You ain't gonna see THIS every day
After libelblogger Charles Johnson defamed my colleague Pamela Geller in the Guardian last week, Comment Is Free editor Matt Seaton kindly gave me a chance to respond: "Pamela Geller: defamed freedom fighter":
The fury of the attacks upon my colleague Pamela Geller is a measure of her effectiveness in raising awareness about issues relating to the Ground Zero mega-mosque, honour killing, the plight of apostates from Islam, and more. The enemies of free discourse, the free conscience and equality of rights for women cannot refute her, so instead, they try to destroy her personally, rendering her discredited and marginalised - even if they have to twist the truth and lie outright to accomplish this goal.Charles Johnson's Comment is free article was a prime example. Johnson called her an "extreme rightwing blogger" and claimed, without offering any evidence, that she had "arguably done more than anyone else to incite fear and hatred over the so-called 'Ground Zero Mosque'". And with a puritanical distaste that he would sneer at if it came from any conservative, he claimed that the New York Times profile of her featured a photo of Pamela "posing in her bikini". This, too, was false.
Then, Johnson claims that, when Geller was commenting at his site, Little Green Footballs:
"The target of her rage was usually (but not always) Muslims. And not just militants or terrorists, but all Muslims; Geller was quite clear, and stated often, that she didn't believe in the idea of a 'moderate Islam' at all. (Ironically, this is an opinion she shares with the leaders of al-Qaida, who insist that all Muslims must follow their extreme interpretation of Islam.)"Johnson here confuses moderate Islam with moderate Muslims. In Ibn Warraq's lapidary formulation, there are many moderate Muslims, but no moderate Islam. In other words, there is no traditional, mainstream sect of Islam or school of Islamic jurisprudence that does not teach warfare against and the subjugation of unbelievers. But that doesn't mean that every Muslim is with that programme, any more than Jesus's teaching means that every Christian turns the other cheek and loves his enemies. There is a spectrum of belief, knowledge and fervour among the adherents of any belief-system; some are very knowledgeable and committed, others are not - and sometimes, the most knowledgeable and the most committed are not the same group. The teachings of a religion are one thing and the way every individual believer puts those teachings into practice is quite another.
This is an elementary distinction, but it seems to elude Johnson and other leftists. In any case, by claiming that Geller's "target" was "all Muslims", rather than Islamic supremacists who wish to destroy the freedom of speech, the freedom of conscience and the equality of rights of women - and particularly, by his vicious equation of her with al-Qaida, Johnson betrays a breathtaking disregard for the facts. Perhaps he hasn't caught any of the numerous media appearances in which Geller explained that it was love for Muslims, but hatred of oppression (the Islamic death penalty for apostasy, the widespread tolerance for honour killing in the Islamic world) that led her to take the stands that she has. Those who doubt the sincerity of this statement should note that human rights organisations the world over have said and done virtually nothing about the plight of apostates from Islam or the Islamic justifications for honour killing. Who loves those victims more: the self-proclaimed human rights activists, or Pamela Geller?...
There is more. Check out also the comments section, which is filled with the expected horde of abusive and fact-challenged Leftists and Islamic supremacists. I left a couple of comments there, at Seaton's invitation, and you may wish to do so also -- although remember that reason and logic are completely lost on some people.
UPDATE: Johnson has replied at his lies-and-hate site Little Green Footballs, accusing me of lying in The Guardian and bringing forth evidence that essentially amounts to claiming that Pamela Geller and I don't mean what they say. Well, I am impressed that Charles Johnson can read souls, but doubt that his "evidence" would pass muster with any sane group that troubled to evaluate it.
Well written indeed sir.
Robert:
What positive contributions has libel blogger Charles Johnson made when it come to having a realistic understanding of Islams behavior towards Western cultures??
Yep - the comment field there is pretty vicious. I decided not to enter.
My God....reading the comments from Guardian readers, one can't help but write off Britain as a lost cause. The willful ignorance knows no bounds.
There is a spectrum of belief, knowledge and fervour among the adherents of any belief-system; some are very knowledgeable and committed, others are not - and sometimes, the most knowledgeable and the most committed are not the same group. The teachings of a religion are one thing and the way every individual believer puts those teachings into practice is quite another.
