that leftism, wherever it exists, ultimately does not stand for anything at all.  It has no values, respects no principles, embraces no moral code, and represents nothing true.  When the Cold War was won, it was won by brave, noble, and hard-headed people who grasped that fact: President Reagan, Prime Minister Thatcher, Pope John Paul II, and Alexander Solzhenitsyn. 

The Prague Spring was a glorious gesture doomed to fail.  There is no compromise with the gangsters who infest every aspect of leftism.  Good men like Dubcek should be respected for what they tried to do but not for how they tried to do it.  The only way to stop evil is to defeat it and never to compromise with it.

March 22 marks the fiftieth anniversary of the first flowering of the Prague Spring, when Marxism in Czechoslovakia tried to end the abuses of power and to grant to the people a measure of the sort of freedom so solemnly promised in the charters of every communist regime in the world.  The Soviet-led invasion of Czechoslovakia demonstrated to anyone who could be convinced by facts that leftism seeks only power and nothing else.

The Prague Spring did not begin with a repudiation of Marxism.  Indeed, the slogan used by the Czechs involved in the Prague Spring was that they wanted to create “Socialism with a Human Face.”  These reformers were careful not to criticize communism or the Soviet Union and not to pull out of the Warsaw Pact.  Dubcek, the first secretary of the Communist Party, having ousted the prior first secretary, was actually using the Communist Party as an agent of reform.

This allowed Svoboda in late March of 1968 to become president of Czechoslovakia, which meant both the party and the government were now behind the reforms.  What sort of reforms were sought?  Reducing the power of the secret police, allowing freedom of speech and of the press, making the economy more focused on the needs of consumers rather than mass industrialization, and friendly relations with all nations.

When Svoboda became the head of state in Czechoslovakia after Dubcek was made first secretary of the Communist Party, the reformers were in control, and the reforms they sought proceeded.  Unlike the Hungarian Revolution a dozen years earlier, which was a war against the communist rulers of that unhappy nation, the Prague Spring was entirely peaceful and offered no threat to anything that ought to have mattered to the Soviets, if the Soviets actually cared about what Marxism preached.

Moreover, Czechoslovakia was the one nation in Eastern Europe that had a long history of friendly relations with the Soviet Union, dating back before Hitler’s rise to power, and this attitude more or less compelled the Soviets to treat Czechoslovakia differently when the war ended, allowing other political parties, for a few years, anyway, to exist and to participate in the life of the nation. 

While Hungary, Romania, and Bulgaria had declared war on the Soviet Union and while Poland constituted a real dilemma for the Soviets because of its traditional hostility to Russia and its size and population, Czechoslovakia, both as an independent state and as a vassal territory of the Third Reich, had behaved about as sympathetically to the Soviet Union as any nation in Europe.  Dubcek himself fought against Nazism as part of the Underground in Czechoslovakia. 

When the Soviets and the whipped dog nations of the Warsaw Pact invaded Czechoslovakia, Dubcek asked the people to offer no violent resistance, and that request was honored by the Czechs, presenting Brezhnev and the Politburo with a problem.  Dubcek was briefly taken into custody and eventually drummed out of the Communist Party, but the Soviets had him made ambassador to Turkey.  When the Soviet Empire was dismantled beginning in 1989 with the overwhelming non-Communist victory in the first free elections Poland had since the end of the war, Dubcek was not forgotten by the Czechoslovakian people, who made him chairman of the Federal Assembly in the post-communist era.

The Prague Spring was a noble experiment to test the true tolerance of leftism and the true goal of leftism.  Dubcek and his fellow Czechs simply wanted genuine liberty of mind and conscience, restraint of the brutal power of statism, and real democracy.  They failed in a way that the Solidarity Movement in Poland did not fail because Dubcek and his allies in Czechoslovakia assumed that by offering no threat to communism, they could actually humanize leftism.

But the reality is that leftism, wherever it exists, ultimately does not stand for anything at all.  It has no values, respects no principles, embraces no moral code, and represents nothing true.  When the Cold War was won, it was won by brave, noble, and hard-headed people who grasped that fact: President Reagan, Prime Minister Thatcher, Pope John Paul II, and Alexander Solzhenitsyn. 

The Prague Spring was a glorious gesture doomed to fail.  There is no compromise with the gangsters who infest every aspect of leftism.  Good men like Dubcek should be respected for what they tried to do but not for how they tried to do it.  The only way to stop evil is to defeat it and never to compromise with it.



