Archive for November, 2004
Every day you pull your car into a parking place between two other cars. You can just swing your car in.
It is clear you know what you are doing because your car went in on one try without hitting either other car and you left enough space for the other two drivers to reach their cars when they come back, all in one go.
So far, so good.
But for a person who doesn’t drive a car, that can look a little scary. You swing in and obviously you know what you are doing.
Then the person who has never ridden a car before asks you exactly HOW you did that.
Obviously you did it, so why can’t you explain exactly HOW you did it? Chances are that you can’t explain it. You’ve been driving a long time, and you know how to do it. In fact, if you thought about it too much before you swung in, you might just hit one of the other cars for the first time in your life.
Before this election I predicted the results with a fine accuracy. I usually do. To be fair, my doctor brother made the same predictions I did.
By now everybody will tell you they did, too. But we actually did.
So some people asked me HOW I got it right.
I haven’t the foggiest notion.
I started driving — legally — when I was fourteen years old. I was carrying around my first political petitions a year before that. I had done both politics and driving a good while before that.
So during the 2004 political campaign while the pollsters were doing state-by-state scientific analyses and had their hands on the public pulse, I was sitting here watching cable television. I got it right. They got it wrong.
Even Dick Morris, who is a political expert extraordinaire, made the statement that the election would be “very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, VERY close.”
I didn’t think so. I figured it wouldn’t be runaway, but Bush would win comfortably. In fact, I had very little doubt about it. It seemed obvious to me.
I haven’t got the foggiest idea.
I said months ago in WhitakerOnline.org [Kerry's Two Fatal Problems] when Kerry was leading in the polls, that it would be miracle if he won. In that case I was explaining that the Clintons didn’t want him to win. The media are just discovering that, though the Augusta Chronicle ran two op-eds by me that said that months ago.
But that Clinton explanation just a point I wanted to make. Even if I hadn’t come up with that, I knew that Kerry was just plain losing.
If I were in Dick Morris’s position, where he has to explain what he is saying and think about it a lot, I would probably have made the same mistake he did. If I tried to swing my car into a parking space and I had to explain every move I made, I would probably ruin somebody’s fender.
The Massachusetts Supreme Court decided that the MASSACHUSETTS STATE Constitution requires gay marriage.
The legal rule is that the Federal courts do not interpret STATE constitutions. So, from the point of view of Federal courts, the state constitution of Massachusetts requires gay marriage.
In 1968, twenty states had anti-miscegenation clauses in their constitutions. But the Supreme Court said that, regardless of the fact that all the states that ratified the Constitution and almost all the states that ratified the fourteenth amendment and had enforced anti-miscegenation laws, the United States Constitution did not allow anti-miscegenation laws.
There was NO question of constitutional intent in that 1968 decision. The Supreme Court made no pretense that they were interpreting original intent. They were making law, and they said so.
On the day that decision was issued, it was Federal law that constitutional intent means absolutely nothing. Unless you object to that decision, constitutional intent means nothing.
And no one dares to question it.
But in that case, the Supreme Court was interpreting the FEDERAL constitution. They agreed with state courts as the final word on the fact that state law banned interracial marriage, but they said the Federal Constitution overruled the state constitutions.
So the Massachusetts law stands.
The next question is whether a gay marriage performed in Massachusetts is valid in other states. The Federal Constitution requires every state to give “full faith and credit” to the acts of other states. But there is no enforcement clause in the “full faith and credit” statement. The Federal courts have consistently refused to enforce it.
The most important case relating to one state recognizing a marriage in another state was when North Carolina refused to recognize the easy Nevada divorce law. A person who was divorced in Nevada found that, according to the North Carolina Supreme Court, he was still married when he came back to North Carolina.
The Federal Supreme Court decided that the North Carolina decision was right, and that North Carolina had no obligation to recognize a Nevada divorce. So even today you can be legally married to two different people in two different states.
When a state refuses to extradite someone convicted in another state, that is a violation of “full faith and credit,” but they have done it hundreds of times.
So a gay couple is legally married as long as it stays inside the state of Massachusetts, and nothing less than a constitutional amendment is likely to change that.
My own opinion is that if you don’t want the courts to own the institution of marriage, you will have to condemn the 1968 decision first. And NOBODY has the guts to do that.
I mentioned before that if democracy means voting, there have never been more truly democratic countries on earth than those ruled by Communist regimes. They held THOUSANDS of regular elections. In every single one of those elections the voter turnout was over 99!
