Archives For Socialism

Criticisms from former Labor Prime Minister, Kevin Rudd, aimed at Australian Prime Minister, Scott Morrison’s Christian faith, are asinine, petty, and hypocritical.

In response to Scott Morrison’s speech at an Australian Christian Churches conference in April, Rudd told the ABC’s 7:30 Report,

“The idea that anyone leading a political party could believe that it is ‘God on our side,’ is just the stuff of real danger in my view.”

Rudd’s problem with Morrison is largely manufactured outrage.

Morrison never said or alluded to the absolutizing of the Church through the State by way of hyper-nationalism.

In ripping apart Morrison’s testimony concerning answered prayer, Rudd twisted what Prime Minister said, and skewed the message to serve his own ends.

No where in the speech – which was transcribed by Crikey  – does Scott Morrison say about the 2019 election that “God was on our side,” nor did Morrison suggest that Australia should become a theocracy.

The Prime Minister spoke of being the image bearers of God. A key part of healthy Biblical theology, and a major part of the fabric from which Western Civilisation was formed.

Contrary to Rudd’s self-centred accusations, Morrison asked those gathered to be what they are called to be: a landmark; a beacon of hope under the 24/7/365 Lordship of Jesus Christ.

In essence, Morrison was calling the Church to be image bearers of the self-revealing God in a sea of poisoned politics, societal division, ideological extremism, and the subsequent surge of political turbulence.

There’s nothing Morrison said that justifies Kevin Rudd’s venomous anti-Church and State tantrum.

Granted, his concerns about the excesses of Pentecostalism weren’t all that off the mark. I’ve seen some dumb stuff done in the name of the Holy Spirit.

While criticism of certain aspects of the Christian denomination are necessary, the more appropriate platform for such criticism is theological analysis, not trial by media.

Certainly not trial by ex-Prime Minister, who from his political pulpit, appears to be saying that the Christian faith should be constrained to four walls on a Sunday, and read through the lens of Das Kapital.

Rudd’s bourgeois leftist social justice Christianity, is as concerning as cultural Christians who keep Jesus in his Sunday box, bringing Him out for a cameo at Christmas, and Easter. Only apply if necessary. Particularly if there’s an election on, and the mood feels right.

By using Morrison’s Christian faith, to shove his own bigoted bourgeois leftist, Marxist Jesus of “Social Justice,” down the throats of Australians, Rudd appears to be completely unaware that his self-righteous chest-beating negates proclamations about his own Christian faith.

For example, Rudd, in his article for the Guardian placed his own “garden-variety theology” (whatever that is) against what he alleges is Morrison’s “radical political theology.”

His juvenile outbidding of Morrison should be read as it appears to have been written: “Morrison isn’t a real Christian. I know, because I’ve always been one.”

It’s not the first time.

In a quarterly essay discussing faith and politics, Chris Uhlmann explained how Rudd “compared his faith, with that of John Howard, and [did so] to find his opponent wanting.”

Could Rudd’s hypocrisy be any more blatant?

He condemns Scott Morrison for bringing “religion” into politics, but was not averse to using God in his 2006-2007 election campaign.

In a 2006 essay for the Monthly, Rudd appealed to the strength of German Evangelical (Lutheran) theologian, Dietrich Bonhoeffer.

Rudd appears to have used Bonhoeffer’s Christian opposition against the Nazi state, to inadvertently portray the Liberal National Party as Nazis, and the Australian Labor Party as anti-Nazis, for the goal of winning the 2007 election.

Spot the irony. Kevin Rudd, a “Christian Socialist” employed an ecclesiastically Conservative Christian theologian, who stood up against National Socialism, to promote Christian Socialism.

Bonhoeffer wasn’t a fan of the all-consuming, and never satisfied, economic leviathan, stating, (and I’m quoting him verbatim): ‘a lack of obedience to Scripture is characteristic for the teaching of the social gospel.’ (DBW 12, Memorandum, p.242)

Around the time of the 2007 election, when it came to roles played in society by both the Church and State, Kevin Rudd was all for it, writing,

‘The function of the church in all these areas of social, economic and security policy is to speak directly to the state: to give power to the powerless, voice to those who have none, and to point to the great silences in our national discourse where otherwise there are no natural advocates.’

Adding to this, he then asks secular politicians not to reject the Christian perspective:

‘A Christian perspective, informed by a social gospel or Christian socialist tradition, should not be rejected contemptuously by secular politicians as if these views are an unwelcome intrusion into the political sphere. If the churches are barred from participating in the great debates about the values that ultimately underpin our society, our economy and our polity, then we have reached a very strange place indeed.’

