Category Archives: Naziism

Fjordman: The Eurabia Code, Section 1

Anti-Islamic Activism
I decided to write this essay after a comment from a journalist, not a Leftist by my country's standards, who dismissed Eurabia as merely a conspiracy theory, one on a par with The Protocols of the Elders of Zion. I do not disagree with the fact that conspiracy theories exist, nor that they can be dangerous. After all, the Protocols and the Dolchstosslegende, or "stab in the back myth"—the idea that Germany didn't lose WW1 but was betrayed by Socialists, intellectuals and Jews—helped pave the way for Adolf Hitler and the Nazis before WW2.

However, what puzzles me is that it is a widely-held belief of many (not just in the Islamic world but in Europe and even in the United States) that the terror attacks that brought down the Twin Towers in New York City on September 11, 2001 were really a controlled demolition staged by the American government and then blamed on Muslims. I have seen this thesis talked about many times in Western media. While it is frequently (though not always) dismissed and mocked, it is least mentioned.

In contrast, Eurabia—which asserts that the Islamicization of Europe didn't happen merely by accident but with the active participation of European political leaders—is hardly ever referred to at all, despite the fact that it is easier to document. Does the notion of Eurabia hit too close to home? Perhaps it doesn't fit with the anti-American disposition of many journalists? Curiously enough, even those left-leaning journalists who are otherwise critical of the European Union because of its free market elements never write about Eurabia.

...explained how French President Charles de Gaulle, disappointed by the loss of the French colonies in Africa and the Middle East as well as with France’s waning influence in the international arena, decided in the 1960′s to create a strategic alliance with the Arab and Muslim world to compete with the dominance of the United States and the Soviet Union.
Because of this, I am going to test whether the Eurabia thesis is correct, or at least plausible. I have called this project The Eurabia Code, alluding to author Dan Brown's massive bestseller The Da Vinci Code. Brown's fictional account "documents" a conspiracy by the Church to cover up the truth about Jesus. I'm not sure my work will become equally popular, but I'm pretty sure it's closer to reality.

The next time Mr. Brown wants to write about massive conspiracies in Europe, he would be well-advised to set his eyes at Brussels rather than Rome. It would be a whole lot more interesting. What follows is a brief outline of the thesis put forward by writer Bat Ye'or in her book "Eurabia: The Euro-Arab Axis." My information is based on her book (which should be read in full). In addition I have drawn from some of her articles and interviews. I republish the information with her blessing, but this summary is completely my own.

In an interview with Israeli newspaper Haaretz, Bat Ye'or explained how French President Charles de Gaulle, disappointed by the loss of the French colonies in Africa and the Middle East as well as with France's waning influence in the international arena, decided in the 1960's to create a strategic alliance with the Arab and Muslim world to compete with the dominance of the United States and the Soviet Union.

"This is a matter of a total transformation of Europe, which is the result of an intentional policy," said Bat Ye'or. "We are now heading towards a total change in Europe, which will be more and more Islamicized and will become a political satellite of the Arab and Muslim world. The European leaders have decided on an alliance with the Arab world, through which they have committed to accept the Arab and Muslim approach toward the United States and Israel. This is not only with respect to foreign policy, but also on issues engaging European society from within, such as immigration, the integration of the immigrants and the idea that Islam is part of Europe."

"Europe is under a constant threat of terror. Terror is a way of applying pressure on the European countries to surrender constantly to the Arab representatives' demands. They demand, for example, that Europe always speak out for the Palestinians and against Israel."

Thus, the Eurabian project became an enlarged vision of the anti-American Gaullist policy dependent upon the formation of a Euro-Arab entity hostile to American influence. It facilitated European ambitions to maintain important spheres of influence in the former European colonies, while opening huge markets for European products in the Arab world, especially in oil-producing countries, in order to secure supplies of petroleum and natural gas to Europe. In addition, it would make the Mediterranean a Euro-Arab inland sea by favoring Muslim immigration and promoting "multiculturalism" with a strong Islamic presence in Europe.

This cooperation would also included recognition of the Palestinians as a distinct people and the PLO and its leader Arafat as their representative. Up to 1973 they had been known only as Arab refugees, even by other Arabs. The concept of a Palestinian “nation” simply did not exist.
The use of the term "Eurabia" was first introduced in the mid-1970s, as the title of a journal edited by the President of the Association for Franco-Arab Solidarity, Lucien Bitterlein, and published collaboratively by the Groupe d'Etudes sur le Moyen-Orient (Geneva), France-Pays Arabes (Paris), and the Middle East International (London). Their articles called for common Euro-Arab positions at every level. These concrete proposals were not the musings of isolated theorists; instead they put forth concrete policy decisions conceived in conjunction with, and actualized by, European state leaders and European Parliamentarians.

During a November 27, 1967 press conference, Charles de Gaulle stated openly that French cooperation with the Arab world had become "the fundamental basis of our foreign policy." By January 1969, the Second International Conference in Support of the Arab Peoples, held in Cairo, in its resolution 15, decided "…to form special parliamentary groups, where they did not exist, and to use the parliamentary platform support of the Arab people and the Palestinian resistance." Five years later in Paris, July 1974, the Parliamentary Association for Euro-Arab Cooperation was created, under the Euro-Arab Dialogue rubric.

Bat Ye'or has highlighted this shared Euro-Arab political agenda. The first step was the construction of a common foreign policy. France was the driving force in this unification, which had already been envisaged by General de Gaulle's inner circle and Arab politicians. The Arab states demanded from Europe access to Western science and technology, European political independence from the United States, European pressure on the United States to align with their Arab policy and demonization of Israel as a threat to world peace, as well as measures favorable to Arab immigration and dissemination of Islamic culture in Europe. This cooperation would also included recognition of the Palestinians as a distinct people and the PLO and its leader Arafat as their representative. Up to 1973 they had been known only as Arab refugees, even by other Arabs. The concept of a Palestinian "nation" simply did not exist.

During the 1973 oil crisis, the Arab members of the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries announced that, due to the ongoing Yom Kippur War between Israel and its Arab neighbors Egypt and Syria, OPEC would no longer ship petroleum to Western nations that supported Israel. The sudden increase in oil prices was had lasting effects. Not only did it create a strong influx of petrodollars to countries such as Saudi Arabia, which permitted the Saudis to fund a worldwide Islamic resurgence, but it also had an impact in the West, especially in Europe.

However, Arab leaders had to sell their oil. Their people are very dependent on European economic and technological aid. The Americans made this point during the oil embargo in 1973. According to Bat Ye'or, although the oil factor certainly helped cement the Euro-Arab Dialogue, it was primarily a pretext to cover up a policy that emerged in France before that crisis occurred. The policy, conceived in the 1960s, had strong antecedents in the French 19th-century dream of governing an Arab empire.

This political agenda has been reinforced by the deliberate cultural transformation of Europe. Euro-Arab Dialogue Symposia conducted in Venice (1977) and Hamburg (1983) included recommendations that have been successfully implemented. These recommendations were accompanied by a deliberate, privileged influx of Arab and other Muslim immigrants into Europe in enormous numbers.

The recommendations included:

1. Coordination of the efforts made by the Arab countries to spread the Arabic language and culture in Europe,
2. Creation of joint Euro-Arab Cultural Centers in European capitals,
3. The necessity of supplying European institutions and universities with Arab teachers specialized in teaching Arabic to Europeans, and
4. The necessity of cooperation between European and Arab specialists in order to present a positive picture of Arab-Islamic civilization and contemporary Arab issues to the educated public in Europe.

These agreements could not be set forth in written documents and treaties due to their politically sensitive and fundamentally undemocratic nature. The European leaders thus carefully chose to call their ideas "dialogue." All meetings, committees and working groups included representatives from European Community nations and the European Council along with members from Arab countries and the Arab League. Proceedings and decisions took place in closed sessions. No official minutes were recorded.

