FASCISM

 

Fascism

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Fascism/ˈfæʃɪzəm/ is a form of radical authoritariannationalism,[1][2] characterized by dictatorial power, forcible suppression of opposition, and control of industry and commerce,[3] that came to prominence in early 20th-century Europe. The first fascist movements emerged in Italyduring World War I, before it spread to other European countries. Opposed to liberalism, Marxism, and anarchism, fascism is usually placed on the far-right within the traditional left–right spectrum.[4][5]

Fascists saw World War I as a revolution that brought massive changes to the nature of war, society, the state, and technology. The advent of total war and the total mass mobilization of society had broken down the distinction between civilians and combatants. A “military citizenship” arose in which all citizens were involved with the military in some manner during the war.[6][7] The war had resulted in the rise of a powerful state capable of mobilizing millions of people to serve on the front lines and providing economic production and logistics to support them, as well as having unprecedented authority to intervene in the lives of citizens.[6][7]

Fascists believe that liberal democracy is obsolete, and they regard the complete mobilization of society under a totalitarianone-party state as necessary to prepare a nation for armed conflict and to respond effectively to economic difficulties.[8] Such a state is led by a strong leader—such as a dictator and a martial government composed of the members of the governing fascist party—to forge national unity and maintain a stable and orderly society.[8] Fascism rejects assertions that violence is automatically negative in nature and views political violence, war, and imperialism as means that can achieve national rejuvenation.[9][10][11][12] Fascists advocate a mixed economy, with the principal goal of achieving autarky through protectionist and interventionist economic policies.[13]

Since the end of World War II in 1945, few parties have openly described themselves as fascist, and the term is instead now usually used pejoratively by political opponents. The descriptions neo-fascist or post-fascist are sometimes applied more formally to describe parties of the far right with ideologies similar to, or rooted in, 20th century fascist movements.[14]

Etymology

The Italian term fascismo is derived from fascio meaning a bundle of rods, ultimately from the Latin word fasces.[15] This was the name given to political organizations in Italy known as fasci, groups similar to guilds or syndicates. According to Mussolini‘s own account, the Fascist Revolutionary Party (Partito Fascista Rivoluzionario or PFR) was founded in Italy in 1915.[16] In 1919, Mussolini founded the Fasci Italiani di Combattimento in Milan, which became the Partito Nazionale Fascista (National Fascist Party) two years later. The Fascists came to associate the term with the ancient Roman fasces or fascio littorio[17]—a bundle of rods tied around an axe,[18] an ancient Roman symbol of the authority of the civic magistrate[19] carried by his lictors, which could be used for corporal and capital punishment at his command.[20][21]

The symbolism of the fasces suggested strength through unity: a single rod is easily broken, while the bundle is difficult to break.[22] Similar symbols were developed by different fascist movements; for example, the Falange symbol is five arrows joined together by a yoke.[23]

Definitions

Main article: Definitions of fascism

Historians, political scientists, and other scholars have long debated the exact nature of fascism.[24] Each interpretation of fascism is distinct, leaving many definitions too wide or narrow.[25][26]

One common definition of the term focuses on three concepts: the fascist negations (anti-liberalism, anti-communism and anti-conservatism); nationalist authoritarian goals of creating a regulated economic structure to transform social relations within a modern, self-determined culture; and a political aesthetic of romantic symbolism, mass mobilization, a positive view of violence, and promotion of masculinity, youth and charismatic leadership.[27][28][29] According to many scholars, fascism—especially once in power—has historically attacked communism, conservatism and parliamentary liberalism, attracting support primarily from the far right.[30]

Roger Griffin describes fascism as “a genus of political ideology whose mythic core in its various permutations is a palingenetic form of populist ultranationalism”.[31] Griffin describes the ideology as having three core components: “(i) the rebirth myth, (ii) populist ultra-nationalism and (iii) the myth of decadence”.[32] Fascism is “a genuinely revolutionary, trans-class form of anti-liberal, and in the last analysis, anti-conservative nationalism” built on a complex range of theoretical and cultural influences. He distinguishes an inter-war period in which it manifested itself in elite-led but populist “armed party” politics opposing socialism and liberalism and promising radical politics to rescue the nation from decadence.[33]

Robert Paxton says that fascism is “a form of political behavior marked by obsessive preoccupation with community decline, humiliation, or victimhood and by compensatory cults of unity, energy, and purity, in which a mass-based party of committed nationalist militants, working in uneasy but effective collaboration with traditional elites, abandons democratic liberties and pursues with redemptive violence and without ethical or legal restraints goals of internal cleansing and external expansion.”[34]

Umberto Eco,[35] Kevin Passmore,[36] John Weiss,[37] Ian Adams,[38] and Moyra Grant,[39] mention racism (including anti-semitism) as a characteristic component of fascism; e.g. how the fascistic dictator Hitler idealized German society as a racially unified and hierarchically organized Volksgemeinschaft construct. Fascist Philosophies vary by application, but remain distinct by one theoretic commonality. All traditionally fall into the far-right sector of any political spectrum, catalyzed by afflicted class identities over conventional social inequities.[40]

John Lukacs, Hungarian-American historian and Holocaust survivor, argues that there is no such thing as generic fascism. He claims that National Socialism and Communism are essentially manifestations of populism and that states such as National Socialist Germany and Fascist Italy are more different than similar.[41]

Position in the political spectrum

Fascism was influenced by both left and right, conservative and anti-conservative, national and supranational, rational and anti-rational.[42] A number of historians regard fascism as either a revolutionary centrist doctrine, as a doctrine that mixes philosophies of the left and the right, or as both of those things.[43][44] Fascism was founded during World War I by Italian national syndicalists who drew upon left-wing and right-wing political views.

Some scholars consider fascism to be right-wing because of its social conservatism and its authoritarian means of opposing egalitarianism.[45][46] Roderick Stackelberg places fascism—including Nazism, which he says is “a radical variant of fascism”—on the political right, explaining that, “The more a person deems absolute equality among all people to be a desirable condition, the further left he or she will be on the ideological spectrum. The more a person considers inequality to be unavoidable or even desirable, the further to the right he or she will be.”[47]

Italian Fascism gravitated to the right in the early 1920s.[48][49] A major element of fascist ideology that has been deemed to be far-right is its stated goal to promote the right of a supposedly superior people to dominate, while purging society of supposedly inferior elements.[50]

In 1919 Benito Mussolini described fascism as a movement that would strike “against the backwardness of the right and the destructiveness of the left”.[51][52] Later, the Italian Fascists described their ideology as right-wing in the political program The Doctrine of Fascism, stating: “We are free to believe that this is the century of authority, a century tending to the ‘right,’ a fascist century.”[53][54] Mussolini stated that fascism’s position on the political spectrum was not a serious issue for fascists: “Fascism, sitting on the right, could also have sat on the mountain of the center … These words in any case do not have a fixed and unchanged meaning: they do have a variable subject to location, time and spirit. We don’t give a damn about these empty terminologies and we despise those who are terrorized by these words.”[55]

The accommodation of the political right into the Italian Fascist movement in the early 1920s created internal factions within the movement. The “Fascist left” included Michele Bianchi, Giuseppe Bottai, Angelo Oliviero Olivetti, Sergio Panunzio, and Edmondo Rossoni, who were committed to advancing national syndicalism as a replacement for parliamentary liberalism in order to modernize the economy and advance the interests of workers and common people.[56] The “Fascist right” included members of the paramilitary Squadristi and former members of the Italian Nationalist Association (ANI).[56] The Squadristi wanted to establish Fascism as a complete dictatorship, while the former ANI members, including Alfredo Rocco, sought to institute an authoritarian corporatist state to replace the liberal state in Italy, while retaining the existing elites.[56] Upon accommodating the political right, there arose a group of monarchist fascists who sought to use fascism to create an absolute monarchy under King Victor Emmanuel III of Italy.[56]

After King Victor Emmanuel III forced Mussolini to resign as head of government and placed him under arrest in 1943, Mussolini was rescued by German forces. While continuing to rely on Germany for support, Mussolini and the remaining loyal Fascists founded the Italian Social Republic with Mussolini as head of state. Mussolini sought to re-radicalize Italian Fascism, declaring that the Fascist state had been overthrown because Italian Fascism had been subverted by Italian conservatives and the bourgeoisie.[57] Then the new Fascist government proposed the creation of workers’ councils and profit-sharing in industry, although the German authorities, who effectively controlled northern Italy at this point, ignored these measures and did not seek to enforce them.[57]

A number of post-World War II fascist movements described themselves as a “third position” outside the traditional political spectrum.[58] Spanish Falangist leader José Antonio Primo de Rivera said: “basically the Right stands for the maintenance of an economic structure, albeit an unjust one, while the Left stands for the attempt to subvert that economic structure, even though the subversion thereof would entail the destruction of much that was worthwhile”.[59]

Fascist as a pejorative

Main article: Fascist (insult)

Following the defeat of the Axis Powers in World War II, the term fascist has been used as a pejorative,[60] often referring to widely varying movements across the political spectrum.[61]George Orwell wrote in 1944 that “the word ‘Fascism’ is almost entirely meaningless … almost any English person would accept ‘bully’ as a synonym for ‘Fascist'”.[61]

Contrary to the popular use of the term, Communist states have sometimes been referred to as “fascist”, typically as an insult. Marxist interpretations of the term have, for example, been applied in relation to Cuba under Fidel Castro and Vietnam under Ho Chi Minh.[62]

Chinese Marxists used the term to denounce the Soviet Union during the Sino-Soviet Split, and likewise, the Soviets used the term to denounce Chinese Marxists[63] and social democracy (coining a new term social fascism).

In the United States, Herbert Matthews of the New York Times asked in 1946, “Should we now place Stalinist Russia in the same category as Hitlerite Germany? Should we say that she is Fascist?”[64]J. Edgar Hoover, longtime FBI director and ardent anti-communist, wrote extensively of “Red Fascism”.[65]

Professor Richard Griffiths of the University of Wales[66] wrote in 2005 that “fascism” is the “most misused, and over-used word, of our times”.[26] “Fascist” is sometimes applied to post-World War II organizations and ways of thinking that academics more commonly term “neo-fascist“.[67]

History

Further information: Fascism and ideology

Fin de siècle era and the fusion of Maurrasism with Sorelianism (1880–1914)

The historian Zeev Sternhell has traced the ideological roots of fascism back to the 1880s, and in particular to the fin de siècle theme of that time.[68][69] The theme was based on a revolt against materialism, rationalism, positivism, bourgeois society and democracy.[70] The fin-de-siècle generation supported emotionalism, irrationalism, subjectivism and vitalism.[71] The fin-de-siècle mindset saw civilization as being in a crisis that required a massive and total solution.[70] The fin-de-siècle intellectual school considered the individual only one part of the larger collectivity, which should not be viewed as an atomized numerical sum of individuals.[70]They condemned the rationalistic individualism of liberal society and the dissolution of social links in bourgeois society.[70]

The fin-de-siècle outlook was influenced by various intellectual developments, including Darwinianbiology; Wagnerian aesthetics; Arthur de Gobineau‘s racialism; Gustave Le Bon‘s psychology; and the philosophies of Friedrich Nietzsche, Fyodor Dostoyevsky and Henri Bergson.[72]Social Darwinism, which gained widespread acceptance, made no distinction between physical and social life, and viewed the human condition as being an unceasing struggle to achieve the survival of the fittest.[72] Social Darwinism challenged positivism’s claim of deliberate and rational choice as the determining behaviour of humans, with social Darwinism focusing on heredity, race, and environment.[72] Social Darwinism’s emphasis on biogroup identity and the role of organic relations within societies fostered legitimacy and appeal for nationalism.[73] New theories of social and political psychology also rejected the notion of human behaviour being governed by rational choice, and instead claimed that emotion was more influential in political issues than reason.[72] Nietzsche’s argument that “God is dead” coincided with his attack on the “herd mentality” of Christianity, democracy and modern collectivism; his concept of the übermensch; and his advocacy of the will to power as a primordial instinct, were major influences upon many of the fin-de-siècle generation.[74] Bergson’s claim of the existence of an “élan vital” or vital instinct centred upon free choice and rejected the processes of materialism and determinism; this challenged Marxism.[75]

Gaetano Mosca in his work The Ruling Class (1896) developed the theory that claims that in all societies an “organized minority” will dominate and rule over the “disorganized majority”.[76][77] Mosca claims that there are only two classes in society, “the governing” (the organized minority) and “the governed” (the disorganized majority).[78] He claims that the organized nature of the organized minority makes it irresistible to any individual of the disorganized majority.[78]

The anarchist Mikhail Bakunin‘s concept of propaganda of the deed, which stressed the importance of direct action as the primary means of politics, including revolutionary violence, became popular among fascists who admired the concept and adopted it as a part of fascism.[79]

Charles Maurras.
Georges Sorel

French nationalist and reactionary monarchist Charles Maurras influenced fascism.[80] Maurras promoted what he called integral nationalism, which called for the organic unity of a nation, and Maurras insisted that a powerful monarch was an ideal leader of a nation. Maurras distrusted what he considered the democratic mystification of the popular will that created an impersonal collective subject.[80] He claimed that a powerful monarch was a personified sovereign who could exercise authority to unite a nation’s people.[80] Maurras’ integral nationalism was idealized by fascists, but modified into a modernized revolutionary form that was devoid of Maurras’ monarchism.[80]

French revolutionary syndicalist Georges Sorel promoted the legitimacy of political violence in his work Reflections on Violence (1908) and other works in which he advocated radical syndicalist action to achieve a revolution to overthrow capitalism and the bourgeoisie through a general strike.[81] In Reflections on Violence, Sorel emphasized need for a revolutionary political religion.[82] Also, in his work The Illusions of Progress, Sorel denounced democracy as reactionary, saying “nothing is more aristocratic than democracy”.[83] By 1909 after the failure of a syndicalist general strike in France, Sorel and his supporters left the radical left and went to the radical right, where they sought to merge militant Catholicism and French patriotism with their views—advocating anti-republican Christian French patriots as ideal revolutionaries.[84]Initially Sorel had officially been a revisionist of Marxism, but by 1910 announced his abandonment of socialist literature and claimed in 1914, using an aphorism of Benedetto Croce that “socialism is dead” because of the “decomposition of Marxism”.[85] Sorel became a supporter of reactionary Maurrassian nationalism beginning in 1909 that influenced his works.[85] Maurras held interest in merging his nationalist ideals with Soreliansyndicalism as a means to confront democracy.[86] Maurras stated “a socialism liberated from the democratic and cosmopolitan element fits nationalism well as a well made glove fits a beautiful hand”.[87]

The fusion of Maurrassian nationalism and Sorelian syndicalism influenced radical Italian nationalist Enrico Corradini.[88] Corradini spoke of the need for a nationalist-syndicalist movement, led by elitist aristocrats and anti-democrats who shared a revolutionary syndicalist commitment to direct action and a willingness to fight.[88] Corradini spoke of Italy as being a “proletarian nation” that needed to pursue imperialism in order to challenge the “plutocratic” French and British.[89] Corradini’s views were part of a wider set of perceptions within the right-wing Italian Nationalist Association (ANI), which claimed that Italy’s economic backwardness was caused by corruption in its political class, liberalism, and division caused by “ignoble socialism”.[89] The ANI held ties and influence among conservatives, Catholics, and the business community.[89] Italian national syndicalists held a common set of principles: the rejection of bourgeois values, democracy, liberalism, Marxism, internationalism, and pacifism; and the promotion of heroism, vitalism, and violence.[90] The ANI claimed that liberal democracy was no longer compatible with the modern world, and advocated a strong state and imperialism, claiming that humans are naturally predatory and that nations were in a constant struggle, in which only the strongest could survive.[91]

Filippo Tommaso Marinetti, Italian modernist author of the Futurist Manifesto (1909) and later the co-author of the Fascist Manifesto (1919)

Futurism was both an artistic-cultural movement and initially a political movement in Italy led by Filippo Tommaso Marinetti who founded the Futurist Manifesto (1908), that championed the causes of modernism, action, and political violence as necessary elements of politics while denouncing liberalism and parliamentary politics. Marinetti rejected conventional democracy based on majority rule and egalitarianism, for a new form of democracy, promoting what he described in his work “The Futurist Conception of Democracy” as the following: “We are therefore able to give the directions to create and to dismantle to numbers, to quantity, to the mass, for with us number, quantity and mass will never be—as they are in Germany and Russia—the number, quantity and mass of mediocre men, incapable and indecisive”.[92]

Futurism influenced fascism in its emphasis on recognizing the virile nature of violent action and war as being necessities of modern civilization.[93] Marinetti promoted the need of physical training of young men, saying that in male education, gymnastics should take precedence over books, and he advocated segregation of the genders on this matter, in that womanly sensibility must not enter men’s education whom Marinetti claimed must be “lively, bellicose, muscular and violently dynamic”.[94]

World War I and its aftermath (1914–29)

Benito Mussolini in 1917, as a soldier in World War I. In 1914, Mussolini founded the Fasci d’Azione Rivoluzionaria that he led. Mussolini promoted the Italian intervention in the war as a revolutionary nationalist action to liberate Italian-claimed lands from Austria-Hungary.

At the outbreak of World War I in August 1914, the Italian political left became severely split over its position on the war. The Italian Socialist Party (PSI) opposed the war but a number of Italian revolutionary syndicalists supported war against Germany and Austria-Hungary on the grounds that their reactionary regimes had to be defeated to ensure the success of socialism.[95]Angelo Oliviero Olivetti formed a pro-interventionist fascio called the Fasci of International Action in October 1914.[95] Benito Mussolini upon being expelled from his position as chief editor of the PSI’s newspaper Avanti! for his anti-German stance, joined the interventionist cause in a separate fascio.[96] The term “Fascism” was first used in 1915 by members of Mussolini’s movement, the Fasci of Revolutionary Action.[97]

The first meeting of the Fasci of Revolutionary Action was held on 24 January 1915[98] when Mussolini declared that it was necessary for Europe to resolve its national problems—including national borders—of Italy and elsewhere “for the ideals of justice and liberty for which oppressed peoples must acquire the right to belong to those national communities from which they descended”.[98] Attempts to hold mass meetings were ineffective, and the organization was regularly harassed by government authorities and socialists.[99]

German soldiers being cheered in Lübeck during their advance to the front lines in 1914 during World War I. The concept of the “Spirit of 1914” by Johann Plenge identified the outbreak of war as forging national solidarity of Germans.

Similar political ideas arose in Germany after the outbreak of the war. German sociologist Johann Plenge spoke of the rise of a “National Socialism” in Germany within what he termed the “ideas of 1914” that were a declaration of war against the “ideas of 1789” (the French Revolution).[100] According to Plenge, the “ideas of 1789” that included rights of man, democracy, individualism and liberalism were being rejected in favor of “the ideas of 1914” that included “German values” of duty, discipline, law, and order.[100] Plenge believed that racial solidarity (Volksgemeinschaft) would replace class division and that “racial comrades” would unite to create a socialist society in the struggle of “proletarian” Germany against “capitalist” Britain.[100] He believed that the “Spirit of 1914” manifested itself in the concept of the “People’s League of National Socialism”.[101] This National Socialism was a form of state socialism that rejected the “idea of boundless freedom” and promoted an economy that would serve the whole of Germany under the leadership of the state.[101] This National Socialism was opposed to capitalism because of the components that were against “the national interest” of Germany, but insisted that National Socialism would strive for greater efficiency in the economy.[101] Plenge advocated an authoritarian rational ruling elite to develop National Socialism through a hierarchical technocratic state.[102]

Impact of World War I

Fascists viewed World War I as bringing revolutionary changes in the nature of war, society, the state, and technology, as the advent of total war and mass mobilization had broken down the distinction between civilian and combatant, as civilians had become a critical part in economic production for the war effort, and thus arose a “military citizenship” in which all citizens were involved to the military in some manner during the war.[6][7] World War I had resulted in the rise of a powerful state capable of mobilizing millions of people to serve on the front lines or provide economic production and logistics to support those on the front lines, as well as having unprecedented authority to intervene in the lives of citizens.[6][7] Fascists viewed technological developments of weaponry and the state’s total mobilization of its population in the war as symbolizing the beginning of a new era fusing state power with mass politics, technology, and particularly the mobilizing myth that they contended had triumphed over the myth of progress and the era of liberalism.[6]

Members of Italy’s Arditi corps in 1918 holding daggers, a symbol of their group. The Arditi formed in 1917, as groups of soldiers trained for dangerous missions, refusal to surrender, and willingness to fight to the death. The Italian Fascist movement adopted the Arditi’s black uniform and fez in homage to the Arditi.

