The Lies of "ism"


The worldview of fascism often includes the idea that one race or nation is superior to another. There are obviously big differences in the development between certain nations. Fascist ideology would reason that this is due to the superiority of one nation / race over another. But there is no evidence for such a thing. People are heavily influenced by the ideas and the worldview of the society they are growing up in. Education, religion, tradition and customs are influencing the worldview of an individual and the way he is thinking. As a result of this the development of a society or a nation reflects somehow the worldview of their individuals. A big gap in the development of different nations therefore can lead to the conclusion that certain ways of thinking are more successful than others in specific areas of life. But it can never lead to the conclusion that the nation or race itself is superior to another. Every individual on this planet earth - growing up in a foreign country - will be influenced by the way people of this nation are thinking, etc. and when he adopts these ways of thinking he will have access to the same abilities or skills as the ones who were born in this country. Nothing is limited to the superiority of a certain race. The circumstances a nation is living in are all a result of the worldview of their people. Worldviews can be changed or adopted from anybody and are not limited to certain nations. Therefore, believing in the superiority of a nation/race is believing in a lie.


According to the definition of the Merriam-Webster dictionary humanism is "a system of values and beliefs that is based on the idea that people are basically good..." The idea of humanism is based on the lie that man is basically good: If you'd ask a humanist where all the evil that you see in today's world is coming from, they'd say that society is teaching man evil things. But how does the society become evil? It's not a conclusive answer. As a father of small kids my practical experience also does not agree with this humanistic worldview: Infants are doing wrong / bad things from an early stage on when they haven't seen any of this behavior from their parents or anybody else around them. The bad things infants are doing are not causing much harm and it appears cute what they are doing because they are so small - still it is wrong. It shows that evil comes from within man, not from the society outside.

As a result of this, modern western societies who are heavily influenced by humanism can't cope with evil anymore in an appropriate way: Laws are designed in a way as if the standard citizen is acting good by default. Criminals are treated in a way as if participating in a seminar about better behavior could change their future actions. Children are educated without setting healthy boundaries. Victims of crime are neglected. It reaches the extreme that everybody seems to be only the victims of crime but nobody really commits them. Even the perpetrators of crime are, in the end, only victims of their life circumstances.

If a worldview has no conclusive explanation for the root of evil and can't treat evil properly, it is, in itself, wrong.


Communism is aiming for an equal distribution of wealth in the society. By doing so it contradicts the natural law of sowing and reaping. When wealth is distributed equally without any relation to what the individual is doing to earn it, the connection between sowing and reaping is cut. Nature obviously is not working in such a way and man as part of nature is also not functioning this way: If you sow a lot you will reap a lot; if you sow little you will reap little. Also in a more figurative sense: If you sow hate you will reap hate; if you sow love you will reap love. Therefore, if everyone receives the same income regardless of how good or bad your work performance is, regardless of the effort you put into a certain education or regardless of if you work at all - there would be a lot of reaping without sowing. No system can function this way for long, so the wealth available for distribution would become less and less. Man's heart is not always good and altruistic. It lies in the nature of man's heart to choose a way with less effort to gain the same income that the work with more effort would create in a communist system. Furthermore the idea of "equal distribution of wealth" robs away part of man's dignity. It is man's destiny to provide for his own living with the "work of his hands." By distributing income unrelated to the conduct of work, the dignity that comes through earning a living by work is taken away. A worldview that contradicts the laws of nature in such a way has no truth in it.