It’s telling. Kevin Rudd is okay with the Christian perspective in politics, as long as it’s the Leftist authorised version.

A deceptive, flowery version informed for the most part, by false doctrines that submit the Lordship of Jesus Christ to the tyrannical lordship of Karl Marx.

It’s not Morrison’s faith in politics that needs a health check-up, it’s Kevin Rudd’s.

‘Socialism’s real error’, said Christian, ex-Marxist and French scholar, Jacques Ellul, is ‘the one that lies behind all the rest, is that it ended up formulating a new religion, setting up gods: history, proletariat, socialism, revolution.’ (Jesus & Marx, 1988. p.139)

As Simone Weil asserted: ‘Marxism is a badly constructed religion.’

Rudd’s hypocrisy and its utterly self-important nonsense beg the question, why is #kevin07 still being taken seriously?

The former populist P. M has discredited himself by letting his lust for media attention assuage his narcissistic opportunism.

Watching Kevin Rudd’s responses to Leigh Sales on the 7:30 report was like watching a sketch from the Comedy Company.  

The election of Kevin Rudd ignited over a decade of destabilisation in Australian politics. Him calling the Prime Minister “wacky” is genuinely laughable.

To be in Christ, is to be in the Church.

Crucially, and perhaps most importantly, is that Rudd’s criticism of Morrison, not only misconstrues the role of church and state, it neglects vocation.

Vocation is God’s sovereign grace working through human hands, where, says, Lutheran scholar, Gene Veith, ‘His Word extends into the world.’

Through vocation the spirituality of the cross is lived out in ‘parenting, farming, labouring, soldiers, doctors, judges or retailers.’

It’s impossible for a genuine Christian to be separated from Jesus Christ.

The distinction between church and state is not to be understood as a separation between the secular and sacred.

A Christian defined by their church attendance record, melanin, ethnicity, or loyalty to a political ideology – is not a Christian.

Jesus is bigger than Sundays.


First published on Caldron Pool, 3rd May 2021.

©Rod Lampard, 2021.

One thing we’re big on in theology is literary criticism. The scientific process of taking a statement back to its original source through questions, context, analysis, research, and faith-filled dialogue about our reasoned conclusions.

It’s a sure guard against deception, misrepresentation, and ignorance.

A good reason for our focus on this is highlighted by Eric Voegelin in his 1968 book, ‘Science, Politics & Gnosticism’:

‘The deception of the reader occurs when a text or citation is separated from its context and is used in isolation from its original intended meaning.’ [i] (paraphrased)

Context matters.

Voegelin had just gotten through explaining how Karl Marx in his doctoral dissertation of 1840–41 misrepresented the statement, “In a word, I hate all the gods”, from Prometheus in Aeschylus’ ‘Prometheus Bound.

For Voegelin, “anyone who doesn’t know Prometheus Bound must conclude that Prometheus’ “confession” sums up the meaning of the tragedy.”

Marxism’s revolt against, and hatred of God, is a product of Marx’s misunderstanding of ‘the Hellenic [Promethean] symbol.’ [ii]

Voegelin states that Prometheus is reinterpreted by Marx, ‘The revolutionary reversal of the symbol—the dethronement of the gods, the victory of Prometheus—lies beyond classical culture; it is the work of gnosticism.’

This is where, said Voegelin, the ‘young Marx presents his own attitude; under the symbol of Prometheus’ Marx wages war against God, and because they’re inseparably linked, also, man.

It could be said that Marxism uses a god, to dispose God, in order to exalt themselves as god; leaving in the wake of Promethean “wokeness,” a sea of mass graves, in exchange for the Divine seat of power.

Marx either got Prometheus horribly wrong, or deliberately manipulated the Greek myth to build a school of thought, and oppressive ideology around it.

Prometheus wasn’t a Marxist, but Marxists have forged Prometheus in their own image.

Bonhoeffer, in his lectures on Genesis, recorded in DBW3: ‘Creation and Fall,’ substantiates good reasons for discernment, and suspicion of this Marxist Promethean self-justification, better penned as Promethean wokeness.

According to Bonhoeffer, in the Garden of Eden, God’s Word was used as a weapon against God. The result was a catastrophic fallout between the creature and its benevolent Creator.

The power to decree that which is right and wrong, good and evil, is now considered to have been taken up into the hands of humanity.

Rather than a new day dawning [enlightenment], darkness descends [truth is hijacked] and humanity descends with it.

The source that determines what good and evil is relocated; reassigned by, and lowered down to a Creatorless humanity.

