Freddy Finkelstein's Blog: Dedicated to True Christianity and Confessional Unity in the Visible Church; to Conservative Morality, Free-Market Capitalism, and political Liberty in Society; and indebted to the collected wisdom of Western Civilization as it has, by the Hand of Providence, been empowered to derive, preserve and/or otherwise carry these ideas and teachings through the past two millennia, into the present, and, Lord willing, to project them into the future.
Foundational to the perspectives I maintain is my Christian Faith: though I am a wretched sinner, destitute of merit before a perfectly Righteous God, this same perfectly Loving God has given me the gift of Faith, by which I lay hold of and appropriate to myself the objective promises of His Word -- that through the perfect life, suffering and innocent death of His Son, Jesus Christ, I have been reconciled with God by His work, my sins are forgiven, and I bear the Name and perfect Righteousness of Jesus Christ before my Heavenly Father. I am Justifed, by God's Grace, alone, through the Faith He has given me, alone, as a result of the work of Jesus Christ, alone; and God's Word, alone, assures me of this. Thus, I am a Christian, of the Lutheran Confession.
I am also a dyed-in-the-wool Conservative. Partly personality, mostly the result of study and life experience, I know a little about many things, a lot about a few things, and strive to be a conscientious student in all things. I am not a crowd follower, having been weaned off the opinions of others at a young age. Thus I hold what opinions I do because I am convinced they are correct, and therefore worth having.
Minutes of The First German Evangelical Lutheran Congregation, U.A.C. at St. Louis, Missouri
A STENOGRAPHIC REPORT OF FOUR LECTURES DELIVERED, AND BY RESOLUTION OF THE CONGREGATION, FIRST PUBLISHED BY PROFESSOR C.F.W. WALTHER, D. D.
Translated from the German by Rev. D. Simon and published in 1879 by Concordia Publishing House, St. Louis Missouri.
(from the 1947 reprint by The Lutheran Research Society)
FIRST LECTURE
O God, Thou has created man, originally good and happy, and placed him in a beautiful Paradise, that this might be his home. But alas! man has fallen from Thee, and because of this fall, has become a poor, wretched creature, and his life on earth has become a life of toil and trouble.
But instead of accusing himself and pleading for Thy mercy, man accuses Thee, denies the providence and government of Thy mercy, and flees from Thee in despair, or gives expression, in his heart, to the fearful words: “There is no God.”
In mercy keep us from such great blindness and sin, and enlighten our understanding, that, midst the troubles of earth, we may with deep humility, acknowledge the result of our apostasy, and govern Thou our hearts that we may not contend with Thee, our merciful Creator, but humble ourselves, in the midst of our toil and trouble, under Thy almighty hand, patiently await Thy help, and comfort ourselves with the fact, that the sufferings of this present time are not worthy to be compared with the glory that shall be revealed in Thy children in the world to come.
Have mercy on the entire human race in their affliction, draw them by Thy Word to Thee, and help them out of every bodily and spiritual trouble, and open to them at last the eternal kingdom of Thy joy and glory. Yea, do this for the sake of Jesus Christ, the common Savior of the world. Amen.
As is known to the congregation, the occasion of this meeting is twofold. The first is the appearance of a daily paper here in St. Louis, which would pretend to be the organ of the laborers, in consequence of which, many, particularly younger members of our congregation, have also made it their paper. The second occasion is the formation of the so-called Labor- Unions, which are to represent the interests of the laborers over against the employers.
If that paper were in reality the organ of the laborers, which would represent the interests of the laboring class in a legitimate manner, who could find fault, if any laborer would select it as his paper and would even prefer it above other secular papers? And if the Labor-Unions were no more than were the Fraternities, Guilds, Tradesmen’s-Unions and Clubs of Germany, who could make it a matter of conscience to join one of them? Does not even the Apostle Paul expressly declare, that if Christians would no longer unite themselves with the children of the world, no not even in civil and business affairs, they would be necessitated to leave the world? But alas! The state of affairs, is entirely different here. The said paper is not, for example, by any means an organ intended for the laborers alone, but it has for its aim the propagation of the modern communistic ideas, peaceably if possible, or forcibly, and that by fire and sword, if necessary. It is only too well known that the Labor-Unions have been conceived and called into existence by the Communists and Socialists, and are intended by them to be nothing else than schools of communism and socialism.
That no one might think these declarations unfounded, I have secured several copies of this paper, called Volksstimme des Westens (“The voice of the people of the West”), without, however, inquiring which number might give the best idea of its character. I have nevertheless secured copies which show its character plainly. In the number dated Dec. 24, 1877, there is a continuation of a novel, written by the editor of the paper, Dr. A. Otto-Walster, in which we read, among other things, the following:
It shall be our chief concern to show, that man, with his claims on material prosperity, need not be directed to another world, that he can and should find such prosperity here on earth, and would in this connection call attention to the verses in Heine’s, Wintermaerchen:
A song that’s new and truthful too, Dear friends, I will indite for you— A song of heaven here on earth, Claimed by right of human birth.
We would be happy here below, Nor longer suffer want and woe! The lazy belly shall not spoil What faithful hands have won by toil.
On earth there grows enough of bread; For all mankind the table’s spread Where rose and myrtle spring to please, Why see, there too grow sugar peas.
Aye, sugar peas for best and worst, As soon the pregnant pods may burst; Celestial joys we leave indeed . To angels and the sparrow breed.
(Translated by Rev. C. T. Steck )
It seems to me that one single quotation of this character should suffice to cause us to wonder how a Christian, who accepts the Holy Scriptures as God’s Word, believes in Christ, and has the hope of eternal life, could support such a paper. Every one can see that this is an atheistic paper, whose editor believes neither in God nor eternal life, but ridicules both. Should he even say that he believes in God and also in a future life, it matters not. We look to what he publishes in his paper. He must suffer himself to be judged by that, and his paper takes the position of atheistic communism!
But observe another proof that this paper is of a communistic character. Had I taken the pains to examine the whole volume, I could no doubt have produced many more proofs, but these few will serve our purpose well. This is what is said in the number dated Dec. 15:
Fire, water, air and earth are the four so-called elements of nature, of which Divinity gave one man as much as the other. Who will, who can deny it? You therefore see, worthy Dr. (it is an article against a certain Dr. Holland) that this communism, recommended by our “Lord Jesus Christ” to his pupils and followers, has been in existence since the creation of world and of man.
Our beloved Lord Jesus Christ is accordingly to be considered the chief-communist! It is further said: “An all-wise and beneficent God is himself the author, and 'Christ' the Son, only carries into execution what God, the 'Father' had planned and determined from the beginning.”
It is worthy of note, that the terms Christ, and God, the Father, are given in quotations. By this the writer would give his opponent to understand: “I am now speaking with your understanding; of course I don’t believe in a Christ, neither do I believe in a God, the Father. But I am going to fight for once with your own weapons. You profess to yield submission to the written Word, as you term it. Very well, I will convict you from your own Word of God, and show you, that, if you would be a faithful adherent to the Bible, you must also become a communist.” This is what he means to say. —He continues: “This is God’s command and Christ’s doctrine.” Again:
The laboring men of America do not intend to cast themselves under the wheels of a so-called civilization, which is nothing but barbarism, to be crushed to death, and to see their children condemned to eternal poverty and eternal misery, so that a few fortunate ones may continue in their idleness and wealth. They will no longer kiss the hand that strikes the blow. They will cease to hug the chains with which they are fettered. They will rise up, they are rising up already, in the glory of their power and manhood, to crush to atoms this foul and hideous monster, to assert their liberty like men, and thus to become free and happy.
This is yet moderate language. But everyone acquainted with history, knows where this is leading. It is the lightning in the distance which precedes that most dreadful thunderstorm, which these men would call down upon this generation. If they cannot gain their ends in peace, the will resort to violence and bloodshed. This giant, by whom they fancy themselves to be trodden under foot, they would crush to atoms.
As pertains to the working-men's party, of which every labor-union is a part, we find their program in the number for Nov. 30. In this program, we read in the very beginning:
As civil liberty, without economical independence, is a mere form of speech, the party begins its struggles within the sphere of economy, and demands that all material for labor become the property of the society, so that instead of paying wages, the income of the society, as the joint fruits of labor, may be justly divided among the members.
