The following article by Alain Wagner of Vérité, Valeurs et Démocratie was originally published in French at the VV&D website. Many thanks to Nathalie for the translation.
Nazis versus Muslims
by Alain Wagner
I regularly receive a newsletter written by a female friend who is a professor of philosophy in Canada. Her most recent newsletter dealt with the apparent discrepancy between how “Joe Public” viewed Muslims versus how Nazis were perceived, and what it revealed about the nature of the modern psyche.
The case of the Nazis
In the mind of the overwhelming majority of people today, all Nazis without exception are directly linked to the Final Solution, to the slaughter of the Jews, the Gypsies and of homosexuals and ultimately to the extermination camps. Nobody in their right mind would dare to suggest it might have been the fault of a few Nazi extremists whose actions gave a bad name to a political set of ideas which might have otherwise been viewed as quite respectable. All Nazis are tarred with the same brush: all shared the same ideology, the same set of beliefs, all had a hand in it and all were guilty of a horrendous crime.
My friend rightly reminded her readers that the Final Solution was only fully conceptualised and implemented in the year 1942, that the Nazi regime kept a tight lid on their plans, and that the existence of a police state made it very difficult for information to be circulated. There was at that time no Facebook on which to post video-clips of SS soldiers herding the inmates into the death camps, and no Internet to publish photos of grinning torturers in the process of putting their victims to death.
It is therefore perfectly plausible that a good number of Nazis weren’t in the know and remained ignorant of what was happening in the extermination camps masquerading as concentration camps.
This does not mean that they were either philo-Semitic or great lovers of democracy, but it does render the equation of Nazi = Holocaust rather moot, as not all Nazis were party to the extermination plan. It is, therefore, within the realm of possibility that amongst those opportunistic individuals who joined the party to further their social or professional standing, not all were monsters.
The conclusion drawn is that not all Nazis were killers and that, had they been privy to the real darkness at the heart of their ideology, many would probably have turned away in disgust and revulsion.
We might have called these “moderates” or “reformed-Nazis”, whilst the rest of them, those who could quietly contemplate unspeakable horrors and still remain faithful to the Nazi party were complicit in the crime, far past any possible redemption and as guilty as they come.
Muslims and a case of double standards
The way Muslims are perceived is exactly the other way round. Even though all Muslims, including each and every Taliban and each and every killer from the Islamic State, belong part and parcel to the same ideological core set of beliefs, (i.e Islam), which is characterised by the worship of the same Book (the Koran), the same man as an example to follow (Mohammed), the same common law (sharia), we are told in no uncertain terms that we must not on any account let some rotten apples spoil the whole bunch.
To be totally honest, I do agree with this point of view. I always like to remind people in the audience when I am giving a lecture that generalisations always lead to falsehoods and unjust prejudices, and that one mustn’t conflate what people think and what they are. Individuals are not equivalent to their ideology, and ideas aren’t people.
What made me think long and hard is the difference in treatment when we start comparing the Nazis with our current set of Muslims: we are ordered to not lump all Muslims together, or as the French put it “Padamalgam”[1], which freezes our powers of thinking and then forbids us to question those Muslims who are currently living in our societies in accordance to their obedience to Islamic doctrine.
Likewise, this injunction to “never ever lump together” aims to force us to automatically absolve any Muslim who has not committed a violent act from any guilt by association, even moral guilt.
Ideology does not equal the man; nonetheless adherence to it remains a conscious, deliberate act which engages individual responsibility
I obviously do not mean to suggest that all Muslims are terrorists or supporters of the Islamic State, or that they they may have killed somebody or are planning to at some point in the future. What we must ask ourselves is this: in the name of what exactly are we suppose to refrain from asking these people whom we are told are our fellow citizens, to clarify their position as to their obedience to Islamic ideology? An Islamic ideology which, as anybody who is honest enough would be hard pressed to deny, all criminals who slaughter, rape and enslave in the name of Islam have shared throughout history.
