THE TELEGRAPH: A 90-year-old former SS sergeant who was No 4 on the most wanted list of Nazi war criminals has died in Germany before his case came to trial.
Adolf Storms died at his home in the western city of Duisburg on June 28, according to German authorities.
Storms, who worked unnoticed for decades as a train-station manager, was charged by Brendel's office last November with 58 counts of murder for alleged involvement in a wartime massacre of Jewish forced labourers in Austria.
He was on the Simon Wiesenthal Center's Most Wanted list. >>> | Tuesday, July 06, 2010
Thursday, April 15, 2010
Nazi Fairy Tales Paint Hitler as Little Red Riding Hood's Saviour
THE TELEGRAPH: Few children would identify Adolf Hitler as the saviour of Little Red Riding Hood - or recall that Snow White's father wanted to invade Poland.
A man with a knife arrives as the saviour of Little Red Riding Hood. Photograph: The Telegraph
But these were the allegorical twists injected into classic fairy tales re-fashioned by Nazi propaganda chiefs to recruit German children to support the Third Reich.
In the Nazi film version of "Little Red Riding Hood", the child wears a swastika-emblazoned cloak as she skips through the woods and is saved from the Big Bad Wolf by a man wearing an SS uniform in a style favoured by the Führer.
Snow White's father, a minor character in the Brothers Grimm tale, is portrayed in the Nazi film as the leader of a mighty army advancing on the "eastern" enemy. The film's premier, in October 1939, came one month after Germany launched its attack on Poland.
Josef Goebbels, the propaganda genius of the regime, was quick to seize on the potential to promote Hitler to a hero and plant the seeds of racial superiority in the minds of German children, according to a new study "Red Riding Hood in the Third Reich: German fairy tale movies between 1933 and 1945".
"Every fairy tale is politically alignable without raping the poetry within," Hubert Schonger, a Nazi film producer, said in an interview in the 1930s.
But his boss, Goebbels, warned Mr Schonger and his colleagues not be too heavy handed. "Children will see through propaganda quicker than their parents ever could," he said. >>> Allan Hall in Berlin | Thursday, April 15, 2010
Thursday, January 28, 2010
Photograph: Google Images
How Bush's Grandfather Helped Hitler's Rise to Power
THE GUARDIAN: Rumours of a link between the US first family and the Nazi war machine have circulated for decades. Now the Guardian can reveal how repercussions of events that culminated in action under the Trading with the Enemy Act are still being felt by today's president
George Bush's grandfather, the late US senator Prescott Bush, was a director and shareholder of companies that profited from their involvement with the financial backers of Nazi Germany.
The Guardian has obtained confirmation from newly discovered files in the US National Archives that a firm of which Prescott Bush was a director was involved with the financial architects of Nazism.
His business dealings, which continued until his company's assets were seized in 1942 under the Trading with the Enemy Act, has led more than 60 years later to a civil action for damages being brought in Germany against the Bush family by two former slave labourers at Auschwitz and to a hum of pre-election controversy.
The evidence has also prompted one former US Nazi war crimes prosecutor to argue that the late senator's action should have been grounds for prosecution for giving aid and comfort to the enemy.
The debate over Prescott Bush's behaviour has been bubbling under the surface for some time. There has been a steady internet chatter about the "Bush/Nazi" connection, much of it inaccurate and unfair. But the new documents, many of which were only declassified last year, show that even after America had entered the war and when there was already significant information about the Nazis' plans and policies, he worked for and profited from companies closely involved with the very German businesses that financed Hitler's rise to power. It has also been suggested that the money he made from these dealings helped to establish the Bush family fortune and set up its political dynasty. >>> Ben Aris in Berlin and Duncan Campbell in Washington | Saturday, September 25, 2010
Tuesday, December 29, 2009
Detroit Terror Attack: A Murderous Ideology Tolerated for Too Long
A whiff of common sense here. People are beginning to wake up from their slumbers. Surely, the tide must be beginning to turn. It must turn if the West is to be won.
This viewpoint from The Telegraph is refreshing indeed; yet it doesn’t go far enough. Radical Islamism is a symptom of a fanatic belief in Islam. In many ways, it is the true belief of a Muslim, one who, in their eyes, submits to the will of Allah, but who in anyone else’s eyes can only be thought of submitting to the ideology of a death cult: Islam.
