Nazis versus Muslims
by Alain Wagner
I regularly receive a newsletter written by a female friend who is a professor of philosophy in Canada. Her most recent newsletter dealt with the apparent discrepancy between how “Joe Public” viewed Muslims versus how Nazis were perceived, and what it revealed about the nature of the modern psyche.
The case of the Nazis
In the mind of the overwhelming majority of people today, all Nazis without exception are directly linked to the Final Solution, to the slaughter of the Jews, the Gypsies and of homosexuals and ultimately to the extermination camps. Nobody in their right mind would dare to suggest it might have been the fault of a few Nazi extremists whose actions gave a bad name to a political set of ideas which might have otherwise been viewed as quite respectable. All Nazis are tarred with the same brush: all shared the same ideology, the same set of beliefs, all had a hand in it and all were guilty of a horrendous crime.
My friend rightly reminded her readers that the Final Solution was only fully conceptualized and implemented in the year 1942, that the Nazi regime kept a tight lid on their plans, and that the existence of a police state made it very difficult for information to be circulated. There was at that time no Facebook on which to post video-clips of SS soldiers herding the inmates into the death camps, and no Internet to publish photos of grinning torturers in the process of putting their victims to death.
It is therefore perfectly plausible that a good number of Nazis weren’t in the know and remained ignorant of what was happening in the extermination camps masquerading as concentration camps.
This does not mean that they were either philo-Semitic or great lovers of democracy, but it does render the equation of Nazi = Holocaust rather moot, as not all Nazis were party to the extermination plan. It is, therefore, within the realm of possibility that amongst those opportunistic individuals who joined the party to further their social or professional standing, not all were monsters.
The conclusion drawn is that not all Nazis were killers and that, had they been privy to the real darkness at the heart of their ideology, many would probably have turned away in disgust and revulsion.
We might have called these “moderates” or “reformed-Nazis”, whilst the rest of them, those who could quietly contemplate unspeakable horrors and still remain faithful to the Nazi party were complicit in the crime, far past any possible redemption and as guilty as they come.
Muslims and a case of double standards
The way Muslims are perceived is exactly the other way round. Even though all Muslims, including each and every Taliban and each and every killer from the Islamic State, belong part and parcel to the same ideological core set of beliefs, (i.e Islam), which is characterised by the worship of the same Book (the Koran), the same man as an example to follow (Mohammed), the same common law (sharia), we are told in no uncertain terms that we must not on any account let some rotten apples spoil the whole bunch.
To be totally honest, I do agree with this point of view. I always like to remind people in the audience when I am giving a lecture that generalisations always lead to falsehoods and unjust prejudices, and that one mustn’t conflate what people think and what they are. Individuals are not equivalent to their ideology, and ideas aren’t people.
What made me think long and hard is the difference in treatment when we start comparing the Nazis with our current set of Muslims: we are ordered to not lump all Muslims together, or as the French put it “Padamalgam”, which freezes our powers of thinking and then forbids us to question those Muslims who are currently living in our societies in accordance to their obedience to Islamic doctrine.
Likewise, this injunction to “never ever lump together” aims to force us to automatically absolve any Muslim who has not committed a violent act from any guilt by association, even moral guilt.
Ideology does not equal the man; nonetheless adherence to it remains a conscious, deliberate act which engages individual responsibility
I obviously do not mean to suggest that all Muslims are terrorists or supporters of the Islamic State, or that they they may have killed somebody or are planning to at some point in the future. What we must ask ourselves is this: in the name of what exactly are we suppose to refrain from asking these people whom we are told are our fellow citizens, to clarify their position as to their obedience to Islamic ideology? An Islamic ideology which, as anybody who is honest enough would be hard pressed to deny, all criminals who slaughter, rape and enslave in the name of Islam have shared throughout history.
We also owe it to ourselves to ask in whose name we should accept without any further questioning those “This is not Islam” retorts, which are an insult to our intelligence and a slap in the face of tangible reality, whenever heinous crimes and intolerable behaviours are indulged in in the name of Islam.