When the communists say that material shall become the property of the society, they would not limit it to their circle. For, if a number of men would realize this idea only among themselves, so far as possible, we might calmly look on. Every one has the right to deny himself certain privileges, and by way of agreement, unite with others. There have been different societies of this character. They, however, refer to society in general, to the whole human race; and that is where they would realize these ideas. They would overthrow the existing social relations, and arrange them according to their principles. The following are some of their principles:
“No one shall own any real-estate, but this shall be common property, and shall be managed only by certain persons,” although the various propositions pertaining to this matter differ widely, as we shall presently see. It is then further said: “machinery, ways of transfer, etc.” It is left to the reader to supply anything he pleases under the “etc.” This embraces a great deal. The brethren who enter these labor-unions little anticipate what is implied in this “etc.” Neither do they anticipate what is implied in the idea, that no one shall own any real- estate. They do not consider, either, what fearful overthrow of the order of things it would involve to realize this. They also demand: “The introduction of the eight hour law and the punishment of all who transgress it.” Let every Christian reader decide for himself whether a Christian can enter into such a labor-union. I am of the opinion that he cannot, without violating conscience. He cannot become a member of an association, which has in view, the overthrow of the world, either peaceably if possible, or forcibly if necessary.
It is of importance, however, what Mr. Walster himself discloses in his paper, dated Nov. 30, 1877, concerning the condition of the labor-unions in America. He was assailed by the editor of a Milwaukee paper, the Milwaukee Socialist. He shall, says the Milwaukee editor, confine himself to the field of politics, for here alone can the laboring-man finally gain his liberty. Only get the government into your hands once, and you can readily change all the present relations. The establishment of labor-unions can only detain a good cause. Before a change could be effected in this way, the laboring-men would die of starvation.
To this Mr. Walster answers: “We do certainly not belong to those, who, in their one-sided agitation, would solve the social question by means of corporations (labor-unions), and yet we must unreservedly acknowledge the value of these corporations, in that by their means the socialistic propaganda (principles) are agitated and made known.”
He means to say, that he does not expect much to be accomplished by means of these labor-unions in the near future; he knows how weak they are, even when in the most prosperous condition. But it must be remembered that these unions are only instruments in the hands of socialists and communists, in fact, a school of the socialists. The ignorant are to be drummed together and organized into labor-unions, that in these unions the seed of socialism and communism may be sown, and when the seed has come to maturity, there will be enough muscle to accomplish the desired end by force, if the desired end cannot be attained peaceably. For it is even true, that there is a greater number of poor people, who must support themselves by manual labor, than of those who live from their capital, be it from the interest of the capital or from speculations made with the capital in certain enterprises into which they may have entered; and if the masses were once won over to the socialistic ideas, the communists would undoubtedly gain the day. Verily they could turn the world upside down, and drown all their opponents in their own blood. The idea is certainly not a stupid one. But whether it will be realized is another question. — He says further:
There is, for example, here in St. Louis, one section of the cabinet-makers-union. It is composed of socialists and non-socialists. The socialists developed their propaganda in this section and succeeded in gaining a large majority for socialism; the consequence is, that in this section the socialistic question is discussed at every meeting whereby statistics are brought out and systematized greatly to the encouragement of our agitation.
Mr. Walster would accordingly say: “Behold I am doing this more shrewdly than you. You would obtain support for our communism and socialism only by means of political agitations. Do it then, but if you do no more, you are a fool. Our method will accomplish more. We gather those together who are not socialists and convert them into socialists." He means to say that the labor-unions are but schools of socialism and communism. And now I ask: What Christian would enter into such a labor-union and become the willing servant of such a revolution? No Christian can do so with a clear conscience; it is alone the place for him who denies the existence of a God.
Another testimony that the labor-unions are nothing else than the institutions of the communists; used for the accomplishment of their ends, is the following: The English communists cast lots for the benefit of the prisoners of New Caledonia, but not for the benefit of all the prisoners, but only for those who were transported there from France, because in the year 1871, they had committed those well-known, fearful communistic outrages. When the Prussians concluded peace at Paris, the entire French national guard was permitted to retain its fire-arms. This was done on the part of Germany because it was considered good policy, inasmuch as it was feared that a revolution would break out, since all kinds of people had gathered together in Paris. They had miscalculated. Nearly all these fire-arms got into the hands of the communists who made use of the power thus acquired in a frightful slaughter. They established a so-called Commune, and took possession of the city. At once they shot several of the generals, who had remained faithful to the government, shot the arch-bishop and other prelates and priests, erected barricades and from thence shot into the crowd standing on the opposite side, and declared, that if they would not gain the victory, they would level Paris with the ground. “War against the palaces” was their watchword. This was faithfully carried out. On March the fearful catastrophe began, and in May it ended. Blood had flown in streams and the most magnificent buildings lay in ashes. Woe to that city, if the Communists had gained the victory! And for those, who at that time committed those fearful outrages, there are now lots cast. Pertaining to this matter, and in its defense, our labor-unions and their branches are addressed in the following language;
Laboring-men! The revolution of the 18th of March has been shamefully misrepresented by the Capitalists of both hemispheres. You are interested in this revolution: for the principles for which they fought, you have adopted into your platforms. Every one of you is responsible for them, and to deny them would be nothing less than betrayal. You are most intimately united with those who are suffering for the crime of losing the victory, in the struggle for rights which we ourselves demand.
This is, however, a declaration that the labor-unions of our land are in reality only branches of that labor-union which has its center in England. This society was founded in 1869 by a Jew named Marx, at which time the directors of the association made the following declarations: “This association declares itself for Atheism.” That is, it declares, there is no God, for an Atheist is one who denies the existence of a God. “It demands the abolition of all religion, the substitution of science for faith, human righteousness for the righteousness of God, the abrogation and suppression of marriage... We demand that the people make the laws directly for the people, that all laws of inheritance be abolished, and that all real-estate become common property.”
These are the principles on which the international labor-union is founded. It is called international, because the members are to be gathered, not only from one nation, but from every nation on earth.
I now ask again, whether a Christian can connect himself with an association, of which he knows that it would carry out the principles just mentioned? It matters not, whether the laboring-man who enters into the association would carry them out or not – he belongs to the association which holds to this purpose. In Paris it was evident that many indeed had belonged to this association, who were merely interested in the society and little thought of being involved in a revolution; but when the fearful moment had come and all were drunk with excitement, there was no escape: whoever belonged to this society had to expect a bullet through his head or cooperate with them. And those who have been in these associations for many years, have not the Christian courage to say: “No, if such are your intentions, I can no longer go with you.” A great number have been drawn into the society, deny God and their Savior, and are on the way that leads to a fearful end, both in time and eternity.
So much to show the character of that paper and the socialistic labor-unions. But the question is of an altogether different character: What shall we say of Communism? i.e. the system according to which all goods shall be equally divided; or, What shall we say of Socialism? i.e. the system according to which no person shall own any property, but by united labor all becomes the property of the society? The former are more radical, the latter less, but as a matter of fact, the most radical are always victorious. This was the case in France. Those who began the agitation, had not intended to do what was afterwards done, but those much more radical than they over-powered them, brought them to the guillotine, until finally the most radical became leaders and ruled, until God brought it to an end. I have a few points noted down, which we will now consider, if the congregation will indulge me. This is the question:
WHY SHOULD AND CAN NO REASONABLE MAN, MUCH LESS A CHRISTIAN, TAKE PART IN THE EFFORTS OF COMMUNISTS AND SOCIALISTS?
Because these efforts are contrary to reason, nature and experience for
it is a fact that men are not equal;
it is a fact that men are naturally selfish;
it is a fact that happiness- does not consist in external advantages:
it is a fact well established by experience, that the communists have never attained their professed end, and only introduced sorrow and suffering.
Because these efforts are contrary to Christianity, for
What is adduced from the Scriptures in their favor, either proves nothing, or proves the contrary. It is urged:
that according to the Holy Scriptures, God gave man the earth and all things in the earth for his possession [Ge. 1:27-28];
that the first congregation at Jerusalem had a certain community of goods [Acts 2:44-47];
that Christ did not only warn against striving after riches, but also commanded: “Sell that thou hast, and distribute unto the poor, and thou shall have treasure in heaven: and come, follow me” Lu.18:22;
that according to the teachings of Christ, the laborers in the vineyard should receive equal wages [Mt. 20:1-16].
The efforts of the socialists and communists are in conflict with definite doctrines of Christianity, to wit:
the doctrines of personal property, as involved in the seventh commandment, “Thou shall not steal” and taught elsewhere in Scripture;
the doctrine taught in the fifth commandment and in other passages, that the government alone has the power of the sword;
the doctrine of the sanctity of marriage, as set forth in the sixth commandment and elsewhere;
the difference recognized in the Bible not only
between parents and children, man and wife, master and servant, employer and employed, but also
between rich and poor;
the scriptural doctrine that God would use men’s adversities for their spiritual welfare;
the scriptural doctrine that man shall eat his bread in the sweat of his face;
the scriptural doctrine, that human happiness is not to be sought in this world, but in God and in the hope of a recompense and equalization in the world to come, and in the hope of eternal life; and finally
the scriptural doctrine, that the source of all misery in this world, is sin.
