Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

The New Nazis
Sultan Knish ^ | Mar 21, 2012 | Daniel Greenfield

Posted on 03/22/2012 4:44:15 AM PDT by expat1000

There was a time when Jewish children were hunted down and killed in France. Their killers believed themselves to be members of a superior group that was destined to rule the world and enslave or exterminate members of inferior groups. The cowardice and appeasement of the French authorities allowed them to operate freely, to kill Jews and launch attacks on other countries.

What was then is now again. The occupying army doesn't wear uniforms, it wears keffiyahs. It doesn't speak German, it speaks Arabic. It doesn't believe that it is superior for reasons of race as much as for reasons of religion. It does not view all others as Untermenschen, but as infidels. It looks forward not to a thousand year Reich, but to a thousand year Caliphate.

Mohammed Merah did not chase down a French-Jewish seven year old girl, put a gun to her head and pull the trigger because he came from an economically depressed area or any of the other media spin. He was only doing what Muslims had been doing to non-Muslims for over a thousand years. He didn't do what he did because he was "radicalized", he did it because he became a fully committed Muslim.

It won't end with taking down one man and it won't end with Jewish children. When your ideology believes that it is in a zero-sum struggle with the rest of the world and that membership means that you are a superior breed of human being because you worship the Fuhrer or Allah, then it won't stop. It won't ever stop. Not until the figurehead is toppled, the creed is humiliated and the supermen are shown to be cowards, neurotics, pedophiles, insecure men dressing up their weaknesses in power fantasies.

Between all the non-stop coverage, the expressions of grief, the political pandering, no one is stating the obvious. France has been occupied all over again. Once again the occupation has been carried out with the consent of the authorities who have decided that cowardice is the only way. Vichy France has become Vichy Europe, Vichy America, Vichy Australia, where the blatant appeasement is disguised as honor, treason is portrayed as responsible leadership and collaboration in the mass murder of your own people is never acknowledged as such.

It's not Neo-Nazis that are the threat to Jews today. It's the new Nazis and the old Nazis who were rounding up Jews into ghettos and murdering their children long before a thousand years before Hitler. The Neos are pathetically longing for the return of a genocidal state that isn't coming back, while the Muslims are actually working to bring back their genocidal state. They are doing it in Egypt, in Libya, in Pakistan and in England, France and Spain.

Muslims have hated Jews before the telephone, the telegraph, the steam engine, gunpowder, movable type and paper currency. And now surrounded by smartphones, credit cards and jet planes, they still hate them. That simple undeniable fact is denied by government, in every university and in every center of culture. And every one of those deniers has blood on his hands.

Not only the blood of the Jewish children murdered by Mohammed Merah. Not only the blood of Jews murdered by Muslims in France. But the blood of all those who have been killed by Muslim immigrants, no matter of what generation, in the name of Islam.

The names of Chamberlain, Petain and Quisling have become eternally infamous because they stand for appeasement and collaboration. But then what do we make of the names Blair, Sarkozy and Stoltenberg? What have the latter done differently from their predecessors? The left likes to pretend that its collaboration with Islam is moral, while the collaboration with Nazism was immoral. It's a distinction without a difference.

Does it really matter whether the men murdering children in the name of their Fuhrer call him Adolf or Mohammed? Does it matter whether they call themselves Hans or Mohammed? Does it matter whether their fantasies of superiority are based on bad science or bad religion? What matters is the end result. A foreign enemy controls your cities, murders at will and takes your future for his own.

The Tolouse Massacre did not come out of the blue, it follows decades of Muslim violence in France-- a Kristalnacht that has been going on year after year. It will not stop here. Not while there are five million Muslim in France, some of whom are bound to pick up the Koran and take it seriously. The "radical" clerics that Mohammed Merah listened to did not innovate a new religion, there has never been any basis to the teachings of the so-called radicals other than the Koran. The only book more popular in the Muslim world than Mein Kampf.

"O Muslims, O Servant of Allah, there is a Jew behind me, come and kill him." That is what Muslims look forward to in their end times. Rocks and trees that tell them where the Jews are so that the fat faithful servants of Allah don't have to spend too much time and energy searching for their victims. Mohammed Merah did not have any trees or rocks to tell him where to find Jews to kill. But he had a compliant French state which tolerated a known Jihadist to the detriment of his victims.

The question, as always, after every act of Muslim terror is how many more must die? How many? Because the killing will continue. It has gone on for over a thousand years. It is not about to stop now. Muslim leaders who condemn these acts do it for tactical reasons, not moral ones. They don't believe it's wrong to kill rebellious non-Muslims... unless the act rebounds against non-Muslims.

The difference between the "radicals" and the "moderates" is that the radicals want to engage in genocide even while they are a minority, while the moderates want to wait until they are a majority. The radicals are satisfied with killing a few Hindus, Christians, Jews, here and there. The moderates want to wait and kill millions. Neither are our allies. Both are our murderers.

There is no peaceful way forward here. Carving up Czechoslovakia, Cyprus or Israel will not sate the blood lust of people whose egos are fed by hate, who treat every concession as proof of their own superiority, who love nothing so much as for others to fear them. There is no peace to be had with a creed that defines peace exclusively in terms of its own dominance over others.

Islam, like Nazism, is a disease of the soul, a twin sense of superiority and victimhood possessed by the angry corner dwellers of the world, who are certain that they would rule if only it wasn't for all the others holding them back. To understand a Nazi or a Muslim, you don't need to learn their creeds, just stare into the eyes of a wife beater, a pedophile or any bully and you will see that same smirk which easily transforms into outrage, the arrogant tone that turns unctuous when it is set back on its heels, the flickering eyes that are always looking at what they can't have.

You don't need to read the Koran to understand Mohammed Merah, you can just as easily understand the Koran by reading about what Mohammed Merah did. Nothing much has changed in all the centuries, except that Mohammed Merah didn't get to rape the girl he murdered, because the French state was still functional enough to keep him on the run. The day will however come when it won't be and then the peoples of the free world will learn what true Muslim terror really is, as the peoples of Africa and Asia, as the many other religions of the Middle East, including the Jews learned, in the day of the original Mohammed.

There is nothing extraordinary about what Mohammed Merah did. You may think that there is, but that is because you are a citizen of the free world and you have become used to that rare thing known as civilized behavior. But when your nations opened their borders to people who consider your infidel lands, the Dar Al-Harb, the House of the Sword, then civilization gets its throat cut, it gets chased down at a school, has a gun put to its head and the trigger gets pulled.

Killing children is not a shocking act in the Middle East, except when CNN points its cameras the right way. Parents routinely kill their own children for minor offenses that would hardly get an American child grounded. When they move to America or Canada, they kill their children there too and we considerately look away. If they do that to their children, why do you think they will have any more mercy on yours?

There is no point in holding Mohammed Merah accountable for what he did, just as there was no point in bringing Nazi leaders to trial for crimes against humanity. Mohammed recognizes no form of law other than the law of Islam, just as the Nazis recognized no other form of humanity than their own. There is no common moral or legal system that we share with Islam. Equality before the law, the cornerstone of our system, is so much noise in the windy corridors of the mosque. How can the Subhuman be equal to the Aryan, how can the Infidel be equal to the Muslim?

Mohammed Merah is a mad dog and should be treated as what he is. Accountability is for those who share our moral system. It is for our own leaders who continue perpetuating the macabre myth of a religion of peace, even while attending the funerals of tis victims. Accountability is for the Petains, the Chamberlains and the Quislings who have led us into this hole and keep waving in more Mohammeds to come and join the party.

The old Nazis marched in at the head of an army. The new Nazis bought a plane ticket. The old Nazis had to get by the French Armed Forces and the Royal Air Force. The new Nazis are welcomed in and anyone who says a word otherwise faces trials and jail sentences. The old Nazis deported Jews to camps. The new Nazis kill them right in the cities. And the killing will not stop until the Muslim occupation of Europe comes to an end.