Humanity in its abstraction from God devours itself.

Instead of being liberated, God’s creature becomes burdened. The Promethean Marxist’s hatred of God, is powered by human lust for dominion and power. This is why I am convinced that Socialists, for all their protests to the contrary, care only about power, not people.

Marx’s Promethean wokeness seeks to overthrow God – demanding God’s kingdom, be ruled by man, without God in it [iii].

Thus, human beings, wrote Bonhoeffer, ‘renounce the word of God that approaches them again and again out of the inviolable center and boundary of life; they renounce the life that comes from this word and grab it for themselves.’

Man positions himself in God’s place; Good is called evil, and evil is called good, for ‘humanity stands in the center; disobedience in the semblance of obedience, the desire to rule in the semblance of service […]’ [iv]

We’re told in the Biblical accounts, such usurpation is the nonsense of Nothingness, it turns humans into the playthings of demons, and is ultimately destined to catastrophic failure.

The Governed become pawns, Government becomes God.

The overbearing weight of being governed by a government which has confused the Creator with the creature, is inevitably unjust, corrupt, and self-destructive.

Who, and what governs those who govern us? No one. There is no limit to Marx’s Promethean Wokeness.

Despite appearances, the Promethean self-justification, its pride filled proclamation about the “death of God,” and subsequent coronation of man as a god, doesn’t happen without a decisive response from God.

God isn’t wounded outside His own choosing [e.g.: as He does for our sakes in Jesus Christ].

Neither is He killed off.

Instead of liberation, in humanity’s exaltation of itself over against God, humans mortally wound themselves.

Despite this, God shows compassion.

In spite of the Promethean self-justification where ‘the ultimate possible rebellion, portrays the truth as a lie. [Where] the Abyss that underlies the lie lives because it poses as the truth and condemns the truth as a lie,’ [v] God doesn’t abandon His self-centred, rebellious creation.

He graciously intervenes, judge’s humanity, and in doing so saves it from itself. He then covers His creatures’ nakedness, and blesses it with posterity.

God remains God for us, even when He disagrees and takes a stand against us.

Even though His creature is so infused with, and consumed by the maddening effects of Marx’s misguided Promethean hate, God chooses to reconcile, liberate, and save the creature He loves.

God chooses not to jettison His creature, as it has jettisoned Him.

Promethean wokeness doesn’t allow any connection with this God.

It in fact, denies it. Reduces humanity to systems, and calls all questions that challenge it, “enemies,” “traitors,” and “bugs.”

Karl Marx’s big mistake was to read into the Promethean myth his own lust for power.

Promethean wokeness is a Marxist monstrosity.

What’s left behind is the butchered, and disfigured creation of an idea that prides itself as man’s true liberator, but conceals behind its mask the deep black void of the Abyss.


Sources:

[i] Voegelin, E. 1968, Science, Politics & Gnosticism: Two Essays, (paraphrased). Kindle (Loc.492)

[ii] ibid, 1968

[iii] Johnny Cash, U2 ‘The Wanderer’

[iv] Bonhoeffer, D 1937, Creation & Fall, Fortress Press (pp.109-116)

[v] ibid, 1937


First published on Caldron Pool, 8th April 2021.

©Rod Lampard, 2021.

The tear in the Belle Epoque (beautiful age) began in 1912 with the criminal, and avoidable, loss of lives on the Titanic.

The whole veil of the Belle Epoque was ripped apart and exposed for what it was, when the first shells fell in 1914, and when the Bolsheviks, violently resigned Europe to 72 years of socialist hell in 1917. The age of the Übermensch; the age of man conquering mountain, myth, monster and supposedly, God, came crashing down.

Bill T. Arnold sums it up:
‘The 20th Century proved to be the most violent century of world history, dispelling the myth of humanism that things are improving and that the human spirit is gradually evolving into greater and better things. The statistics tell the story. Though scholars who study such things are not agreed with the specifics – as far as total numbers are concerned – most estimates range between 160 million and 200 million deaths in the 20th Century are related to war and genocide. About half of these are war related, while the remainder are credited to politically motivated carnage, typically communist oppression.’
(On Violence & Hatred in 2 Samuel 13-14, NIVAC 2003, p.570)

So, it’s encouraging when something like this seven day poll run by the satire Facebook page, Journalist Excellence Worldwide, probably didn’t go where some people might have hoped it would.

Out of 56,000, 35,840, said stick with Capitalism, and 20,160 said we should try socialism. 15,680 vote difference. That’s what some might call a landslide win.

