Showing posts with label Adolf Hitler. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Adolf Hitler. Show all posts

Friday, March 07, 2014

Israel And The Rest of the World

By Findalis of Monkey in the Middle

By Dennis MacEoin

Everybody hates Israel. That is not just accepted wisdom, it is a reality that chokes all rational debate on the conflict between Israelis and Palestinians. There are exceptions, of course, such as Canada, but most of Western Europe has slipped from support for Israel to support for the Palestinian cause, as if both sides might not have valid claims to the disputed land.

Most Americans are enthusiastic about Israel, but the U.S. government under Barack Obama, has, in recent years, shown increasing antagonism. Unsurprisingly, not a single Muslim nation likes Israel at all.

Many hate the Jewish state precisely because it is a Jewish state -- there seems no other reason why they might hate it. Many, in a display of true prejudice, have never even visited it.

In the world in general, and Europe in particular, anti-Semitism is growing at a rate not unlike the 1930s. It does not take much mental grip to see the link between that escalation of the "oldest hatred" and the refined political and religious rejection of Israel as the one and only state in the world that deserves to be abolished. Or, as Mahmoud Ahmadinejad once put it in Farsi, "exterminated" (Umam-e Eslami bayad Isra'il-ra qal' o qam' kard: The nations of Islam must exterminate Israel.)

In a Friday sermon, former Iranian President Rafsanjani also made the statement, "If one day, a very important day of course, the Islamic world will also be equipped with the weapons available to Israel now, the imperialist strategy will reach an impasse, because the employment of even one atomic bomb inside Israel will wipe it off the face of the earth, but would only do damage to the Islamic world."[1]

While the world focuses on Israel's flaws (often imaginary), in Saudi Arabia there are special roads for non-Muslims to ensure they cannot enter Mecca or Medina.


But then, one might surely ask, if everyone hates Israel, will it make the slightest difference if it actually is wiped off the face of the earth? Will it matter if another six million Jews are gassed or driven into the Mediterranean? If most of the people on the planet hate Israel and want to see a massive Palestinian state take its place, then who will weep if the Jews go and the Arabs come and take over, as so many people now say they have every right to do? Would it not be a blow for humanity, justice and people everywhere if the oppressive, violent, and apartheid Jewish state were to be removed from the earth?

Are you starting to feel a bit uneasy about this?

Some might hold back from wishing death on the Jews, but would not hesitate if someone else were to kill them. Or force them to pack their bags and leave their homes to make room for an army of Palestinian "refugees." If you hate Jews enough, nothing may seem too bad for them, and no history of pogroms and the Holocaust will be enough to dissuade you and your friends from doing it all over again, or rejoicing that someone else is doing it for you.

The treatment—or rather, mistreatment—of the Jews stands out in the modern era as the single greatest emblem of man's inhumanity to man. From the Christian (and post-Christian) West to the Islamic East, hatred of Jews has led to unfettered cruelty, and a continuing refusal to accept any form of moral or ethical constraint. However much Jews suffer, anti-Semites want them to suffer more. However far Jews might try to run, their self-appointed overlords will try to hunt them down and start the process of hate and persecution all over again. However much Jews contribute to human civilization, win Nobel prizes, develop cures for illness, create remarkable films, set up hospital units worldwide to treat the sick, irrigate the fields of the poorest farmers and change our lives for the better — the haters sneer and lie and kill Jews with the same knives; and every time a Jew is killed or wounded, dance on the same floors.

And what have the Jews ever done to deserve any of this? Are the Jews really the masterminds behind every war, every revolution, every economic disaster, every plot, even the Holocaust itself? Yes, according to anti-Semites, either the Holocaust never happened and was made up to secure Israel as a country for the Jews; or else the Jews instigated it to force other Jews to flee Europe to Mandatory Palestine, to take it over. Just read a few comments on YouTube as a measuring stick for this mental illness.

Of course, I know the Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion says all this (apart from the Holocaust slurs), but the Protocols is a forgery;[2] and not just a forgery, but a cheap and shoddy product of the Tsarist secret police before World War I. Even though it is now more than a century later, some people still treat this libel as Gospel, and write comments on YouTube to prove that the Jews are the worst of mankind.