If we are to win this war being waged against the West, otherwise known as the Jihad – an intermittent war which has been waged against the “infidel West” since Islam’s inception – then we have to come to the realization that Islam is not a religion per se, but a religio-political system which recognizes NO SEPARATION OF POLITICS AND RELIGION. The separation of politics and religion is the sine qua non of democracy. No democracy can exist without it. Islam is the true enemy of democracy and freedom. No true democracy will ever exist where Islam is the dominant ideology. This is so not only because Islam recognizes no separation of mosque and state, but also because Islam recognizes no diversity. None whatsoever! Islam recognizes one religion – Islam, and one way of life – the Islamic way of life. In an age of multiculturalism and diversity, it is incredible that we should tolerate such an intolerant ideology in our midst, for truly, if Islam gets the upper hand here in the West – and it is looking increasingly likely in the long- or medium-term, then there will be no diversity. There will be only Islam. Apostates will be killed, as will homosexuals. It will then be a case of convert, die, or pay the jizyah, the special tax levied on the infidel in return for some measure of protection. Remember this: Multiculturalism and diversity are anathema to Islam!
Westerners have faffed around, played around with our language for far, far too long. We have come up with all kinds of weird and wonderful expressions, euphemisms all, and all thought-up and devised so as not to appear Islamophobic, so as not to point the finger at a religion and thereby appear religiously bigotted, and to keep the peace at any price. The euphemisms are well-known to all by now: Islamism, radical Islamism (as though there could ever be a non-radical Islamism!), radical Jihadism (again, as though there could ever be a benign, non-radical Jihadism), and so on and so forth. There are but three words that we need in our vocabulary: Islam, Muslim, and the Jihad. An Islamist is a devout follower of the faith of Islam. A believer that dots the ‘i’s’ and crosses the ‘t’s’. Contrary to popular Western myth, he is not one who has perverted his faith; rather, he is the real thing. Just as much the real thing as Coke is to cola.
The Muslims considered by the West as being peaceful and law-abiding are actually people who do not follow central aspects of their faith such as the Jihad, the killing of apostates, honour killings, and other repugnant tenets of that faith.
THE TELEGRAPH: Telegraph View: Jihadist Islamism is comparable to Nazism in many respects. The British public realises this; so do the intelligence services.
Friday's attempt to blow up a transatlantic airliner by a British-educated Islamist was foiled by the bravery of its passengers and crew. We cannot assume that we will be lucky next time. And the indications are that there will be a next time. According to police sources, 25 British-born Muslims are currently in Yemen being trained in the art of bombing planes. But most of these terrorists did not acquire their crazed beliefs in the Islamic world: they were indoctrinated in Britain. Indeed, thousands of young British Muslims support the use of violence to further the Islamist cause – and this despite millions of pounds poured by the Government into projects designed to prevent Islamic extremism.
Is it time for a fundamental rethink of Britain's attitude towards domestic Islamism? Consider this analogy. Suppose that, in several London universities, Right‑wing student societies were allowed to invite neo-Nazi speakers to address teenagers. Meanwhile, churches in poor white neighbourhoods handed over their pulpits to Jew-hating admirers of Adolf Hitler, called for the execution of homosexuals, preached the intellectual inferiority of women, and blessed the murder of civilians. What would the Government do? It would bring the full might of the criminal law against activists indoctrinating young Britons with an inhuman Nazi ideology – and the authorities that let them. Any public servants complicit in this evil would be hounded from their jobs. >>> | Tuesday, December 29, 2009
More than a million people died in Auschwitz. Photo: BBC
BBC: When millions would have done anything to get out, one remarkable British soldier smuggled himself into Auschwitz to witness the horror so he could tell others the truth.
Denis Avey is a remarkable man by any measure. A courageous and determined soldier in World War II, he was captured by the Germans and imprisoned in a camp connected to the Germans' largest concentration camp, Auschwitz.
But his actions while in the camp - which he has never spoken about until now - are truly extraordinary. When millions would have done anything to get out, Mr Avey repeatedly smuggled himself into the camp.
Now 91 and living in Derbyshire, he says he wanted to witness what was going on inside and find out the truth about the gas chambers, so he could tell others. He knows he took "a hell of a chance".
"When you think about it in today's environment it is ludicrous, absolutely ludicrous," he says.
"You wouldn't think anyone would think or do that, but that is how I was. I had red hair and a temperament to match. Nothing would stop me."
He arranged to swap for one night at a time with a Jewish inmate he had come to trust. He exchanged his uniform for the filthy, stripy garments the man had to wear. For the Auschwitz inmate it meant valuable food and rest in the British camp, while for Denis it was a chance to gather facts on the inside. >>> Rob Broomby | Sunday, November 29, 2009
Thursday, November 19, 2009
Germany’s Nazi Exception: Constitutional Court OKs Curtailing of Free Speech
SPIEGEL ONLINE INTERNATIONAL: Germany's constitution strongly and explicitly protects the freedom of speech. Still, the country's highest court has now said that -- given the injustice and horrors of the Nazi regime -- it is constitutional to make an exception that bans speech glorifying Hitler's ideology.
