Never Again and Again
and Again and Again

click.jpg

Saturday, November 10, 2007

Neo-Nazism

I've stayed out of the recent controversy among anti-Islamificationists regarding the BNP and Vlaams Belang because I don't have a lot of knowledge about European politics. I've had nothing to contribute to the discussion and still don't really have much to say. But yesterday one of my European acquaintances whom I asked for help in understanding the BNP and Vlaams Belang said that branding an anti-jihadist group as Neo-Nazi is a ploy to divide us, a tool to perpetuate the Islamification of the West. At the same time, she decried any association with Neo-Nazism and white supremacists.

This editorial by Paul Belien, editor of the Brussels Journal, appeared in the November 7, 2008 edition of the Washington Times (emphases mine):
During the Second World War, the Nazis worked on plans to build the "Amerikabomber," an airplane specially devised to fly suicide missions into Manhattan's skyscrapers.

Albert Speer, the Nazi minister for armaments, recalled in his diary: "It was almost as if [Hitler] was in a delirium when he described to us how New York would go up in flames. He imagined how the skyscrapers would turn into huge blazing torches. How they would crumble while the reflection of the flames would light the skyline against the dark sky." Hitler hated Manhattan. It was, he said, "the center of world Jewry." Less than 60 years later, Hitler's plans were executed by Muslim immigrants living in Germany. At the 2003 trial of the network around Mohamed Atta (the pilot who flew into the World Trade Center), Shahid Nickels, a German convert to Islam and a friend of Atta's, said that the Islamists had targeted Manhattan because it is "the center of world Jewry, and the world of finance and commerce controlled by it."

The parallels between Nazism and Islamism are overwhelming.
Yet the subject is a taboo. When last March the German historian Matthias Kuentzel, author of "Jihad and Jew-Hatred: Islamism, Nazism and the Roots of 9/11," was to give a lecture at the University of Leeds (Britain), the university authorities cancelled the lecture after threats from Muslim students.

There is a war going on between the Jihadists and the West. We are losing the battle because, as so often in man's history, our political leaders think that they are still fighting the previous war. Europeans who warn against the danger of Islamism are considered — and sometimes even prosecuted — as xenophobes, racists, even neo-Nazis.

The European left, in league with the Islamists, is constantly reminding the Europeans of Hitler and the Nazis, accusing Europe's identity, the very core of its being, of being intrinsically evil. Hence, attempts to rob Europe of its identity are seen as "good," even when those eager to eradicate this identity leave no doubt that they will eradicate the Jews first.

Unfortunately, some American "conservatives" are also blind. Last year, Ralph Peters wrote in the New York Post that Europe's identity is stained by "ineradicable viciousness." He said that the Europeans are "world-champion haters," who have "perfected genocide and ethnic cleansing." Mr. Peters' message is similar to that of Ayyub Axel Koehler. Last June, Mr. Koehler, a convert to Islam and the chairman of the German Council of Muslims, told German church leaders that Europe should be ashamed of the "trail of blood" that it had left throughout the world down the centuries.

To some, defending Europe's identity is seen as a characteristic of neo-Nazism, while they fail to realize that Hitler's real successors are the Jihadists. To many Europeans it now seems that the only way in which Europe can atone for the crimes of the Holocaust is by looking on passively while others prepare a new holocaust.

And so, ironically, Hitler will get his way and win the war after all. Contrary to what is generally acknowledged, the Fuehrer did not care about Europe's or even Germany's identity. Those European nationalists who today take their inspiration from Charles Martel, the Germanic leader who beat the Arabs in 732 at the Battle of Tours, cannot be neo-Nazis for the simple reason that Hitler explicitly wished Martel had lost the battle.

"Had Charles Martel not been victorious," Hitler told his inner crowd in August 1942, "then we should in all probability have been converted to Mohammedanism, that cult which glorifies the heroism and which opens up the seventh Heaven to the bold warrior alone. Then the Germanic races would have conquered the world." Hitler told Mr. Speer that Islam is "perfectly suited to the Germanic temperament." If the Muslims had won in Tours, the whole of Europe would have become Muslim in the 8th century; and "the conquering Arabs, because of their racial inferiority, would in the long run have been unable to contend with the harsher climate and conditions of [Europe]. They could not have kept down the more vigorous natives, so that ultimately not Arabs but Islamized Germans could have stood at the head of this Mohammedan Empire." Today, Germany, like the rest of Western Europe, is rapidly turning Islamic. In addition to the many Muslim immigrants, 4,000 Germans convert to Islam each year. As always the converts are among the most radical. Last September, Fritz Gelowicz and Daniel Schneider, two young German converts to Islam, were arrested as they were preparing to bomb Frankfurt International Airport. Hitler would have been proud of them [the jihadists]. And he would have loathed the so-called "racists" who worry about their country losing its national identity.
Is the above smoke and mirrors? I don't know. I need to study more. One side of me says, "I stand next to any ally who recognizes the Islamic threat. The high road is the long way into town, and we don't have any time to spare." Another side says, "Certain alliances are too dangerous to undertake."

Others here will have a better grasp as to the validity of Mr. Belien's argument.

Labels:

Bookmark and Share
posted by Always On Watch at permanent link#

12 Comments:

Blogger WATCHER71 said...

If the Nazi party reformed announced it was sorry about the few million Jews they exterminated and promised that they were no longer Anti-semetic, would any one with an I Q above, say 3, believe them?

Saturday, November 10, 2007 1:52:00 pm  
Blogger Pastorius said...

AOW,

I do think the question is open in this way:

Clearly, many of those who have joined forces with parties such as the Vlaams Belang and the BNP, are not racists. Their ideas of Nationalism are built on ideology whether they are able to articulate such ideas or not.

However, it is Belien's final sentence quoted here which is the give away to the potential evils which could be unleashed were his intellectual foundation to be the future of Europe,

"Hitler would have been proud of them [the jihadists]. And he would have loathed the so-called "racists" who worry about their country losing its national identity."

Why is it that Belien does not define what he means by "national identity"? Every single Vlaams Belang/BNP person who has defined that for me has come down on the side of

ETHNIC NATIONALISM.

Sorry, I can not go there.

Western Civilization has progressed beyond such notions. I am not willing to go backwards with those who believe the white race to have the only true understanding of Life, Liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Ethnic Nationalism is, no matter how you slice it, racist in its foundation.

Saturday, November 10, 2007 4:13:00 pm  
Blogger Pastorius said...

Because it is defined ideas which form the foundation of all political movement, let Belien define what he means by "National identity".

Until he does so, why would anyone ally themselves with him?

Saturday, November 10, 2007 4:18:00 pm  
Anonymous najistani said...

The most Islamically-aware leader of a major country in modern history was undoubtedly Joseph Stalin. He generously donated millions of roubles to buy oneway tickets on the trans-Siberian railway to provide potential mujahadeen with gainfull employment in mineral extraction during the 20's and 30's .

Was Stalin a Nationalist?
Was he a Georgian or was he a Russian?

Sunday, November 11, 2007 12:53:00 am  
Blogger Pastorius said...

Najistani,

You may have noticed that we here at the Infidel Bloggers Alliance are not real big fans of Islam.

Were I the leader of the Soviet Union - as Stalin once was - I would probably do something very similar to what he did, when it comes to the Mujahadeen.

Sunday, November 11, 2007 3:50:00 am  
Blogger Always On Watch said...

Pastorius,
why would anyone ally themselves with him?

Not that I am allying with the BNP or Vlaams Belang. Understand that first so as not to misunderstand the rest of my comment.

So, why?

1. Desperation. As far as I know, other political parties in those regions are hell bent on Islamification.

2. Establishing a new political party takes time. Is there such a margin of time?

3. The ability to be selective, as in "Take what you need and leave the rest."

I've been thinking about this a lot (as you know). We here at IBA represent different points along the political spectrum, the ideological spectrum. We have an alliance, though we may disagree on certain points.

I've been called many names, including "fascist." You know me. I am certainly not a fascist in any sense of the word. I've been called "racist," but I don't believe that I am; others might see me differently, but I know what's in my heart on that subject. I've even been called "Nazi," though I can't figure out just why.

I know there are data to prove otherwise. You've been posting some of that data. I haven't had time to go through all of it.

Still, the fact remains: opponents of and objectors to the counter-jihad (excuse the use of the term--you know what I mean) are labeled with same epithets, IMO, so as not to have a reasoned debate.

Lately, I've been feeling that terminology has become a problem. For example, "infidel" has come to mean something it did not originally mean. See Wiki. I'm certainly not suggesting a name change for IBA, but I think you can see what I mean by what I like to refer to as "differing definitions."

IMO, the counter-jihad (again, pardon the term) needs a charter which clearly states its position on national identity, culture, etc. I personally don't believe that the words "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" provide enough specifics. For example, Islam would have different definitions of those words.

I am concerned that the movement in which all of us here at IBA are involved neither cannibalize itself nor make alliances counter to what we believe to be the larger cause. Disagreement is one thing; a rift is another. The latter weakens our cause.

Am I making sense?

Sunday, November 11, 2007 2:37:00 pm  
Anonymous najistani said...

There's been a furious reaction to a Muslim who accused the British of being Nazis on the eve of Remembrance Sunday.

http://www.sundayexpress.co.uk/posts/view/24811/Muslim-brands-Britain-Nazi-

Sunday, November 11, 2007 3:53:00 pm  
Blogger Pastorius said...

AOW,

Let me be clear, I did not think you were defending this recent move towards Ethnic Nationalism.

And yes, I understand the desparation. I feel it too.

I am only making the point that we need to stick to the principles that made us great. I am not saying, like the loony leftists in the U.S. that we can not suspend certain laws, and protections in order to win the war. Certainly, we can and must do so.

However, the turn towards Ethnic Nationalism is more than suspending a law. It is, instead, an attempt to redefine what we mean by Western Civilization. Supposedly, we have become a better civilization than others around the world exactly because we live by ideas rather than instinct.

As for point 2), you said: 2. Establishing a new political party takes time. Is there such a margin of time?


I say: yes, it does, but not as long as people may think.

The Republican party was founded in 1854. Six years later, Lincoln was President and five years after that he had won the war and abolished slavery.


You said: Lately, I've been feeling that terminology has become a problem. For example, "infidel" has come to mean something it did not originally mean. See Wiki. I'm certainly not suggesting a name change for IBA, but I think you can see what I mean by what I like to refer to as "differing definitions."


I say: I am going by the definition: one who doubts certain tenets of a religion.

By the definition, we are all Infidels here, as we doubt most of the tenets of Islam.


You said: IMO, the counter-jihad (again, pardon the term) needs a charter which clearly states its position on national identity, culture, etc. I personally don't believe that the words "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" provide enough specifics. For example, Islam would have different definitions of those words.

I am concerned that the movement in which all of us here at IBA are involved neither cannibalize itself nor make alliances counter to what we believe to be the larger cause. Disagreement is one thing; a rift is another. The latter weakens our cause.

Am I making sense?


I say: I agree with you absolutely. I shall soon be discussing this on the IBA Radio Show. I have met some people in Europe who have some good ideas on this subject, and I shall be interviewing them.

Sunday, November 11, 2007 5:06:00 pm  
Blogger Always On Watch said...

Pastorius,
Let me be clear, I did not think you were defending this recent move towards Ethnic Nationalism.

Absolutely I am not advocating any such move! Absolutely!

However, historically speaking, how well has Europe ever been a melting pot? A successful one, that is. There, the USA has a great advantage. We must use that advantage!

This controversy/rift (whatever it is) is causing me to lose sleep. The issue at hand is on my mind for most of my waking hours! I haven't felt like this since those weeks immediately following 9/11. The political strategy is even more important now. It is imperative that we "counter-jihadists" are not outsmarted!

I'm not so sure that the political party needed can develop fast enough. Yes, stranger things have happened. But I am so concerned about divisions--on many levels.

I'm sure that you know the saying "Don't discuss two things over dinner: politics and religion." Well, I'm thinking about those two areas all day, every day. Ugh!

Email me after you've taped that particular IBA show. I want to listen!

PS: Wow! Look at all the exclamation points I'm using! What does that tell you?

Sunday, November 11, 2007 10:49:00 pm  
Blogger Pastorius said...

I think you ought to write a personal type post where you discuss how much this issue is effecting you.

I feel the same, although my time is taken up by business these days.

Monday, November 12, 2007 12:51:00 am  
Blogger Always On Watch said...

Pastorius,
Yeah, I should write about it.

Monday, November 12, 2007 1:21:00 pm  
Blogger BFB said...

Pastorius,

Maybe you should write about why birds of a feather flock together, or is that beyond you?

Tuesday, November 13, 2007 11:45:00 pm  

Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

<< Home