Santa Claus - the capitalist disenfranchisement of the poor

Santa Claus - the capitalist disenfranchisement of the poor

By Ranting Panda, 27 December 2022

In the words of John Lennon, 'so this is Christmas, for weak and for strong, for rich and the poor ones, the world is so wrong'. 

Is Christmas for the poor ones though? Lennon is correct that the world is so wrong ... it's wrong in its treatment of the poor, of the marginalised. And Santa, hero of the capitalist world, perpetuates the marginalisation of the poor.

Most people look forward to Christmas, if for nothing more than having a few days off. However, for children it is usually the biggest day in their calendar, often eclipsing even their birthdays. So what's wrong with this picture? Santa Claus. That's what's wrong with it.

Now, we could argue that Santa is based on the real life character of St Nicholas, a 3rd century monk who was also known as Kris Kringle. St Nicholas gave away his inherited wealth and spent his time helping the sick and the poor. 

While the modern day Santa also ostensibly gives away wealth to children across the globe, there is a big difference between the contemporary version and his 3rd century namesake. The difference isn't the obvious fact that one was real and one isn't, but more that modern Santa maintains a Naughty or Nice list in which he supposedly only gives gifts to the 'Nice' kids, the 'Good' kids. You may wonder what is wrong with that.

I'm glad you asked.

Santa Clause is not real. Ok, that may not be a revelation, however, that means that the parents or carers for children are required to step in for Santa. This may not be an issue for people who have money, but there's a lot of people across the world who don't have that much money. Therefore, poor kids are made to feel they are naughty, that they are bad.

The 1989 comedy, National Lampoon's Christmas Vacation, referred to this very situation. Clark Griswald's niece, Ruby, is from an impoverished family. She says to Clark that the previous Christmas, Santa hadn't brought her and her brother anything, so they must have been naughty even though they had tried to be nice all year. 

Santa Clause represents the capitalist disenfranchisement of the poor. While Christmas may be an exciting time for privileged children, for impoverished families it is a time of stress by either not being able to afford much for their children or going into debt to keep up appearances. 

Santa Claus's Naughty or Nice list reinforces negative stereotypes by stigmatising the poor as bad, naughty, misbehaved, and not deserving of his gifts.

Of course, Christmas isn't just about Santa and gifts for privileged kids, it is also meant to celebrate the birth of Jesus Christ. You may know of him from a book called the Bible. It is irrelevant whether you believe in Christ or the Bible. What is relevant is that Christmas is a Christian celebration. Yes, we can argue about the pagan roots of it, but Christmas by definition is about Christ. I'm labouring this point because Christ also preached a message of loving and caring for all people, not just rich or privileged people. Yet many who celebrate Christ's birthday also disenfranchise the poor by perpetuating the myth that those who don't receive presents from Santa must be naughty ... instead of acknowledging that those kids may be poor and in need of help.

Christ condemned the accumulation of wealth and preached a message of sharing and redistribution wealth. Christ was a socialist. The original St Nicholas or Kris Kringle also practised socialism by giving his wealth and time selflessly to those who needed it. As Karl Marx penned, 'From each according to their ability, to each according to their need'. Interestingly, this mirrors some bible verses, namely Acts 4:32-35:

32 All the believers were one in heart and mind. No one claimed that any of their possessions was their own, but they shared everything they had. 33 With great power the apostles continued to testify to the resurrection of the Lord Jesus. And God’s grace was so powerfully at work in them all 34 that there were no needy persons among them. For from time to time those who owned land or houses sold them, brought the money from the sales 35 and put it at the apostles’ feet, and it was distributed to anyone who had need.

Even the Old Testament got into the creed of sharing to meet people's needs. Exodus 16:16-18:

16 This is what the Lord has commanded: ‘Everyone is to gather as much as they need. Take an omer for each person you have in your tent.’” 17 The Israelites did as they were told; some gathered much, some little. 18 And when they measured it by the omer, the one who gathered much did not have too much, and the one who gathered little did not have too little. Everyone had gathered just as much as they needed.

Capitalism is about accumulation, greed and selfishness. Socialism is about sharing of wealth, selflessness and caring for the poor and disenfranchised, ensuring that everyone's needs are met. In capitalism, wealth is accumulated through the exploitation of others, particularly exploitation of the poor. Socialism achieves wealth for all through sharing the gains of fair productivity to meet the needs of all. 

The modern day Santa Claus is a capitalist misrepresentation of the original message of Christmas that was preached by Jesus and practiced by St Nicholas. It rewards the rich and demonises the poor. 

Every Christmas, privileged Christians will claim that there is a 'War on Christmas', because someone dares to say 'happy holidays' instead of 'merry Christmas'. Meanwhile, these very people have completely lost the message of Christmas, which was not to accumulate wealth, but to redistribute it, to care for the poor, not to exploit them, to love the poor, not to stigmatise them. Such a 'war' is a concoction of the rich who are more interested in fairy lights & flying reindeers, than they are in redistributing wealth or ending the exploitation of the poor. War on Christmas? As Guns N' Roses sang in Civil War, 'I don't need your civil war, it feeds the rich and buries the poor'. 

The avarice of Christmas and Santa's 'Naughty or Nice' list only benefits the rich and besmirches the poor. 

Overturning Roe v Wade is a death sentence for many women

Overturning Roe v Wade is a death sentence for many women

by Ranting Panda, 26 June 2022

Conservatives are at it again: forcing their religious beliefs and vacuous 'moral' codes on the rest of society. This time, they have managed to overturn the1973 US Supreme Court case Roe v Wade, which had legalised women's rights to access abortion. 

Conservatives think that they are saving lives by banning abortion, although the opposite is true. When former President George W. Bush defunded family planning clinics that either undertook abortion or even gave advice about abortion (the so-called 'Gag' Order), abortions rose by 40% compared to when his predecessor, President Clinton, had continued funding these clinics (Bendavid, Avila & Miller, 2011). Research from the University of Colorado Boulder, indicates that banning abortion will result in a 21% increase in the deaths of women from unsafe abortions (Stevenson 2021). This is replicated globally, in which access to sex education, contraception and medical abortions is essential to reducing the rate of abortion and the likelihood of women dying from the procedure (Amnesty International, n.d.).

All that conservatives have managed to achieve is to drive abortion underground. Perhaps they have forgotten the deaths of women and the horrible disfigurements of babies born after botched backyard abortions. Interestingly, there is a higher rate of abortion in countries that ban it, than in countries where it is legal (Guttmacher Institute, 2018). 

So-called 'pro-life' groups claim they are defending the rights of the unborn, however they are actually creating worse conditions for abortion than if it were legal. Firstly, the main reason that women seek out abortion is because of poverty (Oberman, 2018). Conservatives oppose every means of providing such support. Ever see a Conservative support welfare, community housing, public education, or socialised healthcare? Of course not. These 'pro-lifers' are too selfish to share their income through tax redistribution, not to mention, they are terrified that community programs equate to socialism. They protest against raising the minimum wage, let alone providing welfare to address poverty. Welcome to Capitalism 101: selfishness, avarice and complete disregard for women or the lives of babies born into poverty. Conservatives think that socialism is anything to the left of hunting the homeless for sport.

