The 4 Freedoms Library

It takes a nation to protect the nation

Admin: this forum header contains 3 comments.  The first two are from Joe Bloggs, and the 3rd is a long article by Paul Austin Murphy.  This has been done to allow easy location of some key info.  This forum has become a repository for info about the Fascist Left = National Socialists = Nazis.
_______________________________________________________________________________

Joe Bloggs: Etymology of the word "Nazi"

I came across this account in a book on the SS (which I picked up in a museum bookshop, and forgot to write down the details).  So, stumbling across it again today (in search for the quote about Egyptian national radio glorifying the Holocaust in the 1960s), I thought I'd record it for posterity.

“The term “Nazi” (along with “Nazism”) is a political epithet invented by Konrad Heiden (7 August 1901 – 18 June 1966) during the 1920s as a means of denigrating the NSDAP and National Socialism. Heiden was a journalist and member of the Social Democratic Party. The term is a variant of the nickname that was used in reference to members of the SDP at the time “Sozi” (short for Sozialisten). “Nazi” was a political pun, based upon the Austro-Bavarian slang word for “simpleton” or “country bumpkin”, and derived from the fairly common name Ignatz. It would be like saying “nutsy”.  So, if for no other reason, one should easily understand why the term was regarded as derogatory by the National Socialists and why they would never use it to describe themselves.  One should also see why it would be used and popularized by Marxist-Bolshevik agitators and understand how it was seized upon by various other political opponents and  subversive types, both within Germany and abroad, including the international media and political leaders of the western powers.” (Metapedia)

http://justice4germans.com/page/20/

I haven't got the time to do an assessment of either metapedia or the site where I found that quote. However, it fits exactly with my memory of what the book on the SS said about the creation and popularisation of the term "Nazi".  Every time we use "Nazi" rather than "National Socialist", we are enabling the Left to disown the collectivist genocide of jews done in the name of Socialism.

http://4freedoms.com/group/argumentation/forum/topics/why-national-...

_______________________________________________________________________________

Joe Bloggs: The True History of Germany and the 2nd World War

I think that National Socialism is going to be rehabilitated (particularly in Germany).

This book was self-published in 2009, and by 2011 the German version had gone through 11 editions.  Even the English language version is on its 6th edition. 

http://www.lulu.com/shop/gerd-schultze-rhonhof/1939-the-war-that-ha...

The internet revolution is robbing the power elite (media, academics) of their hold over information/narratives. 

A documentary of the book is available on the internet, and makes surprising viewing.  It contains a lot of information/claims about the run-up to WW2 of which I was unaware.  The documentaries shown on British TV take a very different angle.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7mA0kk29DBA

The bottom line is this: Germans are starting to say that blame for the causes of WW2 lie elsewhere than Hitler/Germany. When people start to realise that National Socialism was (for its time) a "progressive", socialist, redistributive, unifying ideology I can see Germans starting to find that they've been lied to for a long time. Since the modern Leftists are also jew-hating/anti-Israeli, then I can see the taint of anti-semitism being a small price for them to pay to reclaim their national pride. God help us if the Leftists embrace National Socialism rather than rejecting the cartoon version of "nazism" and fascism we've been fed for 50 years or more.  Since the muslims in Europe are leading this resurgence in neo-nazism, it could be a terrible alliance.

We are living in extraordinary times.

===========================================================================================

Paul Austin Murphy: Why National Socialists (Nazis) are Socialists & Not Patriots

We are socialists, we are enemies of today’s capitalistic economic system for the exploitation of the economically weak, with its unfair salaries, with its unseemly evaluation of a human being according to wealth and property instead of responsibility and performance, and we are all determined to destroy this system under all conditions.” - Adolph Hitler, May 1, 1927

We will initiate massive state-subsidized work programs in order to fulfil our goal of full employment at fair and just wage… the capitalist system has created a war between the classes. The losers of this war have been the working class… the modern class structure being based largely on one’s economic prowess… The spoils of this parasitical elite class will be seized and redistributed to the people.” - Andrew Anglin, 2013, from the blog, Total Fascism

Introduction

A website commentator, by the name Jamie Clayton, once told me why he was such a fan of National Socialism. He wrote:

Under the national socialist government there was 100% employment, big business was not allowed to profit at the expense of small and the poor were valued as much as the rich...”

This is almost word for word what countless Communists/Leftists have said about Stalin's regime as well about various other Leftist states. In fact Seumas Milne, the assistant editor of the Guardian, still often waxes lyrically about how the Soviet Union (in Jamie Clayton's words) “created100% employment” and made sure that “big business was not allowed to profit at the expense of small” and “the poor were valued as much as the rich”. Or, in Seumas Milne's own words, the Soviet Union

delivered rapid industrialisation, mass education, job security and huge advances in social and gender equality. It encompassed genuine idealism and commitment...”

The issues Seumas Milne doesn't address (except to downplay or deny them), are those of the totalitarianism, the complete annihilation of democracy, the labour and death camps, the Gestapo/KGB, the class and race 'liquidations', the war economies, the Soviet Union's imperialist empire, the deadly uniformity, etc. But who cares about all that if you have “100% employment”, “social justice” and “class equality”?