In Arab countries, after many years, the Protocols is still a bestseller. And Hitler's Mein Kampf, tagged in 2011 by Waterstone's in the UK as the "perfect Christmas present", in its electronic form is selling hand-over-fist. How hurtful -- and deeply unjust -- that is to Jews who have just made critical advances in medicine or saved a Palestinian child's life when operating in an Israeli hospital, or journeyed to Africa to teach better methods of farming, or traveled with an Israeli aid team to Haiti or the Philippines to save yet more lives.

The Jews are not the worst of mankind; they are like the rest of us, some bad, some good, and some so talented they have left indelible marks on every field of human endeavor. They have always been an underappreciated force, above all in the realm of ethics. No religion has developed in so well-structured a fashion as Judaism; its impact on Christian and Islamic ethics is well attested. Without the Jews, a major force for good and a barometer for moral concern would be taken from civilization entirely -- or is moral concern something the world would secretly rather do without?

The irony is that it is precisely these prejudiced, conniving, and racist haters of Jews -- including those who envisage the destruction of the one and only Jewish state and those who conjure up a realistic threat of a second Holocaust -- who have the arrogance to treat the Jews, including the Israelis, as if they are the most prejudiced, the most conniving, the most racist of all mankind -- and the most immoral -- and, of course, deeply inferior to Christians or Muslims.

The false piety of much Christian condemnation of Israel is matched only by the cheap moralizing of the followers of Islam in their attacks, both physical and verbal, on the Jewish state; or their failure to recognize that Jerusalem was always a Jewish city; that there were two Jewish temples there; and especially in the obsessive Palestinian refusal to recognize any part of Israel as a Jewish entity, or to make peace with Israel, or even to acknowledge that there has been a continuous Jewish presence in the Holy Land for three thousand years.

The loss of Israel -- engineered as it would be by a coalition of "progressive" Muslims and Western secularists, along with anti-Semitic Christians and hard-line Islamists -- would not be a victory for any of the values we hold dear. On the contrary, it would be one of the greatest disasters to befall mankind. The values we consider highest – such as peacemaking, neighborliness, cooperation, caring for the less fortunate, for those of different religions, ethnicity, and mutual defence against aggression – would start to crumble, and our sense of human progress would weaken and lose its hold on our minds and hearts. If we could do that to the Jews, a people of great deserving, who have done so much for us, what might we then do to others? For even if the Jews were gone, there would still be other, weaker people for us to persecute and eliminate.

Does such a prognosis seem inflated, even barely respectable? Israel, however, did not emerge in the way most other countries have done, as an expression of traditional boundaries, a containment of one or more specific languages, a repository of a single culture, a place determined by one king, one dominant holy man, or one parliament, or one body of laws. Of course, Israel has had several of those things, beginning with the establishment, on that same plot of land, of the oldest set of laws after Hammurabi: the Ten Commandments and the earliest set of social welfare laws.

Modern Israel had the original acclamation of much of the international community; it set up a democratic parliament, established a set of basic laws, and, when other nations let boatloads of refugees sink at sea, served the Jews as the only sanctuary, free from a persecution which still exists to this day, and, sadly, which is once again being orchestrated by people supposedly educated enough to know better.

For civilization — any civilization — to work, there must be a core set of values that crosses from one culture to another, acquiring on the way a sort of universal validity. Small differences may exist between one country and another, one language and another, and even one religion and another. With few exceptions, people who belong to Western civilization believe that it is absolutely wrong to take a human life (except in life-or-death cases or self-defense). We strongly believe in human rights even if we are not always observant of them. In general, Western countries advocate and legislate for equality between men and women, equal justice under law, an independent judiciary, and freedom of and from belief. We attempt to expunge racism in its various forms from our streets and businesses. We defend minorities, religious, political or gender-based. And free speech, we defend that too, even when it hurts us to do so.

Islamic civilization holds often starkly different values. A man's or woman's life may be taken, often by beheading or stoning, for a wide range of "sins," from heresy (really, free thinking; there, called blasphemy) to adultery to apostasy (more free thinking). A Muslim also may not be punished for killing a non-Muslim, or even another Muslim if his intent is to further the cause of Islam. Although not Islamic in any true sense, female genital mutilation and honor killings are far from uncommon. They happen in the UK and the US, mainly within Muslim communities – as well as in Muslim countries.