Because the charges of communism against the Church and the Christian religion, that these rather hinder than promote the material welfare of man, are unfounded and unjust, to wit:
the charge that the Church is in league with wealth, oppression and tyranny, and
the charge that the Church is incapable of relieving human suffering.
These are the points to be considered, if we, as Christians, wish to define our position in regard to communism and socialism.
We are opposed to the efforts of the socialists: I. Because these efforts are contrary to reason, nature, and experience.
It is madness to think of accomplishing anything contrary to reason, nature, and experience. The heathen of old have already declared: “And if you would drive nature out of man with a pitchfork you will not accomplish it” (Naturam expellas furca, tamen usque recurret. [Horat, Ep. 1, 10, 24.]). Nature cannot be driven out, she has, to a certain extent, become identic with us, i.e. we ourselves are our embodied nature.
The first thing we have to consider is: 1. It is a fact that men are not equal.
There are no two things on earth absolutely identical. Of course these communists do not believe in the existence of God; but by this they have not yet put Him out of the way. This great, almighty, omniscient God has shown that He creates nothing a second time. He has created no two things alike. There are no two leaves exactly alike; yea, not an atom can be found that would be exactly like another atom. Throughout the creation every thing differs from everything else. God is accordingly not an equalizer, but one who creates dissimilar things. Man cannot, to save his life, make two things equal. The principle that all things shall be made alike is not founded in nature. The same is evident in man. One man is a deep thinker, but has no wealth of ideas nor a prolific ingenuity; another is healthy and strong, another is an invalid; one man is particularly gifted for mental labor, another for mechanical labor; one has an inclination to this, another to something altogether different; one is naturally economical, another naturally extravagant; one is disposed to anger, another to calmness under all circumstances; one becomes angry only when put to the severest test, another burns with rage at the slightest provocation. These are only a few instances; but now consider what we ourselves have experienced with regard to the diversities of men. And to these instances can be added a great number in which the relations are of a most diversified character. It would therefore be altogether unnatural to place human society in such a condition that all would be equal.
The communists will not deny that if they would institute a communistic State, in whatever manner they might undertake to do it, they must so arrange matters that the society of man becomes an organized body. But in this there must be rulers and subjects. Therefore just as soon as they would realize their ideas, they must also begin with the extreme opposite, appoint rulers and declare to the others: “you must suffer yourselves to be governed by these.”
But the communists will perhaps object to this and say that we misunderstand them. “We would not have all men equal,” they say, “we only want equality in possessions, enjoyments, and the like. Otherwise we would leave man as he is.”
This objection is worthless. Equality in these things presupposes mental equality. For just as soon as there is no mental equality, the communists cannot establish an equality in possessions, much less in happiness. They would have equality in possessions that all may be equally happy; but in a humanity so diversified, happiness is produced in altogether different ways. One is made happy by this means, another by that. Many a one thinks: “it would be dreadful to be in this or that man’s place;” and another one thinks: “I would not be in your position.” I, for example, am happy to think that I am a theologian, another one thinks, it would be a dog-life to sit at these books from morning till evening, day after day. He would not spend his time in idleness, but this kind of work is not to his taste. There are indeed communists who say that when they shall have established such an order, they will ask each one with regard to his inclinations and talents. We would then say: “You shall do the tailoring for us all, you shall make the shoes, you shall carry on commerce, and the like.” But the very thought of realizing such ideas is ludicrous. Who would then say: “I will clean out the sewers!” Who would say: “I am especially inclined to this work!” It is likely that no one would be found for such work.
Again: here is a large hospital in a communistic state. For alas! the communists cannot make men equal in health. This they should be able to accomplish first of all, for it is an essential part of universal happiness, that one man have just as good health as another. Then imagine: Here is a hospital in which there are sick, suffering with the most loathsome diseases. Day and night there is a fearful stench. A single hour in this atmosphere may cause disease. The communistic ruler would then say: “Who is inclined to go to this place and take care of the sick?” The stillness of death would be the answer. Every one would say: “Why should it be in my place to go? There must be equality!” — and because of equality no one does anything. Is this not extreme folly? The paradise to be realized by having all things equal, looks very well on paper. This, then, the socialist, believes; but only so long as they do not take into consideration the relations which would be called into existence by carrying out their principles. Their ideas are mere phantoms.
Communism paints a picture of a fool’s paradise and thinks, if only all property becomes common property, then all will have equal claims upon it, and this will become a glorious world. But it is altogether overlooked that many things would be involved which would make this impossible. The communists would have all possessions equally divided. But if all have been made equal today by such division, how will it be tomorrow? One locks up his money in a drawer, another spends his for drink in a tavern and still another runs through his money at even worse places. By tomorrow the equality is again destroyed.
Infatuated communists! They well see that they are an unhappy people. They bitterly experience the wretchedness of the world and especially now in these perilous times. They experience this, but they do not consider the cause of all this. They have lost God and with Him, the noblest good; this is why they have no comfort. And now the world is to be improved, and that by means of an equalization; for they think, “there is certainly enough wealth in the world that everyone might enjoy as much as his heart desires.” But what folly! Even if everyone would agree to such arrangements, it is evident that they would soon become tired of being made equal with others.
Therefore we say in the second place: 2. It is a fact that men are naturally selfish.
The communists must admit that men will indeed never peaceably suffer themselves to be reduced to equality; they must be forced to it. But it would be contrary to their own principles, continually to force people to submit to these new arrangements. The paradise which they would establish, would then be a perfect hell; the social relations would become worse than ever. Man is selfish by nature. One whose heart has not been changed thinks of self first. Such a person will say: “'I' comes first, and then 'I' comes another time, and then my neighbor may have a bit of a chance.” Man’ s heart is naturally full of envy, ambition and avarice. These are all wild beasts which abide in the natural man, and which the communist will never be able to control with his new social arrangements. Men are not satisfied with just what they need and more than the necessities the socialists could never give. No, the majority of men want more; yes, they want a great deal, and the more they obtain the greater becomes their desire for riches. If one has gained a small amount of wealth, he is like the man who drinks the water of the sea, which never quenches his thirst, but increases it and makes it more scorching.
It is a truth which no one can deny, dreadful as it is, that man is naturally selfish, and a selfish person will not be made equal with others, unless those with whom he is to be made equal are by far his superiors. All those who are in favor of the new communist regulations for society, are in favor of them because they expect to have their conditions improved. After considering your own experience with men, ask yourself whether you believe that many would be found who would consent to the new regulation of things, if they knew that they would thereby reduce their present circumstances? No, with the exception of a few fanatics, only those would consent to such regulations who expected to improve their condition by doing so. This is the reason why the communists can attain their desired ends in no other way than by the shedding of blood, by murder and arson.
Whenever they have aimed to accomplish anything practical they have resorted to these means. The introducers of these ideas saw at once that there was no way of accomplishing their purpose except by striking off the heads of their opponents. However, this is evidently frenzy; for although they should strike off the heads of thousands, yes, of millions, new opponents to this system would continue to make their appearance. How much blood has been shed for this cause in France already during the first revolution in the last decade of the past century! Blood flowed in streams. The beginning was made with the king; he had to be beheaded, together with his wife and daughters. They next turned upon the bishops, the priests, the wealthy, and the most eminent ministers, who had formerly assisted in ruling the land. But what was accomplished? It matters not how much blood had been spilt, thousands and thousands of secret enemies were only waiting for their deliverance from this reign of terror. Is it not terrible, that those, who would make the entire world happy by the establishment of a paradise, must begin by shedding streams of blood? Everyone not of their opinion is put to death and frequently with the most terrible tortures!
It is absolutely true that men are naturally selfish, and this too shows the folly of attempting to help society by means of an external equalization. Help can be secured only by removing selfishness. Then it may be accomplished. But as long as man continues in his selfishness, it is the greatest folly imaginable, to attempt to make all men equal in wealth, equal in honor. —In France they even went so far as to say: “No one shall excel the other in education;” and to symbolize the idea that nothing but equality should be recognized, all the tall, slender trees had to be cut down. It was already determined, that the steeples should also be torn down. For doing this they might seem to have had some reason, inasmuch as the steeples pointed to heaven, of which they want to know nothing, for they would have their heaven here on earth.