Source link

The Welcome Rebirth of Nationalism


The Italian elections of March 4 carry a theme that has become increasingly familiar among those nations in the European Union.  Britain, Germany, France, and Holland have all had elections that swung strongly toward nationalism and the resuscitation of national identity through new political movements that reject the centralization of European government and open borders.

Nationalism has gotten a bad name because the left has falsely associated it with Nazism.  The Nazis, in fact, were imperialist invaders of other nations, and it was the nationalism of nations in the path of the Nazis – British, Swiss, Spanish, and Turkish – that blocked Nazism and confined that evil to continental Europe.  Nationalism, when that means that the people in a nation with a distinctive language and culture ask only to be left in peace, is the solution to many of our world’s problems.

Most troublesome nations are really empires of many peoples whose national aspiration are crushed.  Iran, Iraq, China, Pakistan, Indonesia, India, and many other large nations are highly artificial and are held together, against common sense and good government, in a large state that has many different languages, different religions or sects of religions, and different cultures.

The deconstruction of these empires into smaller and rational nations is the key to peace and understanding.  The Soviet Union, as a great Russian empire, was miserable and oppressed.  Since that empire splintered into many nations there has been virtually no desire from the formerly oppressed peoples to rejoin Russia in some vast confederation.

Yugoslavia likewise fragmented into several different nations.  The Slovaks, forced into an unhappy union with the Czechs, have never regretted the Velvet Divorce, which broke Czechoslovakia into two new nations.  The Irish, likewise, have never sought to rejoin the United Kingdom, and the Scots have been making noises that suggest that the United Kingdom should lose Scotland as well.

Nationalism reduces tensions by removing one of the major causes of conflict in the world.  What silly supranational organizations like the League of Nations, the United Nations, and the European Union do is submerge nationalism and remove citizens even farther from the centers of political power.  The attempt to make nations alike also removes one of the most potent natural systems for creating peaceful competition in economics, culture, education, and law.

The analogy in America is the marketplace of states, which the left constantly seeks to undermine through hyper-federalization of government, forcing states more and more to follow the dictates of Washington, whatever the citizens of those states may wish.  When Europe is made up out of a large number of small and medium-sized nations that act independently, then these nations follow their own paths in domestic policy.  This means experimentation and also a balancing of interests suitable to particular nations.  The people in Greece, Finland, Ireland, Holland, Portugal, Norway, Italy, Britain, Germany, and France do not all want exactly the same things.  Why is it not their right to choose what they want and how to handle the inevitable tradeoffs that decisions entail?

Moreover, what right do strangers have to enter these lands, where the people find them disruptive and dangerous?  The invasion of the nations whose elections show anger at open borders is like the invasion burglars make into the homes of others.  That the burglar needs a better place to live is no rationale at all. 

We should no more think of decriminalizing entering nations illegally than we would think about decriminalizing burglary.  When legal immigrants become violent and threatening, we should no more think these people have a “right” to be in a nation than we would think a new abusive husband who moves into a home has the “right” to stay there and intimidate the rest of the household.

Elections in Europe are beginning to reflect what the natural citizens of nations feel about remote supranational governments, the removal of the rights of nations to their own culture, and the right of people who live in their homeland to keep out those who are seen as a danger.  This rebirth of nationalism is a hope, not a worry, to those who love peace and want the state to leave them alone.

The Italian elections of March 4 carry a theme that has become increasingly familiar among those nations in the European Union.  Britain, Germany, France, and Holland have all had elections that swung strongly toward nationalism and the resuscitation of national identity through new political movements that reject the centralization of European government and open borders.

Nationalism has gotten a bad name because the left has falsely associated it with Nazism.  The Nazis, in fact, were imperialist invaders of other nations, and it was the nationalism of nations in the path of the Nazis – British, Swiss, Spanish, and Turkish – that blocked Nazism and confined that evil to continental Europe.  Nationalism, when that means that the people in a nation with a distinctive language and culture ask only to be left in peace, is the solution to many of our world’s problems.

Most troublesome nations are really empires of many peoples whose national aspiration are crushed.  Iran, Iraq, China, Pakistan, Indonesia, India, and many other large nations are highly artificial and are held together, against common sense and good government, in a large state that has many different languages, different religions or sects of religions, and different cultures.