Any so-called 'religion' that instructs its adherents to 'hate' and subdue a majority of the world's population by stealth and force excludes itself from really being a religion. Islam is exclusionary on this point, pitting itself against all the world so-called 'infidels' (ie., non-believers in their creed), which is the only monolithic aspect of Islam, as stated in their (immutable) Koran, to war on all the infidels until the whole world is Allah's in submission to Sharia; not to mention all the other called-for abuses against humanity, degradation of women, death of apostates, consumated child marriages, inhumane Sharia punishments, bigotry against Jews and Christians, dhimmitude, etc. There is not a "spectrum" but a monochromatic zeal of all Islamic believers, to a greater or lesser extent. They are different from any other belief-system, in that failure to impose Sharia through either fast or slow Jihad, is a punishable offense, even the so-called "moderates". Pamela and all who write about this who are educating the general public are doing us an invaluable service. Thank you Guardian for publishing Spencer's. Now more and more, We understand.
There are no doubt many "good Muslims" in the world, but it is not because of their religion but a through lack of it. Does Charlie understand this?
There is an article in the Washington Post about Pamela Geller and her comments about Campbells soup in Canada selling Halal certified products.
An interesting article, but the response by The Guardian(UK)readers is also worth mentioning. Apart from comments by the liberal blind leading the blind, a comment by 'Meravie' that has got 1,082 recommends(so far)said:
18 October 2010 1:46PM
It happened to Sarah Palin, too. The left chooses someone to despise and mock, launching a full on hate campaign for daring to disagree with them. On the very same website we have an article calling on the media to report "fairly" on Ahmadinejad, someone who is in favour of female genital mutilation, the death sentence for gay people and "wiping Israel off the map" and yet almost daily articles condemning Geller and the Tea Party as mad racists who must be silenced at all costs.
Laughable.
None of the 'against' posts have got anything like this number of recommends. So, the liberal left get pasted on their own turf, too.
However, as a rider, I would add that someone like Ibn Warraq wouldn't have a chance of publishing a piece that explained the inherent weaknesses of Islam's ideology nowadays. (His last two pieces in The Guardian archives are dated November, 2001 and January 2002.)
That is an indication in itself of how extreme The Guardian has become since it threw in its lot with the most brutal ideology ever spawned.
"My God....reading the comments from Guardian readers, one can't help but write off Britain as a lost cause. The willful ignorance knows no bounds."
---------------
Indeed and its not limited to just this site either. I've been to a few UK sites and the leftists are pretty well bamboozled. They've bought into the multi-cultural trap, hook line and sinker.
It's my belief that they won't realize their mistake until the jihadists are sawing their heads off.
It's soul-destroying reading the comments, isn't it, particularly from the staff and contributors. How people can be convinced by such logically-retarded arguments escapes me.
But don't write off Britain because of what you read in the Guardian. Its circulation figures are pitifully small in comparison to most other British newspapers. It seems to stay afloat because of the love-in with the equally reprehensible BBC.
There is just too many idiots out there that I sometimes feel the odds are against any of us trying to explain the obvious......Obvious to me as I have lived through it and obvious through my family history as official bonifed legal Dhimmis under Islamic draconian law..YES people it is REAL not a phobia
wow robert, right into the hornet's nest - they are going to be buzz buzz buzzing for a while.
Typical comments. Liberals, armed with little to no information, just a reinforcing history of exposure to unopposed liberalism, in a liberally pure environment, with like-minded liberal indoctrinators and fellow liberal mates, demonstrating once again the harsh reality of liberalism.
Liberals are nearly incapable of developing a cogent argument, because they never had to. Their liberal indoctrination afforded them the luxury of never being challenged, or allowed to challenge for that matter, the mantra of liberalism, which essentially is, majority white Christian groups...bad, all other minority groups...good.
That is the only logical conclusion, for if liberals actually comprehended the substance of the ideology of Islam that they supposedly support, they would be certified as insane.
Help me out guys...am I missing something? I haven't been following Little green Footballs for quite some time now, but I always thought they were are our team.
I see the web site linked all over the Anti-radical blogs....
did something happen that I don't know about?
Why can't leftists read the Qur'an?
My caricature of the liar & his lizard army
Re. the comments to articles touching on Islam, both opinion pieces and news stories, in the UK press.