Still, the 20,160 (36% in support of Socialism) is an alarming number. That’s 20 thousand people who are either ignorant of the hatred, division, bloodshed and violence which follows Socialism, or they simply don’t care about the MILLIONS of victims of the socialist/Communist oppressive, and murderous, economic platform. What’s worse, it’s probably safe to assume that most of those who voted in favour of Socialism, believe themselves to be loving, highly educated, and tolerant individuals.

However, polls aren’t everything, and given that the pollster is a parody account, it’s not all good news.

The seduction of socialism continues to grip the hearts of young people, who’ve been taught that Socialists are freedom fighters – upstanding citizens who kill, steal and destroy, all supposedly for the greater good. It is assumed that a socialist is, and can never be, sinful [i].

The false dawn in promises of a Utopian society appears to be too much of an allure for the young and impressionable.

As Caldron Pool’s, chief editor, Ben Davis noted back in February:

‘They say those who won’t learn from the past are doomed to repeat it. And narcissistic, selfie-obsessed millenials are proof to the veracity of that claim. Almost two-thirds of individuals born between 1981 and 1996 view Socialism in a positive light.’

The allure of socialism doesn’t just involve youthful defiance, it involves the kind of ignorant conditioning that Psychologist Irving Janus called group-think.

The symptoms of which include the following:

1. Self-deception; ‘a shared illusion of invulnerability which leads to overoptimism and causes planners to fail to respond to clear warnings of danger […] along with an aversion to taking extraordinary risks’

2. Pride; ‘Ignores all warnings and construct rationalisations in order to discount them’

3. ‘has an unquestioning  belief, inclining members to ignore the ethical or moral consequences of their decisions’

4. ‘holds stereotyped views of the leaders of enemy groups. Those leaders are seen as so evil that there is  no warrant for arbitration or negotiation; the enemy leaders are viewed as too weak or too stupid to put up an effective defense.’

5. ‘where direct pressure is piled onto an individual who momentarily expresses doubts about any of the groups shared illusions or questions the validity of the groups arguments.’

6. ‘where ever unanimity has become an idol; displaying avoidance of anything with deviates from what appears to be the group consensus.’

7. ‘a culture of silence’. [i]

This is the warning of sign of Voltaire’s indictment on the Catholic Church, “écrasez l’infâme” (crush the loathsome thing); the battle between reason and regression (Emil Brunner, 1954).The toxin that is group-think overrules the ability for supporters, and members, of the Socialist religion to comprehend the suffering caused by it.

As Jesus’ warned,

“See that no one leads you astray. Many will come in my name, saying, ‘I am he!’ and they will lead many astray…” (Mark 13:5-8, ESV)
“…brother will deliver brother over to death, and the father his child, and children will rise against parents and have them put to death. And you will be hated by all for my name’s sake. But the one who endures to the end will be saved.” (Mark 13:12-13, ESV)

If social media polls are to be believed, it’s encouraging to see that people are not quite yet sold out to the idea of ditching the Capitalist economic model.

Because, history dictates, when it comes to fun facts about Soviet Russia, and Communism in general, apart from Sputnik,  Yuri Gagarin, and Glasnost there are none.

 


References:

[i] ‘One of the most deceptive illusions about sin is the fact that even the worst sinners are often such “nice people.” (Psychiatrist, Karl Menninger, Whatever Became of Sin? 1976, p.126)

[ii] Irving Janus, cited by Karl Menninger in ‘Whatever Became of Sin? 1976, (pp.112-113)

Brunner, E. 1954. The Misunderstanding of the Church (p.117)

American celebrity and UNHCR Special Envoy, Angelina Jolie, who had recently visited Venezuelan refugees in Peru, has been accused of being a tool of “Right Wing Propaganda”.

Venezuelan Socialist Party boss, Diosdado Cabello, as reported by The Washington Post labelled Jolie’s visit, as “right wing media”, distracting from a caravan of thousands of Central American migrants heading to the United States.”

 

 

 

Cabello’s tweet:

 

Angelina Jolie was in Peru on behalf of the United Nations special envoy.

In an UNHCR press release yesterday, Jolie gave her assessment on the Venezuelan refugee crisis, saying that it was ‘all the more shocking for being predictable and preventable.’

 “Every Venezuelan I met described the situation in their country as desperate. I heard stories of people dying because of a lack of medical care and medicine: cancer patients whose chemotherapy was abruptly stopped, diabetes sufferers without access to insulin, children without basic antibiotics, people starving, and tragic accounts of violence and persecution. None of the Venezuelans I met want charity. They want an opportunity to help themselves.” source

Jolie’s statement is in direct contrast to, Jim Carrey, who in September gave a bizarre affirmation of socialism when he said,

“We have to say yes to socialism, to the word and everything. We have to stop apologizing.”

