Three of A Kind: Environmentalism, Communism, and Failure

[PoliticalChic]

There is no way he understands that the French and the American Revolutions were diametric opposites.

you're right.

The French Revolution was justified.

The American Revolution really wasn't.

The Bourbons horribly mismanaged France. They pissed away money on wars and palaces while people were LITERALLY STARVING IN THE STREET. The "mob" as you say were women who watched their children die in their arms while their leaders said, "Let them Eat Cake". Okay, maybe that wasn't actually said, but the sentiment was there. It was such a disconnect between the rulers and the ruled that the people revolted angrily, as they should have.

Meanwhile, the American Revolution. That was a bunch of Slave-owners who didn't want to pay their taxes. The thing was, the United Kingdom had already banned slavery in the England proper and were looking to do it in the colonies. They had representative, parlimentary democracy. They had a notion of civil rights. It was hardly a "noble cause".

Do you know what we've have been if they lost? Canadians. I've been to Canada, it's kind of nice except the sucky weather.

I detect

If only you had studied, and learned from, history.

Ironic!

Hardly.

 

[PoliticalChic]

"human beings are motivated by self-interest rather than collective interests."
Denied by the Left.....for public consumption....


10. History has proven, even in the most Marxist empire, the Soviet Union, the profit motive has long been established.

While espousing the bumper-sticker "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need," "The Stakhanovite movement began during the second 5-year plan in 1935 as a new stage of the socialist competition.
The Stakhanovite movement was named after Aleksei Stakhanov, who had mined 102tonsof coal in less than 6 hours (14 times his quota)."
Stakhanovite movement - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia


Even Stalin could not deny the value of profit to those who worked harder, produced more.....
" Stalin’s 1936 movement which rewarded the hard work of industry laborers was met with open arms to those who were to be recognized, and seemingly alienated the average workers from their peers. As seen in the image above, this Miner Aleksei Stakhanov had been rewarded for his hard efforts in coal mining. He would become the role model for the industrial workers under Stalin. Stakhanov had picked 102 tons of coal in a short six hour shift. This being multiple times greater than the normal load, was met with admiration and reward."
Stalin 8217 s Employee of the Month RUSSIAN TO GET IT DONE

Stalin recognized individuality!
Of course, modern communists still deny the value of individual efforts: "You didn't build that!"


This reward to individuals was a no-no, according to true-believer, Trotsky:

" Trotsky highlights the most important of these 'zigzags' in the field of economic policy, criticizing Stalin and Bukharin's policy of at first opposing voluntary collectivization and increasing privatization of land and then of an abrupt U-turn to break-neck industrialisation and forced collectivisation, which Trotsky brands "economic adventurism" that carried "the nation to the edge of disaster". Trotsky then discusses labor productivity and criticizes the uselessness of the Stakhanovite movement ...
The Revolution Betrayed - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia


So....Quo Vadis, environmentalism?
It incorporates the seeds of its own failure.

 

[Esmeralda]

It cannot be stated often enough that environmentalism, far from a science, is merely one more way that Marxism is transfused into society.



1. Every Leftist is, essentially, a Marxist…even though most eschew the title since the fall of the Soviet Union. Even so, Left-wing ideas are predicated on Marx’s materialist view. Philosophically, the term implies that only material things are real.

1. 1. Therefore, emotions, such as love, are no more than chemistry. And it suggests that it is only genes and environment that determine our actions, and free will plays no role. And, of course, God and religious beliefs are nonsense.
   2. From Marx on, the Left has fought against religion for the above reason, and because they understood how difficult it is to get religious people to engage in revolution for the purpose of bettering their material lives. Such folks often relegate the material world to lower priority than the spiritual, moral and intellectual world. 2. The Left’s concept of materialism broadens into the overarching desire to see every individual materially equal. The Left is less interested in creating wealth than in distributing it, and has been far more interested in fighting material inequality than tyranny, which is why Lenin, Mao, Pol Pot, Ho Chi Minh, Castro, etc., tend to have the support of Leftists around the world.

