Marx, Hitler, and Their Similar Racial Visions

From The Ugly Racism of Karl Marx

Marx had a racial vision that might be interesting to his modern-day black supporters. In a letter to Engels, in reference to his socialist political competitor Ferdinand Lassalle, Marx wrote:

It is now completely clear to me that he, as is proved by his cranial formation and his hair, descends from the Negroes who had joined Moses’ exodus from Egypt, assuming that his mother or grandmother on the paternal side had not interbred with a n—–. Now this union of Judaism and Germanism with a basic Negro substance must produce a peculiar product.

Engels shared Marx’s racial philosophy. In 1887, Paul Lafargue, who was Marx’s son-in-law, was a candidate for a council seat in a Paris district that contained a zoo. Engels claimed that Lafargue had “one-eighth or one-twelfth n—– blood.”

In a letter to Lafargue’s wife, Engels wrote, “Being in his quality as a n—–, a degree nearer to the rest of the animal kingdom than the rest of us, he is undoubtedly the most appropriate representative of that district.”

Marx was also an anti-Semite, as seen in his essay titled “On the Jewish Question,” which was published in 1844. Marx asked:

What is the worldly religion of the Jew? Huckstering. What is his worldly God? Money. … Money is the jealous god of Israel, in face of which no other god may exist. Money degrades all the gods of man—and turns them into commodities. … The bill of exchange is the real god of the Jew. His god is only an illusory bill of exchange. … The chimerical nationality of the Jew is the nationality of the merchant, of the man of money in general.

Despite the fact that in the 20th century alone communism was responsible for more than 100 million murders, much of the support for communism and socialism is among intellectuals.

The reason they do not condemn the barbarism of communism is understandable. Richard Pipes explains:

Intellectuals, by the very nature of their professions, grant enormous attention to words and ideas. And they are attracted by socialist ideas. They find that the ideas of communism are praiseworthy and attractive; that, to them, is more important than the practice of communism. Now, Nazi ideals, on the other hand, were pure barbarism; nothing could be said in favor of them.

That means leftists around the world will continue to celebrate the ideas of communism.

Intellectuals, as always, celebrate and adore power above all: “the more unaccountable, the better!”

Christians are to be wiser than that.

Note the narcissism of small differences: there just isn’t that much between Nazism and Communism, as noted in Gary North’s The Anti-Semitic Fringe of the American Right, quoted below:

Hitler is the most famous of the Left-wing anti-Semites, or would be if the Left had not successfully re-written history to turn him into a Right-winger. He was the head of the National Socialist German Workers Party (NSDAP) whose popular acronym was Nazi. Wikipedia misinforms us:

The National Socialist German Workers’ Party (German: Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei, abbreviated NSDAP), commonly referred to in English as the Nazi Party, was a far-right political party in Germany that was active between 1920 and 1945 and supported the ideology of Nazism.

As with all socialist political parties, the NSDAP was a far-Left party. The Left-wing historians’ trick is to identify nationalism with the Right. We can see this definitional trick in the Wikipedia’s list of supposedly Right-wing parties in Weimar Germany. It includes this: “National Bolsheviks — Led by Ernst Niekisch, they combined ultranationalism with social radicalism by claiming to espouse both ‘German’ principles and much of the programme carried out by the Bolsheviks under Lenin.” When historians equate Bolshevism with the Right, we know they are playing word games.

Then there was that other anti-Semite, Josef Djugashvili, aka Stalin. He kept his racial opinions to himself. He killed his Jewish (circumcised atheist) opponents, one by one. The Jerusalem Post lists them.

Lenin’s deputies Lev Kamenev (originally Rozenfeld) and Grigory Zinoviev (born Hirsch Apfelbaum) and his treasurer Grigori Sokolnikov (Girsh Yankelevich Brilliant) were all Jews, as were Karl Radek (Sobelsohn), co-writer of the Soviet Constitution, Maxim Litvinov (Meir Henoch Wallach-Finkelstein), foreign minister of the USSR until his removal so Stalin could pact with Hitler.

This is, of course, besides Trotsky himself, builder of the Red Army and the only Soviet who served as both foreign and defense minister.