Carrey was reprimanded by Venezuelan columnist Laureano Márquez, who, in an open letter (on Runrun.es, which now appears to have been deleted) said,

“I read that…you said: ‘We have to say yes to socialism, to the word ‘socialism’ and to everything.’ Perhaps for you, as for all humanity, the word ‘socialism’ sounds beautiful [….] [In] Venezuela, what we find is just that our regime is not – for God’s sake – the antithesis of selfishness,” […] “In Venezuela, dear Jim, from what I have just told you, there is no equitable distribution of wealth; wealth is concentrated, as rarely before in our history, in very few hands. In Venezuela, we’ve seized hatred for the word ‘socialism,’ it represents oppression against a people, the destruction of a flourishing nation, and the despair of its citizens”. source

A special report for World Magazine, headlined, ‘The Undeniable Venezuelan Migrant Crisis’, World reported that Venezuela is seeing 5000 people leaving the country every day, as the country’s economic decline under socialism’ continues. The growing migration crisis is yet to be acknowledged by the Venezuelan socialist government.’

Props to Angelina for giving a voice to those who genuinely don’t have one because their Socialist government continues to deny there is even a problem.

She’s giving a voice to the suffering and oppression of those living under the crushing weight of socialism, in opposition to Socialists, who continue to claim there’s nothing wrong with it.


References & Sources linked.

©Rod Lampard, 2018

Thomas Doherty’s 2013 book, ‘Hollywood and Hitler: 1933-1939’, is a 373 page look into the past ideological make-up of Hollywood.

The book is well referenced, including both footnotes and a lengthy bibliography. The text flows chronologically and stands as essential reading for anyone studying, or wanting to know more about, both Hollywood’s reaction, and involvement, in Europe and America during the 1930’s.

Doherty paints a picture of the Hollywood scene, beginning with a basic introduction to the context and zeitgeist. What emerges is an insight into the things which divided and unified Hollywood. Avoiding a dreary run down of politics and economics, Doherty writes about a vibrant and diverse group of people, who, though continents apart and ideologically separated, forged an ardent opposition to Nazism and Fascism.

One of the main pillars of his book is Doherty’s exposition of the pro-active steps taken in order to counter the rise of anti-Semitism and Fascism. Opposition to Nazism from within the American film industry was an up-and-coming movement, which matured quickly after Hitler’s 1933 election to the Chancellery.

The movement wasn’t free of factionalism and fickle alliances. According to Doherty, shifting loyalties were brought about because of concerns raised with regards to the reach of Nazi propaganda and communism’s covert takeover of the Hollywood entertainment complex. Communists were involved in the Hollywood anti-Nazi League (HANL) movement. Consequently, some individuals within the movement became as much about quietly promoting Communism, as they did resisting Nazism. This narrowed diversity, as new factions split off and other groups, such as traditional Christians, were slowly purged from their place in the HANL movement. As Doherty shows, the biggest challenge for Communists was in maintaining a push towards Communist influence whilst keeping up the movement’s anti-Nazi; anti-Fascist agenda.

Doherty writes:

‘The Hollywood Anti-Nazi League’s rise, dominion and fall offer a case study in the merging of media and politics, celebrity status and social activism, and the ultimately irreconcilable marriage between starry-eyed liberalism and hard-nosed communism in the 1930s’ (p.100)

Hollywood & Hitler’ unpacks this subtle Communist overthrow of the Hollywood Anti-Nazi league. The primary factor for the ousting of Catholics and non-communists was the Spanish Civil war. As Doherty explains, the Spanish Civil had a complex political context. By proxy, Nazi Germany, Italy, and the Soviets were warring against each other.

The Spanish Civil war is a key feature under Doherty’s microscope. This is because it was the first conflict to be filmed, and shown to the public, close enough to real-time. Images flowed from the battlefront and were spilled out onto audiences through cinemas. The skills, process, procedure and art developed during these times, pioneered the way for film makers during World War Two.

Two compromises appear. First was the compromise of neutrality. Hollywood had a strong economic reason for working with the Germans and therefore a majority was against any boycotts of German goods[1]. Hollywood had to maintain neutrality wherever possible, in order to keep from directly enraging the Germans. Subsequently, Hollywood practiced a selective self-censorship of anything which displayed blatant opposition to the Nazis or Nazi ideology.

