American Left can be seen in Nazi History


Hitler- BHO & Hillary

John R. Houk

© May 27, 2016

 

I have noticed over the years that Lefties (aka Liberals, Progressives, Left Wingers, Moonbats, etc.) have smeared Conservatives as Nazis or Hitler-equivalents. The irony is Hitler’s Nazism was a Left Wing Movement that employed the nationalist-corporatism of Fascism which is ultimately State control of the industrial complex.

 

Karl Marx’s Communism envisioned Industrial workers rising up in revolt over the means of production and who controls those means. Which ultimately played out of State ownership of everything from property to the industrial complex under the illusion that the people (aka workers or the proletariat) controlled society’s living conditions and the mode of production. In essence the State assumed the role of the people by proxy.

 

Nazism was not so much interested in the illusion of who controls production as much as every citizen serves the needs of the State paying homage to the elites of State that made the lives of true citizens prosperous. Consider how the word Nazi Party gained its appellation:

 

Acronym Finder

 

What does NSDAP stand for?

 

NSDAP stands for Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei (NAZI Party)

 

 

ONLINE ETYMOLOGY DICTIONARY

 

Nazi 

 

1930, noun and adjective, from German Nazi, abbreviation of German pronunciation of Nationalsozialist (based on earlier German sozi, popular abbreviation of “socialist”), from Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei “National Socialist German Workers’ Party,” led by Hitler from 1920.

The 24th edition of Etymologisches Wörterbuch der deutschen Sprache (2002) says the word Nazi was favored in southern Germany (supposedly from c. 1924) among opponents of National Socialism because the nickname NaziNaczi (from the masc. proper name Ignatz, German form of Ignatius) was used colloquially to mean “a foolish person, clumsy or awkward person.” Ignatz was a popular name in Catholic Austria, and according to one source in World War I Nazi was a generic name in the German Empire for the soldiers of Austria-Hungary.

An older use of Nazi for national-sozial is attested in German from 1903, but EWdS does not think it contributed to the word as applied to Hitler and his followers. The NSDAP for a time attempted to adopt the Nazi designation as what the Germans call a “despite-word,” but they gave this up, and the NSDAP is said to have generally avoided the term. Before 1930, party members had been called in English National Socialists, which dates from 1923. The use of Nazi GermanyNazi regime, etc., was popularized by German exiles abroad. From them, it spread into other languages, and eventually was brought back to Germany, after the war. In the USSR, the terms national socialist and Nazi were said to have been forbidden after 1932, presumably to avoid any taint to the good word socialist. Soviet literature refers to fascists.

 

The Wikipedia entry for “Nazi Party” goes into greater detail if you are interested. At Wikipedia the focus is more on nationalism combined with racism more than Socialism.

 

Either way, Nazism and Communism were political vehicles to control the masses under the direction of an elitist oligarchy.

 

Matt Barber has written an essay that I located on Constitution.com highlighting that Adolf Hitler was an anti-Christian pretending to be a Christian with Left Oriented Socialism in the backdrop.

 

Who does that sound like today in 21st century America? Since Barber doesn’t mention any modern day similarities, allow me to name a couple:

 

  • Barack Obama

 

  • Hillary Clinton

 

JRH 5/27/16

Please Support NCCR

*******************

No, Hitler Was Not a Christian… He Was More Like Modern-day “Progressives”.

 US Flag with Nazi flag paperclip

By Matt Barber [webpage lists him as Guest Columnist but at the end the essay attributed Barber]

May 26, 2016

Constitution.com

 

[T]he only way of getting rid of Christianity is to allow it to die little by little.

– Adolf Hitler

 

Yes, there have been evil men who have done evil things in the name of false Christianity. To a limited degree, Adolf Hitler was one such man. Still, and as even he frequently admitted outside the public eye, he was no Christian.

 

As a counterweight to stigma associated with the tens of millions slaughtered in the 20th century alone under the atheist regimes of Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, et al., the secular left is quick to thunder, “But what about Hitler? He was a Christian!”

 

Bad news, kids. Herr Führer was your guy, too.

 

“I shall never come personally to terms with the Christian lie,” Hitler confessed (audio transcribed in “Hitler’s Table Talk” [1941-44]). “It would always be disagreeable for me to go down to posterity as a man who made concessions in this field [to be labeled a Christian].”

 

Did Adolf Hitler ever call himself a Christian? Certainly. He did so, and as he would later admit, for the singular purpose of disseminating political propaganda.

 

“To whom should propaganda be addressed?” he wrote. “It must be addressed always and exclusively to the masses. … The whole art consists in doing this so skillfully that everyone will be convinced that the fact is real.”

 

The Nazi Germans of the 1930s and ’40s are not alone in swallowing Hitler’s Christianese-peppered puffery. Today’s secular- “progressive” establishment likewise bandies about a handful of carefully crafted Hitlerian quotes released for public consumption. His “pro-Christian” proclamations in “Mein Kampf” and elsewhere, for instance, were universally a perversion of biblical Christianity leveraged for the sole purpose of justifying the extermination of the Jewish people.

 

“My feelings as a Christian points me to my Lord and Savior as a fighter,” he wrote. “In boundless love as a Christian and as a man I read through the passage which tells us how the Lord at last rose in His might and seized the scourge [the Jews] to drive out of the Temple the brood of vipers and adders. How terrific was His fight for the world against the Jewish poison. … For as a Christian I have also a duty to my own people.”

 

That was the extent of Hitler’s plastic “Christianity.” The Bible, always taken out of context, served as a twisted weapon to justify the mass slaughter of over 11 million Jews, Christians, disabled people and other “undesirables.”

 

In reality Hitler insisted, “In the long run, National Socialism and religion will no longer be able to exist together.”

 

 

What Brutal Hitler and Softer Modern Day Progressives Share in Common

 

Sounds an awful lot like today’s American church-state separatists. Roger Baldwin, founder of the ACLU, for example, held, “I am for socialism, disarmament, and, ultimately, for abolishing the state itself. … I seek the social ownership of property, the abolition of the propertied class, and the sole control of those who produce wealth. Communism is the goal.”

 

Indeed, the ACLU’s promotional materials similarly advocate anti-Christian intolerance and mirror Hitler’s directive that, “Socialism and religion will no longer be able to exist together.” “The message of the Establishment Clause is that religious activities must be treated differently from other activities to ensure against governmental support for religion,” imagines the “American” so-called “civil liberties” union.

 

That’s viewpoint discrimination and it’s unconstitutional.

 

This is secular socialism in a nutshell. It’s a religion, and its devotees, be they Nazi Germans or American Leftists, are Communist Manifesto-thumping fundamentalists.

 

“There is something very unhealthy about Christianity,” Hitler opined. “As far as we are concerned, we’ve succeeded in chasing the Jews from our midst and excluding Christianity from our political life. … The heaviest blow that ever struck humanity was the coming of Christianity. Bolshevism is Christianity’s illegitimate child. Both are inventions of the Jew. … Christianity is an invention of sick brains: one could imagine nothing more senseless.”

 

Indeed, Hitler’s robust anti-Christian hatred lives on beyond the death of the Third Reich. Modern-day progressives like Hillary Clinton, though, tend to take a kinder, gentler, more surreptitiously totalitarian approach: “Rights have to exist in practice – not just on paper,” the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee recently said in the context of some phantom “right” to exterminate undesirable infants. “Laws have to be backed up with resources and political will. And deep-seated cultural codes, religious beliefs and structural biases have to be changed.”

 

Yikes. “Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.”

 

While Hitler was more direct, he nonetheless shared Hillary’s secular socialist vision: “We’ll see to it that the Churches cannot spread abroad teachings in conflict with the interests of the State. We shall continue to preach the doctrine of National Socialism, and the young will no longer be taught anything but the truth.”

 

Sound familiar? Progressive “truth,” of course, invariably means Christian torment.

 

Hitler, borrowing from socialist icon Karl Marx, said that all Germans must “free themselves from the drug of Christianity. Let’s be the only people who are immunized against the disease.” Marx, a hero to the secular socialist left, famously called religion, “the opium of the people.”

 

Hitler a Christian? No chance.

 

Anti-Semitism, Islam and a Dash of Darwin

 

Moreover, like the preponderance of today’s similarly anti-Semitic secular progressives, Hitler, too, was an apologist for Islam. As America’s own Dear Leader has done, Hitler partnered with Iran, present-day “Palestine” and other Islamist regimes in the shared goal of eliminating the Jews:

 

“The world had fallen into the hands of the Jews, so gutless a thing was Christianity!” he fumed. “Then we should in all probability have been converted to Mohammedanism, that cult which glorifies heroism and which opens the seventh Heaven to the bold warrior alone. Then the Germanic races would have conquered the world. Christianity alone prevented them from doing so!”

 

Hitler also parroted the godless ideology of modern atheists. Like so many of today’s secular progressives, he was an avowed materialist, neo-Darwinian evolutionist and hardhearted God-denier: “When understanding of the universe has become widespread, when the majority of men know that the stars are not sources of light but worlds, perhaps inhabited worlds like ours, then the Christian doctrine will be convicted of absurdity.”

 

“Christianity, of course, has reached the peak of absurdity,” he said. “And that’s why one day its structure will collapse. Science has already impregnated humanity. Consequently, the more Christianity clings to its dogmas, the quicker it will decline.”

 

Two thousand years and still waiting.

 

And so Hitler endeavored to assist “natural selection” and, as he wrote in “Mein Kampf,” “establish an evolutionary higher stage of being.” He placed his hope in Germany’s youth because they were “absolutely indifferent in the matters of religion.”

 

A beloved Hitler Youth marching song captured the Führer’s heart on matters of Christ and Christianity:

 

We follow not Christ, but Horst Wessel,
Away with incense and Holy Water,
The Church can go hang for all we care,
The Swastika brings salvation on Earth.

 

Today’s progressive “social justice” warriors are angling for a dystopian, Swastika-free repeat. Their hope, too, lies in the youth (witness the socialism-fueled anarchist insurgence occurring on college campuses nationwide).

 

Like then, progressive secular socialists endeavor to rule the world.

 

And “Christianity alone,” to update Hitler’s own words, will “prevent them from doing so.”

 

Matt Barber is founder and editor-in chief of BarbWire.com. He is author of “Hating Jesus: The American Left’s War on Christianity,” a columnist, a cultural analyst and an attorney concentrating in constitutional law. Having retired as an undefeated heavyweight professional boxer, Matt has taken his fight from the ring to the culture war. (Follow Matt on Twitter: @jmattbarber).

________________________

American Left can be seen in Nazi History

John R. Houk

© May 27, 2016

________________________

No, Hitler Was Not a Christian… He Was More Like Modern-day “Progressives”.

 

Copyright © 2016 The Constitution. All Rights Reserved.

 

 

Nazis and Muslims…..


Be the judge= Nazism & Islam

The Waking Giant cross posted an article by Alain Wagner that draws an awesome analogy of political correctness hypocrisy contrasting society’s view of Nazism and Islam. Good Read!

 

JRH 3/23/16

Please Support NCCR

**********************

Nazis and Muslims…..

 

Posted by twg2a PitBull

Article by Alain Wagner

Posted on March 23, 2016

The Waking Giant

 

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”[1], 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 [sic] 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 [2] 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,

 

Or

 

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

 

Nazism-Islam flag

Nazism-Islam Flag

 

Problem is the Fundamentals of Islam banner

Problem is the Fundamentals of Islam banner

 

[Blog Editor: When “twg2a PitBull” cross posted this article the notes were not included on The Waking Giant. For me that was a bit annoying since the reference note was to a word that I did not have a clue as to its meaning – “Padamalgam”. In the process of Googling the meaning I discovered the blog Gates of Vienna had posted this Alain Wagner article of which was probably the original English translation for the very original was in French.

 

By the way before I came upon the Gates of Vienna version on Google I found a somewhat detailed explanation of Padamalgam on a website called Know Your Meme. Although I’m still posting the notes after these editorial thoughts I thought those of you as ignorant as I might be interested in the details of the word:

 

Padamalgam

 

Updated about a year ago by Tomberry.

Added about a year ago by Tomberry.

 

About

 

Padamalgam is an internet slang, contraction of the French sentence pas d’amalgame which means no conflation in English. Initially used to convey mockery and criticism of the perceived overly political correctness from the French mainstream media when reporting on acts of violence committed [sic] by people of a specific social background and religious orientation, namely Islam, the term has then been embraced by various islamophobic groups on social networking sites.

 

Origins

 

Among the earliest blog posts coining the term is an article from Les enfants de la zone grise [1], issued on May 5th 2010 and titled “Grande peur des non-pensants”, arguing that the French media were quick on dismissing any argument in favor of a causal relationship between acts of violence comitted [sic] by muslims and Islam itself under the pretense of not wanting to promote conflating or denigratory comments against them.

 

Spread

 

While the slang didn’t get as much notability online in the years 2010 and 2011, It began to spread on March 21th 2012 when it was converted to an hashtag [10] and posted to Twitter, following the Toulouse and Montauban shootings [2] (shown below).

 

Tweets of Padamalgam photo

Tweets of Padamalgam photo

 

On that same month, many articles and blog posts [3] [4] were made reusing the slang in order to mock the media and the government on how they covered the event by first claiming the attacks were done by a neo-nazi before revealing the real culprit was muslim Mohammed Merah. The Huffington Post also parodied this sentiment of “political correctness”, in a cartoon presenting a spokeperson [sic] stating that no conflation should be made between the shooting and Japan because the killer was riding a Japanese-made bike[5] (shown below).

 

HuffPo drawing of Padamalgam on the 2012 Toulouse shooting

HuffPo drawing of Padamalgam on the 2012 Toulouse shooting

 

As a matter of fact, many French right-wing groups took this new slang on their own to highlight perceived threats coming from Islam [6].

 

The 2015 shootings

 

The hashtag #padamalgam got a resurgence in popularity following the 2015 Charlie Hebdo shooting as well as the 2015 Copenhagen shootings [9]. Many tweets were very critical of the fact muslims were the perpretrators [sic] of both attacks. Some users even made parodie images of medicine tablets with the name padamalgam as pills that enable people to be oblivious to a perceived increase in attacks only perpetrated by muslims. Newspaper Le Monde commented on the phenomenon[7] and its islamophobic tone, highlighting the tweets as well as several facebook pages [8] made after the name.

 

Twitter insight omitted

 

The Gates of Vienna post had photos which I am omitting. Below is first the explanation on the English translation and origin which will be followed by notes 1 and 2 of Alain Wagner’s article.]

 

+++

Nazis Versus Muslims

Gates of Vienna

March 19, 2016

 

The following article by Alain Wagner of Vérité, Valeurs et Démocratie was originally published in French at the VV&D website. Many thanks to Nathalie for the translation.

 

NOTES:

 

  1. Phonetic transcription of “Pas d’amalgame” = No conflation, never lump together

 

  1. 75% of the content of sharia law is common to all schools of Islamic law, the differences having to do with minor points only.

 

________________________

Edited by John R. Houk

Any text within The Waking Giant post enclosed by brackets are by the Editor.

 

The Waking Giant homepage

 

Bad News, Good News, and a Common Blind Spot


Let me ask a question: When you think of a person who is a Nazi do you also think that person is a follower of the ideology of Nazism? Both person and ideology are thought of as evil, right?

Hmm… So why is a Muslim divided into moderate-good and radical-evil Islamic ideology when both the moderate and the radical both believe the Quran is the uncreated word of Allah? Or why do present day multiculturalists brainwash students and listeners that Islamic history during Muhammad’s life and the next thousand years or so are taught that this time period is the golden age of Islam? Keep in mind I ask about this golden age fallacy because one can account for about “270 million killed by jihad”.

Elsa Schieder addresses the hypocritical paradox about personhood and ideology.

JRH 2/3/16

Please Support NCCR

******************

Bad News, Good News, and a Common Blind Spot

By Elsa Schieder

January 30, 2016 2:37 PM

Sent by WorldTruthSummit.com

Today, bad news, good news, and a way that most people – even those very aware of the threat of Islam – are asleep.

Bad news. In Israel, the stabbings of Jews by Islamics continue. A mother was murdered in front of her children. In Canada, a man named Mohammed entered a Calgary nightclub with a gun and started firing. There was only one injury – bouncers tackled the man, subdued him. In Paris, a man with 2 guns, ammo and a Quran was caught in Disney Land. A 22-year-old Swedish woman, daughter of Christian refugees from Lebanon, was murdered by an Islamic so-called refugee at a refugee center for unaccompanied minors. (The supposed minor was over 6′ tall.) Another story from Sweden: a 15-year-old Lithuanian student was murdered by an Islamic student after the Lithuanian student protected a non-Islamic female student from sexual harassment. In Berlin, a German-born Iranian Muslim man murdered a 20-year-old German woman by pushing her into the path of an oncoming subway train. I could go on and on.

I hear so many stories, and grieve for the lives lost.

Good news. There’s a new Fortress Europe coalition. It’s planning to hold mass demonstrations across Europe on February 6. And in the United Stated, a presidential candidate, Donald Trump, has declared that, if elected, he will stop all Islamic immigration until the jihad threat has been eliminated.

Will enough people wake up in time to save the West? My inner answer: yes. At what cost? We will see. I remember a film that gripped me when I was a child: High Noon. It feels like high noon, right now.

And now I want to pay attention to a way that most people are asleep.

It should be obvious: Christians are to Christianity, what Muslims are to Islam, what Nazis are to Nazism. But just try and see – maybe even on yourself – and you’ll almost certainly experience very different responses to the 3 things. I can certainly feel this in myself. My intrained [sic] kneejerk response re Muslims and Islam: of course one can’t generalize about Muslims, Muslims are people, Islam is an ideology. My kneejerk response re Nazis is utterly different: within myself, I tar them all with the same brush – bad, evil, Jew-killers. As for Christians, it’s also automatic: I don’t feel any need to say, of course not all Christians are like this or that.

