Greece: No denouement, just more misery on the way

Don Hank

The news of Greece’s poll results, widely construed as a decision not to immediately exit the euro, is all over the foreign cable news programs, and Brussels is shouting for joy. They fail to see what’s coming! The markets responded favorably for a little over an hour, than plunged again when people woke up to reality: Endless bailouts for Greece until Germany and the others go bust.

To give you some perspective, here are some figures on the contributions of the various member countries to the EU, and hence to the bailouts:

Briefly, at the time of that report, Belgium’s Flanders paid top euro per capita, 282.6 euros per Flemish person, for a total of 1 billion 780 thousand euros.

But it is widely believed that Belgium will soon need a bailout of its own. That’s a double whammy for the EU. Not only would it lose the net contribution from Belgium but it would also have to take more from the remaining countries that are just barely above water to pay the Belgians. A net loss instead of the current net contribution.

Italy contributed 2 billion 938 million at the time of that writing, or about 49.7 euros per capita.

But Italy will eventually need a bailout, despite the phony optimism of Super Mario Monti.

That is another loss of a contributor, which becomes a net liability for the EU.

Spain will also need another bailout, and so will Greece.

And the more needy countries line up at the trough and stop being net contributors, the harder it will be for those few economically sound nations to pull their weight. Further, Angela Merkel, Chancellor of the German powerhouse, is demanding — and will eventually get — full-scale “green” energy to replace all of the traditional cheap nuclear and fossil fuel plants that have so far made Germany the no. 2 exporter in the world. Once this transformation is complete, Germany too will line up at the trough, but the trough will be empty by then.

It may seem as if the EU has spun out of control. But the founders of the EU were men imbued with the socialist vision. Their idea from the start was that the rich nations should pull the weight of the poor, ignoring the vast difference in work ethic between them that drives some to work while others consume the fruits of their labor. This is socialism in drag, since in traditional socialism, there is roughly a wealth transfer of rich individuals to poor individuals, while in the more sophisticated version, the transfer is from rich nations to poor nations. You’d think Europe would have noticed, after all these years of being duped, that the EU is just a sophisticated version of the Soviet Union, but it is as if someone had taped their eyes shut. As time goes on it becomes increasingly clear that this transfer was never intended to be temporary. It has been a de facto systemic state of wealth transfer, always propped up with a new crisis and hence a new pretext to prolong the outright daylight robbery.

Thus, as long as the EU’s power masters can continue to strike fear in the hearts of the serfs who do their bidding, they will continue to steal the wealth of the rich nations, whose workers work longer hours with less pay, and send it to the “poor” nations, whose workers work less, retire earlier and demand — and get — more of everything. Meanwhile, the only win-win group is the bankers. Italy, for example, recently paid a handsome 7% for its credit. Good money for folks who sit like vultures at a carrion feast.

Socialism hasn’t changed one iota in its gross unfairness to the productive. But it has changed its guise and has trained its propaganda machines full tilt against the working men and women of nations unfortunate enough to be “rich,” warning that if their plan is not followed, there will be chaos, tanks in the streets, starvation, rioting, war, etc. So keep your noses to the grindstone. Arbeit macht frei.

Yet, these dread social phenomena are precisely what the EU and its policies are leading to. But they are the unintended consequences, and as stealthy and crafty as the EU power masters are, they have no good moves left for this end game, because the final outcome belongs to God, not to them.

Just as the populace didn’t see their machinations, the power masters didn’t see Him at work.

Don Hank

Is a Christian nation always a theocracy?

By Don Hank

Many of us – myself included – got our wish when Scott Brown was elected. We thought that would save America from Obamacare. As things turned out, it gave us one more pro-abortion false conservative who now talks more and more like an open-borders amnesty advocate (many voted for him thinking he was pro law and order). Where did we go wrong, Friends?

Well, most conservatives pay a little lip service to the spiritual side of social, economic and political problems.

On the other hand, some conservatives think the spiritual component is not just part of the equation, but is in fact the overarching component without which none of the others is worth a tinker’s darn. On the other hand, a few conservatives and not a few libertarians think God is irrelevant or absent and has no part in the discussion. They often exhibit a certain hypersensitivity to this subject, sometimes bordering on aggressive and offensive, but at any rate, emotional.

Come to think of it, we all get emotional about this regardless of our opinions.

People who insist that America must be a Christian nation are sometimes called Dominionists, and that is taken as pejorative, particularly by libertarians, who spend a lot of time worrying about the specter of a theocracy emerging.