The article failed to mention Lazar Kaganovich, the last Bolshevik leader of Lenin’s era. He was a survivor. He died five months before the collapse of the USSR. He oversaw the Ukrainian famine of 1932–33.

Stalin’s last major act was against Jewish physicians. Wikipedia summarizes:

The Doctors’ plot, “doctors’ case”, also known as the case of doctors-saboteurs or doctors-killers) was an antisemitic campaign organized by Joseph Stalin. In 1952–1953, a group of predominantly Jewish doctors from Moscow were accused of conspiring to assassinate Soviet leaders. This was later accompanied by publications of anti-Semitic character in the media, which talked about the threats of Zionism and condemned people with Jewish names. Many doctors, officials and others, both Jews and non-Jews, were promptly dismissed from their jobs and arrested. A few weeks after the death of Stalin, the new Soviet leadership stated a lack of evidence and the case was dropped. Soon after, the case was declared to have been fabricated.

This dates the origin of the accusation too late. It began in 1948. Stalin was ready in 1953 to begin construction of four huge camps to be filled with Jews. The story is presented in detail in this book: Stalin’s Last Crime: The Plot Against the Jewish Doctors 1948-1953 (2003).

Stalin died on March 5, 1953.

The total state types dry up, and fade away.
Only the rising ashes of hell testifies to their futile vision.

Advertisements

Killing the Weak, and the Hatred of Conscience

Once again, the supposed Superior Morality of our Secularist overlords strikes again.

Remember When Euthanasia Was About “Choice” for Adults?

When it comes to state-sanctioned murder, “Bet you can’t just stop at one!”

If anyone is upset about this, remember that the development is only logical. (I hope people are upset. These days, who knows?) If killing is a “medical treatment,” how can it be denied to anyone based on age or competency?

Expect child- and infant-euthanasia legalization soon in Canada, by the way, where enthusiasts are already talking about it. Such horrors will happen here, too, if we ever acquiesce fully to euthanasia consciousness. As I said, it’s only logical.

Short term? It’s a horror story.

Long term?

  • Societies that are so very eager to kill their children do not inherit the future.
  • Societies that are so very eager to kill the genetically imperfect can expect no mercy when their own diseases and flaws come up for judgement.
  • Christians are to shun the way of death, and walk on the way of life.

A Shocking Enthusiasm

It is shocking how enthusiastically Canada has embraced the culture of death — to the point that little dissent is allowed. For example, Ontario passed a law requiring all doctors to either kill a legally qualified patient or procure a doctor willing to commit the homicide, a law specifically approved by a court even though the judge acknowledged it violated the Charter-protected religious and conscience rights of dissenting physicians.

The idea of the conscientious objector was only useful when Christians ruled, and their enemies were weak.

Now that the enemies of Christ are strong, there just isn’t any place for it. All must agree, and all must conform.


Abortion activists unveil their strategy for attacking conscientious objection

An “expert group” of abortion activists has launched a strong attack on the concept and practice of conscientious objection (CO) in healthcare. “The practice of refusing to provide legal and essential health care due to a doctor’s personal or religious beliefs is a violation of medical ethics and of patients’ right to health care,” says the International Women’s Health Coalition (IWHC) in conjunction with Mujer y Salud en Uruguay.

[…]

To counter-attack against the growth of CO, the report recommends three avenues:

Reframe and rename. Reframe the debate to clarify and emphasize that “conscientious objection” is a misnomer that subverts the ethics, obligations, and standards of the health care profession.

Reclaim the concept of conscience. Do not cede the term “conscience” to those who prioritize individual beliefs over professional conduct and the right to access or provide health care. Shine a light on the harmful health consequences of conscience claims in the context of abortion care. Emphasize the “conscientious commitment” and professional conduct of health care providers who prioritize patients’ rights.

Quantify the costs incurred by health systems due to claims of “conscientious objection” to abortion. Managing conscience claims can be costly and can create inefficiencies in the allocation of scarce health care resources. Quantifying the costs would fill a gap in our understanding of the consequences of refusal to provide abortion care due to conscience claims.

Orwellian Newspeak is an important part of the activists’ campaign. Instead of “conscientious objection”, they suggest that it be called “refusal to provide services,” “denial of services,” or even “dishonourable disobedience”.