Do not judge the state of awareness of Islam among the UK population, solely by the comments at 'comment is free'; remember, too, that not everyone who tries to place a comment tgets through; there have been cases of Islamosavvy UK readers trying to get a word in edgeways at CiF and having their comments deleted, or not accepted in the first place.
By contrast: recently the UK's 'Daily Telegraph' ran a puff-piece in favour of the burqa, written by a Muslim woman resident in the UK.
The comments section to that article was hopping with activity - 1275 comments and counting, last I checked. I read every last one of them, and made copies of some of the more striking ones.
The vast majority were informed, intelligent, and as Islamosavvy as anything one might read in the comments floor at Jihadwatch; indeed, there were at least two commenters linking to jihadwatch articles, and others citing the famous Winston Churchill demolition-job on Islam, from the 'River War' (1899).
Nor is that unusual. I have noticed a similar awareness in the comments to other articles dealing with aspects of Islam, in other parts of the British press, on those occasions - whether here or at New English Review - when I have clicked on a link to read the original story or opinion-piece in situ. The comments to an article about a mosque with towering minarets, proposed for a site overlooking the famous military academy at Sandhurst, mostly showed a clear wareness of Islam as a menace to civilisation.
I will add that the comments to articles about the burqa in the Australian press, and comments in 'Jerusalem Post' talkbacks, have shown a similar pattern. I don't know what percentage of the free world's population has by now gotten a handle on what jihad and sharia *really* mean - especially for us infidels - but it's increasing. Indeed, I suspect we are fast approaching some kind of 'tipping point'.
Sorry. Typo. (I really need to get my eyes checked and buy a new pair of glasses!).
For "showed a clear wareness of Islam" read "showed a clear awareness of Islam".
Infidel Task Force,
Charles Johnson - purveyor and proprietor of LGF - apparently had a political epiphany about two years ago and decided that his post-911 foray into conservatism was an aberration...and that he'd been a liberal/lefty at heart all along.
Bosch,
Didn't you draw a cartoon parody of Pamela Geller fighting Nazis - but as Hitler (due to Johnson's ugly characterization of her).
We'd love to see that one again.
Beautifully succinct! A programmer would call it elegant; you should memorize it to preface the majority of your interviews and debates… until the Lefties HEAR it.
“…there is no traditional, mainstream sect of Islam or school of Islamic jurisprudence that does not teach warfare against and the subjugation of unbelievers. But that doesn't mean that every Muslim is with that programme, any more than Jesus's teaching means that every Christian turns the other cheek and loves his enemies. There is a spectrum of belief, knowledge and fervour among the adherents of any belief-system; some are very knowledgeable and committed, others are not - and sometimes, the most knowledgeable and the most committed are not the same group. The teachings of a religion are one thing and the way every individual believer puts those teachings into practice is quite another…”
Infidel Task Force, essentially, Charles had been going insane with his constant fixation on "stealth creationism" for a while, then started harping on Republicans, and going after Pam and Robert. Unfortunately, most of the rest of us in the Right side blogosphere didn't notice, kinda like putting a frog in a pot and slowly turning the heat up, till the moonbattery from Charles was at Level 10.
Then he went full blown bat guano crazy right before the election, showing his true progressive leanings. He had already been banning people for simply disagreeing with him. He actually has programs that search for any mention of his name, and people were banned for making a comment on a different website. He even blocked people's access to LGF. He blocks his Twitter account. And now he spends most of his time hating on the Right, hating on Robert and Pam, and hating people who are against radical Islam. Rarely does he find anything wrong with Islamists anymore, instead, he overreacts to ever mention of hardcore Islamists.
His old online friends have mostly abandoned him, and most of the lefties ignore him. He had his 15 minutes, like Scott McClellan, but, now, he is pretty much on his own.
Anyhow, keep the faith, Robert and Pam, the only people who believe Excitable Chucky are overseas dhimmis, particularly since he is simply playing inside baseball. Most people are probably saying "who the heck is Charles Johnson, and what is his mental problem?"
PS: hi, Charles! I'm sure you've received several flags for this comment.
Wow, that's a big step for the "comments are free" @ the Grunard, where almost everything that makes sense gets censored.
For years now, the Grunard was the UK forum for jihadists, Marxist-suckers for jihadists and all kinds of deluded third world creatures who were telling Brits how to run their affairs.
Draining a fever swamp like that is about as futile as trying to cure AIDS with Aspirin.