3. End social and economic inequality and one will have Utopia! Sadly, attempts toward creation of utopia in this world lead to dystopia. Which leads to this comparison: conservatives marvel at how good America is, Leftists want to ‘transform’ it. Prager, ”Still The Best Hope”



4. On the obverse, capitalism and profit are anathema to Marxists....and that view is central to its spin-off, environmentalism. While nature is the highest goal for this 'art,' at the lowest level we find critiques of 'greed,' and 'evil corporations,' and 'that virus known as mankind.'



5. Environmental activist Wallace Kaufman spotlights the error in the above in an anecdote in his perceptive tome, " No Turning Back: Dismantling the Fantasies of Environmental Thinking."
He writes:
"...Stanley Selengut, who runs Maho Bay Camp in the US Virgin Islands as an ecotourism resort, says protecting the environment pays. [He uses] recycled materials, and natural energy sources, serves health foods, landscapes with natural plants, uses low-flow toilets and showers, avoids toxic materials, encourages the simple life, and more.....solar panels and a windmill. And Stanley doesn't mind telling everyone that Maho Bay makes a 20 percent profit!

...but the broad generalizations that people make from his success do not hold up. Stanley succeeds in great measure because his resort appeals to environmentalists who believe what he is doing is right.

In a similar manner, a church survives and grows because its believers fill the offering plate, not because its faith is better than another faith."


Seems that applying environmentalist doctrine to society in general would benefit all......

....or does it.

LOL You are funny.

 

[NoTeaPartyPleez]

"human beings are motivated by self-interest rather than collective interests."

And therein lies the flaw in communism, environmentalism, socialism, and every other collectivist philosophy.

What that tells me is that is why we need collectivist philosophies.

It might be in my "self-Interest" to make a huge profit on a plant that dumps toxin into the water supply. I can always have water brought in.

For the thousands of people who might get cancer from that water supply, they have a collective interest in making sure i don't do that.

You probably aren't old enough to remember what smog alerts looked like, but I am. I remember not being able to see the sun because the smog hanging over Chicago was so thick in the summers back in the 1970's.

I should also point out that the EPA was started by that raging Communist, Richard Nixon.

"For the thousands of people who might get cancer from that water supply, they have a collective interest in making sure i don't do that."

Yet, you poison the civil discourse every day, and conservatives have no intention of depriving you of your right.

I strongly recommend you review the French Revolution's theme of the 'general will,' and what should happen to show who do not subscribe to same.




If only you had studied, and learned from, history.

Napoleon used the Gillotien..

Actually, Napoleon used the cannon....but I get your point.

Maybe that's how your moronic follower spells guillotine? You really appeal to the illiterati.

 

[NoTeaPartyPleez]

So the usual hard-right-wing extremists are trying to rewrite history again, and then crying because nobody outside of their cult is paying any attention to their fantasy history.

The ultimate goal of the righties here is to create their version of utopia, a kind of marxist-fascist corporate oligopoly. Those righties believe they'll be rewarded with crumbs from their masters' tables for their help in destroying democracy and capitalism. If the corporations own the production and the corporations are the government, then the government will own all means of production, and the right-wing communist dream will have been fulfilled.

As it was with FDR, it's up to the liberals now to save both capitalism and democracy. These righties here have never forgiven FDR for saving capitalism.

Anyone with an education understands that everything you've posted is the very reverse of the truth.
Anyone who has any familiarity with The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) recognizes you.

Anyone who glibly refers to the DSM has probably searched it looking for a self-diagnosis.

 

[NoTeaPartyPleez]

mammy and JoeB are operatives for the progressives. They will never listen to reason for they are unreasonable.

My problem is I DID listen to the Republicans.

And when Bush left office I had an underwater mortgage, a busted 401K and job that paid 15% less than what I had been making.

I do better when Democrats are in office. THat's a good enough reason for me.

I'm sure more than a few righties endured financial trauma too, but they don't have the guts to admit it on this board.

 

[rdean]

Clean air and clean water is another form of communism????

What a tard.

 

[NoTeaPartyPleez]

Clean air and clean water is another form of communism????

What a tard.

