THOSE NAZI AMERICAN CHRISTIANS AGAIN

My brief derisive comment of a couple of days ago about a post on Daily Kos comparing American Christians to Nazis was taken up by Salon's Daou Report so got a few Leftist readers. It evidently hit a nerve as I got quite a few emails from Leftists about it. So although I would not normally dignify such febrile accusations with a serious attempt at reply, I feel I should mention the points raised in the emails and say why they are wrong.

The most common claim was that just because Hitler called himself a socialist does not mean that he really was one. I have no knowledge of any party calling itself socialist that is/was not in fact socialist but the essential point is that Hitler was a socialist as judged by his deeds too. He put all German industry under tight government and party control. There was a Nazi party commissar in every factory to make sure that the State's will was done. If that is not socialism what would be? For fuller details of just how socialist the Nazis were see here.

The second point raised was that Hitler did in his speeches from time to time claim to be a Christian. So therefore all Christians are Nazis? To say so is of course a gross logical fallacy -- rather like saying that all Chihuahuas are dogs therefore all dogs are Chihuahuas. But again the essential point is that Hitler should be judged by his deeds. He did nothing pro-Christian that I am aware of and sent to the camps heaps of people who WERE faithful Christians. He also promoted Nazism as an alternative to Christianity with ceremonies and beliefs that went back to pre-Christian paganism. He was as much a fake Christian as he was a real socialist. Like Leftists today, he had no time for real Christianity, only Christianity that parroted the Party line.

A third point made by one writer was that the Serbs are 20th century Christians who carried out mass murder. Again we have the Chihuahua fallacy of course but aside from that the point is that the Serbs themselves referred to what they were doing as ETHNIC cleansing. It was an ethnic war, not a religious war. To outsiders all Yugoslavs look much the same but that means nothing. To outsiders Canadians and Americans look and sound the same too but try telling almost any Canadian that he is just the same as an American and see what reply you get! So ethnic or other differences do not have to be great to be deeply felt. And comparing American Christians to the Serb butchers is as inaccurate and as grossly offensive as comparing them to the Nazis of course. What the Serbs WERE is socialists. Their leader, Milosevic, was in fact one of their previous bosses under Communism.

A point I have not mentioned so far is that the Daily Kos post I initially commented on is part of a constant round of claims on Leftist sites about how Fascist America in general has become under Republican rule (e.g. here). The old Laurence Britt 14-point definition of Fascism -- which conspicuously omits Fascism's socialist characteristics -- seems to be enjoying a new round of popularity, and a sermon incorporating it by Davidson Loehr has been reproduced on Leftist blogs ad nauseam. I have had a couple of shots at that sort of nonsense already recently (see here and here) so will not go over old ground again but I do want to draw attention to a pretty good deflation of the idea from a Leftist source: See Frameshop. There is also an impassioned reply to the original Britt article here. And for a comprehensive account of what historical Fascism actually was see here. And for an account of the time when America DID go close to Fascist rule see here.

(An earlier version of this post appeared on Blogger News)

*******************************

ELSEWHERE

Ethics: Keith Burgess Jackson has just put up a simplified taxonomy of metaethical positions which divides them into either consequentialist or deontological ones. Since I regard ethical statements as being usually translatable into ordinary empirical statements, I suppose it is no surprise that I do not feel comfortable with that classification. I think that most "is right", "is good" or "ought" statement boil down to "leads to generally desired long-term consequences" statements so, while I am clearly a consequentialist in that regard, I also think such statements have truth value -- they can be tested -- so that makes me a sort of deontologist too, I think. So I utterly reject moral relativism -- because it denies that moral statements can be tested or have truth value. I think, for instance, that "honesty is right" is not only true but testably true (i.e. one can at least in theory test whether or not honesty does usually lead to generally desired long-term consequences) and that anybody who denies that such a statement can be evaluated or compared in any way is not being serious. I am happy to concede however that people can use moral language in ways other than what I have just described and I say more about that here.

China pisses into the wind: "Chinese officials have recently demanded that the Australian government "review" its 50-year-old treaty with the United States. Australia "needs to be careful," Beijing Foreign Ministry official He Yafei reportedly warned, lest it wind up in a confrontation with China as part of its treaty obligations to the United States"

I have just put up here an article by a disillusioned black Democrat who details the very long history of oppression of blacks by Democrats. A very curious thing about this article is that it has been taken down from everywhere where it originally appeared -- perhaps because it uses the "n" word -- as blacks are wont to do. The High Court of Australia has recently ruled that the "n" word is not offensive in Australia so I will re-post the article on an Australian site if need be.

Scott Hogenson has some choice comments about the hypocritical silence from the Left about an inexperinced blogger being given access to White House press briefings -- after they howled blue murder about an inexperienced conservative journalist being given access.

Zacht Ei has the background on the dummo Italian journalist who was kidnapped in Iraq and then came under U.S. fire. She was sure that the Islamists would welcome Communists!

My latest posting on MarxWords notes that Marx was hopeless with money. No wonder he was such a naive economist! My latest posting on "A scripture blog" looks at the Ascension.

For more postings, see EDUCATION WATCH, GREENIE WATCH, POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WATCH, GUN WATCH, SOCIALIZED MEDICINE and LEFTISTS AS ELITISTS. Mirror sites here, here, here, here and here

**************************

That power only, not principles, is what matters to Leftist movers and shakers is perfectly shown by the 2004 Kerry campaign. They put up a man whose policies seemed to be 99% the same as George Bush's even though the Left have previously disagreed violently with those policies. "Whatever it takes" is their rule.

Leftist ideologues are phonies. For most of them all that they want is to sound good. They don't care about doing good. That's why they do so much harm. They don't really care what the results of their policies are as long as they are seen as having good intentions and can con "the masses" into giving them power.

The Big Lie of the late 20th century was that Nazism was Rightist. It was in fact typical of the Leftism of its day. It was only to the Right of Stalin's Communism. The very word "Nazi" is a German abbreviation for "National Socialist"

Comments? Email me here (Hotmail address). If there are no recent posts here blame Blogger.com and visit my mirror site here or here. My Home Page is here or here.

********************************