The Euro-Arab Dialogue (EAD) is a political, economic and cultural institution designed to ensure perfect cohesion between Europeans and Arabs. Its structure was set up at conferences in Copenhagen (15 December 1973), and Paris (31 July 1974). The principal agent of this policy is the European Parliamentary Association for Euro-Arab Cooperation, founded in 1974. The other principal organs of The Dialogue are the MEDEA Institute and the European Institute of Research on Mediterranean and Euro-Arab Cooperation, created in 1995 with the backing of the European Commission.

The goal was the creation of a pan-Mediterranean entity, permitting the free circulation both of men and of goods.
In an interview with Jamie Glazov of Frontpage Magazine, Bat Ye'or explained how "in domestic policy, the EAD established a close cooperation between the Arab and European media television, radio, journalists, publishing houses, academia, cultural centers, school textbooks, student and youth associations, tourism. Church interfaith dialogues were determinant in the development of this policy. Eurabia is therefore this strong Euro-Arab network of associations -- a comprehensive symbiosis with cooperation and partnership on policy, economy, demography and culture."

Eurabia's driving force, the Parliamentary Association for Euro-Arab Cooperation, was created in Paris in 1974. It now has over six hundred members—from all major European political parties—active in their own national parliaments, as well as in the European parliament. France continues to be the key protagonist of this association.

A wide-ranging policy was sketched out. It entailed a symbiosis of Europe with the Muslim Arab countries that would endow Europe—and especially France, the project's prime mover—with a weight and a prestige to rival that of the United States. This policy was undertaken quite discreetly, and well outside of official treaties, using the innocent-sounding name of the Euro-Arab Dialogue. The organization functioned under the auspices of European government ministers, working in close association with their Arab counterparts, and with the representatives of the European Commission and the Arab League. The goal was the creation of a pan-Mediterranean entity, permitting the free circulation both of men and of goods.

On the cultural front there began a complete re-writing of history, which was first undertaken during the 1970s in European universities. This process was ratified by the parliamentary assembly of the Council of Europe in September 1991, at its meeting devoted to "The Contribution of the Islamic Civilisation to European culture." It was reaffirmed by French President Jacques Chirac in his address of April 8, 1996 in Cairo, and reinforced by Romano Prodi, president of the powerful European Commission, the EU's "government," and later Italian Prime Minister, through the creation of a Foundation on the Dialogue of Cultures and Civilizations. This foundation was to control everything said, written and taught about Islam in Europe.

The new European civilization in the making can correctly be termed a civilization of dhimmitude.
Over the past three decades, the EEC and the EU's political and cultural organizations have invented a fantasy Islamic civilization and history. The historical record of violations of basic human rights for all non-Muslims and women under sharia (Islamic Law) is either ignored or dismissed. In this worldview the only dangers come from the United States and Israel. The creators of Eurabia have conducted a successful propaganda campaign against these two countries in the European media. This fabrication was made easier by pre-existing currents of anti-Semitism and anti-Americanism in parts of Europe, although both sentiments have been greatly inflated by Eurabians and their collaborators.

The growth of the Islamic population is explosive. According to some, one out of three babies born in France is a Muslim. Hundreds of Muslim ghettos already de facto follow sharia, not French law. Some believe France will quietly become a Muslim country, while others are predicting a civil war in the near future.ullquote
On January 31, 2001, with the recrudescence of Palestinian terrorist jihad, European Foreign Affairs Commissioner Chris Patten declared to the European Parliament that Europe's foreign policy should give special attention to its southern flank (the Arab countries, in EU jargon), adding that he was delighted by the general agreement to give greater visibility to the Mediterranean Partnership.

Bat Ye'or thinks that "Our politicians are perfectly informed of Islamic history and current policies by their embassies, agents and specialists. There is no innocence there, but tremendous inflexibility in corruption, cynicism and the perversion of values."

In the preface to her book, she states that "This book describes Europe's evolution from a Judeo-Christian civilization, with important post-Enlightenment secular elements, into a post– Judeo-Christian civilization that is subservient to the ideology of jihad and the Islamic powers."

The new European civilization in the making can correctly be termed a ''civilization of dhimmitude.'' The word dhimmitude comes from the Islamic legal designation ''dhimmi.'' It refers to the subjugated, non-Muslim individuals who accept restrictive and humiliating subordination to Islamic power in order to avoid enslavement or death. The entire Muslim world as we know it today is a product of this 1,300 year-old jihad dynamic, whereby once thriving non-Muslim majority civilizations have been reduced to a state of dysfunction and dhimmitude. The dhimmis are inferior beings who endure humiliation and aggression in silence. This arrangement allows Muslims to enjoy an impunity that increases both their hatred and their feeling of superiority, under the protection of the law.

Eurabia is a novel new entity. It possesses political, economic, religious, cultural, and media components, which are imposed on Europe by powerful governmental lobbies. While Europeans live within Eurabia's constraints, outside of a somewhat confused awareness, few are really conscious of them on a daily basis.

This Eurabian policy, expressed in obscure wording, is conducted at the highest political levels and coordinated over the whole of the European Union. It spreads an anti-American and anti-Semitic Euro-Arab sub-culture into the fiber of every social, media and cultural sector. Dissidents are silenced or boycotted. Sometimes they are fired from their jobs, victims of a totalitarian "correctness" imposed mainly by the academic, media and political sectors.

According to Ye'or, France and the rest of Western Europe can no longer change their policy: "It is a project that was conceived, planned and pursued consistently through immigration policy, propaganda, church support, economic associations and aid, cultural, media and academic collaboration. Generations grew up within this political framework; they were educated and conditioned to support it and go along with it."

Are Bat Ye'or's claims correct, or even possible?

Bernard Lewis has pointed out that, by common consent among historians, "the modern history of the Middle East begins in the year 1798, when the French Revolution arrived in Egypt in the form of a small expeditionary force led by a young general called Napoleon Bonaparte—who conquered and then ruled it for a while with appalling ease."

In an unsuccessful effort to gain the support of the Egyptian populace, Napoleon issued proclamations praising Islam. "People of Egypt," he proclaimed upon his entry to Alexandria in 1798, "You will be told that I have come to destroy your religion; do not believe it! Reply that I have come to restore your rights, to punish the usurpers, and that more than the Mamluks, I respect God, his Prophet, and the Qur'an."

Arab street
Arab street
According to an eyewitness, Napoleon ended his proclamation with the phrase, "God is great and Muhammad is his prophet." To Muslim ears, this sounded like the shahada—the declaration of belief in the oneness of Allah and in Prophet Muhammad as his last messenger. Recitation of the shahadah, the first of the five pillars of Islam, is considered to mark one's conversion to Islam. Muslims could thus conclude that Napoleon had converted to Islam. In fact, one of his generals, Jacques Ménou, did convert to Islam.

The French were later defeated and forced to leave Egypt by the English admiral Lord Nelson. Although the French expedition to Egypt lasted only three years, it demonstrated that the West was now so superior to the Islamic world that Westerners could enter the Arab heartland, then still a part of the Ottoman Empire, at will. Only another Western power could force them to leave. The shock of this realization triggered the first attempts to reform Islam in the 19th century.

A positive result of Western conquest was the influx of French scientists into Egypt and the foundation of modern Egyptology. Most importantly, it led to the discovery of the Rosetta Stone, which was later used by French philologist Jean-Francois Champollion to decipher the ancient Egyptian hieroglyphs. However, the encounter also left a lasting impact in Europe, and above all in France.

The French invasion of Algeria in 1830 marked another chapter in this tale. Later, the French ruled Tunisia and Morocco. Finally, after the First World War, the French gained mandates over the former Turkish territories of the Ottoman Empire that make up what is now Syria and Lebanon. After the Second World War, French troops gradually left Arab lands, culminating with war and Algerian independence in 1962. However, their long relationship with Arabs resulted in France's belief that she had a special relationship with and an understanding of Arabs and Muslims. Along with French leadership in continental Europe, this would now provide the basis of a new foreign policy. President de Gaulle pushed for a France and a Europe independent of the two superpowers. In a speech, he stated that "Yes, it is Europe, from the Atlantic to the Urals, it is Europe, it is the whole of Europe, that will decide the destiny of the world." In 1966, he withdrew France from the common NATO military command, but remained within the organization.