Second was a compromise of values and unity. One radical splinter of HANL, The Hollywood Popular Front, considered ‘neutrality the moral equivalent of lending aid and comfort to the enemy’ (p.161), such an extreme view alienated balanced reporters and compromised integrity. This was fueled further by a war between propaganda and ‘cinematic neutrality’ (p.171) over how the Spanish Civil war should be reported and retold[2].

Hollywood’s neutrality and its selective self-censorship[3] came under attack. Censorship and propaganda became the battlegrounds. Countering Nazi propaganda in films was an opportunity for the Popular Front to slip in Pro-Communist agitprop.  Simplifying the great length Doherty goes to in order to unpack this: there was an obvious tension between those who desired to push back against the evils of Nazism and those who wanted to do so by pushing the “virtues” of Communism. Not every member of NAHL was as starry-eyed about Communism as the Communists would have liked.

Doherty suggests that the ‘best explanation for the affinity of motion picture artists-actors and screenwriters [“Champaign communists”] especially-to an ideology counter to their economic self-interest [capitalism] was the respectful hearing according to them by the Communist Party of the USA. In Leninist doctrine[4], the artist stood among the vanguard elite, a cadre whose shining example would lead the benighted proletariat into the dawn of revolutionary enlightenment…the artist was the antenna of the revolutionary race-so much the better if he or she was a magnet for publicity and a donor with deep pockets.’ (p.114)

Doherty also points out the inconsistency of Hollywood’s Communists and their anti-Nazism. For example, the Soviet Molotov-Ribbentrop-pact with the Nazis caused the Communists in Hollywood to double-down on their anti-Nazi rhetoric. This dilemma didn’t just reveal the façade that hid Communism, but how (with a few exceptions) self-serving their loyalty to the anti-Nazi cause was.

For better or worse, the Hollywood anti-Nazi movement, birthed (the now common) political celebrity[5]. The success of pushing support for ideas and consumer products through well-known and trusted, voices and faces, became common practice. Even if the celebrity didn’t know much about what they were selling, the opportunity to do so was as risky as it was potentially lucrative[6].

In Doherty’s words, HANL resorted to reaching the masses using ‘the same “hypodermic needle” theory of mass communications propounded by Joseph Goebbels: Inject the message into a mass consciousness through repetition, simplicity, and raw emotion.’ (2013, p.106)

The process this followed was to ‘first, gain the individual’s sympathy for what he is about to learn and second, present the material in a way which reaches his or her personal interest and at the same time supplies the necessary facts to sustain the first emotional reaction.’ (ibid)

It wasn’t until later on that Hollywood gained enough room to move on to directly producing films that had an anti-Nazi theme. Worth noting is Doherty’s point on how far Hollywood has shifted since the 1930s. The industry reluctant to criticize Nazism, has built a thriving business[7] on Nazis as the arch-nemesis of all that is good, (and for good reason!).

The Nazis, in the moral universe of Hollywood are the equivalent of pure evil, ‘the Nazi-centric documentary and narrative feature film is cultural currency –rarely dropping in value, always a good investment’ (2013, p.371).

It’s curious, however, that Nazism’s not so distant cousin, Communism, moving freely behind the anti-Nazi platform[8], has largely been given a free ride.

Perhaps this is why Doherty concludes that,

‘The American Communists had never thought of the movie capital as a party mint, but Otto Katz (a communist agent) corrected the oversight. Theodore Draper, the historian of American communism who observed Katz work his magic, described him as “the international Communist huckster par excellence”…Katz sold communism to the wealthy Hollywood magnates by working on their bad social consciences until they were cringing with contrition. The complete religious and metaphysical desert in the mind of many in the motion picture colony made Katz’s game easier’ (pp.103-104).

Hollywood & Hitler’ is balanced and tactful. Doherty draws from a depth of well researched information, and has taken pains to avoid any statements that would lead to the charge of McCarthyism. While Doherty addresses the positive points surrounding the anti-Nazi/anti-fascist movement in Hollywood, he doesn’t gloss over the negatives. ‘Hollywood & Hitler’ is well written, surprising in its relevance and enjoyable to read.

With the increasing visibility of celebrity activists, voicing opinion after opinion against things that Hollywood dislikes and distances itself from, the facts presented by Doherty, prompt the reader to question whether Hollywood has become what it once took a firm stand against. Jim Carry’s recent supportive statements in favour of Socialism, and every Hollywood award ceremony since 2016 being saturated in irrational, venomous hatred for one of their own, American President, Donald Trump, (et.al) force the question: has the institution, which once valiantly fought the dragon, become one?


Notes & References

[1] This was because, ‘American Jews in the motion picture business warned that any boycott of German imports would only rebound to the grief of their kinsmen overseas.’ (p.179)

[2] ‘Like the rest of the Spanish Civil war documentaries, it was less a recruiting device for new converts than a ritual; exhibition for true believers’ (p.171) #greatquote

[3] From both Catholic and Jewish sections of the Entertainment community, see footnote #2 and Doherty’s discussion on the National League of Decency, pp.154 & 155: ‘the watchful eye of the Legion fell increasingly on any glimmer of communist influence in Hollywood Cinema.’

[4] The same is with Nazism. Doherty: ‘Unlike  the American government, whose policy toward creative expression was mainly benign neglect, the Nazis honored intellectuals and artists as avatars of Aryan culture…Talented filmmakers of good stock and reliable opinion were pampered; the rest were persecuted.’ (p.197)

[5] ‘In casting actors as activists, HANL was a farsighted pioneer.’ (p.113)

[6] This may be backfiring on Hollywood, where people, in a technological age start to see through the veneers and question why, who is selling what to whom.

[7] ‘In the digital age, the collection and repackaging of images of the Nazis remains a growth industry, sustaining documentary features, action films, and cable channels.’ (p.371)

[8] The Communist beachhead in Hollywood caused a split it, which created the far-left’s Popular Front, and the Catholic, National League of Decency (formed in 1934).

Doherty, T. 2013 Hollywood & Hitler: 1933-1939 Columbia University Press

Image credit: Columbia University Press

©Rod Lampard, 2018

Disclaimer: I received no remuneration of any kind for providing this review.

Capitalism may be plagued by greed, as it hinders the free market through hoarding and monopolies, but ultimately capitalism creates room for compassion. Laws exist to fortify the free market, so as to protect the free market from the death blows of a greed-is-good culture.

Through the referee of small government the free market is nurtured. Through capitalism, doors are opened for freedom; for people to be free to be compassionate; free to give out of the abundance of what they have earned. Free to give out of the abundance of what they are free to own and earn.

Socialism, on the other hand, has no checks and balances against greed. The assumption is that it doesn’t need it. Socialism is viewed as the highest form of equality. Therefore it doesn’t need to encourage people to be compassionate. It doesn’t allow room for compassionate giving because, by definition, under a socialist system, there shouldn’t be any need for anyone to give compassionately.

Socialism blames capitalism through the presumption that the poor worker will never get rich, or rise above, his or her poverty. The socialist never sees that he or she has to keep people poor in order to justify its hatred of capitalism and in order to give meaning to its own existence. There can be no proletariat, no cause for perpetual class war, without keeping the working poor where they are. [i]

Socialism strips the individual of their right to own private property. The individual is left with no amount of abundance to give from. Anything given outside what the absolute rule of the socialist regime takes is suspect. In this way the socialist stands opposed to any form of compassion that they cannot take credit for.

It’s fair to conclude then that the individual who practices compassionate giving is viewed as having committed a crime against the socialist. To give freely is treasonous because, in theory, someone has something others don’t, from which they can give.

For the socialist there is no need for individuals to be compassionate. According to the propaganda, the socialist state provides for the equal needs of everyone.

Every want and need is fulfilled by the powers of the all-powerful central government. Efforts to achieve the collectivist dream, reflects that of Sisyphus. Those under socialism are condemned to the repetition of pushing a boulder up a hill, only to see it roll back down, time and time again. The socialist may see this likeness, nevertheless he or she will hold fast to their faith in Karl Marx’s paradoxical dream of a workless society, and they’ll force others to do the same, regardless of the cost.

Unlike compassionate capitalism, compassionate socialism cannot exist. It’s an oxymoron, because socialism as absolute economic law, only has what it’s taken from the people; it has no capital outside what the socialist takes for the collective; often brutally; often without compassion; always under a superimposed ethos of equality, oppression, justice and “compassion”.

People are to believe in the strict equality of socialist goals, but not in equity. By controversial concessions, such as the Lenin’s Bolshevik return to capitalism under the N.E.P, the individual may have the freedom to earn and choose how they earn, but they don’t have the freedom to be compassionate with what they earn.

They couldn’t, even if they wanted to, because there is no abundance in socialism unless it is awarded to them by the state. The people have what the socialist government gives and nothing more. The disallowance of private property, and a profit margin, means that there is no abundance from which individuals can choose to give compassionately. Therefore, in their giving towards one another, the individual isn’t free to be compassionate.