The deconstruction of these empires into smaller and rational nations is the key to peace and understanding.  The Soviet Union, as a great Russian empire, was miserable and oppressed.  Since that empire splintered into many nations there has been virtually no desire from the formerly oppressed peoples to rejoin Russia in some vast confederation.

Yugoslavia likewise fragmented into several different nations.  The Slovaks, forced into an unhappy union with the Czechs, have never regretted the Velvet Divorce, which broke Czechoslovakia into two new nations.  The Irish, likewise, have never sought to rejoin the United Kingdom, and the Scots have been making noises that suggest that the United Kingdom should lose Scotland as well.

Nationalism reduces tensions by removing one of the major causes of conflict in the world.  What silly supranational organizations like the League of Nations, the United Nations, and the European Union do is submerge nationalism and remove citizens even farther from the centers of political power.  The attempt to make nations alike also removes one of the most potent natural systems for creating peaceful competition in economics, culture, education, and law.

The analogy in America is the marketplace of states, which the left constantly seeks to undermine through hyper-federalization of government, forcing states more and more to follow the dictates of Washington, whatever the citizens of those states may wish.  When Europe is made up out of a large number of small and medium-sized nations that act independently, then these nations follow their own paths in domestic policy.  This means experimentation and also a balancing of interests suitable to particular nations.  The people in Greece, Finland, Ireland, Holland, Portugal, Norway, Italy, Britain, Germany, and France do not all want exactly the same things.  Why is it not their right to choose what they want and how to handle the inevitable tradeoffs that decisions entail?

Moreover, what right do strangers have to enter these lands, where the people find them disruptive and dangerous?  The invasion of the nations whose elections show anger at open borders is like the invasion burglars make into the homes of others.  That the burglar needs a better place to live is no rationale at all. 

We should no more think of decriminalizing entering nations illegally than we would think about decriminalizing burglary.  When legal immigrants become violent and threatening, we should no more think these people have a “right” to be in a nation than we would think a new abusive husband who moves into a home has the “right” to stay there and intimidate the rest of the household.

Elections in Europe are beginning to reflect what the natural citizens of nations feel about remote supranational governments, the removal of the rights of nations to their own culture, and the right of people who live in their homeland to keep out those who are seen as a danger.  This rebirth of nationalism is a hope, not a worry, to those who love peace and want the state to leave them alone.



Source link

The Blessings of Judaism and Christianity


While Jews prepare for Pesach and Christians prepare for Easter, it is a proper time to consider and to grasp the enormous blessings of these great faiths of Jews and Christians, both of which are reviled and slandered and despised not because of their failures, but because of their triumphs.

It is part of Judaism and of Christianity to accept the grim fact that the world despises those who follow these religions.  This hatred is profoundly irrational.  Consider the rage vented on Israel, which wishes only peace on that narrow strip of land that is holy to Jews.  Consider the rage vented on Christians in the media for following the Gospel of Love.  Yet nearly every good and noble movement or deed has its roots in Judaism or Christianity. 

The status of women, for example, found liberation in the rights granted to women in Judaic law and the special honor bestowed on the many great women in the Tanakh, something revolutionary in the ancient world.  The status of women under Christianity was so deeply ingrained that as Christian Europe colonized India, China, and the rest of the Old World, such hideous practices as the suttee and foot-binding were suppressed.

Slavery in the ancient world was a horror, but slaves, uniquely, had rights under Jewish law.  Christianity explicitly recognized the spiritual equality of slaves and masters, and from Africa to Ireland, Christian leaders campaigned against this evil.  Slavery was essentially abolished in Europe during the Middle Ages.  Pope Paul III in 1537 issued the bill Sublimis Deus, which expressly declared any slavery, regardless of race or creed, null and void.

The global anti-slavery movement in the 19th century was championed by men like William Wilberforce whose voices compelled the Christian world to embrace the abolition of slavery and ended that institution in the lands ruled by Christians.

Compassion for animals also has deep roots in Judaism, and it is not for nothing that the Psalms of the Tanakh read so movingly about animals.  The campaign to outlaw cruelty to animals was almost exclusively waged by Christians, and the Massachusetts Bay Colony passed a law against cruelty to animals in 1641.  American Evangelical Christian preachers in the 19th century were required to have sermons at least once a year on the evils of cruelty to animals. 