I did a mini-experiment with a few people when they spouted the usual line (“We must be careful not to negatively stereotype Muslims”). I agreed vehemently, that it’s important to distinguish between Muslims (people) and Islam (ideology) – just as we need to make a distinction between Nazis (people) and Nazism (ideology). The people were stunned. Spluttering. Silence. What??

What’s good for the goose is good for the gander, I have heard. Instead I could feel a powerful double standard, which these people – and most Western people, I suspect – hold, without awareness.

The biggest thing: Muslims are radically disconnected from any of the nasty ideology found in the supposedly perfect Quran. On the other hand, Nazis are 100% connected to The Final Solution (the plan to murder all Jews) – though The Final Solution is NOT in Hitler’s Mein Kampf, in fact was not developed until 1942, the middle of World War II. Yet in World War II, there were no cell phones, no instant videos instantly uploaded, no selfies of SS guards herding Jews into the gas chambers. There was no Twitter, no Facebook, no internet. There was even no mention in the news – for the most part, outside as well as inside Germany – of the concentration camps. Not a single train track leading to the concentration camps was ever bombed.

Now there is a wealth of information on Islamic ideology, plus there are scores of graphic videos of Islamics quoting the Quran while committing atrocities. No one can say that Muslims have no access to knowledge of Islamic ideology that includes Jew hatred, belief in Islamic superiority, and worldwide Sharia, and an Islamic caliphate. In fact, there is massive evidence that millions of Muslims adhere to this ideology. About three-quarters of a billion Muslims (about 50%), according to some recent statistics, want worldwide Sharia.

So what is going, that now, with all this information readily available, Muslims are “anti-demonized”, disconnected from Islamic ideology?

Just ask yourself:

– Why it isn’t even suggested that we need to distinguish between Nazis (people) and Nazism (Nazi ideology as laid out in Mein Kampf)?

– Much more important, why is it drilled into us (correctly) that we need to distinguish between Muslims (people) and Islam (Islamic ideology as laid out in the Quran)?

 – But why it isn’t drilled into us that we must educate ourselves as well as Muslims – or that Muslims are responsible for educating themselves – on Islamic ideology, so we all know the ideology Muslims are associating themselves with?

To me, it doesn’t make any logical sense to demonize all adherents of one of these ideologies (Nazism), while treating adherents of the other (Islam) with kid gloves – “one must not generalize about Muslims.”

We know the answers to these questions, actually. Islam is powerful. So are the politically correct. Nazis are not. It’s easy to demonize those out of power.

Now for something else, something that shocked me, and made me do a lot more thinking about Nazis and Nazism.

It’s something I came across accidentally online. I had to look twice to believe what I was seeing. I was so shocked I didn’t even mention it to anyone for a week. I was looking for Silent Night, in the original German. I found a lovely sing-along version by Nana Mouskouri. Then, in one of those automatic changes, right after Nana Mouskouri finished, on came a German version of White Christmas. Nothing strange about that – except that it included photos of Hitler. (183,942 views. 522 likes. 87 dislikes. January 30, 2016.)

Sweetly ring the bells Christmas

As I said, I had to look twice to believe what I was seeing. Hitler at Christmas.

Then I clicked off the video.

You can see it here: https://youtu.be/jE2vyGSbUVM

VIDEO: Weiße Weihnacht (White Christmas) German – Sing Along

Posted by Valhalla Videos Network

Uploaded on Dec 20, 2007

This is White Christmas in German Sung by the boy choir Toelzer Knabenchor.
This music video is a continuation to last year’s Christmas video of Stille Nacht (Silent Night) which I did. I’ve included subtitles if you want to sing along also with a few pics and video clips from Germany during Christmas between the late 1930’s till the early 1940’s. Enjoy!

A week later I went looking for the video. It was easy to find. Once again, it came on automatically after Nana and her sweet sing-along. This time I made myself watch closely, quietly.

I could understand the images of German housewives, little German children, German soldiers.

image006

image007

And there is only one wish

May there be peace on earth forever. Wonderful words.

All that existed – people, not some strange monsters, celebrating Christmas.

I could feel the humanity of the young soldiers who went to war – like my 2 oldest uncles, 18, 19, both killed on the Russian front when my father was a boy.

Gone are worry and pain

The celebration of love is now here.

But, as I’ve said, I was stopped cold at the photos of Hitler.

And I was stunned that this video played automatically. What was going on here?

One good thing. Most of us – including myself – are at pains to make the distinction between Muslims and Islam. Muslims are people – lots of different attitudes and viewpoints – while Islam is an ideology.

The video got me to recognize, on a gut level, how differently I have been trained to respond to Nazis and Nazism, than to Muslims and Islam.

So, one thing positive, for me, about the images of German citizens celebrating Christmas during World War II is that the people were not demonized.

Sweetly ring the bells Christmas

One thing horrific is that Hitler was in there.

That crossed my inner line so much that I did what I tend to do when something is too much. I pushed the video out of my mind for a few days. I “numbed out.” But now I’ve done what I generally do next: I’ve thought about it more, and I’m writing to you about it.

I wonder: how many people, like me, react with shock when they see the video? How many don’t think about it at all? And how many are glad of the positive images of Hitler?

By the way, I had another experience of the way that Islam is let off the hook when I recently attended a presentation on the rise of anti-Semitism in Europe. The presenter had many statistics – including that 91% of Muslims surveyed in (I think) Morocco were anti-Semitic. However, even when repeatedly pressed, he refused to make any link between the rise of anti-Semitism, the growing Islamic presence in Europe, and the anti-Semitism inherent in the Quran. Instead there were dismissive comments: basically, the Quran was deemed irrelevant. It was as if I were faced with someone truly closed to considering that there could be a connection between lung cancer and smoking.

And now, to all of us who care and dare, to life and to love,

Elsa

PS. American volunteers wanted to Stop the Stealth Jihad in America: The Truth in Textbooks Project. TNT (Truth in Textbooks) is joining ACT for America Education to form the most extensive teams to review social studies textbooks in the country. Training classes start in April, July and Oct 2016. The goal is to have a total of 300-500 volunteers fully trained by the end of this year. More information here: http://www.citizenwarrior.com/2016/01/seeking-volunteers-to-stop-stealth.html

You can also get more information at: tnt@actforamerica.org

PPS. And this is if you are a British citizen or UK resident – a petition to ban Sharia in the UK. Please sign, support, send on: https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/107864

PPS. Strange what shocks us. I don’t watch videos of beheadings. But I’ve heard of them so often that I’m not shocked that they exist and that millions have watched. On the other hand, Nazis not demonized!! That shocks me!!

PPPS. The next update will likely only come in 2 weeks.

PPPPS. More images from the video.

May there be peace on earth forever

 

Merry Christmas

PS. For lots more, come to: http://ElsasEmporium.com

___________________

John R. Houk Editor

© Elsa Schieder

ELSA, TRUTH SLEUTH:
MY JOURNEY INTO ISLAM

It could be about, how I came to find the wonder of Islam.

The words that come into my mind: The Heart of Darkness, the title of a novel by Joseph Conrad.

What I mean is that I found so many things I did not expect, so many things I could not admire. I would have loved to find a religion of peace. I did not. I feel as if I slowly stepped into a cave, slowly found lights, and had to recoil from what I found.

In one corner, the corpses of 600-900 dead Jews, murdered by Mohammed. The story isn’t one I found in early versions of his story that I came across. But it’s right there, hinted at in the Qu’ran, and spelled out in detail in the Sira and Hadiths (very revered Islamic religious texts). The story is right there.

But I didn’t find the story until late in my exploration, when I already had a good idea of what kinds of things I’d be coming across.

The early explorations were much more tentative.

After all, I was told Islam was a religion of peace. But something did not make sense.

It was a bit like being a detective – Nancy Drew, say – young and innocent and very Western. Why was there this feeling of danger when I was tiptoeing into finding out about a religion of peace? The cave felt damp, and at the same time dusty. It felt that much lurked, that did not want me tiptoeing around, just wanting to look and see. But why should this be, if this was truly a religion of peace? After all, all I READ THE REST

Genocidal Jew-Hater Amin al-Husseini


An Introduction by John R. Houk

© October 31, 2015

About a week ago in Jerusalem Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu spoke at the World Zionist Organization’s 37th Zionist Congress. At the Congress the Prime Minister spoke of the Jerusalem Grand Mufti Haj Amin al-Husseini’s participation in Hitler’s Holocaust against the Jews which resulted in their brutal murders to the tune of about SIX MILLION human beings by the end of 1945.

It boggles my mind that the Leftist media has joined in a chorus of heated criticism of Netanyahu’s finger-pointing at al-Husseini as a joint Holocaust instigator with Hitler. SO WHAT if Netanyahu was off about the degree of pivotal involvement in convincing Hitler to cleanse Europe of Jews rather than deport them?

The real point should be that al-Husseini cooperated so much with Hitler’s Final Solution against European Jews that he brought the Nazi Jew-hatred ideology back to Muslim dominated areas inspiring genocidal concepts against Jews that continue to this very day. This is evidenced in particular by the Arabs who call themselves Palestinians current murder spree against Jews in Israel.

Haj Amin al-Husseini

Below is a Middle East Forum backgrounder on al-Husseini followed by a more in depth look at the dead Jew-hater by Pamela Geller.

JRH 10/31/15

Please Support NCCR

************************

Backgrounder: Hajj Amin al-Husseini

Compiled by Gary C. Gambill

October 30, 2015

Middle East Forum

MEF backgrounders highlight select news-relevant research and analysis from Middle East Forum staff, fellows, and publications. Sign up to the MEF mailing list to stay abreast of our work.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu caused a storm of controversy on October 20 by quoting Hajj Amin al-Husseini, the infamous grand mufti of Jerusalem during the interwar years, as having told Adolf Hitler in 1941 to “burn” rather than deport the Jews of Europe, insinuating that this influenced the unfolding Nazi genocide.

Hitler and Husseini in Berlin, November 1941

While the veracity of this quote is in question, few dispute that Husseini could well have said something to this effect given his genocidal hatred of Jews, penchant for blood-curdling rhetoric, and determination to prevent Jewish immigration to Palestine. However, opinions differ sharply, even among MEF staff and fellows, as to the degree of Hussein’s influence, both in Nazi Germany and the Middle East.

MEF Hochberg Family Writing Fellow Wolfgang G. Schwanitz, coauthor of Nazis, Islamists, and the Making of the Modern Middle East (2014), argues that two components of this question are unmistakably clear. First, Husseini’s overarching goal prior to and during Hitler’s reign, he notes, was that “whatever happens with Jews under Hitler’s reign in Europe, they should not come to the Middle East.” At the very least, the Germans understood that deportation as a solution to Europe’s “Jewish Question” risked alienating their top protégé in the Arab world – a region they expected in 1941-42 to be invading soon.

Second, Schwanitz notes that the historical record shows the mufti to be unquestionably the “foremost extra-European adviser in the process to destroy the Jews of Europe.” Adolf Eichmann and his subordinates frequently briefed Husseini as the genocide unfolded, “as if to reassure him that Hitler had not changed his mind,” he writes in a forthcoming article.

Husseini (left), Indian nationalist leader Subhash Chandra Bose, and Iraqi leader Rashid Ali al-Gaylani in Berlin, 1943

In contrast, MEF fellow Jeffrey Herf, author of Nazi Propaganda for the Arab World (2010), contends that the Husseini’s “importance in Nazi Berlin lay far more in assisting the Third Reich’s Arabic language propaganda … and in mobilizing Muslims in Eastern Europe to support the Nazi regime.” Although these achievements surely facilitated Nazi atrocities, Hitler “made the decisions to implement the Final Solution and had communicated those decisions to key actors in the Nazi regime at the latest a month before his [1941] meeting with Husseini.”

Whatever his role in the Holocaust, MEF staff and fellows widely agree that Husseini was a critical ideological progenitor of Middle Eastern extremism today. The mufti was among the first to “exploit the draw of the Islamic holy places in Jerusalem to find international Muslim support” for the anti-Zionist cause, notes MEF President Daniel Pipes, a theme very much in evidence today among Palestinian Islamists.

Moreover, Husseini “can be largely held responsible for the Middle East’s endemic antisemitism,” writes Daniel Pipes in a recent Washington Times op-ed, pointing to his postwar tutelage of Yasser Arafat and other rising Palestinian figures, as well the Muslim Brotherhood during his stay in Egypt after the Nazi defeat.

Hitler’s Mein Kampf has been a bestseller in the Middle East since the 1930s.

As Boris Havel illustrates in a recent Middle East Quarterly article, Husseini’s propaganda traced “alleged Jewish power and ambitions” in the here and now “to supposed Jewish activities at the time of Muhammad,” a theological innovation that is today a staple of Islamist discourse.

Because of Husseini, there remains an “inescapable and inextricable connection between Islamists … and the Nazi movement” today, MEF Director Gregg Roman told Al-Jazeera English on October 22. In an early Middle East Quarterly article, famed Princeton University historian Bernard Lewis notes (without specific reference to Husseini) the “astonishing degree” to which “the ideas, the literature, even the crudest inventions of the Nazis and their predecessors have been internalized and Islamized” in the Middle East.

At the same time, it is important not to overstate Husseini’s influence. When the American Freedom Defense Initiative (AFDI) placed ads on Philadelphia buses displaying a photo of Husseini and Hitler with a caption reading “Adolf Hitler and his staunch ally, the leader of the Muslim world,” Daniel Pipes cautioned that the “text is factually inaccurate,” calling Husseini “a British appointee in the Mandate for Palestine, where Muslims constituted less than 1 percent of the total world Muslim population.”

Compiled by Middle East Forum web editor Gary C. Gambill

+++

Pamela Geller, WND Column: Netanyahu tells truth about mufti’s role in Holocaust

By Pamela Geller

October 29, 2015

Pamela Geller – Atlas Shrugs

The mufti of Jerusalem, Muhammad Hajj Amin Husseini, visits the volunteer Nazi Waffen-SS division in Bosnia, made up of Bosnian Muslims

If case you missed my column at WND this week:

DEFENDING THE WEST
Netanyahu tells truth about mufti’s role in Holocaust

Exclusive: Pamela Geller defends Bibi against onslaught of media attack

The condemnations have been way over the top: Benjamin Netanyahu is being denounced by the media and political elites all over the world, in a way that the openly genocidal jihadist Mahmoud Abbas never has been. Netanyahu’s crime? He told the Zionist Congress last Tuesday, “Hitler didn’t want to exterminate the Jews at the time; he wanted to expel the Jews.” Netanyahu quoted Hitler asking the mufti, “So what should I do with them?” The mufti responded, according to Netanyahu, “Burn them.’”

Those who are excoriating Netanyahu for this are overlooking one fact: Netanyahu was right.

The mufti of Jerusalem, Haj Amin al-Husseini, lived in Berlin from 1941 to 1945 and recruited a Muslim SS division for Hitler. And Netanyahu was correct: The Nazis originally pursued a policy of exiling Jews to Eastern Europe, and even to Palestine – until the mufti protested that they must not be sent there. The decision to exterminate the Jews came soon after that.

It is good to see that Netanyahu is not backing down. He called the criticism of his remarks “absurd,” which it is: Netanyahu’s remarks mirror my ads highlighting the role of the Muslim world during the Holocaust, and Netanyahu is experiencing the same blowback from Islamic supremacists and Islamic apologists that I got.

The premier front man for the failed idea that we should place all our hope in “moderate Islam,” Daniel Pipes, claimed several months ago that our ad campaign in Philadelphia calling attention to the mufti’s relationship with Hitler was a failure. Pipes took issue with our factual assertions, asserting that the mufti’s meeting with Hitler was a “one-time, opportunistic consultation.” Really? Tell that to the 400,000 Jewish women and children Husseini sent to their deaths at Nazi concentration camps. Tell that to the victims of the Muslim armies in Bosnia that Husseini raised for Hitler.

Pamela Geller’s commitment to freedom from jihad and Shariah shines forth in her books – featured at the WND Superstore

Al-Husseini lived in Berlin during World War II on Hitler’s dime and made weekly radio addresses from Berlin to the Axis power nations and the Muslim world. In one, he screamed: “Arabs, rise and fight as one for your sacred rights. Kill the Jews wherever you find them. This pleases Allah, history and religion. This saves your honor, Allah is with you.”

The mufti made similar appeals, always pointing to the Quran, time and time again in his radio addresses during the war. He organized propaganda services to the Muslims of the world from Berlin. He used Axis radio stations calling Muslims to arms in a holy war against the Allies. He aided the Nazi espionage service. He raised Muslim parachute groups for sabotage in the Middle East. He raised Muslim formations to fight the allies. He helped in the Nazi plan to exterminate nearly 6 million Jews.

“Hitler,” Netanyahu said in further remarks after the media firestorm began, “was responsible for the Final Solution to exterminate six million Jews; he made the decision. It is equally absurd to ignore the role played by the mufti, Haj Amin al-Husseini, a war criminal, for encouraging and urging Hitler.”

Right again. At my website, PamelaGeller.com, I have been calling attention to this for years. SS Hauptsturmfuehrer Dieter Wisliceny, a close collaborator of Adolf Eichmann, testified that “the grand mufti, who had been in Berlin since 1941, played a role in the decision of the German government to exterminate the European Jews the importance of which must not be disregarded. He had repeatedly suggested to the various authorities with whom he had been in contact, above all before Hitler, Ribbentrop and Himmler, the extermination of European jury. He considers this as a comfortable solution of the Palestine problem. In his messages broadcast from Berlin, he surpassed us in anti-Jewish attacks. He was one of Eichmann’s best friends and has constantly incited him to accelerate the extermination measures. I heard say that, accompanied by Eichmann, he has visited incognito the gas chamber it Auschwitz.”

Eichmann made the statement referred to in the affidavit in his office in Budapest on June 4, 1944; the confirmation by Wisliceny was given some days later also in Budapest.