Impact of the Bolshevik Revolution

The October Revolution of 1917—in which Bolshevik communists led by Vladimir Lenin seized power in Russia—greatly influenced the development of fascism.[103] In 1917, Mussolini, as leader of the Fasci of Revolutionary Action, praised the October Revolution, but later he became unimpressed with Lenin, regarding him as merely a new version of Tsar Nicholas.[104] After World War I fascists have commonly campaigned on anti-Marxist agendas.[103] Bolshevism and fascism both advocated a revolutionary ideology, believed in the necessity of a vanguard elite, had disdain for bourgeois values, and had totalitarian ambitions.[103] In practice, fascism and Bolshevism have commonly emphasized revolutionary action, proletarian nation theories, one-party states, and party-armies.[103]

With the antagonism between anti-interventionist Marxists and pro-interventionist Fascists complete by the end of the war, the two sides became irreconcilable. The Fascists presented themselves as anti-Marxists and as opposed to the Marxists.[105] Benito Mussolini consolidated control over the Fascist movement in 1919 with the founding of the Fasci italiani di combattimento, whose opposition to socialism he declared:

We declare war against socialism, not because it is socialism, but because it has opposed nationalism. Although we can discuss the question of what socialism is, what is its program, and what are its tactics, one thing is obvious: the official Italian Socialist Party has been reactionary and absolutely conservative. If its views had prevailed, our survival in the world of today would be impossible.[106]

Fascist Manifesto of 1919

In 1919, Alceste De Ambris and Futurist movement leader Filippo Tommaso Marinetti created The Manifesto of the Italian Fasci of Combat (a.k.a. the Fascist Manifesto).[107] The Manifesto was presented on 6 June 1919 in the Fascist newspaper Il Popolo d’Italia. The Manifesto supported the creation of universal suffrage for both men and women (the latter being realized only partly in late 1925, with all opposition parties banned or disbanded[108]); proportional representation on a regional basis; government representation through a corporatist system of “National Councils” of experts, selected from professionals and tradespeople, elected to represent and hold legislative power over their respective areas, including labour, industry, transportation, public health, communications, etc.; and the abolition of the Italian Senate.[109] The Manifesto supported the creation of an eight-hour work day for all workers, a minimum wage, worker representation in industrial management, equal confidence in labour unions as in industrial executives and public servants, reorganization of the transportation sector, revision of the draft law on invalidity insurance, reduction of the retirement age from 65 to 55, a strong progressive tax on capital, confiscation of the property of religious institutions and abolishment of bishoprics, and revision of military contracts to allow the government to seize 85% of their[who?] profits.[110] It also called for the creation of a short-service national militia to serve defensive duties, nationalization of the armaments industry, and a foreign policy designed to be peaceful but also competitive.[111]

Residents of Fiume cheer the arrival of Gabriele d’Annunzio and his blackshirt-wearing nationalist raiders. D’Annunzio and Fascist Alceste De Ambrisdeveloped the quasi-fascist Italian Regency of Carnaro, a city-state in Fiume, from 1919 to 1920. D’Annunzio’s actions in Fiume inspired the Italian Fascist movement.

The next events that influenced the Fascists in Italy was the raid of Fiume by Italian nationalist Gabriele d’Annunzio and the founding of the Charter of Carnaro in 1920.[112] D’Annunzio and De Ambris designed the Charter, which advocated national-syndicalist corporatistproductionism alongside D’Annunzio’s political views.[113] Many Fascists saw the Charter of Carnaro as an ideal constitution for a Fascist Italy.[114] This behaviour of aggression towards Yugoslavia and South Slavs was pursued by Italian Fascists with their persecution of South Slavs—especially Slovenes and Croats.

Italian Fascists in 1920

In 1920, militant strike activity by industrial workers reached its peak in Italy; 1919 and 1920 were known as the “Red Years”.[115] Mussolini and the Fascists took advantage of the situation by allying with industrial businesses and attacking workers and peasants in the name of preserving order and internal peace in Italy.[116]

Fascists identified their primary opponents as the majority of socialists on the left who had opposed intervention in World War I.[114] The Fascists and the Italian political right held common ground: both held Marxism in contempt, discounted class consciousness and believed in the rule of elites.[117] The Fascists assisted the anti-socialist campaign by allying with the other parties and the conservative right in a mutual effort to destroy the Italian Socialist Party and labour organizations committed to class identity above national identity.[117]

Fascism sought to accommodate Italian conservatives by making major alterations to its political agenda—abandoning its previous populism, republicanism, and anticlericalism, adopting policies in support of free enterprise, and accepting the Roman Catholic Church and the monarchy as institutions in Italy.[118] To appeal to Italian conservatives, Fascism adopted policies such as promoting family values, including promotion policies designed to reduce the number of women in the workforce limiting the woman’s role to that of a mother. The fascists banned literature on birth control and increased penalties for abortion in 1926, declaring both crimes against the state.[119] Though Fascism adopted a number of positions designed to appeal to reactionaries, the Fascists sought to maintain Fascism’s revolutionary character, with Angelo Oliviero Olivetti saying “Fascism would like to be conservative, but it will [be] by being revolutionary.”[120] The Fascists supported revolutionary action and committed to secure law and order to appeal to both conservatives and syndicalists.[121]

Prior to Fascism’s accommodation of the political right, Fascism was a small, urban, northern Italian movement that had about a thousand members.[122] After Fascism’s accommodation of the political right, the Fascist movement’s membership soared to approximately 250,000 by 1921.[123]

Fascist violence, 1922

Beginning in 1922, Fascist paramilitaries escalated their strategy from one of attacking socialist offices and homes of socialist leadership figures to one of violent occupation of cities. The Fascists met little serious resistance from authorities and proceeded to take over several northern Italian cities.[124] The Fascists attacked the headquarters of socialist and Catholic labour unions in Cremona and imposed forced Italianization upon the German-speaking population of Trent and Bolzano.[124] After seizing these cities, the Fascists made plans to take Rome.[124]

Benito Mussolini with three of the four quadrumvirsduring the March on Rome: from left to right: unknown, de Bono, Mussolini, Balbo and de Vecchi

On 24 October 1922, the Fascist party held its annual congress in Naples, where Mussolini ordered Blackshirts to take control of public buildings and trains and to converge on three points around Rome.[124] The Fascists managed to seize control of several post offices and trains in northern Italy while the Italian government, led by a left-wing coalition, was internally divided and unable to respond to the Fascist advances.[125] King Victor Emmanuel III of Italy perceived the risk of bloodshed in Rome in response to attempting to disperse the Fascists to be too high.[126] Victor Emmanuel III decided to appoint Mussolini as Prime Minister of Italy, and Mussolini arrived in Rome on 30 October to accept the appointment.[126] Fascist propaganda aggrandized this event, known as “March on Rome“, as a “seizure” of power because of Fascists’ heroic exploits.[124]

Fascist Italy

Historian Stanley G. Payne says Fascism in Italy was:

A primarily political dictatorship….The Fascist Party itself had become almost completely bureaucratized and subservient to, not dominant over, the state itself. Big business, industry, and finance retained extensive autonomy, particularly in the early years. The armed forces also enjoyed considerable autonomy….The Fascist militia was placed under military control….The judicial system was left largely intact and relatively autonomous as well. The police continued to be directed by state officials and were not taken over by party leaders…nor was a major new police elite created….There was never any question of bringing the Church under overall subservience…. Sizable sectors of Italian cultural life retained extensive autonomy, and no major state propaganda-and-culture ministry existed….The Mussolini regime was neither especially sanguinary nor particularly repressive.[127]

Mussolini in power

Upon being appointed Prime Minister of Italy, Mussolini had to form a coalition government, because the Fascists did not have control over the Italian parliament.[128] Mussolini’s coalition government initially pursued economically liberal policies under the direction of liberal finance minister Alberto De Stefani, a member of the Center Party, including balancing the budget through deep cuts to the civil service.[128] Initially, little drastic change in government policy had occurred and repressive police actions were limited.[128]

The Fascists began their attempt to entrench Fascism in Italy with the Acerbo Law, which guaranteed a plurality of the seats in parliament to any party or coalition list in an election that received 25% or more of the vote.[129] Through considerable Fascist violence and intimidation, the list won a majority of the vote, allowing many seats to go to the Fascists.[129] In the aftermath of the election, a crisis and political scandal erupted after Socialist Party deputy Giacomo Matteoti was kidnapped and murdered by a Fascist.[129] The liberals and the leftist minority in parliament walked out in protest in what became known as the Aventine Secession.[130]On 3 January 1925, Mussolini addressed the Fascist-dominated Italian parliament and declared that he was personally responsible for what happened, but he insisted that he had done nothing wrong. He proclaimed himself dictator of Italy, assuming full responsibility over the government and announcing the dismissal of parliament.[130] From 1925 to 1929, Fascism steadily became entrenched in power: opposition deputies were denied access to parliament, censorship was introduced, and a December 1925 decree made Mussolini solely responsible to the King.[131]

Catholic Church

In 1929, the Fascist regime gained the political support and blessing of the Roman Catholic Church after the regime signed a concordat with the Church, known as the Lateran Treaty, which gave the papacy state sovereignty and financial compensation for the seizure of Church lands by the liberal state in the nineteenth century.[132] Not long after signing the agreement, the Church, by Mussolini’s own confession, had threatened to have him “excommunicated”, in part because of his intractable nature and that he had “confiscated more issues of Catholic newspapers in the next three months than in the previous seven years.”[133] By the late 1930s, Mussolini became more vocal in his anti-clerical rhetoric, repeatedly denouncing the Catholic Church and discussing ways to depose the pope. He took the position that the “papacy was a malignant tumor in the body of Italy and must ‘be rooted out once and for all,’ because there was no room in Rome for both the Pope and himself.”[134] In her 1974 book, Mussolini’s widow, Rachele, claimed that her husband had always been an atheist until near the end of his life, writing that her husband was “basically irreligious until the later years of his life.”[135]

The National Socialists of Germany employed similar anti-clerical policies. The Gestapo confiscated hundreds of monasteries in Austria and Germany, evicted clergymen and laymen alike, and often replaced crosses with a swastikas.[136] Referring to the swastika as the “Devil’s Cross,” church leaders found their youth organizations banned, their meetings limited and various Catholic periodicals censored or banned. Government officials eventually found it necessary to place “Nazis into editorial positions in the Catholic press.”[137] Up to 2720 clerics, mostly Catholics, were arrested by the Gestapo and imprisoned inside of Germany’s Dachau concentration camp, resulting in over 1,000 deaths[138]

Corporatist economic system

The Fascist regime created a corporatist economic system in 1925 with creation of the Palazzo Vidioni Pact, in which the Italian employers’ association Confindustria and Fascist trade unions agreed to recognize each other as the sole representatives of Italy’s employers and employees, excluding non-Fascist trade unions.[139]The Fascist regime first created a Ministry of Corporations that organized the Italian economy into 22 sectoral corporations, banned workers’ strikes and lock-outs, and in 1927 created the Charter of Labour, which established workers’ rights and duties and created labour tribunals to arbitrate employer-employee disputes.[139]In practice, the sectoral corporations exercised little independence and were largely controlled by the regime, and employee organizations were rarely led by employees themselves but instead by appointed Fascist party members.[139]

Aggressive foreign policy

In the 1920s, Fascist Italy pursued an aggressive foreign policy that included an attack on the Greek island of Corfu, aims to expand Italian territory in the Balkans, plans to wage war against Turkey and Yugoslavia, attempts to bring Yugoslavia into civil war by supporting Croat and Macedonian separatists to legitimize Italian intervention, and making Albania a de factoprotectorate of Italy, which was achieved through diplomatic means by 1927.[140] In response to revolt in the Italian colony of Libya, Fascist Italy abandoned previous liberal-era colonial policy of cooperation with local leaders. Instead, claiming that Italians were a superior race to African races and thereby had the right to colonize the “inferior” Africans, it sought to settle 10 to 15 million Italians in Libya.[141] This resulted in an aggressive military campaign known as the Pacification of Libya against natives in Libya, including mass killings, the use of concentration camps, and the forced starvation of thousands of people.[141] Italian authorities committed ethnic cleansing by forcibly expelling 100,000 Bedouin Cyrenaicans, half the population of Cyrenaica in Libya, from their settlements that was slated to be given to Italian settlers.[142][143]

Hitler adopts Italian model

Nazis in Munich during the Beer Hall Putsch.

The March on Rome brought Fascism international attention. One early admirer of the Italian Fascists was Adolf Hitler, who, less than a month after the March, had begun to model himself and the Nazi Party upon Mussolini and the Fascists.[144] The Nazis, led by Hitler and the German war hero Erich Ludendorff, attempted a “March on Berlin” modeled upon the March on Rome, which resulted in the failed Beer Hall Putsch in Munich in November 1923.[145]

International impact of the Great Depression and the buildup to World War II

Benito Mussolini (left) and Adolf Hitler (right).

The conditions of economic hardship caused by the Great Depression brought about an international surge of social unrest. According to historian Philip Morgan, “the onset of the Great Depression…was the greatest stimulus yet to the diffusion and expansion of fascism outside Italy”.[146] Fascist propaganda blamed the problems of the long depression of the 1930s on minorities and scapegoats: “Judeo–Masonic–bolshevik” conspiracies, left-wing internationalism, and the presence of immigrants.

In Germany, it contributed to the rise of the National Socialist German Workers’ Party, which resulted in the demise of the Weimar Republic, and the establishment of the fascist regime, Nazi Germany, under the leadership of Adolf Hitler. With the rise of Hitler and the Nazis to power in 1933, liberal democracy was dissolved in Germany, and the Nazis mobilized the country for war, with expansionist territorial aims against several countries. In the 1930s the Nazis implemented racial laws that deliberately discriminated against, disenfranchised, and persecuted Jews and other racial and minority groups.

Fascist movements grew in strength elsewhere in Europe. Hungarian fascist Gyula Gömbös rose to power as Prime Minister of Hungary in 1932 and attempted to entrench his Party of National Unity throughout the country; he created an eight-hour work day, a forty-eight-hour work week in industry, and sought to entrench a corporatist economy; and pursued irredentist claims on Hungary’s neighbors.[147] The fascist Iron Guard movement in Romania soared in political support after 1933, gaining representation in the Romanian government, and an Iron Guard member assassinated Romanian prime minister Ion Duca.[148] During the 6 February 1934 crisis, France faced the greatest domestic political turmoil since the Dreyfus Affair when the fascist Francist Movement and multiple far right movements rioted en masse in Paris against the French government resulting in major political violence.[149] A variety of para-fascist governments that borrowed elements from fascism were formed during the Great Depression, including those of Greece, Lithuania, Poland, and Yugoslavia.[150]

Integralists marching in Brazil.

In the Americas, the Brazilian Integralists led by Plínio Salgado, claimed as many as 200,000 members although following coup attempts it faced a crackdown from the Estado Novo of Getúlio Vargas in 1937.[151] In the 1930s, the National Socialist Movement of Chile gained seats in Chile‘s parliament and attempted a coup d’état that resulted in the Seguro Obrero massacre of 1938.[152]

During the Great Depression, Mussolini promoted active state intervention in the economy. He denounced the contemporary “supercapitalism” that he claimed began in 1914 as a failure because of its alleged decadence, its support for unlimited consumerism and its intention to create the “standardization of humankind”.[153] Fascist Italy created the Institute for Industrial Reconstruction (IRI), a giant state-owned firm and holding company that provided state funding to failing private enterprises.[154] The IRI was made a permanent institution in Fascist Italy in 1937, pursued Fascist policies to create national autarky, and had the power to take over private firms to maximize war production.[154] While Hitler’s regime only nationalized 500 companies in key industries by the early 1940s,[155] Mussolini declared in 1934 that “Three-fourths of Italian economy, industrial and agricultural, is in the hands of the state.”[156] Due to the worldwide depression, Mussolini’s government was able to take over most of Italy’s largest failing banks, who held controlling interest in many Italian businesses. The Institute for Industrial Reconstruction, a state-operated holding company in charge of bankrupt banks and companies, reported in early 1934 that they held assets of “48.5 percent of the share capital of Italy,” which later included the capital of the banks themselves.[157] Political historian Martin Blinkhorn estimated Italy’s scope of state intervention and ownership “greatly surpassed that in Nazi Germany, giving Italy a public sector second only to that of Stalin’s Russia.”[158] In the late 1930s, Italy enacted manufacturing cartels, tariff barriers, currency restrictions, and massive regulation of the economy to attempt to balance payments.[159] Italy’s policy of autarky failed to achieve effective economic autonomy.[159] Nazi Germany similarly pursued an economic agenda with the aims of autarky and rearmament and imposed protectionist policies, including forcing the German steel industry to use lower-quality German iron ore rather than superior-quality imported iron.[160]

World War II (1939–45)

In Fascist Italy and Nazi Germany, both Mussolini and Hitler pursued territorial expansionist and interventionist foreign policy agendas from the 1930s through the 1940s culminating in World War II. Mussolini called for irredentist Italian claims to be reclaimed, establishing Italian domination of the Mediterranean Sea and securing Italian access to the Atlantic Ocean, and the creation of Italian spazio vitale (“vital space”) in the Mediterranean and Red Sea regions.[161] Hitler called for irredentist German claims to be reclaimed along with the creation of German Lebensraum (“living space”) in Eastern Europe, including territories held by the Soviet Union, that would be colonized by Germans.[162]

Emaciated male inmate at the Italian Rab concentration camp.

From 1935 to 1939 Germany and Italy escalated their demands for territorial claims and greater influence in world affairs. Italy invaded Ethiopia in 1935 resulting in its condemnation by the League of Nations and its widespread diplomatic isolation. In 1936 Germany remilitarized the industrial Rhineland; the region had been ordered demilitarized by the Treaty of Versailles. In 1938 Germany annexed Austria and Italy assisted Germany in resolving the diplomatic crisis between Germany versus Britain and France over claims on Czechoslovakia by arranging the Munich Agreement that gave Germany the Sudetenland and was perceived at the time to have averted a European war. These hopes faded when Hitler violated the Munich Agreement by ordering the invasion and partition of Czechoslovakia between Germany and a client state of Slovakia in 1939. At the same time from 1938 to 1939, Italy was demanding territorial and colonial concessions from France and Britain.[163] In 1939, Germany prepared for war with Poland, but attempted to gain territorial concessions from Poland through diplomatic means.[164] The Polish government did not trust Hitler’s promises and refused to accept Germany’s demands.[164]

The invasion of Poland by Germany was deemed unacceptable by Britain, France and their allies, resulting in their mutual declaration of war against Germany that was deemed the aggressor in the war in Poland, resulting in the outbreak of World War II. In 1940, Mussolini led Italy into World War II on the side of the Axis. Mussolini was aware that Italy did not have the military capacity to carry out a long war with France or the United Kingdom and waited until France was on the verge of imminent collapse and surrender from the German invasion before declaring war on France and the United Kingdom on 10 June 1940, on the assumption that the war would be short-lived following France’s collapse.[165] Mussolini believed that following a brief entry of Italy into war with France, followed by the imminent French surrender, Italy could gain some territorial concessions from France and then concentrate its forces on a major offensive in Egypt where British and Commonwealth forces were outnumbered by Italian forces.[166] Plans by Germany to invade the UK in 1940 failed after Germany lost the aerial warfare campaign in the Battle of Britain. In 1941 the Axis campaign spread to the Soviet Union after Hitler launched Operation Barbarossa. Axis forces at the height of their power controlled almost all of continental Europe. The war became prolonged—contrary to Mussolini’s plans—resulting in Italy losing battles on multiple fronts and requiring German assistance.

