Category Archives: Adolph Hitler

Remembering The Battle Of Tours

The Battle of Tours in 782 is not taught to Americans until they get to a European History Class. The location of the battle was close to the border between the Frankish realm and then-independent Aquitaine. The battle pitted the snarling Frankish and Burgundian forces under Austrian Mayor of the Palace Charles Martel, against an army of the Umayyad Caliphate led by Abdul Rahman Al Ghafiqi, Governor-General of al-Andalus.

"Had Charles Martel not been victorious," Hitler told his inner crowd in August 1942, "then we should in all probability have been converted to Mohammedanism, that cult which glorifies the heroism and which opens up the seventh Heaven to the bold warrior alone. Then the Germanic races would have conquered the world."

Historians are divided over the battle's importance, and considerable disagreement exists as to whether the victory was responsible—as Gibbon and his generation of historians claimed, and many modern historians have echoed—for saving Christianity and halting the conquest of Europe by Islam; however, there is little dispute that the battle helped lay the foundations of the Carolingian Empire and Frankish domination of Europe for the next century.

Sowell Speaks Clearly On Technique

Syndicated columnist and economist Thomas Sowell shakes a few limbs of current uproar in the US concerning the CIA-sponsored waterboarding of certain GITMO detainees.

We at the Two-Fisted Quorum support the logic and the common sense Mr. Sowell displays here. The shameful loose thinking and outright hypocrisy on the Left continues to stifle a united American front against our enemies foreign and domestic.

As the columnist points out, perhaps one day the evidence for a strong conservative defense will be as requisite for victory as it was at other historical turning points, gut right now, the bitterness that separates Americans who even bother weighing in on this conflict is rather disappointing.

thomas-sowell
Thomas Sowell

THERE IS A BIG DIFFERENCE between being ponderous and being serious. It is scary when the President of the United States is not being serious about matters of life and death, saying that there are "other ways" of getting information from terrorists.

Maybe this is a step up from the previous talking point that "torture" had not gotten any important information out of terrorists. Only after this had been shown to be a flat-out lie did Barack Obama shift his rhetoric to the lame assertion that unspecified "other ways" could have been used.

For a man whose whole life has been based on style rather than substance, on rhetoric rather than reality, perhaps nothing better could have been expected. But that the media and the public would have become so mesmerized by the Obama cult that they could not see through this to think of their own survival, or that of this nation, is truly a chilling thought.

When we look back at history, it is amazing what foolish and even childish things people said and did on the eve of a catastrophe about to consume them. In 1938, with Hitler preparing to unleash a war in which tens of millions of men, women and children would be slaughtered, the play that was the biggest hit on the Paris stage was a play about French and German reconciliation, and a French pacifist that year dedicated his book to Adolf Hitler.

When historians of the future look back on our era, what will they think of our time? Our media too squeamish to call murderous and sadistic terrorists anything worse than "militants" or "insurgents"? Our president going abroad to denigrate the country that elected him, pandering to feckless allies and outright enemies, and literally bowing to a foreign tyrant ruling a country from which most of the 9/11 terrorists came?

It is easy to make talking points about how Churchill did not torture German prisoners, even while London was being bombed. There was a very good reason for that: They were ordinary prisoners of war who were covered by the Geneva Convention and who didn't know anything that would keep London from being bombed.

Read it all.

Dear World

ENOUGH SAID. Consider this blog, Zionist friendly, which actually prefers all Arabs to remove themselves to Syria and Jordan, drop this palestinian pretense and become civilized human beings (hope springeth eternal). We have welcomed those who repeat the mantra that anti-zionism is not the same as anti-semitism to speak their peace at the Bellicose Augur. Speak plainly though, dear world, to suffer inarticulate joy riding fools is a waste of time, and encourages more of the same...

World War II Also A Disaster?