We also owe it to ourselves to ask in whose name we should accept without any further questioning those “This is not Islam” retorts, which are an insult to our intelligence and a slap in the face of tangible reality, whenever heinous crimes and intolerable behaviours are indulged in in the name of Islam.
Disingenuous excuses must stop and responsibilities must be assumed
Why, exactly, should we carry on accepting the premise that Muslims are ignorant of the tenets of Islam, that they cannot know its content? Is the objective and unchanging[2] doctrine of Islam and the behaviours that are allowed or proscribed by it totally unknowable?
Of course not! What do you think they teach in Islamic universities? How would their imams otherwise know and teach their own doctrine?
The political, discriminatory and violent nature of Islam is a solidly established fact. What a relentless process of disinformation aimed to sell us as a “religion just like any others” finally revealed its true colours to all unbiased observers: Islam is, at its core, a totalitarian ideology.
The “spiritual dimension” found in this ideology should not divert attention from its true nature; specific mystical belief systems, books, supreme leaders and the project of a type of society for the entire humanity were also to be found in Nazism and the Chinese brand of communism.
Why should we continue to accept, as a given, that those Muslims living in our countries must not be under the obligation to learn the contents of the Islamic doctrine, in the light of what is happening in the world today, and then draw the obvious conclusions: should they abide by it or not?
The Muslims currently living in Western societies cannot, in any way, shape or form, be compared to the Germans of yesteryear. They can freely access the history of Islam and its long retinue of horrors and unspeakable crimes, or read books describing sharia law or the life of the man they are supposed to model their lives on.
In contrast with the Germans who lived in a police state, they are free to reject without risk a creed whose tenets are antithetical to human freedom and dignity.
It would be quite condescending as well as patronising to view those Muslims who live in the West as being incapable of getting hold of the proper information and of making a responsible choice.
The West offers Muslims the amazing opportunity to free themselves from the shackles of Muslim ideology and become free human beings, respectful of the natural rights and freedoms enjoyed by their fellow citizens.
Who would then carry on insisting that Muslims cannot freely choose their own destiny, decide where their loyalty lies and assume responsibility for the choices that they make?
Why do we insist on humouring them so as to not offend their supposed sensibilities, and why do we carry on treating them as though they were irresponsible, illiterate, or slightly retarded children?
Today we share our society with people who may or may not adhere to an ideology that’s extremely violent, discriminatory and destructive of our way of life. Knowing where these people stand is now a question of survival.
And in view of the consequences that necessarily follow this ideology when it is put into practise in the real world, why exactly should we be satisfied with being shrugged off, with getting an ambiguous reply accompanied with the usual protests about a so-called stigmatisation of their faith?
Adherence or non-adherence to Islamic ideology and to sharia law must no longer be a question unasked and unspoken. This question, left unasked, is the breeding ground which will beget chaos and the tearing asunder of our society. And today, people die for this on French soil.
To finally ask the question that has, up till now, been left unsaid is to force a choice, and so choosing means to renounce one of the choices.
It means either:
Disown those who adhere to Islamic ideology, to sharia law and the inevitable violence and oppression that follow in their wake,
or
Abandon the idea of being part of Western societies, which are based upon respect for liberty and the freedoms enjoyed by all citizens.
There can be no compromise, no meeting part way, no grey areas: that time has come and gone.
Our duty to keep our societies safe gives us the right to ask Muslims the following question: “Where do you stand: for or against sharia law?” We mustn’t let ourselves be fobbed off.
The Muslims living among us must give a clear reply, in words and in deeds, acknowledging that they reject once and for all sharia law and all that it entails. Failure to do so would necessarily mean that they endorse the horrors committed by Islam and should thus rightly be considered as today’s Nazis
— Alain Wagner
| 1. | Phonetic transcription of “Pas d’amalgame” = No conflation, never lump together | |
| 2. | 75% of the content of sharia law is common to all schools of Islamic law, the differences having to do with minor points only. |
“Why do we insist on humouring them [Muslims] so as to not offend their supposed sensibilities, and why do we carry on treating them as though they were irresponsible, illiterate, or slightly retarded children?”