I'm sure the people of New York much prefer their view from the Empire State Building today than 40 years ago.

 

[westwall]

PC and Westwall, what payment have you been promised for your work in destroying capitalism and democracy?

I'm just curious about what the going rate for a soul is these days.

I don't know mammy. How much did yours cost dear old George?

 

[westwall]

Yes, Stalin died peacefully, but 60 to 80 million of his subjects died horribly in the gulags. Mao likewise died peacefully, however 100 to 150 million of his subjects were murdered to appease his blood lust. Hitler was, like the previous two, an atheist. You atheists try and disown him, but the evidence is very clear as to what he was. He used religion as a tool, nothing more.

Vis a vis Hitler:

a little true, mostly false.

He was raised Catholic, he never formally left the Church and he was not excommunicated before his death. In fact, he signed the Concordiat with Pius XII. So, you can claim that he used religion as a tool, but in reality, the Church used him as well.

This does not mean that he did not have great disdain for Christianity, for surely he did. But it does not make him an atheist, either. In fact, still in the 1930s, he made a number of speeches proclaiming that he was fullfilling the "wisdom of god".

Of course, it should be apparent to any thinking human being how much I hate Adolph Hitler, but I think it is also irrelevant whether you want to call him an atheist or not. However, to use that tactic to bash atheists on the head is just plain old stupid, as with so many of the bullshitty, nonsensical things you write here in USMB, lacking in fact, lacking in gravitas, lacking in sensibility.

Better luck next time. It's amazing how you think that Lord Westwall is somehow totally omniscent. Well, you are not.

Now, to the pile of shit that is supposed to be the OP:

Three of A Kind: Environmentalism, Communism, and Failure

Ok, any OP that starts with:

"Every Leftist is, essentially, a Marxist"


is surely destined for the trash bin of history. It's also pretty damned funny when you consider that a Republican, Theodore Roosevelt, was the father of environmentalism in many regards...

Or, I can just go around saying, for the rest of my life:

Every Rightist is, essentially, a fascist.


But that would be ridiculous and just as stupid as politicalshit's opening salvo.

Oh, and politicalshit, nice copy and paste job!

Yes, that is called propaganda. You are well versed in it. The private writings, and the recorded conversations make it very plain that Hitler was an atheist. There is NO doubt about that. The fact that he was raised Catholic doesn't matter a bit. Most atheists come from homes that were religious so your argument is pointless.

 

[westwall]

The liberal spirit of collectivism is the same thing Hitler used to gain consensus against the Jewish people. The Ends then justified the means, any means to rid itself of these people they deemed unfit or a problem in their grand scheme of global control. And just like many collectivists before him they came to violent ends. Stalin, Marx, Mao, all of these individuals murdered millions of people before the people took them out at great cost.

Marx never had political power, and Stalin and Mao died peacefully in their beds.

As for Hitler, Hitler was just the end result of a major religion who said, "The Jews Killed our God-Man".

Yes, Stalin died peacefully, but 60 to 80 million of his subjects died horribly in the gulags. Mao likewise died peacefully, however 100 to 150 million of his subjects were murdered to appease his blood lust. Hitler was, like the previous two, an atheist. You atheists try and disown him, but the evidence is very clear as to what he was. He used religion as a tool, nothing more.

Assumes facts not in evidence!

Hitler was raised as a devout catholic. Stalin was educated in a seminary to become a priest. Mao was raised as a Buddhist and is quoted as saying that it is wrong to be opposed to religion.

Now why don't you erroneously accuse me "derailing this thread" because you introduced the red herring of atheism in order to slander it without any factual basis.

BTW I am taking an image of this post so that I will have the evidence if you attempt to delete it instead of addressing your falsehoods.

Yes, you clown faces have an amazingly juvenile need to run to momma when you get your asses handed to you. Some day I hope you grow up. Now, in order...As stated before, what a person is raised makes no difference to what they become. That atheist hero of yours Richard Dawkins described his childhood as "a normal Anglican upbringing". So, by your idiotic logic he can't then be an atheist. Do you see how retarded that statement of yours is?

