And if Hitler were born in America?


Few people, both in the US and in the rest of the world, may know that the US has had its own Nazi Party, which under other different names (such as the Social Revolutionary Party) is still very active. I do not have statistics about how many Americans read or have read Mein Kampf, and even less knowledge about how many may have been influenced directly or indirectly by its ideas. Often I have heard the argument that Hitler, despite his charisma, would have never succeed in reproducing in the US what he created in Germany. This argument, in other words, suggests that something exquisitely German existed in the formation and ascension of the Nazi delirium. As an anthropologist, I have my strong reservations about this suggestion.

I tend to think that Nazism achieved such an appeal because it is ‘natural’: it applies to the very basic emotions and instincts of human-primates. The rationale is the ‘extermination’ of the different, of the intruder, of the alien, seen as a monster and a barbaric deformation of the real prototype. In the case of Hitler, the Jews became the target.

They profiled well in the alienating Post-WWI Germany. People from a different religion, with a strong sense of community, who rejected assimilation or tried to maintain a community identity, spoke a different language or used a different language to pray, Jews fitted the increasingly collective imaginary not only of the enemy but of the uncivilised inhuman monstrosity, the aberrant barbaric urban savage.

I do not need to demonstrate the powerful rhetoric used by the German Nazi propaganda to represent the Jews as weak, vicious, terrorists who were monstrous creatures devoted to mysterious, uncivilised and demonic since anti-Christian rituals. We need just to mention the ‘blood libel’ among the many other imaginary chimeras.

According to Nazi propaganda, the uncivilised, the un-assimilated, the isolationists and arrogant monsters (Judaism claims an inherent superiority of Jews towards not only other religious people but all humanity) threatening German society had to be controlled, checked, marked, to guarantee the security of the nation, of the civilised people, of the state. Public safety was the main priority of the Nazi state. If this meant abusing human life and using torture and extermination, Nazi Germany had no soft heart: everything should be done for ‘public safety’. It is not just an old rhetoric; today the ‘public safety to all costs’ (even the cost of torture and arbitrary killing by proxy) is again here to stay probably for quite a long time. Only that this time is not the subversive, terrorist, communist, Jew from which the civilised have to defend themselves, but the Muslim (often seen as an undetermined category).

Today we know how the German Nazi dream of a civilised, secure, strong, nationalistic, and national value-based, Germany, which did not want to ‘give up’ its identity to the ‘degenerated’ influences of ‘alien’ cultures ended. We also know that from the ashes of the millions of Jews whom died during the Holocaust, Israel, sixty years ago, was born (and Palestinians started the sufferance of their nakba still enduring). Blood called for blood, and in the alchemy of desperation, a sort of genome of the Holy Land, the hopes and tears of joy of the new Jewish state translate into the agony and tears of the endless bereavement of the denied Palestinian state.

America today is a super power full of contradictions. Strong in its foreign policy, marked by preemptive wars for imposing ever-postponed democracies, the Goliath of the Atlantic has fragile feet of clay. Suffering only though dramatic terrorist attacks, Goliath seems trapped in an eternal fear. A fear which has changed: from the external foreign enemy, the international Islamic terrorist, to a generalised fear of Muslims, even the star-spangled banner waving Muslims.

If Hitler were born in the US in 1964, and had the same successful political career thanks to his political solutions, would Hitler’s solutions for the ‘Muslims issue’ be popular with Americans? Check this video below

I am not naïve. I know that, methodologically speaking, these interviews are very much MacEoin style, and we do not know where, when, in which US state, or on what occasion the interviewer collected them. Yet this may suggest that it is time that academics (me included) start to shift their over-focused research on Muslims to understand how Muslims are perceived by non-Muslims in the West and if 1930s solutions could appeal to the twenty-first-century human-primate as the final solution to our fear of Muslims: another possible Holocaust, this time crescent moon instead of Star of David badge wearing?

Hegel has suggested that historical facts never happen just once; Marx added, ‘history repeats itself, the first time as tragedy, the second
as farce’. Yet to those Americans (or Europeans or whomever) who dream of a Hitlerian solution to the increasing fear of Muslims, I have to remind them that, if Hegel is right and Marx convincing, this time, the conclusion of the new-old ‘final solution’ cannot be other than the Caliphate!