Marxist Accounts of National Socialism

There have been literally hundreds of Marxist/Leftist accounts of the nature of fascism and Nazism; as well as of the rise of the Nazis and fascists in the 1920s and 30s. (Many accounts have been Marxist even though the writers and analysts didn't necessarily see themselves as being Marxists.)

All of these accounts claim that Hitler’s and Mussolini’s socialist credentials were completely baseless.

That's strange. Mussolini started out life as a literal or explicit socialist. He spent at least twelve years of his life as a socialist activist and many of the ideas and values of socialism stayed with him throughout the rest of his life. Hitler, On the other hand, is said to have adopted socialist ideas and policies simply to serve his racial nationalism. (Why couldn't he have been both a racial nationalist and a socialist? More of which later.)

Leftists/Marxists also glibly claim that that the Nazis and fascists didn’t genuinely believe in “the common ownership of the means of production”. Perhaps not. However, not a single socialist or Communist regime in the 20th century put the means of production in the workers’ hands either. The Communist parties - or the Communist/socialist states - put the means of production into their own hands - even if “on behalf of the workers”. Not only that. Many socialists and Communist knew that this would happen - and even said this this would happen - well before they gained state power. So, in the end, the means of production, in the 20th century, were never in the hands on the workers in any country or at any time. (But, of course, come the next Leftist revolution, everything will be so much better.. and if not then, perhaps the time after that.) Consequently, from a socialist/Communist perspective, singling out the Nazis and fascists for being guilty on this count is a little rich.

As I said, some – though not all – Leftists/Marxists claim that from the very start (i.e., circa 1920), Hitler simply used socialism for his own ends. Nonetheless, Professor Rick Wilford does at least deign to cite the Nazi’s socialist ‘Twenty-Five Point programme’ of 1920 (note this academic's unacademic use of irony):

The ‘Twenty-Five Point Programme’ of the Nationalist Socialist German Workers Party published in 1920 included such ostensibly impeccable socialist goals as the nationalisation of large corporations, the abolition of unearned income, the confiscation of war profits and the prohibition of land speculation. But the commitment to such an agenda wore increasingly thin, albeit, albeit that Hitler was keenly aware of the need to counteract the growth of support among workers for socialism…” (page 200)

On the other hand, some Marxists have vaguely - or quietly - admitted that Hitler was indeed a socialist - of some kind - in the very early days. Nonetheless, they too claim that by the late 1920s Hitler had completely given up on socialism.

Another Marxist/Leftist claim is that Hitler “was keenly aware of the need to counteract the growth of support among the workers for socialism”. This completely overlooks or discounts the possible fusion of socialism and nationalism. That's also odd if you consider the rather obvious fact that Hitler was a National Socialist.

Specifically, Marxists/Leftists discount two things. Firstly, they discount Hitler’s fusion of national and socialism. Secondly, they also discount the possibility that German workers (even if socialist) would - or could - have quite happily accepted Hitler’s fusion of socialism and nationalism. It’s as if Leftists/Marxists simply take it for granted that nationalism and socialism could never have been fused and therefore that the German workers would never have been truly committed to Hitler’s National Socialism. Yet why couldn’t nationalism and socialism have been fused? Do Marxists think it is a conceptual or even a logical impossibility? Surely not! And why couldn’t millions of German workers have happily accepted that fusion of nationalism and socialism?

Again, Leftists/Marxists reject even the very possibility of any fusion of nationalism and socialism. That mindless assumption, or Marxist diktat, is of course believed - or simply just propagated - to distance all (international) socialists from Hitler’s (national) socialists.

Another claim is that Hitler never had the mass support of the German workers anyway. Professor Wilford writes that

[b]y the later 1920s the relative failure of the Nazi Party to secure mass support among the working class led them to re-orientate their appeal to capitalists, small businessmen, farmers and white-collar workers.”

Some historians have argued that the Nazis did, in fact, have the mass support of the workers by the late 1920s. But it all depends on what exactly 'mass support’ means (in terms of numbers). If Leftists mean that Hitler never had the support of all – literally! - the German working class; then Hitler simply wouldn't have needed that level of support to secure political victory. In fact in all kinds of democracy no party has ever needed or received such mass support in order to secure power. (England's SWP usually has a year turn-over of about 1500 members.)

Another well-known Marxist commonplace is that Hitler turned his back on the workers and then embraced the ‘capitalists’ instead (in the late 1920s and early 1930s). Apart from this not be true on many historical and political accounts, Leftists imply that Hitler wouldn’t have welcomed the support of “capitalists, small businessmen, farmers and white-collar workers” in the early 1920s. That simply isn’t true either. Hitler was always a national socialist. If that were not the case, he would have simply been a socialist in the early days. But he was never a revolutionary socialist - who believed in class war - and no one has ever claimed that he was. The whole point of National Socialism, even in the early 1920s, was that it was against class conflict. It wanted to unite the classes on behalf on the nation and the German race. And there are many quotes from both Hitler and the Nazis generally which explicitly state that the uniting of the classes, although still within an explicitly socialist context, was a primary goal of National Socialism. (The Marxist “abolition of all classes” is another version of this same Nazi idea – the unification of all classes.)

So if it were the case - as on the classic Marxist account - of Hitler and the National Socialists stringing the German working class along, and then jettisoning them because of “the relative failure of the Nazi Party to secure mass support among them”, then all that doesn’t make much sense. In other words, the Nazis actually embraced ‘capitalists’ from the beginning – or at least Hitler and the ‘Right socialists’ did. Many capitalists, on the other hand, didn’t return that favour until, in actual fact, after Hitler was elected in 1933 - or at the very least immediately before. And all this despite the fact that in the Marxist version, the Nazis secured important capitalist support in the late 1920s and onwards. This is not to say that some capitalists didn’t support the Nazis before 1933 – of course they did! Nevertheless, the Marxist version has it that the capitalists exclusively helped Hitler gain power. On many other non-Marxist accounts, on the other hand, most capitalists (though it depends on which type of capitalist we are talking about) jumped ship to the Nazis just before or after the Nazis were elected (as capitalists or businessmen often do when a new party gains power).

 

Finally, Hitler's 25-point plan sums up Hitler's socialist credentials well and very explicitly. This plan is virtually indistinguishable from what, for example, the SWP/Counterfire/Respect - and many other Leftist groups - have offered over the years. However, since the plan was written in the early 1920s, it will obviously sound a little antiquated in certain respects.

Despite it various archaic phrases and policies, Hitler's socialist plan for Germany graphically demonstrates one of the biggest political lies or deceits of the 20th century: that the National Socialists were the literal opposites of the International Socialists (i.e., Communists, progressives, Trotskyists, etc.). Not surprisingly Leftists (Seumas Milne is a very good example of this) will want to keep this dirty little family secret hidden from the public at large. Indeed numerous Leftists over the years have come up with all sorts of neat little gimmicks and deceits to play down the socialist realities and credentials of the Nazi Party and of Adolph Hitler himself. But what else would you expect?

 

Why Both International Socialism & National Socialism are Totalitarian

Historically, Leftists have always claimed that “equating Stalin’s Russia with Nazi German and fascist Italy was a powerful way of demonising the communist threat to liberal democracy” (Wilford, pg. 213). Or, to quote Seumas Milne again, such “fashionable attempt[s] to equate communism and Nazism [are] moral and historical nonsense”.

Not only that. Leftists don't like the fact that the term ‘totalitarianism’ is “employed in a cavalier fashion” when applied to Communist/socialist regimes – any Communist/socialist regimes! It seems that the charge of totalitarianism cannot - by definition! - be applied to any Communist/socialist regime. Predictably, this simply means that only the Nazi and fascist regimes of the twentieth century were truly totalitarian. Well, well, who'd have thought otherwise, eh?

There are, of course, differences between Nazism and Communism/socialism. And Marxists/Leftists have fixated on these difference as a means to distance Communist/Marxist totalitarianism from Nazi/fascist totalitarianism. Nonetheless, these difference can’t - and don’t - mean that 20th century Communist/socialist regimes weren't totalitarian. For example, there are differences between democratic parliamentary parties: that doesn’t stop all of them being committed to parliamentary democracy. There were differences - some quite substantial! - between Italian fascism and German Nazism: that never stopped Marxists/Leftists from lumping them together.

Yes, Marxists/Leftists do indeed have their own quaint, insubstantial and unimportant differences in mind when they claim that no Communist/socialist regime - and even Stalin’s Soviet Union! - was ever totalitarian. Nonetheless, they are differences that don't make a difference to this issue.

So despite all the above, National Socialists are almost the exact counterparts of International Socialists. The following are just some of the many things which Leftists and Nazis believe and share:

i) A hatred of capitalism, (“capitalist”)democracy and America.

ii) The glorification - or fetishisation - of (Nazi/Leftist) state and street violence; all often in conjunction with the same - though sometimes tacit - hard-man's mantra: “By any means necessary.”

iii) Black-and-white (or Manichean) world-views with all the consequent conspiracy theories (often the same ones!) which go along with them.

iv) The promise full employment, selfless leaders, complete class equality and the annihilation of the Jews (or 'Zionists' in the case of Leftists).

That's why Leftists and Nazis need each other. They reflect each other and are fighting over the same political bones.

These two groups of socialists, both national and international, have sustained themselves on these largely unreal ideological oppositions. (Their mutual fight for political power, however, has always been very real.) Nazis would be nothing without the Marxists/Communists and vice versa. They feed off each other and would die if the other died. And that's mainly why the Inter-Nazis class everyone on the outside of their own little gang/sect as 'Nazis'; and it's equally why Nazis class everyone on the outside of their own little gang/sect as 'Marxists'/'Communists'.

After 90 years, this cartoon battle between the Reds and the Blacks has become very boring and entirely predictable. It's a pseudo-fight of supposedly “opposing ideologies” which simply disguises the fact that the Reds and Blacks are estranged brothers fighting, ultimately, for the same end – complete state power. And in order to bring that state power nearer, they promise us virtually the same economic and social prizes for our support.