Should a man, for example, have spent a great deal in learning his profession or trade, and then receive no more pay for his labor than one who can do no more than make use of his strong arms, he would very soon say: “I have no intention whatever of connecting myself with the communistic society.” The man who simply knows how to use his arms will, of course, say: “Yes, I would be made perfectly equal with the one who spent a number of years for the attainment of his proficiency in his profession or trade.” If all were true Christians, they would say: “I am not working for money at all, but because God has commanded it. My daily bread I expect to receive of God, since He has given me the promise, that if I labor faithfully, He will never leave me nor forsake me.” The true Christian alone is of this mind. The natural man thinks on the other hand: “Why shall I labor, when there is nothing gained by it?” How many merchants say: “Why shall I keep this or that article of goods for there is no profit in it.” Whether the goods are in demand or not, is not the question, because they are serving only themselves, —and thus we find it in every station of life. This is the selfish principle of the natural man as he is born into the world.
If, then, there is to be any help for the world, the people must become Christians, as said above. There is no other way. There are, however, many thousands of people who are called Christians, but who are not such. The communists see this and then exclaim: “What Christians? Why they are the greatest scoundrels on earth.” We must admit, that it is even so, that there are many scoundrels among those who bear the Christian name, who are not worthy of the name. But when we speak of Christians we do not mean those who simply have the name, but those who do not only believe in the Bible, but who, in their life, manifest and carry out the principles contained in the Bible. These alone are Christians, and if all were such Christians, we would have heaven on earth, and the cross, which we must expect, would be easy to bear. Of course no communist will believe this, because he does not know the meaning of the term Christian. He only sees the faults and sins of those who call themselves Christians and perhaps also attend church, and then exclaims: “What? Christianity shall improve the world? ! Are not the Christians worse than we?” And alas! We are forced to say: “O wretched communists! You are indeed fearfully offended, and woe unto him through whom this offense comes; for he hardens you and causes you to believe the more firmly that Christianity amounts to nothing. But it remains true after all, that men are naturally selfish, and they will remain selfish until they become true Christians; it is therefore madness to think of creating a world in which every one is satisfied to have no more than others.”
We must not imagine that many who are very wealthy would be satisfied in having no more than others. To illustrate, there is a man who is worth 10,000, 100,000, 500,000 or even 1,000,000 dollars. Would he accommodate himself to such a communistic society and become a member? The communist Fourier (died 1837) attempted to carry out his communism in France and even succeeded in gathering together here and there little communistic congregations which he called Phalansteres. There 1800 to 2000 persons lived together having all things in common. There were no rulers except the so-called distributors. For someone has to give the command: “So much belongs to you and so much to another; this is your work and that is his.” But alas! money was wanting. Fourier then published a request in the papers that some wealthy person should, out of love for mankind, contribute one million dollars for this purpose. He (Fourier) would go to a certain place every day, to see whether so kind a man would come. He went to the place every day for 12 years, but no one came. All his Phalansteres became bankrupt.
These communistic gentlemen, like Fourier, are either fanatics or swindlers. We will readily believe that the leaders are mostly fanatics, because, having nothing more to do with Christianity, they have asked themselves day after day: “What can we do to elevate the deeply fallen world to happiness again?” And they have devised this plan. But what can it accomplish? People are not made happy, but unhappy by this means; and as the communists continually call the attention of the people to the dreadful condition of the world, they also more firmly fix the idea in the minds of the people: “How wretched is the world! O how unhappy! we must take another course.” This is the poison with which the communists feed the people. This is the poison which is all the more dreadful in its effects, because we know that the condition of the world will remain the same. And if a thousand communistic papers would be published, they could not turn the world upside clown, they cannot change the condition of the world. What do they gain then? No more than this, that people feel that they are unhappy. If one who is poor thinks: “I am poor and cannot follow the pace set by the rich; yet I will not care, but be contented with my condition, if I can only make an honest living” —he is a happy man as poor as he may be.
This then brings us to our third proposition: 3. It is a fact that happiness does not consist in external advantages.
Even the communist must acknowledge that outward equality would not by any means make all men happy, because the wants of the human heart are not alike. One person is happy only in this particular position; another only in that position. He who has not yet learned these imaginary wants, has his cup of coffee, bread and butter for breakfast; a common dinner in the presence of a faithful wife and obedient children; potato soup for his supper, and holds his family worship, does not only think himself happier than a king, he is in reality a thousand times happier. Happiness does not dwell in palaces, it dwells in the heart. Though you give a person all the riches of the earth you will not make him happy. It is a mania, with which nearly everyone is affected, to think: “if we only had as much as others, we would be happy also.” Cares come with riches. Go from castle to castle, enter the rooms where princes and emperors dwell, and you will see how happy they are. You would find, that if Christian faith were wanting, they are unhappy notwithstanding the power, the riches and the honors which they enjoy. Happiness is not found in these things, we simply imagine it. Happiness depends upon the condition of the mind. And if you would fill a man’s house with gold and diamonds, —that would never satisfy the heart. It has wants of a different character.
Even though we do make these statements, they are mostly made in vain for people will not believe us. They say: “O if I only had plenty of money, I would feel right happy.” They are fanatics who make such declarations. Just make an imaginary experiment with yourself and you will find that a fearful burden is placed upon your heart by becoming the owner of a large lump of gold. Gellert beautifully presents the matter in the poem called John, the soap-maker. He speaks of a soap boiler who sang with cheerfulness day and night. He had his daily bread and performed His work gladly. A wealthy epicure lived near him. He is greatly vexed at John's disturbing him in his morning sleep. He entered into a contract with John that he would give him a thousand dollars if he would stop his singing. John said to himself: “I can well afford to stop for a thousand dollars.” He carried the money home. He stopped his singing, but peace and joy fled from his heart and mind. While lying in bed, if he heard a little noise, he would think: “There are thieves about!” In short, his happiness was gone. Finally he gathered up his money again and carried it back to his rich neighbor. He preferred to sing and be joyful. This is of course a fable, but it is based on the experience of millions of people. It is then, altogether contrary to nature, to try to make men happy by means of communism.
The Word of God alone can make us happy. A man may indeed succeed well in some undertaking, and become overjoyed for a time and feel himself very happy. But alas! it is only for a short time! A Christian, on the other hand, is always happy, even while weeping. And if he should be prostrated before his God, he must confess, “happy man that I am” He knows that he has enjoyed God’s goodness, he knows his tears will soon be wiped away. He will be with his God and Father and will stand before His throne forevermore, when once the delusive play on the stage of life is ended. The Christian knows this, and therefore he is happy. He is, of course, not always in a pleasant mood; sometimes he feels very sad, yes, quite frequently so; and the deeper his Christianity, the more he will be troubled with feelings of sadness, inasmuch as he notices every action of his flesh. This causes him trouble and distress. However, one thing no one can take from him: he has a merciful God in heaven; he has found the precious pearl, and when life is at an end, he can cheerfully close his eyes, for he fears neither death nor hell, nor that “Nothing” of which the atheists are continually afraid.
Although there are many who say: “There is no God,” there are really not as many atheists, even in our times, as is generally supposed. Many a one is a very bold atheist by day, but when he retires in the evening and all is dark about him, he hears a silent voice within him, saying: “There is a God after all, it is at any rate doubtful whether there is a God or not, and should there be a God, what will become of me?” This voice can be silenced by nothing less than satanic obduracy and hardness of heart. An atheist may deliver a speech with glowing eloquence against the existence of a God, but we must not think that he is actually in earnest. There are many braggarts who would show their intellectual greatness by speaking against God. Then after they return to their home, they must accuse themselves and say: “What have you done!” They don’t believe themselves what they have said. God has written on the heart of man and no one can erase it: “There is a God, before Him thou wilt be called to an account. He will bring thee before His judgment seat. Woe unto thee if thou hast no Savior? He will judge thee strictly in accordance with His holiness and righteousness.” —
Because, then, it is a fact, that happiness does not consist in external advantages, it is folly to endeavor to make men happy by means of an equalization.
Communism’s attempt to justify itself from the Bible: Genesis 1;
holding of personal property taught by necessity, reason, and for happiness;
dangers in holding personal property must be watched;
Acts 4:32;
Matthew 19:16;
laborers in Vineyard;
Communists oppose definite doctrines of Scripture:
personal property, fifth commandment, sixth commandment, differences between man and man, eternity, man must work to eat, man shall not seek his happiness in this world, sin is the source of all world’s troubles
Accusations of Communists against Christian Church, church in league with the rich and oppressors;
Christ opposed to conquering world by force;
Christ and Bible are friends of the oppressed;
dreadful end of tyrants, Christianity not out to end corruption in the world. Christ’s Kingdom is above;
Christianity never tried by Communists and Socialists;
Consequence if it were tried;
Christian’s aim is eternal life
TRANSLATOR'S PREFACE TO THE 1879 EDITION
That our American people may be enabled the better to understand the true character of Communism, that they may see its blackness in the light of God’s Word, that they may be warned against its dreadful influences, that man may be benefited and God glorified, this English translation of DR. WALTHER’S excellent lectures is herewith dedicated to the American Public, but especially to those who may desire to acquaint themselves with the secret of our nation's troubles.