To his Eminence the Grand Mufti, a Souvenir, July 4, 1943” H. Himmler

Not only that: According to testimony at the Nuremberg trials, “[T]he mufti was a bitter arch enemy of the Jews and had always been the protagonist of the idea of their annihilation. This idea the mufti had always advanced in his conversations with Eichmann.”

The mufti’s role in the Holocaust has been covered up. The New York Post reported back in 1948 that “on Aug. 28, 1946, Dean Acheson, then Acting Secretary of State, announced that ‘the State Dept. is preparing a White Paper concerning the activities of the ex-Mufti of Jerusalem.’ Acheson said the publication would be in the form of a book, which would cover all the documents concerning the ex-Mufti seized from German files. This White Paper has not yet been published, although 17 months have passed. What keeps the State Dept. from publishing it? Who is interested in the delay? Are all the documents safe?”

That delay has now continued for nearly seventy years. The white paper was never published. I submitted a Freedom of Information Act request several years ago, asking for a copy of it, as well as of all State Department correspondence relating to it. The State Department responded that such a white paper did not exist and had never existed, and that there was no correspondence about it.

So what did happen to that promised white paper? Under whose auspices, and for what reason, has the mufti’s role in the Holocaust been shrouded in silence?

Netanyahu did the world a great service by calling attention to this. The intensity of the attacks against him only testifies to how much he struck a nerve. In the mainstream media, Islam and Muslims must never, ever be criticized. We may only hope that the controversy will lead to some of the details being revealed about the mufti’s role in Hitler’s genocide.

__________________________

Genocidal Jew-Hater Amin al-Husseini

An Introduction by John R. Houk

© October 31, 2015

___________________________

Backgrounder: Hajj Amin al-Husseini

 

This text may be reposted or forwarded so long as it is presented as an integral whole with complete and accurate information provided about its author, date, place of publication, and original URL.

 

©1994-2015 The Middle East Forum

__________________________

Pamela Geller, WND Column: Netanyahu tells truth about mufti’s role in Holocaust

 

About Pamela Geller

 

Pamela Geller is the founder, editor and publisher of Atlas Shrugs.com and President of the American Freedom Defense Initiative (AFDI) and Stop Islamization of America (SIOA). She is the author of The Post-American Presidency: The Obama Administration’s War on America, with Robert Spencer (foreword by Ambassador John Bolton) (Simon & Schuster) and Stop the Islamization of America: A Practical Guide to the Resistance (WND Books). She is also a regular columnist for World Net Dailythe American ThinkerBreitbart.com and other publications.

 

Geller’s activism on behalf of human rights has won international notice. She is a foremost defender of the freedom of speech against attempts to force the West to accept Sharia blasphemy laws, and against Sharia self-censorship by Western media outlets. Her First Amendment lawsuits filed nationwide have rolled back attempts to limit Americans’ free speech rights and limit speech to only one political perspective, and exposed attempts to make an end-run around the First Amendment by illegitimately restricting access to public fora. Her free speech event in Garland, Texas led to the capture or killing of several murderous jihadists, smoking out terror cells, leading to an increase in the threat level to BRAVO and to the consequent arrests of jihadists in several states.

 

Geller has also led awareness campaigns in U.S., Europe, and Israel on behalf of the victims and potential victims of honor killing, for the human rights of apostates from Islam, for the freedom of speech, and more. She has placed ads nationwide on READ THE REST

CERTAINLY the Grand Mufti Inspiring a 2nd Holocaust


John R. Houk

© October 24, 2015

VIDEO: Netanyahu accurately describes the Mufti’s role in the Holocaust

 

Published by elderofziyon2

Published on Oct 21, 2015

This clip of part of a speech from Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu made at the 37th Zionist Congress in Jerusalem has gotten him into a spot of controversy by blaming the Nazi Holocaust more on the long dead Jerusalem Grand Mufti Amin al-Husseini rather than on Hitler. Leftists, Muslim Apologists and revisionist historians have gone near apoplectic over the Netanyahu assertion. Mainstream historians and Pro-Israel accede that PM Netanyahu overstated his case but was entirely accurate at least as to being an influence on evolving Hitler’s policy decision to move from deporting all European Jews to Madagascar to exterminating them from the planet earth.

From what I have briefly read, the historians saying Netanyahu overstated his case but was correct on al-Husseini’s murderous intentions for Jews, believe Hitler wasn’t sure of how far the war would go before what was left of European resistance might sue for peace. In that sense the Madagascar Plan was a diplomatic solution that could be imposed on Britain and France as part of the terms of the peace (More on Madagascar Plan). However it is my assumption after the USA entered WWII in December 1941 and the then Soviet Union was placing a stiffer resistance than expected, then Hitler proceeded with his original intentions of killing all Jews.

In that case Jerusalem Grand Mufti Haj Amin al-Husseini became more of a Nazi tool than a Hitler collaborator of the Nazi’s Final Solution for global Jewry.

BUT, in any case, the historical reading of the tea leaves can be shown to be as much speculation as it is speculation that al-Husseini had a greater role in the extermination of nearly SIX MILLIION Jews.

To those casting dispersions toward PM Netanyahu I like the assertion I found at the Jewish Journal:

Netanyahu said: “Hitler didn’t want to exterminate the Jews at the time, he wanted to expel the Jews. “And Haj Amin al-Husseini went to Hitler and said, ‘If you expel them, they’ll all come here.’ ‘So what should I do with them?’ he asked. He said, ‘Burn them’.”

Netanyahu’s quotation of the Grand Mufti is word-for-word accurate, but it is not true that the Fuhrer needed the advice of Islam’s leading anti-Jewish fanatic to implement the Final Solution. That was his dream as far back as 1919 as a letter that he authored and signed now on display at the Simon Wiesenthal Center Museum of Tolerance documents.

Prime Minister Netanyahu has been accused of “a dangerous historical distortion” and even “Holocaust Denial” from the predictable political quarters who even dismiss the Grand Mufti as “a lightweight” inconsequential in the history of the Holocaust. This claim wrongly mitigates the Mufti’s mindset and crimes as one of the Hitler era’s leading anti-Jewish haters. READ ENTIRETY (Bold Text Mine – The truth about Jerusalem’s grand mufti, Hitler and the Holocaust; By Abraham Cooper and Harold Brackman; Jewish Journal; 10/21/15 1:36 pm)

Frankly I consider it irrelevant if the Jew-hating Grand Mufti Haj Amin al-Husseini inspired Adolf Hitler to exterminate Jews or if Hitler had it planned from his Jew-hating beginnings. What is import is that al-Husseini was criminally in agreement and did his part both during and after WWII to kill Jews. ALSO al-Husseini planted the Jew-hatred seeds that caught the eyes of Muslim purists like Muslim Brotherhood founder Hasan al-Banna that propagated the Jew-hatred along with the hate all non-Muslims Caliphate agenda.

In this sense history taught in the West (including America) is completely deficient in our schools regardless of Elementary, Secondary AND College education. Along these lines Danny Jeffrey has written a post that may be conspiracy theory to many but is loaded with a strong amount of educated theorizing that should give clues to some reasons of the inevitable next global conflict that will probably be called World War III.

Take a good gander.

JRH 10/24/15

Please Support NCCR

***********************

OUR HISTORY WAS ALTERED BY THE POWERS THAT BE. WHY?

By Danny Jeffrey

October 22, 2015 2:37 AM

Fix Bayonets

This is not the essay that I had planned to publish next, nor is it one that I thought that I would ever write. I foresee another one or more 911 events and a collapse of this nation within the next year and have been very busy preparing for the event while writing three other essays. What I have now learned must be delivered to the American people for it upsets much of what we have been taught and believed all of our lives. We have been betrayed and lied to by our leaders and educators since WWII ended, and a non-politically correct fact is now coming out these many years later. Why was it hidden in the first place unless, as I have suggested in the past, that the Globalist agenda was put into place in the aftermath of the Second World War?

That fact: Hitler did not plan the Jewish genocide. That was the brainchild of his ally the Grand Mufti, Allah’s direct representative here on Earth.

Amin Al Husseini inspecting Nazi Muslim troops – 1943

At the moment Netanyahu is coming under a great deal of fire for revealing a long hidden, deep dark secret. That secret is long overdue for the light of day. The Prime Minister did the unthinkable and stood before the World Zionist Congress and exonerated Adolph Hitler as being the perpetrator of the Jewish genocide and placed the guilt right where it belongs; in the hands of Islam … the Religion of Peace.

True, Hitler and his henchmen implemented that cycle of death, but that second ‘Final Solution’ was not of their making. They had their own original Final Solution which also called for ridding Europe of Jews but their plan was to transport all of those Jews to Madagascar where they would be isolated from the rest of the world.

I shall now bring you up to date…

Very important excerpt from the following link. Also watch the very brief video within the link…

“Hitler didn’t want to exterminate the Jews at the time, he wanted to expel the Jews. And Haj Amin al-Husseini went to Hitler and said: ‘If you expel them, they’ll all come here [to Palestine].’” According to Netanyahu, Hitler then asked: “What should I do with them?” and the mufti replied: “Burn them.”

The Guardian … October 21, 2015
Anger at Netanyahu claim Palestinian grand mufti inspired Holocaust

The Guardian, being one of the more liberal participants in the MSM goes on to list detractors of Netanyahu’s statement. The only reason that I chose to use their version of the speech and following attacks was due to a open letter to the editor of the Guardian from a Mister Maurice Ostroff.

The Algemeiner … October 21, 2015
An Open Letter to The Guardian About Netanyahu’s Comments on the Mufti and Hitler

That letter begins…

I believe you owe your readers an explanation for referring to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s statement about the Mufti as “incendiary,” while barely noticing Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas’ truly incendiary statements praising the murderers of Jewish civilians, including children, and his use of hateful rhetoric, including calling for Jews “with their filthy feet” to be banned from entering the Temple Mount.

But far and away the true nugget of information that open letter provided led me to a history of the The Madagascar Plan as found in the Jewish Virtual Library.

Jewish Virtual Library … July 3, 1940
The Nazis & the Jews: The Madagascar Plan

The above link will take you to a history of the Nazi’s actual intent in regard to the Jews, and provide many links for the curious to follow. Perhaps most important is the document itself which you will find below in its entirety.

Text of the Madagascar Proposal

The approaching victory gives Germany the possibility, and in my view also the duty, of solving the Jewish question in Europe. The desirable solution is: all Jews out of Europe.

The task of the Foreign Ministry in this is:

a) To include this demand in the Peace Treaty and to insist on it also by means of separate negotiations with the European countries not involved in the Peace Treaty;

b) to secure the territory necessary for the settlement of the Jews in the Peace Treaty, and to determine principles for the cooperation of the enemy countries in this problem;

c) to determine the position under international law of the new Jewish overseas settlement;

d) as preparatory measures:

1) clarification of the wishes and plans of the departments concerned of the Party, State and Research organizations in Germany, and the coordination of these plans with the wishes of the Reich Foreign Minister, including the following:

2) preparation of a survey of the factual data available in various places (number of Jews in the various countries), use of their financial assets through an international bank;

3) negotiations with our friend, Italy, on these matters.

With regard to beginning the preparatory work, Section D III has already approached the Reich Foreign Minister via the Department Germany [interior affairs], and has been instructed by him to start on the preparatory work without delay. There have already been discussions with the Office of the Reichsfuehrer SS in the Ministry of Interior and several departments of the Party. These departments approve the following plan of Section D III:

Section D III proposes as a solution of the Jewish question: In the Peace Treaty France must make the island of Madagascar available for the solution of the Jewish question, and to resettle and compensate the approximately 25,000 French citizens living there. The island will be transferred to Germany under a mandate. Diégo Suarez Bay and the port of Antsirane, which are [sea-] strategically important, will become German naval bases (if the Navy wishes, these naval bases could be extended also to the harbors – open road-steads – Tamatave, Andevorante, Mananjara, etc.). In addition to these naval bases, suitable areas of the country will be excluded from the Jewish territory (Judenterritorium) for the construction of air bases. That part of the island not required for military purposes will be placed under the administration of a German Police Governor, who will be under the administration of the Reichsfuehrer SS. Apart from this, the Jews will have their own administration in this territory: their own mayors, police, postal and railroad administration, etc. The Jews will be jointly liable for the value of the island. For this purpose their former European financial assets will be transferred for use to a European bank to be established for this purpose. Insofar as the assets are not sufficient to pay for the land which they will receive, and for the purchase of necessary commodities in Europe for the development of the island, the Jews will be able to receive bank credits from the same bank.

As Madagascar will only be a Mandate, the Jews living there will not acquire German citizenship. On the other hand, the Jews deported to Madagascar will lose their citizenship of European countries from the date of deportation. Instead, they will become residents of the Mandate of Madagascar.

This arrangement would prevent the possible establishment in Palestine by the Jews of a Vatican State of their own, and the opportunity for them to exploit for their own purposes the symbolic importance which Jerusalem has for the Christian and Mohammedan parts of the world. Moreover, the Jews will remain in German hands as a pledge for the future good behavior of the members of their race in America.

Use can be made for propaganda purposes of the generosity shown by Germany in permitting cultural, economic, administrative and legal self-administration to the Jews; it can be emphasized at the same time that our German sense of responsibility towards the world forbids us to make the gift of a sovereign state to a race which has had no independent state for thousands of years: this would still require the test of history.

signed Rademacher

Berlin, July 3, 1940

Granted, the above plan was far from Utopia for the Jews who were be transported from their homes in Europe to a ghetto existence in Madagascar. The plan was also far from the Final Solution proposed by the Grand Mufti and accepted by Adolph Hitler.

Now, I must ask, why were we not taught this in school. Why has it never been revealed in any of our documentaries of WWII, or any of the historically accurate movies? Why was Islam’s participation in the Final Solution swept under the rug, giving them a get out of jail free card?

Breitbart … February 7, 2010
THE MUFTI OF JERUSALEM: ARCHITECT OF THE HOLOCAUST

The Mufti successfully demanded that 400,000 Jews who were about to be deported to the Holy Land instead be sent to their deaths. That’s not merely a collaborator, that’s a partner with great influence and power.


Yet after the war the Mufti was not prosecuted. He got off scot-free, and lived comfortably until 1974. Why? And why the cover-up now about in whose apartment were the documents found? Germany does not hide information like this after World War II; why are they hiding this now? The only plausible reason to keep this location secret would be because it would incriminate the Mufti. There are no other reasons. German authorities should come clean.

There is not much on the topic of totalitarianism that I have not already written about, and several of those essays will help to show the truth of Netanyahu’s words.

American’s Want Communism Part One

Follow that link. View the images. They were taken by Hitler’s personal photographer who had no animosity for the Jews, and tried to show them at their best under adverse situations. Note how they are dressed. Not the black and white stripes of the death camps, that was for the distant future. These photos were taken in 1939 and the existing plan was simply to dis-empower and isolate the Jews from the German population. Until the Mufti had his way there was no plan at all for a Jewish genocide.

Of one young lady, lost somewhere in time, I made the following observation:

Clueless Smiling Jewish Woman 1939


Also from 1939 we find this image of a beautiful young lady, still vibrant and appearing happy in spite of what was happening around her. I cannot help but wonder if she were still smiling in 1940, and by 1942 when she was shipped to a concentration camp it is highly unlikely that she could ever remember the day when she smiled.

The above information about the Madagascar Plan was new to me leading me to question the integrity of our leaders and the leaders of the nations of Europe. That thought led me back to yet another essay that prompted oh so many questions, and provided just as many answers.

In January of 2014 I wrote the following link about the dangers we face today.

In A World Gone Mad-Part Five-The Globalists

I shall not bother introducing Rodney Adkinson. If you follow the suggested link below you will know that he speaks as an authority on what you should know and fear. Your time is precious and I shall not even ask you to read my link, although you will learn much if you do. Short of reading the entire essay just read the two following thoughts from it:

Consider the fact that Islam sided with the Nazi Party during WWII and that Mein Kampf is number one on the best seller list in the Middle East, and factor in the mass immigration of Muslims to Europe, promoted by the EU. We have long been led to believe that the Nazi movement was past tense. Not so, it is alive and well, and calling the shots. It has simply merged with other Marxist siblings and morphed into what we call The Globalists. The fact remains that they want the world.

And…

With the dots properly connected, I have found a new weapon: Another source of knowledge with a traceable history. The link to that video will be found below in Suggested Reading. As a rule when I post a link I can only hope that readers will follow it. This is one of the most relevant links that I have ever posted, and I implore you to view it. If you do you will come away with a better understanding of current events, for the very same agenda that is taking place in Europe is occurring here as well.

The above excerpt from the previous essay tells you that the link referred to is in Suggested Reading.(Suggested Reading of that essay) This is the link I so desperately hope you watch for it is so very important.

The Nazi-Fascist Origns of the EU Superstate – Rodney Atkinson
My friends, our history has indeed been altered, and the process began after the end of WWII when the surviving Nazi Party began to evolve into the Globalists. Later they were joined by the changing Communist Party that had forsaken the doctrine of Lenin and Stalin. They are Nazis and Communists nonetheless and they have gained total control of our western nations. Today is October 22, 2015, I am convinced that we have to expect the fall of the west to occur in less than a year.

The title of this essay is ‘Our History Was Altered By The Powers That Be. Why?’ I shall now answer my own question: Because in 1945 the the next world war was being planned and they knew the old ways did not work. They were protecting the next wave of warriors…Islam.

We all have much to do and learn while there is yet time.

SHARE this essay…
This feature will allow you to share the above essay to your timeline, a friend’s timeline, a group, to a page you manage, or in a private message. It also allows you to leave a comment about the essay. If that comment is meant for me please use the comment section below Suggested Reading.
Danny
Suggested Reading…Click the red link to read.