 

Why National Socialists aren't Patriots

National Socialism is a biological struggle, or group evolutionary survival strategy… Nationalism can only be based on race or ethnicity. National Socialism is ultra-patriotism. - Mark Pringle

There you go again spouting you anti-nazi rhetoric! You should join Hope not Hate my leftist friend and stop playing at Nationalist politics.... a liberal piece of shit like you. Your lack of understanding of racial and ethnic dynamics is frightening. You are not part of the solution but part of the problem... what else would I expect of a liberal pretending to be a nationalist.” - Athelstan

Of course the massive differences between patriotism and National Socialism/fascism are conveniently ignored by International Socialists/Leftists (as well as by Nazis when they need to spread their word to patriots who aren't Nazis). It's very convenient for them to be able to fuse patriotism with Nazism/fascism - all the better to destroy them both. However, the terrible fact is that International Socialists share far more with National Socialists than patriots do! This shouldn't be at all surprise if you consider the fact that the two groups are both totalitarian and socialist.

 

For a start, state-worship is not the same as patriotism.

English National Socialists will of course say that they too are against the state. However, National Socialists aren’t against the state in the abstract. National Socialists are against the current state or government. Why? Because it’s not a National Socialist state.

If it were a National Socialist state, Nazis would worship it; which Nazis, historically, have always done. Indeed because Nation Socialism is essentially about the worship of the National Socialist state, Nazis wouldn’t think twice about annihilating patriots (such as “liberal nationalists”) who didn’t worship that state. They'd also annihilate all the patriots who didn't do or think the things that the Nazi state - or the Nazi Party - required of them.

Patriots, on the other hand, aren’t necessarily against the state or government; they just don’t confuse love of the state/government with love of the people and their traditions, cultures and values.

This Nazi inability to distinguish states and peoples is shown in the virulent anti-Americanism which has always been rife in Nazi movements (as it has been in Leftist and Islamist movements). I quoted Jamie Clayton early on and here again he shows his Nazi credentials with his position on America as well as his position on Israel (i.e., the Jews):

Does America sympathise with the Palestinians? Or does it despite its supposed hatred of tyranny side with the occupier rather than the occupied?”

And elsewhere he writes:

America is a bully and there is nothing more satisfying than watching a bully being beaten and humiliated by those they have spend years tormenting.”

What you have here is that because Nazis associate the people with the state, this person is failing to distinguish Americans from what various American states/governments have done. To a Nazi, the state must embody the people (or race) rather than simply be its servant. That's why you get this mindless anti-Americanism from Nazis (which goes all the way back to Hitler).

This is not to say that all American patriots will be against the state/government no matter what it does. It depends. Some American patriots, for example, are complete isolationists when it comes to foreign policy (or interventions) and some aren't. Nazis, on the other hand, are totally committed to whatever the Nazi state does and totally against whatever any non-Nazi/fascist state does (e.g., America, the UK and Israel).

And just as you can hardly expect any self-respecting Nazi to have good things to say about a capitalist democracy like America and its people (save American Nazis), so you can't expect a Nazi to support a leader who helped defeat the Nazis – Winston Churchill. Hence Jamie Clayton believes that Churchill “betrayed Britain”. And if it were up to him, “his remains would go in the same skip Jimmy Saviles grave ended up in”. Or, to put it the way Mark Pringle put it: You EDL are always going on about Churchill.”

It's also blindingly obvious that no Nazi will have any time for a constitutional monarchy, such as we have here in the UK. Despite his embarrassingly naivete about how much actual power the Queen has, and how little power the monarchy has had ('the royal prerogative' was last used, in Parliamentary terms, in 1835) in the last two hundred years or so, Clayton still feels the need to tell us that

although we are a democracy, we could easily be like Saudi Arabia if we wanted as the Queen allows us a democracy that is in no way compulsory.”

In addition to all that, you will have no doubt often heard National Socialists (along with Leftists) talking about the government/state “censoring views”, “limiting freedom of speech”, and “silencing certain opinions”. When they do so, they're exclusively talking about their own views, their own freedom of speech and their own opinions. Thus Nazis (as well as Leftists) hate the government/state not for its hatred of free speech in the abstract - but for its hatred of National Socialist free speech. If the National Socialists (or Leftists) gained power, they would censor views, limit free speech, etc. on a scale that would even make our present Government seem libertarian – as history has shown.

Finally, what I have never understood is why an English patriot would be so keen on German National Socialism - and the way the Nazis did things - in the first place. The English have their own ways of doing things. The German National Socialists - who were of a specific historical period (1921-1945) - had their own very German way of doing things. So what’s so English about German National Socialism? Why do British Nazis want to mimic German Nazis who only had political power for 12 years (a shorter period than Tony Blair's New Labour)?

The British hate Nazism and there is no British version of Nazism (or of totalitarianism). Previous English versions of Nazism were utterly indebted to foreign models: from Oswald Mosley's Italian fascism to the obsessions with German Nazism of the British National Socialist Movement (BNSM) (formerly the British Movement), Combat 18, etc.

I would say that at any one time, there are less than 1500 active Nazis in the UK, probably less. (In other words, probably less or equal to the entire membership of the SWP.) So it doesn’t matter how many juvenile and ultra-hard Nazi websites there are, or even how active some hard-core Nazis are on other people's websites or in other movements, the British are highly unlikely to buy into fascism in the near future. It’s not in our nature. However, yes, come a severe enough crisis, then people, in large numbers, may well do so. But having said that, they are just as likely to adopt revolutionary Marxism or even Islamism in such a crisis. Sometimes it doesn't really matter - to the politically and socially desperate - what extreme remedy they adopt; especially if they're being deceitfully offered an unspoken utopia by Leftists/Nazis/Islamists.