Here's an interesting take on an old debate offered up by a Human Events reader from the Great State of Ohio, backing up former Nixon speechwriter, former presidential candidate, and current MSNBC political pundit Patrick Buchanan once again on the "unnecessary war" the latter believes the Second (and First, for that matter) World War to have been.

breastbombs
Hardly A Solution

AMERICA'S ENTRY into WWII was a total disaster. (Sure, all wars are unnecessary, until they are not, say I.)

The war started when Germany invaded Poland. After millions dead on both sides at the end of the war Poland was turned over to the Soviets. We never even accomplished the initial goal!

Adolph Hitler wanted to deport the Jews. Awful yes, but if we would have accepted them we would have gotten a million educated immigrants. Better than the millions of uneducated immigrants we get today. After Hitler's death the Germans would have gotten back to sanity. With the death of millions of Europeans, the Middle Eastern nations were able to rise to more power. This is also the reason millions of Muslims have been immigrating to Europe.

With the invasion of Muslims and the low birth rate of Europeans indigenous Europe will cease to exist in a generation. WWII may have very well be the seed that lead to the extinction of indigenous Europe. Remember the Holocaust didn't start until well after the war started and might never had happened if there had not been a war. So don't use the Holocaust as a reason for the war.

The Japanese front is even a more obvious failure. We never should have stuck our nose into the orient's business. We kicked the Japanese out of China, thus letting the Communist take over. This lead to Mao's murder of about 100 million Chinese. This is no improvement over the Japanese controlling China. The new Japanese Empire would have collapsed eventually, like all empires do. We didn't need to kill millions to speed it up.

Millions dead for no improvement at all and probably made things worse. This is nobody's definition of success.

Wilders Gives Speech In NYC

Geert Threat
Threat from Indonesia
"Our enemies should know: we will never apologize for being free men, we will never bow for the combined forces of Mecca and the Left."

Those penetrating words crown the marvelous Geert Wilders' speech given at the Four Seasons in New York City on February 23. Wilders is the the stalwart Dutch parliamentarian who was recently turned back from entering Great Britain due to pressures from a leading Islamic leader in that country. Here is the entire speech:

Thank you. Thank you very much for inviting me. And—to the immigration authorities—thank you for letting me into this country. It is always a pleasure to cross a border without being sent back on the first plane.

Today, the dearest of our many freedoms is under attack all throughout Europe. Free speech is no longer a given. What we once considered a natural element of our existence, our birth right, is now something we once again have to battle for.

As you might know, I will be prosecuted, because of my film Fitna, my remarks regarding Islam, and my view concerning what some call a ‘religion of peace’. A few years from now, I might be a criminal.

Whether or not I end up in jail is not the most pressing issue; I gave up my freedom four years ago. I am under full-time police protection ever since. The real question is: will free speech be put behind bars? And the larger question for the West is: will we leave Europe’s children the values of Rome, Athens and Jerusalem, or the values of Mecca, Teheran and Gaza?

This is what video blogger Pat Condell said in one of his latest you tube appearances. He says: “If I talked about Muslims the way their holy book talks about me, I’d be arrested for hate speech.” Now, Mr. Condell is a stand-up comedian, but in the video he is dead serious and the joke is on us. Hate speech will always be used against the people defending the West—in order to please and appease Muslims. They can say whatever they want: throw gays from apartment buildings, kill the Jews, slaughter the infidel, destroy Israel, jihad against the West. Whatever their book tells them.

Today, I come before you to warn of a great threat. It is called Islam. It poses as a religion, but its goals are very worldly: world domination, holy war, sharia law, the end of the separation of church and state, slavery of women, the end of democracy. It is NOT a religion, it is an political ideology. It demands your respect, but has no respect for you.