Perhaps Islamic civilization would find the disappearance of the Jewish state a satisfactory gift. But Western civilization might not wear this too well, except for that part occupied by those who consider themselves as members of the far left -- Stalinists, Trotskyites, anarchists and anti-Semitic Christians who believe they do the will of God, and even Quisling Jews -- when they curse Jews and boycott Israel.

When the Nazis took power, Germany seemed to be one of the most civilized countries in the world, with a rich culture, a deep grasp of academic achievement, and a growing mastery of science and technology. Within a few years, the country had been reduced to the status of the most barbaric of countries, the most abusive of human rights, perhaps the most savage political entity in history. And not many years later, Germany was in ruins, destroyed by the very totalitarianism it had used to impose itself on the rest of Europe.

Across the world, people came to condemn the great wrongs Germans had done to mankind. Germans rebuilt their nation only by rigorously excluding that tendency to totalitarianism. Yet today, young Germans march against Israel and, in fighting Israel, fight the Jews. What conceivable right do the scions of that black period and the years of wiedergutmachen [compensation] have to treat Jews as untermenschen [subhuman] once again, to march in the streets where the SS marched, to bellow as their grandfathers bellowed, Juden Raus, "Jews out" -- out of "Palestine," out of the Middle East, out of everyplace.

Whatever its detractors may say, Israel declares loudly that it is a country where the best Western values are honored, where democracy, the rule of law, the creation of new laws through an elected parliament, the fair treatment of all minorities, rights for women, for gays, for all citizens, Jews and non-Jews alike, are demanded. But say it is also a Jewish country based on Jewish ethics, and someone of limited intellect will come along clutching a copy of the Torah, the Talmud, the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, or anything else they can lay their hands on, and declaiming that they can prove Judaism is a bloodthirsty religion that has always worked to defeat and mistreat non-Jews. In the past years, I have only known a violent and angry Islam; yet the world is silent. The world excuses Islamic murder, but focuses on flaws, often imaginary, on the part of Israel.

The very establishment of a Jewish state stood for more than even its founders guessed. It was open defiance of the universal impulse to persecute and kill Jews.

Only in their Holy Land could the Jews weave their own destinies at last -- and do. Israel thrives. They have won Nobel prizes and made some of the greatest advances in science, technology, and medicine. Israelis create world-class hospitals and universities. They have written more scientific papers per capita than any other nation, and have saved children's lives – Palestinian children's lives – in a dozen operating theaters, and sent aid teams around the world to save yet more lives. Israeli "apartheid"? Far from it. All facilities and opportunities are equally open to all Israelis: Black, White, Arab, Christian, Jew -- everyone. Far more than in say, Saudi Arabia, where there are special roads for non-Muslims to ensure they cannot enter Mecca or Medina, or where a Bible is not even allowed in the country. Or all the mosques where every Friday congregants are told that Jews are the sons of pigs and apes. It would seem that is racism; that is apartheid.

What the destroyers of Israel would do is negate every one of Israel's achievements and more, and leave a hole in the world, in their own world. What, after all, would take the place of Israel? Another failed state, riven by strife, characterized by failure, poverty-stricken, dependent, just another victim of the authoritarian Arab way of governing? Is that something that will set civilization towards new horizons? It is up to us to keep the lights on, to place civilization against barbarism, to put our minds and bodies between Israel and all who mean her ill.

[1] "Iran Calls for the Destruction of Israel," Intelligence and Terrorism Information Center, Center for Special Studies, Special Information Bulletin, November 2003, citing Khabar TV, December 14, 2000. Cited in Joshua Teitelbaum, What Iranian Leaders Really Say About Doing Away with Israel, Jerusalem Center for Pubic Affairs.
[2] See David Aaronovitch, Voodoo Histories: The Role of the Conspiracy Theory in Shaping Modern History, London, Jonathan Cape, 2009, pp. 22-48.

Sunday, December 23, 2012

Hayek on Implementing the "Mandate of the People"

"Yet agreement that planning is necessary, together with the inability of democratic assemblies to produce a plan, will evoke stronger and stronger demands that the government or some single individual should be given powers to act on their own responsibility. The belief is becoming more and more widespread that, if things are to get done, the responsible authorities must be freed from the fetters of democratic procedure....  Hitler did not have to destroy democracy; he merely took advantage of the decay of democracy and at the critical moment obtained the support of many to whom, though they detested Hitler, he yet seemed the only man strong enough to get things done."  --F.A. Hayek
In this section of quotes from F.A. Hayek's "The Road to Serfdom," discusses how a true agreement on what the "mandate of the people" means is actually quite elusive, but the government will feel the need to take action regardless and take steps to centrally manage the economy to fulfill the people's "mandate."

