The demoralization of the West is far less understood now as it faces destabilization than ever before, even though the answers as well as their questions are in plain view even for the deaf and blind to experience. Joseph Stalin mocked Winston Churchill during the Tehran Conference in 1943, remarking that “God is on your side? Is He a Conservative? The Devil’s on my side, he’s a good Communist.” The hypocrisy was not in, of course, Stalin favoring Satan over God, but rather that “God’s not unjust, he doesn’t actually exist,” for He would otherwise “have made the world more just.” Of course, if God’s moral order is unjustly hierarchical, the Devil, then, is the perfect antagonist, always proudly defiant. Why then would Stalin haphazardly exalt Satan, given “the son of the morning star” in the Book of Isaiah could never have existed had he not been God’s creation (the same God Stalin insisted did not exist)? Why indeed might Chicago’s infamous community organizer Saul Alinsky proudly boast his wish to spend eternity in Hell two months prior to his death if for no other reason than he admitted to ‘lacking virtue’ and existed simply to organize rebellions against all established orders?
This of course is the left-wing political consensus, whereby most Democrat lawmakers deceive their ilk into believing their devotion to the god(s) of their faiths are legitimate so long as they violate their faith, accepting, even embracing, abortion rights to the point of their direct compulsory participation of taxpayers who don’t. While social scientists often separate by definition the symbiosis of morality to a society’s (or individual) code of ethics, the evidence supporting this is quite contrary. There is a key difference between morality and amorality based on the adherence, or lack thereof, to a code of absolution. For instance, the major Abrahamic traditions (Judaism, Christianity and Islam) differentiate right from wrong by the laws set forth in their respective scriptures, in how they are interpreted by denomination, and how religious leaders and theologians implement them. Yet pantheism and most certainly atheism extol only approaches to productivity that disregard general morality by exploiting human beings as disposable collateral. (Remember the line by Cambodia’s communist dictator Pol Pot posted across ‘the killing fields’ that “To keep you is no gain. To get rid of you is no loss.”) Because of this slight difference tied to the Nazis’ rebellious excuse for replacing Christian morality with ‘the Hitler faith’ that honors ‘natural law’ (the Jewish Jesus Christ was, after all, unacceptable), and the amoral, godless dogma driving the utilitarian nature of Communism, the ‘merits’ of mass murder and state terror were not matters for debate, but the rules of engagement. The reason, the largely irrelevant position over who should die between the racially unfit or those classes (bourgeoisie) failing to justify their existence was, not if or why, given they were one-and-the-same demographics, separate and unequal to all the others. Consequently, the differences between history’s two most genocidal ideologies, in the words of Joseph Goebbels, are very slight.
Adolf Hitler proclaimed in 1920 that in order to promote “The common good before the individual good,” the Nazis, as “socialists… must necessarily also be antisemites because we want to fight against the very opposite: materialism and mammonism… Because it seems inseparable from the social idea and we do not believe that there could ever exist a state with lasting inner health if it is not built on internal social justice, and so we have joined forces with this knowledge.” After all, Hitler was correct to acknowledge how “The universalists, the idealists, the Utopians all aim too high” as they ‘deceive mankind’ through “promises of an unattainable paradise” given “they are all makers of slaves.” His ire towards ‘the incomparably stronger’ Christianity, far greater than his hatred of Marxism, emerged as Hitler fretted over how to “assess… that other child of Judaism, which will not commit itself further than to promise the faithful happiness in another world?” One can topple, as did Ronald Reagan by 1989, the Soviet infrastructure according to Hitler’s own forecast that following “the defeat of the Reich… there will remain in the world only two Great Powers capable of confronting each other—the United States and Soviet Russia” through “a trial of strength….” The other option is a final solution to the Christian question similar to the Holocaust that nearly succeeded exterminating the small global “Jewish race as a matter of convenience, for in reality and from the genetic point of view there is no such thing as the Jewish race.” But Christianity, which Hitler saw as “a rebellion against natural law, a protest against nature… the systematic cultivation of the human failure,” was a threat to “the (German) State” for promoting a “foundation that one day will collapse,” and resolved that the only solution was for it “to… die a natural death… worn away before the advances of science” force it “to make more and more concessions” ending ‘the myths’ of ‘Christian doctrine’. Reasoning that “Science cannot lie” and that its mistakes are made “in good faith,” justifying the mass killing of Jews in the name of racial purification (eugenics) could become “to a certain degree, tolerable” because “the Jew restores to pride of place Christianity in its Bolshevistic form” under Marxism’s principle of dialectic materialism and its other Germanic predecessor, the Hegelian dialectic.