TIME IS RUNNING OUT

OF THOSE WHO DENY REALITY AND THE APPROACHING CIVIL WAR

THE WINDS OF CIVIL WAR ARE BLOWING ACROSS EUROPE AND AMERICA

MINE EYES HAVE SEEN THE GLORY

__________________________

CERTAINLY the Grand Mufti Inspiring a 2nd Holocaust

John R. Houk

© October 24, 2015

_________________________

OUR HISTORY WAS ALTERED BY THE POWERS THAT BE. WHY?

 

Top of Fix Bayonets Page Intro:

 

Seeking answers to today’s issues.

Some see, few know, many choose to wander aimlessly in a fog, devoid of sunlight. I seek the light of day and leave the others to their chosen realm of ignorance. They are the ones who have brought this great nation down. I write only for the benefit of those who possess the courage required to restore our birthright.

How Nazism Explains ‘Moderate’ and ‘Radical’ Islam


The question to ponder: Since a majority of Muslims consider themselves to be moderate and non-violent because the true Islam is non-violent and peaceful, should we believe the moderates since Islamic terrorists quote the Quran to justify their violent actions? Raymond Ibrahim examines some examples from Hitler’s Third Reich between a good Nazi and a bad Nazi; then applies the logic to Islam.

JRH 8/17/15

Please Support NCCR

*****************************

 

How Nazism Explains ‘Moderate’ and ‘Radical’ Islam

By Raymond Ibrahim

August 16, 2015

Raymond Ibrahim – Islam Translated

Also posted at PJ Media

If Islamic doctrines are inherently violent, why isn’t every single Muslim in the world—that is, approximately 1.5 billion people—violent?

This question represents one of Islam’s most popular apologetics: because not all Muslims are violent, intolerant, or sponsor terrorism—a true statement—Islam itself must be innocent.

Let’s briefly consider this logic.

First, there are, in fact, many people who identify themselves as Muslims but who do not necessarily adhere to or support Islam’s more supremacist and intolerant doctrines. If you have lived in a Muslim majority nation, you would know this to be true.

The all-important question is, what do such Muslims represent? Are they following a legitimate, “moderate,” version of Islam—one more authentic than the terrorist variety? That’s what the media, politicians, and academics would have us believe.

The best way to answer this question is by analogy:

German Nazism is a widely condemned ideology, due to its (“Aryan/white”) supremacist element. But the fact is, many Germans who were members or supporters of the Nazi party were “good” people. They did not believe in persecuting Jews and other “non-Aryans,” and some even helped such “undesirables” escape, at no small risk to themselves.

Consider Oskar Schindler. An ethnic German and formal member of the Nazi party, he went to great lengths to save Jews from slaughter.

How do we reconcile his good deed with his bad creed?

Was Schindler practicing a legitimate, “moderate,” form of Nazism? Or is it more reasonable to say that he subscribed to some tenets of National Socialism, but when it came to killing fellow humans in the name of racial supremacy, his humanity rose above his allegiance to Nazism?

Indeed, many Germans joined or supported the National Socialist Party more because it was the “winning” party, one that offered hope, and less because of its racial theories.

That said, other Germans joined the Nazi party precisely because of its racial supremacist theories and were only too happy to see “sub-humans” incinerated.

Now consider how this analogy applies to Islam and Muslims: first, unlike most Germans who chose to join or support the Nazi party, the overwhelming majority of Muslims around the world were simply born into Islam; they had no choice. Many of these Muslims know the bare minimum about Islam—the Five Pillars—and are ignorant of Islam’s supremacist theories.

Add Islam’s apostasy law to the mix—leaving Islam can earn the death penalty—and it becomes clear that there are many nominal “Muslims” who seek not to rock the boat.

That said, there are also a great many Muslims who know exactly what Islam teaches—including violence, plunder, and enslavement of the kafir, or infidel—and who happily follow it precisely because of its supremacism.

In both Nazism and Islam, we have a supremacist ideology on the one hand, and people who find themselves associated with this ideology for a number of reasons on the other hand: from those born into it, to those who join it for its temporal boons, to those who are sincere and ardent believers.

The all-important difference is this: when it comes to Nazism, the world is agreed that it is a supremacist ideology. Those who followed it to the core were “bad guys”—such as Adolf Hitler. As for the “good Nazis,” who helped shelter persecuted Jews and performed other altruistic deeds, the world acknowledges that they were not following a “moderate” form of Nazism, but that their commitment to Nazism was nonchalant at best.

This is the correct paradigm to view Islam and Muslims with: Islam does contain violent and supremacist doctrines. This is a simple fact. Those who follow it to the core were and are “bad guys”—for example, Osama bin Laden. Still, there are “good Muslims.” Yet they are good not because they follow a good, or “moderate,” Islam, but because they are not thoroughly committed to Islam in the first place.

Put differently, was Schindler’s altruism a product of “moderate Nazism” or was it done in spite of Nazism altogether? Clearly the latter. In the same manner, if a Muslim treats a non-Muslim with dignity and equality, is he doing so because he follows a legitimate brand of “moderate Islam,” or is he doing so in spite of Islam, because his own sense of decency compels him?

Considering that Islamic law is unequivocally clear that non-Muslims are to be subjugated and live as third-class “citizens”—the Islamic State’s many human rights abuses vis-à-vis non-Muslims are a direct byproduct of these teachings—clearly any Muslim who treats “infidels” with equality is behaving against Islam.

So why is the West unable to apply the Nazi paradigm to the question of Islam and Muslims? Why is it unable to acknowledge that Islamic teachings are inherently supremacist, though obviously not all Muslims are literally following these teachings—just like not all members of any religion are literally following the teachings of their faith?

This question becomes more pressing when one realizes that, for over a millennium, the West deemed Islam an inherently violent and intolerant cult. Peruse the writings of non-Muslims from the dawn of Islam up until recently—from Theophanes the Confessor (d. 818) to Winston Churchill (d. 1965)—and witness how they all depicted Islam as a violent creed that thrives on conquering, plundering, and subjugating the “other.” (Here are Marco Polo’s thoughts).

The problem today is that the politically correct establishment—academia, mainstream media, politicians, and all other talking heads—not ones to be bothered with reality or history, have made it an established “fact” that Islam is “one of the world’s great religions.” Therefore, the religion itself—not just some of its practitioners —is inviolable to criticism.

The point here is that identifying the negative elements of an ideology and condemning it accordingly is not so difficult. We have already done so, with Nazism and other ideologies and cults. And we know the difference between those who follow such supremacist ideologies (“bad” people), and those who find themselves as casual, uncommitted members (good or neutral people).

In saner times when common sense could vent and breathe, this analogy would have been deemed superfluous. In our times, however, where lots of nonsensical noise is disseminated far and wide by the media—and tragically treated as serious “analysis”—common sense must be methodically spelled out: Yes, an ideology/religion can be accepted as violent or even evil, and no, many of its adherents need not be violent or evil—they can even be good—for the reasons discussed above.

This is the most objective way to understand the relationship between Islam as a body of teachings and Muslims as individual people.

_________________________

The reproduction of any material or information originating on this website
must include either a link to this website or cite the name of this website
(RaymondIbrahim.com) as the source of the material or information reproduced. Violators will be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.

© 2015 Raymond Ibrahim

Unfooled Grassroots Movements will Save America


WeThePeople-Constitution-Flag

 

John R. Houk

© February 2, 2015

 

A movement that began in Germany is beginning to spread across Europe. That movement reflects a grassroots mentality of becoming fed-up with Muslims practicing Sharia and of a significant amount of Muslims following the literal exhortations of Islamic holy writings in the Quran, Hadith and Sira. The movement acquired the acronym PEGIDA in its German nation of origin. The English translation for this acronym is “Patriotic Europeans Against the Islamization of the West”.

 

This PEGIDA movement in Europe is widely condemned as Right Wing racism against Muslims by Europe’s ruling elites. The ruling elite is devoted to multiculturalism hence they stick to the opinion that Muslim violence exacted in the name of Allah and Mohammed is not Islam. The reality is though, if you ignore all the Islamic denials, and actually read the Quran, Hadith, Sira and other respected Islamic treatises such as the Reliance of the Traveller (yup the two “Ls” are correct in this case) you discover Islam – unlike most religions – actually calls for violence as an act of submission to Islam and Allah.

 

In recent days the grassroots PEGIDA movement has ran into some difficulties that even true Conservatives have to wag their heads. That difficulty relates to its German founder Lutz Bachmann dressing up as Adolf Hitler and then taking a selfie. Hitler and Nazi junk is illegal in Germany not to mention Jews do not find any humor – if that was Bachmann’s intent – in Hitler portrayals. Indeed European nations have hate-crime laws that our American Constitution would render as a ridiculous infringement of Free Speech. I understand that Bachmann is currently being investigated for breaking a hate-crime law in Germany. The consequence – Bachmann resigned as the leader of PEGIDA which has followed by a host of German PEGIDA leaders also resigning.

 

I am guessing that there are some extremist elements that have violent racist views that have migrated into the PEGIDA movement. I understand that pseudo-Nazi creeps in Germany and European Nazi-sympathizers are making a stealth comeback. My opinion is that the obvious rise of virulent antisemitism is evidence of a resurgence of Nazi/Fascist sentiments but one could also add Muslims subscribing to the commands of Islamic holy writings has made additional antisemitism more noticeable.

 

Europe’s Left-leaning multicultural political elites is quick and correct to condemn the rise of Nazi/Fascist racism yet those same elite are idiotic to look at Muslim violence against Free Speech, against exposing the real Islam and against Jews as if that Muslim violence has nothing to do with Islam. That is simply cultural suicide.

 

Yedioth (or Yediot) Ahronoth (or Ahronot) may be one of the most read of Israel’s news media if not the most read. As an American I prefer to call that media outlet by its internet url “Ynet”. That’s on the old American pronunciation. From what I have read Ynet is centrist on Israel’s political scale with some agendas on the Right and some on the Left. Where I discerned this assessment at 972Mag.com that points out Ynet is tends to lean to the Right on security and military issues but is apparently anti-Netanyahu.

 

I give you this assessment because I ran into an insightful Ynet interview with a PEGIDA spokesman relating to the movement and PEGIDA’s critics. I need you to see this interview then afterwards I will some thoughts on PEGIDA and the need for such a grassroots movement to explode in America before a Muslim violence issue becomes as warped in America as it is in Europe.

 

In exclusive Ynetnews interview, spokesperson of anti-Islamization grassroots initiative addresses Jewish world’s concerns about the movement, says ‘we want Jews and Israelis to feel safe in Europe.’

 

BERLIN – Christian Mayerhoff, a spokesperson for PEGIDA, the grassroots initiative which started in Dresden, Germany in autumn of 2014 and now coordinates anti-Islamist protests in 10 European countries, sat down for an exclusive interview with Ynetnews in Berlin this week in a bid to address the Jewish world’s concerns about his movement.

 

Mr. Mayerhoff, Chancellor Angela Merkel warned Germans in her New Year’s televised address that people at PEGIDA protests are filled with “hatred” in their hearts. What is your reaction to this statement?

 

“We think Frau Merkel wants the world to believe she hold the high moral ground. But this is not true. Her government sells weapons to dictators in the Middle East, such as tanks to Saudi Arabia. Her government closes an eye to the infiltration of German mosques and German cities with Islamist preachers and Islamist propaganda material. What is happening today is totally unacceptable.”

 

PEGIDA claims that Germany and Europe are threatened by Islamization. What do you mean by this?

 

“We mean that there are in many European countries rapidly growing Muslim parallel societies. This is in itself not bad. What is negative and dangerous is that these communities contribute disproportionately to social problems such as vandalism, unemployment, crime and terrorism.

 

“Before we allow these communities to grow further, we should make their members are integrated into mainstream society just like immigrant communities of Eastern Europeans, East Asians and South Americans.”

 

Fears of Islamist activities in Europe were heightened by the latest terror attacks in Paris. Has the response of the German authorities satisfied you?

 

“No it hasn’t. De Maizière, our interior minister, came out saying that these attacks have nothing to do with Islam. This makes him lose all credibility. It’s like saying that Nazism had nothing to do with Germany.”

 

But PEGIDA has been labeled a pro-Nazi, xenophobic and racist movement by mainstream German media. Even Josef Schuster, president of the Central Committee of Jews in Germany, stated that you are pyromaniacs.

 

“We are no Nazis. Personally I was active in left-wing human rights movements in my youth during the early 1990s. After 9/11 I started learning about Islam and Islamism and this changed my opinion about multiculturalism and political correctness. In PEGIDA there are leftists, centrists and conservatives. In the city of Kassel our committee includes a Croatian, a Jew and a secularized Muslim…

 

“But personally, I sympathize with Mr. Schuster. In Germany and Europe, Jews are nowadays harassed and attacked for no reason. If the leaders of Jewish communities said something fair about PEGIDA, it would be used as a pretext by Islamists to escalate their anti-Semitic campaigns.”

 

What anti-Semitic campaigns are you talking about?

 

“Sociologists and pollsters who monitor Muslim communities in Europe regularly reveal that anti-Semitism is rampant, especially among young religious Muslims. In mosque sermons preaching against Jews is a Friday pastime.

 

“For example, last summer in Berlin, Sheikh Abu Bilal Ismail openly called for Jews to be exterminated. He was not incarcerated. This indulgence is suicidal.”

 

Yet Germany’s intellectuals also attack PEGIDA and repeatedly sign public statements to repudiate your agenda. Doesn’t this generalized hostility concern you?

 

“Writers and artists love to sign appeals. They should sign more appeals against ISIS and Boko Haram instead of being obsessed about PEGIDA. They attack us and do not bother to read our demands. Readers should visit us on Facebook and decide for themselves if we are more dangerous than the Islamists in Europe.”

 

But what are your demands concretely?

 

“We support a better treatment of real asylum seekers and the repatriation of fake asylum seekers. We call for a more selective immigration policy in Germany and the European Union along the lines of what works well in Canada, Switzerland and Australia. We demand zero tolerance against religious extremism and against all calls to murder in the name of God.”

 

But don’t you think you are targeting Islam and ignoring the dangers of Christian and Jewish fundamentalism?

 

“All religions should respect the law in Europe. We do not see Europe priests or rabbis calling for believers of other faiths to be murdered.”

 

But all Muslim religious leaders and community leaders in Europe condemned the terror attacks in Paris.

 

“That is not enough. Muslim leaders must stop tolerating imams in their midst who preach violent jihad. We don’t care if it’s jihad in Europe, jihad in Syria or jihad in Palestine. To condemn killing in the name of God must be a basic value.”

 

But who is PEGIDA to demand that Muslims teach a 1,400-year old religion in a way that suits your political agenda?

 

“I am not a Muslim and PEGIDA cannot tell Muslim how to read the Quran. As Europeans we do have the right to demand that all religions in our continent respect the law. To teach that it is good to kill in the name of God is unacceptable and must be seriously punished.”

 

Does PEGIDA have a message for Muslims?

 

“Europe is a generous host. Muslims who respect our laws and ethical values are welcome. Muslims who hate Western values and support violent jihad should not come here. Muslims who are against Islamism are of course welcome at PEGIDA.”

 

Do you have a message for Jews?

 

“We want Jews and Israelis to feel safe in Europe. We want you to be able to show your faith on Europe’s streets openly. We must stand united against Islamism and jihadism.”

 

How does it feel to speak on behalf of the most despised political movement in Germany?

 

“It is very frustrating. The demonization of PEGIDA is evidence that the elites in Germany are completely out of touch with reality.” (PEGIDA spokesman: We are no Nazis; Moritz Josef Schulman; Ynetnews.com; 1/24/15 09:37)

 

So it seems you have a choice. Do you believe European (or more specifically in this case – German) ruling political elites or do you believe the grassroots motivation for protesting against counter-culture Islamization in Europe? You can probably guess I’ll lean with PEGIDA motivation.

 

PEGIDA denies:

 

o   Nazism

 

o   Antisemitism

 

o   AND even any hatred of Muslims

 

There is a qualifier though with Muslims. That qualifier is simple. If Muslims refuse to assimilate into the acceptance of a host nation’s rule of law than those Muslims should not be allowed to immigrate to a Western nation or if that Muslim already lives in a Western nation and agitates for counter-culture Islamic Sharia Law to trump the rule of law they should be deported as a non-citizen or if such a literalist Quranic Muslim is a citizen by naturalizing or birth they should be invited to leave to a culture more acceptable to their Islamic beliefs.

                                     

America’s Tea Party Movement has ran into the same Left Wing vilification in attempts to brainwash Americans that the Tea Party are a bunch of Right Wing and racist-hatred-filled thugs that undermine America’s tolerance and Constitution.

 

Of course that is a load of Leftist propaganda. Is it possible that extremist Right Wing racist have hooked up with the Tea Party? Of course it is. Is this representative of the mainstay of the grassroots activists of the Tea Party Movement? That’s a big negative good buddy.

 

Of course the Left Leaning American Mainstream Media has been reluctant to tell Americans that extremist Leftist elements have either infiltrated or have attended Tea Party rallies to agitate or engage in false reporting to tell Americans the propaganda lies.

 

Then there is the Mainstream romanticized Leftist Occupy Wall Street Movement. In the Occupy Wall Street most active days there are a host of headlines of Occupiers being arrested for violence, murder, rape and terrorism. The numbers are in the high hundreds to the low thousands. You can check out the numerous Occupy headlines and included summaries at NRO.

 

Then there are the Ferguson riots in which Democrats and Black Activist race-baiters were practically calling for the lynching of Officer Darren Wilson – a Caucasian – for shooting to death 18 year old Michael Brown – a Black Man. Again the Left lean Mainstream Media without knowing the facts painted Officer Wilson as a Black-hating racist that used unnecessary force to shoot a poor unarmed Black teenager.

 

After a Grand Jury and even Holder’s DOJ investigation cleared Wilson the agitators STILL wanted Officer Wilson’s head metaphorically.