There might be moderate Muslims, but there is no moderate Islam. Islam will never change, because it is built on two rocks that are forever, two fundamental beliefs that will never change, and will never alter. First, there is the Quran, Allah’s personal word, uncreated, forever, with orders that need to be fulfilled regardless of place or time. And second, there is al-insal al-kamil, the perfect man, Muhammad the role model, whose deeds are to be imitated by all Muslims. And since Muhammad was a warlord and a conqueror we know what to expect. Islam means submission, so there cannot be any mistake about it’s goal. That’s a given. It’s fact.

This is Europe 2009. Muslim settlers calling for our destruction, and free speech on trial. All this is the outcome of a sick and evil ideology, the ideology that is weakening us, the surrender ideology of cultural relativism. It believes that all cultures are equal, and therefore Islam deserves an equal place in the West. It is their duty, the left thinks, to facilitate Islam. This way the cultural relativists paradise comes within reach and we will all be happy, and sing kumbaya.

The forces of Islam couldn’t agree more. Islam being facilitated by government is their agenda too. But they see it as jizya, the money dhimmis pay in order not to be killed or raped by their Muslim masters. Therefore, they happily accept the welfare cheque or the subsidies for their mosque or the money governments donate to their organizations.

Their disdain of the West is so much greater than the appreciation of our many liberties. And therefore, they are willing to sacrifice everything. The left once stood for women rights, gay rights, equality, democracy. Now, they favour immigration policies that will end all this.
This is just one example of cultural relativists and Muslim settlers having the same agenda. There is another. Islam considers itself a religion and therefore we are not permitted to criticize it. The left agrees. Although it has hated Christianity for decades, now that Islam appears on the scene, they suddenly change course and demand ‘respect’ for something they call a religion.

Again we see the left and Islam having the same agenda: it is a religion, so shut up.

This all culminates in a third coming-together: nor the left nor Islam is in favor of criticism. In fact, given the opportunity, they would simply outlaw it. Multiculturalism is the left’s pet project. It is actually their religion. Their love of it is so great, if you oppose it, it must be hate. And if you say it, it is labeled hate speech. Now here is something the Islam can agree on.

This is the essence of my short introduction today: where the left and Islam come together, freedom will suffer.

My friends, make no mistake, my prosecution is a full-fledged attack by the left on freedom of speech in order to please Muslims. It was started by a member of the Dutch Labour party, and the entire legal proceeding is done by well-to-do liberals, the radical chic of Dutch society, the snobbish left. Too much money, too much time, too little love of liberty. If you read what the court of Amsterdam has written about me, you read the same texts that cultural relativists produce.

How low can we go in the Netherlands? About my prosecution, The Wall Street Journal noted: “this is no small victory for Islamic regimes seeking to export their censorship laws to wherever Muslims reside”. The Journal concluded that by The Netherlands accepting the free speech standards of, “Saudi-Arabia”, I stand correct in my observation that—I quote—“Muslim immigration is eroding traditional Dutch liberties”.

Now, if the Wall Street Journal has the moral clarity to see that my prosecution is the logical outcome of our disastrous, self-hating, multiculturalists immigration policies, then why can’t the European liberal establishment see the same thing? Why aren’t they getting at least a little bit scared by the latest news out of, for example, the UK. News that tells that the Muslim population in Britain is growing ten times as fast as the rest of society. Why don’t they care?

The answer is: they don’t care because they are blinded by their cultural relativism. Their disdain of the West is so much greater than the appreciation of our many liberties. And therefore, they are willing to sacrifice everything. The left once stood for women rights, gay rights, equality, democracy. Now, they favour immigration policies that will end all this. Many even lost their decency. Elite politicians have no problem to participate in or finance demonstrations where settlers shout “Death to the Jews”. Seventy years after Auschwitz they know of no shame.

Two weeks ago, I tried to get into Britain, a fellow EU country. I was invited to give a speech in Parliament. However, upon arrival at London airport, I was refused entry into the UK, and sent back on the first plane to Holland. I would have loved to have reminded the audience of a great man who once spoke in the House of Commons.

