Category Archives: Social Issues

Hitler and Stalin

The History Channel is about to premier a new documentary series about the World Wars and the hook seems to be how the one effected the other, especially the leaders.  The ad campaign is starting to cause some grief in how they portray Hitler and Stalin.  For Hitler, the tag lines are “World War 1: Made him a madman; World War 2; Made him a monster”, while for Stalin it is “World War 1: Made him a man; World War 2; Made him a tyrant”. People are correctly pointing out that Hitler was a monster – and Stalin a tyrant – long before World War Two came along.

I don’t want to pre-judge the History Channel show – it might be good; I was intrigued when I saw an ad for it tonight – but it is clear that, as per usual for documentaries, it won’t get it exactly right.  This is because film documentaries can’t get it right – time constraints prevent a full airing of all relevant facts, even when the documentary maker is determined to be as truthful as possible.  To really explain Stalin and Hitler would take many hundreds of pages of closely typed information and to fully understand, the reader would already have to be familiar with a great deal of history leading up to their era.  Most people simply lack this – and always will.  Except for people with a genuine love for history, it just gets tedious (after all, who is going to want to get into the life stories of Georg Ritter von Schonerer and Victor Adler? Well, if you want to understand Hitler fully, you kinda have to – and then understand the complete intellectual collapse which was represented by Schonerer and Adler – who got together at one point to hammer out a social reform program only to go their separate ways…Schonerer to be the grandfather of Nazi Pan-Germanism and anti-Semitism, Adler to be the founder of the Austrian Social-Democrat Party…with the added kicker that Adler was Jewish). It is, in short, hard to nutshell people like Hitler and Stalin.  And just about impossible to do a proper study of the men in a television documentary.

And, so, if anyone is expecting the History Channel’s new show to really provide insight into such men, you are doing to be disappointed, even if the actual show itself is interesting and, at points, informative.  But there is a real danger in taking such people in a superficial manner as it can lead to gross misunderstanding of how they came about.  Remember, while people can look back in horror upon them, it must not be forgotten that at one point tens of millions of people followed them…and, especially in the case of Hitler, followed them with extreme devotion.  People really believed – and while we can comfort ourselves by asserting (correctly) that such people were tricked by scoundrels, we still have to think about just why they were tricked.

There are pat answers, of course – all of them sharing the basic fact that they are wrong. In the case of Stalin, the general line goes that he hijacked Leninism and fooled people into thinking he was the proper heir of the great man. For Hitler, it is asserted that he nursed German national pride which as bruised after the German defeat in World War Two – and both men selected enemies whom the people could hate with wild abandon (Hitler and the Jews, of course; but Stalin and the Kulaks, as well). There is some truth in that, but not even close to the actuality. The more important thing I’ve discovered, from my very extensive reading and long reflection, is that both men got on because the people they tricked had nothing else they actually believed in.

This, to me, is the key to understanding all the horrors we have subjected ourselves to this past 100 years.  Most of us believe nothing, and so believe anything that comes down the pike.  Solzhenitsyn put it neatly when he said the problem of the 20th century is that we had forgot about God.  Not having anything real to repose our trust in, we have given our trust to one charlatan after another.  Not all of us, of course – a few have had the saving grace of believing in something and thus keeping a clear eye.  Of course, a great deal of precisely such people were mown down in the death camps of Hitler and Stalin.

People like Hitler and Stalin, like all good con artists, insert into unbelief something to believe in.  Something which seems neat, logical and covering all bases.  These two men used terror as a means of reinforcing their deceptions, but terror wasn’t needed all the time – and in Hitler’s case, was hardly needed at all, in the sense that most Germans weren’t terrified by the Hitler regime, but delighted with it (unlike Stalin’s, Russia, in Hitler’s Germany people could come and go pretty much as they pleased – Stalin dared not let anyone out, while Hitler was certain that any Germans he allowed to travel out of Germany would come happily come back…in the end, Hitler was the more astute liar than Stalin). But Hitler and Stalin weren’t alone – and they have their legion of successors in the modern world.  People who give people lies to place where faith in God should be.

We can solemnly intone “never again” about the horrors of Stalin and Hitler, but unless we start to believe, in overwhelming majority, in something that is true, we’ll continue to be hoodwinked in large and small matters…and the rise of another megalomaniac mass-murderer is going to remain just around the corner.