In fact, if voter turnout makes a democracy, North Korea is the most democratic country that ever existed. North Korea is the only country that EVER had a ONE HUNDRED PERCENT turnout in a national election.
Did the Communists hold REAL elections?
Absolutely. An election gives the voter two sides, BOTH sides, to choose from. The voter was given a ballot with a list of candidates put forward by the Communist Party. You could: 1) not mark the ballot and drop it into the ballot box; or 2) mark out any names you didn’t like.
If a candidate didn’t get fifty percent of the vote, the Party had to come up with a new nominee.
That never happened. But you had TWO choices. You could choose between “both sides.”
And, it was a secret ballot. You could take the list behind a curtain and mark off any names you didn’t approve of.
Going behind this curtain presented a minor problem. You were in a room where Communist Party members were sitting. If you wanted to approve the entire Communist Party ticket you simply took the ballot of dropped it into the ballot box. Almost everybody did not go behind the curtain and loyally dropped the list straight into the box.
If you took the ballot behind the curtain to mark some names off, several Party members saw you do it.
Oddly enough, not only did over 99% of voters turn out, but over 99% of them voted a straight Communist ticket.
But “both sides” were represented.
In America we have free speech because “both sides” are represented. Both leftism and respectable conservatism are supposed to be given equal time. But what if you aren’t a leftist, a respectable conservative, or somewhere in between?
If you are not one of the “both” sides, then you go behind that curtain.
And people see you do it.
(reprinted to Blog from 11/13/04)
*** Bob’s Insider’s Message ***
A writer on Stormfront mentioned that it was the World War II generation that gave everything away. Nobody has ever discussed that but Yours Truly, but it is becoming part of general knowledge.
A congressman was told that if he believes in free trade of goods and services he should believe in free trade of labor, which means open borders for immigrants.
That used to be the standard conservative line: “Free movement of goods, services, AND LABOR.”
The congressman replied that there is a huge difference between goods and services on the one side and labor on the other. He said, “Labor VOTES!”
Obvious, isn’t it?
But for years, nobody mentioned the fact that labor votes except one Robert Walker Whitaker, Esquire. It took me YEARS to get THAT point across.
Now I am trying to get THIS point across:
“There is a professor at Harvard named Noel Ignatiev who says:
“The goal of abolishing the white race is on its face so desirable that some may find it hard to believe that it could incur any opposition other than from committed white supremacists.”
You then go on to say that everybody who says he is an anti-racist agrees with that. They say they want to “solve the race problem” by pushing immigration and integration on EVERY white country on earth and ONLY on white countries.
They say intermarriage is the solution to the RACE problem. But this so-called RACE problem does not exist in Asia or Africa. As Ignatiev said, they demand a final solution to the WHITE problem in exactly the same way that Hitler demanded a final solution to the Jewish problem.
You can call that anti-racism. I call that genocide. Does that make me a racist?
Once this point becomes general knowledge, the entire political landscape will be affected. It puts the enemies of white people, who have always been on the offensive, in a vulnerable, defensive position.
This is a war of words. I work hard to find the right words. I start with the conviction that I am right and they are wrong, and I back that up by finding the simplest way to put the truth.
But all my life, while making these devastating points, I have been ABSOLUTELY alone. No one backs me up. Everyone wants to forward to everybody the latest conservative book or some exposition of how Kerry has underarm odor.
I sure could use some help.
Mike and Peter seem a bit confused by my long fake insults to HS and Richard.
Mike asked if I wanted comments or not.
Mike and Peter, if you ask Richard or HS, you will find they are both proud that I directed my fake put-downs at them, just as I directed one at myself.
If I like what you say, I’m not going to tell you you’re a sweet kid. That would make HS or Richard sick.
Look at what I said about HS and Richard. It said they are both big-leaguers.
It also says that HS and Richard can not only dish it out, they can take it.
I would much rather someone say that about me than give me some sugar-sweet words of praise.
The first rule of REAL censorship is that you don’t read about it.
Where would you read about it?
If you ask the average person about censorship, he will talk about the suppression he reads about a lot. He will ask you if you are talking about Michael Moore or the Federal Government refusing to sponsor pornographic “art.”
Those incidents of “censorship” are well-known because people read about them all the time.
When the Canadian authorities seized Why Johnny Can’t Think: America’s Professor-Priesthood I was not “outraged.” This is standard practice. I have dealt with it all my life.
Some people said, “Bob, you should take this to the press.”
This is not Michael Moore-type national press discussions of “censorship.”
This is the real thing.