Stalins father was a Orthodox Priest, and so Stalin followed the father into the Church, however, when he became a revolutionary he famously stated..
"You know, they are fooling us, there is no God… all this talk about God is sheer nonsense." -E. Yaroslavsky, Landmarks in the Life of Stalin

Under Stalin the Russian Orthodox Church suffered heavily. They were reduced from 50,000 operating churches to under 500. Then during the war he relieved some of the pressure to get the people to fight harder, but once the war was over he cracked down on the Church yet again.

Now Mao is easy, we find in The Writings of Mao Zedong, 1949-1976: January 1956-December 1957 By Zedong Mao, Michael Y.M. Kau, John K Leung (October-December 1957/page 791) that he wrote the following...

“Atheism must take the place of belief in a God.”

Although China is a socialist country, Buddhism is protected according to national policy. The late Chairman Mao Zedong said when he received delegations from Peru in 1964 that:

“it is wrong to tell people to be against religion.”

“religious people would oppose us… believing in a certain religion doesn’t mean people don’t oppose imperialism, feudalism and bureaucratic capitalism.”

 

[JoeB131]

like I said, MORONS who think it should be mob rule have ruined it... They have not however changed the US Constitution and it therefore can be returned to it former state once we give these commies the boot.

Actually, guy, here's the thing. You guys will never win another presidential election, and the next three election cycles are going to kind of suck for you.

 

[JoeB131]

Actually, the help the French gave us helped to deplete the already strained coffers making things harder for the starving French citizens. The help we were given didn't cause the French revolution, but it did make it more likely to happen.

It's a good point. Louis XVI - a fuckhead so stupid guillotining him probably didn't make that much of a difference- starved his own people to support a revolution to get back an England.

Seriously that fucker deserved what was coming to him.

 

[JoeB131]

I'm sure more than a few righties endured financial trauma too, but they don't have the guts to admit it on this board.

Oh, no, every last one of them is a successful entrapanuer with a 12 inch penis.

 

[JoeB131]

Yes, that is called propaganda. You are well versed in it. The private writings, and the recorded conversations make it very plain that Hitler was an atheist. There is NO doubt about that. The fact that he was raised Catholic doesn't matter a bit. Most atheists come from homes that were religious so your argument is pointless.

Except the only evidence for Hitler's supposed atheism is a book called "Hitler's Table Talk", which has been largely discredited.

Hitler s Table Talk

The problem with these anti-Christian quotes is that the German text of the table-talk does not include them, they were made up by François Genoud, the translator of the French version, the very version that English translations rely on! (More on this below).

Even if you believed the table-talk included the anti-Christian quotes, nowhere in the talk does Hitler speak against Jesus or his own brand of Christianity. On the contrary, the table-talk has Hitler speaking admirably about Jesus. Hitler did, of course criticize organized religion in a political sense (as do many Christians today), but never in a religious sense. But the problems with using Hitler's table talk conversations as evidence for Hitler's apostasy are manyfold:

1) The reliability of the source (hearsay and editing by the anti-Catholic, Bormann)

2) The reliability of multiple translations, from German to French to English.

3) The bias of the translators (especially Genoud).

4) The table-talk reflects thoughts that do not occur in Hitler's other private or public conversations.

5) Nowhere does Hitler denounce Jesus or his own brand of Christianity.

6) The "anti-Christian" portions of Table-Talk does not concur with Hitler's actions for "positive" Christianity.

 

[westwall]

Yes, that is called propaganda. You are well versed in it. The private writings, and the recorded conversations make it very plain that Hitler was an atheist. There is NO doubt about that. The fact that he was raised Catholic doesn't matter a bit. Most atheists come from homes that were religious so your argument is pointless.

Except the only evidence for Hitler's supposed atheism is a book called "Hitler's Table Talk", which has been largely discredited.

Hitler s Table Talk

The problem with these anti-Christian quotes is that the German text of the table-talk does not include them, they were made up by François Genoud, the translator of the French version, the very version that English translations rely on! (More on this below).

Even if you believed the table-talk included the anti-Christian quotes, nowhere in the talk does Hitler speak against Jesus or his own brand of Christianity. On the contrary, the table-talk has Hitler speaking admirably about Jesus. Hitler did, of course criticize organized religion in a political sense (as do many Christians today), but never in a religious sense. But the problems with using Hitler's table talk conversations as evidence for Hitler's apostasy are manyfold:

1) The reliability of the source (hearsay and editing by the anti-Catholic, Bormann)

2) The reliability of multiple translations, from German to French to English.

3) The bias of the translators (especially Genoud).

4) The table-talk reflects thoughts that do not occur in Hitler's other private or public conversations.

5) Nowhere does Hitler denounce Jesus or his own brand of Christianity.

6) The "anti-Christian" portions of Table-Talk does not concur with Hitler's actions for "positive" Christianity.

As usual, you're statement is not born out by fact. There are MANY sources that show Hitler to be an atheist. Here are just a very few....

“Hitler naturally wanted to bring the church into line with everything else in his scheme of things. He knew he dare not simply eradicate it: that would not have been possible with such an international organisation, and he would have lost many Christian supporters had he tried to. His principal aim was to unify the German Evangelical Church under a pro-Nazi banner, and to come to an accommodation with the Catholics.” – An Honourable Defeat: A History of German Resistance to Hitler, 1933-1945, by Anton Gil

“Adolf Hitler … was a disciple of Friedrich Nietzsche. … Hitler hated Christianity with a passion which rivaled Lenin’s. Shortly after assuming power in 1933, he told Hermann Rauschnig that he intended ‘to stamp out Christianity root and branch.’ ‘One is either a Christian or a German — you cannot be both,’ he added. … He said, ‘I want a powerful, masterly, cruel and fearless youth. … The freedom and dignity of the wild beast must shine from their eyes.’” – Historian Paul Johnson

"Amid his political associates in Berlin, Hitler made harsh pronouncements against the church, but in the presence of women he adopted a milder tone - one of the instances where he adapted his remarks to the surroundings."-Albert Speer, Inside the Third Reich, Phoenix, pp.148-149.

 

[Statistikhengst]

Yes, that is called propaganda. You are well versed in it. The private writings, and the recorded conversations make it very plain that Hitler was an atheist. There is NO doubt about that. The fact that he was raised Catholic doesn't matter a bit. Most atheists come from homes that were religious so your argument is pointless.

Except the only evidence for Hitler's supposed atheism is a book called "Hitler's Table Talk", which has been largely discredited.

Hitler s Table Talk

The problem with these anti-Christian quotes is that the German text of the table-talk does not include them, they were made up by François Genoud, the translator of the French version, the very version that English translations rely on! (More on this below).

Even if you believed the table-talk included the anti-Christian quotes, nowhere in the talk does Hitler speak against Jesus or his own brand of Christianity. On the contrary, the table-talk has Hitler speaking admirably about Jesus. Hitler did, of course criticize organized religion in a political sense (as do many Christians today), but never in a religious sense. But the problems with using Hitler's table talk conversations as evidence for Hitler's apostasy are manyfold:

1) The reliability of the source (hearsay and editing by the anti-Catholic, Bormann)

2) The reliability of multiple translations, from German to French to English.

3) The bias of the translators (especially Genoud).

4) The table-talk reflects thoughts that do not occur in Hitler's other private or public conversations.

5) Nowhere does Hitler denounce Jesus or his own brand of Christianity.

6) The "anti-Christian" portions of Table-Talk does not concur with Hitler's actions for "positive" Christianity.

As usual, you're statement is not born out by fact. There are MANY sources that show Hitler to be an atheist. Here are just a very few....

