Letter from Australia 118 – Am I a Nazi?

Letter from Australia 118– Am I a Nazi?

 Dear Brothers and Sisters,

It seems as though Godwin’s law, that the first person to mention the Nazis in an argument loses, no longer applies.   Did you know that the world is apparently filled with Nazis about to take us over?    Putin invaded Ukraine because it was filled with Nazi’s; Dan Andrews thinks that anyone who stands up for women’s rights re Trans issues is a Nazi; Kate Forbes is a step on the road to Scotland being taken over by Nazis…. They are everywhere.   IF you believe the papers…. GK Chesterton was right when he wrote in Orthodoxy – “”I came back to the same conclusion: the sceptic was quite right to go by the facts, only he had not looked at the facts. The sceptic is too credulous; he believes in newspapers or even in encyclopedias.”

Several examples of this really struck me – one of them personal.

The Nazis are Everywhere

The Home Secretary in the UK was accused of using Nazi tactics in her attempts to stop the flood of refugees coming on small boats to the UK.  Personally, I don’t agree with her policy but calling her a Nazi is demeaning both to her, and the millions of victims of the Holocaust.  These two photoshopped photos indicate the extent to which people will go.

 

 

 

 

 

I think Tim Farron expressed it well:

But then maybe this just goes to show his Nazi sympathies!

In Australia Dan Andrews, the Premier of Victoria, has decided that those who protest in favour of women’s rights when they are being undermined by Trans ideology – must be Nazis as well.  This happened because a group of men, who looked more like the Village People than Nazi Stormtroopers, somehow managed to evade the police (actually the police politely escorted them on to the steps of Parliament – one has to wonder why?) and paraded on the front of the parliament, in the midst of a For Women’s rally.  So, Dan says he wants to ban Nazi salutes.  Another politician suggested banning people dressed in black and masks – until they realised this would mean banning Antifa style protestors.    But Dan’s less that subtle message is clear – if you don’t agree with his policy of letting men into women’s’ spaces you are a Nazi.  He stated in the parliament that those who campaigned for women’s rights were ‘ugly, hateful, evil’ people who were seeking to kill trans people.  By most people’s definition Dan’s wee sermon in parliament would count as hate speech and was certainly one of the most ugly, hateful and evil political speeches I have heard.

In today’s SMH I have just read a report on real neo-Nazis going to Ukraine to fight against the Russians.  By Dan Andrews standards this means that Putin was right about Ukraine – Nazis are supporting them, so Australia should support Russia!  Or did I miss something?

Meanwhile in Oz this week the MP Mark Latham was due to speak to an audience in a church when a group of LGBTQI protestors attempted to blockade the Catholic church where he was speaking and prevent the meeting taking place.  Being in West Sydney some of the local people did not take kindly to this and there was trouble.  It’s so interesting how it is reported.  The protestors were ‘peaceful’ – (not Far Left agitators seeking to shut down a meeting in a church) – whereas the locals were ‘Far Right’ – even though they were largely Middle Eastern immigrants (clearly not the ‘right sort’ of immigrant!).  This was also reported: “A spokesperson for St Michael’s Belfield parish says that “Community Action for Rainbow Rights” protesters broke a Crucifix outside the church and then attempted to set it on fire … hopefully Police are investigating all aspects of this incident & this hateful sacrilege”.  If that is true it is horrific.  But don’t expect the media here to investigate.

Back in the UK Peter Tatchell was telling us that those who oppose drag queens in primary schools are ‘far right’ and a ‘tiny bigoted minority’.   The real far right will be loving Tatchell – who has just accused millions of parents of being Nazis!  (Incidentally, there is such a thing as the real Far Right and a danger from a renewed fascism – ironically those who call everyone they disagree with Far Right – end up being the best allies of the real Far Right).

In Italy a man who now identifies as a woman called Petrillo won an indoor women’s events (if he had competed in the mens he would have come 14^th).    He said that those who criticised him taking part in the women’s event were ‘on the same level as Hitler’.