TOPICS: Government; Politics; Religion; Society
KEYWORDS: france4childsmurder; franceantisemtism; frenchantisemitism

1 posted on 03/22/2012 4:44:18 AM PDT by expat1000
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: daisy mae for the usa; AdvisorB; wizardoz; free-in-nyc; Vendome; Louis Foxwell; Georgia Girl 2; ...

Sultan Knish/Daniel Greenfield Ping List. FReepmail me to get on or off.
2 posted on 03/22/2012 4:45:04 AM PDT by expat1000
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: justiceseeker93


3 posted on 03/22/2012 4:45:44 AM PDT by expat1000
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: expat1000
. . . members of a superior group that was destined to rule the world and enslave or exterminate members of inferior groups . . .

Those of us who can make this "the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal" have the right to rule the world and enslave inferior groups!

4 posted on 03/22/2012 4:48:19 AM PDT by Pollster1 (Natural born citizen of the USA, with the birth certificate to prove it)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Pollster1

5 posted on 03/22/2012 4:50:55 AM PDT by Vaquero (Molon Labe)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: expat1000
There is no common moral or legal system that we share with Islam. Equality before the law, the cornerstone of our system, is so much noise in the windy corridors of the mosque.

I now find Freedom of Religion to be a somewhat difficult issue. If the religion (Islam) wants to overturn the Constitution, wants to overthrow civil society, wants to impose Sharia law, wants to deny basic rights to others in society -- then how could I justifiably defend such a religion and say that it has a right to exist in America?

We don't allow human sacrifices in this country. We ignore the First Amendment on that. In just the same way, I think all mosques should be shuttered, and all Muslims banned from holding government jobs (TSA, police, elected official, school teacher, etc.)

The war has been going on for 15 centuries. I say we start to fight.

6 posted on 03/22/2012 4:53:54 AM PDT by ClearCase_guy ("And the public gets what the public wants" -- The Jam)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ClearCase_guy
I now find Freedom of Religion to be a somewhat difficult issue. If the religion (Islam) wants to overturn the Constitution, wants to overthrow civil society, wants to impose Sharia law, wants to deny basic rights to others in society — then how could I justifiably defend such a religion and say that it has a right to exist in America?

Freedom of religion does not mean domination by it. Islam is much less a religion than a totalitarian forced political order over mankind. The claimed religious element of Islam is just the cover used to penetrate and infiltrate a free society to gain the upper hand. Since the two elements - Islam 'religion' and totalitarianism - are inseparable, Islam can not coexist in a free society.

7 posted on 03/22/2012 5:13:42 AM PDT by iontheball
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: ClearCase_guy

I now find Freedom of Religion to be a somewhat difficult issue. If the religion (Islam) wants to overturn the Constitution, wants to overthrow civil society, wants to impose Sharia law, wants to deny basic rights to others in society — then how could I justifiably defend such a religion and say that it has a right to exist in America?

You can’t and it doesn’t. Gave that one some thought this morning before this article appeared. The founding fathers seemed to focus on one particular religion in their writings and common was the theme “true religion”. The commonality was with the “word of God” and Jesus Christ, and the moral principles enumerated in the Bible and no other book, that would serve preserve out Republic and individual liberty.

8 posted on 03/22/2012 5:23:20 AM PDT by wita
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: wita
I now find Freedom of Religion to be a somewhat difficult issue.

You can say that again!

9 posted on 03/22/2012 5:25:18 AM PDT by Pollster1 (Natural born citizen of the USA, with the birth certificate to prove it)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Pollster1; iontheball

The quote, which I failed to put in quotes, was from iontheball the post above mine, but I was certainly in agreement.

10 posted on 03/22/2012 5:46:02 AM PDT by wita
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: iontheball

The Nazi Germans should have declared national socialism a religion, Mein kampf could have been their holy book, and they could have renamed the Wehrmacht “Nazi Missionaries”, then they could have demanded that everyone respect and tolerate their religion. Then they could have conquered every country that has white liberal idiots in charge.

11 posted on 03/22/2012 5:46:29 AM PDT by yank in the UK ( A liberal mocking Christianity. I asked "why don't you mock Islam?" he replied "Muslims are violent)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: expat1000


12 posted on 03/22/2012 6:19:24 AM PDT by deadrock
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: expat1000

“And the killing will not stop until the Muslim occupation of Europe comes to an end.”

From another post:
“The killer came out of the bathroom, firing with extreme violence,” Claude Gueant, the interior minister, said, adding that the RAID squad had “never seen an assault like it”

France has over 750 moslem No Go Zones where law enforcement will not enter due to the hostility of their inhabitants being armed with military grade hardware who’re more than willing to use it against the Infidel French who they view as cowards, & if they thought that routing out this one koranimal was difficult, wait til the siege begins in all of the NGOs throughout France.

The Barbarians at the Gates of Paris
~~Theodore Dalrymple

Everyone knows la douce France: the France of wonderful food and wine, beautiful landscapes, splendid châteaux and cathedrals. More tourists (60 million a year) visit France than any country in the world by far. Indeed, the Germans have a saying, not altogether reassuring for the French: “to live as God in France.” Half a million Britons have bought second homes there; many of them bore their friends back home with how they order these things better in France.

But there is another growing, and much less reassuring, side to France. I go to Paris about four times a year and thus have a sense of the evolving preoccupations of the French middle classes. A few years ago it was schools: the much vaunted French educational system was falling apart; illiteracy was rising; children were leaving school as ignorant as they entered, and much worse-behaved. For the last couple of years, though, it has been crime: l’insécurité, les violences urbaines, les incivilités. Everyone has a tale to tell, and no dinner party is complete without a horrifying story. Every crime, one senses, means a vote for Le Pen or whoever replaces him.

I first saw l’insécurité for myself about eight months ago. It was just off the Boulevard Saint-Germain, in a neighborhood where a tolerably spacious apartment would cost $1 million. Three youths—Rumanians—were attempting quite openly to break into a parking meter with large screwdrivers to steal the coins. It was four o’clock in the afternoon; the sidewalks were crowded, and the nearby cafés were full. The youths behaved as if they were simply pursuing a normal and legitimate activity, with nothing to fear.

Eventually, two women in their sixties told them to stop. The youths, laughing until then, turned murderously angry, insulted the women, and brandished their screwdrivers. The women retreated, and the youths resumed their “work.”

A man of about 70 then told them to stop. They berated him still more threateningly, one of them holding a screwdriver as if to stab him in the stomach. I moved forward to help the man, but the youths, still shouting abuse and genuinely outraged at being interrupted in the pursuit of their livelihood, decided to run off. But it all could have ended very differently.

Several things struck me about the incident: the youths’ sense of invulnerability in broad daylight; the indifference to their behavior of large numbers of people who would never dream of behaving in the same way; that only the elderly tried to do anything about the situation, though physically least suited to do so. Could it be that only they had a view of right and wrong clear enough to wish to intervene? That everyone younger than they thought something like: “Refugees . . . hard life . . . very poor . . . too young to know right from wrong and anyway never taught . . . no choice for them . . . punishment cruel and useless”? The real criminals, indeed, were the drivers whose coins filled the parking meters: were they not polluting the world with their cars?

Another motive for inaction was that, had the youths been arrested, nothing would have happened to them. They would have been back on the streets within the hour. Who would risk a screwdriver in the liver to safeguard the parking meters of Paris for an hour?