In 1982 President [Ronald] Reagan gave a speech there very few people liked. Reagan called upon the West to reject communism and defend freedom. He introduced a phrase: ‘evil empire’. Reagan’s speech stands out as a clarion call to preserve our liberties. I quote: If history teaches anything, it teaches self-delusion in the face of unpleasant facts is folly. What Reagan meant is that you cannot run away from history, you cannot escape the dangers of ideologies that are out to destroy you. Denial is no option.

So, what should we do? Is this a good moment for freedom-loving people to give in or to change course? To all-of-a-sudden start singing praise of Islam, or proclaiming there is such a thing as a moderate Islam? Will we now accept the continuation of Muslim mass immigration to the West? Will we appease sharia and jihad? Should we sacrifice gay rights and women rights? Or democracy? Should we sell out Israel, our dearest ally, and a frontline state of Islam?

Well, my humble opinion is: No way, Jose!

Our enemies should know: we will never apologize for being free men, we will never bow for the combined forces of Mecca and the left. And we will never surrender. We stand on the shoulders of giants. There is no stronger power than the force of free men fighting for the great cause of liberty. Because freedom is the birthright of all man.
I suggest to defend freedom in general and freedom of speech in particular. I propose the withdrawal of all hate speech legislation in Europe. I propose a European First Amendment. In Europe we should defend freedom of speech like you Americans do. In Europe freedom of speech should be extended, instead of restricted. Of course, calling for violence or unjustly yelling “fire” in a crowded theatre have to be punished, but the right to criticize ideologies or religions are necessary conditions for a vital democracry. As George Orwell once said: “If liberty means anything at all, it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear”.

Let us defend freedom of speech and let us gain strength and work hard to become even stronger. Millions think just like you and me. Millions think liberty is precious. That democracy is better than sharia. And after all, why should we be afraid? Our many freedoms and our prosperity are the result of centuries of endeavour. Centuries of hard work and sacrifice. We do not stand alone, and we stand on the shoulders of giants.

Late December 1944 the American army was suddenly faced with a last-ditch effort by the Germans. In the Ardennes, in the Battle of the Bulge, Hitler and his national-socialists fought for their last chance. And they were very successful. Americans faced defeat, and death.

In the darkest of winter, in the freezing cold, in a lonely forest with snow and ice as even fiercer enemies than the Nazi war machine itself, the American army was told to surrender. That might be their only chance to survive. But General [Anthony] McAuliffe thought otherwise. He gave the Germans a short message. This message contained just four letters. Four letters only, but never in the history of freedom was a desire for liberty and perseverance in the face of evil expressed more eloquently than in that message. It spelled N – U – T – S. “Nuts”.

My friends, the national-socialists got the message. Because it left no room for interpretation!

I suggest we walk in the tradition of giants like General McAuliffe and the American soldiers who fought and died for the freedom of my country and for a secular and democratic Europe, and we tell the enemies of freedom just that. NUTS! Because that’s all there is to it. No explanations. No beating around the bush. No caveats.

Our enemies should know: we will never apologize for being free men, we will never bow for the combined forces of Mecca and the left. And we will never surrender. We stand on the shoulders of giants. There is no stronger power than the force of free men fighting for the great cause of liberty. Because freedom is the birthright of all man.

Addendum:

Chuck Dixon writing on Facebook, timestamped April 4, 2014, noted: "I remember, on the TV news, seeing an African American jarhead seated up on a Bradley after Mogadishu. He said, 'All the lives in this whole damn country aren't worth the life of one Marine.' That should be our foreign policy in one sentence."

I agree. Something needs to tighten this operation up. America has become mush, the world observes it, and now is picking us apart like a picky eater gobbling up this nation and its people by pieces...