Corpses of victims of the German Buchenwald concentration camp.

During World War II, the Axis Powers in Europe, led by Nazi Germany, participated in the extermination of millions of Poles, Jews, Gypsies and others in the genocide known as the Holocaust.

After 1942, Axis forces began to falter. By 1943, after Italy faced multiple military failures, the complete reliance and subordination of Italy to Germany, the Allied invasion of Italy, and the corresponding international humiliation, Mussolini was removed as head of government and arrestedon the order of King Victor Emmanuel III, who proceeded to dismantle the Fascist state and declared Italy’s switching of allegiance to the Allied side. Mussolini was rescued from arrest by German forces and led the German client state, the Italian Social Republic from 1943 to 1945. Nazi Germany faced multiple losses and steady Soviet and Western Allied offensives from 1943 to 1945.

On 28 April 1945, Mussolini was captured and executed by Italian communist partisans. On 30 April 1945, Hitler committed suicide. Shortly afterwards, Germany surrendered and the Nazi regime was systematically dismantled by the occupying Allied powers. An International Military Tribunal was subsequently convened in Nuremberg. Beginning in November 1945 and lasting through 1949, numerous Nazi political, military and economic leaders were tried and convicted of war crimes, with many of the worst offenders receiving the death penalty.

Post-World-War II (1945–present)

Main article: Neo-fascism

Juan Perón, President of Argentina from 1946 to 1955 and 1973 to 1974. Perón admired Italian Fascism and modelled his economic policies on those pursued by Fascist Italy.

The victory of the Allies over the Axis powers in World War II led to the collapse of many fascist regimes in Europe. The Nuremberg Trials convicted several Nazi leaders of crimes against humanity involving the Holocaust. There remained, however, several movements and governments that were ideologically related to fascism.

Francisco Franco‘s Falangist one-party state in Spain was officially neutral during World War II and it survived the collapse of the Axis Powers. Franco’s rise to power had been directly assisted by the militaries of Fascist Italy and Nazi Germany during the Spanish Civil War, and Franco had sent volunteers to fight on the side of Nazi Germany against the Soviet Union during World War II. After World War II and a period of international isolation, Franco’s regime normalized relations with the Western powers during the Cold War, until Franco’s death in 1975 and the transformation of Spain into a liberal democracy.

Historian Robert Paxton observes that one of the main problems in defining fascism it that it was widely mimicked. He says, “In fascism’s heyday, in the 1930s, many regimes that were not functionally fascist borrowed elements of fascist decor in order to lend themselves an aura of force, vitality, and mass mobilization.” He goes on to observe that Salazar “crushed Portuguese fascism after he had copied some of its techniques of popular mobilization.”[167]Portugal was under the control of the Estado Novo, a dictatorship led by António de Oliveira Salazar. In Argentina Peronism, associated with the regime of Juan Perón from 1946 to 1955 and 1973 to 1974, was influenced by fascism.[168] Between 1939 and 1941, prior to his rise to power, Perón had developed a deep admiration of Italian Fascism and modelled his economic policies on Italian Fascist policies.[168]

Giorgio Almirante, leader of the Italian Social Movementfrom 1969–1987.

The term neo-fascism refers to fascist movements after World War II. In Italy, the Italian Social Movement, led by Giorgio Almirante, was a major neo-fascist movement that transformed itself into a self-described “post-fascist” movement called the National Alliance (AN), which has been an ally of Silvio Berlusconi‘s Forza Italia for a decade. In 2008, AN joined Forza Italia in Berlusconi’s new party The People of Freedom. In 2012 a group of politicians split from The People of Freedom, refounding the party with the name Brothers of Italy. In Germany, various neo-Nazi movements have been formed and banned in accordance with Germany’s constitutional law which forbids Nazism. The National Democratic Party of Germany (NPD) is widely considered a neo-Nazi party, although the party does not publicly identify itself as such.

Golden Dawn demonstration in Greece in 2012.

After the onset of the Great Recession and economic crisis in Greece, a movement known as the Golden Dawn, widely considered a neo-Nazi party, soared in support out of obscurity and won seats in Greece‘s parliament, espousing a staunch hostility towards minorities, illegal immigrants, and refugees. In 2013, after the murder of an anti-fascist musician by a person with links to Golden Dawn, the Greek government ordered the arrest of Golden Dawn’s leader Nikolaos Michaloliakos and other Golden Dawn members on charges related to being associated with a criminal organization.

Tenets

Nationalism

Nationalism is the main foundation of fascism.[169] The fascist view of a nation is of a single organic entity that binds people together by their ancestry, and is a natural unifying force of people.[170] Fascism seeks to solve economic, political, and social problems by achieving a millenarian national rebirth, exalting the nation or race above all else, and promoting cults of unity, strength, and purity.[34][171][172][173][174] European fascist movements typically espouse a racist conception of non-Europeans being inferior to Europeans.[175] Beyond this, fascists in Europe have not held a unified set of racial views.[175] Historically, most fascists promoted imperialism, although there have been several fascist movements that were uninterested in the pursuit of new imperial ambitions.[175]

Totalitarianism

Fascism promotes the establishment of a totalitarian state.[176] It opposes liberal democracy, rejects multi-party systems, and supports a one-party state. The Doctrine of Fascism states, “The Fascist conception of the State is all-embracing; outside of it no human or spiritual values can exist, much less have value. Thus understood, Fascism is totalitarian, and the Fascist State—a synthesis and a unit inclusive of all values—interprets, develops, and potentiates the whole life of a people.”[177] In The Legal Basis of the Total State, Nazi political theorist Carl Schmittdescribed the Nazi intention to form a “strong state which guarantees a totality of political unity transcending all diversity” in order to avoid a “disastrous pluralism tearing the German people apart”.[178]

Fascist states pursued policies of social indoctrination through propaganda in education and the media and regulation of the production of educational and media materials.[179][180] Education was designed to glorify the fascist movement and inform students of its historical and political importance to the nation. It attempted to purge ideas that were not consistent with the beliefs of the fascist movement and to teach students to be obedient to the state.[181]

Economy

Main article: Economics of fascism

Fascism presented itself as a third position, alternative to both international socialism and free market capitalism.[182] While fascism opposed mainstream socialism, it sometimes regarded itself as a type of nationalist “socialism”, to highlight their commitment to national solidarityand unity.[183][184] Fascists opposed international free market capitalism, but supported a type of productive capitalism.[185]

Fascist governments advocated resolution of domestic class conflict within a nation in order to secure national solidarity.[186] This would be done through the state mediating relations between the classes (contrary to the views of classical liberal-inspired capitalists).[187] While fascism was opposed to domestic class conflict, it was held that bourgeois-proletarian conflict existed primarily in national conflict between proletarian nations versus bourgeois nations.[188] Fascism condemned what it viewed as widespread character traits that it associated as the typical bourgeois mentality that it opposed, such as materialism, crassness, cowardice, inability to comprehend the heroic ideal of the fascist “warrior”; and associations with liberalism, individualism, and parliamentarianism.[189] In 1918, Mussolini defined what he viewed as the proletarian character, defining proletarian as being one and the same with producers, a productivist perspective that associated all people deemed productive, including entrepreneurs, technicians, workers, and soldiers as being proletarian.[190] He acknowledged the historical existence of both bourgeois and proletarian producers, but declared the need for bourgeois producers to merge with proletarian producers.[190]

While fascism denounced the mainstream internationalist and Marxist socialisms, it claimed to economically represent a type of nationalist productivist socialism that while condemning parasitical capitalism, was willing to accommodate productivist capitalism within it.[185] This was derived from Henri de Saint Simon, whose ideas inspired the creation of utopian socialism and influenced other ideologies, that stressed solidarity rather than class war and whose conception of productive people in the economy included both productive workers and productive bosses to challenge the influence of the aristocracy and unproductive financial speculators.[191] Saint Simon’s vision combined the traditionalist right-wing criticisms of the French Revolution combined with a left-wing belief in the need for association or collaboration of productive people in society.[191] Whereas Marxism condemned capitalism as a system of exploitative property relations, fascism saw the nature of the control of credit and money in the contemporary capitalist system as abusive.[185] Unlike Marxism, fascism did not see class conflict between the Marxist-defined proletariat and the bourgeoisie as a given or as an engine of historical materialism.[185] Instead, it viewed workers and productive capitalists in common as productive people who were in conflict with parasitic elements in society including: corrupt political parties, corrupt financial capital, and feeble people.[185] Fascist leaders such as Mussolini and Hitler spoke of the need to create a new managerial elite led by engineers and captains of industry—but free from the parasitic leadership of industries.[185] Hitler stated that the Nazi Party supported bodenständigen Kapitalismus (productive capitalism) that was based upon profit earned from one’s own labour, but condemned unproductive capitalism or loan capitalism, which derived profit from speculation.[192]

Fascist economics supported a state-controlled economy that accepted a mix of private and public ownership over the means of production.[193]Economic planning was applied to both the public and private sector, and the prosperity of private enterprise depended on its acceptance of synchronizing itself with the economic goals of the state.[194] Fascist economic ideology supported the profit motive, but emphasized that industries must uphold the national interest as superior to private profit.[194]

While fascism accepted the importance of material wealth and power, it condemned materialism, which it identified as being present in both communism and capitalism, and criticized materialism for lacking acknowledgement of the role of the spirit.[195] In particular, fascists criticized capitalism not because of its competitive nature nor support of private property, which fascists supported—but due to its materialism, individualism, alleged bourgeois decadence, and alleged indifference to the nation.[196] Fascism denounced Marxism for its advocacy of materialist internationalist class identity, which fascists regarded as an attack upon the emotional and spiritual bonds of the nation and a threat to the achievement of genuine national solidarity.[197]

Economic self-sufficiency, known as autarky, was a major goal of most fascist governments.[198]

In discussing the spread of fascism beyond Italy, historian Philip Morgan states

Since the Depression was a crisis of laissez-faire capitalism and its political counterpart, parliamentary democracy, fascism could pose as the ‘third-way’ alternative between capitalism and Bolshevism, the model of a new European ‘civilization’. As Mussolini typically put it in early 1934, “from 1929…fascism has become a universal phenomenon… The dominant forces of the 19th century, democracy, socialism, liberalism have been exhausted…the new political and economic forms of the twentieth-century are fascist'(Mussolini 1935: 32).[146]

Fascists promoted social welfare to ameliorate economic conditions affecting their nation or race as a whole, but they did not support social welfare for egalitarian reasons towards those not considered racially embodied with pure German blood. Under an extensive welfare system, over 17 million Germans obtain assistance under the control of National Socialist People’s Welfare (NSV) by 1939, an agency that had “projected a powerful image of caring and support.”[199] The NSV had grown to the second largest Nazi group organization by 1939, dwarfed only by the German Labor Front. The NSV and its Winter Aid and Strength Through Joyprovided evidence to the German citizenry that the National Socialists were keeping their promise to create “an organic national community” where “class conflict and social antagonisms would be overcome,” and the “egoism of the individual” would instead surrender to the “overriding interests of the whole.”[200] These programs were designed to “obliterate distinctions of class and status,” and enhance the lives of the ordinary people.[200] Fascists criticized egalitarianism as preserving the weak. They instead promoted social Darwinist views.[201][202]

Action

Fascism emphasizes direct action, including supporting the legitimacy of political violence, as a core part of its politics.[11][203] Fascism views violent action as a necessity in politics that fascism identifies as being an “endless struggle”.[204] This emphasis on the use of political violence means that most fascist parties have also created their own private militias (e.g. the Nazi Party’s Brown shirts and Fascist Italy’s Blackshirts).

The basis of fascism’s support of violent action in politics is connected to social Darwinism.[204] Fascist movements have commonly held social Darwinist views of nations, races, and societies.[205] They say that nations and races must purge themselves of socially and biologically weak or degenerate people, while simultaneously promoting the creation of strong people, in order to survive in a world defined by perpetual national and racial conflict.[206]

Age and gender roles

Members of the Piccole Italiane, an organization for girls within the National Fascist Party in Italy.

Members of the League of German Girls, an organization for girls within the Nazi Party in Germany.

Fascism emphasizes youth both in a physical sense of age and in a spiritual sense as related to virility and commitment to action.[207] The Italian Fascists’ political anthem was called Giovinezza (“The Youth”).[207] Fascism identifies the physical age period of youth as a critical time for the moral development of people who will affect society.[208]

Italian Fascism pursued what it called “moral hygiene” of youth, particularly regarding sexuality.[209] Fascist Italy promoted what it considered normal sexual behaviour in youth while denouncing what it considered deviant sexual behaviour.[209] It condemned pornography, most forms of birth control and contraceptive devices (with the exception of the condom), homosexuality, and prostitution as deviant sexual behaviour, although enforcement of laws opposed to such practices was erratic and authorities often turned a blind eye.[209] Fascist Italy regarded the promotion of male sexual excitation before puberty as the cause of criminality amongst male youth, declared homosexuality a social disease, and pursued an aggressive campaign to reduce prostitution of young women.[209]

Mussolini perceived women’s primary role as primarily child bearers and men, warriors—once saying, “War is to man what maternity is to the woman.”[210] In an effort to increase birthrates, the Italian Fascist government gave financial incentives to women who raised large families, and initiated policies intended to reduce the number of women employed.[211] Italian Fascism called for women to be honoured as “reproducers of the nation,” and the Italian Fascist government held ritual ceremonies to honour women’s role within the Italian nation.[212] In 1934, Mussolini declared that employment of women was a “major aspect of the thorny problem of unemployment,” and that for women, working was “incompatible with childbearing.” Mussolini went on to say that the solution to unemployment for men was the “exodus of women from the work force.”[213]

The German Nazi government strongly encouraged women to stay at home to bear children and keep house.[214] This policy was reinforced by bestowing the Cross of Honor of the German Mother on women bearing four or more children. The unemployment rate was cut substantially, mostly through arms production and sending women home so that men could take their jobs. Nazi propaganda sometimes promoted premarital and extramarital sexual relations, unwed motherhood and divorce, but at other times the Nazis opposed such behaviour.[215]

The Nazis decriminalized abortion in cases where fetuses had hereditary defects or were of a race the government disapproved of, while the abortion of healthy pure German, Aryan fetuses remained strictly forbidden.[216] For non-Aryans, abortion was often compulsory. Their eugenicsprogram also stemmed from the “progressive biomedical model” of Weimar Germany.[217] In 1935 Nazi Germany expanded the legality of abortion by amending its eugenics law, to promote abortion for women with hereditary disorders.[216] The law allowed abortion if a woman gave her permission and the fetus was not yet viable,[218][219] and for purposes of so-called racial hygiene.[220][221]

The Nazis said that homosexuality was degenerate, effeminate, perverted, and undermined masculinity because it did not produce children.[222] They considered homosexuality curable through therapy, citing modern scientism and the study of sexology, which said that homosexuality could be felt by “normal” people and not just an abnormal minority.[223] Open homosexuals were interned in Nazi concentration camps.[224]

Palingenesis and modernism

Fascism emphasizes both palingenesis and modernism.[225] In particular, fascism’s nationalism has been identified as having a palingenetic character.[169] Fascism promotes the regeneration of the nation and purging it of decadence.[225] Fascism accepts forms of modernism that it deems promotes national regeneration while rejecting forms of modernism that are regarded as antithetical to national regeneration.[226] Fascism aestheticized modern technology and its association with speed, power, and violence.[227] Fascism admired advances in the economy in the early 20th century, particularly Fordismand scientific management.[228] Fascist modernism has been recognized as inspired or developed by various figures—such as Filippo Tommaso Marinetti, Ernst Jünger, Gottfried Benn, Louis-Ferdinand Céline, Knut Hamsun, Ezra Pound, and Wyndham Lewis.[229]

In Italy, such modernist influence was exemplified by Marinetti who advocated a palingenetic modernist society that condemned liberal-bourgeois values of tradition and psychology, while promoting a technological-martial religion of national renewal that emphasized militant nationalism.[230] In Germany, it was exemplified by Jünger who was influenced by his observation of the technological warfare during World War I, and claimed that a new social class had been created that he described as the “warrior-worker”.[231] Jünger like Marinetti emphasized the revolutionary capacities of technology, and emphasized an “organic construction” between human and machine as a liberating and regenerative force in that challenged liberal democracy, conceptions of individual autonomy, bourgeois nihilism, and decadence.[231] He conceived of a society based on a totalitarian concept of “total mobilization” of such disciplined warrior-workers.[231]

Criticism of fascism

Fascism has been widely criticized and condemned in modern times since the defeat of the Axis Powers in World War II.

Anti-democratic and tyrannical

Further information: Anti-democratic thought

One of the most common and strongest criticisms of fascism is that it is a tyranny.[232] Fascism is deliberately and entirely non-democratic and anti-democratic.[233][234][235]

Unprincipled opportunism

Some critics of Italian fascism have said that much of the ideology was merely a by-product of unprincipled opportunism by Mussolini, and that he changed his political stances merely to bolster his personal ambitions while he disguised them as being purposeful to the public.[236]Richard Washburn Child, the American ambassador to Italy who worked with Mussolini and became his friend and admirer, defended Mussolini’s opportunistic behaviour, writing: “Opportunist is a term of reproach used to brand men who fit themselves to conditions for the reasons of self-interest. Mussolini, as I have learned to know him, is an opportunist in the sense that he believed that mankind itself must be fitted to changing conditions rather than to fixed theories, no matter how many hopes and prayers have been expended on theories and programmes.”[237] Child quoted Mussolini as saying, “The sanctity of an ism is not in the ism; it has no sanctity beyond its power to do, to work, to succeed in practice. It may have succeeded yesterday and fail to-morrow. Failed yesterday and succeed to-morrow. The machine first of all must run!”.[237]

Some have criticized Mussolini’s actions during the outbreak of World War I as opportunist for seeming to suddenly abandon Marxist egalitarianinternationalism for non-egalitarian nationalism, and note to that effect that upon Mussolini endorsing Italy’s intervention in the war against Germany and Austria-Hungary, he and the new fascist movement received financial support from foreign sources, such as Ansaldo (an armaments firm) and other companies[238] as well as the British Security Service MI5.[239] Some, including Mussolini’s socialist opponents at the time, have noted that regardless of the financial support he accepted for his pro-interventionist stance, Mussolini was free to write whatever he wished in his newspaper Il Popolo d’Italia, without prior sanctioning from his financial backers.[240] Furthermore, the major source of financial support that Mussolini and the fascist movement received in World War I was from France, and is widely believed to have been French socialists who supported the French government’s war against Germany and who sent support to Italian socialists who wanted Italian intervention on France’s side.[241]

Mussolini’s transformation away from Marxism into what eventually became fascism began prior to World War I, as Mussolini had grown increasingly pessimistic about Marxism and egalitarianism while becoming increasingly supportive of figures who opposed egalitarianism, such as Friedrich Nietzsche.[242] By 1902, Mussolini was studying Georges Sorel, Nietzsche, and Vilfredo Pareto.[243] Sorel’s emphasis on the need for overthrowing decadent liberal democracy and capitalism by the use of violence, direct action, general strikes and neo-Machiavellian appeals to emotion impressed Mussolini deeply.[244] Mussolini’s use of Nietzsche made him a highly unorthodox socialist, due to Nietzsche’s promotion of elitism and anti-egalitarian views.[242] Prior to World War I, Mussolini’s writings over time indicated that he had abandoned the Marxism and egalitarianism that he had previously supported, in favour of Nietzsche’s übermensch concept and anti-egalitarianism.[242] In 1908, Mussolini wrote a short essay called “Philosophy of Strength” based on his Nietzschean influence, in which Mussolini openly spoke fondly of the ramifications of an impending war in Europe in challenging both religion and nihilism: “a new kind of free spirit will come, strengthened by the war, … a spirit equipped with a kind of sublime perversity, … a new free spirit will triumph over God and over Nothing.”[93]

Ideological dishonesty

Fascism has been criticized for being ideologically dishonest.