Disingenuous excuses must stop and responsibilities must be assumed
Why, exactly, should we carry on accepting the premise that Muslims are ignorant of the tenets of Islam, that they cannot know its content? Is the objective and unchanging doctrine of Islam and the behaviours that are allowed or proscribed by it totally unknowable?
Of course not! What do you think they teach in Islamic universities? How would their imams otherwise know and teach their own doctrine?
The political, discriminatory and violent nature of Islam is a solidly established fact. What a relentless process of disinformation aimed to sell us as a “religion just like any others” finally revealed its true colours to all unbiased observers: Islam is, at its core, a totalitarian ideology.
The “spiritual dimension” found in this ideology should not divert attention from its true nature; specific mystical belief systems, books, supreme leaders and the project of a type of society for the entire humanity were also to be found in Nazism and the Chinese brand of communism.
Why should we continue to accept, as a given, that those Muslims living in our countries must not be under the obligation to learn the contents of the Islamic doctrine, in the light of what is happening in the world today, and then draw the obvious conclusions: should they abide by it or not?
The Muslims currently living in Western societies cannot, in any way, shape or form, be compared to the Germans of yesteryear. They can freely access the history of Islam and its long retinue of horrors and unspeakable crimes, or read books describing sharia law or the life of the man they are supposed to model their lives on.
In contrast with the Germans who lived in a police state, they are free to reject without risk a creed whose tenets are antithetical to human freedom and dignity.
It would be quite condescending as well as patronising to view those Muslims who live in the West as being incapable of getting hold of the proper information and of making a responsible choice.
The West offers Muslims the amazing opportunity to free themselves from the shackles of Muslim ideology and become free human beings, respectful of the natural rights and freedoms enjoyed by their fellow citizens.
Who would then carry on insisting that Muslims cannot freely choose their own destiny, decide where their loyalty lies and assume responsibility for the choices that they make?
Why do we insist on humouring them so as to not offend their supposed sensibilities, and why do we carry on treating them as though they were irresponsible, illiterate, or slightly retarded children?
Today we share our society with people who may or may not adhere to an ideology that’s extremely violent, discriminatory and destructive of our way of life. Knowing where these people stand is now a question of survival.
And in view of the consequences that necessarily follow this ideology when it is put into practise in the real world, why exactly should we be satisfied with being shrugged off, with getting an ambiguous reply accompanied with the usual protests about a so-called stigmatisation of their faith?
Adherence or non-adherence to Islamic ideology and to sharia law must no longer be a question unasked and unspoken. This question, left unasked, is the breeding ground which will beget chaos and the tearing asunder of our society. And today, people die for this on French soil.
To finally ask the question that has, up till now, been left unsaid is to force a choice, and so choosing means to renounce one of the choices.
It means either:
Disown those who adhere to Islamic ideology, to sharia law and the inevitable violence and oppression that follow in their wake,
Abandon the idea of being part of Western societies, which are based upon respect for liberty and the freedoms enjoyed by all citizens.
There can be no compromise, no meeting part way, no grey areas: that time has come and gone.
Our duty to keep our societies safe gives us the right to ask Muslims the following question: “Where do you stand: for or against sharia law?” We mustn’t let ourselves be fobbed off.
The Muslims living among us must give a clear reply, in words and in deeds, acknowledging that they reject once and for all sharia law and all that it entails. Failure to do so would necessarily mean that they endorse the horrors committed by Islam and should thus rightly be considered as today’s Nazis
— Alain Wagner
From October, 2014…… A German Citizen Speaks of the islamic world war.
A German’s View on Islam – worth reading. This is one of the best explanation of the Muslim terrorist situation. The references to past history are accurate and clear. Not long, easy to understand, and well worth the read. The author of this email is Dr. Emanuel Tanya, a well-known and well-respected psychiatrist.