Call me a fascist, call me an idiot. I know that's what liberals do. But I am quite clear on what I mean when I write those words, I agree. It's up to you to parse them correctly. I speak only of a strong healthy focused America military, not to lord over a slave population, not to play tiddly winks with cultures held together by brutal archaic laws that snuff the liberty of everyone under their sway from birth. A free people who exert a proper patriotism deserve better than nation-building under these conditions. Stay out of it or win the war with all we've got in order to earn an unconditional surrender. Compassion is for those who warrant compassion, a defeated foe who recognizes the error of its ways (like most of the Japanese empire after their WWII), who seek to answer the call to freedom. No compromises. No excuses.

We have tried the liberal war plan. It does not work. It never has. There are winners and there are losers. There are those who fight to a point where compromise is kept for a short time until hostilities break out again. History is full of half-measure failures. Cultural winners are those who dish it out with all strength they can muster. Islam knows this. Islam plays differently than the West at this point in time, but they play to win.

It's time we understand this about our enemy and quit the quisling affair...

Beslan Remembered

LET US NOT FAIL TO RECALL, nor long forget Beslan either, as we seek to save the world from enemies that live among us, some that look like sheep, and some that look like the ravenging wolves that they are. Here's a tasteful link to the tragedy. And here's a gem of writing by a poster over at Jihad Watch. Thanks to "dumbledoresarmy."

beslan-rescue
Rescue of Beslan survivors...

I just got my copy of Andrew Bostom's "The Legacy of Islamic Antisemitism". Part One, entitled 'Islamic Antisemitism: Jew-Hatred in Islam', which is the overview and distillation of all his research, makes for riveting—and terrifying—reading. If every Christian priest or pastor, and every Jewish rabbi, had to read just that portion of Bostom's book, during their training, and show evidence of having understood it, before their ordination, we would be spared many of the more embarrassing displays of Useful Idiocy that we are forced to witness today from our spiritual leaders. The nonsense about 'three Abrahamic religions' that we hear so much about, would cease.

If our journalists and political leaders also read Bostom's damning report, and truly understood and believed it, much Western reporting and diplomacy vis a vis 'the Middle East situation' would be radically different.

If every Jewish member of the Knesset read, learned, marked and inwardly digested what Bostom has discovered, they would *know* the mind of the enemy that they face every day. They would *know* exactly where the hate is coming from. They would know that no concession, no negotiation, no bribe, no talks, no nothing, is going to achieve 'peace' with the Arab Muslims, or indeed, the entire Muslim world: only Jews all dead, or Jews reduced to a terrified, powerless, tormented and despised remnant of dhimmi near-slaves, will ever be enough for the Muslims.

Read part one of Bostom's latest book, David England. You wrote: "It is sometimes said that the radical islam of today is fascistic. What is not talked about is how it may have grown out of Nazi fascism directly".

No, it didn't. I see Nazism and Islam more as cases of 'convergent evolution'. And they hopped into bed with each other so quickly, and borrowed ideas and strategies so eagerly, because they were kindred spirits before they ever met.

Muslim jihadist hatred of Jews is a good example. Bostom's book shows that Muslims did NOT need Nazis to teach them to hate Jews, they already did that quite thoroughly and comprehensively, all by their little selves.

Furthermore Ibn Warraq, when he identified a whole string of congruences between Islam and fascism was not talking about anything that modern Islam has *learned* or *copied* from European fascism: the Islam he had in mind was classical mainstream Islam, what Hugh [Fitzgerald] calls "'Islam, Islam, Islam", Islam of Qur'an-Sira-Hadith, Islam as it was expounded by Muslim jurists and theologians, and practised by Muslim despots and Muslim mobs, for over a millennium before European Fascism was ever a gleam in a philosopher's eye.

Hitler's Cross Café In India

hitlers-cross
Hitler's Cross in Mumbai

MUMBAI—International press reports that twenty-three year-old Puneet Sabhlok, a novice restauranteur, wanted a catchy café name to sell his $3 to $4 plates of crostii tonno, pear and ricotta salad and pannacotta. So he went with Hitler's Cross. He put a swastika in the logo. "Hitler is a catchy name. Everyone knows Hitler," he explained in an interview.