The question is: can America survive as a secularist nation? Can it survive as an atheistic nation? Libertarian Ayn Rand, whose following seems to be growing, thought so. Yet, it is hard to point to a state that has existed in the past or still exists today, that is based on atheistic or secularist libertarianism. Further, atheism has been the hallmark of communism, an ideology the killed over 100 million people. Is that relevant?

This is a timeless topic and the subject of a debate that will not doubt rage on into the next century, unless one or the other side manages to muzzle the other.

What intrigues me is that all totalitarian states, including the Third Reich have strived extremely hard to overcome or even ban, all Christian influences. Look how hard the Left tries in America to erase our Christian heritage.

So, ironically, it is not Christians, but rather their detractors, who have focused on Christianity as a watershed factor in social, economic and political issues.

That is one important reason why spirituality is still a recurring theme.

But there is also something else that some conservatives have not come to terms with:

Having read the history of Christian socialism and heresy, I confess to understanding why people are fearful of religious fanaticism and the specter of a total theocracy.

Nonetheless, it is hard to imagine away the benign influence of Christianity in America.

Cicero opined that the laws of the State should be based on natural law. Likewise, America’s founders spoke of Nature’s law and tied it in with spiritual law, saying our rights were given to us by God.

I happen to agree with them. But even if I didn’t, I can’t imagine being annoyed with people who do and trying to silence them.

If you have an opinion, you are welcome to post it here.

If you choose to post, please, in addition to whatever else you write, let us know where your stand personally and why, using this scale:

1    I believe religion has no place in decisions relating to economic, political and social issues  

2    I believe there is a spiritual side to public life but it plays only a minor role

3    I believe there is a spiritual side to public life and it plays a secondary but not dominant role

4    I believe there is a spiritual side to public life and ultimately God decides our fate depending on our behavior

5         Other

You can, for example, say “I choose 2” or “I am a 3” or whatever.

At this particular juncture, I see my job not as convincing you one way or another. My job is to help make sure one side never manages to get a muzzle on the other.

Don Hank

PS: Please, if you post, do not tell us about your commercial web page or your wonderful new pharmaceutical product. Also, while I agree that Obama has not adequately proven his natural born status, if you feel really strongly about that, may I suggest you post on the relevant pages already out there. Thank you.

Do we need a theology of taxation?

Laigle’s staff writer Anthony Horvath had an article published with answering in the affirmative.

Can it really be said, though, that all taxation represents a reduction in freedom? The answer to this must be yes, even if we recognize that the effect on freedom might be slight in some cases. To illustrate, imagine a small income tax of a dollar. It might be an easy matter to get by without that dollar, but it is still one more dollar that you cannot spend according to your own priorities. Consider what the impact is if instead the tax is 25 percent of your income!

We also have to ask about those who are doing the taxing. They obviously believe they have the right to take your resources from you. They must believe that they can obtain some good that you, and perhaps few others, would have subsidized if left to your own devices. They must believe that they know how much they can fairly extract from you. They must believe that they have the right, if you protest, to incarcerate you and take your possessions by force if need be. In sum, they are almost indistinguishable from tyrants.

Christians should not support tyrants or adopt their methods and so become tyrants ourselves. If there is a cause we wish to support, we ought to do so from our own resources out of the free expression of our own hearts (2 Corinthians 8).

Read the rest of the article.

sign the Prague declaration and defend freedom

Modern Westerners have been brain-washed into tolerating communism — something most Russians, Poles or Czechs, for example, would never do. Many of the older ones have lived through the murders of up to 20 million. They know what this barbaric system is and freely condemn it.

Thus only ignorance makes us tolerant of communism, which killed over 100 million people (not to mention the unborn) to Hitler’s 6 million.

Yet, despite the heavy loss of life and freedom, a history lesson etched in the hearts of all who witnessed it first hand, in the US today, anyone identified as anti-communist risks being labeled a McCarthyite nut. We’re clearly supposed to trivialize communism to get along. In Germany, you can even go to jail and face a heavy fine for saying in public that the communists killed more people than Hitler, because that is considered by some judges to be “trivializing the holocaust.” Obviously, the German government got it backwards. It is no exaggeration to say that the worst holocaust of the 20th century by far happened in Stalin’s Russia, Mao’s China (up to 70 million dead), Pol Pot’s Cambodia (about one-third of the population killed) and other communist countries, and is still happening in Kim Jong Il’s North Korea.

