User Tag List

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 16 to 25 of 25

Thread: Walter E. Williams on slavery and our founding fathers

  1. #16
    Over 750 post club
    Join Date
    Oct 2017
    Posts
    956
    Thanks
    50
    Thanked 506 Times in 348 Posts

    Mentioned
    6 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    160120
    Quote Originally Posted by The Barbarian View Post
    I know what you meant. I'm pointing out the faulty assumption. That's why I presented evidence, and you presented unsupported claims.



    I documented the evidence for you. Granted, it is unbelievable that the president of the United States would advocate overturning the Constitution he swore to uphold, but there it is. I gave you facts, not fantasies.



    I've found that facts are far more credible than mere assertions. So that's why you so often see facts linked and documented in my posts.



    Of course I did. I even gave you two examples. It's just that the facts are unpleasant for you.

    Here's a good idea; find facts that support your claims, and show them to us. That would be a lot more effective than complaining about the facts I showed you.

    Perhaps you're unsure how to do that. While I don't know of any highly-placed government officials on the left, who have denounced our constitutional rights as Trump has, you could do a little research on Antifa, which has at least occasionally denied rights to their opponents. Worth a look.
    The shallowness of your thinking demonstrates quite aptly what the Bible says is true: The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom.

    LOL. You keep on with the one-sidedness no matter what. The left attacks our Consitutional rights every day of the week. Every court decision, every piece of legislation introduced that reduces my rights is an attack on the Constitution. When I, and those who believe as I do, are forced to do something we believe to be morally wrong it is an attack on the first ammendment, our right to worship and practice our religion. When your side of the political aisle tries to get rid of all evidences of the Christian history of this country it's an attack on the Constitution for you read "freedom of religion" to be "freedom from religion" and that is in direct conflict with every instinct of our founding father's ideals and principles in founding this nation.

    http://www.adherents.com/gov/Foundin..._Religion.html

    "While we are zealously performing the duties of good citizens and soldiers, we certainly ought not to be inattentive to the higher duties of religion. To the distinguished character of Patriot, it should be our highest glory to add the more distinguished character of Christian."
    --The Writings of Washington, pp. 342-343.
    "Suppose a nation in some distant Region should take the Bible for their only law Book, and every member should regulate his conduct by the precepts there exhibited! Every member would be obliged in conscience, to temperance, frugality, and industry; to justice, kindness, and charity towards his fellow men; and to piety, love, and reverence toward Almighty God ... What a Eutopia, what a Paradise would this region be."
    --Diary and Autobiography of John Adams, Vol. III, p. 9.


    "The general principles, on which the Fathers achieved independence, were the only Principles in which that beautiful Assembly of young Gentlemen could Unite, and these Principles only could be intended by them in their address, or by me in my answer. And what were these general Principles? I answer, the general Principles of Christianity, in which all these Sects were United: And the general Principles of English and American Liberty...


    "Now I will avow, that I then believe, and now believe, that those general Principles of Christianity, are as eternal and immutable, as the Existence and Attributes of God; and that those Principles of Liberty, are as unalterable as human Nature and our terrestrial, mundane System."
    --Adams wrote this on June 28, 1813, excerpt from a letter to Thomas Jefferson.





    "The second day of July, 1776, will be the most memorable epoch in the history of America. I am apt to believe that it will be celebrated by succeeding generations as the great anniversary Festival. It ought to be commemorated, as the Day of Deliverance, by solemn acts of devotion to God Almighty. It ought to be solemnized with pomp and parade, with shows, games, sports, guns, bells, bonfires and illuminations, from one end of this continent to the other, from this time forward forever."
    --Adams wrote this in a letter to his wife, Abigail, on July 3, 1776.
    "God who gave us life gave us liberty. And can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are of the Gift of God? That they are not to be violated but with His wrath? Indeed, I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just; that His justice cannot sleep forever..."
    --Notes on the State of Virginia, Query XVIII, p. 237.



    "I am a real Christian – that is to say, a disciple of the doctrines of Jesus Christ."
    --The Writings of Thomas Jefferson, p. 385.
    Here is a link with many more quotes from early American leaders. https://www.learnreligions.com/chris...fathers-700789 It is very clear that from their own words they believed their Christianity to have a profound influence on the creation of this nation. Meaning, that this nation's roots are grounded in Christian principles and Christian beliefs. What these men created cannot be separated from who they were and what they believed.