The religious right has been pushing their agenda of Christian Nationalism for years. The recent Supreme Court decision to overturn Roe v Wade is a major step in progressing Christian Nationalism, which regresses modern society to the days of patriarchal rule, where women were nothing but chattels for men to control and rape. The Supreme Court decision is a highly sexist, retrograde one that makes women nothing but breeding incubators to fulfil the sexual desires of men. Those same men are not held to account for their women they impregnate.  

'Pro-lifers' claim that they are concerned for the lives of children, yet they refuse to part with their precious firearms, even though school shootings are a regular occurrence. The deaths of hundreds of children from gun violence isn't enough to concern the pro-lifers who treat their access access to guns as a basic human right. As at the end of May 2022, the United States has seen more than 250 mass shooting events in 2022. On 24 May 2022, 19 children were gunned down in Uvalde, Texas. Since then, there have been another 38 mass shootings (Ladir & Rabinowitz 2022).  

Access to guns is not a human right. Access to abortion is a healthcare requirement and a basic human right enshrined by the United Nations. Forced pregnancy, including the denial to safe abortion, is a crime against humanity under international law (Amnesty International, 2020, p 10).

Pro-life conservatives bemoan a 'leftist agenda' being thrust upon them. You know, the sort of things that actually don't impact them at all, such as the right for same-sex marriage. Yet, it is conservatives who are constantly thrusting their beliefs onto everyone else in order for control and to appease their sensitive, snowflake feelings of entitlement and supremacy. They are the first ones to whinge about their liberties being infringed if someone so much as wishes them 'happy holidays' instead of 'merry Christmas', or dares to suggest that Black Lives Matter, or that Critical Race Theory shows there's more to history than the white supremacist colonialist fairy-tale. 

The control that these conservative extremists are trying to exercise is nothing short of totalitarianism. They want to dominate others with their nationalist agenda. They claim their religion or morality is superior to everyone else's. They claim they are doing the 'work of the Lord'. They claim they care for others, when they only care about themselves. There's a big difference between caring for others and controlling others. Ironic then, that US conservatives spent decades demonising Islam as depriving women of freedom, only to do the same thing in the name of their perverted 'christian' values and warped sense of 'democracy'. 

Conservatives will not stop at abortion. These extremists will now target same-sex marriage. Justice Clarence Thomas said as much in the decision to overturn Roe v Wade. For conservative Christians there have only been two big issues they are concerned with: abortion & homosexuality. Neither of these issues were even mentioned by Jesus; not that these bible-bashing hypocrites have ever followed Christ's teachings. 

There is also concern that other rights which were enshrined prior to Roe v Wade could be at risk, including the right to contraception and the right to inter-racial marriage (Papenfuss 2022).

It is a dangerous place to be in when conservatives are dominating with their fascist politics. 

References

Amnesty International, 2020, Forced pregnancy - a commentary on the crime in international law', 30 June, viewed 26 June 2022, https://www.amnesty.org/en/wp-content/uploads/2021/05/IOR5327112020ENGLISH.pdf

Amnesty International, n.d., Key facts on Abortion, viewed 26 June 2022, https://www.amnesty.org/en/what-we-do/sexual-and-reproductive-rights/abortion-facts/

Bendavid, E, Avila, P, Miller, G, 2011, United States aid policy and induced abortion in sub-Saharan Africa, World Health Organization Bulletin, 27 September, viewed 26 June 2022, https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3260902/

Guttmacher Institute, 2018, Highly restrictive laws do not eliminate abortion, 25 September, viewed 26 June 2022, https://www.guttmacher.org/infographic/2018/highly-restrictive-laws-do-not-eliminate-abortion

Ladir, J, & Rabinowitz, K, 2022, There have been over 250 mass shootings so far in 2022, The Washington Post, 8 June, viewed 26 June 2022, https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2022/06/02/mass-shootings-in-2022/

Oberman, M, 2018, Motherhood, abortion and the medicalization of poverty, The Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics, 18 October, viewed 26 June 2022, https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/1073110518804221.

Papenfuss, M, 2022, Decision Destroying Roe Threatens Legal Right To Interracial Marriage, Experts Warn, Huffpost, 24 June, viewed 26 June 2022, https://www.huffpost.com/entry/roe-v-wade-same-sex-interracial-marriage-clarence-thomas_n_62b64cd3e4b0cf43c864baaf#

Stevenson, A, 2021, A research note on the mortality consequence of denying all wanted induced abortions, SocArXiv, 1 September, viewed 26 June 2022, doi:10.31235/osf.io/sb5f2

Australia's Religious Discrimination Bill - empowering discrimination by the privileged pious

Australia's Religious Discrimination Bill - empowering discrimination by the privileged pious

By Ranting Panda, 28 November 2021

The Australian federal government recently unveiled its Religious Discrimination Bills. In summary, the Bills propose protection for people to discriminate if their religion gives them the excuse. As an example, the Bills allow certain organisations to fire or not hire people who are LGBTIQ+, or for schools to expel or not enrol LGBTIQ+ students (Elphick & Taylor 2021). The Bills can be viewed at https://www.ag.gov.au/rights-and-protections/publications/religious-discrimination-bills-2021.

The object of the Bills is to recognise 'the freedom of all people to have or adopt a religion or belief of their choice, and freedom to manifest this religion or belief either individually or in community with others ...'(s 3, Religious Discrimination Bill 2021). This may seem fine in that people should be able to practice their religion or beliefs, however, religious belief is not persecuted in Australia. Well ... Christian religious belief is not persecuted in Australia. It's a different story for people of other faiths who have been persecuted, lambasted and demonised for their religious beliefs. This has particularly been the case for Muslims, who are often the target of horrendous vilification at the hands of right-wing media commentators, Christians and others, who feel empowered to act out their bigotry and xenophobia.

The Religious Discrimination Bills were proposed in the wake of the marriage equality plebiscite, when some Christians were called out for discrimination against and persecution of LGBTIQ+ people. The plebiscite was about equality, which is a bridge too far for many Christians. In a nutshell, a lot of Christians felt persecuted because they couldn't persecute others. The plebiscite resulted in marriage equality for LGBTIQ+ people, who were given the same rights to marry that everyone else takes for granted. Why did Christians feel persecuted? Because they wanted the right to discriminate against LGBTIQ+ people, based on a twisted interpretation of scripture. 

Marriage is not the only area they wanted to be able to discriminate. Christians wanted the right to force their values on others, such as in the area of abortion, and ironically, religious belief. After all, instead of simply loving their neighbour, they only have to love their neighbour who is Christian, not Muslim, not LGBTIQ+, or requiring an abortion. Funnily enough, the bible is very critical of divorcees. Up until the mid-20th century, divorcees were anathema to the church, but now the church is highly accepting of divorcees. There will also come a time when LGBTIQ+ Christians can attend church and be open about their sexuality, gender identification and relationships. 

