Europe Died in Auschwitz

I was walking along Raval (in Barcelona) when all of a sudden I understood that Europe died with Auschwitz. We assassinated 6 million Jews in order to end up bringing in 20 million Muslims!

We burnt the people of the world, the one who is proclaimed the chosen people of God.

Because it is the people who gave to humanity the epic figures who were capable of changing history (Christ, Marx, Einstein, Freud...) and who represent the origin of progress and wellbeing.

We must admit that Europe, by relaxing its borders and giving in under the pretext of tolerance to the values of a fallacious cultural relativism, opened its doors to 20 million Muslims, often illiterates and fanatics that we could meet, at best, in places such as Raval, the poorest of the nations and of the ghettos, and who are preparing the worst, such as the 9/11 and the Madrid bombing and who are lodged in apartment blocs provided by the social welfare.

We also have exchanged culture with fanaticism, the capacity to create with the will to destroy, the wisdom with the superstition. We have exchanged the transcendental instinct of the Jews, who even under the worst possible conditions have always looked for a better, peaceful world, for the suicide bomber.

We have exchanged the pride of life for the fanatic obsession of death. Our death and that of our children.

Who gets to define what is morally repugnant? Congress? The USSC? A majority?

When we dismiss the social contract and ignore morality we are left with a "living constitution" that must define these terms for a benighted people.

Ignore morality? Whose version/vision of morality is ignored?

Aren't you also allowing some group of people to "define these terms"? And if so, where in the constitution is their power to so 'define morality' enumerated?

'Morality' is not constitutionally defined, and no person or group is empowered by the document to define it.
We long ago decided, constitutionally, to allow groups of our peers [juries] to decide matters of guilt or innocence, using due process of law in the case at hand.
But even juries are not allowed to define moral issues. Their decisions only apply to the criminal issues of the case presented. They do not make moral law.

No one in our constitutional system is empowered to make "moral law" for the rest of us, or to decree what is to be "morally repugnant".

Your comments are a perfect illustration of precisely what I am talking about. Morality was, in the minds of the framers and of the culture at the time, not a matter of debate.

Simply not true. They debated long & hard about the powers to be allowed to governments. No where in our constitution is government empowered to make "moral law" for the rest of us, or to decree what is to be "morally repugnant".

It was not decided by a group but was held in common respect. The rejection of religion by political sociopaths has led to the relativism of morality. This condition is a sickness. It is not normal or healthy.

The founders rejected religious tests for "any Office or public Trust under the United States." Was this rejection sociopathic?

John Adams and others believed that the Constitution could not stand unless the people had a fundamental sense of morality.

I too think that most people have a fundamental moral sense. But I would restrain them in defining, in a legally sense, moral law.. Just as does our Constitution.

Moral relitivists would have the constitution reinterpreted to fit their current sense of right and wrong, commonly referred to as politically correct, a pop culture morality.

Correct. Moral relativists of both the left & right are prone to this. To quote you: -- "This condition is a sickness. It is not normal or healthy."

The fictitious claim that religious conservatives want to enforce their morality on the populas is bsed on a desire by sociopaths to eradicate right and wrong from society.

I could as well be said that: The fictitious claim that non-religious conservatives want to enforce their morality on the populace is based on a desire by sociopaths to eradicate right and wrong from society.

We have decided to allow groups of our peers [juries] to decide matters of guilt or innocence, using due process of law in the case at hand.

But even juries are not allowed to define moral issues. Their decisions only apply to the issues of the case presented.

Amos the Prophet wrote:

In fact the jury can do what ever it pleases.
It is not bound by anything. It may acquit in the face of overwhelming evidence if it determines that the law is a bad law. It may decide the moral ramifications of a case and decide accordingly.

The jury is bound by nothing.

Juries are bound to support our Constitution, as are we all.

• Juries cannot create a law, abolish a law, set precedent, or declare a law to be unconstitutional. These remain the province of the legislature or courts of record, respectively.

Jury Nullification
Address:http://www.buildfreedom.com/tl/ffp04.shtml

Typical Oath of Jury

When the jury has been selected, the clerk shall administer to it substantially the following oath:

"You and each of you do solemnly swear that in the case about to be submitted to you, you will a true verdict render according to the law and the evidence, so help you God."

Notice juries are bound by oath to the law; but only constitutional law.