    One of the greatest political minds of all time said, after spending a couple of years in the US studying it, the following in his book, Democracy in America, vol. 1.
    Every religion is to be found in juxtaposition to a political opinion which is connected with it by affinity. If the human mind be left to follow its own bent, it will regulate the temporal and spiritual institutions of society upon one uniform principle; and man will endeavor, if I may use the expression, to harmonize the state in which he lives upon earth with the state which he believes to await him in heaven. The greatest part of British America was peopled by men who, after having shaken off the authority of the Pope, acknowledged no other religious supremacy; they brought with them into the New World a form of Christianity which I cannot better describe than by styling it a democratic and republican religion. This sect contributed powerfully to the establishment of a democracy and a republic, and from the earliest settlement of the emigrants politics and religion contracted an alliance which has never been dissolved.
    In this statement de Toqueville is referencing the Pilgrims as he makes plain elsewhere in his writings on the US.

    He follows the above statement later in the same book with this comment:
    I do not question that the great austerity of manners which is observable in the United States, arises, in the first instance, from religious faith. Religion is often unable to restrain man from the numberless temptations of fortune; nor can it check that passion for gain which every incident of his life contributes to arouse, but its influence over the mind of woman is supreme, and women are the protectors of morals. There is certainly no country in the world where the tie of marriage is so much respected as in America, or where conjugal happiness is more highly or worthily appreciated. In Europe almost all the disturbances of society arise from the irregularities of domestic life. To despise the natural bonds and legitimate pleasures of home, is to contract a taste for excesses, a restlessness of heart, and the evil of fluctuating desires. Agitated by the tumultuous passions which frequently disturb his dwelling, the European is galled by the obedience which the legislative powers of the State exact. But when the American retires from the turmoil of public life to the bosom of his family, he finds in it the image of order and of peace. There his pleasures are simple and natural, his joys are innocent and calm; and as he finds that an orderly life is the surest path to happiness, he accustoms himself without difficulty to moderate his opinions as well as his tastes. Whilst the European endeavors to forget his domestic troubles by agitating society, the American derives from his own home that love of order which he afterwards carries with him into public affairs.
    Toqueville is affirming conservative thought in the vast importance of the family to liberty and domestic (national) tranquility. The destruction of faith in God and the family by the left has brought about the condition of the constant agitation of society that leads to the same violence brought about by the French revolution in its attacks on, and rejection of, the very idea of God. That's what is going on right now with the political left.

    Also, the attacks on the morality of the female gender and motherhood through radical feminism is just as destructive as de Toqueville said above. And your side is replacing morality and decency with nothing more than licentiousness and immorality which things will always destroy society. History demonstrates that quite clearly. Every previous ruling civilization in this world's history has been destroyed by the collapse of the morality of its people. Babylon, Greece, Rome, Medo-Persia, etc... all fell because partying and licentiousness became the ruling passion of their citizenry. The consequences were fatal every time.

  2. #17
    Gold level Subscriber drbrumley's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    9,885
    Thanks
    595
    Thanked 3,278 Times in 2,076 Posts

    Mentioned
    13 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    619465
    On the national scale here in Crazyland, we have on the docket in Congress reparations for descendants of slaves, another fabulously bad idea. Could it be that the Democratic Party is only dangling this giant goodie-bag out now because black America is rumored to be disenchanted with life on the Democratic plantation? And without them, they can’t possibly win a national election? The unintended consequences of the proposal were nicely set forth in congressional testimony by a 23-year-old philosophy undergrad from Columbia University named Coleman Hughes who writes frequently for the Quillette website (and several major media platforms) on US race politics. The hearing room was incandescent with Wokester suspense when Hughes was called to speak, and he laid it out with stark eloquence:


    …the people who were owed for slavery are no longer here, and we’re not entitled to collect on their debts. Reparations, by definition, are only given to victims. So, the moment you give me reparations, you’ve made me into a victim without my consent. Not just that: you’ve made one-third of black Americans—who consistently poll against reparations—into victims without their consent, and black Americans have fought too long for the right to define themselves to be spoken for in such a condescending manner.