Despite the facts of history, it is a risky thing to stand up in the Western world and denounce communism because the Left has infiltrated our education system, entertainment world, media, universities and almost every facet of our lives. The fact is, by denouncing communism, we are practically denouncing most Western governments, which practice wealth distribution, and that makes the elite ruling class very nervous.

Yet if we don’t denounce communism for what it is, we will lose our freedoms, the way the Germans did.

So please sign this petition to defend what is left of freedom:

And never be intimidated into being quiet.

Dare to say it now out loud: Communism is an evil system and I reject it.

And finally, remember that the initiators of the system called it by its near-synonym: socialism. Neither is a good system for a free people.

Just say no to civility

Just say no to civility

Commentary by Donald Hank

Note that almost everything you find on Laigle’s Forum is a counter-attack against  the Left, which seeks to destroy all that is good and decent on this planet, including traditional family, truth and knowledge, the free market (our life blood), population and economic growth and freedom of expression. They have dressed up their monstrous, failure-bound platform to make it palatable to the chronically inattentive and are succeeding, not because they are intelligent, but because so few can see a pattern in their behavior.

Now, mainstream Christianity today believes that any person or group devoted to opposing something is not being “civil.” Note, for example, that Rick Warren justified his participation in Obama’s inauguration on the basis of this notion of civility.

But Jesus was never civil. He was an in-your-face provocateur. Even the early Christians never teamed up with the worldly leaders of their day (be not unequally yoked), and were not civil toward sin. Paul bluntly condemned many specific sins, including those indulged in by the rich and powerful.

William Buckley defined conservatives best when he said it was their duty to “stand athwart history yelling stop!”

That is wiser than most suspect. By definition, conservatism may not stand for any one particular goal, because goals presuppose a movement, and conservatism may not be a movement. Rather it must be an anchor. Except in cases where the status quo is ungodly, it must be an essentially non-moving entity, or a non-movement. But to be effective it must stop other movements that oppose it.

Because of its nature, it has been reluctant to do so. It just wants to exist.

But ironically, if it keeps just wanting to exist, it will very soon cease to exist, because the forces of change are upon us and won’t go away without a fight.

But the end thereof are the ways of the Left…

The Left wants you to believe they are for the oppressed and the downtrodden. Yet their ideological brothers killed 100 million innocents in the last century (see the book “The Black Book of Communism” by Stephane Courtois), most of the victims representing the oppressed and downtrodden classes.

It seems the “beloved leader” of North Korea has a policy of jailing, torturing and then killing not only those he perceives as his enemies but also their children and grandchildren.

Kim Jong Il, the most far-left of all modern leaders, has produced a gulag whose cruelty goes far beyond Hitler, Mao and Stalin, and in fact, beyond anything the human imagination can conceive of.

The evidence that, at bottom, the Left is nothing less than a collective of evil people of murderous intent is abundantly clear when you look at any example of a nation in which the Left has had complete control, unopposed. Ironically, it was a group of French communists who tallied up the body count of communism, showing it to be around 100 million in the 20th Century alone, eclipsing all the killing by all wars and other evils perpetrated by any other group.

Yet, incredibly, the Left goes on unabated and almost without resistance, spreading the absolute malarkey that religion is dangerous, while atheism – the essence of the Left – represents enlightenment.

They point to the Crusades and the 30 Years War as if these were the distillate of what Christianity has produced since the beginning, and when confronted by the inconvenient facts of the slaughter of innocents in leftist regimes, they shrug them off, attributing this cruelty to an aberration, to accidents of human personality.[1]

So what do you say when someone tells you that Christianity is no better than leftism because both Christians and leftists have killed people?

It is true that people calling themselves Christians have done wrong, as have leftists.

But the harm attributed to Christians was done in disobedience to God’s commandments.

The harm attributed to the Left was done in perfect obedience to a humanist system in which there is no absolute commandment, nor is there a concept of absolute right or wrong. In fact, leftism is a system based on “change” or in other words, revolution. By definition, such a system cannot be stable or lead to the stable utopia targeted by its proponents.

Thus, in both systems we have humans imperfectly executing commands. But in one, the humans in charge are, all too often, disobeying God. In the other, they are almost invariably obeying the wishes of imperfect humans, including themselves.

Thus when the humanist system fails, it does so because it was not only executed by humans who believe they are the center of the universe but is designed to be executed on the premise that man is the center of the universe. Thus it is designed for failure.

When a godly system fails, it does so due to disobedience – that is, man behaving in a man-centered manner. It is designed to succeed but fails when its executor behaves like a leftist! Thus Leftism fails when executed both by Leftists and by others (G.W. Bush, for example).