Bottom line is that a jury can do what it pleases. It is not bound by any order or oath. The jury room is absolutely sacrosanct. Its decisions are its own.
From the rules of the jury which you noted:

"DO JURORS HAVE THE RIGHT OR JUST THE POWER TO JUDGE THE LAW ITSELF?
(1) They have both. They have the power, because (a) no one can tell the jury what verdict it must reach, nor restrict what goes on in jury-room deliberations; (b) no one can punish jurors for the verdict they bring in; (c) jurors can’t be forced to explain themselves or otherwise account for their decisions; and (d) a verdict of not guilty cannot be appealed by the government.

The jury is bound by nothing.

Juries are bound to support our Constitution, as are we all.
Jury Nullification
Address:http://www.buildfreedom.com/tl/ffp04.shtml

From the rules of the jury which you noted:

"DO JURORS HAVE THE RIGHT OR JUST THE POWER TO JUDGE THE LAW ITSELF?
(1) They have both. They have the power, because (a) no one can tell the jury what verdict it must reach, nor restrict what goes on in jury-room deliberations; (b) no one can punish jurors for the verdict they bring in; (c) jurors can't be forced to explain themselves or otherwise account for their decisions; and (d) a verdict of not guilty cannot be appealed by the government.
Amos

From that same site, which you agree is authoritative:

• Juries cannot create a law, abolish a law, set precedent, or declare a law to be unconstitutional. These remain the province of the legislature or courts of record, respectively.

There is no argument here that -- JURORS HAVE THE RIGHT OR JUST THE POWER TO JUDGE THE LAW ITSELF.

It's agreed, they have both.

“You do not understand the history of the period. Hitler's genocide was well known and clearly understood from the mid 30s by every Western leader. We - the Allies - chose to do nothing. The US did nothing. It was not our problem. There was rampant hatred of the Jews throughout Europe and the US. There was no concerted effort on the part of any nation to undermine the genocide.”

It’s not clear to me that Hitler’s genocide was well known and clearly understood by himself in the mid 30's, much less by every Western leader. I base this on Hitler’s recorded (1941 - 1944) evening conversations at the dinner table and after dinner. Certainly, Hitler’s persecution of Jews and other ‘inferior’ peoples were known well before fall 1939 and the beginning of the War. Radio reports were full of stories about Brown Shirt rampages in the streets of German cities. William Shirer’s Berlin Diary was published in June of 1941. And, there were newsreel accounts. Once into the war, I’m sure the free western governments (and there weren’t very many of those) were aware of the Nazi’s increasingly intense murderous treatment of Jews and other captive peoples, but I don’t recall all that much was made known to the American people until near the end.

I’ve been following, as best I can, all this conversation about the many nuances of what ‘we’ means in terms of individual v. societal responsibility with respect to that era. It’s all rather interesting, and it serves, I think, to illustrate the complexities involved in the moral issues raised by the experiences of that time.

But, if that era serves to bring any lessons to us today (and I think it brings several), the most important lesson it brings is that you do not go to war only as a last resort. Had the allies called Hitler’s bluff and gone to war in 1938 in response to the ‘Munich crisis’ Europe might have been spared much of the agony of the following six years, and a lot of people, who never even saw life, might be walking around today.

I suspect (and I know of no way to prove this) that the desire to avoid trouble has probably brought as much trouble to the world as has any other calculation.

YHAOS,
As ever, thank you for your thoughtful observations.
Hitler's politics of genocide were documented in Mein Kampf from the mid 20's. His rise to power through the extensive use of the Brown Shirts created a widely reported reign of terror. His special hatred for the Jews was well known. What I ought to have said was that world leaders who knew how to read the tea leaves understood clearly where all this was going.
To be sure there were ostriches in France, GB and the US who thought it would all just go away. Roosevelt and his administration do not appear to be among them. Churchill certainly was not nor was DeGaul. Tragically, it took at least 5 years for their voices to be heard.
Your observation that war is not necessarily a last resort is well placed. Much ado is made of diplomacy to avoid war. Once war has been declared by one side, as with Germany's Munich crisis, failure to respond accordingly is weakness and leads to defeat.
As with the declaration of war by Muslim extremism much bloodshed could have been avoided if Pres Carter had protected American territory and lives in Iran when the US embassy was assaulted by a mob. The ensuing year of cowardice created a terrorist movement that we are finally waging war against 20 years later.
When trouble comes uninvited through the door an overwhelming response will always halt its advance. Tyrants are never as strong at the beginning as they are after their victims have given them unqualified victory. Put another way, once war has begun war must be the first response of those under attack.