As I said – Nazis are everywhere.  They are ‘The Enemy’.  If you disagree with any of the progressive agenda, you are Far Right or a Nazi.  As Richard Dawkins explained – women like JK Rowling and Kathleen Stock are being bullied by this kind of rhetoric.

The Personal

And now we come on to the personal.  And it is really personal.  Because whilst in today’s progressive, loving, tolerant world, being accused of being a Nazi is so common it is meaningless – nonetheless I find it disturbing and harmful.  Why?  Because my life has been dedicated to fighting the kind of evil that Nazism exemplifies.  One of the reasons I became a Christian was because I was seeking the answer to the question ‘why?’ for the Holocaust.   When I realised that Nazism and Communism – the Far Right and the Far Left – were expressions of an all too human evil, I found that the only answer to that evil was the Gospel of Jesus Christ.  That’s also why I studied Weimar Germany at the University of Edinburgh.  Every year for the past 35 years it has been my practice to read at least one book about the Nazis per year (the latest in case you are interested is the wonderful The Escape Artist by Jonathan Freedland).   I also watched Schindler’s List every year to remind me of why I was a minister.  Which is why this is personal.   It is also somewhat ludicrous to call someone who was the publicity secretary for the Labour Party in the University of Edinburgh, a founding member of the Social Democratic Party, and a supporter of the SNP – Far Right.  But such is the meaningless world of the Brave New Politics…!

For reasons that I know not, Fraser MacDonald, a lecturer at the University of Edinburgh decided to attack me in order to attack Kate Forbes and the Free Church.  I wrote this as a response – pointing out the inaccuracies, distortions and lies within his article, and when he was challenged to deal with my response this is what he said:

“I’m obvs not engaging because well … I just don’t with the Far Right.”

This is a convenient excuse for someone who has been caught out and cannot answer the challenges.  His claim of yours truly  being ‘Far Right’ is without any substance (unless he is using the term to mean anyone who disagrees with him on moral positions).  He claims to have evidence, but it is of the quality of arguing that because I mentioned Mark Meechan (Count Dukula), the comedian of the Nazi saluting dog fame, I was somehow promoting him.    He lied about me promoting David Icke and Tommy Robinson.  But truth is apparently not an essential tool in modern day academic debate.  It’s all about how you feel.

I’m not sure why Fraser has such antipathy towards me.  Although it does appear that, whilst not being fond of Free Church theology (and promoting our favourite heretic – William Robertson Smith) he does like the old psalmody.  Maybe he has a grievance because I was the instigator for introducing hymns and instrumental music into the Free Church? Doubtless we can find some reason for that being Far Right – guitars in church will soon lead to Nazi marching bands?!   In passing I note that in my experience the strange phenomena that some of the most theologically ‘liberal/progressive’ members/adherents of the Church, are often some of the most ecclesiastically conservative.  They love the traditions – they just are not all that keen on the Christ.

Apparently, Fraser has been observing me for some time – although no longer part of the Free Church.  He cites tweets from three years ago as further evidence – including these –

He tags Sydney Anglicans and the Free Church in this and demands to know if they are going to shut me up for this.  We have a word in Scots for the tell-tale who runs to the teacher trying to get someone in trouble…’clipe’!  Well, I hate to disappoint Fraser but neither he nor his ‘embarrassed’ anonymous friends in the Free Church, nor his attempt to shame Sydney Anglicans into dealing with me will work.  I’m too long in the tooth to be bullied by a wee clipe!

Real Evil

Fraser think’s it is abhorrent for me to critique Humza Yousaf (but perfectly acceptable for him to write an article dissing Forbes and her church).  I have no qualms in pointing out Humsa’s hypocrisy and the damage he has already done to my country.   I will call out the evil of killing those babies you do not want – the disabled, the poor etc.  Humza has said that he in effect supports abortion on demand up to nine months.  That is evil. My fight against Nazism compels me to speak out against such disregard for human life.     In addition Humza is a man who plays the race card to make out that he is somehow a hapless victim, whilst at the same time taking a South Asian nursery owner to court claiming they are racist.  He is someone who hinders rather than helps the anti-racist cause.  I objected to Humza’s use of skin colour to justify his vitriol in the Scottish parliament.  You may disagree – but that doesn’t make me a racist!

