Monday, January 09, 2012

Matt 24 watch, 150: Visually exposing the Anti-Christ spirit of Nazism (and correcting the New Atheist "Hitler was a Christian" smear often used in retort to exposing* the Social Darwinist history of ideas roots of Hitler's thought)

(NB: Response to Dr L Moran et al is at F/N 2, below)

One of the things that astonishes me, is the increasingly commonly encountered New Atheist Internet talking point that "Hitler was a Christian"; an attempt to taint the Christian Faith with the horrors of Nazism.

In initial reply, we may immediately observe that Hitler was the main advocate of the Big Lie propaganda technique of telling huge whoppers that tickle itching ears with what they want to hear and won't -- even, "can't" -- believe that so "credible" a source is lying through their teeth about so important a matter

 The United States Office of Strategic Services aptly summed up Hitler's rhetorical and propaganda methods:
[Hitler's] primary rules were: never allow the public to cool off; never admit a fault or wrong; never concede that there may be some good in your enemy; never leave room for alternatives; never accept blame; concentrate on one enemy at a time and blame him for everything that goes wrong; people will believe a big lie sooner than a little one; and if you repeat it frequently enough people will sooner or later believe it. [Hitler as His Associates Know Him (OSS report, p.51), courtesy Wiki. Resemblance to the web stalking and Internet vandalism  techniques exposed here and here, are NOT coincidental.]

So, if we hear anything from Hitler in public that lines up with the likely sentiments of his audience -- here, largely the German people (reportedly then about 90% "Christian") -- we should be on notice. For more details, we may  cf. responsible replies here and here , with a cluster of useful quotes here. [NB: The irresponsible site Evil Bible that is linked to substantiate the New Atheist smear talking point, is rebutted in general here.]

But all of this requires a fair amount of reading and reasonably balanced thought, precisely what the likes of those inclined to swallow the sort of talking point above are disinclined to do.

We need something far more direct.

Courtesy a Life photo-essay on Nazi era posters [under fair use], we can however see direct, visual positive proof of the actual Anti-christ, demonic, counterfeiting spirit of both Hitler and nazism.

This is immediately obvious, through the following blasphemous echo of the descent of the Spirit as a dove on Jesus and the announcement of the Father that Jesus was the Approved Son, at his baptism in the Jordan:

In the image we see an aura of radiant glory and a descending bat-like, predatory, demonic bird; most certainly not the Holy and peaceful Dove of the Holy Spirit. 

Hitler, here, is plainly being presented as an idolatrous political messiah, a deliberate and demonically twisted echo of Jesus.

Complete with a flag carrying that twisted, broken cross known as the Swastika.

Itself, a highly visible warning. 

{Added Jan 18:} Whatever the Swastika once may have been in our civilisation (and with all due respect to those of other cultures and creeds where it may still have a positive meaning), it is now forever tainted by the Nazi abuse, and the horrible meaning and history of their flag:
In Mein Kampf, Hitler described the Nazis' new flag: "In red we see the social idea of the movement, in white the nationalistic idea, in the swastika the mission of the struggle for the victory of the Aryan man, and, by the same token, the victory of the idea of creative work, which as such always has been and always will be anti-Semitic." (pg. 496-497)

Because of the Nazis' flag, the swastika soon became a symbol of hate, antisemitism, violence, death, and murder . . . 
 To that list, we must plainly add, also, that it is a symbol of occultic anti-christian sentiment: a twisted, broken cross just as Heine warned against ever so long ago. 

(And, in case some would abuse the Cross itself, this would be an act of misusing a symbol that stands for the name and cause of the loving, essentially good, Creator-God; as such, this would be blasphemy and sacrilege. So, let us be very very careful indeed of how our flags are made into lies by our misbehaviour, whether they use the t-cross or the X-cross -- also a hint of the first letter of Christ in Greek, Chi -- or any other symbol of our call to live under God. Jamaica, in case you do not hear me clearly, this means us in particular. That golden cross of St Andrew across our flag says that here is indeed a "sun" that shineth in our land: The Son of God. So, let us have the humility to repent, seek his grace and heed the second stanza of our glorious prayer-anthem: Teach us true respect for all, Stir response to duty's call, Strengthen us the weak to cherish, Give us vision lest we perish, Knowledge send us heavenly Father, Grant true Wisdom from above, Justice, Truth be ours forever, Jamaica Land we love.)

