Imagine if this were 1930, and the Southern Poverty Law Center existed, and it issued a lavishly illustrated, apparently meticulously documented report on critics of the Nazis, dubbing them “anti-German hate group leaders.” There were profiles of Winston Churchill, Edgar Mowrer, and other early critics of Hitler, noting when they had made false claims about Hitler (false, that is, according to the Nazis) and charging them with “hate” and “anti-German bias.”
Imagine then that the mainstream media, whenever it quoted Churchill, Mowrer, or the others, described them as “anti-German,” and noted that the Southern Poverty Law Center said that they were hate group leaders. It would call them “rabble rousers” and “wide boys” and “demogogues.” Quotes from Goebbels and Göring would also invariably be included, calmly explaining the truth of the matters at hand and patiently answering questions about what a shame it was that they had to deal with the likes of Churchill. This kind of coverage would be universal: critics of Nazism were never described in the mainstream media in anything but pejorative terms. Whenever they got mainstream media attention, they were challenged to respond to charges that they were “anti-German” and “spreading hate.” Their views were more often presented by the SPLC and others who dubbed them “anti-German” than by themselves. The leading authorities the media consulted about Hitler and Nazism were favorable to both, and opposed only to excessive violence by the Brownshirts, which they stressed was inconsistent with the spirit of Nazism, and had nothing whatsoever to do with it. Meanwhile, the critics were constantly vilified, ridiculed and mocked, and likened to the Ku Klux Klan and other genuinely hateful groups. People wrote that they wanted to attack them physically, and that it would be legitimate to do so.
Imagine that this situation prevailed, without any cracks in the edifice, for five years. Ten years. Fifteen years. Imagine that it prevailed as Hitler came to power, as he began persecuting the Jews, as he began his rearmament of Germany, as he bullied weak Western leaders, who were anxious to appease him anyway, into allowing him to take Austria and Czechoslovakia, and finally as he invaded Poland and the Western powers finally decided to fight back.
Imagine then that every step that Britain, France, and ultimately the Soviet Union and the United States took to defend themselves against Hitler and the Nazis was decried by the mainstream media and a huge segment of the American public as “anti-German” and a manifestation of hatred and bigotry. Every step FDR took to prosecute the war was denounced and even voided by federal court orders; he was derided as a fool, a criminal, an authoritarian ruler, and there were open calls not only for his impeachment, but for a coup to remove him from power, and even numerous calls for his assassination.
In that scenario, which side do you think would have won the war?

David Scoltock says
I guess you never heard of Mosley and his blackshirts or the massive support Hitler had in the UK and Europe during the 30’s?
Even King Edward VII was a blatant and open nazi supporter, we where lucky he ended up abdicating. We had to ship him off to Jamaica during the war because he kept supporting the nazis.
It wasn’t until the invasion of Poland and the fact we where shooting each other that public opinion turned against the nazis. Churchill had an uphill struggle in the 30’s.
Anti-semetism is so deeply rooted in european culture that Hitler was very popular until he started invading everyone and even then there was a great deal of support for him in the occupied territories.
Just A Concerned Citizen says
And let’s not forget that we also had a very pro-Hitler pope at one time, followed by an anti-Hitler pope.
The vicar of Christ on earth is a curious position…
David Scoltock says
Don’t get me started on those bloody catholics
Dan says
Every time I see this about (I assume) Pope Pius being Hitler’s Pope, I have to address.
I USED TO believe the same, mistakenly taking John Cornwell’s “Hitler’s Pope” as fact.
Until I started digging.
First off, the picture on the front, is as phony and taken out of context as you can get.
Pius was cardinal in that picture, and it was taken in Austria, not Germany, and BEFORE Hitler took back the country.
The only thing Pius hated more than the Nazis, were the communists, and Pius decreed it was the duty of all Catholics to aid any against both.
He saved so many Jews, that after the war the Jewish nation gave him a special award.
The main reason Pius has been turning into a Nazi lover is STALIN. Stalin HATED the man, because Pius was very vocal about communism being as evil as Nazis, (Nazis is short for “National Socialists”) as both were socialism to the extreme.
Read “Disinformation” by General Ion Pacepa, the highest ranking military official to ever defect from the Soviet military. It devotes quite a bit to Stalin and the Soviet propaganda war to destroy Pius’s image.
Once you’ve at least read that book, I welcome further discussion.
Dan says
Oh and that being said, as a Catholic TRYING to practice…
The current Pope IS a socialist, and an idiot when it comes to Islam.
MM says
Thank you Dan. Indeed, I took kind of the same road you took and obtained the same result.
By the way: The chief Rabbi of Rome during the war, Israel Zolli, converted to Catholicism after the war and at Baptism chose the name “Eugenio Maria” in honor of Eugenio Maria Giuseppe Giovanni Pacelli, Pope Pius XII.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israel_Zolli
Especially in Germany, the defamation of Pope Pius XII. is also closely linked to Rolf Hochhuth’s play “Der Stellvertreter” (The Deputy) which was financed by the KGB.
gravenimage says
Yes, Dan–you are quite right.
Rufolino says
Yet Pius XII said virtually nothing in public about Nazi evil.
Robert Spencer says
I know of Mosley and am very familiar with his movement and its popularity. The point I was making was different.
Just A Concerned Citizen says
Duly noted here. And thank you for doing what you do.
(Mr. Spencer, if you still reading, we met way back in 2009 in Columbus for the sake of a little lady named Rifqa. It was an honor to have dinner with “Baw-bay!!!”)
David Scoltock says
The point your making is this ad nauseum crusade against anything left, so typicaly American.
Don’t get me wrong, i agree to a point. I despise political correctness and hiding behind liberal idealogy to strangle opposition. I hate this no platforming crap and how the far left have grabbed the coat tails of islamaphobia campaigns just to score points against the right and fight for the sake of fighting.
Problem is the right is no different, we see a dangerous polarisation of political extremes that have potential consequences that, quite frankly, horrify me. We see far right groups grab the anti-islam banner and find popularity while the sheep who support them ignore their traditional anti-semetic and anti-gay agendas while the far left leave themselves dangerously blind to the realities of islamic terrorism.
I’m just thanful my country has yet to fall for this deceit and corbyn, a known terrorist advocate, is firmly in the political wilderness. Shame, my dear Robert, that your personal vendetta against May leaves you so blind to the realities in the UK and the steps we are taking to isolate ourselves from the mess in Europe.
