Saturday, January 22, 2005


A selective account of American history used to justify actions elsewhere:

"Just a word about "universal fraternal union of peoples" and the drawing of "boundaries established by the sovereign will of the peoples themselves on the basis of their national characteristics". The United States and Mexico are two republics, in both of which the people is sovereign.

How did it happen that over Texas a war broke out between these two republics, which, according to the moral theory, ought to have been "fraternally united" and "federated", and that, owing to "geographical, commercial and strategical necessities", the "sovereign will" of the American people, supported by the bravery of the American volunteers, shifted the boundaries drawn by nature some hundreds of miles further south? And will B. accuse the Americans of a "war of conquest", which, although it deals with a severe blow to his theory based on "justice and humanity", was nevertheless waged wholly and solely in the interest of civilization? Or is it perhaps unfortunate that splendid California has been taken away from the lazy Mexicans, who could not do anything with it? That the energetic Yankees by rapid exploitation of the California gold mines will increase the means of circulation, in a few years will concentrate a dense population and extensive trade at the most suitable places on the coast of the Pacific Ocean, create large cities, open up communications by steamship, construct a railway from New York to San Francisco, for the first time really open the Pacific Ocean to civilization, and for the third time in history give the world trade a new direction? The "independence" of a few Spanish Californians and Texans may suffer because of it, in someplaces "justice" and other moral principles may be violated; but what does that matter to such facts of world-historic significance?"

So who was it who rejected morality and believed that the superiority of one people over another gave the stronger one the right to seize the territory of the weaker one? Was it Hitler justifying his invasion of Poland? No. It was clearly written before that and it was written by Friedrich Engels, Karl Marx's co-author. See here.

So what does that show? It shows that Mussolini's Fascism, Hitler's Nazism and Lenin's Communism were all Marxist. We are always told how "Rightist" ideas such as the above are but in the days of Hitler and Mussolini such ideas were LEFTIST. Practically everybody in the 19th century believed that some races and nations were superior to others but it was the Leftists who wanted to use such ideas to justify merciless oppression of one race or nation by another. The British, by contrast, saw their suzerainty over India as the white man's BURDEN (in Kipling's famous phrase). They did not see it as a licence to kill. When one erring General (Dyer) committed the Amritsar massacre in India, there was great public outrage in Britain and he was cashiered over it. By contrast, read a little further in the article by Engels just quoted and see what he wanted to do to the Czechs:

"And for this cowardly, base betrayal of the revolution we shall at some time take a bloody revenge against the Slavs".

So what had the Czech Slavs done to have such bloodlust aimed at them? They were not revolutionary enough! The Czech Leftists had made peace with their government. THAT was their terrible crime! So we see where both Lenin and Hitler were coming from.

The same thing applied to eugenics. The idea was invented by the conservative Galton but it was the Leftists who wanted to use it as an excuse for the merciless and forcible control of people's lives. As it says here:

"Galton's proposals were benign compared with those of famous contemporaries who rallied to his cause. H. G. Wells, for instance, declared, "It is in the sterilisation of failures, and not in the selection of successes for breeding, that the possibility of an improvement of the human stock lies." Although Galton was a conservative, his creed caught on with progressive figures like Harold Laski, John Maynard Keynes, George Bernard Shaw, and Sidney and Beatrice Webb. In the United States, New York disciples founded the Galton Society, which met regularly at the American Museum of Natural History, and popularizers helped the rest of the country become eugenics-minded. "How long are we Americans to be so careful for the pedigree of our pigs and chickens and cattle-and then leave the ancestry of our children to chance or to `blind' sentiment?" asked a placard at an exposition in Philadelphia. Four years before Galton's death, the Indiana legislature passed the first state sterilization law, "to prevent the procreation of confirmed criminals, idiots, imbeciles, and rapists." Most of the other states soon followed. In all, there were some sixty thousand court-ordered sterilizations of Americans who were judged to be eugenically unfit".

So Hitler's eugenics simply made him a good Leftist of his time. It did NOT make him a Rightist. More on what Marx and Engels actually preached at MarxWords. So although Germany is rightly blamed for much evil, it is in a sense the wrong German who gets blamed. It should be Engels, not Hitler. Hitler just implemented what Engels preached. But in all the big commemorations of the war they will be having in Germany soon, how often do you think that will be mentioned?



A good comment from an Australian reader on my leading post yesterday: ""Spiked" recently had an interesting article on the politically correct use of 'homophobia'. Your link on gay domestic violence may even indicate that homophilic violence (not always 'domestic') is a bigger threat to gays than homophobic violence. Of course it is political correctness types, not necessarily gays themselves, who push this homophobia barrow. Basically as part of their bigger agenda to curtail personal liberty for all people gay or not, presumably to socially engineer their utopian fantasy. I think most people, including most minority members, would rather have strong broad-based legal protections for all and a non-intrusive state and put up with the ratbag and bigoted views of some of their neighbours, than risk our personal freedoms in a futile crusade for universal tolerance".

The "protests" at GWB's inauguration have inspired one blogger to say that America has become "Berkelified". He then goes on the explain the "reasoning" behind the protests. "Look at me" about sums up the real motivation of the protestors. In case you DO want to see all the weird shapes and sizes that egotism comes in, One Hundred Percenter has some photos.

And here is a sample of the vast intellect behind the protests: "In cold, snowy Washington, about a hundred protesters gathered outside the "Black Tie and Boots" inaugural ball on Wednesday night, comparing President George W. Bush to Adolph Hitler because Bush is "exterminating the Muslim race." "It is no different in that Hitler killed so many Jews, and George Bush, you know, is exterminating the Muslim race and others," said a man who identified himself only as Don from Florida. Don held up a sign with the words "Vote Republican" written over a Nazi swastika. "It's just a form of fascism -- the Patriot Act and everything -- they stole the vote".

Taranto: "UC Berkeley recently completed what a press release describes as "the first attempt to compare measures of mental health and general well-being among California's general population on a county-level basis." The study (link in PDF) finds that the two counties with the lowest "mental health scores" are Alameda, which includes Berkeley, and San Francisco, which is coterminous with the city. (See page 30 of the PDF document, which is page 21 of the printed report.). What else do these counties have in common? They are the California counties where John Kerry did best: 83% of the vote in San Francisco and 75% in Alameda. You don't have to be crazy to oppose President Bush, but it doesn't hurt".

Loony British welfare: "A think-tank claims that married couples are being rewarded for splitting up. The tax and benefits system subsidises marriage break-up and rewards lone parents with handouts at the expense of married couples, a report says. The average couple-family, where one partner has a job, is 1 pound a week better off than the average workless one-parent family because lone parents get so much extra support from the state"

My latest posting on MarxWords notes that Marx despised peaceful political movements. My latest posting on "A scripture blog" looks at John 1:1 as a concession to popular Christolatry.



That power only, not principles, is what matters to Leftists is perfectly shown by the 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.

Leftists 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.

Comments? Email me here. If there are no recent posts here blame and visit my mirror site here or here. My Home Page is here or here.


No comments: