Posted on 10/18/2011 4:43:38 AM PDT by opentalk
The major difference between Hitler and the Communist genocidal murderers –Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot –was what groups they chose for extermination.
For Hitler, first Jews and ultimately Slavs and other "non-Aryans" were declared the enemy and unworthy of life.
For the Communists, the rich –the bourgeoisie, landowners and capitalists –were labeled the enemy and regarded as unworthy of life. Hitler mass-murdered on the basis of race, the Communists on the basis of class.
Because the Holocaust was unique in its industrialization of death and in its targeting of every Jew, including babies, for death, the post-World War II world has been rightly obsessed with eradicating racism (but not anti-Semitism!), i.e., the hatred of another solely because of race. But the world has not been obsessed with eradicating the other source of genocide: classism, or the hatred of others based on class.
The reason for this embrace is that class hatred is as fundamental to the left as the Trinity is to Christians, and the left dominates the media and education. This is dangerous because there is an ideological continuum from the democratic left to the communist left. Making the rich into scapegoats for society's ills unites the left.
...Being on the left means that you divide the world between rich and poor much more than you divide it between good and evil. For the leftist, the existence of rich and poor –inequality –is what constitutes evil.
(Excerpt) Read more at wnd.com ...
Interesting.
This explains how the ‘educators’ have been indoctrinating our children in public schools.
Share your stuff
Self-esteem more important than merit
No genuine competition
School uniforms (used to be a good idea)
Social studies instead of history
Prager is always too nice to the left. Anyone who believes “inequality” is a great injustice will make the choice to live at the median level of his society. Otherwise, he is demonstrating that his motivation is simply envy that *someone* still has more than himself.
Whether you want what they have or simply want them gone to appease your own warped soul, envy is envy! That is IMHO!
I can say with confidence that she didn’t get it.
You might as well have been speaking Martian to her.
Worldviews are like that. They come with their set of assumptions and presuppositions. Your assertion started with the denial of what her worldview was based on, and therefore, there is no way she could relate.
The only hatred that is morally superior to ANYTHING is the hatred of sin.
important essay, thanks for posting
Most of the money we give away is not tax deductable.
We decided a long time ago that as we interact in the Christian community to directly aid those who are needing a boost towards independence or through a tough time.
Too much gets twisted as disincentive (political correctness) and stolen in big charities.
Hitler also went after 'race traitors', Germans who weren't going along with the plan. Hitler's ultimate plan was to replace Christianity with his paganism.
It practice, there was little difference between nazism and communism, except that communism had more success attracting supporters around the world. There are more openings in the 'master class' group, than in the 'master race'.
IMO, hatred of the rich runs deeper than racism.
You bad citizen! Enemy of the people! You should get a ticket on the express train to indoctrination camp, with that attitude! :)
Coveting was present in the world long before Babel, where the “races” split off.
One of the main points of the article: "For the leftist, the existence of rich and poor –inequality –is what constitutes evil". To the Leftist, sin and evil are DEFINED as opposition to the Leftist agenda. Once you really, deeply understand that, with all its implications, then you begin to understand the Leftist worldview.
The Leftist world view is that it is possible to change man into a perfect being, and to create a world of altruism and equality. To oppose that is to be an Enemy of Paradise, to be totally evil. Against an Enemy of Paradise, ANYTHING is permitted. You may lie to such an enemy, cheat him, rob him, sentence him to the gulag, kill him -- anything at all is permitted, in order to remove obstacles to the achievement of Paradise.
Thomas Sowell writes extensively on this in A Conflict of Visions: Ideological Origins of Political Struggles
I often say that one of the core differences between leftists/progressives/liberals and conservatives/Christians is that the former believe that man is basically good while the latter believe that man is basically evil.
Good for you. We were in a similar position when our daughter went to elementary school. We bought what she needed and not another thing more.
You’re right, though I prefer “fallen” and “flawed” to “basically evil”.
The pernicious lie that “people are basically good” is the root of worldly deception, and liberalism, leftism, elitism, and collectivism of all stripes.
There is a difference between those who want to try to prove their basic “goodness”, mostly to themselves, and those who use that desire to further their own power by lying to the former group.
E.G., Communists are the latter group whilst “useful idiots” are the former.
1)So far as I have been able to tell, the Left has largely abandoned "class hatred" for a mystical nationalism in which whites are the "antithesis" and non-whites the "thesis" . . . the roles formerly played by the bourgeoisie and the proletariat. The Left has long been hostile to poor and working class whites in the United States, treating them as a greater evil than the "rich."
2)The Right (especially the "palaeoconservatives") has its own "class warfare" doctrine: the little guy vs. "the millionaire, totalitarian socialist conspirators who rule us" (in the words of John Bircher Alan Stang). Palaeo literature is replete with attacks on the Carnegies, Rockefellers, Morgans, and sometimes capitalism itself (see W. Cleon Skousen's The Naked Capitalist) as being "the real power" behind Communism. Even here on FR we have those who attack the Federal Reserve not as a governmental interference in banking but a "privately owned" bank (wonder what these people would have thought of Alexander Hamilton's and George Washington's Bank of the United States, which really was private???).
Oh well. Even I can see that the Left is retreating somewhat to its classical position. But just see if poor rural whites get any sympathy.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.