The Bills make it legal for a religious school to require all staff AND students to be adherents of that religion 'if such a requirement is necessary to avoid injury to the religious susceptibilities of people of that religion' (s 7(1), Religious Discrimination Bill 2021). How weak does your religion have to be, that your feelings may be hurt or your beliefs susceptible to injury by allowing someone not of that religion to work at the school? Similarly, s 9 of the Bill allows for religious hospitals, aged care providers, and disability services providers to discriminate based on faith. What value does it add if a Physics teacher is a Christian or not? Teaching English, Physics, Biology and so on, has nothing to do with the teacher's religious beliefs. Obviously, if the class is a religious education one, it may help for a teacher to be of that religion, but other subjects should not be even discussing religion, let alone requiring the teacher to adhere to that faith.  

The Bill does however, state that while people can make statements of belief that could be seen as discriminatory, they can't make those statements if they are malicious, threatening, intimidating, harassing, or vilifying others (s 12(2), s 15(3), Religious Discrimination Bill 2021). 

The Bill is part of a package of three Bills. One of those is the Human Rights Legislation Amendment Bill 2021, which amends various federal legislation, including several human rights laws, namely Disability Discrimination Act 1992, Marriage Act 1961, Racial Discrimination Act 1975, Charities Act 2013, Age Discrimination Act 2004, and the Sex Discrimination Act 1984. To be fair, some of the amendments reaffirm the universality of basic human rights. However, if enacted, these amendments would allow for such things as educational institutions being able to refuse to provide goods, services or make facilities available for LGBTIQ+ people. 

Not every Christian or Christian organisation agrees with the Religious Discrimination Bill. For instance, the Uniting Church in Australia released a media statement on the Bill, which included the comment, '... we maintain any permission given to individuals or religious organisations that allows them to discriminate on the basis of religious belief must be carefully balanced against the rights of people to be free from discrimination and live with dignity. It is our view that the Religious Discrimination Bill does not achieve that balance' (Uniting Church in Australia, 2021).

By contrast, on 3 December 2021, the Victorian Labor government passed the Equal Opportunity (Religious Exceptions) Amendment Bill 2021, which amends Victoria's Equal Opportunity Act (2010) to make it unlawful for schools and religious bodies to 'discriminate against an employee because of their sexual orientation, gender identity, marital status or other protected attribute'. In other words, they can't sack people for being LGBTIQ+ or discriminate in their hiring practices. Additionally, they can't refuse service on these grounds either. (AAP-SBS, 2021). If the Commonwealth's religious discrimination Bills are passed, they would override Victoria's much fairer legislation. 

The Commonwealth's discriminatory Bills come at an interesting time for people of faith. Most of the people who support the Bills are right-wing conservative Christians. For many years, these same people have been forcing their beliefs on others. It is one thing for people to have the right to practice their beliefs without harassment, it is entirely something else for those same people to force those beliefs on others. Yet, that is exactly what has been happening. They have forced women to have unwanted pregnancies, forced LGBTIQ+ people to hide their true sexuality and identity, forced LGBTIQ+ people to comply with the myopic view of marriage that many Christians have (i.e. marriage can only be between a man and a woman), forced other religions out of an area (such as campaigns that prevented construction of mosques), and attempted to tell other religions what they could eat or wear (such as campaigns against halal food and religious clothing, particularly burqas). 

It's not Christians in Australia who need protection against discrimination, it is the people who Christians discriminate against who need that protection. 

Unfortunately, far too many Christians live selfish lives. They wouldn't know what the Bible said if it bit them on their self-absorbed arses. The Bible is clear about sharing wealth with others, yet this is socialism in the minds of many of these Christians, who practically worship capitalism. The Bible says to care for others ... but again, socialism. Caring for the welfare of others is anathema to much of conservative Christianity. 

Coincidentally, it is right-wing conservative Christians who have been particularly vocal and active in anti-vaccination protests across the globe. Vaccinations help to protect the community, particularly those most vulnerable to respiratory conditions, but caring for others isn't high on the list of priorities of these Christians. They vociferously argue against being forced to be vaccinated, claiming it is a violation of their human rights. What privilege it must be to never have experienced human rights abuses, and then claim such abuse when asked to help the community. 

They carry placards claiming 'my body, my choice', which is particularly ironic, considering that these same people have been actively campaigning against abortion, in which pro-abortionists argue 'my body, my choice'. For Christians, other people's bodies are only important when it is their own. Choice is only important for them, not for others who may want to make different choices. 

In fact, the involvement of Christians in anti-vaccination protests highlights that their only concern for human rights is when it is their own. They have never protested against the treatment of refugees, such as Australia's mandatory detention policy, but make a vaccine mandatory and they lose their collective minds. There's a big difference between getting a little prick that will save lives and help protect the community, to being locked up for years without charge for committing no crime while being denied the very basic rights to freedom that most of us take for granted. Yet, these so-called Christians are more concerned with being forced to protect the community, then actually doing something to protect the community. They are more concerned with being given life-saving medication, than caring about the persecution and torture of innocent people. First world problems, much!

(Moore & Risso, 2020)

Many right-wing conservative Christians are selfish. They have no concern for anyone else's rights but their own. No wonder they attend anti-vax rallies and also support the discriminatory Racial Discrimination Bills.

They claim to be pro-life when they oppose abortion, but show they are pro-disease and pro-death when they attend anti-vax rallies to stop people from being given life-saving vaccinations. They want Jesus to save them, but reject life-saving vaccinations. Perhaps Jesus sent the vaccination ... 

Then there are those completely deluded kool-aid drinkers who see mandatory Covid vaccinations as the Mark of the Beast articulated in the Book of Revelation, Chapter 13, verses 16-18. In case you're not familiar with that particular scripture, it states, 'It also forced all people, great and small, rich and poor, free and slave, to receive a mark on their right hands or on their foreheads, so that they could not buy or sell unless they had the mark, which is the name of the beast or the number of its name. This calls for wisdom. Let the person who has insight calculate the number of the beast, for it is the number of a man. That number is 666'. The Covid-19 vaccination is apparently the Mark of the Beast. I kid you not. 

Mind you, those who claim this have been eagerly awaiting the anti-Christ because they believe that we are in the end-times prophesied in the Bible ... just like many others before them for the last 2,000 years or so. They have rattled off a plethora of candidates for the anti-Christ. This litany of superstars includes The Pope, Hitler, Henry Kissinger, Mikhail Gorbachev, and pretty much every American president since the founding of the US, except for Donald Trump, who these right-wing conservative Christians have practically lauded as being Christ incarnate. This hall of fame extends way back for millenia, and incudes Napoleon and the various Caesars. Every generation has claimed they are in the end-times, so pardon me if I'm a little sceptical that this generation is the last one before the Apocalypse ... but I digress ...

There is no reasoning with people who have this mentality. For them, everything is a conspiracy. If you quote fatalities from Covid, they will argue it is government propaganda. If you present evidence of the efficacy of vaccinations and that they save lives, these mental giants will quote some obscure and entirely fictional finding that they saw on YouTube or social media. If you criticise their selfishness in opposing the vaccine, they will argue that they are freedom fighters. Of course, they never argued for the freedom of refugees and asylum seekers who faced mandatory detention, even though the Bible considers refugees and asylum seekers as the 'least of these', and calls for their care and concern by Christians. Matthew 25:31-46 states that, 'whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers and sisters of mine, you did for me'.

