Let's do a little thought experiment:
First, let's compare the radical Muslims of the seven countries from which Trump is trying to suspend immigration to the Nazis.
Both groups hated Jews. Many Islamic clerics in the countries named have said they want Israel wiped off the face of the earth; the Nazis held similar views.
Both groups felt that homosexuals are sick, disgusting individuals who should be persecuted.
And adherents of both movements were completely convinced of their righteousness, and superiority.
One major difference is their attitude toward women. Herman Goering never advocated cutting the clits off young girls; Joseph Goebbels never suggested that women not be allowed to go out in public with uncovered faces. And Adolf Hitler never said that women should not be allowed to drive, or attend school, or leave their houses unaccompanied by a male relative.
In any case, there are some strong parallels, even if the Islamic fundamentalists are far harsher when it comes to treatment of women.
Now, let's imagine that Germany and Austria were still dominated by the Nazis -- and that many of them want to emigrate to the US. And, let's say that the political dividing lines in America regarding the immigration controversy were roughly the same as they are now.
What would the liberals be saying? Ignore for the moment the fact that the Left's favorite insult these days is "Nazi" -- since the Nazis, in both spirit and belief, did have much in common with today's Islamic fundamentalists.
Would they call people opposed to immigration "Naziphobics," as if they had some sort of weird mental disease?
Would they say that we shouldn't discriminate on the basis of creed, or persecute those poor Nazis for their beliefs?
Would they tell the anti-immigration forces that "that's not who we are?"
Would they constantly remind us that we are a nation of immigrants?
Would they have sanctuary cities catering to illegal Nazi immigrants?
Would they accuse those opposed to more immigration of being "haters?"
After all, this is effectively what's going on right now, except for that minor difference of the Islamic attitude toward women.
Think of this parallel the next time you hear a liberal become hysterical over Trump's proposed immigration ban.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
22 comments:
Our boys in the OSS were actively recruiting nazi's to come to america back around 1945 -as long as they were aerospace scientists. Werner von Braun is a familiar name
nowadays we have races in robotics, drones, virtual reality, and artificial intelligence
does yemen have a bunch of scientists in artificial intelligence ?
does the sudan?
I have a hunch the Sudan is not producing AI gurus looking for a place to build apps for AI.
if these people were able to contribute to "the team" they may have a better case
ask other nations such as Switzerland or Japan if they have room ? i think we all know the answer
Dave --
Switzerland and Japan are obvious examples, but what's really amazing is, even Mexico has far more stringent immigration requirements than we do. And yet they have the nerve to lecture us all the time on how we ought to open our borders more. We, and western Europe, and to a lesser extent, Australia and Canada, are the only countries in the world whose immigration policies are expected to be more about what we can do for the immigrants than the other way around.
Gives us your poor, your tired, your huddled low IQ masses who've screwed up their own countries and now want to screw up ours. And especially give us those who really hate this country, and despise everything it stands for, except for its welfare system.
(Side note: Germany under the National Socialists was actually Zionist. It wasn't until so many Jewish communities were found to be staying behind in Germany so they could work for Russia against Germany during the war that they were put into work camps. Consider as a counterpart the way Jews are currently working with Islam against Europe and America. As with Britain's bombing of civilians, Hitler tolerated a lot of such behavior before he finally took his comparatively milkwater steps of retaliation.)
If we can truthfully assess the potentially negative impact of one minority on US society - then the door is open to truthfully assess the dangers of other minorities.... And *THAT* would be dangerous and must be squelched by any means necessary.
Nazi-ism is basically political - not minority / race / tribal in root. Though Nazi-ism held racial superiority / inferiority beliefs, the term is used freely to brand non-Aryan / non-Germans. In the US its clearly OK to demonize political movements( go ahead and beat up Trump supporters and generally tear down Republicans using any trick in the book).
- Ed
Your commenters are making some rather dubious assertions:
"Germany under the National Socialists [i.e., the Nazis] was actually Zionist."
"[Nazism] is [...] not tribal in root."
Maybe High Arka meant the Weimar Republic, which preceded Hitler, was heavily influenced by Jews. The Nazis would surely have been highly indignant at anyone calling them Zionists.
As for Ed's remark, there was little about Nazism other than tribalism.
Mark --
I think High Arka was speaking of the Weimar Republic.
You're talking about the actual Nazis; Ed sort of segued from talking about the actual Nazis to people who get labeled "Nazis" today in the US (anybody the liberals don't like).
Regarding your post, you're right that Islam isn't only a religion; it's also a highly retrograde political movement. Dutch populist politician Geert Wilders says Islam is merely "dressed up as a religion." In reality, he says it is "a totalitarian ideology."
