Baron, in your latest News Feed covering the London riots there are many references to ‘students’.
Well, it is said that a picture is worth a thousand words so I have attached one that is worth a whole book. This is a snapshot of a ‘student’ from the print edition of one of today’s newspapers.
And remember, this is our capital city at the end of the first decade of the 21st Century.
This photo is a poignant reminder of what Great Britain has become in less than three generations.
The word “Taliban” means
28 comments:
In hoc signo vinces
The word “Taliban” means “student”.
When we loose political nuances and subtleties then we will turn on each other like rats.
One of the people involved in this is Dave Gilmour's son. See link.
Forward unto death, eh? Those silver spooners don't have a clue what real life's about.
And the EDL are criticised for being working class!
And the EDL are criticised for being working class!
A dwindling minority, for sure!
Anyone can be a 'student' or a welfare bum. Being a worker, doing a daily productive routine, takes effort.
In hoc signo vinces
@Henrik R Clausen,
When the label working class is used in the UK it does not necessarily litterialy mean working.
Think of it this way the pre-Thatcher industrial working class and the post Thatcher service working class - read service as helot.
I think you will find that a large percentage of the EDL support is claiming at least one form of welfare benefit.
Who do you think warehoused 2 million people on disability welfare and who do you think most want to destroy UK subsistence welfare and why?
I think it's a plural, i.e. "students"
The saddest thing of all about that photo and the masked thug in it, is how Winston's statue is actually life sized.
That is the puny nature of our foe and the IQ they typically wield. Western culture may as well be confronted with some hairy spider crawling upon it that we are loath to squash solely for fear of besmirching our formal apparel.
It is an indicator of how little effort and resulting blowback there truly awaits us with respect to disposing of Islam as it truly deserves.
All the rest is Politically Correct window dressing of the sort that is usually discarded at the end of a weekly sale.
Islam's all smoke and mirrors that begs for a BB gun and one very strong ventilating fan.
This photograph should win a prize. Is there an international prize for photography that combines art and political statement? If there is, this one should take first place.
Churchill was a great man, if he was alive non of the punks would have dared to talk to him.
Friends,
Churchill made a fatal error.
THAT photo is a consequence of...
...THIS photo:
YALTA: Churchill, Roosevelt, Stalin
Churchill went after the wrong guy.
Churchill should have sat on his hands, and let Germany do what Germany needed to do, ugly as it was, in order to stop the global communist cascade and to prevent what is happening in Seneca III's photo.
Angles, Saxons, Normans, Vikings, Franks, Burgunds, Frisians, etc., are all Germanic. They are cousins to the Germans of Germany. The Germans did not want to fight them. The goal was to recover and preserve Germanic blood & soil for the Germanic peoples. (Similar to what Israel is doing, today, for the Jews.)
Other than doing the necessary arresting and purging of communists and other 5th columnists, and perhaps recovering "Alsace-Lorraine" as "Elsaß-Lothringen," Hitler, Himmler et al would likely have let Britain, France and Benelux make a full recovery after a short occuption, once the danger of a communist takeover of Europe had been snuffed out.
Had Churchill exercised restraint, told FDR to stay home, and limited the British response to keeping order and securing the ground, casualties would have been minimized. The Wehrmacht, Luftwaffe, etc. could have concentrated on the Eastern Front, had Germany not had to fight a two-front war.
Then, either Germany would have eventually gotten sick of freezing in the snow trying to take Moscow, and gone home; or, Stalin would have had his butt kicked and been pushed off the world stage. The USSR would have collapsed, preventing the Warsaw Pact.
The U.S. wouldn't have firebombed Dresden and more. The U.S. could have tended to its own housekeeping.
Germany would have won the war, with casualties in Britain, France and Benelux limited to the 5th columnists.
Moscow then wouldn't have gone on to launch the Cold War, and invaded Afghanistan, etc.
Poland would have gotten clobbered, but it would have gotten clobbered either way. And Poland wouldn't have been forced into communism and under Moscow's control.
Southeast Asia wouldn't have become the nightmare that it did.
The German-speaking Germans would have been reunited under the banner of Germany.
The German-Americans would have been relieved, and American lives wouldn't have been lost.
And this blog might not be necessary, today.
Churchill made a fatal error.