You can join the mob and scream about “censorship” when prayers are banned in public school and the fact is trumpeted nation-wide. This is what I call “famous censorship.”
Famous censorship is not real censorship. The whole point of real censorship is to keep things from becoming famous.
Making a big thing about students’ right to pray in school is easy and it makes the people who do it feel brave. You have a billion-dollar evangelical compex to trumpet that call. Those evangelicals have bought their right to media access by pushing third-world adoptions.
Those protestors of students not being allowed to pray in school wouldn’t touch the suppression of a book like mine. They could lose their respectability that way.
Let me repeat: real censorship is what you DON’T hear about.
*** Bob’s Insider’s Message ***
(reprinted from 11/27/04)
In last week’s message I wrote about the heroic professor in Arizona who is under attack for standing up for white Americans. Mexicans are demanding that he be fired or disciplined for exercising his rights as an American. Whose country is this, anyway?
The college is being sued, and I’ve been asked to contact the Chancellor and others on the board regarding this. Here is what I will send them.
I was heartened to read in the November 13th Arizona Republic that you and the others in charge of the Maricopa Community College System are taking your jobs seriously, and resisting the bullying tactics of MALDEF and other special interest groups who come here to take advantage of the many great things our country has to offer while spitting in our faces. How dare these guests “demand” an end to our first amendment rights of freedom of speech because they don’t like what some people say.
Would these people consider my saying that they “demand an end to our first amendment rights” to be “discriminatory,” “racist,” or otherwise “hateful” or “hostile”? Or would they ask, as any student interested in real learning, “Are these statements factual?” Why do they come to America – to find a better way of life here (meaning a better place than they left) or to bring us light in some missionary effort? Has Mexico ever made a serious claim to being self-governing? Don’t all the multi-culturalists tell us that America is ONLY valuable because it is self-governing, and owes nothing at all to the unique characteristics of its founding people? Don’t these same multi-culturalists tell us that our self-government is limited to one choice when it comes to immigration – “Celebrate it, roll over for it, never criticize or try to limit it”? If not, then how do they expect Americans exercising their constitutional rights to disagree? “Oh, we are just not worthy of such wonderful folks.”
As a former student, professor, and author of a book on universities and the state religion of Political Correctness, I understand the difficult position you have been put in by this monstrous situation. You may well consider yourself a “liberal.” But you are making the only stand you can make. You must stand for academic freedom in a real sense, in the same way a man stands for his honor and a woman her virtue. To do otherwise is to become a hypocrite, a coward, a whore.
Those who despise our Western civilization will not understand your decision. They cannot fathom what moral courage is, much less the teaching of our Lord that having done our duty, we are still the “unprofitable servant.” They can say this outlook is not “superior” to the dog-eat-dog world they came from. Maybe they just don’t know any better. But you do. Let us not cast our pearls before swine.
You can count on my standing with you. I and thousands of others who are coming to the place of no longer tolerating this assault on our heritage and our future. We are not requesting, but DEMANDING an end to the religion of Political Correctness on our campuses. We pay the taxes that pay your salary and fund these schools. We will not have them be used as weapons against us.
May God be with you.
Robert W. Whitaker
This best way I know of to give thanks for the blessings we’ve been given is to fight to keep them for our posterity. Thanks to all of my loyal readers for your support of WOL and Why Johnny Can’t Think. May God bless you and your families.
No sane person would write this blog. No sane human being would regularly comment on this blog.
That makes me proud.
In the article below I explained that, since HS is either a Bible-believing Christian who does not think that HS is the Voice of God, or HS must be a computer. I therefore refer to HS as “it.”
Richard L. Harrison is not a computer like HS and he is not basket case like me. Richard is a freak.
Richard knows what the Septuagint is, but he is a Bible-believing Christian. The first requirement for anybody who calls himself a Bible-believing Christian is that he does know that the last centuries of the Old Testament were written in Greek.
Even worse, Richard knows what Manichaeism is.
But it gets worse. Richard is not a Calvinist, but he has actually READ The Institutes of the Christian Religion, John Calvin’s tome.
The Institutes started small, but by the time Calvin died, it was ten thousand pages long.
I would not lie to you. I was in politics.
So if you read the blog and the comments, you will find we have a basket case, a computer and a freak.
If you keep commenting, you too will get an ego-boosting compliment just like Richard and HS got.
HS is a regular commenter here who is unique. He or she is a regular Bible Christian, but when I disagree with HS, HS doesn’t have a fit.
