A reader asks,<\/p>\n
\u201cOne thing that I read on your site is that Atheists such as Mao and Stalin are responsible for the deaths of millions. Atheists would argue that these individuals ambition and drive came from personal origins and was not religious in nature. Basically stating, \u201cHey Atheism had nothing to do with this!\u201d In order to combat this retort is there any reading material that would allow me to derail the aforementioned?\u201d
\n<\/i><\/p><\/blockquote>\nThe following barely counts as a surface accounting of Atheism and its necessity within Communism, and further the relation of Atheism to Communist Atrocities. The history is readily available to everyone who is free, both physically and intellectually.
\nThe connection is two-fold. First is the nature of Atheist self-derived pseudo-morality, which derives from the elevation of self to the position of elitist moral authority. Second is the use of pseudo-scientific principles in the development of Nietzsche\u2019s ubermench, or in Communist terms, the New Man. Let\u2019s look at how these two intellectual defects happen and their results.
\nAtheism, its Moral Void and Consequences<\/b>
\nAtheism is the rejection of theism and its moral authority. External morality received via religion is rejected. There is no \u201cobjective\u201d morality, no objective \u201cgood\u201d nor \u201cevil\u201d. Nietzsche proved this in his book, \u201cBeyond Good and Evil\u201d. New Atheists have confirmed this, with Richard Dawkins claiming his inability to say what Hitler did was \u201cevil\u201d.
\nAs a consequence, Atheists have no specific, external moral principles by which their actions are restrained.
\nFurther, Atheists can and do make up their own moral principles. So morality is a personal set of conditions specific to each Atheist, derived or at least approved by the individual Atheist. The Atheist has granted himself moral authority to devise and approve moral principles. The key here is the promotion of the Atheist self to the position of moral authority, an elitist position.
\nMost sets of Atheist moral principles apply not to the Atheist himself, but to other people. In other words, the Atheist doesn\u2019t restrict himself; he places his own \u201cmoral\u201d restrictions on other people. This frequently comes in the form of social reformation of entire populations, except for the reformers themselves, those self-anointed saviors and change agents driving for a utopia under their principles and control. New morality requires new thinking, which the Atheist elites provide.
\nExamples of this are the use of the terms \u201cfreedom\u201d, \u201ctolerance\u201d and \u201cequality\u201d, which permeate Atheist and Leftist moral pronouncements. These terms have been \u201cundefined\u201d from their original meanings, and redefined to mean something entirely outside their original intent.
\n\u201cFreedom\u201d now means that rights are given by the dominant party, (generally the state), and that rights do not include anything construed as \u201chate\u201d by the dominant party; hate is to be obliterated. This especially includes dissent which is hate speech and is to be obliterated.
\n\u201cTolerance\u201d now means that all behaviors and belief sets must be allowed, except dissent from this decree. Dissent is \u201chate\u201d, \u201cracist\u201d, \u201csexist\u201d, \u201chomophobic\u201d, etc., and is not to be tolerated: it is to be obliterated.
\n\u201cEquality\u201d now means that all belief sets, cultures and cultural practices are precisely equal and that there is no one belief set, culture or cultural practice which is more correct or true than the others. Further, dissenting beliefs are false, evil and are to be obliterated.
\nIn each of these cases of redefined moral terminology, two things become obvious: first the terms appear to be \u201cgood\u201d when understood under the old standard definitions, thereby the unwary are duped by misunderstanding the Atheist\u2019s actual intent by claiming his morality under these principles. Second, the new definitions do not constrain the Atheist in any manner, they restrict only his dissenters.
\nBecause Atheists are not constrained by any moral principles except those of their own devising, they find themselves free to pursue their heart\u2019s desires, unhampered by any constraints. This is moral anarchy, and it is a direct result of Atheism as a worldview.
\nThe moral anarchy which is the direct consequence of Atheism allows all possible actions to be pursued, with no compunction on the part of the Atheist. Atheism is the enabling function which releases evil from its restraints, and allows it to be called „good”. After all, under Atheism there is no such thing as objective good, nor objective evil. These terms are undefined first, then redefined to suit the needs of the \u201cProgressive\u201d Atheist Social Justice Warrior. (It is internally contradictory for a Progressive Social Justice Warrior to claim Christianity; Christianity is voluntary, where Social Justice is totalitarian).
\nIt is arguable that only mentally disordered persons would become the mass torturers and mass killers which Atheists did, in fact, become en masse. Yet it is also arguable that Atheism results from mental disorders acquired as children, resulting in blanket rejection of authority starting with dominant mothers and absent fathers, and extending to include the authority of theism and common moral principles which derive from religion.
\nHowever, it is important to note that it was not just one man involved in the murders of hundreds of millions of people; there were millions of Communists who were involved in these atrocities. They all believed in the premises of Marxist Dialectical Materialism, the Atheist philosophy and worldview necessary to even be a Communist.
\nAtheists will reject these observations. But they have no objective scientific proof to the contrary, nor do they have a deductive case disproving it. History of Communism shows otherwise. And finally, arguing psychology is a non-starter as will be demonstrated.