The Gauwdian, The Toronto Starzeera and the New York Times form a trifecta of Neo-Pravda that keep the indoctrinated sufficiently satisfied in their logic choking "SMUG"
If the issue wasn't so serious, this would be hilarious to read...
Check out also the comments section, which is filled with the expected horde of abusive and fact-challenged Leftists and Islamic supremacists.
'Expected', is the right word...They are always there, lurking like vultures waiting for an opportunity to zoom in on a kill...
They are ugly, vile, and irrelevant...mostly irrelevant...
Charlie:"Geller was quite clear, and stated often, that she didn't believe in the idea of a 'moderate Islam' at all.Ironically, this is an opinion she shares with the leaders of al-Qaida, who insist that all Muslims must follow their extreme interpretation of Islam."
Wow, I didn't know the Turkish PM Tayyip Erdogan was al-Qaida. ->
http://www.thememriblog.org/turkey/blog_personal/en/2595.htm
Well said, Robert!
Well, that was interesting. I spent a few hours on the Guardian comments page, and had a rousing debate with a few participants, some of which are very articulate, reasonable without getting emotional. However, the "moderator" watchdogs saw it fit to remove about half of my posts, especially those that listed the (violent) tenets of the Koran, ie., Suras 9:5, 9:29, 4:3 (slave girls) & 4:34 (wife beating), 3:28, 8:12, 24:2, 33:27, 33:61, 47:4, etc. That was gone, too "controversial" I guess? Nevertheless, the fact that Guardian even "allowed" this debate on Cif is itself commendable.
It was also interesting to feel what it must have been like under the old Soviet Censorship system, where someone "arbitrarily" didn't like what you said, and hit the 'delete'. Of course, no one is going to arrest me for "controversial" statements and send me off to Gulag... at least not yet. So things are really different on the other side of the Pond, they really treat their subjects/citizens as little children that must be made to obey and speak "correctly" or have their mouths 'washed', figuratively. Glad I am in America!
Still, I did notice as the day progressed more and more turning towards "accepting" that Islam is a hostile force, with fewer emotional "anti" anti-Jihad, or anti-Geller, responses, but more towards reasonable posts. That is what is good for us, to bring the conversation from a low base to higher levels and greater accuracy, in spite of the Censors. I feel for the British if this is any indication of what they're up against. Thanks, Robert, for the headsup on your article, it was fun and educational.
Every time a Muslim gets arrested for planning a terrorist, it convinces just that many more people that something is terribly wrong with Muslims given the endless procession of that have been arrested since 9/11 in the U.S.
They are their own worst enemy in terms of PR. Sure CAIR can get their mouthpieces air time on CNN or get some wealthy liberal elitist to shill for them like Barbara Walters, but they can't erase the dozens of Muslims arrested for plotting terrorist attacks or those successfully carried out.
It's funny that you whine about Johnson by saying "Johnson has replied at his lies-and-hate site Little Green Footballs, accusing me of lying....Well, I am impressed that Charles Johnson can read souls"
This seems to be your and Ms. Geller's entire MO against Muslims. Either Muslims are openly evil, or according to you and your partner, they are lying when they seem benign.
Well, well. We have to come to the end of these comments to find the critic.
But you are not worthy 'BenCohen' - that is a very lame charge you make. Its more of a smear than a real criticism of something or even the many things attributed to Robert & Pamela. You didn't even try.
Your statement about Robert and Pamela's 'MO' betrays quite an ignorance of what they actually DO say and there are hundreds of postings that would refute this little smear, 'BenCohen'
Haven't you noticed that there are also more than one or two insanely brave Muslim's who echo what they say - or have even said it first and with greater vitriol if you like. Pamela and Robert give Muslims who would speak out a voice. Something the majority of the 'liberal' media have conspicuously failed to do.
Its not 'Muslims' doofus - its Islam that's the problem - geddit?
In any case, there are plenty of examples of 'moderate' Muslims, like Imam Rauf for instance, who say one thing in the Western media and entirely another in the Arabic one, arrogantly confident that their real views will never be picked up and published in the Western media for all to see their taqiyya duplicity.
This seems to be your and Ms. Geller's entire MO against Muslims
Ben, you haven't been reading Mr. Spencer's and MS. Geller's articles. Can you please show me where either of them mention Muslims in this way? I'm not too old for correction so help me out a little.