The most bizarre aspect of the report is that it never defines what a conscience is or asks why some people might think that it is an important dimension of an authentic human existence. Conscience is a key element in the “medical ethics” that the report purports to defend. How can the IWHC possibly make the extraordinary claim that CO violates medical ethics without appealing to reason and evidence? Its argument, if it is an argument, is absurd.

Dishonourable disobedience to a child-killing State?

Sounds very, very Christian to me!

A Double Hitter

The Dominion Mandate AND the Image of God?

Now, that’s what I call foundational!


Yes, I know I haven’t been posting much: the workload is quite extraordinary right now.

But I hope to get back to my regular posting levels in the autumn.

However, the topics touched on above are just too good to “put in reserve” – and I have quite a bit of material stored up for later…

Europe Attacks the Internet

From e-catworld.com

The European Union is in the process of revising copyright laws, and many people are alarmed about the impact that passage of the law as it is drafted at this point could have on the sharing of information online. The main focus of attention is Article 13 of the Copyright proposal of the European Commission which would seemingly drastically curtail fair use, which is the doctrine that certain copyrighted material can be used in limited ways without permission from copyright holders. I haven’t had time to dig deeply into all the legal ramifications, but what many observers are saying is that if the law is implemented it could drastically change the way the internet operates.

https://www.communia-association.org/2018/05/22/council-parliament-edge-towards-finalizing-positions-article-13-remains-mess/

Here are some comments from Mozilla on the topic.

Despite several failed attempts in countries across Europe (e.g. in Spain and Germany), the Commission has proposed introducing a new pan-European copyright for press publications, sometimes referred to as “ancillary copyright” or a “neighbouring right”, which would create new copyright for snippets of online content. That would mean anyone sharing a link with text, like a news headline or a short blurb about the article, could be charged a license fee from the publisher responsible for the content.
Worst of all, these restrictions would last for 20 years! What’s the last piece of online content that you looked at that was 20 years old?!

[…]

This proposal throws the idea of balanced copyright out the window, as it would make all open platforms liable for the actions of their users, enforce a particular type of business model (e.g. licenses), and impose mandatory filters, all with no safeguards to preserve copyright exceptions, or the rights of users.

These measures would in practice require monitoring and filtering of everything that European citizens upload to content-sharing services from social media sites (like Twitter and Facebook), outlets for creative expression (like YouTube, DeviantArt, SoundCloud, and Tumblr), to informational sites (like Wikipedia and the Internet Archives), to open source software repositories (like GitHub). It would be the responsibility of these services to play judge, jury, and executioner for copyright enforcement — businesses large and small could be held liable for the content their users access and share.

https://changecopyright.org/en-US/impact#creator-innovator

There will be a meeting of MEPs on the Legal Affairs Committee (JURI) of the European Parliament on June 20/21 where they will vote about their opinion on the law. Whatever they agree on will go forward to negotiations with the European Council.

According to EDRi, a Europeian association of civil and human rights organisations, the JURI committee does not yet have enough members against the proposed changes to block their passage, with some members being still undecided.

https://edri.org/

Here’s a video that has been recently published that discusses the issue.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fvXOfq3AB8s&t=4s

Sure, this European attempt to cripple or destroy the Internet must be fought.

Just know that this attempt at an immense power-grab is another attempt from hiding the future. A tyrant bureaucracy, flailing about as it dies.

King Canute, commanding the future to stop advancing, for history to stop.

It’s ‘Feminist Christmas’ in Ireland

From “The Nation”

It’s ‘Feminist Christmas’ in Ireland

“We’ll never go back,” say activists, as a vote to repeal the ban on abortion wins by an overwhelming margins.

A ‘Feminist Christmas’: the celebration of killing children, instead of their birth.

How typically secular.

Now, I suspect the activists are right, at least in the case of Ireland. The Holy Spirit is patient, but there is a tipping point.

Once someone – or a society – chooses death over life sufficiently, the Holy Spirit leaves, never to return. And that woman, man, or entire culture is handed to death and extinction in time and earth. And in the final judgement, that nation is counted with the goats.