The café opened this week in a remote suburb of Mumbai. At first, business was brisk. But as word spread, revulsion followed. Before long, India's Jews, joined by diplomats from Israel and Germany and the Anti-Defamation League in New York, were working to shut the place down. Abraham Foxman, the U.S. Anti-Defamation League's national director, issued a statement saying the restaurant "denigrates the memory of the victims and does a dangerous disservice to the Mumbai community by downplaying the horrors of the Holocaust."

Thursday, after meeting with a Jewish community leader here, Sabhlok agreed to rechristen the restaurant. The pannacotta will stay, the swastika will go. "I never wanted to promote Hitler," Sabhlok said. "I just wanted to promote my restaurant."

Indeed, the episode was treated in the local media as a cheap publicity stunt. But it seems also to reflect a curious and growing fascination with Hitler in a country whose pluralist traditions would appear to make it unlikely soil for Nazi ideas.

"This is part of a bigger problem," Daniel Zonshine, the Israeli consul general in Mumbai, said in a telephone interview.

"In India, it's a bit more than in other countries," he added. "India was far away from the Second World War. I don't think that many refugees from Europe came to India during the war. So the knowledge that people suffered is less here than in other countries. I definitely see it as part of my job to try to do something about that."

Mein Kampf is a hot seller at many Indian streetside book stalls. When a German writer, Georg Martin Oswald, came to India recently on an exchange program, he wrote in an online diary of being stunned at the book's popularity.

Newspaper surveys have found that significant numbers of Indian college students rate Hitler as an ideal model for an Indian leader. A 2002 survey by the Times of India, an English-language daily, noted that Hitler signified discipline, efficiency and nationalism to the students. Hitler also holds appeal for some Hindu nationalists who dream of a more assertive, conquering India cleansed of its Muslim population.

Read it all.

Actually, this story catches my eye for several reasons, but I want to discuss the Anti-Defamation League's viewpoint today. Foxman suggests that the name denigrates the memory of those who died at the command of one Adolph Hitler. Does it really? Can we not actually confess that this politically correct knee-jerk reaction to every cause celébre under the western sun does not actually benefit the bereft descendants of those who were once wronged, the general population, or the former oppressors. Even if it did any of that surely it does not require a reaction by some well-meaning but terminally agitated social arbiter on things as minor as the name of a restaurant? Why not abolish the accursed one's name altogether? Then only the aggrieved class, in this case the Jewish Anti-Defamation League would be allowed to utter Hitler's name at all. Ah, much better now? Hardly.

Sure. Some 150 years later, many of those who live today to despise the institution of American slavery, and who among us does not, clamor to wipe away all knowledge of those who lost the war, but they have been only partially successful, and of course I reference here those who have staked a claim against the Confederate battle Flag.

Hassan_al-Banna
Hassan al Banna, founder of the Muslim Brotherhood (1928)

By and large, I find this war on the reification of fallen symbols of zero value to anyone who instead values truth and honesty. The dead are gone, and those alive can never care as much as those who suffered under those symbols in historic time. There is always another agenda at work in this second case. As long as there is statistically negligible violence conducted in the name of these symbols, then I suggest these thought police should dissemble, refocus and then find real threats to stymie.

Now, in considering the sales of Mein Kampf in India, the author failed to note that the book has also been an Arabic language best seller throughout ALL Islamic countries given the axis connecting the founder of the Muslim Brotherhood, Hassan al-Banna (1928), and the Nazi regime, and the fact that Muslims make up nearly 15% of India's population. In fact, the book has been the number one best seller of all time in these lands. So let's not blame the Hindu populations, who had their own peace symbol either intentionally or coincidentally stolen, only slightly reworked, and forever tarnished by the Nazi regime. Where is the justice in that? Why struggle with old symbolism? For how long?