Just as Hitler's Nazis hated the English and their traditions, so too do contemporary English Nazis (as do, of course, Trotskyists/progressives and Communists). But primarily they hate English democracy. They hate it because it won't do exactly what they want it to do. And as a result of the inevitable failures (some real, some bogus) of all democracies - including our own, Nazis (as well as Leftists) must believe that all non-Nazis suffer from “false consciousness”. You see, both Nazis and Leftists believe that because the platonic Media has such a complete control of all our gullible minds and souls, then the only way we could possibly escape from its omnipresent lies would be to embrace Nazism or Leftism and thus, in the process, free ourselves from our false (i.e., non-Nazi/non-Leftist) consciousness.

The 'media', et al explain – if only to them - why the majority of English people simply won't buy their totalitarian package-deals.

The fact is that the English, on the whole, simply love their freedom too much. Consequently, the promise or bribe of “100% employment” and all the other visionary prizes (even if achievable) Leftists and Nazis offer us, simply won't sway the deal.

Tags: -, Fascism, Nazism, PAM, Socialism, and, articles, collected

Views: 1986

Replies to This Discussion

My gut feeling, often mocked by allies when I have articulated, that 

 islam -> communism -> nazism

(via various mutations)

has also been seen by greater thinkers than I: Bertrand Russell and Jules Monnerot.  The following comes from the site of the great Andrew Bostom. I urge everyone to get every book he's published on islam.  IMO history will show he was a one-man university, putting to shame every arabic/islamic university department in the west.

Bostom published this in December 2009, just after I'd woken up to the truth about islam. I wish I'd discovered it back then. To find that my gut feeling was recognised 100 years ago by others, gives me the inspiration to add the detailed exposition of this to the list of books I want to write.

From Communism as “The 20th Century Islam,” to “Islam as the 21st Century Communism?”

Jules Monnerot’s, 1949 “Sociologie du Communisme,” was translated into English and published as “Sociology and Psychology of Communism,” by The Beacon Press, Boston,  in 1953. Monnerot elaborated at length upon a brief, but remarkably prescient observation by Bertrand Russell, published already in 1920, which compared emerging Bolshevism to Islam. Russell had noted in his “The Practice and Theory of Bolshevism,” (London, 1920), pp. 5, 114-115:

“Bolshevism combines the characteristics of the French Revolution with those of the rise of Islam… Those who accept Bolshevism become impervious to scientific evidence, and commit intellectual suicide. Even if all the doctrines of Bolshevism were true, this would still be the case, since no unbiased examination of them is tolerated…Among religions, Bolshevism is to be reckoned with Mohammedanism [Islam] rather than with Christianity and Buddhism. Christianity and Buddhism are primarily personal religions, with mystical doctrines and a love of contemplation. Mohammedanism and Bolshevism are practical, social, unspiritual, concerned to win the empire of this world.”

Monnerot made very explicit connections between pre-modern Islamic and 20th century Communist totalitarianism. The title of his first chapter dubbed Communism as “The Twentieth Century Islam”. He elucidates these two primary shared characteristics of Islam and Communism: “conversion”—followed by subversion—from within, and the fusion of “religion” and state. But Monnerot’s brilliant, remarkably compendious analysis in chapter 1 also introduces the modern Western reader to apposite examples from Islam’s enduring Legacy of Jihad—Mahmud of Ghazni, Togrul Beg, Alp Arslan, the Fatimids of Egypt, the Shiite Persian Safavids, and even the ostensibly “pacific, benevolent” Sufis. Here are extracts from pp. 15, 18-20, of the first chapter:

“[p.15]: …There is a resemblance between the use made of Marxism by the present masters of the totalitarian world and the conversion of nomadic barbarians…such as the Turkish mercenaries Mahmud of Ghazna [Ghazni; modern Afghanistan], [and the Turcomen of Asia Minor] Togrul Beg, and Alp Arslan to the universal religion[s] of the civilization[s] they threatened, namely…Islam…Like Stalin’s Marxism, their conversion gave them the pretext for disrupting civilization from within [emphasis in original]; as converst they were able to attack in the name of the true Faith the very societies which had brought the Faith to them. In the same way the Marxist chiefs of totalitarian Russia attack Western society from within, attempting to destroy the social structure of European countries for the sake of the socialism to which these countries themselves gave birth.”