But what I find really interesting – and something which ties in with the whole way that the Far-Right slur is used, is not only how lazy it is, but also how hypocritical. Fraser thinks because we don’t follow his particular political ideology there is a ‘dormant crisis of moral authority within the Free Church”.

The Crisis of Moral Authority

Fraser had no qualms about labelling the whole Free Church as racist, on the basis of an historical fact that he admits he knows little about.  The fact is that the Free Church accepted money, (in my view understandably but wrongly) from Presbyterian churches in the US – some of whom had slave owners.   Fraser seems unaware that there was considerable controversy about that at the time – as the Free Church was explicitly anti-slavery.  Indeed, my own Church St Peters urged the denomination to ‘send the money back’.  I find it intriguing that McCheyne was happy to have the anti-slavery people meet in the Church but would not allow the temperance movement (on the grounds that Jesus turned water into wine!).

But leaving aside the historical details – (read Iain Whyte’s fascinating ‘Send Back the Money’ if you are interested) – what fascinates me is the hypocrisy involved in Fraser using this to attack the Free Church, whilst working for an organisation which historically received a lot more from the slave trade – the University of Edinburgh.  And not just historically.

The University of Edinburgh had a yearly income in 2022 of £1.262 billion of which around £541 million is endowment income. It has former Free Church properties such as New College.  How much of that endowment income is from sources which are less than morally pure?  Fraser thinks that the Free Church lacks moral authority because of what happened in the 19^th Century, yet he continues to work for an organisation which accepts money from the equivalent of modern-day slavers. For example, the Confucius Institute is based in the University of Edinburgh and proudly boasts of its Edinburgh links. https://www.confuciusinstitute.ac.uk/

The Confucius institute is controlled by the CCP government of China, which is currently enslaving minorities such as the Uighurs and putting them into prison camps.  I would be intrigued to know if Fraser is demanding that the University of Edinburgh should ‘send back the money’?  If money is received from Arab sheikhs who imprison homosexuals in their own country, will the University of Edinburgh ‘send back the money’?       Or does anti-racism amongst Edinburgh academics only extend to renaming David Hume Tower?! https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-edinburgh-east-fife-54138247

I came across this kind of hypocrisy before – when I took part on a BBC Scotland debate in 2019.  You can read the full account here – https://theweeflea.com/2019/06/04/debate-night-reflections-trump-and-strathclyde-uni/  – but here is the salient paragraph.

“Little did I realise that when I mentioned Strathclyde University accepting money from the Chinese government, I was hitting the nail on the head!  Dame Anne Glover rightly spoke about the importance of values – and was happy to say that she would protest against President Trump because of her values – even if it was economically disadvantageous to her university.  But when asked about the Chinese, she was silent.  When I got home I received a message from a parent of a student who attends the University of Strathclyde’s Confucius Institute    informing me that the University received a considerable amount of Chinese money and had welcomed The Chinese ambassador.    So, Dame Glover would refuse money from Donald Trump because of his misogynistic views and anti-Muslim views but welcomes with open arms a government that forces women to have abortions and imprisons Muslims!  Although I didn’t know it at the time – it is a classic example of the double standards of the progressives – whose ‘values’ seem to ebb and flow according to what they are dealing with.   My problem is not with Strathclyde receiving money – in the world of real politick that may be the best thing to do (that’s another debate) – it’s the double standards I don’t like.  Real politick for some – purity for others!”

Incidentally amongst the many responses I got after this debate was typical “a right wing religious nutjob, where do the BBC dig up these people from?” …plus ca change, plus c’est la meme chose!

The ‘crisis of moral authority’ is not primarily within the Free Church, it is within corporations such as the University of Edinburgh – who preach wokeism, but practice elitism.  One student told me that in the opening lecture of their induction they were told that they should be proud because they were now part of the elite!   I think their second lecture was on how to assimilate transgender ideology into their subject!