    Ouch! That stung a little! Naturally the room erupted in boos and catcalls of Wokester indignation. (Did he actually say that!) You could hear the sentimental arguments of Ta-Nihisi Coates just gurgle down the drain. (Watch the five-minute YouTube.) Of course, this reparations cherry on the over-baked victimhood cake would arouse so much resentment and disappointment from all concerned (repeat ALL concerned, black and white), that any hope for social comity in this sore beset nation would lie moldering in the grave… along with John Brown, Martin Luther King, and 360,000 Union dead.

    Crazyland
    By James Howard Kunstler
    The state — whatever its particular forms — always expresses itself as a collective form of property ownership. All political systems are socialistic, in that they are premised upon the subservience of individual interests to collective authority. Communism, fascism, lesser forms of state socialism, and welfarism, are all premised upon the state’s usurpation of privately-owned property. Whether one chooses to be aligned with the political "Left," "Right," or "Middle," comes down to nothing more than a preference for a particular franchise of state socialism.

  3. #18
    Over 750 post club
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    Ol Misery (Missouri)
    Posts
    982
    Thanks
    33
    Thanked 226 Times in 185 Posts

    Mentioned
    5 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    24965
    The idea or hypothesis is that Frankfurt School Transformational Marxism, especially that of Theodore W. Adorno and Herbert Marcuse, was important in forming the present day view of the American Left on our Founding Fathers, and the rejection of their political ideology, which is opposed by the Left.

    Adorno and his social psychology associates made use of the evils of Nazi Fascism to promote their version of Marxism, but their Marxism was not Bolshevism, but a more gradual takeover of the Culture of the West, and what was called the "long march through its institutions." The Transformational Marxists like Adorno wanted to do away with Christianity and the family which the Marxists saw as supporting that Culture and its raising up of the individual.

    The Transformational Marxists started from the idea that Anti-Semitism is correlated with Ethnocentrism, Conservatism, receptivity to fascist ideals and that this cultural mix can be opposed effectively by criticism of its supposed racism, conservatism,anti-feminist position and homophobia.

    But Transformational Marxism in its version by the time of the Counterculture of the Sixties and Seventies and later was deceptive. Its leaders like Adorno tried to hide that fact that they were Marxists, and that they intended to change the Culture of the West to allow it to accept a Collectivist Marxist culture and government. Adorno died in 1969, but his views continued with the work of other Marxists in the universities. In the words of an earlier leader of Transformational Marxism Georg Lukács (1885-1971) they wanted to "Aufhebung der Kultur,"or abolish the culture, in order to establish a Marxist regime.
    Last edited by northwye; June 23rd, 2019 at 12:10 PM.

  4. #19
    Over 750 post club
    Join Date
    Oct 2017
    Posts
    956
    Thanks
    50
    Thanked 506 Times in 348 Posts

    Mentioned
    6 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    160120
    Quote Originally Posted by northwye View Post
    The idea or hypothesis is that Frankfurt School Transformational Marxism, especially that of Theodore W. Adorno and Herbert Marcuse, was important in forming the present day view of the American Left on our Founding Fathers, and the rejection of their political ideology, which is opposed by the Left.

    Adorno and his social psychology associates made use of the evils of Nazi Fascism to promote their version of Marxism, but their Marxism was not Bolshevism, but a more gradual takeover of the Culture of the West, and what was called the "long march through its institutions." The Transformational Marxists like Adorno wanted to do away with Christianity and the family which the Marxists saw as supporting that Culture and its raising up of the individual.

    The Transformational Marxists started from the idea that Anti-Semitism is correlated with Ethnocentrism, Conservatism, receptivity to fascist ideals and that this cultural mix can be opposed effectively by criticism of its supposed racism, conservatism,anti-feminist position and homophobia.

    But Transformational Marxism in its version by the time of the Counterculture of the Sixties and Seventies and later was deceptive. Its leaders like Adorno tried to hide that fact that they were Marxists, and that they intended to change the Culture of the West to allow it to accept a Collectivist Marxist culture and government, In the words of an earlier leader of Transformational Marxism Georg Lukács (1885-1971) they wanted to "Aufhebung der Kultur,"or abolish the culture, in order to establish a Marxist regime.
    While I don't doubt what you say, it has always been the goal of Marxists to do away with Christian beliefs and morals. That started with Marx himself as he very well understood that Marxism could not succeed while Christianity was the majority belief system for Christian beliefs are the fundamentals of liberty itself and Marx had no use for liberty, honesty, morality, etc.... He hated everything to do with religion for he understood it was diametrically opposed to his goal of radically changing society.

