CHERRY PICKED IDEA OF THE DAY

ISLAM LIKE COMMUNISM is a form of Statism. Both represent totalitarian ideologies that seek to destroy their host countries from within. In order to defeat the Islamo-Nazis, bold Americans must first defeat the Communist Democrat Party and remove these pernicious statists snuggled deep within and atop the Federal Government. Only then can America effectively deal with the stealth and brutal Islamists with their 7th Century ideology codified in sharia law now everywhere on the global prowl.

THE WORKER'S PHILOSOPHER

Noted journalist Christopher Hitchens pays his respects to a noted Polish Marxist philosopher. Although I admit that I had been unaware of this lifelong communist, from the details that Hitchens has framed in fashioning his tribute, it seems that this man was a man who would have impacted my own heart and soul, as he has now impacted my mind.

I searched long and hard for an intellectual who sensed the lies and failures of the existing leftist regimes, but my shopping tour turned up little but more lies and failures. Finally my need for closure pushed me back to a natural conservatism wrapped in a ribbon and bow called radical centrism where Friedrich Hayek and Karl Popper had done the work I so desired to read. But this Polish fellow's testimony appears to be an honest struggle well worth an investigation, if only a less threatening global sensibility now haunted by Islamofacism prevails...

WROCLAW, Poland—It was distinctly eerie to learn of the death of professor Leszek Kolakowski just 15 minutes before entering a room in which I was to give a short lecture on his influence. But it was also rather inspiring to be in a country that made the passing of a public intellectual into the front-page headline of every national daily paper the following day.

The photographs of Kolakowski almost invariably portray a man with a forbiddingly craggy visage, austere to the point of asceticism. Yet he was one of the most engagingly witty people it was possible to meet. And his wit was deployed to puncture every kind of intellectual fraud or imposture. I remember his comment when he heard that Hungarian philosopher Georg Lukacs had said that even the worst socialism was preferable to the best capitalism: "Ah yes, the advantages of Albania over Sweden are self-evident."

He had earned the right to make such pronouncements. An ardent Communist in prewar and wartime Poland (and a sworn foe of the clerical, chauvinist, and anti-Semitic Polish right wing to the end of his days), Kolakowski was shorn of his Stalinism by exposure to its Moscow form on a visit to Russia, and he emerged as the leading "revisionist" Marxist philosopher of the Polish spring of 1956. At that stage, he advocated a form of democratic socialism approximately based on a reading of young—as opposed to late—Karl Marx. But repeated encounters with the obdurate and repressive Communist regime convinced him that the system was essentially beyond reform.

A second Polish spring in March 1968 was put down with the use of the most crude police tactics and the employment by the Communist Party of anti-Semitism as a weapon against dissent. Forced to leave his homeland, he roosted for a while as an exile professor in Berkeley, Calif., where his experience of the student movement more or less completed his break with the New Left. (Years later he would recall with contempt a pamphlet that described the libraries of the university as being stuffed with "useless 'white' knowledge.") In 1970 he moved to Oxford University and remained there until his death last week.

. . .

Meanwhile, Kolakowski was at work on his three-volume Main Currents of Marxism, which appeared at the end of the 1970s and constitutes one of the most searching investigations of the worldview that had dominated his youth. To state the thesis very briefly, Kolakowski's argument was that Stalinism was not, after all, an aberration of Marxism. It was, rather, its logical culmination. It is not necessary to agree completely with this thesis in order to admire the relentless logic of its presentation. If there has ever been a detailed rebuttal written by any Marxist scholar, I have not seen it.

Kolakowski's essential difference with Marxism was what one might call teleological: He rejected the idea that contradictions could be overcome, or anything "ultimate" achieved, either in the material world or in the world of ideas. This, however, did not prevent him from insisting that one had a duty to keep striving. Philosophy could not establish truth, but it could define the terms in which truth could be sought. Meanwhile, as he phrased it sardonically in an interview with Danny Postel in Daedalus, it turned out that there were better reasons to value freedom and democracy than the fact that Marx and Engels had not been so strongly opposed to them as some people had first thought.

. . .

