The Rationale of Madness

There exists an absolute truth – God – toward which every sacred and individual human soul is created to aspire, eternally. This notion of the transcendent nature of man is the marrow of Judeo-Christian consciousness and the fountainhead of Western Civilization.

Unlike any other, this notion – dare we say “revelation” - has fueled man’s quests for knowledge in the sciences and beauty in the arts. It has tempered his savage lusts so that he might live more harmoniously with his fellow man. It is the principle that provides the Declaration of Independence its irrefutable and universal authority.

History is replete with examples demonstrating that the extent to which societies have abided this notion they have thrived. The extent to which they have not, they have failed, often brutally.

Collectivist thinking is the antithesis of this notion, and its legacy is one of mass poverty, destruction, and death. Consider its most effective advocates and practitioners - Rousseau, Hegel, Marx, Lenin, Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Castro, Pol Pot. Under their rule there exists no God, society alone is sacred. The individual human beings comprising it are no more than cattle to be herded and disposed of as convenient to the objectives of the State.

When discussing the leaders of such regimes, the conclusion is often simply that they were madmen. True enough. But if we genuinely wish to prevent future such madmen from gaining power, we must make ourselves thoroughly aware of the means by which they did so in the past. The process often reveals hair-raising similarities to much of what today is politically fashionable.

Author Mark Musser has done invaluable work in re-constructing the rationale that drove the Nazi death campaign and enabled it to sell its message of murder to so many. In his latest essay, Hitler’s Green Killing Machine, Musser further explores what he calls the “eco-imperialism” that, in the minds of many, justified German expansionism and the attempted extermination of the Jews.

Musser points out that in Mein Kampf, Hitler contends, “the Jews try to pacify or tame Nature through international commerce and capitalism on the one hand, or by stressing universal political values like communistic equality on the other hand, both of which rebel against the stern rigid laws of Nature which cannot be overcome. German zoologist Ernst Haeckel, the racist Darwinist who coined the term 'ecology' in 1866, posited that the Jewish transcendent view of man over nature made them resistant to evolutionary biological change, and hence the Jews had become a lesser race. While Hitler eschewed some of Haeckel's political views, he heartily agreed with this particular belief.”

What made the “Jewish transcendent view of man over nature” so offensive to the Nazis was that it was in complete contradiction to their own.

“Many Nazis, including the Fuhrer himself, believed that the industrial age along with its emphasis upon commercialism, city life, international trade and finance were corrupting the biological substance of the German people. The Nazis thus had an extreme literal reading of Nature which would spell absolute disaster for the Jews in particular precisely because they allegedly lived by a false, ‘eternal,’ or transcendent ethos, far above the natural world and her ‘scientific’ evolutionary natural laws of racism.”

Musser notes that, once in power, Hitler quickly codified his green ideology into law.

“By the summer of 1935, right before the Nuremberg laws were set up, Nazi Germany was by far the greenest regime on the planet. The Animal Protection laws were followed up by a strong hunting law for Hermann Goering in 1934. In 1935, Hitler also signed the Reich Nature Protection Act, the high water mark for Nazi environmentalism. Here is seen the birth of environmental permits, environmental impact statements and environmental totalitarianism. The Reich Nature Protection Act even allowed the expropriation of private property without compensation for the sake of the environment. Sustainable forestry practices called Dauerwald, which ironically means ‘eternal’ forest, were also introduced at the federal level.”

These laws, and the thinking behind them, logically concluded in the attempt to rid the world of the Jews who, to the Nazis, “had become a wandering and threatening invasive species because of their steadfastness to universal transcendent values in opposition to the Social Darwinian evolutionary laws of Nature…The revenge of Nature against the Jews was to be carried out by the Nazis, who thought themselves to be the Master Race precisely because they deemed themselves the most 'natural' or 'authentic,' i.e., the most in tune with Nature's pantheistic ways.”

No one advocates totalitarianism, the abolishment of human rights, and genocide openly. They do so - innocently or deliberately – through the promotion of some interpretation of justice and the common good. Through the modern environmentalist movement and its claims to seek the salvation of the planet, the free world has come perilously close to abdicating what liberties it still enjoys, opening the door to whatever monster wishes to take the reins of government and economy and do as he pleases.