In fact, this is the parable of the sheep & the goats, which states that the sheep are those who are concerned for others, while the goats are those who are only concerned for themselves. The parable goes on to explain that the goats will be sentenced to eternal punishment. Funnily enough, the selfish anti-vax Christians accuse pro-vaxxers of being sheep. Oh well, this would make the anti-vaxxers the goats in this parable ... I guess they better start cranking up their heaters & get used to fiery torment. They tend to also not believe in climate change, so perhaps their support for carbon emissions is their way of practicing for an overheated eternity in the fires of hell. Just sayin' ...

Through their support for the Racial Discrimination Bills, anti-vax protests, end-times conspiracy theories, the lies and bigoted fear-mongering of Donald Trump and Scott Morrison, locking up refugees and asylum seekers, or vilifying other races and religions, it is clear that many right-wing conservative Christians lack the ability to love their neighbour, lack grace and humility, lack wisdom, lack critical reasoning, yet abound in selfishness. They wallow in a persecution-complex, while having the freedom to persecute others.  

The Racial Discrimination Bills are not needed. It would be more accurate to rename them the Privilege Protection Bills. The last thing that Australia needs at this time is to further empower discrimination of others. If anything, the government should be providing greater support and strength to those who are truly discriminated against, persecuted and vilified, instead of empowering the privileged and sanctimonious Christian-class. Instead of these unnecessary and damaging Bills, the Australian government should be focussing on the important challenges facing Australia, including equality for all, climate change and Covid. 

References

AAP-SBS, 2021, Victoria has passed new laws that make it unlawful for schools to sack LGBTIQ+ staff, SBS News, 3 December, viewed 3 December 2021, https://www.sbs.com.au/news/victoria-has-passed-new-laws-that-make-it-unlawful-for-schools-to-sack-lgbtiq-staff/45e09ac5-f7eb-411b-83cf-d6fc240a7ed7.

Elphick, L, & Taylor, A, 2021, Schools can still expel LGBTQ+ kids. The Religious Discrimination Bill only makes it worse, ABC News, 26 November, viewed 26 November 2021, https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-11-26/religious-discrimination-bill-lgbtq-students-teachers-religion/100651222.

Moore, G, & Risso, A, 2020, Anti-vaccination and 5G protesters defy COVID restrictions, 7 News, 30 May, viewed 26 November 2021, https://7news.com.au/politics/anti-vaccination-and-5g-protesters-defy-covid-restrictions-c-1069448. 

Uniting Church in Australia, 2021, Religious Discrimination Bill must protect all, 26 November, viewed 26 November 2021, https://uniting.church/religious-discrimination-bill-must-protect-all-people/. 

Updated 4 December 2021

Jesus was a virtue-signaller not a vaccination, and science isn't black magic

Jesus was a virtue-signaller not a vaccination, and science isn't black magic

By Ranting Panda, 26 September 2021

Covid has brought to light some of the utter ignorance and arrogance of science-denying Luddite conservatives, many of whom are Christians claiming that they place their faith in God, not vaccines, masks, lockdowns, doctors or other medical professionals. They treat science as if it's hocus-pocus mysticism, while indulging in group-think cultism that glorifies anti-intellectualism. 

They seriously believe that God, not vaccines, will protect them from the virus, even though there have been more than 4.5 million deaths from Covid worldwide. In the United States, more than 850,000 people have died so far, many of those were Christians who had fallen for the racist and anti-science lies of the disgraced former President, Donald Trump, who was more concerned with racial vilification of China, than in actually taking the virus seriously. He was directly responsible for the genocidal scale of victims in the United States. Yet right-wing Christians practically worshipped him and continue to consider him to be a man of God. God knows what God they worship, but it's clearly not the Christian God. This shows just how degenerate conservative Christianity is ... how spiritually irrelevant it has become; steeped in superstition and stupidity.

Today's conservative Christians are incensed that their individual rights are being 'violated' by mandated vaccines, masks and lockdowns. They claim they are being persecuted. Meanwhile, they were nowhere to be seen when real persecution occurred of other people. These conservatives defended Trump and other conservative governments when they persecuted refugees, the world's most vulnerable people, by demonising them, locking them up in mandatory detention without charge, even though the refugees had broken no laws and had not been charged with any crimes. Conservative Christians defended and condoned this persecution. But the moment these cowards are asked to stay home and wear masks, they carry on as if they've been locked up on Manus Island for years on end. Clearly, 'do unto others as you'd have them do unto you', is something they only pay lip service to. It shows that they have no concern for others and are only concerned with themselves. 

This has been magnified during Covid-19, when they have shown no concern for the community, for reducing the spread of the virus throughout their neighbourhoods, minimising the risk of infection by others. Instead, they are only interested in themselves. Jesus said to 'Love your neighbour'. In fact, Mark 12:33 says that loving your neighbour is more important than all burnt offerings and sacrifices.

It isn't showing love to your neighbour if you don't care about your neighbour being infected by a deadly virus. The Bible tells Christians to not be selfish, but to be selfless. Philippians 2:3-4 says, 'Do nothing from selfish ambition or conceit, but in humility count others more significant than yourselves. Let each of you look not only to his own interests, but also to the interests of others'. Throughout Covid, conservative Christians have shown that they are selfish, not selfless.

Recently, Pastor Keith Marshall published an article entitled 'What does your faith exempt you from'. Marshall boldly suggested that as a Christian he was exempt from putting his own needs above others, claiming freedom in Christ without responsibility for his actions, or refusing to protect the most vulnerable. This sounds positively socialist. Dare he suggest that Christians were called to put the needs of others ahead of their own need? 

Not surprisingly, this caused a lot of consternation among conservative Christians, who were obviously convicted of their selfishness by his words. To be frank, it was a little entertaining reading their comments, which showed just how deluded and degenerate conservative Christianity has become. So a few of their comments are republished here and are representative of much of the commentary about the article.

Many of the commentators claimed that they put their faith in God, not in vaccines or science. Apparently, because God gives us an immune system, there is no need for vaccines ... after all, history shows how well our immune systems have coped over the centuries. 

Of course, there was the claim repeated ad nauseum of one's body being a temple ... hmm ... one can be confident that the Bible was not banning life-saving medication being used in said 'Temple'. Instead, it was more talking about allowing the Holy Spirit to dwell within ... you know a spiritual kind of thing, so it's really this redacted commentator who is twisting the Lord's word.

Many, many commentators banged on about God creating them with an immune system sufficient for pandemics such as this ... sadly, there's millions of dead Covid victims whose testimony from the grave shows that the immune system needs a bit of a kick along.

Then there was this person who doesn't appear to be aware of the significantly higher infant mortality rate before vaccines, and the much shorter average life expectancy before modern medicine … it seems that God did need a helping hand after all. And yes, redacted commentator, the vaccine does help to prevent the spread of the virus as well as reduce the severity of it in those who do become infected. Unvaccinated people account for more than 98% of deaths from Covid (Johnson & Stobbe, 2021).  

There was this irate statement accusing Marshall of virtue-signalling ... but keep in mind that Jesus was a virtue-signaller ...