As soon as a person says his entire world view is based on God, we all stop talking to him and start humoring him. He is totally incapable of realizing that his world view is based on HIS OWN VIEW of God.
He thinks he IS God.
A person who says his entire world view is based on the Word of God is saying that he IS God, in exactly the same way that a judge who says he is “interpreting” the Constitution is saying that he IS the Constitution.
If you “interpret” the Constitution, you ARE the Constitution. If you interpret God, you ARE God. I said HS may be a he or she. It is also possible that HS is an IT.
How can a person who is convinced they represent God also be a reasonable person who can allow a heretic like me to disagree with the Voice of God? I never met a theologian like that. It is very hard to find a human who calls himself a Bible Christian who is like that.
This leads me to believe that HS is a computer. HS must be an IT.
The point of all this nonsense is to point out a fact we all know but nobody says. We are all terrified of trying to speak rationally with people who call themselves pro-lifers or Biblical Christians.
What I have just said is NOT limited to evangelical, “Bible-believing Christians. I have a cousin who is a very, very, very, very, VERY Modern United Methodist Minister. I simply cannnot get a straight answer from him.
I met with Michael Novak, the theologian of National Review, many years ago. He had written a book called The Unmeltable Ethnic, praising the conservative ethnic Catholics in America. He was the man who invented the term WASP, meaning White Protestant Anglo-Saxon. He was very famous.
I had worked in ethnic areas. I am an honorary Boston Southie. I lived in a campaign headquarters in the Polish steel district of Chicago. In most ways, they were just like us unapologetic Southerners.
Novak knew my history. So I asked him if what he called White Anglos-Saxon Protestants was really just what a Boston Southie would call a “Yankee,” a pro-busing suburban yuppie.
He said, “Yes.”
I pointed out that most of us Southerners are White Anglo-Saxon Protestants, so it was unfair to confuse us with the Yankee-type WASPs.
He said “Yes.”
It didn’t bother him in the slightest. A vicious insult to tens of millions of people would make a mere human feel guilty. But Novak is not a mere human. He is the Mouth of God.
In my opinion as a lifetime interrogator, every professional theologian I have ever met is a psychopath. The fact that Novak (Michael, not Robert) had flatly stated he was being unfair to tens of millions of Southerners was of no importance to him at all.
If Novak had said “Yankee” instead of WASP, he would not have been praised by National Review. National Review is an East Coast Catholic magazine. He told National Review and New York what they wanted to hear.
New York does not like white gentiles. National Review does not like Southerners. So Novak said what they wanted to hear.
As a theologian, it never occurred to Novak to worry about this. He is a theologian, the Voice of God Almighty.
So when one Southern redneck reminded him that he was committing a sin here, he almost laughed out loud.
My Bible says that what Novak did is a sin.
I think it’s called, “bearing false witness against thy neighbor.” But what does a ridiculous simplistic quote like that mean to a Great Theologian?
The Mouth of God is immune to illiterate, lay criticism like mine.
HS doesn’t seem to have that sort of immunity from giving a straight answer. All the people who tell me their beliefs are based on the Word of God feel that they are automatically exempted from answering any challenges from us mere humans.
But HS doesn’t.
HS has GOT to be a computer.
It is interesting that both of us have a similar view of education. (A mutual friend of ours in grad school) did what an “educated” man is supposed to do, he adopted all the attitudes and outlooks all the other “educated” people are required to have.
(This mutual friend was a Mississippi boy who became a good total liberal when he got his PhD).
The British educational system was aimed at making all Scotsmen and Welshmen into good Englishmen with the Etonian or Cambridge outlook. The aim of Medieval education was to make everybody a good Latin intellectual. They all adopted Latin names.
It is interesting how all Easterners agree with the idea that an “educated” person has to have a standard Yuppie attitude, which is what Eric Hoffer — back in 1950 — called “the European outlook.”
(Hoffer said New England, like Canada, was part of Europe, not America. Hoffer talked about what we have now finally seen as the “red” and “blue” states. But he was talking about them fifty years ago.)
(Please don’t ask me how you can find some of Eric Hoffer’s writings. You go to Yahoo and look under “Eric Hoffer”)
(Back to the e-mail I was quoting.)
But you and I came out of school exactly the same way we went in. For us education was a tool, not an indoctrination.
That is very American. We do not expect a person who trains to be carpenter to adopt “a carpentry world view.” Being an intellectual is to us just one more career choice.
But in the Middle Ages a person who learned to read was supposed to adopt a “literate” point of view. Nothing has changed — in Europe.