Following the Six Days War in 1967, de Gaulle's condemnation of the Israelis for their occupation of the West Bank and the Gaza Strip marked a significant change in French foreign policy. Previously, France—as well as the rest of Western Europe—had been strongly pro-Israel, even going to war together with Israel as late as 1956 against Nasser's Egypt. From 1967 on, however, France embarked on a decidedly pro-Arab course.

The growth of the Islamic population is explosive. According to some, one out of three babies born in France is a Muslim. Hundreds of Muslim ghettos already de facto follow sharia, not French law. Some believe France will quietly become a Muslim country, while others are predicting a civil war in the near future.

It has been said that English foreign policy has remained the same since the 16th century. Its goal was to prevent any country, whether Spain, France, or later Germany, from dominating continental Europe to the extent that it represents a threat to England. On the other hand, one could argue that French foreign policy has also remained the same for several centuries; its goal is to champion French leadership over Europe and the Mediterranean region in order to contain Anglo-Saxon (and later Anglo-American) dominance. This picture was complicated by the unification of Germany in the late 19th century, but its outlines remain to this day.

Napoleon is the great hero of French PM de Villepin. Several prominent French leaders stated quite openly in 2005 that the proposed EU Constitution was basically an enlarged France. Justice Minister Dominique Perben said: "We have finally obtained this 'Europe à la française' that we have awaited for so long. This constitutional treaty is an enlarged France. It is a Europe written in French." From its inception, European integration has been a French-led enterprise. The fact that the French political elite have never renounced the maintenance of their leadership over Europe was amply demonstrated during the Iraq war.

President Chirac famously said in 2003 after Poland, Hungary and the Czech Republic backed the US position "They missed a good opportunity to shut up," adding "These countries have been not very well behaved and rather reckless of the danger of aligning themselves too rapidly with the American position."

Jean Monnet, French economist never elected to public office, is regarded by many as the architect of European integration. Monnet was a well-connected pragmatist who worked behind the scenes towards the gradual creation of European unity.

Richard North, publisher of the blog EU Referendum and co-author (with Christopher Booker) of The Great Deception: Can The European Union Survive, relates that for years—at least from the 1920s—Jean Monnet had dreamed of building a "United States of Europe." Although what Monnet really had in mind was the creation of a European entity with all the attributes of a state, an "anodyne phrasing was deliberately chosen with a view to making it difficult to dilute by converting it into just another intergovernmental body. It was also couched in this fashion so that it would not scare off national governments by emphasising that its purpose was to override their sovereignty."

In their analysis of the EU's history, the authors claim that the EU was not born out of WW2, as many people seem to think. It had been planned at least a generation before that.

The Schuman Declaration of 9 May 1950, widely presented as the beginning of the efforts towards a European Union and commemorated in "Europe Day," contains phrases which state that it is "a first step in the federation of Europe", and that "this proposal will lead to the realization of the first concrete foundation of a European federation." However, as critics of the EU have noted, these political objectives are usually omitted when the Declaration is referred to, and most people are unaware of their existence.

A federation is, of course, a State and "yet for decades now the champions of EC/EU integration have been swearing blind that they have no knowledge of any such plans. The EEC/EC/EU has steadily acquired ever more features of a supranational Federation: flag, anthem, Parliament, Supreme Court, currency, laws."

The EU founders "were careful only to show their citizens the benign features of their project. It had been designed to be implemented incrementally, as an ongoing process, so that no single phase of the project would arouse sufficient opposition as to stop or derail it." Booker and North call the European Union "a slow-motion coup d'état: the most spectacular coup d'état in history," designed to gradually and carefully sideline the democratic process and subdue the older nation states of Europe without saying so publicly.

The irony is that France is now held hostage by the very forces she herself set in motion. The Jihad riots by Muslim immigrants in France in 2005 demonstrated that Eurabia is no longer a matter of French foreign policy, it is now French domestic policy. France will burn unless she continues to appease Arabs and agree to their agenda.

The growth of the Islamic population is explosive. According to some, one out of three babies born in France is a Muslim. Hundreds of Muslim ghettos already de facto follow sharia, not French law. Some believe France will quietly become a Muslim country, while others are predicting a civil war in the near future.

Maybe there is some poetic justice in the fact that the country that initiated and has led the formation of Eurabia will now be destroyed by its own Frankenstein monster. However, gloating over France's dilemma won't help. The impending downfall of France is bad news for the rest of the West. What will happen to French financial resources? Above all, who will inherit hundreds of nuclear warheads? Will these weapons fall into the hands of Jihadist Muslims, too?


Peder Are Nøstvold Jensen (born 11 June 1975) is a Norwegian far-right anti-Islamic blogger. Jensen wrote anonymously as Fjordman starting in 2005, until he disclosed his identity in 2011. He has been active in the counterjihad movement, which argues that multiculturalism, particularly Muslim immigration, poses a threat to Western civilization.

Relieve Obama Of His Command

Starch in the trousers does not a civilized race make...

LIKE ALL RAD PROGRESSIVE LIBERALS, Barack Hussein Obama is moxy, arrogant and extremely Anti-Semitic. Jimmy Carter once held the highest distinction for hating Israel but has recently been bested by his disciple Obama. When it comes to supporting Islamic terror Hitler forged that same alliance before. His allies were Croat and Bosnian Muslim Nazis, known as Ustashas, the worst monsters of modern history. Their intended victims were Serbs, Jews and Gypsies. History keeps repeating itself. The same divide and conquer "game" played by Hitler in Bosnia, and other places, during WWII, is now played again by the the Obama regime of Progressive Nazi's. This is why we have to remind you what happened the last time the "game" was played:

"WWII, in Bosnia...The Croatian Fascists began a massacre of Serbs, which in the entire annals of World War II, was surpassed in savagery only by the mass extermination of the Polish Jews!"

The above quote can be found in any edition of Encyclopedia Britannica from Edition 1970 to 1989. (Macropedia, entry: Yugoslavia, World War II).

After World War I, the Great Powers of Europe jockeyed for influence in the Middle East's oil fields and trade routes, with France and Britain holding mandates throughout most of the region. In the 1930s, the fascist regimes that arose in Italy and Germany sought greater stakes in the area, and began courting Arab leaders to revolt against their British and French custodians. Among their many willing accomplices was Jerusalem Mufti Haj Amin el-Husseini, who fled Palestine after agitating against the British during the Arab Revolt of 1936-39. He found refuge in Iraq—another of Her Majesty's mandates—where he again topped the British most wanted list after helping pull the strings behind the Iraqi coup of 1941. The revolt in Baghdad was orchestrated by Hitler as part of a strategy to squeeze the region between the pincers of Rommel's troops in North Africa, German forces in the Caucuses and pro-Nazi forces in Iraq. However, in June 1941 British troops put down the rebellion and the Mufti escaped via Tehran to Italy and eventually to Berlin.

Arab Mufti Greets Nazis, 1944

Once in Berlin, the Mufti received an enthusiastic reception by the "Islamische Zentralinstitut" and the whole Islamic community of Germany, which welcomed him as the "Führer of the Arabic world." In an introductory speech, he called the Jews the "most fierce enemies of the Muslims" and an "ever corruptive element" in the world. Husseini soon became an honored guest of the Nazi leadership and met on several occasions with Hitler. He personally lobbied the Führer against the plan to let Jews leave Hungary, fearing they would immigrate to Palestine. He also strongly intervened when Adolf Eichman tried to cut a deal with the British government to exchange German POWs for 5000 Jewish children who also could have fled to Palestine. The Mufti's protests with the SS were successful, as the children were sent to death camps in Poland instead. One German officer noted in his journals that the Mufti would liked to have seen the Jews "preferably all killed." On a visit to Auschwitz, he reportedly admonished the guards running the gas chambers to work more diligently. Throughout the war, he appeared regularly on German radio broadcasts to the Middle East, preaching his pro-Nazi, anti-Semitic message to the Arab masses back home.