I don't normally make challanges like this, but, you, IMO, are contributing to the overwhelming misinformation out there that a lot of people read and believe. Then they throw those polictical correct slurs and call others racist and inciters of hate. So I'll wait for your proof on your comment, though I may hear from you I wont be holding my breathe for the proof part.
If you have studied these two individuals writings and watched their videos, you would be calling them as I do, "American Patriots".
My message to any person traveling to this site, for the first time, from the "Guardian" ... consider this quote on a deep level, and think about the men that founded both faiths in question. When someone of these respective faiths fails to live up to the standard represented by their chosen Apostle of God, ask yourself. What does that mean? Who murdered people, who advocated violence against those that criticized him? What social model have YOU chosen to live in?
"any more than Jesus's teaching means that every Christian turns the other cheek and loves his enemies. There is a spectrum of belief, knowledge and fervour among the adherents of any belief-system; some are very knowledgeable and committed, others are not – and sometimes, the most knowledgeable and the most committed are not the same group. The teachings of a religion are one thing and the way every individual believer puts those teachings into practice is quite another."
Wise words Robert, our friends on the left could learn a lot from these simple words ....
What you experienced is a common problem on the Grauniad's Comment is Free (or Comment macht Frei as it's known here). You can post the most reasonable arguments only to have them deleted by the manic censors. A similar situation occurs on al-JaBeeba's Have Your Say site. Posting on these sites can be frustrating to say the least. Even the more right wing press, such as the Telegraph, are not totally immune from censorship.
It's disheartening when you consider that my parents' generation fought so hard to retain free speech in this country. I wonder whatever happened to it.
As a simultaneous argument about GMZ, which expended into a 'discussion' (or political 'left' walk-out) on nature of Islam, see Bill O'Reilly ('Fox News' 7 min video clip):
http://www.foxnews.com/on-air/oreilly/index.html#/v/4377996/the-muslim-dilemma/?playlist_id=86923
Guardian is a pre-eminent mouthpiece for Islam and a virulent anti-Israeli rag. It is a pit full of islamist turds.
True the comments in the Guardian are mainly from very ignorant people. The Guardian doesn't have a large readership. Much of its funds are from adverts taken by lefty Councils, Universities, and Colleges etc using tax payers money. It would not survive if it relied on its readership numbers. So the good news is that although I found many comments to be from the deranged lefty/ Marxist mindset, they do however represent an insignificant minority of the true British people. The number of people waking up to the true dangers of Islam is increasing by the day.
To Euclid and the others who responded to my post, I can only hope that you're right. There is obviously an awakening occurring in Europe and America via Islam. Wilders political ascendancy in Holland and the rise of the Sweden Democrats is proof of this.
The question is, how broad is the awakening and to what extent will it transform the political culture of the West? The jury is still out.
Yes, I'm sure that every thing Robert said up there in defense of Pamela is true, but what worries me is that something worse might be true about Pamela - she has great affection for a woman who loves abortion/murder more than even Obama. I suspect that Pamela must see yet to be pushed out of the womb babies in the same black light, for she named he site after Ayn Rands favorite book ATLAS SHRUGGED. She appears to think this woman is perfect. I hope I am wrong about Pamela's possible Obama like love of this hideous kind of baby killing - I pray that I am - but you decide for yourselves: Here is what Ayn Rand wrote:"
I cannot project the degree of hatred required to make those women run around in crusades against abortion. Hatred is what they certainly project, not love for the embryos, which is a piece of nonsense no one could experience, but hatred, a virulent hatred for an unnamed object...Their hatred is directed against human beings as such, against the mind, against reason, against ambition, against success, against love, against any value that brings happiness to human life. In compliance with the dishonesty that dominates today's intellectual field, they call themselves 'pro-life.'
— Ayn Rand --"The Age of Mediocrity," The Objectivist Forum, 1981
One method of destroying a concept is by diluting its meaning. Observe that by ascribing rights to the unborn, i.e., the nonliving, the anti-abortionists obliterate the rights of the living: the right of young people to set the course of their own lives.
Ayn Rand, "A Last Survey — Part I", The Ayn Rand Letter Vol. IV, No. 2, 1975.