  5. #20
    Over 750 post club
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    Ol Misery (Missouri)
    Posts
    982
    Thanks
    33
    Thanked 226 Times in 185 Posts

    Mentioned
    5 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    24965
    "The greatest part of British America was peopled by men who, after having shaken off the authority of the Pope, acknowledged no other religious supremacy; they brought with them into the New World a form of Christianity which I cannot better describe than by styling it a democratic and republican religion. This sect contributed powerfully to the establishment of a democracy and a republic, and from the earliest settlement of the emigrants politics and religion contracted an alliance which has never been dissolved."

    That the Founders of the United States Constitutional Republic were under an influence from the Northern Renaissance and the Protestant Reformation is affirmed by Historian Quentin Skinner in The Foundations of Modern Political Thought, 1978. Quentin Skiner goes over the influence of some Protestants, such as John Knox and Samuel Rutherford, from Scotland, on John Locke, an Englishman, and the late 18th century American political ideology behind the creation of the Constitutional Republic.

    John Locke's book, Two Treatises of Government, according to Skinner, influenced Thomas Jefferson in the Declaration of Independence, and had an influence on James Madison and other Founding Fathers.

    James Madison and his Committee in the House, created and got passed our Bill of Rights which makes our system a Republic rather than a Democracy.

    Isaiah 10: 1-2: "Woe unto them that decree unrighteous decrees, and that write grievousness which they have prescribed. To turn aside the needy from judgment, and to take away the right of the poor of my people, that widows may be their prey, and that they may rob the fatherless."

    There are some other verses in the Old Testament about the right of the people. See Lamentations 3: 33-36, and Malachi 3: 5.

    John Knox and Samuel Rutherford in Scotland, created, from scripture, a view that supported the right of the common people to oppose a totalitarian government, which does not respect the rights of the people. These ideas
    of Knox and Rutherford were secularized by John Locke and
    Thomas Jefferson made them into the Declaration of Independence, one of
    our founding documents which does briefly state a political ideology.

    But now in 2019, Political Correctness, which comes out of the Marxism of the Frankfurt School, makes use of the manipulation of the people by race, gender and other stereotypes. The Marxist Left in 2019 is trying to discredit the patriot and populist movement by associating it with white supremacy and racism.

  6. #21
    Over 750 post club
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    Ol Misery (Missouri)
    Posts
    982
    Thanks
    33
    Thanked 226 Times in 185 Posts

    Mentioned
    5 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    24965
    I thought of posting the following on Facebook. But I post on several interests of mine there, including on the Bible, and don't want to get booted out even temporarily.

    Leo Lyon Zagami, a Facebook Friend,just posted on Facebook on a piece called "Let's Make California Republican Again." That might not go over well in Silicon Valley. The Democrats say they want to make Texas Blue again, and most highly urban Texas counties are Blue. And while there remains only one Abortion Clinic in Missouri which lost its license, the Abortion Clinics of Austin are going strong.

    https://notyrants.blogspot.com/2012/...cpac-2012.html

    "Thursday, March 1, 2012, Andrew Breitbart at CPAC 2012"

    "This is my war cry for 2012. You need to join me in my war against the institutional left."

    "This is not your mother's Democratic Party... duh! John Podesta and George Soros? This is not your mother's Democratic Party You know whose party it is? ...I have a thesis about who we're fighting against on the hard left... [In college] I had no idea these [left-wing academics] people were actually serious about the malarkey they were teaching. The post-structuralist, politically correct garbage."

    "There's no such thing as a moderate Democrat."

    "Barack Obama is a radical and we should not be afraid to say it. And Barack Obama was launched from Bill and Bernadine's salon... it became self-evident to me that [Obama enjoyed] many a meal there... And don't tell me, ABC, CBS and NBC that I can't posit that theory, because it is a self-evident truth. Just like it was a self-evident truth that he was with Jeremiah Wright. And just as it was a self-evident truth that when he was at Harvard, he was advocating for the worst of the worst to join the faculty. Radicals. Radicals at "Beirut on the Charles".