Major examples of ideological dishonesty have been identified in Italian fascism’s changing relationship with German Nazism.[245][246] Fascist Italy’s official foreign policy positions were known to commonly utilize rhetorical ideological hyperbole to justify its actions, although during Dino Grandi’s tenure as Italy’s foreign minister, the country engaged in realpolitik free of such fascist hyperbole.[247] Italian fascism’s stance towards German Nazism fluctuated from support from the late 1920s to 1934, when it celebrated Hitler’s rise to power and meeting with Hitler in 1934; to opposition from 1934 to 1936 after the assassination of Italy’s allied leader in Austria, Engelbert Dollfuss, by Austrian Nazis; and again back to support after 1936, when Germany was the only significant power that did not denounce Italy’s invasion and occupation of Ethiopia.

After antagonism exploded between Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy over the assassination of Austrian Chancellor Dollfuss in 1934, Mussolini and Italian fascists denounced and ridiculed Nazism’s racial theories, particularly by denouncing its Nordicism, while promoting Mediterraneanism.[246] Mussolini himself responded to Nordicists’ claims of Italy being divided into Nordic and Mediterranean racial areas due to Germanic invasions of Northern Italy, by claiming that while Germanic tribes such as the Lombards took control of Italy after the fall of Ancient Rome, they arrived in small numbers (about 8,000) and quickly assimilated into Roman culture and spoke the Latin language within fifty years.[248] Italian fascism was influenced by the tradition of Italian nationalists scornfully looking down upon Nordicists’ claims, and taking pride in comparing the age and sophistication of ancient Roman civilization as well as the classical revival in the Renaissance, to that of Nordic societies that Italian nationalists described as “newcomers” to civilization in comparison.[245] At the height of antagonism between the Nazis and Italian fascists over race, Mussolini claimed that the Germans themselves were not a pure race and noted with irony that the Nazi theory of German racial superiority was based on the theories of non-German foreigners, such as Frenchman Arthur de Gobineau.[249] After the tension in German-Italian relations diminished during the late 1930s, Italian fascism sought to harmonize its ideology with German Nazism and combined Nordicist and Mediterranean racial theories, noting that Italians were members of the Aryan Race, composed of a mixed Nordic-Mediterranean subtype.[246]

Mussolini declared in 1938, upon Italy’s adoption of antisemitic laws, that Italian fascism had always been antisemitic,[246] In fact, Italian fascism did not endorse antisemitism until the late 1930s, when Mussolini feared alienating antisemitic Nazi Germany, whose power and influence were growing in Europe. Prior to that period there had been notable Jewish Italians who had been senior Italian fascist officials, including Margherita Sarfatti, who had also been Mussolini’s mistress.[246] Also, contrary to Mussolini’s claim in 1938, only a small number of Italian fascists were staunchly antisemitic (such as Roberto Farinacci and Giuseppe Preziosi) while others, such as Italo Balbo, who came from Ferrara, which had one of Italy’s largest Jewish communities, were disgusted by the antisemitic laws and opposed them.[246] Fascism scholar Mark Neocleous notes that while Italian fascism did not have a clear commitment to antisemitism, there were occasional antisemitic statements issued prior to 1938, such as Mussolini in 1919 declaring that the Jewish bankers in London and New York were connected by race to the Russian Bolsheviks, and that eight percent of the Russian Bolsheviks were Jews.[250]

 

{I have published this long article on fascism because I am working on an article, to be posted soon, on fascism which will develop some personal thoughts on the subject drawn from my 93 years of living in world preoccupied with the challenge of fascism. Abyssum}

Posted in Uncategorized | Comments Off on FASCISM

IT ALL DEPENDS ON WHOSE OX IS BEING GORED; HAVE YOU CHECKED ON YOUR OXEN LATELY ??? OR ARE YOU BORED WITH THIS WHOLE GORING QUESTION?

 

Brave Prof Stands Up To Duke Divinity SJWs

Paul Griffiths, a widely respected Catholic professor at Duke Divinity School, released the following on Facebook:

Dear Faculty Colleagues,

(This email is a public document. Please feel free to copy and distribute it in whole or in part, with or without attribution, with or without commentary.)

Intellectual freedom – freedom to speak and write without fear of discipline and punishment – is under pressure at Duke Divinity these days. My own case illustrates this. Over the past year or so I’ve spoken and written in various public forums here, with as much clarity and energy as I can muster, about matters relevant to our life together. The matters I’ve addressed include: the vocation and purpose of our school; the importance of the intellectual virtues to our common life; the place that seeking diversity among our faculty should have in that common life; the nature of racial, ethnic, and gender identities, and whether there’s speech about certain topics forbidden to some among those identities; and the nature and purpose of theological education. I’ve reviewed these contributions, to the extent that I can (some of them are available only in memory), and I’m happy with them and stand behind them. They’re substantive; they’re trenchant; and they address matters of importance for our common life. So it seems to me. What I’ve argued in these contributions may of course be wrong; that’s a feature of the human condition.

My speech and writing about these topics has now led to two distinct (but probably causally related) disciplinary procedures against me, one instigated by Elaine Heath, our Dean, and the other instigated by Thea Portier-Young, our colleague. I give at the end of this message a bare-bones factual account of these disciplinary proceedings to date.

These disciplinary proceedings are designed not to engage and rebut the views I hold and have expressed about the matters mentioned, but rather to discipline me for having expressed them. Elaine Heath and Thea Portier-Young, when faced with disagreement, prefer discipline to argument. In doing so they act illiberally and anti-intellectually; their action shows totalitarian affinities in its preferred method, which is the veiled use of institutional power. They appeal to non- or anti-intellectual categories (‘unprofessional conduct’ in Heath’s case; ‘harassment’ in Portier-Young’s) to short-circuit disagreement. All this is shameful, and I call them out on it.

Heath and Portier-Young aren’t alone among us in showing these tendencies. The convictions that some of my colleagues hold about justice for racial, ethnic, and gender minorities have led them to attempt occupation of a place of unassailably luminous moral probity. That’s a utopia, and those who seek it place themselves outside the space of reason. Once you’ve made that move, those who disagree with you inevitably seem corrupt and dangerous, better removed than argued with, while you seem to yourself beyond criticism. What you do then is discipline your opponents. The contributions to our common life made by, inter alia, Chuck Campbell, Jay Carter, and Valerie Cooper exhibit these tendencies. I call them out too. I hope that they, together with Heath and Portier-Young, will reconsider, repent, make public apology to me and our colleagues for the damage done, and re-dedicate themselves to the life of the mind which is, because of their institutional location, their primary professional vocation. That life requires openness, transparency, and a willingness to engage. I commend all these things to them, and hope devoutly that they come to see their importance more clearly than they now do..

I’m making public the following narrative of these disciplinary proceedings under the pressure of three closely-associated thoughts. The first thought is that several more or less inaccurate versions of these events are already in circulation among us in the form of gossip; full and accurate disclosure is always better than gossip. The second thought is about responsibility. I’m happy to take full responsibility for my contributions to our common life at Duke Divinity. Those contributions have all been public, as is this message. But responsibility requires publicity. Heath’s and Portier-Young’s disciplinary proceedings are not public: they’re veiled, and accompanied by threats of reprisal if unveiled. I’d like them to take responsibility for what they’re doing, and so I’m making it public. The third thought is about the kind of confidence in speech (and writing) whose opposite is fear. Duke Divinity is now a place in which too many thoughts can’t be spoken and too many disagreements remain veiled because of fear. I commend a renunciation of fear-based discipline to those who deploy and advocate it, and its replacement with confidence in speech. That would be appropriate not only to our life together in a university-related Divinity School, but also to our life together as disciples of Jesus Christ.

the disciplinary actions

What follows, under (1) and (2), is a bare-bones factual account of the disciplinary procedures to date, together with two attachments. It may be useful to know that there’s a good deal of recent literature on the nature of university-based disciplinary proceedings like the ones I’m about to describe. I recommend, from quite different angles, Jon Krakauer’s Missoula (2015), and Laura Kipnis’s Unwanted Advances (2017). These books, with distinct agendas, agree that there are deep moral, legal, and procedural problems with university-based Title IX disciplinary procedures. These include, but aren’t limited to, their attempt to control speech and conduct by stifling expression; and their contempt for due process. It may also be useful to know that I’m not alone among Duke Divinity faculty in currently being, or having in the recent past been, subjected to discipline along these lines. I call upon those involved to share the details with us.

(1) Discipline initiated by Heath against Griffiths. In February 2017, Heath contacts Griffiths and asks for an appointment in which she’ll communicate her expectations for professional conduct at Duke Divinity. There’s back-and-forth by email about the conditions for this meeting, and agreement is reached for a four-way meeting to include Heath, Randy Maddox (Dean of Faculty, as support for Heath), Griffiths, and Thomas Pfau (as second for Griffiths). That meeting is scheduled for 3/6/17. Shortly before that date Heath cancels with no reason given, and then in short order asks for a new meeting on the same topic, this time with new criteria as to who can be present that rule out Pfau’s participation. Griffiths responds to this change in conditions by saying that he’s happy to meet, but now, given the changes, only under the condition that the meeting should be a one-on-one free exchange between himself and Heath. There’s email back-and-forth about this between Griffiths and Heath, all copied to Maddox. No agreement is reached about conditions for meeting: Griffiths and Heath each have conditions unacceptable to the other. Standoff. No meeting has occurred at the date of this writing. In a hardcopy letter (PDF attached) dated 3/10/17, Heath initiates financial and administrative reprisals against Griffiths. Those reprisals ban him from faculty meetings, and, thereby, from voting in faculty affairs; and promise (contra the conditions stated in his letter of appointment) to ban him from future access to research or travel funds. Heath’s letter contains one material falsehood (item #1 in her letter; the accurate account is here, in this paragraph), together with several disputable interpretive claims. More reprisals are adumbrated, but not specified, in the letter. There that disciplinary procedure for the moment rests.

(2) Discipline initiated by Portier-Young against Griffiths, via the University’s Office for Institutional Equity (OIE). In early March, Griffiths hears by telephone from Cynthia Clinton, an officer of the OIE, that a complaint of harassment has been lodged against him by Portier-Young, the gravamen of which is the use of racist and/or sexist speech in such a way as to constitute a hostile workplace. A meeting is scheduled for 3/20/17 between Griffiths and representatives of the OIE to discuss this allegation. Griffiths requests from the OIE a written version of the allegation, together with its evidentiary support, in advance of the scheduled meeting. This request is declined by Clinton on behalf of the OIE, as appears typical for these proceedings. Griffiths then declines the 3/20/17 meeting, and sends a written statement to the OIE, which is attached. The OIE will, it seems, now draw up a report and submit it to the ‘responsible persons’ in the case, which may include either or both of our Provost, Sally Kornbluth, and our Dean, Elaine Heath. (This may already have happened.) Those persons will then take whatever disciplinary actions they see fit, which may range from nothing to dismissal, with intermediate possibilities. There that disciplinary procedure for the moment rests.

With sincere good wishes to my colleagues, and in hope of better things, fuller transparency, more exchange, an increase in love, and, as always, more light: in lumine tuo videbimus lumen —

Paul.

Insofar as Prof. Griffiths’s account is true — and remember, this is only his side of the controversy — it is beyond a travesty. I applaud him for being willing to speak openly about it, and to name names. This, and the Tuvel affair re: Hypatia, ought to be rousing scholars of the left, right, and center who believe in the mission of the university to stand up, and stand up loud and strong, against these Social Justice Warrior totalitarians. They are destroying the university, and can no longer be tolerated. They are waging war on the very idea of free thought, free speech, and open inquiry. Fight back!

If anybody sees a response from anyone called out in the Griffiths letter, please post it.

Posted in , . Tagged , , .
+++++++++++++

Duke Divinity Crisis: The Documents Are Out

A source at DDS sends me the original e-mail exchanges that have caused the current crisis. Here they are, chronologically presented:

1. On Mon, Feb 6, 2017 at 9:21 AM, Anathea Portier-Young  wrote:

Dear Faculty Colleagues,

On behalf of the Faculty Diversity and Inclusion Standing Committee, I strongly urge you to participate in the Racial Equity Institute Phase I Training planned for March 4 and 5. We have secured funding from the Provost to provide this training free to our community and we hope that this will be a first step in a longer process of working to ensure that DDS is an institution that is both equitable and anti-racist in its practices and culture. While a number of DDS faculty, staff, and students have been able to participate in REI training in recent years, we have never before hosted a training at DDS. Those who have participated in the training have described it as transformative, powerful, and life-changing. We recognize that it is a significant commitment of time; we also believe it will have great dividends for our community. Please find the registration link below. Details about room location will be announced soon.

Duke Divinity School will host a Racial Equity Institute Phase I Training on March 4 and 5, 2017, 8:30—5 pm both days. Participants should plan to attend both full days of training.

“Racism is a fierce, ever-present, challenging force, one which has structured the thinking, behavior, and actions of individuals and institutions since the beginning of U.S. history. To understand racism and effectively begin dismantling it requires an equally fierce, consistent, and committed effort” (REI). Phase I provides foundational training in understanding historical and institutional racism. It helps individuals and organizations begin to “proactively understand and address racism, both in their organization and in the community where the organization is working.” It is the first step in a longer process.

ALL Staff and Faculty are invited to register for this important event by which DDS can begin its own commitment to become an anti-racist institution.

Workshop capacity is 40 participants. Registration is FREE to DDS employees and students.

Snacks, breakfast, and light lunch will be provided. A 7:30 am liturgy will precede the Sunday training for those who wish to participate. Child care can be made available upon request.

2. From Paul Griffiths:

Sent: Monday, February 06, 2017 4:26 PM
To: Anathea Portier-Young
Cc: Divinity Regular Rank Faculty; Divinity Visiting Other Faculty
Subject: Re: Racial Equity Institute Phase I Training–March 4-5

Dear Faculty Colleagues,

I’m responding to Thea’s exhortation that we should attend the Racial Equity Institute Phase 1 Training scheduled for 4-5 March. In her message she made her ideological commitments clear. I’ll do the same, in the interests of free exchange.

I exhort you not to attend this training. Don’t lay waste your time by doing so. It’ll be, I predict with confidence, intellectually flaccid: there’ll be bromides, clichés, and amen-corner rah-rahs in plenty. When (if) it gets beyond that, its illiberal roots and totalitarian tendencies will show. Events of this sort are definitively anti-intellectual. (Re)trainings of intellectuals by bureaucrats and apparatchiks have a long and ignoble history; I hope you’ll keep that history in mind as you think about this instance.

We here at Duke Divinity have a mission. Such things as this training are at best a distraction from it and at worst inimical to it. Our mission is to thnk, read, write, and teach about the triune Lord of Christian confession. This is a hard thing. Each of us should be tense with the effort of it, thrumming like a tautly triple-woven steel thread with the work of it, consumed by the fire of it, ever eager for more of it. We have neither time nor resources to waste. This training is a waste. Please, ignore it. Keep your eyes on the prize.

Paul

——————–
Paul J. Griffiths
Warren Chair of Catholic Theology
Duke Divinity School

On the thread, a couple of DDS professors said that they were actually looking forward to the training. Then the Dean weighed in:

3. From Elaine Heath:

On Behalf Of Elaine Heath, Ph.D.
Sent: Monday, February 06, 2017 8:24 PM
To: Ray Barfield; Mary Fulkerson
Cc: Paul J. Griffiths; Anathea Portier-Young; Divinity Regular Rank Faculty; Divinity Visiting Other Faculty
Subject: Re: Racial Equity Institute Phase I Training–March 4-5

Dear Colleagues,

First, I am looking forward to participating in the REI training, and I am proud that we are hosting it at Duke Divinity School. Thea, thank you for your part in helping us to offer this important event. I am deeply committed to increasing our school’s intellectual strength, spiritual vitality, and moral authority, and this training event will help with all three.

On another matter: It is certainly appropriate to use mass emails to share announcements or information that is helpful to the larger community, such as information about the REI training opportunity. It is inappropriate and unprofessional to use mass emails to make disparaging statements–including arguments ad hominem–in order to humiliate or undermine individual colleagues or groups of colleagues with whom we disagree. The use of mass emails to express racism, sexism, and other forms of bigotry is offensive and unacceptable, especially in a Christian institution.

As St. Paul wrote to the church in Corinth, regardless of how exquisite our gifts are, if we do not exercise them with love our words are just noise.

Sincerely,

Elaine A. Heath, Ph.D.
Dean
Professor of Missional and Pastoral Theology
Divinity School
Duke University

Whoa, whoa, whoa! Do you see “racism, sexism, and other forms of bigotry” in Griffiths’s message to his colleagues? Of course not, because it is not there! Objecting to this training as a waste of time is not racist, sexist, or bigoted in any way!

The next e-mail makes this very point.

4. From Thomas Pfau:

On Behalf Of Thomas Pfau, Ph.D.
Sent: Tuesday, February 07, 2017 12:20 PM
To: Ray Barfield; Mary Fulkerson; Elaine Heath, Ph.D.
Cc: Paul J. Griffiths; Anathea Portier-Young; Divinity Regular Rank Faculty; Divinity Visiting Other Faculty
Subject: Re: Racial Equity Institute Phase I Training–March 4-5

Dear Colleagues:

Until now, I have never inserted myself into discussions internal to the DDS faculty, mainly because mine is a secondary appointment, and because my administrative obligations in Arts & Sciences are plentiful enough. Having greatly enjoyed and benefited from the opportunity to offer upper-level seminars in the Divinity School (and also advising some of the doctoral and MTS students in it), I do greatly care about the intellectual health and generosity of spirit that for much of my time here has characterized the Divinity School.

So it is with deep care and enduring concern for an institution that over the years has become something of an intellectual asylum for me that I am now writing to offer a few thoughts on the email exchange below. My principal hope is to help us avoid slipping into merely polarizing views, with the steadily diminishing analytic yield that such a development typically entails.

When I read Paul Griffiths’ email, I found myself fundamentally in agreement with his observations, and my agreement was not one of mere opinion or conjecture but very much steeped in first-hand experience as Director of Undergraduate Studies and Director of Graduate Studies in two departments and, currently, as department chair. For all these responsibilities have repeatedly brought me into direct contact with initiatives like the one about which Paul expresses such strong reservations. While other colleagues may have a less jaundiced appraisal of these efforts, it is demonstrably true that initiatives of the kind that prompted the present discussion have of late been proliferating at Duke to a degree s that one may well regard with concern and misgivings for multiple reasons. As I read Paul Griffiths’ note, I took him to demur not at the goal that the proposed training is meant to advance, viz., to ensure practices free of bias and mindful of equity. Rather, he challenges the assumption that, merely for the asking, faculty ought be to give up significant chunks of time for the purposes of undergoing “training” in these areas.

Now, given the recent change in leadership in the DDS, it might be appropriate to offer some broader institutional perspective here.
Having worked at Duke for a long time for twenty-six years now, I have witnessed first hand a dramatic increase demands made on faculty time by administration-driven initiatives fundamentally unrelated to the intellectual work for which faculty were recruited by Duke. A seemingly endless string of surveys, memos, and “training sessions” is by now a familiar reality for most faculty, and it is an altogether inescapable entailment (as I well know) of chairing a department or program, serving on a hiring committee, or chairing a review.

So if faculty members choose to say in public (as Paul Griffiths has just done) what so many are saying in private, one might at the very least want to listen to and engage their concerns, especially if one holds sharply opposed views. Any academic unit, DDS included, can only flourish if differences of opinion on any variety of subjects are respected and engaged on their intrinsic merits. Having reviewed Paul Griffiths’ note several times, I find nothing in it that could even remotely be said to “express racism, sexism, and other forms of bigotry.” To suggest anything of the sort strikes me as either gravely imperceptive or as intellectually dishonest. Instead, if a faculty member raises serious doubts about the efficacy and methods of an initiative aimed at combating racial and other kinds of bias – and about the ways in which such training manifestly encroaches on the time faculty need to pursue their primary mission of teaching and research – then this view ought as a matter of course be respected as a legitimate exercise of judgment and expression. And while Paul Griffiths casts his criticisms in harsh terms, it would be nothing less than politically coercive and intellectually irresponsible to imply that his statement amounts to an “expression of racism.”