[pp. 18-20]: “Communism takes the field both as a secular religion [emphasis in original] and as a universal State[emphasis in original]; it is therefore…comparable to Islam…Soviet Russia (to use the name it gives itself, although it is a misdescription of the regime) is not the first empire in which the temporal and public power goes hand in hand with a shadowy power which works outside the imperial frontiers to undermine the social structure of neighboring States. The Islamic East affords several examples of a like duality and duplicity. The Egyptian Fatimids, and later the Persian Safavids, were the animators and propagators, from the heart of their own States, of an active and organizing legend, an historical myth, calculated to make fanatics and obtain their total devotion, designed to create in neighboring States an underworld of ruthless gangsters. The eponymous ancestor of the Safavids was a saint from whom they magically derived the religious authority in whose name they operated. They were Shi’is of Arabian origin, and the militant order they founded was dedicated to propaganda and ‘nucleation’ throughout the whole of Persia and Asia Minor. It recruited ‘militants’ and ‘adherents’ and ‘sympathizers’. These were the Sufis. [emphasis added] As rulers, their sympathies were recognized by other sovereigns in the same way that Stalin, head of the State, is recognized by other heads of States, and rightly, as the leader of world communism. This merging of religion and politics was a major characteristic of the Islamic world in its victorious period. It allowed the head of a State to operate beyond his own frontiers in the capacity of the commander of the faithful (Amir-al-muminin); and in this way a Caliph was able to count upon docile instruments, or captive souls, wherever there were men who recognized his authority. The territorial frontiers which seemed to remove some of his subjects from his jurisdiction were nothing more than material obstacles; armed force might compel him to feign respect for the frontier, but propaganda and subterranean warfare could continue no less actively beyond it.

Religions of this kind acknowledge no frontiers. Soviet Russia is merely the geographical center from which communist influence radiates; it is an ‘Islam’ on the march, and it regards its frontiers at any given moment as purely provisional and temporary. Communism, like victorious Islam, makes no distinction between politics and religion…To an educated European or American, unless he is himself a communist, it appears that communists are religious fanatics in the service of an expansionist empire which is striving for world dominion. But communists see it differently: for them communism is what ought to be, and the whole of history, the whole past of humanity, takes its meaning from this future event…Communism is a faith, and it has in Russia a sort of fatherland; but such a fatherland cannot be a country like any other. Russia is to communism what the Abbasid empire was to Islam. Communism…is a religious sect of world conquerors for whom Russia is simply the strongpoint from which the attack is launched.”

Monnerot returns briefly to Islam’s paradigmatic fusion of religion and state in chapter 12, entitled, “Twentieth Century Absolutism,” invoking [on p. 219] another relevant historical example—the Ottoman empire, and its brutal jihad enslavement and forced conversion to Islam of subjected Christian children for the slave soldier devshirme-janissary system.

“Islam has provided the type of society in which the political and the sacred are indissolubly merged. The law of the Koran was religious, political, and civil all in one; and an infidel could be no more than a tributary [emphasis in original]. In history and in law he appeared as an object, but not as a participating subject; and the Ottoman empire was interested in the children of infidels only because they could be recruited as janissaries. During the great period of Islamic conquests the State, in so far as it existed in our sense of the word, participated [emphasis in the original] in the sacred doctrine of the prophet [Muhammad] and was its embodiment and life. The companions of the prophet, partakers in the revolutionary legitimacy, did not constitute a Church; nor do the secular religions inherent in 20th century absolutisms, but the power of the prophetic elite (which is what the party’s ‘summit’ is at the moment when the new State is created) is all the more absolute for being, as it were, a condensation of the power of the whole society. And the leader represents the extreme point of condensation.”

Elsewhere, I have demonstrated that contemporary jihadism—despite certain prevalent but very misguided understandings—possesses, critically, no serious ideological affinity with the practical world order envisioned by Communist totalitarians, who clearly do not long for a Shari’a (Islamic Law)-based global “Caliphate.” Consider the most recognizable modern Shiite jihadist, Ayatollah Khomeini. Khomeini’s 1942 speech “Islam Is Not a Religion of Pacifists,” is a modern vision of the classical formulations of jihad, which states plainly, and accurately,

“…those who study jihad will understand why Islam wants to conquer the whole world.  All the countries conquered by Islam or to be conquered in the future will be marked for everlasting salvationFor they shall live under [Allah’s law; the Sharia]….Those who know nothing of Islam pretend that Islam counsels against war.  Those [who say this] are witless.  Islam says: Kill all the unbelievers just as they would kill you all!  Does this mean that Muslims should sit back until they are devoured by [the unbelievers]?  Islam says:  Kill them [the non-Muslims], put them to the sword and scatter [their armies].  Does this mean sitting back until [non-Muslims] overcome us?  Islam says: Kill in the service of Allah those who may want to kill you!  Does this mean that we should surrender [to the enemy]?  Islam says: Whatever good there is exists thanks to the sword and in the shadow of the sword!  People cannot be made obedient except with the sword!  The sword is the key to paradise, which can be opened only for holy warriors!

There are hundreds of other [Koranic] psalms and hadiths [sayings of the prophet] urging Muslims to value war and to fight.  Does all that mean that Islam is a religion that prevents men from waging war?  I spit upon those foolish souls who make such a claim.”

Thus despite whatever transient “alliances” Khomeini may have forged with Iranian Communists to remove the Shah in the late 1970s, he found their views anathema, and eventually purged these erstwhile “allies.” Moreover, even during the early 1970s, as detailed in Mahmood Davari’s “The Political Thought of Ayatullah Murtaza Mutahhari” ( Routledge Curzon, London, 2005, pp.76-77) Khomeini disputed the views of a group of Communists—the “Mujahidin Khalq”—seeking his support at a private meeting with him in Najaf.

