Postmodern Jihad
by Waller R. Newell
The Killing Machine That Is Marxism
by R.J. Rummel
December 15, 2004
With the fall of the Soviet Union and communist governments in Eastern Europe, too many have the impression that Marxism, the religion of communism, is dead. Hardly. It is alive and well in many countries still, such as North Korea, China, Cuba, Vietnam, Laos, a gaggle of African countries, and in the minds of many South American political leaders. However, of most importance to the future of democracy, communism still pollutes the thinking of a vast multitude of Western academics and intellectuals.
Of all religions, secular and otherwise, that of Marxism has been by far the bloodiest – bloodier than the Catholic Inquisition, the various Catholic crusades, and the Thirty Years War between Catholics and Protestants. In practice, Marxism has meant bloody terrorism, deadly purges, lethal prison camps and murderous forced labor, fatal deportations, man-made famines, extrajudicial executions and fraudulent show trials, outright mass murder and genocide.
In total, Marxist regimes murdered nearly 110 million people from 1917 to 1987. For perspective on this incredible toll, note that all domestic and foreign wars during the 20th century killed around 35 million. That is, when Marxists control states, Marxism is more deadly then [sic] all the wars of the 20th century, including World Wars I and II, and the Korean and Vietnam Wars.
And what did Marxism, this greatest of human social experiments, achieve for its poor citizens, at this most bloody cost in lives? Nothing positive. It left in its wake an economic, environmental, social and cultural disaster.
The Khmer Rouge – (Cambodian communists) who ruled Cambodia for four years – provide insight into why Marxists believed it necessary and moral to massacre so many of their fellow humans. Their Marxism was married to absolute power. They believed without a shred of doubt that they knew the truth, that they would bring about the greatest human welfare and happiness, and that to realize this utopia, they had to mercilessly tear down the old feudal or capitalist order and Buddhist culture, and then totally rebuild a communist society. Nothing could be allowed to stand in the way of this achievement. Government – the Communist Party – was above any law. All other institutions, religions, cultural norms, traditions and sentiments were expendable.
The Marxists saw the construction of this utopia as a war on poverty, exploitation, imperialism and inequality – and, as in a real war, noncombatants would unfortunately get caught in the battle. There would be necessary enemy casualties: the clergy, bourgeoisie, capitalists, "wreckers," intellectuals, counterrevolutionaries, rightists, tyrants, the rich and landlords. As in a war, millions might die, but these deaths would be justified by the end, as in the defeat of Hitler in World War II. To the ruling Marxists, the goal of a communist utopia was enough to justify all the deaths.
The irony is that in practice, even after decades of total control, Marxism did not improve the lot of the average person, but usually made living conditions worse than before the revolution. It is not by chance that the world's greatest famines have happened within the Soviet Union (about 5 million dead from 1921-23 and 7 million from 1932-3, including 2 million outside Ukraine) and communist China (about 30 million dead from 1959-61). Overall, in the last century almost 55 million people died in various Marxist famines and associated epidemics – a little over 10 million of them were intentionally starved to death, and the rest died as an unintended result of Marxist collectivization and agricultural policies.
What is astonishing is that this "currency" of death by Marxism is not thousands or even hundreds of thousands, but millions of deaths. This is almost incomprehensible – it is as though the whole population of the American New England and Middle Atlantic States, or California and Texas, had been wiped out. And that around 35 million people escaped Marxist countries as refugees was an unequaled vote against Marxist utopian pretensions. Its equivalent would be everyone fleeing California, emptying it of all human beings.
There is a supremely important lesson for human life and welfare to be learned from this horrendous sacrifice to one ideology: No one can be trusted with unlimited power.
The more power a government has to impose the beliefs of an ideological or religious elite, or decree the whims of a dictator, the more likely human lives and welfare will be sacrificed. As a government's power is more unrestrained, as its power reaches into all corners of culture and society, the more likely it is to kill its own citizens.
As a governing elite has the power to do whatever it wants, whether to satisfy its most personal wishes, or as today's Marxists desire, to pursue what it believes is right and true, it may do so whatever the cost in lives. Here, power is the necessary condition for mass murder. Once an elite has full authority, other causes and conditions can operate to bring about the immediate genocide, terrorism, massacres or whatever killing the members of an elite feel is warranted. But it is power – unchecked, unconstrained, uncontrolled – that is the killer.
Our academic and intellectual Marxists today are getting a free ride. They get a certain respect because of their words about improving the lot of the worker and the poor, their utopian pretensions. But when empowered, Marxism has failed utterly, as has fascism. Instead of being treated with respect and tolerance, Marxists should be treated as though they wished a deadly plague on all of us.
The next time you come across or are lectured by one of our indigenous Marxists, or almost the equivalent, leftist zealots, ask them how they can justify the murder of over a hundred million their absolutist faith has brought about, and the misery it has created for many hundreds of millions more.
R.J. Rummel, professor emeritus of political science and Nobel Peace Prize finalist, has published 29 books and received numerous awards for his research.
© 2004 WorldNetDaily.com
To view the original article, visit http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=41944
Back to Essays
Christian Economics
by Calvin Beisner
Socialism, Capitalism, and the Bible
by Ron Nash
Marxist/Leninist History
by David A. Noebel
The Marxist/Leninist interpretation of history consists of one major and a few minor players. The major player is the dialectical nature of matter. All history—all reality—is seen as the outworking of this all-encompassing concept. It isn’t just that matter is eternal, but that dialectical matter is eternal. All else follows from this premise. Dialectical matter determines history and all that history encompasses.
Marxist/Leninists understand matter or reality (whether the reality of physics, biology, or the social sciences) to operate through a process of thesis, antithesis, and synthesis. Whether subatomic or atomic, animate matter or inanimate, individual man or society, all live and move dialectically, since dialectics is the essence of matter and matter is ultimately all that is real. The so-called "hidden laws of nature" are the laws of dialectical process, and all nature obeys these laws. These laws were "discovered" by Marx and Engels and are as important to comprehending historical reality scientifically as Darwin’s discovery of evolutionary law is to comprehending biology scientifically.
Marxist/Leninists begin with eternal matter and spontaneous generation and view history as a progression of biological and economic evolution that ultimately will result in a society of communist man in a communist paradise. According to Marxists, the future communist society is written into nature itself. The hidden, impersonal laws of nature—dialectical matter—have so determined the outcome. Man is merely the consequence of these impersonal happenings, but man is given a minor role to play, i.e., to nudge history along a little faster toward its predetermined end.
History records that socialist-communist man has been responsible for the death of millions in his attempt to nudge history. Joseph Stalin alone was guilty of "the persecution, imprisonment, torture and death of some fifty million human beings" prior to World War II.1 The historical struggle for communism is looked on as synonymous with the biological struggle for existence. Only the fit will survive, and the Marxists believe that the proletariat are the fit.
The problem, of course, is calling a halt to the historical process once the desired end is accomplished. According to the dialectical interpretation of reality, all syntheses are transitory, that is, all become new theses that, in turn, rouse their particular antitheses. The process never ends; it is eternal. To view history as a move from eternal nonliving matter to living matter, from living matter to man, from man the biological animal to man the economic animal, from the economic to the social, and from the social to the paradise of a communist society—and then call off the dialectical process because the end has been accomplished—is a problem of major proportions.
The whole process of human history is the workings of dialectical matter through biological evolution, economics, and the social order. The struggle between the bourgeoisie and the proletariat on the economic-social level is basically the same struggle involved in the atom and in the evolutionary process of living matter. Historical materialism is dialectical materialism wrought in history. It is historical determinism with a vengeance. While Marxists seek to make man significant in some ways, impersonal, dialectical matter is the only critical aspect of the equation. Life, man, mind, love, ideas, and consciousness are all secondary to the great forces determining nature and history.
- Malachi Martin, The Keys of This Blood (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1990), p. 177.
Marxist/Leninist Economics
by David A. Noebel
The Marxist/Leninist worldview’s theology is atheism; its philosophy is dialectical materialism; its economics is socialism/communism. It is probably safe to say that before Karl Marx, people did not view economics and modes of production as crucial to either their consciousness or the quest for utopia. Since Marx, economics has never been the same.
Marx’s counterpart, Frederick Engels, best demonstrated the primacy of economic theory in Marxism’s worldview when he declared, "the final causes of all social changes and political revolutions are to be sought, not in men’s brains, not in man’s better insight into eternal truth and justice, but in changes in the modes of production and exchange. They are to be sought, not in the philosophy, but in the economics of each particular epoch."1 This claim obviously has far-reaching implications—not only in the economic discipline, but in psychology, sociology, philosophy, ethics, and history. This chapter will focus on the economic aspects of Marxism.
Because the Marxist assumes that the mode of production forms the foundation for society, he concludes that any ills extant in society are the result of imperfect modes of production. Further, societies have been gradually improving because the economic systems on which they have been founded are gradually improving (thanks to the progressive forces of evolution and the dialectic). Slavery was imperfect, so the dialectical process led society into feudalism, which in turn has formed the new synthesis of capitalism. Unfortunately, capitalism, too, has inherent flaws and contradictions that have led to the oppression of the working class by the bourgeois.
Marxists believe that the proletariat (those without property) and the bourgeois (those who own private property and/or the tools of production) are clashing within the framework of dialectical materialism and that their clash eventually will result in a new, more highly evolved synthesis. This synthesis, which has already been achieved in the Soviet Union and the People’s Republic of China (among other countries), is known as socialism. With the advent of socialism, a whole new society evolves. Marxists argue that all other social institutions follow the economic institution. Socialism removes the means of production from the hands of the minority (the bourgeois) and puts it in the hands of the State, the Party, or the people. Recent reports have revealed that the East German Communist Party, for example, was worth billions of dollars. Thus, in a socialist society, all private property will gradually be abolished and man no longer will oppress his fellow man in an effort to protect his private property. When all private property and, consequently, all class distinctions have withered away, the slow transition from socialism to the highest economic form, communism, will be complete. What economic form will follow communism will be determined by the eternal workings of the dialectic, but Marxists are hoping that once communism finally arrives it will remain for many, many years—some Marxists place the figure at millions of years.
For now, communism is the ultimate economic system because it adheres to the maxim, "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs."2 Whereas socialism is tainted by capitalism and thus will still reward resources to workers according to their labor, communism will create a society in which work becomes "life’s prime want,"3 thereby doing away with the need for incentives to work. Man will produce abundantly because he will be freed from coercion, and scarcity will become a distant memory.
The ultimate aim of Marxism/Leninism is the creation of a political world order based on communism that will solve the economic problem of scarcity so efficiently that each individual will see his every need and most of his wants fulfilled. Once communist man evolves, he will not want more than he knows is best for the new world order. Marx pictured the perfect communist society as one that would require a few hours of work each morning, with afternoons free for recreation, and evenings set aside for cultural activities.
- Frederick Engels, Socialism: Utopian and Scientific (New York: International Publishers, 1935), p. 54.
- Karl Marx, On Historical Materialism (New York: International Publishers, 1974), p. 165.
- Ibid.
Marxist/Leninist Politics
by David A. Noebel
Marxist/Leninists are not afraid to talk about dictatorships. In fact, the "dictatorship of the proletariat" is a respectable political Marxist expression. This dictatorship leads the dialectical clash between the bourgeoisie and the proletariat. Eventually, the proletariat throughout the world will rise up, cast off the chains of bourgeois oppression, and seize the means of production as well as political power, thereby establishing a worldwide dictatorship of the proletariat. When this occurs, as it already has in the Soviet Union, the People’s Republic of China, and elsewhere, mankind will be taking its next major evolutionary step toward the coming world order.
The dictatorship of the proletariat will signal the beginning of socialism and the end of property class distinctions, according to the Marxist. The government will centrally plan the economy and shatter all bourgeois oppression. Further, the dictatorship of the proletariat will wage war against any shred of bourgeois mentality (which includes the regressive ideas of traditional morality and religion). Lenin declares, "If war is waged by the proletariat after it has conquered the bourgeoisie in its own country, and is waged with the object of strengthening and developing socialism, such a war is legitimate and ‘holy.’"1 Marxist/Leninists not only demand dictatorships—they expect dictatorships based on repression and terror.
Marxists are willing to call for a one-world dictatorship of the proletariat because they expect to control it. In Marxist political theory, the Marxist/Leninist party acts as the guiding force for the working class and, once in power, the enforcer of socialist laws. Thus, Marxists are talking about a dictatorship of the Marxist/Leninist party.
Mikhail Gorbachev, at this writing, acts as this dictator for the Soviet Union, basing his perestroika (reconstruction or reorganization) on "definite [Marxist/Leninist] values and theoretical premises."2 He makes it very clear that perestroika is not merely a revolution but a direct "sequel to the great accomplishments shared by the Leninist Party in the October days of 1917. And not merely a sequel, but an extension and a development of the main ideas of the Revolution. We must impart new dynamism to the October Revolution’s historical impulse and further advance all that was commenced by it in our society."3 Gorbachev refers to such action as "Bolshevik daring."
Whether mankind would like to see this daring revolution usher in a one-world Marxist dictatorship is completely irrelevant. According to Marxism, the establishment of such a government is inevitable; it is guaranteed by dialectical processes and evolutionary forces.
These forces also guarantee that such a state ultimately will wither away. The Marxist believes that once every trace of bourgeois ideology and all the stains of capitalist tradition have been eradicated, i.e., once all classes are eliminated, a fully communist society will exist. In future communist society, every citizen will be capable of governing himself. Thus, communism will be ushered in by the dialectic and social evolution, through the vehicle of the dictatorship of the proletariat (guided by the Marxist/Leninist party). According to the Marxist, his economic and political vision will become reality through the coming world order and will one day redeem all mankind—an idea in keeping with the religious nature of Marxism/Leninism.
- V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, forty-five volumes (Moscow: Progress Publishers, 1977), vol. 27, p. 332.
- Mikhail Gorbachev, Perestroika (New York: Harper and Row, 1987), p. xi.
- Ibid., p. 36.
Marxist/Leninist Law
by David A. Noebel
Marxist/Leninist law carries the burden of biological evolution, class warfare, and its own demise. The victory of communism brings with it the end of all class conflicts, the elimination of private property, and paradise on earth. Once paradise is achieved, there is no need for law or the state.
The biological theory of evolution plays a most significant role in Marxist legal theory. There are no legal absolutes because mankind is evolving and law is evolving with it. There is no eternal lawgiver, and there are no eternal legal principles. Legal principles that assist man in his evolution are just; all others are unjust.
Marxists generally trace law back to the concept of private property. Thus law has both a biological and an economic heritage. Property, says the Marxist, divides mankind into owners and non-owners—that is, the bourgeoisie and the proletariat. Law was devised by the propertied class to protect its property. Marxists refer to this as bourgeois law. All bourgeois law is considered unjust, since it stifles the proletariat’s evolutionary destiny. "Your jurisprudence," said Marx, "is but the will of your class made into law."1
While the basis of bourgeois law is to protect private property, the basis of proletarian law is to protect social or state property. Socialist law grants certain human rights but only such rights as assist the advancement of socialism and communism. Socialist law is just law. Bourgeois law is unjust law. Therefore, to violate bourgeois law is proper and not unlawful. To violate bourgeois law on behalf of socialist law is especially proper.
M
arxist/Leninists like to think that proletarian law reflects proletarian man and the proletariat. The truth is slightly different. The vanguard of the proletariat is the Marxist/Leninist Party, and the head of the Party is the Dictator of the Proletariat. In the final analysis, socialist law equals proletarian law equals Marxist/Leninist Party law. And since the Party and the state are one, socialist law quickly becomes positive law with an economic twist. "A court," said Lenin, "is an organ of the state." Written into the U.S.S.R. constitution [especially Article 6] is the fact that the Communist Party is the only guide of Soviet society and the only interpreter of its laws. Hence, the Marxist/Leninist Party decrees the law and the Marxist/Leninist Party is the state that enforces the law. Human rights are decreed by the Party, but only such human rights as advance the socialist goal.
Once the full socialist system is victorious, however, the proletariat experiences its victory of communist paradise and law ceases (along with the state), since the initial reason for law—private property—ceases. Once private property ceases, crime ceases, also, and law withers due to the lack of class struggle. All inequality vanishes. Mankind has evolved to a level determined by nature itself, a goal all Marxist/Leninists strive to accomplish.
- Karl Marx and Frederick Engels, Collected Works, forty volumes (New York: International Publishers, 1976), vol. 6, p. 501.
Marxist/Leninist Sociology
by David A. Noebel
Marxist/Leninist economic determinism shapes Marxist sociology. Marxists believe that social consciousness is determined by the mode of production extant in a society, so that capitalism is responsible for society’s present failings.
This concept of economic determinism is central to the Marxist worldview. Capitalism allegedly has produced a society rife with oppression and crime; therefore, an economic system must be adopted that changes social consciousness for the better. If, as L. P. Bueva claims, "classes form the basis of social structure: their traits and the relations among them determine all social and socio-psychological processes in society and the laws governing them,"1 then a classless society (communism) is far superior to a society that encourages one class to oppress another (capitalism). Thus, the Marxist sociologist calls for a socialistic system to replace capitalism, believing that this will guarantee the creation of advanced social consciousness.
The Marxist is especially anxious to usher in a communist society because only then will mankind achieve a truly moral social consciousness. "Right," Karl Marx declares, "can never be higher than the economic structure of society and its cultural development conditioned thereby."2 According to this view, mankind has been living with a stunted notion of morality throughout history, and a society that encourages proper values is long overdue. These "proper values," however, will not be manifest until the proper society is put into place.
Marxist sociology believes that the advent of such a society is inevitable. Man is guaranteed by biological evolution and the laws of the dialectic to progress socially and culturally. Even now, the proletariat and the bourgeoisie are clashing according to the immutable laws of the dialectic. Man can soon expect world socialism, followed by a new social consciousness. This new society, as it gradually leaves behind the contagion of capitalism, will evolve into a new world order—communism. At that point, society will be so radically altered that the individual will be influenced to act responsibly at all times. For example, Marxists believe that the sins of greed, selfishness, and envy will disappear completely once private property is abolished. From the ashes, new communist man will emerge.
Modern capitalist society, according to Marxist theory, is contributing to its own demise. By oppressing individuals, it encourages each man to revolt and establish a new mode of production and, consequently, a new society that will respect the individual. Karl Marx and Frederick Engels declare,
In the present epoch, the domination of material relations over individuals, and the suppression of individuality by fortuitous circumstances, has assumed its sharpest and most universal form, thereby setting existing individuals a very definite task. It has set them the task of replacing the domination of circumstances and of chance over individuals by the domination of individuals over chance and circumstances.3
In this way, Marxists grant man free will, rather than a determined consciousness, long enough to help evolution and the dialectic usher in world communism.
And what will this perfect society be like? Marxists tell us that world communism will abandon traditional bourgeois morality with all its religious connotations. The church will be consigned to the scrap heap, and the community will assume responsibility for childrearing, thereby effectively disbanding the family. Indeed, even the state will wither away, leaving every individual to govern his own life. Society will become a collection of perfectible individuals with no institutions to hinder their development or lead them astray. Marxist sociologists insist that this type of society will usher in the golden age of humanity. The coming world order will become a reality in which every human being can claim his manhood and womanhood without exploitation or alienation.
- L. P. Bueva, Man: His Behaviour and Social Relations (Moscow: Progress, 1981), p. 112.
- Karl Marx, On Historical Materialism (New York: International, 1974), p. 165.
- Karl Marx and Frederick Engels, The Individual and Society (Moscow: Progress,1984), p. 162.
Marxist/Leninist Psychology
by David A. Noebel
Karl Marx, Frederick Engels, and V. I. Lenin all describe the mind and mental activity as nothing more than reflections of the brain. This conclusion follows logically from their materialist philosophy. Unfortunately, it leaves Marxism with very little to study in psychology–for them, the "study of the mind" is reduced to the "study of the reflections of the brain." Such a position is called psychological or ontological monism.
Marxist psychology discovered its champion in Ivan P. Pavlov, a Russian physiologist. Pavlov, in his famous experiments with dogs, stressed the primacy of the nervous system in influencing the mental activity of the individual. He believed that two material factors could account for all mental activity: the individual’s physiology and the environmental influence on the individual’s nervous system. He writes that the "behaviour of man or animal is conditioned not only by the inborn properties of the nervous system, but also by the influences which have always acted on the organism during its individual existence."1 This meshes beautifully with the Marxist worldview, in which man is approached from a strictly materialistic standpoint and is described as basically good, with his moral failings caused by oppressive societies.
Marxism accepts Pavlov’s conclusions and therefore appears to embrace strict behaviorism. However, this is not the case. Marxism cannot accept a completely deterministic explanation of man, because Marxist theory calls for the working class to consciously decide to support the communist revolution. If every man’s actions are determined, how can any individual consciously choose to revolt? "Choosing," according to the behavioristic view, becomes a meaningless activity. Thus, the Marxist must water down his behaviorism to encourage the worker to actively, consciously strive for communism.
Pavlov provides the escape for the Marxist psychologist. He speaks of a "second stimuli" that only human beings have evolved the capacity to be influenced by: language. That is, Pavlov believes man’s "mind" is shaped by his nervous activity and his environment, an environment that uniquely includes the stimulus of words. This belief allows the Marxist to claim that man’s actions are largely determined but that the individual can obtain a measure of freedom in his use of and response to the stimulus of language. In this way, Marxism is able to cling to its behavioristic assumptions and still claim that the worker may choose to join the revolution.
Of course, all of Marxism’s psychotherapy reflects its behavioristic, materialistic assumptions. Whereas the Marxist may give lip service to freedom of will, he treats mentally ill patients as automatons that require only a little physical/chemical fine tuning to become model citizens again. One day, according to the Marxist, all mankind can be made mentally healthy simply through manipulation of their environment and nervous activity. K. I. Platonov declares, "We have undoubtedly not yet fully mastered the methods of influencing the higher nervous activity of man by suggestion. This is the task of further research."2 When and if further research grants the Marxist this ability, be assured he will use it in the name of scientifically sculpting the perfect society.
- I. P. Pavlov, Twenty Years of Objective Study of the Higher Nervous Activity (Behaviour) of Animals (Medgiz Publishing House, 1951), p. 458.
- K. I. Platonov, The Word as a Physiological and Therapeutic Factor (Moscow: Foreign Languages Publishing House, 1959), p. 12.
Marxist/Leninist Biology
by David A. Noebel
Marxism/Leninism depends on the theory of evolution. Karl Marx made it very clear that Charles Darwin’s Origin of Species contained the scientific basis for his views on the class struggle. Some even defined Marxism as "Darwinism applied to human society." Just as the theory of evolution explained how man arrived on the scene from a molecule, so the theory also explained how society evolves. The major trouble with Darwin, from the Marxist perspective, is Darwin’s slow, gradual process of natural selection. Marxist dialectical materialism called for something more than just gradual progression. The dialectic needs a theory with clashes (thesis against antithesis) and leaps (synthesis). While the struggle for existence may answer to the clash of the dialectic, nothing in Darwin answered to the leap. The recent theory of punctuated equilibrium, however, seems to satisfy the dialectical demand. Punctuated equilibrium posits a natural world that manifests species stability for great periods of time but occasionally ruptures or leaps from one species to another. The mechanics of such abrupt leaps in nature are still being sought. Some suggest a reptile laying an egg in which a bird emerges as a starting point for discussion, but few defend such a suggestion. Recently, Marxist biologists have stressed the power of beneficial mutations to create the jump in evolutionary development. Not surprisingly, Marxist biologists are using the inability of the fossil record to sustain the weight of the Darwinian theory to bolster their theory of punctuated equilibrium.
Then, too, with an atheistic base the subject of origins calls for the self-generation of nonliving matter. Marxist biology defends spontaneous generation despite the fact that it is a pre-scientific concept dating back to the Egyptians, Babylonians, and Greeks. Engels says he will "believe" in spontaneous generation no matter what Louis Pasteur and other scientists say or do to disprove it. In fact, Engels sees no scientific experiments capable of disproving the theory. The Marxist attitude is simple: given time, carbon, hydrogen, oxygen, and energy from the sun, matter is obligated to create life. According to the Marxist, we are the practical result of just such a materialistic matrix.
Marxist/Leninist Ethics
by David A. Noebel
Communist or class morality can be understood best within the context of dialectical and historical materialism. Marxists see their ethics proceeding out of the movement in history that will ultimately assure the destruction of all classes or forces opposing the classless or communist society. Each act is considered ethically good if it assists the flow of history toward a communist end. Killing, raping, stealing, and lying are not outside the boundaries of communist morality if they help produce the classless communist society. Marxist/Leninists believe that killing evolving human beings infected with the concepts of God and bourgeois capitalism is as morally justified as a farmer killing a cow afflicted with hoof-and-mouth disease. The killing fields of Cambodia, the Ukraine and the rest of the Soviet Union were the practical results of class morality. The mass murders in China came under the banner of class morality. "From the viewpoint of communist morality," says V. N. Kolbanovskiy, "that is moral which promotes the destruction of the old, exploiting society, and the construction of the new, communist society. Everything that hinders this development is immoral or amoral. To be a moral man, in our understanding means to devote all his forces and energy to the cause of the struggle for a new communist society."1
By definition, therefore, whatever advances the cause of communism is morally good; whatever hinders its advance in human and social evolution is morally evil. If the rest of the world looks on such activity as wicked or evil, the world’s condemnation is a small price to pay to advance the flow of history toward a synthesis resulting in the creation of the new moral man—a man untainted by belief in a mythological God or exploitative capitalism.
- V. N. Kolbanovskiy, Communist Morality (Moscow: 1951), p. 20.
Marxist/Leninist Philosophy
by David A. Noebel
Marxist philosophy, known as dialectical materialism, attempts to explain all of reality—including inorganic matter (the molecular, atomic, and subatomic), the organic world (life and, according to materialism, mind or consciousness), and social life (economics, politics, etc.). All of nature reflects, illuminates, and illustrates communist dialectical philosophy. Modern physics was even in travail, thought Lenin, "giving birth to dialectical materialism." Marxist philosophy insists that the material universe is infinite, that matter is eternal (negating, of course, the need for a beginning), uncreated (negating the need for a Creator), indestructible, and dialectical (the clash between opposites, for example, explains the self-motion of matter, which eliminates the need for a Mover outside of matter or nature). Marxism also perceives matter’s motion as upward and evolutionary. Matter is not static or at rest, but actively in process, progressive. Matter dialectically viewed explains its own nature and progress from its inorganic state through its development into life, onward to animal consciousness, and ultimately to human mind and consciousness and social institutions.
Matter can move upward from the inorganic to the organic, from the organic to the human, and from the human to the social level because of its dialectical nature—a nature responding to certain laws including: (a) the unity and struggle of opposites, (b) the transformation of quantity into quality, and (c) the negation of the negation. The dialectical laws manifest a threefold rhythm of equilibrium (thesis), disturbance (antithesis) and re-establishment of equilibrium (synthesis). Because the dialectic is a progressive process, each synthesis becomes not merely a new thesis but a higher one. In reality, what Darwin’s theory of natural selection is to evolution, the dialectic is to matter. Marxist philosopher G. V. Plekhanov came to regard Marxism as "Darwinism in its application to social science."1 Marx and Engels acknowledge that Darwin’s theory of natural selection served them well as the basis for their theory of the class struggle. From Darwin’s point of view, in Gustav A. Wetter’s words, "insignificant quantitative changes in plants and animals eventually lead by accumulation and inheritance to the formation of new species,"2 i.e., changes in quantity lead ultimately to changes in quality. The present clash between socialism and capitalism, for the Marxist, is similar in kind to the clash among biological creatures "struggling for existence" and the clash between positive and negative charges in electricity. And the evolution of mankind from spontaneous generated life (the first speck of life from non-living matter) serves as an example of the progress of matter through many minute quantitative changes (due to natural selection) to great qualitative changes (new species). For better or worse, the Marxist’s philosophy of dialectical materialism is built primarily on the "science" of Darwinian evolution.
- Gustav A. Wetter, Dialectical Materialism (Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1977), p. 107. Marxism for Plekhanov "is the application to social development of the Darwinian theory of the adaptation of biological species to the conditions of the environment."
- Ibid., p. 323.
Marxist/Leninist Theology
by David A. Noebel
Karl Marx (1818-1883) became an atheist while studying at the University of Berlin. His atheistic convictions predated his socialistic beliefs and were based not on the plight of oppressed masses but on Ludwig Feuerbach’s philosophical conclusion pertaining to the existence of God. Marx’s doctoral dissertation in the field of philosophy emphasized his "hatred of all the gods." He grew to perceive belief in God as a narcotic. His criticism and elimination of religion formed the foundation for all other criticisms; that is, Marx felt that atheism in practice consisted of the "forcible overthrow of all existing social conditions." Frederick Engels and V. I. Lenin agreed that religion was a drug or "spiritual booze" and must be combated. "Every idea of God," insisted Lenin, "is unutterable vileness." The Marxist/Leninist movement has not deviated from its founding fathers’ attitude toward God specifically nor toward religion in general. The Atheist’s Handbook declares, "The Communist Party has always taken and continues to take a position of militant atheism and of an implacable aggressive ideological struggle against religious befuddlement." Under the direction of the Council of Religious Affairs, the Central House of Scientific Atheism, the Institute for Scientific Atheism and its publication Science and Religion, the doctrine of atheism has maintained its foundational role in Communist ideology. Only in the sixth era of glasnost and perestroika has the Soviet Union taken a less aggressive stance toward religion, but these concessions are in no way a rejection of the basic tenets of Marxist/Leninist theology, which is still unapologetically atheistic.
God, Science, and Beauty
by David A. Noebel
As an avid reader of Free Inquiry magazine, a Secular Humanist publication, I've learned over the years how much Christianity is disdained and science and reason are praised. So I decided to do a little open-minded research into the "science" scene to see if I could discover anything that could bury Christianity once and for all. Now I'd like to share exactly what I uncovered in my investigation.
First, let's look at a colorful comment on science and objectivity from Paul Davies, a popular writer on science, especially physics:
There is a popular misconception that science is an impersonal, dispassionate, and thoroughly objective enterprise. Whereas most other human activities are dominated by fashions, fads, and personalities, science is supposed to be constrained by agreed rules of procedure and rigorous tests. It is the results that count, not the people who produce them. This is, of course, manifest nonsense. Science is a people-driven activity like all human endeavor, and just as subject to fashion and whim. In this case fashion is set not so much by choice of subject matter, but the way scientists think about the world."
I found Davies' quote in the introduction to Richard P. Feynman's book Six Easy Pieces: Essentials of Physics. Since physics is the king of the sciences, I decided to begin my homework there. Davies names Richard Feynman as the one physicist who stands out among twentieth century physicists!
Yes, there was Paul Dirac, who, according to John C. Taylor at the University of Cambridge, "was one of the finest physicists of [the twentieth] century. The development of quantum mechanics began at the turn of the century, but it was Dirac who, in 1925 and 1926, brought the subject to its definite form, creating a theory as compelling as Newton's mechanics had been."
Taylor also summarized Dirac's philosophy of physics, saying, "Physical laws should have mathematical beauty." So science includes the concept of beauty in addition to imagination, experimentation, and "guess work" (Feynman).
Another physicist, Steven Weinberg, actually says that modern day "string" theory will "survive in the final underlying laws of physics" because the theory is "beautiful." (The Taylor and Weinberg quotes are both found in Richard P. Feynman and Steven Weinberg's Elementary Particles and the Laws of Physics.)
If "beauty" plays a role in physics, why then are Christians ridiculed for believing the "heavens declare the beauty [the Hebrew word kabod can be translated glorious, splendor, beautiful, stately, magnificence] of God, and they are a marvelous display of His craftsmanship" (Psalm 19:1)?
Let me explain why I chose Feynman as the focus of my research. According to Davies, there have been three major icons in the realm of physics—Isaac Newton, Albert Einstein, and Richard Feynman. Davies says, "Richard Feynman has become an icon for late twentieth-century physics—the first American to achieve this status." Davies also believes it "is unlikely that the world will see another Richard Feynman."
So what did I do? I ordered and read the following works by Feynman: The Meaning of It All: Thoughts of a Citizen-Scientist; Six Easy Pieces: Essentials of Physics; Elementary Particles and the Laws of Physics; The Pleasure of Finding Things Out; Theory of Fundamental Processes; and The Feynman Lectures on Physics.
Apart from the 1001 equations sprinkled throughout Feynman's work, e.g., (h2/2s)+(nh2/2s')=(b-1)h2/2R (I think that translates "earth," but I could be wrong!), I actually began to understand what the world of particle physics is all about. (Don't worry, though — it won't go to my head because somewhere I read that if you begin to think you understand it, you really don't understand it!)
However, since my academic background is philosophy (unfortunately, Feynman does not like philosophers, psychologists, or for that matter, the National Academy of Sciences), I knew there was some challenges ahead, but in all honesty, not exactly what I expected.
Reading Paul Davies alerted me to the fact that Feynman walks, eats, drinks, sleeps and dreams "subatomic particles, atoms and nuclei, molecules and chemical bonding, the structure of solids, superconductors and superfluids" (just a few areas of his expertise), and also the fact that Feynman exhibits another quality lacking in much of science today — when he doesn't know something, he admits it!
For example, in Six Easy Pieces, Feynman says, "It is important to realize that in physics today, we have no knowledge of what energy is" (p. 71). That got my immediate attention!
If we don't know what energy is, what do or don't we know about gravity, magnetism, weak forces, strong forces, dark matter, or dark energy? This line of thinking brought to mind an article in which a Harvard astronomer admitted that we use terms like dark matter and dark energy because we don't know anything about them. This admission should strike us immediately because the latest word is that over 90% of the universe consists of dark energy!
This knowledge immediately brings to mind an obvious question for the Free Inquiry brethren: if we don't know such things, how do they know with absolute certainty that God does not exist? In every issue, Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens pontificate on why God doesn't exist, telling their readers they are basing their certainty claims on "science."
I think Paul Kurtz would be wise to have a little chat with his atheist writers to question them about the source of their "proof." My wild guess is they get it from from 90 proof Jack Daniels!
After I discovered that energy isn't yielding up too much information about itself even for Feynman to grasp definitively (and if he can't grasp it, I'm quite sure Dawkins can't), I began wondering what else physics can't tell us.
Here is Feynman in his own words on what we don't know:
First, we do not yet know all the basic laws [of physics]: there is an expanding frontier of ignorance. (p.2)
Where do the laws that are to be tested come from?(p.2)
The rules of the game are what we mean by fundamental physics . . . actually, we do not have all the rules now.(p. 24)
The calculations that are involved in this theory [quantum nucleodynamics] are so difficult that no one has ever been able to figure out what the consequences of the theory are . . . we do not yet know where it fits. (p. 39)
Everything works exactly the same for the muon as for the electron, except that one is heavier than the other. Why is there another heavier, what is the use for it? We do not know. (p. 43)
We do not know how the universe got started, and we have never made experiments which check our ideas of space and time accurately. (p. 44)
We seem gradually to be groping toward an understanding of the world of sub-atomic particles, but we really do not know how far we have yet to go in this task. (p. 44)
We do not know the patterns of motions that there should be inside the earth. (p. 66)
It is important to realize that in physics today, we have no knowledge of particles inside the nucleus, and we have formulas for that, but we do not have the fundamental laws. We know that it is not electrical, not gravitational, and not purely chemical, but we do not know what it is. (p. 71)
We do not understand energy as a certain number of little blobs. (p. 84)
We do not understand the conservation of energy. (p. 84)
Galileo discovered a very remarkable fact about the principle of inertia — if something is moving with nothing touching it and completely undisturbed, it will go on forever, coasting at a uniform speed in a straight line. Why does it keep on coasting? We do not know. (p. 93)
None of these nuclear or electrical forces has yet been found to explain gravitation. (p. 113)
The gravitational attraction relative to the electrical repulsion between two electrons is 1 divided by 4.17x10 to the 42nd power. The question is, where does such a large number come from? . . . This fantastic number is a natural constant so it involved something deep in nature. (p. 110)
The quantum-mechanical aspects of nature have not yet been carried over to gravitation. (p. 113)
What is the machinery behind the law [regarding quantum behavior]? No one has found any machinery behind the law . . . no one can ‘explain' any more than we have just ‘explained' . . . we have no idea about a more basic mechanism from which these results can be deduced. (p. 134)
These "we don't knows" are from just one book — Six Easy Pieces: Essentials of Physics.
In The Meaning of It All, Feynman says something that should interest Hitchens and Dawkins, Harris and Dennett: "Science cannot disprove the existence of God" (p. 36). To that he adds, "I also agree that a belief in science and religion is consistent." He insists that science cannot produce "the meaning of life" nor can it tell us "the right moral values." These must come from somewhere else.
Now if science and physics cannot tell us what or who is behind the machinery of the laws of the universe, then why is it so illogical for Christians to suggest John 1:1–3 for starters? And if science cannot tell us the meaning of life or what is right and wrong, then why is it so illogical for Christians suggest Paul's epistle to the Romans?
Why doesn't Feynman get the attention he deserves? My guess is that he's way too honest for a scientific world hung up on government grants. He would never say global warming is based on "settled" science. In fact, he says, "all scientific knowledge is uncertain." He would never have agreed with the scientific powers that destroyed the career of Dr. Richard Stemberg for publishing a peer-reviewed article by Steven Meyer on natural selection and mutations in a Smithsonian publication. Since Feynman is never at a loss for words, he probably would have referred to those responsible for such an outrage as "dishonest scientific hacks."
Feynman also believes that Western Civilization is based primarily on two things: science and Christian ethics — "The other great heritage is Christian ethics — the basis of action on love, the brotherhood of all men, the value of the individual — the humility of the spirit." This statement would never pass muster at Free Inquiry! (This reminds me of the atheist Bertrand Russell acknowledging that what the world really needs is love, "Christian love." You can find this quote on Google under "Bertrand Russell Quotes.")
Feynman is way too conservative for the hierarchy of the National Academy of Sciences. In The Pleasure of Finding Things Out, he says, "I believe, therefore, that although it is not the case today, that there may some day come a time, I should hope, when it will be fully appreciated that the power of government should be limited; that government ought not to be empowered to decide the validity of scientific theories, that that is a ridiculous thing for them to try to do; that they are not to decide the various descriptions of history or of economic theory or of philosophy"(p. 115).
Richard Feynman is not a Christian, but he reminds me of Sir Isaac Newton, who said, "I was like a boy playing on the seashore and diverting myself now and then finding a smoother pebble or a prettier shell than ordinary, whilst the great ocean of truth lay all undiscovered before me."
Would that this were the mindset of Free Inquiry's Richard Dawkins!
Marxism, Leninism, Maoism, Communism Bibliography
by David A. Noebel
- Schwarz, Fred. Beating The Unbeatable Foe: One Man's Victory Over Communism, Leviathan, And The Last Enemy. Washington, DC: Regnery Publishing, Inc., 1996.
- Schwarz, Fred. You Can Trust The Communists (to be Communists). New York: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1960.
- Noebel, David. Understanding The Times: The Religious Worldviews Of Our Day And The Search For Truth. Eugene, OR: Harvest House Publishers, 1999.
- Skousen, Cleon. The Naked Communist. Salt Lake City, UT: The Ensign Publishing Co., 1961.
- Horowitz, David. Radical Son: A Generational Odyssey. New York: The Free Press, 1997.
- Courtois, Stephane. The Black Book Of Communism: Crimes, Terror, Repression. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1999.
- Furet, Francois. The Passing Of An Illusion: The Idea Of Communism In The Twentieth Century. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1999.
- Ellis, Richard. The Dark Side Of The Left: Illiberal Egalitarianism In America. Lawrence, KS: University Press of Kansas, 1998.
- Haynes, John and Harvey Klehr. Venona: Decoding Soviet Espionage In America. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1999.
- Klehr, Harvey and John Haynes with Fridrikh Firsov. The Secret World Of American Communism. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1995.
- Klehr, Harvey. The Heyday Of American Communism: The Depression Decade. New York: Basic Books, Inc., 1984.
- Shafarevich, Igor. The Socialist Phenomenon. New York: Harper and Row, 1980.
- Bales, James. Communism: Its Faith And Fallacies. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1962.
- Gregor, James. The Faces Of Janus: Marxism And Fascism In The Twentieth Century. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2000.
- Rummel, R.J. Death By Government. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers, 1994.
- Billingsley, Kenneth. Hollywood Party: How Communism Seduced The American Film Industry. Rocklin, CA: Prima Publishing, 1998.
- MacDonald, Heather. The Burden Of Bad Ideas. Chicago: Ivan R. Dee Publishers, 2000.
- Herman, Arthur. Joseph McCarthy: Reexamining The Life And Legacy Of America's Most Hated Senator. New York: The Free Press, 2000.
- Buckley, William. The Red Hunter: A Novel Based On The Life Of Senator Joseph McCarthy. New York: Little, Brown and Company, 1999.
- Weinstein, Allen. Perjury: The Hiss-Chambers Case. New York: A. A. Knopf, 1978.
- Timperlake, Edward and William Triplett II. Year Of The Rat: How Bill Clinton Compromised U.S. Security For Chinese Cash. Washington, DC: Regnery Publishing, 1998.
- Chambers, Whittaker. Witness. Washington, DC: Regnery Gateway, 1980.
- Billingsley, Lloyd. The Generation That Knew Not Josef: A Critique Of Marxism And The Religious Left. Portland, OR: Multnomah Press, 1985.
- Popper, Karl. The Open Society And Its Enemies. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1966. 2 Vols.
- Bauer, P.T. Equality, The Third World, And Economic Delusion. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1981.
- Horowitz David and Peter Collier. Destructive Generation: Second Thoughts About The '60s. New York: Simon and Schuster, 1989.
- Romerstein, Herbert and Eric Breindel. The Venona Secrets: Exposing Soviet Espionage And America's Traitors. Washington, DC: Regnery Publishers, Inc., 2000.
- Mosher, Steven. Hegemon: China's Plan To Dominate Asia And The World. San Francisco, CA: Encounter Books, 2000.
- Timperlake, Edward and William Triplett. Red Dragon Rising: Communist China's Military Threat To America. Washington, DC: Regnery Publishing, Inc., 1999.
- Gertz, Bill. The China Threat. Washington, DC: Regnery Publishing, 2000.
- Stormer, John. None Dare Call It Treason-25 Years Later. Florissant, MO: Liberty Bell.
- Foster, William. Toward Soviet America. New York: International Publishers, 1932.
Copyright © 2000, CACC. All Rights Reserved.
The Worldviews of Destruction in the 20th Century
by David A. Noebel
Introduction
"Beware lest any man [educator, politician, rock star, news anchorman/woman] take you captive through vain and deceitful philosophy [naturalism, materialism, existentialism, pragmaticism], after the tradition of men [Marx, Darwin, Nietzsche, Wellhausen, Freud, Dewey, Foucault], after the rudiments of the world [socialism, evolution, higher criticism, humanism, moral relativism, deconstructionism, collectivism], and not after Christ." Colossians 2:8
The 20th Century is the praxis of this verse. Western Civilization in general and the United States in particular have embarked on a hazardous journey of rejecting and replacing Christ with any number of mortal men and their ideas. Since ideas have consequences the 20th Century has witnessed the consequences of these utopian schemes and ideas.
Over one hundred years ago (1890-1891), James Orr presented the Kerr lectures in Edinburgh, Scotland. He entitled his series The Christian View of God and the World and argued forcefully for the proposition that Biblical Christianity is a worldview. By this term (Ger. Weltanschauung) he meant that Christianity is more than a two-hour emotional experience on Sunday morning. Rather Christianity is a 24 hours a day relationship with God through Jesus Christ.
In other words, one who says he believes with his whole heart that Jesus Christ is the Son of God "is thereby committed to much else besides," says Orr. Christianity is more than heart. It is head as well. It is body, mind, soul and spirit (Mark 12:30). The Christian, by the very fact that he or she is a Christian is committed to a "view of God, to a view of man, to a view of sin, to a view of redemption, to a view of the purpose of God in creation and history, to a view of human destiny."(1) Add these views together and they add up to a world view.
Elsewhere I define worldview as any ideology, philosophy, theology, movement or religion that provides an overarching approach to understanding God, the world, man and man's relations to God and the world.(2) Specifically, a worldview contains a particular perspective regarding each of the following ten areas: theology, philosophy, ethics, biology, psychology, sociology, law, politics, economics and history.
Not surprising the worldviews of destruction in the 20th Century spoke to these areas with ideas but they were ideas responsible for the death of millions.
At approximately the same time that James Orr penned his work four other individuals (three men and a woman) were about to emerge on the world's stage and before they finished speaking, writing and living out their worldviews millions of human beings paid with their lives. And as we enter the 21st Century millions more will perish because of these same worldviews and their ideas.
The 20th Century is history. It is a history of incredible advances in many areas (inventions, computer chips, medical science, technologies, transportation, communications (expansion of the Christian Gospel), living standards, free states), but devolution in other areas (dictatorships, poverty, illegal drugs, pornography, homosexuality, venereal diseases, AIDS, lawlessness, immorality, teenage pregnancy, abortions). But most important for our study it is a century of mass murders and killings unheard of in human history. The 20th Century is the century of slaughter. More human beings have been killed in the 20th Century than in all previous centuries combined.
"During the first eighty-eight years of this century [20th Century], " says historian R. J. Rummel, "almost 170 million men, women and children have been shot, beaten, tortured, knifed, burned, starved, frozen, crushed or worked to death; buried alive, drowned, hung, bombed, or killed in any other of the myriad ways governments have inflicted death on unarmed, helpless citizens and foreigners. The dead could conceivably be nearly 360 million people. It is as though our species has been devastated by a modern Black Plague. And indeed it has, but a plague of Power, not germs."(3)
When we put the human cost of war and democide together, says Rummel, "Power has killed over 203 million people in this century."(4) And this figure does not include the slaughter of the innocent (abortion)- a foundation stone of the Secular Humanist worldview.
These millions died, not because of James Orr's Christian world view Most of these millions died at the hands of the three men and one woman whose worldviews were inflicted on the world (and in many ways continue to be so).
The three men are Benito Mussolini (b. 1883), Adolph Hitler (b. 1889) and Joseph Stalin (b. 1879). The woman is Margaret Sanger (b. 1879).
Mussolini and Hitler represent the 20th Century's Fascist/Nazi worldviews. Stalin represents the Marxist/Leninist worldview. Margaret Sanger represents the Secular Humanist worldview.
These are the worldviews primarily responsible for the millions of human beings slaughtered on the altars of atheism, naturalism, dialectical materialism, ethical relativism, beyond good and evil, libertinism, class morality, biological evolution, social darwinianism, euthanasia, sterilization, infanticide, eugenics, abortion, collectivism, statism, dictatorship, new Fascist man, new Aryan man, new Soviet man, new Humanist man, new international child of the future, new social order, new world order, socialism (national and international), positive law or sociological jurisprudence and other ideas "chemically and physically" exploding from the fevered brows of the intelligentsia.
Whoever said ideas have consequences summarized the 20th Century. The ideas that moved across and out of the 19th Century were fleshed out in the 20th Century and the results are obvious for all to see-death, destruction, devastation, heartache, misery-all words and nuances that portray a century ripe for a judgement grade.
As we begin Century 21 we have yet to admit a deep, dark secret-the ideas that brought us a century of terror and slaughter are still being taught in our public institutions of higher education. Ironically, the only worldview not responsible for the slaughter is the only worldview proscribed viz., Biblical Christianity. All other worldviews have their voices and defenders in our colleges and universities.
"Paul DeMan," for example, says Gene Edward Veith, Jr., "who has done more than anyone else to promote deconstruction in the United States, was a Nazi propagandist."(5) Michel Foucault, a major Postmodern voice and lecturer at the University of California (Berkeley) was a Maoist(6) and a homosexual who died of AIDS after infecting his lovers on the premise of "inventing new pleasures beyond sex...sex as murder."(7)
And who can deny that both Nietzsche and Heidegger are 'back in fashion on university campuses."(8) Nietzsche was not only a major precursor to fascism, but is openly admitted to be the father of Postmodernism.(9) And Heidegger was "an active, ideologically committed member of the Nazi party."(10)
The Marxist influence on America's campus is also rampant as Arnold Beichman notes in The Weekly Standard. America's communists and former communists are already taking out full page ads in the New York Times seeking to exculpate communism. Historian Theodore Draper is quoted as saying, "clearly an attempt to rehabilitate communism by making it part of the larger family of socialism and democracy" is underway. "No one," he says, would think of doing this favor for fascism, but communism with even more millions of victims and a much longer life span is the beneficiary of this sustained effort of historical rehabilitation in-of all places-American colleges and universities."(11)
David Horowitz observes: "The situation in the universities was appalling. The Marxists and socialists who had been refuted by historical events were now the tenured establishment of the academic world. Marxism had produced the bloodiest and most oppressive regimes in human history-but after the fall, as one wit commented, more Marxists could be found on the faculties of American colleges than in the entire former Communist bloc. The American Historical Association was run by Marxists, as was the professional literature association."(12)
And in America, one worldview monopolizes public education. It is the worldview of Margaret Sanger and John Dewey. It is the worldview of thousands and thousands of professors and teachers and entertainers and professional organizations. It is the Secular Humanist worldview. "The [secular] humanistic system of values has now become the predominant way of thinking in most of the power centers of society,"'° says James C. Dobson and Gary L. Bauer.(13) Dobson specifically mentions the universities, news media, entertainment industry, judiciary, federal bureaucracy, public schools and Congress. Elsewhere Dobson and Bauer state, "Professors, whose salaries are paid by the taxes and tuition subsidies of millions of hard-working Americans, ridicule capitalism, attack family values, and rewrite American history, so that if it is taught at all, America is always the villain."(14)
The 20th Century has been the century in which various humanistic worldviews vigorously and systematically eradicated the Biblical Christian worldview from the public square.(15) If this continues into the next century one can expect the same results--death and destruction.
I. Nazism
What most Christians have not understood about Nazism is that it is a religious worldview. In fact, most Christians look upon Nazism, Fascism and Communism as merely political and/or economic movements. And nearly every Christian has missed the point that Secular Humanism is a religious worldview. Contrary to some German Christians, who insisted that the Nazi state is "a state that once again rules in God's name,''(16) Nazism never was a Christian worldview. None of its ingredients was Christian. Rather it is pagan with occultish overtones. Deitrich Echart, for example, a founding member of the Nazi Party was "a dedicated satanist, a man immersed in black magic and the Thule group of occultists."(17) Himmler, Rosenberg and Goebbels were dedicated occultists as was Karl Haushofer, who became Hitler's spiritual mentor following Echart's death. According to Erwin Lutzer, Haushofer took Hitler "through the deepest levels of occult transformation."(18)
While Adolph Hitler historically represents the Nazi worldview it is important to keep in mind that behind him stood a bevy of thinkers, philosophers and theologians including Darwin, Marx, Nietzsche, Gobineau,(19) Wagner,(20) Chamberlain, Heidegger, Karl Barth, Paul DeMan and a who's-who of intellectuals amongst Europe's elites. As Gene Edward Veith, Jr. observes, "The intellectual establishment itself is trying to keep hidden the fact "that European high culture in its most advanced phase not only was powerless to prevent the construction and implementation of the death camps, but actually provided the ideological base on which the death camps were built.'"(21)
No matter how pagan, occultist or even anti-Jewish or anti-Christian Nazism may have been or how socialistic, collectivistic, or evolutionistic, on Easter Sunday, April 16, 1933, "Protestant pastors across Bavaria delivered an official blessing of Nazism...passed the collection plate on Hitler's birthday, beflagged their churches on state holidays, and even marched in the 1933 May Day Parade for National Labor with swastikas stitched to their Vestments."(22)
In fairness to these pastors it should be noted that in 1918 the Marxist Kurt Eisner staged a communist coup in Munich and held the city for over three months.(23) The Nazis played on this theme and insisted that Christianity and Nazism fight the Red terror together.
What the pastors didn't realize is that Hitler's militant socialism and Marxist socialism are blood brothers-one national; one international. And that the Nazis were quick to adopt the Soviet methods. They imported from Russia, according to Ludwig von Mises, "the one-party system and the pre-eminence of this party in political life; the paramount position assigned to the secret police, the concentration camps; the administrative execution or imprisonment of all opponents; the extermination of the families of suspects and of exiles; the methods of propaganda; etc. etc....There were nowhere more docile disciples of Lenin, Trotsky and Stalin than the Nazis were."(24)
University of Wisconsin historian Stanley G. Payne summarizes some of the major ingredients of Nazism. These include dictatorship, a new Social Darwinist structure of state and society, a racial revolution, and a state-regulated national socialism.(25)
A. E. Wilder-Smith in Man 's Origin, Man 's Destiny points up the two major ideas behind Hitler and his Nazi movement. Says Wilder-Smith, "It is noteworthy that many of our Western intellectuals have socialistic as well as Darwinistic views. Perhaps the two positions may be related. But it is more remarkable that Darwinism is not only the state doctrine of the Communists but was also that of the National Socialists and Fascists."(26)
Anyone reading Hitler's Mein Kampf ("My Struggle") realizes "how full Hitler was of Darwinistic thought" and how he based his racial and militaristic policies on the theory of Darwinian evolution. "Darwin's concepts of struggle for existence," says Wilder-Smith, "dominated Hitler's whole thinking and, by guiding selection in this struggle, Hitler intended to help nature a little."(27)
It is certainly no secret that Darwin's theory of evolution is still taught throughout our nation's colleges and universities. It is also taught at the high school level with absolutely no competition since the U.S. Supreme ruled that creationism is unconstitutional and cannot be taught. The writer of that decision, Judge Brennan, was the court's most vocal Secular Humanist.
This in spite of the fact that Cambridge professor Adam Sedgwick, after reading Darwin's Origin of Species through Natural Selection or the Preservation of Savored Races in the Struggle for Life, commented, "If this book were to find general public acceptance, it would bring with it a brutalization of the human race such as it had never seen before."(28)
Can anyone seriously doubt that the 20th Century has witnessed the fulfillment of Sedgwick's observation as Hitler, Mussolini and Stalin glorified struggle and war on the basis of the struggle for life.
Ian T. Taylor in In the Minds of Man. Darwin and the New World Order, summarizes a number of scholars who "noted the strong connection between evolutionary theory and the German Fuhrer's objectives."(29) Taylor also points out that Werner Maser's study of Hitler found that "Darwin was the general source for Hitler's biology, worship, force, and struggle, and of his rejection of moral causality in history."(30)
Darwin wasn't Hitler's only god, however. Since Nazi means national socialism it should not surprise anyone that socialism(31) is as much a part of the Nazi worldview as evolutionism. Then, too, socialism is consistent with collectivism or statism since it requires a dictator to abolish or control private property and decide what and when to produce a pair of shoes.
Friedrich A. Hayek's The Road to Serfdom observed the mental collectivizing of students in Germany and writes that, "Many a university professor during the l 930s has seen English and American students return from the continent uncertain whether they were communists or Nazis and certain only that they hated Western liberal (in the traditional sense) Civilization."(32)
Youth flocked to the Nazis and Communist causes and some observed the incredible "susceptibility of university-trained people in Germany to totalitarian appeals."(33) Twenty five percent of the Nazis SS were Ph.Ds.
It was Germany's intellectual community that prepared the German people and especially the German youth for the "acceptance of some form of militant socialism."(34)30 Vetterli and Fort quote Hans Kohn and his work The Mind of Germany (Harper and Row, 1960) to the effect that "within little more than a decade German intellectuals succeeded in leading German people into the Abyss."(35) Kohn says it was primarily the philosophy of Martin Heidegger, the political theory of Carl Schmitt and the theology of Karl Barth that convinced German intellectuals that Germany's future was not with the West.
Barth, of course, later joined forces with the anti-Nazi movement and was part of the Barmen Declaration.(36) But as John Robbins notes, while Barth's theological views changed over the decades, his political and economic views did not. Barth admitted that he chose theology because he felt a need to find a better basis for his social action. He was referred to as "Comrade Pastor" and "Socialism," claimed Barth, "is a very important and necessary application of the gospel."(37)
The most revealing Barth comment is: "If you understand the connection between the person of Jesus and your socialist convictions, and if you now want to arrange your life so that it corresponds to this connection, then that does not at all mean you have to 'believe" or accept this, that, or the other thing. What Jesus has to bring us are not ideas, but a way of life. One can have Christian ideas about God and the world and about human redemption, and still with all that be a complete heathen. And as an atheist, a materialist, and a Darwinist, one can be a genuine follower and disciple of Jesus. Jesus is not the Christian world view and the Christian worldview is not Jesus."(38) Unfortunately for Barth and his many defenders he also ended up praising Communism and even Joseph Stalin. He was the ultimate anti-anti-Communist.(39)
So it wasn't just the teachings of Nietzsche, Fichte, Heidegger, Robertus, Lassalle and Marx that prepared Germany for Hitler and Nazism. It was also Emanuel Hirsch, a dialectical theologian, Paul Tillich, a Marxist socialist theologian, Rudolf Bultmann, Karl Barth, Gerhard Kittel and Friedrich Delitzsch. All played a role in turning the hearts and minds of the German people away from Christ, the Cross, the empty tomb and Biblical Christianity to National Socialism and in some cases Marxist Socialism.
Hirsch, and those who basically accepted German Higher Criticism taught that the resurrection of Jesus Christ was "only a spiritual vision" and that the resurrection accounts in the Gospels were later additions. Hirsch thought the idea of a physical resurrection distorted Christianity by focusing attention to the hereafter instead of the present. He stressed the importance of community in the Christian life.(40) Tillich, a member of the Marxist Frankfurt School,(41) was never friendly to Biblical Christianity and Bultmann advocated demythologizing the New Testament.
While space only allows a brief discussion of the Nazi worldview we need to mention Hitler's and the Nazi's hatred of the Jews (and Bible-believing Christians).
Gene Edward Veith, Jr. in Modern Fascism has a chapter entitled "The Hebrew Disease." He explains why Hitler and the Nazis were anti-Jewish. As he notes, it was more than Jews being considered an "inferior race." Hitler hated the ideas and worldview of the Jews-especially their monotheism and defense of an absolute moral order based on something apart from the natural order. The Nietzsches and Hitlers of the world rejected a transcendent God who distinguishes right from wrong. Nazis believed that right and wrong are determined by nature, state, community or human choice. They especially rejected the notion of a God judging man according to His standards. Hitler's anti-Jewishness and anti-Bible believing Christians (these types of Christians were considered a subset of the Hebrews) were as much theological as biological and racial. There is no doubt that Hitler was an ideological part of the Nietzsche/Wagner/Gobineau/Chamberlain cabal.
Veith also explains why the Christian church in Germany split over Hitler and his Nazi worldview. Those Christians who believed the Bible generally rejected Hitler; those soften up by German higher criticism of the Bible generally went with the German church collaborating with Hitler. Hitler referred to his type of Christian as "positive Christians."
How much have we learned from this portion of history? Not much according to historian Franklin Littell: "The lessons to be learned from the Church Struggle and the Holocaust have hardly penetrated our Protestant seminaries, our liberal Protestant press, our church literature, the thinking and writing of even our ablest older theologians...American Liberal Protestantism is sick, and the theological form of its sickness can be summarized by saying that it stands solidly on ground but lately vacated by the 'German Christians'...who collaborated with Nazism."(42)
II. Fascism
Fascism is a religious worldview in the same vein as Nazism. It was a pagan religion with worship of the state and its Duce on its list of major ingredients.
Fascism," says Stanley G. Payne, "was above all a product of the new culture and intense international Social Darwinism of the early twentieth century, normally (though not in every instance) wedded to war and fundamental international changes. Its pagan warrior mentality sometimes conflicted with the norms and processes of modernization, but fascist states eagerly incorporated major functions of rationalization and modern development."(43)
Evolution was as important to Mussolini as it was to Hitler. A.E. Wilder-Smith states that both "Hitler and Mussolini glorified struggle and war on the basis that the fittest would survive and the race would be thus cleansed."(44) Both sought to assist nature in its inevitable progress of mankind.
Elsewhere Wilder-Smith says that Mussolini found "evolutionary doctrine a real windfall, in fact, a godsend.."(45) It gave Mussolini the excuse to enslave whole peoples, or wipe them out-especially if they were less highly evolved than his own people. The whole concept of evolution, says Wilder-Smith, "justifies the terror of fascism communism and other types of tyranny.(46)
According to Gene Edward Veith, Jr. the major elements of the Fascist worldview emerged from three sources: romanticism, Darwinism and existentialism. He says these were mainstream Western thought patterns and were the basic assumptions of the intellectual elite of the 1930s. Because Fascist totalitarianism sought to control all of life it was a worldview and since it sought to establish a new religion it is a religious world view. Says Veith, "This new worldview defined itself against the existing spiritual framework-that of the Jews and their Bible. In rejecting not only the Bible but objective meaning, transcendent morality, and the authority of language itself, the fascists arrayed themselves against the Word."(47)
As with Hitler, who personally failed the lower grades of high school, but had his quiver full of intellectuals, so too Mussolini. "Some of the greatest modern writers," says Stephen Spender, "sympathized with fascism."(48) These included Ezra Pound, D.H. Lawrence, W. B. Yeats, George Bernard Shaw, Wyndham Lewis, T. E. Hulme, Roy Campbell and the early T.S. Eliot. Also, says Spender, "Avant-garde artistic movements-Vorticists, Italian Futurists, German Expressionists-included many devotees of fascism."(49)
George Bernard Shaw, a darling of every leftist and a founder of the socialist British Fabian Society, characterized the Jews as "the real enemy, the invader from the East, the Druze, the riffian, the oriental parasite, in a word the Jew."(50)46 Henri Bernstein, the French Jewish writer, sarcastically referred to Shaw as "dear socialist, multimillionaire and anti-Semite."(51) Shaw's advice to the Nazis on the Jewish question was "Force the Jews to wed Aryans" and thus he claimed the Jewish question would be solved.(52)
Shaw's fascistic bent was also coupled with an intense "sympathy for the communist world," says Dobbs. "All totalitarianism fascinated him since they fitted into his plans for a rigid collectivism." Therefore, he could announce to the world, "We, as socialists, have nothing to do with liberty. Our message, like Mussolini's, is one of discipline, of service, of ruthless refusal to acknowledge any natural right of competence."(53)
But Shaw's famous definition of socialism (and true of Fascism, Nazism, Communism, and Fabianism(54)) was, "You would be forcibly fed, clothed, lodged, taught and employed whether you liked it or not. If it were discovered that you had not character and industry enough to be worth all this trouble, you might possibly be executed in a kindly manner."(55)
None of these individuals or movements could be considered conservative or "right" in any meaningful sense of those words. Fascism, Nazism and Communism were brutal socialist dictatorships. Besides, Mussolini's father was "a socialist revolutionary,"(56) and Mussolini "chose at first the orthodox Marxian position." In fact, says von Mises, "Nobody could surpass Mussolini in Marxian zeal. He was the intransigent champion of the pure creed, the unyielding defender of the rights of the exploited proletarians, the eloquent prophet of the socialist bliss to come."(57)
According to both von Mises and Vetterli/Fort, Mussolini was under the influence of an Angelica Balbanoff, a trained communist agent who was later to become the first secretary of the Third Communist International.(58) Mussolini also edited a socialist newspaper for some time entitled "The Class Struggle." And thought himself to be Nietzsche's rendition of "Superman."
Says Vetterli and Fort, "Fascists theory thus exemplified much of the philosophy of Nietzsche. To Nietzsche, the will to power, the desire to dominate gave meaning to life. Truth is relative. It is freed from moral connotations. Truth is whatever aids the will to power...This superman would be beyond the pale of moral restraint. He would himself create the standard of value. The cult of power was to replace traditional religion and moral values. There is no doubt that Benito Mussolini, (as Hitler after him) believed himself to be the personification of Nietzsche's superman."(59)
Have we learned anything from this portion of history? "Will to power," "moral relativism," "truth is relative," "replace traditional religion," "replace moral values," are all fundamental planks of Postmodernism! Postmodernism is the latest rage of the intellectuals on America's colleges and universities.(60)
We have learned nothing!
III. Marxism/Leninism
The third destructive worldview of the 20th Century is Marxism/Leninism. Like Nazism and Fascism Marxism likewise is a religious worldview. In fact, Marxism is a well-developed atheistic, materialistic, evolutionistic, socialistic worldview.
While I have examined this worldview in great detail elsewhere(61) and will summarize it briefly in this section let's cut directly to the praxis of this worldview and state for the world to hear-Marxism/Leninism has been the greatest killing machine in recorded history. And history has recorded some unbelievable mass killings.(62)
With Hitler given the distinction of eliminating 21 million human beings from off the face of the earth-V.I. Lenin, Joseph Stalin, Mao tse-Tung and other Communist dictators eliminated some 86 million human beings.(63) The suffering and stark terror of this figure is humanly impossible to comprehend. For a taste of what was involved we recommend Robert Conquest's Harvest of Sorrows, the account of Stalin's slaughter of the Ukraine. But Stalin's basis for such a slaughter was Darwin. "Evolution," said Stalin, "prepares for revolution and creates the ground for it; revolution consummates the process of evolution and facilitates its further activity."(64) The Ukrainians were considered not fit to survive! But before Stalin could move into the high stakes of death and destruction he needed Marx and Lenin.
Karl Marx wrote The Communist Manifesto in 1848 and called for the elimination of the bourgeoisie (property owners). Said Marx, "This person [bourgeois] must, indeed, be swept out of the way, and made impossible."(65) And again, "the Communists everywhere support every revolutionary movement against the existing social and political order of things."(66) And again, "They [Communists] openly declare that their ends can be attained only by the forcible overthrow of all existing social conditions."(67) Lenin took this one step further and set up the state apparatus to, in fact, eliminate the bourgeoisie. And while Lenin did his fair share of killings, it was Joseph Stalin and Mao tse-Tung who took Marxist's teachings and Lenin's state apparatus to its ultimate extent.
Again, as with Nazism and Fascism, Marxist/Leninist/ Stalinist Communism is based on Darwinism, socialism, statism; it is also based on atheism, dialectical materialism and proletariat morality. In fact, the millions that perished at the hands of the Communists all perished under the innocent sounding expression of proletariat morality. The bourgeoisie were unfit to live since they believed in God, believed in a created order, believed in transcendent morality, believed in family values, owned property, etc.
"It is a commonplace," says Jacques Barzun, "that Marx felt his own work to be the exact parallel of Darwin's. He even wished to dedicate a portion of Das Kapital to the author of The Origin of Species."(68)
Marx thought he had discovered the evolution of society as Darwin discovered the evolution of biological life. Both theories brought the world to the bottom of the abyss. The struggle for life and survival of the fittest form the basis of both Darwin and Marx. And thus Stalin, too! Stalin merely put into practice what Marx (and Lenin) taught.
Marx's atheism, dialectical materialism, evolution and socialism make up the heart of the Communist worldview. These are the ideas put into praxis which brought us the slaughter of the 20th Century. Yet, as we enter Century 21 Marxist ideas are still part of the intellectual's quiver. Campus Marxists and Post-Modernists, for example, continue to propagate atheism, materialism, evolution, socialism, collectivism. Hardly anything has changed! It is as though we have allowed history to teach us absolutely nothing. If one is an atheist and an evolutionist, for example, one has immediate access to America's public educational institutions. And stands a good chance to win recognition and awards. If one is a theist and a creationist one is denied access to such educational institutions and considered a neanderthal or a trilobite. If one is an atheist, an evolutionist and an advocate of world government one has access to all educational institutions and is guaranteed even more awards and foundation grants. Anyone suggesting U.S. military personnel should not be placed under U.N. control will not be allowed access and will be told he is narrow-minded, intolerant and unloving. The ways of the left in propaganda and name-calling haven't changed for over a hundred years (see Zygmund Dobb's The Great Deceit: Social Pseudo-Sciences) and evidently will not change anytime soon.
Regarding theology Marxism/Leninism/Stalinism is atheistic. Lenin, for example, in his "Socialism and Religion" address insisted that Communism is based on the scientific, materialistic view of the world and therefore, says Lenin, "our propaganda necessarily includes the propaganda of atheism."(69) Elsewhere Lenin said, "Every religious idea, every idea of God, even flirting with the idea of God, is unutterable vileness...vileness of the most dangerous kind."(70)
"For Marx and the classical Marxist authors," wrote Hans Kung, "in their personal life, in their culture, in their system and in their practice-atheism was and remained of central importance and essentially connected with their theory of society and history."(71) This led Dostoevski to remark, "The problem of Communism is not an economic problem. The problem of Communism is the problem of atheism."(72)
The philosophy of Marxism/Leninism/Stalinism is dialectical materialism. The heart of the philosophy states two things: a) matter is reality, and b) matter behaves dialectically.(73) Dialectical materialism attempts to explain all of reality-including inorganic matter (the molecular, atomic, and subatomic), the organic world (life and, according to materialism, mind or consciousness), and social life (economics, politics, etc.). All of nature reflects, illuminates, and illustrates communist dialectical philosophy. For better or worse, the Marxist's philosophy is built primarily on the "science" of Darwinian evolution. Matter behaves in an upward progression from inorganic to organic state, from the organic to man, from man to the social level and all responding to certain laws: a) the unity and struggle of opposites, b) the transformation of quantity into quality, and c) the negation of the negation. The dialectical laws manifest a threefold rhythm of equilibrium (thesis), disturbance (anti-thesis) and re-establishment of equilibrium (synthesis). All good Marxists believe the physical universe acts according to such laws.
Marxist ethics proceeds out of Marxist theology, philosophy, biology, economics and history. It is an ethics that states an absolute: class morality. Whatever advances the proletariat class, by definition, is good. Or put another way, each act is considered ethically good if it assists the flow of history toward a communist end. Killing, raping, stealing, and lying are ot outside the boundaries of communist morality.
Marxists/Leninists/Stalinists have absolutely no trouble believing that killing evolving materialistic human beings infected with the concepts of God, transcendent morality, private property is as morally justified as a farmer killing a materialistic evolving cow afflicted with hoof-and-mouth disease. The killing fields of Cambodia, the Ukraine, Russian and China were the practical results of class morality.
Said one Communist dictator, "Our cause is sacred. He whose hand will tremble, who will stop midway, whose knees will shake before he destroys tens and hundreds of enemies, he will lead the revolution into danger. Whoever will spare a few lives of enemies, will pay for it with hundreds and thousands of lives of the better sons of our fathers."(74)
Marxist/Leninist/Stalinist biology centers on Charles Darwin. Says Marx, "Darwin's [Origin of Species] is very important and provides me with the basis in natural science for the class struggle in history."(75) Frederick Engels put it like this, "Just as Darwin discovered the law of evolution in organic nature, so Marx discovered the law of evolution in human history."(76) Few doubt that Darwin's theory of evolution and Marx's theory of Communism fit hand to glove.
The psychology of Marxism centers around materialistic behaviorism in which man is looked upon as a conditioned evolving animal or as Lenin says, "Matter is primary nature. Sensation, thought, consciousness, are the highest products of matter organized in a certain way. This is the doctrine of materialism, in general, and Marx and Engels, in particular."(77)
Marxist sociology can be summarized quickly: abolish all social structures that reflect a theistic worldview. Or as Marx says in The Communist Manifesto, "The Communists disdain to conceal their views and aims. They openly declare that their ends can be attained only by the forcible overthrow of all existing social conditions."(78) The three social institutions fit for overthrow are the family, the church and the state. Few remember that Marx and Engels called for "an openly legalized community of women." in The Communist Manifesto.(79)
Marxist/Leninist/Stalinist law is simply evolutionary law writ large. There are no legal absolutes because mankind is evolving and law is evolving with it. There is no eternal lawgiver since there is no God according to their theology. Therefore there are no eternal legal principles. Legal principles that assist man in his evolutionary, socialistic history are just laws; all others are unjust. Case closed! Marx put it like this, "Law, morality, religion, are to [the proletariat] so many bourgeois prejudices, behind which lurk in ambush just as many bourgeois interests."(80)
Politics is power politics. State terror is part and parcel of the "Dictatorship of the Proletariat." Lenin states, "The art of politics lies in correctly gauging the conditions and the moment when the vanguard of the proletariat [the killing machine] can successfully seize power."(81) Engels is likewise brutal, "In reality, however, the State is nothing more than a machine for the oppression of one class by another."(82) The political machinery put together by the disciples of Marx murdered and slaughtered 86 million human beings. And that figure continues to rise.
The economic phase of the Marxist/Leninist/Stalinist worldview already has been covered but the word is socialism. Karl Marx summarized it, "The theory of Communists may be summed up in the single sentence: Abolition of private property."(83) Lenin also summarized the heart of socialism, "Communist society means that everything-the land, the factories-is owned in common. Communism means working in common."(84) Millions were slaughtered to establish a socialist utopia . But then one can't have an omelette without smashing eggs. But from a Communist point of view an evolving human animal is no different than an egg.
The Marxist/Leninist/Stalinist interpretation of history consists of one major and a few minor players. The major player is the dialectical nature of matter. All history-all reality-is seen as the outworking of this all-encompassing concept. Dialectical matter is eternal. All else follows from this premise. Dialectical matter determines history. Interesting, Communists believe in nudging history. Joseph Stalin alone was guilty of "the persecution, imprisonment, torture and death of some fifty million human beings."(85)
Have our intellectuals learned anything from this portion of history? "Postmodernism, a wayward stepchild of Marxism."(86) Some haven't!
IV. Secular Humanism
Secular Humanism, too, is a religious worldview. John Dewey in A Common Faith said, "Here are all the elements for a religious faith that shall not be confined to sect, class, or race. Such a faith has always been implicitly the common faith of mankind. It remains to make it explicit and militant."(87)
Margaret Sanger, recipient of Humanist of the Year award, represents that aspect of Secular Humanist that could end up killing more human beings than Nazism, Fascism and Communism combined.
Sanger is the founder of Planned Parenthood, an organization responsible for the death of millions of unborn human beings and the killings continue 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, 365 days a year with no end in sight.
Secular Humanists have put into practice the slaughter of the innocent in accordance with their desire to further the sexual revolution. Sanger, Mary Calderone and Faye Wattleton have all been recipients of the Humanist of the Year award. All three were heavily involved in promoting the revolution. "If it is possible for one person to change the very foundations of civilization from a moral one to an immoral one, then Margaret Sanger should rightfully be known as the founder of modern culture because today's culture is characterized precisely by the values she and her admirers taught."(88) H. G. Wells agreed, "Margaret Sanger made currents and circumstances. When the history of our civilization is written, it will be a biological history and Margaret Sanger will be its heroine."(89) As part of the Wantley Circle, H. G. Wells, along with Harold Child and Hugh de Selincourt, were Sanger's lovers.(90) The Wantley Circle was a free-love association.
The goal of Planned Parenthood ? To help "young people obtain sex satisfaction before marriage. By sanctioning sex before marriage, we will prevent fear and guilt."(91) The Planned Parenthood publication You've Changed the Combination states, "There are only two kinds of sex: sex with victims and sex without. Sex with victims is always wrong. Sex without is always right."(92)
When Wattleton accepted her Humanist of the Year award, she paid special tribute to the founder of Planned Parenthood, Margaret Sanger. To a great extent Sanger epitomizes the Secular Human worldview. Nothing in her teaching or lifestyle fall outside of Humanism in theory or practice.
For example, she founded the publication "The Woman Rebel," whose slogan was "No Gods! No Masters!" Since Secular Humanism is an atheistic worldview such a slogan could well be theirs as well. In her very first edition of "The Woman Rebel" she denounced marriage as "a degenerate institution" and sexual modesty as "obscene prudery."(93) Sanger's hero was Havelock Ellis. Upon reading his massive seven-volume Studies in the Psychology of Sex, she told her husband that she needed to be liberated from the strict bonds of marriage. She ultimately deserted her husband to practice free love in Greenwich Village.
Sanger's relationship to the Nazi worldview involves Hitler's director of the Nazi Society for Racial Hygiene, Ernst Rudin. In 1933, the Planned Parenthood Review published Rudin's article "Eugenic Sterilization: An Urgent Need." Later in 1933 it published an article by Leon Whitney defending the Third Reich's racial program.(94)
Sanger called for limiting the amount of children for the poorer classes of people, require parents to apply for licenses to have babies, and forcibly sterilize poor people, encourage the more successful human types to have more children and preached a new world order without crime and poverty caused by the birth of genetically inferior children. "But, unlike, Adolph Hitler, Margaret Sanger successfully encouraged peaceful methods of racial 'purification.' Whenever possible she advocated that people should be paid to be sterilized by gifts of money and presents."(95) Her term for such people-- "human weeds."
Dr. Lothrop Stoddard (Harvard doctorate), a co-worker of Sanger's, wrote a book entitled Into the Darkness, Nazi Germany Today (1940), expressing his admiration for the Germans' method of cleaning up their race problems using "scientific and truly humanitarian ways."
As George Grant notes Margaret Sanger was mesmerized by the "scientific" racism of Malthusian Eugenics. She followed her lover Havelock Ellis who in turn followed Francis Galton who first systemized and popularized Eugenic thought. Galton was a cousin to Charles Darwin. But Grant says that Sanger's attraction to race was also political. "Virtually all of her Socialist friends, lovers, and comrades," says Grant, "were committed Eugenicists-from the followers of Lenin in Revolutionary Socialism, like H. G. Wells, George Bernard Shaw, and Julius Hammer, to the followers of Hitler in National Socialism, like Ernest Rudin, Leon Whitney, and Harry Laughlin."(96)
While we are using Margaret Sanger as the representative of Secular Humanism every student of this worldview knows that John Dewey is their most famous and important voice. Dewey's influence on American education has been dominate since the 30s. Secular Humanism is the only worldviews allowed in the public schools. Humanist Charles Francis Potter in his work, Humanism: A New Religion, says, "Education is the most powerful ally of Humanism, and every American public school is a school of Humanism. What can the theistic Sunday Schools, meeting for an hour once a week, and teaching only a fraction of the children, do to stem the tide of a five-day program of humanistic teaching."(97)
From kindergarten through graduate school America's students are immersed in the doctrines and dogmas of Secular Humanism. The U.S. Supreme Court has made sure that only Secular Humanism is taught in the classroom in spite of the fact that the U.S. Supreme Court designated Secular Humanism a religion in 1961.(98)
How this situation came about is told in one of the most powerful studies of the 20th Century. This study traces how the leftists, socialists, liberals, humanists slowly but surely captured the social sciences (sociology, anthropology, history, economics, jurisprudence) and even some pulpits of America. The Veritas Foundation's study is entitled The Great Deceit: Social Pseudo-Sciences and Keynes at Harvard.
The Great Deceit is replete with references to John Dewey(99) including his relationship to the American counterpart to the British Fabian Society-the League for Industrial Democracy. Dewey epitomizes Secular Humanism since he was an atheist in theology, a naturalist in philosophy, an ethical relativist in morals, an evolutionist in biology, and a socialist in economics.
In concluding this section let the Humanists express themselves in the various areas of their worldview. Theologically-atheistic: "Humanism cannot in any fair sense of the word apply to one who still believes in God as the source and creator of the universe."(100)
Philosophically-naturalism: "Naturalistic Humanism...is the Humanism that I have supported through the written and spoken word for some forty years."(101)
Ethically-relativism: "No inherent moral or ethical laws exist, nor are there absolute guiding principles for human society. The universe cares nothing for us and we have no ultimate meaning in life."(102)
Biologically-evolution: "Evolution is a fact amply demonstrated by the fossil record and by contemporary molecular biology. Natural selection is a successful theory devised to explain the fact of evolution."(103)
Psychology-Self-actualization: "For myself, though I am very well aware of the incredible amount of destructive, cruel, malevolent behavior in today's world-from the threats of war to the senseless violence in the streets-I do not find that this evil is inherent in human nature."(104)
Sociology-Social "Science": "Marriage, for most people, has outlived its usefulness and is doing more harm than good."(105)
Law-Positive law: "No matter how misperceived as natural they may be, rights...are the works of human artifice."(106)
Politics-Globalism: "It is essential for UNESCO to adopt an evolutionary approach...the general philosophy of UNESCO should, it seems, be a scientific world humanism, global in extent and evolutionary in background....Thus the struggle for existence that underlies naturals selection is increasingly replaced by conscious selection, a struggle between ideas and values in consciousness."(107)
Economics-Socialism: "A socialized and cooperative economic order must be established to the end that the equitable distribution of the means of life be possible."(108)
History-Atheistic evolution: "The laws of biology are the fundamental lessons of history."(109) "War is one of the constants of history and is the ultimate form of natural selection in the human species."(110)
Conclusion
"But sanctify Christ as Lord in your hearts, always being ready to make a defense to everyone who asks you to give an account for the hope that is in you, with gentleness and reverence." I Peter 3:15
Every believer, says Erwin W. Lutzer, in Hitler's Cross, "must be able to give a rationale for his or her faith, defending the supremacy of Christ over all other alternatives."(111)
The alternative to the 20th Century humanistic worldviews is Christ. I agree with Lutzer who says, "We do not know where all this [the ACLU and liberal left seeking to cleanse the public square of Biblical Christianity] will end. What we do know is that we have the high honor of representing Christ in the midst of this ideological mega-shift. Our challenge is to rise to this hour of incredible challenge and opportunity."(112)
Lutzer doesn't think that a two-hour Sunday morning church service will do it. The question is, is it worth the effort to live out Christ 24 hours a day on one hand, or be a Christian couch potato on the other. Living out Christ 24 hours a day is hard. It demands discipline, prayer, witness, study, confrontation (Acts 17:16f). Since the "being" of life involves theology, philosophy, ethics, biology, etc. it demands we follow Christ in these areas. But then this is exactly what the Bible teaches.
For example, In theology, Christ is "the fulness of the Godhead" (Col. 2:9); In philosophy, Christ is the "logos" of God (John 1:1-3); In ethics, Christ is "the true light" (John 1:9); In biology, Christ is "the life" (John 1:4); In psychology, Christ is "the Savior" of the soul (Luke 1:46, 47); In sociology, Christ is "the son" (Luke 1:30, 31); In law, Christ is "lawgiver" (Gen. 49:10); In politics, Christ is "King of kings and Lord of lords" (Rev. 19:16); In economics, Christ is "owner" of all things (Ps. 50:10-12; and In history, Christ is "alpha and omega" (Rev. 1:8). None of these areas is secular. All are sacred because they are founded on Jesus Christ. Since Christ is the fountainhead of all wisdom and knowledge (Col. 2:2,3) all areas are open for Christian living and study.(113)
If the 21st Century is not to be a slaughter similar to the 20th Century Christians need to listen carefully to Lutzer, who has studied the surrender of the Christian church under Adolph Hitler, and learned some valuable lessons.
"It is time," says Lutzer, "that Christians become leaders in art, education, politics, and law." He could have added to that list: theology, philosophy, ethics, the sciences, psychology, sociology, and history. "Let's not make the mistake of the German church," says Lutzer, "and isolate the spiritual sphere from the political, social, and cultural world. Bonhoeffer was critical of the church when its only interest was self-preservation. We should be characterized by giving, not withholding. Since we share this planet with all of humanity , we must reestablish leadership in all of those areas where Christians often led the way."(114)
Endnotes
- James Orr, The Christian View of God and the World (Edinburgh: Andrew Elliot, 1897), p.4.
- David A. Noebel, Understanding The Times: The Religious Worldviews of our Day and The Search for Truth (Eugene, OR: Harvest House Publishers, 1991).
- R. J. Rummel, Death by Government (New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers, 1994), p. 9.
- Ibid., p. 13.
- Gene Edward Veith, Jr., Modern Fascism: Liquidating the Judeo-Christian Worldview (St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1993), p. 137.
- Arthur Herman, The Idea of Decline in Western History (New York: The Free Press, 1997), p. 349.
- Ibid., p. 357.
- Ibid., p. 79.
- Lawrence E. Cahoone, ed., From Modernism to Postmodernism: An Anthology (Cambridge: Blackwell Publishers Ltd., 1996), p. 20. "Friedrich Nietzsche, the pre-twentieth-century philosopher who is the most influential for postmodernism."
- Ibid.
- The Weekly Standard, March 9, 1998, p. 35.
- David Horowitz, Radical Son: A Journey Through Our Times (New York: The Free Press, 1997), p. 405. For those interested in further study in this particular area see Martin Jay, The Dialectical Imagination: A History of the Frankfurt School and the Institute of Social Research, 1923-1950 (Berkeley, CA: University of California Press, 1973) for the background on Critical Theory, etc. The Marxist Theodor W. Adorno's The Authoritarian Personality is continually used to paint conservatives as fascists and nazis.
- James C. Dobson and Gary L. Bauer, Children At Risk (Dallas, TX: Word, l990), p. 22.
- Ibid., p. 182. See John A. Stormer, None Dare Call It Education (Florissant, MO: Liberty Bell Press, 1998) on why capitalism is ridiculed, family values attacked and American history rewritten.
- Richard John Newhaus, The Naked Public Square: Religion and Democracy in America (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans Publishers, 1984,6). "In the late nineteenth century [ca 1893] England, several small groups of scientists and scholars organized under the leadership of Thomas H. Huxley to overthrow the cultural dominance of Christianity-particularly the intel- lectual dominance of the Anglican church. Their goal was to secularize society, replacing the Christian worldview with scientific naturalism, a worldview that recognizes the existence of nature alone." Nancy R. Pearcey and Charles B. Thaxton, The Soul of Science: Christian Faith and Natural Philosophy (Wheaton, IL: Crossway Books, 1994), p. 19. The British Fabian Society was also heavily involved in replacing Christianity with socialism. "Socialism was demonstrably conceived as an universal 'religion' and 'faith'... based on the religion of scientific humanism." M. Margaret McCarran, Fabianism in the Political Life of Britain , 1919-1931 (Chicago: The Heritage Foundation, Inc, 1954), p. 50.
- David C. Large, Where Ghosts Walked: Munich 's Road to the Third Reich (New York: W. W. Norton, 1997), p. 245.
- 'Erwin W. Lutzer, Hitler 's Cross (Chicago: Moody Press, 1995), p. 61.
- Ibid.
- Arthur Herrnan, The Idea of Decline in Western History (New York: The Free Press, 1997), pp. 46-75 for an excellent summary of Gobineau's ideas on race.
- "'Whoever wants to understand National Socialist Germany must know Wagner,' Hitler used to say." Lutzer, Hitler 's Cross, p. 80.
- Gene Edward Veith, Jr., Modern Fascism: Liquidating the Judeo-Christian Worldview, p. 140.
- David C. Large, Where Ghosts Walked, p. 245, 246.
- Ibid., p. 76f.
- Ludwig von Mises, Socialism (Indianapolis, IN: Liberty Classics, 1981), p. 530.
- Stanley G. Payne, A History of Fascism 1914-1945 (Madison: The University of Wisconsin Press, 1995), p. 484.
- A.E. Wilder-Smith, Man 's Origin, Man 's Destiny (Minneapolis: Bethany Fellowship, Inc., 1968),p. 187.
- Ibid., p. 190.
- Ibid., p. 190, 191.
- Ian T. Taylor, In the Minds of Men: Darwin and the New World Order (Toronto: TFE Publishing, 1984), p. 409.
- Ibid.
- For a complete understanding of socialism we recommend Ludwig von Mises' work entitled Socialism published by Liberty Classics in Indianapolis.
- Friedrich A. Hayek, The Road to Serfdom (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1944), p.28.
- Richard Vetterli and William E. Fort, Jr., The Socialist Revolution (Los Angeles: Clute International Corp., 1968), p. 88.
- Ibid., p. 87.
- Ibid.
- Gene Edward Veith, Jr., Modern Fascism, p. 59f.
- John Robbins, The Trinity Review, February 1998.
- Ibid.
- Ibid.
- Veith, op. cit. ., p. 61f. Veith gives an excellent summary of the role of the theologians in the rise of Hitler's National Socialism.
- Martin Jay, The Dialectical Imagination, p. 24, 25. For an insightful look at Tillich we recommend Hannah Tillich's From Time to Time (1973). Tillich was not only a radical Marxist theologian, but a libertine. Surprisingly, Tillich is also considered a key theologian to at least one conservative religious denomination. See H. Ray Dunning's Grace, Faith and Holiness.
- Franklin H. Littell and Hubert G. Locke, ed., The German Church Struggle and the Holocaust (Detroit: Wayne State University Press, 1974), p. 24. Quoted in Veith's Modern Fascism, p. 71.
- Stanley G. Payne, A History of Fascism 1914-1945, p. 485, 486.
- 40A. E. Wilder-Smith, Man's Origin, Man 's Destiny, p. 191.
- Ibid., p. 186.
- Ibid.
- Gene Edward Veith, Modern Fascism, p. 17.
- 44Ibid., p. 20.
- Ibid.
- Z. Dobbs, The Great Deceit: Social Pseudo-Sciences (West Sayville, NY: Veritas Foundation, 1964), p. 143.
- Ibid.
- Ibid.
- Ibid., p. 144.
- The American counterpart to the British Fabian Society was the League for Industrial Democracy and headed for years by socialist John Dewey, father of Secular Humanist education in the United States. . Among the League's participants was Morris Hillquit, head of the Socialist Party in the 1 920s and "a militant defender of the Bolshevik Revolution and a vociferous supporter of the Communist International." Dobbs, The Great Deceit, p. 26. Sponsors of the L.I.D. included Senator Jacob Javits, Senator Paul H. Douglas, Senator Wayne Morse, etc.
- Ibid.
- Richard Vetterli and William E. Fort, Jr., The Socialist Revolution, p. 57.
- Ludwig von Mises, Socialism, p. 525.
- See von Mises, Socialism, p. 525 and Vetterli and Fort, The Socialist Revolution, p. 58.
- Vetterli and Fort, The Socialist Revolution, p. 68.
- Gene Edward Veith, Jr., Postmodern Times: A Christian Guide to Contemporary Thought and Culture (Wheaton, IL: Crossway Books, 1994). Dennis McCallum, ed., The Death of Truth (Minneapolis, MN: Bethany House Publishers, 1996). Lawrence Cahoone, From Modernism to Postmodernism: An Anthology, 1996.
- David A. Noebel, Understanding The Times: The Religious Worldviews of our Day and The Search for Truth.
- R. J. Rummel, Death by Government, p.46, "This ancient capital of Khorassan in Persia was then a scene of a carnival of blood scarcely surpassed even in Mongol annals...Separate piles of heads of men, women, and children were built into pyramids; and even cats and dogs were killed in the streets. An utterly fantastic 1,747,000 human beings reportedly were slaughtered."
- Ibid., p. 8.
- Joseph Stalin, Works (Moscow and London: 1952/3) Vol. 1, p. 304. Cited in Gustav A. Wetter, Dialectical Materialism, p. 325.
- Karl Marx, The Communist Manifesto (Chicago: Henry Regnery Company, 1954), p. 30.
- Ibid., p. 53.
- Ibid., p. 54.
- Jacques Barzun, Darwin, Marx, Wagner (Garden City, NY: Doubleday and Company, Inc., 1958), p. 8.
- V.I. Lenin, Collected Works (Moscow: Progress Publishers, 1978), Vol. 10, p. 86.
- Ibid., Vol. 35, p. 122.
- Hans Kung, Does God Exist (Garden City, NY: Doubleday and Company, 1980), p. 257.
- Whittaker Chambers, Witness (New York: Random House, 1952), p. 712.
- For a full accounting of dialectical materialism see my Understanding The Times, chapter 7.
- Nikita Khrushchev, "Ukrainian Bulletin," August 1-August 15, 1960, p. 12. Cited in James Bales, Communism and the Reality of Moral Law, p. 121.
- Karl Marx and Frederick Engels, Selected Correspondence (New York: International Publishers, 1942), p. 125.
- Frederick Engels, Selected Works (1950), Vol. 2, p. 153. Cited in R. N. Carew Hunt, The Theory and Practice of Communism (Baltimore: Penguin Books, 1966), p. 64.
- V. I. Lenin, Materialism and Empirio-Criticism (New York: International Publishers, 1927), p. 34.
- Karl Marx, The Communist Manifesto, p. 54.
- Ibid., p. 33.
- Karl Marx and Frederick Engels, Collected Works, forty volumes (New York: International Publishers, 1976), Vol. 6, pp. 494, 495.
- V.I. Lenin, Selected Works (New York: International Publishers, 1938), Vol. 10, pp. 91, 92.
- Karl Marx, Civil War in France (New York: International Publishers, 1937), p. 19.
- Karl Marx, The Communist Manifesto, p. 27.
- V.I. Lenin, Selected Works (New York: International Publishers, 1937), Vol. 9, p. 479.
- Malachi Martin, The Keys of This Blood (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1990), p. 177.
- Lawrence Cahoone, From Modernism to Postmodernism, p. 10.
- John Dewey, A Common Faith (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1934), p. 87. For 45 exhibits proving that Secular Humanism is a religion see David A. Noebel, Clergy in the Classroom (Manitou Springs, CO: Summit Press, 1995). One of the exhibits is from the Harvard University Gazette newspaper (July 9, 1993) which admits that Secular Humanism is a religion and its Humanist chaplain at Harvard is Thomas Ferrick.
- Elasah Drogin, Margaret Sanger: Father of Modern Society (New Hope, KY: CUL Publications, 1986), p. 9.
- Ibid., p. 38.
- Ibid., p. 87.
- Lena Levine, "Planned Parenthood News," Summer 1953, p. 10.
- Sherri Tepper, You've Changed the Combination (Denver: Rocky Mountain Planned Parenthood, 1974).
- George Grant, Grand Illusions (Brentwood, TN: Wolgemuth and Hyatt, 1988), p. 49.
- Ibid., p. 96.
- Elasah Drogin, p. 10.
- Ibid., p. 94, 95. For those interested in Margaret Sanger and her Planned Parenthood organization, which is still funded by the United States government, we strongly recommend Grant's book.
- Charles Francis Potter, Humanism: A New Religion (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1930), p. 128.
- "Among religions in this country which do not teach what would generally be considered a belief in the existence of God are Buddhism, Taoism, Ethical Culture, Secular Humanism and others." U. S. Supreme Court, "Torcaso v. Watkins," decided June 19, 1961.
- From John Dewey through George Counts, Harold Rugg, Benjamin Bloom and on to Brock Chisholm and Chester Pierce see John A. Stormer, None Dare Call It Education.
- Paul Kurtz, The Humanist Alternative (Buffalo, NY: Prometheus Books, 1973), p. 177.
- Corliss Lamont as cited in The Best of Humanism, ed., Roger E. Greeley (Buffalo, NY: Prometheus Books, 1988), p. 149.
- William Provine, "The Scientist," September 5, 1988, p. 10.
- Carl Sagan, The Dragons of Eden (New York: Random House, 1977), p. 6.
- Carl Rogers, "Journal of Humanistic Psychology, Summer, 1982, p. 8.
- Lawrence Casler, "The Humanist," March/April 1974, p. 4.
- Delos B. McKown, "The Humanist," May/June 1989, p. 24.
- Julian Huxley, "The Humanist," March/April 1979, p. 35.
- Humanist Manifesto I (Buffalo, NY: Prometheus Books, 1980), p. 10.
- Will and Ariel Durant, The Lessons of History (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1968), p. 18.
- Ibid., p. 81.
- Erwin W. Lutzer, Hitler's Cross, p. 205.
- Ibid., 201.
- For a defense of the Christian worldview: David A. Noebel, Understanding The Times; Norman L. Geisler, Christian Apologetics (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House,1997); Norman L Geisler and Thomas Howe, When Critics Ask (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1992); Norman L. Geisler and Ron Brooks, When Skeptics Ask: A Handbook on Christian Evidences (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House,1996); Norman L. Geisler, Christian Ethics: Options and Issues (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1990); Norman L. Geisler and Frank Turek, Legislating Morality (Minneapolis, MN: Bethany House Publishers, 1998.
- Ibid., p. 204.
Copyright © 2000, CACC. All Rights Reserved.
Marxism and American Society
by David A. Noebel
Introduction
"You don't understand the class structure of American society," said Smetana, "or you would not ask such a question. In the United States, the working class are Democrats. The middle class are Republicans. The upper class are Communists." Whittaker Chambers, Witness, p. 616.
"The simple fact is that when I took up my little sling and aimed at Communism, I also hit something else. What I hit was the forces of that great socialist revolution, which, in the name of liberalism, spasmodically, incompletely, somewhat formlessly, but always in the same direction, has been inching its ice cap over the nation for two decades...No one could have been more dismayed than I at what I had hit, for though I knew it existed, I still had no adequate idea of its extent, the depth of its penetration or the fierce vindictiveness of its revolutionary temper." Whittaker Chambers, Witness, p. 741,2.
"[Communism] is, in fact, man's second oldest faith. Its promise was whispered in the first days of the Creation under the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil: 'Ye shall be as gods.' It is the great alternative faith of mankind. Like all great faiths, its force derives from a simple vision. Other ages have had great visions. They have always been different versions of the same vision: the vision of God and man's relationship to God. The Communists vision is the vision of Man without God. It is the vision of man's mind displacing God as the creative intelligence of the world." Whittaker Chambers, Witness, p. 9.
"Whoever ventures to undertake the founding of a nation should feel himself capable of changing human nature, so to speak; of transforming each individual, who by himself is a perfect and separate whole, into a part of a greater whole, from which that individual somehow receives his life and his being; of changing the physical constitution of man in order to strengthen it...If it be true that a great prince is a rarity, what, then, is to be said of a great lawgiver? The first has only to follow the model that the other constructs. The latter is the artificer who invents the machine, the former is only the operator who turns it on and runs it." Rousseau (in Frederic Bastiat, Selected Essays on Political Economy, p. 97.)
"The reality today is that China is a major threat to the United States, and a growing one. China's rulers-from its president to the general in charge of the all-powerful Central Military Commission-remain communists, and the fifty years of communist rule are replete with brutal repression, mass murder, and border wars with China's neighbors. But communism seeks to change not only external political conditions but also the internal nature of human beings-hence its emphasis on mass indoctrination and its hatred for anything that might offer a contrary view of man. It is this feature of communism that accounts for its most dangerous characteristic: its failure to value human life." Bill Gertz, The China Threat: How The People's Republic Targets America (Washington, D.C.: Regnery Publishing, Inc., 2000), p. 5.
"Practically no one is a 'communist' today. What happened? Fundamental attitudes don't disappear into thin air. People might die, but ideas rarely do, especially when the idea is one of only two major strains of political thought that excite the people, dominate the minds, and determine the affairs of man for centuries. It must count among the most amazing spectacles of history to be inundated with the rhetoric, theory, and practice of communism, and see not one communist around. We read and hear daily about class warfare, redistribution of wealth, the 'dispossessed' masses, the disadvantaged, universal health care, speech codes, sensitivity training, restrictions on parents' rights, school-to-work-the list goes on and on. The agenda is with us, the Party is not." Balint Vazsonyi, America's 30 Years War, p. 176, 7.
"[Radical/leftist] Whitman and [atheist/humanist] Dewey tried to substitute hope for knowledge. They wanted to put shared utopian dreams-dreams of an ideally decent and civilized society-in the place of knowledge of God's Will, Moral Law, the Laws of History, or the Facts of Science...As long as we have a functioning political left, we still have a chance to achieve our country, to make it the country of Whitman's and Dewey's dreams." Richard Rorty, Achieving Our Country: Leftist Thought in Twentieth-Century America, p. 106, 7.
"Among growing numbers of the educated elite, however, Whitman was appreciated and even revered. In particular, Whitman profoundly shaped a host of left-wing literary radicals of the early twentieth century, from Randolph Bourne and Van Wyck to John Reed and Max Eastman, who tellingly identified himself as an 'American lyrical Socialist-a child of Walt Whitman reared by Karl Marx.'" Richard J. Ellis, The Dark Side of the Left, p. 79, 80.
"Previous civilizations have been overthrown from without by the incursion of barbarian hordes. Christendom has dreamed up its own dissolution in the minds of its own intellectual elite. Our barbarians are home products, indoctrinated at the public expense, urged on by the media systematically stage by stage, dismantling Christendom, depreciating and deprecating all its values. The whole social structure is now tumbling down, dethroning its God, undermining its certainties. All this, wonderfully enough, is being done in the name of health, wealth, and happiness of all mankind. That is the basic scene that seems to me will strike a future Gibbon as being characteristic of the decline and fall of Christendom." Malcolm Muggeridge, The End of Christendom.
"As humanism in its development became more and more materialistic, it made itself increasingly accessible to speculation and manipulation, at first by socialism and then by Communism. So that Karl Marx was able to say in 1844 that 'Communism is naturalized humanism.' This statement turned out to be not entirely meaningless. One does see the same stones in the foundations of a despiritualized humanism and of any type of socialism: endless materialism; freedom from religion and religious responsibility, which under Communist regimes reaches the stage of anti-religious dictatorship; concentration on social structures with a seemingly scientific approach (this is typical of the Enlightenment in the eighteenth century and of Marxism). Not by coincidence, all of Communism's meaningless pledges and oaths are about Man with a capital M, and his earthly happiness. At first glance it seems an ugly parallel: common traits in the thinking and way of life of today's West and today's East? But such is the logic of materialistic development." Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, "A World Split Apart," June 8, 1978, Harvard University Commencement address.
1) Postmodernism
a) "Postmodernism, a wayward stepchild of Marxism, is in this sense a generation's realization that it is orphaned." Lawrence Cahoone, From Modernism to Postmodernism, p. 10.
b) "Most poststructuralists, feminists, and multiculturalists are associated with the left. But others are not, like Richard Rorty, who has labeled himself a postmodernist bourgeois liberal." Cahoone, From Modernism to Postmodernism, p. 19.
c) "Friedrich Nietzsche, the pre-twentieth-century philosopher who is the most influential for postmodernism." Cahoone, From Modernism to Postmodernism, p. 20.
d) "Such reforms might someday produce a presently unimaginable nonmarket economy...They might also, given similar reforms in other countries, bring about an international federation, a world government." Richard Rorty, Achieving Our Country: Leftist Thought in Twentieth-Century America, p. 105.
e) "One of the French radical student groups that attracted Sartre's attention was the Proletarian Left, a self-proclaimed Maoist revolutionary cell. What appealed to Sartre was their revolutionary motto: 'Violence, Spontaneity, and Morality.' The Maoist had also attracted the attention of another, younger radical intellectual, Michel Foucault." Arthur Herman, The Idea of Decline in Western History, p. 349. "For at least two years after he contracted AIDS (from 1982 to 1984), Michel Foucault continued to visit his various gay orgy sites, knowingly passing the disease on to his anonymous partners. 'We are inventing new pleasures beyond sex,' Foucault told an interviewer-in this particular case, sex as murder.'" Arthur Herman, The Idea of Decline in Western History, p. 357.
f) "Did you know that truth does not exist and that all knowledge and values are artificial constructions to serve the interest of the powerful? If you don't know this, then you are obviously not the beneficiary of a recent American college education. A wide variety of academic subjects have appropriated Karl Marx's 19th Century idea that 'truth' is never more nor less than propaganda that serves the material interest of the ruling class. When the workers took over as Marx thought they would, truth would be whatever served the interests of the working class.
"In Marx's day, the capitalists were the bad guys, and the workers were the good guys. But today, all heterosexual guys are bad. Feminist studies, queer studies, postmodernists' and deconstructionists have assigned villainy to just about everyone. The only sympathetic figure left is the black disabled lesbian, and it won't be long before this icon is deconstructed also. The various denunciatory doctrines that reign in college classrooms are a way of unmasking success, achievement, accomplishment and heroism by placing a qualifier before the subject under attack. For example, 'white' success is foreordained because it is based on keeping down other races. 'Male' success is based on 'glass ceilings' and 'gender standards' that winnow out women. It is an easy gave to play once you get the hang of it. Everyone gets in on the act-historians, philosophers, English departments, law schools, even music critics. The message is that every positive or affirmatory statement is puffery to serve some vested interest or the other.
"The problem is that once these doctrines of hate get into a people's consciousness, it is hard to get them out. There will come a time when the well-meaning liberal, who tried to use hateful doctrines as reformist tools, finds himself in a society overrun with hatreds.
"Marx's fulminations against the bourgeoisie don't make any rational sense, but his fulminations fueled a class genocide that killed 60 million people in Russia and China. The 19th Century German intellectuals who deconstructed the Jews authored a racial holocaust that claimed 6 million lives.
"Our college curriculums have many voices of hate busy at work preparing a future holocaust, but a voice of Christian love is considered too divisive to be tolerated. Dartmouth College prohibited copies of C.S. Lewis' Mere Christianity from being distributed as gifts to students. A dean ruled that the book could be considered offensive. Hate has such a hold that love dare not be mentioned." Paul Craig Roberts, Human Events, May 7, 1999, p. 23
g) The only two, white, male, non-homosexuals not deconstructed by the deconstructionists are Charles Darwin and Karl Marx.
2) Feminism
a) "Feminism, then, was not born moderate and then radicalized by the 1960s. From its inception, the term 'feminism,' in the minds of both its proponents and its opponents, has been linked with radicalism and even socialism. 'Feminism,' as Nancy Cott explains, 'was born ideologically on the left of the political spectrum, first espoused by women who were familiar with advocacy of socialism." Richard J. Ellis, The Dark Side of the Left: Illiberal Egalitarianism in America, p. 194.
b) "Radical feminism's reliance on the structure and language of Marxism is particularly ironic in view of the statement of principles issued by NYRW [New York Radical Women] as well as the 1969 manifesto of the Redstockings." Richard J. Ellis, The Dark Side of the Left, p. 204.
c) "One of the primary institutional loci for the transmissions of radical feminist values and commitments has been women's studies programs. University courses on women were among the earliest fruits of the women's movement. Before 1968, courses explicitly about women were rare, yet by 1971-1972 there were over one thousand college-level women's studies courses in the United States." Richard J. Ellis, The Dark Side of the Left, p. 214.
d) "Judge [Robert] Bork also identifies Radical Feminism as 'the most destructive and fanatical' element of this modern liberalism. He further describes Radical Feminism as 'totalitarian in spirit.' Most Americans do not yet realize that they, through their institutions, are being led by social revolutionaries who think in terms of the continuing destruction of the existing social order in order to create a new one. The revolutionaries are New Age Elite Boomers. They now control the public institutions in the United States. Their 'quiet' revolution, beginning with the counter-culture revolution of their youth, is nearing completion. A key, or even a dominant element because purportedly it represents the largest political and social constituency among their potential followers, is Feminism. The Marxist movement in its 'quiet' cultural latter-day phase is seemingly sweeping all before it. With its sway over the media, fully in the grip of Feminism, it is hard to discern the stirrings of a counter-counter culture. Are the elite Boomers, the New Totalitarians, the most dangerous generation in America's history? William Strauss and Neil Howe suggest so, in their book Generations: The History of America's Future-1584 to 2069." Gerald L. Atkinson, "Radical Feminism and Political Correctness," Free Congress Foundation.
e) "Simone de Beauvoir, like the vast majority of feminists, regards the radical alteration of parenting as more than a utopian fantasy. She finds it 'easy to visualize' a world 'where men and women would be equal,' for 'that is precisely what the Soviet Union promised: women trained and raised exactly like men...[M]arriage was to be based on a free agreement that the spouses could break at will; maternity was to be voluntary; pregnancy leaves were to be paid for by the State, which would assume charge of the children, signifying not that they would be taken from their parents, but that they would not be abandoned to them.' deBeauvoir is so far from alone among feminists in admiring Marxist-Leninism that this admiration, together with hostility to 'capitalism,' can be considered virtually a further distinguishing mark of feminism. The main criticism offered of the Soviet Union is that it has not gone far enough. To be sure, feminists are attracted primarily to the ideas that the Soviet state proclaims itself as embodying, rather than to the Soviet regime itself, but with that understood, a great many well-known feminists, including deBeauvoir, Millett, Firestone, Bleier, Mitchell, Chodorow, MacKinnon, Steinem, Sheila Rowbotham, Margaret Benston, Angela Davis, Eli Zaretsky, Evelyn Reed, Barbara Ehrenreich, Vivian Howe, and Rayna Rapp identify themselves as socialists or Marxists of some sort." Michael Levin, Feminism and Freedom, p. 26.
f) "Socialism is clearly the theme which predominates women's liberation theology. Feminism is a political tool to promote world socialism. (1) The Document declaration of feminism states: 'Feminism rests on the belief that it is up to women to rescue the planet from the deeds of patriarchy and that women will join hands to build a Feminist Socialist Revolution.' 'In order to overcome the tyranny of racism it is necessary to establish a socialist order based on two further premises-An end to the oppressive 'male-female' relationship as it now exists and the creation of an egalitarian society based on collectivity' and 'The end of the institution of marriage is a necessary condition for the liberation of women. Therefore it is important for us to encourage women to leave their husbands and not to live individually with men.' "The nuclear family must be replaced with a new form of family.' Shirley Correll, Body Snatching, p. 79.
g) "Why do political 'progressives' feel the need so often to lie about who they are? The question is prompted by a recent biography of feminist leader Betty Friedan, which establishes beyond reasonable doubt that the woman who virtually created modern feminism is what may reasonably be called a political imposter. In her path-breaking book, The Feminist Mystique, Friedan presented herself as a typical suburban housewife not 'even conscious of the woman question' before she began work on her manuscript. But now Smith [College] professor Daniel Horowitz (no relation) has shown that nothing could be further from the truth. Under her maiden name, Betty Goldstein, the record shows that Friedan was a political activist and professional propagandist for the Communist left for nearly thirty years before the 1963 publication of The Feminist Mystique launched the modern feminist movement. There are probably a lot of interesting ramifications of this revelation. As Horowitz's biography makes clear, Friedan, from her college days and until her mid-thirties, was a Stalinist Marxist (or a fellow traveler thereof), the political intimate of leaders of America's Cold War fifth column, and for a time even the lover of a young Communist physicists working on atomic bomb projects with J. Robert Oppenheimer. Not at all a neophyte when it came to 'the woman question' (the phrase itself is a Marxist construction), she was certainly familiar with the writings of Engels, Lenin and Stalin on the subject and had written about it herself as a journalist for the official publication of the Communist-controlled United Electrical Workers union." David Horowitz, Heterodoxy, March 1999, p. 14.
h) "Friedan's version of feminism bears re-visiting in light of the new information. Her infamous description of America's suburban family household as 'a comfortable concentration camp' in The Feminist Mystique , it's now obvious, had more to do with her Marxist hatred for America than with her own experience as a housewife and mother. Her husband Carl, also a leftist, once complained to a reporter in 1970 that, far from being a homebody, his wife 'was in the world during the whole marriage, either full time or free lance,' lived in a 'mansion' and had a full-time maid, and 'seldom was a wife and a mother.' Of course, no one paid much attention to the family 'patriarch' at the time, simply because as a male he was guilty before the fact." David Horowitz, Heterodoxy, March 1999, p. 14.
i) "Radical feminist crank Mary Daly, won't be teaching her feminist ethics course this semester at Boston College. A couple of young students of the male persuasion attempted to take the class, and it seems their 'phallocentric necrophilia' (which is how Ms. Daly describes the male min-set) would have been a threat to the purity of Ms. Daly's 'Elemental Sisterhood.' Refusing equal educational opportunities on the basis of sex, of course, is the sort of thing that gets universities sued; and so Boston College is letting Ms. Daly cancel the course altogether and take a leave of absence. Given Ms. Daly's demonstration that her version of feminism is nothing but dressed-up hatred of men, Boston College might want to think about making her absence from the faculty permanent...Ms. Daly isn't just a left-wing extremist, she is a walking, talking parody of radical feminism. Consider some passages from her new opus, Quintessence... Realizing the Archaic Future: A Radical Elemental Feminist Manifesto. Says Ms. Daly, "My Voyage into the Fourth Spiral Galaxy of 'Outercourse' brought me to the point of Discovering yet an Other Galaxy. As a consequence of my arrival in an Expanding Now/Present, the Way Opened for me to Leap into an Expanding Here/Presence. Moving more deeply into the Background Realms, I was ready to begin Spiraling into the Fifth Spiral Galaxy." Well you go, girl." The Washington Times, March 2, 1999, p. A14.
3) Environmentalism
a) "Indeed, the lives of indigenous peoples, as imagined by at least some Earth First!ers, seem like nothing so much as the leisurely communist utopia envisioned by Marx in which people might hunt in the morning, fish in the afternoon, and debate in the evening...In those traditional cultures that have not been forced off their lands by European expansion and colonialism, there is a 'pattern of short work days and roughly every other day off, with free time devoted to dancing, wrestling....informal recreation...loafing." Richard J. Ellis, The Dark Side of the Left, p.240.
b) "Too many Earth First!ers indiscriminately reject the whole off Western industrial civilization-the good, the bad, and the indifferent. For most of them, 'the anthropocentric imperialism of Western civilization' is the source of virtually all that is wrong with the world. 'Western industrial civilization,' writes one Earth First!er, 'is a killing machine.' Everything would be fine again if we could simply 'shake off this awful thing called Western culture." Richard J. Ellis, The Dark Side of the Left, p. 249.
4) Democratic Socialists of America
a) Major players (per letterhead and publications): Bogdan Denitch, Barbara Ehrenreich, Dolores Huerta, Mildred Jeffrey, Gloria Steinem, Cornel West, James B. Chapin, Rep. Ronald V. Dellums, James Farmer, Dorothy Healey, Jose LaLuz, Hilda Mason, Steve Max, Harold Meyerson, Frances Fox Piven, Rosemary Ruether, Edwin Vargas Jr., Michael Harrington, John Sweeny, Michael Eric Dyson, and Edward Asner.
b) "We are socialists because we share a vision of a humane international social order based on equitable distribution of resources, meaningful work, a healthy environment, sustainable growth, gender and racial equality, and non-oppressive relationships." Building the Next Left: The Political Perspective of the Democratic Socialists of America, p. 1.
c) "Maurice Isserman teaches history at Hamilton Colleges. A DSAer, he is author of If I Had a Hammer: The Death of the Old Left and Birth of the New and co-author of Dorothy Healey Remembers: A Life in the American Communist Party." Maurice Isserman, History of the Left-a DSA publication.
d) Members of the DSA attended the 150th Anniversary of the Communist Manifesto "sponsored by the educational arm of the French Communist Party." "The Conference closed with a rousing chorus of the Internationale. It was led by a rambunctious contingent from the Brazilian Workers Party and was sung in many languages...Our common anthem is an important reminder of the values we share in spite of our differences. And changes in the world are making our differences less relevant all the time." Julia Fitzgerald, "Anniversary of The Communist Manifesto Celebrated" in Democratic Left, Fall 1998, p. 20.
e) "Longtime Democrats still yearning to turn their party rightward have to be dismayed at the Democratic National Committee's decision to make Carlottia Scott a key part of the DNC's new 'senior political/leadership team.' The far-left Scott has just joined the DNC as 'chief of politics,' where, in the words of a DNC press release, she will become one of 'two individuals to lead the DNC's political shop.' (The other is Jeff Forbes, deputy political director of the Clinton/Gore '96 campaign.)
"Scott's left-wing credentials can be gleaned from the political company she's been keeping for over two decades. Until her appointment, she was serving as administrative assistant to Rep. Barbara Lee (D-Calif.), who sports one of the most liberal voting records in Congress and, according to anti-Communist expert Herbert Romerstein, was elected in 1992 'to the National Coordinating Committee of Correspondence, a new dissident Communist organization' (see Dec. 12, 1992, Human Events.).
"Before that, Scott served as a top staffer to Rep. Ron Dellums (D-Calif.), Rep. Lee's predecessor in the 9th District, who made his mark in Congress by attempting to dismantle the American military and trumpeting the 'virtues' of Fidel Castro, apparently his greatest political hero. (Dellums resigned his seat in 1998.)
"Scott's radical politics came to dazzling light in 1983, when U.S. armed forces, in the wake of the Grenada invasion, captured documents revealing that Dellums and his then aides, Lee and Scott, had a unique relationship with Maurice Bishop, Grenada's Communist ruler, who had seized power by force in 1979. The U.S. military had intervened in 1983 when Bishop was murdered and some 800 American students were in danger of being taken hostage. The documents disclosed that Dellums and his aides covered for Bishop and that Carlottia had even sent the Caribbean leader mash [love] notes. Dellums' serious effort to obscure Bishop's attempt to communize the region began in April 1982....Now she's got a top job at the Democratic National Committee." Allan H. Ryskind, Human Events, May 14, 1999, p. 1.
5) Multiculturalism
a) "Marxism flourishes in the ideology and politics of present-day multiculturalism. Some multiculturalist advocates, including many well-meaning teachers and school administrators, are not aware of the leftist (Marxist) concepts and assumptions operative in multiculturalism. Unwittingly, they often give aid and comfort to a radical leftist philosophy. If the unsuspecting advocates of multiculturalist practices were aware of the Marxist threads in the fabric of multiculturalism, they would be a lot less eager to advance its principles and policies." Alvin J. Schmidt, The Menace of Multiculturalism, p. 25.
b) "A new theme of the academy was 'multiculturalism,' the Left's latest assault on the American identity and a direct appeal to alienated minorities not to assimilate into the American culture. In the multicultural perspective, the constitutional framework became the scheme of 'dead white males' to shore up their privileged status." David Horowitz, Radical Son, p. 406.
c) "Multiculturalism is a movement of the left, emerging from the counterculture of the 1960s." Richard Bernstein, Dictatorship of Virtue: Multiculturalism and the Battle for America's Future, p. 6
d) "Inspired by the ideas of French philosopher Michel Foucault, the jargon represents the reformulation of basic nineteenth-century Marxist ideas that have been borrowed by generations of intellectuals bent on showing that the world as it exists is the creation (the 'social construction') of the groups that hold power, their ideology (the 'dominant discourse') used to maintain sway over everybody else (the 'victimized subalterns'). Substitute the new jargon for such older terms as 'substructure' and 'superstructure,' and you have just about the entire addition of ideological multiculturalism to already existing Marxist social theory." Richard Bernstein, Dictatorship of Virtue, p. 227
e) "This brand of scholarship often seems linked to politically correct developments in the curriculum, such as the imposition of non-Western culture requirements at colleges and universities. What I will refer to as postcolonial scholarship often seems rooted in an animus against Western culture and specifically its literary classics. Postcolonial critics seem to operate with the assumption that if a work is non-Western, it must be good, and the less Western the better. These critics seem particularly attracted to works that articulate anti-Western views, that question the values of Western civilization and champion non-Western alternatives...Postcolonial literature thus plays into the hands of anti-Western critics from the West. Much of postcolonial criticism is explicitly or at least implicitly Marxist, centering on the concept of exploitation. Third World literature is viewed as primarily expressing the reaction of postcolonial peoples to having been exploited by their former European masters. This approach turns the field into a branch of Oppression Studies, the dominant mode of radical academics today." Paul A. Cantor, Academic Questions, Winter 1998-99, p. 23.
f) "What the multiculturalists/feminist advocates want is precisely to overthrow the culture, hence they take the same view of scholarship as a communist or Nazi; that is, education, religion, art, and all other expressions of culture are mere superstructure, tools of indoctrination and control wielded by the ruling race, class, or gender. Culture to them is an artificial, malleable construct that is of no intrinsic importance except for its utility in the struggle for liberation." Walter A. McDougall, Academic Questions, Winter 1998-99, p. 30.
g) "So what is the effect of multiculturalist/feminist ideology? It is to debase scholarship by imposing planted axioms and hidden or blatant false assumptions about the way things used to be, even as the Bolsheviks depicted tsarist history as even worse than it was, the Nazis parodied the decadence of the Weimar Republic, and the scholars of Meiji Japan demonized the old Shogunate." Walter A. McDougall, Academic Questions, Winter 1998-99, p. 33.
h) "Mrs. Sandra Stotsky's analysis of the history and civics readers used in elementary schools is also important. Feminists and multiculturalists, she contends, have cleansed fifth grade textbooks. The result: children will learn nothing about inventors, explorers, soldiers and all presidents except for Abraham Lincoln. 'Stories about the great achievements in American science, technology and political life in the past 200 years are missing,' she writes, 'and they are missing it seems simply because stories about them would call attention to a white male.' Mrs. Stotsky is a research associate at the Harvard Graduate School of Education and her book is entitled: Losing Our Language: How Multicultural Classroom Instruction is Undermining our Children's Ability to Read, Write and Reason. The Washington Times, May 2, 1999, p. B6.
6) American Colleges and Universities
a) "Communism may be dead, but the leftist (Marxist) ideology is still alive and well. Thomas Sowell recently said: 'Marxism...continues to flourish on American college campuses, as perhaps nowhere else in the world.' Sowell's remark is corroborated by a 1992 conference, 'Marxism in the New World Order: Crisis and Possibilities,' held at the University of Massachusetts at Amherst. Only 300 were expected to attend, but 1,500 registered. Nearly all were professors. The conference's attendees were diehard believers of Marxism, not realists who recognized that the most inefficient, cruel, and inhumane socioeconomic system had come to an end." Alvin J. Schmidt, The Menace of Multiculturalism, p. 25.
b) "The situation in the universities was appalling. The Marxists and socialists who had been refuted by historical events were now the tenured establishment of the academic world. Marxism had produced the bloodiest and most oppressive regimes in human history-but after the fall, as one wit commented, more Marxists could be found on the faculties of American colleges than in the entire former Communist bloc. The American Historical Association was run by Marxists, as was the professional literature association, whose field had been transformed into a kind of pseudosociology of race-gender-class oppression." David Horowitz, Radical Son, p. 405.
c) "Conservatives who had been historically vindicated by the Twentieth Century's epic struggle against Marxist totalitarianism were generally consigned to obscurity, while radicals who had denigrated and betrayed Western freedom-political hacks like Angela Davis, intellectual commissars like Antonio Gramsci, and embittered nihilists like Michel Foucault-were given places of honor in the academic canon." David Horowitz, Radical Son, p. 406.
d) "According to reliable sources, some ten thousand American college and university professors freely identify themselves as Marxists. To this number can be added thousands of others who strongly sympathize with left-wing political and social values. Paul Hollander writes, 'Even if the majority of the students in the nation today do not subscribe to this mentality, large and vocal portions of their teachers do, especially in the humanities and social sciences. My own discipline, sociology, has, for example, been quite thoroughly politicized and probably a majority of its practitioners take this way of thinking for granted.' This army of radical professors has more than a dozen Marxist journals at its disposal, which it uses to repeat familiar diatribes against America, capitalism, economic freedom, and whatever else the Left happens to despise at the moment." Ronald H. Nash, Why the Left Is Not Right, p. 37
e) "Unfortunately, in contemporary American academic culture, it is commonly assumed that once you have seen through Plato, essentialism, and eternal truth you will naturally turn to Marx. The attempt to take the world by the throat is still, in the minds of [Fredric] Jameson and his admirers, associated with Marxism." Richard Rorty, Achieving Our Country: Leftist Thought in Twentieth-Century America, p. 138, 9
f) "The post-Soviet 1990s will be remembered, among other things, for the intensive left-liberal campaign, led by a single-minded group of academics, to whitewash the Communist Party USA and its membership and thereby salvage what remains of Marxist socialism. The campaign is led by Professor Ellen Schrecker. Her controversial book, Many Are the Crimes: McCarthyism in America exemplifies, as did her earlier books, what George Orwell was talking about when he wrote that 'the sin of nearly all left-wingers from 1933 onwards is that they have wanted to be anti-fascist without being anti-totalitarian.' The strategy of the Schrecker school of whitewashing is to admit that, yes, Josef Stalin was bad, there was-maybe-a certain amount of Soviet espionage but the thousands upon thousands of American communists were really old-fashioned liberals interested in civil rights for Afro-Americans, support for labor unions, higher wages for workers and achieving socialism. As the New Republic put it in the fellow-traveling 1930s, communists were 'liberals in a hurry.' Those kindly CP members, in whose defense Miss Schrecker has rewritten the history of communism, had to swallow crimes against humanity-the Great Terror, the Ukraine genocide, Stalin's anti-Semitic crusade, the seizure of Eastern Europe-why go on? Professor Schrecker knows all this, but for her there is only one enemy, Joe McCarthy and one hero, the party member." Arnold Beichman, The Washington Times, January 31, 1999, p. B4.
g) "In recent years, a number of writers-both popular and academic-have undertaken to whitewash both [Josef] Stalin and the CPUSA members who so willingly submitted to his demands. A few months ago there appeared in the Sunday Magazine of the New York Times a full-page apologia by a self-proclaimed 'red diaper baby': Her parents may not have exercised good judgment by becoming party members-but at least they 'believed in something.' In a recent essay in the New York Review of Books, the historian Theodore Draper rightly denounced such popular exculpation of communism, together with its surviving academic defenders. There is, he wrote, 'clearly an attempt to rehabilitate communism by making it part of the larger family of socialism and democracy. No one would think of doing favor for fascism, but communism with even more millions of victims and a much longer life span is the beneficiary of this sustained effort of historical rehabilitation in-of all places-American colleges and universities." Arnold Beichman, The Weekly Standard, March 9, 1998, p. 35.
h) "The signs of what the [New York] Times calls 'retro Commie chic' can be found all over, not only among the young but also among their elders. There is, for example, the handsome Autumn catalogue from Verso Press, an imprint of New Left Books. It was Verso that gave us, in the spring of 1998, a 150th anniversary reissue of The Communist Manifesto, hopefully subtitled 'A Modern Edition,' with an introduction by the British leftist historian Eric Hobsbawm asserting the 'almost biblical force' and prescience of Marx's text (The Times apparently agrees with Hobsbawm, proclaiming in a June 27, 1998 article 'the eerie way' in which the Manifesto's '1848 description of capitalism resembles the restless, anxious and competitive world of today's global economy.') The Verso catalogue's front cover features a striking photograph of Bertolt Brecht (the subject of a new book by the unregenerate Stalinist literary critic Fredric Jameson) and the back cover reproduces Brecht's poem 'Praise of Communism.' One might suppose that Brecht's attachment to Marxist-Leninism would be, at this late date, an embarrassment for his admirers [the toll of communism in the twentieth century approaches 100 million dead]. To think so, however, is to miss the strategy of retro Commie chic. The garden-variety leftist, agonizing in the pages of Dissent or the Nation, concedes that communism has been weighed on the scales of history and found wanting-while insisting that this doesn't mean leftism is dead." John Wilson, The Weekly Standard, February 15, 1999, p. 38.
i) "In his book, The End of Sanity, Martin Gross writes that 'blatantly irrational behavior is rapidly being established as the norm in almost every area of human endeavor. There seem to be new customs, new rules, new anti-intellectual theories regularly foisted on us from every direction. Underneath, the nation is roiling. Americans know something without a name is undermining the nation, turning the mind mushy when it comes to separating truth from falsehood and right from wrong. And they don't like it.' ...Before you claim to be a champion of free thought, tell me: Why did political correctness originate on America's campuses? And why do you continue to tolerate it? Why do you, who're supposed to debate ideas, surrender to their suppression? Let's be honest. Who here thinks your professors can say what they really believe? It scares me to death, and should scare you, too, that the superstition of political correctness rules the halls of reason. You are the best and the brightest. You, here in the fertile cradle of American academia, here in the castle of learning on the Charles River, you are the cream. But I submit that you, and your counterparts across the land, are the most socially conformed and politically silenced generation since Concord Bridge. And as long as you validate that...and abide it...and you are- by your grandfathers' standards-cowards....If you talk about race, it does not make you a racist. If you see distinctions between genders, it does not make you a sexist. If you think critically about a denomination, it does not make you anti-religion. If you accept but don't celebrate homosexuality, it does not make you a homophobe." Charlton Heston, February 16, 1999, Harvard Law School Forum. (www.narila.org/ila/hestonhs.htm)
7) The Frankfurt School
a) "Grinberg concluded his opening address by clearly stating his personal allegiance to Marxism as a scientific methodology. Just as liberalism, state socialism, and the historical school had institutional homes elsewhere, so Marxism would be the ruling principle at the Institute [Frankfurt School]." Martin Jay, The Dialectical Imagination, p. 11.
b) "On one level, then, it can be argued that the Frankfurt School was returning to the concerns of the Left Hegelians of the 1840s. They were concerned with the dialectical method devised by Hegel and sought, like their predecessors, to turn it in a materialist direction. And finally, like many of the Left Hegelians, they were particularly interested in exploring the possibilities of transforming the social order through human praxis." Martin Jay, The Dialectical Imagination, p. 42.
c) One of the most lasting results of the Frankfurt School was Theodore Adorno's work The Authoritarian Personality. In this work conservatives are painted as authoritarian and fascist. Marxists are painted as open-minded and tolerant. Edward Shils noted the political bias of Adorno and asked "Why was authoritarianism associated with fascism alone and not communism? Why was political and economic conservatism seen as connected with authoritarianism, while the demand for state socialism was not?" Martin Jay, The Dialectical Imagination, p. 247, 248. It is our contention that Communism, Nazism and Fascism are all left-wing socialist worldviews. Nazism is bolshevism with a German twist and Fascism is bolshevism with an Italian twist. See Ludwig von Mises, Socialism, pp 523-532.
d) "After the [Frankfurt School] resettlement at Columbia University, however, the tone underwent a subtle shift in a pessimistic direction. Articles in the Zeitschrift scrupulously avoided using words like 'Marxism' or 'communism' substituting 'dialectical materialism' or 'the materialist theory of society' instead. Careful editing prevented emphasizing the revolutionary implications of their thought." Martin Jay, The Dialectical Imagination, p. 44.
e) "But it is impossible to ignore the fact that the United States is becoming an ideological state. The ideology of Political Correctness, which openly calls for the destruction of our traditional culture, has so gripped the body politic, has so gripped our institutions, that it is even affecting the Church. It has completely taken over the academic community. It is now pervasive in the entertainment industry, and it threatens to control literally every aspect of our lives. Those who came up with Political Correctness, which we more accurately call 'Cultural Marxism,' did so in a deliberate fashion. I'm not going to go into the whole history of the Frankfurt School and Herbert Marcuse and the other people responsible for this. Suffice it to say that the United States is very close to becoming a state totally dominated by an alien ideology, an ideology bitterly hostile to Western culture. Even now, for the first time in their lives, people have to be afraid of what they say. This has never been true in the history of our country. Yet today, if you say the 'wrong thing,' you suddenly have legal problems, political problems, you might even lose your job or be expelled from college. Certain topics are forbidden. You can't approach the truth about a lot of different subjects. If you do, you are immediately branded as 'racist,' 'sexist,' 'homophobic,' 'insensitive,' or 'judgmental.'" Paul Weyrich, February 16, 1999 personal letter.
8) Margaret Sanger's Planned Parenthood
a) "Margaret's [Sanger] topic of discussion was always sex. Her detour into labor activism had done little to dampen her interest in the subject. When it was her turn to lead an evening, she held [Mable] Dodge's guests spellbound, ravaging them with intoxicating notions of 'romantic dignity, unfettered self-expression, and the sacredness of sexual desire. Free love had been practiced quietly for years by the avant-garde intellectuals in the Village. Eugene O'Neill took on one mistress after another, immortalizing them in his plays. Edna St. Vincent Millay hopped gaily from bed to bed and wrote about it in her poems." George Grant, Grand Illusions: The Legacy of Planned Parenthood, p. 52.
b) "Sanger tried her hand at writing and publishing a paper herself. She called it The Woman Rebel. It was an eight-sheet pulp with the slogan 'No Gods! No Masters!' emblazoned across the masthead. She advertised it as 'a paper of militant thought,' and militant it was indeed. The first issue denounced marriage as a 'degenerate institution,' capitalism as 'indecent exploitation' and sexual modesty as 'obscene prudery.'" George Grant, Grand Illusions, p. 53.
c) "Margaret spent more than a year in England as a fugitive from justice. But she made certain that the time was not wasted. She had found her cause: Revolutionary Socialism. She had found her niche in the cause: Sexual Liberation. And now she would further that cause with a single-minded goal. As soon as she came ashore, Margaret began to make contact with the various radical groups of Britain. She began attending lectures on Nietzsche's moral relativism, Anarchist lectures on Kropotkin's subversive pragmatism, and Communist lectures on Bakunin's collectivistic rationalism. But she was especially interested in developing ties with the Malthusians." George Grant, Grand Illusions, p. 55.
d) "[Margaret's] bed became a veritable meeting place for the Fabian upper crust: H.G. Wells, George Bernard Shaw, Arnold Bennett, Arbuthnot Lane and Norman Haire. And of course, it was then that she began her unusual and tempestuous affair with Havelock Ellis. Ellis was the iconoclastic grandfather of the Bohemian sexual revolution...he had provided the free love movement with much of its intellectual apologia." George Grant, Grand Illusions, p. 57.
e) "Dr. Alan Guttmacher, the man who immediately succeeded her as president of Planned Parenthood Federation of America, once said, 'We are merely walking down the path that Mrs. Sanger carved out for us.'" George Grant, Grand Illusions, p. 63.
f) "In her first newspaper, The Woman Rebel, Margaret Sanger admitted that 'Birth control appeals to the advanced radical because it is calculated to undermine the authority of the Christian churches. I look forward to seeing humanity free someday of the tyranny of Christianity no less than Capitalism.' Today, Planned Parenthood is continuing her crusade against the church. In its advertisements, in its literature, in its program, and in its policies, the organization makes every attempt to mock, belittle, and undermine Biblical Christianity." George Grant, Grand Illusions, p. 65.
9) Homosexual Revolution
a) "The first 'gay rights' organization in the United States was an American chapter of the German-based Society for Human Rights. The German SHR, formed in 1919 by Thule Society member, Hans Kahnert, was a militant organization led by 'Butch' homosexuals. Many of the early Nazis [National Socialists], including SA leader Ernst Roehm, were also SHR members. The American SHR was formed on December 10, 1924, in Chicago, by a German-American named Henry Gerber." Scott Lively and Kevin Abrams, The Pink Swastika: Homosexuality in the Nazi Party, p. 148.
b) "In the words of Jonathan Katz, 'a link of a kind peculiar to Gay male history connects the abortive Chicago Society for Human Rights (1924, 25) and Henry Hay, the founder of the Mattachine Society.' This 'peculiar link' is the fact that the man who recruited Hay into homosexuality (at age seventeen), Champ Simmons, was himself seduced by a former member of the SHR. In a perverse sort of way, then, it seems appropriate that Hay would become known as the 'Father of the Modern Gay Movement.' On August 10, 1948, at the tail-end of an eighteen-year stint as a Communist Party leader, Hay began to organize a group that would become the Mattachine Society....Hay was also not an overt fascist, but he was a neo-pagan. He participated in occultic rituals at 'the Los Angeles lodge of the Order of the Eastern Temple, or O.T.O., Aleister Crowley's notorious anti-Christian spiritual group...The avowed purpose of [the Mattachine Society] was to undermine the Judeo-Christian moral consensus in respect to homosexual relations." Scott Lively/Kevin Abrams, The Pink Swastika, p. 149, 50.
c) "There is no question that one of the top priorities of the homosexual movement is to force a 'redefinition' of the American family away from the traditional husband-wife-children model to a more 'functional' definition based on the notion of economic unit or any other basis that does not require heterosexuality as its foundation. The notion that a family must involve persons of both sexes is profoundly inimical to the homosexual movement...As early as 1970, elements within the homosexual movement had identified the family as inimical to its interests. At a convention in Philadelphia, the 'Male Homosexual' workshop included the following as one of its demands: 'The abolition of the nuclear family because it perpetuates the false categories of homosexuality and heterosexuality.'" Enrique T. Rueda, The Homosexual Network, p. 221.
d) "'If I had to choose between betraying my country and betraying my friend, I hope I should have the guts to betray my country.' E. M. Forster's notorious words were published in 1951, after the Second World War. But they remind us of the period between the wars, when so many of Forster's upper-class literary friends became agents and fellow-travelers of the Communist party. When people like Burgess, Maclean, Philby, and Blunt betrayed their country, their choice was not between their country and their friends, but between their country and its enemy. Nevertheless, it was with romantic images of friendship that they justified their conduct. In the homosexual circle in which they moved-the 'homintern,' as W. H. Auden aptly described it-the image of 'the friend' had a special attraction. The friend was the symbol of the only loyalty that mattered, a loyalty that was private, secret, nurtured in opposition to the world of normal people. All rival obligations-to spouse, parents, family, and country-counted for nothing, being merely the philistine requirements of middle-class bores....And to show their contempt for King and Country, the homintern threw in their lot with the Communists....Their Communism was really an anti-patriotism, just as their adulation of friendship was really a contempt for family life. The Communist party was able to conscript these essentially negative feelings, so helping the 'outsiders' of bourgeois society to become its destroyers. We are still suffering, and perhaps will always be suffering from the damage they caused. The anti-patriotic and anti-bourgeois sentiments exploited by the Communists did not disappear with the death of socialism. On the contrary, they remain fundamental components of the left-wing outlook. Ordinary people understand loyalty as a natural condition. For the leftist, family and country are oppressive structures, whose claim to loyalty is at best provisional. The rival source of loyalty is now not the friend but the cause, and the cause may change from year to year. In E.M. Forster's day, the cause was International Socialism; in the Sixties, liberation; today it is the normalization of homosexuality; tomorrow it could well be the normalization of pedophilia. But in all these changes, one thing remains: the belief in an oppressive power structure, built into the state and its institutions, and animated by ignorant people defending the middle-class life." Roger Scruton, National Review, April 5, 1999, p. 43.
e) The American Psychological Association's Psychological Bulletin, July, 1998, Volume 124, No. 1, pp 22-53 is preparing the way for the normalization of pedophilia. One of the writers of an article entitled "A Meta-Analytic Examination of Assumed Properties of Child Sexual Abuse Using College Samples", Dr. Robert Bauserman of the University of Michigan, earlier wrote an article for the Journal of Homosexuality (a special 1990 double issue) devoted to adult-child sex. Conclusion: pedophiles believe they are born that way and cannot change. A professor of social science at the State University of New York said he looks forward to the day when Americans will 'get over their hysteria about child abuse' and child pornography. In a memo from Dr. Joe Nicolosi to Dr. Laura Schlessinger: "Few laymen are aware that the American Psychiatric Association has already set the state for this same transition-in the case of pedophilia-by quietly redefining it. According to the latest diagnostic manual (DSM-IV), a person no longer has a psychological disorder simply because he molests children. To be diagnosed as disordered, now he must also feel anxious about the molestation, or be impaired in his work or social relationships. Thus the A.P.A. has left room for the 'psychologically normal' pedophile." For further information on the latest attempt to declare pedophilia normal check Dr. Laura Schlessinger's web site at www.drlaura.com. Kathleen Parker's observation: "Why is it that if you viscerally abhor the thought of a grown man having sex with your young son, you're a right-wing sex hater? Why aren't you a normal adult who understands that children need protection from adults who haven't matured sufficiently to find a partner their own age?" The [Colorado Springs] Gazette, March 30, 1999.
f) "A study on pedophilia that claims child sexual abuse does not cause lasting psychological harm to its victims has set off a furor on the Internet and talk radio. The angry public reaction, fueled by Internet reports and conservative activists, comes nine months after the study was first released by the influential American Psychological Association. Sex between adults and willing minors should be described in more positive terms, the study suggests. 'A willing encounter...would be labeled simply "adult-child sex," a value-neutral term, the authors advised. 'A willing encounter between an adolescent and an adult with positive reactions...would be labeled scientifically as "adult-adolescent sex."' The report titled 'A Meta-Analytic Examination of Assumed Properties of Child Sexual Abuse Using College Sample,' is a compilation of 59 studies on how college students cope with child sexual abuse. The article was written by Bruce Rind, a psychology professor at Temple University in Pennsylvania, Philip Tromovitch of the University of Pennsylvania graduate school of education and Robert Bauserman, a psychology professor at the University of Michigan. Mr. Bauserman was also a contributor to a special issue of sex between men and boys published in 1990 by the Journal of Homosexuality. In that Journal he questioned the 'taboo' against man-boy sexual relationships. Laura Schlessinger, also known as Dr. Laura, one of the nation's top-rated talk-show hosts, with up to 18 million listeners, blasted the 31-page report. She said the study, published in July (1998) in the APA's bimonthly Psychological Bulletin, was proof the 155,000 member organization had 'gone soft' on child molesters." The Washington Times, March 23, 1999, p. l.
g) "A controversial academic study of pedophilia was roundly condemned by several congressmen, who chastised the American Psychological Association for publishing its findings. 'We as a society are not shocked by anything anymore,' Mr. Salmon [of Ariz] said. 'And now we have a so-called credible psychological organization in this country that purports to say that maybe sex with children isn't so bad.' Published last July in the APA's Psychological Bulletin...was roasted by members of Congress and conservative activists for suggesting lowering legal standards for sexual abuse of children. 'The lack of judgment shown by the APA in publishing it absolutely confounds me,' said Mr. Tom DeLay. 'I will not equivocate on this issue. Sexual activity between an adult and a child is criminal all the time and in all cases.' He challenged the APA to admit it erred in publishing the article, 'and do it publicly,' he added, 'so that subscribers to the North American Man/Boy Love Association Web page and their defense attorneys won't quote your journal in their closing arguments.'
"NAMBLA, a pedophile group, has touted the report as 'good news' in a press release and refers to it twice on its Web site. That has caused headaches for the APA...The APA released a statement from the authors of the study, Bruce Rind, a psychology professor at Temple University; Philip Tromovitch, a doctoral student at the University of Pennsylvania; and Robert Bauserman, a psychology professor at the University of Michigan. 'If adverse childhood events are found to be less psychologically harmful than previous thought, or in some cases not measurably harmful at all, researchers have an ethical duty to report this,' they wrote." The Washington Times, May 13, 1999, p. A4.
g) "The New York Times questioned the ethics of psychiatrists' making a diagnosis of someone they have never met, because the American Psychiatric Association prohibits this conduct. The ethical standard at issue is the 'Goldwater rule,' adopted after the 1964 presidential election. During that campaign, many psychiatrists responded to a one-page questionnaire devised by a magazine. The results were summarized in a full front-page headline-'1,189 Psychiatrists Say Goldwater is Psychologically Unfit to be President.'' Herb Kutchins and Stuart A. Kirk, Making Us Crazy-DSM: The Psychiatric Bible and the Creation of Mental Disorders, p. 3.
h) "On the shelf of every mental health professional is a copy of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders. The American Psychiatric Association's 900-page reference book attempts to describe and classify each one of over 300 mental disorders....Part of the power of DSM derives from its attempt to distinguish mental disorder from other human troubles. Although to some laypeople the importance of the distinction may not be immediately clear, it is an enormously consequential one. DSM is a claim for professional jurisdiction by the American Psychiatric Association....In fact, one of the most powerful effects of DSM is due to its connection to insurance coverage: DSM is the psychotherapist's password for insurance reimbursement. Whether you are depressed or just blue, manic depressive or just moody, anxious or just high-strung is not simply a matter of semantics; it is the key to millions of dollars in insurance coverage for psychotherapy, hospitalization, and medications....The pharmaceutical companies, for one, have a big stake in psychiatric diagnosis. It is well known that drug companies provide substantial funding for the American Psychiatric Association's conventions and major scientific journals and reap enormous profits from the expanding market for psychiatric medications." Herb Kutchins and Stuart A. Kirk, Making Us Crazy, pp 10, 11, 12.
i) "Mental health clinicians independently interviewing the same person in the community are as likely to agree as disagree that the person has a mental disorder and are as likely to agree as disagree on which of the over 300 DSM disorders is present." Herb Kutchins and Stuart A. Kirk, Making Us Crazy, p. 53.
j) "The Fall and Rise of Homosexuality" (and the rise of pedophilia) is the subject matter of Chapter three in Kutchins and Kirk's work. The chapter contains an in depth analysis of how the homosexuals were able to delete homosexuality from DSM. The section in Chapter three entitled "The Inner World of Psychiatry and Psychoanalysis" is worth a serious read. Conclusion: "The influence of gay psychiatrists is growing throughout the world." (p. 92) For further study on the role of psychiatry consult: (a) Bruce Wiseman, Psychiatry: The Ultimate Betrayal (1995) and (b) Roder, Kubillus and Burwell, Psychiatrists: The Men Behind Hitler-The Architects of Horror (1995). "We will also demonstrate that the men behind Hitler are very much with us today. Their ideas and methods are still in vogue today and their philosophical descendants vividly echo the teachings and practices of the Nazi past." Roder, et. al., p. xviii.
10) Religious Left (Liberation Theology)
a) "At least three major groups of the Religious Left exist in the United States. One of these, itself a movement with numerous subdivisions, including many of the clergy, denominational leaders, and academicians in America's largely liberal (in the theological sense) mainline denominations. A second branch of the Religious Left is composed of the growing number of politically liberal Roman Catholics in America. The third branch of the Religious Left is...the evangelical Left." Ronald H. Nash, Why the Left is Not Right, p. 11.
b) "K. L. Billingsley documents the shameful support that many socialist clergymen gave to Communist tyrants like Joseph Stalin and Mao Tse-Tung. Many left-wing American clergy acted as though Stalin was establishing the kingdom of God in the Soviet Union. Even while Stalin's secret police were murdering millions of their own countrymen, alleged spokesmen for Christ in America were praising what they saw as Stalin's efforts to bring about 'a just social order.' During the years of the Cold War, left-wing clergy in the mainline churches sometimes acted as if they wanted the Soviets and their allies to win. During the Vietnam War, many openly sided with the North Vietnamese cause. During the 1980s, Castro's Cuba and the Nicaraguan Sandinistas gave mainline liberals new causes to support." Ronald H. Nash, Why the Left Is Not Right, p. 17, 18.
c) "The radically liberal nature of the mainline Protestant denominations and the National Council of Churches (NCC) first received national attention in a shocking segment of CBS Television's 60 Minutes that aired on January 23, 1983. The program demonstrated NCC sympathy toward Marxist-Leninist revolutionaries and governments and documented the financial support the NCC and its member denominations have provided to such organizations." Ronald H. Nash, Why the Left Is Not Right, p. 18.
d) "Billingsley explains why he and so many others view the behavior of the radical Religious Left as an exercise in madness. 'The Christian faith is being turned by some into a public relations apparatus for totalitarianism.' There are and have been many mysteries in the Christian faith, but perhaps none so challenging as figuring out what has gone on in the thinking of Religious Left extremists." Ronald H. Nash, Why the Left Is Not Right, p. 29.
e) "The term 'New Left' refers to the trendy radicalism that many college students and college dropouts found exhilarating in the late sixties. During the ten years of its organized existence, the New Left changed dramatically. It mutated from a leftist-idealist student movement into a band of crypto-Communist nihilists. The New Left was Jim Wallis' political and ideological home during the late sixties, and he has never really abandoned his New Left anti-Americanism. What did change was his discovery that he could continue to be anti-American while putting a religious veneer on his radical politics." Ronald H. Nash, Why the Left Is Not Right, p. 31.
f) "The writings of the Religious Left typically exhibit adulation for socialism and contempt for capitalism. A prime example of this hostility toward capitalism can be found in the book Christians and Marxists by Jose Miguez Bonino, a Latin American Protestant. Miguez Bonino first delivered the content of his book to evangelical audiences in London, England, under the auspices of John Stott, noted British evangelical and former rector of All Souls Church in London. The book, published by a noted evangelical publishing house [Eerdmans], has been widely used as a required textbook in evangelical colleges and seminaries." Ronald H. Nash, Why the Left Is Not Right, p. 45.
g) "Another book widely hailed by the evangelical Left is The Good News of the Kingdom Coming by Andrew Kirk. Kirk was associate director of the London Institute for Contemporary Christianity, the group that gave Miguez Bonino the platform for the lectures on which his book is based. The institute had strong ties both to John Stott and to All Souls Church. Kirk's book, from a different evangelical publisher [InterVarsity], also received wide use as a textbook in evangelical schools. Like Miguez Bonino, Kirk holds that capitalism is incompatible with biblical principles. In Kirk's view, there is an essential political and economic dimension to God's kingdom and to the gospel. This indispensable dimension turns out to be Kirk's own peculiar brand of socialism." Ronald H. Nash, Why the Left Is Not Right, p. 46, 47.
h) "Jim Wallis' efforts to portray himself as a moderate is contradicted by many of his past actions and statements. A notable example of this was the publication in 1989 of an unusual twenty-eight page document titled The Road to Damascus. Wallis and the Sojourners organization served as the American distributor of the publication....To make certain that the point won't be missed, the document identifies 'anti-Communist evangelicals' as members of the forces of darkness. In other words, good Christians must be pro-Communist; anti-Communists are bad Christians. Anti-Communist Christians are like Saint Paul before his conversion: enemies of Christ and of the Christ faith. The documents calls them to conversion-a conversion to Marxism." Ronald H. Nash, Why the Left Is Not Right, p. 71.
i) "[John Richard] Neuhaus branded as shameful the silence of supposedly responsible Christians in th
The Heart, Mind and Soul of Communism
by Dr. Fred C. Schwarz
In 1917, in a café in Geneva, Switzerland, an intensely ambitious and fanatical man sat writing furiously. He had written there for many years, in exile from his native land of Russia, living in the expectation of the great day of revolution when he would be called to the center of the world's stage. He was the acknowledged leader of a small Marxist sect, the Bolshevik section of the Russian Social Democratic Labor Party. To the majority of Marxists he was an extremist, unduly schismatic, tinged with anarchistic ideas, sincere but dangerous. He had, scattered throughout Russia and the prisons of the world, 40,000 followers, devoted to their leader, equally fanatical, and unreservedly dedicated to the ideas of revolution and world conquest. His name was Vladimir Ilich Lenin.
Suddenly, in February of 1917, the news burst upon the world of a great Russian upheaval. The Czar was dethroned, a parliament was established to guide the steps of a new-born republic, and the Social Revolutionary leader, Kerensky, was called to the helm. Lenin and his scattered followers hastened to the new center of revolution, Petrograd, since renamed Leningrad. Stalin returned from Siberian exile, Trotsky came from a Canadian concentration camp, and Lenin traveled by armored train across embattled Germany to his native land, leaving Geneva, the city of his exile. On arrival Lenin announced to the other nonbolshevik revolutionaries that he alone, supported by his bolshevik fragment, would conquer and rule the vast territories of Russia. They looked at him in amazement and said, "Farewell Lenin the Marxist; welcome Lenin the Anarchist." Zealously, scientifically, and ruthlessly he set to work to make his prediction come true. In April he renamed the Bolshevik section of the Russian Social Democratic Labor Party the Communist Party of Russia. In October the Communists organized a second revolution, overwhelmed the new infant republic, and Lenin became dictator of all Russia.
There then came to pass the modern miracle of the world. An expansive program of conquest was initiated which has been successful beyond the wildest drams of avarice. History records no movement growing, conquering, consolidating, and expanding as Communism has unceasingly done since that time. The statistics are startling, even terrifying. In 1917 they had 40,000 followers; in 1966 they controlled more than one billion. The number of actual communists is over 43 million. To consummate their dream of world conquest they merely need to multiply the present population under their control by less than 3. Anyone who is not startled and profoundly alarmed by these figures is evidently free from the responsibilities of rational comprehension, satisfied to live a mere animal existence with no thought of the morrow.
How has this tremendous success been accomplished? What tremendous dynamic of power is concealed within the categories of Communism that has driven it forward as an irresistible whirlwind? How has it managed to captivate the mind and imagination of young and old, mobilize the intelligence, loyalty and capacity to sacrifice of those so captivated, discipline them and transform them into the mold of a Communist Cadre and then send them forth-limitless in enthusiasm, confident of victory, careless of personal death-to lay waste and conquer the earth?
WHAT IS COMMUNISM?
Communism is a religion of promise. It has advanced across the world on the wings of a promise. The promise is two-fold in nature. One aspect of the Communist promise is very well known, but the other is almost unknown. One aspect appeals to the poor, the ignorant, and the underprivileged; the other aspect appeals to the wealthy, the intellectually superior, and the idealistic reformers.
To the poor of the earth-and they are legion-the servants of Communism go with this message: "Follow me, and I will build a new world for you and your children, a world from which hunger and cold have been forever banished; a world in which war and pestilence are mere historic memories; a world without exploitation of man by man; a world without racial animosity and discrimination; a world of peace and plenty; a world of culture and intellect; a world of brotherhood, liberty, and justice." Can you imagine the appeal of this promise to those millions living in the narrow no-man's land between malnutrition and starvation, never having had the comfortable sensation of retiring to bed after a full and satisfying meal in the knowledge that at least food and raiment for the days ahead are assured? Can you imagine the appeal of this promise to the millions who watch their children die in birth or during their first year, the victims of filth, starvation, and preventable disease carried by flies and mosquitoes? The force of this appeal is multiplied when the messenger is obviously sincere and is willing to leave his own home and the land of his birth, to forsake his family and loved ones to carry this message to these unfortunate poor. Identifying himself with their woes, he lives like them, eats their food, and daily risks his life to bring the message he bears to more and more who stand in dire need. Surely it does not require any great faculty of imagination to understand the tremendous appeal such a program must have in those dark lands of ignorance, illiteracy, hunger, and disease-the lands of the East. That aspect of the Communist promise is widely known and easily understood.
There is a second portion of the promise that is used, not to captivate the poor, but to seduce the rich; not to enlighten the ignorant, but to enlist the educated; not to bribe the cynical, but to ensnare the idealistic. Not only is there to be a new society created, but there is also to emerge a new and finer mankind. Human nature itself is to be transformed into something infinitely finer and more beautiful. Mankind is to be redeemed from vice, depravity, and sin in all its forms. The Methodist hymn well expresses this vision in the following words:
These things shall be; a mightier race
Than ere the world has seen shall rise
With light of knowledge in their eyes.
Evangelical Christians, above all others, should be able to understand the appeal of such a promise. They are dedicated to the redemption of man through the Gospel of the Grace of God revealed in Jesus Christ. How they rejoice when a wayward sinner finds his way in repentance and faith to the foot of the Cross of Calvary and rises a new man in Christ Jesus. What a rejoicing there was in Christian circles a few years back when in the Billy Graham campaign a prominent radio announcer and a minor gangster found Christ. The very temperature of the evangelical Christian climate was raised-hearts rejoiced, purses and pocketbooks opened, and many Christians received a new vision and made a new dedication of their lives to Christ.
Communism is not a program to cure one or two, but to cure all of the sins of the whole world. Its plan is not to reform one drunkard but to eliminate all drunkenness, all crime, all vice, and everything that spoils and mars what man should be. Surely the appeal of such a vison can be well understood. Often during the question time at the conclusion of an address, the following request is made: "Please explain the appeal Communism has to those who have nothing to gain and everything to lose by its success. I can understand its appeal to the poor and ignorant, but please explain to me how it appeals to millionaires, college professors, and ministers of religion. That I cannot understand." Surely this problem presents no difficulty when we see the promise of the creation of a new and redeemed mankind. What nobler vision could any man have? To this mighty task every capacity of body and mind should be dedicated-the task of creating a New Heaven and New Earth wherein the redeemed may dwell. Failure to comprehend this central truth is responsible for some of the most common misconceptions with regard to Communism. How often we used to hear it said, "Communism is all very well in theory, but it won't work because of the weakness of human nature." No Communist every proposed to establish the Communist society with present sinful nature. Before the social order of Communism can come to pass, the new and redeemed mankind must emerge from the ashes of the destroyed Capitalistic Civilization.
COMMUNISM AND SCIENCE
To promise is one thing; to fulfill is another. How do the communists propose to bring their promise to pass? By what means will they be enabled to work this incredible transformation? The Communists answer by one word: "SCIENCE."
During the last century a tremendous transformation has been wrought in the material world. How many of us would be willing to return to the condition of life enjoyed-pardon the word-by our great great grandparents of that era? Imagine what you would do when punished by a toothache-a visit to the barber who did his best with the assistance of a large pair of forceps and two or three strong helpers. The story of surgery of those days would turn the stomach of the strongest. It was a nightmare of agony, haste, ignorance, dirt, germs, suppuration, and death. It was a world without electricity and all it brings, without modern transportation, without central heating, refrigeration, trash disposal or even primitive sanitary facilities in populous areas. It was a world without baths, as bathing is a modern habit. It was a world of ignorance, pain, hardship, disease, and premature death. Every baby born had but half the life expectancy of those here today. What has wrought the change? The answer is one word, "SCIENCE."
Consider the world of agriculture, with the quality, variety, and abundance of food products, not to mention the world of beauty and flowers. A mere century or two ago the economist, Malthus, could mathematically prove that mankind would always be fighting famines by the very nature of things. Animal life, including humans, must always increase more rapidly than their food supply. Yet today the people of this country live in a land of abundance, veritably a paradise of profusion, enjoying food of the highest quality practically unrestricted. What has brought about this profusion of food products? Science, with its application of scientific principles of plant breeding, resulting in the development of species of plants suitable to the individual terrain and the climatic characteristics of the various regions of the country. A whole chapter could be devoted to the study of corn alone-the different varieties, its disease resistance, its special flavors for human consumption, its adaptability to the most specialized features of topical and climatic conditions of any area. Science has transformed the world of agriculture.
A very similar story could be told in the realm of animal husbandry. The domestication of animals; the selective breeding of the most productive strains of poultry, sheep, and cattle; the building of characteristics suitable for peculiar environments-all this has been so convincingly accomplished with great benefit to the human race. The Communists propose to use this same Science to transform human nature itself. The idea is provocative yet fascinating. How do they propose to apply scientific principles? Let us inquire further.
Science consists of a knowledge of the laws of nature and of an application of the forces of nature, within the framework of those laws, to accomplish a desired purpose. Science is dependent upon the laws of nature; it cannot act independently of them. Let us take the manufacture of steel as a scientific process. Steel cannot be made out of good intentions, by the mere application of industrious, well intentioned effort: it cannot be created from brotherly love. Steel is the end-product of a scientific sequence of steps. Firstly, the correct raw material must be secured-the coal and iron ore. Then these raw materials must be treated in the appropriate manner, associated together in the correct relationship of temperature and humidity. There is an inescapable sequence of scientific steps before the end product can mature. There can be no steel without the furnace; the heat of the furnace may be searing and terrible, but there is no escaping it. There is a sequence of steps involved in any scientific project, and none of these steps can be eluded because they are distasteful.
Communism acquired great prestige among the intellectuals by reason of its claim to be scientific. Its creators, Marx and Engels, grouped together all preceding socialists under the heading "utopian." They considered them unrealistic dreamers, unaware of the nature of social and economic laws and the steps necessary to produce a new Communist man. The most famous classical document of Communism is the pamphlet by Engels entitled "Socialism-Utopian and Scientific." It has been translated into more languages than the Communist Manifesto itself.
Scientific Marxism begins with three basic hypotheses to serve as the foundation for the scientific program. These may be classified as follows:
- Atheism
- Materialism
- Economic Determinism
ATHEISM
Communism clearly enunciates, "There is no God." Karl Marx was an atheist before he was a Communist. Atheism was his first and last intellectual love. His earliest writings were attempts to prove that the German philosopher, Hegel, was an atheist. From the fiber and texture of his atheism he built his philosophy and program of Communism. His greatest disciple, Lenin, commences his pamphlet on religion with the words, "Atheism is a fundamental portion of Marxism, of the theory and practice of scientific socialism." Communism without atheism is cancer without malignancy, a contradiction in terms. When Communism rejects God, it simultaneously rejects all supernatural moral law, all absolute criteria of truth and error. It abolishes heaven and hell and all absolute values associated with human life. Man is left in a battlefield where the laws are his own to make or break, where all codes of ethics and morality are relative, discretionary and subject to change. The criterion of moral value becomes objective success; the world becomes a pragmatist's dream.
MATERIALISM
Having disposed of the question of God, the next subject to be considered was the nature of man. Here Communism is equally specific: man is matter in motion and nothing more. The entire universe of which man is a part is entirely material. Thought is a quality of matter; matter thinks; the brain secretes thought as the liver secretes bile. The total life of mankind-thoughts, emotions, sentiments, culture and religion-are simply the product of the motion of his material constituents. Man is an animal and nothing more. In the dim past ages of antiquity, by some yet unknown materialistic process, a chemical aggregation of molecules took to itself the quality of being matter; a unicellular, proto-plasmic, primordial mass came into being and an evolutionary sequence of events commenced. Reproduction, differentiation, selection, mutation, and countless more materialist phenomena ensued and all life came into being. At the apex of the evolutionary tree there stands man, the first of the animals, yet an animal and no more. He has no spirit, nor yet any soul. As there is no God he obviously cannot have been made in the image of that which does not exist. There is no continuity associated with individual life; there is no heaven to gain or hell to shun. There is no special value associated with every individual life. Each human is an animal; the totality of the individuals comprise the human race; the future of the race is significant, that of the individuals is insignificant. The race of mankind can be scientifically improved by recourse to the normal laws and techniques of animal husbandry.
ECONOMIC DETERMINISM
The human individual possesses certain characteristics of social and individual life, certain patterns of thought and emotional life. How is the personality and character of each individual derive? What determines what each animal shall think? What emotions shall accompany such thoughts? What shall be the pattern of moral, social, and religious behavior that emerges? It is at this point that Marx makes his greatest contribution to human thought, so we are told. This is the discovery which, according to his great co-worker, Frederick Engels, transformed economics from empiricism to science. In simple language here it is: The entire personality, including thoughts, emotions, religious experiences, family attitudes, sentiments, and artistry is derived from the prevailing mode of economic production. We are the captive creation of the Capitalistic System. It has ordained what we shall think, how we shall feel, and what we shall do in any given situation. The Communist Manifesto makes this lucidly plain. It specifically states that the family as we know it-the hallowed relationship of parent and child-is derived from the Capitalistic Economic System and that parental love will vanish with the vanishing of Capitalism. It goes further and specifically states that the concepts of freedom and justice are derivatives of the class struggle, and that when class struggle ceases the concepts will disappear. No one is individually responsible for his character or thought. As his class of social origin has determined, so he things, feels and acts. To change character and personality what is needed is a basic change in the economic system.
It follows logically that all undesirable human characteristics are derived from the prevailing economic system. Communists are realists. They affirm the depravity of human nature; everywhere men and women are lazy, ignorant, self-indulgent, patriotic, and religious-no one could build a Communistic social order from such poor raw material. The first essential is a radical program to purify and perfect mankind. This must be done in a scientific manner. The inescapable sequence of scientific steps is as follows, some of which will be further discussed in more or less detail:
- Destruction of the Capitalistic System, the root of all evil, by a violent revolution.
- Institution of the Dictatorship of the Proletariat.
- Liquidation of those classes of society incurably diseased by capitalism and considered dangerously infective.
- Segregation of those diseased but capable of useful work in conditions of isolation.
- Hospitalization of the diseased but curable in "corrective" labor camps.
- Re-education of the total population in new relationships of labor with the emphasis on labor rather than reward.
- The emergence of the young generation with characters uninfluenced by Capitalism and appropriate to a socialist environment.
- The perfection of human nature.
- The withering away of the State; the Dictatorship of the Proletariat.
- The emergence of Communism.
THE DESTRUCTION OF CAPITALISM
This must be accomplished by a violent revolution. The Communists have always been perfectly frank on this subject. Beginning with the Communist Manifesto, which says, "We openly declare that our ends can be attained only by the forcible overthrow of all existing social conditions," the identical sentiment has been repeated ad nauseam in all the writings of the Communist hierarchy and in official pronouncements of the Comintern and the Cominform. They categorically reject any suggestion that the transition from Capitalism to Socialism can be by the peaceful pathway of reform. One of the principal epithets of abuse in a somewhat extensive vocabulary is the word "reformist,' a term of ridicule and contempt. Scientific law has written that the change-over must be both revolutionary and violent. This is determined both from their philosophy of dialectical materialism and from a fake evaluation of the economic forces in society. To use a Marxian analogy: Force is the midwife to deliver the Socialist order from the womb of a decadent Capitalism. Originally the transition was to be the operation of spontaneous forces automatically produced by the progress of Capitalism. The maturing of the Capitalistic Society inevitably produced the Proletariat, the propertyless mass of industrial slaves who became the grave-diggers of Capitalism. However, a new twist came to the ideas when Bolshevism was born at the Congress of the Russian Social Democratic Labor Party in 1903. Lenin, the founder of Bolshevism, and thus of Fascism, substituted the idea that the revolution was to result from the scientific planning and execution of the Party, which was the class-conscious vanguard of the Proletariat. He replaced the idea of spontaneity with the idea of a planned conspiracy. Every Party member became a disciplined conspirator dedicated to the goal of the overthrow of the government by force and violence. The action of the government in charging the leading members of the Party with conspiracy to violently destroy constitutional government is soundly based and an excellent demonstration of "government by law" within the framework of a democracy.
In 1917 the party of Lenin achieved the first success in its campaign for world conquest when it organized a violent revolution in Russia bringing it to absolute power. Beset as he was with incredible difficulties, Lenin nevertheless took the requisite time in 1920 to write a textbook to direct the Communist conspirators of the world in the technique of organizing the violent revolution to seize power in their own respective countries. The book is one of the Communist classics, a 'must" in reading for every recruit and is entitled Leftwing Communism-An Infantile Disorder. It is the blue print for the internal conquest of countries by Communism. It is one of the most cynical, yet Satanically clever, books ever written. Lenin shows how as true scientists, Communists must manipulate the forces in each country from behind the scenes and have millions unconsciously working for them. The key to the program is the word "Infiltration"-infiltration of governments, of churches, of sporting bodies, of social clubs; infiltration of institutions of any and every kind, but above all, infiltration of industrial labor unions. All of these named and implied organizations are to be so scientifically manipulated as to bring to pass a violent revolution. Suffice it for our present purposes to say that in 1949, in Australia a mere handful of Communists, just 7000 in a population of 8,000,000-less than 0.1% of our people following in detail the blue print of Lenin, came close to the conquest of the entire country without receiving one dollar or one man from outside to support them.
THE DICTATORSHIP OF THE PROLETARIAT
The old-fashioned Marxists reasoned thus; Capitalism is the root cause of all human sin; destroy the Capitalistic System and we will destroy sin. They believed that after the revolution they would be able to introduce a form of society in which men would be free and in which they would receive enough for every need. But into this honeymoon of optimism there came the grim voice of the scientific realist, Lenin. In effect he said: My dear friends, you have forgotten something very important. You are really a crowd of idealistic utopian dreamers. Certainly all human frailty, ignorance, and avarice are derived from the Capitalistic System. That is axiomatic. But you say that all we have to do to remove sin is to destroy the Capitalistic System. You try to go too quickly. When we have destroyed the root of all evil, the fruit remains in the characters of the many millions of the earth who are diseased and deformed. It is true that their diseased condition will vary in the different countries, but nevertheless mankind in general remains ignorant, illiterate, indolent, avaricious, class-conscious, patriotic, and religious. Before the true Communistic Society can be created, these disease characteristics. a hangover from Capitalism, must be eliminated. To do this, an intelligently applied scientific program, based on the established principles of animal husbandry, must be implemented. To do this, it is necessary to have a strong and intelligent power to carry out the program. In the progressive quality of its dialectic heart, history has appointed the Communist Party, the self-conscious. enlightened vanguard of the Proletariat, for this role. Therefore we must establish an absolute dictatorship for this party. We will call it the ''Dictatorship of the Proletariat."
Nearly all of the above paragraph is constituted of ideas and thoughts which Lenin expressed to his less-realistic Marxist friends. On page 43 of his book Problems of Leninism, published by the Foreign Languages Publishing House of Moscow, Stalin defines the term "Dictatorship of the Proletariat" as "The rules based on force and unrestricted by law, of the Proletariat over the Bourgeoisie." Put simply this means the rule, based on force and unrestricted by law, of the Communist Party over everyone else. Stalin's definition, as given above, is profoundly interesting. He, along with all other true Communists, rejects two cardinal principles of civilization. The first principle is ''The government of law." The power of the Communists is specifically to be unrestricted by law. The second principle is "Government by Consent." The power of the Communists is openly based on force. In this way do the Communists turn back the clock from civilization to barbarism.
Having established the dictatorship of the Communist Party it now becomes their duty to scientifically implement a program directed to the elimination of the residual Capitalist disease and the building of a new and redeemed race of Socialist men and women so that Communism may ultimately come to pass. The steps of this program will now be considered.
LIQUIDATION OF INFECTIOUS SOCIAL CLASSES
The problem has entered the familiar and well-trodden pathway of animal husbandry. The problem may be presented thus: The husbandman, the Communist Party, has transferred his herds from the diseased environment of Capitalism to the disease-free environment of Socialism. Unfortunately, the animals bring with them the disease contracted in their old environment. The dominant motive of the husbandman is to breed a new stock, entirely free from this disease. This cannot be done in a day. Obviously he will have to concentrate on the new generation for his finished product and utilize his present stock in the best possible manner to accomplish the necessary work of the new environment, without permitting them to transmit the disease to the young. The virility and infectiousness of the disease varies according to that portion of the old environment the animals inhabited. Certain environmental areas, i.e. certain classes of society, produce a more virulent and infectious disease. Obviously these animals must be eliminated for the well-being of the whole program. There is absolutely no element of reprisal or punishment in this liquidation; it is simply a necessary scientific procedure. The husbandman may presumably be very fond of certain diseased animals, but sentiment has no place in a scientific program; the animal must go. This is entirely logical within the framework of the Communist beliefs. Remember there is no God; man is pure animal there is no question of soul or spirit, of heaven or hell, to be considered. This is simply scientific human betterment on a mass scale. There is, in general, a complete misunderstanding as to the Communist attitude toward killing in a Socialist Society. I have been a known opponent of Communism for many years, having challenged Communists to debate on any platform in the world. How often friends have said to me, "If the Communists come to power you will be one of the first to be killed." I always pretend innocence and reply, "Is that so? Why?" I am then informed that the Communists will punish me because I have opposed them. I hasten to reply that this reveals a complete failure to understand the very mind of Communism. They do not punish or reward. These are Bourgeois ideas that have no place within a redeemed Communist mind. No enlightened Communist blames me for my opposition to Communism. I am merely the unfortunate victim of my economic environment. Unfortunately I am diseased, and thus a danger to the whole program of human betterment. So I must be liquidated, but no more so than all other members of my social class. Since all personality is derived from our social class, all members of a given class have actually or potentially the dangerous disease of character, and they must be eliminated. The treatment you are to receive should the Communists come to power is entirely unrelated to the attitude you have adopted to them in the past. Opposition begets no penalty, and support begets no reward. A Bourgeois class of origin begets liquidation.
Thus the mass-murder program of Communism is a logical and inescapable consequence of their basic beliefs It is science in action. So many have been deceived on this point. They attribute the bestiality and excesses of Communism to the national characteristics of certain races-to Russian imperialism, to Asiatic cruelty, to a Jewish conspiracy of revenge; to anything and everything except the real culprit--that system of ideas and beliefs known as Communism. The murder of millions in Russia was not the excess due to a barbaric past; the liquidation of millions proceeding a pace in China is not an example of Oriental cruelty. It is scientific Communism in action. Anglo-Saxon Communism will be just as scientifically ruthless, just as dehumanized as the Russian and Chinese varieties; it believes the same things, and it is as true today as ever, "As a man thinketh in his heart, so he is."
A short while ago I was in Edinburgh, Scotland, and I became involved in argument with a group of Communists conducting a meeting in the main thoroughfare, Princess Street. In the midst of the argument one Communist asked me, "Well, what is freedom?" I replied, "You might define freedom as the right to live like an American, inhabit a comfortable and centrally heated home, drive your own automobile, own a refrigerator, a washing machine, a radio, a television set, eat all the food you desire, and have an argument like this without the police cutting your throat." He replied, "If I was a policeman, I would cut your throat." I said, "Do you really mean that?" He replied, "I certainly do." I called to the surrounding crowd, "Listen to this; here is a good object lesson." Another Communist intervened, "We've all got to die sometime. What does it matter if you die a little sooner instead of later?" They were not angry; they were not facetious; they were simply stating sound Communistic doctrine. Man is an animal. Individual life is insignificant. In the great and noble task of redeeming mankind why worry over a few early deaths by the way.
Thus we see the consistent logic of the Communists. Should you ask them, "You inhuman monsters; do you mean to say you would murder in cold blood millions of people?" they would unhesitatingly reply, "What do you mean by murder? That is a Bourgeois term. Nature has been killing people by countless millions for centuries, killing them by hunger, war, disease, and old age; killing them to no purpose. We have a purpose, and a noble one, and should we hesitate to take the necessary steps because they are unpleasant to our Bourgeois prejudices? How unworthy we would be of the task history has entrusted to us." Cold, inexorable, scientific logic.
Recently I conversed with two very well known men, each of whom had been a member of the American Communist Party for many years. Of both I asked the same question. "What are the plans of the American Communist Party with regard to liquidation in this country?" Both replied in this vein: I often heard it discussed in Party circles. The argument went like this. This character disease is derived from the Capitalistic System. Capitalism in America is more developed than in any other country. Therefore its imprint in personality is deeper. The percentage to be liquidated here will be correspondingly higher. As a tentative figure shall we say about one-third of the American people will be marked for liquidation.
From the two similar answers recounted in the preceding paragraph, we learn that the Communists plan to put to death a mere fifty million people, more or less, based on the present population level in the United States. Who are these people to be? The prime factor to be considered is class of social origin. Mrs. Sikorsky gives an official list of classes designated in the rape of Lithuania and Poland in her book, The Dark Side of the Moon. Of special interest to church people is "Category 13," which includes persons active in parishes. clergymen, secretaries, and active members of religious communities. In Lithuania the lists for liquidation and deportation included about 700,000 out of a total population of 3,000.000, slightly less than the one-third proposed for America. But Lithuania had not advanced so far in a Capitalistic sense as has America.
Should the Communist menace conquer this country, it may comfort you to know that the hand that condemns you and your family to death is driven not by malicious vindictive hatred, but by scientific necessity.
LABOR CAMPS
Not all those diseased are immediately liquidated by bullet or bayonet. Others go by the slower pathway of overwork and starvation. Let us return to our animal husbandry analogy. The herd has been transferred to the new environment of Socialism. In this environment, a great deal of work cries out to be done, and there is a totally inadequate supply of clean stock for the purpose. It is therefore reasonable to select diseased animals in whom the disease is not overwhelmingly contagious, segregate them, and put them to work until they die. They are not allowed to breed and thus contaminate the future race, but they can be useful in segregation. This is done under arduous conditions of climatic extremes, overcrowding, malnutrition and frequent death. Nevertheless, much work useful to Socialism is thus accomplished. Canals and railways are built; salt, coal, gold, and uranium are mined; lumber is felled for export, and cities are built in the frozen Arctic wastes. In these conditions of labor the average time to die takes approximately three years, and much work is accomplished in that time.
This is what the labor camps are in practice but in theory they are something quite different. They are "personality hospitals" in which the disease due to Capitalism can be cured. The cause of the disease is the false labor relations of the Capitalistic Society wherein labor is associated with profit and reward. The cure consists in being established in new labor relations where labor is its own reward. Where it is divorced from the degradation of gain. We term these "slave labor camps," because in them people are forced to labor and receive nothing in return but the merest minimum of food to maintain existence. The Communists say our opinion is only a revelation of our Bourgeois ignorance. The Communists maintain that these slave labor camps are actually only 'personality hospitals" wherein people can be re-educated, healed of their grievous Capitalistic disease and become fit members of the new Socialistic Society. Were you to say to a Communist, "You beast! You mean you would send a twelve year old boy to serve ten years in a labor camp?" He would reply "If your son was sick would you send him to a hospital?" There is a consistency of logic and an ethical justification for every inhumanity and bestiality Communism commits. This insulates them from the appeals of reason decency and humanity. They even provide these "personality hospitals" free. What generous people they are ! As the reader retires tonight it would be a profitable theme of meditation to ponder which he would prefer-immediate liquidation, or re-education in a labor camp. The alternative may soon emerge from the realm of theory to intensely practical politics.
MASS RE-EDUCATION
While the labor camps provide specialized hospitalization, the less fortunate sufferers are not being overlooked. Re-education is provided for them by a new attitude toward labor. Work is now taught to be the great creative force that built the universe and that it is its own reward. However, work nevertheless must bring with it remuneration appropriate to its measure. Every means of speed-up in industry is introduced; labor is exploited in every possible way. The slogan is: "From every man according to his ability; to every man according to his work." The unions become instruments of the dictatorship for the speed up of work and a means of discipline over the workers. Strikes are forbidden and any incitement to strike is a capital offense. Every factory has its own jails, late arrival to work is sabotage and absenteeism is treason. Under these ideal working conditions a new attitude toward labor develops; a new character emerges; the new Socialist man is on the way.
THE EMERGENCE OF YOUNG UNMARRED BY CAPITALISM
Along with this vast program of re-education the much simpler program of the education of the new-born Socialist children comes into being. These have the inestimable benefits of birth into a clean environment. There is no vicious profit motive to despoil them, no patriotism to degrade, and no religion to debauch. All they need is scientific indoctrination and an appropriate conditioning to fulfill all the needs of the most exacting Socialist master. The sin of bygone days becomes an unpleasant memory. The task of the dictatorship is approaching conclusion.
THE EMERGENCE OF COMMUNISM
As the program of science proceeds and the perfection of personality comes to pass, the rigid state of the dictatorship, with its restrictions on human freedom, becomes unnecessary, and the state begins to wither away. Gradually, by imperceptible degrees, the golden age of Communism comes to pass, in which everyone works for the sheer love of working, everyone gives because it is the glory of his heart so to do. The hand of no man is raised in anger against his brother; the wolf lies down with the lamb; the small child plays on the cockatrice's den, the tuberculous organisms lose their virility; the cancer cells lose their malignity. Everyone takes from the common pool all they need, and men the whole world over brothers are. The slogan of this period is, "From every man according to his ability; to every man according to his need."
This is the dream, the vision that lures men to the Communist hook, the goal at the end of the rainbow. The Communists have achieved portions of it-the violent and destructive revolution, the mass extermination, and the vile labor camps. The rest remains in the realm of pure hypotheses where it is doomed to die with many past Marxian illusions. Every fact of Communist history contradicts the specious optimism that human nature will perfect itself under the dictatorship of the Proletariat. The evidence against this thesis provided by the Communists themselves is shattering. Take the deterioration that has taken place in the character of leading Communists under the Russian system. In 1917 the Central Committee consisted of 31 members and alternates. The leader, Lenin, attributed the entire success of the Revolution to the sterling characters. undying devotion and invincible selflessness of this group. Everyone of them had suffered much for the cause in prison and out of prison, in exile and out of exile. In torture and imminent danger of death they remained loyal, devoted, and invincible. It is noteworthy that these fine characters were formed under Capitalism. At long last the golden day of their dreams came to pass and Socialism covered one sixth of the surface of the earth. Freed from the vicious influence of the Capitalist System, what wonderful people they must have become! Let the Communists tell us what happened to them. Lenin and Sverdlov died before Stalin came to power. Alexandra Kollontai lived to die a natural death The remainder degenerated into such offal, such swine, such treacherous wild beasts, such hyenas using Communist terminology--that every one had to be put to death. When Lenin died in 1924 the Politbureau. the highest body of world Communism, had seven members-Zinoviev, Kamenev, Stalin, Bukharin, Trotsky, Rykov, and Tomsky. Stalin alone survived. All the others degenerated and had to be destroyed. The perfection of character is thus revealed as a delusion; the chain of events breaks down the golden future fades and we are left with the intolerable nightmare of the dreadful present the dictatorship, the extermination program, the labor camp, horror piled on horror, a veritable living hell. Farewell, perfection. The beast is here and here he remains.