The laxisme of the French criminal justice system is now notorious. Judges often make remarks indicating their sympathy for the criminals they are trying (based upon the usual generalizations about how society, not the criminal, is to blame); and the day before I witnessed the scene on the Boulevard Saint-Germain, 8,000 police had marched to protest the release from prison on bail of an infamous career armed robber and suspected murderer before his trial for yet another armed robbery, in the course of which he shot someone in the head. Out on bail before this trial, he then burgled a house. Surprised by the police, he and his accomplices shot two of them dead and seriously wounded a third. He was also under strong suspicion of having committed a quadruple murder a few days previously, in which a couple who owned a restaurant, and two of their employees, were shot dead in front of the owners’ nine-year-old daughter.

The left-leaning Libération, one of the two daily newspapers the French intelligentsia reads, dismissed the marchers, referring with disdainful sarcaèm to la fièvre flicardiaire—cop fever. The paper would no doubt have regarded the murder of a single journalist—that is to say, of a full human being—differently, let alone the murder of two journalists or six; and of course no one in the newspaper acknowledged that an effective police force is as vital a guarantee of personal freedom as a free press, and that the thin blue line that separates man from brutality is exactly that: thin. This is not a decent thing for an intellectual to say, however true it might be.

It is the private complaint of everyone, however, that the police have become impotent to suppress and detect crime. Horror stories abound. A Parisian acquaintance told me how one recent evening he had seen two criminals attack a car in which a woman was waiting for her husband. They smashed her side window and tried to grab her purse, but she resisted. My acquaintance went to her aid and managed to pin down one of the assailants, the other running off. Fortunately, some police passed by, but to my acquaintance’s dismay let the assailant go, giving him only a warning.

My acquaintance said to the police that he would make a complaint. The senior among them advised him against wasting his time. At that time of night, there would be no one to complain to in the local commissariat. He would have to go the following day and would have to wait on line for three hours. He would have to return several times, with a long wait each time. And in the end, nothing would be done.

As for the police, he added, they did not want to make an arrest in a case like this. There would be too much paperwork. And even if the case came to court, the judge would give no proper punishment. Moreover, such an arrest would retard their careers. The local police chiefs were paid by results—by the crime rates in their areas of jurisdiction. The last thing they wanted was for policemen to go around finding and recording crime.

Not long afterward, I heard of another case in which the police simply refused to record the occurrence of a burglary, much less try to catch the culprits.

Now crime and general disorder are making inroads into places where, not long ago, they were unheard of. At a peaceful and prosperous village near Fontainebleau that I visited—the home of retired high officials and of a former cabinet minister—criminality had made its first appearance only two weeks before. There had been a burglary and a “rodeo”—an impromptu race of youths in stolen cars around the village green, whose fence the car thieves had knocked over to gain access.

A villager called the police, who said they could not come at the moment, but who politely called back half an hour later to find out how things were going. Two hours later still, they finally appeared, but the rodeo had moved on, leaving behind only the remains of a burned-out car. The blackened patch on the road was still visible when I visited.

The official figures for this upsurge, doctored as they no doubt are, are sufficiently alarming. Reported crime in France has risen from 600,000 annually in 1959 to 4 million today, while the population has grown by less than 20 percent (and many think today’s crime number is an underestimate by at least a half). In 2000, one crime was reported for every sixth inhabitant of Paris, and the rate has increased by at least 10 percent a year for the last five years. Reported cases of arson in France have increased 2,500 percent in seven years, from 1,168 in 1993 to 29,192 in 2000; robbery with violence rose by 15.8 percent between 1999 and 2000, and 44.5 percent since 1996 (itself no golden age).

Where does the increase in crime come from? The geographical answer: from the public housing projects that encircle and increasingly besiege every French city or town of any size, Paris especially. In these housing projects lives an immigrant population numbering several million, from North and West Africa mostly, along with their French-born descendants and a smattering of the least successful members of the French working class. From these projects, the excellence of the French public transport system ensures that the most fashionable arrondissements are within easy reach of the most inveterate thief and vandal.

Architecturally, the housing projects sprang from the ideas of Le Corbusier, the Swiss totalitarian architect—and still the untouchable hero of architectural education in France—who believed that a house was a machine for living in, that areas of cities should be entirely separated from one another by their function, and that the straight line and the right angle held the key to wisdom, virtue, beauty, and efficiency. The mulish opposition that met his scheme to pull down the whole of the center of Paris and rebuild it according to his “rational” and “advanced” ideas baffled and frustrated him.

The inhuman, unadorned, hard-edged geometry of these vast housing projects in their unearthly plazas brings to mind Le Corbusier’s chilling and tyrannical words: “The despot is not a man. It is the . . . correct, realistic, exact plan . . . that will provide your solution once the problem has been posed clearly. . . . This plan has been drawn up well away from . . . the cries of the electorate or the laments of society’s victims. It has been drawn up by serene and lucid minds.”

But what is the problem to which these housing projects, known as cités, are the solution, conceived by serene and lucid minds like Le Corbusier’s? It is the problem of providing an Habitation de Loyer Modéré—a House at Moderate Rent, shortened to HLM—for the workers, largely immigrant, whom the factories needed during France’s great industrial expansion from the 1950s to the 1970s, when the unemployment rate was 2 percent and cheap labor was much in demand. By the late eighties, however, the demand had evaporated, but the people whose labor had satisfied it had not; and together with their descendants and a constant influx of new hopefuls, they made the provision of cheap housing more necessary than ever.

An apartment in this publicly owned housing is also known as a logement, a lodging, which aptly conveys the social status and degree of political influence of those expected to rent them. The cités are thus social marginalization made concrete: bureaucratically planned from their windows to their roofs, with no history of their own or organic connection to anything that previously existed on their sites, they convey the impression that, in the event of serious trouble, they could be cut off from the rest of the world by switching off the trains and by blockading with a tank or two the highways that pass through them, (usually with a concrete wall on either side), from the rest of France to the better parts of Paris. I recalled the words of an Afrikaner in South Africa, who explained to me the principle according to which only a single road connected black townships to the white cities: once it was sealed off by an armored car, “the blacks can foul only their own nest.”

The average visitor gives not a moment’s thought to these Cités of Darkness as he speeds from the airport to the City of Light. But they are huge and important—and what the visitor would find there, if he bothered to go, would terrify him.

A kind of anti-society has grown up in them—a population that derives the meaning of its life from the hatred it bears for the other, “official,” society in France. This alienation, this gulf of mistrust—greater than any I have encountered anywhere else in the world, including in the black townships of South Africa during the apartheid years—is written on the faces of the young men, most of them permanently unemployed, who hang out in the pocked and potholed open spaces between their logements. When you approach to speak to them, their immobile faces betray not a flicker of recognition of your shared humanity; they make no gesture to smooth social intercourse. If you are not one of them, you are against them.

Their hatred of official France manifests itself in many ways that scar everything around them. Young men risk life and limb to adorn the most inaccessible surfaces of concrete with graffiti—BAISE LA POLICE, fuck the police, being the favorite theme. The iconography of the cités is that of uncompromising hatred and aggression: a burned-out and destroyed community-meeting place in the Les Tarterets project, for example, has a picture of a science-fiction humanoid, his fist clenched as if to spring at the person who looks at him, while to his right is an admiring portrait of a huge slavering pit bull, a dog by temperament and training capable of tearing out a man’s throat—the only breed of dog I saw in the cités, paraded with menacing swagger by their owners.

There are burned-out and eviscerated carcasses of cars everywhere. Fire is now fashionable in the cités: in Les Tarterets, residents had torched and looted every store—with the exceptions of one government-subsidized supermarket and a pharmacy. The underground parking lot, charred and blackened by smoke like a vault in an urban hell, is permanently closed.

When agents of official France come to the cités, the residents attack them. The police are hated: one young Malian, who comfortingly believed that he was unemployable in France because of the color of his skin, described how the police invariably arrived like a raiding party, with batons swinging—ready to beat whoever came within reach, irrespective of who he was or of his innocence of any crime, before retreating to safety to their commissariat. The conduct of the police, he said, explained why residents threw Molotov cocktails at them from their windows. Who could tolerate such treatment at the hands of une police fasciste?

