"Be sober-minded, be watchful. Your adversary the devil prowls around like a roaring lion, looking for someone to devour." (1 Peter 5:8 ESV)
"... this is to be asserted in general of men, that they are ungrateful, fickle, false, cowardly, covetous, and as long as you succeed they are yours entirely; they will offer you their blood, property, life, and children, as is said above, when the need is far distant; but when it approaches they turn against you."
(Niccolo Machiavelli, The Prince, Chapter 17)
Many have wondered how a civilized country like Germany could become the evil regime we now know as the Third Reich. To those looking at Germany from the outside, it seemed as though the whole country had descended into an unfathomable moral darkness.
It could be argued that a gang of wild beasts and misfits had somehow managed to hijack the entire nation, but as the historian Laurence Rees discovered, the Nazis were actually embraced by much of the populace. The Gestapo have traditionally been seen as an all-powerful agency inflicting the will of the Fuehrer upon the people but as Rees found out, there were only a small number of Gestapo agents, and the public willingly collaborated with them by spying on their fellow citizens.
This phenomenon occurred throughout German society. We know now that medical doctors, the last people one would expect to deliberately harm others, were lining up to commit atrocities as part of the Aktion T4 program, which was run by Reichsleiter Phillipp Bouhler and Adolf Hitler's personal physician, Dr. Karl Brandt.
Hitler's biographer Ian Kershaw has provided us with an important theory which explains how the Nazis implemented their policies, and became more radical with the passing of time. The Nazi regime has been described as chaotic, but in fact it ran according to fundamental Darwinian principles. The Fuehrer believed that his subordinates should fight amongst themselves, and the most able and committed Nazis would rise to positions of power in the Third Reich.
The absence of clearly defined orders from Hitler has vexed many historians who have tried to explain the existence of the death camps. Kershaw cites a speech by Werner Willikens, who worked for the Nazi regime: "Everyone who has the opportunity to observe it knows that the Fuehrer can hardly dictate from above everything he intends to realize sooner or later. On the contrary, up till now everyone with a post in the new Germany has worked best when he has, so to speak, worked towards the Fuehrer." 1 (Niedersachisches Staatsarchiv, Oldenburg, Best. 131, nr. 303, fol. 1131v, speech by Werner Willikens, State Secretary in the Ministry of Food, 21 Feb. 1934; trans. Noakes and Pridham, Nazism, ii. 207, quoted in Kershaw, I., Hitler, The Germans, and The Final Solution, Yale University Press, Kindle loc. 596)
Devout Nazis worked towards the Fuehrer by perpetrating crimes they believed he would approve of, and in the Third Reich, there was no legal or moral reason to restrict their policies or behavior in any way. The Nazis treated their enemies with the utmost brutality from day one. The most ruthless anti-Semitic measures were therefore taken and in accordance with the principles of the theory of evolution, there was no going backwards. The Nazis' policies could only become more radical until eventually, they arrived at a final solution to die Judenfrage. In the Third Reich, all roads led inevitably to the death camps.
We know then, that the men accused of war crimes after the war ended were not just following orders. They chose to embrace evil and they tried their damndest to implement the Nazis' absurd social engineering theories.
The journalist Caroline Glick has argued that the second world war didn't break out just because of militarism or nationalism. And that is correct. If Poland had SAM missile batteries along her borders, a couple of squadrons of F-16s and a battalion of Merkava Mark IVs in August of 1939, that wouldn't have caused the war, it would have prevented it. The war began because the German state embraced evil, and the appeasers in the West (and there were many who refused to accept what Winston Churchill was saying about the Nazis) stood and watched them. (Glick, C., The Ghosts of Wars Lost, Jerusalem Post 30/08/07) As Churchill himself wrote in his war memoirs, there was every opportunity in the 1930s for Western powers to build up their own military forces and prevent the Nazi regime from gaining power in Europe, but the personal failings of the political elite, their refusal to face the truth about the Nazis, their desire for personal power and their intellectual cowardice did not achieve peace in the face of evil but instead, led to that evil being loosed upon Europe, and the world. (Churchill, W., The Gathering Storm, Mariner Books, p. 80)
That is the answer to the question of how a civilised nation can descend into a condition of depravity and evil, and pull the whole world into a global conflict that will cost the lives of millions of people.
Can this ever happen again? The philosopher Isaiah Berlin once said that the belief that any final solution exists to the question of how people ought to live is not only false, but has brought to humanity incalculable suffering, horror and death. (Berlin, I., Two Concepts of Liberty, Philosopedia) The latest answer to the question of how human beings are to live, the one our current crop of politicians believe in - their final solution - is multiculturalism.
Politicians today are fallible men and women, no better either morally or intellectually than the politicians described by Winston Churchill in The Gathering Storm. And their final solution - multiculturalism - is incoherent.