So the question that demands an answer is:

Why choose a man-centered (leftist) system that is not only designed by humans but also executed by humans when you can choose a system that is designed by God and, if executed according to design, will ineluctably succeed?

The Left is the quintessential “patient in charge of the asylum,” but the “right” is so splintered and disarrayed, and currently, so steeped in a hopelessly naïve, smarmy, sentimental version of “Christianity” that they perfectly embody the “ripe plum” that Premier Krushchev predicted would soon fall into the lap of the communists.


[1] The Left also muddy the waters by portraying Hitler as a right-winger. In fact, Hitler’s system was based on a utopian vision, a hallmark of the Left.  Hitler denied divinity, jailing and even executing many religious leaders. Note also that the European Right shared a vision of monarchic divine right that was quite alien to Hitler’s utopia.

So you want to be a communist

So you want to be a communist


By Donald Hank

Many conservative pundits today are trying desperately to warn their fellow Americans that Barack Obama has been linked to various far-left organizations, seems to have been reared by a convinced communist, and has ties to the far-left organization ACORN and with leftist terrorists like William Ayers.

Most of these pundits seem to be going on the assumption that, like us older Americans, people today have a basic knowledge of what communism (or socialism, the first step toward communism) actually is, at least enough to fear it.

But, in view of the enormous resurgence of the Left in America, I am not so sure the word “communism” raises so many eyebrows today.

Therefore, it is probably necessary to remind the reader what a communist state looks like from the inside.

I spent a summer in the USSR in the early 70s studying Russian under the auspices of the Council on International Educational Exchange, and a little later, about 4 months in Poland traveling on my own, and here are some things I observed: Continue reading

Children of persecuted Christians freed in Germany, praise God!

Good news from Germany, praise God!


For months now, you have been reading, both at Laigle’s Forum and at WorldNetDaily (the rest of the media were silent), of the irrational crackdown against homeschoolers in Germany. Some of you even participated in email actions, contacting German officials and pointing out that Germany is the only country in Europe that has banned homeschooling.

One of the persecuted families had been the subject of a witch hunt and had had their children snatched for 7 months on all kinds of wild trumped up charges, but at bottom, because they were homeschoolers, who are routinely treated like terrorists there (think what Nancy Pelosi would do here if she could!). Little has changed since Hitler’s time, except that one atheistic Darwin-based ideology – Nationalsozialismus – has been traded for another similar one – socialism.

Now, one of our correspondents has sent us good news and a link. The story below is self explanatory.

Donald Hank

Initiative for the release of the 5 Gorber children from Überlingen, Germany:

Sarai – 17 years, Prisca – 15 years, Thea -12 years, Esther – 10 years, Rebecka – 8 years,

and for the return of custody to the Gorber parents.

Contact: Christa Widmer
Feldbergblick 4
60437 Frankfurt

Tel.: 0049 6101/43275


Original date: 14.07.2008, Current date 6.09.2008

Local court- Family court
Justice Gerhard Völk
88662 Überlingen

Dear Mr. Völk,

Naturally even you try to fulfill your tasks as a judge according to your best knowledge and conscience, in order to treat everybody in accordance to the principles of our constitutional law.

Our nation is lucky to have God’s commandments as the fundamental basis of our law. Praise to the judge who administers the law well.

On September 25th you’ll have to decide whether the 5 children of Mr and Mrs Gorber, who have been living in child and youth foster homes since January 16th, will be allowed to return to their parents. The youngest (in January), David, who was 2 years old, was finally allowed back home some weeks ago, after having been separated from his beloved parents and the siblings who remained at home, for almost 7 months. We’re very grateful to you, that you finally let him return home.
What was the reason for sending these six children into (child and youth) foster homes? I would like to comment on this question – after questioning both parents -separately apart from each other- for many hours, and after looking into the court-file.

Mrs. Gorber was pregnant with their 9th child and had suffered from pregnancy diabetes since the beginning of January, which affected her psychological well-being. She therefore spent a few weeks in hospital.

In her husbands absence, on the 15th January, while he was visiting her there, 20 policemen and 9 child welfare officers turned up at their home, surrounded the entire area where they live, closed off the street, as if they had to catch terrorists, and took all Gorber children under 18 years with them, even though the oldest daughter, 21 year old Miriam, assured them, that she had learned to run the household and take care of the children. She received the reponse that she wasn’t her father’s housekeeper and should go to work outside the home.

