Saturday, July 19, 2008

The New Nazis

L-R Adolf Hitler, Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah

They are the new Nazis, the successors to Adolf Hitler. They hold many of the same hatreds, and they use many of the same tactics. They hate Jews. In fact, they hate everyone who is not of their own persuasion-in this case, religious. There are many similarities between the Nazis of Germany and their successors- those who want to spread their own ideology around the globe. They are the radical Islamists-the Islamo-nazis.

While Hitler and his followers preached their ideology (prior to coming to power) in beer halls, radical Muslim imams spout their hateful rhetoric in mosques.

The Nazis had a written basis for their hatred. It was Hitler's own book, Mein Kampf. The radical Muslims find their guidance in the Koran, in which page after page, Sura after Sura, repeats the idea that non-Muslims will burn in Hell. Not surprisingly, Hitler is to this day, admired by millions in the Middle East. His book is translated into Arabic, coincidentally enough, entitled; My Jihad.

The new Nazis use similar tactics as the old ones. They employ murder, violence and intimidation. Like the Nazis, they draw no distinction when it comes to the age or gender of their victims. Men, women, children, babies. It doesn't matter.

Like the Nazis of old, they have driven their Jewish citizens out of Arab lands. They preach separation from those who are not like them. They deride any concept of freedom and democracy. Like the Nazis, they seek world domination-an Islamic Caliphate, if you will. Like Hitler and the Nazis did to the reputation of the German people, both good and bad, the Islamo-nazis have cast a pall of suspicion over Muslims, both good and bad everywhere. Like the Nazis in Germany, the Islamo-nazis have largely succeeded in intimidating decent Muslims into silence. Those that speak out against the evil ones put themselves and their families at risk. Like those Germans who spoke out against Hitler, such as Thomas Mann, they are forced, in many cases, to go into hiding in the West and live under the protection of bodyguards. Examples? Nonie Darwish and Ayaan Hirsi Ali to name just two.

Like the Nazis, the Islamo-nazis have their defenders and/or apologists in the West. Hitler had like-minded allies like Oswald Mosely in Britain and American admirers such as Charles Lindbergh. The Islamo-Nazis have their modern-day supporters or Dhimmis in the West as well. Consider the useful idiots, who seek to reach an accommodation with radical Islam. Neville Chamberlain-meet the Archbishop of Canterbury, Rowan Williams and Lord Phillips, Britain's top judge, both of whom are ready to accept Shariah Law in the UK in the place of British Civil Law. Meet Jimmy Carter, the critic of Israel and champion of the Palestinians-no matter how many innocents they kill-Israeli and American. Many Jews in Israel and America have sadly concluded that Carter is an anti-Semite.

Like Hitler, who browbeat the British and French into accepting the dismantling of that "inconvenient country", Czechoslovakia, the Islamists seek to browbeat the West into abandoning the new "inconvenient country", Israel.

Like Hitler, who had the German-American Bund in America, the radical Islamo-nazis enjoy the presence in America of organizations like the Muslim Student Associations, with chapters in some 150 American universities, groups of radical Muslims who bring fiery speakers to their campuses to preach hate against Israel, Jews and America-with the acquiescence of compliant and cowed university administrators (like my school at the University of California at Irvine), who insist there is no hate speech going on when it is clear that it is right there in front of their collective noses. Then there are the legions of university professors in the US, who support the Islamo-nazis, simply because they are against the US and Israel-people like Ward Churchill, formerly of Colorado University, Norman Finklestein, formerly of Depaul University and Julio Cesar Pino of Kent State. One could go on and on.

Then there is CAIR, which seeks to litigate any perceived slight against Muslims in America in the false belief that they can legally force the American people to respect Muslims.

Like Hitler, much of the world prefers not to accept the truth, that there is a large and growing element among the world's Muslim population that seeks to destroy us, our freedoms and our way of life. Largely because of the world's refusal to accept the truth about Hitler and the true nature of his intentions, World War II resulted.

Today, the world faces the same danger. Yet, it compromises. It plays for time in the hope that the threat will simply go away. It deludes itself into thinking that we can convince the Islamo-nazis of our good intentions, and thus, we can reach an accommodation with these people, as if one can negotiate with fanatics. In many cases, especially in Western Europe, it simply submits to the threats and intimidation.

Why have we not learned the lesson of Adolf Hitler and the Nazis? At what point does the world draw the line in the sand and say enough of the outrages? Is it not too late to nip it in the bud?


Churchill's Parrot said...

