The islamists: The nazis of our time

The vestiges of power that used to be the very core of european identity is almost gone, we are the few heroes of letter or sword, that are prosecuted as the Martin Luthers of our time.

To understand the implications of modern time, we have to understand the latter. We have been here before, many times, and the process is as a sick rewinding and execution of the same rusty springs of a clockwork.

In the second world war we saw the same menagerie. The same actors, the same movements, with different names, but the same psychological intent, meaning and purpose.

Let us have a look on the current intellectual and psychological development of Europe.

First of all, there are the prostitutes (the many) and the idealists (the few).

The idealists in the second world war were primeraly the left. The right was fascinated by the strong man, the “übermensch” in a vile nazi/fascist outlook.

So before the spanish civil war, all the good guys; the idealist writers, the young inspired by the hopes of a better world, went to Spain to fight for democratic communism against fascism.

Today the picture is turned around hundred and eighty degrees. The good guys are democratic nationalists fighting the corrupt multiculturalists ind collaboration with the islamists.

The bad guys have turned into good guys, and the good guys have turned into bad guys.

The psychological mechanisms are, however, the same; cowardism and apathy.

Arthur Koestler describes it very well in “Scum of the Earth”, how France succumbed to the monster of Hitlers oncomoning nazi ideology. Why did a country that had the ressources available, hide behind the Maginot line? Why did they not follow the ideas of de Gaulle, and built a flexible, motorised army of tanks, as the germans? Because, the french were scared, they did not want to face the coming threath of Hitler, they had already lost so many lives in the first world war, and they did not have the guts anymore, they were defeated before the germans even entered the country. Why? They had lost their will to survive.

So, they build a chinese wall between themselves and the enemy. It was more a psychological wall than a real wall. It was, after all, very easy to go through Belgium and attack France were there were no wall. After all, Hitler had build exactly the motorised tank machine army de Gaulle wanted to build.

So de Gaulle became the Hannibal Barca, driven from Carthage, but the real hero.

Today, the same mechanisms of warwearyness is apparent.

Why do the public persecute the writers of our time? Why do they not listen to the Oriana Fallacis? Because, they are warweary and scared.

The picture is quite obvious. As nazism was the inhuman threath of the second worldwar, islamism is the inhuman threath of today.

The parallel is obvious; the islamists and the nazis hate the jews, they even use much of the same propaganda techniques. The islamists and the nazis dream of a world where they have the power over the world. The nazis call it lebensraum the islamists call it jihad. Same same, with different names.

The methods of both the nazis and the islamists are the same; appaling, decrepit, inhuman: Gaschambers, rape of small girls, extermaniation of all jews, endlösung, world conspiracy, manipulation, they put the ends above the means.

Meanwhile the opposition to the islamists and nazis are the same; the avantgarde artists, the strong and best in society, the most ethical, the christian, the jews, the zionists.

The collaboraters are also the same; the weak, the prostitutes of different kind, the evil and the satanists.

It is just another swing in the old carrousel of enlightenment. The philosophers try to shed light in the cave, the most try to kill the philosopher, because they refuse to see the things as they are.

Now the supporters of the fascist are called multiculturalists, socialdemocrats, even some communists. But they are really just the fascist admireres, as the rightwing was in the second world war.

Now, why?

It is quite simple, as I see it. It is cowardice and fascination of the strong enemy. People are afraid, they prefer to hide behind their imaginated Maginot line. If we could just put up a small wall of “tolerance” and “integration”, and just play some guitar, then perhaps we could avoid the war.

Fallacy I say. You do not feed a crocodile, you fight it until you fall away or the crocodile falls away. Especially if you have to feed the crocodile with small children, you have to fight it.

The nazis were, in a way, less evil than the islamists. The islamists prefer to corrupt our small girls by raping them and enslaving them. The nazis at least did not do that.

Arhtur Koestler was a bit desillusioned by the fact that the fascists created slave camps (concentration camps), he thought that it was a bit demoralising, that the romans treated their slaves better than the nazis did, and he pondered the obvious step back for the european civilisation with nazism.

Now, the rape of the small girls, accepted and amended by the intellectuals of Europe, is that better or worse than the nazis? Worse I think. Not as efficient as the nazis, but in terms of destruction and just outright evil, satanic perspective on reality, it is worse.

How come all the cowards cannot see this? Because they are scared, because they prefer to live behind their Maginot line, and some of them are even a bit fascinated by the bad boys. In their dreams they want a little slap in their behinds too.

To the extent we are corrupted by sado masochism, stupidity, lack of respect for our own ideas, we are at the prey of the islamists.

Same same as in the second world war, just different names on the same set.

Where do you want to be when the action starts? On the nazi/multiculturalists side or the national/liberal side.

It is your choice, but be ware, the repercussions are many, and the loss of honour is deer to the one with a positive selfimage.

G-d bless us all.

Categories: Islam Tags:
  1. Rene’ Descartes
    January 7th, 2012 at 07:49 | #1

    Good common sense and reasoning is, of all the many talents mankind have, the most equally distributed talent in the world, since nobody thinks they need more than they already have. Even those who have the least common sense do not usually think they need more than they possess. But clearly not everybody are mistaken. This belief that they have the power of judging right from wrong and distinguishing truth from error, which is what good common sense and reasoning is, is by nature thought equal by all men.
    To be in possession of an imaginative mind however is not enough; the primary requisite is to apply the mind with righteousness, love and compassion. The greatest intellectual minds, as we know, are capable of the most beautiful excellences, as well as the greatest aberrations and deceptions; Consequently, common sense does not originate from few people being endowed with a larger share of reason than others, but solely from the fact that we conduct our intellectual thoughts along different pathways of selfishness versus unselfishness, and we do not all focus our attention on the same objects and issues.
    I am
    Rene’ Descartes

  2. Asger Trier Engberg
    January 7th, 2012 at 12:15 | #2

    Dear Rene 🙂

    Thank you for your comment. I have been pondering for some time on your critical stance on democracy and zionism.

    First of all, as I see it, I do not hold the “simple” notion of either. With all respect for the zionist and democratic ideas that we have seen for long, I respectfully believe, that you have to see these ideas both in the simplicity as well as their complexity.

    If you see democracy as only a simple voting system, you fail to appreciate the comlexity of the idea that has its outspring in Babylon and has travelled down through history to present time.

    The democratic idea is a mix of the rule of law, judges, rule of the king, socialeconomic ideas, scientific application in many things, religious underpinning of the state and so on.

    It is a complex system that should be designed to meet the people it should govern. Now americans are different from austrians and japanese, so the architecture of the specific democracy should be desgined to support the culture of that people.

    So, there are weaknesses of democracy, but it still is a very strong system. The only true competitor to democracy is the kingdom of Egypt, that in its prime was a very good system as well.

    When it comes to zionism, you have to understand Babylon in order to understand what zionism is. You know, Abraham tried to mend the problems of Babylon. Since Babylon is where democracy started, zionism has to understand itself in the framework of democracy.

    The idea of selfsacrifising love, is a political as well as a metaphysical tool. Hammurabi made the first true philosophical underpinning of the rule of law, Abraham made the first true solution to the real problem of democracy; moral corruption.

    So, in order to understand all the metaphysical/philosophical discussion that surrounds Abraham, Plato and other descendants of Mesapotamia, you have to see it as it was thought in the beginning.

    So, I hope you see my points, and sorry for me taking time in answering, but I had to think a lot about it, and read some Koestler as well. Very inspiring by the way, he was absolutely wonderful as a writer.

    Yours in deep respect 🙂


    P.s. Happy new year 🙂

  1. No trackbacks yet.