As neo-pantheism and agnostic materialism increasingly replace the Judeo-Christian understanding of the transcendent nature of man in the minds of Western man, so this risk will increase. For if each individual human being is not held to be created in the image and likeness of God, endowed with certain unalienable rights, he has no natural rights at all. As such he is wholly at the whim of circumstances, ambitious do-gooders, and madmen.

Cheers,

Charlie

“What did Chamberlain Do Wrong?”

A recent spat on the Chris Matthew’s television program (“Dancing with the Stars” we believe?) has provided a splendid micro-study of the various bankruptcies which characterize the low-state of political debate currently at play in the last best hope of mankind. May God help us all.

First there is intellectual bankruptcy demonstrated in this instance by right-wing radio host Kevin Jacobs of KRLA in Los Angeles. Mr. Jacobs’ attack against Senator Barack Obama – full of boyish zeal and mischief – was, unfortunately, ill-timed and largely without substance. Far worse, the fact that he had no clue as to the particulars of Britain’s policy of Appeasement and Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain’s role in it is virtually unforgivable. For a would-be Conservative to engage on the field of political battle without a firm grasp of historical fact is to deny himself perhaps his greatest weapon, and to provide the adversary an easy target by which to embolden himself and his cause.

Next we have literal bankruptcy represented by Mr. Mark Green, President of Air America. Spouting threadbare anti-Bushisms on cue, this blow-dried, spray-tanned leftbot contributed nothing to the debate save to provide real-time verification of why “progressive talk radio” is bereft of both listeners and funds.

Lastly, there is moral bankruptcy, demonstrated here by Mr. Matthews himself. Though he knows better, Mr. Matthews opted to forsake the truth in favor of savaging his guest right-wing dupe for committing the sin of not knowing his history; understandable and entertaining, yes, but highly unfortunate in this particular debate.

“What did Chamberlain do wrong,” Mr. Matthews repeatedly demanded of Mr. Jacobs. In terms of the particulars, Mr. Jacobs hadn’t a clue.

Finally an exasperated and indignant Matthews condescended to explain. “There is a difference between talking with the enemy and appeasing,” he instructed. “What Neville Chamberlain did wrong – most people would say – is not talking to Hitler but giving him half of Czechoslovakia in 1938. That’s what he did wrong!”

In our view this is rather like saying, “What Mrs. Fleebswottle did wrong was not having an affair with the milkman, but getting pregnant by him.” Alas the moral code of six-year-olds: it’s only wrong if you get caught. Chamberlain got caught.

In Munich in 1938, Neville Chamberlain and Adolph Hitler were talking quite a bit. In those talks the two of them complimented one another’s mustache, exchanged tips on winterizing their gardens, and gave away half of Czechoslovakia to the Nazi regime. In the now infamous Munich Agreement, Hitler promised - honest-injun, crossed his heart and hoped to die - that he would take only what was agreed to and nothing more. Hitler lied. Chamberlain and the entire civilized world were shocked.

Well not the entire civilized world. Sir Winston Churchill for one was not. He had been passionately warning about Hitler since 1933. He was not alone in this. Many were able to read Hitler like a book. In fact, many had. It was not exactly an act of supernatural prophecy to see that Adolf Hitler was a deranged, anti-Semitic, power-mad, war-monger who must be stopped - not talked to, not negotiated with, not appeased - but stopped by whatever means available.

And yet, Neville Chamberlain insisted on talking . It was via this talking that he got stung and landed Britain, and the world, in the weakest possible position.

But what if Hitler hadn’t lied in Munich? What if he kept his word, consumed only Czech Sudetenland, and left the rest of the world alone. Would Mr. Matthew’s have said Neville Chamberlain did anything wrong then? No. Thus giving away half of Czechoslovakia is not really what Chamberlain did wrong; taking Hitler at his word is what Neville Chamberlain did wrong.