Jews and Christians also dramatically elevated the intellectual life of the world.  The first people to have universally literate males were Jews, whose requirement for Bar Mitzvah was to read Torah in Hebrew.  The first nation to have universally literate people, regardless of sex, was Scotland, whose church required all boys and girls to be literate. 

Jews also engaged in spirited intellectual debates almost as soon as the Babylonian Captivity ended, and this produced a tradition of free discussion and inquiry.  The modern university evolved exclusively out of the cathedral schools of the Middle Ages and became the pinnacle of scientific and analytical thinking for the whole world for the next several centuries.  Anyone who imagines that medieval Europe was ignorant or backwards is bigoted and wrong.  The geniuses of that era dwarf our modern “thinkers,” and a single work, Friar Bacon’s Opus Magnus, reveals one of the greatest and most comprehensive minds in human history.

Why, then, are Judaism and Christianity so reviled and condemned?  This hatred is the result not of its failures, but rather of its triumphs.  The lands that began as Israel were poor and miserable until the Jews made the deserts flourish.  The world Christendom changed was a nightmarish realm of helpless women, brutalized slaves, and tormented animals until Christians forced change upon these lands. 

We are in danger, as the long cold war against Judaism and Christianity programs more and more people to hate and fear the only thing that brings love and peace into the world, of losing the only true hope of mankind.  All the economic growth, all the technological gadgetry, all the plans of all the politicians in the world will fail if these faiths are reduced to irrelevance in our lives.  The hour is near when, one way or the other, humanity will embark on a course that will either save us or reduce us to pathetic and hopeless drones.

While Jews prepare for Pesach and Christians prepare for Easter, it is a proper time to consider and to grasp the enormous blessings of these great faiths of Jews and Christians, both of which are reviled and slandered and despised not because of their failures, but because of their triumphs.

It is part of Judaism and of Christianity to accept the grim fact that the world despises those who follow these religions.  This hatred is profoundly irrational.  Consider the rage vented on Israel, which wishes only peace on that narrow strip of land that is holy to Jews.  Consider the rage vented on Christians in the media for following the Gospel of Love.  Yet nearly every good and noble movement or deed has its roots in Judaism or Christianity. 

The status of women, for example, found liberation in the rights granted to women in Judaic law and the special honor bestowed on the many great women in the Tanakh, something revolutionary in the ancient world.  The status of women under Christianity was so deeply ingrained that as Christian Europe colonized India, China, and the rest of the Old World, such hideous practices as the suttee and foot-binding were suppressed.

Slavery in the ancient world was a horror, but slaves, uniquely, had rights under Jewish law.  Christianity explicitly recognized the spiritual equality of slaves and masters, and from Africa to Ireland, Christian leaders campaigned against this evil.  Slavery was essentially abolished in Europe during the Middle Ages.  Pope Paul III in 1537 issued the bill Sublimis Deus, which expressly declared any slavery, regardless of race or creed, null and void.

The global anti-slavery movement in the 19th century was championed by men like William Wilberforce whose voices compelled the Christian world to embrace the abolition of slavery and ended that institution in the lands ruled by Christians.

Compassion for animals also has deep roots in Judaism, and it is not for nothing that the Psalms of the Tanakh read so movingly about animals.  The campaign to outlaw cruelty to animals was almost exclusively waged by Christians, and the Massachusetts Bay Colony passed a law against cruelty to animals in 1641.  American Evangelical Christian preachers in the 19th century were required to have sermons at least once a year on the evils of cruelty to animals. 

Jews and Christians also dramatically elevated the intellectual life of the world.  The first people to have universally literate males were Jews, whose requirement for Bar Mitzvah was to read Torah in Hebrew.  The first nation to have universally literate people, regardless of sex, was Scotland, whose church required all boys and girls to be literate. 

Jews also engaged in spirited intellectual debates almost as soon as the Babylonian Captivity ended, and this produced a tradition of free discussion and inquiry.  The modern university evolved exclusively out of the cathedral schools of the Middle Ages and became the pinnacle of scientific and analytical thinking for the whole world for the next several centuries.  Anyone who imagines that medieval Europe was ignorant or backwards is bigoted and wrong.  The geniuses of that era dwarf our modern “thinkers,” and a single work, Friar Bacon’s Opus Magnus, reveals one of the greatest and most comprehensive minds in human history.