Slightly retarded is probably a very accurate description for the majority of Muslims in this country (USA, dammit! – Europe too I suppose). And add to that ‘children’. I am recently retired but I worked with a good number of Muslims at an engineering firm. The largest portion of them honestly earned my respect as competent engineers and decent folk, most of those were Iranians who left before the revolution. But we had one Egyptian fellow who clashed with everyone and one job shopper from Egypt who people still tell stories about over ten years later. That racks up to between 10 – 20% in my estimation, of Muslim employees, which is way higher of a percentage of employees committing unacceptable behavior than any company should put up with. The shopper got walked out, but management made countless excuses for the directly employed Muslim who made threats.
The direct employee actually physically threatened both me and a coworker. He was a pudgy older guy I could have dropped in an instant, but this was work, so I went to my manager and made a complaint instead. So did my coworker who was also threatened. Our manager relayed our complaint to Muhammad’s manager (actual name, 100% Muhammad coefficient). When the response from management came back to us for a physical threat made at work, it was explained away as a misunderstanding due to cultural differences. What a bunch of…here Dymphna let me spare your the trouble…[fornicating female reproductive organs].
Bottom line is that Muslims have become a protected class whereas they should be treated more like felons on parole. Can they all just leave, please.
The plain and simple fact is that one cannot be a Moslem and renounce Sharia law at the same time. Sharia is a cornerstone of Islam just as is Mohamed, they are indivisible.
Although many Moslems cannot practice Sharia in societies where their numbers are small, that changes as their numbers grow. As soon as they get a mosque they get an Imam or Mullah and with that they get enforcement of Sharia in their community. Once they grow sufficiently they enforce Sharia on others, even against the laws of the land, and are aided by dhimi officials.
If ever a Moslem renounces Sharia they become apostate. It is the same as renouncing Mohamed or renouncing the Koran.
You’re exactly right. Our government asserts that the danger is random violence from “lone wolf” Muslims. The real danger, however, is the presence of an organized, unified community of people who are committed to overthrowing the government in favor of an Islamic theocracy.
Individual Muslims may not want to be bothered, but as you point out, they cannot organize against sharia, or even publicly declare against it, on pain of a death sentence to be carried out by any interested Muslim.
The violence is carried out by Muslims who are just being Muslims, but the fact is, with the aggressive political pressures asserted by active Muslims in a representative government, the Muslim agenda could be completely carried off without violence. It would take a few years longer, but asking Muslims to refrain from violence for years is asking too much.
And, then, there’s the domestic animal issue.
As I responded to someone outraged at my quoting a certified authority about goats: “What; you think it’s consensual?
The Muslims living among us must give a clear reply, in words and in deeds, acknowledging that they reject once and for all sharia law and all that it entails. Failure to do so would necessarily mean that they endorse the horrors committed by Islam and should thus rightly be considered as today’s Nazis.
If that is the case, then no harm done to a Muslim could be an injustice.
Do not neglect taqiyya, and working definitions, in general.
“For or against sharia law?”
No room for manoeuvre, here, alas.
Islam successfully traps muslims. No leeway is available, no freedom of choice.
All that body of rules which define Islam has a name – “the Path”, Sharia.
“Islam is Sharia, and Sharia is Islam”, explains Fouad Belkacem, “Abu Imran” of Sharia4Belgium.
It is not permitted to opt out: rejecting Sharia entails leaving Islam, for which the penalty is death. Those brave muslims who reject Sharia make themselves “apostates”, available to be killed by anyone, vigilante-style, and without repercussion, “since it is killing someone who deserves to die” (Manual of Islamic Law, “Reliance of the Traveller” o8.4), hence the hackings to death by machete of those brave Bangladeshi dissidents and writers supporting freedom of choice.
“It is not for a believer, man or woman”, says Koran 33:36 (part of Islamic law), “when Allah and His Messenger have decreed a matter that they should have any option in their decision.”