To show gratitude towards his hosts, in 1943 the Mufti travelled several times to Bosnia, where on orders of the SS he recruited the notorious "Hanjar troopers," a special Bosnian Waffen SS company which slaugh-tered 90% of Bosnia's Jews and burned countless Serbian churches and villages. These Bosnian Muslim recruits rapidly found favor with SS chief Heinrich Himmler, who established a special Mullah Military school in Dresden.

The only condition the Mufti set for his help was that after Hitler won the war, the entire Jewish population in Palestine should be liquidated. After the war, Husseini fled to Switzerland and from there escaped via France to Cairo, were he was warmly received. The Mufti used funds received earlier from the Hilter regime to finance the Nazi-inspired Arab Liberation Army that terrorized Jews in Palestine.

The Arab Embrace of Nazism: Husseini represents the prevalent pro-Nazi posture among the Arab/Muslim world before, during and even after the Holocaust. The Nazi-Arab connection existed even when Adolf Hitler first seized power in Germany in 1933. News of the Nazi takeover was welcomed by the Arab masses with great enthusiasm, as the first congratulatory telegrams Hitler received upon being appointed Chancellor came from the German Consul in Jerusalem, followed by those from several Arab capitals. Soon afterwards, parties that imitated the National Socialists were founded in many Arab lands, like the "Hisb-el-qaumi-el-suri" (PPS) or Social Nationalist Party in Syria. Its leader, Anton Sa'ada, styled himself the Führer of the Syrian nation, and Hitler became known as "Abu Ali" (In Egypt his name was "Muhammed Haidar"). The banner of the PPS displayed the swastika on a black-white background. Later, a Lebanese branch of the PPS—which still receives its orders from Damascus—was involved in the assassination of Lebanese President Pierre Gemayel.

The most influential party that emulated the Nazis was "Young Egypt," which was founded in October 1933. They had storm troopers, torch processions, and literal translations of Nazi slogans—like "One folk, One party, One leader." Nazi anti-Semitism was replicated, with calls to boycott Jewish businesses and physical attacks on Jews. Britain had a bitter experience with this pro-German mood in Egypt, when the official Egyptian government failed to declare war on the Wehrmacht as German troops were about to conquer Alexandria.

After the war, a member of Young Egypt named Gamal Abdul Nasser was among the officers who led the July 1952 revolution in Egypt. Their first act – following in Hitler's footsteps—was to outlaw all other parties. Nasser's Egypt became a safe haven for Nazi war criminals, among them the SS General in charge of the murder of Ukrainian Jewry; he became Nasser's bodyguard and close comrade. Alois Brunner, another senior Nazi war criminal, found shelter in Damascus, where he served for many years as senior adviser to the Syrian general staff and still resides today.

Sami al-Joundi, one of the founders of the ruling Syrian Ba'ath Party, recalls: "We were racists. We admired the Nazis. We were immersed in reading Nazi literature and books... We were the first who thought of a translation of Mein Kampf. Anyone who lived in Damascus at that time was witness to the Arab inclination toward Nazism."

These leanings never completely ceased. Hitler's Mein Kampf currently ranks sixth on the best-seller list among Palestinian Arabs. Luis Al-Haj, translator of the Arabic edition, writes glowingly in the preface about how Hitler's "ideology" and his "theories of nationalism, dictatorship and race… are advancing especially within our Arabic States." When Palestinian police first greeted Arafat in the self-rule areas, they offered the infamous Nazi salute—the right arm raised straight and upward.

The PLO and notably Arafat himself do not make a secret of their source of inspiration. The Grand Mufti el-Husseini is venerated as a hero by the PLO. It should be noted, that the PLO's top figure in east Jerusalem today, Faisal Husseini, is the grandson to the Führer's Mufti. Arafat also considers the Grand Mufti a respected educator and leader, and in 1985 declared it an honor to follow in his footsteps. Little wonder. In 1951, a close relative of the Mufti named Rahman Abdul Rauf el-Qudwa el-Husseini matriculated to the University of Cairo. The student decided to conceal his true identity and enlisted as "Yasser Arafat."

The most recent "Obamination" is the giving of US tax dollars from the stimulus package to the PLA Fatah. A division of the PA or PLA is the Al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigade a terrorist wing of the Fatah Security Force.

Again, aid and comfort to the enemies of the US and Israel are being funded by hard earned and foolishly spent tax payer dollars. At present US tax dollars are being spent to "fund" Islamic students at the UC in California. Students recieve a free ride under the liberal "diversity" outreach program plus $40,000.00 stipend. What do Americans get for their money? Hatred, Nazism, Islamonazism and a well educated enemy. Tell me, who gives the children of US citizens a free ride and 40 G's?

Watch this video.

Obama is doing the same thing by the same identical play book used by Hitler to support and get support from the people of Islam. Again, there is no peaceful Islam, only outnumbered Muslims. Should he be relieved of his command?

Reprinted with permission from ResistNET.

Neville Chamberlain Lives On

WHEN HITLER FIRST "annexed" Austria, they greeted him with cheers! A year later he attacked Poland and Hitler stated that Poland was all he wanted. This was Hitler's militaristic approach. Bit by bit. Lie by lie. Each step of the way, he lied and plotted—and moderate Germans grew prouder with each victory until Hitler did not need to hide his TRUE intent—because THE MOMENTUM and CONFIDENCE of HITLER'S DREAM swept up the Germanic peoples and myth became reality—the long-held dream to rule the world as a SUPERIOR RACE! Or in this case, a pernicious totalitarian total system war & death cult ideology masquerading as a religion, a religion of peace no less. Mohammed is the new Dear Leader.

Wouldn't it be nice if it was just Al Qaeda, or just the Taliban, or Hamas? If the problem could be summed up as "well, it's just those few nasty radicalized extremists and other fringe Islamicists who have hijacked the true, peaceful Islam, it would be nice enough to declare a bank holiday, now wouldn't it?

We must suppose that despite Hitler and his Chamberlain appeasement, it is easier for those who rush to and fro thinking not of Michelangelo, but of how many times they swooned over Snack-n-Blo at some concert, to think in those simplistic "American Idol" terms, preferring to ignore what is going on in Australia, in the UK, in France, in Belgium, in Sweden, in Norway, and Ireland, et cetera...

To repeatedly and resolutely ignore all those cells, the attacks, the riots, the legislative Jihad for sharia, the angry mobs demanding more more more while holding vicious signage calling for death and destruction of their neighbors and their own transplant countries—is to simply comply to the standards of ordinary Germans as was done in the late 1930s. The brighter the light shined on many Islamic organizations which profess to support pluralism, tolerance, and other Western values, the more apparent it becomes that most of these claims are misleading or outright disingenuous.

This article from the Toronto National Post highlights the case of a Canadian Islamic organization that purports to teach young Muslims how to apply Islamic ideas to Canada's pluralistic society. The organization's latest "star" has, according to the article, renounced democracy, praised suicide bombers, and proclaimed "long live the Taliban."

How's that for promoting tolerance and pluralism?

Just like most Europeans and Americans in the lead up to WWII, only this time there is no USA to jump in to save the day, for America too, has sold her soul, has bankrupted its coffers in pursuit of the so-called Almighty Dollar, and rock stars, and head shrinks, and beer quarrels and rooster fights.

To continually ignore the daily victims in Africa, in India, in Thailand, in Malaysia, in Indonesia, in the Philippines, in Russia, and now even in China a few weeks ago, to not pay attention to the cell in the Bronx or the training camp in upstate NY, to not see the Minnesota and Colorado jihadists mostly from Somalia, the obtuse meat handlers and the cabbies, and now this ethnically-mixed North Carolina Group, to PUT all this evidence aside as "Just a Few Extremists" or Man Made Disasters as the Obama administration with its so-called mandate likes to call them, is beyond asinine—it smacks of a global conspiracy, and strong delusion in our midst. A quick glance at the OIC camp in the United Nations is all one needs to "connect the goddamned dots" as the steel and gristle rock band Ministry once put it...