The religious toleration expressed in the First Amendment is derived from John Locke's "A Letter Concerning Toleration." Locke advised tolerating Protestant denominations only, not Catholicism and not Islam. (I couldn't make out where he stood on Judaism.) At the time First Amendment was being drawn up, America was 99 percent Protestant. I'm pretty sure "religion" to the Framers meant Protestantism.
Mark --
Not sure I completely agree with Wilders: it's probably closer to the truth to describe it as a "totalitarian religion." You really can't ignore the religious nature and origin of many of its strictures. The people who cry "Allah akbar" as they blow themselves up really mean it.
Good point about the Founding Fathers. The Constitution was supposed to apply to white males, and you're right, probably Protestants. (I'm not saying I don't think it should apply to everyone, because, obviously, it should.) But yeah, context is everything, and the context in which it was written was far different than the multicultural society we live in today.
My line of thought on Nazi-ism is probably at least a little bit weak. I really don’t know all that much about Nazi-ism, but was under the impression that it extended beyond race to general nationalism, some economic ideas, and went as far as forcefully promoting health oriented ideas to society (for example, anti-smoking) – which is more common territory for socialists.
What would have been more to the point would have been to say that Nazi’s were guilty of the ultimate crime – as defined by the Left – of a majority persecuting a minority and even worse, anti-Semitism. So therefore the typical virtue signaling Leftist would be completely comfortable with the disconnect between hating Nazi’s and excluding them from the US, and allowing Muslim’s in without regard for the danger they pose.
- Ed
When a jihadist warrior shouts "God is great!" before committing some atrocity, his ultimate goal is establishing a new caliphate like the one that once ran from Spain to Russia. So again you have the Nazi parallel of overweening territorial ambition. I'd call this lust for land and the power to rule over large non-Muslim populations overtly political more than religious.
Mark --
What you say is true.
How about we compromise with "a religion with political ambitions?"
("Zionist" in the sense of a belief that the Jews should have a homeland of their own, rather than infiltrating others' homelands, not in the sense of Jews being superior/chosen. The use of that particular term has many connotations, some of which are Jewish superiority, others which--according to many liberal Jews--are merely about a "safe space" for Jews to live in. Like many white nationalists today, the goal isn't/wasn't to exterminate all other racists, but that races should be allowed to establish and maintain their own homelands. Under the National Socialists, Hitler supported Zionism; he probably would've supported Mexican nationalism if there had been a bunch of Mexicans living in Germany trying to control its finances, arts, politics, et cetera. Many self-professed Nazis today are similarly "Zionist" in their belief that Jews should go live in Israel. It's like saying that Lincoln was an "African nationalist" because he suggested that blacks should live in Africa--easy to phrase it in a way that sounds ridiculous, and point to certain historical sources to claim that the German National Socialists were anti-Zionist. Pro-Israel Jews in the 21st century have accused one another of being against Zionism. The argument hinges on the interpretation of the word, and Hitler's changing awareness of whether or not Jews wanted to or intended to resettle, or to leave Germany alone, certainly affected his perspective on whether he should support the project or not.)
My ultimate and only goal is to convince others that the religious protections of the First Amendment don't apply to the religious/social/political/judicial ideology denoted by Islam.
High Arka is right that there was a brief honeymoon between some National Socialists and some Zionists since their tribal beliefs overlapped and sprang from the same core "volkish" philosophy. However, the Nazis quickly learned that their Muslim allies in the Middle East were infuriated at any plan to relocate Jews to Palestine, so that idea was killed.
Hitler had a few missing marbles. He and his circle of followers believed wholeheartedly in a "Jewish-Bolshevik" conspiracy to conquer the world. In his mind, "Jewish Bolsheviks" not only waged a pogrom on the Russians, starving tens of millions to death, but also controlled "finance capitalism" in the Western parliamentary democracies. Germany stood virtually alone against the Jewish menace. Because of those paranoid delusions, he sincerely did want to eliminate the Jewish race once and for all.
Hitler swallowed whole the conspiracy theories laid out in the cartoonishly ridiculous Protocols of the Elders of Zion. Those Protocols are still widely read and distributed (and believed) by Muslims throughout the Middle East.
I thought that I would weigh in on the Nazi thing. To me it seems that the big political battle in Germany in the 1920's and 1930's was between the two socialist movements. National Socialism and International Socialism. Most people today would know them as Nazis and Communists. They literally had fights in the streets. After all it helps to control the streets if one wants to take over the government. Of course early on the Communists had the upper hand as far as communications and organization was concerned. There was a definite divide in Germany at the time due to various reasons with the state of the economy being foremost.I would say there are some parallels today in the world although our economic situation is not as dire and the internet has been able to break through the "Propaganda Matrix" that envelops the main stream media.