Gabriele

21 thoughts on “And if Hitler were born in America?

  1. Pingback: Don’t mention you’re religious! « The Daily Terror

  2. “I tend to think that Nazism achieved such an appeal because it is ‘natural’”.

    Not sure about that. I’ve heard it suggested the Nazism in its German form was really just European Imperialism – with its scientific racism and militaristic nationalism – taken to its logical conclusion. I haven’t heard all the justifications for that assertion, but it sounds very plausible on the face of it.

  3. Utter crap really and quite pathetic. “Often I have heard the argument that Hitler, despite his charisma, would have never succeed in reproducing in the US what he created in Germany. This argument, in other words, suggests that something exquisitely German existed in the formation and ascension of the Nazi delirium.” Nazism was quintessentially German as it like previous regimes was dependent on securing the ‘Reich’ through seizing territory abroad. As to your predictable contrast between how Germany treated the Jews and how Muslims in the west are today consider the following if you can:

    1. Jews in 1930s Germany did not agitate for a Jewish state ruled according to their own religious laws taking precedence over Non-Jewish laws. Jews have never believed for instance that the world belongs to Allah an needs to be ruled according to divine dictates.

    2. Jews in Spain, Italy or Germany for that matter were not committing and plotting to commit acts of terrorism aimed at slaughtering the civilian population on behalf of their religious beliefs. Rather they were alienated and subsequently murdered by a totalitarian racist ideology. Personally I think the Islamic system and by that I mean Islamic Jurisprudence and Sharia law has more in common with Nazism than the US. By that I refer to the way it is global in its aspirations and discriminatory in the way it seeks to subjugate non-Muslims and women. It is also as a theocracy authoritarian.

    Seriously as an educated man why do you write such garbage? It is incredibly easy to refute these arguments of yours. A simple look at history shows that comparisons between 1930s Jews and modern Muslims are invalid. I mean how many Jewish riots where there over cartoons and books written about their faith? Also if you feel there is no comparison with political Islam and Nazism just go on youtube or Google and see what they have to say for themselves (the Islamist organisations).

  4. Dear James

    thank you for your comment. Although my post was about the comments that some people make in the US about Muslims which sound very similar to those solutions advocated by Nazi supporters, I can give some interesting historical examples that you probably missed while watching Youtube and using Google (not two of my preferred academic references I have to say!).

    you said

    Jews in Spain, Italy or Germany for that matter were not committing and plotting to commit acts of terrorism aimed at slaughtering the civilian population on behalf of their religious beliefs.

    First of all, speaking of Jews in general as well as Muslims in general is totally wrong. There are Jewish people of different denominations with different political aims as well as ideologies. The same can be said about Christians, Muslims and any other religion or even sect. To deny this would be extremely flawed or to use your expression a big pile of ‘garbage’.

    Said this, here some examples of what, if we apply the same category you seem to about Muslims, you may like to call ‘Jewish terrorism’ during the 1940s and later in order to establish a Jewish state (Israel) to respect the will of God and the Torah:

    Assassination of a British government official Cairo 6 November, 1944. Lord Moyne, Secretary of State, was assassinated by the Stern Gang. Yitzhak Shamir, a member of the Irgun and later leader of the Stern Gang was behind the plan.

    Hostages Taking against the British in Tel Aviv, 18 June, 1946.

    Blowing up government offices (including their civilian employees and visitors) Jerusalem, 22 July, 1946. The toll was 91 Britons dead, and 46 injured in King David Hotel. The terrorist attack was coordinated with and carried out under the instruction of the Haganah.

    Booby-trapped suitcase: British Embassy in Rome (Italy), 13 October, 1946.

    Booby-trapped car parked in civilian areas: against the British in Sarafand (east of Jaffa) on 5 December, 1946.

    Flogging of hostages: British in Tel Aviv, Natanya and Rishon, 29 December, 1946.

    Letter-bombs sent to politicians: twenty letter-bombs were sent from Italy to London between 4 and 6 June, 1947.

    Murder of hostages as a reprisal for government actions: against the British in Natanya on 29/30 July, 1947 and making a booby trap out of their bodies!! The note left with the bodies read: “This is the sentence of the Irgun’s High Command”.