Robert Spencer says
Really? What steps? Importing jihad preachers AND active jihadis by the bushel? Ruthlessly persecuting anyone who dares utter a critical word about Islam? Do enlighten us as to what wonderful steps the Prime Minister is taking to resist jihad terror, steps to which I am “blind” because of my “vendetta.”
I will be eagerly awaiting your documented and specific exposition.
David Scoltock says
David Scoltock says
February 6, 2017 at 12:18 pm
I take it you rather missed the whole brexit thing and the hardline stance on free movement?
Reply
Your blog is a bit of a pain for replies, perhaps a more common web forum format would make it easier you know?
ermom says
REALLY, David? You voted for an Islamist as Mayor of London, and will pay WELFARE for 4 wives plus all the children of Muslims, have gov’t bldgs. now under Sharia (no alcohol, for example), halal meat in schools and so forth.
Yes, there is BREXIT, and good for you. IMHO, BREXIT is your ‘1776″, yet there’s no free speech in the UK, except for ‘Speaker’s Corner’. May has denied entry to Spencer, Geller and other truth tellers, yet allows in Muslims who screech anti-kaffur violent hate speech.
I PRAY the UK manages to prevent national suicide as Sweden, France, Germany, the Netherlands, etc. are doing. I want Europe to be Europe with all the great, different cultures, NOT one caliphate, with all under the Sharia. Good luck, NO, efforts in your fight.
We are aware that we’re only a few years behind you. We do NOT want national suicide. Yet the leftists are basically anti-American to different levels, and favor the delusional open borders, New World Order, type of Socialism. So, yes, we have a fight on our hands, also.
David Scoltock says
London is full of muppets, they are like the Scots and think they speak for the whole nation. I’m a Manc living in Oxfordshire.
I’ll be honest, being a die hard monarchist I don’t tend to get into politics much, there was never a big difference between Blair and the Tories but I voted for brexit and will vote for may next election.
Yes, i am left leaning but vote conservative, we have a different view on the political spectrum here. Yes, many of us are anti-American because for the most part you are bloody idiots when it comes to foreign policy, making all the mistakes we have made.
It’s like a father watching his son follow the same path while wishing he’d learn and be a better man. My greatest American hero is John adams and I wonder what he’d mae of you lot and the past 30 years
don vito says
typical nose stuck up in the air, snotty bugger.
jayell says
Can we please get this straight about the current Mayor of London. The reason he got into power was the focussing of votes from the diehard Labour supporters (who just see the magic ‘L’ word in red and put their ‘x’ by it, no matter who or what goes with it, and that included Blair), certain ethnic minorities and. of course, the many muslims (must be well over 1,000,000 in the area?) who have invited themselves into our city and multiplied like I-don’t-know-what over the last 3+ decades; as against the rest of us ‘English’, who are now a minority in much of London, and who were daft enough to split our votes among a lot of rival candidates from various parties. So guess what happened……. Kahn is not exactly admired by one hell of a lot of the London electorate (putting in mildly!). He is most certainly NOT the choice of the vast majority of non-labour or marginal-labour ‘traditional’ Londoners (those who have actually had a generations-long association with the place), who would NEVER have countenanced his like getting into City Hall, and who have largely fled the place in utter disgust in recent years (and that is not news because EVERYONE knows about that!). So let’s have less of ‘you voted in a muslim mayor’. A ‘certain minority’ did that, not us.
And, regretfully, I have to agree with Dr. Spencer on a lot of what he said about May and the UK just above. I’m not sure how it happened because the process has never been blatantly obvious, but islam has clearly got into the woodwork in the UK, along with the rest of the PC malaise (including rampant feminism, which has swamped the media and corrupted the education system). The problem is that people over here have been so brainwashed that either (a) they don’t see, or refuse to admit that they see, what’s going on blatantly in front of their very eyes and (b) you dare to say anything against the current official zeitgeist and – oh dear – your life is not worth living. (Nazi Germany, Soviet Russia, here we come!)
But things might just be changing, starting with the Brexit vote and (before that) the blowing of the cover for the national muslim grooming-gang atrocities (despite all the establishment/media attempts at high-profile smoke screens – and everyone keep an eye on the Cliff Richard case against the BBC when it comes up, assuming we’re allowed to hear about it uncensored!).
Finally, it’s just been announced that the Speaker of the House of Commons has exercised his veto on an invitation to President Trump to address the UK Parliament in the House of Commons. His reasons? Mr Trump’s anti-Islam (racist?) agenda and his misogynist comments – apparently. So there we have it, the democratically-elected leader of the world’s leading democracy and our greatest ally apparently not good enough for our ‘Honourable Members of Parliament’!!! Or is the real reason that President Trump actually says it how it is and does something about it, which is not what the current inhabitants of the UK woodwork want us to hear about?
gravenimage says
David Scoltock wrote:
The point your making is this ad nauseum crusade against anything left, so typicaly American.
……………………………..
What Robert Spencer–and the rest of the Anti-Jihadists here–have an issue with is vilifying anyone who dares warn about the Jihad threat. How can you not be concerned about that?
Moreover, anyone who takes a stand against Jihad is deemed “far right”–even if they are an economic socialist, as is Geert Wilders; an African feminist, as is Ayaan Hirsi Ali; or a gay rights activist, as is Milo Yiannopoulos.
And there are plenty of Leftists in the United States, for good or ill. The idea that everyone in America is “crusading”–odd phrasing, given the issue being anti-Jihad–against Leftism is just ridiculous.
More:
Don’t get me wrong, i agree to a point. I despise political correctness and hiding behind liberal idealogy to strangle opposition. I hate this no platforming crap and how the far left have grabbed the coat tails of islamaphobia campaigns just to score points against the right and fight for the sake of fighting.
Problem is the right is no different, we see a dangerous polarisation of political extremes that have potential consequences that, quite frankly, horrify me. We see far right groups grab the anti-islam banner and find popularity while the sheep who support them ignore their traditional anti-semetic and anti-gay agendas while the far left leave themselves dangerously blind to the realities of islamic terrorism.
……………………………..
So–supporting Muslims slaughtering Jews and throwing gays off rooftops is not antisemitic and anti-gay, but the American right is? How does that work?
I notice you don’t say you are horrified by Jihad and Shari’ah–just the American right.