If DDS wishes to remain a vibrant intellectual community, then all kinds of different perspectives must be engaged analytically and in good faith, as propositions and judgments warranting earnest scrutiny rather than facile condemnation. To tar communications such as the one that Paul Griffiths has shared with the faculty as politically retrograde, let alone to contemplate institutional sanctions, is to take an alarmingly illiberal approach that, ironically, will end up confirming at least some of Paul Griffiths’s criticisms regarding the proposed initiative. Those struggling to grasp the difference between honest engagement and institutional censorship ought to revisit Herbert Marcuse’s account of “repressive tolerance.”

So I hope that in the matter at hand and on similar occasions, all concerned parties, and the leadership of DDS in particular, will allow calm reflection and intellectual engagement to prevail.

Sincerely,

Thomas Pfau

Thomas Pfau
Alice Mary Baldwin Professor of English
Professor & Chair of Germanic Languages & Literatures
Member – Duke Divinity School Faculty

5. This led to Paul Griffiths’s following e-mail to his colleagues, which he authorized for wide distribution. I have taken the names of other Duke professors out of this excerpt:

Subject: intellectual freedom & institutional discipline at Duke Divinity School

Dear Faculty Colleagues,

 

Intellectual freedom – freedom to speak and write without fear of discipline and punishment – is under pressure at Duke Divinity these days. My own case illustrates this. Over the past year or so I’ve spoken and written in various public forums here, with as much clarity and energy as I can muster, about matters relevant to our life together. The matters I’ve addressed include: the vocation and purpose of our school; the importance of the intellectual virtues to our common life; the place that seeking diversity among our faculty should have in that common life; the nature of racial, ethnic, and gender identities, and whether there’s speech about certain topics forbidden to some among those identities; and the nature and purpose of theological education. I’ve reviewed these contributions, to the extent that I can (some of them are available only in memory), and I’m happy with them and stand behind them. They’re substantive; they’re trenchant; and they address matters of importance for our common life. So it seems to me. What I’ve argued in these contributions may of course be wrong; that’s a feature of the human condition.

My speech and writing about these topics has now led to two distinct (but probably causally related) disciplinary procedures against me, one instigated by Elaine Heath, our Dean, and the other instigated by Thea Portier-Young, our colleague. I give at the end of this message a bare-bones factual account of these disciplinary proceedings to date.

These disciplinary proceedings are designed not to engage and rebut the views I hold and have expressed about the matters mentioned, but rather to discipline me for having expressed them. Elaine Heath and Thea Portier-Young, when faced with disagreement, prefer discipline to argument. In doing so they act illiberally and anti-intellectually; their action shows totalitarian affinities in its preferred method, which is the veiled use of institutional power. They appeal to non- or anti-intellectual categories (‘unprofessional conduct’ in Heath’s case; ‘harassment’ in Portier-Young’s) to short-circuit disagreement. All this is shameful, and I call them out on it.

Heath and Portier-Young aren’t alone among us in showing these tendencies. The convictions that some of my colleagues hold about justice for racial, ethnic, and gender minorities have led them to attempt occupation of a place of unassailably luminous moral probity. That’s a utopia, and those who seek it place themselves outside the space of reason. Once you’ve made that move, those who disagree with you inevitably seem corrupt and dangerous, better removed than argued with, while you seem to yourself beyond criticism. What you do then is discipline your opponents. The contributions to our common life made by, inter alia, Chuck Campbell, Jay Carter, and Valerie Cooper exhibit these tendencies. I call them out too. I hope that they, together with Heath and Portier-Young, will reconsider, repent, make public apology to me and our colleagues for the damage done, and re-dedicate themselves to the life of the mind which is, because of their institutional location, their primary professional vocation. That life requires openness, transparency, and a willingness to engage. I commend all these things to them, and hope devoutly that they come to see their importance more clearly than they now do..

I’m making public the following narrative of these disciplinary proceedings under the pressure of three closely-associated thoughts. The first thought is that several more or less inaccurate versions of these events are already in circulation among us in the form of gossip; full and accurate disclosure is always better than gossip. The second thought is about responsibility. I’m happy to take full responsibility for my contributions to our common life at Duke Divinity. Those contributions have all been public, as is this message. But responsibility requires publicity. Heath’s and Portier-Young’s disciplinary proceedings are not public: they’re veiled, and accompanied by threats of reprisal if unveiled. I’d like them to take responsibility for what they’re doing, and so I’m making it public. The third thought is about the kind of confidence in speech (and writing) whose opposite is fear. Duke Divinity is now a place in which too many thoughts can’t be spoken and too many disagreements remain veiled because of fear. I commend a renunciation of fear-based discipline to those who deploy and advocate it, and its replacement with confidence in speech. That would be appropriate not only to our life together in a university-related Divinity School, but also to our life together as disciples of Jesus Christ.

the disciplinary actions

What follows, under (1) and (2), is a bare-bones factual account of the disciplinary procedures to date, together with two attachments. It may be useful to know that there’s a good deal of recent literature on the nature of university-based disciplinary proceedings like the ones I’m about to describe. I recommend, from quite different angles, Jon Krakauer’s Missoula (2015), and Laura Kipnis’s Unwanted Advances (2017). These books, with distinct agendas, agree that there are deep moral, legal, and procedural problems with university-based Title IX disciplinary procedures. These include, but aren’t limited to, their attempt to control speech and conduct by stifling expression; and their contempt for due process. It may also be useful to know that I’m not alone among Duke Divinity faculty in currently being, or having in the recent past been, subjected to discipline along these lines. I call upon those involved to share the details with us.

(1) Discipline initiated by Heath against Griffiths. In February 2017, Heath contacts Griffiths and asks for an appointment in which she’ll communicate her expectations for professional conduct at Duke Divinity. There’s back-and-forth by email about the conditions for this meeting, and agreement is reached for a four-way meeting to include Heath, Randy Maddox (Dean of Faculty, as support for Heath), Griffiths, and Thomas Pfau (as second for Griffiths). That meeting is scheduled for 3/6/17. Shortly before that date Heath cancels with no reason given, and then in short order asks for a new meeting on the same topic, this time with new criteria as to who can be present that rule out Pfau’s participation. Griffiths responds to this change in conditions by saying that he’s happy to meet, but now, given the changes, only under the condition that the meeting should be a one-on-one free exchange between himself and Heath. There’s email back-and-forth about this between Griffiths and Heath, all copied to Maddox. No agreement is reached about conditions for meeting: Griffiths and Heath each have conditions unacceptable to the other. Standoff. No meeting has occurred at the date of this writing. In a hardcopy letter (PDF attached) dated 3/10/17 [see below — RD], Heath initiates financial and administrative reprisals against Griffiths. Those reprisals ban him from faculty meetings, and, thereby, from voting in faculty affairs; and promise (contra the conditions stated in his letter of appointment) to ban him from future access to research or travel funds. Heath’s letter contains one material falsehood (item #1 in her letter; the accurate account is here, in this paragraph), together with several disputable interpretive claims. More reprisals are adumbrated, but not specified, in the letter. There that disciplinary procedure for the moment rests.

(2) Discipline initiated by Portier-Young against Griffiths, via the University’s Office for Institutional Equity (OIE). In early March, Griffiths hears by telephone from Cynthia Clinton, an officer of the OIE, that a complaint of harassment has been lodged against him by Portier-Young, the gravamen of which is the use of racist and/or sexist speech in such a way as to constitute a hostile workplace. A meeting is scheduled for 3/20/17 between Griffiths and representatives of the OIE to discuss this allegation. Griffiths requests from the OIE a written version of the allegation, together with its evidentiary support, in advance of the scheduled meeting. This request is declined by Clinton on behalf of the OIE, as appears typical for these proceedings. Griffiths then declines the 3/20/17 meeting, and sends a written statement to the OIE, which is attached [see below — RD]. The OIE will, it seems, now draw up a report and submit it to the ‘responsible persons’ in the case, which may include either or both of our Provost, Sally Kornbluth, and our Dean, Elaine Heath. (This may already have happened.) Those persons will then take whatever disciplinary actions they see fit, which may range from nothing to dismissal, with intermediate possibilities. There that disciplinary procedure for the moment rests.

​With sincere good wishes to my colleagues, and in hope of better things, fuller transparency, more exchange, an increase in love, and, as always, more light: in lumine tuo videbimus lumen —

Paul.

6. I published the No. 5 letter a couple of days ago, but I did not then have the documents to which Paul Griffiths referred. Now I do, and I publish those texts below. 

In this one, I present a photocopy of the hard copy letter that Dean Heath sent to Prof. Griffiths, but broken into two images — this, to prevent Prof. Griffiths’s home address from being shown here, on this website:

Here is the second piece of correspondence cited by Griffiths in his No. 5 letter. It is written by him, sent to the university’s Office for Institutional Equity:

Thanks for your reply. I regret that you won’t provide further details of the complaint before our meeting scheduled for the 20th.

I’ve reviewed the written record of my interactions with the complainant over the last twelve months or so, together with what I can reconstruct in memory of spoken interactions in faculty meetings and suchlike.

That review has led me to the conclusion that I’ve done nothing other than express, with as much clarity, force, consistency, and precision as I can, argued opinions about the governance, priorities, purposes, and future of Duke Divinity School. I find nothing to repent of in those interactions, and nothing that can reasonably be considered harassment according to the definition provided in your office’s document outlining policies and procedures. Much less can anything in them be considered harassment based on considerations of race or gender, which I understand from our telephone conversation to be the gravamen.

The complainant’s allegation, so far as I understand it from your brief report, is illiberal, anti-intellectual, and shameful. It is, on the face of it, an attempt to constrain speech by blunt force rather than by free exchange. I’m entirely happy to stand on the record of my exchanges with the complainant, and with other colleagues. I’m confident that any reasonable judge of those exchanges will see them for what they are. I will not, however, further defend anything I’ve said against the kind of complaint you’ve communicated to me. I therefore won’t participate further in the procedure initiated by the complainant and pursued by your office. To do so would be inappropriately to dignify a procedure that has no place in the life of a university. And so I won’t attend the meeting scheduled for the 20th.

I understand that you must do your job as you have to and as you see fit. I hope you’ll see that I’m doing mine as I have to and as I see fit. This is a matter of conscience for me, as it ought to be for anyone committed to the fundamental values of university life.

That’s where the story stands now.

As I see it, Prof. Pfau is right: there is nothing remotely racist, sexist, or bigoted about Paul Griffiths strongly criticizing the anti-racism training. He might be wrong in his judgment about the training — I don’t think he is at all, but he might be — but at real universities, a professor has the right to be wrong. To subject Prof. Griffiths to this absurd disciplinary process on such ideological premises is an outrage. It is, as he calls it, “illiberal, anti-intellectual, and shameful.”

Good on Paul Griffiths for making this public (and by the way, I have not been in contact with him; he did not send me anything.) Duke Divinity School must be held to account — and future students there should know what kind of institution it has become under its current leadership before committing themselves to it.

UPDATE: According to a source close to Griffiths, he has resigned, effective at the end of the 2017-18 academic year.

UPDATE.2: Commenter “Recent DDS Grad” says:

I’m a recent graduate of DDS, and while this story saddens me, it doesn’t really surprise me. I agree with others that Dr. Griffiths should have thought better of sending such an incendiary email, but I can understand why he did, because I thought the environment at DDS concerning racism was totalitarian and oppressive. I am a white female, and I was second-career student with about 15 years of experience in the corporate world. What I saw was way worse than the corporate world. While I was there, the university had a series of escalating incidents of racism. I found it hard to believe that Duke University had more overt racists than anywhere I’ve ever lived, including some really redneck places. In a discussion about the racist incidents with some other Div School students, I said that perhaps the way we were responding to the incidents was hurting rather than helping, because after every incident the black students would make public announcements about how hurt and afraid and rejected they felt, and then everyone would hatch plans to re-educate the whole university on issues of racism. I suggested that instead perhaps we should respond to the perpetrators like we would a bully, with strength and confidence and even defiance, to show them they didn’t have power over anyone. You would have thought I had suggested we start a chapter of the KKK. They made it clear I was a horrible person in denial of the harsh realities of racism for suggesting such a thing, and I learned to keep my mouth shut. It appears to me that what’s going on is that they’re playing roles in a perverse drama, in which everyone so enjoys their own role that they don’t want the drama to end. The Bullies enjoy seeing how others react to their bullying; the Victims enjoy having everyone rush to their side to reassure them of their worth; and the Saviors enjoy the moral high ground of condemning the Bullies and comforting the Victims. I was so glad to get away from all that.

Please don’t publish my name. I don’t need more people thinking I’m a horrible person.

Readers, I know the name of this commenter, and verified that she graduated from DDS.

Posted in , , , . Tagged , .
Posted in Uncategorized | Comments Off on IT ALL DEPENDS ON WHOSE OX IS BEING GORED; HAVE YOU CHECKED ON YOUR OXEN LATELY ??? OR ARE YOU BORED WITH THIS WHOLE GORING QUESTION?

LO! THE HYPOCRISY! BLACK IS WHITE AND WHITE IS BLACK! GOOD IS EVIL AND EVIL IS GOOD! GOD IS AND GOD IS NOT!

imam

Settimo Cielodi Sandro Magister 

08 mag 

Islamic Criticism Against Al-Azhar. The Other Side of Francis’s Journey To Egypt

 

One week after the visit of Pope Francis to Egypt, much has been said about what he did. But little about what happened on the other shore, that of Islam.

What held sway here was the speech of the grand imam of Al-Azhar, the sheikh Ahmad Al-Tayyib, delivered in Arabic and presented in full in the official English version, on this other page:

> “His Holiness Pope Francis of Vatican…”

Unlike Francis, who in his speech immediately afterward attributed the violence carried out in the name of religion to an “idolatrous falsification of God,” with nonexplicit but transparent reference to terrorism and wars of Islamic origin, Al-Tayyib maintained that there is “no one logical reason justifying these disasters” if not “arms trade and marketing,” plus the oblivion that “modern civilization” has cast over the “divine religions and their invariably established ethics.”

Al-Tayyib therefore denied that there is any foundation in attributing to Islam the terrorist acts perpetrated in its name, solely for the reason that there are “small groups of followers” that are carrying them out, because then, he added, the same accusation would hit Christianity and Judaism, they too with followers who sow death “carrying the cross” or “the teachings of Moses.”

Now, what is important to note is that these statements of the grand imam of Al-Azhar did not pass untouched by criticism from some of his coreligionists.

The most biting commentary came from an Egyptian Muslim intellectual, Islam Al-Behairy, sentenced to one year in prison for his previous criticism of Al-Azhar but then pardoned by President Abd Al-Fattah Al-Sisi, who also burst out two years ago into a resounding attack on what is the most famous university of Sunni Islam, which he had enjoined to undertake as soon as possible a “religious revolution” capable of “uprooting” the fanaticism of Islam in order to “replace it with a more enlightened vision of the world.”

Al-Behairy presented his criticisms of the grand imam of Al-Azhar in an interview with “Asia News,” the online agency of the Pontifical Institute for Foreign Missions:

> For Islam Al-Behairy, pope’s visit, a missed opportunity for Al-Azhar

For him, Al-Tayyib’s explanations are pseudo-reasons, blaming Islamic terrorism on arms trafficking and postmodern thought:

“If the reasons for religious terrorism are postmodern ideas and arms trafficking, we live in the dream world. There are in fact texts in our classical jurisprudence that incite violence. We see people blowing themselves up, killing dozens of people, because they have read texts that give them carte blanche to kill anyone, and this for the simple reason that they have an unshakable faith that they are doing the right thing for God, immolating themselves and killing many other people along the way. This is not just about arms trafficking. I call upon the Egyptian government to review meticulously the views of Sheikh Al-Tayeb. Because according to his way of thinking, the State will never be able to put an end to the violence.”

And again:

“I call on Al-Azhar to stop showing to the world books written by certain medieval imams, which it sells as the legacy of true Islam. Because what is in these books is what Daesh does literally, to the last comma. If sheikh Al-Tayyib really wants to counter what is happening, he would listen to those who ask him to re-read these texts and say that what is in them does not correspond to the truth. Past imams hurt our people, the image of Islam, and even the relations of Islam with other religions. But the sheikh does not want to talk about a new interpretation. He is fiercely opposed it and goes after those who favour it. In fact, he is a source of perpetual contradiction. In a statement addressed to the West, he says that Islam does not call for killing apostates. But in Egypt, he lets himself say that Islam encourages to do so.”

There is an arresting similarity between these criticisms of Al-Behairy against Al-Azhar and those formulated in the run-up to Pope Francis’s journey by two Egyptian Jesuits thoroughly familiar with this subject, Frs. Henri Boulad and Samir Khalil Samir, in two interviews with “L’Osservatore Romano” and “Asia News,” both of them reprinted by Settimo Cielo.

Al-Tayyib’s record is in effect full of contradictions.

He was in 2007 one of the signers of the famous “letter of 138 Muslim scholars” to Benedict XVI in dialogical response to his lecture in Regensburg. But he is also the one who at the beginning of 2011 broke off relations between Al-Azhar university and the Holy See solely because Benedict XVI had publicly prayed for the dozens of victims of the new year’s attack on the Coptic church of Saints Mark and Peter in Alexandria, Egypt.

He has repeatedly been an honored guest at the interreligious meetings for peace organized by the Community of Sant’Egidio. But he is also the one who in 2004, at one of these meetings, gave public approval of the terrorist acts carried out in Israel against civilians, including children.

He is the one who, when ISIS in 2015 killed a captured Jordanian pilot by burning him to death in the town square, condemned that act as “not Islamic.” But in compensation he decreed that those assassins “must be killed, crucified and amputated of feet and hands.”

Given these precedents, it comes as no surprise that Al-Behairy should declare himself skeptical over the international conference for peace organized at Al-Azhar by grand imam Al-Tayyib in conjunction with the pope’s visit:

“This peace conference leads nowhere. There is nothing specific about the fight against terrorism. It is a comedy far from reality.”

Just as there is still nothing like acceptance – except by a few isolated pioneers – for the revolutionary proposal that Benedict XVI issued to the Islamic world in December of 2006, three months after Regensburg.

A proposal of extraordinary relevance, but one that has fallen too far into oblivion, even within the Catholic Church. One more reason to reread it in its entirety:

“The Muslim world today finds itself facing an extremely urgent task that is very similar to the one that was imposed upon Christians beginning in the age of the Enlightenment, and that Vatican Council II, through long and painstaking effort, resolved concretely for the Catholic Church. […]

“On the one hand, we must oppose a dictatorship of positivist reasoning that excludes God from the life of the community and from the public order, thus depriving man of his specific criteria of judgment.

“On the other hand, it is necessary to welcome the real achievements of Enlightenment thinking – human rights, and especially the freedom of faith and its exercise, recognizing these as elements that are also essential for the authenticity of religion. Just as in the Christian community there has been lengthy inquiry into the right attitude of faith toward these convictions – an inquiry that certainly will never be concluded definitively – so also the Islamic world, with its own tradition, stands before the great task of finding the appropriate solutions in this regard.

“The content of the dialogue between Christians and Muslims at the moment is above all that of encountering each other in this effort to find the right solutions. We Christians feel ourselves to be united with all those who, precisely on the basis of their religious convictions as Muslims, struggle against violence and in favor of synergy between faith and reason, between religion and freedom.”

(English translation by Matthew Sherry, Ballwin, Missouri, U.S.A.)

Posted in Uncategorized | Comments Off on LO! THE HYPOCRISY! BLACK IS WHITE AND WHITE IS BLACK! GOOD IS EVIL AND EVIL IS GOOD! GOD IS AND GOD IS NOT!

