Ladies and gentlemen,
Many thanks to the organisers of this conference, who in these peculiar times we live in must go unnamed, and many thanks for inviting me to speak here in Israel, which is both the historical birthplace of Judeo/Christian Western Civilisation, and the current epicentre in the fight to defend the West in its centuries old war against radical Islam.
Israel understands it is at war, and Israel understands it is both a defensive war and a religious war against mono-cultural and expansionist Islam. Most of the multicultural West, of course, protected by decades of peace and distracted by intensive political indoctrination and brainwashing from an early age, fails to understand this one simple fact.But the West needs to wake up. Having lived through the bloodshed and carnage of 20th Century Nazism and Communism, Europe now seems perversely determined to resurrect Nazism in the form of radical Islam, and Communism in the form of the modern Socialist hard-left, who appear determined to bring down the Christian Capitalist West via their Islamic allies, no matter what this may mean for their own children’s future.
There are many who will sneer at the comparison of radical Islam and the Nazi Party, but those who do so are either wilfully ignorant or deliberately evil. What ideology wished to exterminate the Jews? What ideology wished to murder the homosexuals? What ideology had global domination as its central theme, for which it was prepared to use violence and terror? What ideology revered its leader as a prophet who could do no wrong? What ideology thought of women as second class citizens fit only for religious study, the bedroom and the kitchen?
The answer of course is the Nazi Party, but I challenge any liberal-leftist to explain exactly how radical Islam differs in any way, and to explain to me how the leftist support of a political/religious cult that adheres to the basic tenets of Nazism can possibly be squared against the left’s supposed anti-fascist credentials.
Europe and the West now potentially face the most catastrophic disaster of our own making. We have imported Islam in such numbers as to make ourselves a minority within our own lands within the next few decades. In the case of Britain, recent reports suggest the indigenous British will become a minority by 2066. But this is not quite the whole story.
We non-reproducing British are an ageing and declining demographic, whilst the fast-reproducing Islamic demographic is notable for its youth. Islam may not become an overall majority until later this century, but it will become a majority amongst young males aged eighteen to thirty within the next two to three decades.
I do not need to tell anyone here about the importance of this statistic. Males aged 18-30 of course, are those who wage war, and history tells us that even though they may be outnumbered by moderates, the fanatical minority are always the ones who seize power and the fanatical minority are always the ones who initiate war.
Surveys suggest that 40% of Muslims in Britain wish to live under Sharia Law. Their massively expanding numbers — which will continue to grow at breakneck speed even if immigration were stopped tomorrow — coupled with their undiluted fanaticism, can mean only one thing — Britain is going to have to fight for its very survival within the next 20 years.
In other words, Britain and many countries in Europe are going to find out what it is like to live as Israel has lived since its rebirth in 1948. Britain is going to find out that being hated by Islam it is not because of territory, of occupation, or of settlements, but rather more simply because its indigenous inhabitants are not of the Islamic faith and must therefore be converted, dominated, or killed.
And again, such a statement is by no means hysterical. After the three-week Muslim torture and murder of Ilan Halimi in Paris, 2006, Israel suggested France was no longer safe for Jews to live in.
And Britain is not far behind. The East London Mosque is host to various Islamic haters of the West, whilst being simultaneously linked to the British government which has rolled over and submitted to Islam. In 2004 the East London Mosque allowed Sheikh Abdur-Rahman-al-Sudais, an imam at the Grand Al Haraam Mosque in Mecca, to make the following comment, which was not of course deemed an incitement to racial or religious hatred. Quote:
Read history and you will understand that the Jews of yesterday are the evil fathers of Jews of today, who are all evil offspring, infidels, distorters of words, the scum of the human race whom Allah cursed and turned into apes and pigs… these are the Jews, an ongoing continuum of deceit, obstinacy, licentiousness, evil and corruption.
Quite frankly, such gross anti-Semitic rhetoric would have left even Adolf Hitler struggling to compete. To hear it spoken with no fear of recrimination in Europe today is deeply disturbing.
The British people and their European friends need to understand that expansionist Islam makes us the 21st century version of the 20th Century Jews of Europe. It does not matter if we are Christian, Hindu, atheist, homosexual, lesbian, conservative or liberal — we will simply be defined by what we are not. We are not Islamic.