“Khomeini listened to the delegations’ explanations about their ideology, in a series of secret audiences (probably 24 sessions). He also tried to test their religious beliefs by asking them some questions on theological issues, but they failed to present satisfactory replies. Furthermore he urged them to change their views about Marxism and international communism…”

Following the Islamic takeover of 1979, and the subsequent assassination of his close student Ayatollah Mutahhari—another avowed anti-Communist cleric—Khomeini, during a public speech on June 25, 1980 which was entitled, ‘A hypocrite [munafiq] is worse than an unbeliever [kafir],’ made reference to the Najaf encounters with the Communist Mujahidin Khalq in 1971. According to Davari,

“He [Khomeini] then disclosed that the Mujahidin representatives had come with a mouthful of dangerous lies, claiming to champion Islam but all the time planning secretly to use their ‘irresponsible talk of armed struggle’ to destroy Islam and the ulama. He concluded his attack by mentioning that he had not been fooled by these compulsive liars, for he had kept in mind the old parable of the recent Jewish convert in Hamadan who incessantly quoted the Quran without having the faintest notion about Islam.”

On the other hand it is very plausible that the nearly 1400 year old menace of Islamic jihadism is currently exploiting 20th century Communist tactics during Islam’s ongoing triumphant revival, which has extended into the 21st century.

A concluding observation from Jules Monnerot (which invokes the scholar Ernest Renan [d. 1892], in chapter 10, “The Psychology of Secular Religions”, p. 141) underscores how incoherent Western “intellectual” apologists for totalitarianism—whether Communist or Islamic—promote the advance of these destructive ideologies.

“Renan’s saying, ‘the principle of mythology consists in giving life to words’, applies literally to these ‘isms.’ Thus ‘communism’ may possess a vitality, a prestige, and an authority which do not depend upon the actions of ‘communists’. One has heard ‘sympathizers’ in all sincerity reproaching communists for being unfaithful to communism, and one might conclude that these ‘intellectuals’ attribute priority and superiority, or in any case primacy, to ‘essence’ over ‘existence’. Thus communism is no longer the sum or epitome of the morals and behavior and beliefs and customs of communists, but a sort of self-subsistent entity which can be known by contemplation and in the light of which the behavior of communists can be judged; so that the intellectual whose good intentions place him, in his own eyes, upon a pedestal, can remonstrate, ‘Communists, what have you made of communism?’”

http://www.andrewbostom.org/2009/12/from-communism-as-the-20th-cent...

Here are some others:

Islam has also been compared more precisely to Nazism or sometimes Fascism, usually used synonymously. For example, Carl Jung, the famous Swiss psychiatrist, was asked in the late 1930s in an interview if he had any views on what was likely to be the next step in religious development. He replied, referring to the rise of Nazism in Germany, "We do not know whether Hitler is going to found a new Islam. He is already on the way; he is like Muhammad. The emotion in Germany is Islamic; warlike and Islamic. They are all drunk with wild god. That can be the historic future."[10]

Karl Barth[11], also writing in the 1930s [12], reflected on the threat of Hitler, and his similarities to Muhammad: "Participation in this life, according to it the only worthy and blessed life, is what National Socialism, as a political experiment, promises to those who will of their own accord share in this experiment. And now it becomes understandable why, at the point where it meets with resistance, it can only 

Manfred Halpern, [1924-2001], was a politics professor at Princeton for nearly forty years. Born in Germany in 1924, Halpern and his parents fled the Nazis in 1937 for America. He joined the war against the Nazis as a battalion scout in the 28th Infantry Division, and saw action in Battle of the Bulge and elsewhere. After Germany's surrender, he worked in U.S. Counterintelligence, tracking down former Nazis. In 1948 he joined the State Department, where he worked on the Middle East, and in 1958 he came to Princeton, where he did the same. In 1963, Princeton published his Politics of Social Change in the Middle East and North Africa, an academic treatment of Islamism, which Halpern labeled "neo-Islamic totalitarianism":

"The neo-Islamic totalitarian movements are essentially fascist movements. They concentrate on mobilizing passion and violence to enlarge the power of their charismatic leader and the solidarity of the movement. They view material progress primarily as a means for accumulating strength for political expansion, and entirely deny individual and social freedom. They champion the values and emotions of a heroic past, but repress all free critical analysis of either past roots or present problems."

Halpern continued, "Like fascism, neo-Islamic totalitarianism represents the institutionalization of struggle, tension, and violence. Unable to solve the basic public issues of modern life—intellectual and technological progress, the reconciliation of freedom and security, and peaceful relations among rival sovereignties—the movement is forced by its own logic and dynamics to pursue its vision through nihilistic terror, cunning, and passion. An efficient state administration is seen only as an additional powerful tool for controlling the community. The locus of power and the focus of devotion rest in the movement itself. Like fascist movements elsewhere, the movement is so organized as to make neo-Islamic totalitarianism the whole life of its members".[14]

As Martin Kramer said "his rigorous treatment of Islamism stands up well, and his equating it with fascism was a serious proposition, made by someone who had seen fascism up close".[15]

