Mad Rant: A World Gone Mad

I am constantly reminded that, despite my own occasional thoughts to the contrary, the certificated, educated professionals in the psychiatric fields in both civilian and military hospitals were correct in their assessment of my damaged mental state -because if the rest of the world has not gone absolutely barking mad then I must have! Our civilization is crumbling around us and just at the moment when we most require the sterner stuff of which past generations were made, we are going suicidal soft! Perhaps things are better in the place where you bide, reading this rant (too many of which, I am sure, I subject you to), but it is painfully the fact here in the good old U.S. of A. to be sure. And that goes for foreign relations, the economy and domestic laws -really the only things government is supposed to handle. However, how can the government not screw all of these things up when it seems that so many people have taken leave of their senses?! Yes, yes, it is simply that I am the one with the problem -but what a massive one it must be.

Take the recent offing of Osama bin Laden, arch-terrorist and public enemy number one. Here was a man who proudly boasted of being responsible for the murder of thousands of people around the world and yet, when someone stepped up and sent this cowardly, bloodthirsty bastard to meet his 72 virgins some people in this country actually complained! There was even a Catholic priest on TV who said that we shouldn’t say Osama was evil because that is only for God to decide (he was probably a Jesuit…)! Aaaaarrrrggghhhh! Is everyone trying to play a joke on me? Whatever happened to the Church that was home to the “fighting faith”? Where is Torquemada when we need him? If we cannot say that Osama bin Laden was evil we might as well give up on any semblance of religion or morality because it does not exist and there is no point to any of it. As for the lay population, we have got the usual whining that he should have been captured, he should have been given a “fair trial” (like that would have been possible) and, my personal favorite, that America had no “right” to kill Osama because it was America that created him.

(head banging on desk)

That is so asinine that I hardly know how to go about addressing it -it just makes my head hurt. In the first place, America did not “create” Osama bin Laden -he was responsible for his own life and his own decisions, not anyone else. Secondly, even if he were a totally American creation I still think we would have the “right”, yes, even the *responsibility* to put a bullet between his eyes. Tim McVeigh was ‘American made’ but that didn’t stop us from shooting his veins full of poison after he blew up a few hundred people in Oklahoma City. Osama bin Laden was a bad guy who got what was coming to him -it should not be a complicated subject. He was also a gutless wimp who died cowering behind his wife. Think about this: he complained about the U.S. having a base in Saudi Arabia and used that to try to justify his actions. So, why did he not go to his homeland and lobby the government to order the U.S. to leave? Why didn’t he try to force their hand instead of coming to America and butchering thousands of innocent people? Because if he had, the Saudi government would have stomped on him and his death would have been far worse than two shots in the head. He probably would have been separated from his head. Coward.

Okay, moving on, I mentioned the economy. This won’t take long. When it comes to the economy I knew my doctors must have been right all along as soon as I heard Vice President Joe Biden say, in all seriousness, that in order to get out of the mountain of debt we were under the government needed to spend more money. And no one called him on it. Everyone just went along like that made complete sense. [hold on a second, blood’s coming out of my ears] The bill was passed, and the same pattern continues to repeat. We have about fourteen trillion dollars of debt in this country and the government wants to “fix” it by spending more money. Again, the fact that roughly half the country agrees with this, hell the fact that ANYONE would go along with this proves that, yes, I must be totally out of my mind because if I am not then our entire civilization is suffering from nothing less than an absolute plague of madness.

Just today, I was reminded of another example. You know election time is getting close when immigration starts to be important again and this time is no different. There is a bill currently going through Austin by which the Governor wants to outlaw so-called “sanctuary cities”. For those of you who don’t know, these are cities where illegal aliens are welcome, where police and civic authorities are not allowed to check the status of anyone’s citizenship or to report them to the U.S. Department of Immigration. These are cities where the local government says, “On these particular laws, we are going to look the other way and refuse to enforce them”. The debate over these cities is nothing new, nor is the talking points of both sides but what really makes my head explode is the line we always get from the local police. They say that enforcing immigration laws would destroy the “trust” between illegal aliens and the police and make it harder to stop more “serious” crimes in their neighborhoods because they will not report anything or want to talk to the police at all for fear of being found out and (though I can’t imagine why) extradited back to their country of origin.