The earliest empires adopted legal codes whereby monarchs reigned by divine right. Egypt, Carthage, Hellenic and Hellenistic Greece, Rome and Persia were among the ancient examples in the Near East and Mediterranean coastlines conquering territories in the name of their gods. Upon subduing the people of the conquered territories, the victorious army normally resorted to forcing the subjugated citizens to prostrate before their god or face execution, a practice often attributed as early examples of political correctness reflected in Mao Zedong’s contention that “Not to have a correct political point of view is like having no soul.” To successfully subjugate any people requires injecting a common cultural identity in order to revise its historic moral fabric. How this could be done is found in the blueprint established by Friedrich Nietzsche in 1883 in the parable of the madman in Thus Spake Zarathustra, who hurried into the market-place with a lantern ‘in the bright morning hours’ to cry incessantly “I am looking for God! I am looking for God!” only to be mocked incessantly by arrogant, defiant atheists as he had ‘excited considerable laughter’: “Have you lost him, then? said one. Did he lose his way like a child? said another. Or is he hiding? Is he afraid of us? Has he gone on a voyage? or emigrated?” before cowering him down into submitting to their truth. Boasting “We have killed him (God) — you and I. We are his murderers. But how have we done this?… Who gave us the sponge to wipe away the entire horizon? … Are we not straying as through an infinite nothing?” the atheist figurehead proudly exclaimed that “God is dead. God remains dead.” In doing so however, the atheist hypocritically replaces God’s divinity with the authoritarian selfishness of the atheist, who, in asking “Must we not ourselves become gods simply to be worthy of it?” explains that “There has never been a greater deed” than their ushering in life’s nihilistic void. Persecuting people seeking God in their lives results too often in individuals such as the madman losing faith and falling silent, who then fall prey to peer pressure before the madman, being ‘cured’ under pressure from the atheist mob, repeatedly asks despondently “what are these churches now if they are not the tombs and sepulchres of God?” The madman, once painted by Nietzsche as a ranting lunatic for choosing to tread down a path less traveled in life, was normalized by ’embracing’ his own forced demoralization into the most cynical atheist (as opposed to agnostic) of all.
Not coincidentally, Stalin wrote in the first issue of Pravda (1912) that the Bolshevik position of democracy was punctuated through the understanding that “a powerful and vigorous movement is impossible without differences,” and thus “‘true conformity’ is possible only in the cemetery” — all of which are points which Stalin executed with extreme prejudice. Due to his own paranoia driving his agenda against God’s ‘unjust’ nature that contradicted Stalin’s view of dialectic materialism (as was true with Marx and Engels), all problems with regards to forcing all Soviet citizens to assimilate could be solved simply through mass murder. The ‘sepulchres of God’ alone cannot speak. The idea that God is however, is impossible to destroy. Thus seeing is no longer permitted to be believing due to its subjective nature making impossible the burden of proof before the most important jury of all: the general public. It is simple to desensitize the general public into embracing ‘the big lie’ while vigorously (sometimes violently) rejecting true information because politics today play to one’s fancy of instant gratification, the facts be damned. Nietzsche, despite being a passionate atheist (he once mocked Christians in proclaiming himself as ‘the Antichrist’ for his own amusement), was concerned that should God truly die in his era of modernity — murdered by collective indifference due to a pronounced cultural paradigm shift away from faith and towards rationalism and science — the West’s disavowal of the very Christian moral fabric that for 2,000 years undergirded its identity would result in total collapse from its foundation. The reason expressed by the equally antichristian Jean Jacques Rousseau that “the key to the working of the political machine” is to legitimize the state’s “civil undertakings” under a binding social contract must include indoctrinating the individual to unquestionably reject ‘the dogmas’ over which “the Sovereign has no authority in the other world” in favor of only “a purely civil profession of faith of which the Sovereign should fix the articles, not exactly as religious dogmas, but as social sentiments without which a man cannot be a good citizen or a faithful subject.” Those citizens who rebel against this civil religion venerating the Sovereign can be banished “not for impiety, but as an anti-social being, incapable of truly loving the laws and justice, and of sacrificing, at need, his life to his duty,” up to and including being put to death for “committed the worst of all crimes, that of lying