They grabbed 7 year old Rebecka, who was screaming with fear, and dragged her by her upper body over the yard and shoved her into one of the cars along with her siblings. Two year old David also screamed, holding onto Miriam and not letting her go until they reached the foster home and he got tired and gave in. Miriam and her 20 year old brother Benjamin, were allowed to return home, as they were no longer minors.
The father is a self-employed carpenter, who works from home; therefore even in the mothers absense the younger siblings were never without somebody watching over them. The children had learned to work together, with the parents as a team, to do the daily chores. As a result of the co-operation, homeschooling was not a huge burden for the mother to oversee.
The written notice advising of the children’s commitment into foster homes was left on the kitchen table for the father, signed by you, Mr Völk. A policeman, who lived in the neighbourhood, had told the Child Welfare Authority that the father was psychologically unstable, and there now existed, in the mother’s absence, the danger of a mass homocide – ie that the father could posibly murder all of his children and lastly kill himself.

Read more at (right side is English):


Transfiguring the disaster

A reader left a comment at a recent column of mine saying she was offended that I dared to suggest that the Left’s support for “gay marriage” was similar to their refusal to allow the free market to work in the extraction of oil on US territory. How does one go about compressing the distillate of a century of history in a paragraph? I told her simply to pay attention to the columns by Olavo de Carvalho, who arguably knows more about the Left than any other living human being. Perhaps this column will help broaden Americans’ view of what the Left is really all about, namely, that it is not about human rights for anyone but rather sowing disaster. When you hear someone pushing a new “right,” look out for that disaster!

Reader Hermes de Alzevedo recently suggested I read the following article. When I did I couldn’t help but think of how Bill Clinton shamelessly took credit for reforming welfare, when in fact it was his party that had caused the disaster in the first place and the opposition who forced him to reform it. At no time did any Democrat admit that welfare was a disaster. Instead the emphasis was on how their party had so brilliantly achieved this wonderful victory over the monster that no one dared to say was of their own creation.

As Mr. de Carvalho shows elsewhere, and as Paul Weyrich lately pointed out, the main reason the Left can do its dirty work almost unopposed is the cooperation it receives from mainstream “conservatives.”

The column was written in 2001, but is as timely now as ever.

Remember this quote:

“…but they [the Left] also know that no one would support them if they announced aloud what they truly desire.”

I know, folks, it is absurd that any group, especially one this large and powerful and as college “educated,” could actually want to destroy all that is good and decent, and most of you will steadfastly refuse to believe it. Just as Neville Chamberlain and the flower children of his day refused to believe that Hitler could be such a monster.

And by the time they did it was too late.

Donald Hank


 Transfiguring the disaster

O Globo, June 16, 2001

Translated by Assunção Medeiros

Every time the Left wants to impose a new item of their program, they say it is the only way to cure certain maladies. Invariably, when the proposition wins out, the maladies it proposed to eliminate become worse. The normal thing to do under such circumstances would be to lay the responsibility for the disaster on the Left. But this never happens, for at once the original legitimizing argument disappears from the repertoire and is substituted by a new system of allegations, which celebrates failure as success or as a historical necessity that could not be avoided.

No one will understand the first thing about the history of the 20th century – or the beginning of the 21st – if they do not know this retroactive justification mechanism by which the Left makes the people work for non-declared goals that would scandalize them if they knew their identity and that can only be reached through the indirect route of dangling the carrot in front of the donkey’s nose.

Some examples will make this clearer.

1) When the Communist Party released its program for the destruction of the “bourgeois” family institutions, laying the groundwork for what would later be “sexual liberation,” its main allegation, elaborated by Dr. Wilhelm Reich, was that homosexuality, sadomasochism, fetishism etc. were fruits of repressive patriarchal education. Once the cause were eliminated, these deviant behaviors would tend to disappear from the social scene. Well, the last remnants of patriarchal values were expelled from western education between the seventies and the eighties, and what did we see right afterwards? The dissemination, on an apocalyptic scale, of the same behaviors they promised to eliminate.  Once the results were obtained, these behaviors started to be celebrated as healthy, honorable and meritorious, and all criticism of them is now frowned upon – sometimes even under penalty of law – as an intolerable abuse and attack against human rights.