The task of raising a child is a tremendous, lifelong responsibility, which no one should undertake unwittingly or unwillingly. Procreation is not a duty: human beings are not stock-farm animals. For conscientious persons, an unwanted pregnancy is a disaster; to oppose its termination is to advocate sacrifice, not for the sake of anyone’s benefit, but for the sake of misery qua misery, for the sake of forbidding happiness and fulfillment to living human beings.
"A Last Survey," The Ayn Rand Letter, IV, 2, 3.
The question of abortion involves much more than the termination of a pregnancy: it is a question of the entire life of the parents. As I have said before, parenthood is an enormous responsibility; it is an impossible responsibility for young people who are ambitious and struggling, but poor...For such young people, pregnancy is a death sentence: parenthood would force them to give up their future, and condemn them to a life of hopeless drudgery, of slavery to a child’s physical and financial needs. The situation of an unwed mother, abandoned by her lover, is even worse."
-- The Age of Mediocrity," The Objectivist Forum, June 1981
Robert,
An excellent response.
Geller was quite clear, and stated often, that she didn't believe in the idea of a 'moderate Islam'...
Geller has great clarity.
*** Vol 4 Bk 52 Nbr 268:
Mohammed called, "War is deceit."
Say, wasn't it Geller who coined the catch phrase Truth is the new hate speech?
The Guardian have a leftwing outlook as do their readers. Guardianistas is a term of contempt in England, for those of the Guardian mindset.
Don't worry, there are many people in England who can see the writing on the wall but you will not find them in this newspaper.
I believe Pamela Geller is a strong, brave woman who speaks the truth despite the abuse hurled at her.
She never once has told anybody to hate anybody else. Her words and the meaning of her words are being twisted by those with darker intentions and a gift for playing the victim.
Very good article Mr.Spenser. I am not able to get to your site often these days, but I certainly appreciate your efforts and those of Ms. Geller to inform of the threat posed by Islam. It is a sad reflection on many Christian denominations that they do not seem to recognize how quickly Islam infests and seeks to dominate everywhere. Consequently the heavy lifting is left to a few, and I am so grateful that you two are so very capable.
As for that Lizard person Charles, because I was apparently banned from his site after disagreeing with him about the Tea Party people and Glenn Beck, and since I don't take rejection well, I will admit to a bit of glee that he seems to have lost his marbles. I'd love to know from any psychologists aboard how someone can do such a complete switch from right to left. I mean did a lightening bolt hit him with instant progressive clarity?
I suppose what he writes is important to some but in the scheme of things it is the positive courageous people like you two that will continue to stand out. Thanks again!
BoT, I've been following the debate in the comments following the article in al-Guaridian, and am pleased to see how easily you have been able to counter the attacks mounted on Geller and Spencer by the usual assortment of Leftist apologists who are drawn to stories like this. I note that you seem to have a couple of very able allies who have joined you in your efforts.
BoT, I've been following the debate in the comments following the article in al-Guaridian, and am pleased to see how easily you have been able to counter the attacks mounted on Geller and Spencer by the usual assortment of Leftist apologists who are drawn to stories like this.
Thanks Eastview, those guys are easy. They leave their arguments wide open for me to jump in, fun too! :-) If this is the opposition from the so-called Left, they're 90 pound weaklings. Just turn their vitriol back on them, easy as pie. Notice how quickly they throw around the "bigot" label, when it's just a mirror of themselves! Piece of cake. More of us should jump in, it's fun! I love the Guardian. ;-)
In addition, I did find allies on the Geller page at the Guardian, some smart folks. It is my opinion that the Brits are not lost in this cause, but merely need a little help. We Yanks had been there before, and we can do it again, to get them over the hump. It will surprise us at how many in England are ready to fight off Jihad and Islamic supremacism. They really need a Referendum over there to wake people up, my opinion. This fight has barely begun, but tide is turning.
CifWatch, a site dedicated to monitoring madness at the Guardian also responded
http://cifwatch.com/2010/10/18/thea-hubris-and-amnesia-of-charles-johnson/
If most Muslims are passive and/or trapped in Islam against their wills it is irrelevant to the opposition to enforced Islamic supremacy, domination, subjugation of non-Muslims, and imposition of Sharia law. It is the ideology, history, and core doctrines of Islam that are evil. If it were a question of Nazism, another supremacist ideology, would it matter how many Nazi supremacists actually enforced the Nazi ideals and killed Jews and Catholics and other groups opposed to them?