I have long despised the conventional wisdom that Communism "in theory" was at all admirable, or superior to Nazism. I feel so strongly about this issue that I would like to reproduce this comment of mine, made in the context of a Facebook debate on the Allied bombing of Dresden (71 years ago this weekend), here:
I
absolutely and categorically deny that the ends of Communism, let alone
the means, were in any way preferable to those of Nazism and am frankly
appalled at the suggestion that they were. As a Monarchist the very
idea of Equality is utterly repugnant and
abhorrent to me, and not "better" or "ideal" at all, even in theory.
While the rich are obliged to help the poor as they can, it is meet and
right that some should be rich and others should be poor and that there
should be different classes in society. Communism is inherently
incompatible with monarchy, aristocracy, and traditional hierarchical
Christianity and as such is fundamentally evil to the core, and not only
in how it was (inevitably) applied. I would rather die than live in a
world without Monarchies.
From my perspective, communism is worse than fascism because fascism
can sometimes coexist (however uneasily) with Crown and Church, while
communism cannot. Nazism, it must be said, was not all that different from
communism in its attitudes towards the royal families (Hitler reportedly once joked that the only good thing about the Social Democrats was their anti-monarchy platform), though it was
initially happy to take advantage of royalty and monarchists when convenient.
There is no
civilisation without inequality; there is no beauty without inequality.
The divine order God created is unequal. This is why attempts to abolish
it always lead to greater misery. Thank God for Inequality! And may the
satanic spirit of egalitarianism be crushed forever.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
13 comments:
Theodore, this was eloquently put and true!
Let's not forget that Nazism is just another kind of socialism from Communism--that fundamentally, the only real difference is that Nazism is nationalist and Communism is internationalist.
But both have the same basic premise: that people usurped power they didn't have and refused to share it, and that was bad, and so the people kept out of power have the right to usurp power they don't have, and refuse to share it, and that's good. (Note the double standard in a movement which--at least in the case of Communism--pretends to be egalitarian. This hypocrisy shows Communism to be logically absurd and incapable of being true--and therefore Communism doesn't want people to think.) The only difference is whether the double standard relates to class (Communism) or race (Nazism).
One thing, though: I prefer to say "hierarchy" rather than "inequality": people are more attracted to positives than negatives.
Don't pretend that being for your own people and heritage is somehow equal to communist internationalism or obsession with class. You speak as if this was a minor difference. Pretending that the two side were the same and equal is such a tiresome and a predictable trope of the last 60 or so years.
Except very few people say that. The conventional wisdom I'm trying to refute is that Nazism was uniquely evil while Communism was sort of bad but "at least they had good ideas" or some such rot. But I don't think we (right-wingers) should go to the other extreme and try to whitewash Nazism either. They were both pretty awful. But that's what happens when you abolish monarchies. As far as I'm concerned no one who is not a monarchist has any right to complain about either the Nazis or the Communists as they were simply the consequence of getting rid of the legitimate German and Russian monarchies.
I am certainly in favour of praising "hierarchy" and in fact in my original post specified "traditional hierarchical Christianity" as my kind of religion. However I think it is also necessary rhetorically to confront the lie that "Inequality" is evil head-on.
@Ponocrates: Please don't put words in my mouth. I never pretended any such thing. I specifically said that that was the difference between the two, and I didn't say that they were "the same" and "equal", only trying to continue with Mr. Harvey's argument (which you called "eloquently put and true") by showing that people who condemn one have no real basis on which not to condemn the other because they're both rooted in the same Satanic revolutionary ideology. I don't see how my words were even taken differently enough to provoke such a negative reaction from you when you reacted positively to what he said. In fact, your accusation that I "speak as if this was a minor difference" speaks a lot more about you and your values than it does about me and mine--you're reading between the lines things that aren't there.