 

Between the incidents in which a gigantic male of the age of majority roughed up a store clerk for some cigs then proceeding to walk belligerently down the middle of the street which caught Officer Wilson’s attention an arrest was attempted. Brown resisted arrest violently smacking Officer Wilson in the face and attempting to unholster Wilson’s weapon. In the scuffle Wilson managed to prevent Brown from obtaining his weapon. Brown then began to flee. Wilson told Brown to stop. Rather than surrender, Brown charged Wilson like a rabid Rhino which resulted in Wilson discharging several shots at Brown. It is my perception that Wilson took a head shot when the previous body shots failed to stop the charge. It is an absolute myth that Brown got on his knees with his back to Wilson with his hands raised in surrender. THAT NEVER HAPPENED!

 

Not willing to wait for the truth, race baiters agitated. And the good citizens of Ferguson went on looting rampages engaging in property damage and theft from Ferguson stores.

 

Dear God in Heaven contrast these typical Leftist inspired protests with the goings on with Tea Party Movement rallies. Left = Violent Rage. Conservative Right Tea Party = Peaceful yet displeased Patriotism.

 

Going Back to PEGIDA

 

The United States of America needs a Tea Party style PEGIDA Movement to demonstrate American displeasure with culture-failing-to-assimilate immigrants – Muslims and Latin Americans – making America their home. This is especially the case with Muslims that are pre-disposed to Sharia-literal-Quran wielding immigrants who would rather agitate the downfall of Constitutional America than assimilate to the E Pluribus Unum melting pot that has made America one culture rather than a disunited diverse multiple cultures.

 

Abraham Lincoln’s House Divided Speech did not win him his Senate run against Stephen Douglas; however the speech made Lincoln’s name go viral in however that happened in 1858 and thrust him to be the first Republican President in the 1860 election.

 

Lincoln’s House Divided Speech context was a nation divided between a no-slave North and a slave South will not survive. Either nation will become one or the other but both cannot coincide together. That was wisdom that kept are nation morally united rather than immorally united in slavery.

 

The Left Wing Multiculturalist paradigm cannot coincide with an America united by the Founding Fathers document we call the Constitution. Either Multiculturalism will fracture America’s Union into various nations only united in their region or the Constitution will be fought for to our Union the United States of America. Multicultural fracturing will turn a once strong America where immigrant dreams had hope, into diverse multiple independent States trying to preserve the heritage of their region. The ONLY way this Union remains these United States is the best Constitution the rule of law has experienced in history.

 

House Divide Speech

 

Mr. President and Gentlemen of the Convention.

 

If we could first know where we are, and whither we are tending, we could then better judge what to do, and how to do it.

 

We are now far into the fifth year, since a policy was initiated, with the avowed object, and confident promise, of putting an end to slavery agitation.

 

Under the operation of that policy, that agitation has not only, not ceased, but has constantly augmented.

 

In my opinion, it will not cease, until a crisis shall have been reached, and passed.

 

“A house divided against itself cannot stand.”

 

I believe this government cannot endure, permanently half slave and half free.

 

I do not expect the Union to be dissolved — I do not expect the house to fall — but I do expect it will cease to be divided.

 

It will become all one thing or all the other.

 

Either the opponents of slavery, will arrest the further spread of it, and place it where the public mind shall rest in the belief that it is in the course of ultimate extinction; or its advocates will push it forward, till it shall become alike lawful in all the States, old as well as newNorth as well as South.

 

(House Divided Speech; Abraham Lincoln; June 16, 1858; AbrahamLincolnOnline.org)

 

A grassroots PEGIDA Movement is as needed in the USA to preserve the American Union under the U.S. Constitution as is the Tea Party Movement needed to remind Americans that this nation’s Founding principles are on taxation ONLY with representation and Less Government rather than a nearing autocratic huge government the Democrats and American Leftists are leading toward.

 

JRH 2/2/15

Please Support NCCR

Nefarious Presidential Actions – Calvin Coolidge to FDR


 Calvin Coolidge & Quote

IH022375

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

John R. Houk

© August 11, 2014

 

Here is the next group of Presidents that may have been involved in impeachable crimes. In the last post of Nefarious Presidential Actions was Teddy to Harding. Just as a point of reprise these posts are in response to a G+ exchange between myself and Gideon Money who is one of the Liberals that can’t see past the Obama cover-up with the typical blind support for President Barack Hussein Obama and his impeachable actions:

 

Me:

 

Gideon fewer Executive Orders does not translate into less unConstitutional actions. Obama’s EO’s contradict the Constitution’s Separation of Powers instituted by the Founding Fathers.

 

Gideon Money:

 

How so? Be specific and use SCOTUS precedent, not Fox talking points.

 

Calvin Coolidge: 8/2/1923 to 3/4/1929

 

At 2:30 on the morning of August 3, 1923, while visiting in Vermont, Calvin Coolidge received word that he was President. By the light of a kerosene lamp, his father, who was a notary public, administered the oath of office as Coolidge placed his hand on the family Bible.

 

Coolidge was “distinguished for character more than for heroic achievement,” wrote a Democratic admirer, Alfred E. Smith. “His great task was to restore the dignity and prestige of the Presidency when it had reached the lowest ebb in our history … in a time of extravagance and waste….” (Calvin Coolidge; WhiteHouse.gov)

 

Notorious for saying practically nothing when not giving a public speech, Calvin Coolidge takes the second spot of controversial-free presidents on this list. His no-nonsense presidency restored public faith in the office after the scandal-wracked presidency of Harding. (Calvin Coolidge; By Freeman Stevenson; Deseret News; 3/20/13 12:51 p.m. MDT)

 

Herbert Hoover: 3/4/1929 – 3/4/1933

 

As a kid growing up in Washington State, whenever Herbert Hoover’s name was mentioned in my family the look of disgust came from both my Grandmother and my Mother. My Grandmother was a young adult and mother of three children during the depression and my Mother was one of those children. Their memories of Conservative Republican President Hoover were not fond. My Grandmother and Mother idolized Hoover’s successor – President Franklin Delano Roosevelt. My family blamed Hoover for the Depression making them lifelong Democrats.

 

As much as the voting Americans blamed Hoover for the Great Depression he really did nothing impeachable. Hoover became unpopular and with about seven or eight months left in his term of Office in election year 1932 (Hoover would later loose in a landslide to FDR), an incident took place which was huge at the time. In 1924 WWI veterans were promised a bonus that would mature in 1945. By 1932 the Great Depression was in full swing in the USA with unemployed, homeless and hungry Americans all over the place. This included WWI veterans who were involved in the world’s most horrific war in terms wounded and killed in history. The WWI veterans began to grumble for an early payment of their promised 1945 bonus to occur in 1932. To protest WWI vets, their wives and children organized a march to Washington DC to make their grievance clear to Congress and President Hoover. The organized marchers called themselves the Bonus Expeditionary Force (BEF) after the term used for the U.S. Army contingent sent to Europe to fight Kaiser Wilhelm’s German army in 1917. That contingent was called the American Expeditionary Force. The American press called the BEF the Bonus Army, the Bonus March or the Bonus Army March.

 

I have read three versions of what happened during this march. I can summarize the part that might have been impeachable for Hoover. The U.S. Army led by General Douglas MacArthur was sent to Washington DC to break up and disperse the BEF. Violent confrontation eventually took place and a few veterans died and wives and children were under threat of MacArthur led violence. The impeachable Offense was in using the Army as a police force in a domestic issue with the use of armed infantry and tanks. According to a Congressional Act passed in 1878, mobilizing the army to engage in police action on U.S. was supposed to be illegal without prior authorization from Congress. This law is still on the books today and is called the Posse Comitatus Act:

 

This article is about a United States statute prohibiting the use of the armed forces for law enforcement. For the sheriffs powers of law enforcement at common law, see posse comitatus. For the terrorist organization, see The Posse Comitatus.

 

The Posse Comitatus Act is a law of the United States (18 USC 1385) passed in 1878, after the end of Reconstruction, and was intended to prohibit Federal troops from supervising elections in former Confederate states. It generally prohibits Federal military personnel and units of the United States National Guard under Federal authority from acting in a law enforcement capacity within the United States, except where expressly authorized by the Constitution or Congress. The original act only referred to the Army, but the Air Force was added in 1956 and the Navy and Marine Corps have been included by a regulation of the Department of Defense. This law is mentioned whenever it appears that the Department of Defense is interfering in domestic disturbances.

 

There are a number of exceptions to the act. These include

 

·         National Guard units while under the authority of the governor of a state

 

·         troops when used in pursuant to the Federal authority to quell domestic violence as was the case during the Rodney King riots

 

The relevant legislation is as follows:

 

Sec. 1385. – Use of Army and Air Force as posse comitatus

 

Whoever, except in cases and under circumstances expressly authorized by the Constitution or Act of Congress, willfully uses any part of the Army or the Air Force as a posse comitatus or otherwise to execute the laws shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than two years, or both.

 

The three versions I read have a bit different views of what happened with the most detailed being written by a person that begins by glorifying FDR as a person that “rewrote history”. The brief description is then clarified in the most positive of lights.

 

The Bonus Army was the popular name of an assemblage of some 43,000 marchers—17,000 World War I veterans, their families, and affiliated groups—who gathered in Washington, D.C., in the spring and summer of 1932 to demand cash-payment redemption of their service certificates. Its organizers called it the Bonus Expeditionary Force to echo the name of World War I’s American Expeditionary Forces, while the media called it the Bonus March. It was led by Walter W. Waters, a former Army sergeant.

 

 

Retired Marine Corps Major General Smedley Butler, one of the most popular military figures of the time, visited their camp to back the effort and encourage them.[1] On July 28, U.S. Attorney General William D. Mitchell ordered the veterans removed from all government property. Washington police met with resistance, shots were fired and two veterans were wounded and later died. Veterans were also shot dead at other locations during the demonstration. President Herbert Hoover then ordered the army to clear the veterans’ campsite. Army Chief of Staff General Douglas MacArthur commanded the infantry and cavalry supported by six tanks. The Bonus Army marchers with their wives and children were driven out, and their shelters and belongings burned.

 

 

…  Attorney General William D. Mitchell ordered the police to remove the Bonus Army veterans from their camp. When the veterans moved back into it, they rushed two policemen trapped on the second floor of a building. The cornered police drew their revolvers and shot two veterans, William Hushka and Eric Carlson, who died later.[11][12]

 

 

At 4:45 p.m., commanded by Gen. Douglas MacArthur, the 12th Infantry Regiment, Fort Howard, Maryland, and the 3rd Cavalry Regiment, supported by six battle tanks commanded by Maj. George S. Patton, formed in Pennsylvania Avenue while thousands of civil service employees left work to line the street and watch. The Bonus Marchers, believing the troops were marching in their honor, cheered the troops until Patton ordered[citation needed] the cavalry to charge them—an action which prompted the spectators to yell, “Shame! Shame!”

 

After the cavalry charged, the infantry, with fixed bayonets and tear gas (adamsite, an arsenical vomiting agent) entered the camps, evicting veterans, families, and camp followers. The veterans fled across the Anacostia River to their largest camp and President Hoover ordered the assault stopped. However Gen. MacArthur, feeling the Bonus March was an attempt to overthrow the U.S. government, ignored the President and ordered a new attack. Fifty-five veterans were injured and 135 arrested.[12] A veteran’s wife miscarried. When 12-week-old Bernard Myers died in the hospital after being caught in the tear gas attack, a government investigation reported he died of enteritis, while a hospital spokesman said the tear gas “didn’t do it any good.”[16]

 

During the military operation, Major Dwight D. Eisenhower, later the 34th President of the United States, served as one of MacArthur’s junior aides.[17] Believing it wrong for the Army’s highest-ranking officer to lead an action against fellow American war veterans, he strongly advised MacArthur against taking any public role: “I told that dumb son-of-a-bitch not to go down there,” he said later. “I told him it was no place for the Chief of Staff.”[18] Despite his misgivings, Eisenhower later wrote the Army’s official incident report which endorsed MacArthur’s conduct.[19]

 

READ ENTIRETY (Bonus Army; Wikipedia; last modified 7/24/14 at 22:39)

 

… Herbert Hoover was still president, an assemblage of some 43,000 marchers – 17,000 World War I veterans, plus their families, and affiliated groups – many being penniless and despairing – gathered in Washington, D.C. Their goal was simple: in the starving season of despair that engulfed America, now known as the Great Depression, the veterans rather reasonably begged for the early distribution of funds the government promised them. Specifically, they wanted immediate payment of a soldiers’ “bonus” promised by the World War Adjusted Compensation Act of 1924; the bonus was to be distributed in 1945 but if the men could receive it in 1932 it was estimated it would amount to approximately $500 per man.

 

 

The BEF marchers encamped in parks, dumps, abandoned warehouses, and empty stores. They were unarmed and determined to act like peaceful and law abiding citizens; they had taken care to ferret out and expel radicals preaching revolution and violence from their ranks. Despite their evident hunger they didn’t panhandle. To many observers they appeared too weak and pitiful to pose a menace; one reporter described them as “ragged, weary… with no hope on their faces.”

 

… It’s estimated that over one hundred thousand Washingtonians lined the streets as the veterans marched down Pennsylvania Avenue to the White House.  …

 

 

… Their vigil became a test of endurance and heartbreak and was watched by the entire nation.

 

The President, his Attorney General William Mitchell, and most of Congress railed against the BEF as “dangerous insurgents” and “violent socialists.” The Hearst newspapers and other conservative organs decried them as radicals; many said there wasn’t a true veteran among their number, that they were fakes and frauds and criminals. Others took pity; truckloads of food arrived from goodhearted people all over the country. A hundred loaves of bread were shipped each day from a sympathetic baker and pies came from another. Many people worried about the women and children and a health inspector described the encampments spread around Washington as “extremely bad and unhealthful.” The men tried to raise money by staging boxing and wrestling bouts among themselves and charging the locals a small admission to watch; they willingly beat themselves into submission and raised about $2500.00 to buy food and small comforts.

 

 

… The police, under the supervision of a retired general named Pelham Glassford, tried to respond with a degree of kindness. After Hoover made it clear he was going to do absolutely nothing to alleviate their hardship, the police began to offer weak coffee, stale bread and watered down stew at six cents a day to the marchers. This enraged Hoover who said the police were pandering to criminals. Congress formally rebuked Glassford for ever allowing the marchers to enter the city in the first place. The police department’s small relief effort withered away under the glare of presidential and Congressional condemnation.

 

The BEF was a humiliation to the Administration and as summer wore on there was an overall hardening across the land against the BEF. The majority of the country’s newspapers took up the cause on behalf of Hoover, his Attorney General and those in Congress, all of whom continued to insist the marchers were dangerous socialists and anarchists, and that most had never served one day in service to their country. Typically, many Americans were persuaded by such official claims – but not all. Will Rogers said the BEF had the “record for being the best behaved” of any “hungry men assembled anywhere in the world” and some military leaders like General Billy Mitchell and Marine Corps General Smedley Butler had the courage to say the men should be paid their bonuses early.

 

… most military leaders agreed with Hoover. One of them, Brigadier General George Moseley, wanted the bonus marchers arrested and sent to “concentration camps on one of the sparsely inhabited islands of the Hawaiian group not suitable for growing sugar” so they could “stew in their own filth.” Moseley also thought that while the government was in the business of rounding up American citizens it might as well do it right and round up people of “inferior blood” (presumably to be handled in similar fashion). Remarkably, no one thought Moseley was a lunatic. Years later Dwight Eisenhower, who knew Moseley well, described him as “a brilliant” and “dynamic officer.”

 

On July 28th the Attorney General declared the BEF was “guilty of begging and other acts” and ordered police chief Glassford to evacuate all veterans encamped on any piece of government property. Police wielding nightsticks decided to first clear out abandoned buildings where some of the BEF squatted and their raid began peacefully enough because most of the marchers were taken by surprise and disorganized. Word spread quickly, however, and angry BEF reinforcements arrived from camps across town. They began to throw bricks and the police fired back; horrified, Glassford shouted orders for the police to hold their fire, but the skirmish cost two veterans their lives and several more were seriously wounded.

 

Hoover was appalled; he ordered Secretary of War Patrick J. Hurley to deploy troops. Hoover also issued a communiqué announcing the military would “put an end to rioting and defiance of civil authority” and charging that the men who clashed with police were “entirely of the Communist element.”

 

Secretary of War Hurley gave the order to Four-Star General Douglas MacArthur. … A young career officer named Dwight D. Eisenhower was MacArthur’s aide and Ike strongly protested against military intervention; he warned his boss it was a “political matter for civilian authorities.” Specifically, he called the clash between the BEF and the police a “street corner brawl” and said it was inappropriate for a general to become involved in a local political issue.

 

MacArthur, of course, disagreed. “There is incipient revolution in the air!” he snapped. “We’re going to break the back of the BEF.”

 

 

On July 28, 1932, at 4:45 p.m., commanded by Gen. Douglas MacArthur, the 12th Infantry Regiment, Fort Howard, Maryland, and the 3rd Cavalry Regiment, supported by six battle tanks commanded by Maj. George S. Patton, formed in Pennsylvania Avenue while thousands of civil service employees left work to line the street and watch. …

 

… The veterans fled across the Anacostia River to their largest camp and President Hoover ordered the assault stopped. However Gen. MacArthur, feeling the Bonus March was a Communist attempt to overthrow the U.S. government, ignored the President and ordered a new attack. Fifty-five veterans were injured and 135 arrested. A veteran’s wife miscarried. When 12-week-old Bernard Myers died in the hospital after being caught in the tear gas attack, a government investigation reported he died of enteritis, while a hospital spokesman said the tear gas “didn’t do it any good.”

