Monday, January 10, 2011

This Flag Was Made for Burning

There’s been a lot of discussion lately about the Black Flag of Jihad, especially the one that EDL leader Tommy Robinson tore out of the hands of a mujahid on Remembrance Day.

Many readers have suggested that English demonstrators should be burning the black flag instead of the Koran — since the Muslims have set a precedent by burning the Union Jack, then burning the jihad flag can hardly be a public order offense, right?

Zenster had an even better idea, and suggested this hybrid flag for burning (or any other forms of Islamophobic entertainment):

SwastiJihad Flag

This is an appropriate icon for our Islamized times, and burning it — at least the top left-hand section of it — can hardly be offensive to the politically correct anti-racists who run our countries.

Thank you Zenster, for your timely inspiration! I suggest that everyone borrow this flag icon for their Counterjihad websites and flyers. Anyone who wants a high-res png file of the same design should email me, gatesofvienna (at) chromatism (dot) net.

49 comments:

Freyja's cats said...

Bad idea, Baron.

Attempts to visually and rhetorically fuse Nazism and Islamic jihad, politically, will just blow up and get lots of people hurt.

Nazism developed and spread to defend the European peoples against the what-turned-out-to-be-even-more-murderous ideology of Communism.

Nazism was taken up by ueber-patriots who were trying to prevent the native peoples of Europe from subversion and enslavery by the Marxian Left.

From what I can tell via Internet research, today's 'white nationalists' in Europe don't want Islam to take over Europe any more than the Nazis and fascists and like-minded groups in the other European countries wanted the Commies to take over.

Your flag suggestion might appeal to a big slice of Jews, but I think it will turn off turn off Europids in the political center, center-right and right.

Islam is currently aligned with the Marxist-Leninists.

If you are going to put up a bi-ideology logo, then the other half of the "black flag" needs to be a "red flag with a yellow hammer-and-sickle."

Please let Germany and the Germans put World War II behind them.

Van Grungy said...

Freyja's cats...

I think this would be a better link.. especially considering the Bosnian connection...

Nobody can deny the pure evil of the SS

http://www.ima-usa.com/german-wwii-flag-s-s-battle-flag-w-skull-runes.html

Zenster said...

Freyja's cats: Nazism developed and spread to defend the European peoples against the what-turned-out-to-be-even-more-murderous ideology of Communism.

As someone who is well educated, please make an approximate guess as to what percentage of the living European population would make that association?

How many, instead, would see in that flag image an attempt to directly link Islam with Nazism's genocidal history?

Please confirm that you are aware of the direct connections between Hitler and Islam that existed during World War II. If you are not, I will be submitting a second comment with links to that information.

Unfortunately, absent from the posting of my flag idea was some of the motivating factors that inspired me to create it.

If you are going to put up a bi-ideology logo, then the other half of the "black flag" needs to be a "red flag with a yellow hammer-and-sickle."

This is an idea with merit in that Islam is a greater danger than Communism and Nazism combined. Almost equally unknown is the fact that Soviet Communism was the midwife to modern Islamic terrorism.

However, I would have you please keep in mind that this is all about popular perception and not so much to do with historical accuracy. Combining both is ideal whenever and wherever it can be done but, much as with Islam's popular perception as the Religion of Peace™, so are we in the counterjihad obliged to use the tools at hand to equally sway popular perception against Islam.

Van Grungy: Nobody can deny the pure evil of the SS

And far fewer, save for a handful of neo-Nazis, would even have a dim awareness of Hitler's Schutzstaffel (SS—or Runic "↯↯"), with the rare exception being those who are still alive from that era.

Again, as I will make clear in my next comment, this is about perceptions. It is long past tea for counterjihad organizations to begin adopting methods currently used by the mass media and Islam in the overall competition to influence public awareness.

Time and again it has been shown that conservative and anti-Islamic groups demonstrate a rudimentary awareness, at best, when it comes to manipulating publicity and propaganda in their favor. That needs to change and change damn fast.

thunderpuss said...

Show that and I'll bet you the MSM will be saying "blah, blah...displays the swastika ...blah, blah, website / demo/ banners..."

But its a good idea for working on. Its given me an idea for another version. Show you when Ive done it.

Meanwhile, that Totenkopf would look good with a beard and a turban.

thunderpuss said...

I said Zenstersidea gave me one. Now Ive put a version together. Here it is:

http://thunderpuss.wordpress.com/2011/01/11/14/

There are lots of other versions that come to mind. For a start, at 45egrees in a white circle on a green background. Another is having old Totenkopf with beard and turban in the centre.

Zenster said...

thunderpuss, your ideas are imaginative and show a creative flair. However, they lack the ready impact that only strongly iconographic images can provide.

That is why I opt for some really bare bones symbols when seeking to convey an idea. It's like composing lyrics that are all in polysyllables; Fewer people are going to understand them.

Also, as viscereally satisfying as it is to portray pork (per your last image), and other items offensive to Muslims, many others will merely dismiss such allusions as intentionally provocative imagery instead of bothering to grasp any underlying meaning. The net result being that your message is lost due to misplaced sympathy for the ultimate cult of victimhood (i.e., Islam).

To paraphrase Einstein; "Keep it simple but not too simple."

thunderpuss said...

Zenster. It is a fair point you make about my elipsis. I find in everyday life people cant understand my jokes until I explain them!

However, I havent depicted any pork. Thats got me puzzled. Are you referring to the roiling flames. No pork there, they were from a weapons-display at an air-show.

So I can say I too try to avoid anything intentionally offensive.

Zenster said...

Now that GoV's spam filter is unclogged, here are my notes about the flag image:

First of all, thank you, Baron, for taking my suggestion to heart.

As to the flag, there are a few key features. Clearly, the intent is to equate Islam and Nazism. However, it is also meant to provoke inquiry by those who still are gulled by the “Religion of Peace” meme and give the flag’s bearer a perfect opportunity to explain Hitler’s esteem for Islam and current Muslim admiration for Hitler as well.

For those who seek this path of interaction, it is vital that they be well-versed in Hitler’s creation of the Hanjar (Saber) Division of Waffen SS troops and how Hitler’s “Mein Kampf” is a best seller in the Palestinian Territories, Turkey and Bangladesh. (four separate links)

It is absolutely critical for the West to begin using Islam’s own tactics in the counterjihad. Appropriation of Muslim strategies is a small part of repaying Islam in its own coin. Throughout history Islam has always demanded this and it would be churlish of us to deny its request any longer. Repayment in kind can assume many different guises.

Others, here and elsewhere, have used the term “linkage” to describe how, for instance, all future mosque construction should be tied to the building of Christian churches and synagogues in Saudi Arabia along with other Muslim-majority countries.

My preferred term is “reciprocity” as it is more descriptive with respect to how deeply this process should reach into daily life. It is the core of “payment in kind” and should serve as a guideline whenever there is any doubt as to the efficacy of a given tactic.

Some examples should help to clarify this.