In the short run, Kolakowski was perhaps slightly mistaken in that the nations of Eastern Europe were able to produce a generation of critics and activists who succeeded in making themselves heard. But in the longer run, he was proved right, in the sense that though the system could in fact "reform" itself, it could do so only by reforming itself out of existence. And he was at last able to fulfill his boyhood dream by becoming the esteemed intellectual ally of a working-class movement that actually succeeded in taking power. The realization that this movement was the gravedigger of communism was well-attuned to Kolakowski's very highly developed sense of historical irony.

Read it all.

CONFIRMING THE GLOBAL INSTINCT

The following essay found online is offered as a distinction against the ugly notions and scorn many of our enemies take the time to entertain in subversive attack upon our worldview, a worldview aimed at achieving peace, love, and fuller comprehension of our human condition, beginning with freedom and liberty for all peoples. We would hope such strategies would usher in an era of ultimate disarmament and mutually assured co-operation. But we are not fools. We recognize the world to be a dangerous and militant place, and a comprehensive survival strategy can hardly be dismissed in the face of an enemy who would threaten us, enslave us and destroy these aims.

ZIONISM AND ONLY ZIONISM can save Western civilization. The enemy has the guiding ideology, which is Islamism, but the cowardly, disorganized, disoriented West has none, operating only only the pervasive chaos of opinions and is now sliding into downright insanity, actually subordinating itself to Islamism. Zionism or Islamism—this is the stark choice facing the West.

Why Zionism?

Because people need a guiding ideology, that is above all those thousands of special interests, pulling the Western countries in thousands of different directions, tearing them into thousands of pieces. And why invent a bicycle if one is already available? Zionism is the only "ism" that has proven itself.

Communism is beautiful in theory, but in practice has produced different results. Gorbachev is a Communist, Dubcek was a Communist, but so were Stalin and Pol Pot.

Nazism does not promise anything good even in theory—only hate, atrocity and genocide. Zionism, however, gave birth to Israel, whose entire history is made of miracles. Contrary to widespread misconception, one does not need to be a Jew to be a Zionist. Zionism is a modern political ideology, only 111 years old, NOT the Jewish religion.

True, it takes its inspiration from the Bible, the Zionist Manifesto of 1897 echoing well-known biblical verses with declarations such as: "Israel shall be light unto nations", and "This world shall be liberated through our liberty". But the Bible is not just the Holy Scripture of the Jewish people, it is its cultural heritage, a treasuretrove of historical chronicles and folklore. Zionism is richly spiritual, which is one of the things that distinguishes it from the pig-iron spiritless Communism.

Being a Zionist will not turn someone into a Jew. It is not about religion, it is about setting things right in this world. Robert Spencer had recently commented on the Fascist conference in Europe against Islamisation, rejecting—rightly—any group that espouses racism. But we should not paint all those groups with a broad brush. I wholeheartedly agree with poster Martin who classified Le Pen's National Front as "not OK", and Italy's National Alliance as "OK".

Le Pen is an ultra-Catholic Nazi who cannot be trusted. He is close to Nazi Croats. One can hardly find another European people who were as instrumental as Croats in empowering Islam in Europe in the past century. In 1914, they joined Bosnian Muslims in the "Schutzcorps" organised by Austria to pogrom Serb civilians, even though by the admission of Austrian officials and the German Chancellor Bernhard von Brunow, the assassins of the Archduke were an isolated group, and the Serbian government had absolutely nothing to do with them.

And on June 22, 1941, the Nazi Croat Education Minister Mile Budak declared the "final solution of the Serb question" to rest in this "One-third of them we will kill, one-third expel, and convert the rest into Catholicism". By contrast, the Nazi Croats had united with the Bosnian Muslims and declared them "the flower of the Croatian nation".

Together, they embarked on a frenzy of sadistic torture, mutilation and murder of Serb civilians that was too much even for some Nazi Germans. And the Italian Fascist troops actually turned on the Croats, their fellow Catholics, and shot quite a number of them, saving the lives of thousands of Serbs, Jews, and Gypsies. Even the Italian Fascists were so uncomparable better than the US military and the militaries of other Western democracies who helped Croat, Bosnian and Albanian Nazis to finish their job on the Serbs much more recently.