Molotov cocktails also greeted the president of the republic, Jacques Chirac, and his interior minister when they recently campaigned at two cités, Les Tarterets and Les Musiciens. The two dignitaries had to beat a swift and ignominious retreat, like foreign overlords visiting a barely held and hostile suzerainty: they came, they saw, they scuttled off.

Antagonism toward the police might appear understandable, but the conduct of the young inhabitants of the cités toward the firemen who come to rescue them from the fires that they have themselves started gives a dismaying glimpse into the depth of their hatred for mainstream society. They greet the admirable firemen (whose motto is Sauver ou périr, save or perish) with Molotov cocktails and hails of stones when they arrive on their mission of mercy, so that armored vehicles frequently have to protect the fire engines.

Benevolence inflames the anger of the young men of the cités as much as repression, because their rage is inseparable from their being. Ambulance men who take away a young man injured in an incident routinely find themselves surrounded by the man’s “friends,” and jostled, jeered at, and threatened: behavior that, according to one doctor I met, continues right into the hospital, even as the friends demand that their associate should be treated at once, before others.

Of course, they also expect him to be treated as well as anyone else, and in this expectation they reveal the bad faith, or at least ambivalence, of their stance toward the society around them. They are certainly not poor, at least by the standards of all previously existing societies: they are not hungry; they have cell phones, cars, and many other appurtenances of modernity; they are dressed fashionably—according to their own fashion—with a uniform disdain of bourgeois propriety and with gold chains round their necks. They believe they have rights, and they know they will receive medical treatment, however they behave. They enjoy a far higher standard of living (or consumption) than they would in the countries of their parents’ or grandparents’ origin, even if they labored there 14 hours a day to the maximum of their capacity.

But this is not a cause of gratitude—on the contrary: they feel it as an insult or a wound, even as they take it for granted as their due. But like all human beings, they want the respect and approval of others, even—or rather especially—of the people who carelessly toss them the crumbs of Western prosperity. Emasculating dependence is never a happy state, and no dependence is more absolute, more total, than that of most of the inhabitants of the cités. They therefore come to believe in the malevolence of those who maintain them in their limbo: and they want to keep alive the belief in this perfect malevolence, for it gives meaning—the only possible meaning—to their stunted lives. It is better to be opposed by an enemy than to be adrift in meaninglessness, for the simulacrum of an enemy lends purpose to actions whose nihilism would otherwise be self-evident.

That is one of the reasons that, when I approached groups of young men in Les Musiciens, many of them were not just suspicious (though it was soon clear to them that I was no member of the enemy), but hostile. When a young man of African origin agreed to speak to me, his fellows kept interrupting menacingly. “Don’t talk to him,” they commanded, and they told me, with fear in their eyes, to go away. The young man was nervous, too: he said he was afraid of being punished as a traitor. His associates feared that “normal” contact with a person who was clearly not of the enemy, and yet not one of them either, would contaminate their minds and eventually break down the them-and-us worldview that stood between them and complete mental chaos. They needed to see themselves as warriors in a civil war, not mere ne’er-do-wells and criminals.

The ambivalence of the cité dwellers matches “official” France’s attitude toward them: over-control and interference, alternating with utter abandonment. Bureaucrats have planned every item in the physical environment, for example, and no matter how many times the inhabitants foul the nest (to use the Afrikaner’s expression), the state pays for renovation, hoping thereby to demonstrate its compassion and concern. To assure the immigrants that they and their offspring are potentially or already truly French, the streets are named for French cultural heroes: for painters in Les Tarterets (rue Gustave Courbet, for example) and for composers in Les Musiciens (rue Gabriel Fauré). Indeed, the only time I smiled in one of the cités was when I walked past two concrete bunkers with metal windows, the école maternelle Charles Baudelaire and the école maternelle Arthur Rimbaud. Fine as these two poets are, theirs are not names one would associate with kindergartens, let alone with concrete bunkers.

But the heroic French names point to a deeper official ambivalence. The French state is torn between two approaches: Courbet, Fauré, nos ancêtres, les gaullois, on the one hand, and the shibboleths of multiculturalism on the other. By compulsion of the ministry of education, the historiography that the schools purvey is that of the triumph of the unifying, rational, and benevolent French state through the ages, from Colbert onward, and Muslim girls are not allowed to wear headscarves in schools. After graduation, people who dress in “ethnic” fashion will not find jobs with major employers. But at the same time, official France also pays a cowering lip service to multiculturalism—for example, to the “culture” of the cités. Thus, French rap music is the subject of admiring articles in Libération and Le Monde, as well as of pusillanimous expressions of approval from the last two ministers of culture.

One rap group, the Ministère amer (Bitter Ministry), won special official praise. Its best-known lyric: “Another woman takes her beating./ This time she’s called Brigitte./ She’s the wife of a cop./ The novices of vice piss on the police./ It’s not just a firework, scratch the clitoris./ Brigitte the cop’s wife likes niggers./ She’s hot, hot in her pants.” This vile rubbish receives accolades for its supposed authenticity: for in the multiculturalist’s mental world, in which the savages are forever noble, there is no criterion by which to distinguish high art from low trash. And if intellectuals, highly trained in the Western tradition, are prepared to praise such degraded and brutal pornography, it is hardly surprising that those who are not so trained come to the conclusion that there cannot be anything of value in that tradition. Cowardly multiculturalism thus makes itself the handmaiden of anti-Western extremism.

Whether or not rap lyrics are the authentic voice of the cités, they are certainly its authentic ear: you can observe many young men in the cités sitting around in their cars aimlessly, listening to it for hours on end, so loud that the pavement vibrates to it 100 yards away. The imprimatur of the intellectuals and of the French cultural bureaucracy no doubt encourages them to believe that they are doing something worthwhile. But when life begins to imitate art, and terrible gang-rapes occur with increasing frequency, the same official France becomes puzzled and alarmed. What should it make of the 18 young men and two young women currently being tried in Pontoise for allegedly abducting a girl of 15 and for four months raping her repeatedly in basements, stairwells, and squats? Many of the group seem not merely unrepentant or unashamed but proud.

Though most people in France have never visited a cité, they dimly know that long-term unemployment among the young is so rife there that it is the normal state of being. Indeed, French youth unemployment is among the highest in Europe—and higher the further you descend the social scale, largely because high minimum wages, payroll taxes, and labor protection laws make employers loath to hire those whom they cannot easily fire, and whom they must pay beyond what their skills are worth.

Everyone acknowledges that unemployment, particularly of the permanent kind, is deeply destructive, and that the devil really does find work for idle hands; but the higher up the social scale you ascend, the more firmly fixed is the idea that the labor-market rigidities that encourage unemployment are essential both to distinguish France from the supposed savagery of the Anglo-Saxon neo-liberal model (one soon learns from reading the French newspapers what anglo-saxon connotes in this context), and to protect the downtrodden from exploitation. But the labor-market rigidities protect those who least need protection, while condemning the most vulnerable to utter hopelessness: and if sexual hypocrisy is the vice of the Anglo-Saxons, economic hypocrisy is the vice of the French.

It requires little imagination to see how, in the circumstances, the burden of unemployment should fall disproportionately on immigrants and their children: and why, already culturally distinct from the bulk of the population, they should feel themselves vilely discriminated against. Having been enclosed in a physical ghetto, they respond by building a cultural and psychological ghetto for themselves. They are of France, but not French.