    Postal Parcel-bomb sent to London, 3 September, 1947.

    for more and for references you can read:

    Shaul Zadka; Zeev Ivianski; Arie Perliger and Leonard Weinberg; Raider, Mark A.; and in particular Joseph Heller

    So, what does history tell you here? Are these examples of ‘Jewish terrorism’ or actually of political organizations which used their Jewish identity and rhetoric (including the fact that killing gentiles is not a Jewish crime) for their own political aims and dreams? These organizations attacked internationally and they operated very much in the same political manner as Al-Qaeda since the message was ultimately the same: ‘leave our Holy land’. Of course the religious rhetoric, like in the case of al-Qaeda, was the way to recruit and receive support for their actions. I am sorry but I have the impression that you have referred to history without having deeply studied the radical organizations (both religious and atheist) which were involved in the struggle for the foundation of Israel.

    In the 1930s in Germany there were certain Jewish movements and political organizations (which also used violence) which, after hoping in Hitler and his plan to gift the Jewish population with a state in Madagascar, started to become disaffected with the German regime.

    Furthermore, no Muslim I know (other than very few extremists) wish to impose Shari’a on you, but many, even among the radical, see themselves as fighting to free sacred Muslim lands from oppression. This minority often wishes what actually a minority of Jews in the 1930s and 1940s wished for: a land in which to live under Talmudic Law or (as it happened) with compromises with the secularists (Zionists). This time of course, instead of the Talmud, it is the Qur’an.

    So where is the difference? Jewish extreme and radical organizations bombed London, Italy and the British colonizers and civilians in the name of a Biblical land.

    Today we have some fanatic, extreme Muslim organizations which bomb what they perceive as the new-colonial forces since they hope to establish a Caliphate, in the name of the Qur’an.

    Yet, I have the impression that you are suggesting quite horrible things in your post: you said in your point 1:

    Jews in 1930s Germany did not agitate for a Jewish state ruled according to their own religious laws taking precedence over Non-Jewish laws.

    You are implying that if Jews were to “agitate for a Jewish state ruled according to their own religious laws taking precedence over Non-Jewish laws” Hitler would have been right to do what he did!! You are saying that the Holocaust would have been justified.

    But this is exactly how Hitler&Co saw the Jew!! He saw them as subversive of the German state because they refused to accept the non-Jewish law!! They rejected to recognise the German gentiles as superior to them since a Jew, by religious definition, is superior to a gentile (this is a simplification, but not a wrong one!)

    I am sorry but if this above is your argument then it is a very very stinky pile of garbage

    Best wishes
    Gabriele

  5. Right Gabriele, you seem to be confusing quite deliberately issues concerning Jihadi terrorism. However you do make certainly a coherent point here namely that terrorism was carried out by Jewish nationalists (or Zionists) in order to force the UK from Palestine.
    ” “These organizations attacked internationally and they operated very much in the same political manner as Al-Qaeda since the message was ultimately the same: ‘leave our Holy land’. Of course the religious rhetoric, like in the case of al-Qaeda, was the way to recruit and receive support for their actions. I am sorry but I have the impression that you have referred to history without having deeply studied the radical organizations (both religious and atheist) which were involved in the struggle for the foundation of Israel. “.

    You also point out that some Jewish resistance groups were atheist or secular in origin. I would advise you to explore the implications of that point further. Quite simply these people by and large fought for nationalist reasons. Of course terrorism is terrorism but the aim was the foundation of a nation state. That is quite unlike Al Qaeda whose aim is global in creating a transnational Islamic state. They are not simply seeking to eject western presence from their lands. To them the world is theirs. Of course Gabriele I do not consider Youtube or Google to be academic sources I drew them to your attention however as there is a huge amount of evidence on them, produced by the Islamists themselves. Quite simply they make their point quite clear their aims are global and that is what they say. You may disagree and that is fine but I simply suggested that you look at what they themselves have to say.

    “Furthermore, no Muslim I know (other than very few extremists) wish to impose Sharia on you, but many, even among the radical, see themselves as fighting to free sacred Muslim lands from oppression. This minority often wishes what actually a minority of Jews in the 1930s and 1940s wished for: a land in which to live under Talmudic Law or (as it happened) with compromises with the secularists (Zionists). This time of course, instead of the Talmud, it is the Qur’an.” Even if this were true and I do not believe it is it ignores the global aspirations of Islamists. Secondly it is wishful thinking in the extreme to suggest that Al Qaeda would even for one second be interested in compromise! Compromise with what secular Muslims and non Muslims on Al Qaeda’s agenda come on mate get real.