2) When the international Left started to fight for the legalization of abortion, one of their main arguments was that the great number of abortions was due to the prohibition thereof, which facilitated the action of charlatans, crooks and all kinds of untrained individuals. Legalization, it was promised, would force the abortion to be performed under medically acceptable conditions, thereby lowering the number of cases. What was the result? In the first year, the number of abortions in the USA went from 100 thousand to 1 million, and it never stopped going up to this day. At least 30 million babies were already sacrificed, while at the same time, the apologists of legalization, instead of admitting the fallacy of their initial argument, now celebrate the fact, working to eliminate and criminalize any criticism of the new state of affairs.

3) When the North-American left devised the policy of quotas and indemnification known as “affirmative action,” they alleged it would diminish crime in the black community. After the new policy was made official, the number of crimes committed by black men against white men arose significantly, according to statistics from the FBI. What did the apostles of this “affirmative action” do then? Did they recognize that to reinforce the feeling of racial identity was to stimulate prejudices and racial conflicts? Nah. They celebrated the increase in hostilities as progress in democracy.

4) When, in an attempt to destroy the North-American tradition of considering education a duty of the community, the churches and the family rather than of the State, the North-American left demanded bureaucratization of teaching, one of its prime arguments was that juvenile delinquency could be controlled only by an educational action of the State. Under Jimmy Carter, in 1980, the USA had for the first time a Department of Education and uniform teaching programs. Two decades later, delinquency among children and adolescents is not only growing much faster than before, but has also adopted the public schools as its headquarters, which have now become danger zones, to the point where, at the beginning of the year, the Mayor’s office in New York was privatizing its schools because of the impossibility of controlling the violence inside them. In answer to that, what did the left do? Did it admit failure? No. It is fighting for State uniformity of teaching on a world level.

5) In Brazil, the only way of lowering violence in the rural areas, so said the Left, was to give land and money to the MST (Movimento Sem Terra, or Landless Movement). Very well, the land was given – it was the greatest distribution of land in all human history, with lots of money behind it. Violence has not lessened: it has increased a lot. Does the Left admit its mistake? No. It organizes violence and celebrates it as the attainment of a new historic stage in the fight for socialism.

The examples could be multiplied ad infinitum – and notice I deliberately avoided mentioning extreme cases that occurred inside socialist countries themselves, such as the collectivization of agriculture in USSR, the Great Leap Forward and the Cultural Revolution in China, the Cuban Revolution, etc., sticking to facts originating in the capitalist world.

The promise of salvation, transfigured into disaster and followed by a change in the discourse to legitimize it, has been, in sum, the constant and essential modus agendi of the international Left for a century, and we see no sign of any leftist mentor having any conscience problems with this. Au contraire, all of them continue to promise the solution to maladies, while having readied in their portfolios the future legitimization of the enlarged maladies. They promise to lower drug consumption through liberalization, to control corruption through “participative budgeting,” to repress delinquency through the disarming of civilians or through Leninist “alternative law,” which incriminates the social status of the defendant rather than his criminal act. They know perfectly well where this all will take us – but they also know that no one would support them if they announced aloud what they truly desire. 

Change you can fall for

Change you can fall for

By Donald Hank


Change is the hallmark of the revolutionary, and it is not change for the sake of some greater cause. Change is the cause.

When the first red revolutionaries slithered out of the sea, their ideology and agenda revolved around the the worker. The first page of the newspaper Izvestia bore the slogan: Workers of the world unite!

The Left seemed to be about social justice for the worker in his struggle against capitalist injustice.

I say “seemed” because the situation of the worker remained grim throughout Soviet history and the government never tackled this problem in earnest, focusing instead on propaganda painting the West as the author of their ills.

In Soviet publications, gallons of ink were spilled over the plight of the international worker, but the plight of the Soviet worker never changed tangibly since 1917. Soviet workers suffered constant shortages of food and housing. Married couples shared small apartments in the most squalid conditions while the elite partied.

I glimpsed this disparity between attitudes and platitudes while studying at the University of Leningrad in the early 70s with a group of American students. Following our studies, we took a side trip by rail to the Estonian capital of Tallinn.  I sat in a car with our Russian language professor and about a half-dozen other students playing guitar and singing folk songs.

After a while, our tour guide came to the door and invited me to join him in another car with an honored guest who was a Communist party member. You’d have thought party members were in short supply.  I told him I was needed as part of our entertainment. I will never forget his response. Smiling condescendingly, he said “That lady is a mere teacher. You have the opportunity to meet a party member.”

Where was the classless society? If she was a nobody because she was a teacher, what about the factory worker, who was supposed to be united with his international comrades in the glorious future revolution?

