Hitler and Islamofascism
Hitler was one of the most murderous tyrants of world history. He set off a great war that killed countless millions of people, killed innocent men and women on an incredible scale, and was the centrepiece of a philosophy -fascism- that still today continues to slaughter innocent men and women. A form of this tyranny and terror beyond words is the system that exists in Iran, Saudi Arabia, and Palestine.
The similarities that exist in these countries are very similar to those of Nazi Germany:
Murderous tyrants and fanatic supporters: Hitler slaughtered millions in his day. Evil men such as Ahmedinejad still hang gays in Iran, and then boast in America about there being no gays in Iran! Another example is the recent lashing of a Saudi women for being in a car with men not related to her- and then raping her! Or the "death to Denmark, death to America" placards and riots that ensued after a brave Dane dared to publish portrays of Mohammed in a magazine. 9/11, and the Madrid and later London bombings. It all hails back to an era when Nazi supports burnt down the shops, homes and livelihoods of Jews, Poles, or anyone Hilter didn't like. And the constant excuses for carrying out murderous actions.
Evil philosophies: Islam isn't a "religion of peace" (this will be discussed later). Fascism was, and continues to be, an extreme form of statism, in which all power is given to a select few in the state. It is built on Nietzsche's concept of the superman. The Islamofascist philosophy of radical Islamists is merely an Islamic twist on normal fascism. The same goes with Ahmedinejad's theocracy in Iran, which is a cross between middle ages theocracy and modern Islamofascism. As seen in the example given above, Saudi Arabia is the same.
Islam is a religion. As has been said on SOLO (and this goes for all religions), it is a "stinking superstition". Although the adjective "stinking" can certainly be used to mean events happening under Islam's name as we speak, the "superstition" part applies to all religions. Because religion - belief in what may be true to guide us in life - is in direct contrast to knowing what is true, to guide our life on this Earth. Islam, in its current post-enlightened state (the Islamic "enlightenment" of the Middle Ages was achieved by men acting in their self-interest to advance their life on Earth) resembles Christianity during the Middle Ages. Or the worship of Hitler during WWII.
Pragmatic Supporters: The great majority of Muslims, both in the West and in the Middle East, are good people. The problem with these people - and admittedly there are some people who do speak out against the atrocities committed in the name of their religion - are pragmatists. They live their lives, follow their religion, and don't think twice about Islamofascism. The same was true with the Germans in under Hitler. Although it's hard for Muslims to speak out against a regime that terrorizes them, and the same was true with the Germans, what annoys me is the lack of speaking out by free Muslims, in the West. Instead, they're too preoccupied with yelling about Mohammed cartoons, or refuting claims like mine that Islam can lead (and often will lead) to evil regimes and tyrants.
It's this pragmatism that refutes the claim that Islam is a religion of peace. If that were so, there would've been demonstrations all over the world in response to 9/11, and Ahmedinejad would've been long overthrown. It wasn't until after WWII that the Germans saw Hitler's evil. Under a true "religion of peace", that wouldn't be the case just over the horizon.
Western Appeasement: I'm not one of those people who believes in going and blowing up Iran now. But then again, Hitler hadn't invaded anyone until what, 1937? Just two years before WWII started.
However, what was disgusting during WWII was the West's complete inability to do anything. Even when he started invading, no one was smart enough to stand up to his reign of terror until Churchill came around. America didn't enter the war until it got bombed itself. This appeasement allowed Hitler to take half of Europe in weeks. There should be no such appeasement toward today's Islamofascist regimes, and if they do attempt to invade, the West should be on it in minutes.
And the other part of Western appeasement is the PC attitude towards it all. The West should have no fear in denouncing Islam and Islamic regimes, for what they have created where they have been tried. And if anyone's offended... too bad! Free speech includes the right to be offended!
It's these four things that have contributed to the barbarism committed under Islam in the Middle East today. And unless these issues are dealt with in a consistent, objective manner, things will only get worse.
5 comments:
This is one of your best works, Callum.
Especially admire the Pragmatic Supporters part.