Wunsiedel is a small town of about 10,000 in the northeastern corner of Bavaria. Every year, on one particular day, this otherwise sleepy town is on high alert. In late August, thousands of people come here from all over Germany and abroad. Dressed in black, these neo-Nazis come to march in commemoration of Rudolf Hess, the Hitler deputy and convicted war criminal who has been buried here since 1987.
Some of the locals board up their houses and get out of town. Others bring banners to protest the parade and even block it with vehicles used for transporting liquid manure. In 2004, the town's mayor, Karl-Willi Beck, launched a campaign called "Wunsiedel is colorful, not brown." Together with town councilors, church officials and citizens, he tried to block the streets. A group of skinheads insulted him as a "traitor to his fatherland" and a "grave desecrator." The neo-Nazis threatened to run him out of town.
But, since 2005, he hasn't had to deal with the crowds. In that year, the Bundestag, the lower house of Germany's federal parliament, passed an amendment that strengthened the legal article dealing with incitement to hatred. Otto Shily, who was Germany's interior minister at the time, said that it was done "in solidarity with the democratic public of Wunsiedel." The amendment was meant to make it easier to outlaw neo-Nazi commemorative marches in Wunsiedel and elsewhere. The amendment worked. And, last year, the Federal Administrative Court confirmed the decision upholding a ban on such assemblies based on the new law.
Still, Jürgen Rieger, the recently deceased Hamburg-based lawyer and neo-Nazi who organized the Hess commemorations, was determined to keep marching. To do so, he placed his hope in Germany's Federal Constitutional Court, based in Karlsruhe. Sure, the judges had already dismissed a number of Rieger's expedited motions. But, in this case, they had expressly determined that the new ban "raised a series of difficult constitutional issues." However, they also felt that these were not the type of questions that could be dealt with in expedited proceedings. Challenging the Amendment >>> Dietmar Hipp | Wednesday, November 18, 2009
Friday, October 23, 2009
Touring the Horrible: A Guide to Germany's Darkest Places
SPIEGEL ONLINE INTERNATIONAL : Beer, bratwurst and lederhosen are an undeniable part of German culture. But so too is the country's brutal 20th century history. SPIEGEL ONLINE takes you to 11 of the country's most unsettling sites.
The Vogelsang Fortress -- Ideology Cast in Stone
Bundestrasse 266, starting at the German town of Gemünd not far from the border with Belgium, winds out of the town and up onto a high plateau. Before long, past a small town called Morsbach, you will come to an inconspicuous turnoff. The drive takes you through beautiful woodland past bright blue lakes. But it is a beauty that lies in direct contrast with the journey's endpoint: Vogelsang Castle, one of the Nazis' elite training schools.
Open to the public only since January 2006, the complex is sprawling and confusing, the fortification full of nooks and crannies. Indeed, most opt for a guide to point out the most important sights.
Under the direction of Robert Ley's German Workers Front (DAF), one of three elite training centers took shape on the Eifel Ridge beginning in 1934. It was designed as an investment in the Nazi party's future, where the next generation of Hitlers was to be formed. Sport formed an important part of the curriculum, as did racial theory and geo-politics.
The 500 students -- a number which eventually grew to 1,000 -- were known as "NS-Junkers", and were housed in sparsely furnished barracks. The complex was taken over by the armed forces at the outbreak of war and subsequently used to accommodate the troops during the Ardennes Offensive and the push into France.
The differing national attitudes towards a place that is connected with National Socialism is rarely as obvious as here. While the English, say tour guides, are most concerned with understanding the complex from a pragmatic viewpoint, and the Americans are the first to ask how often the "German Führer" visited Vogelsang, the Germans on the other hand feel duty bound to find a politically correct justification for their own curiosity. They say they feel "committed to the past, … >>> | Friday, October 23, 2009
Thursday, October 08, 2009
Stephen Fry's Slur Against Polish Catholics: 'Remember Which Side of the Border Auschwitz Was On'
THE TELEGRAPH – BLOG: Stephen Fry (he is the bore that is a permanent fixture on your television screen but is not Jonathan Ross or David Attenborough) has delivered an insulting attack on Catholics and Poles which grotesquely misrepresents historical fact and which, if levelled at almost any other targets, would probably be characterised as a “hate crime”.
Fry, who joined Labour luvvies in signing an open letter protesting against the Tories’ alliance in the European Parliament with the Polish Law and Justice Party, said on Channel 4 News: “There’s been a history, let’s face it, in Poland of a right-wing Catholicism which has been deeply disturbing for those of us who know a little history and remember which side of the border Auschwitz was on”…
That is beyond outrageous. It slanderously suggests that Auschwitz was run by Polish Catholics, not by German Nazis. “A little history” is right. Just how very little history Fry knows is demonstrated by that crassly ignorant statement. Auschwitz was on Polish soil, ergo it was a Polish institution? As for which side of the border Auschwitz was on, it was actually in Upper Silesia which had been annexed to Germany in 1939. It might, of course, be argued that the Poles built Auschwitz – if slave labour counts.