The state, while concerning itself with the details of their housing, their education, their medical care, and the payment of subsidies for them to do nothing, abrogates its responsibility completely in the one area in which the state’s responsibility is absolutely inalienable: law and order. In order to placate, or at least not to inflame, disaffected youth, the ministry of the interior has instructed the police to tread softly (that is to say, virtually not at all, except by occasional raiding parties when inaction is impossible) in the more than 800 zones sensibles—sensitive areas—that surround French cities and that are known collectively as la Zone.

But human society, like nature, abhors a vacuum, and so authority of a kind, with its own set of values, occupies the space where law and order should be—the authority and brutal values of psychopathic criminals and drug dealers. The absence of a real economy and of law means, in practice, an economy and an informal legal system based on theft and drug-trafficking. In Les Tarterets, for example, I observed two dealers openly distributing drugs and collecting money while driving around in their highly conspicuous BMW convertible, clearly the monarchs of all they surveyed. Both of northwest African descent, one wore a scarlet baseball cap backward, while the other had dyed blond hair, contrasting dramatically with his complexion. Their faces were as immobile as those of potentates receiving tribute from conquered tribes. They drove everywhere at maximum speed in low gear and high noise: they could hardly have drawn more attention to themselves if they tried. They didn’t fear the law: rather, the law feared them.

I watched their proceedings in the company of old immigrants from Algeria and Morocco, who had come to France in the early 1960s. They too lived in Les Tarterets and had witnessed its descent into a state of low-level insurgency. They were so horrified by daily life that they were trying to leave, to escape their own children and grandchildren: but once having fallen into the clutches of the system of public housing, they were trapped. They wanted to transfer to a cité, if such existed, where the new generation did not rule: but they were without leverage—or piston—in the giant system of patronage that is the French state. And so they had to stay put, puzzled, alarmed, incredulous, and bitter at what their own offspring had become, so very different from what they had hoped and expected. They were better Frenchmen than either their children or grandchildren: they would never have whistled and booed at the Marseillaise, as their descendants did before the soccer match between France and Algeria in 2001, alerting the rest of France to the terrible canker in its midst.

Whether France was wise to have permitted the mass immigration of people culturally very different from its own population to solve a temporary labor shortage and to assuage its own abstract liberal conscience is disputable: there are now an estimated 8 or 9 million people of North and West African origin in France, twice the number in 1975—and at least 5 million of them are Muslims. Demographic projections (though projections are not predictions) suggest that their descendants will number 35 million before this century is out, more than a third of the likely total population of France.

Indisputably, however, France has handled the resultant situation in the worst possible way. Unless it assimilates these millions successfully, its future will be grim. But it has separated and isolated immigrants and their descendants geographically into dehumanizing ghettos; it has pursued economic policies to promote unemployment and create dependence among them, with all the inevitable psychological consequences; it has flattered the repellent and worthless culture that they have developed; and it has withdrawn the protection of the law from them, allowing them to create their own lawless order.

No one should underestimate the danger that this failure poses, not only for France but also for the world. The inhabitants of the cités are exceptionally well armed. When the professional robbers among them raid a bank or an armored car delivering cash, they do so with bazookas and rocket launchers, and dress in paramilitary uniforms. From time to time, the police discover whole arsenals of Kalashnikovs in the cités. There is a vigorous informal trade between France and post-communist Eastern Europe: workshops in underground garages in the cités change the serial numbers of stolen luxury cars prior to export to the East, in exchange for sophisticated weaponry.

A profoundly alienated population is thus armed with serious firepower; and in conditions of violent social upheaval, such as France is in the habit of experiencing every few decades, it could prove difficult to control. The French state is caught in a dilemma between honoring its commitments to the more privileged section of the population, many of whom earn their livelihoods from administering the dirigiste economy, and freeing the labor market sufficiently to give the hope of a normal life to the inhabitants of the cités. Most likely, the state will solve the dilemma by attempts to buy off the disaffected with more benefits and rights, at the cost of higher taxes that will further stifle the job creation that would most help the cité dwellers. If that fails, as in the long run it will, harsh repression will follow.

But among the third of the population of the cités that is of North African Muslim descent, there is an option that the French, and not only the French, fear. For imagine yourself a youth in Les Tarterets or Les Musiciens, intellectually alert but not well educated, believing yourself to be despised because of your origins by the larger society that you were born into, permanently condemned to unemployment by the system that contemptuously feeds and clothes you, and surrounded by a contemptible nihilistic culture of despair, violence, and crime. Is it not possible that you would seek a doctrine that would simultaneously explain your predicament, justify your wrath, point the way toward your revenge, and guarantee your salvation, especially if you were imprisoned? Would you not seek a “worthwhile” direction for the energy, hatred, and violence seething within you, a direction that would enable you to do evil in the name of ultimate good? It would require only a relatively few of like mind to cause havoc. Islamist proselytism flourishes in the prisons of France (where 60 percent of the inmates are of immigrant origin), as it does in British prisons; and it takes only a handful of Zacharias Moussaouis to start a conflagration.

The French knew of this possibility well before September 11: in 1994, their special forces boarded a hijacked aircraft that landed in Marseilles and killed the hijackers—an unusual step for the French, who have traditionally preferred to negotiate with, or give in to, terrorists. But they had intelligence suggesting that, after refueling, the hijackers planned to fly the plane into the Eiffel Tower. In this case, no negotiation was possible.

A terrible chasm has opened up in French society, dramatically exemplified by a story that an acquaintance told me. He was driving along a six-lane highway with housing projects on both sides, when a man tried to dash across the road. My acquaintance hit him at high speed and killed him instantly.

According to French law, the participants in a fatal accident must stay as near as possible to the scene, until officials have elucidated all the circumstances. The police therefore took my informant to a kind of hotel nearby, where there was no staff, and the door could be opened only by inserting a credit card into an automatic billing terminal. Reaching his room, he discovered that all the furniture was of concrete, including the bed and washbasin, and attached either to the floor or walls.

The following morning, the police came to collect him, and he asked them what kind of place this was. Why was everything made of concrete?

“But don’t you know where you are, monsieur?” they asked. “C’est la Zone, c’est la Zone.”

La Zone is a foreign country: they do things differently there.

13 posted on 03/22/2012 7:54:46 AM PDT by bayouranger (The 1st victim of islam is the person who practices the lie.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: bayouranger

‘An Islamist threat like the Nazis’


The Washington Times

Monday, September 12, 2005 (Part 1 of 3)

Tony Blankley, editorial-page editor of The Washington Times, describes the present danger posed by militant Islam and what must be done to counter it in his new book, “The West’s Last Chance: Will We Win the Clash of Civilizations?” (Regnery Publishing)

First of three parts

The threat of the radical Islamists taking over Europe is every bit as great to the United States as was the threat of the Nazis taking over Europe in the 1940s.

We cannot afford to lose Europe. We cannot afford to see Europe transformed into a launching pad for Islamist jihad.

Part 2 - Needed: Old war spirit in a new war

American writer and social historian Studs Terkel memorably called World War II “the good war.”

Terkel interviewed hundreds of GIs and their families many years after the war. They recalled that the struggle lifted them above their personal lives to fight on behalf of something they believed was greater than themselves.

World War II was good, despite the millions of deaths, the limitations on daily lives, the encroachment on peacetime liberties and the arduousness of wartime life. The war was good because the sacrifice was for a noble cause, for the perpetuation of America and the American way of life.

The struggle against Islamist terrorism is an equally good war — and for the same reasons. We have just as great a responsibility to win our struggle against insurgent Islamist aggression as our parents and grandparents had to win World War II.

Part 3 - At war with an enemy of an unspoken name (Category Error)

When President Bush declared war on terrorism, he did not, legally, put the country on a war footing.

Up until now, we have never accurately named the enemy or the danger. If the government can’t speak the real name and nature of the enemy, it becomes impossible to explain, or even design, a policy for victory.

This is why Mr. Bush — who has tried to talk around the problem of radical Islam — has seemed (to his critics) foolish or deceitful, neither of which he is.