Anti-Semitism did not exist in Italy even during Fascism. Which brings me to Gianfranco Fini, a true hero of the Western civilization in this era of cowardice. He is the leader of Italy's National Alliance, the successor to the Fascist party. Even though the Italian Fascists were not guilty of Holocaust, he publicly apologized to the Jewish people for the Fascist past. He then led mass demonstrations in support of Israel. Beautiful! He is a Gentile Zionist without calling himself one.

Zionism is the litmus test. It will separate heroes such as Italy's National Alliance from toxic waste such as Le Pen. Those Fascist groups who are decent should rename themselves Zionist Resistance, and then we can unite with them under the Blue Star, the guiding star for us all. Israel is, indeed, the guiding light for the Western civilization, and we should follow it for our salvation. Another litmus test is Serbia. Those who profess to be anti-Islamist, and yet approve of the massacre of the only armed anti-Muslim resistance in Europe by Islamo-NATO are too convoluted and dark-minded to be of any use at all.

—Ruslan Tokhchukov

Thanks to Mr. Tokchukov for his analysis of some of the more obscure aspects of this 20th century European history. Those of us who are trying to sort out what is true from what is false in struggle to find allies in what we feel is an imminent threat to Western Civilization can always appreciate those who put a finer point on the distinctions we must all make as we continue to seek peace through strength, even though the numbers of those who rally against us often seem insurmountable.

After all—to voice caution when considering illegal immigration is simply human. Human migration has been going on for millennia. The repeating pattern is that a stronger or more numerous population invades or simply displaces a weaker and less numerous one. So naturally, when an established population perceives a foreign population entering its territory in high numbers, the self-preservation instinct revives. High-minded sorts might deplore this instinct as primitive or atavistic, but that doesn't change the fact that it exists, and rather naturally at that.

So who is "morally" right—those who resist extinction, or those who demand it? Is it racist, xenophobic, or nativist not to want to see one's culture and people replaced by another? Perhaps, but it's also ineradicably, biologically, anciently human.

THE CONVERGENCE OF TOTALITARIANISMS

For those new to the righteous cause, or for you naysayers and misguided appeasers in our midst, here is an excruciatingly detailed essay Alexandre Del Valle, translated from the French by Erich von Abele.

SINCE THE INSTIGATION of the second Intifada al Aqsa, in September of 2000; since September 11, 2001, which marked the end of the inviolability of America's strategic sanctuary; and, above all, since the second Iraqi crisis, which has resulted in the dismantling of the regime of Saddam Hussein, one has been able to note throughout the West the emergence of a Red-Green-Brown Axis (the Red of the extreme left, the Brown of the extreme right, and the Green of Islamism). The different components of this Axis have for a common objective the struggle against the new faces of Evil: America, Israel, “Imperialism”, and even the West in its entirety.

The objective alliances among these three ideologies, we will see, did not begin just yesterday. But it is undeniable that the events since the beginning of the new millennium have contributed particularly to their collusion. In effect, the use of the term “crusade” by George W. Bush on the day after September 11 has been seen as a provocation, as much among the anti-clerical extreme left and extreme right as it has among the Islamic milieus—whence the evermore revealing convergence among, on the one hand, those nostalgic for the first two totalitarianisms (the Browns and the Reds) and, on the other hand, the protagonists of revolutionary Islamism.

These latter affect to defend the Arab masses who are “occupied” as much as the poor, the weak, and the “humiliated” of the Third World, the victims of the new Judeo-Christian “imperialist” Crusaders. The recent public standpoints expressed by the famous terrorist—Carlos the Jackal, among others, lead quite clearly in this direction.

It is evident that Islamism, the third totalitarianism after Nazism and Communism, echoes to a definite extent the aspirations of its two predecessors: seizing the struggle of civilizations and religions, then declaring war on the Judeo-Christian world in the name of the “dispossessed” of the rest of the planet, Islamism seduces as much those nostalgic for the pagan Third Reich, resolved to eradicate Judaism and Christianity, as it does those partisans of the hammer and sickle, determined to come to blows with the “bourgeois” and “capitalist” West.

The nerve center of this despised system: Manhattan, “the planetary district of mercenaries of the economic and financial war that America wreaks on the world”, according to the words of Carlos. It was no surprise, then, to see the Browns, the Reds and the Greens rejoice together at the tragedy of September 11, 2001, and to identify Osama bin Laden as a new David against an imperial “American-Zionist” Goliath. It was no surprise, either, to witness the enthusiasm of these three totalitarian movements converge around the “heroic” struggle conducted since March 2003 by the remnant Baathist rebels and Islamist Shiites of Iraq against the American occupation of Mesopotamia.