 

READ ENTIRETY (The Bonus Expeditionary Force, and today; By Larry Pierce; 4dtraveler.net; 8/4/11 7:41 AM)

 

Franklin D. Roosevelt: 3/4/1933 to 4/12/1945

 

He was elected President in November 1932, to the first of four terms. By March there were 13,000,000 unemployed, and almost every bank was closed. In his first “hundred days,” he proposed, and Congress enacted, a sweeping program to bring recovery to business and agriculture, relief to the unemployed and to those in danger of losing farms and homes, and reform, especially through the establishment of the Tennessee Valley Authority.

 

By 1935 the Nation had achieved some measure of recovery, but businessmen and bankers were turning more and more against Roosevelt’s New Deal program. They feared his experiments, were appalled because he had taken the Nation off the gold standard and allowed deficits in the budget, and disliked the concessions to labor. Roosevelt responded with a new program of reform: Social Security, heavier taxes on the wealthy, new controls over banks and public utilities, and an enormous work relief program for the unemployed.

 

 

As the war [i.e. WWII] drew to a close, Roosevelt’s health deteriorated, and on April 12, 1945, while at Warm Springs, Georgia, he died of a cerebral hemorrhage. (Franklin D. Roosevelt; WhiteHouse.gov)

 

Gideon Money will decry the sources I use as information on FDR information. The reason being criticism of FDR is still considered a moral evil by Liberals-Leftists-Progressives just as criticism and exposés of Obama are considered a moral evil. So am going to share some FDR criticism from respected Conservatives. Trust me I can find some FDR criticism that has enough elements of truth to sound credible but the polemical style is so vindictive that the Progressive crowd can easily refute the vindictiveness as Right Wing propaganda. Really stabbing on FDR is the website WhatReallyHappened.com which takes some evidentiary facts and make them sound like pejorative pros. That website’s post of the FDR Scandal Page is full of info that I know Gideon will dismiss as unsubstantiated information. If you check out the full link there is the appearance that WhatReallyHappened.com did a little cross posting from a Geocites page. Progressives and Liberals alike can be somewhat critical of a Joe-American free website posting exposés. Hence in all honesty I used the FDR Scandal Page as a reference to search from more reputable Conservatives.

 

Recall when I was examining Herbert Hoover that I wrote my Grandmother and Mother grew up in during the Great Depression. I shared the family that raised me loathed Hoover in blame for this Depression and idolized FDR for fixing the roughly decade long Depression.

 

The program developed by the FDR Administration was called the New Deal. The problem I have with my family idolizing FDR was more the result of a very effective propaganda campaign that simply did not match the reality of the statistics.

 

For 70 years there has been a holy creed–spread by academia until accepted by media and most Americans–that Franklin D. Roosevelt cured the Great Depression. That belief spurred the growth of modern liberalism; conservatives are still on the defensive where modern historians are concerned.

 

Not so anymore when the facts are considered. Now a scholar at the libertarian Cato Institute has demonstrated that (a) not only did Roosevelt not end the Depression, but (b) by incompetent measures, he prolonged it. But FDR’s myth has sold. Roosevelt, the master of the fireside chat, was powerful. His style has been equaled but not excelled.

 

Throughout the New Deal period, median unemployment was 17.2 percent. Joblessness never dipped below 14 percent, writes Jim Powell in a preview of his soon-to-be-published (by Crown Forum) FDR’s Folly: How Franklin Roosevelt and His New Deal Prolonged the Great Depression. Powell argues that the major cause of the Depression was not stock market abuses but the Federal Reserve, which contracted the money supply by a third between 1929 and 1933. Then, the New Deal made it more expensive to hire people, adding to unemployment by concocting the National Industrial Recovery Act, which created some 700 cartels with codes mandating above-market wages. It made things worse, ”by doubling taxes, making it more expensive for employers to hire people, making it harder for entrepreneurs to raise capital, demonizing employers, destroying food . . . breaking up the strongest banks, forcing up the cost of living, channeling welfare away from the poorest people and enacting labor laws that hit poor African Americans especially hard,” Powell writes.

 

Taxes spiraled (as a percentage of gross national product), jumping from 3.5 percent in 1933 to 6.9 percent in 1940. An undistributed profits tax was introduced. Securities laws made it harder for employers to raise capital. In ”an unprecedented crusade against big employers,” the Justice Department hired 300 lawyers, who filed 150 antitrust lawsuits. Winning few prosecutions, the antitrust crusade not only flopped, but wracked an already reeling economy. At the same time, a retail price maintenance act allowed manufacturers to jack up retail prices of branded merchandise, which blocked chain stores from discounting prices, hitting consumers.

 

Roosevelt’s central banking ”reform” broke up the strongest banks, those engaged in commercial investment banking, ”because New Dealers imagined that securities underwriting was a factor in all bank failures,” but didn’t touch the cause of 90 percent of the bank failures: state and federal unit banking laws. Canada, which allowed nationwide branch banking, had not a single bank failure during the Depression. The New Deal Fed hiked banks’ reserve requirement by 50 percent in July 1936, then increased it another 33.3 percent. This ”triggered a contraction of the money supply, which was one of the most important factors bringing on the Depression of 1938–the third most severe since World War I. Real GNP declined 18 percent and industrial production was down 32 percent.”

 

Roosevelt’s National Recovery Administration hit the little guy worst of all, Powell writes. In 1934, Jacob Maged, a 49-year-old immigrant, was fined and jailed three months for charging 35 cents to press a suit rather rather (sic) than 40 cents mandated by the Fed’s dry cleaning code. The NRA was later ruled unconstitutional. To raise farm prices, Roosevelt’s farm policy plowed under 10 million acres of cultivated land, preventing wheat, corn and other crops from reaching the hungry. Hog farmers were paid to slaughter about 6 million young hogs, protested by John Steinbeck’s The Grapes of Wrath. New Deal relief programs were steered away from the South, the nation’s poorest region. ”A reported 15,654 people were forced from their homes to make way for dams,” Powell writes. ”Farm owners received cash settlements for their condemned property, but the thousands of black tenant farmers got nothing.”

 

In contrast, the first Depression of the 20th century, in 1920, lasted only a year after Warren Harding cut taxes, slashed spending and returned to the poker table. But with the Great Depression, the myth has grown that unemployment and economic hardship were ended by magical New Deal fiat. The truth: The Depression ended with the buildup to World War II. (FDR’s Raw Deal Exposed; Originally posted at Chicago Sun-Times [link dead]; By Thomas Roeser [Wikipedia bio] on 9/30/03; Posted at Free Republic by Cathryn Crawford; posted on 8/30/2003 1:59:46 PM [I know the dates don’t match up but that is how it is found on Free Republic])

 

In 2008 (2009 in paperback) Burton W. Folsom, Jr. wrote a book with a similar title Roeser’s review (entitled: FDR’s Raw Deal Exposed) of Jim Powell’s book written in 2003: “FDR’s Folly: How Franklin Roosevelt and His New Deal Prolonged the Great Depression” (similar PDF written for CATO Institute). Folsom’s book is entitled “New Deal or Raw Deal?: How FDR’s Economic Legacy Has Damaged America”. I realize Folsom, Roeser and Powell are people that express a Conservative view on Economics. This means my critic Gideon Money would cry ‘these guys are Conservatives and hence Right Wing propagandists and unreliable.’

 

The problem I have with such a cop-out criticism is that if you click on the bios I linked to their names, you will see they well educated with MA’s and Ph.D.’s. These guys are Academics that paid their dues in acquiring their degrees. Just because they affiliate themselves with Conservative politics, history and/or Economics does not make them non-credentialed. So if Gideon’s maintains the inept line of Right Wing Propagandists then that exposes his prejudice more than validates his argument.

 

Here is another well respected Academic – Thomas Sowell – who is a Free Market Economist that praises Folsom’s book on FDR Folly written at the often dissed Conservative Internet news site WorldNetDaily:

 

Guess who said the following: “We have tried spending money. We are spending more than we have ever spent before and it does not work.” Was it Sarah Palin? Rush Limbaugh? Karl Rove?

 

Not even close. It was Henry Morgenthau, secretary of the treasury under Franklin D. Roosevelt and one of FDR’s closest advisers. He added, “After eight years of this administration we have just as much unemployment as when we started … and an enormous debt to boot!”


This is just one of the remarkable and eye-opening facts in a must-read book titled “New Deal or Raw Deal?” by professor Burton W. Folsom Jr. of Hillsdale College.

 

 

Roosevelt blamed the country’s woes on the problems he inherited from his predecessor, much as Barack Obama does today. But unemployment was 20 percent in the spring of 1939, six long years after Herbert Hoover had left the White House.

 

Whole generations have been “educated” to believe that the Roosevelt administration is what got this country out of the Great Depression. History textbooks by famous scholars like Arthur M. Schlesinger Jr. of Harvard and Henry Steele Commager of Columbia have enshrined FDR as a historic savior of this country, and lesser lights in the media and elsewhere have perpetuated the legend.

 

In more recent years, there have been both academic studies and popular books debunking some of the myths about the New Deal. Nevertheless, Professor Folsom’s book “New Deal or Raw Deal?” breaks new ground. Although written by an academic scholar and based on years of documented research, it is as readable as a newspaper – and a lot more informative than most.

 

 

Far from pulling the country out of the Great Depression by following Keynesian policies, FDR created policies that prolonged the Depression until it was more than twice as long as any other depression in American history. Moreover, Roosevelt’s ad hoc improvisations followed nothing as coherent as Keynesian economics. To the extent that FDR followed the ideas of any economist, it was an obscure economist at the University of Wisconsin, who was disdained by other economists and who was regarded with contempt by John Maynard Keynes.

… (FDR’S ‘RAW DEAL’: Thomas Sowell recommends new book exposing true nature of Roosevelt’s policies: By Thomas Sowell; WND; 11/2/10 12:00 AM)

 

 

The very first task undertaken by Roosevelt upon taking office was saving the country’s banks, which had shut down the day of his inauguration. … And by saving the system they meant consolidating the hold of the biggest banks.

 

 

Once the system was saved from total meltdown, Roosevelt and his “Brain Trust” initiated a variety of programs to convince the country that they could end the Depression. One such was the public works program, most famous in its later WPA (Works Progress Administration) incarnation, but originally known as the Public Works Administration, and which was originally proposed by some FDR advisers to work in tandem with the National Recovery Administration. Together the two would hasten recovery: the former would put money in the pockets of workers so that they could spend them on businesses overseen by the latter.

 

 

Says Schlesinger: “though the code authority exercised public powers, it was not a public body. It was, as [NRA administrator Hugh] Johnson put it, ‘an agency of the employers in an industry.’” The result was just enough renewed economic activity to keep the biggest corporations from going under. Thus Maurice Spector could write in the New International in 1938 that there had been no recovery in the sense of an expansion of capital, of increasing opportunities for accumulation, which is the norm for a recovering capitalist economy. Instead “capital secured its profits by restriction” of production, reviving existing production facilities to levels still below the 1920s peaks. In fact it’s universally acknowledged, even by the most ardent mainstream academic defenders of Roosevelt, that the system did not fully recover until the war and the associated meteoric expansion of production for war.

 

 

By his second term Roosevelt was facing a rising tide of dissatisfaction among workers and farmers, as well as demands from the ruling class that reforms be stopped now that the immediate crisis had passed. Roosevelt was more than happy to stop the family feud with the more conservative capitalists disgruntled at the “socialistic” nature of his early projects. But Roosevelt’s turn toward the War Deal wasn’t based solely on such narrow political calculations: he was in fundamental agreement with his ruling class colleagues that the country’s economic and social crises couldn’t be solved within the confines of its borders but required international economic expansion. And such expansion, given the worldwide extent of the Depression and the resulting manic search by all imperial powers for new markets and fields for capital investment both at home and abroad, could only be achieved by war.

 

 

Preis summarizes the switch thus: “The ‘New Deal’ proved to be a brief, ephemeral period of mild reforms granted under pressure of militant mass action by the organized workers, both employed and unemployed. By late 1937, Roosevelt had adopted the policy of propping up basic industry with government war orders, while cutting relief expenditures even though unemployment rose. The ‘New Deal’ became the ‘War Deal.’”

 

READ ENTIRETY (Myth of Benevolent Roosevelt Democrats: The Real Deal on the “New Deal”; By Andrew Pollack; Labor Standard)

 

 

Once FDR had been elected, progressive-minded newspaper editorial boards, politicians, and pundits exhorted him to become a “dictator.” The revered reporter and political commentator Walter Lippmann, for instance, told Roosevelt in a private meeting: “The [economic] situation is critical, Franklin. You may have no alternative but to assume dictatorial powers.” Similarly, Eleanor Roosevelt mused that America might need the leadership of a “benevolent dictator.”

 

In FDR’s day, the term “dictator” did not carry the negative connotations with which it is currently freighted; rather, it signified the idea that a political “general” or “commander” was needed to take charge of the battle against the economic depression in a manner similar to how Woodrow Wilson and the progressives had fought World War I.

 

 

“The New Deal,” writes Jonah Goldberg, “was conceived at the climax of a worldwide fascist moment, a moment when socialists in many countries were increasingly becoming nationalists and nationalists could embrace nothing other than socialism.”

 

Many of Roosevelt’s ideas and policies were entirely indistinguishable from the fascism of Mussolini. In fact, writes Goldberg, there were “many common features among New Deal liberalism, Italian Fascism, and German National Socialism, all of which shared many of the same historical and intellectual forebears.” Like American progressives, many Italian Fascist and German Nazi intellectuals championed a “middle” or “Third Way” between capitalism and socialism. Goldberg explains:

 

“The ‘middle way’ sounds moderate and un-radical. Its appeal is that it sounds unideological and freethinking. But philosophically the Third Way is not mere difference splitting; it is utopian and authoritarian. Its utopian aspect becomes manifest in its antagonism to the idea that politics is about trade-offs. The Third Wayer says that there are no false choices—’I refuse to accept that X should come at the expense of Y.’ The Third Way holds that we can have capitalism and socialism, individual liberty and absolute unity.”

 

The German and American New Deals — i.e., fascism and progressivism — also shared the bedrock belief that the state should be permitted to do whatever it wished, so long as it was for “good reasons.” …

 

 

Roosevelt used the FBI and other government agencies to spy on domestic critics. He also authorized the use of the American Legion to assist the FBI in monitoring American citizens.

The Civilian Conservation Corps (CCC) was perhaps the most popular program of the New Deal, mobilizing some 2.5 million young men to work mostly as a “forestry army,” performing such tasks as clearing dead wood. …

 

 

Johnson and the NRA dispatched a large army of informants, represented by such diverse constituencies as union members and Boy Scouts, to monitor compliance with the Blue Eagle program in neighborhoods across the United States. “When every American housewife understands that the Blue Eagle on everything that she permits to come into her home is a symbol of its restoration to security, may God have mercy on the man or group of men who attempt to trifle with this bird,” Johnson said.

To further promote voluntary compliance with the Blue Eagle program, Johnson organized many military parades and Nuremberg-style rallies, where marchers donned the uniforms of their respective occupations.

The fascist mindset underlying the NRA’s authoritarian mandates was confirmed in the results of a study commissioned by the NRA’s own Research and Planning Division. Titled “Capitalism and Labor Under Fascism,” it concluded: “The fascist principles are very similar to those which have been evolving in America and so are of particular interest at this time.”

 

 

Soon after having taken his second Oath of Office in January 1937, President Roosevelt, in a conversation with a speechwriter, articulated his belief that the limits on governmental power that were enshrined in the U.S. Constitution were impediments to the transformative social and economic policies he wished to implement:

 

“When the chief justice read me the oath and came to the words ‘support the Constitution of the United States,’ I felt like saying: ‘Yes, but it’s the Constitution as I understand it, flexible enough to meet any new problem of democracy — not the kind of Constitution your court has raised up as a barrier to progress and democracy.'” READ ENTIRETY (THE PROGRESSIVE ERA’S LEGACY: FDR’S NEW DEAL; Source attributed to Jonah Goldberg; DTN)

 

FDR was elected to an unbeatable record four terms. A record due to blank Amendment inspired by those four terms. FDR barely got into his fourth term when he was taken down by a massive cerebral hemorrhage on April 12, 1945.

 

FDR also his share of personal scandals pertaining to mistresses and his wife Eleanor. I have run out of space and time to write about those here. Even in the 1940s Christian Morality was still central as cultural mainstay. In all probability if FDR’s tryst became proven public knowledge I suspect would have resigned. As I had written earlier I used the WhatReallyHappened.com article entitled, “FDR Scandal Page” as a template for looking up more scholastic articles. The first paragraph of that page begins the personal scandals as an exposé. A more even tempered of what is proven about FDR and Eleanor’s personal life can be found at the Scandalous Women blog entitled, “FDR and his Women”.

 

 

JRH 8/11/14

Please Support NCCR

 

 

Know your Nazi-Arab Connection to Jew-Hatred


Hajj Amin al Husseini - Adolf Hitler

 

John R. Houk

© September 16, 2013

 

I received an email from the Historical and Investigative Research (HIR). The purpose of the email is to spread information on a fifteen minute documentary “The Nazi’s and the Palestinian movement”. I have known about this information on this so-called Palestinian movement for some time. Incredulously too many Americans are completely out of touch of the Nazi-Radical Islamic cooperation that began in WWII. You have to ask, “What in the world did Aryan-Nazi Supremacists and Muslim-Arabic (of a Semitic language group) have in common?”

 

Of course the answer is JEW-HATRED. Islam has never been Jew-friendly especially since old Mo conquered Medina and began the execution of Arab-Jewish tribes of the Arabian Peninsula. Jew-hatred became elevated among Arab Muslims largely at the Nazi support of the WWII Grand Mufti of Jerusalem Hajj Amin al Husseini. Al-Husseini propagandized Jew-Hatred because European Jews had begun flooding back into their ancestral homeland largely with initial British help – See HERE and HERE (sadly the British transitioned to a pro-Arab stand by the time Israel proclaimed their independence in 1948).