Why, then, are Judaism and Christianity so reviled and condemned?  This hatred is the result not of its failures, but rather of its triumphs.  The lands that began as Israel were poor and miserable until the Jews made the deserts flourish.  The world Christendom changed was a nightmarish realm of helpless women, brutalized slaves, and tormented animals until Christians forced change upon these lands. 

We are in danger, as the long cold war against Judaism and Christianity programs more and more people to hate and fear the only thing that brings love and peace into the world, of losing the only true hope of mankind.  All the economic growth, all the technological gadgetry, all the plans of all the politicians in the world will fail if these faiths are reduced to irrelevance in our lives.  The hour is near when, one way or the other, humanity will embark on a course that will either save us or reduce us to pathetic and hopeless drones.



Source link

Christophobic Nazism


Totalitarian systems are militantly Christophobic.  The comments to some of my articles on the dangers of materialism or the ignorance of atheism try to prove that religion is as dangerous to goodness as atheism repeat the false “fact” that “Hitler was a Catholic.”  This is utterly untrue.  Moreover, all Nazism was viciously Christophobic as well as Judeophobic.

My American Thinker article of November 2007 covers some of the evidence found in old books about the hate all Nazis felt toward Christianity.  My book, Swastika against the Cross: The Nazi War on Christianity, covers many more documentary sources that reveal Nazi persecution of Christianity and Christianity’s lonely war against Nazism.  Many writers at the time noted that Christianity was the only force resisting the Nazis in Europe.

Indeed, there were many books about the Nazi persecution of Christianity and hatred of religion published before the Second World War began with titles like The Nazi Persecution of the Catholic Church in the Third Reich and The Nazi Persecution of Christianity and The War against God and Nazism versus Religion

Hundreds of authors writing before and during the Second World War saw Nazism and Christianity as mortal enemies.  These authors were Christians – both Catholics and Protestants – and Jews and agnostics.  They were on the right and on the left.  They were Frenchmen and Germans and Poles and Americans and Britons.  The convenient rewriting of history that invents out of whole cloth the notion that Christianity and Nazism were in any way linked runs utterly contrary to the historical record of the time.

But were any leading Nazis Christians in any sense of the word?  Emphatically, no.  Consider first Hitler himself.  John Gunther noted as early as 1935 that “Hitler was born and brought up as a Roman Catholic.  But he lost his faith early and attends no religious services of any kind[.] … On being formed his government almost immediately began a fierce religious war against Catholics, Protestants, and Jews alike.”

Hitler before the Nazis came to power described himself to Martin Niemoller as “pagan to the core.”  Hitler stated, “Antiquity was better than modern times because it did not know Christianity and syphilis.”  In 1937, Goslin wrote in his book on church and state that “Hitler himself has openly stated the necessity of making war on Christianity in his autobiography called Mein Kampf.”  The next year, Hitler said: “[O]ur whole deformity and atrophy of spirit and soul would never have come into being except for this oriental mummery, this abominable leveling mania, this cursed universality of Christianity.”

Virtually every other Nazi leader – Hess, Goering, Himmler, Goebbels, Rosenberg, von Shirach, Streicher, and Bormann – expressed a profound disdain and hatred for Christianity.  This was translated into action within the Third Reich in many ways and at many levels.  All Catholic schools in the Catholic parts of Germany were closed.  Thousands of Protestant and Catholic clergymen were arrested and sent to concentration camps. 

Parents were notified that their children could not be given biblical names or the names of Christian martyrs.  The calendar was paganized under the Nazis, removing Christianity from it entirely.  Boys were more or less compelled to join the Hitler Youth, which was violently opposed to Christianity and which disrupted church services and desecrated religious symbols.  Its members sang songs with these lyrics:   “Let Christ rot – and the Hitler Youth march.”  The National Socialist Student Union in 1935 declared: “We discard not only the hundreds of various Christianities, but Christianity itself[.] … Even the Christians who have the honorable will to serve the folk – and there are such – must be fought.”

The brave opposition of Christians to Nazism, and especially Nazi persecution of Jews, was widely applauded by Jewish leaders at the time.  In 1934, Rabbi Stephen Wise wrote: “Hitlerism challenges civilization insofar as it is in truth the substitution of a new paganism, the paganism over which Christianity once triumphed, for Christianity itself[.] … I thank God that in America and England above all and in other lands as well, the voices of Christians have been heard in protest against the unutterable wrongs of Hitlerism against the Jewish people.”