Truly the Bible says, "The fool has said in his heart there is no God. They have altogether become corrupt, they have done abominable works; there is none that doeth good." From the tainted source of rebellion against God. the poisoned stream of massacre and slavery flows. At its very source, Communism is the epitome of evil. Unless we see this we have no clear vision of where to attack Communism. It must be rejected in its premises--its atheism, its materialism, and its economic determinism. Just as cancer is evil at its origin because of its rebellion against the authority of the body, and just as its later manifestations of agony, horror, and foul-smelling death spring from the laws of its being, so the later manifestations of Communism are but the scientific derivatives of its evil premises. How many avowed Christian leaders have failed to see this. Not long ago I asked the secretary of a certain council of churches at what point the majority of his members turned against Communism. He replied, "After they invaded Czechoslovakia." I said, "Is that the point at which atheism became wrong?"' Communism is scientific bestiality; it is hellish in origin and execution.
WHAT CAN I DO?
Always there arises the question, "What can I do? I would like very much to help in this great battle, but I seem so inadequate. The issues are beyond me. When the problem defies the masterminds of state, college, and church, what hope have I of making any significant contribution?'"There is something everyone can do and it consists in four things: knowledge, courage, faith, and consecration.
KNOWLEDGE
Whenever the medical profession endeavors to combat a serious disease, the first essential is a vast program of research into the nature of the disease, its causes the laws of its development, the conditions favorable to its spread, and wherein its weakness-its "heel of Achilles"-lies, so that it may be attacked and defeated. Understanding is the irreducible minimum of effective counter-action. Ignorant opposition is frequently valuable assistance to the Communist cause. The quality of ignorance and misunderstanding, at all levels of intellect and education, of the nature and mind of Communism is startling. I could amplify this article with illustration after illustration of the most pitiable ignorance revealed to me personally by high military officers, university professors and ministers of religion. Such statement s as the following we hear every day, and they reveal total incomprehension of the nature of Communism. The first statement is, "We must acknowledge the good in Communism and realize it is primarily a reaction to the evils of Capitalistic Society." The good in Communism is like the "good" in tuberculosis, unappreciated by the victim. Again we hear "It is possible to preserve peace with Communism " when the Communists' very thought processes define the existing state as class war. Or yet again we hear, "We must eliminate social abuses so that Communism may not flourish." Cancer was never cured by improving the general health. Knowledge is the first weapon in our arsenal of defense. The basic Communist texts are available and these should be studied so that we have an understanding of the Communist laws of thought and their blueprint of conquest. Knowledge is power.
COURAGE
What we discover when we investigate Communism is terrifying. The vastness of the danger oppresses us. We may react in one of two ways. The knowledge may be a "savor of death unto death or life unto life." We may become oppressed and throw in the towel, or we may gird ourselves for the battle, realizing how terrible it will be. Many individuals have to face situations of this nature. They visit their physician to be told they have the dread disease of cancer. They may react in one of two ways,--a defeat or a challenge. Some say! "All is finished, life is over," and in despair throw themselves under a train. Others say, "This is grim news, but I will do my best to overcome it, " and they make the decisions required courageously, rearrange their life routine, submit to the drastic surgery necessary, pay the heavy cost, and come through triumphantly. Courage transforms the dread knowledge into a challenge, a matchless sacrifice, a heroic endeavor and a glorious triumph.
FAITH
The Communists say, "There is no God." We know, "In the beginning, God." God has not abdicated from the throne of the universe. He is an active agent in history and makes even the wrath of man praise Him. We have His promises. "When the enemy shall come in like a flood; then will the Spirit of the Lord lift up a standard against him." If we will pray, live righteously, and trust in Him, He will not fail in our hour of need: "If God be for us, who can be against us?"
CONSECRATION
Communism has been able to mobilize the loyalty, discipline, and willingness to sacrifice even unto death of countless millions. In the final analysis faith can only be matched by faith, devotion by devotion, and consecration by consecration. Are we who name the name of Christ prepared to make equal sacrifices, to serve with equal unselfishness, to manifest like loyalty and devotion as those who name the name of Lenin?
Rise up, O Men of God,
Have done with lesser things.
Give heart and mind and soul and strength
Unto the king of Kings.
Rise up, O Men of God!
Why Communism Kills: The Legacy of Karl Marx
by Dr. Fred C. Schwarz
INTRODUCTION
by Dr. Walter Judd
In 1920, when I was working as a medical missionary in South China, I was introduced to Communism by long "indoctrination" by Chinese devotees. They were so sure of themselves that sometimes I had to wonder if their interpretation of human beings and society was factual and correct while ours was illusion and error.
One day I said to the persuader: "It is plain that you totally believe what you are saying, but I can't agree. I'm sure it is against human nature."
He exploded: "You Capitalists always talk about 'human nature;' but there is no such thing. Human beings are what you make them. Capitalism makes them acquisitive, selfish; it inevitably produces clashes and WAR. Communism makes persons selfless, with concern not for themselves as individuals, but for the whole society-the masses. Thus, Communism won't lead to clashes-and the whole world at last will have PEACE!"
But there IS such a thing as human nature; and in countries under Communist control, logic demands that there must be organized and systematic killing of humans.
I have not found a more profound student and interpreter of communism in our Western World than Dr. Fred Schwarz-no more lucid explainer of what Communists advocate and do-what they as Communists MUST do, and WHY. Dr. Schwarz understands that it is what Communists BELIEVE that requires their gaining control of the world, which in turn requires the killing of those who have been miscreated by their Capitalist environment and those who, in their ignorance or error, stubbornly resist.
May I urge careful study of the booklet by Dr. Schwarz. It is no secret that the fixed objective of Communists is the conquest (called liberation) of the U.S.A. followed by the conversion of all people still free into their version of the New Man.
Why Communism Kills
The Record of Communist Killing
Communism kills! This is not debatable. The record is crystal clear. The U.S. Senate Internal Security Subcommittee conducted investigations into the number killed in the Soviet Union and China. Their report stated that 35 million to 45 million had been killed in the Soviet Union and 34 million to 62.5 million in Communist China.
Even these figures are considered inadequate by authorities on the Soviet Union such as Solzhenitsyn and Antonov Ovesyenko. The latter, whose father led the Bolshevik storming of the Winter Palace in 1917, has recently published the book entitled The Time of Stalin-Portrait of a Tyranny. He calculates those killed as a result of the Communist conquest of Russia at 100 million.
Some apologists for Communism acknowledge that Communism has killed in the past, but they blame this on incidental factors such as the traditions of cruelty and violence which existed in the countries conquered by the Communists, and they do not believe that killing is an essential ingredient of communism itself. They believe that the triumph of Communism in the United States, England, or Western Europe would not lead to mass slaughter. Are they right or are they suffering from a dangerous delusion? To answer this question, it is necessary to know why Communism kills.
Why
A simple, direct answer to the question, "Why does communism kill?" is-because the founder of Communism, Karl Marx, told them it was necessary to kill a large segment of the population in order to attain the basic objective of Communism.
Marx states in the Manifesto of the Communist Party:
You must, therefore, confess that by "individual" you mean no other person than the bourgeois, than the middle-class owner of property. This person must indeed, be swept out of the way, and made impossible. (Published by Progress Publishers, Moscow, 1973 edition, page 66)
Apologists for Marxism contend that Marx did not intend that this statement should be taken literally. They affirm that he was referring to the gradual elimination of property owners by the transformation of the economic system which Communism would bring to pass. They cannot deny, however, that many followers of Karl Marx, including Stalin, Mao Tse-tung, and Pol Pot have taken this affirmation literally and have proceeded to kill the "middle-class owners of property" once they have acquired power.
To determine whether Marx intended this instruction to be taken literally, it is necessary to review the doctrines and objectives which Marx presented to his followers, and the programs which have been designed and executed to reach those objectives. It is necessary to know his vision of the future as well as his interpretation of the present. We must know what Marx believed and what the Communists continue to believe.
The Vision
Marx envisioned the creation of a new superior individual who would create a new society of unlimited abundance and freedom. It was the creation of a new earth, if not a new heaven, wherein "the redeemed" would dwell. This new man would be devoid of selfishness, greed, laziness, aggression, envy, malice, hate, and fear. He would be perfectly healthy, supremely intelligent, industrious, tolerant, generous and infinitely talented. By his industry and talents, he would create a society of abundance so that any individual could partake of all that he needed just as rich and poor today partake freely of the oxygen in the atmosphere. In this society, voluntary cooperation would replace coercion so there would be no need for governments, armies, police, courts, prisons and taxes. As each individual fulfilled his own desires, he would automatically minister to the well-being of others. In this classless, governmentless society, the slogan would be: "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need." The golden era of Communism would have dawned for all mankind.
The Marxist vision is seductive but delusional. It ignores the realities of human nature including physical and mental disease as well as intractable personality defects. Nevertheless, it is not difficult to understand its allure, particularly to young idealists.
The Means
How was this perfect individual and the resulting perfect society to be created? To skeptics, who asked this question, Marx had a ready answer: "By science." When Marx lived, science had achieved many miracles, and it was beginning to change to human condition. It has continued to accomplish incredible miracles since the death of Marx. It has transformed the material world by such things as the printing press, steam engine, internal combustion engine, radio, television, aviation, computers, and antibiotics; and it is now exploring new frontiers such as outer space and genetic engineering. Although many of these miracles did not exist during the lifetime of Karl Marx, his faith in the power of science was infinite. He believed that science could change human nature itself.
"Scientific" Laws
For science to be successful, it must operate in accordance with certain basic laws. Marx believed that he had discovered the laws which directed the formation of human nature and that it was possible to create a perfect human nature by programs based upon these laws. These laws are:
1. There is no God:
This concept is an essential element of Marxism. As Lenin stated: "Atheism is a natural and inseparable portion of Marxism, of the theory and practice of Scientific Socialism." If God exists and is in supreme command of the universe, He possesses discretionary power, and His actions cannot always be calculated accurately in advance. The whole edifice of Marxism collapses.
When Marx and the Communists deny the existence of God, they simultaneously deny the authority of the Ten Commandments, the existence of absolute standards of right and wrong, of good and evil; and man is left on the playing fields of the universe without a referee, without a book of rules. The winning side in any conflict can decide on what rules of conduct to apply. Morality is the creation of the victor.
2. Everything is material:
Marx proudly affirmed that he was a materialist. Mao Tse-tung summarizes the materialism of Marx with the statement: "There is nothing in the world apart from matter in motion." (On Contradiction, International Publishers Edition, 1953, page 20)
Marxism does not deny the existence of thought and spirit. It affirms that these are derivatives of matter; that the brain secretes thought as the liver secretes bile.
Since thought and emotions are the product of material elements, they can be controlled by controlling the material elements which produce them. Thus the materialism of Marx provides the basis for the control of ideas and attitudes and ultimately of human nature itself.
3. Human nature is the product of the economic environment in which the individual is raised.
Marx states in the Communist Manifesto: "Your very ideas are but the outgrowth of the conditions of your bourgeois production." (Page 67)
Engels, the co-author of the Manifesto, reaffirms this conviction of Marx when he states in his preface to the German edition of 1882: "The basic thought running through the Manifesto-that economic production, and the structure of society of every historical epoch necessarily arising therefrom, constitute the foundation for the political and intellectual history of that epoch." (Page 13)
Marxism teaches that the economic environment creates the ideas, attitudes and impulses that constitute human nature. It pays attention to the environment of infancy and childhood since the brain is undergoing more rapid development during this period. The experiences of life, provided by the economic environment, are stored up within the structure of the brain and ultimately reveal themselves in the thoughts and emotions of the mature individual.
4. A special environment creates a special class:
In order to live, it is necessary to secure food, clothing, housing and transportation. The lives of the vast majority of the people have been devoted to some facet of this productive process. As history develops, the methods of production change. New tools are created which create new environments.
Those people who shared the same experiences in the process of production generated the same brain structure. Consequently, they thought and felt alike. They formed a class.
In his analysis of the capitalist mode of production, Marx allegedly discovered two economic environments. One was that shared by those who owned the means of production. They formed a class which he named the bourgeoisie. The other environment was that of wage labor. The laborers formed the class known as the proletariat. Marx affirmed that a state of universal conflict existed between the bourgeoisie and the proletariat. He named this conflict the class struggle or the class war.
5. The proletariat must win:
Analyzing the capitalism of his era, Marx saw the class struggle between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie as the dynamic of modern history. He contended that he had discovered a scientific law which assured that the proletariat would be victorious in this struggle; that it would overthrow the bourgeoisie by a revolutionary process and establish its hegemony in every country and ultimately over the entire world. He and his co-laborer, Frederick Engels, were so convinced of the inevitability of this that Engels undertook the study of military science so that he could serve as commander-in-chief of the world proletarian armies. The Communist Manifesto ends with the grim warning: "Let the ruling classes tremble at a Communistic revolution. The proletarians have nothing to lose but their chains. They have a world to win." (Page 96)
The Regenerate Man
Marx believed that a scientific program based upon these laws could create a new and superb quality of human nature. This new man would possess such diverse talents that he would be able to perform a vast variety of functions.
He stated: "In communist society, where no one has one exclusive sphere of activity but each can become accomplished in any branch he wishes, society regulates the general production and thus makes it possible for me to do one thing today and another tomorrow, to hunt in the morning, fish in the afternoon, rear cattle in the evening, criticize after dinner, just as I have a mind, without ever becoming hunter, fisherman, shepherd, or critic." (Collected Works, Vol. V, page 275)
The philosopher, Sydney Hook, comments on this statement: "All we need to do to show its bizarre character is to recast Marx's schedule of activities in terms of modern vocations and avocations; to perform brain surgery in the morning, engage in nuclear research in the afternoon, do some gentle gene-splicing in the evening, and conduct a symphony after dinner, just as I have a mind to do without ever becoming a brain surgeon, or nuclear physicist, or geneticist, or conductor." (Marxism and Beyond, page 6)
Steps to Regeneration
Despite his capacity for self-delusion, Karl Marx did not believe that the desired condition known as Communism could emerge suddenly from existing capitalism. As the beautiful butterfly must pass through the stage of the caterpillar before it can fly in all its glory, Communism must pass through the stage of Socialism before the era of abundance and freedom can dawn. Steel can only be created by passing iron and coal through a fiery furnace, and Communism can only be created by passing society through the fires of revolution and dictatorship.
Communism is the hypothetical end result which will reward the survivors of the long march that is necessary to move from Capitalism to Communism. Steps on this long march include: 1) Revolution, 2) Dictatorship of the Proletariat, 3) Destruction of the Capitalist State, 4) Liquidation of the Bourgeoisie, 5) Creation of Socialism, 6) Creation of the New Socialist Man, 7) Withering Away of the State, and 8) Emergence of Communism.
1. Revolution:
Marx taught that a revolution to destroy Capitalism was both necessary and inevitable. He acknowledged the possibility that the revolution in England and the United States might be peaceful, but he believed that most revolutions would be violent. Lenin dismissed the possibility of peaceful revolution and declared that violence was essential.
A debate on the question whether revolution must be violent is presently raging in the ranks of the Communists. Certain Communist parties, known as Euro-Communist, such as the parties of Italy and Spain, believe that the revolution may be peaceful while others ridicule the idea as reformist. All are agreed that violence is permissible.
2. Dictatorship of the Proletariat:
The purpose of the revolution is to overthrow the existing government and to replace it by the dictatorship of the Proletariat, which is actually the dictatorship of the Communist Party over the proletariat. The Communist Party monopolizes all the levers of power.
Lenin defined the dictatorship of the proletariat as follows: "The dictatorship of the proletariat is the rule-unrestricted by law and based on force-of the proletariat over the bourgeoisie, a rule enjoying the sympathy and support of the laboring and exploited masses." (The State and the Revolution by Lenin as quoted in Problems of Leninism by J. Stalin, page 49)
3. The Destruction of the Capitalist State:
After a successful revolution, many of the institutions of the capitalist state remain relatively intact. These may include the army, the police force, the courts, the bureaucracy, and the educational system. If they are permitted to continue to exist, they pose a grievous threat to the new regime. Through them a counterrevolution may be organized which will threaten to overthrow the dictatorship of the proletariat. These residual institutions of the capitalist state must be destroyed.
Lenin was as concerned with the maintenance of power as with its seizure. He wrote the book The State and the Revolution to show how it was necessary to destroy residual state institutions in order to maintain Communist power. Above all, the army must be destroyed and replaced by a new army, a "Red Army."
4. Liquidation of the Bourgeoisie:
The Communists are followers of Karl Marx. They believe that the economic environment generates ideas and character. Their ultimate objective is to create the perfect character through the perfecting environment.
When the revolution is successful, the majority of the bourgeois class remains. In the words of Karl Marx, they must be "swept out of the way and made impossible." If this is not done, they will form the environment in which a substantial segment of the population is nurtured and will thus destroy the prospect of a perfect society.
The liquidation of the bourgeoisie is an essential step of the path to Communism. This is why Communism must kill.
Marxism in Cambodia
The leaders of the Cambodian Communist Party were convinced Marxists. The majority of them were converted to Marxism and Communism while they were students in France. Returning to Cambodia, they organized the Communist Party which they called the Khmer Rouge, and conquered Cambodia. They set out to be the best Communists the world had ever seen. They conducted the programs demanded by their Marxist doctrines with an amazing consistency and ruthlessness. These doctrines taught them that the environment generates character; that the capitalist environment generated an evil character; that the cities are the headquarters of capitalism; that the bourgeoisie must be liquidated and the residual people removed from the capitalist environment of the cities; that physical labor is regenerative.
Translating these doctrines into deeds, they ordered the evacuation of the cities of Cambodia. Everyone had to go. No one was exempt for humanitarian reasons. The people were animals and could be treated like animals. Three million people who were crowded into Phnom Penh, were ordered to leave the city in one day. Everyone had to leave just as they were. Children in schools were not permitted to go home and join their parents but were driven out of the city like cattle. Hospitals were emptied of doctors, nurses, and patients. The situation is described in the book Murder of a Gentle Land by John Barron and Anthony Paul, which is published by Reader's Digest Press:
Troops stormed into the Preah Ket Melea Hospital, Phnom Penh's largest and oldest, and shouted to patients, physicians and nurses alike. "Out! Everybody out! Get out!" They made no distinction between bedridden and ambulatory patients, between the convalescing and the dying, between those awaiting surgery and those who had just undergone surgery. Hundreds of men, women and children in pajamas limped, hobbled, struggled out of the hospital into the streets where the midday sun had raised the temperature to well over 100 degrees Fahrenheit. Relatives or friends pushed the beds of patients too wounded, crippled or enfeebled to walk, some holding aloft perfusion bottles dripping plasma or serum into the bodies of loved ones. One man carried his son, whose legs had just been amputated. The bandages on both stumps were red with blood, and the son, who appeared to be about twenty-two, was screaming, "You can't leave me like this! Kill me! Please kill me!" (Page 17)
The population of Cambodia was about 7 million. It is estimated that between two and three million died. The remainder were forced to engage in the physical labor necessary to grow rice.
The number of dead did not trouble the Communist leaders, and Ieng Sary, their foreign minister, said: "As long as we have one million left, that will be enough to make the new man."
Pol Pot and his associates have earned the right to be called the most consistent Marxists the world has ever seen.
In the Communist Program for human regeneration, killing is as necessary as the fire of the furnace is for the creation of steel
This program of slaughter is rational if the basic premises of Marxism are accepted. If there is no God who teaches, "Thou shalt not kill," and if people are merely animals, why should they not be treated as animals? Husbandmen who breed finer animals and destroy the inferior ones in the process are respected and honored throughout the world. The Communists believe that they are the husbandmen who have been selected by history to enact the programs that will result in the creation of perfect human animals. To hesitate to eliminate the diseased would be to betray their mission.
THE CREATION OF SOCIALISM
A successful revolution, the establishment of the Dictatorship of the Proletariat, the Destruction of the Capitalist State and the Liquidation of the Bourgeoisie do not lead directly to Communism. There is an additional stage through which society must pass before Communism emerges. This state is known as Socialism
The Communists often refer to their own special brand of socialism as "the first stage of Communism."
The slogan of Communism is: "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need," whereas that of Socialism is: "From each according to his ability, to each according to his work."
Few, if any, of the alleged blessings Communism promises are proffered by Socialism. Instead of abundance, there is scarcity; instead of freedom, there is universal coercion exercised by the Communist dictatorship; instead of being able to take whatever is needed, the individual receives a ration of scarce commodities in accordance with his productivity in society. Instead of no government, there is an enormous oppressive state apparatus.
Socialism reaches its zenith in the society of the Gulag Archipelago, where each individual and group is given an amount to work to be done. The work is measured by the goods produced. So mush timber must be felled, so much coal or gold must be mined. The daily allotment of production is known as the norm.
Those who do not produce their norm are penalized by a reduction in the daily allowance of food. This is equivalent to a death sentence. As the source of nourishment is lessened, the strength of the prisoner diminishes and his output becomes less also. This leads to a further cut in the food ration. A vicious circle is established which leads downward to death.
No Communist claims that Communism exists anywhere in this present world. The official title of the Soviet Union is the "Union of Soviet Socialist Republics" or U.S.S.R. Communist China claims to be a "Socialist State of the Dictatorship of the Proletariat."
Soviet leaders claim that Socialism has been built in the Soviet Union and that they are now advancing towards the building of Communism.
Accomplishments and Prospects
The Revolution, the Dictatorship of the Proletariat, the Destruction of the Capitalist State, the Liquidation of the Bourgeoisie, and the Creation of Socialism have now been accomplished in the Soviet Union. We have the history of nearly 70 years since the Communist conquest of Russia to guide us. What is the result? Can we discern encouraging signs of the creation of the new socialist man, the withering away of the state, and the emergence of the blissful state of Communism?
All evidence indicates that the "new socialist man" is a cynical, apathetic, selfish individual. Alcoholism and crime and flourishing.
Whenever and wherever the opportunity exists, the "new socialist man" flees from the "regenerative" environment of Socialism into the "degenerative" hell which capitalism is alleged to create. The hideous price of mass murder and coerced labor, which the Communists have forced the people to pay, has purchased nothing by regimentation, militarization, and privation.
The state shows no signs of withering away. The monopolistic power of the Communist Party remains undiminished. The bureaucracy becomes more and more entrenched as it cherishes its special privileges. Human rights are occasionally affirmed in theory, but are ignored in practice.
The vision of ultimately reaching Communism has faded as scarcity, inequality, and authority become increasingly institutionalized. The special privileges of the elite few, the leaders of the Communist Party, increase. Maybe some of them have found their utopia-but the people have found themselves in a prison of body and spirit.
Conclusion
Communism is the literal fulfillment of Psalm 14: "The fool hath said in his heart, there is no God." The consequences are stated clearly: "They are corrupt: They have done abominable works; there is none that doeth good."
The delusional doctrines of Karl Marx bear the same relationship to mass murder that the malarial parasite does to the disease of malaria. We must expose the errors of the basic doctrines of Marx if we wish to prevent the actions that result form the application of those doctrines.
The repudiation of communist conduct is not enough. Communist defeats will be temporary if the errors of Marxist doctrine are not exposed. A new generation will be seduced by the doctrines, and communist killing will recommence.
Some of the statements of Marx are true. This is not surprising. Every false philosophy and system contains elements of truth. A mixture of truth and falsehood is usually far more deadly than pure falsehood which can be discerned and isolated one and for all. Once pure falsehood is exposed, the battle is over. When the lethal ideological mixture contains elements of truth, these elements tend to revive the doctrine after it has appeared to have been destroyed. This accounts for the longevity of Marxism and its ability to survive the horrors of Stalinism, its history of brutality and terror, its multiple aggressions such as those in Hungary, Czechoslovakia and Afghanistan, its censorship and disdain for human rights.
Essential elements of Marxist declines are false. This must be demonstrated, stated, and restated. The deplorable conduct of the communists is not due to their departing from the teachings of Marx, but to their obedience to them.
"The proof of the pudding is in the eating." The ingredients of the communist pudding are lethal. The massive and widespread homicide that characterizes Communist conduct is the fulfillment of Marxism.
The Marxist doctrines of ATHEISM, MATERIALISM, ECONOMIC DETERMINISM, CLASS, CLASS LIQUIDATION, CLASS DICTATORSHIP and INEVITABLE PROGRESS are false and deadly.
Should Communism conquer countries with traditions of political liberty, artistic freedom and inalienable rights, the same doctrines that guided Lenin, Stalin, Mao Tse-tung, and Pol Pot will generate programs of mass murder and universal enslavement. Doctrine that is sincerely believed will triumph over tradition, tolerance and compassion.
The Marxist demons conceived by falsehood, and nurtured by ignorance, must be exorcized by truth.
ABOUT THE AUTHOR
Dr. Fred C. Schwarz was born in Brisbane, Queensland, Australia, January 15, 1913. He was educated at the Brisbane Grammar School and later at the University of Queensland, where he graduated in Science. He became a school teacher and completed his degree in Arts while teaching. He was appointed to the staff at the Queensland Teacher's College where he taught Mathematics and Science. Subsequently, while continuing his lecturing, he completed the Medical Course at the Queensland University, graduating in Medicine and Surgery, and established a general Medical Practice in Sydney, Australia.
Dr. Schwarz has been a Christian lay preacher for many years, and his attention was first directed to Communism while at the University of Queensland where he debated a member of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of Australia. Later he began a special study of the basic Communist texts in an effort to explore not only the deeds, but also the thought-life of Communism. He has become widely known as one of the most informed non-Communists in the world because of his knowledge and understanding of basic Communist texts.
He issued an open challenge to debate any Communist on any platform in any part of the world. A number of debates resulted in the sharpening of his appreciation of the character, mind, and techniques of leading communists. He has devoted his talents and most of his life to an exposition of the tremendous danger which the progress of Communism presents to the entire civilized world.
He expounds the doctrines of Communism in simple understandable language, with the conviction that understanding is the irreducible minimum for intelligent counteraction.
In 1953 he founded the Christian Anti-Communism Crusade of which he is now President Emeritus.
Copyright © 2000, CACC. All Rights Reserved.
Back to top