Sharia is both Unconstitutional and Counter-Constitutional.
It is at variance with Western law, and irreconcilable with it, “incompatible with the fundamental principles of democracy”, as the European Court pronounced in 2003.
Western leaders who have admitted, and abetted, Sharia into the West have laid up the pyre of the civil war to come.
Incompatible with democracy
And still, European courts rule according to sharia. Courts that normally, are ruling according to European law. How backward is this!?
Worse is the informal compliance with Shariah; the failure of the UK authorities to prosecute those who knowingly allowed children to be groomed and thus informally implemented Shariah in Rotherham and elsewhere.
There is now a two (or more) tier policing system through much of the West, where muslims get to rape and loot without consequences.
Germans were generally ignorant of the final solution. Muslims do not have this excuse. The supremacist violence and terrorism that never stops is “advertised” constantly. Those committing these acts are also the authentic, devout followers of Islam which is why they cannot be repudiated within their own cultural sphere.
The hate list for the Nazi’s was also smaller than Islam. Nazi’s didn’t like this group or that group. Islam is after a final solution for EVERYONE else.
If marooned on an Island with only one follower Islam would be a bad enough belief system. When a civilisation that has created so much as Western Europe is being demographically converted words cannot describe how vast the threat to our species is.
Knowing what we do today, NationalSozialism, Nazism, appears as a historical subdivision of the Greater Evil based on sharia.
Perhaps the first problem is that atheistic Leftists are incapable of believing that religion has any influence on people. In the Leftist mind, “muslim” is just a label without meaning, rather than a description of someone who believes in islam. Many Lefties jokingly call themselves “jedi” without having any idea of jedi theology (if there is any).
There is, of course, a second problem. Leftists claim credit for altering human behaviour in the Western democracies; they have campaigned against sexism, homophobia, etc…yet they are now happy to take in millions of immigrants from places where people have not been “re-educated” and it doesn’t matter if the men beat their wives, kill their own daughters or persecute gays. There are photographs on the internet of British Labour Party meetings where men sit one one side of the room, women on the other. There is a strange mental disease on the Left, which has caused it to throw away its greatest achievements.
Excellent logic, which I will pass on
Regarding ideology and identity: as a man thinketh in his heart, so is he.
Generalizations are based on norms; not exceptions.
The ideology produced the final solution though not every nazi killed.
The ideology of Islam kills though not every Muslim obeys.
An excellent article-clear as daylight, great analogies.
Yes-clear as daylight-and therefore sheer poison to the quislings of our day.
Are you with us or against us?…ooh, you can`t say that, simplistic, populist and -of course-judgemental!
Their way lies hall…we need to apply Alains logic to our lives-and fast.
Imperialism today
The worst imperialism in history goes on unnoticed by the left, and by a lot of those who are told, and also threatened – by any of the imperial doctrine’s successful terror method’s – not to see, hear or know anything, in order not to disturb the progression of the imperial conquest. This imperialism must not be named.
Strangely enough, this imperialism doesn’t seem to bother the left. Of course, as we have seen many a time, the left is, actually, an integrated part of this “new” 6th century imperialism.
There are no individuals in islamic ideology, are there? So, everytime an adherent makes clear that he or she is “offended”, it is not the individual as such, nor this presumed individual, but the doctrine as a whole, that is being “offended”.
Showing disagreement with the doctrine, or deserting, is efficiently avoided by – military – 6th century law prescribing death penalty for leaving the army aka”the religion”.
Reading after posting, I notice, that above comments – which were not visible at the time of my posting – are already covering the same. Interesting to see.
I might be paranoid but I think the Left is very purposeful by ignoring the totalitarian supremacist nature of Islam. (Of course as the saying goes: “Just because you are paranoid, it does not mean nobody after you!”)