 

The Death of Civilization

Here’s how they die, at least in the modern, internet era:  pitching romantic vacations in the hopes that someone might wind up pregnant:

Denmark has a lot of things going for it. Last year, the UN’s World Happiness Report crowned it the globe’s happiest country, citing the nation’s commitment to maternity leave, gender equality, biking, and drinking lots of wine when it’s cold outside.

Its economy is also tops, chugging out $211 billion in annual GDP despite its relatively small population of 5.6 million. Economic inequality? Not a problem. Income distributes more evenly there than most places.

But Denmark has a sex problem. (Re-evaluating that happiness ranking already?)

Well, it’s not exactly a sex problem, per se. It’s more like a baby problem. According to government statistics, Denmark posted a birth rate of 10 per 1,000 residents in 2013 — its lowest in decades. The nation’s birthrate was  9.9 in 1983…

And, so, a travel agency has worked a “Do It For Denmark” campaign – at the link you can view the mildly NSFW ad pitch.  Its all very cute and funny, but it also reveals the underlying problem.  For all our wealth and for all our civilizational obsession with sex, we ain’t having kids.  And here’s the problem – if a people doesn’t create new people, it dies.  Funny how that works, huh?

We have no stigma attached to shacking up without marriage.  No one would dare call a child born out of wedlock a bastard.  Our popular culture is saturated with sexual references.  We have a “hook up” culture among our young which appears to hold that sexual activity is just part of a movie/dinner date night.  Everyone is encouraged to have as much sex as possible…and yet birth rates around the world have cratered.  Often to the point where some nations are already losing population year by year.  What gives?

For most people it would all be a great mystery.  It won’t be for some – those of us who either back when already knew or who have discovered the truth: when you separate sex out from its marital and procreative functions (via pre-marital sex and various forms of birth control, plus abortion) you will get lots more sex, but you won’t get sex which has any actual purpose in life…and you’ll also get people who have grown to believe that sex is just a thing of itself, having no purpose beyond the actual sex act.  And then you’ll get cratering birth rates, welfare States in trouble (all welfare States are built upon the requirement of a steadily increasing population) and absurd ad campaigns to convince people to have sex with a purpose.

As I’ve said elsewhere, this is just the end of a civilization – a dying, liberal civilization which proposed to make everything just great for everyone as soon as we cast off all the burdens of the old, Judeo-Christian civilization.  Well, with abortion on demand, same-sex marriage and, now, human bodies being burned for fuel, I think we can say that the very last shreds of the old civilization have been cast off.  This is now the liberal civilization long dreamed of.  Here it is.  Do you like it?  Well, don’t get too used to it – its already dead.  It’ll be replaced – by a Judeo-Christian civilization…where people will not only know how to have sex, but will know what it’s for without having to be prompted by a slick ad campaign.

 

Mark Steyn, NRO, Liberal Fascism and the Conservative Coward

Taking note of the Duck Dynasty fracas, Mark Steyn wrote what we expected – a witty and devastating critique of a culture being bound hand and foot by liberal fascist control freaks.  To illustrate his point, Mr. Steyn noted a couple of old jokes from ancient times (ie, the 1970’s):

…Here are two jokes one can no longer tell on American television. But you can still find them in the archives, out on the edge of town, in Sub-Basement Level 12 of the ever-expanding Smithsonian Mausoleum of the Unsayable. First, Bob Hope, touring the world in the year or so after the passage of the 1975 Consenting Adult Sex Bill:

“I’ve just flown in from California, where they’ve made homosexuality legal. I thought I’d get out before they make it compulsory.”

For Hope, this was an oddly profound gag, discerning even at the dawn of the Age of Tolerance that there was something inherently coercive about the enterprise. Soon it would be insufficient merely to be “tolerant” — warily accepting, blithely indifferent, mildly amused, tepidly supportive, according to taste. The forces of “tolerance” would become intolerant of anything less than full-blown celebratory approval.

Second joke from the archives: Dean Martin and Frank Sinatra kept this one in the act for a quarter-century. On stage, Dino used to have a bit of business where he’d refill his tumbler and ask Frank, “How do you make a fruit cordial?” And Sinatra would respond, “I dunno. How do you make a fruit cordial?” And Dean would say, “Be nice to him.”…

This caused the editor of NRO – Jason Steorts – to first make a tut-tutting criticism of Mr. Steyn for not understanding that being a meany is bad and then, when massive criticism was directed at Mr. Steorts, he just doubled down:

The point is basic courtesy, Mark. It’s that you could mount your opposing argument without insulting people. Sure, you have the right to insult people, but I can’t sympathize much with someone who exercises that right just to prove it exists, which seems to have been part of your rhetorical strategy. What I would like to de-normalize is boorishness, whatever its content…

And this, in turn, prompted a small comment from me:

No, Mr. Steyn cannot mount an argument against the left without insulting them. To disagree with them is, in their view, to be insulting. We’re not dealing with rational people, here. We’re dealing with people who are, in the largest sense of the word, insane. For crying out loud, they really think that its ok to kill a baby! When you’re dealing with that sort of irrationality, trying to keep it polite is the least of your concerns. Our job, as sane people, is to drive these people entirely out of power. We won’t do that if we try to pretend that lunacy has a proper place in the debate.