Muslim signboard: Europe is the cancer, Islam is the answer

Counterjihad picket: Islam is the cancer, freedom is the answer

If needed to avoid hate speech laws, substitute “Islam” with “Shari’a” as it is guaranteed to be equally offensive for Muslims without anywhere the degree of recognition by law enforcement.

Muslim signboard: Behead those who insult Islam

Counterjihad picket: Deport those who insult Europe

Or insult Christianity, Democracy or whatever specific European country is in question and so forth.

The EDL has already adopted the brilliant strategy of flying Israel’s flag at their demonstrations. This makes it very difficult to smear them with the usual “Right Wing Nazi" label and, as a bonus feature, enrages all Muslims within eyeshot.

In a similar manner, by amalgamating a historically well known image with one that is only recently coming into frequent view, there is a chance to permanently instill a link in the public's mind that will be difficult for pro-Islamic entities to dislodge.

Islam's raya is on right side so that the Arabic term for “god” appears in close juxtaposition with the swastika and also because Muslims read from right to left; While the swastika is on the left for the manner in which Westerners scan from left to right. A classic win-win if ever there was one!

Again, the real intention here is to begin manipulating public perception and creating associations in ways that jihadists and Islam's fellow travelers will have a difficult time overturning. It needs to be done using the most recognizable icons and extremely simple positioning of those images in such a way that it is easily interpreted and remembered.

I leave the floor open to any and all suggestions. They are desperately needed if the counterjihad is to overcome existing media bias and the exceptional mastery that Islamic propagandists demonstrate in how they manipulate public opinion and overall perception.

Zenster said...

thunderpuss: It is a fair point you make about my elipsis. I find in everyday life people can't understand my jokes until I explain them!

Fair enough. A good example is your selection of Gitmo orange as the color of "freedom". Despite it being a sly reference to "freedom from terrorism", the great unwashed simply are not going to get that. At all.

However, I haven't depicted any pork. That's got me puzzled. Are you referring to the roiling flames?

I suppose it's because I've not had lunch that those incendiary inserts looked more like pork cutlets (yum!). Again, flames, although symbolic of destruction are (as I have just now proven), not necessarily perceived in ready connection to the raya that you cleverly reconfigured into a swastika.

You are definitely on the right track and please should not interpret my (hopefully) constructive criticism as any sort of discouragement. The counterjihad needs every drop of creative talent that it can get hold of. So, please keep the ideas coming and let's see what you churn up next.

Zenster said...

Here's a suggestion: A bomb vest where each brick of semtex in the belt is made over as a small raya. That would really explode the myth of peaceful Islam (so to speak).

You New said...

The flag works. I think Zenster is trying to mindfark the multiculturally entrained (i.e. everybody in the West, you and me).

senerio
"Who are those guys with a nazi flag. (The National Socialist flag side being so easily recognizable and the red standing out). Oh, good, they are burning the nazi flag! They must be anti-facist, oh goodie, goodie with gushy feelings!"

Then, a nervous confusion sets in upon noticing the black Arabic side, which now we must protect (for reasons no one has yet to figure out).

Zenster said...

You New: Scenario:

"Who are those guys with a Nazi flag? (The National Socialist flag side being so easily recognizable and the red standing out). Oh, good, they are burning the Nazi flag! They must be anti-facist, oh goodie, goodie with gushy feelings!"

Then, a nervous confusion sets in upon noticing the black Arabic side, which now we must protect (for reasons no one has yet to figure out).


Your scenario is absolutely on the money, You New. People need to have Islam and genocide inextricably linked in their minds. Maybe that will finally dislodge the Religion of Peace™ meme.

It's time to make all of those warm squishy feelings about Islam go away and go away forever.

Egghead said...

Hi all: Look at the awesome flag design on the following site:

http://death2islamofascism.wordpress.com/

Freyja's cats said...

Friends,

With all due respect to the additional comments made on this thread after my initial comment...

...I still assert that the bi-ideological Nazi/jihadi flag is a no-go.

There are a great many Germans in Germany. I think that you'll want them on your side.

The red flag with the white circle containing a black swastika may come across to you as the "Nazi flag," but it is also the official national flag of Germany during the Hitlerian time period.

If you burn that German flag, you are expressing the desire to destroy Germany and Germans.

If you use Zenster's design, you are going to piss off an awful lot of Germans, and a lot of Americans of German descent.

Non-"Red" Germans do not want to be associated with Islamic jihad.

The same problem occurs with the Totenkopf. A lot of people are proud of their Prussian heritage, and admire Prussian military prowess and history.

A lot of folks -- like me, for instance -- know our European history. I'm not anywhere old enough to be a World War II veteran, but I know my European history well enough to know what the Schutzstaffel (SS) was, and what the Totenkopf was.

If I were a German during that time period, and I had to make a choice between being ruled by the Nazis and having to put up with the SS, or Moscow's puppet Deutsche Demokratische Republik (DDR) and the Stasi ruling over East Germany...

...I'd have chosen Hitler over Stalin, any day.

Again, don't offend Germans and Germany by using the suggested icon.

Heck, it offends *me*!

We need all nation-loving Germans to stand up and be loud and proud of their nation and their heritage.

Freyja's cats said...

Ditto for Egghead's suggestion, too.

All these suggested designs are only going to INCREASE anti-Jewish sentiment.

Freyja's cats said...

Here's another very good reason why it would be a very bad idea to associate a swastika with a black jihadi flag:

The swastika is a very holy BUDDHIST symbol. And a HINDU symbol. And a JAINIST symbol.

Here is the Wikipedia article on the swastika.

The HINDUs and the BUDDHISTs and the JAINISTs are being massacred by Islam.

You will really, really, really offend a lot of Hindus, Buddhists and Jainists by placing their holy symbol next to the black jihadi flag that is killing them off and stealing their land.

Zenster said...

Freyja's cats: You will really, really, really offend a lot of Hindus, Buddhists and Jainists by placing their holy symbol next to the black jihadi flag that is killing them off and stealing their land.

First off, how likely is it that "Hindus, Buddhists and Jsnists" are going to set off car bomobs or fly jet airliners into buildings as a protest against such a use of their supposed symbol?

Secondly, what portion of Europe's population is composed of "Hindus, Buddhists and Jsnists"?

While you're at it, feel free to answer the other questions I posed to you earlier which you have, evidently, chosen to ignore. Namely:

1.) What percentage of the living European population would make that association [between the Nazi swastika and National Socialism's antipathy to Communism]?

2.) How many, instead, would see in that flag image an attempt to directly link Islam with Nazism's genocidal history?

You have boasted here at Gates of Vienna about being such a well-educated person and, yet, somehow have managed to avoid responding to some very direct and clear-cut questions that arise from your own claims.

Plainly put, "Hindus, Buddhists and Jainists" are the least of Europe's worries. Especially so in comparison to the burgeoning Muslim threat to the entire Continent.

Do you argue that any minor risk of unintentionally offending these European (or otherwise situated), "Hindus, Buddhists and Jainists" totally outweighs the need to form an immediate and indelible connection in the public's mind between Nazi-style anti-Semitic genocide and the exact same sort of anti-Semitic genocide currently being sought by Islam?