The first prisoners in Auschwitz were Polish intellectuals and members of the resistance. Altogether, 150,000 Catholic Poles were murdered in Auschwitz, including Saint Maximilian Kolbe. Between two and three million Catholic Poles were killed in the Second World War. Polish pilots fought in the RAF in the Battle of Britain. Note Fry’s insidious use of the dog-whistle term “right-wing Catholicism”: >>> Gerald Warner | Wednesday, October 07, 2009
Friday, September 11, 2009
American Nazi
Thursday, August 20, 2009
Lest We Forget – Auschwitz: The Nazis and the Final Solution
Part 1:
Part 2:
Part 3:
Part 4:
Part 5:
Monday, August 10, 2009
German Jews Want 'Mein Kampf' Reprinted
THE INDEPENDENT: Country divided by call to republish Hitler's anti-semitic autobiography
Germany's Central Council of Jews has taken the unprecedented step of backing a proposal to republish Adolf Hitler's infamous autobiographical manifesto Mein Kampf, which has been strictly outlawed in the country since the end of the Second World War.
Although many German Jews still oppose reissuing Hitler's anti-Semitic work, Stephan Kramer, the general secretary of the country's leading Jewish organisation, supports a new scholarly edition of the work designed to inform future generations of the evils of Nazism.
"It makes sense and is important to publish an edition of Mein Kampf with an academic commentary," Mr Kramer said. "A historically critical edition needs to be prepared today to prevent neo-Nazis profiting from it."
However the southern state of Bavaria, which holds the rights to the book, remains strongly opposed to the idea. "We won't lift the ban as it may play straight into the hands of the far right," said a spokesman for the Bavarian government. "Prohibition is highly regarded by Jewish groups and we mean to keep it that way," he said.
Several German academics, including the historian Jürgen Faulenbach, also oppose republishing the work and insist that it does little to throw light on the Nazi era. "The book does not provide any important answers to questions about how the Nazi regime was possible," he said. "It only contains the polarising views of the author. To lift a 60 year old ban on Mein Kampf would be problematic."
Hitler wrote Mein Kampf, which means "My Struggle", in 1924 while serving a four-year term in a Bavarian prison. The book contains the Nazi leader's well-known views on racial purity, and demonstrates his hatred of communism and the Jews. It also hints at his long term plans for the Holocaust. >>> Tony Paterson in Berlin | Monday, August 10, 2009
LA TIMES: Much of the support for the right-wing parties springs from a resentment of long-ruling political elites.
Two far-right parties, the Austrian Freedom Party and the Movement for Austria's Future, managed to win 29% of the vote in Sunday's general elections in Austria. This is double what they got in the elections of 2006.
Both parties share the same attitudes toward immigrants, especially Muslims, and the European Union: a mixture of fear and loathing. Because the leaders of the two parties, Heinz-Christian Strache and Jorg Haider, can't stand each other, there is little chance of a far-right coalition actually taking power. Nonetheless, this is Adolf Hitler's native land, where Jews were once forced to scrub the streets of Vienna with toothbrushes before being deported and killed, so the result is disturbing. The question is: How disturbing?
Twenty-nine percent is about 15% more than populist right-wing parties usually get even in very good (for them) years in other European countries. Strache, leader of the Freedom Party, wants the government to create a new ministry to manage the deportation of immigrants. Muslims are openly disparaged by leaders of both parties. Haider once praised the employment practices of Hitler's Third Reich. Inevitably, the new rightists bring back memories of storm troopers and race laws.
Yet to see the rise of the Austrian right as a revival of Nazism would be a mistake. For one thing, neither party is advocating violence, even if some of their rhetoric might inspire it. For another, it seems to me that voters backing these far-right parties may be motivated less by ideology than by anxieties and resentments that are felt in many European countries, including ones with no Nazi tradition, such as the Netherlands and Denmark.
In Denmark, the hard-right Danish People's Party is the third-largest party in the country, with 25 parliamentary seats. Dutch populists such as Rita Verdonk, or Geert Wilders, who is driven by a paranoid fear of "Islamization," are putting the traditional political elites -- a combination of liberals, social democrats and Christian democrats -- under severe pressure.