Conservatives love to throw insults around when people are actually trying to do the right thing by others. For instance, they'll call them do-gooders, virtue-signallers, or politically correct. Christians should actually be all these things. The Bible says that Christians are 'created in Christ to do good works' (Ephesians 2:10). It says to 'let your light shine before others, that they may see your good deeds and glorify your Father in heaven' (Matthew 5:16). Political correctness is simply about treating others with respect. You know that thing mentioned earlier about 'do unto others as you'd have them do unto you', well, that's political correctness Bible style. 

Many conservative Christians treat the sharing of wealth as though it's socialism ... oh wait ... I guess it is. But then, the Bible does describe how the people redistributed their wealth 'to each as anyone had need' (Acts 4:32-35). One would think the scripture was written by Karl Marx, 'From each according to his ability, to each according to his need'. Conservative Christians will often argue that the Parable of the Talents is evidence of capitalism being God's chosen economic system. This parable is described in Matthew 25:14-30 and likens the Kingdom of Heaven to a farmer who entrusts his servants with some of his property. He gives them differing amounts 'to each according to his ability' ... already it's sounding like something from Marx. The parable then talks of the servant who received five talents, making another five talents. The one who had two talents, made another two talents. The one who received one talent, buried it in the ground because he feared the farmer. Not surprisingly, the farmer wasn't happy. The talents were distributed according to each servant's ability, so the one who received one, had the ability to be more productive. Firstly, this is a parable about the Kingdom of Heaven, not an economic model. Interesting that the Kingdom of Heaven requires people to do good with what they have. Who'd have thought, huh? Do-gooders in Heaven, ala Ephesians 2:10 and Matthew 5:16!

 BUT ... if one wants to use the parable of the talents as an economic exemplar, then it merely shows that workers should be productive, which is necessary regardless of the economic model; socialism requires productivity, capitalism requires productivity, feudalism requires productivity ... you get the idea. In other words, 'from each according to their ability, to each according to their need', which does enable equitable redistribution of wealth and for people to do good works to help each other. 

Yet, many conservative Christians throw insults such as 'social justice warriors' (or SJW) at those who help the less privileged. By their standards, Jesus was the ultimate SJW. He was a do-gooder and a commo. Christ's teachings have a very strong socialist bias. He was about helping the poor and needy, about sharing wealth and showing love to the 'least of these', that is those who most need it, who have been shunned and ostracised by society. Christ did not preach a gospel of selfishness and accumulating wealth, or that one should be only concerned for themselves, or only care for other Christians. How often do we see Christians pray for other Christians, such as in Afghanistan or Iraq, but don't pray for Muslims persecuted in those same countries. Conservative Christians have lost the way.

Jesus was a virtue-signaller ... he hung out with prostitutes, tax collectors, drunkards, and sinners. By today's conservative Christian standards, this would mean that he was virtue-signalling to those who lived these lives rather than rebuking them and hanging out with the religious conservatives who didn't take kindly to his politically correct, do-gooder ways. For that matter, his harsh criticism of the selfish, egotistical religious folks, not to mention his temper tanty in the temple, was virtue-signalling to sinners who avoided the temple or criticised the profiteering priests and pious 'parishioners' of the day.  

Not all commentators pulled lemon-sucking, lip-pursing face when they read Pastor Marshall's article. Some pointed out the darker history of Christianity over the centuries, replete with warring in the name of God, subjugation in the name of God, enslavement in the name of God, abuse in the name of God, and killing in the name of God.

As a point of interest, observant readers would notice that the post highlighting some of Christianity's less than savoury accomplishments, received all of two 'likes', whereas those that criticised Pastor Marshall, received hundreds and even thousands of positive reactions. Wow! Way for conservative Christianity to shine!

Some seemed to make the rather tenuous assumption that being anti-vax was an indication of their love for God. 'How do they arrive at that?', you may wonder. To be frank, I've got nothing. But apparently, putting God first, means it's ok to be anti-vax, anti-mask, anti-lockdown, thus risking harm to their neighbours. 

This tweet explains why it is not ok for anyone, Christian or not, to be so self-centred. 

There's been a disturbing trend towards anti-intellectualism by many conservatives, not just Christians. They treat education as a if it's part of a broader socialist agenda to usher in an era of leftist intellectualism. They treat science as if it's black magic. So here we are ... people believing that God is some sort of wizard waving a magic wand to protect them from Covid-19, while thousands who eschew the vaccine die painful deaths from the virus.

Of course, there may well be people who truly cannot take the vaccine because of allergy or some other health issue. However, those people who can take it, but consciously choose not to, are selfish and have no concern for the welfare of others. Across the globe, the vast majority of deaths from Covid are among the unvaccinated. Lockdowns will eventually end as the vaccinated population reaches a certain point, but this won't end the virus. Instead, it will leave the unvaccinated vulnerable to the more serious effects of the virus, and sadly many of the anti-vaxxers will succumb to Covid because of their own ignorance and arrogance.  

Conservative logic: Nazis are better than abortion

Conservative logic: Nazis are better than abortion ... to wit 6 January 2021

By Ranting Panda, 31 January 2021

Evidenced by their blind support for Trump & defending his incitement of an insurrection by neo-Nazis & white supremacists.

Donald J. Trump, the most divisive, corrupt and treacherous president the US has seen, was embraced by many conservatives as if he was the Messiah. Why? Because he promised to protect them from the 'socialist' agenda of the woke left ... and he banned abortion. He also supported, empowered, praised and incited white supremacy, domestic terrorism, Nazis, and used fear-mongering to stir up hate against Muslims, Mexicans and migrants ... but conservatives said that he represented their values. This says a lot about conservative values. 

Christian nationalists were chanting 'Christ is King' and flying Christian flags as they joined Nazis and white supremacists to storm the Capitol building on 6 January 2021. Even up until Joe Biden was inaugurated as the 46th president of the United States, many conservative Christians believed that Jesus would somehow intervene and reinstate Trump. As an aside, these terrorists were no different to Islamist extremists who chant 'Allah Akbar' (God is great) before murdering innocent people; they are cut from the same cloth: traitors to their religions and countries. 

Trump supporters still believe his lies that the election was stolen, even though dozens of court challenges failed to produce evidence or prove these claims. 

One of the first things that Trump did when he became president, was to ban the funding of women's health centres if they dared to mention abortion. It was a gag rule that cost countless lives as women sought abortion from less ethical means. The removal of the funding didn't just affect abortion procedures, but also meant that contraceptives and pregnancy advice were not carried out. Not providing contraceptives tends to increase the rate of unwanted pregnancies. Trump's policies had the opposite affect that many conservatives wanted: it increased the numbers of abortions, plus risked the lives of more women through backyard abortions. 

This policy isn't new. It was originally introduced by President Reagan in 1985 as the Mexico City Policy, or the 'Gag Rule' and has been the policy of every Republican president since then. This has presented researchers with decades of data to conduct longitudinal studies. Refer to my article of 4 February 2017, which covered this in detail: Trump's Gag Order banning abortion will increase abortion & kill more women. 

A 2011 study by Stanford researchers found that abortion rates in 20 sub-Saharan African nations increased by 40% when Republicans implemented the Mexico City policy.