Please feel free to answer these very ordinary questions that are beggared by your own posted objections.

Freyja's cats said...

@ Zenster:

In order to geographically contain and stop the global spread of Islam, a broad coalition is needed of Europe, Russia, China, India, Southeast Asia, Australia, Israel, non-Islamic Africa, the United States, and Canada. It would also be nice to have Mexico and other Latin American countries, too.

India is an incredibly important partner in the global counterjihad effort.

Much care should be taken not to do anything that would offend any country that has a significant population that holds the swastika to be a holy symbol.

I, of course, being a scientist and engineer, am not going to hazard any sort of guess at the hypothetical percentage to which you referred in your comment.

The only way to ascertain that, would be to conduct a scientific poll.

I am not a polling service.

Perhaps, though, you would be willing to contract a respected polling company to conduct your inquiry, and would be kind enough to ask if they would forward the results to Baron, so that he could post the results on GoV.

A lot of people from many countries died in World War II. Not just the Jews.

I am not one of those persons who solely and automatically associates "genocide" with "Jews"; nor do I solely and automatically think of "genocide of Jews" when I see a German flag of the Hitlerian period.

Stalin "genocided" an awful lot of Jews.

Before, during and after World War II, a lot of Jews were Communists and killed a lot of people, too.

Karl Marx was Jewish. Marxism has been the deadliest movement on the planet, yet.

Rosa Luxemburg was Jewish. Her Marxist activities ended up killing an awful lot of people.

I recall that there was this Jewish guy named Lenin.

And another one named Trotsky.

They "genocided" an awful lot of Russians.

Jews kill people, too. That's what the IDF does.

The IDF protects and defends Israel, and has been instrumental in its territorial expansion. How is that different from the Wehrmacht's role for Germany?

Jews are not the only ethnicity or nationality falling under the sword of Islam.

It can be liberating for a Jew to look outside of the Jewish box, once in awhile. It's good to get away from victim mentality. You might consider trying it.

Freyja's cats said...

@ Zenster:

In order to geographically contain and stop the global spread of Islam, a broad coalition is needed of Europe, Russia, China, India, Southeast Asia, Australia, Israel, non-Islamic Africa, the United States, and Canada. It would also be nice to have Mexico and other Latin American countries, too.

India is an incredibly important partner in the global counterjihad effort.

Much care should be taken not to do anything that would offend any country that has a significant population that holds the swastika to be a holy symbol.

I, of course, being a scientist and engineer, am not going to hazard any sort of guess at the hypothetical percentage to which you referred in your comment.

The only way to ascertain that, would be to conduct a scientific poll.

I am not a polling service.

Perhaps, though, you would be willing to contract a respected polling company to conduct your inquiry, and would be kind enough to ask if they would forward the results to Baron, so that he could post the results on GoV.

Freyja's cats said...

@ Zenster:

A lot of people from many countries died in World War II. Not just the Jews.

I am not one of those persons who solely and automatically associates "genocide" with "Jews"; nor do I solely and automatically think of "genocide of Jews" when I see a German flag of the Hitlerian period.

Stalin "genocided" an awful lot of Jews.

Before, during and after World War II, a lot of Jews were Communists and killed a lot of people, too.

Karl Marx was Jewish. Marxism has been the deadliest movement on the planet, yet.

Rosa Luxemburg was Jewish. Her Marxist activities ended up killing an awful lot of people.

I recall that there was this Jewish guy named Lenin.

And another one named Trotsky.

They "genocided" an awful lot of Russians.

Jews kill people, too. That's what the IDF does.

The IDF protects and defends Israel, and has been instrumental in its territorial expansion. How is that different from the Wehrmacht's role for Germany?

Jews are not the only ethnicity or nationality falling under the sword of Islam.

It can be liberating for a Jew to look outside of the Jewish box, once in awhile. It's good to get away from victim mentality. You might consider trying it.

Zenster said...

Freyja's cats: I, of course, being a scientist and engineer, am not going to hazard any sort of guess at the hypothetical percentage to which you referred in your comment.

The only way to ascertain that, would be to conduct a scientific poll.

I am not a polling service.


Stop prinking about and face the question squarely. You know bloody well that only a few percent of living Europeans have any deep awareness of Hitler's anti-Communist stance. Hell, the bleeder made his "non-agression" pact with Stalin, so any animosity was pretty much window dressing. After all, National Socialism and Communism are merely two variants of Socialist theory, right? Your answer, please.

You also know damn well that most modern Europeans would take away a perception that there might be some link between the Holocaust and genocidal doctrine within the Qu'ran.

Furthermore, the swastika is not an exact duplicate of the Hindu or Buddhist symbol in that Hitler's is rotated by 45°.

It is also verging on the ridiculous to maintain that "Hindus, Buddhists and Janists" are going to be so offended that they would no longer rally together with or abandon any alliance to thwart Islam's ongoing murderous encroachment upon ALL THREE RELIGIONS.

I will repeat: Do you argue that any minor risk of unintentionally offending these European (or otherwise situated), "Hindus, Buddhists and Jainists" totally outweighs the need to form an immediate and indelible connection in the public's mind between Nazi-style anti-Semitic genocide and the exact same sort of anti-Semitic genocide currently being sought by Islam?

Do you honestly think that India would back away from joining the West in defeating Islam because of a timely and useful propaganda campaign that helped spark public awareness of the numerous genocides Islam has committed in India and elsewhere?

Freyja's cats: … nor do I solely and automatically think of "genocide of Jews" when I see a German flag of the Hitlerian period.

Which places you in a distinct minority of the global population so I would ask that you consider dropping such sophistry and set about making an honest attempt to hazard some VERY SIMPLE and educated guesses as you've been asked.

Stalin "genocided" an awful lot of Jews.

But not with the horrific, methodical and mechanical precision that Hitler did. STOP STALLING!

Before, during and after World War II, a lot of Jews were Communists and killed a lot of people, too.

Irrelevant!

Karl Marx was Jewish. Marxism has been the deadliest movement on the planet, yet.

WRONG! Islam has caused a far greater death toll than the puny Communists could ever aspire to. Some estimates approach almost 300 MILLION dead, a figure that butchers like Stalin and Mao could only dream of. You could not be more wrong.

It is also just so much more sophistry to claim that: “If you burn that German flag, you are expressing the desire to destroy Germany and Germans.”

I have spent a lot of time in Germany and worked many years for various German companies and I sincerely doubt that many of my German colleagues would have taken an iota of umbrage at burning the Nazi flag.

If anything, Germany has overreacted and carries far too much shame about its Nazi past to EVER protest the burning of that flag.

If you use Zenster's design, you are going to piss off an awful lot of Germans, and a lot of Americans of German descent.

You make this claim, NOW BACK IT UP. You merrily refuse to speculate about the most obvious historically supported facts and, yet, feel free to casually make assertions that are not supported by facts in evidence. Either produce those facts or withdraw your claims.

Freyja's cats said...