“Then he will say to those on his left, ‘Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. For I was hungry and you gave me nothing to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink, I was a stranger and you did not invite me in, I needed clothes and you did not clothe me, I was sick and in prison and you did not look after me.’

“They also will answer, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or needing clothes or sick or in prison, and did not help you?’

“He will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me.’

“Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life.”
— Matthew 25:41-46, NIV

Now, the “least of these” here primarily to believers. But it is not too much of a stretch for it to be applied to others who represent God to a lesser but real extent, such as the poor, or the widows, or strangers.

Or children.


Of course, it should be noted that, unlike the judicial fiat of abortion in the United States, the Irish population collectively decided to kill the weak, just as they freely choose by referendum to endorse sodomy in an earlier vote.

And of course, the vast majority were educated in Catholic schools. And the products of these schools demonstrates the worth of these schools, in the eyes of Christ. “By their fruits ye shall know them.”

Americans — including American Christians — will not be held innocent, as they could have fairly easily – say, with twenty years of hard work – restricted the Supreme Court’s authority to only that spelled out in the Constitution, cutting off it’s limitless authority to do what it pleases today.

So divine vengeance is coming to America.

But the level of guilt is different than for Ireland.

For that nation, it wasn’t the Power Elite demonstrating that they could kill who they please, when they please, in direct defiance of God’s Holy Command to protect the lives of the innocent and shelter the weakest among us.

It was the general population which cried out, “Let His blood be upon us and on our children!

As they desire, so it shall be given unto them.

It is impossible for those who have once been enlightened, who have tasted the heavenly gift, who have shared in the Holy Spirit, who have tasted the goodness of the word of God and the powers of the coming age and who have fallen away, to be brought back to repentance. To their loss they are crucifying the Son of God all over again and subjecting him to public disgrace. — Hebrews 6:4-6

In sum: better to be a murderous jihadi than a well-groomed Irish professional, as a rule of thumb.

There is greater hope of repentance and forgiveness for the first, than for the second.


Aggressive theonomic types may want to consider deepening their presence in Northern Ireland, and then expand into the southern half of the Irish island: then (in a few generations) using the entire island as a launch pad to enter the continent. Why should only the Muslims inherit the property of the walking dead?

And, as for the incoming Christians of Black Africa, I believe in giving them a hand. When God’s people bless God’s people in action as well as by words, nothing but good can result!

Patriarchy and Sodomy

From Marinov’s post at the Reconstructionist Radio Discussion Group

OK, folks, don’t fall prey to ignorant teachers. Egalitarianism has nothing to do with sodomy. To the contrary, sodomy only flourishes in stratified, patriarchal, hierarchical societies. Like Greece and Rome. Like feudal Europe in the 14th century. Like Victorian England. Like the Ottoman Empire. Like Prussian Germany. Etc.

Contrary to what some may try to tell you, patriarchy is not the antidote to either feminism or sodomy. It is their sister-doctrine. Patriarchy creates an unhealthy view of the female sex and of the relationships between the sexes, which leads to a twisted view of the relationship between men. Study how sodomy became prevalent among the aristocratic boys in the strongly patriarchal Victorian England.

And study modern sodomite communities. They are very far from egalitarian. They are, in fact, strongly hierarchical. And their “families” are strongly “patriarchal,” with one of the partners having superior “authority” as a “father” or a “husband.”

Don’t fall prey to false teachers. Patriarchy, when developed to its logical end, always results in the rise of sodomy.

On reflection, I agree. The facts speak for themselves (see: Islamic & Hindu cultures), and patriarchy does not work with the concept of the equality of all before the Law.

If it doesn’t work with the Commandments, it doesn’t work with me.

Presbyterians celebrating Dred Scott

A disgraceful display, as noted in American Vision:

Gracing the forefront place in the first Issue of the 26th Volume of the Southern Presbyterian Review (SPR), 1875, appeared a seemingly out-of-place contribution: a book review of a memoir of the late Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States, Roger B. Taney (1777–1864). What this article says about the moral compass of the southern Presbyterian church at the time is not only instructive as history, but stands as a warning to check our own moral compass, as well as our courage to correct it.

It looks like the American Calvinist Christian leadership of old was about as worthless as a guide to righteousness as the august U.S. Supreme Court of the era.

Is it any different today?