“There is a difference between talking with the enemy and appeasing,” insists Mr. Matthews. “Appeasement is giving away things to the enemy.” What Mr. Matthews claims not to be able to see here is that talking with the enemy IS giving away things to the enemy. What did Chamberlain give to Hitler? He gave him the Prime Minister of Britain’s time, attention, prestige, and trust. Quite a lot some would say, and at quite a cost. THAT is what Mr. Chamberlain did wrong – knowingly or unknowingly – and it is a sin one can only commit by talking, even if said talk is ostensibly in the name of peace. (Side note - we are told Mrs. Fleebswottle claims she only did what she did to afford milk for her children. Also she really did love the milk man and besides, he promised her he was sterile. The bastard!)

There are some interactions one ought know better than to engage in; this is the lesson of 1938 Mr. Bush spoke of before the Knesset last week: the dire importance of resisting the “false comfort of appeasement.”

As regards talking with this latest breed of fascists – Iran/Hizzballah, Hamas, Al Qaeda, Syria et al - presuming these talks extend beyond mustaches and gardening, how exactly does one talk with bodies whose publically declared mission statement is the destruction of Israel and the establishment of a worldwide Islamic Caliphate?

Furthermore, there is the not insignificant issue of Taqiyya, the Islamic principle of lying for the sake of Allah. Ought President Obama, or McCain, or Clinton, or … yes even Kucinich give the prestige, time, attention, and trust of the President of the United States to self-proclaimed enemies of Western values who are compelled by their “faith” to deceive unbelievers? And what is there really to talk about? A joint venture to airlift all Israeli Jews to Fort Lauderdale? The incorporation of Sharia law into the United States Constitution? Economic incentives for “green oil drilling” in Saudi Arabia?

Some things are non-negotiable and thus talking is to no avail. The existence of Israel, human rights for all, the sovereignty of peaceful and responsible nations – these things are non-negotiable, particularly with enemies who seek to take them away. That is, after all, why we regard them as “enemies.”

Cheers,

Charlie

P.S.

In humorous punctuation to this entire scene - in his final dismissal of Mr. Jacobs, Mr. Matthews asks, “Wasn’t the U.S.S. Cole under Bush? I mean I don’t know what you’re talking about here” He then concludes in radiant self-righteousness, “Kevin, when you’re going to make a direct historical reference, get it straight.” Here, here Mr. Matthews!

Plagiarizing Hitler - Father of the Post Modern Anti-American Lexicon

We are not aware whether or not there exists any legal firm charged with the protection of the Adolf Hitler estate and its assets. One is apt to conclude not. Nonetheless, were such a firm to exist, they would surely today be awash in revenues resulting from countless suits filed on behalf of their client against individuals and groups appropriating the Fuhrer’s intellectual property and claiming it as their own. His paintings? Goh … no. Couldn’t sell those to a myopic dentist. I am referring to Mr. Hitler’s anti-American rhetoric.

Today, 11 December, 2007, is the 66th anniversary of The Fuhrer’s declaration of war against the United States of America. Not to be outdone by those wily Japanese who virtually liquidated the U.S. Navy on Sunday, December 7th, 1941, Hitler ordered his minions to whip up a formal declaration of war on Germany’s behalf and present it the following Thursday. To augment this momentous occasion, Hitler saw fit to entreat radio listeners the world over to a rambling, spitting, seemingly endless screed wherein he explained the “rationale” behind his decision. More than a mere declaration of war, however, it is in this screed that Herr Hitler seems to have defined the genre of post-modern anti-American rhetoric.

Consider these examples extracted from the gnarled syntax of Hitlerian drivel:

“The American President and his Plutocratic clique have mocked us as the Have-nots-that is true, but the Have-nots will see to it that they are not robbed of the little they have.”
----
“I merely quote this to illustrate the methodical incitement which has come from this man (Roosevelt) who speaks hypocritically of peace, but always urges to war … he invents from time to time crises, by means of which he pretends that America is being threatened with aggression.”
----
“I don't need to mention what this man (Roosevelt) has done for years in the same way against Japan. First he incites war then falsifies the causes, then odiously wraps himself in a cloak of Christian hypocrisy and slowly but surely leads mankind to war…”

-----

“Thus began the increasing efforts of the American President to create conflicts, to do everything to prevent conflicts from being peacefully solved. For years this man harboured one desire-that a conflict should break out somewhere in the world. The most convenient place would be in Europe, where American economy could be committed to the cause of one of the belligerents in such a way that a political interconnection of interests would arise calculated slowly to bring America nearer such a conflict. This would thereby divert public interest from bankrupt economic policy at home towards foreign problems.”