The compassionate giver is a threat to the power of the socialist, therefore the socialist in his or her outlawing of the free market, also outlaws the freedom to be compassionate. By default the state becomes total provider. It becomes god, employer, mother and father. Under these conditions a Führer or Supreme Leader can be raised up as savior, because it is believed that he, and only he, can lead the socialist system to its utopian goal. He knows what’s best for the people, and what’s best for the fatherland. For the socialist, salvation is only found in living out the ideals of the Socialist State. Redemption is attained by allegiance to its leader.

Contrary to popular sentiment, the Bible doesn’t preach or foster socialism as an absolute economic law or ethos. Jesus wasn’t a socialist. He wasn’t a khaki wearing Marxist hiding in Latin American jungles, or a communist waiting for revolution in the deserts of Afghanistan.

As French theologian and philosopher remarked in his book, ‘Jesus & Marx: From Gospel to Ideology’:

‘Jesus questions all economic activity, including what is exercised in a socialist world.’ (p.115)

What the Bible teaches is that greed is a sin, that God loves a fair weight; fair trade.

The words of Jesus remind us to:

“Take care, and be on our guard against all greed, for one’s life does not consist in the abundance of his possessions.” (Luke 12:15)

What the Bible testifies to is the God who is a compassionate judge, who wills to govern for His people, but does not govern at the whim and will of His people. God cannot be manipulated.

The biblical witness, as a whole, holds fast to fairness and justice within the bounds of a life lived in freedom, under grace, in Jesus Christ. (Galatians 5:1, 2 Corinthians 3:17, Romans 8:1-4 etc.)

It is Father God, not führer-as-father who should rule out hearts and guide our minds.

As Paul noted to the Church in 2 Corinthians 8:8-24, let your love be genuine. Give earnestly. Give from abundance.

“For I do not mean that others should be eased and you burdened, but that as a matter of fairness  your abundance at the present time should supply their need, so that their abundance may supply your need, that there may be fairness. As it is written, “Whoever gathered much had nothing left over, and whoever gathered little had no lack.” (2 Corinthians 8:13-15, ESV)

In other words: give what you can, when you can, where you can. Trade in fairness, do acts of grace, and do so freely. Do so with joy, for this will encourage reciprocal giving. Provide out of abundance in order to bring relief for those experiencing affliction.

Without compassion, capitalism fails. Compassion keeps the capitalist system from gorging itself to death with greed and gluttony.

Socialism, however, has no room and sees no need for compassion once it holds power. The socialist only sees the capitalist as his or her enemy, and upholds a fanatical and religious opposition. Socialism is seen as true compassion and therefore the only compassion anyone truly needs. Since socialism is conflated with compassion by its advocates, all who disagree or refuse to fall in line with socialism are labeled, without compassion, as an enemy of compassion.

It’s true that the socialist and capitalist can both operate under an “I will take from you to benefit me” rule. However, the necessary function of compassion that capitalism not only allows, but empowers, means that capitalism is set apart from socialism. From his or her empowerment under capitalism, the individual can and is empowered to say, “What can I give to you, in order to benefit you”, as opposed to “what can I take from you to benefit me”.

This is what the Bible teaches.

Jacques Ellul also noted:

‘No constitution or ethic can prevent power from becoming totalitarian. It must discover outside itself, a radical negation. [Such as grace; the Divine compassion exhibited in, through and by Jesus Christ].’ (Jacques Ellul, Jesus & Marx. 1988 p.174)

Compassionate capitalism empowers compassion because it generally provides an abundance from which people can to choose to give. Socialism doesn’t allow this kind of freedom because it ultimately denies individuals the freedom to give.

This kind of compassionate capitalism is what led Margaret Thatcher to assert:

“Any set of social and economic arrangements which is not founded on the acceptance of individual responsibility will do nothing but harm.”[ii]

Greed is the enemy of capitalism. Even for its own sake, if capitalism is to succeed it must eventually give a firm “no” to it. If not the free market falls victim to the same kind of totalitarian rule, as that advocated by the socialist. The difference being that it’s a corporation, not a government left sitting on the throne, wielding an unchecked, undemocratic power, without opposition.


References:

[i] ‘In Marxist dialectic, the oppressed must become the oppressor – the poor person becomes the absolute, a kind of priest – only through him can we meet Jesus and God; through serving him we are sanctified – this horizontal theology [or version of natural theology] returns quite simply to the project of excluding God’ (Jacques Ellul. Jesus & Marx, 1988. pp.42 & 48 parenthesis mine)

[ii] Thatcher, M. 1988. Speech to General Assembly of the Church of Scotland,

 

Photo credit: Milada Vigerova  ‘Hand, closeup, prayer’ on Unsplash

©Rod Lampard, 2018