My Dear Mr. Fouse,

The parallelel is incontrovertible. It has been and will be drawn many times (though rarely as thoroughly and convincingly as yours. Good show old boy!) and yet it too is dismissed as empty cliche'by those who dismiss everything as empty cliche', except of course their own empty cliche's.

It is our belief that Islamo-Fascists are but the latests puppets in Evil's endless quest to force mankind to enslave itself. It is our belief that Jefferson hit it on the mark: that man is endowed by his Creator with certain unalienable rights, and that among those are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness. It is our belief that Evil - Satan if you will - seeks to convince mankind to forsake those rights and himself thus rendering the Creator's crowning achievement - creatures in His own image returning to Him of their own FREE will - a failure.

It is our belief that this war has been taking place since the dawn of man and will continue until his end. It is our belief that it is merely a decision of which side one wants to be on when that end - collective or individual - occurs.

We choose to ally ourselves with free will, self-determination, self-government ... in a word Liberty, and must therefore fight the enemies of Liberty in whatever guise they assume.

Call it Hitler, Bin Laden, Stalin, or Mao - Evil is an equal opportunity employer and must be checked at every occurence - regardless.



Gary Fouse said...

Well said, Charlie. We have hard choices ahead of us.

Lance Christian Johnson said...

Lord Phillips, Britain's top judge, (is) ready to accept Shariah Law in the UK in the place of British Civil Law

Holy flippin' crap, Gary.

Okay, here's my problem with supposed "conservatives". Apparently, facts are inconsequential. It's one thing when somebody gets a fact wrong, but you guys will just keep repeating the same thing over and over again - even when you've been corrected! (Like saying that Al Gore claimed to have invented the internet - even when I gave you the actual quote, where he obviously didn't even say that, you STILL referenced it in a later blog entry!)

I read up on Lord Philips, and his acceptance of Shariah law was on the condition that they did not go against the already existing laws of the land.

How is this any different from what we have here in the US? People are allowed to not take their kids to the doctor so they can pray to make them better. They're allowed to teach their kids junk science. They're allowed to have religious schools where the rules for the girls are different than the rules for the boys (I had a friend who went to Oral Roberts University - so I'm not just making that up).

Why can they get away with it? Because they don't go against the laws of this country. (And technically speaking, some religioius practices that go against the law - like polygamy - go unchallenged).

Now, if they were talking about allowing things like cutting off the hands of thieves and stuff like that, and then letting that pass, then you've got something.

Am I making too big of a deal about this? Am I splitting hairs?

The thing is, and this is why this frustrates me, is that I'm basically with you - we must not allow religious extremists to encroach on our freedoms. These Islamic fundamentalists ARE a threat. They do need to learn that if they want to live in a free society, then THEY are the ones who need to adapt - not us!

I also agree that the Europeans, in an effort to be tolerant, are tolerating the intolerable in some instances. (Like the school where the kids had to pray to Mecca.)

Still - can we stick to the facts? It makes me feel that I can't trust you when I know you're going to misrepresent what actually happened - which is precisely what you're doing with Lord Philips' decision.

(Unless, of course, there's something more to the whole thing that I don't know about - if you have that, I'll gladly stand corrected and even apologize.)

Gary Fouse said...

It's called Creeping Shariah, Lance. One small step at a time. Why should any immigrant group in any country be allowed to supplant their own set of rules in the place of local law, civil or criminal. Why should British law have to give way in the area of property rights, women's equality etc. Civil law means legal matters are settled by the proper authorities, not some imam. I realize that they are talking about civil law, but you just don't let people come into your country and live by their own rules. And there are going to be conflicts.

The Brits should tell their Muslim immigrants that if they cannot abide by British law-they should leave, but that British law will stand.

And I stand by what I have said about Philips.

PS- Just what exactly were Gore's words about the Internet?

Lance Christian Johnson said...

Creeping Shariah? Is that kinda like the Yellow Peril?

You know, I did a little bit of reading on this, and it turns out that Orthodox Jews are allowed to settle certain matters according to their religious laws. Should they be forced to stop that as well? (In case you're wondering, I find no problem with that either - and I don't have a problem with it here, so long as it doesn't violate our laws.)

You wrote:

The Brits should tell their Muslim immigrants that if they cannot abide by British law-they should leave, but that British law will stand.

Ummm...what part of this are you not getting? Here's a quote from Lord Philips himself: "Those who live in this country are governed by English law and subject to the jurisdiction of the English courts." Seems pretty clear to me - they can settle their disputes according to their customs, so long as it doesn't violate the law of the land.