So we must overcome our smaller differences in our alliance against the mono-culture of Islam that wishes to dominate us, and the most important alliance today must be that between the West and Israel.
Western Civilisation was founded on Judeo-Christianity. It was born near here, on the slopes of Mt Sinai where Moses received The Ten Commandments, and it is defended here, in Israel, the focal point of Islam’s attack upon the West.
When we call for freedom and democracy, then by default, we stand with Israel. When we call for truth and honesty with regard to Islam, then we stand with Israel. When we call for bravery, determination and sacrifice in our struggle against Islam then we stand with Israel. When we call for the right to free speech and the right to a peaceful existence, then we stand with Israel.
When we call upon God to help us defeat evil, then we stand with Israel. When we call out the traitors, the appeasers, the propagandists and the anti-Western haters within Europe’s political and media class, then again we stand with Israel.
We are rooted together in this struggle, and rooted together we will stand or we will fall. And if Israel falls then the consequences for the West will be both horrific and cataclysmic. We cannot, we must not, and we will not allow this to happen. Long live Western Civilisation. Long live Israel!
Previous posts by Paul Weston:
29 comments:
In hoc signo vinces
Israel the only place on Earth where Europeans can indulge themselves in free speech.
The British people, the Germans people, the French, Dutch, the Swedish and Danish peoples have all like lemmings 'decided' to commit genocide on themselves - the post-modern phenomenon of suigenocide. A death wish born of ideologically groomed self-hatred, and executed with the weapons of multiculturalism (multi-minus-one), PC (ultimate destination: hate speech laws) and public policies that promote infertility of the indigenous western population (work like a dog to pay the taxes to distribute to the breeding radicalising invading rabbits that hate everything about you).
@4symbols, interesting observation - Israel as the sanctuary - from Austro-(Servo)-Hungarian Theodor Herzl to Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff.
I am no stranger to this argument and have been listed by a London Islamic school and by a Labour politician as being extreme right wing.
Why? Because the creep of radical Islam has reached a critical stage.
Actually, I'm centre-right on the last chart I filled in but more than that, just a person who wants the country to return to some sort of normality.
It's not in the next 20 years either - look at Leicester today and other no-go areas. It's hard for people in the States to conceptualize what it's like over here without actually coming over and taking a look.
It comes down to the PTB in the end and what they are enabling. This was quite a poignant post:
http://poxanglorum.blogspot.com/2010/12/edl-march-in-preston.html
... and look at the radically different attitude of the police in each case.
I don't march, I'm not a member of any organization except the Albion Alliance but unless we do, as this article says and wake up, we are in deep trouble.
There is no hate crime here, no racism, nothing but an observation of the changing demography and that replacing us is hardly benign.
F. cats --
OK, we got the message on the other thread. Leaving an identical copy of your comment -- except for changing Elisabeth's details to reflect those of Paul -- is not an acceptable way of contributing here.
If you don't have something different to say, you can simply refrain from commenting. Or, if you like, repeat yourself as much as you want at your own blog.
It seems to me that supporting Israel as the bulwark against Islam and the cornerstone of western civilization is taking it a bit too far.Parts of Europe were still 'pagan' up to the 14th century, and upto the late 90's I was rather hopefull that religion was on its way out of europe.I understand the domino effect that the destruction of Israel would bring about and fully support Israels right to exist.I recognize the judo-christian contribution to our culture but there are those of us that resist Islam much for the same reasons we would resist the church.Europe could be a progressive secular society where any religion and its teachings should be a matter of privacy.
If the Intelligence professionals I am reading are correct. Personally given the current world economic problem I don't see open warfare holding off more then 6 to 10 months.
The left and the Moslems moved too fast, there are still enough people in Europe and the US who care about our countries, our culture and our religion to resist. In the process the far left will probably be destroyed by the Moslems since they and the Jews are the easiest targets.
Can someone explain to me how is Israel democratic? I mean, if you understand democracy as what most people understand through that term, it means that you can't pick and choose which people will vote from your territory and stuff like this.
I disagree with Paul's comparison between Nazism and Islamism.