In 1938, Rabbi Morris Lazaron wrote: “Never in history has organized Protestantism throughout the world bestirred itself so in defense of the Jew and to protect the Jew.  More Catholic leaders than ever before have lifted their voices in condemnation of the racial fixation that dictators have used to bait the Jew[.] … No more glorious page is being written in Christian history than that which Christianity is writing in Germany today.  Christianity may yet be the rock on which the German dictatorship will destroy itself.”

Albert Einstein, during the war, wrote: “Only the Church stood squarely across the path of Hitler’s campaign for suppressing the truth.  I never had any special interest in the Church before, but now I feel a great affection and admiration for it because the Church alone has had the courage and persistence to stand for intellectual and moral freedom.”

I could go on, for dozens of pages and hundreds of quotes, but the historical record is quite clear: Nazis hated and feared Christianity as much as any totalitarian regimes in modern history.  Soviets, by the way, hated and feared Jews and Judaism about as much as the Nazis did.  These two great religions have proven indigestible to all great evils.

Totalitarian systems are militantly Christophobic.  The comments to some of my articles on the dangers of materialism or the ignorance of atheism try to prove that religion is as dangerous to goodness as atheism repeat the false “fact” that “Hitler was a Catholic.”  This is utterly untrue.  Moreover, all Nazism was viciously Christophobic as well as Judeophobic.

My American Thinker article of November 2007 covers some of the evidence found in old books about the hate all Nazis felt toward Christianity.  My book, Swastika against the Cross: The Nazi War on Christianity, covers many more documentary sources that reveal Nazi persecution of Christianity and Christianity’s lonely war against Nazism.  Many writers at the time noted that Christianity was the only force resisting the Nazis in Europe.

Indeed, there were many books about the Nazi persecution of Christianity and hatred of religion published before the Second World War began with titles like The Nazi Persecution of the Catholic Church in the Third Reich and The Nazi Persecution of Christianity and The War against God and Nazism versus Religion

Hundreds of authors writing before and during the Second World War saw Nazism and Christianity as mortal enemies.  These authors were Christians – both Catholics and Protestants – and Jews and agnostics.  They were on the right and on the left.  They were Frenchmen and Germans and Poles and Americans and Britons.  The convenient rewriting of history that invents out of whole cloth the notion that Christianity and Nazism were in any way linked runs utterly contrary to the historical record of the time.

But were any leading Nazis Christians in any sense of the word?  Emphatically, no.  Consider first Hitler himself.  John Gunther noted as early as 1935 that “Hitler was born and brought up as a Roman Catholic.  But he lost his faith early and attends no religious services of any kind[.] … On being formed his government almost immediately began a fierce religious war against Catholics, Protestants, and Jews alike.”

Hitler before the Nazis came to power described himself to Martin Niemoller as “pagan to the core.”  Hitler stated, “Antiquity was better than modern times because it did not know Christianity and syphilis.”  In 1937, Goslin wrote in his book on church and state that “Hitler himself has openly stated the necessity of making war on Christianity in his autobiography called Mein Kampf.”  The next year, Hitler said: “[O]ur whole deformity and atrophy of spirit and soul would never have come into being except for this oriental mummery, this abominable leveling mania, this cursed universality of Christianity.”

Virtually every other Nazi leader – Hess, Goering, Himmler, Goebbels, Rosenberg, von Shirach, Streicher, and Bormann – expressed a profound disdain and hatred for Christianity.  This was translated into action within the Third Reich in many ways and at many levels.  All Catholic schools in the Catholic parts of Germany were closed.  Thousands of Protestant and Catholic clergymen were arrested and sent to concentration camps. 

Parents were notified that their children could not be given biblical names or the names of Christian martyrs.  The calendar was paganized under the Nazis, removing Christianity from it entirely.  Boys were more or less compelled to join the Hitler Youth, which was violently opposed to Christianity and which disrupted church services and desecrated religious symbols.  Its members sang songs with these lyrics:   “Let Christ rot – and the Hitler Youth march.”  The National Socialist Student Union in 1935 declared: “We discard not only the hundreds of various Christianities, but Christianity itself[.] … Even the Christians who have the honorable will to serve the folk – and there are such – must be fought.”