Impact of Mexico City Policy (Bendavid 2011)

The United Nations has stated that the Gag Rule is 'flawed on evidentiary and public health grounds' (United Nations General Assembly 2018). The report went on to state, 'There is conclusive evidence that efforts to cut back on or deter the provision of quality contraceptive and antenatal services, HIV/AIDS treatment and safe abortion care contribute to increased rates of otherwise preventable death, including maternal and infant mortality and death and injury from unsafe abortion'. It identifies that sub-Saharan Africa is the hardest hit by the Gag Rule.

The evidence demonstrates that the outcome of anti-abortion policy that Trump implemented, is 'significantly increased rates of induced abortion' (United Nations General Assembly 2018).

One would think that this evidence would be enough to convince pro-lifers to consider alternative ways to reduce abortions. The Guttmacher Institute found that ' ... poor women have the least access to family planning services and the fewest resources to pay for safe abortion procedures; they are also the most likely to experience complications related to unsafe abortion' (Guttmacher Institute 2012). One of the primary drivers of abortion is poverty, yet conservatives tend to oppose measures that would more equitably share wealth or raise minimum wages. 

Conservatives take a very black and white view of abortion. That is, ban it and it will go away! However, the opposite is true: it increases! And the conservative response? They don't care. Clearly their reasoning for banning abortion is not to save the life of the foetus, but to control women, even if it means more women die. 

Conservatives, particularly conservative Christians, are driven by two main things: abortion and homosexuality. 

Interestingly, the United Nations also reported that laws banning the provision of life-saving services to LGBTIQ+ people has resulted in increased morbidity and mortality (United Nations General Assembly 2018).

Is it any wonder then, that conservatives ignored everything else that Trump did, simply because he banned abortion and attacked LGBTIQ+ issues? They ignored his blatant lies ... more than 30,000 lies! They ignored his incompetence, which was on a genocidal scale, in dealing with Covid-19 that killed more than 420,000 while he was president. They cheered on the Nazis, white supremacists, and Christian nationalists who stormed Congress on 6 January 2021.

Conservatives were more upset with Biden for reversing Trump's Mexico Policy, than they were with Trump genocidal incompetence killing more than 420,000 people, or him inciting Nazis to attempt a coup that would unlawfully keep him in power, and ended up killing five people, including two police officers. The rest of the world was like, 'what the actual fuck, America???'. Meanwhile, conservatives were like, 'What? It's just a coup for a stolen election. In the name of unity, let's not charge anyone with a crime'. The rest of the world is like, 'It's fucking treason! Charge Trump & the insurrectionists'. 

Imagine if the world did not hold the Nuremberg trials 'in the name of unity'. Trump has the deaths of more than 420,000 people on his hands, plus the untold damage to democracy. He must be jailed for treason and crimes against humanity.

The problem with Trump's lies is that they pandered to the victimhood mentality of conservatives. Their pearl-clutching fear fed by Trump's lies, culminated in Trump inciting them to stage an insurrection and storm Congress, with the intention of assassinating certain senators. This is serious. This is treason. Yet conservatives are so blind, so myopic, that they refuse to see they have been duped by traitor Trump occupying the highest office in the land. 

But yeah, hey abortion, socialism and gays are all bad, but Nazis are good ... according to conservative logic. 

References

Bendavid, E, Avila, P, & Miller, G 2011, 'United States aid policy and induced abortion in sub-Saharan Africa', Bulletin of the World Health Organisation, 27 September, https://www.who.int/bulletin/volumes/89/12/11-091660/en/, viewed 31 January 2021

Guttmacher Institute 2012, 'Facts on induced abortions worldwide', January 2012, https://www.who.int/reproductivehealth/publications/unsafe_abortion/induced_abortion_2012.pdf, published by World Health Organization and Guttmacher Institute, viewed 31 January 2021

SBS News 2021, 'Joe Biden reverses Donald Trump's anti-abortion ‘global gag rule’, citing 'damage' from his predecessor'. SBS News, 29 January, https://www.sbs.com.au/news/joe-biden-reverses-donald-trump-s-anti-abortion-global-gag-rule-citing-damage-from-his-predecessor, viewed 31 January 2021

United Nations General Assembly 2018, 'Promotion and protection of human rights: human rights questions, including alternative approaches for improving the effective enjoyment of human rights and fundamental freedoms', 73rd Session, Item 74 (b) of the provisional agenda, 7 August, https://undocs.org/A/73/314, viewed 31 January 2021

Honour the victims, expose the perpetrators: monuments, statues and revisionist history

Honour the victims, expose the perpetrators: monuments, statues and revisionist history

By Ranting Panda, 28 June 2020

Statues across the world are being attacked, torn down or defaced by people protesting against the history of the person represented by the statue. Oftentimes, the statue represents some head of state or war-time leader, perhaps a founding figure for a particular city. In most cases, these people perpetrated or gave rise to abhorrent practices, such as genocide, slave trading, or racism.

Many people who are defending the statues do not even know who the statue represents, let why they have a statue or the terrible history of the person immortalised in stone. However, while we certainly should not revere people who committed genocide, such as Churchill, or who traded in slavery, such as Edward Colston, tearing down their statues may not be the best approach to raising awareness of their heinous histories. It's an educational opportunity lost to remove those statues.

Although, those who so vehemently defend the statues in the name of history, would have to then agree with replacing the statues with monuments, so the victims are honoured rather than the perpetrators. More on that later.

In relation to statues, it would be much better to add a plaque to the statue explaining that person's heinous deeds for all the world to see. This may prove a tad more educational that relegating them to the dustbin of history. At least this way, people can easily and quickly read a short summary of Tweet-length proportions which should reach those who won't ever go near a history book. Instead of tearing down statues, historian Max Barton believes it is time to 'educate not eliminate' (Parkes 2020).

Plaque added to John Batman statue in 1992 (CAMD 2017)

Critics allege that the protesters are rewriting history. Newsflash to the critics ... the protesters are not rewriting history, they are ACKNOWLEDGING it, unlike the critics who want to whitewash and deny the horrendous history behind many of those statues. If anyone is rewriting history, it is often the original plaques or inscriptions on those statues. Take John Batman for instance. Batman founded the Australian city of Melbourne. An inscription on Batman's statue at Queen Victoria Markets states that he founded the settlement 'on the site of Melbourne then unoccupied'. Unoccupied? This must have come as news for the thousands of Aborigines who inhabited the area for millennia. The history originally depicted on the statue is wrong. In 1992, Melbourne City Council added a plaque to the statue, which read 'When the monument was erected in 1881 the Colony considered that the Aboriginal people did not occupy land. It is now clear that prior to the colonisation of Victoria, the land was inhabited and used by Aboriginal people'.

In acknowledgement of history, keep the statues & add plaques that clearly state the true history, rather than the revisionist one that many statues depict.

Below are examples of statues that could do with being updated.