And this is precisely the point. The biggest resentment among supporters of the right-wing parties in Europe these days is reserved not so much for immigrants as for political elites that, in the opinion of many, have been governing for too long in cozy coalitions, which appear to exist chiefly to protect vested interests. In Austria, even liberals admit that an endless succession of social democrat and Christian democrat governments has clogged the arteries of the political system. It has been difficult for smaller parties to penetrate what is seen as a bastion of political privilege. The same is true in the Netherlands, which has been governed for decades by the same middle-of-the-road parties, led by benevolent but rather paternalistic figures whose views about multiculturalism, tolerance and Europe were, until recently, rarely challenged. Europe’s Far-Right Revival Isn’t Nazism >>> By Ian Buruma | October 3, 2008
Because many people have been reading this essay lately, I have decided to reprint it. I have linked it to a YouTube video, as I did originally.
The Connection Between Nazism, Arab Anti-Semitism and Islam
DEFINITION – Fascism: …As a rule, fascist governments are dominated by a dictator, who usually possesses a magnetic personality, … and rallies his followers by mass parades; appeals to strident nationalism; and promotes suspicion or hatred of both foreigners and “impure” people within his own nation, such as the Jews in Germany. Although both communism and fascism are forms of totalitarianism, fascism does not demand state ownership of the means of production, nor is fascism committed to the achievement of economic equality. In theory, communism opposes the identification of government with a single charismatic leader (the “cult of personality”), which is the cornerstone of fascism. … [Source: Dictionary.com]
With the death of Hitler and the defeat of Nazi Germany, most people thought that the world had been rid of fascism. Today, however, we cannot be so sure, because there is evidence aplenty of its revival. These days, many people talk of another form of fascism in particular: Islamofascism. Some people believe this term to be apt for the radical religio-political movement based on Islam, which is currently spreading through the world like wildfire; others, especially Muslims, find the term insulting and demeaning. Who is right? Are the infidels right to be shocked, disgraced and indignant, or are infidels right to use the term to point out to the unsuspecting the dangers we face. Why? Even the President of the United States of America himself, George W Bush, has used the term in public when referring to the antics of Al-Qa’eda and its determination to cultivate mayhem throughout the free world.
When we refer to Islam and radical Islam, we have to be careful not to confuse people. In this politically correct world, a world in which nobody seems willing to upset ethnic groups and people of other religions, it has become customary to dance around the truth so as not to offend. Therefore, our politicians have become accustomed to speaking in riddles, when clearer, more appropriate language would serve the needs of the electorate far better.
In times of danger, clarity of thought is essential. Prevarication serves no-one’s best interest in the long-run. Prevarication might well buy us some time; but it certainly doesn’t solve issues for the long-term good of the nation, for the long-term good of our civilization.
Let’s take a look at the real Islam…
The real Islam is exclusive in the extreme, just as Nazism was. It tells the believers – the Muslims throughout the world – to kill the unbelievers, to kill the infidels. This cannot be disputed, since it is there in black and white in all versions of the holy book of Muslims, the Qur’an.
They [the infidels] but wish that ye should reject Faith, as they do, and thus be on the same footing (as they): But take not friends from their ranks until they flee in the way of God [Allah] (from what is forbidden). But if they turn renegades, seize them and slay them wherever ye find them; and (in any case) take no friends or helpers from their ranks. – Al-Qur’an, Al-Nisa’ (Women), Surah IV, 89 (Translation by A Yusuf Ali)
And then we have the following:
… When the sacred months are over slay the idolaters wherever you find them. Arrest them, besiege them, and lie in ambush everywhere for them. … – Al-Qur’an, At-Tawba (Repentance), Surah 9, 4 (Translation by N J Dawood)
These exhortations are also redolent of Nazism. They are certainly as violent and brutal and cruel.
These are the words of the founder of Islam or the words of Allah, according to your viewpoint and according to where you stand on the matter of Islam being a great and authentic religion. Muhammad certainly managed to make those who submit to Allah feel superior and exclusive, since Muslims are considered (by Muslims) to be superior to all other human beings. They are, after all, Allah’s ‘chosen people’, just as the Aryan race was the superior race in Hitler’s Germany. This is surely another similarity between these two ideologies.
There is no doubt about the fact that Muhammad was a 'great' and magnetic personality. This is quite indisputable, since were he not to have been so, then Islam would surely have died out long ago. But don’t all fascist movements rely on a magnetic personality to lead the followers, to lead the masses, to lead the people who cannot think for themselves? Think of three great examples of the twentieth century: Hitler, Mussolini, and Franco. All had quite magnetic personalities: people just had to watch them and listen to them and their rants.
The fact that Muhammad died more than fourteen hundred years ago makes no real difference, since his personality is no less magnetic today than it was when he roamed the sands of the desert. His words are still harkened unto by 1.4 billion people worldwide, and we are still counting.