The translator has endeavored to give DR. WALTHER’S ideas in smooth English, without confining himself throughout to the original wording. Rev. C. T. Steck of Homer, Pa., assisted the undersigned in carefully criticising the language used, in consequence of which he hopes the work will need no further criticism after leaving the press.
God’s blessing accompany this little work then and cause it to do its work right nobly.
D. SIMON, M. A. Translator
PUBLISHER’S PREFACE TO THE 1879 EDITION
The undersigned yielded with reluctance to the earnest request of the Lutheran Congregation of this place, to publish a stenographic report of extemporaneous lectures on Socialism and Communism, called forth by special circumstances, and delivered at four evening sessions of the congregation. The publisher hopes, however, that the indulgent and unprejudiced reader will overlook the formal defects which were unavoidable in the circumstances under which these lectures originated, and he also hopes, that the reader will not inconsiderately reject the truth presented in these pages, because of these defects. May that which is here presented, occasioned as it was by the special circumstances of the congregation of this place, serve to call attention, also in other circles, to a question which is becoming more and more a burning one, even among Christians, and may it also give them occasion to answer from Scripture, reason and history, every form of this question, in which it may be presented, and that more thoroughly than time would allow.
In my previous post, entitled EU President: 2009 to be First Year of Global Governance, I made much of the progress of Socialism, particularly the fact that the upcoming climate conference in Copenhagen is intended to result in a legally-binding agreement among nations – a treaty which will (1) produce a new government with (2) enforcement powers, the intention of which is to (3) distribute wealth worldwide using a measure of each nation's CO2 output as the basis, that is, on the basis of factors directly related to each nation's economic activity (production and transportation of goods and services). This treaty, in setting up a “distributor of wealth” in the interest of supporting an equal “right of sustainable development” for all people and nations, sets up, in effect, a worldwide Socialist government, to economically equalize the world under the guise of a now defunct “Climate Crisis." The key is to recognize the essential function of “government” under this treaty -- to evenly distribute limited resources to all affinity groups. The only rulers in a Socialist society are the “distributors.”
Some commented to me privately on my last post, asking, What's wrong with Socialism? Indeed, I heard through my (rather disgusted) Pastor last Fall, before the 2008 Presidential election in November, that a number of our Canadian pastors were indifferent to the prospect of a Marxist president, reportedly suggesting that A little Socialism would be good for America.
Perhaps we Lutherans pride ourselves a little too much in holding religiously sterile political perspectives! True, in the Kingdom of the Left, Natural Law considerations will predominate, but the notion that this somehow precludes any consideration of religiously influenced convictions is nonsense. In the case of Socialism, Natural Law arguments against it are overwhelming, but religious arguments against it are also warranted, as Socialism overtly militates against Creedal distinctions, against the institution of Family and Marriage (all resources, including family, belong to the community), and against several other positive doctrines of Scripture, such as respect for personal property, the distinctions between classes of people (like husband and wife, parent and child, employer and employee, magistrate and citizen, rich and poor), or the fact that misery in this world is caused by sin, not by relative possession or position, and it's cure is to be found outside of man's effort. But I am not about to argue this. On the contrary, Dr. Carl Ferdinand Wilhelm Walther is.
Dr. C.F.W. Walther, still referred to by some as “America's Martin Luther,” was a 19th Century Lutheran theologian who emigrated from Saxony in 1838 with a group of laymen and pastors, lead by Martin Stephan, for reasons of religious conscience. Late 17th-Century Pietism having eviscerated Lutheranism in Germany, the Enlightenment which followed (c. 1750) nearly wiped Lutheran orthodoxy completely out, Valentin Ernst Loescher, the last of the Lutheran theologians from the Lutheran Age of Orthodoxy, having died in 1749. A remnant remained, but when the Prussian Union (1817 & 1830) forced a merger of what was left of the Lutheran Church in Germany with the Reformed Church, true Lutherans were rousted out of Germany. The Stephanites were among them, settling in Perry County Missouri, and later under Walther's leadership, forming the Lutheran Church – Missouri Synod in 1848. Walther, being convinced that only Lutheran theology clearly taught the unalloyed doctrines of Scripture, was an ardent proponent of Orthodox Lutheranism and Confessional Unity, and highly influential among Lutherans in America.
The second half of the 19th Century saw the appearance of solidarity movements among the laboring classes in America, giving rise to labor-unions. While a compelling case can always be made for the need of laborers to have their interests fairly represented and defended, the activities of labor-unions of the 19th Century were largely orchestrated by European socialists eager to use unfavorable working conditions as a pretext for establishing schools of communism and socialism among the laboring classes. The thought seems to have been to exploit envy against employers and the political establishment, and under the pretense of “equal happiness through common resources,” use the angst and power of united labor to force them to resign ownership and control of their own property. We don't hear much today about a religious case for it, but since so much of Communism and Socialism flies in the face of basic Scripture teaching, some sort of case has always been necessary in order to route Christian suspicions -- at least temporarily. Such a case has long existed, a rather flimsy case which is largely a gross mis-use of the Scriptures.
As a result, many of the German Lutherans in late 19th Century America, especially those in municipal areas who had access to the periodicals of the labor-unions which directly preached the virtues of Socialism in various ways, were thrown into confusion. In St. Louis, Dr. Walther acted by giving a series of four lectures on Communism and Socialism, concluding, No reasonable man, much less a Christian, can or should take part in the efforts of Communists and Socialists. Typical of classic Lutheran polemic, he is delightfully direct and forceful, offering definitive conclusions on the basis of both Natural Law and Scripture doctrine, where applicable.
This series of lectures is preserved for us in English under the title, Communism and Socialism: Minutes of the First German Evangelical Lutheran Congregation, U.A.C. at St. Louis, Missouri, yet is available nowhere today – neither in print, nor out of print, nor have I found it anywhere on the internet. When I found out about this work many years ago, I searched for years, finally finding an old 1947 reprint. I offer it here, one lecture a day, over the next four days, in hopes that the reader may find it an edifying and welcome change from the notion that political ideals are to be completely divorced from religious convictions.
On November 19, 2009, European Union president Herman Van Rompuy stated the following in his inaugural speech:
We're living through exceptionally difficult times: the financial crisis and its dramatic impact on employment and budgets, the climate crisis which threatens our very survival, a period of anxiety, uncertainty, and lack of confidence. Yet these problems can be overcome by a joint effort between our countries. 2009 is also the first year of Global Governance, with the establishment of the G20 in the middle of the financial crisis, the climate conference in Copenhagen is another step towards the global management of our planet.
Lack of fidelity to truth is necessarily followed by fundamental immorality – which reasonably follows given that questions are asked, and answers are sought, for the sake of guidance in our thoughts and deeds. False foundation for thinking and acting naturally results in wrong thinking and acting. Governments and large organizations cannot act ethically by deliberately mis-handling the truth – immorality on a grand scale is the tragic result.
Heralded by its organizers as a significant step toward Global Governance, Copenhagen was to be the beginning of a legally-binding realignment of world powers. A realignment founded on falsehood and deceit on a grand scale, it would have created a new global governing body, overtly requiring that members hand over their sovereignty as independent nations, for the purpose of transferring capital between these member nations based on carbon usage, subject to international enforcement. That's
a new global government
with enforcement powers (a military, or access to internal economic controls for punitive purposes, perhaps), that
manages the flow of capital between member nations on the basis of factors directly related to a nation's economic success (production/transportation of goods and services).
Manages the flow of capital between member nations on the basis of factors directly related to a nation's economic success. Not only is this merely "redistribution of wealth," it is redistribution that penalizes productive nations on the basis of measures of their productivity, that confiscates the financial proceeds of their success and gives it to the demonstrably unproductive. It is a scheme for enforcing financial equity of outcome on a global scale, and as such, it is strident Marxism.