Indeed, you should watch what you say because if I were to do to you the same thing you did to me, I could ask you not to pretend that you aren't a Nazi sympathizer because you speak of "being for your own people and heritage" and take offense at its being compared to Communist internationalism or obsession with class--when I compared Communism specifically to Nazism (and there only to the identical revolutionary rhetoric) and not to any uncorrupt "being for your own people and heritage". I won't do that, however, because I don't believe you are one, and I agree that being for your own people and heritage is a good thing when not corrupted by hatred of others--I only say that to show you what it's like to be on the receiving end of what you said. Please take better care in the future not to be so sensitive and to watch what you say to someone you don't know.
God bless you and be with you in all you do.
Quite so.
For that matter, I specifically said that Communism in particular was logically absurd because it pretends to be egalitarian while promoting a serious double standard (when the bourgeoisie do it it's evil but when the proletariat do the exact same thing it's good and right), which Nazism doesn't. I wonder how well you even read my comment, Ponocrates.
@Pair O' Dimes, I'm sorry I misunderstood your comment completely. We are in agreement that Communism and Nazism are abominations, and that "being for your own people and heritage" is a good thing (a love of one's own, not a hatred of others) something that both Nazism and Communism did rather poorly in upholding or achieving. What I take objection to (not to you of course) is when people forgive communism because it pretends to not care for such things, but something "higher" like egalitarianism or international class struggle. I think it actually makes it worse to pursue egalitarianism or some abstract goal than to fight for protecting one's country, traditions, interests, or rights, etc. However, when comparing these two modern ideologies, Nazism and Communism, we are only talking about different degrees of evil.
Again I'm sorry for my misplaced reaction to what you wrote.
@Ponocrates:
Apology accepted. I'm sorry if I got snippy--I didn't mean to. Yes, we do agree on both. I agree with you on that too--people forgiving Communism because it pretends that egalitarianism and international class struggle are "higher" and so don't care about love of your people and heritage. I agree with you--as a Catholic Christian I believe persons are more important than ideologies. Therefore movements that respect persons and personhood, and the true objective definition thereof, are better than abstract belief systems like "freedom" or "equality". You're right, they are different degrees of evil--but both are still evil, and as I argued, they're of a kind.
That's okay. Forgiven and forgotten. :) I'm just glad you did finally realize what I meant to say, and it was big of you to apologize. I hope you forgive me too if I overreacted.
"I am certainly in favour of praising "hierarchy" and in fact in my original post specified "traditional hierarchical Christianity" as my kind of religion. However I think it is also necessary rhetorically to confront the lie that "Inequality" is evil head-on."
@Theodore Harvey:
It's your decision, of course--it's just that, having previously been ultra-left wing myself until a few years ago, using the specific word "inequality" (rather than "hierarchy"), especially so many times, is a turn-off. Plus if I used it myself as many times as you did, I would feel much the same as a kid speaking his first profanity, doing it over and over as he realized that a barrier had been crossed that couldn't quite be uncrossed. You know, using the same part of the brain, hence why in The King's Speech you see the speech therapist having "Bertie" use profanities because he doesn't stutter those? Am I making sense, even if you don't agree?
Honestly I guess I am still feeling like that a bit since I've become right wing, and a monarchist. I still need to grow in the theological virtues of faith, hope, and charity--I haven't quite gotten my "sea legs" yet, and so I fear I overcompensate.
I'm not really addressing hardened leftists on this blog, though as in your excellent case such conversions do happen, which is wonderful, but more moderates who are tempted to concede some points (e.g. getting rid of inequality would be a good idea in theory) to the Left that I don't think should be conceded.
@Theodore Harvey:
Yeah, not addressing hardened leftists is probably a good idea. I agree with you in what you said in your last comment here. Only ontologically are we all equal--and if we try to make the unequal elements of our society equal, I believe we necessarily disrespect our ontological equality, reversing the two. Other than outright hypocrisy how else can we explain why it's okay to kill someone in the womb but not out of the womb?
Post a Comment