    And that who's in the White House. And that's who's outside right now [the Occupy movement] telling you that you don't have a right to be here. They would squelch your free speech just as easily as they do at Harvard, Vassar, Yale, Wesleyan - they're a bunch of totalitarian freaks."

    "The media can no longer be called objective journalists"

    See https://www.independentsentinel.com/...tural-marxism/

    "Breitbart saw the danger of cultural Marxism before most people. Fox News commentator Bill O’Reilly also saw the threat to a lesser degree and wrote a book about it — The Culture Wars."

    "In the video, Breitbart discusses the transforming of the United States by pushing cultural Marxism with critical theory in his book — Righteous Indignation. Breitbart addressed the Frankfort School and his one great epiphany to explain what is happening in this country."

    The disciples of the Frankfort School wanted to find a way to spread Marxism.

    "Breitbart also discussed Saul Alinsky in the video and his ties to Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton. Alinsky was able to transfer cultural Marxism into rules and bring it down to a street war level, Breitbart said."

    Marxism arrived partly out of the French Revolution. One influence upon Marx was from Hegel, with his dialectics, and another influence was from the Jacobins, who were the most radical and murderous faction to come out of the French Revolution.

    In 1793, during the French Revolution the Jacobin leaders began the Reign of Terror. Under Robespierre, who took over the Revolution. The Jacobins used the Terror of the guillotine not only against counterrevolutionaries, but also against former Jacobins, and Jacobins themselves, Finally, Robespierre was overthrown in 1794, but the spirit of the Jacobins lived on in Marxism.

    Marx got into politics as a young radical intellectual in the movement called the Left Hegelians or Young Hegelians. Remember that Hegel had brought the Greek philosophy of the διαλεκτική, or dialectic, before the time of Christ, into modern philosophy.

    I Timothy 6: 20-21 in Greek says "και αντιθεσεις της ψευδωνυμου γνωσεως,or "and anti-thesis of falsely called knowledge."

    αντιθεσεις, or anti-thesis, is a technical term in the early Greek philosophy of the διαλεκτική, or dialectic, before the time of Christ. In the dialectic, there is a direct opposition between the thesis and the anti-thesis.

    The Marxist interest in the Hegelian dialectic was called "Dialectical Materialism." Marx said he tuned Hegel on his head, meaning that Marx made the dialectic of Hegel atheistic, or without Christian morality.

    The dialectic without morals became the Marxist method of making arguments in the promotion of Marxism.

    The Marxist "dialectical materialism" takes off from but makes immoral that dialectic which in Greek philosophy before the time of Christ was a procedure for making arguments and counter arguments by use of a thesis and its opposition or anti-thesis. The dialectic is in appearance a formal way of making arguments. But remember that Paul says in I Timothy 6: 20-21 that the dialectic produces "falsely called knowledge."
    Last edited by northwye; June 23rd, 2019 at 07:22 PM.

  7. #22
    Over 750 post club
    Join Date
    Oct 2017
    Posts
    956
    Thanks
    50
    Thanked 506 Times in 348 Posts

    Mentioned
    6 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    160120
    I found your last quote to be really interesting. Here's what Max Eastman had to say about that very subject. Max Eastman was at one time one of the leading, if not the leading, socialist activist in the US. He later rejected Marxism and all it's failures and wrote a very interesting little book on titled Reflections on the Failures of Marxism. My quote comes from that book. It's from chapter 7 which is titled The Religion of Immoralism.

    this is a pretty long quote, a few pages out of a small booklet, but it is highly instructive as to how to view socialists and their behavior.

    SINCE Stalin's death it has become necessary to find a new focus for our hostility to the unscrupulous and inhuman behavior of the Communists. I wish it might be focused on the real cause of the trouble: Marxism. Much force of argument is wasted among Western intellectuals through a wish to exempt Marx from responsibility for this retum to barbarism. Realpolitik in the evil sense was certainly not born with Marx. But the peculiar thing we are up against, the casting aside of moral standards by people specializing in the quest of ideal human relations, was born with
    Marx. He is the fountain source of the mores as well as the economics of the Russian Bolsheviks, and is the godfather of the delinquent liberals in all lands.