@ Zenster:

I am not under any obligation to provide statistics that do not yet exist, as "proof" of an opinion that I may hold.

What Germans may say out loud when asked their views on Nazi Germany and the Hackenkreuz, might very not reflect their innermost true opinion.

After all, it is currently a federal crime in Germany to display the Hitlerian-era Hackenkreuz-bearing flag of Blutfahne fame.

I stated that I, myself, feel offended by your proposed design.

I am of Germanic descent. I am not inclined to burn *any* Germanic flag.

Whether it be the flag of Iceland, the Faroes, Norway, Sweden, Denmark, England, Frankreich, Germany, The Netherlands, Austria, Switzerland...or any other flag of Europe, I do not advocate either burning it or conflating it with Islam.

I do not advocate burning flags, period.

I do, however, encourage all readers of this post to peruse this very nice article on the historical symbolism and cultural signficance of the swastika and Hackenkreuz across the world.

To me, the symbol is ancient and sacred to many people across the world.

If Europeans are not aware of the symbolism of the swastika and Hackenkreuz, then I would prefer to educate them of it, and thus help Europe and the rest of the world reclaim and preserve its ancient mystique and beauty.

Freyja's cats said...

@ Zenster:

And, again, I emphasize that the display of the Hackenkreuz (swastika) bearing Third Reich flag, or an icon based on that flag, is currently banned and illegal in several countries of Europe, including Germany.

Readers may learn more about the Flag of Germany here, and about the German ban on Nazi symbols here.

Germans who displayed your suggested flag icon on their website or on their person or in public, could conceivably be charged with a serious crime.

This is particularly true if the intent of the display is to inflame political passions.

Egghead said...

Freyja's cats: I have found your debate with Zenster to be worth reading. Gently, I say that your logic and presentation could have been more effective for you to convince a modern American to consider your arguments.

From 12-14 years old, I lived in Germany as an American military brat. I have happy memories of both Germany and the German people.

I find interesting and compelling that you ask to let the Germans forget Nazism - especially where you perceive that other European peoples are just as guilty to have participated in Jewish and non-Jewish genocide.

As a modern day American being forced to "flagellate" and asked to pay "reparations" on behalf of some past Americans being slave owners, I understand your point that Germans would like to forget the Nazi label. I truly would hate to offend good-hearted modern Germans whose help would be most useful to the anti-jihad cause.

That said, your last argument is your most compelling argument. I had forgotten about the ban on Nazi symbols in Germany....

Hesperado said...

Freyja's cats' comments above reflect an extreme at a polar opposite point from another extreme (the extreme under which the West has been holding itself in its thrall for the past 60-odd years).

While we may agree that the PC MC order that reconfigured after WW2 throughout the West and then gained mainstream dominance takes good ethics too far, and has more specifically skewed and perverted the "Never Again" mantra of the Holocaust into a new dogma that enforces (officially and unofficially) a morbid excess of two virtues -- self criticism and multiculturalist tolerance; nevertheless, the rational among us do not wish to careen to the opposite extreme and turn history on its head in order to champion the deserved vanquished of WW2 as the true ideological Victors.

While the sociopolitico-cultural and psychological shame which the majority of Germans have learned to cultivate and inculcate post-Hitler has, again, been twisted into a PC MC that would now elevate Muslims into the New Jews (whilst simultaneously relegating the Old Jews and their Western supporters to an absurd vilification of being the New Nazis), that is no reason to throw out the baby with the bathwater.

I.e., from what I can tell of Freyja's cats' comments, the person who wrote them does not belong in the anti-Islam movement, and if that movement were actually an organization and not the still inchoate mess it continues to be, I would support expelling individuals like Freyja's cats from its ranks.

There is no conceivable argument by which Hitler and his regime can be exonerated. That is precisely the gold standard of that adjective that should be used with great care, judiciously and sparingly, but here is searingly appropriate: unthinkable.

Freyja's cats said...

@ Hesperado:

I do not believe that history began with Hitler.

World War I was initiated by a bullet shot from a Serbian nationalist and embedded in Archduke Ferdinand Franz.

The political forces subsequent to that action created and molded Hitler.

Before that shot, had occurred a succession of events related to national unification in continental Europe that played hay with the political map for over a century.

One can reach back to Napoleon's march across Prussia, along the old paths up to to Russia.

Before that, there were the Jacobins and the Terror of Robespierre.

One can continue to go back in time.

The history of Europe is long and bloody.

It is a long chain of survival and death; victors and losers; slavery and emancipation; and, unfortunately, power-grabbing and genocide.

One has to look at the entirety of the history of Europe.

East-to-West population pressures on Europe, are not a recent phenomenon, whether it be Islam and the Muslim world pushing in upon Europe today, or the Huns bearing down on the Goths many centuries ago.

It is by looking at and understanding the whole stream of history, that one comes to understand the rhythm.

I know who my ancestors are. I have mapped their movements across and around Europe for centuries and millenia.

I know what they ate and drank, and what clothes they wore. I know the color of their hair and skin. I know their songs and their gods. And I know their struggles to survive.

I am Europe. And I shall fight for her.

I am not a descendant of Abraham. He hailed from the Levant. The descendants of Abraham are other peoples than mine.

I have my priorities in order, as a champion of the descendants of ancient and indigenous Europe.

Other descendants of the ancient tribes of Europe, who know who they really are, who are out there reading my words in the blogosphere, will support me.

I will not be a slave to today's disease of political correctness.

I encourage all the children of the indigenous tribes of Europe, to break the psychological chains that prevent us from being the warriors embedded in our ancient DNA.

Hesperado said...

Freyja's cats wrote:

"I will not be a slave to today's disease of political correctness."

Unfortunately, Freyja's cats proposes another disease to fight the PC MC disease. PC MC, however, is not a disease in that sense: it is an excess of health, which requires the patient heal himself, and not turn upon himself and end up killing himself.

In addition, I'll be damned if I will allow European barbarians to plunge the West into Third World disorder. The West has spent centuries pulling itself out of Third World disorder. If it can't heal itself of its PC MC condition in an organic and civilized way, I'd rather die, both personally and civilizationally, because either way there would be nothing worth defending.

Freyja's cats said...

@ Hesperado:

I am not at all suggestion that Europe "turn upon himself and end up killing himself."

That's exactly what I'm trying to prevent.

I'm trying to get all of the children of indigenous Europe to get on the same page, as best as they can given their various tribal warts and interpretations of history, and aim their bows and arrows at the xenophillic ideologies that have induced a suicidal social pathology.

If you'd rather die than prioritize DNA over ideology, you are, of course, entitled to steer the course of your own life.

As for me, if forced to choose between saving foreign ideologies or utopian and universalist visions of "civilization," and my own DNA...

...I'll choose my DNA.

Out of respect for my 100% European ancestors, who struggled mightily to survive that I and my own descendants should be able to live, I will prioritize my physical life over all the politically-correct glue that has been dumped into the brains of Europids ever since the Christian empire began to control us, and accelerated by Marxism-Leninism and its toxic offspring.

I always encourage the use of brains first, wherever possible, in order to stay physically alive and maintain the group survival of my people,...

...but if pressed with my back against a wall, then my choice is Valhalla, not Heaven or Jannah.

Egghead said...

Hi Hesperado: I think that your flag graphic is very relevant to and potent as a symbol to modern Americans who are used to seeing Nazis as supreme villains in our literature and movies. Clearly, Nazism and its implementation was an utterly EVIL ideology; and, ironically, one of the many pieces of evidence that indicates this EVIL is the Nazi "flirting" with Islam.

One interesting point to remember is that other WWII and modern Europeans have "flirted" with Islam, too, to the great detriment of all modern Western society. Thus, Britain ensconcing the WWII Grand Mufti in the Middle East after WWII makes Britain MORE complicit in the modern rise of Islam than Nazi Germany. Had Britain prosecuted the Grand Mufti instead of promoting the Grand Mufti, then we might have been able to avoid WWIII - which is fast at hand....

Indeed, leaving modern Germany entirely out of the equation, if modern Britain and all of the other European and Scandinavian countries were undertaking smarter actions against Islam TODAY, then we might also be able to avoid the fast-approaching WWIII....

Egghead said...

Freyja's cats is indicating that your flag graphic is offensive to Germans who are stigmatized by the Nazi label - years after World War II and paying war reparations - including the absorption of the utterly draining Eastern Germany economy with its infusion of unproductive Communist thought into Western Germany.

How would modern Americans feel if a prominent Southern Civil War battle standard were combined with the black flag of Islamic jihad? Well, some Americans would be OK with that, but other Southerners who feel as though the Civil War was a bully war of the envious North against the prosperous South, or the federal government against clearly Constitutionally-articulated states' rights to secede from the Union.... Well, those Southerners who feel that slavery was a dying institution anyway and that Civil War history is nuanced and who are proud of their Southern heritage would be highly offended by the new flag.

I am enjoying having this conversation with both you and Freyja's cats. Hesperado, you are ALL modern American, whereas Freyja's cats brings an interesting historical German-European perspective to the debate. Hesperado, you may totally disagree with Freyja's cats, but I have personally found some of her insights to be unique and worth considering.

Of course, having lived in a Germany rebuilt after WWII, my heart aches at the thought that Germany will suffer further destruction in an Islamic WWIII.

I quite love Germany and the German people. It is my impression that, right or wrong, many German people equate their German WWII Nazism to our American period of slavery. Both bad, both EQUALLY bad, both finished. I believe that is the standard German viewpoint.

Hesperado said...

Hi Egghead,

Just to clarify, this symbolism at the center of this GOV essay here is the creation of Zenster, not me.

As for the comparison of the American South's Civil War with the North, and Hitler's Germany waging psychotically supremacist war on the world in alliance with two other evil regimes plus a loose affilation with evil Muslims -- the comparison is misleading, in ways that may be subtly exploited.

First, Hitler's Germany and the crimes his regime committed and war he provoked were astronomically worse -- more dangerous and more evil -- than was the American South and the Civil War they provoked.

Secondly, however, I don't know the technical term for the logical fallacy that seems to be at play here, but in lay terms it would be described as:

X and Y are both bad things, therefore if X is horrible, then Y is horrible; or if X is not so horrible for a variety of mitigating reasons, then Y is not so horrible.

Closely related to the above is the following:

If we are going to agree that X and Y are bad things, then if you try to say that X was far worse than Y, that would by contrast make Y relatively OK and tolerable, if not excusable. Then, by sophistical prestidigitation, if Y becomes relatively OK and tolerable if not excusable, perhaps X can be argued to be similar by a sort of transferal of qualities from Y back onto X -- once we manage to find a way to wipe away some of the superficial differences that are causing people to think X was far worse than Y.

Y here would be the American South and the Civil War; X would be Hitler's regime and WW2.

The way to remove all the subtle obfuscations and sophistry behind these manifestions of logical slipperiness would be to hold fast to the following concrete principle:

Hitler's regime, the crimes it committed and the war it provoked were astronomically more dangerous and evil than the American South, the system of slavery it supported, and the Civil War it provoked -- but that doesn't let the American South off the hook: it too was dangerous and evil, but simply lesser in magnitude (both quantitatively and qualitatively) than Hitler's regime by a degree that was astronomically great, but not so great as to allow wiggle room for exculpating the American South -- much less for somehow lessening that magnitude of disparity by some kind of reverse sleight-of-hand that would then endow Hitler's Germany with a relative exculpation.

Lemonade

Hesperado said...

Egghead,

P.S. to my last post:

Just as Hitler's regime was astronomically worse than the American South, so too Islam is and always has been astronomically worse than Hitler's regime.

And, just as the American South is not let off the hook for being dangerous and evil just by its relatively favorable comparison with Hitler's regime, so too the latter would not get let off the hook by its relative disparity vis-a-vis Islam.

Hesperado said...

Freyja's cats (FC) wrote:

I am not at all suggestion that Europe "turn upon himself and end up killing himself."

That's exactly what I'm trying to prevent.

Of course I'm not saying that FC is intending civilizational mayhem and suicide. Old saws come in handy sometimes, such as "The road to hell is paved with good intentions". Napoleon's pathology and Hitler's pathology had good intentions -- in the sense that, for example, a psychologist can find the confused groping for love in the serial killer-cannibal Jeffrey Daumer's stalking, abducting, murdering, then eating the body parts of various strange men. So the love in the equation is the same love that is good in other experiences and circumstances and effects -- therefore Jeffrey Daumer was not dangerous and evil and should not have been stopped?

rebelliousvanilla said...

While I agree with Freiya's view that the universalist ideology is far less important than peoplehood, I'd have to point out to him that Hitler lead the German people to destruction. He could have ended the war quite a lot of times, but he couldn't see Germany without Nazism and he destroyed the former due to it.

On the other hand, besides this, he is pretty much right about what he says. I hardly give a damn about universal values, equality or any of that. If this is what I'm to fight for, I'll pass. My people don't benefit from any of those beliefs - let those who do fight for them.

Hesperado, people like you, who'd rather have his own go extinct in order to feel morally superior are pretty much part of the problem.

Oh, and I'd like to point out that Hitler wouldn't have existed without America meddling into WW1 and Europe wouldn't be in the craphole now if America stood out ideologically out of Europe. Also, the collapse of the colonial empires is the fault of the US. With friends like these, we don't need Muslims. But again, you said you'd rather have us go extinct, just so that you will feel morally superior. I'm really glad that the US will be irrelevant in geopolitics fairly soon.

Freyja's cats said...

Quote #1:

A great unloosening of speech with reference to the Jewish Question and the Jewish program for world power has occurred in this country since the beginning of this series of articles. It is now possible to pronounce the word “Jew” in a perfectly serious discussion, without timidity, or without intimidation. Heretofore that has been regarded as the special prerogative of the Jewish publicists themselves and they have used the name exclusively in well-organized and favorable propaganda. They can oust portions of Shakespeare from the public schools on the ground that the Jews are offended; they can demand the removal of one of Sargent’s paintings from the Boston Library because it represents the Synagogue in a decline. But when anything emanates from the Gentile side which indicates that the Gentile is also conscious of the Jew, then the charge of prejudice is instantly and strongly made. The effect of that in this country has been a ban on speech which has had few parallels in our history. Recently at a banquet a speaker used the term “Jews” in reference to the actions of a group of Jewish bankers. A Jewish guest leaped to his feet demanding to know if the speaker considered it “American” to single out a race that way. The speaker replied, “I do, sir,” and received the approval of the audience. In that particular part of the country, business men’s tongues had been tied for years by the unwritten law that Jews must never by singled out as Jews.

-- Henry Ford, The Dearborn Independent, 17 July 1920

Freyja's cats said...

Quote #2:

“Governments and international organisations need to provide adequate resources for the fight against hatred, notably by providing security to Jewish communities and by improving education. Laws against anti-Semitism and other forms of racism need to be adopted and enforced properly in every country. All forms and expressions of neo-Nazism, xenophobia and intolerance are unacceptable and have to be condemned, and the full force of the law needs to be applied to those who are a danger to democracy liberty and Jewish communities. Marches by extremist, anti-Semitic groups should be banned where national laws provide for such a possibility. Governments and political leaders should condemn such events and work together with local Jewish communities.”

-- World Jewish Congress

Hesperado said...

As long as we're quoting quotables, here are a couple more:

"True, it is a fixed idea with the French that the Rhine is their property, but to this arrogant demand the only reply worthy of the German nation is Arndt's: "Give back Alsace and Lorraine". For I am of the opinion, perhaps in contrast to many whose standpoint I share in other respects, that the reconquest of the German-speaking left bank of the Rhine is a matter of national honour, and that the Germanisation of a disloyal Holland and of Belgium is a political necessity for us. Shall we let the German nationality be completely suppressed in these countries, while the Slavs are rising ever more powerfully in the East?"

And another quote from the same author:

"This is our calling, that we shall become the templars of this Grail, gird the sword round our loins for its sake and stake our lives joyfully in the last, holy war which will be followed by the thousand-year reign of freedom."

-- Friedrich Engels, Karl Marx's co-author (See here and here).

As John Ray observes:

"So let that be an introduction to the idea that Hitler not only called himself a socialist but that he WAS in fact a socialist by the standards of his day. Ideas that are now condemned as Rightist were in Hitler's day perfectly normal ideas among Leftists. And if Friedrich Engels was not a Leftist, I do not know who would be."

Now here's a quote by another author:

"Let us consider the actual, worldly Jew -- not the Sabbath Jew, as Bauer does, but the everyday Jew. Let us not look for the secret of the Jew in his religion, but let us look for the secret of his religion in the real Jew. What is the secular basis of Judaism? Practical need, self-interest. What is the worldly religion of the Jew? Huckstering. What is his worldly God? Money. Very well then! Emancipation from huckstering and money, consequently from practical, real Jewry, would be the self-emancipation of our time.... We recognize in Jewry, therefore, a general present-time-oriented anti-social element, an element which through historical development -- to which in this harmful respect the Jews have zealously contributed -- has been brought to its present high level, at which it must necessarily dissolve itself. In the final analysis, the emancipation of the Jews is the emancipation of mankind from Jewry".

-- Karl Marx

As John Ray observes:

"Note that Marx wanted to "emancipate" (free) mankind from Jewry ("Judentum" in Marx's original German), just as Hitler did and that the title of Marx's essay in German was "Zur Judenfrage", which -- while not necessarily derogatory in itself -- is nonetheless exactly the same expression ("Jewish question") that Hitler used in his famous phrase "Endloesung der Judenfrage" ("Final solution of the Jewish question"). And when Marx speaks of the end of Jewry by saying that Jewish identity must necessarily "dissolve" itself, the word he uses in German is "aufloesen", which is a close relative of Hitler's word "Endloesung" ("final solution"). So all the most condemned features of Nazism can be traced back to Marx and Engels, right down to the language used. The thinking of Hitler, Marx and Engels differed mainly in emphasis rather than in content. All three were second-rate German intellectuals of their times."

http://constitutionalistnc.tripod.com/hitler-leftist/id9.html

Hesperado said...

As long as we're quoting quotables, here are a couple more:

"True, it is a fixed idea with the French that the Rhine is their property, but to this arrogant demand the only reply worthy of the German nation is Arndt's: "Give back Alsace and Lorraine". For I am of the opinion, perhaps in contrast to many whose standpoint I share in other respects, that the reconquest of the German-speaking left bank of the Rhine is a matter of national honour, and that the Germanisation of a disloyal Holland and of Belgium is a political necessity for us. Shall we let the German nationality be completely suppressed in these countries, while the Slavs are rising ever more powerfully in the East?"

And another quote from the same author:

"This is our calling, that we shall become the templars of this Grail, gird the sword round our loins for its sake and stake our lives joyfully in the last, holy war which will be followed by the thousand-year reign of freedom."

-- Friedrich Engels, Karl Marx's co-author (See here and here).

As John Ray observes:

"So let that be an introduction to the idea that Hitler not only called himself a socialist but that he WAS in fact a socialist by the standards of his day. Ideas that are now condemned as Rightist were in Hitler's day perfectly normal ideas among Leftists. And if Friedrich Engels was not a Leftist, I do not know who would be."

http://constitutionalistnc.tripod.com/hitler-leftist/id9.html

[continued next post]

Hesperado said...

[continued from last post]


Now here's a quote by another author:

"Let us consider the actual, worldly Jew -- not the Sabbath Jew, as Bauer does, but the everyday Jew. Let us not look for the secret of the Jew in his religion, but let us look for the secret of his religion in the real Jew. What is the secular basis of Judaism? Practical need, self-interest. What is the worldly religion of the Jew? Huckstering. What is his worldly God? Money. Very well then! Emancipation from huckstering and money, consequently from practical, real Jewry, would be the self-emancipation of our time.... We recognize in Jewry, therefore, a general present-time-oriented anti-social element, an element which through historical development -- to which in this harmful respect the Jews have zealously contributed -- has been brought to its present high level, at which it must necessarily dissolve itself. In the final analysis, the emancipation of the Jews is the emancipation of mankind from Jewry".

-- Karl Marx

As John Ray observes:

"Note that Marx wanted to "emancipate" (free) mankind from Jewry ("Judentum" in Marx's original German), just as Hitler did and that the title of Marx's essay in German was "Zur Judenfrage", which -- while not necessarily derogatory in itself -- is nonetheless exactly the same expression ("Jewish question") that Hitler used in his famous phrase "Endloesung der Judenfrage" ("Final solution of the Jewish question"). And when Marx speaks of the end of Jewry by saying that Jewish identity must necessarily "dissolve" itself, the word he uses in German is "aufloesen", which is a close relative of Hitler's word "Endloesung" ("final solution"). So all the most condemned features of Nazism can be traced back to Marx and Engels, right down to the language used. The thinking of Hitler, Marx and Engels differed mainly in emphasis rather than in content. All three were second-rate German intellectuals of their times."