Marxism: Recipe for the whole of society Marxism isn't just another political ideology. It is (1) a political ideology, (2) an economic ideology, and (3) a social ideology, flawed at the foundation with a wrong view of human nature. Relying on the notion that mankind is basically good, and is therefore naturally cooperative, Marxism is an ideology which offers a solution for the totality of human action and interaction which will bring about man's supposedly natural inclinations across society. Yet, the foundations, and therefore the conclusions, of Marxism are false. While mankind is naturally gregarious, he is not basically good, but basically evil, and is not naturally cooperative, but naturally competitive.
Scripture Teaches the Depravity of Man, and his need for a Saviour on this basis The Bible, of course, teaches the depravity of mankind in his fallen state -- the natural, or unregenerate, man, being destitute of merit before a perfectly Just and Righteous God, is incapable of pleasing Him or of atoning for his own sin. Mankind is thus estranged from God, and by definition, is in open rebellion against God. Being perfectly Just, God demands that this rebellion be punished -- dooming unregenerate man to an eternity under God's wrath. This is why mankind needs a Saviour: to do for man what man cannot do for himself -- live perfectly under God's Law (perfect righteousness) and reconcile man into a relationship with God by satisfying his debt of sin. Jesus Christ, being both fully Man and fully God, lived this perfect live on behalf of makind; and being perfectly Loving, took upon Himself the sin of the World, voluntarily suffering for man on the Cross the penalty of man's sin: death and separation from God. Thus Atoning for man's sin, He was raised to life, demonstrating God's satisfaction with the payment and proving that Jesus is who He said He is -- God incarnate -- and that His promises can therefore be believed: that through faith, we are given new spiritual life (made spiritually alive, or regenerated), we are given His perfect righteousness to bear before God (not our own righteousness), our sins are forgiven, and we are no longer estranged from God, no longer his enemy, but are restored to a relationship with Him as His children and as brothers of Christ.
The Depravity of Man, Observed But we don't need the Bible to see that man is depraved. Anyone who has been an engaged parent for more than six-months understands this perfectly well. The fact is, humans are born with an incurable self-centeredness and callous disregard for others that makes them entirely unfit for entrance into society. Thus, the primary job of a parent -- indeed, one's obligation as a parent to the whole of society -- is one of continuous correction in order to break a child of the most egregious of uncivilized propensities, to make him at least minimally fit for productive life in society. In the Civilized World, this, along with formal education, officially takes 16 to 18 years of rigorous training -- with most in the West, it seems, agreeing that children aren't truly "adult" until nearly age thirty.
Even with such preparation, Civilized Society requires Laws. Requires them. Millions of them. Why? Because despite such preparation for civil life, mankind still excels at criminally exploiting his neighbor for his own benefit. This happens on a small-scale in every-day life, as at each moment each person in society considers his actions with respect to others to create advantage for himself -- whether strangers, neighbors, friends, employers, or institutions like businesses, schools and governments. And it often happens on a grand-scale. Climategate is only one recent example. Enron is another. The exploits of Bernie Madoff is a third. If people were basically good, the need for laws and the need for government would scarcely exist. Yet the dire need for such things is universally acknowledged, particularly among those who espouse Marxism in the Western World, as their zeal for regulating the minutiae of individual life is unparalleled in its insatiableness.
Enforced Fraternity Of what use are Laws to to the Marxist? To force man into communal cooperativeness. Why is it necessary to force him? Because man is not naturally cooperative, but naturally competitive. Moreover, each man is unequal to another in his God-given faculties, which are necessary for his use as he executes the duties of his various vocations. It is entirely against human nature to enforce his fraternity with others, and a rank deprivation of his liberty and of his service to God to constrain or penalize his free use of human faculty. Innovation only comes from such free use; human society can only regress when it is constrained or penalized. In 1850, French assemblyman Frédéric Bastiat, a classical liberal, political economist and celebrated polemicist who wrote convincingly against the positions of Socialism, had much to say concerning Enforced Fraternity, and its relationship to liberty, in his iconic essay, The LAW:
Enforced Fraternity Destroys Liberty Mr. de Lamartine once wrote to me thusly: “Your doctrine is only the half of my program. You have stopped at liberty; I go on to fraternity.” I answered him: “The second half of your program will destroy the first.”
In fact, it is impossible for me to separate the word fraternity from the word voluntary. I cannot possibly understand how fraternity can be legally enforced without liberty being legally destroyed, and thus justice being legally trampled underfoot.
Legal plunder has two roots: One of them, as I have said before, is in human greed; the other is in false philanthropy.
At this point, I think that I should explain exactly what I mean by the word plunder [spoliation].
Plunder Violates Ownership I do not, as is often done, use the word in any vague, uncertain, approximate, or metaphorical sense. I use it in its scientific acceptance — as expressing the idea opposite to that of property [wages, land, money, or whatever]. When a portion of wealth is transferred from the person who owns it — without his consent and without compensation, and whether by force or by fraud — to anyone who does not own it, then I say that property is violated; that an act of plunder is committed.
I say that this act is exactly what the law is supposed to suppress, always and everywhere. When the law itself commits this act that it is supposed to suppress, I say that plunder is still committed, and I add that from the point of view of society and welfare, this aggression against rights is even worse. In this case of legal plunder, however, the person who receives the benefits is not responsible for the act of plundering. The responsibility for this legal plunder rests with the law, the legislator, and society itself. Therein lies the political danger.
...
Three Systems of Plunder The sincerity of those who advocate protectionism, socialism, and communism is not here questioned. Any writer who would do that must be influenced by a political spirit or a political fear. It is to be pointed out, however, that protectionism, socialism, and communism are basically the same plant in three different stages of its growth. All that can be said is that legal plunder is more visible in communism because it is complete plunder; and in protectionism because the plunder is limited to specific groups and industries. Thus it follows that, of the three systems, socialism is the vaguest, the most indecisive, and, consequently, the most sincere stage of development.
But sincere or insincere, the intentions of persons are not here under question. In fact, I have already said that legal plunder is based partially on philanthropy, even though it is a false philanthropy.
With this explanation, let us examine the value — the origin and the tendency — of this popular aspiration which claims to accomplish the general welfare by general plunder.
Law Is Force Since the law organizes justice, the socialists ask why the law should not also organize labor, education, and religion. Why should not law be used for these purposes? Because it could not organize labor, education, and religion without destroying justice. We must remember that law is force, and that, consequently, the proper functions of the law cannot lawfully extend beyond the proper functions of force.
When law and force keep a person within the bounds of justice, they impose nothing but a mere negation. They oblige him only to abstain from harming others. They violate neither his personality, his liberty, nor his property. They safeguard all of these. They are defensive; they defend equally the rights of all.
Law Is a Negative Concept The harmlessness of the mission performed by law and lawful defense is self-evident; the usefulness is obvious; and the legitimacy cannot be disputed.
As a friend of mine once remarked, this negative concept of law is so true that the statement, the purpose of the law is to cause justice to reign, is not a rigorously accurate statement. It ought to be stated that the purpose of the law is to prevent injustice from reigning. In fact, it is injustice, instead of justice, that has an existence of its own. Justice is achieved only when injustice is absent.
But when the law, by means of its necessary agent, force, imposes upon men a regulation of labor, a method or a subject of education, a religious faith or creed—then the law is no longer negative; it acts positively upon people. It substitutes the will of the legislator for their own wills; the initiative of the legislator for their own initiatives. When this happens, the people no longer need to discuss, to compare, to plan ahead; the law does all this for them. Intelligence becomes a useless prop for the people; they cease to be men; they lose their personality, their liberty, their property.
Try to imagine a regulation of labor imposed by force that is not a violation of liberty; a transfer of wealth imposed by force that is not a violation of property. If you cannot reconcile these contradictions, then you must conclude that the law cannot organize labor and industry without organizing injustice.
That Enforced Fraternity is scandalously unjust, even in a strictly social context, and can only result in dramatic failure, need not rely purely upon theorizing. One only needs to make note of one recent and horrific example of its outcome: the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. Under the iron rule of Tito, incongruous ethnic peoples of mutually-exclusive religious convictions were forced into the fictitious mould of a harmonious communal society. Yugoslavia was considered a model of ethnic and religious social integration. But it was enforced. Under the calm surface of this contained society, division and conflict fermented, producing such social pressure, that, soon after the death of Tito, open ethnic war erupted with volcanic force. The breadth of its atrocity is now well-known. Birds of a feather flock together, but blackbirds and crows don't seem to get along.