    The notion of Marx as a benign and noble brooder over man's hopes and sorrows, who would be "horrified" at the' tricks and duplicities of present-day Communists, is as false as it is widespread. Marx had a bad character. His best eulogists can hardly think up a virtue to ascribe to him-except, indeed, tenacity and moral courage. If he ever performed a generous act, it is not to be found in the record. He was a totally undisciplined, vain, slovenly, and egotistical spoiled child. He was ready at the drop of a hat with spiteful hate. He could be devious, disloyal, snobbish, anti-democratic, anti-Semitic, anti-Negro. He was by habit a sponge, an intriguer, a tyrannical bigot who would rather
    wreck his party than see it succeed under another leader. All these traits are clear in the records of his life, and above all in his private correspondence with his alter ego and inexhaustible sugar-daddy, Friedrich Engels. There are bits in this correspondence so revolting to a person of democratic sensibility that they had to be suppressed to keep the myth of the great-hearted Karl Marx, champion of the downtrodden and of human brotherhood, alive at all. To give one example: Ferdinand Lassalle, who was eclipsing Marx as leader of a genuine working class movement in Germany, they discovered to be not only a Jew whom they called "Baron Izzy," "oi-oi, the great Lassalle," "the little Jew," '''the little kike," "Jew Braun," "Izzy the bounder," etc., but also "a Jewish ******." "It is perfectly obvious," Marx wrote, "from the shape of his head and the way his hair grows that he is descended from the Negroes who joined Moses on the journey out of Egypt, unless perhaps his mother or his grandmother had relations with a ******." Only the Russian Bol-
    sheviks, who went in for the religion of immoralism with a barbaric candor impossible to an urbane European, had the hardihood to publish these letters unexpurgated.

    I use the word religion in a precise sense. Although he dismissed God as a hoax and the heavenly paradise as a decoy, Marx was not by nature skeptical or experimental. His habits of thought demanded a belief both in paradise and in a power that would surely lead us to it. He located his paradise on earth, calling it by such beatific names as the "Kingdom of Freedom," the "Society of the Free and Equal,' the "Classless Society'' etc. Everything would be blissful and harmonious there to a degree surpassing even the dreams of the utopian socialists. Not only would all "causes
    for contest" disappear, .all caste and class divisions, but all divisions between city and country, between brain and manual worker. Men would not even be divided into different professions as they are at this low stage of the climb toward paradise:

    "Socialism will abolish both architecture and barrow-
    pushing as professions," Engels assured the believers, "and
    the man who has given half an hour to architecture will also
    push the cart a little until his work as an architect is again
    in demand. It would be a pretty sort of socialism which per-
    petuated the business of barrow-pushing."

    It would seem that only a benign deity could guarantee such a future to mankind, and only by teaching a higher morality could He lead us to it. But Marx hated deity, and regarded high moral aspirations as an obstacle. The power on which he rested his faith in the coming paradise was the harsh, fierce, bloody evolution of a "material," and yet mysteriously "upward-going," world. And he convinced himself that, in order to get in step with such a world, we must set aside moral principles and go in for fratricidal war. Although buried under a mountain of economic rationalizations pretending to be science, that mystical and antimoral faith is the one wholly original contribution of Karl Marx to man'sheritage of ideas.

    It is common among those who condemn the lowering of moral standards by Marxists to blame their "materialism" for it, but that is a crass mistake. Throughout history, from Democritus to Santayana, men who believed genuinely that the substance of the world is matter have been among the noblest teachers of morality. Marx's materialism was not genuine. It was the disguise of a mystical faith. The world he called "material" was mental enough to be forever ascending "from the lower to the higher" with a determinism that is hardly distinguishable from determination. Engels, who did the work and took the risk of actually expounding this naive philosophy-for Marx played it safe as well as lazy by only jotting down a few notes-even tells us that "the celestial bodies like the formation of the organisms . . . arise and perish and the courses that they run . . . take on eternally more magnificent dimensions." Remembering that on this particular planet human society is also rising through successive stages to the "more magnificent" goal of the socialist society, you see what a godlike kind of "matter" it was that Marx believed in. It differed from Hegel's Divine Spirit only in agreeing with Marx about what is sublime, and in mapping out a course of procedure toward it that gave free
    exercise to Marx's rebellious andcontumaceous disposition. The universe of dialectic materialism-to put it briefly-is a pantheistic God masquerading as matter, and permitting HimseH under that disguise forms of conduct that no God honestly named and identified could get away with in a civilized world.