Recall that it is not the government's job to select a common end for the people.  To be free, citizens must be allowed to select their own ends ("...within these spheres the individual’s system of ends should be supreme and not subject to any dictation by others. It is this recognition of the individual as the ultimate judge of his ends, the belief that as far as possible his own views ought to govern his actions, that forms the essence of the individualist position." -- F.A. Hayek).

--Against All Enemies

(Emphasis is mine.)

"We can rely on voluntary agreement to guide the action of the state only so long as it is confined to spheres where agreement exists. But not only when the state undertakes direct control in fields where there is no such agreement is it bound to suppress individual freedom.
[...]

The people may have agreed on adopting a system of directed economy because they have been convinced that it will produce great prosperity. In the discussions leading to the decision, the goal of planning will have been described by some such term as “common welfare,” which only conceals the absence of real agreement on the ends of planning. Agreement will in fact exist only on the mechanism to be used. But it is a mechanism which can be used only for a common end; and the question of the precise goal toward which all activity is to be directed will arise as soon as the executive power has to translate the demand for a single plan into a particular plan. Then it will appear that the agreement on the desirability of planning is not supported by agreement on the ends the plan is to serve.
[...]

The inability of democratic assemblies to carry out what seems to be a clear mandate of the people will inevitably cause dissatisfaction with democratic institutions. Parliaments come to be regarded as ineffective “talking shops,” unable or incompetent to carry out the tasks for which they have been chosen. The conviction grows that if efficient planning is to be done, the direction must be “taken out of politics” and placed in the hands of experts—permanent officials or independent autonomous bodies.
[...]

The delegation of particular technical tasks to separate bodies, while a regular feature, is yet only the first step in the process whereby a democracy which embarks on planning progressively relinquishes its powers.
[...]

Yet agreement that planning is necessary, together with the inability of democratic assemblies to produce a plan, will evoke stronger and stronger demands that the government or some single individual should be given powers to act on their own responsibility. The belief is becoming more and more widespread that, if things are to get done, the responsible authorities must be freed from the fetters of democratic procedure.
[...]

It is important to remember that, for some time before 1933, Germany had reached a stage in which it had, in effect, had to be governed dictatorially....
Hitler did not have to destroy democracy; he merely took advantage of the decay of democracy and at the critical moment obtained the support of many to whom, though they detested Hitler, he yet seemed the only man strong enough to get things done."

Hayek, F. A. (2010-10-22). The Road to Serfdom (pp. 103-109). University of Chicago Press - A. Kindle Edition. 

Connect to AAE
   Blog: http://aaenemies.blogspot.com
   Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/AgainstAllEnemies (Click "Like")
   Twitter: https://www.twitter.com/@AAEnemies ("Follow")
   YouTube: http://www.youtube.com/user/AAEnemies ("Subscribe")
Disclaimer: These opinions are solely my own, and do not reflect the opinions or official positions of any United States Government agency, organization or department.

Saturday, September 29, 2012

Appeasement and Betrayal

By outlawing the criticism of Muhammad, a man who lived over a thousand years ago, and his ideology, Islam, we are appeasing the followers of that ideology and contributing to our own destruction.

In the 1930's, the world feared Adolf Hitler and appeased him by giving up land.  They thought this would satisfy him and bring peace to Europe.  They were wrong.  By giving in to his demands, they were only emboldening him and feeding his evil desires.

Now we are faced with a similar evil, but this time it is manifesting itself as an ideology wrapped in a religion that must be respected.  To appease its ravenous desires, we are not sacrificing land, however.  We are sacrificing our liberties, which is much more insidious, and ultimately more dangerous.

The first liberty we are sacrificing is our Freedom of Speech.  Laws are now in the works, most notably at the United Nations, that will forbid the insulting of the prophet of Islam, Muhammad.  Should we ratify any such law, it will become Islam's point of penetration into the very fabric of our society, tearing past the defenses established by our Constitution and allowing Islamic ideology to attack all our institutions with relative impunity.

You see, Islam is a totalitarian ideology, established by their prophet, which dictates all aspects of life and government.  Should you criticize the ideology, you are ultimately criticizing Muhammad.  Thus their ideology will be beyond reproach, and will slowly and steadily destroy the institutions of freedom we hold so dear.  It will be the loss of our ability to speak out against it that will seal our doom.