• Winston Churchill, British Prime Minister
• Responsible for the genocide of around four million people in Bengal during World War 2, after knowingly and deliberately exacerbating a famine by redirecting grain to British and other allied troops ... because their lives were more important than Indians, whom he described as a 'beastly people with a beastly religion' (Tharoor 2016, pp. 132, 158-160). Churchill's exacerbation of this famine was recently confirmed through a scientific study conducted into causes of famines in India (Mishra et al 2019, p. 2080). Churchill's policies included confiscating rice and boats to deny the Japanese from accessing them ... but the Bengalis were the ones who suffered (Safi 2019).
• Edward Colston, British businessman 
• Colston was a wealthy and influential merchant who donated much of his wealth to charity. He is recognised as one of Bristol's 'most virtuous and wise sons', however, part of his wealth was built through the transatlantic slave trade and exploitation (Parkes 2020). 
• Lachlan Macquarie, Governor of New South Wales
• while Macquarie had been relatively sympathetic to Indigenous peoples, he became frustrated with the ongoing violence between settlers and Aborigines. Macquarie ordered his troops to 'punish' local Aborigines, resulting in the mass murder of 14 men, women and children. Macquarie's principle aim was to 'strike the greater terror into the Survivors' by hanging the bodies of grown men from trees, which his troops complied with by hanging up the bodies of two men and one woman. Later, their heads were cut off and sent to Edinburgh University. Macquarie then lied to British authorities by claiming the group was given the opportunity to surrender, when they weren't. (ABC Fact Check 2017).  
• Robert Towns, businessman, mariner, founder of Townsville, Queensland
• Robert Towns was a wealthy businessman who founded Townsville and contributed to infrastructure projects in Queensland. He was also involved in 'blackbirding', which involved kidnapping South Sea Islanders from their homelands and trafficking them to Australia to be enslaved in forced labour on cane and banana farms (Haxton 2017). The South Sea Islander community is calling for the statue to include a plaque and a statue to pay tribute to the people who were trafficked to Queensland and forced to work in the canefields (Haxton 2017).

It's interesting that people get so upset about a statue being defaced or torn down, yet still don't care about the destruction of culture by government and big business. For instance, where was the outrage when Rio Tinto blew up two 46,000-year-old Indigenous sacred sites in June 2020. While Rio Tinto apologised for it, the fact is that the law allows this to happen with ministerial approval. Indigenous groups have long been requesting the legislation be amended to protect sacred sites (Smoleniec 2020).

It is understandable that people would want statues removed. Nancy Pelosi explained why she supported the removal of a statue of Christopher Columbus, 'Monuments to men who advocated cruelty and barbarism to achieve such a plainly racist end are a grotesque affront to these ideals. Their statues pay homage to hate, not heritage. They must be removed' (Macardle 2020).

It is a form of revisionism to ignore the history of a person who was responsible for abhorrent actions, such as genocide, slavery, war crimes, rape, racism. Those who defend the statues of such people while ignoring their heinous behaviours are no different to the societies of the time who empowered such people and who condoned such behaviours. Let's take the opportunity to correct this revisionism and ensure that people never forget the blood that was spilled, the lives that were destroyed by these 'heroes', often in the name of their countries and often while building their own wealth and power.

While tearing down statues is about acknowledging history, the banning or censorship of movies is about ignoring it, covering it up. For example, cancelling movies such as Gone With the Wind and Song of the South because of their racist content. WarnerMedia pulled Gone With the Wind from its streaming service, HBO Max, with the explanation that 'these racist depictions were wrong then, and are wrong today, and we felt that to keep this title up without an explanation and denouncement of those depictions would be irresponsible', and that it would return with a 'discussion of its historical context and a denouncement of those very depictions', while on its return, the film 'will be shown as it was originally created, because to do otherwise, would be the same as claiming these prejudices never existed'. The film has since returned with an introduction that places the film in its historical context and describing that 'when it is not ignoring the horrors of slavery, pauses only to perpetuate some of the most painful stereotypes of people of color' and that it sentimentalised 'a history that never was'. Jacqueline Steward, history professor, provides the introduction, and has stated that 'If people are really doing their homework, we may be poised to have our most informed, honest and productive national conversations yet about Black lives on screen and off'. (Blackwelder & Stone 2020).

Taking the opportunity to explain this is much better than banning it. If movies are banned, should we then ban the books they are based upon? We've seen where that level of censorship leads. It is a fascist act to ban art. If we want to ensure fascism never returns, then let's not start with a fascist act. 

Without a doubt, many movies are racist, but to bury this, ignores the injustices that were perpetrated against black people, or anyone seen as racially inferior. To purge art of everything that contains racist content would obliterate much of the historical record. Rather than eliminating history, we should be educating people about how such racist attitudes developed, why they were so wrong and what should be done to address the systems of racism that still exist today.

Sanitising history will not end racism or sexism, whether it be individual, systemic (institutional and structural), or casual. Far better to educate people on how poorly others were treated because of their race or gender, and then understanding why those behaviours were so wrong, and the importance of civil rights. Certainly, call out racism in all its forms; make it unacceptable.

It is understandable that people would want to ban movies that have racist content, but it is a band-aid solution that will not stop racists from being racist. Instead, it may well empower them as they argue about 'political correctness gone mad'. Far better to educate and highlight just how unacceptable and atrocious such attitudes are. 

Of course, when too much outrage is not enough, along comes the Murdoch press to inflame the situation. Australians from coast to coast were outraged ... apoplectic even ... when the Herald Sun reported that Aboriginal woman and Greens Senator Lidia Thorpe was 'demanding' that the state of Victoria should change its name so it is no long associated with 'someone who’s caused harm or murdered people'. This article did nothing but stir up racism and foment anti-Greens animosity. The story was a beat up. Lidia Thorpe had not called for Victoria to be renamed. Instead, the suggestion was put forward by the Herald Sun itself and she was asked to comment (Lewis 2020). When she said a name change could be considered, that was enough for the Herald Sun to twist that to sound like an Aboriginal Greens Senator was demanding that Victoria be renamed. And the predictable hate speech and vile attacks ensued, as the Herald Sun knew they would.

Better than maintaining statues to racists, mass murderers and slavers, would be to construct monuments that remember the victims. People who defend the statues and claim that tearing them down is to deny history, must surely be in favour of remembering history through such monuments.

An example of a moment that ensures the victims are remembered and history is not forgotten or revised, is shown in the preservation of the Nazi death camp, Auschwitz (Donadio 2015). More than 1.3 million people were murdered there, 90% of whom were Jewish, but Nazi victims also included dissenters, socialists, communists, the unhealthy, LGBTIQ+, and those who were considered 'racially inferior', which in addition to Jews, included Roma and people of colour.

The need to remember this history was highlighted recently, when President Donald Trump's campaign released an ad attacking Antifa by placing an inverted red triangle behind the word 'Antifa'. The Nazis had a classification system to identify demographics of its victims; the inverted red triangle was used to identify political prisoners (US Holocaust Memorial Museum n.d.).