“Hitler naturally wanted to bring the church into line with everything else in his scheme of things. He knew he dare not simply eradicate it: that would not have been possible with such an international organisation, and he would have lost many Christian supporters had he tried to. His principal aim was to unify the German Evangelical Church under a pro-Nazi banner, and to come to an accommodation with the Catholics.” – An Honourable Defeat: A History of German Resistance to Hitler, 1933-1945, by Anton Gil

“Adolf Hitler … was a disciple of Friedrich Nietzsche. … Hitler hated Christianity with a passion which rivaled Lenin’s. Shortly after assuming power in 1933, he told Hermann Rauschnig that he intended ‘to stamp out Christianity root and branch.’ ‘One is either a Christian or a German — you cannot be both,’ he added. … He said, ‘I want a powerful, masterly, cruel and fearless youth. … The freedom and dignity of the wild beast must shine from their eyes.’” – Historian Paul Johnson

"Amid his political associates in Berlin, Hitler made harsh pronouncements against the church, but in the presence of women he adopted a milder tone - one of the instances where he adapted his remarks to the surroundings."-Albert Speer, Inside the Third Reich, Phoenix, pp.148-149.

So, the Speer quote is meaningless.

Paul Johnson is an EXTREME Right-Wing author. Not surprisingly, he got the Presidential Medal of Honor from Bush in 2006. And even that quote of yours shows in no way that Hitler was an atheist or intended to destroy Christianity. Hell, Hitler couldn't even cancel KARNEVAL in Köln, the people of the city refused to let him do it. And Köln is a Catholic bastion within Germany, to this day.

You misspelled Anton Gill's name. He is mostly a FICTION writer. That being said, his book looks quite interesting, I may just read it, since it is about the resistance. I assume that the White Rose and Goerdeler are in the book. I find the Gill quote to be not bad. But it also shows in no way that Hitler was an atheist.

Why do you keep presenting material that doesn't actually back up your point?

 

[JoeB131]

"Amid his political associates in Berlin, Hitler made harsh pronouncements against the church, but in the presence of women he adopted a milder tone - one of the instances where he adapted his remarks to the surroundings."-Albert Speer, Inside the Third Reich, Phoenix, pp.148-149.

I'm going to IGNORE your other two silly-ass quotes because they are from people who didn't know Hitler personally speculating on what he was thinking.

Speer was just observing that Hitler had a contempt for a cowardly Catholic Church that went along with just aobut anything as long as they could keep fucking altar boys up the ass. Not that you can blame him. No one respects cowards, and Pius XII was the biggest coward in history.

So really, you didn't provide any proof of Hitler's atheism.

Not that it's a relevent point. Hitler by himself couldn't do anything, regardless of what his personal beliefs were. Hitler was able to inflict the damage he did because German Protestants and Catholics did his bidding and proudly wore belt buckles like the one below when they were turning the Jews into lampshades.

 

[G.T.]

Yes, Stalin died peacefully, but 60 to 80 million of his subjects died horribly in the gulags.

Probably nowhere near that number... but shit happens after a civil war.

Mao likewise died peacefully, however 100 to 150 million of his subjects were murdered to appease his blood lust.

Again, these numbers were kind of amusing during the Cold War, but a Chinese or Russian would look at you funny if you tried to pass these off to them.

Hitler was, like the previous two, an atheist. You atheists try and disown him, but the evidence is very clear as to what he was. He used religion as a tool, nothing more.

Except Hitler was an Atheist who continually invoked the name of Jesus and God.

So I'm not sure what the "Clear evidence" of Hitler's Atheism was.

Hitler s Christianity

Just as the Jew could once incite the mob of Jerusalem against Christ, so today he must succeed in inciting folk who have been duped into madness to attack those who, God's truth! seek to deal with this people in utter honesty and sincerity.

-Adolf Hitler, in Munich, 28 July 1922

It will at any rate be my supreme task to see to it that in the newly awakened NSDAP, the adherents of both Confessions can live peacefully together side by side in order that they may take their stand in the common fight against the power which is the mortal foe of any true Christianity.

-Adolf Hitler, in an article headed "A New Beginning," 26 Feb. 1925

Okay, so let's play along, and pretend Hitler was a secret atheist.

The point is, he didn't do this shit by himself. He had thousands of Catholics and Protestants who waged his wars and carried out his will. And they happily did so.

Of course he did. He lived in a Europe that was predominantly Catholic or Protestant. Thus he had to adopt religion to get them to do his bidding. Back then people still paid attention to that sort of thing. He was however, still an atheist who wished to destroy Christianity as well as all religions

This passage and the evidence released by the OSS tells anyone who wishes to know Hitlers, and the Nazi's true views on religion.