Considering these proposed blasphemy laws, what if you are found guilty of criticizing Muhammad or his ideology?  What then?  Will it be a fine?  Will it be imprisonment?  Or will it be your beheading, as devout Muslims so vocally demand?

Do you see where this is going?  This is a means to an end to destroy our freedoms and our way of life.  It will begin with the loss of our voice, our ability to acknowledge, speak out against, and resist this evil.  It will be given a free pass in our nation to trample us underfoot...unopposed.

I will not defend the content of the movie "Innocence of Muslims," nor the way that it was presented.  But I will defend that individual's right under the First Amendment of our Constitution to say what he did.  Just as I will the individual who created the "Piss Christ."  Do I like either one--no.  But, should an individual be forbidden to express such things, what is to stop someone from forbidding me to speak my mind?  This, my friend, is the road to tyranny.

If our government is given the authority to determine which speech is allowed and which is forbidden, then they can outlaw dissent against the government.  Should this occur, we will all suffer under the tyranny that has risen within our borders.

--Against All Enemies

AAE blog: http://aaenemies.blogspot.com

AAE on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/AgainstAllEnemies
AAE on Twitter: https://www.twitter.com/@AAEnemies


Disclaimer: These opinions are solely my own, and do not reflect the opinions or official positions of any United States Government agency, organization or department.

Monday, September 03, 2012

Hayek on Communism and Fascism


The following four paragraphs are parts of F.A. Hayek's discussion of fascism and communism as observed in Russia and Germany around the time of World War II.
While “progressives” in England and elsewhere were still deluding themselves that communism and fascism represented opposite poles, more and more people began to ask themselves whether these new tyrannies were not the outcome of the same tendencies. Even communists must have been somewhat shaken by such testimonies as that of Max Eastman, Lenin’s old friend, who found himself compelled to admit that “instead of being better, Stalinism is worse than fascism, more ruthless, barbarous, unjust, immoral, antidemocratic, unredeemed by any hope or scruple,” and that it is “better described as superfascist”; and when we find the same author recognizing that “Stalinism is socialism, in the sense of being an inevitable although unforeseen political accompaniment of the nationalization and collectivization which he had relied upon as part of his plan for erecting a classless society,” his conclusion clearly achieves wider significance.
...W. H. Chamberlin, who in twelve years in Russia as an American correspondent had seen all his ideals shattered, summed up the conclusions of his studies there and in Germany and Italy in the statement that “socialism is certain to prove, in the beginning at least, the road NOT to freedom, but to dictatorship and counter-dictatorships, to civil war of the fiercest kind. Socialism achieved and maintained by democratic means seems definitely to belong to the world of utopias.
...And Walter Lippmann has arrived at the conviction that “the generation to which we belong is now learning from experience what happens when men retreat from freedom to a coercive organization of their affairs. Though they promise themselves a more abundant life, they must in practice renounce it; as the organized direction increases, the variety of ends must give way to uniformity. That is the nemesis of the planned society and the authoritarian principle in human affairs.”
...“The complete collapse of the belief in the attainability of freedom and equality through Marxism,” writes Peter Drucker, “has forced Russia to travel the same road toward a totalitarian, purely negative, non-economic society of unfreedom and inequality which Germany has been following. Not that communism and fascism are essentially the same. Fascism is the stage reached after communism has proved an illusion, and it has proved as much an illusion in Stalinist Russia as in pre-Hitler Germany.”
Hayek, F. A. (2010-10-22). The Road to Serfdom (pp. 78-80). University of Chicago Press - A. Kindle Edition.

Disclaimer: These opinions are solely my own, and do not reflect the opinions or official positions of any United States Government agency, organization or department.

Friday, June 22, 2012

Working Towards The Fuehrer

By Findalis


A timely and topical rant from my friend Patriot USA at Patriot's Corner.  A look back with a warning to the future.