Muhammad must surely rank as the dictator par excellence, since his words were clothed in a deity. Hitler, when he was sitting in his Bunker with Eva that day in 1945, when he was contemplating biting that cyanide capsule and plucking up the courage to shoot himself through the temples, must surely have regretted with every fibre of his being that he hadn’t been smart enough to clothe Nazism in a deity, just as Islam had been about fourteen hundred years before. How much more successful Hitler might have been!
Does Islam qualify so far, according to our dictionary definition, to be classified as a form of fascism? I’ll leave that up to you to decide.
We are then informed that fascist dictators rally their followers by means of mass parades. Well, we cannot say with any certainty whether Muhammad did this. In all probability, he did not, since Islam, in the days of the Prophet, was in its infancy, and there would have been too few followers to rally. What we can say, however, is this: In the modern world, the dictators of the Islamic world have no difficulty whatsoever in getting rallies together on the streets of their cities. Often times, they are genuine; yet at other times, the numbers in the rallies are made by ‘rent-a-mob’. Either way, we must decide whether Islam passes this next test of a true strand of fascism. You decide!
Then we are informed in the definition that fascism appeals to strident nationalism. Well, there is no doubt that Islam is an Arabo-centric movement, worldwide. When praying, all Muslims must face Makkah (Mecca), and this takes place five times a day for the pious and faithful. One is certainly not allowed to ignore the Arab world if one is an adherent of the ‘religion’ of submission that is Islam. Added to this, of course, we have the Ummah, which is the community of Muslims throughout the world. When one enters the fold of Islam, when one becomes a follower, when one submits to the ‘will of Allah’ – some would say the arbitrary ‘will of Allah’ – then one joins the ‘nation’ of Islam worldwide. In this sense, can we not conclude that Islam is a form of extreme ‘nationalism’, a form of Islamic nationalism, a 'nationalism' that transcends geographical borders and frontiers?
Then we are told that fascism promotes suspicion and/or hatred of foreigners and impure people. Well, can we not conclude with the copious and available evidence that we have that Islam is certainly exclusive, since anyone who is not a Muslim is treated as inferior, and actually unclean, as in Kafir (pl. Kufar). The term used in Islam is Naji for such an unclean and unsavoury person. Does this remind you of the way that the Nazis thought of Jews and gypsies and homosexuals and Slavs and Russians? Nazis called them Untermenschen (unclean sub-humans); Muslims call them Najis (unclean disbelievers living in a state of Jahiliyyah, a state of pre-Islamic chaos), people who are unworthy of the human condition.
One other thing that Nazis, in particular, had in common with Muslims was this: They both hate(d) the Jews; both groups are deeply anti-Semitic. This, of course, is true to this very day. Mein Kampf, Hitler’s infamous book written whilst he was incarcerated, the title of which means ‘My fight, or my struggle’ (a title which bears a striking resemblance to the term Jihad, if you hadn’t noticed) was replete with anti-Semitism. One can but wonder why this very book is such a bestseller even to this day in countries in the Middle East, and even in Turkey. The book is an endless source of fascination to Muslims.
Fascism is a form of totalitarianism, but then isn’t Islam a form of totalitarianism, too? Fascism doesn’t demand state control of the means of production; but then Islam doesn’t either. Though it does have its own economic principles, economic principles which are neither capitalist nor socialist, economic principles and theory which are simply Islamic. This theory of economics demands neither state-ownership of the means of production nor does it demand equality among the faithful. But Islamic thinking certainly does call for infidels to be treated in an inferior manner, to be treated as dhimmies, or protected people who are not afforded the same rights as those who have submitted to Allah’s will.
Jews in Nazi Germany were made to wear a yellow star to mark them out from the crowd. Non-believers in an Islamic country, according to the ‘Pact of Umar’, are also subjected to similar indignities. Here we have another similarity.
The cult of personality, we are told, is the cornerstone of fascism. Do you think that Islam measures up on this score? Does Muhammad qualify? Was Muhammad charismatic enough? Has Muhammad passed the test of time? Can we conclude that Muhammad is the Gestalt which can truly be described as the non plus ultra of Gestalten, the non plus ultra of personality cults.
Whether ‘Islamofascism’ is a justified and apt term or indeed a calumnious one to describe what we are witnessing around the world today as Islam becomes ever more resurgent is for you, the reader, to decide. Do, by all means, think long and hard about this matter, for the future of the free world depends on our getting this right. It depends on our careful handling of this most thorny of contemporary issues.
McCain Drops Rev Hagee over Highly Controversial Sermon
BBC: US presidential hopeful John McCain has rejected the backing of a Church leader who said Hitler was carrying out "God's will" in chasing the Jews from Europe.