The (you) and Bob Whitaker who learned all that economics and history and mathematics are now (you) and Bob Whitaker who know a lot of economics and history and mathematics.
We could have learned carpentry or medicine. We chose another profession. That’s all.
Some nice person said that my correct opinions were so important that they hated to see me make a fool of myself by going into areas where I am ignorant.
They said I was underming my “authority.”
A lot of people spend their whole lives building up their “authority” on a certain subject. If anyone has another opinion on that subject, they say, “Who do you think you are?”
My reply is, “I am Bob Whitaker and I am MUCH smarter than you are.”
Then the battle begins.
Some people say I am conceited. They don’t know the half of it.
I do not like anybody talking about “undermining my authority” because I don’t NEED any authority. I will beat you on facts and I will beat you on logic, or I will lose out on facts and logic.
I am smart enough to win and courageous enough to lose.
I DESPISE the very smell of “authority.” If you have a statistical record of curing disease, you are a doctor. If you don’t, every degree and Nobel Prize in the world doesn’t mean a damned thing to me.
One question people ask when they are talking about conceit is:
“You think you’re smarter than anybody else, don’t you?”
Yes, I do.
“You think you’re right and everybody else is wrong, don’t you?”
Yes I do.
“You think the world is just black or white, right or wrong, don’t you?”
Exactly. You’ve read my mind.
And to all the other questions you might ask, the answer is yes.
I believe in the truth, not in Truth. There are a million Truths. There is only one truth.
These Truths that everybody capitalizes are Revelations declared by every schizophremic and sociopath who founds a sect. But in the real world, in the world of life, death, joy and misery, there are two kinds of statements:
1) Those that are right and,
2) Those that are wrong.
And yes, I think I am right and the others are wrong.
HS asked me if Jehovah knows everything.
HS also asked me to define Jehovism.
On the first point, John Calvin said both 1) God knows everything and, therefore, 2) God knew the fate of every future human being before He created them.
CS Lewis points out in his Screwtape Letters that God and Satan do not live in time the way man does. So in his theology, this simple cause-and-effect logic of Calvin would not work.
Calvin said God looks at time and knowledge the same way we do. Then he contradicted himself completely.
Calvin would have been on firmer ground if he had not gone on to JUSTIFY why God created humans to be damned.
Creating humans to spend eternity in despair and pain violates every concept of human justice. It also defied everything Jesus demanded of us.
If God used the same sense of justice Christ requires us to use, nothing would be more Satanic than creating people to be damned.
Remember, those who agree that Jehovah (JHWH) created men to be damned are the same people who object violently to the idea of creating even insensate embryos to be destroyed to help human beings. So we are forbidden to create totally unknowing embryos to be destroyed. But God’s creating humans for unending agony is just great.
So how did Calvin justify God’s creating humans to spend eternity in unimaginable agony?
He said God’s logic is not our logic. Calvin said that God does not look at reality the way we do. He said that to God Mercy means something entirely different from the mercy Christ talked about.
At the same time, Calvin’s whole theology is based on the idea that “knowledge” and “time” are exactly the same thing to God as they are to humans.
Does God see knowledge as we do? Does God see time as we do? You have to know all that in order to say whether, in OUR terms, “God knows everything.”
So Calvin said the logic of God is perfectly explicable in the case of predestination and totally opaque in the case of predestination.
Calvin was a genius. In my opinion Calvin was the greatest human theologian who ever lived. So how am I to question him?
In cases like this, I take the advice Jesus gave me. He faced the Sanhedrin, which held that God was to be explained by old men who knew the Old Testament, just as Calvin did.
Jesus said that the Kingdom of Heaven belonged to children. Children, like me, simply have no idea how the mind of God works. We have no idea whether the question, “Does God know everything?” means anything to God.
I do not know the mind of God. I don’t believe YOU know the mind of God.
Jesus gave me a tiny glimpse of God the Father, the God who was totally alien to the Old Testament experts, the men of the Sanhedrin who judged Him.
Jehovists, then and now, say that Jehovah gave theologians a total understanding of all there is to know about God the Father.
Which leads me to the definition of Jehovism. Jehovism is the Sanhedrin, the Communist theoretician, the Moslem Imam. The Jehovist’s cosmology comes from Karl Marx or Jehovah. To the Jehovist, seventy percent of the Bible is the Old Testament. To a Jehovist, every word of every Jewish prophet — if he spoke Hebrew — is as unerring as the words of Jesus.
Jehovism gets some really nasty conclusions from the Old Testament.