Howtofightantisemitism.com (2020)

Revitalising a Nazi symbol of hate to promote President Trump demonstrates the need to ensure that history is not forgotten. This became even more pertinent when it was revealed that the Department of Homeland Security released a report on the greatest threats facing the United States. This report did not mention Antifa, however it did mention far-right extremists, such as the Boogaloo movement; but it was Antifa (which is an anti-Fascist ideology, not an organisation, by the way) that Trump and his campaign have targeted (Sargent 2020). It's disturbing that the Trump campaign resorts to Nazi symbols of fascism to demonise anti-fascists. Meanwhile, Trump's followers accept his growing fascism, hate-speech and racism, without challenge.

Not that this is the only Nazi symbol appropriated by the Trump re-election campaign. They are also selling 'America First' shirts with a logo that features an eagle with talons gripping an American flag in a circle, which bears a striking resemblance to the Nazi symbol that featured an eagle in a similar pose, whose talons were gripping a swastika in a circle (Elliott 2020).

Is it any wonder, that many of Trump's followers claim to be Christian? It was Christians who empowered Hitler, his white supremacy and his genocidal fascism. German Pastor Martin Niemöller blamed Christians for Hitler, which he highlighted in this speech (Niemöller 1947). This quote is disturbing on so many levels, given the parallels with Trump and his Christian followers, their attacks on black people, on leftists, and even on dismantling public health systems which 'cost the state money'.

'When Pastor Niemöller was put in a concentration camp we wrote the year 1937; when the concentration camp was opened we wrote the year 1933, and the people who were put in the camps then were Communists. Who cared about them? We knew it, it was printed in the newspapers. Who raised their voice, maybe the Confessing Church? We thought: Communists, those opponents of religion, those enemies of Christians - "should I be my brother's keeper?" Then they got rid of the sick, the so-called incurables. - I remember a conversation I had with a person who claimed to be a Christian. He said: Perhaps it's right, these incurably sick people just cost the state money, they are just a burden to themselves and to others. Isn't it best for all concerned if they are taken out of the middle [of society]? -- Only then did the church as such take note. Then we started talking, until our voices were again silenced in public. Can we say, we aren't guilty/responsible? The persecution of the Jews, the way we treated the occupied countries, or the things in Greece, in Poland, in Czechoslovakia or in Holland, that were written in the newspapers. … I believe, we Confessing-Church-Christians have every reason to say: mea culpa, mea culpa!'

Let's not forget our history, let's not deny our history.

A common adage repeated ad nauseam by many conservatives is that 'people should stop living in the past'. This is usually directed at people protesting racism. The people who say this, are also often the same ones vehemently defending statues of some long-dead genocidal, slave-trading, rapist racist. They obviously don't see the irony. They also don't understand that racism is still alive and destroying lives today. They don't understand that today's systemic racism exists because of the systems established years ago by these 'heroes' they defend and the revisionist history they believe. This is why we must never forget the past and it musts be used to help destroy existent systems of racism and discrimination that perpetuate the pain and suffering of victims here and now! Racism is built on the past and it is present in today's systems and in the attitudes of many people who clearly do not understand the harm it causes.

Honour the victims, expose the perpetrators.

References

ABC Fact Check 2017, 'Fact check: Was Lachlan Macquarie a mass murderer who ordered the genocide of Indigenous people?', 10 November, viewed 22 June 2020, https://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-09-27/fact-check-did-lachlan-macquarie-commit-mass-murder-and-genocide/8981092?nw=0.

Blackwelder, C & Stone, M 2020, ''Gone With the Wind' returns to HBO Max with intro detailing historical context', Good Morning America, 24 June, viewed 27 June 2020, https://www.goodmorningamerica.com/culture/story/gone-with-the-wind-returns-hbo-max-commentary-71171554.

CAMD 2017, Melbourne’s John Batman statue, Council of Australasian Museum Directors, 1 September, viewed 20 June 2020, https://camd.org.au/melbournes-john-batman-statue/.

Donadio, R 2015, 'Preserving the ghastly inventory of Auschwitz', The New York Times, 15 April, viewed 27 June 2020, https://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/16/arts/international/at-auschwitz-birkenau-preserving-a-site-and-a-ghastly-inventory.html.

Elliott, J 2020, 'Trump 2020 campaign accused of ‘ripping off’ Nazi eagle logo', Global News, 2 July, viewed 4 July 2020, https://globalnews.ca/news/7130932/trump-nazi-eagle-logo-america-first/.

Haxton, N 2017, 'South Sea Islanders say statue of Townsville founder 'whitewashes' slave history', ABC News, 24 August, viewed 21 June 2020, https://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-08-24/townsville-statue-whitewash-slave-history-islanders-say/8838984.

HowToFightAntiSemitism.com 2020, 'Trump campaign uses Nazi concentration camp symbols in Facebook ads', 17 June, viewed 27 June 2020, https://www.howtofightantisemitism.com/timeline/trump-campaign-uses-nazi-concentration-camp-symbols-in-facebook-ads.

Lewis, C 2020, 'Anatomy of a News Corp beat up', Crikey, 22 June, viewed 25 June 2020, https://www.crikey.com.au/2020/06/22/anatomy-of-a-beat-up-news-corp-lidia-thorpe/.

Macardle, M 2020, 'Columbus Statue to Be Removed from California State Capitol after 137 Years', National Review, 17 June, viewed 27 June 2020, https://www.nationalreview.com/news/columbus-statue-to-be-removed-from-california-state-capitol-after-137-years.

Mishra, V, Tiwari, AD, Aadhar, S, Shah, R, Xiao, M, Pai, DS, Lettenmaier, D, Drought and Famine in India: 1870-2016, Geophysical Research Letters, 28 February 2019, Vol.46(4), pp.2075-2083.

Niemöller, M 1947, 'Of guilt and hope', analysis by Harold Marcuse, University of South Carolina Beaufort, 17 September 2004, viewed 27 June 2020, http://marcuse.faculty.history.ucsb.edu/projects/niem/Niem1946GuiltHope13-16.htm.

Parkes, P 2020, 'Who was Edward Colston and why is Bristol divided by his legacy?', BBC News, 8 June, viewed 21 June 2020, https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-bristol-42404825.

Safi, M 2019, 'Churchill's policies contributed to 1943 Bengal famine – study', The Guardian, 29 March, viewed 21 June 2020, https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/mar/29/winston-churchill-policies-contributed-to-1943-bengal-famine-study.

Sargent, G 2020, 'Leaked document makes Trump campaign’s use of Nazi-era symbol look worse', The Washington Post, 20 June, viewed 27 June 2020, https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2020/06/19/leaked-document-makes-trumps-use-nazi-era-symbol-look-worse/.

Smoleniec, B 2020, 'After blasting 46,000-year-old Indigenous caves, Rio Tinto backs calls for changes to WA heritage laws', SBS News, 5 June, viewed 25 June 2020, https://www.sbs.com.au/news/after-blasting-46-000-year-old-indigenous-caves-rio-tinto-backs-calls-for-changes-to-wa-heritage-laws.

Tharoor, S 2016, Inglorious Empire: What the British did to India, Kindle edition, Scribe Publications, London, UK.

United States Holocaust Memorial Museum n.d., 'Classification system in Nazi concentration camps', Holocaust Encyclopedia, viewed 27 June 2020, https://encyclopedia.ushmm.org/content/en/article/classification-system-in-nazi-concentration-camps.




Updated 4 July 2020