Nazism was a Germanic-based Weltanschaung designed to preserve, protect and propagate a specific genetic pool and its civilization and ancestral heritage -- Germanic. It was largely concerned with recovering its ancestral turf and preserving its ancestral mind and essence, and securing the economic and political future of ancestral Germania.
Himmler did not want to destroy Europe's ancient polytheist history: he wanted to preserve it.
Hitler understood that only a German can be a German. You can't conquer and Germanize a non-German. You can't force German culture and language on a non-German people, and get more Germans as a result. Only blood can make a German.
Islam is an totalitarian ideological system, designed to preserve, protect and propagate itself -- and along with it, Arabic language. Islam differs greatly from Nazism in that Islam's intent is to conquer and completely wipe out pre-existing civilizations of the entire world, including indigenous polytheist traditions. It seeks to abolish the memory and artifacts of their ancestral history, and substitute a completely new totalitarian monotheistic mindset.
Islam (like communism), says that anyone can be conquered and become a Muslim (or a communist).
Islam thus has more in common with communism, than with Nazism. Like communism, Islam seeks to wipe out ancestral memory and replace it with obeisant utopia. Both are universalist ideologies.
I disagree with Paul Westons' and Geert Wilders' speeches to the Israelis.
It does not do either the indigenous children of Europe, or the Jews, any good to coddle the Jews, decade after decade, and say that European Jews bore no responsibility for the European instability -- that it was all the Nazis; and, that Israeli Jews bear no responsibility for the Middle East instability -- that it is all the Muslims; and, that Jews are just hapless, perpetual victims of "anti-semitism."
Jewish-generated tribal survival strategies and tactics common to each of their successive ideologies of Judaism, Marxism, Socialism, Communism, Cultural Marxism, Multiculturalism and other Jewish-inspired sub-"isms" that generate these instabilities that give rise to "anti-semitism."
Here is a bit of proof. Watch this video:
The Jewish Community of Sweden 2010
Pay attention at the 20:00 minute mark of that Israeli-made video.
There, begins an interview with a grey-haired Jewish woman named Barbara Lerner Spectre, Founding Director, Paideia Stockholm.
Here's her direct quote:
"I think there's a resurgence of anti-semitism because, at this point in time, Europe has not yet learned how to be multicultural. and I think we are going to be part of the throes of that transformation which must take place. Europe is not going to be the monolithic societies that they once were in the last century. It's a huge transformation for Europe to make. And Jews will be at the center of that. They are now going into a multicultural mode. Jews will be resented because of their leading role. But without that leading role, and without that transformation, Europe will not survive."
"Anti-semitism" has a basis in Jewish collective behavior.
This "multicultural" Jewish activist is fully aware that it is her OWN ACTIVITIES that is driving the current "climate of anti-semitism" in Sweden.
Knowing this full well, this Jewish woman is going forward full-bore on her mission to "transform" Europe.
Here is the website of her organization:
PAIDEIA The European Institute for Jewish Studies in Sweden"
Baron,
With respect to comments nos. 4 & 5...
My comments to ESW's & Weston's speeches are similar, because *their speeches are similar.*
If you ask me what four plus four equals, and then ask me what three plus five equals -- by golly, I just might answer, "eight!" to both questions.
That is not a sign of impertinence on my part, or a desire to repeat myself in order to hear myself talk.
I did not get an answer to either mathematical question, wrong. Therefore I don't feel that an electronic smack-down is a friendly response to your having essentially asked the same question twice, using but a slightly different formula.
It took a lot of time to compose both of my responses to each speech, and to craft each accordingly, having carefully read each speech.
It is not a certainty that *all* visitors to your blog will read *each* blog entry, nor read all the comments to each entry.
Who knows? Perhaps Elisabeth will read the comments on her speech, and Paul will read the comments on his. However, they might not read all the comments under each other's.
I am letting each of them know that I undertook the time and effort to read their respective speeches, and cared, appreciated and respected both of them enough to tailor my responses to each.
Were I ever to operate my own blog, Baron, you are welcome to answer, "Eight!" without fear of the wrath of Khan from me.
:)
F. Cat --
Now that everyone has seen the reference here, they know to go over to Elisabeth's speech to read the comment there which was essentially duplicated on this post.
If you don't have your own blog, you would be well-advised to start one, because long-winded antagonistic comments here are a privilege, not a right. I am generally tolerant, but a long comment that all but duplicated another was too much.