I understood at that moment that the “change” the Bolsheviks had wrought was hollow and had been from the beginning. Among themselves, they made no pretense of such idealism. And I suppose they assumed there was no point in pretending in front of me either because, as an American capitalist, I could be assumed to share their disdain for the little guy. The social change, i.e., elimination of class barriers that constituted their platform, was clearly only a pretext for grabbing power from the naive. Now they had it and that was the end of the pretense.

What I am driving at is that the Left does not have a central ideology or platform, as much as they would like you to think they do. They are about destroying the existing order, the status quo, and that is all. Once traditional culture is dismantled, they have accomplished their mission and are done pretending to help people.

Take the example of China’s Chairman Mao and Cuba’s Fidel Castro. These two dictators mouthed the world communist ideology of freeing the worker from oppressive capitalism.

Now, note that both Castro and Mao, like the early Soviet communists, disdained homosexuals. Fidel had them arrested.

Today, however, the Left in Europe, North and South America protects homosexual “rights,” advocating “gay” marriage and promoting the homosexual lifestyle, “protecting” homosexuals against “hate,” particularly on the part of Christian pastors, who have been fined and arrested, even threatened with horrendous jail terms for preaching the biblical viewpoint on homosexuality. There is no more talk of workers and their rights to enjoy the fruits of their labors, even though workers everywhere have recently lost as much as half their purchasing power in about a year’s time. So has the Left changed its agenda? I rather think it never had one and never will.

Now I have spoken with sincere Christians who have expressed the view that homosexuals are victims, born with a genetic makeup that causes them to desire the same sex, and that denying them “marriage” is sinful. Senator Obama has expressed this belief. “Christian” Leftists like him helped birth this absurd and anti-biblical notion.

But isn’t it curious that, say, Hugo Chavez and Brazilian President Lula, who promote homosexuality  and advocate laws that “protect” them by criminalizing free speech, nonetheless seem ideologically compatible with Fidel Castro, who openly hated homosexuals during most of his career? Where have you heard that Fidel and any other Latin American leftist have ever feuded over this ostensibly so vital issue? Where was the debate between these intimate allies on an issue that is so profoundly important to the Left in Latin America that legislation is written based on the absurdity that “gays” are a victim group threatened with extinction?

Or what about the Left in Canada, where the Human Rights Commission rounds up and arraigns pastors and others who oppose homosexuality but at the same time, rushes to the aid of Muslims, by far the deadliest enemies of homosexuals, whenever anyone   especially a Christian, opposes that religion?

Where is “workers of the world unite” when we need it most?

So what do you think? Is the Left really unified behind an ideology or agenda or is it unified behind a distorted view of the world that is independent of ideological content?

Olavo de Carvalho, who has studied leftist thought in greater depth than perhaps any other scholar, showed in a recent lecture (unpublished) that Leftism is not an ideology or agenda, but merely a reversal of common sense, a rejection of things normal and natural that rises to the level of a pathology.

The perceived ideologies or agendas they flaunt are nothing but a means to an end, and that end is the end of civilization.

Once they achieve the power they crave, they will no more aid homosexuals or minorities than they now aid the long-forgotten worker.



One Liberty Guarantees the Rest: Original Sin, the Government, and the Right to Bear Arms

By Anthony Horvath

(For a spirited discussion of issues related to this topic, see this forum entry at

With yet another school shooting, this time in NIU, along with the so-called ‘meat cleaver’ killer in New York, we can take a few minutes again to revisit the question of the nature of man. Those who read my blog or my forum know that I firmly believe that the right to bear arms is extremely important. Incidents like the NIU event don’t even surprise us anymore. However, it hit a little close to home for me because I have former students who attend there and have friends who know people there.

Naturally, pundits and candidates moved quickly to capitalize on the event. Hillary Clinton informed the nation that she once shot a duck while hunting and so “she is a supporter of the second amendment.” As if the right to bear arms meant only the right to hunt! Democrats tend to think of the 2nd Amendment in those terms while conservatives tend to think of the 2nd Amendment in terms of a right to self-defense.

In this article I wish to point out that the 2nd Amendment encompasses both of those emphases but is really concerned with something else. It is not about a right to defend ourselves against criminals but rather a right to defend ourselves if it is the government itself that is criminal.

Many states with conceal and carry laws still forbid the carrying of weapons at schools and churches and government buildings. With shootings at schools, churches, and government buildings continuing, one begins to suspect that laws do not stop madmen but only keep honest men and women from fighting back.

