Hitlerism = Stalinism = Marxism = Godlessness = Pure Evil

Vic Biorseth, http://www.Thinking-Catholic-Strategic-Center.com

The reason that I despise the Left-Liberal political persuasion so much is not so much because the current adherents are particularly despicable, but rather because the historic roots of that movement, and the direction in which it aims the individual first and society second, is, indeed, thoroughly despicable.

The first requirement of any form of Socialism, or Left-ism, if you will, involves turning away from God. Marx’s writing is quite fierce about that; indeed, Marxism insists on dialectic materialism as a first stepping stone toward transcendental logic, which is needed to practice a pure logic that is freed from any input from God, or any belief in God, or any non-material, non-worldly inputs of any kind.

That’s Step One:

Turn your face away from God; turn your face toward The World.

When we abandon our own spiritual nature, we automatically emphasize our animal nature.

Most current Leftists are unaware (I hope) of the truth regarding the Left. Indeed, in spite of the epic historic confrontations and clashes between variants of Leftist-Socialist doctrine, most “modern” Leftists believe today that, if you wear an American Flag lapel pin, or if you sing all the words of the National Anthem at ball games, then you must be a Right Winger. Similarly, the dim-bulbs that occupy the ranks of today’s Skin-Heads, Aryan Nation, American Nazi Party and similar movements and gangs, really don’t know that they are, most properly defined, Leftists. As such, they should (but they don’t) get along fine with the SLIMC and the rest of the Democratic Party. They're all birds of the same feather, but they're not smart enough to know that.

“Basically National Socialism and Marxism are the same.” - Adolph Hitler, 1941.

Engles wrote in 1849 about a program of racial extermination; Leftists and Socialists don’t like to talk openly about that today, it’s a truth that needs to be properly “deconstructed” first so that it will not be taken literally or completely. But, although Socialists always avoid hard evidence, hard evidence still exists. Hitler’s Mein Kamph described Nazism (National Socialism) as deriving from Marxism. These were not isolated, rare, out-of-context or odd statements; these were the core values of Socialism, and of Hitler.

The Nazis felt that the Communists had Socialism all wrong, and were creating “herds” rather than “liberated workers” who would more reliably displace the rule of capital. In the 1930s genocide was an established practice and even a tradition of Socialism, and of Socialism alone; the Nazis used the Russian concentration camps as the model to emulate in making their own camps, which, of course, would be better. Anywhere in the world, in any era, certainly in almost any war, atrocities may be found to have occurred; but flat out concentrated and repeated genocide may only be found where authored by Socialists, and extreme ideas and views favoring genocide and racism and anti-Semitism and clear racial favoritism and eugenics and ethnic cleansing and acts to purify or cleanse or restrict human blood lines or create a more “pure” species of man may be found solely among the writings of Socialists. [National Review, December 31, 1995, Never Blame the Left, George Watson, pages 35-37.]

Sorry. That’s the way it is. There is no non-Socialist tradition of genocide in Europe. Genocide is Socialist policy. And Communism equals Nazism equals Socialism equals Marxism equals Left-ism. Study it. Try actually reading about it. Old time Socialists scoffed at the timid and “soft” attitudes of those not ruthless enough to do the hard things necessary to work toward utopia, and utopia, to old-time Socialists, was strictly a white gentile atheist sort of thing. Millions of people have to die? Well, you can’t make an omelet without breaking some eggs; the ends justify the means.

Modern Socialists avoid the subject, or lie about it, or trivialize it, or deconstruct it. In actual practice, all existing Socialist states are (or were) totalitarian dictatorships, which may have some complexities and formalities and bureaucracies or councils or congresses attached to them, but make no mistake about it, the Fuhrer or the Premier or the General Secretary or whatever he chooses to call himself is in absolute command, always; that ceases to be true only when the nation begins to move away from Socialism.

In actual practice a Socialist revolution is nothing more than a purposeful destabilization and creation of turmoil, dissent and animosity, created for the sole purpose of giving an opportunity to someone who is not in power to get into power. The very ideas of Socialism do that very thing, by feeding the lowest instincts in men.

To see the similar root sources of Communism, Fascism and Nazism, all one has to do is look at what was written about them during the era of the birth of those systems. Hitler’s Mein Kamph described Nazism (National Socialism) as deriving from Marxism. He stated in 1939 to Hermann Rauschning that all of National Socialism was based on Marx. In a public speech in November 1941 Hitler declared that “basically, National Socialism and Marxism are the same.” [The Bulletin of International News, Royal Institute of International Affairs, XVIII, No. 5t, 269.] Goebels wrote in 1941 about how, after the Nazi victory, “real” Nazi Socialism would replace the Bolshevism in Russia.