 

So this is what is going to happen in this post. I am going to begin with the email which has two links. One to the documentary which is linked on Vimeo and the second link is to the HIR text. I am going to use a Youtube version of the Vimeo link because it is easier to post on my blogs. On the HIR text link there is a side panel which you will have to go to the website to read. I am just cross posting the text pertaining to “The Nazi’s and the Palestinian movement”.

 

JRH 9/16/13

Please Support NCCR

******************************

HIR: New Documentary: The Nazis and the Palestinian Movement

 

Sent by Francisco Gil-White

From Historical and Investigative Research

Sent: Aug 6, 2013 at 11:07 PM

 

The Israeli government is negotiating to give PLO/Fatah (the ‘Palestinian Authority’) the strategic territories of Judea and Samaria. This is only possible because ordinary Israelis, and ordinary Westerners, still don’t know about the German Nazi roots of PLO/Fatah.

 

FACES/HIR has produced:

 

1) A (short) new documentary about this question, available on Vimeo:
https://vimeo.com/69991225

 

2) An article to accompany the video (it contains all the relevant documentation): http://www.hirhome.com/israel/nazis_palestinians.htm                        

 

Please give both a wide circulation

 

HISTORICAL AND INVESTIGATIVE RESEARCH
F.A.C.E.S. (Foundation for the Analysis of Conflict, Ethnic and Social)

_____________________

VIDEO: The Nazi’s and the Palestinian movement

 

Posted by jomjomnl

Published on Aug 20, 2013

______________________

THE NAZIS AND THE PALESTINIAN MOVEMENT

Documentary and discussion

 

By Francisco Gil-White

26 July 2013

Historical and Investigative Research

 

Hajj Amin al Husseini is the father of the Palestinian Movement. He created PLO/Fatah (now better known as the ‘Palestinian Authority’), the organization that will govern any future Palestinian state. And he was mentor to Yasser Arafat and Mahmoud Abbas, the leaders of that organization. Husseini was also, during World War II, a top Nazi leader who co-directed with Adolf Eichmann the death camp system that murdered between 5 and 6 million European Jews, also known as the Final Solution. These facts are not widely known or understood. Neither has their implication for our understanding of Israeli ruling elite behavior been properly appreciated. We present a short documentary and a discussion.

……………………………………………

Table of Contents

 

o   Introduction

 

o   The Video

 

o   Discussion

 

o   Readings relevant to this video

 

Introduction

 

For many years now, almost every day, all over the world, the Arab-Israeli conflict is headline news. And yet most people still don’t know that PLO/Fatah (now better known as the ‘Palestinian Authority’), the organization that will govern any future Palestinian state, was created by a top leader of the German Nazi Final Solution. In other words, the ‘Palestinian state’—to be carved out of strategic territory of the Jewish state—will be governed by the spawn of the man responsible for the Nazi murder of between 5 and 6 million European Jews.

 

The short documentary below explains PLO/Fatah’s history.

 

This documentary is now on Vimeo, but it was first uploaded to You Tube. In the first two days, almost with no publicity, the You Tube webpage quickly logged more than 1,500 visits. Then, on the third day, Israelis began reporting that You Tube was not allowing them to access the video. You Tube’s explanation is that when a video is blocked in this manner it can be due to only one of two reasons:

 

1)     the You Tube account-owner placed country restrictions on the video; or else

 

2)     You Tube is complying with local laws

 

We did not place country restrictions on the video. That leaves us with the second possibility.

 

But what local laws can You Tube be complying with? To my knowledge, no laws have yet been passed by the Israeli Knesset against the dissemination of historical facts.

 

Some have speculated that “we are complying with local laws” is a cover for “the Israeli government told us to block it.” Others ask: “But why would the Israeli government even want to block this video?”

 

Let us consider the following:

 

1)     PLO/Fatah—created by a leader of the Final Solution—was brought inside the Jewish state—created (supposedly) to protect the Jewish people from Final Solutions—because the Israeli government signed the 1993-94 Oslo Accord.

 

2)     But why? In 1982 Menachem Begin had already (essentially) destroyed PLO/Fatah and chased the remnant out of Lebanon to its new base in Tunis. So in 1993-94 the Israeli government was breathing new life into a defeated, moribund PLO/Fatah.

 

3)     In doing so the Israeli government gifted PLO/Fatah with its most important victory: legitimacy on the world stage, and lordship over the Arab Muslims in the strategic ‘disputed territories’ of Judea and Samaria.

 

4)     The Israeli government did all this this without informing ordinary Israelis about the roots of PLO/Fatah in the German Nazi Final Solution. Instead, it legitimized PLO/Fatah’s claim to have abandoned terrorism for ‘peace.’

 

5)     With PLO/Fatah’s entry, terrorism against Israelis immediately quintupled, and the security situation worsened for the long term because PLO/Fatah has been indoctrinating the Arab Muslims in the disputed territories into its ecstatic genocidal ideology (not precisely a secret).

 

6)     The Israeli government is still trying to sell the Israeli people—and Jews worldwide—on the idea that a sensible solution to Israel’s security woes is to give the strategic high ground of Judea and Samaria (a.k.a. the ‘West Bank’) to PLO/Fatah.

 

7)     There is a real possibility that the Israeli government will make this strategic territory judenrein (this is a German Nazi term meaning ‘cleansed of Jews’) for PLO/Fatah. They already did it in Gaza.

 

8)     During the long years since the so-called Oslo ‘Peace’ Process began, the Israeli government still hasn’t informed the Israelis about PLO/Fatah’s origins in the German Nazi Final Solution.

 

But perhaps the most important points are the following:

 

9)     This Oslo ‘Peace’ Process could have been quickly killed in its tracks if, when the US government first began bullying for it, the prime minister of Israel had simply called an international press conference to explain the origins of PLO/Fatah in the German Nazi Final Solution.

 

10)  At any point since 1993-94, by holding such a press conference, the Israeli government could have scored a major propaganda victory in favor of Israeli Jews, and in favor of ejecting PLO/Fatah from Israel. But no such press conference has yet been called.

 

On the basis of the above 10 points one may conclude that, if the information in this video becomes widely known, those running the Israeli government will have some egg on their faces. In fact, this information raises the sharpest questions about them, and about their intentions. Here then is a plausible motive for the Israeli government to block the video: to stop Israelis from asking such questions.

 

But in fact questions must be asked not merely about the Israeli government (in the narrow bureaucratic sense) but also about the Israeli ruling elite more broadly. For none of the major politicians who declare themselves opponents of the Oslo ‘Peace’ Process and its ‘Two State Solution’ have educated Israelis about the German Nazi Roots of PLO/Fatah. Why?

 

The video follows below. And below the video is a discussion about the evidence it presents, and how this evidence has been either ignored or lied about for many years.

 

The Video

 

THE NAZIS AND THE PALESTINIAN MOVEMENT from FACESHIRHOME on Vimeo. [SlantRight Editor: You can click the Vimeo link or watch the Youtube version above]

 

Discussion

 

Immediately after the war, Husseini’s Nazi activities were well understood, as the article from The Nation (1947) which I have posted to the right of this column attests. But then a tremendous silence about Husseini and his Nazi years developed. Certainly the media, which displays always the latest news on the Arab-Israeli conflict in its front pages, has had nothing to say about the Nazi origins of PLO/Fatah ever since PLO/Fatah was created in the 1960s. The silence in academia has been equally deafening.

 

Historian Rafael Medoff, in an article from 1996, wrote the following:

 

“Early scholarship on the Mufti, such as the work of Maurice Pearlman and Joseph Schechtman, while hampered by the inaccessibility of some key documents, at least succeeded in conveying the basic facts of the Mufti’s career as a Nazi collaborator. One would have expected the next generation of historians, with greater access to relevant archival materials (not to mention the broader perspective that the passage of time may afford) to improve upon the work of their predecessors. Instead, however, a number of recent histories of the Arab-Israeli conflict have played fast and loose with the evidence, producing accounts that minimize or even justify the Mufti’s Nazi activity.”[1]

 

What Medoff refers to above as “early scholarship on the Mufti” is early indeed. The work of Pearlman and Schechtman that he cites is from 1947 and 1965:

 

Pearlman, M. (1947). Mufti of Jerusalem: The story of Haj Amin el Husseini. London: V Gollancz.

 

Joseph B. Schechtman, The Mufti and the Fuehrer, New York, 1965.

 

After this ensued a tremendous academic silence on the Mufti Husseini. In fact, Medoff can refer us to no academic work on Husseini before 1990. His article, recall, is from 1996. The few academic mentions of Husseini that he could find from 1990 to 1996 were either completely silent on the Mufti’s Nazi years—as if they had never happened—or else they relegated a ‘summary’ of those years to a single paragraph (or even just a sentence) that left almost everything out. Some authors even claimed (entirely in passing) that Husseini’s Nazi activities had been supposedly imagined by “Zionist propagandists.”

 

But recent scholars who have studied Hajj Amin al Husseini in depth, such as Rafael Medoff, have confirmed what his early biographers had already established:

 

1)     that Husseini traveled to Berlin in late 1941, met with Hitler, and discussed with him the extermination of the Middle Eastern Jews (whom Husseini had already been killing for some 20 years);

 

2)     that Husseini spent the entire war in Nazi-controlled Europe as a Nazi collaborator;

 

3)     that Husseini helped spread Nazi propaganda to Muslims worldwide (one of his famous exhortations goes like this: “Arabs, rise as one man and fight for your sacred rights. Kill the Jews wherever you find them. This pleases God, history, and religion. This saves your honor. God is with you.”[2]);

 

4)     that Husseini recruited thousands of Bosnian and Kosovo Muslims to Heinrich Himmler’s SS, who went on to kill hundreds of thousands of Serbs, and tens of thousands of Jews and Roma (‘Gypsies’).

 

It is beyond dispute that Husseini did all that. And in fact photographic evidence of Husseini’s Nazi collaboration abounds on the internet.

 

But there has been quite an effort to whitewash Husseini’s responsibility in the German Nazi death camp system specifically—in other words, his responsibility in the Holocaust, or as the Jews more properly say, in the Shoah (‘Catastrophe’). One example of this whitewashing effort is Wikipedia’s page on Husseini.

 

Because of its emblematic nature, I shall now quote from the Wikipedia article on Hajj Amin al Husseini as I found it on 14 July, 2013 and then comment.

 

[Quote from Wikipedia begins here]

 

Al-Husseini settled in Berlin in late 1941 and resided there for most of the war.[153] Various sources have repeated allegations, mostly ungrounded in documentary evidence, that he visited the death camps of Auschwitz, Majdanek, Treblinka and Mauthausen.[153] At the Nuremberg trials, one of Adolf Eichmann‘s deputies, Dieter Wisliceny, stated that al-Husseini had actively encouraged the extermination of European Jews, and that he had had an elaborate meeting with Eichmann at his office, during which Eichmann gave him an intensive look at the current state of the “Solution of the Jewish Question in Europe” by the Third Reich. Most of these allegations are completely unfounded.[153]

 

[Quote from Wikipedia ends here]

 

Consider first the phrase “completely unfounded” as it attaches to any part of Wisliceny’s Nuremberg testimony.

 

As part of the legal proceedings at the Nuremberg War Crimes Tribunal, two independent witnesses (Andrej or Endre Steiner and Rudolf Kasztner)—both of whom had had personal contact with Dieter Wisliceny during the war—reported to the Tribunal that in wartime conversations with Wisliceny he had said certain things about Husseini’s role in the Final Solution (the genocidal enterprise in which Wisliceny was not just anybody but a highly-placed administrator). The Steiner and Kasztner testimonies are quite similar to each other. Before his execution for crimes against humanity, Nuremberg Tribunal investigators called on Wisliceny to either confirm or deny what these two independent witnesses had said. Wisliceny did correct them on minor points but he confirmed what they had both stated concerning Husseini’s central and originating role in the extermination program (consult footnote [3] to read the Steiner and Kasztner testimonies).

 

So are these “completely unfounded” allegations? If so, that would mean:

 

1)     that in light of other, better established evidence, what Wisliceny stated is impossible; and/or

 

2)     that Wisliceny is less credible as a witness than witnesses who contradicted his statements.

 

So I ask: On the basis of what evidence do the Wikipedia editors argue that “most of these allegations are completely unfounded”?

 

At first it seems as though Wikipedia editors have provided three sources but on closer inspection it is the same footnote, repeated three times (in the space of four sentences). The footnote contains this:

 

Gerhard Höpp (2004). “In the Shadow of the Moon.” In Wolfgang G. Schwanitz. Germany and the Middle East 1871–1945. Markus Wiener, Princeton. pp. 217–221.

 

The title is incomplete. Gerhard Höpp’s article is: “In the Shadow of the Moon: Arab Inmates in Nazi Concentration Camps.” The full title makes it obvious that this article is not about Husseini, something that readers who see only the truncated title in the Wikipedia reference will not realize.

 

But, anyway, what does Höpp say—entirely in passing—about Wisliceny’s testimony concerning Husseini? He says this (and only this):

 

“Al-Husaini… is said not only to have had knowledge of the concentration camps but also to have visited them. Various authors speak of the camps at Auschwitz, Majdanek, Treblinka, and Mauthausen. While the assumption that he visited the Auschwitz camp in the company of Adolf Eichmann is supported by an affidavit of Rudolf Kasztner, referring to a note by the Eichmann collaborator Dieter Wisliceny, the other allegations are entirely unfounded.” (p.221)

 

Recall that Höpp is Wikipedia’s thrice-cited source to ‘support’ that “most” of the following three allegations are “completely unfounded”:

 

1)     that Husseini visited death camps

 

2)     that Husseini encouraged the extermination of the Jews;

 

3)     that Husseini met with Eichmann to discuss said extermination.

 

But notice that Höpp says absolutely nothing about allegations 2 and 3.

 

And notice that, concerning allegation 1, Höpp uses the phrase “entirely unfounded” in a manner exactly opposite to the Wikipedia editors who invoke him. For the Wikipedia editors, “most” of what Wisliceny says is “completely unfounded,” whereas for Höpp it is those allegations not backed by Wisliceny’s testimony that he considers “entirely unfounded.”

 

Moreover, Höpp states:

 

“Speculation on this and other misdeeds by the Mufti appear unnecessary in view of his undisputed collaboration with the Nazis…” (p.221)

 

In other words, since we already know that Husseini was a rabid anti-Semite who himself organized mass killings of Jews before he met the Nazis, and then also with the Nazis, and discussed with Hitler the extermination of the Middle Eastern Jews, and shouted on the Nazi radio “Kill the Jews wherever you find them,” is it not a waste of time to argue back and forth whether Husseini did or did not visit this or that death camp with Eichmann?

 

But, I might add, why doubt it? And why doubt that such a man encouraged the Nazis to exterminate the European Jews and also met with Eichmann to discuss this program? (Unless, of course, such expressions of doubt are intended as an apology for the Mufti…)

 

Let us now continue with the Wikipedia article:

 

[Quote from Wikipedia continues here]

 

A single affidavit by Rudolf Kastner reported that Wisliceny told him that he had overheard Husseini say he had visited Auschwitz incognito in Eichmann’s company.[154] Eichmann denied this at his trial in Jerusalem in 1961. …Eichmann stated that he had only been introduced to al-Husseini during an official reception, along with all other department heads. In the final judgement [sic], the Jerusalem court stated: “In the light of this partial admission by the Accused, we accept as correct Wisliceny’s statement about this conversation between the Mufti and the Accused. In our view it is not important whether this conversation took place in the Accused’s office or elsewhere. On the other hand, we cannot determine decisive findings with regard to the Accused on the basis of the notes appearing in the Mufti’s diary which were submitted to us.”[157] Hannah Arendt, who attended the complete Eichmann trial, concluded in her book Eichmann in Jerusalem: A Report on the Banality of Evil that, “The trial revealed only that all rumours about Eichmann’s connection with Haj Amin el Husseini, the former Mufti of Jerusalem, were unfounded.”[158]

 

[Quote from Wikipedia ends here]

 

I am confounded by Wikipedia’s choice of reliable experts. The Jerusalem court that tried Eichmann for Crimes Against Humanity concluded that “we accept as correct Wisliceny’s statement about this conversation between the Mufti [Husseini] and the Accused [Eichmann]” (the topic of which was to discuss how to exterminate the European Jews); but Wikipedia editors prefer the contrary opinion of philosopher Hannah Arendt, according to whom any claim of a relationship between Husseini and Eichmann is “unfounded.” And why do they prefer Arendt? Because she “attended the complete Eichmann trial.”

 

Didn’t the judges also attend?

 

Anyway, let’s look at Arendt more closely. To her, two independent testimonies at Nuremberg concerning Husseini’s relationship with Eichmann, later corroborated by Wisliceny, a highly-placed eyewitness, are “rumours.” This is strange. And, against this, Arendt simply accepts Eichmann’s denial. Doubly strange. Why has Eichmann earned so much respect from Hannah Arendt?

 

But more to the point: Do we have reasons to consider Eichmann a more credible witness than Wisliceny?

 

Arendt shouldn’t think so. She wrote Eichmann in Jerusalem: A Report on the Banality of Evil so that she could extend herself in deep ruminations about the human soul based on (odd choice) Eichmann’s strange behavior at trial, which led her to call him a “clown.” Wisliceny, by contrast, was universally considered by prosecutors as a very careful witness, who was painstaking in correcting the smallest details in the testimony he was asked to comment on.[4]

 

(And Eichmann most certainly had motive to lie in order to diminish Husseini’s role in the Holocaust relative to his own, for he was obviously proud of what he had done. Moreover, Husseini was still at large, and busy organizing the ‘Palestinian’ movement, so better not to say anything that could support a manhunt plus extradition procedures that might derail Husseini’s ongoing effort to exterminate the Jews in Israel, a project certainly dear to Eichmann’s putrefacient heart, a project that, as he sat in the witness box, no doubt swam before his mind’s eye as a pleasant future outcome to engulf those sitting in judgment of him, or their children.)