More:
I’m just thanful my country has yet to fall for this deceit and corbyn, a known terrorist advocate, is firmly in the political wilderness.
……………………………..
Not exactly–Corbyn is still a major figure in the Labour Party.
And the fact that May was the best choice available to patriotic Britons is *a huge problem*.
More:
Shame, my dear Robert, that your personal vendetta against May leaves you so blind to the realities in the UK and the steps we are taking to isolate ourselves from the mess in Europe.
……………………………..
What rot. In the UK election, it was noted here that Britons had an abysmal choice, and that May, as appalling as she is, was the *lesser* of two evils.
And considering opposing the banning of peaceful Anti-Jihadists to be a “vendetta” is madness–how can you possibly support this injustice–especially given the large numbers of openly Jihadist Muslims who are welcome there?
And while Brexit may be a good first step, the idea that all of Britain’s problems re invading Muslims come from Europe is simply incorrect. The fact is that Britain has been foolishly importing hordes of Muslims for decades now, and it this domestic policy does not change, then even Brexit will have little effect on the suicidal path these great nations are on.
Muhammad's pink swastika says
Uh, the right supports the Jews and Israel’s right to exist. The left hates Israel and anything Jewish. So much so, that they have sided with the jihadists!
Also, it is not the right protesting/rioting against Milo Yiannopolus, a gay Republican.
ermom says
Mr. Spencer,
I’m sending this article to everyone I can think of, ESPECIALLY my local, liberal media. Control the words, control the thoughts. Goebbels would be so very proud of the SPLC.
Allan says
Your “local, liberal media” has been much more successful than you are interested in admitting. It’s self-evident that all leftists are rabidly illiberal, but you don’t let that fact stand in your way when repeating their propaganda that some of them are “liberal”.
David Scoltock says
I take it you rather missed the whole brexit thing and the hardline stance on free movement?
Robert Spencer says
I understand the cumbersome nature of the comments here but Marc (the tech expert) says other platforms are more susceptible to security risks, and as this site is under constant major cyber-attack, we cannot take that risk.
May opposed Brexit, and has done essentially nothing to make it a reality.
In any case, feel free to love her and the hellhole she is creating for Britain. I beg to differ. If you find this so nauseating, feel free to stop reading this site.
I am not going to comment further re contemporary Britain, as it was not the focus of this post.
David Scoltock says
yeah, a little insult then cut and run, something i have come to expect.
I don’t love May, however our choice is May or Corbyn. Corbyn has actively supported terrorism so I’ll go with may thanks.
Phil Copson says
A sensible – let alone “hard-line” – stance on free movement would be to take immediate control of UK borders, rather than pathetically accepting insane levels in the hundreds of thousands per annum “because the EU says so………”
gravenimage says
David Scoltock wrote:
yeah, a little insult then cut and run, something i have come to expect.
…………………………
Robert Spencer brought up serious issues regarding May and her quite obvious lack of commitment to Brexit. This is not an insult–it is, or should be, obvious to anyone.
Robert Spencer says
Also, you’re quite wrong. It was King Edward VIII, not King Edward VII, who was pro-Nazi and abdicated.
David Scoltock says
A typo, my mistake
gravenimage says
I am no fan of the egregious Theresa May, but I would have voted Conservative were I in the UK, for want of a better choice. As appalling as May is, Corbyn would have been even worse.
mortimer says
The supposed support for Hitler that Scoltock refers to was exaggerated by him. There was mostly an idealistic PACIFISM in UK that was popular following The War to End All Wars. So how else would they feel but like pacifists?
Edward VIII aka The Duke of Windsor, was, to use a modern word, a ‘FLAKE’. Nor he nor his American wife were interested in politics. They were fashion-conscious socialites whose days revolved around going to swish dinner parties and witty conversation. They didn’t really ‘do’ anything and they certainly were not avid readers and studiers of politics. In his brief time as king, Edward barely looked at state papers. He was too busy partying.
RL Robison says
Actually, Edward VIII (aka The Duke of Windsor) along with the American Kennedy family were admirers of Hitler and often attended Nazi parties. Edward was just shallow, self-centered and stupid, and his abdication was a blessing for England. Joe Kennedy made political mi-steps and his clan was shipped back to the U.S; the family’s political stance changed after the bullets started flying.
Spike1033 says
In answer to Mr Scoltock: Mosley did NOT have ‘massive’ support in the 1930s except in east London which has always been the first port for immigrants.
Secondly we were not ‘lucky’ that Edward VII abdicated. We were lucky that he shacked-up with an American divorcee rendering him unfitted to fulfill his role as King. If he had not made the mistake of having an affair with Mrs Simpson Churchill or Baldwin would have got rid of him somehow. The Simpson detail was just an excuse.
There was support for Hitler in occupied territories? My mother spent WW2 in France and she never mentioned any support for the Germans.
I’ve always had a certain sympathy for Petain and the Vichy government. He probably felt he was protecting France and was trying to keep some part of France as an independent state. He was also very old – in his 80s I believe.
David Scoltock says
You should look up the massed collaborations and also the recruitment for the Waffen SS in France.
Spencer Warren says
There was measurable support for the Nazis in Ukraine and the Baltic states. I believe there was a Dutch Waffen SS unit.
Rufolino says
Would you please get your facts straight. The King you accuse of Nazi sympathies and who abdicated was King Edward VIII (not VII). Like many politicians in the 30’s, he viewed Nazism in Germany as a bulwark against Russian Communism, which was at that time perceived as a much greater danger. It was Churchill who saw clearly the more urgent threat of Nazism. King Edward VIII (the Duke of Windsor) was not “a Nazi”, but he was typical of certain British attitudes to the continental situation between the wars.
Marty says
I have to agree with you.
Churchill was a man of enormous integrity & wisdom by modern standards,
In his day he was viewed as a warmonger because he wanted Germany to
uphold its obligations under the Versailles Treaty & stop rearming.
Labour was led by pacifists (like today) who stood by as Nazism grew in
power.
The mega rich & the aristocracy (including elements in our Germanic Royal Family)
thought Hitler either very good (anti communist) or at least, good for international
Big Business.
The whole thing is redolent of today.
The EU is a de facto Fourth Reich, run from Berlin, with that cruddy little town,
Brussels, as a mere screen to where the real power is.