[continued next post]

Egghead said...

Hi Hesperado,

Whoops! I stand rightly corrected that Zenster designed the flag whereas we are discussing its potential efficacy at associating evil with Islam for a present day Western PC MC non-Muslim audience - with Germans and other Europeans as a distinct but important subset.

Both as a young teen living in Germany and now, I would agree that the Nazi period was "worse" than American slavery. It is GERMANS who themselves offer that comparison with the idea (right or wrong, true or false) that both are equally bad.

Where present Americans may easily separate present Germans from Nazis, Germans may find that distinction harder. It may be difficult for Germans to psychologically separate Nazi actions from German actions because Germans are aware that a whole lot of ordinary everyday Germans enabled the Nazi regime in various ways.

In truth, the same may be true of more Europeans than Americans realize. A lot of everyday ordinary Europeans enabled the Nazi regime in various ways as it moved across Europe. Thus, the association of Nazi evil with Islamic evil may hit closer to home with both Germans and also Europeans than Americans would suspect.

As a separate but related issue, present day Germans and perhaps other Europeans may feel offended having their past Nazism held out as the "most evil" in the same way that present day Americans might feel offended by having their past period of slavery held out as the "most evil" - especially when present day Germans and Europeans are prone to remember past Russian Communists who also enabled significant evil and violently killed a whole lot of people during the same general time period as Nazism.

In addition, in response to criticisms of the Nazi period, Europeans often respond with severe criticism of the WWII American nuclear bombings. Most Americans would be truly surprised at the extent of hostility in the rest of the world towards America for being the only country to use nuclear bombs against "civilians."

I totally agree with you that Islam is even "worse" than both Nazism and American slavery.

However, it is less important what we think than what a present day Western PC MC non-Muslim audience thinks - if we are trying to appeal to emotions or reason to achieve change in that audience.

In summary, Zenster's flag idea may work better to reach Western PC MC Americans and Australians than Western PC MC Germans and Europeans.

Hesperado said...

John Ray has more interesting facts and insight into this general issue:

"Everything must be different!" or "Alles muss anders sein!" was a slogan of the Nazi Party. It is also the heart's desire of every Leftist since Karl Marx. Nazism was a deeply revolutionary creed, a fact that is always denied by the Left; but it's true. Hitler and his criminal gang hated the rich, the capitalists, the Jews, the Christian Churches, and "the System".

I.e. -- the "Elites".

More from John Ray:

It is very easy to miss complexities in the the politics of the past and thus draw wrong conclusions about them. To understand the politics of the past we need to set aside for a time our own way of looking at things and try to see how the people involved at the time saw it all. Doing so is an almost essential step if we wish to understand the similarities and differences between Nazism and Marxism/Leninism. The following excerpt from James P. O'Donnell's THE BUNKER (1978, Boston, Houghton Mifflin, pp. 261-262) is instructive. O'Donnell is quoting Artur Axmann, the Nazi youth leader, recalling a conversation with Goebbels in the Hitler bunker on Tuesday, May 1, 1945, the same day Goebbels and his wife would kill themselves after she killed their children.

"Goebbels stood up to greet me. He soon launched into lively memories of our old street-fighting days in Berlin-Wedding, from nineteen twenty-eight to thirty-three. He recalled how we had clobbered the Berlin Communists and the Socialists into submission, to the tune of the "Horst Wessel" marching song, on their old home ground.

He said one of the great accomplishments of the Hitler regime had been to win the German workers over almost totally to the national cause.

I.e., the non-"Elites" -- the "People"

We had made patriots of the workers, he said, as the Kaiser had dismally failed to do. This, he kept repeating, had been one of the real triumphs of the movement. We Nazis were a non-Marxist yet revolutionary party, anticapitalist, antibourgeois, antireactionary....

Starch-collared men like Chancellor Heinrich Bruening had called us the "Brown Bolsheviks," and their bourgeois instincts were not wrong.

John Ray then observes:

"It seems inconceivable to modern minds that just a few differences between two similar ideologies -- Marxism and Nazism -- could have been sufficient cause for great enmity between those two ideologies."

To which I would add -- yes: just like the Sunnis and the Shiites.

[final part next post]

Hesperado said...

I.e., what concerns me from some sentiments I see in the anti-Islam movement is an amorphous remythologization -- and valorization -- of barbarian tribalism elevated by an appeal to an autochthonous Europe. This remythologization identifies several classes of Western people as enemies, and in doing so logically would lead to plunging the West into the very kind of Third World disorder they claim they are protecting the West from.

I have more love for the West than what is reflected in this darkly cynical view that finds it all too easy to brand enemies amongst us. If it's that easy for Westerners to be enemies of their West, and if there are that many of them all around us, then I fail to see any longer a West worth defending. And I certainly don't want to throw in my hat with one of the many tribes coalescing out of this intellectual and psychological incoherence, even if they do claim to represent the "true" West.

But I think the West has more substance, reflected in good and decent (though not perfect) citizenry which includes "elites", than that darkly cynical and nearly gnostic view permits. Precisely because the West is great, it has developed a sociopolitical culture of very few internal enemies, as compared to other cultures.

And, at least for now, I don't even regard these darkly cynical quasi-gnostics -- who seem to be planning (at least in their minds) for a Mad Max-type Apocalypse -- as enemies; rather, just as Westerners who are confused and to some extent deformed by a failed culture of historical and philosophical literacy unfortunately influential in the West.

(John Ray source again:
http://constitutionalistnc.tripod.com/hitler-leftist/id9.html)

Egghead said...

"John Ray then observes:"

"It seems inconceivable to modern minds that just a few differences between two similar ideologies -- Marxism and Nazism -- could have been sufficient cause for great enmity between those two ideologies."

"To which I would add -- yes: just like the Sunnis and the Shiites."

Yes. It reminds me of that song that says, "Everybody wants to rule the world."

Communism, Marxism, Fascism, Socialism, Nazism, Islamism - and even anarchy - are fundamentally similar in that their proponents want to rule the world by eliminating free will.

Thus, free peoples are to be enslaved by the state or the corporation or science in service of atheism or Allah....

Freyja's cats said...

Alsace-Lorraine? Elsaß-Lothringen?

The history of Elsaß-Lothringen is interesting. It is good to know this history when discussing Hitler. The Wikipedia article on Alsace-Lorraine is here.

Also, in order to understand Hitler, one has to understand the flip-side to the Alsace-Lorraine debate: the Saar.

The Saar was emphatically German. Yet the French took it via World War I, under the auspices of the League of Nations, until the 1935 Saar Plebescite.

The French wanted to keep the Saar, even though the German people of the Saar did not want to be French. The French attempted to Franco-ize the Saar, but failed.

The French wanted both Elsaß-Lothringen and the Saargebiet for strategic reasons. Elsaß-Lothringen had the iron ore. The Saar had the coal. The French wanted both to make steel.