before the law.” The “intolerance” of the Christianity of the Gospels for Rousseau was the cult he most rejected similar to former lesbian Houston mayor Annise Parker, who invoked censorship by her office against local pastors who taught that homosexuality was sinful in the Bible by editing any language that she considered not “to be few, simple, and exactly worded, without explanation or commentary” as to “the sanctity of the social contract and the laws” as “its positive dogmas.” Rousseau feared “the religion of man or Christianity — not the Christianity of to-day, but that of the Gospel… this holy, sublime, and real religion all men, being children of one God,” would form a separate “society… not dissolved even at death… the most perfect society imaginable… not of this world.” Because each Christian, reasoned Rousseau, would do “does his duty… with profound indifference to the good or ill success of his cares” or “whether things go well or ill here on earth,” he will bless the same hand of God “that is hard upon His people.” In stark contrast with the Roman Catholic Church, which Rousseau celebrates for launching “the Crusades” by conscripting soldiers who “so far from being Christians, … were the priests’ soldiery, citizens of the Church… [who] fought for their spiritual country, which the Church had, somehow or other, made temporal,” his resentment of the Christianity under the Gospel for failing to offer ‘no national religion’ is to blame for the fall of Rome: “the Cross” after all drove out “the eagle” and eradicated “Roman valour wholly.”
For Marxists, the Nazis and the entire Democratic platform, Christian ‘intolerance’ cannot coexist through its universal definition of ‘diversity’. “The heaviest blow that ever struck humanity,” according to Hitler, “was the coming of Christianity,” reasoning somehow that “Bolshevism is Christianity’s illegitimate child” as “inventions of the Jew.” While Bolshevism was a man’s ‘lie of the same nature’ claiming to “bring liberty to men, whereas in reality it seeks only to enslave them,” Hitler feared Christianity as “the first creed in the world to exterminate its adversaries in the name of love,” without which “The Roman Empire, under Germanic influence, would have developed in the direction of world-domination, and humanity would not have extinguished fifteen centuries of civilisation at a single stroke.” The Roman Catholic Church, a historical political infrastructure strongly influenced by ancient Roman pagan traditions and practices, was at least monolithic, and Hitler even acknowledged his connections to General Gerhard Engel in 1941 when admitting “I am now as before a Catholic and will always remain so.”. He saw as did Napoleon in 1801 “that any pact with the Church can offer only a provisional benefit, for sooner or later the scientific spirit will disclose the harmful character of such a compromise” by applying a balance between educated people who retain “the sense of the mysteries of nature and bows before the unknowable” with those who are uneducated and “risk of going over to atheism (which is a return to the state of the animal) as soon as he perceives that the State, in sheer opportunism, is making use of false ideas in the matter of religion, whilst in other fields it bases everything on pure science.” The Catholic Fuhrer “always kept the Party aloof from religious questions” by preventing his “Catholic and Protestant supporters from forming groups against one another” that would increase “the risk of carrying grist to (Hitler’s) opponents’ mill.” It was therefore only natural for Hitler the politician to open up to the Vatican by “concluding a treaty with the new Germany… the acknowledgement of the National Socialist state by the Catholic Church… shows the whole world clearly and unequivocally that the assertion that National Socialism is hostile to religion is a lie” by tying “The State (Germany) and the (German) People” with “The German Church and the People” as “one and the same body”, albeit through plausible denial, given “The Church, as such, has nothing to do with political affairs,” while “the State has nothing to do with the faith or inner organization of the Church.” In doing so, Hitler doomed all Christians to the Left’s relentless portrayal as complicit in the Holocaust given Hitler’s public proclamation that God “will not desert 67 million Germans who have worked so hard to regain their rightful position in the world.” Privately however, he scorned ‘the intolerance’ of “Pure Christianity — the Christianity of the catacombs… concerned with translating the Christian doctrine into facts” that would lead “to the annihilation of mankind” just like “whole-hearted Bolshevism, under a tinsel of metaphysics.” Hence Hitler’s scattered logic for why he never came “personally to terms” with “the Christian lie” also meant that inevitably, “National Socialism and religion will no longer be able to exist together.” There was room for only one civil religion in Nazi Germany, and Hitler intended to replace with the Nazi faith by telling the biggest lie of all.