It's high time I blog-rolled you.
Agreed, nice writing.
Sad it is inspired by events aligned to todays conditions.
there's no way we're going to be waiting until 2039 espousing world peace through war. And remember there was a world war well before 1939.
There is a world leader comong who will bring peace because of war.
G. Bush may well begin ww3 in Iran.
he is the fore runner to that leader the world will hail as 'superman.'
G. Bush exists for this reason.
A fictious leader in ficticious times who won ficticious elections.
Excellent writing. What makes you think that Neitzche's philosophy could lead to fascism? If fascism is based upon Neitzche, how on earth could there be such a thing as Islamofascism? My point being that the principal premise of Neitzche's philosophy was atheism. Islamoauthoritarianatheism? Islamofascism is a term invented by fascists to achieve many evil goals. The main point is to scare people into allowing their government to do very stupid things. What could be scarier today than a combination of Hitler and Bin Laden? But it is completely irrational to believe the comparison. Hitler tried to take over the world, allowed corporations to run the economy, slaughtered millions based upon racism, and ended personal freedom. Certainly those you would term Islamofascists might want to take over the world and end personal freedom...but that's 2 out of 4 whereas Bush lines up on 4 out of 4. Who should we really be scared of Bush or Akmadenawhatever? I'm not scared of Iran because I don't live in Iran. Their ability to act beyond their borders is minimal. However, if I were a war profiteer it would be a great idea. Great blog, I'll be back often.
"War is the health of the State." - Randolph Bourne
I read this post earlier, and I wanted to make a few comments and (constructive) criticisms. I agree with the tenor of the article, but there are additional points you may wish to consider which are closely related with what you're discussing. I aporogize if my information seems US-Centric, but the USA was the largest offending government in the Allies (if not the whole war), and keep in mind that much of the US doctrines, such as population warfare and economic militarization, were adopted (before or after) by all allied states. Switzerland, between 3 warring factions, did not do this and maintained integrity throughout, proving that in war as in peace, freedom is the answer.
"...a philosophy -fascism- that still today continues to slaughter innocent men and women. A form of this tyranny...that exists in Iran, Saudi Arabia, and Palestine."
In addition a highly similar situation has existed in the United States, where the New Deal essentially dressed up the doctrines of the Fascist Police State in the classical liberal conservative style of the US. Like the Fuehrer, it was precipitated by the 'War to End All Wars', the child of 'Democracy'. Nationalization of Industry was 'saving capitalism' and militarization of society was 'defending liberty'. The consistent train of abuses in this case had a clear aim, the expansion of government power through a combination of rigorous economic interference, social engineering ( in propoganda in the schools). Essentially provoking an attack by Japan, the FDR Clique managed to gain entry into the European war and achieve total control of the country's economic resources and recognized powers of forced labour and military service, the seizure of all property and its conversion to foreign aggression. The population warfare and economic destruction, which was in fact militarily ineffective, managed to burn 30,000 civilians to death in one night in Dresden. And, much like the unmentioned bombs in Bosnia, that's only the tip of the ice burg. If the allies were less brutal, they were less desperate and their soldiers born into a freer world with some character of individual mental freedom. The USA and Canada being essentially impervious to attack and England controlling much of the Navy, while Germany was between the Hammer of the West and the Anvil of the East. The USSR was far more brutal, to both it's own and enemy populations, despite being virtually assured military victory by the United State's entry into the war and the repelation of Germany from the Russian lands.
None of these are questionable statements, and are based on commonly available documentation, including memoirs of Roosevelt's associates, and in the words of the Allies' highest commanders.
Take for example, Robert Macnamara quoted Curtis LeMay (general commander of the US' population warfare air doctrines)"LeMay said if we lost the war that we would have all been prosecuted as war criminals. And I think he's right. ...and I'd say I...we're behaving as war criminals."