    “You are implying that if Jews were to “agitate for a Jewish state ruled according to their own religious laws taking precedence over Non-Jewish laws” Hitler would have been right to do what he did!! You are saying that the Holocaust would have been justified. ” I said no such thing nor did I imply such a thing. I feel you have made this point rather disingenuously after I pointed out the falsity of drawing comparisons with 1930s German Jews. The Jews never agitated for Jewish law under Hitler. Nor did they commit violent acts against the German population in the name of Judaism. The tragedy was they were overall well integrated. It is an ironic fact of history that the German Colonel who pinned the Iron Cross on Hitler during ww1 was himself Jewish. Jews were undoubtedly envied by many Germans but they did not seek to subjugate the law ever in Germany at that time. Did they plant bombs on subway trains then, or threaten newspaper editors with death over harmless satire? We both know the answer is no. I have replied somewhat hastily here so have not included sources but certainly can if you wish. Check out just two sources for how Jihadists have global aspirations (those ones you seem to overlook):

    http://www.memritv.org/clip/en/1761.htm

    http://www.pmw.org.il/Bulletins_may2007.htm#b240507

    http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5gze6Zsf30wi6C-EXEyb-1SP5DCVw

    http://www.albawaba.com/en/countries/Iraq/226074

    Note that the arguments are couched in religious terms. There are loads more but if you want to believe these people are somehow pluralistic nationalists dream on.

  6. Dear James

    thank you very much for clarifying some points. I am happy to know that you strongly condemn statements which are similar to those expressed in the video I have posted, and which resemble the Nazism and the anti-Jewish legislation of the 1930s.

    Although there are many different groups, and things, as I have demonstrated in my book, Jihad Beyond Islam, are quite complicated as far as the personal opinions of those who considered themselves ‘jiahdis’, I suggest that you read this book:

    Messages to the World: The Statements of Osama bin Laden

    I will be very happy to discuss how much of bin-Laden’s ideology is a real religious ‘Holy War’ against the infidel world in order to reduce it to Dhimmitude or actually a delirious political post-colonial struggle against what he sees as the neo-colonialist, imperialist, power(s), mainly the US, which is ‘oppressing’ the ‘Muslims’ and their lands (actually this may be a topic for a future post so we can widen the discussion).

    Of course in both cases the result remains the same: lots of innocent people killed. But the actions to be taken to stop this situation may be different from one case to another.

    Thank you for reading my blog and for your comments

    yours
    Gabriele

  7. James says
    that Jews under the Nazi regime, especially German ones, were well integrated and never sought to take over Germany and European society in the same way that bin Liner and his groupies are trying to do at the moment.

    Er, well, not according to Hitler and Goebbels who collectively blamed Jewish Bolsheviks for wanting to do to just that, and who claimed German Jews were not integrated and were basically fifth columnists and terrorists and the like, attacking, not just Germany and the German people, but western civilisation as we know it -
    cf ‘Kristallnacht’ just for instance – which was claimed by the Nazis as justified retaliation for a Jewish international terrorist act carried out in Paris against the whole of Germany, apparantly.

    James merely repeats nazi dogma and propaganda – but updates it by substituting Muslims for Jews and gives Muslims collective responsibility for the crimes committed by certain individuals, whom none of them has voted for and very few support.

    Strange how history repeats itself, I was just saying on another blog.

    Substitute Jews and Judaism for Muslims and Islam, and we are back again in inter-war Europe.

    ..Jewish resistance groups..
    - Surely you mean ‘terrorist groups’ James?
    What exactly were they supposed to be resisting?

    Isn’t it strange how some terrorists attacking Britian and the British military get rehabiliated and even held up as shining moral examples to the rest of – and others aren’t!

    All the best IMaaA!