The Nazis felt that the Communists had Socialism all wrong, and were creating “herds” rather than “liberated workers” who would more reliably displace the rule of capital. High ranking uniformed Nazi officials not only attended, and not only participated in, but ran the board and management meetings of German industry. The Party decided what would be produced, in what quantity, and on what time table. The means of production were ruthlessly controlled by the state, and – this is very important - slave labor was provided by the state for use in this “private” industry.

Like Hitler, Mussolini began his intellectual history as a Socialist and ended a Fascist. The only difference between Hitler, Stalin and Mussolini, Marxists all, was personality. All seated government branches, houses or authorities under them were sham, lip-service organizations, and everyone knew it. The simple rule from the dictator was do as I say or I’ll kill you; that was the only real rule of law, under all three “systems.”

American correspondent W. H. Chamberlin, disillusioned after twelve years in Russia, summed up his studies in Germany and Russia thus: “Socialism is certain to prove, in the beginning at least, the road NOT to freedom, but to dictatorship and counter-dictatorships, to civil war of the fiercest kind. Socialism achieved and maintained by democratic means seems definitely to belong to the world of utopias.” [A Fair Utopia (1937), pages 202-203.]

And, similarly disillusioned British journalist F. A. Voigt, after many years observation, concluded that “Marxism has lead to Fascism and National Socialism.” [Unto Caesar (1939), Page 95.]

Walter Lippman arrived at the conviction that “the generation to which we belong is now learning from experience what happens when men retreat from freedom to a coercive organization of their affairs. Though they promise themselves a more abundant life, they must in practice renounce it; as the organized direction increases, the variety of ends must give way to uniformity. That is the nemesis of the planned society and the authoritarian principle in human affairs.” [Atlantic Monthly, November, 1936, Page 552.]

German writer Peter Drucker put it this way: “The complete collapse of the belief in the attainability of freedom and equality through Marxism has forced Russia to travel the same road toward a totalitarian, purely negative, non-economic society of un-freedom and inequality which Germany has been following. Not that communism and fascism are essentially the same. Fascism is the stage reached after communism has proved an illusion, and it has proved as much an illusion in Stalinist Russia as in pre-Hitler Germany.” [The End of Economic Man (1939), Page 230.]

You cannot read the history of this era without being struck by the number of leading men, not limited only to Mussolini, Hitler, Lenin and Stalin, who began as Socialists and ended up as Fascists or Nazis, or as “Communists,” each of which must now be recognized as just another dictatorship by a fancy name. In Italy before 1922 and in Germany before 1933, Communists and Nazis and Fascists clashed with each other more than with anyone else, because they competed for the same mind-set, the same type of “revolutionary man,” and they shared for each other the hatred normally assigned to the heretic, which is to say, the disciple of the same faith with a new variant doctrine or dogma.

Their common enemy was, of course, the free man; but the Marxists had to settle their own fights for control before marching against the mind-set of the free man. I maintain that there is not enough difference between Communism, Fascism and Nazism to warrant separate names, and that they all represent mere variants of Marxism. I further submit that, today, in most common usage, the term Socialism is synonymous with Marxism. Scratch a real Communist, or any modern Socialist, and you will find someone who quotes Karl Marx more than any other Socialist author. That’s’ the way it is, and the fact that it wasn’t always that way does not affect the way that it is now.

Of course, Marxism was helped along by other materialistic false teachings that were universally accepted by Leftist-elitists every where, including Darwinism and Freudianism. Like Marxism itself, there was no material evidence to back up any of these teachings, but the Left is quite comfortable forcing materialistic teaching on the world, because the ends justify the means, in their eyes. It doesn’t matter if it’s true; if it leads someone to the Left, it’s good; otherwise, it’s bad.

Once God has been abandoned, the worst of all animalistic, bestial characteristics of man are capable of being unleashed upon the world. Never forget that Hitler was, first and foremost, an atheist. Stalin was an atheist. Lenin was an atheist. Mao was an atheist. All of the most brutal human butchers of the twentieth century were atheists. Rejecters and denunciators of Western Culture, Judeo-Christian morality, Western Civilization tradition, moral norms, and all spiritual sense of right and wrong.

And yet, we still have among us silly, utopian idealists, who dream of the heaven-on-earth perfect society that they imagine to be possible, if only all of us old farts would get over our rigid animosity toward Left-ism. Look at popular music, since at least the sixties, to see what twaddle has been soaking the minds of the young for several generations now. It all involves turning away from God, from tradition, from Western morality. To what end? Utopia?