Whenever considering somebody that 'ought' to be taken out, remember that is the confiscation of property and liberty for the purposes of conducting a war, a from a person who (by definition) does not agree with its use for that war. It involves the murder of foreign men and women who often have less desire to fight you than you do them, yet are desperately pressed by the rich nations of European civilization and the governments which have confiscated capitalism's boon and turned it into the greatest enemy of civilization which has ever existed. War and socialism are merely two sides of the same coin, and the coin of government is called Power. Free men trade happiness, governments trade suffering, and to EVER support the expansion of that suffering is to deny the primacy of liberty's principles and to ignore the teachings of economics. The cure of tyranny is liberty, the cure of war is peace, and no government is preservative or well-disposed to either of these, for if it were it would have no choice but abdication and self-termination.
Let the friends of freedom in Iran and all the world protect their liberty and their property, and let all war be renounced. Let trade and peace be the answer, so our peoples depend upon one another and mutually antagonize against their governments. Keep us all wealthy, healthy and armed. And all the while the foes of liberty will whither in their man-made Hells, while we grow stronger, Should the armies of some would-be conquerer comes to our homes they will find a man with a rifle behind every blade of grass.
Another comment on the philosophy (and psychological work) of Friedrich Nietzsche. Those in favour of demagogic, nationalistic "socialism will find no ally in Fritz, whatever his flaws might be. He despised anti-semites, and harshly critized Richard Wagner and eventually ceased communicating with him for that reason. He thought Germany was lost, that newspapers and politics were below true individuals with reason and will - as they are, for they have the world to win and do not need to take it from others or beg it as alms. "Charity comes from power, from an overflowing of power." You might not like the precise words, but replace power (macht) with one of its connotations, efficacy and ability. Is not the ability of free minds and free markets to coordinate and cooperate the most powerful force in the world, which continues to improve the world despite the most concerted efforts of every government in history against it? And who is freer and friendlier than the man of ability and assurity, who seeks to be ever better, knowing that he does not need to prey on other men but that they may in fact serve him by serving themselves, for his ability allows him to invision ways to employ even the most feeble and unskilled and his drive to excel insures his pursuit of it.
Two passages from Friedrich's work, I think, will clearly demonstrate this aversion to States, nationalism and socialism. If he thought little of pursuit of wealth (for itself), he thought even less of those who would lie and degrade their minds to get it from others.
Thus Spake Zarathustra
XI. The New Idol
Somewhere there are still peoples and herds, but not with us, my brethren: here there are states.
A state? What is that? Well! open now your ears unto me, for now will I say unto you my word concerning the death of peoples.
A state, is called the coldest of all cold monsters. Coldly lieth it also; and this lie creepeth from its mouth: "I, the state, am the people."
It is a lie! Creators were they who created peoples, and hung a faith and a love over them: thus they served life.
Destroyers, are they who lay snares for many, and call it the state: they hang a sword and a hundred cravings over them.
Where there is still a people, there the state is not understood, but hated as the evil eye, and as sin against laws and customs.
This sign I give unto you: every people speaketh its language of good and evil: this its neighbour understandeth not. Its language hath it devised for itself in laws and customs.
But the state lieth in all languages of good and evil; and whatever it saith it lieth; and whatever it hath it hath stolen.
False is everything in it; with stolen teeth it biteth, the biting one. False are even its bowels.
Confusion of language of good and evil; this sign I give unto you as the sign of the state. Verily, the will to death, indicateth this sign! Verily, it beckoneth unto the preachers of death!
Many too many are born: for the superfluous ones was the state devised!
See just how it enticeth them to it, the many-too-many! How it swalloweth and cheweth and recheweth them!
"On earth there is nothing greater than I: it is I who am the regulating finger of God"--thus roareth the monster. And not only the long-eared and short-sighted fall upon their knees!"
-----------------------------
Think about the Nationalism, including the flag-waving democratic babble the news and politicians spout, deluding the populace claiming that 'they' are the government, and that the government is 'the people'. And one more to make it clear that he favoured no scheme of wealth redistribution:
The Antichrist
"Whom do I hate most among the rabble of today? The socialist rabble, the chandala apostles, who undermine the instinct, the pleasure, the worker's sense of satisfaction with his small existence—who make him envious, who teach him revenge."
Post a Comment