I don’t know Mr. Steort from Adam – until just yesterday, hadn’t the foggiest clue who NRO’s editor was, or that they even had one.  But the fact that someone like Mr. Steort is editing the on-line descendent of the magazine William F. Buckley founded to “stand athwart history yelling, ‘stop!” speaks volumes about how low we’ve fallen.  Per the comment at Red State, that has now been changed to, “Standing Athwart History, Yelling Okay Go Right Ahead (We Don’t Want to Offend Anyone)”.  Red State also noted that Mr. Steort is in favor of gay marriage, but that isn’t as important as the discovery, by me, that in reading Mr. Steort’s article in favor of gay marriage, I also discovered that he’s in favor of insanity, as well.  To quote:

…Romantic attraction is a unique type of desire in which a person is wanted in his or her unity and totality, and sexual activity is the unique expression and bodily dimension of such desire. The desire is thus unique in both its “inner” (“subjective,” “mental”) and its “outer” (“objective,” “bodily”) dimensions, and its fulfillment is intrinsically good…

If this is conservatism, then we’re in trouble.  Its basically a statement that “if it feels good, do it”…and its good.  As G. K. Chesterton noted, the purpose of Progressives is to go on making mistakes, and the purpose of Conservatives is to go on preventing the mistakes from being corrected.  A Progressive comes up with a completely stupid and insane idea and immediately puts it in to effect – when it all falls apart and destroys everything in its path, here comes the Conservative to say, “we can’t change it; it is part of the sacred inheritance of the past!”.  Mr. Steort exemplifies this.  I really can’t say this is a matter of stupidity, however; Mr. Steort is clearly not a dumb man.  But he just as clearly doesn’t want to offend against the liberal world view.  That would be bad.  It would get liberals mad and they’d say nasty things about you.  And, so, I’ll put it down as cowardice.  Much easier to write pretend-conservative pieces where you essentially concede the liberal argument while making small asides which claim you still respect and honor that old time religion.

As I noted in my small comment, liberals are essentially insane.  Not in the clinical sense where we could diagnose and treat them, but in the fact that what they propose flies in the face of facts and logic.  That what they propose, if really and fully implemented, would utterly destroy human life on earth.  People who think that babies can be killed, that tax increases cause prosperity, that crony-capitalism is a good idea, that government employees are altruistic, that a small elite can better decide things than people on their own; that a hack, Chicago politician is a new messiah – these are not rational views to hold.  Added to their irrationality and completing it is a mercilessness which knows no bounds.  You can rely on it that no matter how nice and polite we are, the left will still seek to destroy anyone who dares to dissent.  This is not a call for us to start being mean and merciless – but for pity’s sake, don’t just sit there and be a punching bag.  Hit back.  And keep on hitting because until we completely remove the left from all ability to effect policy in this nation, we will not be able to reform and save it.

America’s Shame

From KXLY.com:

WWII veteran Delbert Belton survived being wounded in action during the Battle of Okinawa only to be beaten and left for dead by two teens at the Eagles Lodge in Spokane on Wednesday evening.

Belton, 88, succumbed to his injuries Thursday morning at Sacred Heart Medical Center.

The Spokane County Medical Examiner’s Office says Belton died of blunt facial and head injuries.

Witnesses say Belton was in the parking lot of the Eagles Lodge at 6410 N. Lidgerwood, adjacent to the Eagles Ice-A-Rena, around 8 p.m. Wednesday when the two male suspects attacked him as he was about to head inside to play pool…

We are not a decent nation when this can happen.  We are not raising up a civilized generation when this can happen.  He was 88 years old.  He was completely defenseless.  He was beaten to death by two fit, young men.  Two young men who, had we been raising a decent generation, would have been like Belton 60 years ago…brave and willing to sacrifice.  We used to turn out quiet heroes like Belton, now we turn out savages.