It comes after the comments by evangelical preacher Rev John Hagee, which were made in the 1990s, re-emerged on a US news website.
In a sermon, Rev Hagee said the Nazi leader was carrying out a divine plan to gather Jews into the Holy Land.
The Republican candidate described the comments as "crazy and unacceptable".
Senator McCain had been criticised for seeking the endorsement of the controversial minister.
Rev Hagee has also described the Roman Catholic Church as "the great whore" and a "false cult system", as well as suggesting that Hurricane Katrina was God's retribution for homosexual sin.
But while Senator McCain condemned those comments, he had not rejected Rev Hagee's endorsement until Thursday, when an audio recording of the preacher saying that God sent Hitler to help Jews reach the promised land was published on the Huffington Post website.
Pastor problems
The BBC's correspondent in Washington, James Coomarasamy, says that the senator had actively courted the pastor's support, in order to improve his standing within the evangelical community. McCain Drops Backer over Sermon >>>
The Connection Between Nazism, Arab Anti-Semitism and Islam
DEFINITION – Fascism: …As a rule, fascist governments are dominated by a dictator, who usually possesses a magnetic personality, … and rallies his followers by mass parades; appeals to strident nationalism; and promotes suspicion or hatred of both foreigners and “impure” people within his own nation, such as the Jews in Germany. Although both communism and fascism are forms of totalitarianism, fascism does not demand state ownership of the means of production, nor is fascism committed to the achievement of economic equality. In theory, communism opposes the identification of government with a single charismatic leader (the “cult of personality”), which is the cornerstone of fascism. … [Source: Dictionary.com]
EDITORIAL: With the death of Hitler and the defeat of Nazi Germany, most people thought that the world had been rid of fascism. Today, however, we cannot be so sure, because there is evidence aplenty of its revival. These days, many people talk of another form of fascism in particular: Islamofascism. Some people believe this term to be apt for the radical religio-political movement based on Islam, which is currently spreading through the world like wildfire; others, especially Muslims, find the term insulting and demeaning. Who is right? Are the infidels right to be shocked, disgraced and indignant, or are infidels right to use the term to point out to the unsuspecting the dangers we face. Why? Even the President of the United States of America himself, George W Bush, has used the term in public when referring to the antics of Al-Qa’eda and its determination to cultivate mayhem throughout the free world.
When we refer to Islam and radical Islam, we have to be careful not to confuse people. In this politically correct world, a world in which nobody seems willing to upset ethnic groups and people of other religions, it has become customary to dance around the truth so as not to offend. Therefore, our politicians have become accustomed to speaking in riddles, when clearer, more appropriate language would serve the needs of the electorate far better.
In times of danger, clarity of thought is essential. Prevarication serves no-one’s best interest in the long-run. Prevarication might well buy us some time; but it certainly doesn’t solve issues for the long-term good of the nation, for the long-term good of our civilization.
Let’s take a look at the real Islam…
The real Islam is exclusive in the extreme, just as Nazism was. It tells the believers – the Muslims throughout the world – to kill the unbelievers, to kill the infidels. This cannot be disputed, since it is there in black and white in all versions of the holy book of Muslims, the Qur’an.
They [the infidels] but wish that ye should reject Faith, as they do, and thus be on the same footing (as they): But take not friends from their ranks until they flee in the way of God [Allah] (from what is forbidden). But if they turn renegades, seize them and slay them wherever ye find them; and (in any case) take no friends or helpers from their ranks. – Al-Qur’an, Al-Nisa’ (Women), Surah IV, 89 (Translation by A Yusuf Ali)
And then we have the following:
… When the sacred months are over slay the idolaters wherever you find them. Arrest them, besiege them, and lie in ambush everywhere for them. … – Al-Qur’an, At-Tawba (Repentance), Surah 9, 4 (Translation by N J Dawood)
These exhortations are also redolent of Nazism. They are certainly as violent and brutal and cruel.
These are the words of the founder of Islam or the words of Allah, according to your viewpoint and according to where you stand on the matter of Islam being a great and authentic religion. Muhammad certainly managed to make those who submit to Allah feel superior and exclusive, since Muslims are considered (by Muslims) to be superior to all other human beings. They are, after all, Allah’s ‘chosen people’, just as the Aryan race was the superior race in Hitler’s Germany. This is surely another similarity between these two ideologies.
There is no doubt about the fact that Muhammad was a 'great' and magnetic personality. This is quite indisputable, since were he not to have been so, then Islam would surely have died out long ago. But don’t all fascist movements rely on a magnetic personality to lead the followers, to lead the masses, to lead the people who cannot think for themselves? Think of three great examples of the twentieth century: Hitler, Mussolini, and Franco. All had quite magnetic personalities: people just had to watch them and listen to them and their rants.