If you're seriously arguing that the Nazis winning the second World War would have been a good thing, then you need to have your head examined.
Churchill *could* have chosen to ally with Germany, against Stalin and the Communists.
Then, you wouldn't today have Leftists smashing the windows of, and throwing paint on, the car carrying Charles and Camilla in London, as happened last week, described here:
Leftist protestors attack Charles & Camilla in London
Video of attack here.
@F'sC,
Friends? Who are you talking to on this site besides the other odd antisemite?
You try to peddle the idea of siding with Adolf the "good guy" in what was predominantly leftist totalitarian infighting between national socialists and international socialists who were partners before the breaking up of the Molotov-Von Ribbentrop pact. After that it was German National Socialism versus Russian National Socialism. And you'd retrospectively want us to root for the nazis?
Your comments prove that you're an antisemite and a nazi-supporter. And if you have any penchant for logical consistency, you'll probably turn out to be a supporter of Islamic totalitarianism as well. So perhaps it's time to pack up your tent and move to them deserts, my "friend".
Kind regs from Amsterdam,
Sag.
Churchill could just have remained relatively neutral, and could have permitted Hitler to assassinate and/or otherwise purge the hardcore Communists in France & Benelux.
Then Germany would have obtained the continental security it needed, in order not to be taken over, itself, by Moscow-loyal Communists.
Churchill and FDR could have stayed home and minded the shop.
That way, neither Britain nor the US would have had blood on its hands -- unless they decided, for themselves, to knock out their own radicals, extremists & terrorists.
Then Morgenthau wouldn't have crushed Germany's soul so badly, post-war, that Germans (and the rest of Europe) lost their pride and kept their mouths shut while Europe's Left began to open the immigration faucets to let foreigners come pouring into Europe.
And Germany wouldn't today be swamped with Turks; Britain wouldn't be swamped with Pakistanis, etc...
It is time to re-assess the wisdom of preventing Germans from being Germans.
Let Germania do what is necessary to keep Germania from filling up with more Muslims.
If the U.S. would give Germany and France and Benelux guarantees that the U.S. will stay out of European affairs while Germania humanely and in an orderly manner deports and repatriates problematic immigrant populations to their countries of origin, and halts immigration from Muslim countries, then Europe's core could act now to prevent the problem from become worse and unmanageable, and possibly avoid future civil war.
The U.S. just needs to give let Germans be Germans, without branding them as "racists" and "Nazis" or imposing any sanctions.
Germania should have the right to control their ancestral lands, so that indigenous Germans will be safe. That is what Israel is doing for Jews, right?
Otherwise, how do you propose to solve the problem?
Why do you call me a Nazi, when what I am trying to do is prevent Europe from going up in smoke again, as it did in World War II?
Wouldn't European Jews be safer if Europe put the brakes on Muslim immigration?
@ Sagunto:
What's an "anti-Semite?"
Arabs are Semites.
Read this Wikipedia article on what Semitic means.
Are *you* anti-Semitic?
Oh boy, not that tired old wordplay with "semites" that Muslim activists also love so dear.
Antisemitism means Jew-hatred, plain and simple.
But of course you already know that, don't you?
Kind regs from Amsterdam,
Sag.
While the free West was massively exhausted by the end of WW2, and it was understandable why they didn't want to move immediately from the gargantuan project of destroying German Nazism and Japanese Shintoism to then embarking upon a subsequent war against Communist Russia, it is not an iron-clad truism that the West would not have been capable of, if not destroying the U.S.S.R. at that point, at least of crippling it beyond repair and thus hastening the process we later saw unfold in the 80s of its house-of-cards dissolution.
One effective way to go about doing that was, in fact, bruited about by that wickedly perspicuous military genius, General Curtis LeMay (thanks to whose strategy of a-bombing and fire-bombing Japan we brought the fanatically mass-murderous Japanese to their knees): to wit, to a-bomb Moscow. Many of the American and British intelligentsia at the time thought of LeMay as a "cowboy" and recoiled from his blunt advice. I'm not so sure he was wrong. He was certainly right about Japan.
@ Hesperado:
The United States should not have to fight all of Europe's wars.
Sweden, Norway, Britain, Spain, France, Benelux, Italy, Austria, Germany, Poland, Ukraine, Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia, Russia...etc.: You folks need to all learn to get along with each other. We can't bail you out.