SIGNS OF THE TIMES: READ THEM AND WEEP, OR ACT, IF YOU KNOW HOW TO WRITE A LETTER, OR SIGH AND GO BACK TO SLEEP

c28e4-islamic-state-beheads-copts-0215

“The Growing Epidemic of Religious Hostility in Our (the US) Military” April 26, 2017

Posted by Tantumblogo in asshatery, disaster, error, foolishness, General Catholic, paganism, persecution, Revolution, scandals, secularism, self-serving, sexual depravity, sickness, Society.
trackback

Two bits of data on the Left’s continued, and almost entirely successful, even unopposed, long march through the institutions.  The Air Force of men like Jack Broughton, Ed Rasimus, Bill Lloyd, Dick Jonas, Robin Olds, and Chappie James is long, long gone.  Even 20 years ago, most leadership in USAF were outwardly conservative and Christian, most often devout evangelicals.  After a deliberate program of de-Christianization and secularization, which reached new heights during the Obama administration, the Air Force today, like all the services, is simply one more vehicle for the advance of the godless amoral secular leftist agenda.  Unless one feels called to (and able to meet the stringent standards of) a top-tier special forces type career field, joining the US military today is a fool’s errand where anti-Chrisitan and amoral indoctrination reigns, where one is often judged less on the basis of merit but most often on whether you fall into one of the many favored categories (categories which happen to align, magically!, with the core elements of the leftist political coalition).

In other words, what we are seeing is a revolution in slow motion, where a previous ruling elite is replaced by another, hostile elite, all for the benefit of a particular political agenda.

First story up, a 26 year bird colonel flight surgeon at Lackland in San Antonio suddenly, in June 2016, got slapped with a career-ending reprimand not from his CO, but from someone very high up in his chain of command (the vice commander of Air Education and Training Command), over an incident that ostensibly occurred more than two y ears earlier.  Sound fishy?  It is:

First Liberty Institute has sent a letter to the Air Force demanding the reversal of punitive actions taken against Col Michael Madrid for expressing his religious beliefs about sexuality.

In 2014, one of then-LtCol Madrid’s subordinates — who was in the middle of being court-martialed — accused Col Madrid of

“engaging in demeaning and derogatory behavior toward [the subordinate] based on [the subordinate’s] sexual orientation” thus “creat[ing] a hostile work environment.” [the court martial concerned an enlisted member  in Madrid’s section who developed an addiction to prescription pain killers.  When caught and court martialed for being high on duty, he started making wild accusations, including this one, to try to get out of the court martial]

Besides the troubled circumstances of the initial complaint, it is also notable that it was a blanket complaint (and apparently a first complaint) covering the prior 15 months, not any specific incident.

As a result of the complaint, Col Madrid’s Group Commander at FE Warren AFB, Wyoming, Col Hans Ritschard, initiated a Commander Directed Investigation.

In March 2014, the two-week CDI determined the allegations were “unsubstantiated,” and Col Madrid’s commander agreed.

That should have been the end of the story.

More than a year later (June 2015), Col Madrid had been promoted to full Colonel and had moved to San Antonio to serve in Air Education and Training Command Headquarters. Somewhere in that time, MajGen John McCoy became an acting Vice Commander of AETC.

On 29 June 2016 — more than a year after moving to San Antonio and more than two years after the CDI was closed — MajGen McCoy issued Col Madrid a Letter of Admonishment for a statement he made during the CDI conducted at FE Warren. He reportedly also intended to establish a further punitive Unfavorable Information File (UIF) but never did so……..

……….how did MajGen McCoy even know about the CDI? By their very nature, CDIs are not supposed to be millstones around the necks of their subjects for the rest of their careers — particularly when the allegations are “unsubstantiated.” (In fact, it requires a very specific approval process — and a legal “need to know” — to even see a CDI.) And once he did know about it, for what reason was he motivated to review it? Col Madrid had already served at AETC HQ for more than a year, and two years had passed since the CDI had ended. Why now?

First Liberty has an idea:

Attorneys at First Liberty are concerned that the reason the case was dredged up once closed is because the Air Force is unduly focused on political correctness and targeting people with beliefs who don’t fit the progressive mold.

“We are concerned that Major General McCoy judged and punished Madrid – a decorated Air Force officer – because he became aware of Colonel Madrid’s traditional religious views,” Berry added. “If so, that not only harms the military, but it is illegal.”

So this is probably the 20th or 25th such case I’ve read concerning individuals in the Air Force being targeted for holding Christian beliefs in the past 2-3 years.  I have done at least 10 posts on the subject in that period, all involving different cases, and I know there were 2-3 cases I stumbled on for everyone I posted.

This has all the appearance of being a newly exaltant political movement searching out and persecuting as many ideological adversaries as it can find.  Again, such persecution was highly institutionalized during the Obamanation.

Second case, Obama apparatchiks still populating DoD have nominated  the first open lesbian to be commandant of the Air Force Academy.  This lesbian woman presently commands the 2nd BW at Barksdale (in spite having no previous experience with B-52s) after holding a very cushy position in the Pentagon where she got to hobnob with numerous Obama appointees.  AFA provides the core of the Air Force’s officers and was, for a very long time, a hub of evangelical Christianity.  That had its pluses and minuses, but it is being plainly remade into a secular pagan institution:

An open lesbian has been chosen to be the next commandant of the U.S. Air Force Academy, according to a USAF Academy report and other media.

Col. Kristin Goodwin has a “wife” and two children. She will take charge of the USAF Academy pending approval by the U.S. Senate. If approved, she likely will assume her new position in May. That is usually a formality, but conservative opposition to her appointment might make it less so.

Air Force Academy alumnus and former Navy Chaplain Gordon James (“Chaps”) Klingenschmitt, a conservative activist, is urging concerned citizens to call their U.S. senators to oppose Goodwin’s nomination to lead the USAF cadets.

Klingenschmitt, who heads the Pray in Jesus Name Project, told LifeSiteNews that Goodwin’s appointment under a Trump presidency is part of a “deep state problem of Obama’s appointments remaining in office while the Senate drags its feet to confirm Donald Trump’s appointments to replace them.”

“Obama’s bureaucrats in the Pentagon are still running the show,” Klingenschmitt said. “Obama is gone. Why does he still have this power?”…….

………According to the article, “Goodwin served in several high-level leadership positions, including vice commander of the 59th Bomb Wing at Whiteman Air Force Base, Missouri; commander of the 2nd Bomb Wing at Barksdale AFB, Louisiana; and senior military adviser to the secretary of the Air Force at the Pentagon. … She’s also a veteran pilot who has flown B-2 Spirit, the EC-130h compass Call, the C-130 Hercules, and other aircraft.” [That is what one calls being picked and groomed.  From C-130s to vice commander of the premiere bomb wing in the Air Force (flying B-2s, necessitating a type conversion), to about THE most politically advantageous role an officer can get (adviser to the civilian SECAF) – this is a wholly political move.  People like her don’t happen, they are made. She may even wind up CoSUSAF at some point.  I wouldn’t doubt it.]

Some folks are raving about this appointment, saying that (now) General Goodwin is a committed warrior and a stand-up leader who doesn’t inculcate her ideology on those under her command. That would make her different from some of her colleagues of similar proclivity – including a former commander at Lackland AFB who conducted witch hunts against hardcore Christians.  There was another at Patrick AFB who was apparently similar, banning Bibles from public spaces.

I think it’s very sad.  In secular coverage of this proposed change of command, support for Goodwin is overwhelming from those in and out of uniform (the comments at Air Force Times were especially disheartening).  Trump or no Trump, more and more souls are, consciously or not, surrendering to the leftist sexular pagan zeitgeist that unnatural vices are fine, that it’s just a small accident of someone’s personality (after we were sold for decades that we MUST grant them rights for this CORE element of their being), that so long as they do a good and fair job what does it matter?

It matters because character matters.  Because honor matters.  Because this woman, who has chosen a totally sterile form of sexual expression, insisted on using artificial means to create two new lives she could pretend rounded our her pretended marriage.  Those children are denied the father they have a right to experience and learn from.  Because our principal enemies, the islamists, see from things like this a totally decadent and depraved society that deserves to die, and they are further emboldened in their efforts.  And because this role is fundamentally different from other commands, it involves education as its principal mission, and more than education, the installation of virtues suitable for those who will command others in combat.  This woman is wholly unsuited to be a role model because of the lifestyle she has chosen.

But mostly I oppose it because it is wrong. It will remain wrong even if I am the last person alive who knows it is so.  It will remain wrong forever because Our Lord created us to be fruitful and not to cast our seed on barren ground or engage in filthy acts.  You cannot support sodomy (or abortion, or many other things) without making a mockery of Christianity and God Himself.

Posted in Uncategorized | Comments Off on SIGNS OF THE TIMES: READ THEM AND WEEP, OR ACT, IF YOU KNOW HOW TO WRITE A LETTER, OR SIGH AND GO BACK TO SLEEP

THE LORD IS MY SHEPHERD, I SHALL NOT WANT, THAT IS, IF I LISTEN TO THE VOICE OF THE LORD AND NOT THE FALSE SHEPHERDS WHO HAVE GAINED ACCESS TO THE SHEEPFOLD

An Interview with George Neumayr, Author of The Political Pope

PinterestPocket

Editor’s Note: On 2 May, George Neumayr’s book, The Political Pope: How Pope Francis is Delighting the Liberal Left and Abandoning Conservatives, was published. OnePeterFive reached out to him, and he kindly gave us an interview. George Neumayr also gave us permission to publish Chapter One of his book, which we post here below, right after the interview itself. We strongly encourage our readers to support George Neumayr’s courageous book by buying it. It is available on Amazon.

 

Maike Hickson: What inspired you to write a book on Pope Francis?

George Neumayr: From the first moment I saw him, I knew that he was going to be a Modernist wrecking ball, and he struck me from the beginning as the prototypical “progressive” Jesuit. I knew it was an extremely bad sign that the Church would name the first Jesuit pope at the very moment the Jesuit Order was in its most corrupt and heterodox condition. I knew it was going to be a distressingly historic pontificate, and from the first moment of Francis’ papacy I began thinking that his pontificate would be a good subject for a book. As it unfolded, it became clearer and clearer that someone need to chronicle this consequentially chaotic pontificate.

MH: You studied at the Jesuit University of San Francisco. What was your first response when you saw and heard Pope Francis, the first Jesuit Pope in the Church’s history?

GN: Having gone to a Jesuit university, I am very familiar with the flakes and frauds that populate that order. When I heard the pope, in the first few months of his pontificate, engage in non-stop left-wing babble, it reminded me of all the nonsense that I heard as a student from similar “progressive” Jesuits. The program of Francis was so obviously set to promote political liberalism while downplaying doctrine; that was the formula of trendy and empty Catholicism that I saw on display at the Jesuit University of San Francisco.

MH: What approach did you take in order to be able to make a proportionate characterization of Pope Francis as pope in his actions and words?

GN: I went back and looked at his time at Buenos Aires, Argentina, at his formation in the Jesuit Order, I read all of his available speeches and writings – when he was a bishop, before he was pope; I read all the existing biographies about him; I talked to Latin American priests, I talked to Jesuits, I talked to Vatican officials, I talked to Catholic activists and Catholic academics and canon lawyers. Given the sensitivity of the topic, most of the people were only willing to speak anonymously with me. I tried to look at all the salient news items that relate to Bergoglio, before he was pope and when he was pope.

MH: What is the main conclusion of your research?

GN: The undeniable conclusion is that the Catholic Church is suffering under a bad pope and that the cardinals must address this crisis.

MH: How do you describe in your book the political worldview of Pope Francis? In which fields of politics does he show his left-leaning tendencies?

GN: Pope Francis is a product of political leftism and theological Modernism. His mind has been shaped by all of the post-enlightenment heresies and ideologies from Marx to Freud to Darwin. He is the realization of Cardinal Carlo Martini’s vision of a Modernist Church that conforms to the heresies of the Enlightenment. On almost all intellectual fronts, Francis is a follower of the Modernist school. He is a student of Modernist Biblical Scholarship, which can be seen in his ludicrous interpretation of certain passages from the Gospel: such as the time when he described the miracle of the multiplication of the loaves and fishes as a metaphor and not a miracle. On more than one occasion, he said that it was not a miracle but a lesson in sharing: “This is the miracle: rather than a multiplication it is a sharing, inspired by faith and prayer. Everyone eats and some is left over: it is the sign of Jesus, the Bread of God for humanity.”

MH: Do you think that Pope Francis, in his more political statements, misuses his office as Head of the Catholic Church?

GN: Yes, this pontificate is a blatant example of out-of-control clericalism. Pope Francis is using the pulpit of the papacy, not to present the teachings of the Church, but, rather, to promote his personal political agenda.

MH: Are his political statements in line with Catholic teaching?

GN: Many of his statements are not in line with the Church’s teaching, as I document in the book. Pope Francis is the worst teacher of the Faith in the history of the Catholic Church. One could not trust him to teach an elementary school religion class.

MH: When describing Pope Francis as a more left-leaning man, could you give us evidence for that? Which Marxist authors for example did he admire or approve of? Which political figures of the left are admired by him?

GN: I speak about this at the beginning of the book. His mentor was Esther Ballestrino de Careaga who was a very fervent Communist. Francis has acknowledged that he had teachers who were Communists who influenced him. I point out in my book that he also met with the widow of Paulo Freire, the author of the book The Pedagogy of the Oppressed which is a classic of the Socialist left in Latin America.

MH: Which practical acts as pope show that Pope Francis actively supports Marxist or revolutionary movements?

GN: I document in the book all of the liberation theologians whom Pope Francis has rehabilitated. Leonardo Boff is at the top of the list. He is an openly Socialist priest who left the priesthood but who is now in the good graces of the Vatican so much so that he was a counselor to the papal encyclical Laudato si. He also reinstated to the priesthood the Communist priest Miguel d’Escoto Brockmann from Nicaragua who is still in touch with President Daniel Ortega. That priest has now resumed his Communist polemics.

MH: How would you describe Pope Francis’ moral teaching in relation with his political teaching? Is there a parallel between his political and moral liberalism?

GN: He pays homage to the moral relativism and socialism that are at the heart of the global left. It is no coincidence that his signature phrases have been “Who am I to judge” and “Inequality is the root of all evil.” He is a darling of the global left because he is advancing many of the items of their agenda, such as climate-change activism, open borders, and abolition of lifetime imprisonment (a position still so far left that not even the U.S. Democrats take that position). He is a spokesman for gun control, for world government, for the redistribution of wealth by central planners. The pope is pandering to the willfulness inherent in liberalism which takes both the form of moral relativism and a form of a “virtue signaling” socialism. He gratifies the liberals’ egos by offering them a pontificate of “virtue signaling” without any teaching of actual virtue. In other words, liberals like to appear good but not be good. And a pontificate which combines political liberalism with moral or doctrinal relativism agrees with their self-indulgent politics. They also like a dash of non-threatening spirituality in their politics which a Jesuit dilettante from Latin America provides them with.

MH: You talk in your book also about Pope Francis’ apostolic exhortation, Amoris Laetitia. Is this document in line with Catholic teaching as it has been always taught by the Catholic Church?

GN: Amoris Laetitia is one of the most scandalous documents in the history of the Church. Pope Francis gives an obvious wink and a nod to adulterers in footnote 329 of that document (“In such situations, many [divorced and “remarried”] people, knowing and accepting the possibility of living ‘as brothers and sisters’ which the Church offers them, point out that if certain expressions of intimacy are lacking, it often happens that faithfulness is endangered and the good of the children suffers.”). In my book, I speak about the intentional ambiguity of that document and that Archbishop Bruno Forte, who helped to write the draft of the 2014 Synod on the Family, had acknowledged the deviousness of the document and said that it was typical of a Jesuit; and that Pope Francis himself had told Forte at the time that, if they had explicitly endorsed adultery, it would have caused a backlash, and, so, they had to introduce this topic into the Synod document more subtly.

MH: Are there other fields of Catholic teaching where you would say that Pope Francis departs from orthodoxy?

GN: Pope Francis is subverting the Church’s teaching on divorce and thereby subverting teaching on many of the Sacraments such as Marriage, Penance, Holy Eucharist, Holy Orders. He is subverting the Church’s sacramental theology. I chronicle in my book many of his subversions of Church teaching, from his support of the use of contraceptives with regard to the Zika virus, to his religious indifferentism and his antinomianism, which has become a hallmark of his pontificate. Pope Francis frequently pits the law against mercy which is the essence of the antinomian heresy.

MH: What do you say about the response of the prelates of the Church, especially the cardinals, to some of the problematic parts of Amoris Laetitia?

GN: The response has been feeble. Bishop Athanasius Schneider is an outstanding exception, he has spoken forthrightly about the heresy at work within that document.

MH: What should the cardinals be doing now? Are there ways for the cardinals to correct a pope?

GN: My position is that the cardinals should forthrightly confront the pope on this matter and make it clear to him that the heterodox position to which he is adhering is absolutely unacceptable. And then, if he fails to respond to the dubia, they must move to a formal correction.

MH: What are the reasons for the silence of so many prelates of the Church in the face of heterodox teachings coming out of Rome?

GN: One reason is their lack of conviction, another reason is shameful careerism, the third reason is that many of the bishops are cowards before the spirit of the age, and a lot of these “conservatives” are Modernists in slow motion.

MH: How is it possible that such a revolutionary pope could be elected as head of the Catholic Church? Do you touch upon this matter in your book?

GN: As I argue in the book, Pope Francis is the culmination of the Modernist movement which goes back over a hundred years. Modernism has been gathering strength in the Church since the Enlightenment, and it picked up speed in the 19th century and went into overdrive in the 20th century, producing the pontificate of Pope Francis. Pope Pius X’s encyclical on Modernism reads almost like a clinical description of the relativistic pontificate of Francis. Popes John Paul II and Benedict XVI were later speed bumps in that road, inasmuch as they realized that the “Spirit of Vatican II” was wreaking havoc within the Church. But, with Francis now at the wheel, those speed bumps have been completely disregarded, and he seeks to complete the Modernist revolution.

MH: How would you describe Modernism, and what is fundamentally wrong with it?

GN: The essence of Modernism is the absorption of modern liberalism into Catholicism.

MH: So how should the Church find its way back to a strong and healthy response to any weakening and undermining of its teaching as it has been handed down to us from the Apostles?

GN: All of the reforms can be reduced to one reform: a return to orthodoxy and holiness.

MH: You are of the younger Catholic generation, born in 1972. What is and was your own response to the Catholic Church as it presented itself to you in the Novus Ordo Mass, but also in the Catechesis and in all the other aspects of Catholic life? What went wrong and what is missing?

GN: I belong to a generation of Catholics that asked for bread and only received stones.

MH: What do you intend to effect with your book, and what would you say that we Catholic authors and journalists should and could do in this current situation of confusion in order to help the faithful?

GN: My hope is that a book like this would contribute to the restoration of orthodoxy and holiness in the Church, and I think it is the duty of journalists to speak the truth without fear or favor.

——————————————————————————————————————-

Excerpt from THE POLITICAL POPE

by George Neumayr

Chapter ONE

The Pope They Have Been Waiting For

You must straighten out your position with the Church,” Pope John Paul II shouted at a cowering Ernesto Cardenal, a Catholic priest turned Marxist activist. In violation of his religious vows, Cardenal had joined the communist Sandinista government in Nicaragua, and Pope John Paul II was scolding him before the cameras of the entire world. That sensational scene in 1983 on a Managua airport runway provided one of the most startling images of Pope John Paul II’s anti-communist pontificate.

So strong were Pope John Paul II’s anti-communist credentials and so effective was his anti-Soviet advocacy that Kremlin leaders, according to historians, hired a Turkish gunman to assassinate him. That attempt failed, and Pope John Paul II continued to denounce the Soviets until their empire crumbled in 1991.

Joseph Ratzinger also opposed communism fiercely. After serving as the head of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Ratzinger succeeded John Paul II in 2005 and took as his papal name Benedict XVI. In his role as doctrinal guardian of the Church, Ratzinger repeatedly warned the faithful to reject “liberation theology,” a Marxist-inspired ideology disguised as concern for the poor that the Soviet Union’s KGB spies had helped smuggle into Latin America’s Catholic Church in the 1950s.

“The movement was born in the KGB, and it had a KGB-invented name: liberation theology,” according to Ion Mihai Pacepa, who served as a spymaster for Romania’s secret police in the 1950s and 1960s.