Marxism leads to Utopia, for some The Depravity of Man and the scandal of Enforced Fraternity, are not new concepts. They are long-known and easily deduced through the honest use of Reason. While Special Revelation provides deeper insight into these truths, General Revelation, or Natural Law, produces them with sufficient basis to establish sound political and economic ideology and public policy. Free-market Capitalism admits man's fatal flaws, but instead of ruinously working against them, it recognizes and works with them. Mankind is gregarious yet competitive. Capitalism alone provides a framework within which these basic truths of human nature can flourish in a way that benefits everyone, by redirecting man's competitiveness away from destructive conflict toward productive associations in the interest of his fellow man's wants and needs. This is accomplished by a system of liberty, the overriding incentive to engage in legitimate, productive and peaceful labor being provided by the freedom to not only engage the full free use of one's faculties but to enjoy full ownership of the result. It is not without some need of containment, yet deprivation of freedom only presents man, in his competitive nature, with incentive to seek his advantage in other ways, in the old barbaric ways of open bloody conflict and exploitation of human life.
Marxism, in the end, will never lead to a classless society. The upper classes -- the ruling class -- will never allow it, will never divest themselves of advantage. Rather, as if dangling the carrot of social equity before asses, the ruling class serves their fantasy of Utopian Society to secure their own advantage, by using their power to regulate the middle class out of existence while otherwise duping the labour class into relinquishing the only means they have of working themselves into their own relative positions of advantage: the free use of their faculties and ownership of their property. In a Utopian Society, the upper class still needs minions to provide labor -- to grow food, to sweep streets, to weed the gardens, and to polish golden toilets. This is a truism: there will never be fewer than two classes of people in any society.
Conclusion EU President Herman Van Rompuy laments our current "period of anxiety, uncertainty, and lack of confidence", and cites two causes: (1) the so-called climate crisis, and (2) the financial crisis. The solution being pursued by the EU, according to Rompuy, is a system of Global Governance which heels to Marxist principles: i.e., From each according to his ability, to each according to his need. In the case of the Global Government being created in Copenhagen, ability and need are determined by measurement of relative CO2 output -- which is directly proportional to a nation's productivity.
We now know that the "Climate Crisis" is not only scientifically false, but a manufactured fraud. It has, however, served its political purposes: along with recent financial woes, it has brought us to the brink of worldwide Marxism. Is anyone taking bets that the Financial Crisis was an orchestration of strategically placed ideological zealots? After all, the Financial Crisis can only be explained by approximately a decade-and-a-half of irrational and obviously destructive investment practices, along with foolish monetary and fiscal policy, beginning about the same time as Climategate, according to now-public documentation. I'm suspicious.
On October 29, I posted a blog entry entitled, Natural Law, Moral Imperative, and Public Policy: Copenhagen Looms Near. It included a 90 minute lecture given by noted Anthropogenic Climate Change skeptic, Lord Christopher Monckton, in which he details how long-known data has always questioned the predictions of so-called climate change computer models, how climate organizations, like the IPCC and CRU, have been caught doctoring public reports supporting the notion of climate change, and how recent scientific observations, specifically addressing the question of climate change, utterly disprove the theories concocted by politically motivated scientists and organizations, and propped up by magical computer models. In this latter regard, I noted a recent paper by German scientists Gerlich and Tscheuschner, Falsification of the Atmospheric CO2 Greenhouse Effects within the Frame of Physics, which concludes: “the derivation of statements on the CO2 induced anthropogenic global warming out of the computer simulations lies outside any science” (pp. 90-91). Science – that is, real science, or the process of hypothesis testing through direct observation of phenomena, rather than the make-believe science of supporting one's assumptions (or “scientific models”) by programming a computer to produce the desired answers – has, as recently as this Summer, not only proven that anthropogenic climate change models are false, and that the fabled "hockey-stick" graph showing dramatic temperature increases is a fabrication, but that the so-called "Greenhouse Effect" does not exist, the results of recent research by Lindzen & Choi (MIT) showing that heat is not trapped in the atmosphere but radiated out. Kirsten E. Lombard, in a review of Glenn Beck's October 20 interview with Lord Monckton, summarzes Lindzen's work from this interview, as follows:
Richard Lindzen of MIT, the Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Planetary and Atmospheric Sciences, has in the last two months, released a salient (understatement of the year) study on climate feedbacks. Simple in concept but meticulous in execution, Lindzen's study measures the escape of outgoing radiation into space.
Al Gore and those with whom the former vice president aligns himself claim, of course, that such radiation becomes trapped within the earth's atmosphere, leading to precipitous and disastrous warming. Yet Lindzen's study finds quite the opposite: such radiation has continued escaping out into space at rates that would seem finally to put an end the global warming scare. Results indicate, in fact, that the effects of CO2 on temperature over the course of the next century will remain well below 2° F, possibly as low as 1° F. These projections amount to less than one sixth of what the U.N. claims and are, quite simply, negligible.
Better still, where all previous projections were based solely on computer modeling – much of it wildly biased – Lindzen's projections are based on hard data accumulated over the course of 20 years. Monckton had actually published a paper last year that arrived at the same conclusions from a theoretical perspective. Now Lindzen's rigorously conducted science backs him up.
There is no convincing evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the forseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate. Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth."
That's 32,000 professional American scientists, and counting.
How interesting it is, then, that late last week, mere weeks before the U.N. Climate Change Conference was set to begin in Copenhagen (on Dec. 7), “hackers” were able to gain access to UK government systems and “find” a store of emails and documents authored by very prominent climatologists from the University of East Anglia's Climate Research Unit (CRU), which go back approximately 15 years and clearly detail scientific fraud, not only by calculated and systematic manipulation of data, but scheming to prevent other researchers, with competing conclusions, from publishing their findings. Andrew Bolt, journalist for Melbourne's Herald Sun, reports on Nov. 20:
So the 1079 emails and 72 documents seem indeed evidence of a scandal involving most of the most prominent scientists pushing the man-made warming theory - a scandal that is one of the greatest in modern science. I’ve been adding some of the most astonishing in updates below - emails suggesting conspiracy, collusion in exaggerating warming data, possibly illegal destruction of embarrassing information, organised resistance to disclosure, manipulation of data, private admissions of flaws in their public claims and much more. If it is as it now seems, never again will “peer review” be used to shout down sceptics.
Repeatedly throughout the e-mails that have been made public, proponents of global-warming theories refer to data that has been hidden or destroyed. Only e-mails from Mr. Jones' institution [University of East Anglia (UEA)] have been made public, and with his obvious approach to deleting sensitive files, it's difficult to determine exactly how much more information has been lost that could be damaging to the global-warming theocracy and its doomsday forecasts... [T]hese e-mails were covered by Britain's Freedom of Information Act and should have been released [without having to be hacked]. The content of these e-mails raises extremely serious questions that could end the academic careers of many prominent professors. Academics who have purposely hidden data, destroyed information and doctored their results have committed scientific fraud. We can only hope respected academic institutions such as Pennsylvania State University [Professor Micheal E. Mann], the University of Arizona [Professor Malcom K. Hughes] and the University of Massachusetts at Amherst [Professor Raymond S Bradley] conduct proper investigative inquiries.
“A scandal that is one of the greatest in modern science,” exclaims Mr. Bolt. Indeed. Piltdown Man, while disenfranchising two or three generations of school children, surely did not have the political and economic implications of Climategate. Recently, it was discovered that Professor Reiner Protsch von Zieten, a German anthropologist, was forced to retire from his university in Frankfurt “because of numerous 'falsehoods and manipulations' ...his deceptions may mean an entire tranche of the history of man's development will have to be rewritten.” But again, a few academically disenfranchised students, some republishing costs, and a little egg-on-face for his former employer, are nothing compared to the commercial and political interests already fully vested in the outcome of Copenhagen. Some folks are already warning investors to dump alternative energy stocks. Of course, there still are all the poor little school children who've been lied to and deliberately frightened for the past two decades – but who cares whether they will have sufficient knowledge to function as productive citizens, the vulnerable emotions of helpless and ignorant children are too politically useful to worry about truth and integrity.
Interestingly, the Copenhagen Treaty was DOA anyway – for political reasons. On November 17, Der Spiegel reports:
At the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) summit in Singapore [on November 15], 17 heads of states and government -- including ones from China, Russia and the US -- destroyed all hopes of setting internationally binding climate targets in Copenhagen. Even the agreement to halve carbon dioxide emissions by 2050 that was agreed upon in L'Aquila has been sidelined. Now, the only possible result of the Copenhagen talks will be a "politically binding agreement." According to the latest plan for the summit, a formal, legal agreement would then be reached at a later stage [ostensibly, Bonn in 2010].
Copenhagen is a failure now on both scientific and political grounds. Bone fide science debunks claims of anthropogenic climate change. Highly respected scientists, advocates of anthropogenic climate change, have been caught in the global fraud of the century. And the politicians can't seem to agree anyway (and why should they agree? Disagreement is better for their careers – it is always much more theatrical, enhances the perception that they are conscientious problem solvers, and provides additional opportunities for them to be seen and heard by their adoring public.).