We’ve got to change, completely.  All this garbage we’ve been feeding on must be brought to an end…until such time as an old man can be safe and young men are raised up modeled on that old man.

A Same Sex Marriage Clarification

Last night I foolishly allowed myself to be drawn in to an argument with one of our liberal commenters – always a risky action and something I tend to stay away from.  But in that argument, upon reflection, I realize that I was not being charitable.  I was not giving the liberal his/her due, as it were.  To partially excuse myself, this was because I just didn’t have a mind to engage in that particular argument – regarding my views on same sex marriage – because the person I was arguing with either had never bothered to read the score or so articles I’ve written on the subject over the years, or was deliberately not taking in to consideration things I had actually written.  I was being hit with a straw-man argument bearing no relation to what I believe.  But, still, I was uncharitable in this argument and for that, I am sorry.   So, in reparation for this failure of mine, I’ve decided to briefly re-state my views on same-sex marriage so that the offended party last night, as well as anyone else, can freely argue with me on the point.

My views are as follows:

1.  Marriage is not a right.  It is a privilege assigned by society to some people in order that both our species and our civilization may be effectively propagated in to the next generation.  This privilege has heretofore in our society only been assigned to one man and one woman who are of age, not closely related biologically and not encumbered by any previous marital commitment. Whether or not we’ll alter this is not a matter of human rights.

2.  Same sex marriage, so called, bears as much resemblance to traditional marriage as plowing a field does to horse racing.  They both might have horses involved, but the activities are fundamentally different…the results are not at all the same.  Of nature, a traditional marriage will do what marriage is supposed to do – form a socio-biological unit which will naturally produce children and raise them up.  Same sex marriage will not of nature do this.  Same sex marriage and traditional marriage are not the same thing and to call them the same thing is, to put it bluntly, to lie.

3.  The fundamental problem, then, for same-sex marriage as it relates to me is that it is a lie – it is untrue that a same-sex marriage is just the same as a traditional marriage and so assigning to a same-sex union the same benefits we provide to traditional marriage (benefits which cost me, as a member of society) is to force me to be complicit in a lie.  While I have lied in my life – being a sinner, you see? – it is not for me to go along with something which I know to be a lie from the get-go.  Just because I have done wrong at some points in my life it doesn’t follow that it is ok for me to deliberately do something wrong elsewhere.  I cannot agree to legal same-sex marriage because I cannot agree to be untrue.

4.  The secondary problem for same-sex marriage as it relates to me is that even if I can avoid participating – by act or omission – in the lie, I am still under threat because when a lie is foisted upon the people by government fiat then the only way that lie may be sustained in the long run is by repressive measures.  We already see it in Europe and Canada where same sex marriage has been legal for some time:  activists seeking to fine and/or jail those members of those societies who dissent from the lie and assert what they believe to be true about same-sex marriage:  that it is an inherently disordered action.  Same sex marriage was recently legalized in Britain, for instance, with an exemption for churches – they don’t have to perform same sex weddings.  But already the activists who managed to get the legalization through are working on forcing churches to perform same-sex weddings.  It is very much a slippery slope.

5.  Given all of this, I have come to the conclusion that the best course of action is to separate Marriage and State.  All State licensing of marriage is to cease – apply the tax benefits accruing to marriage to children (this way, even a same-sex couple with children will obtain the same tax benefits as anyone else with children), but leave marriage entirely alone.  This is made an extra strong conviction in me when I realize that the destruction of marriage is my fault – mine and so many Christians like me who for so many years lived as practical pagans.  It is no fault of gay people when they want gay marriage after we Christians spent so many years gutting marriage with divorce, adultery, birth control, in-vitro fertilization and other anti-human horrors.  Adding an extra bit of zest in this is the final realization that State licensing of marriages is actually a degradation of marriage…calling the transient State to some how “sanctify” what God has joined together.  Absurd!  Make marriage a legally non-binding activity and there is no grounds for anyone to complain about what particular ceremonies any religion does to solemnize any union, at all.  We can all go our separate ways on the matter with no one offending anyone else.  An added benefit is that we’ll throw divorce lawyers out of work.

There, that is it.  Have at it.

A Correct Conservative Position on Gay Marriage

From Bruce Carrol, AKA “Gay Patriot”:

…As a gay conservative, I’ve always been conflicted about the issue of gay marriage. I guess it is because my political and moral philosophies are not dictated by the desire to be loved by the president or the federal government. I believe that my rights as an American citizen come from my Creator, not Barack Obama, John Roberts or Nancy Pelosi. But the reaction from most gay liberals today to the overturning of the Defense of Marriage Act and reversing the California voters’ decision in Proposition 8 has been the opposite. The gay political class is celebrating Big Government waving its haughty approval like King George III waving his hand over his colonies.