The Soviets had long eyed the Catholic Church for infiltration. In the 1950s, Bella Dodd, the former head of the Soviet-controlled Communist Party of America, testified before the U.S. Congress that communists occupied some of the “highest places” in the Catholic Church. “We put eleven hundred men into the priesthood in order to destroy the Church from within,” she said. “The idea was for these men to be ordained, and then climb the ladder of influence and authority as monsignors and bishops.” As an active party member, Dodd said that she knew of “four cardinals within the Vatican who were working for us.”

According to Pacepa, the KGB took “secret control of the World Council of Churches (WCC), based in Geneva, Switzerland, and used it as cover for converting liberation theology into a South American revolutionary tool.” Seeking to spread atheistic Marxism among the religious peasants of Latin America, Soviet leaders instructed the KGB to send agents into ecclesiastical circles. In 1968, Latin America’s bishops loudly endorsed liberation theology at a conference in Medellín, Colombia. The KGB served as a puppet master at the event, reported Pacepa.

“In the 1950s and 1960s, most Latin Americans were poor, religious peasants who had accepted the status quo, and [Soviet premier Nikita] Khrushchev was confident they could be converted to communism through the judicious manipulation of religion,” he wrote. “In 1968, the KGB was able to maneuver a group of leftist South American bishops into holding a conference in Medellín, Colombia. At the KGB’s request, my [spies] provided logistical assistance to the organizers. The official task of the conference was to help eliminate poverty in Latin America. Its undeclared goal was to legitimize a KGB-created religious movement dubbed ‘liberation theology,’ the secret task of which was to incite Latin America’s poor to rebel against the ‘institutionalized violence of poverty’ generated by the United States.”

Against this historical backdrop, Pope John Paul II and Pope Benedict XVI viewed the spread of liberation theology in Latin America with alarm. They feared that a Marxist-influenced ideology, which progressive theologians within the Catholic Church were harnessing to their own long-percolating socialist politics, would corrupt the Catholic faith. Pope Benedict XVI called liberation theology a “singular heresy.” He argued that it deceives the faithful by concealing “Marxist dialectics” within seemingly harmless advocacy for the lower classes. He drew attention to Marxism’s philosophical incompatibility with Christianity and disputed the claim of many churchmen that Christianity could purify the Marxist elements of socialist thought.

How shockingly different statements from the Holy See sound today under Pope Francis. The first Latin American pope in Church history, Jorge Mario Bergoglio has generated headlines not for scolding Marxists but for supporting them, not for rebuking liberation theologians but for honoring them.

Under Pope John Paul II and Pope Benedict XVI, the Western media spoke disapprovingly of a “holy war against liberation theology.” Now media outlets eagerly run stories about Pope Francis’s sympathy for it. “Liberation Theology Rehabilitation Continues at Vatican,” ran a characteristic headline on a story from the Associated Press.

In one of his first major interviews, Pope Francis said that liberation theologians have a “high concept of humanity.” A few months after he became pope on March 13, 2013, Francis welcomed the founding father of liberation theology, the Peruvian priest Gustavo Gutiérrez, to the Vatican as an honored guest. Gutiérrez had disappeared from high ecclesiastical circles under Pope John Paul II and Pope Benedict XVI after making a Marxist appeal for “effective participation in the struggle which the exploited classes have undertaken against their oppressors.” But after the elevation of Francis, Gutiérrez suddenly found himself basking in praise. Vatican officials pronounced him an impeccable thinker, responsible for one of “the most important currents in 20th century Catholic theology.” The Vatican’s newspaper, L’Osservatore Romano, asserted that the election of Pope Francis would bring liberation theology out of the “shadows to which it has been relegated for some years, at least in Europe.”

Leonardo Boff, who has long gloried in his status as a renegade liberation theologian from Brazil, also enjoyed a stunning change of fortune after the election of Pope Francis. Owing to his open Marxism, Boff was silenced by Pope John Paul II’s Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. Boff was also condemned by the Vatican for his threatened hijinks at the 1992 Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro, activism that eventually led Boff to leave the priesthood. But these days Boff finds himself back in the Church’s good graces. Pope Francis recruited him to serve as an adviser for Laudato Si’, his 2015 encyclical endorsing the political agenda of climate change activists.

Taking advantage of the new wind blowing from the Vatican, Miguel d’Escoto Brockmann, whose role in Nicaragua’s Marxist revolutionary government in the 1970s led to his suspension from the priesthood, sent in 2014 a request to Pope Francis that his priestly faculties be reinstated. Pope Francis granted the request. “The Holy Father has given his benevolent assent that Father Miguel d’Escoto Brockmann be absolved from the canonical censure inflicted upon him, and entrusts him to the superior general of the institute (Maryknoll) for the purpose of accompanying him in the process of reintegration into the ministerial priesthood,” announced the Vatican.

D’Escoto, among his other Marxist activities, had served as an official at the aforementioned KGB-controlled World Council of Churches. No sooner had Pope Francis granted d’Escoto’s request than the recipient of the Lenin Peace Prize resumed his Marxist polemics, calling capitalism the “most un-Christian doctrine and practice ever devised by man to keep us separate and unequal in a kind of global apartheid.” He condemned Pope John Paul II for an “abuse of authority” and rhapsodized about Fidel Castro as an inspired figure whose murderous regime heralded “the reign of God on this earth that is the alternative to the empire.” Even now as a priest in good standing under Pope Francis, d’Escoto lobbies for the Libyans, remains a member of the Sandinista National Liberation Front, and continues to serve as an adviser to Daniel Ortega, whom the Soviets planted in the presidency of Nicaragua in the 1980s.

According to Boff, Pope Francis will eventually rehabilitate all of the condemned liberation theologians from Latin America. Boff believes that Pope Francis is waiting until their old critic, Pope Benedict XVI, dies. “I believe that as long as the retired pope lives, he will neither reconcile nor redeem these theologians,” according to Boff. “But, when he is by himself, he will rescue the 500 theologians whose {theological heads} heads were severed. I believe this pope is capable of dismantling this machine of punishment and control, and leave it to the local churches.”

A Radical Pontificate

After only four years of his pontificate, Francis has emerged as one of the most political popes in the history of the Church. His left-wing activism is relentless, ranging across causes from the promotion of global warming theory to support for amnesty and open borders to the abolition of lifetime imprisonment. That alone would make this papacy historically significant. But the ambitions of Pope Francis go well beyond an unusually aggressive political dilettantism. As this book will detail, he is not only championing the radical political agenda of the global left but also subverting centuries-old Catholic teaching on faith and morals, evident in his unprecedented support for granting the sacrament of Holy Communion to the divorced and remarried and in his drive to dilute the Church’s moral and theological commitments.

At a time of widespread moral relativism and assaults on marriage, his 2014–2015 Synod of Bishops on the Family served not to strengthen the Church’s stances but to weaken them. For the first time in the history of the Church, a pope approved of Catholics in a state of adultery. He also authorized his aides to float unprecedented proposals in favor of blessing the “positive aspects” of gay relationships and couples living together outside of marriage.

Amidst this doctrinal confusion, many cardinals are beginning to feel buyer’s remorse. “The more he talks, the worse it gets,” says a Vatican official, who asked to remain anonymous, in an interview for this book. “Many bishops and cardinals are terrified to speak out, but they are in a state of apoplexy. The atmosphere is so politicized and skewed. The Church is becoming unrecognizable.”

“We haven’t hit bottom,” says an American priest interviewed for this book. He describes his parishioners as “distressed,” so much so that he carries around a list of all the popes to remind them that “bad popes don’t live forever.”

“I have never been so discouraged about the prospects for the Church,” an unnamed prelate said to Traditionalist magazine in 2015. In an interview with the Spanish Catholic weekly Vida Nueva, Cardinal Raymond Burke, the former head of the Vatican’s highest court who was removed from that position by Pope Francis in 2013, disclosed that “many have expressed their concerns to me” and that “at this very critical moment, there is a strong sense that the Church is like a ship without a rudder.”

These are “dark times,” Bishop Athanasius Schneider of Kazakhstan has said. The liberalism of this pontificate, he argues, is exposing the faithful to “spiritual danger” and creating the conditions for the “fast and easy spreading of heterodox doctrines.”

“There are evident manifestations of uneasiness,” according to the Vatican correspondent Sandro Magister in an interview with Italia Oggi. “It’s beginning to look as if the cardinals made a terrible mistake when they decided that this particular Catholic should be a pope,” wrote the British Catholic journalist Damian Thompson.

“In the Vatican, some people are already sighing: ‘Today, he has already again another different idea from yesterday,’” the German philosopher Robert Spaemann has said. “One does not fully get rid of the impression of chaos.”

In an interview for this book, Michael Hichborn, president of a Catholic watchdog organization in Virginia called the Lepanto Institute, recounted, “I had a meeting with a bishop who turned to me and said, ‘How do you remain loyal to Peter when Peter is not loyal to the Church?’ He was genuinely confused and felt stuck.”

Such bewilderment leaves Pope Francis untroubled. He even romanticizes his reckless heterodox activism. “I want a mess,” he said at the 2013 World Youth Day in Rio de Janeiro. “We knew that in Rio there would be a great disorder, but I want trouble in the dioceses!” Many Catholics found this a puzzling goal to set for the Church. But his pontificate has undeniably lived up to it. “Mission accomplished,” quipped Bishop Thomas Tobin of Providence, Rhode Island, in 2014.

Supremely confident in his chaotic course, Pope Francis is shrugging off the mounting concerns and delighting in his reputation as a socialist and modernist maverick. After Pope Francis early in his papacy decried capitalism as “trickle-down economics” — a polemical phrase coined by the left during the Reagan years that Francis frequently borrows — radio talk show host Rush Limbaugh commented, “This is just pure Marxism coming out of the mouth of the Pope.” Talk show host Michael Savage called him “Lenin’s pope.” Pope Francis took such comments as a compliment. “I have met many Marxists in my life who are good people, so I don’t feel offended,” he told the Italian press.

His Communist Mentor

Pope Francis grew up in socialist Argentina, an experience that left a deep impression on his thinking. He told the Latin American journalists Javier Cámara and Sebastián Pfaffen that as a young man he “read books of the Communist Party that my boss in the laboratory gave me” and that “there was a period where I would wait anxiously for the newspaper La Vanguardia, which was not allowed to be sold with the other newspapers and was brought to us by the socialist militants.”

The “boss” to whom Pope Francis referred is Esther Ballestrino de Careaga. He has described her as a “Paraguayan woman” and a “fervent communist.” He considers her one of his most important mentors. “I owe a huge amount to that great woman,” he has said, saying that she “taught me so much about politics.” (He worked for her as an assistant at Hickethier-Bachmann Laboratory in Buenos Aires.)

“She often read Communist Party texts to me and gave them to me to read. So I also got to know that very materialistic conception. I remember that she also gave me the statement from the American Communists in defense of the Rosenbergs, who had been sentenced to death,” he has said. Learning about communism, he said, “through a courageous and honest person was helpful. I realized a few things, an aspect of the social, which I then found in the social doctrine of the Church.” After entering the priesthood, he took pride in helping her hide the family’s Marxist literature from the authorities who were investigating her. According to the author James Carroll, Bergoglio smuggled her communist books, including Marx’s Das Kapital, into a “Jesuit library.”

“Tragically, Ballestrino herself ‘disappeared’ at the hands of security forces in 1977,” reported Vatican correspondent John Allen. “Almost three decades later, when her remains were discovered and identified, Bergoglio gave permission for her to be buried in the garden of a Buenos Aires church called Santa Cruz, the spot where she had been abducted. Her daughter requested that her mother and several other women be buried there because ‘it was the last place they had been as free people.’ Despite knowing full well that Ballestrino was not a believing Catholic, the future pope readily consented.”

These biographical details throw light on the pope’s ideological instincts. Yet many commentators have ignored them, breezily casting his leftism as a bit confused but basically harmless.

“I must say that communists have stolen our flag. The flag of the poor is Christian,” he said in 2014. Such a comment would have startled his predecessors. They didn’t see communism as a benign exaggeration. They saw it as a grave threat to God-given freedom, as it proposes that governments eliminate large swaths of individual freedom, private property, and business in order to produce the “equality” of a society without economic classes.

In the early twentieth century, as Marx’s socialism spread across the world, Pope Pius XI declared the theory anathema. “No one can be at the same time a good Catholic and a true socialist,” he said. To hear Pope Francis speak today, one might conclude the reverse: that no can be at the same time a good Catholic and an opponent of socialism.

“Inequality is the root of all evil,” Pope Francis wrote on his Twitter account in 2014. One can imagine Karl Marx blurting that out, but none of Francis’s predecessors would have made such an outrageous claim. According to traditional Catholic theology, the root of all evil came not from inequality but from Satan’s refusal to accept inequality. Out of envy of God’s superiority, Satan rebelled. He could not bear his lesser status.

He was in effect the first revolutionary, which is why the socialist agitator Saul Alinsky — a mentor to Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton (who did her senior thesis at Wellesley on his thought) — offered an “acknowledgment” in his book, Rules for Radicals, to Satan. Alinsky saw him as the first champion of the “have-nots.”

Were the twentieth-century English Catholic satirist Evelyn Waugh alive today, he would find the radical left-wing political flirtations of Pope Francis too bitterly farcical even for fiction. Could a satirist like Waugh have imagined a pope happily receiving from a Latin American despot the “gift” of a crucifix shaped in the form of a Marxist hammer and sickle? That surreal scene happened during Pope Francis’s visit to Bolivia in July 2015.

Evo Morales, Bolivia’s proudly Marxist president, offered the pontiff that sacrilegious image of Jesus Christ. Morales described the gift as a copy of a crucifix designed by a late priest, Fr. Luís Espinal, who belonged to the Jesuit order (as does Pope Francis) and had committed his life to melding Marxism with religion. Pope Francis had honored Espinal’s memory upon his arrival in Bolivia.

Had John Paul II or Pope Benedict XVI seen such a grotesque cross, they might have broken it over their knees. Not Pope Francis. He accepted the hammer-and-sickle cross warmly, telling the press on the plane ride back to Rome that “I understand this work” and that “for me it wasn’t an offense.” After the visit, Morales gushed, “I feel like now I have a Pope. I didn’t feel that before.”

Under Francis, the papacy has become a collage of such politicized images: friendly papal meetings with communist thugs like the Castro brothers, a papal Mass conducted under the shadow of the mass murderer Che Guevara’s mural in Havana, papal audiences with a steady stream of crude Marxist theoreticians and anti-capitalist celebrities such as Leonardo DiCaprio, “selfies” while holding up an anti-fracking T-shirt, a pro-amnesty Mass said on the border between Mexico and America, a succession of sermons, speeches, and writings that rip into capitalism and tout greater government control over private property and business.

By pushing the papacy in such a “progressive” direction, Francis has become a darling of the global left. His program of promoting left-wing politics while downplaying and undermining doctrine on faith and morals has turned him into the ecclesiastical equivalent of Barack Obama. “Pope Francis is a gift from heaven,” the radical academic Cornel West said to Rolling Stone. “I love who he is, in terms of what he says, and the impact of his words on progressive forces around the world.”

Pope Francis, as liberals once said of Barack Obama, is the “one they have been waiting for.” The world is witnessing nothing less than a liberal revolution in the Catholic Church — a revolution that is emboldening the Church’s enemies and alienating her friends.

Posted in Uncategorized | Comments Off on THE LORD IS MY SHEPHERD, I SHALL NOT WANT, THAT IS, IF I LISTEN TO THE VOICE OF THE LORD AND NOT THE FALSE SHEPHERDS WHO HAVE GAINED ACCESS TO THE SHEEPFOLD

WHY ON EARTH WOULD OUR BLESSED MOTHER APPEAR TO CHILDREN IN A TOWN NAMED AFTER THE DAUGHTER OF MOHAMMED, EXCEPT TO TELL US SOMETHING ABOUT OUR PRESENT STRUGGLE WITH ISIS

The surprising connection between Our Lady of Fatima and Islam

ALETEIA

“Nothing ever happens out of heaven except with a finesse of all details.”

As we approach the 100th anniversary of the apparitions of Our Lady of Fátima, one aspect that often goes unnoticed is the subtle connection with Islam. The Blessed Virgin Mary appeared to the three shepherd children near the city of Fátima, Portugal, a place named after both a Muslim princess and the daughter of Mohammed.

During the 12th century, Christian armies sought to recapture cities in Spain and Portugal that were being occupied by Muslim forces. In this time period, a knight named Gonçalo Hermigues and his companions captured a Muslim princess named Fátima. Some stories say that after her capture, Fátima fell in love with Gonçalo and the two were soon after betrothed. Before their marriage Fátima was baptized into the Catholic faith and took the name Oureana. The Portuguese cities of Fátima and Ourém are said to be named after this Muslim princess.

What’s interesting is that the Muslim princess was named after one of the daughters of Mohammed, Fatimah bint Muhammad, a woman highly revered in Islam. She was given the title, al-Zahra, “shining one,” and Mohammed once said about her, “Thou shalt be the most blessed of all the women in Paradise, after Mary.” (While Muslims do not hold the same beliefs about the Virgin Mary as Catholics, they still hold her with highest regard.)

According to Fr. Miguel Angel Ayuso, secretary of the Pontifical Council for Interreligious Dialogue, this connection can be a doorway to dialogue. He noted in a joint prayer meeting in 2014 how, “the Catholic Church recognizes that Muslims honor the Virgin mother of Jesus, Mary, and invoke her with piety…Mary is mentioned various times in the Koran. Respect for her is so evident that when she is mentioned in Islam, it is usual to add ‘Alayha l-salam’ (‘Peace be upon her’)…Mary, a model for Muslims and Christians, is also a model of dialogue.”

Venerable Fulton Sheen draws an interesting connection between Muslims’ reverence for Mary and the daughter of Mohammed and the appearance of Our Lady at Fátima.

“This brings us to our second point, namely, why the Blessed Mother, in this twentieth century, should have revealed herself in the insignificant little village of Fátima, so that to all future generations she would be known as ‘Our Lady of Fátima.’ Since nothing ever happens out of heaven except with a finesse of all details, I believe that the Blessed Virgin chose to be known as “Our Lady of Fátima” as a pledge and a sign of hope to the Moslem people, and as an assurance that they, who show her so much respect, will one day accept her Divine Son, too.”

Surprisingly, besides attracting Christian pilgrims, the shrine at Fátima, Portugal, has also attracted Muslims in great numbers. They go to see the place where the Virgin Mary appeared in a city named after one of their most highly revered women.

In the end, the Blessed Virgin Mary at Fátima called Christians to pray for peace in the world. In an age when violence is so often committed in the name of Islam, how much more should we have recourse to Our Lady of Fátima! Let us continue to work for peace in the world and look to Our Lady to be a bridge between Muslims and Christians, begging her to end the hatred that has caused so much violence around the world.

Posted in Uncategorized | Comments Off on WHY ON EARTH WOULD OUR BLESSED MOTHER APPEAR TO CHILDREN IN A TOWN NAMED AFTER THE DAUGHTER OF MOHAMMED, EXCEPT TO TELL US SOMETHING ABOUT OUR PRESENT STRUGGLE WITH ISIS

HOMILY FOR THE FOURTH SUNDAY OF EASTER -CYCLE A

47400b6822f5090564c584418c42951c

HOMILY FOR THE FOURTH SUNDAY OF EASTER

CYCLE A

Bishop Rene Henry Gracida

Reading 1

ACTS 2:14A, 36-41

Then Peter stood up with the Eleven,

raised his voice, and proclaimed:

“Let the whole house of Israel know for certain

that God has made both Lord and Christ,

this Jesus whom you crucified.”

Now when they heard this, they were cut to the heart,

and they asked Peter and the other apostles,

“What are we to do, my brothers?”

Peter said to them,

“Repent and be baptized, every one of you,

in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins;

and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.

For the promise is made to you and to your children

and to all those far off,

whomever the Lord our God will call.”

He testified with many other arguments, and was exhorting them,

“Save yourselves from this corrupt generation.”

Those who accepted his message were baptized,

and about three thousand persons were added that day.

Responsorial Psalm

PS 23: 1-3A, 3B4, 5, 6

R. (1) The Lord is my shepherd; there is nothing I shall want.

or:

R. Alleluia.

The LORD is my shepherd; I shall not want.