These ‘academics’ live in their ivory towers where they are comfortable casting stones on everyone who dares to challenge them.   They inhabit a bubble where they congratulate each other in their own clubs and publications and demean any who dare to question their wisdom.  Universities have largely ceased to be places of inquiry and expression of different points of view – they have become monoversities where those who deviate from the orthodox doctrine are removed or neutered because of their blasphemy.

The Church’s Response

But what about the Church?  Some churches, like the Church of Scotland, have become as institutionally ‘progressive’ as the culture.  They reflect the current culture rather than challenge it.    But what about the Free Church – a theologically conservative/radical denomination?  You would think that being accused of being racist might illicit some response!    Or that someone might speak up when a former moderator and Christian brother is lied about in public?    Sadly, in my view there is little chance of that happening.  In fact, all I have seen is the opposite.  I was deeply saddened to read a leading Free Church elder wrote that, amongst other things, Fraser’s article was ‘nuanced’ and ‘excellent’.  Others are silent because they don’t want to be called Far Right, or they can’t be bothered with the hassle.   We either bury our head in the sand or plead with the bullies to be allowed to keep our seat at the table, where we can share in the crumbs of the declining culture.

Yesterday at our staff meeting we read Galatians ch.1.  Paul’s response to the Galatians who were turning away from the gospel they had learned was strong.   “⁶ I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting the one who called you to live in the grace of Christ and are turning to a different gospel—⁷ which is really no gospel at all. Evidently some people are throwing you into confusion and are trying to pervert the gospel of Christ. ⁸ But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let them be under God’s curse! ⁹ As we have already said, so now I say again: if anybody is preaching to you a gospel other than what you accepted, let them be under God’s curse! ¹⁰ Am I now trying to win the approval of human beings, or of God? Or am I trying to please people? If I were still trying to please people, I would not be a servant of Christ.”    It’s interesting that Paul didn’t seek to flatter the heretics, butter them up, or water down his criticism.  They were teaching something which is not a Gospel – so they are to be under God’s curse!

 We think that today we win those who despise the Gospel by being nice to them.  I think that shows how little we value the Gospel and how much we value our own comforts.   Again, Annabel and I read yesterday these words of Jesus “Whoever is ashamed of me and my words, the Son of Man will be ashamed of them when he comes in his glory and in the glory of the Father and of the holy angels” (Luke 9:26).

HAS BEING ‘NICE’ TRUMPED BEING CHRISTLIKE? – Evangelicals Now

The Fight Against Real Nazism

Let’s return to the fight against Nazism – because that is far more important than UK politics, or the progressive elites in Scotland, or even the state of psalmody in the Free Church.    I have no interest in a personal battle with Fraser MacDonald – life is too short for that kind of nonsense.   He can hate/dislike as much as he pleases.  No disrespect but I have been hated by better, and worse, people!    What is really important here is where our society is going.

Gary Lineker was condemned for his remark that the Home Secretary’s policy is – “just an immeasurably cruel policy directed at the most vulnerable people in language that is not dissimilar to that used by Germany in the 30s”.   It was a neat soundbite from the multi-millionaire sports commentator, but he was not entirely wrong.    I suspect that Lineker does not know the language that was used in 1930’s Germany, however he is right that Nazism doesn’t just start with people marching round in blackshirts and giving Nazi salutes.  The origin of Nazism is fascinating.   We should learn from history in case we end up repeating it.

When I went to Edinburgh Uni I went to try and understand why the Germans, the most cultured, advanced, scientific, ‘progressive’ nation in the world, ended up electing and supporting Hitler.  It’s something I have reflected on ever since for example here –   https://theweeflea.com/2016/06/11/was-hitler-really-a-christian/

But the basic story is in the late 19^th Century when modern Germany was being established – Bismarck determined that it should be an avowedly secular State.  Meanwhile in the German churches the influence of Schleiermacher (1768-1834), David Friedrich Strauss (1808-74), and Ludwig Feuerbach (1804-1872), led to the Higher Critical view of the Bible – which led to the apostasy of most of the German Church.  Incidentally the Higher Critical movement came into the Free Church, largely through the teaching of William Robertson Smith (who Fraser commends) with the same destructive effect.  The result was that when Hitler came along far too many people, having rejected the authority of the Bible, were open to accepting the authority of Hitler and the Nazis with their new progressive ideology- and that includes a lot of scientists, politicians and academics.  The atheist philosopher, John Gray, in his enlightening book Black Mass, describes Hitler and the Nazis as the incongruous fruit of the Enlightenment which believed passionately in progress.