The brave opposition of Christians to Nazism, and especially Nazi persecution of Jews, was widely applauded by Jewish leaders at the time.  In 1934, Rabbi Stephen Wise wrote: “Hitlerism challenges civilization insofar as it is in truth the substitution of a new paganism, the paganism over which Christianity once triumphed, for Christianity itself[.] … I thank God that in America and England above all and in other lands as well, the voices of Christians have been heard in protest against the unutterable wrongs of Hitlerism against the Jewish people.”

In 1938, Rabbi Morris Lazaron wrote: “Never in history has organized Protestantism throughout the world bestirred itself so in defense of the Jew and to protect the Jew.  More Catholic leaders than ever before have lifted their voices in condemnation of the racial fixation that dictators have used to bait the Jew[.] … No more glorious page is being written in Christian history than that which Christianity is writing in Germany today.  Christianity may yet be the rock on which the German dictatorship will destroy itself.”

Albert Einstein, during the war, wrote: “Only the Church stood squarely across the path of Hitler’s campaign for suppressing the truth.  I never had any special interest in the Church before, but now I feel a great affection and admiration for it because the Church alone has had the courage and persistence to stand for intellectual and moral freedom.”

I could go on, for dozens of pages and hundreds of quotes, but the historical record is quite clear: Nazis hated and feared Christianity as much as any totalitarian regimes in modern history.  Soviets, by the way, hated and feared Jews and Judaism about as much as the Nazis did.  These two great religions have proven indigestible to all great evils.



Source link

The Narrowing of Language: 'Discrimination'



Several examples exist of leftists making words' meanings so broad that they become useless.  This is the case with "discrimination," the left's greatest hate object.



Source link

Shallow Reality in America


If there is a single problem with our lives today, it is the breathtaking shallowness of modern life.  We seem infatuated with grade-school gossip and a breathless yearning for “stuff,” as if the latest gadgetry or a fatter bank account could make anything real in our lives better.  We seem to believe in nothing but this gossip and these gadgets.  This infantile fixation stretches across political party and ideology.

This is a reflection of godlessness, shattered families, and the wicked drumbeat in education and media of indoctrination instead of learning or amusement.  It is astounding how little most people know of history and religion.  It is frightening how illogical and anti-historical the vast majority of us have become. 

As one example, one of the comments on my American Thinker article, “The Pox of Materialism,” expresses the absurd idea that the Founding Fathers began the American Revolution to improve their economic position.  This “interpretation” of the Founding Fathers’ intention was maliciously and deliberately introduced into academia by Marxist professors in the 1930s and was condemned by honest academicians at the time.  The Founding Fathers, of course, risked the loss of everything they possessed, and a number of them suffered just that loss. 

As another example, Christianity is routinely portrayed as the mortal enemy of science when, in fact, virtually all the early scientists – Bacon, Buridan, Kepler, Galileo, Pascal, Newton, Maxwell, Faraday, Kelvin and others were devout Christians, more religiously serious than ordinary Europeans of their times.  The de-Christianization of America, which does not mean unimportant things like saying “Merry Christmas” or professing a notional belief in God, shows how far we have declined.  America, without Christianity, is just a few decades behind the de-Christianized and impotent Europe. 

The flurry of “news” these days is nothing more than rhetorical spitballs and name-calling.  Most news outlets anymore are almost unwatchable, with hosts who luxuriate in banality.  Most of these nebbishes say the same things all the time and demonstrate little more than nice legs, pretty faces, and ample breasts. 

Our system of statist institutional education parrots what fits into the cesspool of social conformity, producing graduates who know less than before they entered college.  Our public school students are programmed to feed corrupt and stupid academia and to crank out like sausages lobotomized and neutered creatures, as incapable of challenging the vast network of illogic and lies that governs society as the tormented subjects of Oceania in Orwell’s 1984.

No one seems to care, or rather, no one seems to have the gumption to directly confront the shadowy horror of modern life in America.  We kid ourselves that more “stuff” can replace what we have lost.  We trick ourselves into believing that a political victory here or there will make things better.  The Democratic Party, of course, is the party of souls on their way to perdition, but the Republican Party is scarcely better.  Everyone in politics is in politics for himself, not for higher values or noble aims.

Can anything be done?  The decay of Europe and its descent into moral chaos and cognitive duplicity suggest that our time is short and our condition desperate.  It will take intellectual courage, which seems lacking everywhere.  That means telling the truth instead of saying what one is expected to say. 