Remember the Beatles? Imagine a Beatle, any Beatle, with no possessions; I wonder if you can. Another of their lines went, imagine no religion. We don’t have to imagine it; we’ve seen it. Under Hitler, Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Ho, Pol Pot, and on, and on, and on. It wasn’t very nice. Nothing to kill or die for was the next line. Excuse me? It was the atheists who did all the killing. As soon as God has been abandoned, you may expect the killing to begin.

I remember Paul Anka’s hit, Having My Bastard. I mean Baby. What a lovely way of saying how much we love to screw. I mean how much you love me.

Hollywood culture does not know the difference between loving someone and screwing someone. They've already abandoned God. They don’t know what words like family and commitment and dedication and responsibility and duty mean. Indeed, they put all those terms down.

Young people today – at least a lot of them – despise tradition; it’s now in to be untraditional. You might say it’s a new tradition. They don’t know that they are, in their idealistic utopian bubble, drifting toward oblivion, and carrying future generations along with them. They “believe” in the academic myth of some future classless, borderless, nation-less, government-less, religion-less, perfected, heaven-on-earth condition of the future. They have been spoon-fed and led by the nose down this silly utopian day-dream trail by leading academics, the SLIMC and the rest of Show-Biz, and by today’s Democratic Party.

We need to get back to basics. We need to turn our faces back toward God. We need to reestablish the traditional truth that the family is the primal social unit, and that, as the family goes, so goes the larger society. This nation desperately needs men who are ready to commit themselves to God, to their wives and their children, and to their nation.

There ain’t no worldly Utopia.

There is no such thing as perfection in this life. We are all called to make the best of what we have, and to try and make things better for future generations.

That’s why I despise Left-ism, and that’s why I will continue to attack it at every opportunity.

So, read the ethos page. Read the critical thinking page. Read the thinking Catholic page. Get back to basics. Get yourself, or bring someone else, back to Western Tradition. Do something to help stem this unnatural tide and turn things around.

As a first step, turn your face toward God.

Reference Material

Return to Web Site Log (Blog) page

Return to HOME PAGE

Build/Host/Maintain Your Own Personal Website using SBI! (Advertisement)

Date: Sun Apr 15 06:51:01 2012
From: Matt
Email:
Location:
Comment:

"There is no non-Socialist tradition of genocide in Europe." Francisco franco's Spain?

Date: Sun Apr 15 09:19:28 2012
From: Vic Biorseth
Comment:

Matt:

Francisco Franco was just a dictator who emerged as the most successful among competitors for dictatorship. He succeeded in opposing the Communist Left by merging the Nazi Right into an uneasy alliance with the Traditionalists and Monarchists, into the Falange, a sort of National-Socialist, Traditionalist Party pretending at being Catholic, or at least supporting Catholicism. The leadership of the Left and the leadership of the Right in the Spanish Civil War deserved each other; but it was not them, but the Spanish people who suffered.

Perhaps you don’t call Franco a “Socialist” but I submit that it is pretty hard to call him a free marketeer and lover of individual liberty. He controlled the people, the economy and the country, with an iron fist. To me, that makes him a Socialist. No two Socialist dictators are exactly alike; their individual Socialisms (dictatorships) take on the unique personality of the dictator. His support of the Catholic Church did not make him a good Catholic. He was a typical Socialist dictator, in that he was not only a murderer but a mass murderer.

Perhaps your inability to identify Franco with Socialism stems from the relatively recent social demonizing of Profiling in America. Profiling is quite effectively used in forensic science, psychology, statistics, and, (horror of horrors) race. I submit that there is nothing wrong and everything right with proper use of profiling. Apply it to Franco. In the work of identifying an unidentified creature, you might begin with profiling. If a creature looks like a duck, talks like a duck, walks like a duck and is constantly seen in the company of other ducks, you might most profitably begin your identifying research with the beginning assumption that the creature just might actually be a duck.

Regards,

Vic

Please note the language and tone already established in this Website. This is not the place to stack up vulgar one-liners and crude rejoinders. While you may support, oppose or introduce any position or argument, your comments must meet our standards of logical rigor and of civil discourse. We will not participate in trading insults, and we will not tolerate participants trading insults with each other. Participants should not be thin-skinned or over sensitive to criticism, but should be prepared to defend their arguments when challenged. If you don’t really have a coherent argument or counter-argument of your own, sit down and don’t embarrass yourself. If you have something serious to contribute to the conversation, please keep it civil. We apologize to religious conservative thinkers for the need to even say these things.