__________________________________________________________________________________

Adolf Hitler was a lazy bastard. He slept late, often until two o'clock in the afternoon. After he got out of his pit, he'd have a read of the papers then go for a stroll. In the evening, he often watched movies selected for him by Goebbels. (1)

The world was at war, and somehow, the "Vienna vagabond" (2) was at the center of the storm. An average of twenty seven thousand people died each day between September 1939 and August 1945. At least sixty million lives were lost overall. The lives of the survivors were forever touched by the events of World War II. The war went beyond anything previously experienced by humanity and the only way people could describe what happened was to say that "all hell broke loose". (3)

That's an appropriate turn of phrase, because the Satanic nature of Hitler's regime is unmistakable. Hitler, a failed artist with no formal training, created a symbol for the Nazis to follow during his rise to power. That symbol was the Hakenkreuz, the hooked cross. We know it as a black swastika on a white disc, with a red background. (4)

At the first Nazi party rally held in Nuremberg, Hitler used the Blutfahne to bless the Nazi flags carried by his followers. This flag was stained with the blood of Nazis who had been killed during the failed putsch of November 1923. (5)





The Fuehrer demanded absolute loyalty from his followers. German soldiers had to swear an oath of allegiance to Hitler personally. (6) One Nazi party member said, "There are things one cannot explain, cannot describe. I never stopped thinking of him. Sometimes, he meets us in our dreams." (7)

An oath sworn to a man, believed by his followers to be their Savior, made under a hooked cross and consecrated with the blood of other Nazis. Historians have struggled to explain how such a regime managed to establish the camps.

Adolf Hitler may have spent most of his time lazing around at his home in the mountains, and he may not have issued an explicit order to establish a system of death camps, but an explanation of how the camps came to be an integral part of the Third Reich is certainly possible.

Hitler had stated that he intended to do away with democracy in Germany, and that's exactly what he did once he attained power. The Nazi regime has been described as chaotic, (8) but in fact the Nazis operated the Third Reich in accordance with basic evolutionary principles. Hitler was a follower of Darwin, and believed that his subordinates should compete amongst themselves, and the most devout and able Nazis would rise to positions of power. (9)

In the absence of clearly defined orders being formally issued to his subordinates, the words of the Fuehrer served to establish the goals of the Nazi regime. Hitler had declared the Jewish race to be his enemy throughout his political career, so it was natural for avowed Nazis to pursue anti-Semitic policies. The British historian Ian Kershaw explains how this worked, citing a speech by Werner Willikens, who was employed in the German Ministry of Food: "Everyone who has the opportunity to observe it knows that the Fuehrer can hardly dictate from above everything he intends to realize sooner or later. On the contrary, up till now everyone with a post in the new Germany has worked best when he has, so to speak, worked towards the Fuehrer." (10)

Nazis worked towards the Fuehrer by perpetrating crimes they thought Hitler would approve of. There was no legal or moral reason to restrict their behaviour in any way. Their enemies had from day one been treated with the utmost brutality. On the Night of The Long Knives, the Nazis had even turned against their own and murdered the leader of the SA, Ernst Roehm. (11)

The most ruthless anti-Semitic measures were taken. In accordance with the principles of Darwinism, the ongoing expression of the Nazis' hatred of the Jewish people could not evolve differently, by going back in time and choosing a path which had not been taken. The Nazis' anti-Semitic policies could only become more radical until eventually, a "final solution" was reached.

In the Third Reich, all roads led to the death camps.





Many people living in first world countries today have no personal experience of war, and they have no context in which to place the Nazis and their crimes against humanity. This limited view of reality is sometimes referred to as a "normalcy bias". It may be difficult for some people to think clearly about the Holocaust. But the question must be asked: Could it happen again?

If such a regime arose today, its disciples would not march under the swastika. That symbol is now associated with the Nazis, and the political operators of the 21st century would never permit such an overt display.

In the landmark television series The World At War, one woman who lived in Germany in the 1930s said that Adolf Hitler appeared to many people to be pursuing order and stability. By the time his real agenda became known, it was too late for anyone to oppose him. Christabel Bielenberg, who was married to a German at the time, said: "I think that everything that came to us when we were living in Germany came very gradually. That was part, perhaps, of the way Hitler managed these things. It came on us rather, drip by drip, rather like an anesthetic, one could almost say, and it was only when a specific thing that he did hit you personally that you actually realized what was going on." (12)

We know that it is possible for a man who has done nothing, achieved nothing, and whose character and beliefs are a mystery, to manoeuvre themselves into a position of considerable political power. In an age where information is accessible to anyone, anywhere in the world, at the touch of an iPad, no one has any idea who the current American President really is.