As one example, some brave heart needs to shout that women are not oppressed in America and never have been and that feminism is simply Nazism with a different form of Aryans and Jews.  One might also note that the problems of black America are not the consequence of prejudice or some tired old “legacy of slavery,” but are instead self-inflicted wounds like unwed motherhood (the mother, not the unknown father, is the villain in these cases) or endless whining that reduces even the most pliable white folks to listening with quiet indifference.

Most vitally – in fact, indispensably – America must turn to God and cling to faith in our Creator as the ultimate cure for all things in life.  This faith inspires men to do things that transcend their own personal needs and wants.  This faith brings a profound seriousness to life coupled with the joy of real purpose and worth that towers above our petty lives. 

The time is short, and the need is great.  The cause may seem hopeless, but with God, nothing is hopeless.  Without God, on the other hand, everything is hopeless – hopeless, shallow, and empty.

If there is a single problem with our lives today, it is the breathtaking shallowness of modern life.  We seem infatuated with grade-school gossip and a breathless yearning for “stuff,” as if the latest gadgetry or a fatter bank account could make anything real in our lives better.  We seem to believe in nothing but this gossip and these gadgets.  This infantile fixation stretches across political party and ideology.

This is a reflection of godlessness, shattered families, and the wicked drumbeat in education and media of indoctrination instead of learning or amusement.  It is astounding how little most people know of history and religion.  It is frightening how illogical and anti-historical the vast majority of us have become. 

As one example, one of the comments on my American Thinker article, “The Pox of Materialism,” expresses the absurd idea that the Founding Fathers began the American Revolution to improve their economic position.  This “interpretation” of the Founding Fathers’ intention was maliciously and deliberately introduced into academia by Marxist professors in the 1930s and was condemned by honest academicians at the time.  The Founding Fathers, of course, risked the loss of everything they possessed, and a number of them suffered just that loss. 

As another example, Christianity is routinely portrayed as the mortal enemy of science when, in fact, virtually all the early scientists – Bacon, Buridan, Kepler, Galileo, Pascal, Newton, Maxwell, Faraday, Kelvin and others were devout Christians, more religiously serious than ordinary Europeans of their times.  The de-Christianization of America, which does not mean unimportant things like saying “Merry Christmas” or professing a notional belief in God, shows how far we have declined.  America, without Christianity, is just a few decades behind the de-Christianized and impotent Europe. 

The flurry of “news” these days is nothing more than rhetorical spitballs and name-calling.  Most news outlets anymore are almost unwatchable, with hosts who luxuriate in banality.  Most of these nebbishes say the same things all the time and demonstrate little more than nice legs, pretty faces, and ample breasts. 

Our system of statist institutional education parrots what fits into the cesspool of social conformity, producing graduates who know less than before they entered college.  Our public school students are programmed to feed corrupt and stupid academia and to crank out like sausages lobotomized and neutered creatures, as incapable of challenging the vast network of illogic and lies that governs society as the tormented subjects of Oceania in Orwell’s 1984.

No one seems to care, or rather, no one seems to have the gumption to directly confront the shadowy horror of modern life in America.  We kid ourselves that more “stuff” can replace what we have lost.  We trick ourselves into believing that a political victory here or there will make things better.  The Democratic Party, of course, is the party of souls on their way to perdition, but the Republican Party is scarcely better.  Everyone in politics is in politics for himself, not for higher values or noble aims.

Can anything be done?  The decay of Europe and its descent into moral chaos and cognitive duplicity suggest that our time is short and our condition desperate.  It will take intellectual courage, which seems lacking everywhere.  That means telling the truth instead of saying what one is expected to say. 

As one example, some brave heart needs to shout that women are not oppressed in America and never have been and that feminism is simply Nazism with a different form of Aryans and Jews.  One might also note that the problems of black America are not the consequence of prejudice or some tired old “legacy of slavery,” but are instead self-inflicted wounds like unwed motherhood (the mother, not the unknown father, is the villain in these cases) or endless whining that reduces even the most pliable white folks to listening with quiet indifference.

Most vitally – in fact, indispensably – America must turn to God and cling to faith in our Creator as the ultimate cure for all things in life.  This faith inspires men to do things that transcend their own personal needs and wants.  This faith brings a profound seriousness to life coupled with the joy of real purpose and worth that towers above our petty lives. 

The time is short, and the need is great.  The cause may seem hopeless, but with God, nothing is hopeless.  Without God, on the other hand, everything is hopeless – hopeless, shallow, and empty.



Source link