"The National Reich Church of Germany categorically claims the exclusive right and the exclusive power to control all churches within the borders of the Reich: it declares these to be national churches of the German Reich.

"The National Church is determined to exterminate irrevocably...the strange and foreign Christian faiths imported into Germany in the ill-omened year 800...

"The National Church has no scribes, pastors, chaplains or priests, but National Reich orators are to speak in them.

"The National Church demands immediate cessation of the publishing and dissemination of the Bible in Germany...'"

"On the altars there must be nothing but 'Mein Kampf' (to the German nation and therefore to God the most sacred book) and to the left of the altar a sword.

"On the day of its foundation, the Christian Cross must be removed from all churches, cathedrals and chapels...and it must be superseded by the only unconquerable symbol, the swastika."
(The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich, by William L. Shirer, p. 240 in some editions, p. 332 in others. Chapter headed "Triumph and Consolidation", subsection "The Persecution of the Christian Churches")


So, there you go JoeB, Hitler and all the collectivist murderers out there had one thing in common. They were all atheists.

You're welcome.

Posting quotes where he references a belief in god isnt the best evidence hes an atheist. "To the German nation and therefore to God"

Youre painting the picture that he believed God was in some fucked up manner only in approval of Germany, and not the Church.........youre not painting the picture he was an atheist.

 

[PoliticalChic]

It cannot be stated often enough that environmentalism, far from a science, is merely one more way that Marxism is transfused into society.



1. Every Leftist is, essentially, a Marxist…even though most eschew the title since the fall of the Soviet Union. Even so, Left-wing ideas are predicated on Marx’s materialist view. Philosophically, the term implies that only material things are real.

1. 1. Therefore, emotions, such as love, are no more than chemistry. And it suggests that it is only genes and environment that determine our actions, and free will plays no role. And, of course, God and religious beliefs are nonsense.
   2. From Marx on, the Left has fought against religion for the above reason, and because they understood how difficult it is to get religious people to engage in revolution for the purpose of bettering their material lives. Such folks often relegate the material world to lower priority than the spiritual, moral and intellectual world. 2. The Left’s concept of materialism broadens into the overarching desire to see every individual materially equal. The Left is less interested in creating wealth than in distributing it, and has been far more interested in fighting material inequality than tyranny, which is why Lenin, Mao, Pol Pot, Ho Chi Minh, Castro, etc., tend to have the support of Leftists around the world.

3. End social and economic inequality and one will have Utopia! Sadly, attempts toward creation of utopia in this world lead to dystopia. Which leads to this comparison: conservatives marvel at how good America is, Leftists want to ‘transform’ it. Prager, ”Still The Best Hope”



4. On the obverse, capitalism and profit are anathema to Marxists....and that view is central to its spin-off, environmentalism. While nature is the highest goal for this 'art,' at the lowest level we find critiques of 'greed,' and 'evil corporations,' and 'that virus known as mankind.'



5. Environmental activist Wallace Kaufman spotlights the error in the above in an anecdote in his perceptive tome, " No Turning Back: Dismantling the Fantasies of Environmental Thinking."
He writes:
"...Stanley Selengut, who runs Maho Bay Camp in the US Virgin Islands as an ecotourism resort, says protecting the environment pays. [He uses] recycled materials, and natural energy sources, serves health foods, landscapes with natural plants, uses low-flow toilets and showers, avoids toxic materials, encourages the simple life, and more.....solar panels and a windmill. And Stanley doesn't mind telling everyone that Maho Bay makes a 20 percent profit!

...but the broad generalizations that people make from his success do not hold up. Stanley succeeds in great measure because his resort appeals to environmentalists who believe what he is doing is right.

In a similar manner, a church survives and grows because its believers fill the offering plate, not because its faith is better than another faith."


Seems that applying environmentalist doctrine to society in general would benefit all......

....or does it.

LOL You are funny.

I had the same response upon perusing your college transcript.