  8. Joe, read what I said as you are wrong. Finally irrespective of what the Nazis said the claim that if you correctly point out that Islamist groups including violent ones are not only attacking the west but seeking to subvert it (again look at what these groups themselves say) makes you a Nazi is immature. Right so we must never criticise Hizb ut Tahir or Al Mujaroun then? Or point out the attacks in London, Madrid, Glasgow etc that killed hundreds? The plots uncovered that would have killed thousands these things should not be discussed as discussing them makes you a Nazi right? I did describe Jewish resistance to the UK in Palestine as terrorism and am happy to be unambiguous about that.
    “Isn’t it strange how some terrorists attacking Britain and the British military get rehabilitated and even held up as shining moral examples to the rest of – and others aren’t!” Yes it is ironic you can even end up as a government minister in NI. However I can see little chance of rehabilitating Jihadis in such a fashion as their aim is to substitute our law with a theocracy (again before you claim I am a Nazi look at what Anjem Choudhary has to say for just one example).

  9. An interesting corollary to the Nazis justification for launching ‘Kristallnacht’, the attack on a German diplomat in Paris by a Jewish gunman, is the justification used by the Israeli Government in 1982 for its illegal attack and invasion of Lebanon.

    After a prolonged period of goading PLO forces in Lebanon into retaliating against repeated Israeli provocations which failed to produce to required excuse for a pre-planned Israel attack and invasion – the Israeli Government were finally reduced to using an assassination attempt on an Israeli Ambassador by the PLO-outlawed ‘Abu Nidal Organisation’ as a causus belli.

    The scene of this supposed Palestinian crime against Israel was…London!

  10. James wrote: “I mean how many Jewish riots where there over cartoons and books written about their faith?”

    They didn’t need to riot. There were hate speech laws forbidding anti-Semitic speech in Weimar Germany just like there are in Germany today, and besides, more than half the media in Germany was either run or owned outright by Jews (not that different from the United States today).

  11. James wrote: “Jews in 1930s Germany did not agitate for a Jewish state ruled according to their own religious laws taking precedence over Non-Jewish laws.”

    False. There were plenty of Zionists in Germany who were agitating for a Jewish state ruled according to their own laws. You might want to rewrite your sentence as I don’t think that’s what you meant to say.

    James wrote: “Jews have never believed for instance that the world belongs to Allah an needs to be ruled according to divine dictates.”

    No, but they do believe that they are God’s Chosen People and that we goyim are here to serve them as slaves. Open up your Old Testament and read it.

    James wrote: “Jews in Spain, Italy or Germany for that matter were not committing and plotting to commit acts of terrorism aimed at slaughtering the civilian population on behalf of their religious beliefs.”

    Perhaps not, but there is plenty of evidence to suggest that Jews were committing and plotting to commit acts of terrorism aimed at slaughtering the civilian population on behalf of *Bolshevism*. Hell, even in the United States, where it never reached the point of a violent revolution, nearly half of those convicted of spying for the Soviet Union were Jews. You might also want to note that the neo-conservative movement to which you belong was founded by Jewish ex-Trotskyites.

    Have a look at Victor Wolzek’s Terror Timeline to get an idea of the extent of Jewish terrorism against the rest of the world:
    http://www.vanguardnewsnetwork.com/wolzek/HistoryofOurWorld.html

    Even if you only accept half the material in his timeline, he still makes a case that is hard to refute.

  12. Dear Igor,

    thank you for your comments and interest in my Blog.
    I have read some of the linked material which you have suggested, and much it seems suspicious. It is lacking strong and academic evidences and sounds very much similar to old-fashion anti-Semitism (for instance http://www.vanguardnewsnetwork.com/

    I think that some have not grasped what I have highlighted in my post: religion has very little to do with conflicts, which are very much politically based. I feel that today Muslims face some of the stereotypes which were reserved for the Jews in the 1930s and (as some of the links suggested seems to demonstrate) today. The video I have posted describes very well some of these attitudes towards Muslims .

    Best wishes
    Gabriele

  13. Marranci,

    Yes, without any doubt, the Vanguard News Network is an anti-Semitic website. I’m sorry to inform you that a timeline of this sort, no matter how well researched and documented, could *never* be published in an academic setting. But I’m sure you know that already.

    But what is it that you dispute about about the timeline? The vast majority of the events mentioned in it can be easily confirmed with the help of an encyclopedia and a search engine. This really sounds like a bit of obfuscation on your part, more than anything.