The comparison of Islamism with fascism was also put forward by Maxime Rodinson, [1915- 2004] the eminent French scholar of Islam, and by common consent one of three greatest scholars of Islam of the 20th century, who pioneered the application of sociological method to the Middle East. As a French Jew born in 1915, Rodinson also learned about fascism from direct experience; his parents perished in Auschwitz. Rodinson replied to Michel Foucault-to be discussed at length below- and Foucault's uncritical endorsement of the Iranian Revolution. In a long front-page article in Le Monde, Rodinson targeted those who "come fresh to the problem in an idealistic frame of mind." Rodinson admitted that trends in Islamic movements such as the Muslim Brotherhood were "hard to ascertain....But the dominant trend is a certain type of archaic fascism (type de fascisme archaïque). By this I mean a wish to establish an authoritarian and totalitarian state whose political police would brutally enforce the moral and social order. It would at the same time impose conformity to religious tradition as interpreted in the most conservative light."[16]

in Ibn Warreq (2009) Apologists of Totalitarianism: From Communism to Islam, Part I ISLAM AS TOTALITARIANISM

http://www.thedivineconspiracy.org/Z5228E.pdf

Ramzy Paul on how to combat accusations of 'fascism':
http://youtu.be/Kfn-8B3USEg

Here's a very positive step, one of the few I can recollect in the past decade.

In Brasil, the President's son is putting forward a bill (based on a law in Ukraine) to outlaw Communism and National Socialism.

This is what should have been done in the 1920s, 1950s or 1980s at the latest. As I was watching this I was reminded of Hayek's 1961 statement that Conservatism is slow motion socialism as it has no project to destroy socialism, whilst the latter is founded on the destruction of the existing order.  Later on in the video Bolsanaro refers to "spontaneous orders", a key phrase from Hayek.

If TR ever resurrects EDL 2.0, I will advocate that one of the policies is that governments implement a law like this. Such a plank is useful for demonstrating opposition to Nazism, but also serves to weaken the Left, as the claim can be made "they oppose us because they are terrified that genocidal ideologies like theirs will be made illegal".

Also, once a country has banned ideologies intent on genocide and assassination of opponents/dissidents, it's a small move to argue that Islam should also be outlawed on these grounds.

How far do you trust Bolsonaro etc ? - the definition of "National Socialism" could be used to cover any form of patriotism/nationalism that does not want to remain in serfdom to either aristocracy or the global banking elite.

I agree, very positive. 

The idea needs careful work. It is correct that the term 'National Socialism' runs the risk of being elided to 'Nationalism' and getting that banned as well. Obviously the labels on their own aren't enough; there needs to be a careful set of definitions and qualifying characteristics to enable the rogue ideologies at either end of the spectrum to be correctly identifed.

An equally big difficulty will be with the Sorites paradox / slippery slope type problem - deciding exactly where to draw the line.  But for that, we have Edge Theory.

It is uplifting and refreshing to finally see a mainstream politician tackling the issue head on. As Joe said, standard Conservatism only ever slows the growth of Socialism, it never 'takes the figth to the enemy' of its own accord.

Joe said:

Here's a very positive step, one of the few I can recollect in the past decade.

In Brasil, the President's son is putting forward a bill (based on a law in Ukraine) to outlaw Communism and National Socialism.

This is what should have been done in the 1920s, 1950s or 1980s at the latest. As I was watching this I was reminded of Hayek's 1961 statement that Conservatism is slow motion socialism as it has no project to destroy socialism, whilst the latter is founded on the destruction of the existing order.  Later on in the video Bolsanaro refers to "spontaneous orders", a key phrase from Hayek.

RSS

Page Monitor

Just fill in the box below on any 4F page to be notified when it changes.

Privacy & Unsubscribe respected

Muslim Terrorism Count

Thousands of Deadly Islamic Terror Attacks Since 9/11

Mission Overview

Most Western societies are based on Secular Democracy, which itself is based on the concept that the open marketplace of ideas leads to the optimum government. Whilst that model has been very successful, it has defects. The 4 Freedoms address 4 of the principal vulnerabilities, and gives corrections to them. 

At the moment, one of the main actors exploiting these defects, is Islam, so this site pays particular attention to that threat.

Islam, operating at the micro and macro levels, is unstoppable by individuals, hence: "It takes a nation to protect the nation". There is not enough time to fight all its attacks, nor to read them nor even to record them. So the members of 4F try to curate a representative subset of these events.

We need to capture this information before it is removed.  The site already contains sufficient information to cover most issues, but our members add further updates when possible.

We hope that free nations will wake up to stop the threat, and force the separation of (Islamic) Church and State. This will also allow moderate Muslims to escape from their totalitarian political system.

The 4 Freedoms

These 4 freedoms are designed to close 4 vulnerabilities in Secular Democracy, by making them SP or Self-Protecting (see Hobbes's first law of nature). But Democracy also requires - in addition to the standard divisions of Executive, Legislature & Judiciary - a fourth body, Protector of the Open Society (POS), to monitor all its vulnerabilities (see also Popper). 
1. SP Freedom of Speech
Any speech is allowed - except that advocating the end of these freedoms
2. SP Freedom of Election
Any party is allowed - except one advocating the end of these freedoms
3. SP Freedom from Voter Importation
Immigration is allowed - except where that changes the political demography (this is electoral fraud)
4. SP Freedom from Debt
The Central Bank is allowed to create debt - except where that debt burden can pass across a generation (25 years).

An additional Freedom from Religion is deducible if the law is applied equally to everyone:

  • Religious and cultural activities are exempt from legal oversight except where they intrude into the public sphere (Res Publica)"

© 2021   Created by Netcon.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service