\nThey also cannot disprove the Atheist component which is necessarily associated with the massive slaughters within Atheist regimes. Without proof to the contrary, they have no case in their defense. But there is plenty of historical documentary evidence which shows the Atheist principles of Marxist\/Leninist\/Trotskyist\/Stalinist totalitarian brutality and mass slaughter.
\nIt is readily acknowledged that Atheism does not of necessity entail Leftist totalitarianism; however, the correlation is so significantly high that it cannot be denied that Leftist totalitarianism does entail Atheism.
\nNor does this mean that all totalitarianism is Leftist\/Atheist; obviously Islam differentiates itself into a religiously-based totalitarianism.
\nFurther, totalitarianism inevitably involves the perversion of terminology, such as „tolerance, equality, freedom” and „religion of peace”.
\nCommunism and Dialectical Materialism<\/b><\/p>\n
\n\u201cThe materialist doctrine<\/b> concerning the changing of circumstances and upbringing forgets that circumstances are changed by men and that it is essential to educate the educator himself. This doctrine must, therefore, divide society into two parts, one of which is superior to society<\/b>.
\nThe coincidence of the changing of circumstances and of human activity or self-changing can be conceived and rationally understood only as revolutionary practice.<\/b><\/i>\u201d
\nKarl Marx; \u201cTheses on Feuerbach\u201d; https:\/\/www.marxists.org\/archive\/marx\/works\/1845\/theses\/theses.htm
\n[emphasis added]<\/blockquote>\nStalin wrote an essay called \u201cDialectical and Historical Materialism\u201d<\/i> in 1938 [note 1]. This entails that everything is deterministic in the sense that all of existence is an integrated material unity and yet is changing. History can be scientifically analyzed and the change can be guided. Further, natural change is seen as being toward a higher order, logically, as nature sorts out whatever paradoxes crop up.
\n\u201cDialectics\u201d refers to a \u201clogic\u201d complex consisting of Hegelian thesis-antihesis-synthesis<\/i> (which is taken as a theory of naturally increasing order) which is interpreted via the sciences of Darwinian evolution and Newtonian physics as a continuing motion toward a superior man, a New Man. [note 2]. Materialism is the expression of material-only existence; i.e., the rejection of theist concepts. [note 3]. Darwinism, along with physics and under Hegelian philosophy, is the major rationalizing component of Atheist Communist dialectical \u201cscientific\u201d thought. [note 4].<\/p>\n„The coupling of natural science and social history, first formulated by Lenin, made the emergence of Communism not simply historical accident but historical destiny, a product of the essential nature of things<\/i>„. And, „Soviet morality, according to Lenin, was determined by the historical struggle of the proletariat. What was moral was anything that served 'the interests of the class struggle’; what was immoral was anything that hindered the march to communism.” <\/b><\/i>
\nOvery, p267.<\/p><\/blockquote>\nThe conclusion of Dialectial Materialism and Dialectical Historicism is that, due to the guidance of the inevitable upward motion of order from disorder in nature (ignoring entropy, of course), a New Man could \u2013 and should \u2013 result. This New Man would have increased consciousness of his position in history, his position in a collective society, and his position in the scientific guidance of natural processes toward a utopia on earth, inhabited only by New Men. [note 5] Materialism, the default Atheist theory of existence, is a primary fundamental premise for the Communist purging of resistance. Materialism is bolstered by Darwinist story-telling \u201cscience\u201d and Hegelian progression from disorder to order: hence, Atheist Dialectical Materialism is the driving force for Communism.
\nOne of the first requirements in the Communist march toward utopia was to obliterate religious oppositional thought; Atheist Materialism was not just a necessity for Communist justification, it was necessary that Atheist Materialism be the only, de facto philosophy of all surviving populace. Even surviving churches became de facto Atheist, teaching only government approved thoughts in order to survive; those religious leaders who did not become de facto Atheists were eradicated. (This also occurred under the NAZIs, where Christianity was perverted into the preached voice of National Socialism, yet claimed to be \u201cChristian\u201d, and Christian theologians and pastors who refused this were eradicated). In 1921, Lenin called for „the party to adopt a programme of \u2018militant atheism\u2019 and \u2018militant materialism\u2019”<\/i>. [note 6].<\/p>\n\u201cThe physical assault on religion meant the closure or confiscation of churches chapels, mosques, synagogues and monasteries.\u201d<\/i>
\nAnd,
\n\u201cThe Russian Orthodox Church had 46,457 churches and 1,028 monastaries at the time of the revolution[ 1917]; by 1939 estimates vary from 100 to fewer than 1000 still operating\u2026 Not even the pro-Communist Living Church\u2019 was spared\u201d. [note 7].<\/i>
\nAnd,
\nIn the course of expropriation over 8,000 clergy were killed and there were more than 1,400 violent clashes with angry parishioners. <\/i><\/p><\/blockquote>\nRecently the Chinese government declared that Communism and Atheism are in their essences synonymous, and that Communism could not survive without Atheism. [note 8]:<\/p>\n
\u201cThe editorial, written by Zhou Weiqun, chairman of the Committee on Ethnic and Religious Affairs of the Chinese People’s Political Consultative Conference, blasted Chinese academics who suggest that Communist Party members can also adhere to any religion. This prohibition against religion has been a \u201cconsistently upheld principle\u201d since Mao Zedong, the founder of the People\u2019s Republic of China, declared Zhou. \u201cIt\u2019s impossible to have another choice besides the dialectical materialist worldview.\u201d
\nZhou warned that if CPC members were allowed to have beliefs in various religions, the Party \u201cwould become a loosely bound group that can be broken down due to individual gain.\u201d Consequently, he wrote, members must have \u201ca united worldview.\u201d
\nZhou noted: „Without the foundation of the worldview, the mansion of the Party’s ideologies, theories and organizations will all collapse. We could no longer be called the 'Chinese Communist Party.'”<\/i><\/p><\/blockquote>\nWithout Atheism, Communism will not exist.