Pardon a moment from the heart . . . 

Okay, hearts cleansed, let us now turn to another video.

So, let us contrast the baptism scene from the movie, Jesus of Nazareth:

And, a "typical" stained glass image of the scene:

Jesus' Baptism, Tiffany; Brown Memorial Presbyterian,
Baltimore, MD, USA. Courtesy, James G Howes, Wiki

Anyone with even a modicum of spiritual discernment should have instantly spotted these things, on seeing the horribly blasphemous Nazi poster. One look at such sacrilege should have told us all we needed to know about this man to know that we should shun him; and, all we needed to know about the destructive, deceitful nature of the movement that so blindly followed him to ruin.

This is a case where a picture is indeed worth a thousand words.

It is therefore no wonder that we can see here the plan for subverting and destroying the Christian Churches that was exposed through an investigatory document for the Nuremberg war crimes trials.

So, now, let us again hear Heinrich Heine's grimly prophetic warning from the 1830's on what was even then slowly brewing in Germany:
Christianity — and that is its greatest merit — has somewhat mitigated that brutal German love of war, but it could not destroy it. Should that subduing talisman, the cross, be shattered [--> the Swastika, visually, is a twisted, broken cross . . .], the frenzied madness of the ancient warriors, that insane Berserk rage of which Nordic bards have spoken and sung so often, will once more burst into flame. …

The old stone gods will then rise from long ruins and rub the dust of a thousand years from their eyes, and Thor will leap to life with his giant hammer and smash the Gothic cathedrals. …

Do not smile at my advice — the advice of a dreamer who warns you against Kantians, Fichteans, and philosophers of nature. Do not smile at the visionary who anticipates the same revolution in the realm of the visible as has taken place in the spiritual. Thought precedes action as lightning precedes thunder. German thunder … comes rolling somewhat slowly, but … its crash … will be unlike anything before in the history of the world. …

At that uproar the eagles of the air will drop dead [--> cf. air warfare, symbol of the USA], and lions in farthest Africa [--> the lion is a key symbol of Britain, cf. also the North African campaigns]  will draw in their tails and slink away. … A play will be performed in Germany which will make the French Revolution look like an innocent idyll. [Religion and Philosophy in Germany, 1831.]
After this, let no one even dare to begin to suggest that Hitler was anything more or less than a plainly demonic false political messiah who led his deluded followers into unspeakable evil. END

 *F/N, Jan 10: For those who need documentation on the key Social Darwinism roots of Hitler's thought, I suggest that such examine the Weikart lecture and a discussion of a key clip from Mein Kampf that demonstrated the Darwinist-Haeckelian frame of thought, that beyond reasonable doubt strongly shaped Hitler’s thinking, speech and behaviour. 

Let me embed the lecture

In addition, such may wish to look at a previous post in this blog, here, that ties in remarks by Darwin in his The Descent of man, chs 5 - 7 [yes, Darwin, too, was demonstrably a Social Darwinist . . . ], and highlights H G Wells' warnings in his popular novel, War of the Worlds, 1897. In short, the danger should have been recognised and averted generations before the Holocaust, and -- given known turnabout tactic New Atheist talking points here -- no, this does not constitute putting "all the world's ills" on Darwinist shoulders. A fairer understanding of the Christian gospel would recognise that the Christian Faith has always held that our ills largely stem from our common challenge that we are all finite, fallible, morally fallen and too often ill-willed, walking in rebellious alienation from our common Father, that then leads to alienation within our hearts and quarreling, abuse, oppression and worse between us and our brothers, sisters and cousins who were equally made in God's image with us. Hence the gospel highlights our common need for recognition of our moral plight, repentance, forgiveness and moral-spiritual transformation through the Christ of God; which, far too often, includes those of us who name the name of Jesus on our lips but fail to walk -- however stumblingly -- in his way of discipleship and loving service. (Those needing documentation on Hitler’s actual attitude to and intentions for the Christian Churches, can look at the recently released Nuremberg investigatory documents here. If after seeing these documents and the like, someone still insists on trying to claim Hitler was a Christian etc etc, s/he is delusional and/or willfully deceitful.) 