Winston Churchill
Winston Churchill

Nobody's fool, Winston Churchill, tried to warn his own country and its allies long before it was considered real politik to do so, but to no avail. His own time in the British service prepared him a clear mind and strong resolve, and it is often said that Churchill single-handedly saved Great Britain from Nazi domination. So when Hitler's diabolical push remained unchecked by the appeasing policies of a squeamish Neville Chamberlain, who is forever tarred by the shame of his own poltical cowardice masked by strong delusions of playing nice to the wrong set of people in the wrong set of circumstances. Today we wrestle with the same dogmatic insistence that peace is always at hand if we would just not insist on the path of our ancestors, and instead, give way to the new, the foreign, the exotic charms of some advancing and increasingly dangerous demagogue. And Islam is not even secretive about it's own supremacist notions, but still the West persists in ignoring the warning signs of our own destruction.

In the spirit of the old Beach Boys tune, "Wouldn't it be nice to think 'Oh well, the trouble in Gaza is just about LAND..."

Yes. It would be nice to think that, if the reality did not mean death to OUR CHILDREN'S and HUMANITY'S FUTURE. Perhaps not today, nor tomorrow, so sure why not simply go about about our lives. Why fret about things we cannot change or affect? We will probably be old and grey when the world is finally...

...oops, as per the Qu'ran all Islamic, all bowing to Allah, and all hail to Mohammed, may peace be upon him, who cares?

Me? I will be dead. But you can tell your children you heard it, but chose not to SEE. You Heard it, but, did nothing because you really didn't know what to do, did you?

Just like most Europeans and Americans in the lead up to WWII, only this time there is no USA to jump in to save the day, for America too, has sold her soul, has bankrupted its coffers in pursuit of the so-called Almighty Dollar, and rock stars, and head shrinks, and beer quarrels and rooster fights.

Because there is not going to be a major assault and invasion by soldiers with insignia on their lapels, but the enemy is stealth and is creeping into our lands one and all, nipping at our heals dividing and conquering, distracting and infiltrating, slowly slowly...

Listen, listen. Hear that? Step by step. It's happening. Latest news...

Last but not least....

The preceding article has been adapted from a FB post by Lyn Morales. Many thanks Lyn for continuing to stand up for the truth of our sad times.

Marx Debunked By Time Magazine

From TIME MAGAZINE article on May 19, 1947, Karl Marx is man is examined under the light of a man named Schwarzchild who had just written a book about the notorious political philosopher. My, how times have changed.

"If a name had to be found for the age in which we live," says the author of this book, "we might safely call it the Marxian era. For, in one way or another, the most important facts of our time lead back to one man—Karl Marx."

Karl Marx
Karl Marx

Biographer Leo Schwarzschild is no admirer of Marx or Marxism. He is pointing to the fact that since World War I no other mind has so potently influenced the political and economic thinking and action of our times. There are masses of unconscious Marxists—men & women who have never read Marx's Capital, and who would rather be found dead than reading the Communist Manifesto, but whose thinking about the role of economic forces in history, the responsibility of government for the individual, and the importance of economic security v. political freedom has nevertheless been profoundly influenced by the choleric expatriate from Prussia.

Even the efforts to fight Marxism with its own weapons have inevitably taken a Marxist turn. Both Naziism and Fascism, Biographer Schwarzschild points out, are Marxist mutations whose predestined political form is therefore the police state. In Nazi concentration camps, as in Russian forced-labor camps, Karl Marx was the presiding genius. In the name of human progress, Marx has probably caused more death, misery, degradation and despair than any man who ever lived.

Complacent & Patronizing. For a mind whose consequences have been so monstrous, this biography is singularly debonair. It is certainly the most readable life of Marx available. For those who wish to see so alarming a monster debunked, it is a complacent job of debunking. Nor need readers fear exposure to the rigors of Marxist political theory or economics. Biographer Schwarzschild lightly writes off those arid involutions.

Schwarzschild's indictment is most effective when describing Marx's personal and political life from 1818 to 1883. Here is Marx the boy taken to a church in Trier, in the recently Prussianized Rhineland, and baptized a Lutheran. His father, the first lawyer in an interminable line of distinguished rabbis, admired Prussia and its official religion. Here is Marx the future socialist, unsocially shunning his school fellows while his mental acrobatics charm Ludwig von Westphalen, a much older man of a much higher social position. Marx later repaid Westphalen for this early interest by marrying his daughter, Jenny, against the wishes of her family. And here is Marx the frustrated poet, wasting his time, and his father's (and later his widowed mother's) slim resources as a shiftless college student. Marx finally received a kind of mail-order degree from the University of Jena.

Boring from Within. Marx got his start in life as editor of the Rhenish Gazette. This newspaper had been founded by a group of solid businessmen turned publishers. Like other publishers since, they were presently bewildered to discover that their paper had been infiltrated by socialists and was being used as a mouthpiece for revolutionary ideas. Marx lost his job. Then began his lifelong career as an expatriate and professional revolutionist.

In Paris he hobnobbed with Friedrich Engels, elegant, fox-hunting scion of a prosperous German textile tycoon. With him Marx wrote the Communist Manifesto (1848), with him he shared his ideas, hopes, miseries and triumphs. Engels gave him implicit intellectual and political obedience, supported him most of his life and finally settled an annuity on him. In 1848 both Marx and Engels were neckdeep in the revolutionary wave that swept over Europe.

With the first gunshots, Marx rushed back to the Rhineland to edit the New Rhenish Gazette. The chapter on this episode shows the extent to which Marx's tactics are still standard Communist equipment. The New Rhenish Gazette was a tight little dictatorship of the proletariat run by a back-room clique of case-hardened Communists. But communism or socialism were rarely mentioned in its columns ; the paper posed as a liberal organ. The Communists posed as liberal patriots. In the name of liberalism, Marx shouted for war between Prussia and Denmark. He knew that war is good growing weather for communism. The result, as always, was the gradual discrediting of the liberals.

Character Assassination. Other enlightening chapters describe Marx's tactics of character assassination (still standard Communist practice) against anybody who threatened his exclusive leadership. One of his victims was Wilhelm Weitling, a tailor's apprentice, one of the few proletarians who has ever become an intelligent Communist leader. Marx falsely accused Weitling of being a literary crook and hounded him to the U.S. Another target was Ferdinand Lassalle, brilliant founder of the German Social Democratic Party. Marx somewhat inconsistently referred to Lassalle as "Baron Izzy" and "the little Jew."

Another victim was Michael Bakunin, an ardent Russian anarchist who threatened Marx's, control of the First International (founded in 1864 in London). Marx charged Bakunin with shady financial dealings and with being a Czarist agent. He could not make the charge stick, but Bakunin withdrew to lick his wounds.

After the collapse of the 1848 revolutions, Marx spent the rest of his life fighting off creditors, plotting against the public peace, burying his son,* suffering from attacks of carbuncles that sometimes covered him from head to foot, grinding away at economics so that he could "prove" (in Capital) that capitalism was inevitably doomed and that socialism was its inevitable successor, lashing his enemies with invective sometimes worthy of an Old Testament prophet and sometimes unprintable. When he was buried in a cemetery in Highgate, London, only eight friends were at the grave.

Author Schwarzschild's biographical facts are true, as far as they go. But the Marx he presents is a man with his brain cut out. Hence the facts add up to a caricature. Schwarzschild's thesis is that Karl Marx was 1) a rabbinical thinker whose pyramids of abstract logic were brilliant, but had nothing to do with facts; 2) a vicious egomaniac determined to ruin any man or group that he could not dominate; 3) a political seer whose prognostications were almost always wrong; 4) a self-styled "scientific" socialist whose science was about as scientific as astrology; 5) an economist whose economic knowledge was perfunctory and puerile. Marx's mind was undoubtedly diabolic (history is studded with malignant political geniuses). But it is no help in understanding or combating Marxism to deny its author's perverse brilliance.

Read it all.

The Convergience Of Totalitarianisms

For those new to the righteous cause, or for you naysayers and misguided appeasers in our midst, here is an excruciatingly detailed essay Alexandre Del Valle, translated from the French by Erich von Abele.