Multiculturalists claim that all cultures are equal, but in order to make that claim one needs a yardstick to measure different cultures, and that entails a belief in the very thing that multiculturalists deny: a set of ultimate values.
If it is true that any worldview one adopts is based only on local circumstances, and using any particular set of local values to judge the values and practices of other cultures is illegitimate, then that applies to multiculturalism as well. So multiculturalists have no basis on which to say anyone who disagrees with them is wrong. According to what they say they believe, the other person is just as right as they are. Their final solution therefore undermines itself.
That doesn't stop our politicians from trying to implement impractical and illogical social engineering policies based on their final solution, just as the Nazis did with their ridiculous theories. The Nazis attacked their political opponents and silenced dissenting voices from the beginning. And anyone living in Europe today who makes the obvious philosophical observation that Islamic doctrines are incompatible with human liberty is liable to be prosecuted by the state, for one offence or another. We have seen this fate befall Tommy Robinson, Geert Wilders and Elisabeth Sabaditch-Wolff in recent years.
In Britain, the state not only flexes its own muscles in order to restrict free speech, it recruits its own citizens to police one another, so that human beings living in what is supposed to be a free and democratic society will practice state-sanctioned self-censorship.
One of the ways they do this is by lying about multiculturalism. They claim it is the cure for all our societal ills. But if you go to see your GP and they write you a prescription, you must only take the appropriate dosage of medication. One tablet may make you feel better, but it does not follow that taking two or three tablets will make you feel better still. As we all know, taking too much of any medication can do more harm than good.
Most Brits enjoy having people from different countries living here. We all like music and food from different cultures, and we've probably all worked with extremely capable people from all around the world. But it does not follow that the doctrines of Islam, in particular, are compatible with human liberty. It is logically and morally possible to hold the former position, and at the same time to understand that the latter assertion is false. To put it another way: You really can have too much of a good thing.
The British government and their comrades in the media won't hear of this though. The party line is that multiculturalism can cure anything and everything, and the more we take of it the better we'll all feel. This is their final solution to the question of how we must live, and no deviation of opinion is to be permitted.
It's worth noting here that Adolf Hitler considered it necessary to inflict "spiritual terror" upon one's political opponents. He wrote in Mein Kampf that a barrage of lies and slander must be unleashed against one's opponents until the nerves of the people being attacked wore down. Hitler thought that this tactic would lead to political success with almost mathematical certainty. (Hitler, A., Mein Kampf, pp. 43-44, quoted in Shirer, W., The Rise and Fall of The Third Reich, Rosetta Books, Kindle loc. 620)
British citizens have been led to believe that by reading the contents of the koran and the hadith, then criticizing the doctrines of Islam found therein, one is guilty of the offence of racism, despite the fact that books have no genetic component. Not only can one be arrested for speaking the truth about Islamic doctrines and history in England today (aka using "insulting words"), British citizens are taught to believe that racism is behind any criticism of multiculturalism, that racism is evil, therefore to avoid being considered evil, they must practice strict self-censorship and not openly criticize multiculturalism.
Any British citizen who has taken the time to read the koran and the hadith, and who has studied Islamic doctrines and history, knows only too well the "spiritual terror" that awaits anyone who speaks the truth about those subjects within the borders of their own nation state.
The state has tried to establish a false paradigm where multiculturalism is the ultimate good and any dissent whatsoever, rather than being seen as a symptom of a healthy society which has embraced the principles of free speech, is taken to be a symptom of an evil that exists within their own citizens' hearts. The powers-that-be today in the UK today have abandoned rational thinking and morality and are using moves straight out of the Nazis' playbook.
"Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep's clothing but inwardly are ravenous wolves. You will recognize them by their fruits. Are grapes gathered from thornbushes, or figs from thistles?"
(Matthew 7:15-16 ESV)
"Woe to those who call evil good and good evil,
who put darkness for light and light for darkness,
who put bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter" (Isaiah 5:20 ESV)
Many people in the UK today accept whatever our government tells them out of intellectual laziness, or stupidity, or because they have chosen to embrace the forces which seek to destroy everything our grandfathers stood for, and fought for, during World War II. Satan still prowls about the earth like a lion, looking for people to devour. British citizens are now doing what our mortal enemies, the Nazis, did before and during the war. They're helping the state to enforce a logically and morally incoherent ideology. Silencing dissent. Working to reduce human liberty.
The beginning of a new year is traditionally a time to take stock, to reassess our lives and choose a different path. If anyone who reads this essay considers the issues that have been presented here, and comes to the conclusion that Britain is heading down a slippery slope to a new form of tyranny, then it is time to ask yourself: What am I going to do about it?
Tags: Great Britain, liberty, John Stuart Mill, World War II, Winston Churchill, Isaiah Berlin, Caroline Glick, Geert Wilders, multiculturalism, David Cameron, Satan, Adolf Hitler, Aktion T4, Philipp Bouhler, Dr. Karl Brandt To share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the Patriot's Corner. Thanks!