  14. “I feel that today Muslims face some of the stereotypes which were reserved for the Jews in the 1930s and (as some of the links suggested seems to demonstrate) today.”

    Gabriele: Many of the negative stereotypes about Muslims and Arabs are being propagated by Zionist Jews in the media. Perhaps you already know that and are just being coy about it, or perhaps you truly are as naive as you claim. At any rate, I am not here to convert you to my way of thinking and you can continue to believe whatever you want. Ignorance is bliss, as they say.

    I will add, however, that events like the Paris riots don’t do much to improve the public image of Muslims in the Western nations, and on a personal level, attempts to elicit sympathy by comparing Muslims to WWII-era European Jews will not work with me. Quite the contrary, in fact. The last thing the West needs is another whiny minority group to contend with.

  15. Dear Igor

    thank you for your prompt reply and for clearly state your viewpoint. Of course, I disagree in many points with you.
    Yet I am please to read that you recognise that the Vanguard News Network is an anti-Jewish website.

    I strongly reject anti-Semitism, anti-Jewish attitudes and any form of discrimination. I know, as everybody else, that there are individuals whom would behave against our understanding of what it means to be human.

    I am the first to be ready to condemned the single or group of individuals, or governments and regimes, who commit atrocities. Yet I reject any stereotyped, essentialist views of people.

    Nonetheless, I strongly believe in freedom, and in this case I can only quote George Orwell:

    Freedom is the right to tell people what they do not want to hear.

    Peace
    Gabriele

  16. Ah a fan of Orwell. Thank heavens for that we possibly have something in common Gabriele (although of course I do not know that you are an Orwell fan). I welcome your debate Gabriele and it seems a rational one unlike others on this page. I will link to your blog. Essentially we disagree on many things, not least your belief that Jihadis are motivated by politics and not religion. Speak later. James.

  17. Dear James,

    thanks for your comment. Yes, I can say that I appreciate Orwell and I have read him all more than once.

    I think that debates are interesting only if you have them with the people whom may disagree. It’s through discussion and argumentation (in an inteligent, open minded way) that science, social science, politics and so on may advance.

    Unfortunately today I see that politicians and the general public, but also increasingly academics, prefer to discuss with the people (or better in some cases supporters) whom agree with their own arguments.

    This is one of the most serious illness of our intellectual times! We today look for approval instead of truth (which we may like or dislike, or even reject, of course).

    I hope, when I have time, to write other posts that can facilitate debate.

    Best wishes
    Gabriele

  18. Sorry it’s taken me a wee while to get back to this thread -

    James regards comparisons between the behaviour of Nazi Germany and its treatment of its demonised enemies (Jewish, Jewish-Bolsheviks and Jewish-Capitalists) with the treatment today of Islam and Muslims by the Western powers-that-be as symptomatic of conspiracy theorists. Indeed, according to James, people like him who object to such comparisons are basically smeared as a ‘nazi’.

    However, Gabriele’s article is about making such comparisons – between today’s demonised ‘enemies’ (Muslims and Islam) and parallels with yesterdays demonised ‘enemies (Jewish folk and Judaism).

    How much of a danger are these so-called Muslim extremists and how representative are they of the body of the Ummah, Islam and Muslims as a whole?
    As far as I am aware, nobody voted for the likes of Osama bin Liner to represent their interests.

    Not so in the West, who voted for the likes of Olmert, Bush and Blair who are guilty of the most hienious crimes against vast swathes of humanity across the Middle East.
    Indeed, the US runs Soviet-style dictatorships in the Middle East depriving the people of proper democratic representation and subjecting them to the most oppressive kinds of tyranny imaginable.

    It shouldn’t come as any surprise to anyone that the people of the Middle East object to their treatment at the hands of their western opressors and indulge in acts of terrorism and resistence against occupying powers.

    Indeed, as most western intelligence services have told their governments, if they want so-called Muslim-extremism to disappear then western governemts should stop committing even bigger crimes against their Middle East victims. Western war crimes are far more criminal than anything any terrorist is capable of. Bush-Blair committed the worst crime possible, as declared by the Nuremburg Crimes Tribunal of ‘unporvoked aggression’ against Iraq and Afghanistan’. The same crime as Hitler.

    Is it any wonder the victims of Western crimes lash out at their brutal and bloodthirsty attackers and oppressors?