\nIt is absolutely false to claim that Atheism had nothing to do with Communist slaughters; Atheist Dialectical Materialism<\/b> is the founding and driving philosophy which underlies Communism and its slaughters. The slaughters and atrocities were specifically done in the name of Atheist Dialectical Materialism. Atheists who deny this are claiming a fatuous lie in order to preserve a false narrative.
\nNotes:<\/b>
\n1. Richard Overy; \u201cThe Dictators\u201d<\/i>; WW Norton & Co; 2004; p266.
\n2. Leon Trotsky; „The ABC\u2019s of Materialist Dialectics”<\/i>; http:\/\/www.marxist.com\/what-is-dialectical-materialism.htm<\/p>\n\u201cHegel wrote before Darwin and before Marx. Thanks to the powerful impulse given to thought by the French Revolution, Hegel anticipated the general movement of science. But because it was only an anticipation, although by a genius, it received from Hegel an idealistic character. Hegel operated with ideological shadows as the ultimate reality. Marx demonstrated that the movement of these ideological shadows reflected nothing but the movement of material bodies.\u201d
\n<\/i><\/p><\/blockquote>\n3. Trotsky, Ibid.:<\/p>\n
\u201cWe call our dialectic materialist since its roots are neither in heaven nor in the depths of our „free will” but in objective reality, in nature. Consciousness grew out of the unconscious, psychology out of physiology, the organic world out of the inorganic, the solar system out of nebula.\u201d
\n<\/i><\/p><\/blockquote>\n4. Trotsky, Ibid:<\/p>\n
\u201cDarwinism, which explained the evolution of species through quantitative transformations passing into qualitative, was the highest triumph of the dialectic in the whole field of organic matter. Another great triumph was the discovery of the table of atomic weights of chemical elements and further the transformation of one element into another. With these transformations (species, elements, etc.) is closely linked the question of classifications, just as important in the natural as in the social sciences. Linnaeus’s system (eighteenth century), utilizing as its starting point the immutability of species, was limited to the description and classification of plants according to their external characteristics.
\nThe infantile period of botany is analogous to the infantile period of logic, since the forms of our thought develop like everything that lives. Only decisive repudiation of the idea of fixed species, only the study of the history of the evolution of plants and their anatomy prepared the basis for a really scientific classification.\u201d
\n<\/i><\/p><\/blockquote>\n5.Che Guevara; from gonzalo fern\u00e1ndez; \u201cthe new man in cuba\u201d<\/i>; http:\/\/www.intrepidmedia.com\/column.asp?id=4553<\/p>\n
\u201cIn a letter to the editor of the Uruguayan weekly Marcha, published March 1965 under the title \u201cSocialism and Man in Cuba\u201d, Che Guevara addressed the issue of the „new man” (in Cuba) saying: \u201cTo build communism it is necessary, simultaneous with the new material foundations, to build the new man\u2026.This is the dictatorship of the proletariat operating not only on the defeated class but also on individuals of the victorious class\u2026. Man under socialism, despite his apparent standardization, is more complete\u2026. In this way he will reach total consciousness of his social being, which is equivalent to the full realization as a human creature\u2026\u201d
\n<\/i><\/p><\/blockquote>\n6. Overy, Ibid, pg 271.
\nPospielovski, \u201cMarxist-Leninist Atheism\u201d: I; pp 30-34.
\n7. overy, Ibid, pg 273-4.
\nDe Grunewald, \u201cGod and the Soviets\u201d, p. 54;
\nPospielovski, \u201cMarxist-Leninist Atheism;I, pp. 44-5.
\n8. http:\/\/www.thenewamerican.com\/world-news\/asia\/item\/19567-china-s-communist-party-reaffirms-marxism-maoism-atheism
\nhttp:\/\/atheism-analyzed.blogspot.com\/2014\/11\/in-china-communism-depends-on-atheism.html<\/p>\nIn China, Communism Depends On Atheism<\/a><\/h3>\n