Nevertheless, in the US, issues of scientific fraud are being taken seriously. Senator Inhofe (R – OK), who has always been suspicious of climate alarmism and a skeptic of anthropogenic climate change, will be pushing for full Senate investigation into the extent of this fraud.
On November 18, Inhofe spoke at a press conference regarding the lack of science behind anthropogenic climate change (above), claiming vindication of his skepticism on scientific grounds, and offers a pretty good history of his anti-alarmist skepticism and consistent leadership on this issue.
On November 23, three days after the CRU fraud was made public, Inhofe says he will call for an investigation into Climategate (above).
And then, just yesterday, reiterating his promise to call for investigation into Climategate, Inhofe relates (above) how he had been approached by many prominent US scientists over the years who expressed concern that they had not been allowed proper input into climate studies or to publish their research, some even having left the IPCC over the treatment they had received. Fraud apparently extends beyond the CRU.
Finally, Chris Horner (another well-known global warming skeptic) was interviewed by Fox News, along with a global warming advocate. Mr. Horner's comments are worth paying attention to.
Q: Do these emails substantiate what you have been saying for years? A: That's precisely what they are. They are miscast as revelations when in fact they are all affirmations. None out of context, all posted in full context, including entire email threads, affirming the specifics of the actions that we have been describing, including ...falsifying the data of the entire premise for the IPCC's process, the Kioto Treaty, the Kioto II Treaty, Cap & Trade, EPA's actions, and so on, all of which, from the US perspective, must be stayed until the truth is out. We do need an investigation ...in fact, they are affirming everything that a lot of people, including many many scientists, including some in the refereed literature had been [pointing out], for some time, has been going on...
Let me clarify what these are. This isn't information ...that somehow was just sprung now. In fact, it's just as likely to have come from a whistle-blower, someone from inside with a conscience. All of this information is subject to the UK's Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). All of it has been under request for years. The most recent request, after they had run out of reasons, was [denied with the statement], “We lost the data.” Well, that's implausible beyond belief, and also would cause a stay in the process until they found [it]. So someone has forced cooperation with UK's FOIA by revealing this, what, 12 to 13 year string of evidence of seeking to, not keep people out of conferences, but out of refereed literature, and of seeking to falsify their own results. Not just random marginal results, either, but the premise – the hockey stick. They talked about hiding the decline in temperature of the last half of the last century. That's not what other people are just saying, “Yes, I found that too.” Other people are echoing significant data. They are disagreeing [with their own premise] in their own words, and they can't deny it any more.
We need an investigation... The emails prove that they broke the law, they describe how to break the law. They also engaged in fraud.
Q: Is it possible that more information will come out to exonerate these scientists? A: ...[T]he bottom line is, would we have heard a defense if a real one existed? Yes, we would have heard it by now. Instead, what we have seen are statements like, “Using the word 'trick' is acutally a very common application in science,” although this is the first we've ever heard of it, and “Hiding the decline is just really describing something else.” The plain meaning is described as the implausible, and the implausible is described as the reasonable meaning. If that's your first, best, and apparently last defense, these people have been caught with their pants at their ankles, and another 100mb of data are coming. A real investigation ...shall ensure now, and all processes should be stayed: Kioto II, Cap & Trade, EPA regulatory push, all of the energy rationing and tax schemes premised precisely on research proven falsified in this material, must be stayed.
Somebody with a conscience, indeed. No random hacker is going to break into a system and simply discover a store of approximately 1100 documents detailing a pattern of scientific fraud over the past 13 years – especially regarding such high profile research. Someone was most definitely collecting this information. The hacker had to have known what he was looking for, where to find it, and how to anonymously post it under the title "FOIA" for the world to discover.
To stay on top of this as it develops, frequently visit Climate Depot. They are maintaining a running list of news stories covering Climategate.
lack of fidelity to truth is necessarily followed by fundamental immorality – which reasonably follows given that questions are asked, and answers are sought, for the sake of guidance in our thoughts and deeds. False foundation for thinking and acting naturally results in wrong thinking and acting. Governments and large organizations cannot act ethically by deliberately mis-handling the truth – immorality on a grand scale is the tragic result.
Heralded by its organizers as a significant step toward Global Governance, Copenhagen was to be the beginning of a legally-binding realignment of world powers. A realignment founded on falsehood and deceit on a grand scale, it would have created a new global governing body, overtly requiring that members hand over their sovereignty as independent nations, for the purpose of transferring capital between these member nations based on carbon usage, subject to international enforcement. That's (1) a new government (2) with enforcement powers (a military, or access to internal economic controls for punitive purposes, perhaps), that (3) manages the flow of capital between member nations on the basis of factors directly related to a nation's economic success (production/transportation of goods and services). What manner of immorality, illiberality and exploitation could descend from such an arrangement, hopefully we'll never have to find out. President Obama, however, despite the November 17 report from Der Spiegel, cited above, just today offered his assurances that, as a result of his recent political gallivant, he has been successful moving sentiment in China and India toward a positive stature regarding the Copenhagen Treaty. We'll see...
Nature will decide Earth's future:"AS the core samples from deep underground pass through the logging sensor before me, the rhythmic pattern of ancient climate change is clearly displayed. Friendly, brown sands for the warm interglacial periods and hostile, sterile grey clays for the cold glaciations. And for more than 90 per cent of recent geological time the Earth has been colder than today."
The Smoking Gun At Darwin Zero: "Those, dear friends, are the clumsy fingerprints of someone messing with the data Egyptian style … they are indisputable evidence that the “homogenized” data has been changed to fit someone’s preconceptions about whether the earth is warming. One thing is clear from this. People who say that “Climategate was only about scientists behaving badly, but the data is OK” are wrong. At least one part of the data is bad, too. The Smoking Gun for that statement is at Darwin Zero."
The warming theory is falling to bits: "Recent results published by top scientists cast doubt on the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s theory about the link between atmospheric carbon dioxide and global warming…"
Pressure Mounts From Inside: Disband IPCC? Scientist from U. of East Anglia Suggests 'UN IPCC has run its course...politicizes climate science...authoritarian, exclusive form of knowledge production' -- ClimateGate reveals science has become 'too partisan, too centralized...more usually associated with social organization within primitive cultures'
UK Scientist Piers Corbyn speaks: 'Case for climate fears is blown to smithereens...whole theory should be destroyed and discarded and UN conference should be closed' -- 'We should end this anti-scientific nonsense now' -- UN's 'Copenhagen jamboree is a scandal and it must be stopped'
UN scientists turn on each other: UN Scientist Declares Climategate colleagues Mann, Jones and Rahmstorf 'should be barred from the IPCC process' -- They are 'not credible any more'
New Peer-Reviewed Research: Atlantic Ocean Was 2.7°C Warmer During Roman Warm Period, 2.2°C Warmer During MWP
What Is — and What Isn’t — Evidence of Global Warming: Scientist: 'Climategate has everybody rethinking global warming... is the evidence for catastrophic climate change weaker than previously thought? Actually, the evidence was never even evidence'
Green totalitarianism: Which is the more terrifying and devastating: if people are bent and deliberately try to deceive others, or if they are so much in thrall to an ideology that they genuinely have lost the power to think objectively and rationally? I think that the terrible history of mankind provides the answer to that question. Nixon was a crook. But what we are dealing with here is the totalitarian personality. One thing is now absolutely clear for all to see about the anthropogenic global warming scam: science this is not.
The Skeptics Are Vindicated: "We have been given the materials with which to obtain an insight into how all modern science works when vast amounts of public funding is at stake and when the vested interests associated with various 'progressive' causes require a particular scientific result."
Three Things You Absolutely Must Know About Climategate: (1) the scientists discuss manipulating data to get their preferred results, (2) scientists on several occasions discussed methods of subverting the scientific peer review process to ensure that skeptical papers had no access to publication, (3) the scientists worked to circumvent the Freedom of Information process of the United Kingdom
As a result, many of the German Lutherans in late 19th Century America, especially those in municipal areas who had access to the periodicals of the labor-unions which directly preached the virtues of Socialism in various ways, were thrown into confusion. In St. Louis, Dr. Walther acted by giving a series of four lectures on Communism and Socialism, concluding, No reasonable man, much less a Christian, can or should take part in the efforts of Communists and Socialists. Typical of classic Lutheran polemic, he is delightfully direct and forceful, offering definitive conclusions on the basis of both Natural Law and Scripture doctrine, where applicable.