What we need is a clear congressional declaration of war, as prescribed by the Constitution. Congress should declare war on the Islamist jihadists.

14 posted on 03/22/2012 8:06:46 AM PDT by bayouranger (The 1st victim of islam is the person who practices the lie.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: expat1000
New Nazis; same as the old Nazis

A picture taken in 1943 of the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem Haj Amin el-Husseini reviewing Bosnian-Muslim troops - a unit of the "Hanjar (Saber) Division" of the Waffen SS which he personally recruited for Hitler.

The Führer's Mufti: After World War I, the Great Powers of Europe jockeyed for influence in the Middle East's oil fields and trade routes, with France and Britain holding mandates throughout most of the region. In the 1930s, the fascist regimes that arose in Italy and Germany sought greater stakes in the area, and began courting Arab leaders to revolt against their British and French custodians. Among their many willing accomplices was Jerusalem Mufti Haj Amin el-Husseini, who fled Palestine after agitating against the British during the Arab Revolt of 1936-39. He found refuge in Iraq – another of Her Majesty's mandates – where he again topped the British most wanted list after helping pull the strings behind the Iraqi coup of 1941. The revolt in Baghdad was orchestrated by Hitler as part of a strategy to squeeze the region between the pincers of Rommel's troops in North Africa, German forces in the Caucuses and pro-Nazi forces in Iraq. However, in June 1941 British troops put down the rebellion and the Mufti escaped via Tehran to Italy and eventually to Berlin.

Once in Berlin, the Mufti received an enthusiastic reception by the "Islamische Zentralinstitut" and the whole Islamic community of Germany, which welcomed him as the "Führer of the Arabic world." In an introductory speech, he called the Jews the "most fierce enemies of the Muslims" and an "ever corruptive element" in the world. Husseini soon became an honored guest of the Nazi leadership and met on several occasions with Hitler. He personally lobbied the Führer against the plan to let Jews leave Hungary, fearing they would immigrate to Palestine. He also strongly intervened when Adolf Eichman tried to cut a deal with the British government to exchange German POWs for 5000 Jewish children who also could have fled to Palestine. The Mufti's protests with the SS were successful, as the children were sent to death camps in Poland instead. One German officer noted in his journals that the Mufti would liked to have seen the Jews "preferably all killed." On a visit to Auschwitz, he reportedly admonished the guards running the gas chambers to work more diligently. Throughout the war, he appeared regularly on German radio broadcasts to the Middle East, preaching his pro-Nazi, anti-Semitic message to the Arab masses back home.

To show gratitude towards his hosts, in 1943 the Mufti travelled several times to Bosnia, where on orders of the SS he recruited the notorious "Hanjar troopers," a special Bosnian Waffen SS company which slaugh-tered 90% of Bosnia's Jews and burned countless Serbian churches and villages. These Bosnian Muslim recruits rapidly found favor with SS chief Heinrich Himmler, who established a special Mullah Military school in Dresden.

The only condition the Mufti set for his help was that after Hitler won the war, the entire Jewish population in Palestine should be liquidated. After the war, Husseini fled to Switzerland and from there escaped via France to Cairo, were he was warmly received. The Mufti used funds received earlier from the Hilter regime to finance the Nazi-inspired Arab Liberation Army that terrorized Jews in Palestine.

The Arab Embrace of Nazism: Husseini represents the prevalent pro-Nazi posture among the Arab/Muslim world before, during and even after the Holocaust. The Nazi-Arab connection existed even when Adolf Hitler first seized power in Germany in 1933. News of the Nazi takeover was welcomed by the Arab masses with great enthusiasm, as the first congratulatory telegrams Hitler received upon being appointed Chancellor came from the German Consul in Jerusalem, followed by those from several Arab capitals. Soon afterwards, parties that imitated the National Socialists were founded in many Arab lands, like the "Hisb-el-qaumi-el-suri" (PPS) or Social Nationalist Party in Syria. Its leader, Anton Sa'ada, styled himself the Führer of the Syrian nation, and Hitler became known as "Abu Ali" (In Egypt his name was "Muhammed Haidar"). The banner of the PPS displayed the swastika on a black-white background. Later, a Lebanese branch of the PPS – which still receives its orders from Damascus – was involved in the assassination of Lebanese President Pierre Gemayel.

The most influential party that emulated the Nazis was "Young Egypt," which was founded in October 1933. They had storm troopers, torch processions, and literal translations of Nazi slogans – like "One folk, One party, One leader." Nazi anti-Semitism was replicated, with calls to boycott Jewish businesses and physical attacks on Jews. Britain had a bitter experience with this pro-German mood in Egypt, when the official Egyptian government failed to declare war on the Wehrmacht as German troops were about to conquer Alexandria.

After the war, a member of Young Egypt named Gamal Abdul Nasser was among the officers who led the July 1952 revolution in Egypt. Their first act – following in Hitler's footsteps – was to outlaw all other parties. Nasser's Egypt became a safe haven for Nazi war criminals, among them the SS General in charge of the murder of Ukrainian Jewry; he became Nasser's bodyguard and close comrade. Alois Brunner, another senior Nazi war criminal, found shelter in Damascus, where he served for many years as senior adviser to the Syrian general staff.

Sami al-Joundi, one of the founders of the ruling Syrian Ba'ath Party, recalls: "We were racists. We admired the Nazis. We were immersed in reading Nazi literature and books... We were the first who thought of a translation of Mein Kampf. Anyone who lived in Damascus at that time was witness to the Arab inclination toward Nazism."

These leanings never completely ceased. Hitler's Mein Kampf currently ranks sixth on the best-seller list among Palestinian Arabs. Luis Al-Haj, translator of the Arabic edition, writes glowingly in the preface about how Hitler's "ideology" and his "theories of nationalism, dictatorship and race… are advancing especially within our Arabic States." When Palestinian police first greeted Arafat in the self-rule areas, they offered the infamous Nazi salute - the right arm raised straight and upward.

The PLO and notably Arafat himself did not make a secret of their source of inspiration. The Grand Mufti el-Husseini is venerated as a hero by the PLO. It should be noted, that the PLO's top figure in east Jerusalem today, Faisal Husseini, is the grandson to the Führer's Mufti. Arafat also considers the Grand Mufti a respected educator and leader, and in 1985 declared it an honor to follow in his footsteps. Little wonder. In 1951, a close relative of the Mufti named Rahman Abdul Rauf el-Qudwa el-Husseini matriculated to the University of Cairo. The student decided to conceal his true identity and enlisted as "Yasser Arafat."

Writers: Paul Longgrear, Raymond McNemar

15 posted on 03/22/2012 2:18:21 PM PDT by N. Theknow (Kennedys=Can't drive, can't ski, can't fly, can't skipper a boat, but they know what's best for you.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: N. Theknow

Heinrich Himmler’s Remarkable Admiration For Islam: “It Promises Beautiful Women In Heaven”

May 26, 2009

Heinrich Himmler’s Remarkable Admiration For Islam: “It Promises Beautiful Women In Heaven”


Heinrich Himmler (1900-1945), Hitler’s notorious “Reichsführer SS” (Federal leader of the SS) and chief of the German police, is one of the greatest mass murderers of the 20th century. Not only was he directly responsible for the death of at least six million Jews but also for the death of countless others most of whom belonged to so-called “inferior races” or simply despised Nazism. Moreover, a lot of German enemies and political opponents of the “Third Reich” also died in concentration camps and prisons – as a result of the brutal practices of SS and State Security Police or “Gestapo.” (Gestapo chief Heinrich Müller had once visited Russia where he had been impressed by the methods of Stalin’s secret police.)