F/N 2, Jan 11:  I see I need to make a few for record comments, given a rather nastily personal attack at Sandwalk, by Dr Moran; who seems to be of the "if you disagree with the evolutionary materialist or broader darwinist view or point out some of its less happy moments in history, you must be ignorant, stupid, insane or wicked" school of thought: 

a --> Evolutionary materialism and macroevolution are at best explanatory constructs, not facts in themselves. This is elementary: scientific theories and models are explanations, not facts, and that is perforce redoubled when one sets out to explain the unobserved, unobservable deep past of the origins of the world of life. (Cf. also, here.)

b --> The purpose of the post above is indeed obvious [and openly stated above], given that EvilBible etc are assiduously trying to mislead the public to believe that Hitler was a Christian acting out of his Christian faith. So, since all too many are unable or unwilling to wade through the sort of documentation that is linked above, a visual example of the demonic, Anti-christ, counterfeit spirit of Hitler and his twisted- broken-cross Nazi party -- it is that obvious! -- is in order. 
[U/D, Jan 12: And, that, sadly -- and in defiance of scripture -- some Christians (including leading voices in Germany like Luther) have been intemperate and anti-Semitic  neither means that we can then dismiss or ignore the evidence as to Hitler's actual deceptive Anti-christ spirit and blasphemously idolatrous political messianism [as we can see above], nor that we can then pretend that the links from Darwin and Haeckel through social darwinism and eugenics etc to Hitler and co. are not historically well-documented. Let's not forget, either, that H G Wells -- a student of "Darwin's bulldog," Huxley -- wrote a series of well-known novels on the moral hazards of modern science, including the warning in the opening chapter of War of the Worlds that I have highlighted here. Before all of this, as we can see above: by 1830, Heine was prophetically warning on the dangers implicit in the wave of academics who were already progressively dismissing God and Christ in Germany; as, Heine knew that the inherently good Creator God is the only serious worldview foundational IS who can ground OUGHT. Nations and civilisations that willfully forget God in the teeth of the evidence and reasoning that point so clearly to him, as Paul warned, walk a path to moral chaos and self-destruction.]
 c --> Indeed, we may directly and simply see above where Hitler's propagandists did not hesitate to blasphemously twist the NT account of the descent of the Spirit at Jesus' baptism in the Jordan, to present Hitler as a political messiah. And thus, they inadvertently exposed him as a demonic counterfeit, an idolatrous false Christ. This directly and beyond reasonable doubt implies that  Nazism was and is Antichristian, not Christian. (Something that those who actually read the relevant historical documentation without ideological blinkers would easily enough confirm. Why not start with the Barmen Declaration of 1934, by Barth, Boenhoffer, Niemoller et al, here? Could anything be clearer than this in reply to the Nazi-led so-called German Christian movement: ". . . In opposition to attempts to establish the unity of the German Evangelical Church by means of false doctrine, by the use of force and insincere practices, the Confessional Synod insists that the unity of the Evangelical Churches in Germany can come only from the Word of God in faith through the Holy Spirit. Thus alone is the Church renewed . . . Try the spirits whether they are of God!," etc, etc?)