In verdant pastures he gives me repose;

beside restful waters he leads me;

he refreshes my soul.

R. The Lord is my shepherd; there is nothing I shall want.

or:

R. Alleluia.

He guides me in right paths

2

for his name’s sake.

Even though I walk in the dark valley

I fear no evil; for you are at my side.

With your rod and your staff

that give me courage.

R. The Lord is my shepherd; there is nothing I shall want.

or:

R. Alleluia.

You spread the table before me

in the sight of my foes;

you anoint my head with oil;

my cup overflows.

R. The Lord is my shepherd; there is nothing I shall want.

or:

R. Alleluia.

Only goodness and kindness follow me

all the days of my life;

and I shall dwell in the house of the LORD

for years to come.

R. The Lord is my shepherd; there is nothing I shall want.

or:

Alleluia.

Reading 2

1 PT 2:20B-25

Beloved:

If you are patient when you suffer for doing what is good,

this is a grace before God.

For to this you have been called,

because Christ also suffered for you,

leaving you an example that you should follow in his footsteps.

He committed no sin, and no deceit was found in his mouth.

When he was insulted, he returned no insult;

when he suffered, he did not threaten;

instead, he handed himself over to the one who judges justly.

He himself bore our sins in his body upon the cross,

so that, free from sin, we might live for righteousness.

By his wounds you have been healed.

For you had gone astray like sheep,

but you have now returned to the shepherd and guardian of your souls.

3

Alleluia

JN 10:14

R. Alleluia, alleluia.

I am the good shepherd, says the Lord;

I know my sheep, and mine know me.

Alleluia, alleluia.

Gospel

JN 10:1-10

Jesus said:

“Amen, amen, I say to you,

whoever does not enter a sheepfold through the gate

but climbs over elsewhere is a thief and a robber.

But whoever enters through the gate is the shepherd of the sheep.

The gatekeeper opens it for him, and the sheep hear his voice,

as the shepherd calls his own sheep by name and leads them out.

When he has driven out all his own,

4

he walks ahead of them, and the sheep follow him,

because they recognize his voice.

But they will not follow a stranger;

they will run away from him,

because they do not recognize the voice of strangers.”

Although Jesus used this figure of speech,

the Pharisees did not realize what he was trying to tell them.

So Jesus said again, “Amen, amen, I say to you,

I am the gate for the sheep.

All who came before me are thieves and robbers,

but the sheep did not listen to them.

I am the gate.

Whoever enters through me will be saved,

5

and will come in and go out and find pasture.

A thief comes only to steal and slaughter and destroy;

I came so that they might have life and have it more abundantly.”

+++++++++

“For my thoughts are not your thoughts: nor your ways my ways, says the Lord.”  Isaiah 55:8

I wonder how many people who heard this Gospel passage proclaimed in church today, AND like the pharisees criticized by Jesus in the Gospel,

“did not realize what he was trying to tell them.”

In a sense it is even more difficult for us living in this modern world “to realize what he was trying to tell” us!

6

The pharisees had less reason to be excused since they lived in a pastoral world in which flocks of sheep were a big part of the economy of the time.

Modern man, on the other hand has little or not experience with sheep.

But I cannot use that as an excuse for not understanding the message of Jesus Christ.

When I was a boy I asked my father for a lamb as a pet and he gave me a lamb.

I grew up caring for that lamb and when I entered Rice University I gave it to a family willing to give it a good home.

When I was a bishop and Chairman of the NCCB ad hoc Committee on Migration and Refugees I received an appeal from Basque sheepherders and their families who were brought to America by the sheep

7

industry in the western states to take care of the immense flocks of sheep in those states.  The sheep associations however were not concerned with the spiritual welfare of the Basque people in the U.S.

I negotiated with the bishops of southern France and northern Spain to lend priests to our western dioceses to provide spiritual care for the Basque people.  Sad to say, some of the western bishops would not help.

Years later, while vacationing in Colorado, flyfishing on the Cimarron River in the San Juan mountains, I was camped by a mountain trail.  Basque shepherds came walking up the trail followed by 5,000 yes you heard correctly, 5,000 sheep on their way to the pastures higher up on the mountain.  Many of the sheep were limping

8

on legs injured on rocks and in gopher holes.

After I retired I used my experience as President of the Kennedy Foundation by running my own little ranch near Mathis/Tynan where I ran 100 head of cattle and 100 head of sheep.  I learned that Our Lord spoke of sheep so often because of the needs of sheep (the animal) and sheep (the people of God in the Church); they have a lot in common.

But, of course, Jesus was not literally referring to those who accept his Gospel message and submit in faith to his call to become united with him.  He was speaking metaphorically.

What is the definition of a metaphor?  A metaphor is a figure of speech in which a

9

word or phrase is applied to an object or action to which it is not literally applicable.

To understand any metaphor you must understand both word or phrase and the object or action to which it is applied.

Let’s examine the metaphors Jesus used in the first part of today’s Gospel:

Jesus said:

“Amen, amen, I say to you,

whoever does not enter a sheepfold through the gate

but climbs over elsewhere is a thief and a robber.

But whoever enters through the gate is the shepherd of the sheep.

The gatekeeper opens it for him, and the sheep hear his voice,

10

as the shepherd calls his own sheep by name and leads them out.

When he has driven out all his own,

he walks ahead of them, and the sheep follow him,

because they recognize his voice.

But they will not follow a stranger;

they will run away from him,

because they do not recognize the voice of strangers.”

Unlike the sheep on my ranch which were all keep at night in my own pens, in the time of Jesus in Israel each village had a communal pen and all the sheep of all the different villagers were kept overnight in the same pen for safekeeping from predators.

11

Each morning a shepherd would approach the pen and the villager guarding the sheep would open the gate and the shepherd would call his sheep and only his sheep would leave the pen and follow him.

Now for the metaphor.

Jesus is saying that those persons who have accepted his call and been baptized hear his call enunciated through his Church to come out into the world and put their faith in practice, listening to his voice echoing in their minds after having been exposed to his Gospel through hearing, reading, reflecting aided by the magisterium of the Church.

In todays world there are a lot of false shepherds and false prophets even as there were in Jesus’ time; many more.

His flock had to contend with the false teaching of the Scribes and Pharisees.

12

Jesus’ flock today have to contend with the call to schism and heresy issued by bishops and priests who echo the call men like Cardinal Kasper.

Be on your guard!!!

Listen for the voice of Jesus in the teaching and preaching of orthodox  and conservative priests and bishops who

faithfully echo the call of Jesus.  The call of Jesus was expressed to countless generations of Catholics through such magisterial documents as the

Catechism of the Catholic Church

If you do not own a personal copy, buy one and use it frequently;  it is almost a bible since it is filled with holy scripture citations for every thing it says about the faith and living the faith in a secular world that i

13

increasingly hostile to God and to Christians.

Almighty God,

Eternal Father,

have pity on the sheep of your flock.

They live in a world now

dominated by electronic media which is being used to broadcast the deafening call of false shepherds to follow the way of relativism and proportionalism.

Give them the help of the Holy Spirit to hear the voice of their true Shepherd, 

Jesus Christ

calling them to remain steadfast in orthodoxy.

This we ask through the same Jesus Christ, Our Lord, who lives and reigns in unity with You and the Holy Spirit, 

One God, 

forever and ever !!!  

Amen !!!

Posted in Uncategorized | 5 Comments

HOW CAN THOSE WHO SAY THAT WE ARE NEARING THE END OF THE ROAD THAT LEADS TO A CLIFF POSSIBLY BE WRONG IN THE LIGHT OF THIS ??????

Image result for dr mengele

Doctor Josef Mengele is alive and well and is practicing medicine in a clinic near you.

The worship of Baal can take many forms.  Wearing embryo jewelry can be a form of Baal worship, disguised as sentimental remembrance of dead children.

Embryo jewelry’ a sign we’ve taken the Wrong path, IVF critic says

 
 
Human Embryo, File Photo. Credit: Firstbrook Just Click 100 via Flickr (CC BY-NC 2.0).
 
 
 

.- For one critic, a report that IVF-conceived embryos are being cremated and turned into jewelry for their mothers shows the basic problem with the artificial creation of human embryos.

“I have no words. I have no category for who would think this would be something good to do,” said Jennifer Lahl, the founder and president of the California-based Center for Bioethics and Culture.

“It’s so undignified that these embryos have been destroyed to become jewelry,” she told CNA. “I thought, ‘My gosh, it really has hit rock-bottom’.”

Lahl, who has a background as a pediatric critical care nursing and hospital administration, has long been a critic of egg donation and IVF.

Now, the small Australian company Baby Bee Hummingbirds is turning embryos into keepsake jewelry.

A story in the Australian mothers’ website Kidspot portrays the process as a solution to “extra” embryos that are created in the in-vitro fertilization process. It recounts the story of a couple who had conceived three children, including twins, but faced financial strain in paying for the annual storage of the leftover embryos and could not imagine disposing of them or donating them.

“I don’t believe there is any other business in the world that creates jewelry from human embryos, and I firmly believe that we are pioneering the way in this sacred art, and opening the possibilities to families around the world,” Amy McGlade, the founder of Baby Bee Hummingbirds, told Kidspot.

Families send the jeweler IVF straws containing the embryos, which are cremated into embryo ash, which is then incorporated into the jewelry.

Since 2014, Baby Bee Hummingbirds has made 50 pieces of jewelry with embryos. About 4,000 of its other works of jewelry use breastmilk, placenta, hair, ashes, or umbilical cord stumps.

The pieces cost from $80 to $600.

“It’s special because the embryos are often signifying the end of a journey, and we are providing a beautiful and meaningful way to gently close the door,” McGlade said.

For Lahl, however, the process is no solution to frozen embryos.

“The solution is to stop creating surplus embryos. The solution is to stop freezing human embryos, so that parents aren’t left with these ethical dilemmas of what to do with them when they decide they don’t want any more children,” she said.

“If anything it creates even more complex ethical problems, a new novel way of disrespecting human life.”

Lahl objected that “creating life and calling it surplus” is “an undignified view of early, nascent human life.” She worried that IVF treatment and the creation of human embryos is the consequence of the belief that parents have “a right to pursue that child at whatever cost, and at whatever manner.”

“It loses sight of the fact that children are intended to be gifts and blessings, not something we have a right to.”

McGlade, the jewelry business founder, promoted the use of embryos in jewelry.

“Reactions from families who understand the journey are amazing and heartfelt. They are so grateful for our service,” she said. “What a better way to celebrate your most treasured gift, your child, than through jewelry? It’s about the everlasting tangible keepsake of a loved one that you can have forever.”

Kidspot cited one mother who had her embryos turned into jewelry through the business.

“I’d heard others had planted them in the garden but we move a lot, so I couldn’t do this,” said the mother, who had the seven embryos placed in a heart-shaped pendant. “I needed them with me.”

She said the six years of IVF treatment was “painful, tormenting, a strain on our marriage and just plain hard.”

“Finding this has brought me so much comfort and joy,” she said. “I finally at peace and my journey complete.”

“My embryos were my babies – frozen in time,” she said. “When we completed our family, it wasn’t in my heart to destroy them. Now they are forever with me in a beautiful keepsake.”

The Catholic Church stresses that all human life – including those in the embryonic state – have an invaluable human dignity. Catholic teaching opposes IVF.

However, Lahl stressed the need for compassion for those who have used IVF to treat infertility.

“We need to approach anybody struggling with infertility with a lot of grace and mercy,” she said. “We need to understand that infertility is a real grief. People just naturally assume that when they are ready to start their family that children will come. We have to be incredibly understanding.”

“We also have to be prepared with the facts on what is really involved in reproductive technology. People are uninformed about the risk of these technologies, the ethics of using these technologies and all the problems that come about.”

She said in-vitro fertilization is “fraught with ethical problems” due to the health risks to the mother, the conceived children, the cost, and the way in which the use of medicine creates more problems, rather than treats and heals conditions.

“Most of the people who enter into the assisted reproductive technology enterprise don’t get a baby,” she said. “Overwhelmingly, IVF cycles fail.”

The process has a high failure rate and typically costs six figures to successfully conceive and bear a child through IVF.

Lahl said others should consult resources about the field, such as the website of the CBC Network. Her network covers topics like infertility issues, egg donation, sperm donation, surrogacy, assisted reproductive technologies and their health risks to women.

Although she is not Catholic, she said Church teaching on these issues was “rich and important.”

“I think the Catholic Church has gotten these issues quite right. If you really look at the evidence and the medical literature, it will only reinforce the teaching of the Catholic Church.”

Tags: Pro-life, Catholic News, In-vitro fertilization, Human dignity, Human Embryos

Posted in Uncategorized | 2 Comments

YOUR ADVANCE DIRECTIVE

47400b6822f5090564c584418c42951c

A PROPOSED ADDITION TO YOUR ADVANCE DIRECTIVE

By Bishop Rene Henry Gracida

Bishop Emeritus of Corpus Christi

Do you have an Advance Directive which describes the medical care that you would want to receive in the event of your terminal illness?

Most Advance Directive printed forms supplied by medical institutions would permit declaring you “brain dead” thereby legally allowing doctors to remove your vital organs while you are still alive.

To prevent that terrible possibility you might want to consider incorporating the following definition of death in your own Advance Directive.

A LEXICON OF WORDS AND PHRASES TO BE USED BY THE MEDICAL AND LEGAL PROFESSIONS IN DEFINING AND DISCUSSING DEATH

DEATH is the total permanent loss of circulation of blood leading to the cessation of vital functions dependent on such circulation such as pulsation, respiration, brain activity leading in turn to the destruction of these vital systems and organs necessary for the preservation of human life.  Death is not an instantaneous phenomenon, it is a process.
PROCESS means the successive occurrence in time of the physiological changes named above in parts of the human body.
CHANGES described above causing death can be measured in nano-seconds, seconds, minutes, hours, days, weeks or longer. 

Posted in Uncategorized | 2 Comments

THE GRIM REAPER RIDES HER BROOM

broomstick_witch_by_jakobhansson-d4tafr1

WHAT IS DEATH? HOW DO YOU DEFINE IT ? HOW CAN YOU BE SURE ????

WHAT IS DEATH ?

 

 

+++++++++++++

A LEXICON OF WORDS AND PHRASES TO BE USED BY THE MEDICAL AND LEGAL PROFESSIONS IN DEFINING AND DISCUSSING DEATH

DEATH is the total permanent loss of circulation of blood leading to the cessation of vital functions dependent on such circulation such as pulsation, respiration, brain activity leading in turn to the destruction of these vital systems and organs necessary for the preservation of human life.  Death is not an instantaneous phenomenon, it is a process.
PROCESS means the successive occurrence in time of the physiological changes named above in parts of the human body.
CHANGES described above causing death can be measured in nano-seconds, seconds, minutes, hours, days, weeks or longer. 

+++++++++++++

Imagine two deaf persons trying to communicate with each other each one using a different system of signs they learned in different schools for the deaf where they teach different systems of sign language.  That is crazy you would say, it is impossible for them to communicate since the signs each of them would be making with their hands would be meaningless to the other.

The same problem exists for all of us who are not deaf and who communicate verbally with words.  Words are signs.  Words communicate meaning given to them by common agreement by persons who belong to the same language group.  But even in the same language group there can be problems when idiomatic speech peculiar to one country is used in another country of the same language group, e.g. England and the United States.

The problem gets worse when people deliberately apply different meanings to words in order to advance a political or social agenda.  Abortion is a good example.  For most people the child-in-utero is a person, that displays all the attributes of personhood but cannot yet speak.  To those persons who promote abortion the child-in-utero is not a person because he cannot speak,to another he is not a person until he is born, to another he is not a person until he can reason at around seven years of age, and to reduce it to the absurd, to some he is probably not a person until he is 21 years old.

Words are signs to which society, by common consent, assigns meaning.  When people are consumed with a desire to promote some political, social or economic agenda they assign meaning to words that the great majority of other persons in the same society reject.

Such is the case with death.

To persons with a Malthusian or racist obsession, death is not longer a word describing a natural event.  It is a political or social or economic means to an end and natural death becomes irrelevant if hastening or causing the death of another person promotes some arbitrary good such as alleviating suffering, reducing world population, eliminating undesirable individuals or groups from society.

Since Doctor Christiaan Barnard in 1967 first successfully transplanted a human heart, the medical profession has ceased to be a profession and has become an industry.  The transplantation of organs from the human body of one person to the body of another person has become BIG BUSINESS.

The problem faced by the medical industry was the problem of death.  It is not possible to successsfully transplant human organs from a cadaver to a living person.  In order to transplant organs successfully they must be taken from the body of a living  person and transferred to the body of another living person and that procedure was illegal in practically every country in the western world up until the 21st Century.

How to solve that problem if the medical business was to reap the potential huge financial rewards of organ transplantation.  Simple.  Change the definition of death in the law.

A group of doctors met at Harvard University in 1972 and came up with the idea of defining death solely on the basis of the activity in the human brain.  Their proposal has come to be known as brain death.  Subsequent to the Harvard meeting the law was changed in all 50 states of the United States.  Now, the absence of the signs of brain activity in certain parts of the brain allows doctors to declare a patient “brain dead” and they can leglly proceed to extract all the organs of the patient for transplantation into another person even though blood is still coursing through the veins and arteries of the patient and with the aid of a ventilator pushing air into the lungs of the patient (the body of the patient will reflexively push the air out of the lungs) while the other organs are being removed.

Voila, the medical business now can remove the organs of everyone who enters a hospital as a patient.  All that is necessary is that the doctors induce coma.

How big is the organ transplantation business?  The Milliman Corporation does an actuarial study of all medical billings in the United States once every three years.  They have identified every organ transplantation that occurred in the United States in 2014.  They have identified every billing from the preparation for the operation for removal of an organ to the transportation to the donor to the placing of the organ in the recipient and the compensation of everyone involved until the recipient is declared well months after the transplantation.  How much money was involved in all of the transplantations in 2014?  Brace yourself !!!  The total amount of money changing hands in the medical business of organ transplantation in the United States in 2014 was:   $28,761,129,500.00.

Words are symbols with meaning.  We must fight to have the law in every state redefine death using the words I have written at the beginning of this post.

The Catholic Church is not opposed to organ transplantation, but insists that persons must not be harmed, much less killed, in order to procure organs for transplantation.  Here are some magisterial statements on the subject.

Pope John Paul II to the Participants of the 1989 Pontifical Academy of Sciences stated:

“The problem of the moment of death has serious implications at the practical level, and this aspect is also of great interest to the Church. In practice, there seems to arise a tragic dilemma. On the one hand there is the urgent need to find replacement organs for sick people who would otherwise die or at least would not recover. In other words, it is conceivable that in order to escape certain and imminent death a patient may need to receive an organ which could be provided by another patient, who may be lying next to him in hospital, but about whose death there still remains some doubt. Consequently, in the process there arises the danger of terminating a human life, of definitively disrupting the psychosomatic unity of a person. More precisely, there is a real possibility that the life whose continuation is made unsustainable by the removal of a vital organ may be that of a living person, whereas the respect due to human life absolutely prohibits the direct and positive sacrifice of that life, even though it may be for the benefit of another human being who might be felt to be entitled to preference.”9

 

In the same Address Pope John Paul II stated:

“Death can mean decomposition, disintegration, a separation (cf. Salvifici Doloris, n. 15; Gaudium et Spes, n. 18). It occurs when the spiritual principle which ensures the unity of the individual can no longer exercise its functions in and upon the organism, whose elements left to themselves, disintegrate.”10

Pope John Paul II in Evangelium Vitae, (n. 15), stated:

 

“Nor can we remain silent in the face of other more furtive, but no less serious and real, forms of euthanasia. These could occur for example when, in order to increase the availability of organs for transplants, organs are removed without respecting objective and adequate criteria which verify the death of the donor.”11

Incredibly, some jurisdictions are moving to make the donation of organs automatic, that is, there is a presumption in law that a person is willing to have his organs removed for transplantation.  Truly, we are rapidly moving into a dystopian future.

Posted in Uncategorized | Comments Off on THE GRIM REAPER RIDES HER BROOM