Even Jews are being purged. Not, mercifully by death camps, but by imported
mohammedan Jew Haters, egged on by the “left”, which has much in
common with Hitler’s National Socialism.
Except, of course, its patriotism.
German patriotism could have been respectable.
The failure of mainstream politicians to respect their own culture drove decent
Germans into the arms of extremists.
Voytek Gagalka says
Mr. Spencer, are you suggesting that Hitler and Nazis “rushed” too quickly to their fast (blitzkrieg) solutions instead first investing in domination of media, academia, and the NGO? Perhaps that was their biggest mistake, indeed. But Hitler was extremely impatient, worried constantly that if he would wait too long, just few more years, he would be too old to achieve his goals. And besides, he was IRRATIONAL and thus completely lacking capacity of long-range planning.
Robert Spencer says
I wasn’t making any point about Hitler at all. In fact, this whole piece isn’t really about Hitler or the Nazis at all.
Can you figure out what point I was trying to make?
Allan says
No, but it’s certain that he helped you to make it.
David Scoltock says
You now the perils of Godwin’s law, mention WW2 and it becomes all about Hitler. You’d of been better suited picking a different historical precedent, perhaps the American war of Independence considering the nature of your fanbase?
I would of gone with Napoleon myself.
gravenimage says
Mr. Spencer, you point re the media and Churchill was quite clear.
David Scoltock says
Actualy the nazis had complete control of the media. The majority of Germany where convinced that the Jews where merely being relocated. propoganda films showing Jews being well treated in camps that resembled spa resorts and footage of Jews being transported to Israel where common prior to the change in stance from relocation to extermination.
It was a nasty little system. On one hand you had media such as right-wing newspapers bigging up hatred for the Jews while the “official” party propoganda bigged up humane treatment and resettlement.
This led to many Jews quite happily volunteering for resettlement that led to the death camps.
gravenimage says
This is not about the press in Germany or other Nazi-controlled areas, but the press in the free West.
Oliver says
The US also had a priest or minister from Detroit who was pro Nazi. As was Henry Ford. In fact. Might have been JW
That Hitler trucks had Ford engines
I did get your point.
Substituted Hitler for Islamics to make your point.
Also. An Israeli website made a similiar point. Any negative atticle or opinion piece against Trump
Substitute Israel. And the reverse is also true.
And most is faked or skewered.
no_one says
USSR won the war. Western countries joined at the end to share the victory. Western nations did more harm than they helped.
David Scoltock says
Oh really?
Which nation gutted the Luftwaffe in 1940?
Which nation had the ENTIRE German service fleet at the bottom of the ocean or locked in port by the end 1941?
Which nation gutted the Italian fleet?
Which nation stopped Germany getting their hands on the modern French naval vessels?
Which nation destroyed the entire 10th Italian army with just 36,000 men?
Which nation stopped the Germans cold in North Africa?
Here’s a clue, it wasn’t the USSR or USA
no_one says
The same nation that bombed my city in 1943 and killed many innocent women and children.
David Scoltock says
Damn straight. The thing about us Brits is we played by the rules Germany set.
We where not going to bomb cities till Germany bombed London.
The problem is when you try to murder a nation’s civilians, pick a nation that can not do it better. One of my grandfather’s was a tech on Lancasters, he feels no shame for what he did.
You bombed London and Colchester, we flattened your cities in return.
LR says
As that old saying goes…
“All is fair…
Esp. WW2.
Angemon says
I don’t recall Britain bombing the USSR in 1943…
Spike1033 says
Agree with you entirely! However one small point: the West Hendon Girl Guides could have destroyed the Italian 10th Army.
Spencer Warren says
And which nation heroically stood alone against Hitler for one whole year, enduring the blitz, before Hitler invaded Russia? And which nation brought vital supplies to Russia around the forbidding Arctic route ?
RL Robison says
This “who won WWII” business is out of hand. The Brits put up a fight that was truly inspirational but did, during the Battle of Britain have non-British pilots. And Britain put up a hell of a fight in the African desert, but so did my cousin in the American tank core (who also fought from Sicily thru Monte Casino). My elder brothers fought in the U.S. Air Force and one brother-in-law served on Pacific PT boats, just like JFK. Still, don’t take anything away from the Russians. Russia did start out a German ally but ended up having the highest civilian and military combined casualty count of any country in WWII, Russian civilians became human shields, frozen, starved and shelled to death, and their soldiers were targeted for summary execution when captured by German forces. WWII was a dirty, violent blood-letting by all sides and we should, 70+ years later, let all the dead rest in peace.
ECAW says
“This “who won WWII” business is out of hand.”
Agreed. Forces from many countries did a great job defeating real fascism in WWII (not the phoney kind students shout about) but they’re all dead now and we have a new struggle on our hands. We have to cooperate. As a Brit I find all this “You yanks always turn up late” stuff tedious.
gravenimage says
Thank you, ECAW.
Those who fought WWII aren’t quite all gone yet, though–my English aunt, who drove supply trucks between London and the mouth of the Thames under blackout conditions in the British army as a young woman, is still with us at 95.
Muhammad's pink swastika says
Who supplied Britain and the Russians the boats, vehicles and armaments to do the things you just described?
Americans.
Phil Copson says
Quote: “Oh really? Which nation gutted the Luftwaffe in 1940? Which nation had the ENTIRE German service fleet at the bottom of the ocean or locked in port by the end 1941? Which nation gutted the Italian fleet? Which nation stopped Germany getting their hands on the modern French naval vessels? Which nation destroyed the entire […]
Who supplied Britain and the Russians the boats, vehicles and armaments to do the things you just described?
Americans.”
MPS – that is just plain wrong – the RAF’s defeat of the Luftwaffe over Britain in 1940 and the Royal Navy’s sinking of much of the Italian fleet at Taranto, the French fleet at Oran, the sinking of the BIsmarck, containing the German fleet, was accomplished with British-designed and built aircraft and ships.
Someone more knowledgeable than me can put you straight on the use of American-supplied equipment in North Africa; my feeling is that the defeat of the Italian Army was carried out when the British Army was still using Cromwell and Matilda tanks, the American-built Grant tanks and others coming later.
gravenimage says
no_one wrote:
USSR won the war. Western countries joined at the end to share the victory. Western nations did more harm than they helped.
…………………….
What absolute rot. Britain was bravely fighting against the Nazis while the Soviet Union was still allied with Hitler.