Sound familiar somehow? The best is yet to come. Let us take a look at the declaration’s climax; the ejaculation to which Hitler had been so vigorously working himself up to in the previous 20 or so pages, wherein he actually declares war upon the United States. For added fun, let’s switch the name “Roosevelt” with “Bush.” Watch what happens!

“As a consequence of the further extension of President BUSH's policy, which is aimed at unrestricted world domination and dictatorship, the U.S.A. together with England have not hesitated from using any means to dispute the rights of the German, Italian and Japanese nations to the basis of their natural existence. The Governments of the U.S.A. and of England have therefore resisted, not only now but also for all time, every just understanding meant to bring about a better New Order in the world.

Since the beginning of the war the American President, BUSH, has been guilty of a series of the worst crimes against international law; illegal seizure of ships and other property of German and Italian nationals were coupled with the threat to, and looting of, those who were deprived of their liberty by being interned. BUSH's ever increasing attacks finally went so far that he ordered the American Navy to attack everywhere ships under the German and Italian flags, and to sink them-this in gross violation of international law. American ministers boasted of having destroyed German submarines in this criminal way. German and Italian merchantships were attacked by American cruisers, captured and their crews imprisoned.

With no attempt at an official denial there has now been revealed in America President BUSH's plan by which, at the latest in 1943, Germany and Italy were to be attacked in Europe by military means. In this way the sincere efforts of Germany and Italy to prevent an extension of the war and to maintain relations with the U.S.A. in spite of the unbearable provocations which have been carried on for years by President BUSH, have been frustrated.

Germany and Italy have been finally compelled, in view of this, and in loyalty to the Tri-Partite act, to carry on the struggle against the U.S.A. and England jointly and side by side with Japan for the defense and thus for the maintenance of the liberty and independence of their nations and empires.”

Spine-tingling is it not? Why, were one merely to swap dates and references to that era’s Axis of Evil for today’s, one could fully expect to hear this rot tomorrow on the evening news as a quote attributed to Osama Bin Laden, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the very late Saddam Hussein, Kim Jong-il, Fidel Castro, Hugo Chavez, Michael Moore, George Soros, Hillary Clinton, or the news anchor him or herself!

Of course, in 1941, the free world dismissed this prattle for the rubbish it was. Hitler had by then vastly overplayed his “War-mongering Have’s versus the Peace-Loving Have-Not’s” melodrama which served him so well throughout the 1930’s. Today, however, this very same bilge is accepted, amplified, and broadcast by multitudes of glassy-eyed Lefties on college campuses, editorial boards, security councils, and national intelligence committees around the globe and, unfortunately, across the United States.

In his 1948 literary masterpiece, The Second War, Sir Winston Churchill wrote:

“One day President Roosevelt told me that he was asking publicly for suggestions about what the war should be called. I said at once The Unnecessary War.”

His point, of course, was that had the free world responded appropriately to obvious indications that Adolf Hitler was a rabid loon-bucket bent on world domination at any cost, they could have stopped him with relative ease and scarcely a shot very early on. In the 1930’s, however, despite Sir Winston’s ardent warnings, the war weary world was far more inclined towards pacifism, isolationism, appeasement, and apathy and chose to look the other way until it was nearly too late. The following decade, they learned the hard way the price of such negligence. What then might be in store for the post-1960’s enlightenment generations, a good portion of whom not only fail to appreciate such threats, but reach out to embrace them like toddlers for that big cuddly pit bull chained up in the neighbor’s back yard?

No doubt we will be hearing Hitler’s tired old anti-American lexicon for decades to come. Envy and lack of imagination are but two of the delightful qualities common in would-be-kings now as ever. Our gullibility and deference to this plagiarized tactic, however, is by now inexcusable. If common sense will not embolden us to reject it, then perhaps a good strongly worded cease and desist order from Hitler’s estate attorneys will.

Cheers,

Charlie