SINCE THE INSTIGATION of the second Intifada al Aqsa, in September of 2000; since September 11, 2001, which marked the end of the inviolability of America's strategic sanctuary; and, above all, since the second Iraqi crisis, which has resulted in the dismantling of the regime of Saddam Hussein, one has been able to note throughout the West the emergence of a Red-Green-Brown Axis (the Red of the extreme left, the Brown of the extreme right, and the Green of Islamism). The different components of this Axis have for a common objective the struggle against the new faces of Evil: America, Israel, “Imperialism”, and even the West in its entirety.

The objective alliances among these three ideologies, we will see, did not begin just yesterday. But it is undeniable that the events since the beginning of the new millennium have contributed particularly to their collusion. In effect, the use of the term “crusade” by George W. Bush on the day after September 11 has been seen as a provocation, as much among the anti-clerical extreme left and extreme right as it has among the Islamic milieus—whence the evermore revealing convergence among, on the one hand, those nostalgic for the first two totalitarianisms (the Browns and the Reds) and, on the other hand, the protagonists of revolutionary Islamism.

These latter affect to defend the Arab masses who are “occupied” as much as the poor, the weak, and the “humiliated” of the Third World, the victims of the new Judeo-Christian “imperialist” Crusaders. The recent public standpoints expressed by the famous terrorist—Carlos the Jackal, among others, lead quite clearly in this direction.

It is evident that Islamism, the third totalitarianism after Nazism and Communism, echoes to a definite extent the aspirations of its two predecessors: seizing the struggle of civilizations and religions, then declaring war on the Judeo-Christian world in the name of the “dispossessed” of the rest of the planet, Islamism seduces as much those nostalgic for the pagan Third Reich, resolved to eradicate Judaism and Christianity, as it does those partisans of the hammer and sickle, determined to come to blows with the “bourgeois” and “capitalist” West.

The nerve center of this despised system: Manhattan, “the planetary district of mercenaries of the economic and financial war that America wreaks on the world”, according to the words of Carlos. It was no surprise, then, to see the Browns, the Reds and the Greens rejoice together at the tragedy of September 11, 2001, and to identify Osama bin Laden as a new David against an imperial “American-Zionist” Goliath. It was no surprise, either, to witness the enthusiasm of these three totalitarian movements converge around the “heroic” struggle conducted since March 2003 by the remnant Baathist rebels and Islamist Shiites of Iraq against the American occupation of Mesopotamia.

Evidently, this Red-Brown-Green Axis of “anti-hegemonic” and “anti-imperialistic” hatred was reinforced since the first years of the 1990s and the fall of the Soviet Union. This paradoxical and neo-totalitarian assemblage has seen its apogee on the day after September 11, and above all, during the winter and spring of 2003, with the benefit of the vast campaign of anti-Americanism conducted in the Western world by the opponents of the war against the regime of Saddam.

This junction of Red, Brown and Green totalitarianisms around the cause of Palestinian martyrs, Iraqis and Afghans, as much as the revolutionary figure of Osama bin Laden, confirms the leadership, henceforth uncontested, of revolutionary Islamism. From now on, this exerts a real fascination upon the other totalitarian options defeated by history (Nazism and Communism) and, consequently, condemned either to reconstitute themselves or to join the Islamist revolution in order to pursue their struggle against liberal democracies.

From September 11 to the second Gulf War

If one follows the Red thread from the opposition to “Yankee imperialism”, one sees that the anti-Zionist and anti-American milieus which had found extenuating circumstances in the commando of September 11 are those who try, today, to absolve Islamist terrorism—whether it pertains to the bin Ladenite movement across the globe or to Hamas and the Islamic Jihad in Palestine. Mesmerized by the collapse of the Twin Towers—a terrible illustration of the power of radical Islamism—, the Third Worldist and anti-imperialist ideologues of the extreme left, along with other “counter-globalists”, had been the most vehement to castigate the American intervention in Afghanistan. These were the ones again who, one year later, organized the most virulent “pacifist” displays against the intervention in Iraq , displays equally conducted in the name of the “victims of Zionism”.

Thus Toni Negri, the ex-ideologue of the Red Brigades and leading figure of the No Global movement, declared, in September of 2001, that his compassion did not extent to anyone but to illegal immigrants who might have disappeared with the Twin Towers. The Trotskyite linguist Noam Chomsky, well known for his violently anti-Israeli positions, denounced, in the attack of September of 11, a “planetary imposture”, yet another fascisizing manifestation of “American imperialism”.

Worse: he imputed “the anger of the Islamists” to the “racist” drift of the Hebrew state. As far as the editor-in-chief of Le Monde Diplomatique , Alain Gresh, son of the celebrated pro-Soviet intellectual Henri Curiel goes, he justified, in his book written with Tariq Ramadan, the grandson of the founder of the Muslim Brotherhood, the terrorist option of Palestinians in the name of anti-Zionism and “anti-colonialism”.

Two recent, grave events merit particular attention: first of all, the exhortations of the new leaders of the Italian Red Brigades and of the famous “Red terrorist” Carlos to take up the fight of Hamas and al Qaeda; and then, the nearly unanimous appeal by Western neo-Nazi leaders to salute the “heroism” of Hezbollah and bin Laden in their struggle against the Jews and the Americans.

The logical consequence of these parallel fascinations and alliances: Carlos embraces a “revolutionary Islamism destined to sweep the world,” an Islamism that “realizes the dynamic synthesis of different currents (the anti-colonialist, anti-imperialist and anti-Zionist struggle) and draws for its models of action upon socialism, Marxism and nationalism”; and, at the same time, the charismatic leader of the English neo-Nazi movement, David Myatt, now become Abdul Aziz ibn Myatt, appeals to those nostalgic Axis members and to all enemies of the Zionists, to embrace with him the Jihad, the “true martial religion”, which will most effectively fight against the Jews and the Americans.

Another sign of this rapprochement: on April 3, 2003, the Salafist Londoner Omar Bakri Mohamed, leader of the movement al Mouhajiroun as well as being imam of the Finsbury Park mosque and a recruiter of a number of youths who went off to join al Qaeda, officially received Myatt and accorded him a “welcome into Islam”, specifying to journalists that the neo-Nazi past of this neophyte had “no special importance once their goals converged in common”…

Parallel to this, as the discourse of Marxist terrorists or of certain neo-Nazis becomes Islamified, so too the rhetoric of bin Laden, in particular, and of Islamists in general becomes “Marxized” and “Third Worldized” in its turn, and—uniquely, certainly, unto a tactical aim—borrows, more and more, from the anti-Semitic vulgate of the extreme right. Thus, in his declaration of February 11, 2003, not only did the head of al Qaeda seize on that bête noire of the extreme left which is “the American-Zionist imperialism in Palestine”, recalling the “martyrdom of Vietnam”, but he also for the first time authorized the faithful to ally themselves with an Arab regime that was “atheist” and nationalist:

“Although Saddam Hussein is an infidel, it becomes permissible to unite our forces with his in order to combat the American crusade against Islam and the Muslims.” Saddam himself, that atheist and old “pagan” admirer of Nebuchadnezzar had not ceased, since the first Gulf War, to Islamicize his discourse and his regime. The culminating point of this posture: his declaration of March 4, 2003, in which he called for a “holy war against the United States , the diabolic invaders”, and a Jihad which would oppose “the righteous against the liars, the virtuous against the vicious, the honest against the traitors, the warriors of Jihad against the mercenaries and aggressors.”

Islamism: the most effective of the “anti-imperialist” and revolutionary ideologies

From the outset, one asks oneself what could be able to unify movements as ideologically antagonistic as the Reds (atheists and materialists), the Greens (theocrats and Islamists), and the Browns (believers in the war of the races). To believe that such an alliance would be philosophically impossible and strategically improbable—and, therefore, from the get-go doomed to checkmate—would be to forget that Islamism is not only the third totalitarianism to come about, but is also equally, in a number of points, the inherited unifier of the two predecessors.