Evidently, this Red-Brown-Green Axis of “anti-hegemonic” and “anti-imperialistic” hatred was reinforced since the first years of the 1990s and the fall of the Soviet Union. This paradoxical and neo-totalitarian assemblage has seen its apogee on the day after September 11, and above all, during the winter and spring of 2003, with the benefit of the vast campaign of anti-Americanism conducted in the Western world by the opponents of the war against the regime of Saddam.

This junction of Red, Brown and Green totalitarianisms around the cause of Palestinian martyrs, Iraqis and Afghans, as much as the revolutionary figure of Osama bin Laden, confirms the leadership, henceforth uncontested, of revolutionary Islamism. From now on, this exerts a real fascination upon the other totalitarian options defeated by history (Nazism and Communism) and, consequently, condemned either to reconstitute themselves or to join the Islamist revolution in order to pursue their struggle against liberal democracies.


From September 11 to the second Gulf War

If one follows the Red thread from the opposition to “Yankee imperialism”, one sees that the anti-Zionist and anti-American milieus which had found extenuating circumstances in the commando of September 11 are those who try, today, to absolve Islamist terrorism—whether it pertains to the bin Ladenite movement across the globe or to Hamas and the Islamic Jihad in Palestine. Mesmerized by the collapse of the Twin Towers—a terrible illustration of the power of radical Islamism—, the Third Worldist and anti-imperialist ideologues of the extreme left, along with other “counter-globalists”, had been the most vehement to castigate the American intervention in Afghanistan. These were the ones again who, one year later, organized the most virulent “pacifist” displays against the intervention in Iraq , displays equally conducted in the name of the “victims of Zionism”.

Thus Toni Negri, the ex-ideologue of the Red Brigades and leading figure of the No Global movement, declared, in September of 2001, that his compassion did not extent to anyone but to illegal immigrants who might have disappeared with the Twin Towers. The Trotskyite linguist Noam Chomsky, well known for his violently anti-Israeli positions, denounced, in the attack of September of 11, a “planetary imposture”, yet another fascisizing manifestation of “American imperialism”.

Worse: he imputed “the anger of the Islamists” to the “racist” drift of the Hebrew state. As far as the editor-in-chief of Le Monde Diplomatique , Alain Gresh, son of the celebrated pro-Soviet intellectual Henri Curiel goes, he justified, in his book written with Tariq Ramadan, the grandson of the founder of the Muslim Brotherhood, the terrorist option of Palestinians in the name of anti-Zionism and “anti-colonialism”.

Two recent, grave events merit particular attention: first of all, the exhortations of the new leaders of the Italian Red Brigades and of the famous “Red terrorist” Carlos to take up the fight of Hamas and al Qaeda; and then, the nearly unanimous appeal by Western neo-Nazi leaders to salute the “heroism” of Hezbollah and bin Laden in their struggle against the Jews and the Americans.

The logical consequence of these parallel fascinations and alliances: Carlos embraces a “revolutionary Islamism destined to sweep the world,” an Islamism that “realizes the dynamic synthesis of different currents (the anti-colonialist, anti-imperialist and anti-Zionist struggle) and draws for its models of action upon socialism, Marxism and nationalism”; and, at the same time, the charismatic leader of the English neo-Nazi movement, David Myatt, now become Abdul Aziz ibn Myatt, appeals to those nostalgic Axis members and to all enemies of the Zionists, to embrace with him the Jihad, the “true martial religion”, which will most effectively fight against the Jews and the Americans.