Rejecting the Bible, rejecting the country’s Christian roots, believing in a progressive ideology (whether of right or left), seeking to create a new utopia are the root causes of an authoritarian society which denigrates, demeans and destroys.  I think – and have thought for decades – that Scotland, along with other Western countries, is heading towards an inequal, intolerant and illiberal future – all in the names of equality, tolerance and liberalism.  I have been trying to warn of this for years and have largely been met with abuse, mockery and contempt.

I don’t think that the Scottish government are preparing their version of the SS – although they are quite adept at stirring up the Twitter mob and using them to intimidate.    This is not classical hard-core authoritarianism.  This is soft authoritarianism – authoritarianism with a smiling face and an empathetic voice.  This is an authoritarianism that uses soft power – first – but is not averse to using the police, law and ‘justice’ systems.   You want to get government money for your arts project? – make sure you are ‘on message’.  You want money for your charity? – make sure you are in tune with ‘Scotland’s values’.  You want your firm to get government business? – make sure that you don’t deviate from the doctrines of the woke priests.   You want to get on the state funded media? – don’t challenge the progressive state dogmas. And it’s not just the state funded media.  I recall one newspaper editor who told me that he would not publish something because he had been threatened with the possibility of the civil authorities not advertising in their paper.  I had no reason to disbelieve him.

Scotland is a country where you can be arrested for ‘hate speech’ – a term which is defined by those in power in order to exclude those who dare to question the dogmas of the State.  We are, according to the President of the SNP, ‘the enemy’.

What has happened in Scotland is a revolution.  But it is not like the French revolution or an army coup d’etat.   It has been more of the Rudi Dutschke’s ‘long march through the institutions’ – most of which have now been thoroughly captivated by cultural Marxism – which is why it is the institutions, not the people, who are pushing the whole Trans ideology. That Hideous Strength – How the West Was Lost – Melvin Tinker Part 1

It is the ‘slow frog boiling’ theory.  You don’t boil a frog by throwing him/her/they/them into a boiling pot of water.  You put them in cool water and gradually heat it up until it is boiling.  You don’t turn a society into a progressive Nirvana by having a revolution – you go the slow long march through the institutions.  If I had said (and I did) ten years ago what would be happening today – no one would have believed me (and they didn’t) and I would have been labelled a far-right conspiracy theory (and I was).

Now that these things have come to pass – this will not end.  If we carry on at the same descending rate we will end up in a Scotland within a decade where paedophilia is legal, euthanasia is involuntary, and preaching the Christian gospel is illegal.    In rejecting the Bible (the seeds of that rejection were sown with Robertson Smith in the late 19^th Century) and our Christian heritage, we have sown the wind, and now we are reaping the whirlwind.  Remember that for evil to succeed it is only necessary that good men/women do nothing!

I leave you with this from AN Wilson’s brilliant biography of Hitler…

Hitler’s zest for the modern, his belief that humanity would become more reasonable when it had cast off the shackles of the past – olde-tyme handwriting, religion and so forth – and embraced science and modern roads, was a belief shared with almost all forward-thinking pe

ople at the time, and it continues to be the underlying belief-system of the liberal intelligentsia who control the West.  His belief led directly to genocide and devastating war.  At the same time, he believed himself to be enlightened and forward looking, non-smoking, vegetarian, opposed to hunting, in favour of abortion and euthanasia”. 

“Hitler demonstrates with the most terrifying skill, that humanity can be seduced without much difficulty into acts of collective insanity” ….

Who can rescue us from this darkness?  Not academics, not the clergy, not scientists, not politicians, not commentators, not social justice warriors.  But only the one who came to be The Light in the Darkness….

Yours in Christ,

David