I've been following, as best I can, all this conversation about the many nuances of what 'we' means in terms of individual v. societal responsibility with respect to that era. It's all rather interesting, and it serves, I think, to illustrate the complexities involved in the moral issues raised by the experiences of that time.

Those same issues [and I see them as constitutional, not moral issues] are still with us today.

But, if that era serves to bring any lessons to us today (and I think it brings several), the most important lesson it brings is that you do not go to war only as a last resort.

That machiavellian style option is in effect today, in Iraq. Our government made the decision [constitutionally] to wage preventive war there to 'call the bluff' of islamic fundamentalists.

Had the allies called Hitler's bluff and gone to war in 1938 in response to the 'Munich crisis' Europe might have been spared much of the agony of the following six years, and a lot of people, who never even saw life, might be walking around today. I suspect (and I know of no way to prove this) that the desire to avoid trouble has probably brought as much trouble to the world as has any other calculation.

We are in the midst of finding out whether we can prevent a holocast based in the middle east by calling Islam's bluff, and establishing our own base of operations.

Let's hope it works. -- We may have bet our way of life on calling that bluff.

Any clear thinking person with a good education in European history and culture would have (and in some cases did) recognized what Hitler was very early on. The problem is, in the modern world, such a recognition is extremely uncomfortable. It forces one to face the fact that whatever current utopian scheme that flies in the face of human nature is going to fail and that some sort of extreme action is pending. One can either, at that point, face the facts and take a smaller extreme action sooner (as *could have* France and the UK, back in, say, 1937 or so) or, one can kick the can down the road and pretend that the monster has not risen out of the swamp. At its most psychotic level, indeed, people do as you have noted try to turn the monster into a "Man of the Year" or some sort of mega wonk who makes the trains run on time. But to the truly observant person, a monster is a monster. If it quacks like a duck, and walks like a duck, then it sure ain't a chicken.

Not if but when the next Hitler (or set of them?) pops out of the woodwork, as with the past, the truly observant will perceive it. But will the truly observant have the clout to drive the necessary extreme action? I am pessimistic about this and say "probably not."

Another problem is: how numerous are "clear thinking person[s] with a good education in European history and culture"?

"Another Hitler" will come from the most unexpected direction. Maybe from the politically correct left? Maybe from the conservative democratic side? Or the most likely in the "moderate" center!

In 1917 there was slogan in Russia - "there is no enemy on the left" ie you need to fear the right, but the left is safe and you can go as far as you want. We know how it ended.

Then after the horror of collectivization and Gulag conservatives started to think that "there is no enemy on the RIGHT". And that led us to 1933 and 1939.

No there is no enemy in the center and not in the West.

“What I ought to have said was that world leaders who knew how to read the tea leaves understood clearly where all this was going.”

Your points are well taken. Churchill, of course, was the man. He had the Nazi’s number from the get-go. De Gaulle, I know little about at the time under discussion. Of, course, during much of this time De Gaulle was an obscure Colonel, and who pays any attention to an obscure French Colonel. I’m not surprised, however, to hear that he had Hitler’s number, much like Churchill. I did not know that before the commencement of hostilities, De Gaulle was known for anything other than writing a well-regarded manual on tank tactics.

Your points on Carter and our dealing with terrorists, again are well taken, and I appreciate your support.

Back to Churchill one more time: at some point early on in the war, say the spring of 1940 just before he became PM, I wonder if even Churchill really understood the full magnitude of the horrors we would uncover in Germany in the spring of 1945. I don’t think anyone did; even Churchill.

“Those same issues [and I see them as constitutional, not moral issues] are still with us today.”

Yes, and a very sizable segment of our society (a very large part of what constitutes ‘we’) has come to the judgment that ‘we’ are not going to permit another wholesale slaughter of Jews. That’s a moral issue, but the judgment involves matters of public policy and of its implementation, and these matters do include at least the possibility of constitutional issues.

“We are in the midst of finding out whether we can prevent a holocast based in the middle east by calling Islam's bluff, and establishing our own base of operations.”

“Let's hope it works. -- We may have bet our way of life on calling that bluff.”

If there was ever a thought Islamic lunatics are bluffing, the sight of very large jets flying at very high speeds into very tall buildings should have dispelled that notion. Whether we confronted the Islamics four years ago, or had waited until they begin to slaughter us by the millions instead of the thousands, our ‘way of life’ is at stake, and has been for fifteen hundred years when these maniacs first came storming out of their desert stronghold.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.