Another sign of this rapprochement: on April 3, 2003, the Salafist Londoner Omar Bakri Mohamed, leader of the movement al Mouhajiroun as well as being imam of the Finsbury Park mosque and a recruiter of a number of youths who went off to join al Qaeda, officially received Myatt and accorded him a “welcome into Islam”, specifying to journalists that the neo-Nazi past of this neophyte had “no special importance once their goals converged in common”…

Parallel to this, as the discourse of Marxist terrorists or of certain neo-Nazis becomes Islamified, so too the rhetoric of bin Laden, in particular, and of Islamists in general becomes “Marxized” and “Third Worldized” in its turn, and—uniquely, certainly, unto a tactical aim—borrows, more and more, from the anti-Semitic vulgate of the extreme right. Thus, in his declaration of February 11, 2003, not only did the head of al Qaeda seize on that bête noire of the extreme left which is “the American-Zionist imperialism in Palestine”, recalling the “martyrdom of Vietnam”, but he also for the first time authorized the faithful to ally themselves with an Arab regime that was “atheist” and nationalist:

“Although Saddam Hussein is an infidel, it becomes permissible to unite our forces with his in order to combat the American crusade against Islam and the Muslims.” Saddam himself, that atheist and old “pagan” admirer of Nebuchadnezzar had not ceased, since the first Gulf War, to Islamicize his discourse and his regime. The culminating point of this posture: his declaration of March 4, 2003, in which he called for a “holy war against the United States , the diabolic invaders”, and a Jihad which would oppose “the righteous against the liars, the virtuous against the vicious, the honest against the traitors, the warriors of Jihad against the mercenaries and aggressors.”


Islamism: the most effective of the “anti-imperialist” and revolutionary ideologies

From the outset, one asks oneself what could be able to unify movements as ideologically antagonistic as the Reds (atheists and materialists), the Greens (theocrats and Islamists), and the Browns (believers in the war of the races). To believe that such an alliance would be philosophically impossible and strategically improbable—and, therefore, from the get-go doomed to checkmate—would be to forget that Islamism is not only the third totalitarianism to come about, but is also equally, in a number of points, the inherited unifier of the two predecessors.

Insofar as Islamism is not only simply a religious “fundamentalism”, but also and above all a subversive revolutionary totalitarianism, an ideology of mass destruction comparable to Nazism, Maoism or Stalinism, this “Green fascism” prolongs the anterior totalitarianisms. What distinguishes the Green version essentially is that it brings to the historical totalitarian hatreds a theological justification and a divine benediction.

Whether it concerns the Lebanese Hezbollah, Palestinian Hamas, the al Qaeda combatants, or the Iraqi and Palestinian “resisters”, it must be recognized that in the marketplace of global revolution, the Islamists and the Arab-Muslim “mujahideen” in general are the most effective and ferocious adversaries of “Israeli-American imperialism”. They are the ones who are inflicting the most damage on the “colonialist” and “capitalist” powers—whom the Reds and the Browns detest above all.

Being the third moment of totalitarianism, an avenging Islamism leading the assault on the capitalist democracies and the “Judeo-Crusader forces” knows now such an ascension throughout all corners of the globe and, in particular, in Europe—an ascension facilitated by the planetary and unprecedented mediatisation which it has enjoyed since the shock of September 11—that it has been attracting, like a magnet, the attentions of those nostalgic for the communist and Nazi totalitarianisms.

Drawing at the same time from the vulgate of the extreme right and from an “Islamically correct” template that is pro-Arab and Third Worldist, this new revolutionary and planetary hatred henceforth seduces the latest anti-Jewish and anti-American militants of the extreme radical right.


From the crooked cross to the Crescent

The majority of the extreme right is clearly turned towards the Arab-Muslim world, conforming itself to the desire expressed by Hitler himself in his testament, in the name of the principle: “rather Islamic than Judeo-Mason”. It is therefore at the same time through fidelity to the Führer and by virtue of post-Cold War geopolitics, marked by the return of the civilizational paradigm, that the new extreme right, once viscerally pro-Western and anti-Communist, has tactically exchanged its Atlanticism for a “Third Worldism tinged with anti-Americanism and anti-Zionism”. This orientation gravitates naturally to the support of revolutionary Islamism.

It is undeniable that the discourse of Alain de Benoist—leader of the Groupe de Réflexion et d'Études sur la Civilisation Européenne (GRECE), one of the more influential think-tanks of the pro-Islamist European extreme right—recalls strangely the rhetoric of the Italian Red Brigades (who have moreover always maintained bridges with the Browns), underscoring an obsessive anti-Americanism that would not surprise the extreme left: “The military-industrial American complex, of which George W. Bush, that sociopath and notorious retard, is today the mouthpiece, has unilaterally mobilized against the nation and people of Iraq a war so dastardly and monstrous that nothing—save his will to dominate the world—justifies it.