More:
The same nation that bombed my city in 1943 and killed many innocent women and children.
…………………….
The Allies never targeted women and children. And if you are implying that things would have been better for women and children had the free world just rolled over for Fascist aggression, then you are delusional.
vladkoval says
Really? Have you ever heard about American supplies to USSR during the war?
Even the soviet legendary tank T-34 could not be made without american machinery
Allan says
Q: Which side would have won the war?
A: That’s an easy one. It would have been the side of the histrionic, anti-capitalist, Russophobic, Jew hating, paper-hanging mama’s boy, i.e. Adolf Hitler. In spite of all that, however, it would have been the less evil side which won. The USSR would have been terminated, thus preventing the Cold War risk of the USA being incinerated by the party spawned by the Russian Social Democratic Labor Party. Further, there are good reasons to believe that there would have been no leftist dictatorships in China, on the Korean peninsula, in Cuba, in Viet Nam, Cambodia, and other places. It’s probably not reasonable, however, to suspect that fewer people would have been executed in the Holocaust, but we know that the Holocaust was not the only engine of mass killing set in motion by leftists during the 20th century.
no_one says
You forget that USSR had Russia, which has the true Christianity. It was forbidden during USSR, but people did not abandon it. No one was able to take on Russia and no one ever will. God is with them.
Allan says
I wrote that the USSR would have been terminated, not that all Russians would have been wiped out from Asia. Also, I think that you need to reconsider your commitment to “the true Christianity” in light of several facts, e.g. we don’t live in the cosmos of Claudius Ptolemaeus or anything like it. So the alleged ascension, supposedly the concluding work of redemption, must be a hoax.
Our civilization, in spite of its extreme faults but to its lasting glory, nonetheless, has demonstrated that we live in a cosmos with neither any center nor any edge. It has shown also that determinism is ludicrous. This follows from the relativity of simultaneity, which also makes presentism appear downright foolish.
For presentism, see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_presentism
no_one says
Before God I will be the one responsible to my decisions, so you advise to reconsider is not accepted.
Oliver says
At one point after 911 but before Ben Ladin was killed a US and Russian retired intelligence people were interviewed. Their basic response. We were patriots for our country. We wanted better lives for our children.
We really did not want war
gravenimage says
Allan wrote:
Q: Which side would have won the war?
A: That’s an easy one. It would have been the side of the histrionic, anti-capitalist, Russophobic, Jew hating, paper-hanging mama’s boy, i.e. Adolf Hitler. In spite of all that, however, it would have been the less evil side which won.
…………………….
Given that Allan was ranting on another thread about how savage Muslims are more “manly” than are Americans, it comes as no surprise that he is spouting support for Fascism here. *Ugh*.
Spike1033 says
Oh please!!! Can we stop this ‘what if’ conversation. It’s all very silly. We can go on ad infinitum about what might have happened in history. We all have to deal with what DID happen.
gravenimage says
Spike, you mistake my point. I am not arguing about who would have won WWII, since it is quite clear who did win the war–I am calling Allan out for his apologia for both the Nazis and for Islam–which is indeed a salient matter here.
overman says
“Every step FDR took to prosecute the war was denounced and even voided by federal court orders; he was derided as a fool, a criminal, an authoritarian ruler, and there were open calls not only for his impeachment, but for a coup to remove him from power, and even numerous calls for his assassination”
Talk about history repeating itself.
LR says
I always like to see the link to a quote.
Thanks.
Vic says
Great, sobering analogy, Mr. Spencer.
“Upon closer observation, it becomes apparent that every strong upsurge of power in the public sphere, be it of a political or a religious nature, infects a large part of humankind with stupidity. … The power of the one needs the stupidity of the other. The process at work here is not that particular human capacities, for instance, the intellect, suddenly atrophy or fail. Instead, it seems that under the overwhelming impact of rising power, humans are deprived of their inner independence and, more or less consciously, give up establishing an autonomous position toward the emerging circumstances. The fact that the stupid person is often stubborn must not blind us to the fact that he is not independent. In conversation with him, one virtually feels that one is dealing not at all with him as a person, but with slogans, catchwords, and the like that have taken possession of him. He is under a spell, blinded, misused, and abused in his very being. Having thus become a mindless tool, the stupid person will also be capable of any evil and at the same time incapable of seeing that it is evil. This is where the danger of diabolical misuse lurks, for it is this that can once and for all destroy human beings.” Dietrick Bonhoeffer, Letters from Prison.
ECAW says
Thanks for this very astute quote from Bonhoeffer. This bit:
“The fact that the stupid person is often stubborn must not blind us to the fact that he is not independent. In conversation with him, one virtually feels that one is dealing not at all with him as a person, but with slogans, catchwords, and the like that have taken possession of him.”
put me immediately in mind of the Guardian comments columns, but also those ready made quotes like “We must resist those who would divide us” which issue automatically from MP’s, trade union leaders and Islamic apologists.
Phil Copson says
Quote: “….put me immediately in mind of the Guardian comments columns, but also those ready made quotes like “We must resist those who would divide us” which issue automatically from MP’s, trade union leaders and Islamic apologists.”
Whereas in fact it IS the Left that constantly seeks to divide society against itself, encouraging people to see themselves as belonging to special interest groups, focus groups, victim groups etc – (that can be bought-off or bullied, one-by-one to suit the agenda of the Marxist-Left) – rather than having a common national identity.
davej says
Were the Nazis busy infiltrating countries all over the world and building palatial “culture centers” devoted to worshiping Hitler?
I see Islam as far more dangerous than the Nazi party (which they in some ways resemble) because of the insidious, deceptive and quasi-religious 1400 year old political ideology. They possess a similar ambition of global supremacy but instead of military force they use psychological and demographic weapons that are more subtle and arguably more effective.
gravenimage says
davej wrote:
Were the Nazis busy infiltrating countries all over the world and building palatial “culture centers” devoted to worshiping Hitler?
…………………….
The Fascists were indeed a global threat. Minimizing the threat that Fascism presented does nothing to help us oppose Islam.
pat mott says
I agree, I feel & see it this way Dave. One minute violence is committed then in the next one we hear a soothing rational argument in Islam’s favour from both Muslims & non Muslims! Sometimes I think I am one of the very few worrying about civilization as we know it.
lebel says
Churchll on Indians: “I hate Indians. They are a beastly people with a beastly religion.”