When you set up your own blog, you may post long essays there, and then leave a brief (polite) précis here, along with a hotlink. I guarantee you I won't delete such comments -- provided, of-course, the essay you link to is mostly on-topic.
Even non-antagonistic comments are sometimes deleted, if they are long and repetitive. Zenster can attest to that fact.
;)
The on-topic and *unique* comment that I submitted in response to Paul's speech, has _also_ been deleted.
That is censorship.
I guess it wasn't "politically-correct" enough for this blog.
;)
My inclusion of a link to video evidence of proof-of-argument, was perhaps too much.
Anyone who would like to read the other *unique* and very post-relevant comment that I submitted in response to Paul's speech, is welcome to write to me at the following email address:
: Freyjas.cats AT att.net
I saved a full copy of this blogpage, including the original post and the commentary I submitted, before it was scrubbed.
I will be happy to send it to you.
Responding to 4Symbols: "Israel the only place on Earth where Europeans can indulge themselves in free speech."
Europeans may be able to indulge themselves with free speech in Israel, BUT I have read of recent dismaying examples of Israeli state censorship - and legal persecution - of free speech that violates state-set "politically correct" standards.
Freya's cats, please don't come in here and cry censorship. As the Baron has suggested, when saying the same thing twice, it is better to write it down once and link to it rather than to repeat it ad nauseam. It saves everyone time, hastle, and a great deal of "Oh not again!".
So, here's how you do it.
As I posted regarding ESW's speech, Mr Weston seems to over-inflate the importance of Greco-Roman and Judeo-Christian influences on our society.
Alas, such is our cultural malaise.
That's all that need be said (you would do well to make your words count for a bit more - believe me, I'm big on listening. Try it. You might like it :p).
I will try again...
I disagree with Paul's comparison between Nazism and Islamism.
Nazism was a Germanic-based Weltanschaung designed to preserve, protect and propagate a specific genetic pool and its civilization and ancestral heritage -- Germanic. It was largely concerned with recovering its ancestral turf and preserving its ancestral mind and essence, and securing the economic and political future of ancestral Germania.
Himmler did not want to destroy Europe's ancient polytheist history: he wanted to preserve it.
Hitler understood that only a German can be a German. You can't conquer and Germanize a non-German. You can't force German culture and language on a non-German people, and get more Germans as a result. Only blood can make a German.
Islam is an totalitarian ideological system, designed to preserve, protect and propagate itself -- and along with it, Arabic language. Islam differs greatly from Nazism in that Islam's intent is to conquer and completely wipe out pre-existing civilizations of the entire world, including indigenous polytheist traditions. It seeks to abolish the memory and artifacts of their ancestral history, and substitute a completely new totalitarian monotheistic mindset.
Islam (like communism), says that anyone can be conquered and become a Muslim (or a communist).
Islam thus has more in common with communism, than with Nazism. Like communism, Islam seeks to wipe out ancestral memory and replace it with obeisant utopia. Both are universalist ideologies.
I disagree with Paul Westons' and Geert Wilders' speeches to the Israelis.
It does not do either the indigenous children of Europe, or the Jews, any good to coddle the Jews, decade after decade, and say that European Jews bore no responsibility for the European instability -- that it was all the Nazis; and, that Israeli Jews bear no responsibility for the Middle East instability -- that it is all the Muslims; and, that Jews are just hapless, perpetual victims of "anti-semitism."
Jewish-generated tribal survival strategies and tactics common to each of their successive ideologies of Judaism, Marxism, Socialism, Communism, Cultural Marxism, Multiculturalism and other Jewish-inspired sub-"isms" that generate these instabilities that give rise to "anti-semitism."
Here is a bit of proof. Watch this video:
The Jewish Community of Sweden 2010
Pay attention at the 20:00 minute mark of that Israeli-made video.
There, begins an interview with a grey-haired Jewish woman named Barbara Lerner Spectre, Founding Director, Paideia Stockholm.