In the words of our current ruler, “Let me be clear.” If someone wants to engage in a civil contract with someone they love, nothing stopped them from doing so last week. I have consistently urged that public policy adopt civil unions with strong religious liberty protections as a balance to resolve the gay marriage issue. Instead, the gay political class decided that they would expend all their energy, time and millions of dollars for the last decade quarreling over the word “marriage.” Bravo…

This is something I don’t think that any of us on the right can disagree with.  As free born citizens of the United States, we all have the right to enter in to whatever contracts we wish – and if there is some legal difficulty which prevents, say, two men from entering in to certain, legal contracts then I don’t think any of us on the right would oppose reforming the laws as necessary.  But marriage is what it is – and it isn’t the union of two men, period.  Hasn’t been.  Isn’t. Can’t be.  Attempts to make it otherwise in law are merely an attempt to enforce a falsehood upon the people.

Carroll does go on to point out that because we are being forced to re-define what the word “marriage” means, there is a great deal of risk that our leftists will use this new definition to persecute people because of their religious beliefs.  To me, this is the actual purpose of gay marriage – not so much to help out that tiny number of gays who wish to unite themselves life-long, but to have a handy club to beat down Christians with.  This is borne out by the fact that our leftists don’t make so much as a peep about the possibility of “orientation-selection” abortions (ie, if we can identify genetic markers for homosexuality, then almost all homosexuals will be aborted…except, oddly enough, those of devoutly believing Christians) or the vast sums of money we provide to cruelly anti-gay Muslims.  By its fruit is the tree known – and the only fruit we get from the leftist gay rights supporters are those which can be used to attack Christianity.

My view is that gay marriage would best remain banned – but I’ve also come to the conclusion that marriages, themselves, should not be sanctioned by the State in any way, shape or form.  My desire is to as swiftly as possible separate marriage and State (thus making the push for gay marriage moot) while at the same time enacting laws which put very long, sharp and powerful teeth in to our First Amendment right to the free exercise of religion (boiled down, the laws would come out to hold that when in doubt, a person’s claim to free exercise trumps State requirements).  As for marriage, itself, that is for Christians and Jews who actually practise their faith and it is up to us – as believers – to make it work as God intended.

The Stunning French Campaign Against Gay Marriage

Absolutely unexpected:

…Ludovine de la Rochère, president of La Manif Pour Tous, the movement opposed to France’s recently enacted same-sex marriage law, delivered a speech at a mass rally on May 26th- France’s Mother’s Day- before hundreds of thousands of advocates…

…According to de la Rochère, the traditional marriage movement has taken hold in her country “because our fundamental and universal values unite us.”

Determined that those “fundamental and universal values” focus on the “well-being of children,” de la Rochère has turned her movement into the multitude that it has become.

The activist explained:

“The truth is that we do not have the same notion of equality as our opponents do. Our belief, held by most of the country, rests first on the equality of children, equality before the right to have a father and mother, that is to say, an origin and real heritage, rather than a false heritage. Based on that we have come together as atheists, Christians, Jews, Muslims, right, left, straight, gay. For all, the truth that we owe to the child is sacred. We do not want children’s lives to be woven around lies, nor do we want gender studies ideology to triumph.”

“France has awoken!” de la Rochère exclaimed to the crowd, noting that her movement has history on its side. “All the generations are here and among them, fathers and mothers and youths, each one keeping watch over us, over all of France…

I don’t really have an explanation for it.  Perhaps it is the fact that France has a Catholic heritage and thus a heritage of applying reason to issues?  Could be.  There is no actual reason to enact same sex marriage – the only reason anyone can provide, in all my years of arguing about it, is a version of “’cause I wanna”.  Marriage is not a right; marriage is about the formation of families for the natural procreation and rearing of children; marriage is the cornerstone of the primary building block of civilization, the human family.  There is in this no place for a same sex union – not out of meanness, but out of the simple fact that the union of two men is not the same as the union of a man and a woman.  At least a great deal of the people of France have figured this out – and have bravely marched in support of their views.  As it pointed out in the linked articles, the same sort of protests in the United States would require millions of people to show up in DC.  Do we even have the courage to do that?  Imagine the amount of hatred and muck which would be hurled at us, if we did.

But, we should.  As patriots, we daren’t fall behind the French in being reasonable.