Less well known is the fact that the same Heinrich Himmler warmly embraced Islam or “Mohammedanism” as it was called then. He admired the religion of the Muslims because it promised that there will be “beautiful women in paradise for those who die in battle.” (Many of today’s suicide bombers – often sexually frustrated young males – have also deluded themselves into believing that 72 smiling “Huris” or virgin beauties are waiting for them in paradise.)

Felix Kersten (1898-1990) was Himmler’s personal masseur and confidant. It was seven years after the war that Kersten published his sensational memoirs, “Totenkopf und Treue.” The Kersten memoirs were also published in English but, unfortunately, the original chapter on Himmler’s “Enthousiasm for Islam” (”Begeisterung für Islam”) was conspicuously lacking in the English edition. Although some of Kersten’s claims are exaggerated, other parts of his memoirs seem to be fairly reliable. Roger Manvell and Heinrich Fraenkel, two leading Himmler biographers, believe that Kersten “became the most powerful influence in Himmler’s life after the death of Heydrich.” There is no doubt that Kersten met Himmler quite often and that they were very close friends. This is apparent, for example, from the numerous references to Kersten in Himmler’s 1941/42 office diary/appointment book (”Dienstkalender”), published in Hamburg in 1999. On March 21, 1945, Himmler wrote a very friendly letter to Kersten, thanking him for a recent visit:

“This time I was again delighted when you came here and used your tremendous medical skills as a token of (our) long friendship. In the many years we know each other we discussed many problems.”

Kersten kept notes of everything Himmler told him. He was the only man whose “miraculous hands” could relieve Himmler’s pain. Himmler’s health was rather poor as he was suffering from severe stomach cramps. “The moment he was relieved of pain, Himmler began to unburden his mind,” Roger Manvell and Heinrich Fraenkel write.

The fact that Himmler did not hesitate to nearly exclusively confide in Kersten was not appreciated by other high ranking SS officers. It seems that Himmler was well aware of this. He personally warned SS Security Service chief Ernst Kaltenbrunner, that should Kersten be murdered, he, Kaltenbrunner would not survive Kersten longer than 24 hours. Kaltenbrunner’s predecessor Reinhold Heydrich did not like Felix Kersten either. He thought the Finish masseur was a spy. But Heydrich, too, could not have Kersten arrested or killed since he knew that the Finnish masseur enjoyed Himmler’s personal protection. (As he was traveling in an open car Heydrich was attacked by two British supported partisans in Prague in May 1942 and later died in hospital.)

Kersten was not a spy, but he did have high level contacts both in Germany and Sweden. It was through his efforts and personal influence on Himmler that 3500 Jews could be transferred from Nazi concentration camps to Sweden. And this was not the only thing Kersten did to save those who suffered under Nazi persecution. On December 12, 1945, the World Jewish Congress sent a letter to Kersten thanking him for his successful efforts to save the 3500 Jews as well as for his generous willingness to help whenever he could.

Himmler: “Islam is a practical and sympathetic religion for soldiers”

British historian Peter Longerich recently published a 1035-page study on Himmler quoting, inter alia, from documents in the German Federal Archives in Berlin (”Bundesarchiv Berlin”). Longerich quotes Himmler as saying in November 1944 that Islam is “a practical and sympathetic religion for soldiers.” “It promises that those who fall in battle will go to heaven.”

We find similar quotes in Kersten’s 1952 book. On December 1, 1942, Himmler told Kersten:

“Mohammed knew that most people are terribly cowardly and stupid. That is why he promised two beautiful women to every courageous warrior who dies in battle. This is the kind of language a soldier understands. When he believes that he will be welcomed in this manner in the afterlife, he will be willing to give his life, he will be enthousiastic about going to battle and not fear death. You may call this primitive and you may laugh about it, but it is based on deeper wisdom. A religion must speak a man’s language.”

Himmler, whose parents were devout and conservative Bavarian Catholics, publicly left the Catholic Church in the summer of 1936. In his conversations with Kersten he later lashed out against the Catholic Church, the Vatican and Christianity in general. Christianity does not promise anything to the soldiers and warriors who die in battle, Himmler said. They either go to hell or heaven – there is just no reward for fighting bravely. “And now compare this, Herr Kersten, to the religion of the Mohammedans, a religion of people’s soldiers.”

In other words, Himmler admired the Muslim concept of martyrdom: if you die on the battlefield as a jihadist (Muslim holy warrior) and so become a martyr, you will be amply rewarded in the afterlife (”paradise”). This is precisely what Haj Amin Al-Husseini told the Muslim soldiers in the SS.

It was in the first half of 1942 that Himmler and an SS officer named Adolf Eichmann befriended this firebrand cleric – the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem whom the Nazis had welcomed to Berlin. Haj Amin Al-Husseini, whose hatred of the Jews equalled that of the Nazis, arrived in Nazi Germany in November 1941 and was received by Hitler that same month. The Grand Mufti wanted the Nazis to approve his plan for a pro-Nazi Muslim fighting force or “Arab legion.” Hitler initially declined, but Himmler was enthousiastic about the idea. In November 1943, the SS Reichsführer sent a telegram to the Grand Mufti, saying there existed “a natural bond between National Socialist Greater Germany and the freedom loving Mohammedans throughout the world.”

Earlier that year, a special Muslim unit had been created inside Himmler’s “Waffen-SS” (the combat arm of the SS). It was called the “SS-Handschar Division” and largely consisted of Bosnian Muslims. In 1944, the Handschar Division committed serious war crimes in Yugoslavia killing Serb civilians. (After the war, Yugoslav leader Marshall Tito wanted Al-Husseini for war crimes but the French and the British had no intention of upsetting the Arab world.) Al-Husseini traveled to Sarajevo in October 1944 to address his men from the Handschar Division. He said that the National Socialist and the Islamic world view largely ran parallel. “The Germans are the real friends of the 400 million Muslims,” he added. In April 1944, the SS founded its own “Imam training school” in Guben, near Cottbus. Himmler strongly supported this initiative and the Grand Mufti gave the opening ceremony speech.

Himmler told his masseur Felix Kersten on December 2, 1942, that he was reading serious books on the “Mohammedan religion.” When the war was over, he said, he wanted to visit the Islamic countries himself with a view to continuing his studies. “Look, how wise (”vernünftig”) this religion is.”

Himmler: “Let us assume that the Turkish Muslim armies would have conquered Vienna and Europe in 1683...”

Five days later, Himmler told Kersten that he regretted the fact that the Turkish Muslim armies had not been able to conquer Europe in 1683:

“Let us assume that the Turks in whose ranks Europeans were fighting as well, even in high positions, would have conquered Vienna and Europe in 1683 instead of having been forced to withdraw. If the Mohammedans would have gained the victory at the time and Islam would have swept victoriously over Europe, then the Christian churches would have been depoliticized. (...) For the Turks were religiously tolerant, they allowed each religion to continue to exist, provided it was no longer involved in politics – otherwise it was finished.”

This view comes close to the Muslim concept of the so-called “Caliphate” or Allah’s kingdom on earth. The same concept is also embraced by many terrorists belonging to Al-Qaeda. Al-Qaeda leaders Osama bin Laden and Ayman Al-Zawahiri repeatedly said they strongly regretted that the Muslims had been driven out of Spain (”Al-Andalus”) in the late Middle Ages. They call on Muslims to reconquer “every stolen Islamic land, from Palestine to Al-Andalus and other Islamic lands that were once lost because of the betrayals of rulers and the feebleness of Muslims.” Many militant Muslims believe that Europe can also be conquered though massive immigration flows from the Muslim world.


