Sort of off movies about great scientists since finding out the writers and director of "Einstein and Eddington" screwed with the history for dramatic purposes. Movies and TV shows misrepresenting history is dangerous. And that's with the great and beauteous David Tennant playing Eddington. I hate it when they lie in the mass media, especially in movies that get more viewers. I wonder what the two greatest astrophysicists of the early 20th century, Eddington and James Jeans would have said about that line in The Theory of Everything. I'm pretty sure neither of them would have seen it that way.
You don't argue with anything I said in my posts on this. Is that because you can't?
It's funny that you accuse me of using the atheist's substitution for God, "science" to promote religion when that's not what I did at all. What I did was refute atheists like you using science to promote your religion, distorting science to do it. That's a practice that is rampant among atheists who, unlike people who believe in God, always inject their atheist religion directly into science. I think Hawking came to that because he came to adore his celebrity and he knew if he said things about science proving God doesn't exist would get him ink and TV time, not to mention it would sell books. I think it's pretty much why mid-brow hack writers like Douglas Adams and seriously unfunny comics like George Carlin and Bill Maher do it. It's sad when a past-it scientist whores after fame and celebrity that way.
------------------------------
And if they misrepresent history in the movies, atheist polemics is a feast of falsification. I listened to this Youtube of the often seen, often printed Marxist economist Richard Wolff and it really brought me back to the kind of Western academic atheist distortion of history such as I remember from the Khrushchev era. He, rightly, slams Jordan Peterson for his ignorant blather about Marxism, criticizing it as "cold war" era propaganda as he, himself, listed all kinds of crimes of Christians as a means of saying you shouldn't talk about the crimes of Stalin.
The valuable content of such academic Marxism, most of it in the criticism of capitalism, isn't aided by that simplistic and distorted attribution of sins of Christians when those are a drastic deviation from the Gospel of Jesus, the letters of Paul, James, etc. the practice of the early Church as set out in Acts. Not to mention The Prophets and The Law. To attribute Nazism to Christianity is a grotesque distortion of the history, one which has become common in post-war academia due to the ideological hostility of people like Wolff to Christianity.
Nazism was so opposed to Christianity, centered around Jesus, a Jew, his named early followers, almost to a person Jewish, first brought to the gentile world by, not only a Jew but a man who, in his own words described himself as a Pharisee, that the corrupted Lutheran establishment proposed stripping Christianity of all its most basic content in order for something so called to survive in the Nazi era they believed was dawning. And they certainly were opposed by other Lutherans, not to mention other Christians. There were many thousands of Christians who were oppressed and murdered for their religious beliefs and work under Nazism, I have looked and have not found a single one murdered for atheism. I've posed that as a challenge a couple of times and no one has proposed one, yet.
The Nazi plan was explicit, to replace the cross with the swastika, the Bible with Mein Kampf. It was really not so different from what Stalin wanted to have happen, in an anti-Christian, anti-religious purge that started under Lenin and with Stalin's death regained renewed strength under Khrushchev, who, among other things, promoted anti-Christian, especially anti-Catholic propaganda where it found some of its most willing recipients among Western academics and those in show biz.
And, then, there is the fact that after 1937 the Vatican was among the foremost anti-Nazi forces there were. Even as Stalin was making nice with Hitler to carve up Poland and other states lying between Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union.
Just as looking into the primary documentation of Darwinism led me to realize that I'd been sold a series of obvious lies surrounding his relationship to eugenics, looking at the history of atheist anti-religious polemic has led me to realize how much of that was a flimsy fabric of lies. I didn't become disillusioned with capitalism because I'd never not realized it was evil, I never really bought Marxism because the enormous crimes of the Marxist regimes - so denominated by a large majority of Marxists of the West - were so well documented, were known even in my childhood. But I did get suckered by a lot of that post-war propaganda which was current in academia and in the lefty magazines and other media. Large parts of that doesn't much stand up to fact checking or reading primary sources, either.
Wolff is an economist. He makes a point in the video of saying he's not going to criticize the sleazy Jordan Peterson on the basis of his academic topic, psychology (I believe Wolff's wife is a professional psychologist) but on his foray into economics. An historian might make the same point about Wolff's clearly double-talking use of the history of Christians.
He uses that old stand-by of anti-Christian, anti-Catholic polemics, the Inquisition. I'd rather have been accused of heresy by the Inquisition than by any court in under just about any Marxist government, I'd have stood a far higher chance of being acquitted. To compare even that admitted black-mark against the Catholic Church to the terror state and show trials of Stalin is disgustingly dishonest, something which depends on the ignorance and bigotry of those you are talking to, not on anything like a standard of honesty.
Marxism as a possible political system is dead. It is as dead as the dead parrot in the Monty Python sketch. Even the Marxists in former Marxist countries don't want to pretend about it anymore, preferring oligarchic gangster capitalism. Only among the contented cattle of university faculties and the scribbling classes is there any torch for it being held. And that mass of deluded upper-middle class to affluent folk are a dead weight on what will be the only real left that has a chance of acting as an alternative to gangster governance.
Despite what that old linear graph of political identity holds, there are only two forms of government and those are so basically different that they are inevitably in opposition. There is egalitarian democracy and there is rule by gangsters. One is by the consent of those governed equally, chosen by those governed, a government which promotes the welfare of all. The other which comes in various levels of ever descending depravity, is a racket in which the government rules for the benefit of an elite, using various factions against each other in order to maintain power and to steal as much as they can out of those who produce wealth. Marxism, in reality, is just another form of gangsterism, the present day post-Marxists of the old Soviet establishment and in places such as China govern as a criminal gang does. Marxism has no legitimate part in any real left. It should have been kicked out of the left in the 1920s as the real character of Marxism in reality became obvious. In 2018, there is no excuse for not knowing that. In American politics, Marxists have had a uniform effect in kneecapping the real left, of being a tool of capitalist oligarchs and fascists to discredit the real left. Richard Wolff is not helping fight them, not one bit.
No comments:
Post a Comment