The people along the Saar were a blend of morphing of French and German in clothing and diet and music.

It must be remembered that the French were once the Franks, and the Burgundians, etc. These were Germanic tribes.

The long view of history is that the Celtic tribes along the Rhine were either displaced or absorbed by the Germanic tribes. But these are all indigenous peoples.

The important thing is that Muslims and Islam are not at all indigenous to the region.

So may the French and Germans and the Benelux all unite against Islam, and (humanely, if possible) send the obviously non-indigenous Muslims, back to Dar al-Islam.

Freyja's cats said...

I see that there seems to be debate in this blog community over whether National Socialism belongs on "the left" or on "the right," or exactly just what sort of ideology that Hitler envisioned it to be.

First, let me put out on the table that my family were in both Germany and the U.S. at the time. A goodly chunk of my German ancestors had been in the process of emigrating from Germany to the U.S., between 1890 and 1924. So I have a foot in both worlds.

Importantly, I have ancestry and ancestors in both the Saargebiet and the Ruhrgebiet, during that period.

The Ruhr, like the Saar, was a strategic coal-mining region. It was an area of heavy industry, with steel being ueber-important.

See here.

As a result of the Treaty of Versailles, the Saar was under French occupation, and the Ruhr was under Belgian occupation.

After World War I, the German people in the Ruhr were starving. The Americans, British, French and Belgians wanted it that way. This is where and when hyperinflation of the Deutschemark went sky-high.

I have a crate full of family documents, heirlooms and other memorability from the Ruhr and the Saar from 1800's into the Nazi period. I also have my family's oral history. So I have an intimate insight into the lives of Germans and Germany during those years.

I also have the documents and experiences of the German-American contingent of my family during that time.

My German-American father was drafted into the U.S. army during World War II, and was sent over seas to kill his own German family. I have World War I and World War II ancestral deaths who fought on both sides to honor.

Neither side wanted to kill his own family members. Like many Germans and German-Americans, they thought of themselves as all one family.

But Wilson and Roosevelt insisted that the United States enter the wars, despite the fact that much of the American population was German-American and had family abroad in Germany.

To my family at the time, *that* was the evil of the period of the two Great Wars.

Not the Nazis.

I will say more in future posts.

Hesperado said...

"The Saar was emphatically German. Yet the French took it via World War I..."

Let's ponder an analogy.

Let's say that Paul has worked hard all his life maintaining and improving a plot of land his own father passed on to him (and his father passed on to him in turn).

Let's say Peter, exploiting some complex laws and also an emergent situation of disorder, and with the help of the local authorities, takes a big chunk of Paul's plot of land away from Paul.

Then let's say that Paul, in response, goes berserk and forms a posse of deranged criminals and all together they ravage the countryside and gang-rape and strangle 300 little girls.

Freyja's cats' response seems to be to focus on that fundamental unfairness of taking Paul's plot of land away, and ignore -- or weirder yet -- skew into a virtue -- his evil crimes.

Freyja's cats said...

Due to length constrictions, this comment is broken into two posts.

----- Part 1

For those not intimately familiar with German history, please note the following sequence of dates:

1914-1918: World War I.

The 1917 Bolshevik Revolution and Russian Revolution in Russia made a very deep impression upon Prussians, Bavarians and other Germans...

...as did the German Revolution of 1918-19 that created the Bavarian Soviet Republic.

The Treaty of Versailles is signed 28 June 1919.

The Kapp Putsch occurs in 1920.

The German Workers Party (DAP) changed its name to the Nationalsocialistische Deutsche Arbeiter Partei (NSDAP) in 1920, under the leadership of Anton Drexler.

Hitler became the leader of NSDAP in 1921.

My grandmother emigrated from the Ruhrgebiet to the U.S. in 1921, traveling alone at age 16 and leaving her family behind.

Hyperinflation of the Deutschmark and the invasion of the Ruhr occurred in 1923. (I urge all of you to read this article.)

My grandfather emigrated from the Saargebiet to the U.S. in 1923, traveling alone and leaving his family behind. Two of his sisters emigrated separately.

Legislation passed in the U.S. shut down immigration in 1924. Thus, the rest of my family was trapped behind, in Belgian and French occupied zones of the Ruhr and Saar.

Many of my family members starved to death or were killed under that invasion and occupation.

Freyjas.cats said...

Due to length constrictions, this comment is broken into two posts.

----- Part 2

Hitler published Mein Kampf in 1925 and 1926.

Hitler makes it clear in Mein Kampf that the Russian and Bavarian "red" revolutions made a deep impression upon him. He wrote,

"Religion is ridiculed, ethics and morality represented as outmoded, until the last props of a nation in its struggle for existence in this world have fallen. Now begins the great last revoluion. In gaining political power the Jew casts off the few cloaks that he still wears. The democratic people's Jew becomes the blood-Jew and tyrant over peoples. In a few years he tries to exterminate the national intelligentsia and by robbing the peoples of their natural intellectual leadership makes them ripe for the slave's lot of permanent subjugation. The most frightful example of this kind is offered by Russia, where he killed or starved about thirty million people with positively fanatical savagery, in part amid human tortures..."

QUESTION: Did, and do, Germans not have a right to defend their country against Marxist-Leninist subversion and Communist overthrow?

Hitler wrote,

"What we must fight for is to safeguard the existence and reproduction of our race and our people, the sustenance of our children and the purity of our blood, the freedom and independence of the fatherland, so that our people may mature for the fulfillment of the mission allotted it by the creator of the universe."

Is this not what all freedom-loving sovereign peoples want?

Hitler wanted the German people to survive, and he wanted the homeland of the Germans to be preserved for their future generations.

He wanted the Germans to be free. He did not want them enslaved under Communism and controlled by Stalin as occurred to East Germany.

To we Germans, this was not evil. This was what we needed to try to do in order to survive.

QUESTION: What *could* the Germans have done differently to try to break the chains of the punishment of Versailles, stop the hunger and starvation, regain continuity of German-speaking territories, and prevent the enslavement of Germans under Communism?

QUESTION: What should the Germans do, today, to reverse the Islamic colonization, so that they can have their homeland back and be free to be Germans again -- without being branded as "Nazis"?

Why must Germans be constantly reminded that they are "evil" for wanting to live as free Germans in their own homeland?

QUESTION: Will the World Jewish Congress be willing to agree to lift the bans in Germany on freedom of speech and press, so that Germans may speak freely about the Islamization of Europe, without fear of stigmatization or arrest?

b49307 said...

I'm Iranian, here is a series of flags and books I've burned:
The flag of the Islamic Republic of Iran.
The flag of Yemen.
The flag of Lebanon.
The flag of Egypt.
The flag of KSA.
The flag of Jihad (the black flag).
The Koran.
Khomenei's toilet etiquette book.
Khomenei's Islamic law book.
Khomenei's revolutionary book.
Khomenei's early compiled texts.
Another copy of the Koran.
The Talmud.
The Old Testament.
The New Testament.

The only flag I hold dear is the Shir-o Khorshid.