d --> Further to all of this, it can be quite easily and objectively shown (as the footnote just above this one does) that Hitler's thought and behaviour were in fact strongly shaped by the stream in the history of ideas that stemmed from the Social Darwinism that so gripped Germany in the decades after 1859, especially through the impact of Haeckel, who indelibly linked "scientific" evolution to racism and the devaluation and dehumanisation of the perceived inferiors. Let me clip, for convenience:
 For those who need documentation on the key Social Darwinism roots of Hitler's thought, I suggest that such examine the Weikart lecture and a discussion of a key clip from Mein Kampf that demonstrated the Darwinist-Haeckelian frame of thought, that beyond reasonable doubt strongly shaped Hitler’s thinking, speech and behaviour. In addition, such may wish to look at a previous post in this blog, here, that ties in remarks by Darwin in his The Descent of man, chs 5 - 7 [yes, Darwin, too, was demonstrably a Social Darwinist . . . ], and highlights H G Wells' warnings in his popular novel, War of the Worlds, 1897. In short, the danger should have been recognised and averted generations before the Holocaust . . .
 e --> As I noted above, Hitler was plainly an extreme. But, sadly, there was a far broader movement of "scientific" Eugenics, founded by Darwin's cousin Galton, and founded based on his and others' extension of Darwin's thought to the question of the evolution of man. As the logo for the Second International Congress I used in my notice about a case of cyberstalking and web vandalism at Uncommon Descent identified, this was unquestionably rooted in Darwinist soil, even going so far as to define Eugenics as "the self-direction of human evolution":

The "tree" of Eugenics, c 1921 (Logo of 2nd International Congress on Eugenics)

f --> An examination of the roots of eugenics will show many biologically relevant scientific fields, i.e. as was self-announced by this movement that swept the elites of the world at the turn of C20 and shaped law and policy from North Carolina, California and Canada to Japan and Germany, it saw itself as an applied science by which humanity would now master the course of evolution.

g --> We need not elaborate the litany of horrors that stemmed from that as eugenics led to many indefensible actions, and was tied in to abortion, infanticide and euthanasia movements, ending up in genocide in Germany. Instead of giving a long list of details, we may simply note that as the already linked  NWE article observed:
The scope and coercion involved in the German eugenics programs along with a strong use of the rhetoric of eugenics and so-called "racial science" throughout the regime created an indelible cultural association between eugenics and the Third Reich in the postwar years . . . . In reaction to Nazi abuses, eugenics became almost universally reviled in many of the nations where it had once been popular (however, some eugenics programs, including sterilization, continued quietly for decades). Many pre-war eugenicists engaged in what they later labeled "crypto-eugenics," purposefully taking their eugenic beliefs "underground" and becoming respected anthropologists, biologists, and geneticists in the postwar world (including Robert Yerkes in the U.S. and Otmar von Verschuer in Germany) . . . . High school and college textbooks from the 1920s through the 1940s often had chapters touting the scientific progress to be had from applying eugenic principles to the population. Many early scientific journals devoted to heredity in general were run by eugenicists and featured eugenics articles alongside studies of heredity in nonhuman organisms. After eugenics fell out of scientific favor, most references to eugenics were removed from textbooks and subsequent editions of relevant journals . . . . Notable members of the American Eugenics Society (1922–94) during the second half of the twentieth century included Joseph Fletcher, originator of Situational ethics; Dr. Clarence Gamble of the Procter & Gamble fortune; and Garrett Hardin, a population control advocate and author of The Tragedy of the Commons. Despite the changed postwar attitude towards eugenics in the U.S. and some European countries, a few nations, notably, Canada and Sweden, maintained large-scale eugenics programs, including forced sterilization of mentally handicapped individuals, as well as other practices, until the 1970s. In the United States, sterilizations capped off in the 1960s, though the eugenics movement had largely lost most popular and political support by the end of the 1930s . . .
h --> So, I am also highlighting an underlying challenge of evolutionary materialistic thought that becomes vital when we reflect on science, and worldviews often tied to science in society, its radical relativism and amorality, with sidelights from all too tellingly relevant history. An amorality that the well-known professor William Provine inadvertently exposed for us to ponder in his well-known 1998 University of Tennessee Darwin Day address:
Naturalistic evolution has clear consequences that Charles Darwin understood perfectly. 1) No gods worth having exist; 2) no life after death exists; 3) no ultimate foundation for ethics exists; 4) no ultimate meaning in life exists; and 5) human free will is nonexistent . . .
i --> If we are not significantly free, we are not and cannot be morally responsible. Similarly, if there is no objective foundation for ethics, then we are left with radical relativism and the nihilism of "might makes 'right' . . . ," as Plato pointed out in no uncertain terms 2350 years ago in his The Laws, Bk X.