The countries of Europe allowed all of this foreign immigration. It's not fair for the U.S. to be obliged to come in and clobber the lands of our European cousins, when the multiculti inhabitants of Europe and Russia lose their cool and all start killing each other off.
We have our own massive migrant problems here in the U.S., thanks to the 1965 immigration act.
If we can't even fix *our* immigration/Islam problems on this side of the Atlantic, we sure as heck won't be able to solve *your" immigration/Islam problems.
The USA is already crumbling under the weight of our debt.
The very unfortunate and uncomfortable truth is that it was the coalition of major American Jewish leadership groups that demanded that the 1965 immigration act be passed, so that America's "Golden Door" would be opened wide to allow the Third World to flow in.
"Diversifying America" was to be the American Jewish insurance policy against any potential future outbreak of white Christian "Aryan" Christian oppression. It was the American Jewish leadership that demanded that the U.S. let all of these Muslims into America, in the first place.
Pretty much same thing has happened in all of the Western countries. Jews, unfortunately, have created their own growing Islamic sharia anti-Jewish sentiment problem in the West -- and stuck the rest of us with this nightmare.
I suggest that everyone in the counterjihad movement lobby the U.S. Jewish leadership organizations, and New York Senator Chuck Schumer, and demand that Muslim migration to the West be shut down.
@ Sagunto:
To me, the word "Semitic" means the full definition, as was discussed in Wikipedia. That's how we learned it in school, here in the Midwest. See Rand McNally's 1968 World Atlas, Imperial Edition, pp 262-263. (I still have it sitting on my shelf.)
Fine, that's ok @FCs,
If that's what they told you at school, then I apologize for being imprecise and stop calling you an anti-semite, for you might hate just the Jews and actually like Muslims (like the pan-Germanian nazis did).
So as not to enter into any further discussions about the "anti" in "semitism", I just call you a Jew-hater then.
Kind regs from Amsterdam,
Sag.
Adolf Hitler was no enemy to Islam. He had several Muslim SS units and was a personal friend of the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem.
FC, to ally with Hitler would certainly be to ally with Islam.
I'm reminded of Viscount Halifax, who 'saw more good than bad in Hitler's Germany' (D'Este, Warlord, p. 362) and whose comments following a visit to Germany were recorded by the diarist 'Chips' Channon: 'He told me he liked all the Nazi leaders, even Goebbels, and he was much impressed, interested and amused by the visit' (ibid, p. 362). Thankfully, we also had Churchill stating clearly that 'there can never be friendship between the British democracy and the Nazi Power' (James, Churchill Speaks, pp. 653-62).
Whether Halifax's eventual handing over of the reins of power to Churchill was, in the words of his biographer, 'a supreme act of self-abnegation' (Roberts, The Holy Fox, p.2) or a pragmatic move which might allow him to re-enter the scene later and 'clean up [Churchill's] mess and rally the sensible for a sensible peace' (Schama, A History of Britain, Vol 3, p. 508) it was (and is) understood that Churchill was the only politician at that time who could lead Great Britain. The reason why is clear. When Randolph Churchill called his father following the final meeting of Chamberlain's War Cabinet, Winston told him that 'Nothing matters now but beating the enemy' (Churchill, vol 6, p.306.) There was no question who that enemy was. Long before war had descended upon Europe and he became Prime Minister, Churchill had said, 'I know .. that it will come to me to deal with Mister Hitler' (Leslie, Long Shadows, p. 275-76.)
Churchill gave one of his shortest speeches in the Commons on 3d September 1939, saying, ‘We are fighting to save the whole world from the pestilence of Nazi tyranny and in defence of all that is most sacred to man. This is no war of domination or imperial aggrandizement or material gain; no war to shut any country out of its sunlight and means of progress. It is a war viewed in its inherent quality to establish, on impregnable rocks, the rights of the individual, and it is a war to establish and revive the stature of man’ (James, Churchill Speaks, p. 693.) If one visits the Holocaust Memorial at the Imperial War Museum in London, one will see a single SS uniform in a glass cabinet. Upon seeing that uniform, and realising that human beings actually walked the earth wearing it, one realises what Churchill meant, and one inevitably recognises the truth of Churchill’s assessment of Nazism as an ideology which ‘derives strength and perverted pleasure from persecution, and uses, as we have seen, with pitiless brutality, the threat of murderous force’ (ibid, pp. 653-62.)
One may legitimately argue that Germany today, just like any other Western country, should defend themselves against an Islamic ‘soft’ invasion, but only a person lacking in basic moral sanity would argue that Germany, or any other Western country, should adopt Nazism as a means of doing so.
Freyja’s cats are only fit for pulling a long-dead goddess around in someone’s imagination. They’re about as relevant, and interesting, as a Saga video.
@Nick,
Thank you for your wonderful lesson in history and your well argued pointe.
I'd like to add a telling quote by Churchill:
"All was there—the programme of German resurrection, the technique of party propaganda; the plan for combating Marxism; the concept of a National-Socialist State; the rightful position of Germany at the summit of the world. Here was the new Koran of faith and war: turgid, verbose, shapeless, but pregnant with its message."
(emphasis added, Sag)
@ Nick,
I am not suggesting that _any_ country adopt national socialism.
What I wrote was that, in my opinion, Churchill made a fatal error in not assessing Stalin and communism as the greater long-term threat.
Foreign policy has both near-term and long-term ramifications. What looks good in the short term, might look like a disaster in the rearview mirror.
It is very possible that Churchill's choice, sent history in a direction that will result in the destruction of the indigenous peoples of Europe.
Communism, globally, has killed far more people, overall, than Hitler's national socialism.
I posit that had Lenin, Stalin and their successors taken over all of continental Europe, via expansion of the USSR, the death toll and general misery would have been even higher.
Stalin was not exactly a friend of the Jewish peoples, either. He oppressed and/or killed off an awful lot of them. Russian Jews sure did seem quite motivated to emigrate, as soon as they had the chance.
@ GoetheChoseMercy:
Hitler was an ally of the Japanese. I like Shinto.
The U.S. is an ally of Saudi Arabia.
"The enemy of my enemy is my friend."
"Hold your friends close, and your enemies closer."
I see a plethora of strategic reasons why Hitler incorporated some Muslims into his strategy. That doesn't mean that Hitler intended upon converting to Islam anytime soon.
@ Sagunto:
I grew up in the country, in the American Midwest. There were neither Jews nor Muslims there to be found. One don't grow up hating persons of either of those groups, if one doesn't have any exposure to them.
I do recall that life was nice and peaceful. We milked cows and goats, sheared sheep, rode horses, collected eggs, bailed hay, tended the gardens, and the plethora of other farm chores. Our nearest neighbor was a mile away. We lived on a gravel road. My father would always bring home history and foreign language books, for us to read as our entertainment, that we picked up from area farmer estate auctions. Several of my favorite books were the mythology books. We did a lot of star-watching. I had lots of cats and kittens. It was a good life.
We studied Edith Hamilton's Mythology, and other mythology treatises, in high school. I studied Homer, Hesiod and other such works in college. I wrote a long essay on Medea in the 11th grade, that won honors. I have entire bookshelves of world mythological works, in various languages -- including Grimm's and Rydberg's Deutsche Mythologie in English, German and Swedish. They are some of my favorites.
Where I grew up, it was considered a blessing to have access to such works -- it was a sign of a cultured, albeit humble, family. I am fortunate that my father, a humble farmer and machinist, loved to read about the world, and brought it home to me.
I grew up in the country, in the American Midwest. There were neither Jews nor Muslims there to be found. One don't grow up hating persons of either of those groups, if one doesn't have any exposure to them.
I never had any exposure to KKK members or to Nazis, but nevertheless I have good reason to want to rid decent society of their influence (and by the way, "hate" is not relevant here). If we based all our policy only on direct personal experience, we'd have precious little knowledge to use as a base for the complex inter-relations that are necessarily involved in the world (unless you live on a remote island in the South Pacific, I suppose).
I see a plethora of strategic reasons why Hitler incorporated some Muslims into his strategy. That doesn't mean that Hitler intended upon converting to Islam anytime soon.
1) One needn't posit that Hitler was intending to convert to Islam to hold that his alliance with Muslims reflected a profound admiration for Islam.
2) This isn't merely based on his alliance with the Grand Mufti; there are statements by him that have been recorded reflecting a profound admiration for Islam coupled in the same breath with a profound disappointment with Christianity.
Further, there is the interesting information concerning his personal discussions with al-Mashriqi (born in 1888), who founded the Khaksar Movement, an Indian Muslim separatist movement.
Al-Mashriqi met Hitler in 1926 (at a time when Hitler’s political career was on an upward course and when he had already become leader of the National Socialist party in Germany). In one of his writings, al-Mashriqi expressed designs that go far beyond a mere regional concern in northern India:
“...we [Muslims] have again to dominate the whole world. We have to become its conqueror and its rulers.”
And in a pamphlet titled Islam ki Askari Zindagi he stated:
“The Koran has proclaimed in unequivocal words to the world that the Prophet was sent with the true religion and definite instruction that he should make all other religions subservient to this religion [Islam]...”
Al-Mashriqi also wrote a book called Tazkira which, as Bostom describes it, “produced a quintessential message of Islam enshrining the ideals of militaristic nation-building”—i.e., it promulgated and highlighted the supremacist expansionism through militant means that is essential to Islamic doctrine and Islamic history."
Bostom goes on to note:
"What is startlingly noteworthy about this is revealed in al-Mashriqi’s own account of his meeting with Hitler in 1926:
I was astounded when he [Hitler] told me that he knew about my Tazkirah. The news flabbergasted me. . . I found him very congenial and piercing. He discussed Islamic Jihad with me in details. In 1930 I sent him my Isharat concerning the Khaksar movement with a picture of a spade-bearer Khaksar at the end of that book. In 1933 he started his Spade Movement.
http://hesperado.blogspot.com/2008/10/hitler-and-islam_28.html
blah blah blah - except that wasn't all you wrote at all now, was it? No need to copy/paste - there are your earlier comments, for all to see.
@ Hesperado
I read your article. Thank you for posting it.
I was not a butterfly on Hitler's shoulder, so I cannot personally attest to what he did or did not do. However, I am aware of his interest in the Middle East.
Given Hitler's foreign policy need to contend with Communist Russia to the north of the Middle East, and British influence in the Middle East, and the growth of Israel supported by Balfour under Churchill (see the Churchill White Paper), making friends in the Islamic lands is certainly a strategic option.
However, it is quite common for political and military leaders to study the works of other, in order to glean potentially useful applications for achieving their own strategic goals.
(And also to win brownie points with each other.)
For example, what serious strategist has not studied The Art of War by Sun Tzu?
And, for that matter, what serious strategist has not studied Hitler'sMein Kampft and Clausewitz's On War, or Lenin, Stalin and Mao?
Himmler, his Ahnenerbe-SS and other influential Germanic thinkers were very interested in the Hindu Vedas.
Intelligent leaders study the time-proven strategists of the past. They would be unwise not to. They borrow what is likely to work and take note of what didn't work.
Freyja's cats,
I'm not quite sure what you're arguing. If you're trying to say that a cleverly astute leader who studies the military theory of other individuals and other cultures is ipso facto therefore incapable of also at the same time profoundly admiring any one of those individuals or cultures, that would be an odd argument.
Related to this, for example, while Hitler had the close ideological and geopolitico-military relationship with the Grand Mufti, and we also know he greatly admired Islam, we know that the Allies themselves (specifically, the French command in concert with the Americans in the long operation to retake Italy) developed an alliance with a contingent of Maghrebian Muslims to help them. However, as far as I know, none of the Allied commanders also expressed profound admiration for Islam, nor said that Islam is a wonderfully martial culture consonant with their own culture (as Hitler said about Islam and Germanic culture), nor contrasted Islam with Christianity by denigrating the latter, nor studied Jihad so well they impressed a Muslim scholar and Jihad activist. Given these differences, then, about these latter military leaders, one could more appropriately characterize them with the more pragmatically phlegmatic deportment you seem to wish to ascribe to Hitler with regard to his interest in Islam.
P.S.: On my blog I published a translation from the Italian of a paper describing the behaviors of those few thousand North African Muslims used by the Allies in their liberation of Italy. Before the Allies could do anything about it (and even afterwards, the French command seemed to have been egregiously remiss), those Muslim soldiers basically plundered, killed and gang-raped the women, teenage girls (and even some little girls: "...donne, ragazze e bambine...) of the same Italian people they were supposed to be liberating from the Fascists.
Think globally, pillage locally
Post a Comment