The “Brave New World” the Left tries to build require a vast consumer class blindly following its Elite. Using religious discipline they can be directed, calmed but also incited against each other. (Muslims already killing each other over stupid little details for 1400 years). What is better for population control than this people, also to keep intimidated anybody who would raise against the Elite. They are also cheap, if you look at fact, they willing to die just a promise of some virgins in the afterlife. Replacing a critical thinking population (which is dangerous for the Left) with this mass is seems the perfect solution to them.
They obviously do not know what happened in Australia when the authorities imported Cane Toads to help them control the beetles.
It’s quite possible that some leftists see Muslims as a natural ally. This shows leftists to be not only supremely arrogant, but fatally stupid. Anyone with any knowledge of Islam knows that Islam will never contemplate sharing power with non-Muslims.
Ah, but leftists are ultimately willing to become Muslims.
Running the camps, transporting them, killing them, the role the Wehrmacht played in helping them.
If you didn’t know it was because you made it your business not to know and you buried it so deep inside.
The regular soldier in the Eastern front was on a killing spree as well.
I tend to agree with you that the knowledge of the exterminations was well-known. It was spread in whispers, though.
I don’t know if the regular German soldiers were killers. The Nazis had special units, Einsatzgruppen, who handled exterminations. My understanding is that German generals would not allow their troops to associate with the Einsatzgruppen personnel.
Let us also not forget there was an underground that opposed the actions of the Nazis, led by the German military. They begged the allies multiple times for a negotiated surrender prior to the mass exterminations. The entire story is told in Diane West’s “American Betrayal”.
My father fled the Nazis before World War II. I wish more than anything, the Germans would proclaim “The exterminations were horrible, but we will henceforth not accept any personal blame or guilt, as no living German this side of senility had any part of them.”
The great divide in so-called social justice issues is very simple:
It always comes down to INDIVIDUAL responsibility/guilt versus COLLECTIVE responsibility/guilt.
Which one do you think exists under natural law?
I have read that the Einsatzgruppen were recruited from the most violent portion of the German prison population. Even then, after months of mass murder in Poland, Ukraine, etc. their behavior became erratic, even psychotic. They were becoming more violent and difficult to discipline, not to mention suicide rates soaring. In other words they were beginning to scare the beegeezuz out of their officers. That was one of the reasons, certainly not the main one, put forth for a more organized approach and the development of the Death Camps.
It seems the EU is thinks that things will work out better by importing a population that is prone to erratic and violently psychotic behavior as a function of religious imperative. What could go wrong?
Greeting
When the Germans arrived in Stalin’s Russia, the local Russians begged the Germans for permission to execute their own Kommisars, who had killed millions of Russians. Almost a million Russians joined the German military, their saviours.
The einsatzgruppe executed Kommissars and civilians (partisans) who attacked German soldiers. Ordinarily the Germans followed correct protocol and took uniformed enemy soldiers as prisoners according to law. Civilians however were a different matter. A civilian could shoot at you, escape unidentified, then immediately afterwards seek protection from you, as a civilian.
TKS
The most immediate treatment should be the removal of the growth, followed by radiation or chemical treatment for a lengthy period of time. Anti-nausea medications may be necessary to enable the patient to lead a more or less normal life while recovering.
Wait a minute! This discussion was supposed to be about Islam, wasn’t it?
My bad!
Never mind.
Haha.
I’m afraid the growth has metastasized throughout the body and cannot be reliably removed. The patient must be given our best wishes, isolated, and left to his own devices.
If you’ve seen one cancer, you have seen them all.
I will say this … the difference between a radical Muslim and a moderate Muslim is the radical wants to kill you and the moderate is happy to standby and let him/her do it. That makes them ALL extremely dangerous.
It was Marco Polo said the radical Muslim will cut your head off. The moderate will simply hold the victim’s legs to stop him struggling.
Sorry, but it was a made up quote. They whole moderate and militant descriptions are more modern in giving away their falsity. Polo did have quotes about their theft of property only mattered if it was another Saracen (muzzy term of them times. Also made notice of them martyrdom and how they ideal was a bit disconcerting if you were against them.