Yes he would probably be called a hate monger today. You will understand as soon as you replace the word Indian for Jews, Mr. Spencer.
David Scoltock says
You can’t judge the past by the morality of today.
lebel says
Except when it comes to Islam you mean
David Scoltock says
It’s a basic premise of any historical study that you have to take into account the accepted morality of the day when considering statements and ethical views.
Morality is a not a fixed constant, it changes and evolves. When considering Churchill’s position you need to understand, however wrong his views on indians where, they where commonly held.
This is very sad when you consider that, at it’s height, the Indian army consisted of 2.5 million men, won 18 Victoria Crosses and contained hindhus, sikhs, bhuddists and muslims within it’s ranks.
gravenimage says
Apologist for Muslim savagery lebel wrote:
(David Scoltock: You can’t judge the past by the morality of today)
Except when it comes to Islam you mean
……………………………
Two points: firstly, even by the violent standards of his time, the “Prophet” Muhammed was a *horrifying* figure–a pedophile, a slaver, a rapist, and a conqueror who had his critics assassinated.
It is clear from Islamic texts that he was far more violent than even his barbaric contemporaries; he has to convince Abu Bakr to let him marry his little six-year-old daughter, he has to assure his assassins that they can lie to their victims, he tells his companions that raping their captives is approved by “Allah”, he has to *constantly* exhort his followers to wage violent Jihad, even when they don’t want to.
It is not just that he is not Jesus–it’s that he is even worse than the dark ages barbarian culture he came from. Muslims’ own “holy” texts confirm this.
But the “Prophet” is considered the “perfect man” of Islam–and that leads us to the second point.
It is not just that Muhammed’s actions are considered “perfect” for their time–they are considered perfect *for all time*.
That is why Muslims *today* are raping little girls and Infidels, why they are enslaving unbelievers, and why they are mass-slaughtering anyone who does not submit to Islam.
Wellington says
An extra fine post, gravenimage. My compliments.
You know, when an agnostic and natural rogue like me, who in his earlier years was only too ready to violate local community standards on a regular basis, has to be in the forefront of defending traditional Western and absolutistic values against the likes of a David Scotlock it is clear just how far Western Civilization has lost its collective mind.
Just sayin’.
Wellington says
Correction: My excoriation was directed towards “libel” and not “David Scotlock.” I erred here and so mea culpa.
gravenimage says
Thank you, Wellington. And I knew you were referring to the egregious lebel.
And if you are a “natural rogue”, I think we need more like you.
OT, congratulations on your team’s astonishing performance at the Super Bowl yesterday. Just astonishing.
Wellington says
Thanks for your kind comment, graveinimage. Oh, btw, while I was rooting for the Patriots over the Falcons, my team, since early boyhood, has been the Steelers, though my dear wife is an Eagles fan. And it indeed was a terrific game and Brady is simply a stupendous player, a winner to the core of his being (and for the record I am appalled by Roger Goodell’s treatment of him, both from a legal and ethical point of view—–unless Tom Brady is a filthy liar, which I certainly don’t think he is, Goodell should have taken him at his word that he complained about some balls being too hard, which they were, and then when he got them back they were satisfactory to him and he merely didn’t ask any questions thereafter, no smoking gun in other words, and just moved on and put new rules in place so that henceforth deflated balls would never again be an issue).
I see now where Brady’s getting some real hate stuff because he has supported Trump. The Left’s intolerance of other points of view is a constant. Upside down thinking too. Let’s see here, Colin Kaepernick takes a knee during the playing of the national anthem and he is hailed by many leftists for doing so. By contrast, Tom Brady supports a man who wants to secure our borders, keep America safe, have school choice, rebuild our military, stand up to a bully like Iran, call out Islamic terrorism for what it is, lower taxes, appoint judges who interpret the law instead of making it and disallow certain cities to stupidly, unethically and even illegally remain sanctuary cities and many leftists have contempt for Brady for this. The morally inverted order of leftism (as opposed to old-fashion liberalism which exists very little in the Democratic Party anymore) is seemingly never ending.
gravenimage says
Wellington, I was trying to recall whether you were a Patriots or Steelers fan, and got it wrong–sorry. But I agree with you re the Patriots’ win, and especially Tom Brady’s character. (By the way, the San Francisco-based Mythbusters took on “deflategate” and found that under-inflated footballs–even if this had been deliberate, which I doubt–did not give players an edge, in any case.)
The San Francisco 49ers once had great teams–and sterling quarterbacks like Joe Montana and Steve Young. Kaepernick is an embarrassment, and his being a player of lesser talent is the least of it.
Charli Main says
Churchill didn’t have a problem when Indian money, Indian resources and around 3 million Indian soldiers, sailors and airmen were fighting to protect the British from their German cousins. Indians were OK when they were fighting at El Alemain, Sicily, Italy, Greece and Burma.
The British Indian Army was the largest VOLENTEER army in history. Not one single conscript.
Angemon says
Whatever Churchill may have personally thought about Indians, he fought against an ideology that would make oven fooder out of them.
LR says
Angemon…
Exactly.
gravenimage says
Very true.
Phil Copson says
Was he actually referring to Indians as we understand the nationality and their majority Hindu religion today ?
India, Pakistan, and Bangladesh were all “India”, and – so far as I am aware – anyone from British India would have been referred to as “Indian”, ie – it doesn’t seem likely that anyone was referring to “Bangladeshis” or “Pakistanis” before the countries even existed.
Now, he can’t fail to have known that a wide variety of religions were practised in British India, so did he condemn ALL religions, or just the one ?
And if so, which ?
dumbledoresarmy says
There is a speech in which Churchill discusses the situation in India, Hinduism vs Islam.
He criticises Hinduism for the caste system.
But he takes aim fair and square at Islam, and I would say that he does NOT equate the two systems.
One line from the speech is incontrovertible, and very very apposite. “While the Hindu elaborates his argument, the Moslem sharpens his sword”.
Curiously enough, one can replace “Hindu” in that sentence, with “Buddhist” or “Jew” or “Christian”, and it remains completely true.
And although it is a generalisation, what it shows is that Churchill saw that violence is at the *heart* and centre of Islam, in a way that is NOT the case for Hinduism, and indeed, is not the case for any other major surviving world religion, today.
At the core of Islam is what William Palgrave, brilliantly, defined as “a pantheism of Force”.
gravenimage says
Important points, Dumbledore’s Army.
Phil Copson says
Quote: “a pantheism of Force”.
Thank you for your reply DD, hadn’t heard that description before; what it puts me in mind of is the Sinn Fein / IRA approach: “You can negotiate with me, and we’ll all play nicely, or else maybe the boyos will come round; not saying they will mind, and – obviously – I don’t know any of them meself you’ll understand, but you might want to think about it before giving me your answer….”
A good question to put to your local dhimmi politician might be: “If you’re so certain that Islam is a Religion of Peace, why are you so petrified that you immediately give them whatever they want ?”
gravenimage says
More from Muslim apologist lebel:
Churchll (sic) on Indians: “I hate Indians. They are a beastly people with a beastly religion.”
Yes he would probably be called a hate monger today. You will understand as soon as you replace the word Indian for Jews, Mr. Spencer.
……………………………
Not Churchill’s finest moment, as most here wlould agree. But to conflate a comment made in a moment of frustration with a *plan for genocide*, as the Holocaust was, is utter calumny. But then, I would expect nothing else from the poster.
Quarky says
Robert Spencer and others here who are opposed to Islam. God bless you and thank you for the excellent website and information clearinghouse.
Can you all please explain to me why modern leftists and liberals, with some exceptions such as Howard Bloom who wrote “The Muhammad Code” and Bill Mahr who does speak out against Islam, why so many of these people go out of their way to DEFEND Muslims who believe in SHARIA ISLAMIC LAW, and IF those Muslims had the power they want, they would murder and enslave the Leftists and Liberals who defend them, just as they would murder and enslave those of us who are against Islam such as Christians and Jews and conservatives and others? This makes no rational or logical sense to me, Robert and everyone.
I can cite some real world examples:
I believe in the Constitutional and universal free speech and belief for all. I believe in human rights and protection for people such as women and children and others.
And so I was speaking with a Feminist Leftist and I told her that she should agree with me that the Muslims who believe in Shariah law and practice the quran teachings such as Surah 4:34 (beat the disobedient wife) are evil and that even if she and I disagree in some areas of politics, she and her feminist friends should stand with me and protest against Sharia law. How did she respond? She called me a “Right Wing Fox News Bigot and Racist Chauvanist Pig”. How can that be, when clearly in the Muslim world and under quran hadith Sharia Law, women are beaten, raped, abused, and murdered.
Real world example 2: I was speaking with an openly homosexual “gay” rights activist leftist, and I told and showed him that from the sharia law the muslims are commanded to murder people like him along with Christians and Jews and other people. I told him that he should speak out against Islam and Sharia law and look how the muslims murder gay men and women in their areas where they dominate.
How did he respond? LIKE THE FEMINIST WOMAN…he called me an ignorant bigot and said I am blaming some radical extremists who twist the quran on all muslims who are decent loving people and he said the quran and islam are about peace and love.
Can you Robert Spencer and others here please explain to me why these liberals and leftists react this way? I also pointed out to a “Black Lives Matters” person that the Arab Muslims have been enslaving Black African people for 1400 years, and where Muhammed called black people “Pug nosed raisin heads” and how I am against slavery. This leftist told me I am a “racist islamophobic.”
Explain all of this to me please, why they react this way and defend Muslims who are enemies of both them and us?
billybob says
It seems to be a shared dream that is not bothered by facts, because the dream is more powerful than mere facts. I think it is about being part of something big, the wave of the future like in the Coke commercial promised with “I’d Like To Teach The World To Sing”. It must be right because “everybody believes in it”. So the facts must be wrong. How can so many people believe in the dream if those facts were true? You must be taking the Quran out of context or deliberately misinterpreting it, because everybody says Islam is the religion of peace, therefore it must be so. And besides, only Islamophobes, racists, bigots, and xenophobes quote those kind of facts and we don’t listen to these hate mongers.
Probably that last line is the most powerful reason the Left has to not listen to your “so called” facts.
billybob says
The Coke commercial. It was a classic…
https://youtu.be/GAgh86j5alI
gravenimage says
Quarky, I believe many on the Left think that all that is bad in the world come from the West, and simply cannot bring themselves to believe that a non-Western thing like Islam could possibly be a threat–and so they willfully ignore anything that challenges that world view–and accuse the bringer of that news to be a racist and bigot. Here in the San Francisco bay area, I run into this mindset all the time.
J-pal says
…this “new war” is between “democracy and sharia”, right? ….only one will be the “winner”… and Humanity and the Earth will suffer from both of them… A pathetic remark? Maybe, but think of all enslaved people, mostly girls and women, within these “civilizations”. Trump says “America First”, and islam says “Only Islam”… sorry, is there anything “we” can do to solve the problems about this “first” or “only”?
gravenimage says
J-pal wrote:
…this “new war” is between “democracy and sharia”, right? ….only one will be the “winner”… and Humanity and the Earth will suffer from both of them… A pathetic remark?
………………………………
How will humanity “suffer” from democracy?
More:
Maybe, but think of all enslaved people, mostly girls and women, within these “civilizations”. Trump says “America First”, and islam says “Only Islam”… sorry, is there anything “we” can do to solve the problems about this “first” or “only”?
………………………………
The idea that “America First” and “Only Islam” are one and the same are quite false.
I think what Trump means is that America must be protected first–if we are not safe, there is not much we can do for anyone else.
And I don’t believe that the US or the rest of the West can democratize Dar-al-Islam and save women there–we tried that in Iraq and Afghanistan, and they rejected a chance at democracy–given their adherence to Islam, this should not surprise. And even though women are oppressed in Islam, sadly all too many Muslim women embrace Islam themselves.
LR says
“And even though women are oppressed in Islam, sadly all too many Muslim women embrace Islam themselves.”…
There is at least some debate within Islam, and it is the women and men both Muslim and secular who advocate living in modern society, and not forcing Sharia in the West we need to support. Those who truly respect, and want to uphold free speech, are who the West needs to support.
Unfortunately, it seems many on the ‘Left’ and sometimes ‘Right’ don’t like free speech, when it doesn’t suit them.
This is not good for deepening and questioning dialogue, and education.
gravenimage says
LR wrote:
There is at least some debate within Islam, and it is the women and men both Muslim and secular who advocate living in modern society, and not forcing Sharia in the West we need to support. Those who truly respect, and want to uphold free speech, are who the West needs to support.
……………………….