Insofar as Islamism is not only simply a religious “fundamentalism”, but also and above all a subversive revolutionary totalitarianism, an ideology of mass destruction comparable to Nazism, Maoism or Stalinism, this “Green fascism” prolongs the anterior totalitarianisms. What distinguishes the Green version essentially is that it brings to the historical totalitarian hatreds a theological justification and a divine benediction.

Whether it concerns the Lebanese Hezbollah, Palestinian Hamas, the al Qaeda combatants, or the Iraqi and Palestinian “resisters”, it must be recognized that in the marketplace of global revolution, the Islamists and the Arab-Muslim “mujahideen” in general are the most effective and ferocious adversaries of “Israeli-American imperialism”. They are the ones who are inflicting the most damage on the “colonialist” and “capitalist” powers—whom the Reds and the Browns detest above all.

Being the third moment of totalitarianism, an avenging Islamism leading the assault on the capitalist democracies and the “Judeo-Crusader forces” knows now such an ascension throughout all corners of the globe and, in particular, in Europe—an ascension facilitated by the planetary and unprecedented mediatisation which it has enjoyed since the shock of September 11—that it has been attracting, like a magnet, the attentions of those nostalgic for the communist and Nazi totalitarianisms.

Drawing at the same time from the vulgate of the extreme right and from an “Islamically correct” template that is pro-Arab and Third Worldist, this new revolutionary and planetary hatred henceforth seduces the latest anti-Jewish and anti-American militants of the extreme radical right.

From the crooked cross to the Crescent

The majority of the extreme right is clearly turned towards the Arab-Muslim world, conforming itself to the desire expressed by Hitler himself in his testament, in the name of the principle: “rather Islamic than Judeo-Mason”. It is therefore at the same time through fidelity to the Führer and by virtue of post-Cold War geopolitics, marked by the return of the civilizational paradigm, that the new extreme right, once viscerally pro-Western and anti-Communist, has tactically exchanged its Atlanticism for a “Third Worldism tinged with anti-Americanism and anti-Zionism”. This orientation gravitates naturally to the support of revolutionary Islamism.

It is undeniable that the discourse of Alain de Benoist—leader of the Groupe de Réflexion et d'Études sur la Civilisation Européenne (GRECE), one of the more influential think-tanks of the pro-Islamist European extreme right—recalls strangely the rhetoric of the Italian Red Brigades (who have moreover always maintained bridges with the Browns), underscoring an obsessive anti-Americanism that would not surprise the extreme left: “The military-industrial American complex, of which George W. Bush, that sociopath and notorious retard, is today the mouthpiece, has unilaterally mobilized against the nation and people of Iraq a war so dastardly and monstrous that nothing—save his will to dominate the world—justifies it.

Beginning this Tuesday, March 20, every act of reprisal in the world aimed against American interests as well as American military, political, diplomatic and administrative personnel, wherever it occurs, in whatever scope it represents, by whatever means and circumstances, is both legitimate and necessary.”

Speaking of strange politics, the denunciation of “imperialist” American wars against Iraq has become, since 1990, one of the leitmotifs of the anti-Zionist extreme right, in this position becoming linked with organizations of the extreme left. The Iraq of Saddam Hussein had, it is true, much about it to please the partisans of the three totalitarianisms: not only had this regime nearly realized a synthesis of the national-Bolshevik with the national-Socialist, but it found itself, moreover, at the point of war against the two demons fought in common by the Reds, the Browns and the Greens: Israel and the United States. The ideological pro-Iraqi line which almost all of the extreme right in Europe adopted has been shown by a series of demonstrations denouncing “American imperialism”, as well as by voyages of solidarity to Baghdad . The capture of the dictator profoundly deceived those who were opposed to the American intervention. His arrest, in effect, came [at the time] to contradict their thesis, repeated ad nauseam, of the “American quagmire” in Iraq .

For the extreme right, the Age of Gold of the Brown-Green Axis harks back to the Second World War which saw an alliance between the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem and Hitler, then the establishment of pro-Nazi Arab and Balkan legions (Waffen SS composed of Croatian-Bosnian-Albanian Muslims along with Egyptian green-shirts, etc.). With reference to the Palestinian Muslim Brotherhood, the Grand Mufti, Al Hajj Al Husseini, was at the origin, in 1942, of the creation of the Arab League, destined to pursue, alongside the forces of the Axis, the war against the Jews installed in Palestine . It is moreover in reference to the Grand Mufti that the English neo-Nazi leader David Myatt explains his conversion to Islam and his rallying to the cause of al Qaeda, recalling how “60,000 Muslims responded to the appeal of the Grand Mufti to join forces alongside Hitler.”

Three great historical figures of the alliance between the Swastika and the Crescent continue, to this day, to saturate the minds of those nostalgic for the Axis: Leon Degrelle, the leader of Rexism—a collaborationist Belgian movement—and a great crafter of rapprochement between Palestinian organizations and the neo-Nazi milieus between the years of 1950 to 1980; the famous Swiss banker François Genoud, testamentary legatee of Hitler and Goebbels, who consecrated the bulk of his post-Nazi life to financing terrorist and nationalist Arab movements (Nasserism, the Palestinian FPLP and OLP, the Algerian FLN, the Muslim Brotherhood, etc.) in their capacity as enemies of the Jews; and, finally, one of the major artisans of the “Islamonazi synthesis,” Johann Von Leers, Goebbel's old right arm, responsible for anti-Semitic propaganda under the Third Reich.

Becoming Omar Amin after having been recruited in Egypt by Nasser, who nominated him responsible for anti-Jewish propaganda in Cairo, Von Leers converted to Islam after his contact with the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood. His example continues to inspire an Islamophile and pro-Arab current of the extreme right. It is in his memory that one of the actual ringleaders of the new pro-Islamist European right, the Italian Claudio Mutti, has chosen for his name of conversion to Islam that of Omar Amin. Today still, these three symbols of Islamo-Nazi flirtation are referenced by young neo-Nazi militants who look in the Brown-Green alliance toward the “sole chance of survival for an Aryan Europe” in the face of the danger represented by the “Western plutocracies” and by the “Judeo-Mason conspiracy”.

Read it all.

Islam Only Befriends Itself

Geert Threat
Threat from Indonesia

IN JUST A FEW DAYS, Professor Hans Kung’s lecture on “Challenges to Islam, Christianity and Judaism” will be broadcast on Sky Arts. Kung is a leading Catholic theologian and the author of Islam: Past, Present and Future. He is President of the Foundation for a Global Ethic. He is also a touted professor of Ecumenical Theology at the University of Tubingen. He knows almost as much about God as St. Francis of Assisi and twice as much about structural steel as Bill Maher and Rosie O’Donnell combined and in his own field is just as controversial about the doctrine of Papal Infallibility and celibacy.

Thus strikes, like a bolt of lightning returning to the scene of its last evidence, the opening paragraph in which Denis Schulz introduces this formidable but enemy-appeasing lecturer. Day after day, week after week, month after month, year after year, we, who dare point out these same rather self-evident distinctions between these two earlier Abrahamic cults that give the lie to the shameful treachery of Islam in a world that refuses to acknowledge them, are exasperated as the supposedly great learned ones betray us. One can only hope that the expected awakening from this nightmare of disinformation comes before it is too late. Read it all...

Hans Kung is 80 years old. He’s been around a while. He says Islam is stuck in The Middle Ages. Could that be? Maybe mired would be a better word. How about frozen in time? If he means the 10th Century he could be crediting Islam with a 400-year advance that didn’t take place, an Islamic Transubstantiation from the Pleistocene Age to Richard the Lion-Hear without expunging the dinosaurs and jinni that ceaselessly prowled the Prophet’s mind searching for victims to feed his monumental ego and never-ending hatred of those who disagreed with him even as Salman Rushdie’s houris were coming to cart him away.

But day-to-day life in the Andalusian Caliphate was more than legal opinions. Jews were frequently massacred and Christians were regularly deported to Morocco. On that, the record appears to be clear.