And again, if dangerous religious idealogy frightens you, then where is your anger towards the parents who let their sick children die because they want to pray for them instead? How is that not a form of child abuse/endangerment and therefore a violation of the law of our land? I don't see any strong effort to arrest those people - and this is happening here in THIS country. (Shoot - one family whose daughter died of a very treatable form of diabetes had their living children returned to them! How many of their kids do they need to let die before somebody intervenes?) I think your blog would survive if you spoke up about that instead of another post about Obama's poor choice of friends. (Okay, I realize I'm setting myself up for an easy, cheap shot on that one!)

And I stand by what I have said about Philips.

I'm sorry, but what you said is pretty misleading.

Don't get me wrong - I'm not saying that you can't make an intelligent argument against what he said. But statements like that don't really give an accurate picture of what happened. After all, you know how I feel - I think that religion should be viewed the same way that we look at the Greek Myths.

And regarding Gore (and darn you once again for making me defend him - but I have an obsessive-compulsive need for accuracy) you can find it here:

You mentioned that myth once before, and I gave you the complete quote. Then you went and repeated it some time later. (You can trust me on that or not - I'm not going to scour through all your posts to find it. Ask my wife and friends, I have an annoyingly good memory for stuff like that.)

It might not seem like a big deal, but it strains the credibility factor for me.

Gary Fouse said...


Pls don't bring up the Yellow Peril thing as a point of comparison. As one who grew up among Asian-Americans and went to an Asian-American church for several years....lets just say it is not the same thing.

As for parents who withold medical care from their children because of religious convictions-they are in contravention of our laws and they should go to jail. I do feel anger against them. And some have indeed been prosecuted.

As for Philips, maybe you should read more of the British reactions to his comments-as I have. I fail to see how you can grant a specific group of people exemption from local laws-civil or criminal and still say there is no concession. Philips, like the Archbishop of Canterbury, is in my view, a prime example of the rampant spirit of Dhimmitude that is found in Britain today.

As I check out what Weird Al's word for word quote on the Internet is, let me state that I may make factual errors, we all do, but when it comes to credibility, you may TRUST that whatever I say, I say because I believe it and am always ready to sign my name to it-unlike so many others on the blogs (not you, of course) who use the anonymous label.

Lance Christian Johnson said...

you may TRUST that whatever I say, I say because I believe it and am always ready to sign my name to it-unlike so many others on the blogs (not you, of course) who use the anonymous label.

Actually, my real name is Spear Islam Seansdotter.

Like I said, it's an issue worth debating, but the way you put it, somebody might think that women now have to wear veils in Britain. Now, you didn't actually WRITE that, but your statement didn't allow for a whole lot of nuance either. If somebody only heard of this through you, and they didn't bother reading the news and doing their own research, they might get the wrong idea.

Okay, maybe my brain's just doing this because my friends and I have been having a creative writing group and we're analyzing the crap out of everything. Still, nothing wrong with keeping you on your toes, I hope.

One thing that I found interesting in the articles I read is that there are supposedly a lot of Muslims (supposedly a majority - but no actual statistic was given to support that assertion) who were against the ruling! Again, this adds a whole new layer to the issue, doesn't it?

And please, don't make me defend Al Gore again. That's a lousy thing to do to a guy. (Believe it or not, I get this riled up over similar things that McCain supposedly said - but didn't. You know, the whole "100 years" thing. What can I say? I'm obsessed with accuracy.)

See, you don't carry this much responsibility if you review Batman movies like I do. Or is that a conservative versus liberal issue too? Are you going to start posting about why the Adam West Batman is the best one? You think that THESE responses have been long-winded!

Gary Fouse said...

"I took the initiative in creating the Internet." Al Gore

Of course, no serious person really thinks Gore tried to claim he actually invented the Internet. But that statement is a typical remark by a self-aggrandizing politico like Gore to mislead people into thinking he played a big role. He deserves the derision he gets. He is a total boob.

Gary Fouse said...


I never watched Batman movies, and I don't plan to start now.

Lance Christian Johnson said...

Of course, no serious person really thinks Gore tried to claim he actually invented the Internet.

That must mean that there are a lot of non-serious people out there. (There was more to that quote, to be fair - don't go quote-mining now.)

I never watched Batman movies, and I don't plan to start now.

Well, now you're just being nasty.

Speaking of which, there's a comic project in the works called Holy Terror, Batman where Batman goes after Osama bin Laden. At least SOMEBODY'S trying!

Anonymous said...

This is what's happening to Greenland families:

Gary Fouse said...


Thank you for the Greenland postwhich I have seen.