 

Let us continue:

 

[Quote from Wikipedia continues here]

 

Rafael Medoff concludes that “actually there is no evidence that the Mufti’s presence was a factor at all; the Wisliceny hearsay is not merely uncorroborated, but conflicts with everything else that is known about the origins of the Final Solution.”[159]

 

[Quote from Wikipedia ends here]

 

Rafael Medoff is expressing an opinion. Is it reasonable? Here is the full passage in Medoff’s article:

 

“With regard to the crucial question of what the Mufti knew and when he knew it, the evidence requires especially careful sifting, and earlier scholars did not always take sufficient care. Pearlman, for example, accepted as fact the unfounded postwar claim by Wisliceny that the Mufti was “one of the initiators” of the genocide. Of course, Pearlman was writing in 1946-1947, when the genesis of the annihilation process was not yet fully understood. Other accounts at that time, such as a 1947 book written by Bartley Crum, a member of the Anglo-American Commission of Inquiry on Palestine, likewise accepted Wisliceny’s claim. Schechtman, writing in 1964-1965, should have known better. He made much of the fact that the Mufti first arrived in Berlin shortly before the Wannsee conference, as if the decision to slaughter the Jews was made at Wannsee, when in fact the mass murder began in Western Russia the previous summer (at a time when the Mufti was still deeply embroiled in the pro-Nazi coup in Baghdad). Schechtman eventually conceded that ‘it would be both wrong and misleading to assume that the presence of Haj Amin el-Husseini was the sole, or even the major factor in the shaping and intensification of the Nazi ‘final solution of the Jewish problem,’ which supplanted forced emigration by wholesale extermination.’ Actually, there is no evidence that the Mufti’s presence was a factor at all; the Wisliceny hearsay is not merely uncorroborated, but conflicts with everything else that is known about the origins of the Final Solution.”[5]

 

Medoff’s argument turns on a semantic point. If we agree with him that the mass killings of Jews on the Nazi Eastern front, which began before Husseini arrived in Berlin, are part of the ‘Final Solution,’ then Husseini is not “one of the originators” of the ‘Final Solution.’ But the question is not what we agree to call ‘Final Solution.’ The question is whether the Nazis had yet decided, before Husseini alighted in Berlin, to create a death camp system to kill all of the European Jews. They had not. And that decision was formalized at Wannsee, indeed shortly after Husseini arrived in Berlin.

 

 

Consider what historians say about the established chronology of changes in Nazi policy on the so-called ‘Jewish Question.’

 

Gunnar Paulsson explains that “expulsion”—not extermination—“had initially been the general policy of the Nazis towards the Jews.”[6] Tobias Jersak writes: “Since the 1995 publication of Michael Wildt’s documentation on the SS’s Security Service (Sicherheitsdienst SD) and the ‘Jewish Question,’ it has been undisputed that from 1933 Nazi policy concerning the ‘Jewish Question’ aimed at the emigration of all Jews, preferably to Palestine.”[7] Even after the conquest of Poland, writes Paulsson, “Jewish emigration continued to be permitted and even encouraged, while other expulsion plans were considered.”[8] Christopher Simpson points out that, though many Jews were being murdered, and people such as Reinhard Heydrich of the SS pushed for wholesale extermination, “other ministries” disagreed, and these favored “deportation and resettlement,” though they disagreed about where to put the Jews and how much terror to apply to them.[9] And so, “until the autumn of 1941,” conclude Marrus & Paxton, “no one defined the final solution with precision, but all signs pointed toward some vast and as yet unspecified project of mass emigration.”[10]

 

Hajj Amin al Husseini arrived in Berlin in “the autumn of 1941”—to be precise, on 9 November 1941. So yes, there had already been mass killings of Jews on the Eastern front, but for the hypothesis that Husseini had something to do with the Nazi decision to set up the death camp system in order to kill every last living European Jew (instead of sending most to ‘Palestine’), Husseini arrived right on time.

 

The last part of Medoff’s passage—the one that Wikipedia quotes—is especially problematic. He writes:

 

“Actually, there is no evidence that the Mufti’s presence was a factor at all; the Wisliceny hearsay is not merely uncorroborated, but conflicts with everything else that is known about the origins of the Final Solution.”

 

Medoff disparages the evidence we have as “hearsay.” Is it?

 

Wikipedia explains the legal definition of ‘hearsay’:

 

“information gathered by one person from another person concerning some event, condition, or thing of which the first person had no direct experience.”[11]

 

In US law there is a famous “hearsay rule,” which says that if en (sic) eyewitness cannot present his or her testimony in court, then another’s report of the supposed testimony is inadmissible.[11a] Medoff is turning this legal tradition into a historiographical principle in order to do away with the evidence from Wisliceny. Is this a proper maneuver?

 

A historian is not subject to the caution of a court of law, which must err on the side of presumption of innocence in order to safeguard a person’s rights. But even if a historian were Medoff’s reasoning does not apply. We have two independent testimonies before the Nuremberg Tribunal, by Andrej (Endre) Steiner and Rudolf Kasztner, about their wartime conversations with Wisliceny, the topic of which was Husseini’s key role in 1) the decision to exterminate all of the European Jews and, 2) the administration of the death-camp system with Adolf Eichmann. These two testimonies, by themselves, count as ‘hearsay.’ But are they inadmissible? Actually the hearsay rule has exceptions that a judge may invoke, and having two consistent and independent testimonies could favor such an exception. But this is not even the case. Both testimonies were corroborated by Wisliceny, whose “direct experience” of the relationship between Husseini and Eichmann is well established, since Wisliceny was Eichmann’s right-hand man. In other words, Wisliceny’s testimony is not hearsay; he is an eyewitness. Medoff is wrong.

 

So:

 

1)     we do have evidence that the Mufti’s presence was a factor;

 

2)     this evidence is not hearsay because it comes from Wisliceny; and

 

3)     given what we know about Husseini’s character, deeds, and timely arrival in Berlin, Wisliceny’s claims certainly do not conflict “with everything else that is known about the origins of the Final Solution.”

 

So every word in the Medoff passage that Wikipedia quotes is false.

We continue:

 

[Quote from Wikipedia continues here]

 

Bernard Lewis also called Wisliceny’s testimony into doubt: “There is no independent documentary confirmation of Wisliceny’s statements, and it seems unlikely that the Nazis needed any such additional encouragement from the outside.”[160]

 

[Quote from Wikipedia ends here]

 

The full passage from Bernard Lewis’s work is the following:

 

“According to Wisliceny, the Mufti was a friend of Eichmann and had, in his company, gone incognito to visit the gas chamber at Auschwitz. Wisliceny even names the Mufti as being the ‘initiator’ of the policy of extermination. This was denied, both by Eichmann at his trial in Jerusalem in 1961, and by the Mufti in a press conference at about the same time. There is no independent documentary confirmation of Wisliceny’s statements, and it seems unlikely that the Nazis needed any such additional encouragement from outside.” [12]

 

So Eichmann and Husseini deny it and this is enough for Lewis… If we apply his standards to any ordinary criminal investigation we will be forced to let the main suspect go the minute he himself and/or his alleged accomplice deny the charges. Presto! This will save a lot of unnecessary police work.

 

The same can be said for his curious insistence that without “independent documentary confirmation” the testimony of witnesses can be dispensed with. But, naturally, a great many things that happen in the world are not recorded in a document. Eyewitness testimony must be considered carefully, but saying that “there is no independent documentary confirmation” of a particular piece of testimony is not the same thing as producing good reasons to doubt it. And to say, in the absence of conflicting evidence, that our null hypothesis will be to consider as true the opposite of what was testified to, why that is simply absurd.

 

The above is obvious but Lewis’s last argument—“it seems unlikely that the Nazis needed any such additional encouragement from outside”—will appeal to many as reasonable, so it deserves a more extended comment.

 

What Lewis is saying is that the Nazis decided on total extermination for reasons that were ‘endogenous’ to their ideological program. But though killing lots of Jews as part of a campaign of terror and to make lebensraum for deserving Aryan specimens on the Eastern front was certainly part of general Nazi policy, the ‘Final Solution,’ as pointed out above, was initially and for a long time a program of mass expulsion, and did not contemplate (yet) exterminating the entire European Jewish population. Getting to that point required some ‘exogenous’ prodding (“from outside”); it was not an ideological requirement.

 

Historian Thomas Marrus writes: “After the riots of Kristallnacht in November 1938, SS police boss Heydrich was ordered to accelerate emigration, and Jews were literally driven out of the country. The problem was, of course, that there was practically no place for them to go.”[13] The reason there was no place for them to go is that no country would receive them. As historian James Carroll points out:  “The same leaders, notably Neville Chamberlain and Franklin D. Roosevelt, who had denounced the anti-Jewish violence of the Nazis declined to receive Jews as refugees. …Crucial to its building to a point of no return was Hitler’s discovery (late) of the political indifference of the democracies to the fate of the Jews…[14] Though one may argue that this was not really “indifference” on the part of Roosevelt et al. but a very special interest (in their doom).[15] The main point here is that, as historian Gunnar Paulsson points out: “Expulsion had initially been the general policy of the Nazis towards the Jews, and had been abandoned largely for practical, not ideological, reasons” (my emphasis).[16]

 

The Nazis were right bastards. No disagreement. But they did need some encouragement to go that far. They needed to be told, first, that they would not get rid of any Jews by pushing them out to the ‘Free World.’ And then they needed to be told, by British creation Hajj Amin al Husseini, that neither could they push them out to ‘Palestine.’ Bernard Lewis is wrong.

 

Perhaps Wikipedia would like to try again with a new set of ‘supporting’ sources? We will be waiting to examine them.

 

[SlantRight Editor: There is more reading under the headings Readings Relevant to this Video” and “Footnotes and Further Reading”.]

_____________________________

Know your Nazi-Arab Connection to Jew-Hatred

John R. Houk

© September 16, 2013

____________________________

THE NAZIS AND THE PALESTINIAN MOVEMENT

 

About HIR

 

Francisco Gil-White has a Masters in Social Sciences from the University of Chicago and a PhD in biological and cultural anthropology from UCLA. His PhD thesis work was in rural Western Mongolia, where he did 14 months of fieldwork studying the mutual ethnic perceptions of neighboring Torguud Mongol and Kazakh nomadic herders. Until June 2006, he was Assistant Professor of Psychology at the University of Pennsylvania (he was fired for investigating the real aims of US foreign policy). His research is broadly concerned with the evolution of the proximate mechanisms responsible for social learning and social perception and cognition. His main interests are the evolution of ethnic processes, with a special focus on racism, and particularly anti-Semitism; prestige processes; the evolution of language; the structure of narrative memory; the structure and interaction of media and political processes; the laws of history; Western geopolitics; and the political history of the West.

 

The story behind Historical and Investigative Research

 

How a Beloved Leader Becomes a Dictator


Wake Up America - Cover Peeling Off

John R. Houk

© August 29, 2013

 

Adolf Hitler utilized misleading propaganda to get himself to become Chancellor and Fuhrer of Germany. The Germans of the Sudetenland region of then Czechoslovakia Hitler believed should be a part of Greater Germany so it was annexed.

 

Hitler’s birth place Austria is a German speaking nation so of course it also must be a part of Greater Germany. Nazi armies marched to Austria to force the issue.

 

Communists were blamed for torching the Reichstag (German version of Congress/Parliament). Historians for years blamed this as a false flag accusation by the Nazis but more recent study has historians believing the German Communists really did Torch the Reichstag building on February 27, 1933. It doesn’t matter who torched the Reichstag because the incident led to Hitler having dictatorial powers and a manhunt for once rival Communists who were imprisoned or executed.

 

Then of course Hitler made no bones about his Aryan Supremacist beliefs (See Also HERE, HERE and HERE) which meant all non-German/non-Nordic races were inferior.  Some races in particular needed separation from the German population because Hitler believed them to be contaminating racial filth. In particular the European Jews were the victims (nearly 6 MILLION) of extermination due to the Aryan Superiority belief. And roughly another 6 MILLION races, physically/mentally handicapped and homosexuals met the same fate as the Jews under Hitler’s Nazi regime.

 

Then the Hitler false flag that plunged the world into global war occurred. Hitler made up the story that Poland attacked Germany. So of course Hitler could not let that lie go without punishment. Nazi Germany’s first military blitzkrieg swept through Poland’s antiquated military defenses and a secret deal Hitler made with Stalin created a Polish eastern front as the Soviet army came with the intention of dividing Poland between Nazis and Communists. Britain and France committed to war if Poland was invaded. Hitler later turned on Stalin and began an invasion of the USSR.

 

I hope you enjoyed this simplistic offering of the beginning of WWII in 1939 (December 7, 1941 for the USA as Japan gave Isolationist Americans an excuse to join the British against the Nazis). Here is why I went over this very brief WWII beginnings. Danny Jeffrey in an essay entitled “Operation Canned Goods or How to Start another War”. The essay uses the Hitler method to take over a government as an analogy of potential events occurring NOW in the USA and the world. Danny sees an amazing parallel to the beginnings of Nazi Germany and the transformative path (Obama’s “Change”) Barack Hussein Obama is walking on today. Here is a blurb, actually a very insightful blurb from Danny Jeffrey:

 

Obama is taking us down the same path to hyperinflation. He is also taking us down the path to World War Three. What the people wanted and what Hitler wanted were two very different things and yet Hitler had to convince the German populace that war was in their best interests or at least Germany’s national honor.

Every dictator needs an enemy of the state on which to blame all problems, and he needs a way to start a war and blame the other nation. Adolf Hitler had the Jews to blame when he came to power, Barrack Obama has the white conservatives. Different dictator, different time, and a different group to blame, but the methods and the goals are still the same.

 

One of the keys to understanding this essay is the international foreign policy doctrine of Responsibility to Protect (R2P). Here is a brief description from a R2P friendly website:

 

The RESPONSIBILITY TO PROTECT (“RtoP” or “R2P”) is a new international security and human rights norm to address the international community’s failure to prevent and stop genocides, war crimes, ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity. (International Coalition for The Responsibility to Protect – ICRtoP)

 

Danny Jeffrey is a lot less altruistic toward R2P. AND his insight on R2P is well founded. Danny believes R2P is a foundational concept for Leftist domination in world affairs and that the Leftist-in-Chief that designed the altruistic doctrine was none other than George Soros. Danny points that out in his essay I linked above. I wish Danny’s Freedom Rings 1776 had a search feature so you could type a search on George Soros because he has a lot of pertinent information there. Using Google I typed in Freedom Rings 1776: George Soros. At least the first page (I didn’t check further) had a number of Danny’s posts on George Soros. HERE is the Google link that came up for me. I took the liberty of excerpting Danny Jeffrey relating to Soros and R2P. The excerpts go to producing an enlightening picture of the Soros-Obama paradigm that somewhat mirrors Adolf Hitler’s charismatic political rise. Do I think it will happen in Obama? I am not willing to see that; however I didn’t think President Barack Hussein Obama would be reelected in 2012.

 

Be sure to read “Operation Canned Goods or How to Start another War”!

 

JRH 8/29/13

Please Support NCCR

*****************************

Here are some Danny Jeffrey Excerpts on the George Soros Doctrine of Responsibility to Protect. For even more clarity you should each essay in entirety.

 

The George Soros sponsored Global Center for the Responsibility to Protect could be the key to the destruction of Israel and the beginning of nuclear war.


The whole concept of this Soros sponsored group is that the UN can attack any nation that is using force against those who are trying to take the reins of power. This option was not used in the genocide of Darfur. It was not used in the assault on revolutionary Iranians. It was unnecessary in Egypt and this Responsibility to Protect is first being used in Libya. It is my firm belief that the Libyan scenario is but a trial balloon to set a precedent. Later it will be used against Israel…the next time they are attacked and they dare fight back.

 

 

The Global Center For The Responsibility To Protect (GCRP) sounds like such a noble organization. It is such a shame that it is based on lies and hatred. When seeking truth, follow the money trail. The GCRP is funded by The International Crisis Group (ICG) and The Human Rights Watch. (HRW).

 

 

The ICG is in turn funded by the Soros Group The Open Society Institute (OSI).

 

 

… The GCRP is a political weapon of conquest, created by, and wielded by, George Soros, and thanks to Barrack Obama, backed by the military might of the United States.

 

http://www.freedomrings1776.com/2011/04/coming-assault-on-israel.html

++++++++++++++++++++++

My greatest concern was The Responsibility To Protect (R2P), a George Soros generated plan to provide a no fly zone over any nation that Islamic Jihadists are attacking. That was what defeated Libya and at the time I stated that this assault on Libya’s air force was only to set a precedent, predicting that the tactic would one day be called upon to defend yet more Jihadists when they attack Israel.

 

 

… Jihadists wear no uniforms. They are technically civilians, “rebels” if you will, but these rebels are not from Syria. They have come from all over the Middle East and some from Europe and the UK. They are mercenaries, invaders, paid for their service. The lack of uniforms give the illusion that they are civilians thus permitting the terms of R2P to be employed to protect the “innocent”. … http://www.freedomrings1776.com/2013/06/syriaa-march-into-hell.html

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

I have pondered long and hard about the issue of Israel and have written many essays on the topic, including discussions of Responsibility To Protect (R2P). That is a Soros sponsored doctrine that calls for the nations of the west to create a no fly zone over any nation that is under attack by “civilians” such as we saw in Libya as the “civilians” of Al Qaeda overran a sovereign nations thanks to the air cover and weapons we provided. Libya was but a UN legal precedent as R2P was founded solely for the purpose of eventually supporting the upcoming Islamic attack on Israel.

 

 

Another part of R2P that is a Catch 22 is that it forbids a sovereign nation from using its aircraft against “civilians”. … http://www.freedomrings1776.com/2013/01/blinded-by-hatred-of-israel.html