j --> Or, as Will Hawthorne so powerfully summed up:
Assume (per impossibile) that atheistic naturalism [[= evolutionary materialism] is true. Assume, furthermore, that one can't infer an 'ought' from an 'is' [[the 'is' being in this context physicalist: matter-energy, space- time, chance and mechanical forces].  (Richard Dawkins and many other atheists should grant both of these assumptions.)
Given our second assumption, there is no description of anything in the natural world from which we can infer an 'ought'. And given our first assumption, there is nothing that exists over and above the natural world; the natural world is all that there is. It follows logically that, for any action you care to pick, there's no description of anything in the natural world from which we can infer that one ought to refrain from performing that action.
Add a further uncontroversial assumption: an action is permissible if and only if it's not the case that one ought to refrain from performing that action . . . [[We see] therefore, for any action you care to pick, it's permissible to perform that action. If you'd like, you can take this as the meat behind the slogan 'if atheism is true, all things are permitted'.
For example if atheism is true, every action Hitler performed was permissible. Many atheists don't like this consequence of their worldview. But they cannot escape it and insist that they are being logical at the same time.
Now, we all know that at least some actions are really not permissible (for example, racist actions). Since the conclusion of the argument denies this, there must be a problem somewhere in the argument. Could the argument be invalid? No. The argument has not violated a single rule of logic and all inferences were made explicit.
Thus we are forced to deny the truth of one of the assumptions we started out with. That means we either deny atheistic naturalism or (the more intuitively appealing) principle that one can't infer 'ought' from [[a material] 'is'. [[Emphases and paragraphing added.]
k --> Such issues and concerns are obviously painful, but if we are to be responsible about the issues of science in society, we must face them fair and square. For, those who refuse to learn from history are doomed to repeat it. 


Anonymous said...

A theory is a verified hypothesis that makes predictions, not just an "explanation". Evolution is a theory in this sense. And stop with the nazi crap , it just makes you look foolish.

GEM of The Kairos Initiative said...


I have made an exception to the questionable language bar, and note to you that you will be expected to use clean language for further comments. (Blogger does not give an option to edit comments, so it is pass/fail. I passed, with reservations.)

Pardon but just as there is no none size fits all definition of either science or its methods, there is no one definition of a scientific theory. An empirically grounded and reliable explanatory model tested per inference to best explanation, will often be good at predictions or retrodictions.

Perhaps, you are not familiar with Peirce's inference to best explanation model as applied to science? Or, with the concept that science seeks to describe, explain, predict and influence or control phenomena?

Next, perhaps it has not dawned on you that I am responding to and correcting a specific false and poisonous allegation against the Christian Faith in the above, and onward to attempts to double down on the accusations in footnotes.

Those who should be concerned about looking stupid or worse -- much worse, are those who are saying some quite seriously false, accusatory and ill founded things. For instance, you will see that I find myself forced to not just provide corrective documentation (which has been provided many times and has been ignored) but a visual image that demonstrates beyond reasonable doubt the fundamentally Antichrist spirit of the Nazi party and its leader. EvilBible et al all across the Internet are out and out guilty of willful slander. Does that not trouble you?

If not, why not?

At the broader level, perhaps it would be wise for objectors to take a moment to seriously ask themselves whether there is some merit and historical warrant to concerns about evolutionary materialism, associated darwinian thought on science across time, social darwinism eugenics and dominant streams of thought that continue to our own time.

The very "how dare you criticise or question" attitude that I am seeing is telling me that there is something that needs to be seriously and soberly re-thought in many quarters.