Hitler was crazy for sure but if only he had stayed within the German borders the world would be a lot different today. WWII was one the worst disasters for Europe ever.
What I have never been able to understand are those who can, with a straight face, say that although there are indeed many 'radical Muslims' in existence, most Muslims are actually 'moderate'. Well, if the ideology ITSELF is extreme (as National Socialism was), then that just simply cannot be the case. It is, in my view, rather like saying, "Well, yes, those Nazis who wear black most certainly are evil, but the ones who wear brown aren't so bad. They're moderate Nazis, and so we should accept their views and position within society. After all we don't want to be seen as being racist". Ugh! Why are so many people so stupid and blind?
What helps many Europeans perceive the World Wars in the politically correct way is to focus on the abstract idealism of the parties involved rather than the practicalities of assassinated leaders and overthrown political systems that racked Europe in the 1920s and 1930s. Many Germans claimed that the Weimar government was dominated by Jews who were attempting to, as they had in other nations, overthrow nationalism and localism and establish a collective European market that would make Europe vulnerable to manipulation by central bankers and invasion by hordes from the east. Luckily, we now know that they were crazy, and that there was no Jewish conspiracy to divide up Europe between capitalist diversity and communist stagnation. Reasonable laws preventing the discussion of such topics have ensured that Europe is still equipped to deal with its own defense.
The only thing we need to fear now is Islamic Nazis who came out of the woodwork and completely surprised us. Some conspiracy theorists claim that the Reagan, Bush, and Bush II administrations armed and equipped these Islamo-Nazis in order to destroy secular Arab leaders and make Europe vulnerable to invasion, but this is utter nonsense. We need to discard these foolish ideas, embrace Judaism and its central banks, and focus on punishing Arabs. People claim so many ridiculous things, like that Stalin had tanks lined up on the German border and would have invaded if Hitler had not pre-empted him, but that's ridiculous. Lithuania, Estonia, and Latvia asked to be liberated by Stalin in the 1930s, but Germany did not, therefore Germany had nothing to fear from the Soviet buildup.
High Arka writes: "We need to discard these foolish ideas, embrace Judaism and its central banks, and focus on punishing Arabs."
Maybe there is some facetiousness I'm not detecting? The only Jewish central bank is Israel's. Some Arabs are Christians and many Muslims are not Arabs: Persians, Pakistanis, and Somalis, for example.
There is no need to punish "Arabs" -- I assume Arka meant Muslims. Although it's probably already too late for this, we believers in democracy, skepticism, and free expression need to keep the great mass of Muslim migrants out of the West. Islam and the West are not compatible. In fact, the two are almost perfect opposites.
The ones who immigrate on their own will seem to be more extreme. I say this because I read Syrian refugees, who had to leave Syria without a choice lest they perish, when arriving in European countries complained that the mosques there are too conservative.
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-europe-migrants-germany-mosques-insig-idUSKCN12S0HE
Anon --
It's hard to escape the feeling that for most of these immigrants, the long term plan they have is conquest as opposed to assimilation. Erdogan just told Muslims in Europe that it was their responsibility to outbreed the native born Europeans.
MMeanwhile, the native Europeans just sit idly by, twiddling their thumbs while their continent is invaded.
I think the problem are Muslims, not Islam. You could have an book say that you should burn every single puppy in the world alive, but if they didn't follow that passage, then what would I care a superstitious religious text says? Many Jews eat pork and mix meat and cheese despite what their scripture says.
-Ga
Dear Anonymous,
Indeed, good points. It might be even more fruitful to revise that to "I think the problem is Arabs, not Islam." Historically speaking, some Semites ("Arabs") have always acted like "Muslims" do today, even before red-haired Semites from the southern Spain/northern Africa region introduced the "Muhammad" character and the related "Islamic" religion. Similarly, before the Jews adapted their religion out of Mesopotamian myths, history shows them acting like they still do today, right down to not necessarily following any or all of their supposed religious strictures at any given time. The religious texts of Islam contain passages that Europeans find objectionable, which some ethnic group members (some Arabs) do not follow, but the religious text itself seems merely a codified expression of some aspects of ethnic character, rather than an independent source of behavior for members of that ethnicity. For example, both the Torah and the Qur'an support the idea of sex with children, but that doesn't mean that anyone who reads either of those books will rape a child.
Post a Comment