    Whittaker Chambers is very profoundly wrong when he says in his book, Witness, that the issue between Soviet Communism and the free world is between religion and irreligion, or between belief in man and belief in God. The Communists believe in man not as an independent power, but as a constituent part of the superhumanly ordained movement of the universe. That dialectic movement is their God, and it is that God who exempts them from the laws of morality. The difference between Christianity and Communism-the difference, I mean, that is vital in this connection is between a religion which teaches personal salvation through sympathy and loving-kindness and a religion which
    teaches social salvation through bringing the morals of war into the peacetime relations of men.

    Marx was so sure that the world was going to be redeemed by its own dialectic evolution that he would not permit his disciples to invoke the guidance of moral ideals. He really meant it when he said the workers have "no ideal to realize," they have only to participate in the contemporary struggle. He expelled people from his 'Communist party for mentioning programmatically such things as "love," "justice," "humanity," even "morality" itself. "Soulful ravings," "sloppy sentimentality," he called such expressions, and purged the astonished authors as though they had committed the most dastardly crimes.

    Later in life, when Marx founded the First International, he felt compelled for the sake of a big membership to soft-pedal his highbrow insight into the purposes of the universe. He wrote privately to Engels: «I was obliged to insert in the preamble two phrases about 'duty and right,' ditto 'truth, morality, and justice.'" But these lamentable phrases-he assured his friend "are placed in such a way that they can do no harm."

    This mystic faith in evolution set Marx's mind free, and, alas, his natural disposition, to replace the honest campaign of public persuasion by which other gospels have been propagated, with schemes for deceiving the public and tricking his way into positions of power. It was Marx, not Lenin, who invented the technique of the "front organization," the device of pretending to be a democrat in order to destroy democracy, the ruthless purging of dissident party members, the employment of false personal slander in this task. It was Marx and Engels who adopted "scorn and contempt" as
    the major key in which to attack the opponents of socialism, introducing a literature of vituperation that has few parallels in history. Even the political masterstroke of giving the land to the peasants "initially" in order to take it away from them when the power is secure came from the same source. The introduction of such unprincipled behavior into a movement toward the highest ends of man was entirely the work of Marx and Engels. Lenin added nothing to it but skill, and Stalin nothing but total instinctive indifference to the ends.

    So strong a force was set going after his death to sanctify Marx, and benevolize him, so to speak, that these practices were largely forgotten among Western Socialists. His religion of immoralism was smoothed over. But in Lenin's mind this religion found a perfect home, for Lenin had grown up under the influence of the terrorist wing of the Russian revolutionary movement. Lenin was an ardent admirer of Nechayev, a rabid zealot of the 1870's who drew up a famous document called "Catechism of a Revolutionist."

    "The revolutionist is a doomed man. . . . He has severed every
    link with the social order and with the entire civilized world. . . .
    He hates and despises the social morality of his time. . . . Every-
    thing which promotes the success of the revolution is moral,
    everything which hinders it is immoral."

    Nechayev was denounced even by his sufficiently violent colleague, the anarchist Bakunin, as a dangerous fanatic" who "when it is necessary to render some service to what he calls 'the cause' . . . stops at nothing-deceit, robbery, even murder." But Lenin. startled his early friends by defending this madman and honoring his memory. Thus before he became a Marxist, Lenin had arrived by an emotional road at that rejection of moral standards which Marx deduced from a pretended science of history. The confluence of these two streams of thought is one of the greatest disasters that ever
    befell mankind.

    Lenin was even more credulous and more specific than Marx and Engels in describing the beauties of life in the paradise toward which this dialectic world was traveling. In his socialism every 'barrow-pusher'and every kitchen maid was to take part in the function of government. He was also more specific in describing the kinds of vile conduct which must be employed to help it along. "We must be ready to employ trickery, deceit, law-breaking, withholding and concealing truth," he exclaimed. "We can and must write in a language which sows among the masses hate, revulsion, scorn, and the like, toward those who disagree with us."