The fact that Muhammad died more than fourteen hundred years ago makes no real difference, since his personality is no less magnetic today than it was when he roamed the sands of the desert. His words are still harkened unto by 1.4 billion people worldwide, and we are still counting.
Muhammad must surely rank as the dictator par excellence, since his words were clothed in a deity. Hitler, when he was sitting in his Bunker with Eva that day in 1945, when he was contemplating biting that cyanide capsule and plucking up the courage to shoot himself through the temples, must surely have regretted with every fibre of his being that he hadn’t been smart enough to clothe Nazism in a deity, just as Islam had been about fourteen hundred years before. How much more successful Hitler might have been!
Does Islam qualify so far, according to our dictionary definition, to be classified as a form of fascism? I’ll leave that up to you to decide.
We are then informed that fascist dictators rally their followers by means of mass parades. Well, we cannot say with any certainty whether Muhammad did this. In all probability, he did not, since Islam, in the days of the Prophet, was in its infancy, and there would have been too few followers to rally. What we can say, however, is this: In the modern world, the dictators of the Islamic world have no difficulty whatsoever in getting rallies together on the streets of their cities. Often times, they are genuine; yet at other times, the numbers in the rallies are made by ‘rent-a-mob’. Either way, we must decide whether Islam passes this next test of a true strand of fascism. You decide!
Then we are informed in the definition that fascism appeals to strident nationalism. Well, there is no doubt that Islam is an Arabo-centric movement, worldwide. When praying, all Muslims must face Makkah (Mecca), and this takes place five times a day for the pious and faithful. One is certainly not allowed to ignore the Arab world if one is an adherent of the ‘religion’ of submission that is Islam. Added to this, of course, we have the Ummah, which is the community of Muslims throughout the world. When one enters the fold of Islam, when one becomes a follower, when one submits to the ‘will of Allah’ – some would say the arbitrary ‘will of Allah’ – then one joins the ‘nation’ of Islam worldwide. In this sense, can we not conclude that Islam is a form of extreme ‘nationalism’, a form of Islamic nationalism, a 'nationalism' that transcends geographical borders and frontiers?
Then we are told that fascism promotes suspicion and/or hatred of foreigners and impure people. Well, can we not conclude with the copious and available evidence that we have that Islam is certainly exclusive, since anyone who is not a Muslim is treated as inferior, and actually unclean, as in Kafir (pl. Kufar). The term used in Islam is Naji for such an unclean and unsavoury person. Does this remind you of the way that the Nazis thought of Jews and gypsies and homosexuals and Slavs and Russians? Nazis called them Untermenschen (unclean sub-humans); Muslims call them Najis (unclean disbelievers living in a state of Jahiliyyah, a state of pre-Islamic chaos), people who are unworthy of the human condition.
One other thing that Nazis, in particular, had in common with Muslims was this: They both hate(d) the Jews; both groups are deeply anti-Semitic. This, of course, is true to this very day. Mein Kampf, Hitler’s infamous book written whilst he was incarcerated, the title of which means ‘My fight, or my struggle’ (a title which bears a striking resemblance to the term Jihad, if you hadn’t noticed) was replete with anti-Semitism. One can but wonder why this very book is such a bestseller even to this day in countries in the Middle East, and even in Turkey. The book is an endless source of fascination to Muslims.
Fascism is a form of totalitarianism, but then isn’t Islam a form of totalitarianism, too? Fascism doesn’t demand state control of the means of production; but then Islam doesn’t either. Though it does have its own economic principles, economic principles which are neither capitalist nor socialist, economic principles and theory which are simply Islamic. This theory of economics demands neither state-ownership of the means of production nor does it demand equality among the faithful. But Islamic thinking certainly does call for infidels to be treated in an inferior manner, to be treated as dhimmies, or protected people who are not afforded the same rights as those who have submitted to Allah’s will.
Jews in Nazi Germany were made to wear a yellow star to mark them out from the crowd. Non-believers in an Islamic country, according to the ‘Pact of Umar’, are also subjected to similar indignities. Here we have another similarity.
The cult of personality, we are told, is the cornerstone of fascism. Do you think that Islam measures up on this score? Does Muhammad qualify? Was Muhammad charismatic enough? Has Muhammad passed the test of time? Can we conclude that Muhammad is the Gestalt which can truly be described as the non plus ultra of Gestalten, the non plus ultra of personality cults.
Whether ‘Islamofascism’ is a justified and apt term or indeed a calumnious one to describe what we are witnessing around the world today as Islam becomes ever more resurgent is for you, the reader, to decide. Do, by all means, think long and hard about this matter, for the future of the free world depends on our getting this right. It depends on our careful handling of this most thorny of contemporary issues.