[The challenge for Christianity and Judaism is how to survive the 21st Century; for Islam it is how to come to grips with an ongoing insanity. Christianity had the Protestant Reformation and Judaism had its own reform movement albeit on a smaller scale. Islam boasted the Andalusian Caliphate, a never-ending source of pride for all Muslims, a 10th Century beacon of enlightenment that pierced the haze of ignorance and superstition that befogged the rest of Europe.

Literature! Science! Technology! A Thousand and One Nights! Freedoms that had never been thought of! Everything but Disneyland! And this was 700 years before Jefferson and Adams! Seven hundred years before that silly Declaration of Independence! Surely, the millennium had been achieved!

Anyway that is the story the Imams and the Muslim professors and their dhimmi running dogs preach at the Cairo University and at Berkeley and Columbia and Oxford and at a thousand lesser schools of learning while students ill-equipped to determine fact from fiction sit and listen as if in the presence of Plato and Aristotle. But what is the truth? Was it the first casualty in the war of religions? There is much evidence that it was—enough to warrant a revision.

According to a legal opinion offered by Ibn Abdun in 1100 AD—from the greatest civilization that never was—the Andalusian Caliphate appears to be more of a mirage than Shangri-La or Duffy's Tavern. “No Jew or Christian,” said the opinion, “may be allowed to wear the dress of an aristocrat, nor of a jurist, nor of a wealthy individual, on the contrary they must be detested and avoided. It is forbidden to (greet) them with the (expression) ‘Peace be upon you’ In effect, Satan has gained possession of them, and caused them to forget God’s warning…a distinctive sign must be imposed upon them in order that they may be recognized and this will be for them a form of disgrace.”

This is the so-called dignity contemporary Islamic supremists and their western apologists insist was Islam's golden rule of mutual prosperity, the so-called era of peace! But these people were Jews and Christians—People of the Book! Yes, they were Jews and Christians but no one was to take them for friends! Could this have been the catalyst for the Inquisition which followed?

Other legal opinions forbade the selling of scientific books to non-Muslims because the non-Muslims—again Jews and Christians—would translate them into their own languages and take credit for them. The origins of these scientific books are debatable. Some of them predated Islam. In the 400 years since Mohammed had emerged from the desert Muslim invaders had looted and destroyed Christian and Jewish libraries. But day-to-day life in the Andalusian Caliphate was more than legal opinions. Jews were frequently massacred and Christians were regularly deported to Morocco. On that, the record appears to be clear.

The difference between what Nathan Bedford Forrest did at Fort Pillow and what Reinhard Heydrich did in Bohemia-Moravia and what went on in the Caliphate is minimal. Yet college professors throughout Europe and America accept the Wahhabi version and hanker for the days of Ibn Abdun when peace and tolerance were the order of the day.

“In the face of the deadly threat to all humankind,” says Kung, “instead of building new dams of hatred, revenge and enmity, we should tear down the walls of prejudice stone by stone and thus build bridges of dialogue, bridges particularly towards Islam.”

Yes, heaven forbid, anyone should have the temerity to ask Islam to build bridges towards democracy, human rights and religious freedom. What an embarrassment that would be! It might anger them—make them strike out! Neville Chamberlain built bridges toward Nazi Germany and it would have worked had it not been for the warmongers at home and a handful of obstreperous politicians in Poland.

James Buchanan built bridges towards the antebellum South and was much revered by Jefferson Davis and Wade Hampton. And then old Abe Lincoln came along and ruined Old Buck’s good work by opposing the extension of slavery into the Territories. He believed in gradual emancipation—in Colonization—and would not disturb the South’s ‘Peculiar Institution’ in the States where it already existed. But he would not establish it elsewhere.

Jeff Davis insisted upon the right of every Southerner to carry his ‘property’ into the territories held in common by all the states even as Islam insists on its right to extend its version of slavery into the dar al-Harb—a slavery more encompassing than that of Dixieland because it was chosen for them by Allah and where women are told to ‘stifle’ and can be beaten for ‘disobeying’ their husbands and where male chauvinism reigns uncontested.

There were more free blacks in the antebellum south in 1860 than there are free women in Islam in 2007. In 1899, after having viewed Islam up close, Winston Churchill wrote the following:

“The fact that in Mohammedan law every woman must belong to some man as his absolute property, either as a child, a wife, or a concubine, must delay the final extinction of slavery until the faith of Islam has ceased to be a great power among men…No stronger retrograde force exists in the world.”

Kung stresses what the three Abrahamic religions have in common—charity, respect for life, injunctions against murder. Most Muslims, he insists, do not hold extremist views. But what of the Qur’an—certainly more Muslims have read the Qur’an and believe what it says than Germans read Mein Kampf. What do the Muslim scriptures say?

Qur’an 2:191 “And kill them wherever you find and catch them. Drive the out from where they have driven you out for Al-Fitnah (polytheism, disbelief, oppression) is worse than slaughter.”

Tabari: IX:69 “Killing disbelievers is a small matter to us.”

Qur’an 33:26 “Allah made the Jews leave their homes by terrorizing them so that you killed some and made many captives. And He made you inherit their lands, their homes, and their wealth. He gave you a country you had not traversed before.” (Could that be Israel?)

These are not injunctions against murder. These are extremist views. There has been no rush by moderate Muslims to renounce these verses. They are no more willing to oppose Jihadism than the average German was to oppose Hitler and the Nazis in the 1930s and less willing than many southerners had been to condemn slavery in the 1850s.

The Jihadists are relying on people like Kung and Robert Edgar to run interference for them, to mesmerize the dhimmis with endless proposals for Interfaith Dialogues while work on the new Caliphate continues apace. Kung sees little difference between the beheadings, car bombings and suicide attacks of the Jihadists and the air strikes, tank patrols and the 10,000 dead civilians in Iraq that he attributes to the United States. Little does he care or even understand that the vast majority of civilian casualties in Iraq are the result of the actions of al-Qaeda and the Shiite and Sunni militias.

Saddam Hussein killed more civilians—Kurds and Shiites—in an average year than are dying today in Iraq. More civilians are killed each year by Muslim terrorists than in the entire 350-year history of the institution that succeeded the Andalusian Caliphate in Spain—the ‘dreaded’ Inquisition!

Kung’s lecture will be aired on June 23.

Islam, Isn't it Getting Along Swimmingly

Perhaps Muslims should contain their water joys to open waters...

A SWIMMING POOL flack in the Hackney neighborhood north of London is in the news.

I'm only surprised that anyone is surprised by this. Public swimming pool. Enter Islam—gender and religious apartheid in action, and endless, arrogant demands and appropriation of infidel territory and apparatus. It won't ever stop unless it is stopped by force. Islam knows no limitations except those of "necessity", so the more it is accommodated, the more it will take. With each passing year, and with greater and greater Muslim immigration, situations like this will become more frequent, and the *community* atmosphere more and more tense.

Islam ALWAYS expropriates. It NEVER reciprocates.

And why, indeed, should it? Why reciprocate to individuals who are seen as utterly worthless subhumans? This situation is the natural and entirely expected result of allowing a peal of supremacist/chauvinist howling to divide, unopposed, all of mankind into a pure/impure group dichotomy. Furthermore, this view, unfortunately is embraced by both islamist extremists and large numbers of so-called moderates, the wolves in sheep's clothing.

Many on the Left are confused and knocked off-balance because this new form of vicious "Far Right" is not based on the usual, obvious and time-worn criteria, that of skin tone. How easy and straightforward things used to be. And what a hoot to watch hospitable anti-fascist thinkers flounder and flail, incapable, as they are, of extracting the salient points of a chauvinistic and fascistic mind-set, and completely unable, thus, to recognise, stop and effectively rollback the new Naziism. Islam is just National Socialism—kicked up a notch.

It is not 'abrahamaic, it is not 'religion', it is not divinely ordained; it is merely the ongoing expression of a hate-filled, steal-the-loot ideology, as concocted by a murderous, desert brigand. It deserves our contempt, not our respect.

One can either live in a liberal democracy with secular, universal standards (of public accomodation, among all else) or not. Clearly, many soft Leftists think there must be some sort of third way.