Like Hitler, China’s Mao Zedong successfully deprived “the reactionaries of the right to speak” by simply listing anyone condemned as ‘rightists’, “reactionaries”, counterrevolutionaries and “intellectuals” to be exterminated: for communism, the most totalitarian and animalistic of ideologies, equates the individual without “a correct political point of view” as “having no soul,” and therefore “All departments and organizations” were organized to “shoulder their responsibilities in ideological and political work,” particularly “the Youth League… and especially to heads of educational institutions and teachers”. As Stalin once noted, “Education is a weapon whose effects depend on who holds it in his hands and at whom it is aimed.” The politically correct end likewise for Democrats and the globalist elites is to reconstruct a brave new world, a Utopia where “all will believe themselves happy, because the government will tell them that they are so,” be it through “war without bloodshed” or “politics with bloodshed”. Other prominent leftists like Bertrand Russell and Margaret Sanger rejected traditional Judeo-Christian checks on human sexuality for its failure to reinforce Aryan supremacy as with National Socialism under the Marxist-Leninist umbrella of “Scientific racism… an equal opportunity discriminator… in part, to promote and enforce White Supremacy” by repackaging feminism as the great liberator for women oppressed by all “Marriage laws… a continuous sexual slavery and a compulsory motherhood… dictated and dominated by the Church always and ever upon the unquestionable grounds of the wisdom of the Bible”. Such a ‘somewhat unpleasant’ slippery slope acknowledged by Russell would never apply to racial and political “thoroughbends” like himself, Sanger or Hitler who were white and would preside over over an “Population Congress” under, say, an ‘United Nations’ — for they, as “Really high minded people are indifferent to happiness, especially other people’s.” Eventually, those tied to ‘True Christianity’ — what Jean-Jacques Rousseau defined to be the Christianity of the Gospels — and Judaism as with Adolf Hitler must give way either voluntarily of through segregation, sterilization, or through the state’s brute force. Those scientists perfecting ‘the technique’ to brainwash the person of average intelligence through a specifically set of criteria for intelligence such as under Sanger’s ‘A Plan for Peace’ (the founder of eugenics, Francis Galton, also innovated measuring intelligence by intelligence quotients, or IQ) race and physical fitness will be in full compliance with the powers-that-be, according to Russell, who “will be rigidly confined to the governing class.” Thus ‘true Christianity’ had to be destroyed. The Catholic Church has, however, proven ever instrumental as it increasingly collaborates with globalist establishment’s Malthusian agenda in the name of ‘climate change’.
Liberalism, or ‘Social Democracy’, has vindicated Stalin’s point for being “the moderate wing of fascism.” Similar to Hitler’s fixation with the occult, Pope Francis embraced the globalist agenda when he appointed Hans Schellnhuber — who a few years ago called for depopulating the world’s population to below one billion using the Gaia Principle — as his new czar on climate change. The pope’s global ‘climate change’ initiative will likely incorporate the “‘geophysiological’ approach… that the biosphere contributes in an almost cognizant way to self-regulating feedback mechanisms that have kept the Earth’s surface environment stable and habitable for life… personifying this opposition as Shiva, the Hindu god of destruction” that “perturbs… the global ‘metabolism’” of the planet. At this point, the question as to exterminating the ‘unfit’ based on class or race became inevitable again, and it would also stand to reason for Pope Francis to push both Catholics and polemics alike fearful of global agendas and increased moral and religious relativity within the Church through announcing that the Roman Catholic Church might soon accept women into the priesthood, and that the idea that, perhaps, Hillary Clinton — who openly desires to become a preacher following her election loss to Donald Trump in November 2016 — might be revealed to be “Babylon the Great the Mother of Prostitutes, and of the Abominations of the Earth”.
THE CONSERVATIVE HISTORICAL REVIEW 