There is something else that Himmler and the militant Muslims have in common. Both believe in polygamy and having lots of the children. Indeed, the Muslim prophet Mohammed himself, “is usually said to have had fourteen wives in the strict sense, of whom nine survived him,” W. Montgomery Watt, a British expert on Islam, writes. (Montgomery Watt then identifies the names and age of thirteen wives or concubines.) Himmler once told Kersten: “The multiple marriage (”Mehrehe”) also exists in other countries, so why shouldn’t this be the case here?” Katrin Himmler, Heinrich Himmler’s great-niece, recently published an excellent book on the three Himmler brothers. Himmler was officially married to Marga Boden, but Hedwig Potthast was his mistress, she writes. Himmler and Miss Potthast who was his secretary once, lived as if they were married. They had two children. Himmler told his SS men to follow his example: the more “Aryan” children they would beget, the more women they would make pregnant, the better. “We must show courage and act decisively in this matter, even if it means arousing still greater opposition from the Church,” Himmler told Kersten.

It is not very strange that some high ranking SS criminals later found refuge in the Muslim world. Alois Brunner, for example, lived in Syria for many years. (He is problably no longer alive.) Others went to Egypt. Militant Muslims, but also many Egyptians, Syrians and Saudis, embrace a virulent kind of anti-Semitism. Osama bin Laden, whose father was from Yemen but later settled in Saudi Arabia, and Ayman Al-Zawahiri, an Egyptian, call on their followers to kill Jews and Americans wherever they can be found. Khalid Sheikh Mohammed who coordinated the 9/11 attacks and is currently in Guantanamo Bay, made no secret of his anti-Semitism when he proudly announced at a hearing that he “decapitated with his blessed right hand the head of the American Jew, Daniel Pearl.”

If Himmler – like Eichmann and Brunner – would somehow have managed to escape from Nazi Germany, he would probably have tried to reach a safehaven in a Muslim or Latin American country. Instead, he committed suicide on May 23, 1945, now 64 years ago. He was a coward who did not want to face his judges and answer for his manifold and terrible crimes.

Emerson Vermaat is a Dutch investigative reporter. He is author of a major Dutch study on temporary alliances between extremists: “Nazi’s, Communisten en Islamisten” (”Nazis, Communists and Islamists”), Aspekt Publishers, Soesterberg, Netherlands, November 2008).



Heinrich Himmler’s SS & Gestapo (DVD documentary, Eagle Rock Entertainment, 1999). Heinrich Müller was appointed by Himmler and admired the methods of Stalin’s secret police, the NKVD.

Roger Manvell and Heinrich Fraenkel, Heinrich Himmler. The Sinister Life of the Head of the SS and the Gestapo (New York: Skyhorse Publishing, Inc., 2007, p. 175 (”...single most powerful influence...”), p. 181 (”We must act decisively in this matter...”), p .176 (”The moment he was relieved of pain...”). This study was first published in 1965. A German edition was published in 1981: Heinrich Fraenkel and Roger Manvell, Himmler. Kleinbürger und Massenmörder (Herrsching: Manfred Pawlak Verlagsgesellschaft/Berlin: Verlag Ullstein, 1981), p. 166.

Heinrich Himmler, Der Dienstkalender Heinrich Himmler 1941/42 (Hamburg: Hans Christian Verlag, 1999). See the index under “Kersten.

Felix Kersten, Totenkopf und Treue. Heinrich Himmler ohne Uniform (Hamburg: Robert Mölich Verlag, 1952), p. 12 (full text of letter from the World Jewish Congres to Felix Kersten, December 15, 1945), p. 122 (”Er – Heydrich – habe seiner Umgebung gegenüber den Verdacht geäussert ich stände in feindlichen Nachrichtendienst....”), p. 127 (Heydrich to Kersten: “Ich glaube Ihnen kein Wort, ich weiss, dass Sie nicht auf unserer Seite stehen.”), p. 203 (”Darum verhiess er – Mohammed – jedem Krieger, der tapfer in der Schlacht kämpft und fällt, zwei schöne Frauen zur Belohnung...”), p. 205 (”Er erklärte mir, er wolle nach dem Krieg selbst die islamischen Länder besuchen und dort Studien machen.”), p. 206-208 (”Wenn die Türken Europa erobert hätten...”), p. 226 (”In anderen Länder besteht ja auch die Mehrehe, warum soll es bei uns nicht gehen?”), p. 358, 359 (full text of Himmler’s letter to Kersten, dated March 21, 1945 (”In den langen Jahren unserer Bekanntschaft haben wir uns ja über viele Probleme unterhalten...”).

H.R. Trevor-Roper, Himmlers Leibarzt, in: Der Monat. Eine Internationale Zeitschrift, November 1956 (vol. 9, number 98), p. 70. Heinrich Himmler to Ernst Kaltenbrunner, Chief of the SS Security Service (SD): “Wenn Kersten umgelegt wird, überlebst du ihn nicht um vierundzwanzig Stunden.”

Peter Longerich, Heinrich Himmler. Biographie (München: Siedler Verlag, 2008), p. 277. (”...eine für Soldaten praktische und sympathische Religion...” “...verspricht ihnen den Himmel, wenn sie gekämpft haben und im Kampf gefallen sind.” See also: Bundesarchiv Berlin (BAB), NS 19/4013, November 26, 1944.

Emerson Vermaat, Nazi’s, Communisten en Islamisten. Opmerkelijke Allianties tussen Extremisten (Soesterberg, Netherlands: Aspekt Publishers, 2008), p. 38-41 (Al-Husseini).

Bruce Lawrence, Messages to the World. The Statements of Osama bin Laden (New York: Verso, 2005), p. 14, 91, 227.

W. Montgomery Watt, Muhammad at Medina (Oxford: At the Clarendon Press, 1966), p. 395-397 (”Muhammad’s marriages”).

Katrin Himmler, Die Brüder Himmler. Eine deutsche Familiengeschichte (Frankfurt am Main: Fischer Taschenbuch Verlag, 2008), p. 233-246. Katrin Himmler is highy critical both of Heinrich Himmler and his two brothers (Gebhard and Ernst; Ernst was her grandfather). Katrin Himmler is married to an Israeli Jew with whom she has a son. She reveals that Heinrich Himmler’s father later joined the Nazi party and was very proud of his son’s career.

Major General Charles J. Dunlap and Major Linell A. Letendre, Military Lawyering and Professional Independence in the War on Terror: A Response to David Luban, in: Stanford Law Review, 2008, vol. 61, issue 2, p. 429 (Khalid Sheikh Mohammed).

16 posted on 03/22/2012 2:20:48 PM PDT by dfwgator (Don't wake up in a roadside ditch. Get rid of Romney.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: wita

I don’t think you have a solid grasp of what “freedom of religion” means in the constitution. So don’t make any big decisions on whether you agree with the founders or not based on your misunderstandings. :)

If Shria ever makes any ground in the USA, it will be because liberals, Marxist citizens of the world, impose it on the people of the US through extra legal means. It will be unconstitutional, but they don’t care about the rule of law anymore. They wannabe global rulers. Muslims would pop their heads like a zit.

17 posted on 03/22/2012 2:37:53 PM PDT by SaraJohnson
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: wita

I don’t think you have a solid grasp of what “freedom of religion” means in the constitution. So don’t make any big decisions on whether you agree with the founders or not based on your misunderstandings. :)

If Shria ever makes any ground in the USA, it will be because liberals, Marxist citizens of the world, impose it on the people of the US through extra legal means. It will be unconstitutional, but they don’t care about the rule of law anymore. They wannabe global rulers. Muslims would pop their heads like a zit.

18 posted on 03/22/2012 2:38:15 PM PDT by SaraJohnson
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: SaraJohnson

I don’t think you have a solid grasp of what “freedom of religion” means in the constitution. So don’t make any big decisions on whether you agree with the founders or not based on your misunderstandings. :)

You will need to be much more specific, and please try to avoid starting out with debate killing comments, as your lead.

19 posted on 03/23/2012 4:43:01 AM PDT by wita
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794 is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson