{“I am not a believer myself but I had to accept that the Turks’ simple faith had substantially driven their sense of charity towards strangers. They had helped me and my family and they would help anyone in similar straits without any expectation of gain or favor.”}

What a crock.
The same thing could have happened in any other country, and does. To attribute that to Islam shows your Islamophile and Anti-Christian bias. No doubt due to your many years living and working in Turkey.

Turks’ simple faith substantially drove them to commit Genocide against about 4 million Christians (1894-1923): Armenians, Assyrians, Pontic Greeks.
Ordinary Turks gleefully took part in the massacres, gang rapes, looting, abducting of Christian children….
Your Turkpohile bias blinds you to that fact.
Those Turks that helped you are living on lands of others whom their nomadic Turkic ancestors from Uyguristan murdered en mass.

Christianity is about 600 years older than Islam.
There were no Muslims in Middle East: now all the Christians have either been massacred, forcibly Islamized, or chased away.
Notwithstanding the many wonderful, peaceful individual Muslims, the religion as a whole is fundamentally incompatible with the Western/European worldview.

Please tell us how tolerant Muslim majority counties are towards Christians.
Please tell us why there are mosques in Rome, for example, but not a single church in Riyadh.

And read some of the outlandish public pronouncements of Islamist AKP leaders – the true face of Turks – before you try to sell us the wonders of Genocidal Turks.

“I would bet that very few Europeans or Americans actually believe themselves personally threatened by local Muslims”

Here in Europe many of us live in areas with large populations of radicalised Muslims. I do. I’ve certainly felt ‘personally threatened’, especially when groups of youths would spit on the ground as I walked past.

Media and politicians on TV keep demanding that “moderate Muslims” speak out/condemn, etc. “radical Islam” as the solution. All Muslims have to flog themselves, that’s the solution. Because someone says he’s killing somebody because of religion, everyone who believes that religion has to take on guilt, just because he says he’s doing it out of religion.

I wouldn’t feel responsible for what any Roman Catholic does whether he says he’s doing it for religious reasons or not. It would make no sense even if I knew the person. Me disapproving of murder isn’t going to stop anyone from committing a murder. Why would anyone think I approve of murder? That is offensive in itself, that Muslims are called upon to say they don’t approve of murder like it isn’t self-evident that decent people don’t approve of murder.

But we are in a crazy world the last dozen or so years. I am glad that Obama did not go to Paris or send someone high up. He did the right thing. “Je Suis Charlie” = “I am a magazine of pornographic insults.” I wish Obama had asked George W. Bush to go for him – that would be interesting. The man most responsible for hundreds of thousands of Muslim deaths showing his outrage over the deaths of 12. Bush is being rehabilitated here in the US because he wrote a book praising his own father.

Another excellent article from Giraldi. There is an organized network of racist whose goal is to fan hatred for all Arabs and Islam as a religion as a way to position Israel as the “great white hope” in the ME. The propaganda seems to be coordinated by the Zionists with the help of useful idiots like Bill Maher, and Steven Emerson. There is another excellent article on the issue at Consortium News https://consortiumnews.com/2015/01/12/the-sorry-record-of-a-muslim-basher/

Calling hordes of Syrians, Afghans, Iraqis and other Muslims beating and shoving aside women and children to reach the helicopters on a burning ferry they had stowed away on is hardly ‘immigration’ nor are boats full of them washing up on Mediterranean beaches. It is a physical invasion and, BTW, illegal under UN articles that prohibit displacing or replacing the cultures of indigenous peoples.

The truth is the West does not want nor need Muslim immigrants but they continue to pour into Western nations and make little or no effort to assimilate. I do not call a Palestinian, born in the US, allowed to attend our medical schools and promoted to the rank of Major in the US Army ‘assimilated’ when he goes on a shooting spree that kills or wounds 43 of his fellow soldiers. Even converts to Islam are prone to this sort of murderous religious fury as witness the beheading of a women in Oklahoma by one these retro maniacs. While it maybe true not all Muslims are terrorists most terrorists are Muslim and this is a fact we ignore at our peril. Now our government wants to import 70,000 Syrian refugees. Just how many convenience stores ( often little more than fronts for criminal activity) and cab drivers do we need?

The rub with Islam is quite simple, really. It’s a belief system of an alien people that have no business in the West. Had they been here in significant numbers for the past 500 years, the world would have been a far less beautiful place thanks to the ideology and the group differences.

“It’s a belief system of an alien people that have no business in the West. ”

It’s a people who have also been completely divided and conquered by western imperialists for over a hundred years, through coups, invasions, occupations, puppet governments, satrapies and payoffs.

If they have no business in the West, one must certainly observe that oligarchic Westerners have made it their own business to not only be in their countries, for purely business reasons, but in pursuit of that to foment chaos and interference on a level unimaginable to ourselves. Since we’re talking about human beings, it is risable to think that everyone will willingly submit forever to being dominated by foreigners through force. I would vastly prefer that everyone follow the path of non-violent resistance to evil, whatever their side, but there are few examples of Ghandis, Dala Lamas or Martin Luther Kings in that side of the world – as far as I know. But maybe there can someday be hope, since Jesus is mentioned in their book. Not that a whole half of the Bible about him made westerners discernibly less violent, either.

It’s like how Edward G. Robinson put it in Little Caesar, “You’ve got so you can dish it out, alright, but you can’t take it no more.”

Well-reasoned and moderate, sane analysis, Phil. Thanks.

Decades later we usually find a foreign intelligence agency involved in pseudo operations backing the terrorists ( its not that easy to get an AK and a grenade launcher in paris ):

Judge Probing Red Brigade Accuses Israel of Trying to Destabilize Italy – Jewish telegraph agency

According to an interview published in the daily II Messaggerio today. Judge Ferdinando Imposimato claimed that up to about 1978, Italian terrorist groups had been infiltrated by Israel’s secret service. “The plan was intended to reduce Italy to a country racked by civil war so that the U.S. would be forced to depend more on Israel

Read more: http://www.jta.org/1982/01/18/archive/judge-probing-red-brigade-accuses-israel-of-trying-to-destabilize-italy#ixzz3OhLDNRsu

Judge Ferdinando Imposimato

seems completely delusional, anyway. He blaimed the NATO for the same thing before. He also believes that 9/11 was a false flag operation & that there is a Bilderberg conspiracy.
http://www.voltairenet.org/article177340.html

The plan was intended to reduce Italy to a country racked by civil war so that the U.S. would be forced to depend more on Israel

Which is a nice example of his intellectual capacities. As if Italy’s status was so high that its downfall would have changed very much for Israel… Phhh…

Twenty dead in Paris is a tragedy. Much hand wringing about how violent Islam is. But 600,000 dead Muslims in Iraq due to the US led embargo and 2,500 dead in Gaza as a result of Israel shelling, well, those are just statistics. And it was all worth it. At least that’s what Madeleine Albright and Bibi said and we believe them.

Excellent piece, Phil. Your anecdote on the helpful Turkish villagers puts things in clearer perspective than a dozen Washington Post editorials.

There are, according to the authorities 5000 jihadists currently residing in France. Each would require (the authorities estimate) between 3-10 police officers to effectively monitor their activities.

The economics of Islamic immigration do not make sense. Hence one must assume the elites driving Islamic immigration do so for purely ideological reasons.

As Pat Buchanan so accurately put it this Paris business was like a lightening strike through the heart of Western contradictions and hypocrisies and incoherencies. But beyond just highlighting same the question is what effect, if any, it is going to have on same, or at least the biggest ones. Hence it seems to me those most important issues and the effects upon same so far are as follows:

#1.) Is this attack going to even seriously dent much less reverse the pro-open borders policies and practices of the big Western countries? (The U.S., France, Great Britain and Germany.)

And, while it is early yet, so far as I see the best bet is that it will not. Indeed that big march of “solidarity” in France might be seen as less an attempt at whooping up solidarity against terrorism—because who *isn’t* against same?—but instead, as the exclusion of Ms. Le Pen’s party shows, more an attempt to defiantly solidify and prevent any fracturing of the elitist Establishment’s stance in general *favor* of the status-quo, which of course includes such open-border positions. And if that’s the reaction in *France* where this incident happened and where it seems to have excited such a visceral reaction…

#2.) Is this attack going to cause any (or even a big glimmer) of reconsideration in the “Big West” about the sensibility of remaining involved in the Middle East conflicts? Even throwing any doubt on the sensibility of the U.S. continuing its military involvements there?

Once again I believe the best bet is no, it will not. While of course I can’t be comprehensive about the only thing I’ve seen raising the sensible idea that when you have two cultures or civilizations that are so different if not so violently different that separation is a good idea came from one of Steve Sailer’s recent pieces. Beyond that and as regards the U.S. at least what I have seen from the usual suspects is that this attack is being used to argue in favor or our *continued* if not expanded military and political involvement in the Middle East. (Something Mr. Netanyahu clearly meant to help along with his successful intrusion into that French march.)

#3.) Is this attack going to cause any significant reconsideration of the Big West’s trajectory towards ever-increasing outlawing/punishing of “hate speech”? Either moving it more in the direction of free speech so as, for example, to get rid of the glowing hypocrisy of banning Holocaust denial or even some anti-Israel criticism but allowing ridicule of Mohammed, or moving in the opposite direction of (at least) banning ridiculing of Mohammed and/or fundamentalist Islam in general?

I at least very much doubt it. In the first place to even start to seriously frown on anti-Islamic speech would take a simply huge percentage of the wind out of the sails of the technique the neocon movement has hit upon for the U.S. and the West to get submerged as deeply as possible in Middle East affairs and conflicts, and to back Israel. Initially of course their more narrow argument was that we had to get involved (against Iraq and al Queda) because of the narrow WMD and terrorism concerns they presented. But to my ear that eventually changed along with Israel’s essential argument now that the real problem isn’t with this or that specific Islamic or arabic country or movement or sectarian group, but instead the entire general nature of Islam and arabs in general. (So that, for instance, Israel now argues that it’s not so much the Palestinian’s specific demands that are the problem, but that it is the general nature of the Palestinians as arabs that eliminates any idea of any durable peace really being possible, and thus makes a sort of ethnic cleansing and then enforced dispossession the only alternative. The same as the argument that really, only the crushing defeat of Islamic forces and supporters is going to help things, and too bad that crushing is going to involve the killings of great masses of numbers of arabs and moslems.)

And this only takes into account the pressure that those of the neocon variety would be bringing against any movement to ban or frown upon anti-Islam/anti-arab speech. There is of course the added problem of workability since most people do see Islam/arabs behind so much of modern terrorism and its impossible to imagine actually trying to censor all the common talk they engage in no matter how much it may meet the definition of “hate speech.”

Nor do I see what has happened as causing any serious reconsideration in the direction of *freer* speech to get rid of the “hate speech” idea due to the impossibility of it ever being consistent and fair. Too many special interest groups now have achieved too much success either with “hate speech” legislation or regulation, or with Politically Correct pressures in stamping on talk that they don’t like to let this little Paris incident harm their project.

In short then it seems to me the final verdict on this Paris business may meet Shakespeare’s description of being something on the order of a lot of sound and fury, signifying nothing. Nothing, that is, that the West has learned from it.

Or, to put it another way, by indeed not learning anything from it and thus presenting itself to the Islamic/arab world with nothing different to say because it has yet to have learned anything, it may well just effectively be the West saying to that Islamic/arab world “Please Sirs, may we have another?”

In considering the dynamics of group relations one frequently comes across someone pointing to cases of people from two different groups who get along well. I remember back just before the breakup of Yugoslavia many TV commenters mentioning how particular individual Serbs or Croats might get along very well. Nevertheless mass violence between the different ethnic groups in Yugoslavia soon came.

The fact that the author has friendships with individual Moslems is of little relevance for understanding the dynamics of Western/Islamic interaction. Those dynamics are highly pathological.

It should be noted that genetic studies of the Anatolian population indicate that the genetic footprint of the original Turks was relatively small. Probably less than 10% of the average genome of the present Anatolian population is of Central Asian origin.

This is an excellent article. Europe and America are facing a problem along with many other problems . These problems tend to occur together and often feed into each other.
Islam as a belief system is no different than the belief system inherent in Biddhism,Hinduism,Christianity . They all face problem in coping with changes . It is much easier to internalize the changes when changes come from within ( Christian tolerate many things in West that the Christians will have and have difficulties in India,Africa,China,Indonesia) Muslim faces same problem and mounts same differential responses ( Saddam was gay friendly, anti cloak – Burkha , pro liquor shop,allowed abortion,allowed women walking alone and attending colleges,never allowed mistreatment of migrant workers,and took care of the citizen’s needs ,and did not allow any honor killing . Gradually this change permeated the society and was becoming norm . ) I understand that the Sukorno government before Suartho was equally progressive,non racial,no religious,and pro communist. Following Suharto’s arrival the country turned repressive,religious,separate,and colonizer .
My understanding that Iran in 1907 was looking to America for support of a progressive .constitution based,law based secular future . American scholar was deeply involved .
Same thing happened in Azerbaizan who wanted to adopt a constitution based on the model of Belgium.
Forces extraneous to the native do dictate eventual development of the societies . Without the perversity of West ,matters could have moved into a different direction between Christian and Muslim and between west and east.

It is interesting to read the comment of Dr Edward Luttwak ,scholar,lecturer,historian,military strategist,and Pentagon consultant – ” Saddam is not like Saudi Princes who spend bulk of their lives outside their country,and fritter away the Kingdom’s oil profits on prostitutes and bottle of champagne in Paris. No,Saddam is building railways!Creating electoral networks! Highways and other important elements of a serious State infrastructures! ” He continues” If they [ demoblized Republican Guard] are put to work in the way Saddam wishes,they will rapidly make Iraq the most advanced power in the region,and we can’t allow this to happen” – Chapter 3, page 30. Neo-CONNED AGAIN Hypocrisy ,Lawlessness,and the Rape of Iraq
Mr Lutwak is well connected to Harvard,administration,JINSA,and still pens articles .

Muslims coming from Saddam’s Iraq ( same is true of Iran,Indonesia,Azerbazian if development followed a different trajectory
) to west would have possibly smiled and walked away from the newspaper publishing these pictures . Those jihadist returning from Syria ,would have not gone there in the first place . They would have been busy smoking pot ,watching soccer,and joining the agitation against the neoliberalism or be active in implementing it.

Indonesia Islamism, terror,anti Christian ,anti western activities may have roots not in Koran but in something more concrete ,visible,but suppressed stories .Indonesia is not different from Egypt or Nigeria when the grounds are cleared ,the Islamic terrors and the reactive xenophobia might look exactly as lost identical twin with different parent of same clones made by capitalistic forces aligned with domestic and foreign religious forces .

This is from – http://www.counterpunch.org/2015/01/09/who-should-be-blamed-for-muslim-terrorism/
“In the 1950s and early 1960s, the US, Australia and the West in general, were increasingly ‘concerned’ about the progressive anti-imperialist and internationalist stand of President Sukarno, and about the increasing popularity of the Communist Party of Indonesia (PKI). But they were even more anxious about the enlightened, socialist and moderate Indonesian brand of Islam, which was clearly allying itself with Communist ideals.
Christian anti-Communist ideologues and ‘planners’, including the notorious Jesuit Joop Beek, infiltrated Indonesia. They set up clandestine organizations there, from ideological to paramilitary ones, helping the West to plan the coup that in and after 1965 took between 1 and 3 million human lives.
Shaped in the West, the extremely effective anti-Communist and anti-intellectual propaganda spread by Joop Beek and his cohorts also helped to brainwash many members of large Muslim organizations, propelling them into joining the killing of Leftists, immediately after the coup. Little did they know that Islam, not only Communism, was chosen as the main target of the pro-Western, Christian ‘fifth column’ inside Indonesia, or more precisely, the target was the left-leaning, liberal Islam.
After the 1965 coup, the Western-sponsored fascist dictator, General Suharto, used Joop Beek as his main advisor. He also relied on Beek’s ‘students’, ideologically. Economically, the regime related itself with mainly Christian business tycoons, including Liem Bian Kie.
In the most populous Muslim nation on earth, Indonesia, Muslims were sidelined, their ‘unreliable’ political parties banned during the dictatorship, and both the politics (covertly) and economy (overtly) fell under the strict control of Christian, pro-Western minority. To this day, this minority has its complex and venomous net of anti-Communist warriors, closely-knit business cartels and mafias, media and ‘educational outlets’ including private religious schools, as well as corrupt religious preachers (many played a role in the 1965 massacres), and other collaborators with both the local and global regime.
Indonesian Islam has been reduced to a silent majority, mostly poor and without any significant influence. It only makes international headlines when its frustrated white-robed militants go trashing bars, or when its extremists, many related to the Mujahedeen and the Soviet-Afghan War, go blowing up nightclubs, hotels or restaurants in Bali and Jakarta.
Former President of Indonesia and progressive Muslim cleric, Abdurrahman Wahid (forced out of office by the elites), once told me: “I know who blew up the Marriott Hotel in Jakarta. It was not an attack by the Islamists; it was done by the Indonesian secret services, in order to justify their existence and budget, and to please the West.”

“I would argue that western imperialism has not so much forged an alliance with radical factions, as created them”, I was told, in London, by my friend, and leading progressive Muslim intellectual, Ziauddin Sardar.
http://www.counterpunch.com
Andre Vltchek

Our elites accept attacks on civilians as a “cost of doing business” even attacks on civilians in their own countries. The big rhetoric is a way to suppress and prevent the public from speaking out for their own safety. That magazine endangered the whole neighborhood.

It would be interesting to hear more about that big rally in Paris and how it was organized. Was it an expression of hatred for Muslims living in France disguised as a rally for free speech and against terrorism? Marching for free speech and against terrorism isn’t going to stop anyone from doing what the perpetrators did so the rally was pointless in that regard.

Yes, anecdotes are wonderful. They can prove anything! It definitely puts the Turkish massacres of Armenians and Greeks into broader perspective: the Turks were helping the villagers with their terrible overcrowding.

If countries run by and for Muslims are so hospitable and friendly, then why are so many Muslims crossing deserts or crowding into leaky boats to avoid living in them? Muslim lands are failed or failing states showing the terminal effects of their fatalistic creed, cousin marriage and polygamy. They are low-trust, Big Man cultures and the immigrants bring their genetics and folkways into lands where they don’t fit and don’t belong. The inevitable conflicts are not the fault of the immigrants–they are what they are–but the fault of naïve idealists like Mr. Giraldi who seem to think borders are arbitrary and people are interchangeable cogs.

When the West finally heeds Pat Buchanan’s advice and the Great Disengagement from an increasingly chaotic, devolving Middle East, Mr. Giraldi will be in the vanguard of calling for the second wave of European and American colonialism.

I notice in the latest reports of the anti immigrant marches in Germany that the protesters have hired private security to march along side of them to prevent violence. Apparently, the guards came into play last night when counter protesters broke through police lines. The hired security persuaded the marchers to just keep moving.

This is an eerie bit of history repeating itself. My vague understanding is that the Nazi Brownshirts were first constituted to stop opposing political parties from breaking up political rallies. Not only does Hitler claim this but von Mises says the same thing.

“But the Xenophobes Have a Point”
Damn right they do. What is benefit of race or culture diversity?

Humans migrate around the world. That’s the history of humans. They bring their customs and religions and try to take over. Some religions die off and are replaced. Culture has changed so much in my own lifetime that I couldn’t say what it is that is supposed to be preserved at all cost.

I see a lot of media and politicians trying to incite hatred of the Islamic religion. I am skeptical that there is such a will to fight in the larger public or such great worry that a hundred years after we die the Muslim religion will be triumphant, though people might give that answer in a poll.

This article defending Islam reminds me of Mayor Marion Barry saying that Washington, D.C., had a low crime rate “except for the murders.”

No it isn’t. The PEGIDA marchers (some few aside) are not Nazis but ordinary people, currently subject to considerable bullying by the political establishment and the left generally. They are also at risk from Islamic extremists. Some security is a wise precaution. The brownshirts were formed as a street-fighting paramilitary army not only to counter the Communists who had similar forces but to exert political influence generally in favor of the Nazi cause, in greatly different times. And if wanted there is plenty of skinhead and soccer-hooligan neo-nazi muscle available even today without the need to resort to private security firms.

There is no comparison.

Thanks for that response to nothing in particular that anybody said. The big change in this natural-as-the-tides human migration you talk about is a welfare state and civil rights laws by which the immigrants can extract concessions from their hosts.

I’m not aware of anybody who actually “hates” Islam, well, other than Jews and their Christian Zionist useful idiots, and the Shia and Sunni who hate each other to a degree Westerners would not even be capable. The point which eludes you is that Islam is incompatible with Christendom, with classical liberalism and, ultimately, with secular democracy. Islam’s presence in the West is neither necessary nor desirable.

Mr Giraldi whilst I like some of your commentary you do seem to have a weak spot re Turkey, I seem to recall you even spoke in favor of its entry to the EU at one point. That would be a disaster for Europe in almost every way and must be strenuously opposed. Turkey is not and will never be a European country, even Ataturk could not bring it about, and his legacy is now crumbling in good measure. Its culture and politics are just not compatible, and Europe cannot remotely afford to have 70+ million more Turks able to move and settle freely within its borders, nor can the largest EU nation be a Muslim country geographically mostly in Asia. It would inevitably spell the end of European unity and identity, and open the door to even crazier admissions. If you support PB and favor secure US borders, you cannot at the same time support Turkish entry to the EU, except as a deliberate strategy to render it largely dysfunctional, an apparent US-UK aim. Turkey’s proper place is as the leader of the Turkic world, with links to both Europe and the Arab-Iranian world, but fully part of neither, and definitely not as a European nation.

What are you still hoping to find out from a “thorough review?”

I know quite a few Muslims whom I consider friends who drink alcohol and who have owned and loved dogs, so as is often the case what one sees written down in an alleged holy book is not necessarily what you get in real life.

I know quite a few “Muslims” of this type, some of them are one of my closest friends. These people are anything but Muslims, since reject Sharia. No Sharia, no Muslim. There is no Islam without Sharia. Majority (poll after poll) of at least ME Sunni Islam is very pro-Sharia and tacitly is very supportive of the so called “radicals”. It has to be clearly understood–while West may leave (as it should) any idea of the meddling, especially military, into the affairs of the Arab World–this will not bring peace and stability for the West.

CHRISTIANITY AND THEN ISLAM CAME FROM JUDAISM.
THE OLD TESTAMENT IS THE ROOT FROM WHICH ALL 3 VIOLENT ABRAHAMIC FAITHS SPRUNG.

SO LET US READ SOME FAMOUS QUOTES ABOUT THE OLD TESTAMENT:

“There is no text more barbaric than the Old Testament [i.e. Torah]. The Quran pales in comparison”–Sam Harris.

The 18th-century Anglo-American philosopher Thomas Paine wrote in The Age of Reason that “Whenever we read the obscene stories, the voluptuous debaucheries, the cruel and torturous executions, the unrelenting vindictiveness, with which more than half the Bible [i.e. the Old Testament] is filled, it would be more consistent that we called it the word of a demon, than the Word of God.” When he says Bible, Paine is referring to the OT.

“Biblical scholar Raymund Schwager has found in the Old Testament 600 passages of explicit violence, 1000 descriptive verses of God’s own violent actions of punishment, 100 passages where God expressly commands others to kill people. Apparently, violence is the most often mentioned activity in the Hebrew Bible.” (in the book: “The Destructive Power of Religion”, by Ellens).

All 3 Abrahamaic faiths (Judaism, Christianity, Islam) are tragedies derived from the African OT and do not belong in a civilized society.

There is an obvious comparison. Two political parties in one nation in different times arrange private security to shield themselves from the violent moral indignation of their political opponents. In the first case, that security developed into a paramilitary organization. In the second case, I would guess that the security firm employed is at least not opposed to the political stance of the protesters.

I would be interested to see any reference saying the brownshirts were instituted to commit offensive violence.

Maybe the Nazis, or whatever workers’ party proceeded it, started out as ordinary people, too. Maybe they always were.

The number of Muslims in the US more than doubled in the last decade; its the fastest growing religion in the US. Mosque parking lots are jam packed on Fridays. Theres a town near me in NJ that tried to stop a new Mosque and ended up forking over $7.5 million http://www.nj.com/somerset/index.ssf/2014/12/bridgewater_mosque_will_be_built_as_township_settles_suit_for_775_million.html

Europe has had a lot of Muslims coming in for a long time. Their numbers are increasing while European white birth rates are low.

One hundred years from now, Muslims may be in charge in the US and in Europe but we will be gone so why should we care? Whatever reason there is to resist is not worth risking my own eternal soul to kill Muslims or support killing Muslims. Obviously, very few Americans and western Europeans think it is worth risking their earthly lives.

There definitely has been a media/politician campaign to humiliate Muslims and incite hatred of Muslims and some portion of the public are really into for the sake of talk and changing their twitter image.

Maybe you should give some thought to the kind of country you are leaving your children and grandchildren, and your nieces and nephews.

If you really do not care whether your descendants get to enjoy the benefits of a majority white, Christian culture, then you need to absent yourself from these policy debates and passively creep along to your grave.

The majority of Muslims do not believe that Arabs did 9/11 per Pew Research http://blogs.vancouversun.com/2011/08/15/most-muslims-dont-believe-arabs-behind-911-attacks-poll/

Whether they are right or not, that’s what they think. That fact will never be allowed into the discussions about how everyone should lecture Muslims that they have to speak out against “Islamic radicalism,” of course, but it has to be an important fact.

Would you yourself kill even one innocent person for Christian culture? If so, you are no better than the Charlie killers, IMO, killing for ideology.

JUDAISTS WANT MORE 3RD WORLD IMMIGRATION, INCLUDING MUSLIM IMMIGRATION, INTO WHITE NATIONS.

THEY LOVE MUSLIMS, HATE CHRISTIANS, SURVEY PROVES.

80% of Judaists like Muslims and about 80% hate Christians (especially fundamentalists)
But the Christians love the Judaists, nonetheless!

This is according to research which the Jewish controlled MSM has covered up.

Here are the links:

A Prayer for 5772: “According to a Gallup poll released last month, 80% of American Jews have favorable views of American Muslims. Seventy percent believe that they are not supportive of al-Qaida. These data indicate that American Jews are second only to American Muslims in their support for Muslim Americans. Indeed 6% more American Jews than American Muslims believe that American Muslims face prejudice due to their religion.”

http://www.jpost.com/Opinion/Columnists/Article.aspx?id=239791

http://forward.com/articles/154727/jews-cast-wary-eye-on-evangelicals/

Jewish Mayor Bloomberg helped Muslims (who are the ones who carried out the 9/11 attacks) build a mosque on Ground Zero.

http://www.haaretz.com/news/international/ground-zero-mosque-imam-thanks-u-s-jews-for-support-1.305883?localLinksEnabled=false

Jews support Muslim asylum seekers (in Australia)

http://www.jta.org/news/article/2002/03/14/8651/AustralianJewsplan

They want more 3rd world immigration, including Muslim immigration to USA and Europe.

http://www.savethemales.ca/000164.html

A Jewish woman named Barbara Lerner Spectre wants more 3rd world aliens to invade Europe:

http://theshamecampaign.com/2014/09/09/zionist-barbara-lerner-spectre-calls-for-destruction-of-white-european-ethnic-societies/comment-page-1/

But they want all illegals deported from Israel and are building the world’s largest prison there–for illegals.
Ynet News: Islamization of Europe a good thing’

Rabbi Baruch Efrati believes Jews should ‘rejoice at the fact that Europe is paying for what it did to us for hundreds of years by losing its identity.’ He praises Islam for promoting modesty, respect for God

Published: 11.11.12, 13:52 / Israel Jewish Scene

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4299673,00.html

Now you know whey they are destroying America with the alien invasion from 3rd world, including Muslim, countries and their war on Christmas and making movies like “Good Christian Bitches” and emptying their bladder on Jesus (such as Larry David ).

And the gullible Christians think that these who are their biggest enemy and want to destroy our white countries through immigration and miscegenation are “God’s Chosen People”! And therein lies the root of the problem.

There are more than one billion Muslims and if they really were intent on killing all non-believers there would be a lot more carnage going on than the recent events in France.

There IS a lot more carnage going on than the recent events in France. The Western press took notice here because it involved members of the press (and Jews) in a Western country being murdered. But there are large parts of Africa and Asia (and, increasingly, of Europe) where Muslims are killing and intimidating non-Muslims on a daily basis. The ongoing destruction of Christian churches in mostly Muslim countries is a story which the Western press simply will not cover.

One hundred years from now, Muslims may be in charge in the US and in Europe but we will be gone so why should we care? Whatever reason there is to resist is not worth risking my own eternal soul to kill Muslims or support killing Muslims.

Really, that’s your argument? Would you be willing to resist if the Muslims told you to convert to Islam or die? Based on everything you’re written I gather that you’d willingly say “Praise Allah”, and then pat yourself on your back for what you see as your own enlightened attitude.

I live in Nova Scotia and the big scandal here, THE big news item day to day, is the story about Dental Students at Dalhousie University who expressed themselves a little too freely on a web site or Facebook page, some social media thing. They thought it funny to discuss among themselves the “hate fucking” of several particularly obnoxious female fellow students. So, on the one hand we have that story rolling on and on about how there should be strict limits on what anyone is permitted to say in public, and at the same time we have the leaders of the world gathering in Paris to tell us that anything goes, because the right to free speech is ultimate. There is a blatant contradiction between these two news stories, and the fact that they play constantly side by side like this makes it obvious that all that really matters is who it is that is being insulted. To insult women is the ultimate social correctness faux pas in the West right now, but going after Islam is OK, no holds barred there, for the American press leads the world in trashing Islam and urging the West to endless wars, so that Israel can drive out the Palestinians.

What we have here is a constant in what has come to be called “Western Civilisation,” the inability to carry ideas to any logical conclusion, the inability, perhaps from having been literate for such a short time, to think of the world as operating monotheistically, under one set of rules and laws. Instead these neo-Viking barbarians have a different logic and story to go with each new situation. For several centuries now they have believed that on the one hand the beginnings of their religion came from Moses coming down off the the mountain and laying down the law, while at the same time they now think that all those people dancing about the Golden Calf would have turned into a democracy and voted themselves proper laws if left to their own devices. Think of the hundreds of logical contradictions that have to be made if one is to accept at face value of the story of 11 September 2001, or the stories of all those Americans of the left taken out in short order, each by a crazy lone gunman with few friends or family.

We in the West we once enjoyed reading the paper, and now we watch the news in various ways, but it is rather silly to think that this participatory democracy business is real. In America a thug like Lyndon Johnson can murder the Kennedys and King with impunity, that is the reality. We are reading about all these events involving Islam now, because we have been programmed to do so. In Israel in the late 60s and 70s we talked all the time about how, once this sham cold war against the Communists played out, the Muslims would be set up as the next boogy man. We talked about this a lot, young people on the kibbutzim and excavation sites in the summer. The world of Islam was rolling along, hundreds of millions of people living in families putting little ultimate strain on the environment compared with the West, minding their own business and mostly allied with the West against the Communists. They were dragged into this confrontation and these wars intentionally for profit and political advantage, so that all those former apparatchiks from the old Soviet Union could retire to the Mediterranean and Jews from New York can have condos overlooking Jerusalem and the Dead Sea. Forty years ago we talked about this long into the night, religious students, mostly Jews but even some Christians and Muslims, we would talk of what could be done. What we could do knowing a generation ahead of the horrors to come, knowing our own people would be guilty.

“you are no better than the Charlie killers”.

A bit judgmental aren’t we? Oh, the horror. Are you female?

This whole Christian-Muslim-Clash-Of-Civilizations thing is starting to very much resemble the first five or ten years of the The Thirty Years War. Like that war, while nominally Christianity/Western Civilization vs. Islam, this also covers the issues of finance, political power, control of resources, and all the rest. Like the Thirty Years War, it’s much more than a simplistic Black Hat/White Hat narrative that most media outlets would have you accept.

The Thirty Years War devastated Central Europe and exhausted all parties, forcing them to the series of treaties collectively referred to as Peace of Westphalia. Even then there was an aftermath of mercenary armies roaming wild for years, something chronicled in those old woodcuts you might have seen of 20 bodies or so being hung from large trees as the various towns and cities fought back and killed any mercs they found.

Ultimately, though, its net result was the live and let live attitudes of Catholics and Protestants who decided that it was easier to just get along, something that continues to this day. (What religion is your next door neighbour, and do you even care?)

I’m curious as to where this will all be heading. And I’m curious as to how much wisdom the various parties involved will exhibit, thought I’m a bit dubious that there will be much of that.

I like reading history, but I don’t want to live it.

Just a thought.

VicB3

Next to the deaths themselves, the worst part of this is the propaganda that Zionism is reaping.

The Western world just falls further and further into Zionism’s victimization trap. The Zionists are working the Stockholm syndrome to the hilt. Western nations know that they are being used, abused, and terrorized – but fall right in line with the coercion.

We probably don’t know about 1% of the murdering that’s going on in the world.

The other day I had some back and forth with someone who claimed that the Muslim religion is the only one that’s bad, that Catholics, Hindus and Buddhists never kill for religion. I don’t know about Buddhists but I remember the IRA being a scourge for many years, blowing up Lord Mountbatten on his boat and planting bombs all over England. I remembered the antiSikh riots in India after the assassination of Indira Gandhi. Looked it up and 8,000 were killed, including 3,000 in Delhi alone. When I mentioned those, there was no response as the other person had no knowledge of them whatsoever, had only been told that Muslims are the kind of people who would do bad things.

Another one making the rounds is “Unlike Christianity, Islam features ongoing internal theological debate about righteousness of mass murder.” What is “Just War Theory” then? Not that it matters. The popes have been against lots of these recent wars but they’ll sit with any US president who shows up and they’ll smile for pictures.

I hate to join the bandwagon of haters, but to be honest I’d be more open to Muslims if I heard some of THEM saying “we don’t support the extremist fundamentalists.” But I don’t.

Well Hersh

If they are all the same, why don’t you move to one of those nice Muslim states like Egypt or say Saudi Arabia. I know you won’t you’re just posturing.

But you know the religions are not the same. Islam waged continual war against the West for a 1000 years and only stopped when they could no longer compete with Western scientific and military advances by the late 17th Century. Still they preyed on Westerners via piracy for two more centuries in the Mediterranean taking some several million Europeans as slaves over the course of 700 years.

Theologically Islam is the only religion that has injunctions in it’s central text (the Koran)for it’s adherents to wage war against unbelievers or at the minimum support those that do until they are either conquered, converted or killed. Even the greatest of their legal minds like El Ghazzali say as much well and promote jihad against unbelievers.

Oh yeah, you’re gonna trot out some quotes from the OT and the Levites saying they are the same. Well they are not. Nobody obeys those rules anymore and haven’t for a thousand years. It’s dead text. OTOH for Muslim’s their Koranic injunctions still hold true and are responsible for almost all the terrorism in the world. To them it’s permanent word of God.

Al-Qeada and bin Laden weren’t terrorists, they were simply traditional Muslims obey the black letter law of Islam. The same with the Muzzies who butchered Jews in Paris or that gang of Marxist low lives at Charlie Hedbo. They were doing what the prophet told them to do to those who mock their faith. They will also kill those who leave Islam. All derived from the Koran and associated texts.

As Bill Maher, Islam has more in common with the Mafia than anything else.

That’s Islam.

That mentality cannot be found in Catholicism, Protestantism, Taoism, Buddhism or Hinduism. It’s unique to Islam. And it has no tolerance for Western notions of secularism, freedom of speech, women’s rights, rights of minorities, freedom of leaving the faith, no use for music or arts at all, etc.

All of which religions like Buddhism, Catholicism, Taoism or Hinduism have no issue with. Fact is Catholics, Taoists and Hindus could peacefully live in a community. But traditional Muslims could not, oh at first they can, but as their numbers grow, so does their insularity, hostility and demands for the imposition of Shariah law. In Europe they create their own no-go zones where secular authority cannot go. The run these zones like it was some 7th century Muslim encampment.

Hersh The other day I had some back and forth with someone who claimed that the Muslim religion is the only one that’s bad, that Catholics, Hindus and Buddhists never kill for religion. I don’t know about Buddhists but I remember the IRA being a scourge for many years, blowing up Lord Mountbatten on his boat and planting bombs all over England.

That had nothing to do with religion. Your opinions would carry more weight if they occasionally were supported by facts. If Muslims want to wage war to free their countries from occupation by foreign powers, that’s one thing. But that’s not what is going on in Sweden, France, Denmark etc, and it is not what is going on in the persecution and murder of non-Muslims in Muslim countries.

Your dogged defense of some of the most repellent people in the world today makes you repulsive as well, and does not bode well for your “eternal soul” which you’re ostensibly so concerned about.

You still did not answer the question. Would you be willing to resist if the Muslims told you to convert to Islam or die?

The passage of the 1965 Immigration Reform Act set into motion the White Liberal Mega-CEO policy of economic violence and demographic violence against The Historic Native Born White American Majority. In 2014, these greedy cheating scummy creatures are very open and deliberate about their economic violence and demographic violence towards Whitey.

There are no economic,social,cultural,demographic,and…ecological reasons for importing highly racialized and high fertility Muslim Youths into the US. The Historic Native Born White American Majority did not give their consent to importing highly racialized and high fertility Muslim legal immigrant youth into the US, and having them voting enthusiastically on Nov 3 2016 to rapidly reduce The Historic Native Born White American Majority to a violently persecuted racial minority in post-white “US”.

9/11…the Fort Hood massacre…the Boston Bombing… are minor events compared to having 25….50…100 million…and still growing…size Muslim population in the US.

The Charlie Hebdo massacre will be used by The White Liberal Greedy Cheating Class and Zionist Supporters of Israel to 1)brutally suppress free speech(only free speech for Jews!!!!)…2)to massively increase the scale of Muslim Legal Immigrants in Europe and The US in the name of Tolerance!!!!…I wouldn’t be the least bit surprised if the Norwegian ad Swedish Goverments actively recruit Pakistani Muslims in Pakistan into the Norwegian and Swedish Militaries.

The Demographic Transformation of the US and Europe is being orchestrated by scummy Greedy Cheating Mega-CEOS and hyper-ethnic Jews in Europe and the US…the same two groups that want war with Conservative Orthodox Christian Russia.

Will there be another Commander Vitali Akhripov(who saved the Human Species from permanent extinction during the 1962 Cuban Missile Crisis)?

Here is how everyone should think about the current situation:1962+1965(Cuban Missile Crisis+the passage of the 1965 Immigration Reform Act)=2014=10…9…8…7….? will 0 be ever reached this time around?

I don’t believe in any of these superstitions as a rule but I do kind of like this Hadith of the prophet Muhammad POH of course .

“The Last Hour would not come unless the Muslims will fight against the Jews. The Jews would hide themselves behind a stone or a tree and a stone or a tree would say: ‘Muslim, or the servant of Allah, there is a Jew behind me; come and kill him;’ but the tree Gharqad would not say, for it is the tree of the Jews.”
Can we get in on this too even though we’re unbeliever”s ?

Tomorrow’s edition of the French far-right weekly newspaper, Minute will have on its cover a replica of the general mobilization poster of the First World War:
http://www.minute-hebdo.fr/kiosque/minute-2702-detail

They have modified the text to say:

General Mobilization Order

The Islamist enemy is within our wall. The have at their use a network, leadership, arms and munitions. In foreign countries they have available a command structure, training camps and support bases. THEY HAVE ALREADY KILLED ON OUR SOIL; THEY WILL KILL AGAIN.

The war which has begun will be long but we will win. We will win it physically, we will win it morally. France has need of all her men of fighting age, whatever their race or religion.

The first mobilization is January 7, 2015.

Meanwhile on the Socialist side A woman who’s the head of the current events department on one of France’s state-owned channels said “we must locate and treat all those who aren’t Charlie”. You can get a look at her on the right side of the screen: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qc03SlaK_KA
Video Link
She talks about how the police and intelligence services need to find out who didn’t march on the weekend, who refused to stand for a minute of silence in schools, who is making comments online and they need to be “integrated or reintigrated into the national community”.

There are no innocent Bourgeoisie .

Hersh-

What on earth does “killing one person for Christian culture” mean?

Can you give a concrete example?

“but I had to accept that the Turks’ simple faith had substantially driven their sense of charity towards strangers”

This is the same sort of behavior I would expect to see in any part of the rural United States.

Who is this Muslim who is going to tell me to convert or die? You are very paranoid. There is absolutely no chance of that happening to me or you.

The Charlie Hebdo/Jewish market perpetrators made political statements about current events. I haven’t heard anything they said about anything in the Koran. Did they say anything about something in the Koran? The IRA and Hindus referenced had/have a political allegiance to their religion(s) but that doesn’t mean that what they did represents their religion.

Do you really think that Muslims are “some of the most repellent people in the world today?” God forbid you get sick with some kind of cancer but just say you do for arguments sake, would you insist that no Muslim doctor treat or have contact with you?

mindful,
I asked AntiGnostic if he/she was willing to kill one innocent Muslim for Christian Culture because he/she addressed this to me “If you really do not care whether your descendants get to enjoy the benefits of a majority white, Christian culture . . .” I don’t know what he/she thinks I should do – kill some Muslims? Would he/she kill a Muslim for Christian Culture? It was an honest question to AntiGnostic.

Europe is struggling to define itself,achieve integration,root out antisemitism and promote values based on secularism.
But the fault lines are so obvious,the contradictions are so clearly set in stone inconsistencies are so pervasive that faith in these efforts by the state is less valid,less reliable,and less justified than in the power of thevillusory sky god.

There is an extant French Communist Party?

@bossel says,”…Judge Ferdinando Imposimato…seems completely delusional, anyway. He blaimed the NATO for the same thing before. He also believes that 9/11 was a false flag operation..”

Well it was a false flag. Building #7 fell at the same speed as a rock dropped in free air for around 108 feet. This is impossible. There’s always SOME resistance to a building falling. The free fall means there was none. They only way to almost simultaneously remove all support from ten stories all across the ten stories at the same time is some kind of demolition.

We also know Italy was attacked with false flag terrorist attacks during operation Gladio by NATO. That Israel was in on it would hardly be surprising. They probably thought it up.

You want to make things right in the US, France and the Western world? Deport the Jews first then deport the Muslims, aliens, etc.

Has there ever been any country or group of people who have had a long relationship with the Jews that did not end in tragedy for them? I can’t think of any. Even for the Jews themselves. Maybe there is some but I don’t know about them.

Free speech which Zionist/Jewish supremacist controlled France, Europe and the phoney Je Suis Charlies ban immediately:

https://prod01-cdn02.cdn.firstlook.org/wp-uploads/sites/1/2015/01/B60MfNeIgAAnudL-
540×272.png

https://prod01-cdn02.cdn.firstlook.org/wp-uploads/sites/1/2015/01/latuff2-
540×287.jpg

https://prod01-cdn03.cdn.firstlook.org/wp-uploads/sites/1/2015/01/salaita1-
540×381.gif

Phil –

What about this “Operation Gladio” that seems to be cropping up? Or are you allowed to say?

Entrapment seems to have become de rigueur in our homeland conspiracy indictments, but this seems to have taken that sort of thinking to another whole level – if true.

…Islam is incompatible with Christendom…

Orthodox Jews agree with that. Christians are idol-worshippers, they say, while Muslims are pious and God-fearing.

…with classical liberalism…

Classical Liberalism was a revolt AGAINST Christian totalitarianism!! Read your Voltaire once more Gnostic.

And what was Locke’s opinion on Catholics, BTW? Freedom of religion, anyone? Yup, so un-Islamic.

OTOH, I wonder why there was never an Enlightenment in your most beloved Orthodox cultural sphere? Hmm.

…with secular democracy…

You wrote this at your own site, dint ya?

And then you come here and shed some Crocodile’s Tears.

How many faces have you got Gnostic????

I agree abt the rural US . Also hospitality to strangers is a huge part of Muslim culture. When I was stationed in the ME it wasn’t unusual to have people invite me for “chai” after a small inconsequential interaction.

I spent a week in Damascus in the late 70’s. Across the street from my hotel was a man selling shawarmas from a cart. I would go out and get one every night. On the third night he insisted on my coming to his home nearby where his wife served us tea and some sweets. He left his cart unattended on the street by the way. Imagine that in a city in the US.
Again in Syria I took a taxi to Daraa to see the Crusader fortress built around a Roman theater , history is pretty thick on the ground there . Being the ME I shared the taxi with 4 strangers. One man insisted that I come to his home after I had seen the fortress . I did and enjoyed meeting his family they were very gracious . Just working people like me.
I suspect that a lot of the immigrants in Europe were “disenfranchised” where they came from.
International section 8’s.

Mr. Gottfried should be well aware that his co-ethnics in Zionist Occupied Palestine aka Israel, have consistently refused to recognize the Armenian Genocide as genocide, in order to placate their Turkish bedfellows.

For its philo-Semitism, the ZOG re-paid Turks with a stab in the back at the Gaza flotilla massacre (now conveniently re-named Gaza flotilla “raid” in Wikipedia by Zionist Hasbara trolls)

This stab in the back was not unlike the one ZOG gave their American benefactors aboard USS Liberty and, excuse me, World Trade Center.

Nor was this stab unlike the one that ZOG gave to the First German Reich as documented by Benjamin Freedman.

There is.

But hey, there also an American Communist Party 🙂

Now whether either of them are relevant in their national politics is another matter though.

To the extent the Communist bogeyman can, in this this day and age, be summoned to frighten and agitate the dumb Goyim, it is useful to the likes of Paul Gottfried Inc..

The real thing is that the descendants of those who ravaged Russia are running the show at Amerika.

Neocons changed Dictatorship of the Proletariat (for the good of Jews) to Freedom, Democracy and Women’s Rights (for the good of Jews).

Mr. Gottfried and his new breed of co-ethnics would want to change the paradigm again: Stop immigration to the West (for the good of Jews).

But he doesn’t want unsuspecting Goyim like you to know. So “Stalinists” serve as useful distractions.

From the ex employee of the magazine
“”Scarcely had I walked out, wearied by the dictatorial behaviour and corrupt promotion practices of the employer, than the Twin Towers fell and Caroline Fourest arrived in your editorial team. This double catastrophe set off a process of ideological reformatting which would drive off your former readers and attract new ones – a cleaner readership, more interested in a light-hearted version of the ‘war on terror’ than the soft anarchy of [cartoonist] Gébé.
“Little by little, the wholesale denunciation of ‘beards,’ veiled women and their imaginary accomplices became a central axis of your journalistic and satirical production. ‘Investigations’ began to appear which accepted the wildest rumors as fact, like the so-called infiltration of the League of Human Rights (LDH) or European Social Forum (FSE) by a horde of bloodthirsty Salafists. The new impulse underway required the magazine to renounce the unruly attitude which had been its backbone up to then, and to form alliances with the most corrupt figures of the intellectual jet-set, such as Bernard-Henri Lévy or Antoine Sfeir, cosignatories in Charlie Hebdo of a grotesque ‘Manifesto of the Twelve against the New Islamic Totalitarianism.’ Whoever could not see themselves in a worldview which opposed the civilized (Europeans) to obscurantists (Muslims) saw themselves quickly slapped with the label of ‘useful idiots’ or ‘Islamo-leftists.’”
http://posthypnotic.randomstatic.net/charliehebdo/Charlie_Hebdo_article%2011.htm
http://original.antiwar.com/justin/2015/01/13/the-sick-man-of-europe/

wrote:

I did and enjoyed meeting his family they were very gracious . Just working people like me.

This to me reflects the great bloody crime that, through the centuries, humanity has suffered from.

The average man or woman does not go about hating some others, is not inflamed with ideology or ambition, is far from insensible about the plight and suffering of others, and above all are not cynical about the Golden Rule knowing full well that what they push around today may well come back around to haunt them and their children and loved ones.

And so the vast bloody tragic history of humanity, and certainly our modern history, can be seen the product of a crazed and/or ambitious minority, seeing humanity not as a collection of mere and fragile individuals but instead as some near theoretical entity composed of near inanimate parts to be shoveled around and manipulated to effectuate or assuage their own ego-driven fantasies or maladjustments, or to be manipulated for their own need for attention or material gain.

Even though I know it’s hopeless this is lots why I am a (moderate) libertarian. There is just no escaping the dynamic that, by definition, power is what attracts such people the most. For the man or woman who wants to do good, there is of course no need for power, and this is what most sickens to hear our modern politicians talk about their commitment to “public service.” Should you really want to serve humanity there are an endless variety of ways to do so without obtaining the trappings of power they so obviously hunger for.

And just look how rare it is to find a person in power who doesn’t seem to relish using it. Invariably—I can only think of Eisenhower most recently—they are people who more by happenstance found themselves elevated to power, and had no untoward desire to go about shoveling people around to remake the world in their vision, nor any such abnormal hungering desire for great ego-stroking or wealth.

As many commentators have observed, Phil Geraldi’s experience in the Turkish outback isn’t rare. There have been people who have slung backpacks across their shoulders with little more than a few dollars in their pockets who have walked across the entire inhabited continents—continents entirely alien to their culture and religion and politics—finding welcome and food and shelter and help freely if not happily given all along the way. That is the real face of humanity.

Power is the problem. It is the aphrodisiac of the deformed and the greedy. And until we solve its problem in this regard we are going to continue to be its victims. Eighty to ninety percent of humanity, one suspects, the victims of the rest.

And by the way, I might add as an addendum to what I wrote above, if there’s anything that bothers me about a significant proportion of the commentary on this site of Mr. Unz’s it is the denial or forgetting of what I at least see and described above as the true, non-hostile face of humanity.

Just too much blithe talk of what … the “Chinese” are like, or “the arabs,” or “the jews,” or … whomever, with little or no appreciation of what I see as the fact that just as we have been victims of our own power-hungry minority, they too have been victims of theirs. And yet, rather amazingly, even for those who most vociferously reject and even hate what our power-hungry minority has done, and in no way would want to be associated with same, there seems no glimmer of hesitation in ascribing to other peoples the characteristics and attributes of their victimizers.

As I said above … regarding other collections of people as just some near inanimate theoretical entity or part.

I understand of course that a major meme here is the question of I.Q. and thus to a certain extent—a certainly valid extent—it involves talking of groups and etc., etc. But it seems to me we are a long way away from finding—or indeed even theorizing—there there lies some genetic predisposition toward the great, giant evil that I talked about above which is the love of power so rendering some particular group more guilty of its sins than any other.

And thus, while of course I have little hope to even be read by many much less to persuade, I at least would like to see a little more modesty here when talking about other peoples and their alleged foibles and failings. A somewhat corollary to the Golden Rule seems to me to be in play here to the point that … for every one that another group can be indicted for, there are no doubt ones that we are massively guilty of as well.

Generalities are of course necessary to speak of big things. But not least because when we speak of big things we ought to be careful to speak only in reasonable generalities, and even then out of intellectual responsibility with as much intellectual caution and modesty as possible.

Maybe indeed when we talk of the negative characteristics of other groups we really ought to be talking about the degree of victimhood they have experienced at the hand of their victimizers.

Hitler started out with the intent to capture state power in Germany and drive out the Communists and Jews. The SA was formed as the paramilitary muscle to enable this, followed by the SS. Yes ‘defense’ against Communist disruption especially was a part of this, but so was offense against political opponents, the brownshirts were often used to break up Communist meetings also, and dominate the streets generally, something envisaged from the start. To compare this to the hiring of a small number of private security guards by PEGIDA is just hyperbole of the sort all too common when it comes to the Nazis and comparisons with them. And the Nazis (and their predecessor party) started out as extremists with an extremist agenda, which from what I have seen of PEGIDA is not the case with them, though they are on the right.

As far as I am aware the attempt under Sarkozy to criminalize denial of the Armenian genocide, whilst passed by the French Parliament, was blocked by the Consitutional Council (or whatever it is called), and thus was not enacted. This was after a massive campaign of threats by Turkey. I remember following it with interest at the time. I’m not aware of any change under Hollande. So essentially only the Holocaust (and other Nazi-Fascist crimes) remain(s) protected by law, a very questionable state of affairs.

The difference with Islam is that the Koran, if read literally, sanctions the killing of non-Muslims, for the very reason that they are non-Muslim.

Admittedly, there are more moderate interpretations of the Koran, and those that follow them don’t sanction indiscriminate murder.

The problem seems to be that moderate Muslims seem to be particularly susceptible to being radicalized, under certain circumstances.

BBC recently produced a documentary on radical Islam in Britain, and how unhappy many moderate Muslims in England are with it. But the question remains why Islam over time has retained its militant character. And this is something that has been noted, not just recently, but by various intellectuals for hundreds of years. (deToqueville, Churchill, Belloc, and John Quincy Adams to name a few.)

Caution with respect to US immigration policy does not seem an unreasonable response to me.

Societies succeed because they’ve built up, usually over centuries, a widely accepted and practiced set of behaviors; social capital built up of predictable actions and attitudes and beliefs. The core of the culture.
Immigrants who do not have that ingrained culture are likely to be destructive of social capital and destructive to the host society. Despite the gibberish of the lunatic left most people recognize this and quite rightly reject the attempt to destroy their society in pursuit of a crazed political fantasy.

You don’t hear it because, of course, the corporate media don’t report it.
Nevertheless, it is said.

Is that really a surprise to you?

Your comment is pure -unrefined-the- eyes- glaze-over econometric policy wonk sewage. I don’t want them on US Soil because they are not my racial kind….this where the debate begins….and ends. Which is why I oppose importing Asians onto US soil for I do not want them voting my family and I into a racial minority on US soil on NOV 3 2016.

The highly racialized South Koreans in South Korea are not having an econometric Policy Wonk debate about whether or not they should be race-replace across South Korea.

mindful,
The 20th century was probably the bloodiest in history. Europe’s wars probably killed 100 million people.

Why did we invade Vietnam? Ideology. Why did we think our ideology justified killing innocents? A society that spends more than the whole world put together on military is not “militant?” And we use that stuff; it doesn’t just sit on shelves.

Beliefs justifying killing was not invented by Islam and has been practiced widely. Are you saying that Americans are OK with it IN DEFIANCE of their religion(s)? Maybe that’s true but Christianity being irrelevant to the beliefs of Christians isn’t an argument for the moral superiority of Christianity over Islam, is it?

I did not see the bbc program you mention. In my opinion, religion is solely about the struggle to have faith and be close to God. I think that a religious person sees that as entirely personal and having nothing to do with current events or political statements. People attend religious services for help keeping their faith, from a good sermon or from being in the company of others who have faith. We will all die; we all lose loved ones and want hope that we will see them again.

Our media wants to harangue and harass Muslims to condemn and otherwise make political statements, I know. Muslims probably shouldn’t talk to the media. Sometimes I’ll see an Imam on a news show and wonder why he’s doing it. Fox News has some regular Muslim-bashing Muslims and former Muslims. Theres a woman named Ayaan Hirsi Ali who is on Fox all the time and the Fox hosts are so upset that Brandeis University disinvited her to speak. Her whole shtik is that she is opposed to Islam and wants to get rid of it. Why did Brandeis invite her in the first place? Didn’t they know that intolerance of the religion of 1.7 billion people is what she is all about?

It is a surprise. Would you classify this site as a potential source?

My point though, is I hear celebrities, politicians, and (a few) journalists coming to the defense of the ‘kinder, gentler’ side of Islam, but I don’t hear any leaders from predominantly Islam countries making any kind of effort to explain how that train wreck of a religion got so out of control.

Hersh,

You may conceive of religion as a private matter, but Muslims and many Christians don’t. So it is probably best not to project your thinking onto them.

There is no question that the 20th century was very bloody, and that primarily Christian countries had much to do with that bloodshed. Whether those wars were justifiable in terms of faith is not something I wish to discuss here.

What I will say is that neither the first or second World Wars were fought based on extinguishing enemies because of the religion they professed. That is EXACTLY what radical Islam claims they are doing, and that it is justifiable because it is written in the Koran. And IT IS written in the Koran.

That you do not seem to understand the difference is troubling.

mindful,
Islam is not like the Catholic church. There is no official Islamic hierarchy ordering Muslims to war in the name of religion. Muslim countries go to war as nations just like we do and the Europeans do. Even “ISIS” claims to be a state.

The perpetrators in Paris did not cite the Koran. I heard Bob Baer (sp?) the former CIA guy who is on CNN often say that they seemed not to have knowledge of the Koran.

You don’t want to deal with the enormous slaughters perpetrated by Christians in the 20th and 21st century because it would get in the way of seeing Muslims as bad people. That’s troubling because its just mindless, mindful.

” So essentially only the Holocaust (and other Nazi-Fascist crimes) remain(s) protected by law, a very questionable state of affairs.”

Questionable, indeed.

Especially since the ‘6M & gas chambers” are easily debunked propaganda.
http://forum.codoh.com

Don’t die stupid.

Spot on, Unit 472; Why don’t those Iraqis, and Syrians, and Afghanis just stay in their own countries?

The Coalition of the Homicidal has gone to great pains to “kill them over there;” be so kind as to remain in the corral where we’ve penned you — where the CoH has destroyed Muslim cities, cultural legacy, homes, businesses, fields, customs, neighborhoods, families, communities and way of life in ways that will take generations to rebuild.

And another thing, Unit 472: Why aren’t these Muslims eager to share in the rebuilding? Look at the opportunity they’ve been given! Tikun Olam y’all; Repair the world! The CoH has done it’s bit in the creative-destruction paradigm; it destroyed your world. Now, Go forth and Build — we’ll sell you the materials, even loan you the dollars, provided you build according to our plans.

Exec. summary in case you missed the point, 472: Why do you think all those Muslims are fleeing the lands, homes and families that had been their world for all their lives? Do you suppose bungie jumping has become passé and they’re in pursuit of a new high that can be satisfied only by transiting the Mediterranean in a crowded, treacherous ship that they boarded at the cost of their life’s savings?

Or can you contemplate that they are really refugees from acts of aggression and devastation that are approaching continent-wide proportions?

mindful wrote,

“What I will say is that neither the first or second World Wars were fought based on extinguishing enemies because of the religion they professed.”

Somebody should have explained that to Winston Churchill before he made this speech that was broadcast on the BBC on 18 June, 1940:

“The Battle of France is over. The Battle of Britain is about to begin. Upon this battle depends the survival of Christian civilization…
Cold fury and might of the enemy must very soon be turned on us. Hitler knows that he will have to break us * in this island or lose the war…**
Let us therefore brace ourselves to our duty, and so bear ourselves that, if the British Empire and its Commonwealth lasts for a thousand years,*** men will still say, ‘This was their finest hour’.”

[nb. * Another of Churchill’s rhetorical misapprehensions of reality: Hitler said repeatedly that he sought friendship with Britain, not to “break” the British in their island. Herbert Hoover tried valiantly to warn the British — and FDR and the French — that Germany had no designs on Western Europe, and that they would bring grievous harm upon themselves if they entangled themselves in what was, in fact, a conflict between Germany and its Eastern neighbors. See “Freedom Betrayed,” by Herbert Hoover.

** The “failure” to break the British in their island was not what brought about the defeat of Germany.

*** The British empire not only did not last “for a thousand years,” it failed within a decade of Churchill’s speechifying. Hoover was right.]

What is the difference between the Muslims in the US and in Europe, the same as the difference in Mexicans in the US in the 1970s and today – critical mass. It applies to people as well as uranium. When they become numerous past a certain point the criminals and holy warriors who are secretly supported but publicly denounced by their group have so many places to hide that they can carry out their criminal enterprises or attacks on the native population.

Good luck if you want to defend Hitler.

Great Britain did not enter into war with Hitler, or with Nazi Germany because of differences over religion.

Hitler and his minions were a source of unspeakable evil that could have threatened not just Christendom, but much of humanity.

Do you think that evil is only a religious concept? Or that a totalitarian ideology is equivalent to a religion?

And quoting Herbert Hoover does little for your argument.

mindful,

Thanks for contributing to the essay I would write if I could write as cogently as many on this Unz forum.

The title of the essay that I would write would be, “Hitler Derangement Syndrome (HDS) ™ and Its Implications for US Foreign Policy Today.”

As R H S Stolfi assessed in “Hitler: Beyond Evil and Tyranny,” the standard biographies of Hitler — by Kershaw, Bullock, Fest and a few others — present Hitler much as you did, as a caricature, a hollow shell, a “source of unspeakable evil” devoid of context or basic human characteristics.

The abstract, hollow shell approach is prevalent, in fact, dominant. Just the other day Texas Republican congressman Randy Weber felt the need to apologize for including “Obama” and “Hitler” in the same Tweet. Weber’s congressional office said —

It was not my intention to trivialize the Holocaust nor to compare the President to Adolf Hitler. The mention of Hitler was meant to represent the face of evil that still exists in the world today. I now realize that the use of Hitler invokes pain and emotional trauma for those affected by the atrocities of the Holocaust and victims of anti-Semitism and hate.

Did it occur to Rep. Weber that Muslims have endured a century of “pain and emotional trauma” due to the “atrocities” of the forcible dismemberment of the Ottoman empire;
~the artificial re-definition of its member states;
~Woodrow Wilson’s betrayal of the promise of self-determination of those Arab states;
~the exploitation of Arab and Muslim (i.e. Iranian) resources for the benefit of western powers;
~the overthrow of governments chosen by the Populace in those states;
~the starvation deaths of a million Iraqis, half of them children (“worth the price” per Madeleine Albright);
~the incitement of war between Iraq and Iran by western powers for the interests of western, and Israeli, powers, a war that cost a million lives and in which proscribed weapons — chemical weapons — were used on Iranian civilians, with US complicity;
~the invasion of Afghanistan for the crime of providing “training grounds” for Saudi Arabian nationals who allegedly flew two planes and demolished three towers in New York City, leaving behind in the micro-dust and rubble only their undamaged passports;
~the invasion of Iraq (see ‘invasion of Afghanistan, above’);
~the total destruction of Iraqi infrastructure, patterns of agriculture, communities, culture, families, etc., all because “Saddam is as evil as Hitler;”
~the total destruction of Libya’s systems of governance, communities, economy, culture, families, etc., all because “Qaddafi is as evil as Hitler;”
~the destruction of Syrian infrastructure, communities, cities, culture, families, etc., all because “Assad is as evil as Hitler;”
~the planned and longed-for destruction of Iran’s economy, assassination of its young nuclear scientists, subversion of its political and cultural institutions, etc., all because “Ahmadinejad is as evil as Hitler.”

If just one of these characters is NOT “evil as Hitler,” then what does that tell us about the formula? Take Ahmadinejad, for example — During Ahmadinejad’s tenure Iran invaded no country, built no gas chambers, sent no Jews to concentration camps. He’s no longer in power, yet the US Congress, led by the nose by Israeli advocates, is preparing to impose even harsher sanctions on Iran.
If Ahmadinejad does not equal Hitler, then is the entire formula bogus? Does Hitler himself not equal Hitler?

When facts, context, and evidence are erased from the analysis of why Germany took the actions it did in the first half of the 20th century the analysis cannot help but be distorted, and wrong.

For example, most histories of World War I give scant notice to the fact that 800,000 German civilians died of starvation, deliberately imposed by Allies. Proportionally, that’s about the 3.5 million Americans, or somewhere between the population of Chicago and Los Angeles. If the entire population of Chicago were wiped out by starvation, do you think the rest of the American people, and their leadership, would remain complacent?

Very few histories discuss the fact that tens of thousands of Russian and Polish Jews flocked to impoverished Germany in the inter-war period, further strangling its economy and sending unemployment soaring. Americans struggling with matters of immigration to the USA might find this fact of particular salience.

—

The biggest problem I would attempt to explain about HDS™ is that it is meaningless; it is devoid of facts, context, evidence, and rationality — all of the elements necessary to provide sufficient information to perform meaningful analysis.

Rather, “Hitler was a source of unspeakable evil” appeals solely to emotion, demonization and hate; it is the one-size fits all term that turns another human being, or an entire population, into The Other.

—
A few years ago Dr. Sanho Tree talked about the “conditioning required to induce young men to kill another human being.” Killing another human being is not a natural act, Tree said; the killer must be made to perceive that the victim of his/her act of killing is NOT a human being but an Other; an entity devoid of human characteristics and qualities. An abstraction. “The embodiment of evil.” A Hitler.

—

When I was a pre-teen I memorized this passage from Merchant of Venice:

Shylock:
I am a Jew. Hath not a Jew eyes? Hath not a Jew hands,
organs, dimensions, senses, affections, passions; fed with the same
food, hurt with the same weapons, subject to the same diseases,
heal’d by the same means, warm’d and cool’d by the same winter
and summer, as a Christian is? If you prick us, do we not bleed? If
you tickle us, do we not laugh? If you poison us, do we not die?
And if you wrong us, do we not revenge? If we are like you in the
rest, we will resemble you in that.

The Merchant Of Venice Act 3, scene 1, 58–68

I was enthralled by the algebra of the poetry: for “Jew,” one could substitute any “X” and the equation would remain true: “I am a Muslim;” “I am an Arab;” “I am a Palestinian;” “I am a German;” “I am a Syrian, Libyan, Iraqi, Catholic, Protestant, Hindu, Zoroastrian — ”

There is no category of human being that does not fit the “I am a _____ ” formula.

There IS no Other in the human family.
As Dr. Tree said, it takes a massive amount of hate-induced conditioning to create an Other, in order to Kill another human being.

—

One of the most intriguing aspects of Lynn Olson’s book, “Those Angry Days,” about the pre-WWII process of “educating” the American public to engage in war against Germany, was the seamless nature of the propaganda about Germany begun in 1933, and the ‘history’ of World War II that we read today — even in your post. It’s all the same narrative, and the fact than any other narrative is strictly verboten (see Randy Weber) suggests that the necessity of keeping some inconvenient truths rigorously sealed behind closed doors approaches the desperate. If the narrative is so slam-dunk true, why the restrains on investigating it?

If we really mean Never Again when we say Never Again, then we damn well better figure out exactly what occurred in the first instance.

The fact that, as the above list of Hitler look-alikes demonstrates, we keep repeating the pattern of demonization and conditioning to hate, suggests that we have failed utterly to confront our own evil acts in favor of locating all “evil” in some long-dead abstraction. Do we project onto “Hitler = evil” our own terror that if we take a brutally clear-eyed look around the world at the effects of US/Western/zionist intervention we will be confronted with decades in time and millions in lives that give evidence that we have failed, epically, criminally, in the task of learning history in order not to repeat it.

Je suis Hitler.

That’s why I think that it is the obligation of every citizen of the world to learn about “Hitler,” on his own terms, as R H S Stolfi attempted to do in his book.

—

re “quoting Herbert Hoover does little for your argument.”

mindful, you have not made an argument, merely a string of assertions.

Hoover, on the other hand, spent months traveling in Europe, talking with the leaders of states, diplomats, and decision-makers. He spent almost an hour talking with privately and face-to-face with Hitler and Goering. He met frequently with Chamberlain as well as key decision-makers in US government.

Perhaps you have more information about the facts on the ground at the time than did Hoover. If so, I’m all ears; let’s hear it.

But I don’t need to rely on Hoover’s 700+ page memoir to sustain my claim that “Hoover was right” that if Britain engaged in war with Germany it would destroy its empire:
The British empire is no more.
Hoover was right.

Germany did not destroy the British empire, Churchill destroyed the British empire by provoking an unnecessary war with Germany.

Dear Jonnie,

If you’re convinced of your position, then you really should debate someone knowledgeable in the field in a forum not controlled by — well, you know, yourself.

Again: How do we know it’s you who moderates the CODOH forum?

http://codoh.com/media/files/documents/newsite/sr/online/sr_183.pdf

Cheers.

I think this was satire right?

Here is some more.

They sound wonderful. Let’s all roll out the welcome mat, throw open wide the doors to our country and welcome them in. We are already living amongst those terrible Christian and Jewish murders. Why just yesterday there was some Christian who went and gunned down his Muslim neighbor just because that Muslim didn’t like the Christian’s dog.

It sounds like you are in bad need of a history lesson. Vox Day as a good book with all the historical facts already crunched for th simple minded including the referrences. The name of the book is The Irrational Athiest.

May I point out that no where in your diatribe have you proved that World War II was fought for religious reasons? A religious war is generally defined as one that identifies an enemy based upon the God and/or religious doctrines of a particular people.

You will notice that I did not try to defend either World War I or the latest US misadventures in the Mideast. There was a reason for the that.

But neither of those wars were fought for religious reasons either, even though some may misconstrue Bush’s aggressions as such.

Also, if you read my comments on this thread, you will see that I never advocated military action against Islamic fundamentalists. Indeed, in most circumstances, I think this will aggravate the problem.

What I did say is that I believe the US should take a cautious approach with respect to Islamic immigration into this country. The facts warrant it.

But since you apparently feel that Hitler has been unfairly treated by posterity, I will leave you this from a review of Hoover’s book on WWII:

Hoover was unequivocally anti-fascist. He called Hitler “a consummate egoist, the incarnation of the hates of a defeated nation, cunning, intent on conquest, without conscience or compassion.” He called Nazism a “gigantic spartanism” and “a sort of mysticism based on theories of racialism and nationalism.” He was pro-British as well. Nevertheless, he took the position that America joining the war against Germany “was never necessary in order to save Britain.”

How did he arrive at that counterintuitive conclusion? On June 23, 1941, Hitler attacked the Soviet Union. Hoover was certain the Germans hadn’t enough men and arms to fight successfully on two fronts at the same time. That meant that the pressure on Britain would abate, that Britain, as Hoover wrote, had been made “safe from defeat.”

Hoover also believed that with Hitler’s invasion of Russia, “the two dictators of the world’s two great aggressor nations were locked in a death struggle. If left alone, these evil spirits were destined, sooner or later, to exhaust each other.” That, he maintained, is what Roosevelt should have allowed to happen.

In a speech that was radio-broadcast nationally on June 29, Hoover reminded listeners that less than “two years ago, Stalin entered into an agreement with Hitler through which there should be joint onslaught on the democracies of the world. Nine days later Stalin attacked the Poles jointly with Hitler and destroyed the freedom of a great and democratic people. Fourteen days later Stalin destroyed the independence of democratic Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia. Ninety days later on came the unprovoked attack by Russia on democratic Finland.”

To ignore this record and treat Stalin as an ally, Hoover argued, could only lead to one outcome: tightening “the grip of communism on Russia, the enslavement of nations, and more opportunity for it to extend in the world. . . . To align American ideals alongside Stalin will be as great a violation of everything American as to align ourselves with Hitler.” Roosevelt’s errors, in Hoover’s view, were compounded by the concessions Roosevelt made to Stalin at Tehran and Yalta.

The flaw in Hoover’s argument, it seems to me: Hitler turned his weapons east rather than west not because he was more covetous of Stalingrad than of London, and not only because there was more Lebensraum, “living space,” in Eurasia than in the British Isles. Rather, Hitler desperately needed oil for his tanks, ships, and planes. Oil was abundant in Soviet Central Asia — not in England, Scotland, and Wales. Had Hitler succeeded in capturing Baku, the heart of the Soviet oil industry, he would have become stronger than ever — and then, undoubtedly, he would have turned his aggressive attentions to Britain and the Americas.

http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/315958/herbert-hoover-s-lessons-clifford-d-may

“The example of the United States, where Muslims have been well above the national average in both education and income and far below average in criminal behavior, provides a somewhat different perspective.”

Perhaps those differences are related to relative population size. There are far more Muslims as a percentage of the population in France than there are Muslims as a percentage of the US population. Group dynamics may have something to do with this, so I’m not sure that is a fair comparison. When the US has an equal percentage of Muslims descended from Middle Eastern and African immigrants as France does, then a better comparison can be made.

I would also guess that geography plays a role. With Europe being situated above north Africa, I would suspect that they get a higher proportion of dangerous-type Muslims than the US does.

I have a question for the author. Is it really xenophobic to have an aversion to public beheadings, or 4th-century laws for half the world’s population?

mindful —

“A religious war is generally defined as one that identifies an enemy based upon the God and/or religious doctrines of a particular people.”

Indeed.
Churchill claimed he would vanquish Germany in order to save “Christian civilization.”
The implication is that Germany would destroy “Christian civilization.”
I don’t see how Churchill’s rhetoric can be characterized as anything but an appeal to religious motivation. I don’t believe for a moment that Churchill gave a fig about “Christianity,” but he did know that war needs a good dose of religious fervor to grease it along its skids.

Susannah Heschel’s book, “The Aryan Jesus: Christian Theologians and the Bible in Nazi Germany,” confounds Churchill’s implicit claim that Germany sought to “destroy Christianity.” The introduction to “Aryan Jesus” states that —

Most members of the Institute, particularly its academic director, Walter Grundmann, professor of New Testament at the University of Jena, regarded their work as being in the theological avant-garde, addressing and resolving a problem that had long plagued Christian theology: how to establish clear and distinct boundaries between earliest Christianity and Judaism and eliminate all traces of Jewish influence from contemporary Christian theology and religious practice. As a predominantly younger generation of scholars, trained by Germany’s leading scholars of early Christianity—many members of the Institute were students of the distinguished Tübingen professor, Gerhard Kittel, himself a Nazi who produced antisemitic propaganda1—they saw themselves able to recover the historically genuine, non-Jewish Jesus and a Christian message compatible with contemporary German identity. Theirs was a goal of purification, authenticity, and theological revolution, all in the name of historical-critical methods and commitment to Germanness, to be achieved by eradicating the Jewish from the Christian.

Heschel is a passionate zionist, and a Jew.

It’s puzzling to me why she would be concerned that a group of Christian scholars would seek to distinguish their beliefs from Jewish beliefs. They are, after all, radically different. Jews consider that they, and only they, were present at Mt. Sinai where god chose them to be his singular, “particularist” people. The message of Jesus was more universalist — that all people are the children of god. Surely Jews are averse to incorporating that belief of Jesus into their belief system.

But the post-war hyphenation of Judeo- and -Christianity has served to, first, muddle, then obliterate the distinct differences between Judaism and Christianity. Today we hear ‘Christian’ leaders demanding that this, that or the other entire population of people be wiped out, killed, strangled, starved — see, for example, Hurting, Hanging, Suffocating & Starving: The Inhumanity of Iran Threat Rhetoric by Nima Shirazi. I grew up in a Catholic tradition which, at least in the old days, was based more on doctrine than on bible literacy, so I may have missed those portions in the New Testament where Jesus urged his followers to deal with problems by killing large populations. But today, after half-a-century of a hyphenated god, the vengeful god of the Old Testament has overtaken the message of Jesus that one “forgive his enemy seven times seven,” and “turn the other cheek.” Michael Ledeen revels in his inclusion in the “tribe of Levi” that was, he says, tasked by Moses to slaughter those Jews who worshiped the golden calf, and later, to slaughter Jews who preferred to return to Egypt rather than face the well-fortified towns in Canaan that god had instructed them to take for themselves. ( see http://www.c-span.org/video/?123852-1/book-discussion-machiavelli-modern-leadership )

Heschel argues that Grundmann’s work was hand-in-glove with the goal of “Nazism” to “carry out the genocide of the Jewish people,” partnering with NSDAP in “the struggle against the Jews, who were said to be seeking Germany’s destruction.”

I disagree.
First of all, the NSDAP was fairly well disciplined in not showing favoritism to any sect or denomination or reformulation of Christianity. In Mein Kampf, Hitler observed that Bismarck had made a mistake in pitting Protestants against Catholics; it divided the German people, a disunity that Hitler sought to avoid. Hitler sought to unite the German people around German culture. Stolfi suggests that among the sources for these Germanic values was opera, including but not exclusively the works of Richard Wagner. Hitler had developed expertise in European opera. Wagner’s work is based upon German mythologies, just as much of the Old Testament is based on Mesopotamian mythologies and most of Greek and derivative Roman beliefs are based on Greek myths.

Regarding Heschel’s other claims, I’m going to go out on a limb here and state some truisms that are almost entirely elided by the dogmatized narrative of holocaust and World War II: there is far more evidence that the German people were deliberately targeted for destruction, and that that destruction was intentionally planned and carried out, with full participation of Jewish leaders as well as other non-Jews in England and the United States, than there is evidence that the NSDAP planned or carried out a deliberate program for the destruction of the Jewish people.

Heschel engages in some gobble-de-gook claims about biological racism in Germany.
a. So much foolish propaganda has been pumped out about the “Aryan master race” that it’s hard to know what to believe.
b. In “Arthur Ruppin and the Production of Hebrew Culture in Palestine,” Etan Bloom’s PhD dissertation at Tel Aviv University, Bloom discloses that Ruppin was an award-winning eugenicist who applied his knowledge to selection and creation of the “New Jew”. Ruppin’s recipe for the appropriate “human material” to settle the nascent Jewish state in Palestine favored German Jews (Ruppin was born and educated in Germany) but shared Vladimir Jabotinsky’s disgust with East European Jews, especially their very poor habits of hygiene.
c. Perhaps I’ve not looked hard enough: I’ve never seen a study of, for example, Italian DNA, or even German DNA, but numerous Jewish groups are obsessed with tracing the presence of Jewish DNA across Jewish groups who have dwelt in disparate nations.
In short, Heschel’s claims ring hollow.

Regarding Hoover — I grant that Hoover had little good to say about Hitler, beyond congratulating him for providing vastly improved housing for Germany’s working class.

I suppose we could engage in a battle of the quoted passages of Hoover’s thoughts on Germany and NSDAP. Without the book in front of me at the moment, I rely on memory for this overall sense of Hoover’s position, derived from his 1938 travels in Europe and especially in Germany:

1. Hitler had three “idees fixes” —
-to reverse the intrusive terms of Versailles treaties;
-to expand Germany’s physical resources by moving into Russia or the Balkans;
-to vanquish Russian Bolshevism;

(It’s worth noting that much of the western world agreed that the Versailles treaty was egregiously misconceived and would inevitably lead to further conflict — i.e. John Maynard Keynes, “The Economic Consequences of the Peace” http://www.econlib.org/library/YPDBooks/Keynes/kynsCP.html ; and that Woodrow Wilson and, later, Churchill sought to destroy Russian Bolshevism — see, for example, “When the United States Invaded Russia: Woodrow Wilson’s Siberian Disaster,” by Carl J. Richard.) http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/15872508-when-the-united-states-invaded-russia

2. Hoover’s larger battle, in “Freedom Betrayed,” was with FDR and his administration. Hoover maintained the conviction that Hitler’s vision was eastward, not directed toward western Europe. ( Gerd Schultze-Rhonhof’s work, “1939 – The War That Had Many Fathers,” http://www.amazon.com/1939-The-That-Many-Fathers/dp/144668623X supports this thesis. ) If France and England stayed out of the conflict and allowed Hitler and Stalin to battle each other to exhaustion, “there would emerge a century of peace.”

Douglas,
If your book has a point worth telling me, you should write it out here.

PS. Afraid I couldn’t trust anything Clifford May wrote.

The entire problem with literature on Hitler, Nazis and WWII is that it is written from one side only. With very, very few exceptions, the German side of the story has not been told. That research and literature that attempts to find information from a different point of view, such as the work of David Irving or of Gerd Schultze-Rhonhof, is marginalized (Schultze-Rhonhof) if not outright demonized, banned, punished, etc., as happened to Irving.

Mark Weber and other researchers and writers at CODOH do very good work and endure a heap of hurt for their troubles.

Clifford May pumps out hate literature and laughs all the way to the bank with the proceeds. Crime pays.

(Once again, working from memory, not the text in front of me) iirc in the first paragraphs of “Rise and Fall of the Third Reich,” Shirer states that, unique in any event in modern history, a vast cache of German documents was acquired by the Allies and stored in a warehouse in Northern Virginia. In the early 1950s the cache was copied by members of the American Historical Society (???) and the originals returned to Germany. Those documents were the source for Shirer’s benchmark history of WWII/Germany. Shirer reported from Germany for several years but left by 1940.

The skeptic in me sees a lot of problems with this scenario: How can anyone possibly rely on the veracity of what was copied and what was returned to Germany?

Leaving aside the fact that Mexicans have been here at least 40,000 years to Anglos’ 400,

” When they become numerous past a certain point the criminals and holy warriors who are secretly supported but publicly denounced by their group have so many places to hide that they can carry out their criminal enterprises or attacks on the native population,”

… that is pretty much what happened to Native Americans. Those who accuse others, are the most likely to be guilty, themselves.

“Toe-curling diplomacy: US woos France with hugs, kisses and a VERY awkward rendition of ‘You’ve Got a Friend’ by James Taylor to make up for snubbing terror march” http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2913072/US-Secretary-State-John-Kerry-visits-Paris-terror-attacks.html

Maybe we’ll send more music acts. Our symphony toured Europe before it went broke and now if we fill the local hall with people it’s an event. We had a large group of the occupy crazies camped at the bank before the subzero temps. The pols like it where it’s hot. Cold France in Jan.? NYC marches have died down. Florida full of stoners and illegals and with the new Cuba peace at last maybe all the we are worlders can meet there to summit and sun for a more just world on the public dime. Send congressional research staff and create presidential commissions. Europe? We wrecked the place. We wrecked our economy wrecking the place. Now we show up with showmen and snowmen are banned along with cartoons. Send showgirls who are out of work in bankrupt Atlantic City! Baby boom is a bust and we saved millions on missing the march.

Fran start by not making up stuff. There was NO human existence in the Americas 40,000 years ago. There is no evidence for anything beyond about 12,000 years. Now if you want to talk about the American Indians, that is a different situation. The Anglos came in as conquerors and were not invited in as “immigrants” who later tried to force their culture on far more numerous Indians who didn’t want it. Try to have the correct analogy.

Now to be accurate the closest “Anglo” comparison would be Texas. The Mexican government wanted to populate Texas but could not get Mexicans to live there and would not give citizenship to the native Comanche Indians (probably due to the racist nature of Mexicans) so opened the place up to Anglos if they pledged fealty to Mexico, learned Spanish, and converted to Catholicism. Obviously, as more Anglos moved in (many illegally) they decided they wanted the place for themselves. However, they needed an excuse to break away and Santa Ana gave it to them when he abrogated the Mexican Constitution. Many of the states of Mexico revolted. Only Texas prevailed.

Once they were independent, they asked for and we annexed them. This ultimately led to the War of Mexican Cession over a border dispute. The Mexican government had a larger European trained army and actually wanted that war (in spite of all the lies about how we stole the land) thinking after they won they would get Texas and a big chunk of Lousianna for their trouble.

Actually in 1939 Britain (under Chamberlain) entered war with Germany because Germany invaded Britain’s new ally Poland, which had its own territorial disputes with (and aims against) Germany. It was nothing to do with “unspeakable evil”, which at that point had hardly occurred, except in places like the USSR and the colonial empires of the western powers and Italy. The British decision was based on the old balance of power policy and realpolitik, the religious etc rhetoric came later under Churchill, and was selectively applied by him to Germany (and occasionally Italy) in Europe, and Japan in Asia. Hitler in fact had long wanted and continued to want an alliance with Britain, which however preferred to play its old game. But morality had very little to do with it, as proven amongst other things by the lack of serious British opposition to aggressions by Italy, Japan, the USSR, and others, until they impinged directly on British interests that is.

Hitler was clear all along, from the 20’s to the 40’s, that he sought expansion in the east, in alliance with Britain and Italy. He admired the British and wanted their alliance, and refrained on several occasions from doing them the damage he could have without much difficulty, saying he thought the Empire was too important to be destroyed. He did not need much oil to fight the British, and could have gotten theirs by a strong push through Suez, of the sort he did not attempt with Rommel and a few divisions only to prop up the Italians. Read Mein Kampf for an early version of his aims, which never much changed, except for a temporary alliance with Stalin. He hoped for few things more than for the British to accept his empire in the east as he accepted theirs in India etc. He was still seeking peace with them in May 1941. America was not of much significance to him, and he only declared war to keep Japan as an ally and because Roosevelt was pushing for it anyway, and to give his U-boots free reign against Allied shipping which was supplying Britain against him.

…that is a different situation. The Anglos came in as conquerors and were not invited in as “immigrants”…

That doesn’t stop that repugnant English “immigrant” (or whatever you would rather call him, given his racial affiliation) from blabbering about “invaders”.

have you visited any of the so called no go zones. these are just slums where gangs of muslim thugs calling shots and dealing drugs not enforcing sharia. this is no different that the brazilian barios. buddist mobs under the command of buddist monks have killed muslims recently in myanmar and srilanka. in the uk muslims are living side by side their christian neighbors without much hastle where as in cities like barmingham with 20% muslim population there would be massive uprising by the muslims calling for sharia law or atleast pocket zones where sharia police roaming the city blocks under their command based on your estimation. yet now there are only idiots calling for sharia laws to be implemented within uk who are despised by their own community but given air time because of their shock value. read the original materials instead of looking at excerpts and regurgitating them with abandon.

Perhaps if we Westerners hadn’t made the Middle East such a miserable place to reside, these people would not have emigrated. As for nations like France and the UK—who COLONIZED Arab countries—why was it acceptable for them to do so, trying to impose THEIR way of life on the locals, while they now object to these people moving to their own countries? Sheer, utter, and stinking-to-high-heaven hypocrisy.

a.z., you used “sharia” four times.

Exactly what do you mean by “sharia” / “sharia law”?

Define it with some precision, please, so we can understand what you are saying.

I have a very illiberal view of who gets to use Free Speech, as well as the other Liberties developed by White Men and nobody else. These liberties go way back…to Greco-Roman times, and to Germanic tribes living in the forests of N Europe, and so on.

Free Speech is a White Invention. No other race has invented it. What they do is abuse it. Use it. Assault it. This also goes for Jews, who never invented it either. When we were cultivating and improving it, the Jews were still in their ghettoes, where they wanted to stay, but Napoleon forced them out. Since, then it has been nothing but abuse of Free Speech by Jew, and other non-Whites.

Very simple. Your genetically determined predisposition/temperment produces Free Speech. Also, needless to say, Arabs never invented it either. Nobody did, except dead White males.

So, this liberal Giralbi is giving away the store, or thrown pearls before swine. Nobody but
Whties appreciates Free Speech, and not just a few of us, like communists and Jews (right I said they were Third World) assault Free Speech routinely. Remember the probable sex-fiend Dershowitz who a couple years ago called for a shyster end-run around the First Amendment.

You may also recall how the Jews in the 40s , 50s, and into the 60s, abused free speech thru their communism, their humor like the Lenny Bruces, and the New Lefties who were almost all jews…I know cuz, I was there. Chicago 7, 6 of them Jews, 1968 as I recall. Now that the Jews got most of the social, political, academics, media…what have I left out?…they want to end Free Speech if it is Hateful…This is very funny. Half of speech ‘s content is probably hateful. full of hate. Human, and part of the evolutionary order…hatred keeps your enemies at bay, otherwise they come thru your front door, like a few I could mention.

Joe Webb

I have a very illiberal view of who gets to use Free Speech, as well as the other Liberties developed by White Men and nobody else.

In terms of semantics, I am sure you’re unaware that, your “Free Speech” about “Free Speech” makes absolutely no sense.

BTW, did you take out a patent on the Liberties developed by White Men and nobody else?

Perhaps, you should have put a trademark on it, to restrict the numbers of who gets to use Free Speech.

These liberties go way back…to Greco-Roman times, and to Germanic tribes living in the forests of N Europe, and so on.

Ever heard of Socrates? Hypatia? Giordano Bruno? Hmm…?

Ever heard of high treason, sedition and collaborationism, and libel, slander and defamation?

Ever heard of copyright infringement and intellectual property theft?

Ever heard of assault and intimidation and perjury?

That’s right!! We all have our idols.

As for the Germanic tribes living in the forests of N Europe, they had lived their lives in abject savagery for times immemorial until the Roman Catholic Church brought them anything remotely resembling a civilization.

Since the proverbial blond beasts, being exactly that, had no concept of law or state or authority, they were in a barbaric sense, free. So I concur with you there.

Free Speech is a White Invention. No other race has invented it.

I can speak freely without hiccups. I have a neocortex for language processing, vocal chord for modulating sound waves….

Free speech was invented by Mother Nature after billions of years of experimentation.

When we were cultivating and improving it, the Jews were still in their ghettoes

No Jew-lover here, but I think a Jew might respond: “When we were making treatise on theology, law and commerce, the Germanic tribes were still living in caves, wearing raw hide”.

Very simple. Your genetically determined predisposition/temperment produces Free Speech.

Exactly, which is why Octopuses and Tardigrades and Llamas cannot speak freely, while Shinzo Abe can. Yup.

Also, needless to say, Arabs never invented it either

But Arabs gave us ibn Khaldun centuries ago Nietzsche and Dostoyevsky, to show us why people like you do the things that you do.

…Nobody but Whties appreciates Free Speech…

You just said this in this very post, didn’t you: I have a very illiberal view of who gets to use Free Speech

Oh my!

…they want to end Free Speech if it is Hateful…This is very funny. Half of speech ‘s content is probably hateful. full of hate. Human, and part of the evolutionary order…hatred keeps your enemies at bay, otherwise they come thru your front door…

So you agree that they are doing the right thing from their point of view?

Otherwise, the only sense I could make from your post is simply this:

Free Speech by Whites is good (for Whites), but by non-Whites is bad (for Whites).

So, Whites should practice Free Speech, in order to be good to Whites.

Non-Whites should not practice Free Speech, in order to be good to Whites.

“As for the Germanic tribes living in the forests of N Europe, they had lived their lives in abject savagery for times immemorial until the Roman Catholic Church brought them anything remotely resembling a civilization.”

Not quite so simple, see Tacitus’ Germania for a more nuanced (and substantially admiring) contemporary account, along with the up-to-date prehistory via archaeology of neolithic and bronze-early iron age northern Europe. Quite a bit was going on (as in Britain) before the Romans arrived, even if with quite a bit of savagery, but the Romans were pretty savage themselves, if with a little more organizational sophistication in their bloodsports. Also many of the early Germans converted to Arian not ‘Roman’ christianity.

The stoned garden erupts in hot lava…heh heh.

He omits the quaint white man invention of Law and lawful Free Speech. In our times, but before the First Amendment of the US constitution, the “ancient liberties” of England for example included the right to petition the king..you know that sort of thing…which is reflected in the language of the First Amendment.

No other race has developed the genetic expression of these liberties which have become part of the unwritten constitution of England for example, and are also enshrined in Law…law ….law. Can the stoner understand this I wonder.

Of course the liberals now ally with the untermenschen to attack free speech…they do not like Hate Speech, of course exempting themselves in their hatred of White Nationalists.

——–

I intended this Free Speech footnote as sort of a joke, but, it is true. No other race has developed a legal basis for Free Speech, nor a cultural artifact of Tradition (Burke’s what is due to him as an Englishman), and certainly no LAW…LAW..I think I have spelled it out clearly enough.

So, the Jews use it, the Blacks use it, etc, etc. against Whites, but they have no genetically based love of Free Speech. The other day I was talking race , etc to a couple of folks in Palo Alto. A Jew eavesdropping circled around and started taking pictures of me. This is Free Speech for the Jews.

Joe Webb

Please define Sharia/Sharia law, a.z.

He omits the quaint white man invention of Law…

Code of Hammurabi.

BTW, I am not sure if a man who can not write proper grammatical English could “invent” the concept of political rights.

…and lawful Free Speech.

Well what took you SOOOOOOOOO long, White man?

It’s been some 100,000 years (250,000 years if the Neanderthal admixture is taken into account) before your earliest H. Sapiens ancestors marched out of Africa.

What mutation and selective pressure could have happened in the last 500 years or so???

Has this peculiar White Free Speech gene been discovered yet? Or even hypothesized to exist?

P.S. Is there anything called “unlawful Free Speech”?

The stoner remains confused, is probably Jewish.

the generally accepted date that homo sapien sapiens (or is it the other way around) moved north out of Africa is about 50 to 60 thousand years ago, not 100 thousand.

What has 500 years got to do with anything I said?

What I suggested was free speech enshrined in Law. you are a pedant and a damned nuisance, must be jew, guess I am repeating myself.

Your remark about a free speech gene is more obscurantism and jew wise-cracking, or maybe Arab, since it is not up to Jewish standards

Then there is code of Hammurabi. OK, please let us know where there is a Free Speech Clause, that guarantees , pardon me, in law, free speech.

JW

“Though there have been zealots of that stripe in all the major religions if one goes back far enough it is also undeniable that the current crop of homicidal bigots are nearly all Muslims,” wrote Philip Giraldi.

Yet there is this incident (among many others), which suggests that Christian religious bias is deeply ingrained in the U.S. military: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trijicon_biblical_verses_controversy
On 18 January 2010, ABC News reported Trijicon was placing references to verses in the Bible in the serial numbers of sights sold to the U.S. Military.[1] The ABC News story was initiated by Mikey Weinstein and the Military Religious Freedom Foundation, after being alerted to the practice by multiple sources including active-duty servicemembers.[2]

Tom Munson, director of sales and marketing for Trijicon, said the practice of including the references was started nearly 30 years previously by the company’s founder, devout Christian Glyn Bindon, who died in a 2003 plane crash.[3]

Some Christian organizations spoke out against the practice.[4][5][6]

A spokesman for U.S. Central Command, which manages military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, opined the inscribed sights do not violate the military’s self-imposed ban on proselytizing because there is no effort to distribute the equipment beyond the U.S. troops who use them. “This situation is not unlike the situation with U.S. currency”, said the spokesman, Air Force Maj. John Redfield. “Are we going to stop using money because the bills have ‘In God We Trust’ on them? As long as the sights meet the combat needs of troops, they’ll continue to be used”.[7]

On 20 January 2010 the BBC reported that the British Ministry of Defence, which had—when unaware of the issue—recently purchased 480 Trijicon sights for use in Afghanistan, appreciated that the markings could cause offense, and had taken the matter up with the company.[3]

As news of the inscriptions surfaced, further armed forces became aware of controversial practice. The New Zealand SAS had purchased 260 of the scopes in 2004 and at the time was also unaware of the practice. The New Zealand SAS confirmed they will not stop using the sights as they are considered the best in the world.[8] A New Zealand defence force spokesman was quoted as saying “We deem them to be inappropriate”, and the NZ Prime Minister, John Key said the government was not aware of the inscriptions when the equipment was purchased, and “We are in discussions with the company in the United States who will ensure the inscriptions are removed, and we wouldn’t want them on future sights”.[9]

Leading Israel firster Alan Dershowitz is even blaming the French themselves for the slaughter, apparently because they recently voted in favor of Palestinian statehood.

It’s surprising that Dersh-bag would say such a thing. Most of the people who raise the ‘France recognized Palestine’ issue accuse Mossad of having been behind the attack.

Phillip Giraldi — you are correct. Hate the haters. The extremists of Islam do not represent an entire religion of 1.5 billion adherents.

If only you would afford the same courtesy in your skewed writings against Israel, a nation of only 7 million people and a society that is anything but homogeneous as it includes secular and religious, hawks and doves, Palestinian Moslems and Jews (as well as Christians, Samaritans, Bedouin, and Druze), Blacks and Whites, and even Asians who have found refuge in the small country.

It seems to weigh heavily on your mind that a few million Jewish people have decided to write their own story in Israel and the remaining global Jewish population of approximately 12 million Jews (if you count approximately 6 million Jews in Israel the total Jewish population is about 18 million people in a world of 7 billion) see Israel as a refuge, as a saving grace, and as a spiritual home.

They only dare because they are being empowered by the elitists to throw their weight around the west despite their minority status. Look at how they got away with serial rape in Rotherham, England! The police did nothing for fear of being labelled racist and the cowed media continues to refer to this rampant child abuse as “sex grooming”. And the fact that UK’s Labour have promised, if elected, to make any criticism of Islam a crime is evidence that Muslims have become the “untouchables”.

Europe has no room for these dinghy migrants. We have problems enough without importing tribal warfare to our shores – and their first stop is Sicily of all places!!