    Is it any wonder that western governments give their victims the blame for crimes which they are partly responsible for provoking and for not preventing.

    Those who don’t learn from history etc etc

    all the best IMaaA

    ps
    I’d just like to add that there are some who say that the establishment of Israel really didn’t have much to do with the Nazi Holocaust.

    The zionist forces aimed at stealing Mandate Palestine from Palestinians were already long established and their goal was clear.

    And while terrorists operating in Mandate Palestine may have been Jewish, it is far more accurate to describe them as zionist, rather than Jewish.
    To claim otherwise is antisemitic I would say.
    Just as the current Israeli regimes claims it is ‘Jewish’ and does what it does on behalf of Jewish People the world over, despite the fact most Jewish people don’t live in Israel nor take part in its election. The Israeli government claims that its crimes are the collective responsiblity of Jewish people and Judaism, which is antisemitic.

    This is much like Islamic extermists who claim what they do on behalf of others who have never voted for them. To claim these extremists as representative of Muslim folk as a whole and of Islamic Scripture is racist/islamophobic.

    I have still no idea what this so called ‘Jewish resistence’ were supposed to be resisting in Mandate Palestine.

    And just to finish -
    - There is quite lively continuity between former zionist terrorists of Mandate Palestine period and today’s Israeli government ministers and politicians who continue their ethnic cleansing of Palestine (West Bank and Gaza). Except today, it is war crimes they are committing rather than the lesser crime of ‘terrorism’ of yesteryear.

  19. A new report says that -
    …contrary to public perception, the challenge to multiculturalism in Europe comes not from Muslim communities’ unwillingness to integrate but from Islamophobia.
    New report says Islamophobia warps integration efforts
    By IRR News Team
    Institute of Race Rerlations
    O8 May 2008

    Just as Gabriele says,
    western Islamophobia could end up creating one of the very things it supposedly fears most, a Caliphate.
    After all, people under attack naturally come together for defence and are easy prey for extremists peddling quack remedies and solutions for their ills.

    Not that I, personally, have anything against the idea of a ‘Caliphate’ – something like that is entirely up to the people who wish such an institutions to exist, and up to them how it functions and is run.
    The last ‘Caliphate’, abolished by the Ottomans, was a completely benign affair at the end of its days, as far as I can tell.

    all the best!

  20. Hello there,

    I came across this blog and found it to be very interesting…although to voice my views on the matter, will take the discussion into a different direction…but here we go

    I’m not an idealist of any sort… nor am i religous, but i have my strong beliefs and force them on no individual, so no offence intended with any of my comments.

    The main problem is that most people often overlook the basic fact that terrorism on the scale of which you are talking about, is ALWAYS related to religion…so i ask the question what is religion??

    Religion is nothing more than an primal form of law!!!

    At one time in the history of mankind we would of ALL lived under the same “law/religion” as such and the world probly lived in harmony. At some point a person would of wanted to do something different and others would of wanted to follow them…this would of been the start of a religion!…nothing more than to live a certain way of life, wether believing in a god or a book that was written by someone maybe of importance a thousand years ago.

    Everyone has a right to believe in what they wish, but as far as i can see religion is the biggest cause of the struggle for power… in the way of “our religion/law is superior” and should be allowed/followed…Religion is the largest cause of war.

    Hitler once quoted that internationalism does nothing other than weaken a nation…i believe this to be true as different “religions/laws” normally have a place of origin and that is where it should be exercised and stay.

    To take a Religion/law you believe in to a place where it does not belong and to force it upon others or demand it be recognised is always going to cause friction.

    I also apply this to the US as they have there way of living… their own “religion/law” its the constitution…is that to say that it should be allowed or recognised in another country?

    The US live the way they live because of their constitution which could be classed as a religion…can anyone tell them that they cant live that way??

    It is not the responsibility of one country or individual to intervene in anothers way of life wether they agree with it or not….

    In saying all of this obviously im opposing imagration… unless you believe in the religion/law of the country you wish to imagrate to.

    Im saying that yes you can compare the Jews to the Muslims as they both just want to live the way in which they believe but if they did that in the place which it originated from and others left them to it they wouldn’t have a problem and no-one would have the right to dictate to them. Therefore there would never be the need for terrorism of of that nature.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s