Winston Churchill, 4th Queen's Own Hussars
One of the first things Obama did as President was remove a bust of Sir Winston Churchill from the Oval Office. Churchill was the man who, more than any other, recognized the danger posed by the Nazis and stood resolutely against them. (13)

After insulting the Brits, Obama did the same to the Israelis. Benjamin Netanyahu served in the IDF and fought on the front lines in the Yom Kippur war of 1973. When Netanyahu arrived at the White House for a scheduled meeting, Obama handed him a list of demands based on the false "land for peace" premise, and told him to consider that while he went off to have dinner with his wife. Obama said he'd "be around" if Netanyahu decided he was willing to bend over on behalf of the state of Israel and take it up the ass. As one of the reporters who covered the incident noted, all that Obama managed to do here was reveal himself to be ideological and vindictive. (14,15)

These two incidents are telling enough, but a further incident involving a head of state gives Obama's game away completely. When he met a real, live Muslim king, his upbringing came to the fore and the President of the United States of America bowed down before him.

Barack Hussein Obama
As President, Obama has changed the status of Israel in the Middle East by letting her enemies know that instead of standing by Israel, his administration is backing away. As President of America, Obama has given hope to Israel's enemies. (16)

If that's what Obama meant by "hope" and "change" on the campaign trail in 2008, one shudders to think what is meant by his new slogan: "Forward!" (17)

An American President doesn't need to drop a nuke on Tel Aviv for Israel's citizens to start dying. All he needs to do is let it be known that he sympathizes with the Islamic world, and that America no longer stands with Israel. There are plenty of organizations in the Middle East willing to murder Israelis. They're not satisfied killing a busload of people at a time either. They've been doing that for years, and it hasn't worked. The Star of David still flies over Israel.

The Nazis also tried to operate at that level, using "gas vans". (18) It didn't work for them either; as we know, the Nazis went on to develop their "final solution" to the Judenfrage.

Hitler may have committed suicide in April 1945, but there are still a lot of people today trying to act in ways that would have pleased him.

Whether it's politicians trying to do to Israel what Neville Chamberlain and his pals did to Czechoslovakia in 1938, a corrupt Western media failing to report the thousands of rockets fired from Gaza into the town of Sderot, or the educated, so-called "moderate" Muslims living in the West who harbor the same "ancient hatred" of Israel in their hearts as the so-called "extremists" who act upon it, there is no shortage of people who, almost seven decades after the collapse of the Third Reich, are still working towards the Fuehrer.

References

1. Kershaw, I. Hitler, The Germans, And The Final Solution, Kindle loc. 435
2. Shirer, W. The Rise And Fall Of The Third Reich, Kindle loc. 2301
3. Hastings, M. All Hell Let Loose: The World At War 1939-1945, p.xv
4. Shirer, W. The Rise And Fall Of The Third Reich, Kindle loc. 1140
5. History Channel, The Third Reich, DVD no.1, 12-13 mins
6. Rees, L. The Nazis: A Warning From History, p. 50
7. History Channel. The Third Reich, DVD no. 1, 12-13 mins
8. Rees, L. The Nazis: A Warning From History, p. 45
9. Rees, L. The Nazis: A Warning From History, p. 34
10. Kershaw, I. Hitler, The Germans, And The Final Solution, Kindle loc. 596
11. Shirer, W. The Rise And Fall Of The Third Reich, Kindle loc. 5355
12. ITV. The World At War: A New Germany, 40-41 mins
13.  http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/177508/obama-throws-churchill-out-oval-office/nile-gardiner#
14.  http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/barackobama/7521220/Obama-snubbed-Netanyahu-for-dinner-with-Michelle-and-the-girls-Israelis-claim.html#
15. http://voices.washingtonpost.com/postpartisan/2010/03/obama_and_netanyahu_pointless.html
16. Horowitz, D. and Laskin, J. Obama And The War Against The Jews, Kindle loc. 330
17.  http://www.theblaze.com/stories/forward-for-communism-is-obamas-new-forward-slogan-really-a-coincidence/
18.  http://www.ushmm.org/lcmedia/viewer/wlc/film.php?RefId=DFG0667E
19. www.mideastweb.org/hamas.htm, quoted by Horowitz & Laskin, Kindle loc. 322
20. Gilbert, M. The Second World War: A Complete History, p. 681




Follow faultlineusa on Twitter