Here's her direct quote:
"I think there's a resurgence of anti-semitism because, at this point in time, Europe has not yet learned how to be multicultural. and I think we are going to be part of the throes of that transformation which must take place. Europe is not going to be the monolithic societies that they once were in the last century. It's a huge transformation for Europe to make. And Jews will be at the center of that. They are now going into a multicultural mode. Jews will be resented because of their leading role. But without that leading role, and without that transformation, Europe will not survive."
"Anti-semitism" has a basis in Jewish collective behavior.
This "multicultural" Jewish activist is fully aware that it is her OWN ACTIVITIES that is driving the current "climate of anti-semitism" in Sweden.
Knowing this full well, this Jewish woman is going forward full-bore on her mission to "transform" Europe.
Here is the website of her organization:
PAIDEIA The European Institute for Jewish Studies in Sweden
Paul Weston said:
Having lived through the bloodshed and carnage of 20th Century Nazism and Communism, Europe now seems perversely determined to resurrect Nazism in the form of radical Islam...
Weston failed to mention an additional torque that makes it doubly perverse: the West is not merely enabling Nazistic Islam -- the West is reversing the equation, by defining Muslims as constantly potential victims of a neo-Nazism that may at any moment rise up again amongst Western whites who, of course, have a natural (and unique) propensity to want to mistreat collectively any group that looks ethnic (as the vast majority of Muslims in fact do).
In the conception of the current PC MC template, this potential neo-Nazism is entirely a Western propensity: it begins incipiently with any criticism of Islam and would proceed down the slippery slope toward genocide (with internment, lynching, torture and deportation along the way) unless we the West control our own evil tendency to "hate" Muslims and mistreat them.
So, not only is the West merely enabling our enemy, we are interpreting any articulation of ideological self-defense, and any policy based upon that, as the "real enemy". Not only are we enabling this "New Hitler", we have convinced ourselves that we are the "New Hitler"! Not so much actually -- but potentially. And thus we must be vigilant about rooting out any incipient signs of this potential amongst our own non-Muslim people -- one of the chief signs being criticism of Islam and of Muslims.
An unfortunate -- and ironic -- feature of Paul Weston's speech is his asymptotic trope "radical Islam" (sadly, an all-too common trope even among many otherwise anti-Islam analysts). While there is an exception in his second paragraph in "mono-cultural and expansionist Islam", his reflex nearly everywhere else in his speech for this asymptotic trope reasonably leads his audience to conclude that Islam is only "mono-cultural and expansionist" whenever it's "radical" -- thus logically implying a non-radical Islam out there (in turn arousing the question of how broadly represented it is, and how much hope it gives us in solving the problem of its mister-hyde evil twin). Similarly, elsewhere he speaks of "the fanatical minority" who "may be outnumbered" by "moderates".
The irony of this is that this trope serves to reinforce the very same Western myopia which Weston is otherwise decrying,
P.S.: I too have problems with his Nazism-(radical)Islam equivalence -- chiefly because Islam is far worse and has the potential of being far more dangerous than Nazism ever was. The one focus where the equivalence works, however, is the one I discussed above: to wit, in terms of the popular mantra of "Never Again", and its double-twisting perversion in the PC MC transformation of Muslims into the "New Jews" imminently imperiled by the potential for a "new Hitler" to rise up from the white West.
Freyja'a cats with respect, I think you are wrong
You said "Islam differs greatly from Nazism in that Islam's intent is to conquer and completely wipe out pre-existing civilizations of the entire world, including indigenous polytheist traditions. It seeks to abolish the memory and artifacts of their ancestral history, and substitute a completely new totalitarian monotheistic mindset."
My understanding of Islam is that historically it is essentially parasitic in nature. The last thing Islam wants to do is to completely eradicate the kufar, (partially eradicate is fine) as there would be nobody left to intimidate or pay the Jizya. Islam has a racial supremacist aspect very similar to Nazism. Islam needs Dhimmis, it can't kill the host.
Trofim Lysenko, long time since I heard that name, his views were wrong scientifically, it was as simple as that, unfortunately they resonated with the Soviet Utopian ideal that was being hawked around at the time. Instead of being accepted as a valid hypothesis they were trumpeted as truth. And enforced as true, they cost the former soviet union millions of Rubles and unbelievable suffering.