Beginning this Tuesday, March 20, every act of reprisal in the world aimed against American interests as well as American military, political, diplomatic and administrative personnel, wherever it occurs, in whatever scope it represents, by whatever means and circumstances, is both legitimate and necessary.”

Speaking of strange politics, the denunciation of “imperialist” American wars against Iraq has become, since 1990, one of the leitmotifs of the anti-Zionist extreme right, in this position becoming linked with organizations of the extreme left. The Iraq of Saddam Hussein had, it is true, much about it to please the partisans of the three totalitarianisms: not only had this regime nearly realized a synthesis of the national-Bolshevik with the national-Socialist, but it found itself, moreover, at the point of war against the two demons fought in common by the Reds, the Browns and the Greens: Israel and the United States. The ideological pro-Iraqi line which almost all of the extreme right in Europe adopted has been shown by a series of demonstrations denouncing “American imperialism”, as well as by voyages of solidarity to Baghdad . The capture of the dictator profoundly deceived those who were opposed to the American intervention. His arrest, in effect, came [at the time] to contradict their thesis, repeated ad nauseam, of the “American quagmire” in Iraq .

For the extreme right, the Age of Gold of the Brown-Green Axis harks back to the Second World War which saw an alliance between the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem and Hitler, then the establishment of pro-Nazi Arab and Balkan legions (Waffen SS composed of Croatian-Bosnian-Albanian Muslims along with Egyptian green-shirts, etc.). With reference to the Palestinian Muslim Brotherhood, the Grand Mufti, Al Hajj Al Husseini, was at the origin, in 1942, of the creation of the Arab League, destined to pursue, alongside the forces of the Axis, the war against the Jews installed in Palestine . It is moreover in reference to the Grand Mufti that the English neo-Nazi leader David Myatt explains his conversion to Islam and his rallying to the cause of al Qaeda, recalling how “60,000 Muslims responded to the appeal of the Grand Mufti to join forces alongside Hitler.”

Three great historical figures of the alliance between the Swastika and the Crescent continue, to this day, to saturate the minds of those nostalgic for the Axis: Leon Degrelle, the leader of Rexism—a collaborationist Belgian movement—and a great crafter of rapprochement between Palestinian organizations and the neo-Nazi milieus between the years of 1950 to 1980; the famous Swiss banker François Genoud, testamentary legatee of Hitler and Goebbels, who consecrated the bulk of his post-Nazi life to financing terrorist and nationalist Arab movements (Nasserism, the Palestinian FPLP and OLP, the Algerian FLN, the Muslim Brotherhood, etc.) in their capacity as enemies of the Jews; and, finally, one of the major artisans of the “Islamonazi synthesis,” Johann Von Leers, Goebbel's old right arm, responsible for anti-Semitic propaganda under the Third Reich.

Becoming Omar Amin after having been recruited in Egypt by Nasser, who nominated him responsible for anti-Jewish propaganda in Cairo, Von Leers converted to Islam after his contact with the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood. His example continues to inspire an Islamophile and pro-Arab current of the extreme right. It is in his memory that one of the actual ringleaders of the new pro-Islamist European right, the Italian Claudio Mutti, has chosen for his name of conversion to Islam that of Omar Amin. Today still, these three symbols of Islamo-Nazi flirtation are referenced by young neo-Nazi militants who look in the Brown-Green alliance toward the “sole chance of survival for an Aryan Europe” in the face of the danger represented by the “Western plutocracies” and by the “Judeo-Mason conspiracy”.

Read it all.

LET'S PARSE SIMPLE FIGHTING WORDS

Years back, we had the Communists being all for "peace". But they were operating off of Marx's definition:

"The meaning of peace is the absence of opposition to socialism."

Similarly, in the Islamic viewpoint, peace can only come when all accept Islam. Refusal to accept Islam is, in itself, a crime against Allah. So no one who rejects Islam can be considered an "innocent". Therefore it was legitimate to kill 3000 people on 9/11, because they were non-innocent rejectors of Allah, and therefore legitimate targets.

Therefore, terrorism does not include Jihad. The label "terrorism" only applies to those acts which oppose jihad, such as arresting Jihadis and putting them in Gitmo.