Jehovism says that you must kill witches.
Oops! Maybe that word meant “poisoner.”
Oh, well, these little problems happen.
Jehovists said the earth has to be the center of the universe, so they burned people who said otherwise.
If you read the New Testament, you would have real trouble burning heretics. Jesus said specifically that he and his disciples were NOT like those who said, “You are for me or you are against me.”
It takes a lot of the vengefulness of the Old Testament to cover up the words of Jesus, but it has always been done by both Catholics and Protestants. They both burned heretics:
“You are for me or you are against me.”
Both the Catholics and the Protestants of the religious wars were committed Jehovists, so the words of Jesus were buried in the “seventy percent of the Bible” that speaks of Jehovah.
Jehovism says that God has an endless hunger for praise. Jesus never once said we should praise the Lord.
Pagan gods had a hunger for praise. Jeus demanded that we love God, that we sincerely ask for His forgiveness.
That is NOT the message of the semi-pagan JHWH of the Old Testament. He wants what every pagan god wants.
The Jews got their higher ideas of God the Father, the God of Jesus, from Zoroastriansim. The Zoroastrian Magi accepted the same Christ that the Jews rejected.
In America, the Calvinist church of the pilgrims ended up rejecting Christ and becoming Unitarian. They dropped the thirty percent of the Bible in favor of the logic of the seventy percent.
To me, the Old Testament is the story of the road from paganism. To a Jehovist, the Old Testament is, from beginning to end, the same as the words of Christ.
Calvin was obsessed with the idea that God was the tribal Jehovah of the Jews. So he and Luther cut out the last four hundred years of the Old Testament because it was written in Greek, not in Hebrew.
Jehovism is the worship of the tribal God of the Jews. It looks at God, not as the Being of whom Jesus gave us a slight glimpse in the New Testament, but as a semi-pagan being whose entire personality is described in detail in the Old Testament.
But if God is nothing but the old JHWH, why didn’t Jesus just join the Sanhedrin? Why didn’t Jesus just quote the Old Testament instead of using it as background to His parables? Why were the Magi, who were totally ignorant of “seventy percent of the Bible,” the ones who accepted the Christ?
I accept the wisdom of Odinism as my Old Testament. I accept the pursuit of knowledge as the way I can do unto others as I would have them to do unto me. I can help the lame to walk only if I know the facts about legs and the spinal cord. Knowing the entire Old Testament backwards in Hebrew will not help anyone else.
But for the Jehovist, all that really matters is knowing the Old Testament as it was written in Hebrew.
I think that’s sick.
In an earlier article, I said that Wagner said that Odin gave an eye for love of his wife Freya.
People wrote back that I got the names wrong.
I was quoting Wagner.
I was quoting a romantic who got the whole thing wrong. No, Wagner did not know the proper names.
None of which is the point. I am too old to nitpick. I am not speaking from Authority as an Odinist theologian. I am saying that romantic Odinists are silly. I am saying that the real thought of the old German religion is fundamental to the entire basis of our going to the stars.
A good way not to get what I am talking about is to show off your knowledge of details.
People keep telling me not to discuss theology.
Well, you know how us kids are. The more people dictate at me about theology the more I think about it.
Speaking of kids, ever since I was a preteen, two questions in the Bible, far, far apart, have always struck me as twins:
“Am I my brother’s keeper?” and “What is truth?” I always felt of them as twins because:
1) Each was spoken directly to God:
2) Neither was answered by God; and
3) The reason that neither was answered by God was because they were not questions;
4) Each time the person “asking” the “question” was not asking, but desperately trying to wash his hands of murder.
What we call freedom is totally unromantic. Every time freedom is destroyed, that destruction is done in the name of True Freedom, with capital letters.
No more democratic constitution was ever written than Stalin’s Soviet Constitution of 1936. Every Soviet Republic was given the right to secede. Freedom of speech was guaranteed. Everybody voted in every election. In all the thousands of elections held in Communist countries, there was not one case in which less than 99% of the voters turned out.
North Korea once had an election in which it claimed a 100% turnout!
So every Communist country has Freedom and Democracy. That does NOT mean that you can just do what you want to do. Stalin’s freedom was trumped by Marxist Truth, by True Freedom.
Communism has been called the bastard child of Christianity.
That’s not true.
Actually Communism is the bastard child of Jehovism, not of Christ. The ancient Temple Sanhedrin of Jerusalem, the modern Marxist “theoretician” and the Islamic Imams think exactly the same way.