Skjoldungen a Danish Blogger has an article on Hodja's blogg which shows the same process in action now, how a Swedish mathematical professor, is being hounded because the results of his research does not agree with the elites Utopian nightmare of global warming. Unfortunately truth has always threatened the power of the elites. Galileo verses the Catholic Church is a classic example. Fortunately for us all his view of reality, the scientific view won through, otherwise we would have been catapulted back into the dark ages.
(Academic Censorship Gone Mad) is a phrase he emphasizes, when politics not skepticism is the arbiter of truth, then there is no truth. 2+2=4 no longer exists, 2+2= is what ever you want it to be. When you enter this world you enter a world of smoke and mirrors.
The powers that be live under the illusion that there are no limits to there Utopian fantasy. New world order call it what you will. Unfortunately for them and much more unfortunate for the poor they will be given a reality enema in the next few years. Bill Joy one of the founders of Sun Microsystems said that the laws of physics determines the laws of chemistry which determines the laws of biology. When I first came across this remark it seemed rather axiomatic and therefore trivial, Newton had the same opinion of Euclid when he read the book and threw it under his bed, but when I thought about it, I realized how limiting it was, not only limiting, but permanently limiting. This seems to have been missed by our Utopian politicians, who seem too think that you can pour more into a pint pot than a pint.
Islam in many ways is more Utopian than most other religions, cause and effect is determined by Allah, not by the laws of Physics they can wander off into what ever byways there fantasy takes them. The trouble is that when the bump up against reality, which they surely will when peak oil starts to bite they will be at a loss in how to react, we live in interesting times.
What happened to my comment?
"My understanding of Islam is that historically it is essentially parasitic in nature. The last thing Islam wants to do is to completely eradicate the kufar, (partially eradicate is fine) as there would be nobody left to intimidate or pay the Jizya. Islam has a racial supremacist aspect very similar to Nazism. Islam needs Dhimmis, it can't kill the host." Meccano
If you look at the most Islamic countries, those Islamic countries are single-minded and stupid - and do indeed either fully eliminate or attempt to fully eliminate ALL infidels - Saudi Arabia being a prime example.
Then, the Islamic countries MUST wage active jihad to conquer NEW countries to find new infidel people capable of supporting a modern society - where Muslims are generally not capable when left to their own devices.
The problem for Islam is when it conquers the whole world where all infidels are subservient without any more access to education and employment than average Muslims - in which case WHO will be left to run a modern society for Muslims?!
latté island, yes, it's unfortunate a lot of Jews think like her, just like it's unfortunate a lot of Muslims think we are dirty kafirs. What's your point? There are many Muslims who don't mind our values either. I know a bunch of them. I hardly see any relevance in this anecdotal stuff.
RV, I deleted my comment when I noticed the comment I'd responded to had disappeared. Now that it's back, I won't bother responding to it again, but reply to you, since you asked. My point? F's cats used that deluded but unfortunately representative Jewish woman as an example of ... whatever ..., and since I felt he was overstating his case with respect to The Jews, I said so. He also, I thought, oversimplified the Nazi thing, so I mentioned the obviously ambiguous ethnicity of many top Nazis. Anecdotal, yes, but is this not material?
What's your point? I'll be frank...you're going to be quite interesting someday, but I think you pick little fights with allies here, because of your youth and huge ego. Why is your tone so sharp? Was my comment so offensive, or do you just not know any better?
Commenter Freya's Cats must be joking. "Nazism was a Germanic-based Weltanschaung" ..et cetera
Nazis, i.e. members of the National Socialist German Workers Party, were just another bunch of heterodox marxists, just like the fascists in Italy. They were socialists who advocated the leftist idea of the Superman and the slave state ruled by one party.
Kind regs from Amsterdam,
Sag.
Pace Sagunto, I think Freyja's cats is quite serious in his/her admiration of Nazism and the logically concurrent demonizing of Jews as the cause of "European instability." Just because someone makes reference to such inane concepts as "preserving [the Germanic] ancestral mind and essence" and the "successive ideologies of Judaism, Marxism, Socialism, Communism, Cultural Marxism, Multiculturalism and other Jewish-inspired sub-'isms'" does not mean that such a person is joking.