Please, help me! Does this make sense to anyone? Can someone tell me how? How is this any different than if the police stopped arresting people who stole cars because that would mean the thieves wouldn’t help them catch the murderers in the area? Do police have a similar relationship of “trust” with the child molester community, the vandal community or the rapist community? Here I was thinking that the police were supposed to uphold the law, all of it, regardless of all else. I’m sure people will be upset by some of these comparisons, but I cannot see it any other way. Illegal aliens, *broke the law* as soon as they crossed the border, they committed a crime and I see no reason why one group of criminals should be overlooked while other criminals are not. The police should be arresting criminals -period. Whoever they are, wherever they are from, whatever crime they committed. You commit a crime - the police take you away. Seems simple to me, but, lest I forget, I am the crazy one so, perhaps the system makes perfect sense to everyone else.

There are, of course, other issues in other countries I could go into. Such as the element in Canada which is utterly devoted to depriving that country of their greatest, most lucrative, natural resource or the fact that while the United Kingdom is so short of cash they will downsize the military and gut the Royal Navy but never think of making people responsible for their own doctor bills. Of course, on that score, I might also mention that there are people in Britain who see nothing wrong with paying the government over forty million pounds a year to treat men with erectile dysfunction but find it outrageous to pay the security bill for the wedding of their future king. One might think that things like sovereignty and national security would take precedence over a crowd of aging old men who can’t chase skirt like they used to but, then one might just be a … Mad Monarchist.

Hitler: Right Wing Dictator?

I get a little tired of people categorizing Adolf Hitler as a "right-wing dictator". This is because, for the most part, this often seems to come from those who refuse to believe that there is such a thing as a really bad left-wing dictator. Where does this classification come from? Is it simply a monopoly on racism? Because I cannot, for the life of me, see why Adolf Hitler is considered more right-wing than left-wing. Think about it; the man was an irreligious, environmentalist, vegetarian who banned smoking and founded a party called the "National Socialist German Workers Party". Does that sound like a conservative, right-wing guy to you? Hitler was born into the Austrian Empire but had nothing but contempt for the Hapsburg domain which was far too cosmopolitan for his racial purist views and was far too accepting of Jews for his anti-Semitic taste. So much was he against his own homeland that when World War I came he went to fight for Germany rather than Austria.

Furthermore, I would say simply look to Hitler's background and his own words if any doubt remains. He scorned the German princes, insulting them in his political testament Mein Kampf and was inordinately proud of his "common" background and dismissive of the aristocratic class and the old royals. He at times made friendly gestures toward the princely class to win over conservatives but never followed through on his real or implied promises. He purposely copied the methods of the socialists and communists such as in his design of the Nazi flag, chosen, he wrote, because he had seen the hypnotic effect of massed red flags at communist rallies. When the last German Kaiser died he forbid high officials to attend the funeral and when Prince Wilhelm of Prussia was killed in World War II he so feared the monarchist sentiment that arose at his funeral that he forbid German royals from serving at the front after that. Look at his political record.

After World War I he joined the German Workers Party, not the conservatives who wanted a restoration of the old monarchy. He then molded this party into the National Socialist German Workers Party and he made it clear that his vision was an aristocracy of racial blood rather than royal blood and which adhered to a religion of blood and soil rather than Christ and the Apostles. His goal, he openly stated, was to have all class distinctions abolished, something very liberal by the standards of any country. Even when German princes embraced Nazism he was loathe to accept them and did so only for the propaganda value of their conversions. He tried to tread somewhat lightly on the subject of religion because he wanted to appeal to a very broad audience though he did find some of the writings of Martin Luther quite useful when they condemned and ridiculed the Jews. On the whole though, Hitler wanted a new version of Nazi paganism rather than Christianity as can be seen in his insistence that his elite guard, the SS, not have any firm religious convictions. The extent to which Hitler was an occultist is debatable and in all probability he did not have any religion in the common sense of the term. Oddly enough his spiritual beliefs seem most compliant with the liberal elites of today who usually state that they do not believe in organized religion but prefer a vague sort of naturalistic spiritualism. In fact, it was specifically the paganism of Nazi Germany and to a lesser extent fascist Italy that the Pope (Pius XI) condemned and which gave the most pause to more conservative but fervently Christian nationalists like Salazar in Portugal, Franco in Spain and Dollfuss in Austria.

There were right-wing elements to Hitler and some fairly conservative sorts of people among his followers, but on the whole, I cannot see how anyone can call Hitler a right-wing guy. From his background, political testament and the state he created I do not see how the man can be considered, on the whole, to be of anything other than the political left. He was no friend of monarchy, wanted all class differences abolished, legalized abortion (for non-Aryans), banned smoking, instituted gun control, was a fervent environmentalist, a vegetarian and hated organized religion in favor of a nature-based spiritualism. I ask again, does any of that sound conservative or right-wing to you?