    Acting upon such principles, Lenin made use of slanderous lies and character-assassinations; he encouraged bank robberies and armed holdups as a means of replenishing the funds for the millennium. His disciples have carried the faith forward, not stopping at any crime, from bodily assassination to state-planned famine and wholesale military massacre. A chief organizer of those bank robberies and holdups was the Georgian Djugashvili, who took the party name of Stalin. The Marx-Leninist belief that such crimes are methods of progress toward a millennium was instilled
    in this youth from the day of his revolt against Christian theology. He had no other education, touched no other conception of the world. He was once described by Archbishop Curley as "the greatest murderer of men in history," and the record when it is calmly written may bear this out. But he took no step beyond the logical implications of a devout belief in brutal and dishonorable conduct. He merely followed through on the doctrine invented by Karl Marx, that in order to enter the "Kingdom of Freedom," we must set aside moral standards. We must place "duty and right ... truth, morality, and justice," where "they can do no. harm." Or, in Lenin's words (spoken to an all-Russian Congress of Youth) :

    "For us morality is subordinated completely to the interests
    of the class struggle of the proletariat."

    We have not entered, alas, the Kingdom of Freedom, and the Classless Society has failed to appear. Everything under the Communists moves in the opposite direction. But this religion of immoralism flourishes. The notion of an earthly paradise in which men shall dwell together in millennial brotherhood is used to justify crimes and depravities surpassing anything the modem world has seen. And this is true not only in Russia, but wherever the power of the Communist conspiracy extends. In countries beyond the reach of Moscow the taint is carried by Communist parties to their
    fringe of aocomplices, dupes, and fellow travelers; even the once-honest liberals are not immune to it. More and more throughout the world those dedicated to an extreme social ideal, instead of being trained in virtue, are trained to condone crimes against the elementary principles of social conduct. Such a disaster never happened to humanity before. No such religion ever existed. That is why our statesmen have been bewildered and outwitted by it. Even after thirty years of being assiduously swindled by the Kremlin, they find it hard to believe that any human animal can be, on principle and with devout and selfless fervor, a liar, a murderer, and a cheat.

    They are now looking for some. recrudescence of the old simple decencies in Malenkov and his associates. But they will look in vain. These men have been brought up in the same school. They are fanatics of the same antimoral and antiscientinc religion. Only the disproof and dislodgment of Marxism will ever cure the world of its present desperate
    sickness.
    “Liberty cannot be established without morality, nor morality without faith.”

    “Society is endangered not by the great profligacy of a few, but by the laxity of morals amongst all.”

    ― Alexis de Tocqueville, Democracy in America

  8. #23
    Over 750 post club
    Join Date
    Oct 2017
    Posts
    956
    Thanks
    50
    Thanked 506 Times in 348 Posts

    Mentioned
    6 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    160120
    I hate this software. It's almost impossible to format a quote from a pdf file into this editor and have it come out looking halfway decent.
    “Liberty cannot be established without morality, nor morality without faith.”

    “Society is endangered not by the great profligacy of a few, but by the laxity of morals amongst all.”

    ― Alexis de Tocqueville, Democracy in America

  9. #24
    TOL Legend The Barbarian's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2001
    Posts
    9,806
    Thanks
    228
    Thanked 3,217 Times in 2,167 Posts

    Mentioned
    18 Post(s)
    Tagged
    3 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    410939
    Fact remains. The first president to publicly call for violating the 1st Amendment, the 2nd Amendment and due process was Donald Trump.

    And he doesn't seem much like a leftist, does he?
    This message is hidden because ...

  10. #25
    Over 750 post club
    Join Date
    Oct 2017
    Posts
    956
    Thanks
    50
    Thanked 506 Times in 348 Posts

    Mentioned
    6 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    160120
    Quote Originally Posted by The Barbarian View Post
    Fact remains. The first president to publicly call for violating the 1st Amendment, the 2nd Amendment and due process was Donald Trump.

    And he doesn't seem much like a leftist, does he?
    LOL. You are still wearing your blinders, and will continue to wear them. It's pretty much a necessity for you as if you were actually able to see outside your tunnel vision what you would see would cause you to run wild just like a spooky horse without blinders.
    “Liberty cannot be established without morality, nor morality without faith.”

    “Society is endangered not by the great profligacy of a few, but by the laxity of morals amongst all.”

    ― Alexis de Tocqueville, Democracy in America

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
About us
Since 1997 TheologyOnline (TOL) has been one of the most popular theology forums on the internet. On TOL we encourage spirited conversation about religion, politics, and just about everything else.

follow us