I think myself that beginning any sentence with "Hitler understood" reflects an ignorance not only of fundamental concepts such as culture, nation, and civilization, but of the nature and virtues of German culture in particular. Here at least I have Tolkien on my side (a truly learned man, steeped in the language, literature, and history of "our northern world beneath our northern sky"), who termed Hitler a "ruddy little ignoramus," responsible for "[r]uining, perverting, misapplying, and making for ever accursed, that noble northern spirit, a supreme contribution to Europe."
@nsh,
My bad. I didn't mean to suggest that I actually thought FC is joking, in fact I'm affraid he's quite serious, so we're actually in agreement here.
I like the mentioning of Tolkien and I agree. Socialists are good at many things (genocide, spreading poverty equally among subjected peoples), one of them being the art of subverting and ruining everything that's noble and has any real value. I don't however quite agree with anyone who'd call Hitler an ignoramus. I understand the sentiment behind the remark but I'd be far happier if people take national socialism more seriously than that, because parts of this evil socialist doctrine have survived - through the expansionist welfare state - the demise of the nazis themselves.
Kind regs from Amsterdam,
Sag.
As a sidenote:
FC conveniently overlooks the fact that the Hitler regime was a great friend of Islam in the person of al-Husseini (the "grand" mufti of Jerusalem who pressed for the Endlösung in Europe, in order to continue the extermination of the Jews in the Mid-East and North-Africa).
latte, I don't consider people who are into universalism my allies. Universalism is my enemy and on a smaller note, egalitarianism.
And I mind hypocrites, so I'm sort of fed up with the argument that not all Jews are like that so we shouldn't draw logical conclusions about them, but all Muslims are dangerous and want to subvert our societies. And I don't make an equivalence in between the two groups, I obviously consider the Muslims far worse, but it's pretty pathetic to pander to the Jews and hate the Muslims and do so from a defend Europe perspective.
rebelliousvanilla wrote:
...I'm sort of fed up with the argument that not all Jews are like that so we shouldn't draw logical conclusions about them, but all Muslims are dangerous and want to subvert our societies. And I don't make an equivalence in between the two groups, I obviously consider the Muslims far worse, but it's pretty pathetic to pander to the Jews and hate the Muslims and do so from a defend Europe perspective.
When comparing two different groups who share certain general qualities, it is helpful to make careful distinctions about levels of comparison.
On one level, we can say that both Jews and Muslims share the following qualities:
a) they are both groups,
2) they are both groups of humans, and
3) they are both groups of humans who are vilified by others.
Now, just because two groups share these three qualities, that does not by itself mean that their vilification referred to in #3 must be approximately the same: rebelliousvanilla thus, on the basis of such an approximate comparison, sets up a logical dilemma:
If your vilification of Group X is valid, then why are you against my vilification of Group Y?
Or:
If my vilification of Group Y is invalid as you claim, how can you turn around and continue to vilify Group X?
Such a logical quandary may make sense in the abstract, but fails when grounded in massive facts of Muslims all around the world exploding, stabbing, beheading, torturing, shooting, attacking in guerilla fashion, gang-raping, threatening, plotting mass murder, and otherwise theologically and ritually and ideologically indulging in grotesque displays of hatred -- while none of this (outside of one or two examples of lone individuals) massively visible evidence exists on the other side of the equation, among Jews.
In order to balance the scales of the two Groups, then, the antisemite is forced to elaborate vaguely and amorphously sinister evils Jews are doing that can never be pinned down as fact comparable to the mountain of data of grotesquely violent and ghoulishly hateful activity and speech we can find daily among Muslims around the world.
Since Jews aren't generating a comparable mountain of data -- and haven't even amassed a paltry hill of beans in comparison -- the antisemite must seek more amorphous, almost metaphysical, "evidence" against the evil Jew who doesn't need to explode or behead but, being all the more malevolently clever and insidiously powerful than the brute Muslim, has been destroying the West under our feet and only the rare antisemite can see this greater danger.
So goes the implicit argument.
Hesperado, I never said I don't regard Muslims in the way you do. I apply my criticism equally to all people. And considering that Marxism, both the economic and cultural ones were and are quite the Jewish endeavours(just look up the ethnicity of the influential people in the movements), I don't see how I can't make the comparison. The way I see it, 9/11 wasn't that bad considering the death count compared to the disaster that the things Jews support and concieved created for us.
Post a Comment