I didn’t use to think this way. I have come to this perspective through two twin routes that I believe that Christians in particular should reflect but should be considered by any thinking individual. Gun legislation is not the only thing affected by these twin strands.

In the first place, we need not go far to understand that the root problem is that people themselves are dangerous. Christians call this the doctrine of ‘original sin’ and it is the only doctrine that can be empirically demonstrated. If you understand that people are not intrinsically good but rather incline bad, then you will construct policies that reflect that reality. For most legislators, however, the idea that people might want to do something just because they are evil doesn’t seem to occur.

As I came to grips with the reality of ‘original sin’ I realized that many of my liberal ideas just had to go. It isn’t even that the ideas were bad or immoral. Simply put, if they had been carried out it would be a recipe for disaster. Abuse is inevitable. My ideas presume the best intentions all the time mixed with sincere, honest, and intelligent people carrying them out. This assumption is not justified.

Let us take a minute to tend to the second strand which might not be as objectionable because of its religious implications but still takes us to the same place.

One of the first things I discovered as I began grappling with the facts of history is that the biggest killer of all is not the mugger or rapist or even the serial killer. The biggest killer, hands down, is government. There is a terrific website which helps lay this out and I thoroughly recommend it:

At that web page you will see documented the atrocities of the last century as well as back into recorded history. Naïve atheists such as Sam Harris and Richard Dawkins worry their little heads about the dangers of religion, but it is clear as you look at the facts that religion is just one of many pretexts by which power hungry men assert themselves over other men. For example, in the Crusades, over three centuries the site says that 1,000,000 died. That figure isn’t just wholesale slaughter, but includes famine and disease, and includes also the deaths of the Crusaders themselves at the hands of their foes. By contrast, in the 20th century… so just one century, not three, China created 75,000,000 dead bodies. The USSR created 61,000,000.

That is the last century, friends. According to the Democide site, there were 262,000,000 people who died either directly or indirectly but still as the result of Government. Rwanda’s genocide occurred in recent memory and within reach of the International community to have done something about it, but it was tribal concerns that drove the slaughter, not ‘religion.’

No, we must come to grips with the fact that throughout history throughout the whole world, the biggest threat to man is not merely Man but Man in Charge.

The need for checks and balances is obvious. However, if you can’t count on the men and women in government to always act in the interest of the people and that even in many cases they will pursue their own interests, even resorting to murder if necessary, what kind of ‘check’ might possibly exist on people of power?

An armed populace is the only thing an armed government could possibly fear when ‘best intentions’ and ‘sincerity’ is lacking. We talk about having the right to defend ourselves when confronted with gunmen in our schools, malls, and councils, and certainly there is a place for that. However, no gunman is as dangerous as the institution of Government itself.

Here a common protest is that it simply is not realistic to presume that in our day and age, in our civilization, the calamities we bore witness to throughout the world could ever possibly happen here in the United States. Perhaps not today. However, the right to bear arms is the right that ensures we keep all of our other rights. It is the liberty that actualizes all other liberties. If this liberty is diminished, and the country changes in twenty years, it will be too late to reclaim it. At least, too late without first paying our own price of tens of millions dead.

We operate on the assumption that all will continue on as it has been continuing on. However, as the riots in LA show – or even as riots after the win of a professional sports team! – civilization is only skin deep. What’s more, the influx of illegal immigrants to the south is not coming ideologically neutral. Many are coming with the ideologies that expressly led to some of the atrocities of the last century. In forty years, it won’t just be the ethnic make-up of the country at risk, but potentially also the ideological one.

It is an uncomfortable thought to consider that we might want our government to be worried about its own citizens. We might think to ourselves that we don’t want our police officers, for example, to be concerned that someone might fight back. After all, we have courts, right? History shows us that there exists a thing called a mock trial. Granted, we are far off from such things in our country right now. To keep them far off for the foreseeable future, it is important that our government has a healthy fear of those it rules.

That brings us full circle. Why should power corrupt and absolute power corrupt absolutely? What is it about Man that makes this so? What is the best explanation? If it is, as I have said because man is inclined towards wickedness, then we might wonder if there is something to the claim that we need a savior. Jesus does not promise utopia. He doesn’t even encourage the pursuit of one. However, perhaps when we grapple with utopian ideals we’ll come to see that man is hopelessly sick and needs a Doctor and that Doctor cannot be Government.

Anthony Horvath is the author of Fidelis and the Executive Director of Athanatos Christian Ministries.  (For a spirited discussion of issues related to this topic, see this forum entry at