A man, whose family was German aristocracy prior to World War II, owned a number of large industries and estates. When asked how many German people were true Nazis, the answer he gave can guide our attitude toward fanaticism.
‘Very few people were true Nazis,’ he said, ‘but many enjoyed the return of German pride, and many more were too busy to care. I was one of those who just thought the Nazis were a bunch of fools. So, the majority just sat back and let it all happen. Then, before we knew it, they owned us…
View original post 701 more words
Obama Is Correct, Climate Change Is Biggest Threat, But Only Because Official IPCC Climate Science Is Completely Wrong
“To make sure the Pope could not just pass off the statue of a crucifixion of Jesus Christ on a hammer and sickle and move on he put the same symbol on the chain around the Pope’s neck…..”
Guest opinion: Dr. Tim Ball
Kafkaesque is one word that encapsulates the entire Paris Conference. It is defined as:
A nightmarish situation which most people can somehow relate to, although strongly surreal. With an ethereal, “evil”, omnipotent power floating just beyond the senses.
There are insufficient superlatives to describe the disaster that is the UN COP21 Climate Conference in Paris. None of the superlatives are the ones used by the organizers and their lackeys. It is the largest, most political conference ever, based on completely false claims deliberately created in the greatest science deception in history. It will cost more socially in direct damage to individual lives, communities, and social structures. It will cost more in economic damage to jobs, businesses, and industry. In addition, besides destroying lives it will remove freedom and actually cost lives. It will weaken economies preventing resistance to terrorism. This far exceeds any potential damage…
View original post 992 more words
The following is an email we received from a former Muslim. We are reprinting it with his permission:
I was born and raised as Muslim. My name is Abdul Rahman. My whole family is still Muslim. I know the Islamic brain very well. I have lived and breathed with them. I am an insider. I left Islam when I understood Islam is a sick and evil religion. Muslims can fool the gullible West but can’t fool us, the ex-Muslims. On this basis I write the following.
Fighting terrorism is easier than fighting the evil teachings of Islam. These evil teachings are already inside the West. Muslims do not need Osama Bin Laden or Zarqawi to lead them. Their inspiration for violence comes directly from the Quran and from Islamic history. One small independent group of Muslims in the West can create havoc.
Ali Sina, of FaithFreedom.org, thinks he can bring…
View original post 2,321 more words
The pilot was locked out of the cockpit.
That phrase finally revealed the full horror of the crash of Germanwings flight 9525. Co-pilot Andreas Lubitz waited for the pilot to leave the cockpit, then locked the door to prevent his re-entry. After which Lubitz, for reasons unknown and perhaps unknowable, deliberately steered the jet into a harrowing 8 minute plunge ending in an explosive 434 mph impact with a rocky mountainside. 150 men, women and children met an immediate, unthinkably violent death.
Lubitz, in his single-minded madness, couldn’t be stopped because anyone who could change the jet’s disastrous course was locked out.
It’s hard to imagine the growing feelings of fear and helplessness that the
passengers felt as the unforgiving landscape rushed up to meet them. Hard – but not impossible.
Because America is in trouble. We feel the descent in the pits of our stomachs. We hear the shake and rattle of structures stressed beyond their limits. We don’t know where we’re going anymore, but do know it isn’t good. And above all, we feel helpless because Barack Obama has locked us out.
He locked the American people out of his decision to seize the national healthcare system. Locked us out when we wanted to know why the IRS was attacking conservatives. He locked us out of having a say in his decision to tear up our Immigration laws, and to give over a trillion dollars in benefits to those who broke those laws.
Obama locked out those who advised against premature troop withdrawals. Locked out the intelligence agencies who issued warnings about the growing threat of ISIS. He locked out anyone who could have interfered with his release of five Taliban terror chiefs in return for one U.S. military deserter.
He locked us out when we wanted to know why they trafficked thousands of firearms to mexican drug cartels and islamic terrorists, which were then used to murder American Citizens and countless Innocents in Mexico. He locked us out when we wanted to know why he trafficked weapons, tanks, fighter jets, food, medicine and training to islamic terrorists in the middle east, which are being used today to murder our very own soldiers.
And of course, Barack Obama has now locked out Congress, the American people, and our allies as he strikes a secret deal with Iran to determine the timeline (not prevention) of their acquisition of nuclear weapons.
Was Andreas Lubitz depressed, insane, or abysmally evil when he decided to lock that cockpit door and listen to no voices other than those in his head? Did he somehow believe himself to be doing the right thing?
The voice recordings from the doomed aircraft reveal that as the jet began its rapid descent, the passengers were quiet. There was probably some nervous laughter, confusion, a bit of comforting chatter with seat-mates, followed by a brief period in which anxiety had not yet metastasized into terror.
It was only near the end of the 8 minute plunge that everyone finally understood what was really happening. Only near the end when they began to scream.
Like those passengers, a growing number of Americans feel a helpless dread as they come to the inescapable conclusion that our nation’s decline is an act of choice rather than of chance. The choice of one man who is in full control of our 8 year plunge.
A man who has locked everyone out.
NEWS RELEASE – NORTHWESTERN ENERGY CORPORATION FIGHTING AGAINST OUR SECOND AMENDMENT AND BILL OF RIGHTS!
(for immediate release March 13, 2015)
Northwestern Energy Turns Against the Right to Keep and Bear Arms
Northwestern Energy, a company usually concerned only with efficient delivery of electricity and natural gas in Montana, took the bold step today to also become an active opponent of the right to keep and bear arms in Montana.
In a dramatic departure from usual corporate practice, Northwestern took a strong stance against House Bill 598, the Gun Owners Access to Justice Act, in a public hearing before the Montana House Judiciary Committee today. Since the purpose HB 598 is to create a referendum on this issue for a vote by Montana citizens, Northwestern is also against allowing Montana people to vote on this important issue.
During the hearing on HB 598, the lobbyist representing Northwestern actually took the committee microphone five different times to reiterate Northwestern’s total opposition to the bill.
Also speaking in opposition to HB 598 was a representative of Moms Demand Action, a national group founded and funded by billionaire and anti-gun former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg. This concurrence and Northwestern’s dramatic departure from its former policy of lobbying only about energy bills raises the question of whether billionaire Bloomberg may have financial ties to Northwestern.
Gary Marbut is President of the Montana Shooting Sports Association, the primary political advocate for gun owners in Montana. Marbut supported HB 598 before the committee and commented on the unusual opposition by Northwestern, It’s a mystery to me why Northwestern would choose to burn so much political capital with the Legislature, with Montana ratepayers, and with investors, by launching so actively and visibly against the interests of Montana gun owners. I’d guess that 90% of Northwestern’s Montana customers are gun owners. How does it serve Northwestern’s corporate interests to poke a stick at this bear?
The Gun Owners Access to Justice Act clarifies that a high level of judicial scrutiny be applied to any government actions that impair the fundamental right to keep and bear arms, a level of scrutiny that is already applied to other fundamental rights. It would also allow court costs and attorney fees for any person who successfully sued a governmental entity because the person’s rights had been violated by that government entity.
In D.C. v. Heller, the U.S. Supreme Court confirmed that the right to keep and bear arms is a fundamental right. Under the Montana Constitution, fundamental rights are considered to be those which the people have reserved to themselves from government interference in Article II, the Declaration of Rights. The right to keep and bear arms is in the Declaration of Rights at Section 12.
If approved by the House Judiciary Committee, HB 598 will move to the floor of the House for Second and Third Readings, and then on to the Senate for the same consideration. If approved by both House and Senate, HB 598 will go on the next General Election ballot for a vote of the people, and will not require the Governor’s signature. HB 598 is sponsored by Rep. Matthew Monforton (R-Bozeman).
– 30 –
Information: Gary Marbut, 549-1252
Robert C. Rowe, CEO, Northwestern Energy, 443-0715
Northwestern Energy, Butte, (888) 467-2669