If it is secular, LR, it is not within Islam–instead, these are apostates or virtual apostates.
And, sadly, there are few Muslims who actually reject Shari’ah. Even here in the United States, over half of Muslims openly say they want to see Shari’ah law imposed here. In the rest of the West–where Muslims have made more inroads–the figures are often much higher.
DFD says
Hard to believe. Godwin’s law squared, oh brother. Or is it a sort of Reductio ad Hitlerum in reverse (Leo Strauss)?
I wonder what will happen when a German comedy (“Er is wieder da”), very dark humor, will be translated into English.
Well, at least the latter is meant to be funny, and it is. Still considering Godwin and Strauss, the article is quite funny, I wonder what they would make of that article….
gravenimage says
Here’s a trailer for the film, DFD, with English subtitles:
Robert Spencer says
Terrible, evil film. Starts as a surreal comedy, ends up as a diatribe against Wilders and other foes of Islamization.
gravenimage says
Thank you, Robert–I did not know that. I have not seen the thing.
Appalling–but given the climate in Europe today, hardly surprising.
DFD says
Thanks Robert,
I have downloaded a copy but have seen only the first 15 minutes, or so, had to go the dentist. My first impression was that it was between darkish funny and weird. Have to watch it in full.
Though, I am not surprised about what you say. I think one can safely include most movie makers with the main stream media. Particularly those who are “avantgarde” or “trendsetters”
gravenimage says
Winston Churchill: Anti-German Hate Group Leader?
Imagine if this were 1930, and the Southern Poverty Law Center existed, and it issued a lavishly illustrated, apparently meticulously documented report on critics of the Nazis, dubbing them “anti-German hate group leaders.” There were profiles of Winston Churchill, Edgar Mowrer, and other early critics of Hitler, noting when they had made false claims about Hitler (false, that is, according to the Nazis) and charging them with “hate” and “anti-German bias.”…
…………………………
Actually, this is not so far off. Early on, figures like Churchill *were* castigated as being “hysterics”–or, even more insanely, as “war mongers” for warning about the Nazi threat. Many mainstream newpapers and magazines presented Fascism as being “modern”, and suggested that Britain and America would benefit from adopting it.
It was only through great efforts by those who did recognize the Fascist threat–and by the overt and growing aggression of Hitler and his allies–that the West finally realized that these early warners were right, after all.
I hope it will be the same vis-a-vis the Jihad threat.
underbed cat says
Another excellent article Spencer about silencing truth and the methods and information control and human denial from terror.
mortimer says
The rot set in with Jimmy Carter who had no idea of Islam or jihad. The next presidents were no better. Reagan hadn’t much of clue about Islam either. He used OBL to fight the Soviets, but obviously thought that the insurgency would stop when the Soviets left Afghanistan.
No president until Trump has actually had a CLUE about the meaning of jihad. Trump realizes jihad is more dangerous than any threat the US has faced.
dumbledoresarmy says
The Founders knew.
Jefferson knew.
John Adams knew.
And John Adams’ son John Quincy Adams, the Sixth President, *knew*, none better; indeed Trump should let JQA be his guide. One of his staffers needs to research what Adams said about Islam, and then boil it down into a nice simple one-page dot-point sheet.
Because Adams had a *formidably* deep and lucid grasp of what Islam is all about. He detested it, he denounced it – he spoke of its effects as “desolation and delusion”.
It is JQA who needs to be rediscovered, and allowed to *speak*, once more… to the 45th President, and to the American people.
gravenimage says
Yes–*very* true. The United States–like so much of the West–has forgotten much of what it knew of the Jihad threat. But like all of us, we can rediscover that lost wisdom. I have sent some of this information on to the President; if the White House receives enough of it, it is bound to reach him.
mortimer says
It should be noted that JIHAD was the FIRST international threat faced by the brand-new United States of America.
The American ambassadors of the time learned ALL THEY COULD about Islam and jihad so they could understand their enemy.
Today, elites think they can understand Islam by talking to Muslims.
dumbledoresarmy says
“elites think they can understand Islam by talking to Muslims.”
Yes; and they get **taken for a ride** by smiling, plausible, charming mohammedans practising all the many, many forms of mohammedan deceit. They are *suckers!*
John Quincy Adams knew better. *He* wrote about Mohammedan use of force.. and of “fraud*, and of *duplicity*, and he gives specific examples. He *knew* that mohammedans could not be trusted to deal fairly with Infidels; that they could not be trusted to tell the truth to Infidels.
Trump, who loves ‘deals’ and wrote ‘teh art of the deal’, needs to be told, over and over, that Muslims do not *keep* ANY ‘deal’ they may, under duress, or with nefarious intent, make with Infidels. That they must NOT be assumed, EVER, to be ‘dealing’ in good faith with us. We must avoid the temptation of thinking we can ‘deal’ with them. We can’t. We mustn’t. Cut the gordian knot: don’t get into ANY deals with Msulims, it has always ended badly in the past and it ends badly now.
gravenimage says
Very true, Mortimer and DDA.
John Magne Trane says
Even at the end of the war, ministers in the Swedish government kept calling Norwegian resistance coming over the border “anti-German” and “German-haters”…
At least the despicable Swedes had stopped sending both the resistance and fleeing Jews back into the hands of the Gestapo, like they did when they were sure that the New World Order would mean the Nazis would gain all of Europe.
gravenimage says
Actually, the Swedes took in the entire population of Jews fleeing from Nazi-occupied Denmark.
patriotliz says
Imagine if during WWII—“Not all Germans are Nazis who kill Jews….just a small number do that…no reason to indict a whole country OR the ideology of National Socialism. We should be more tolerant and celebrate diversity and multiculturalism. Stop HATING Germans just because their different.”
Unfortunately the Germans still feel the guilt for their sordid history to the point of being blind to the New Nazis on the block, i.e., the IslmaoNazis who they welcomed into their country to rape and kill their citizens w/ the goal of civilization jihad:
See commentary on Germany @7:40 min.
https://youtu.be/t_Qpy0mXg8Y
dumbledoresarmy says
If Modern Germans want to wipe away the dishonour of their recent past – two generations ago – then there are a few very simple things they could do, just for starters.
First: move the German embassy in Israel from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem, unequivocally state that they recognise Israeli Jewish sovereignty over *all* of Jerusalem and Judea and Samaria and the Golan Heights, and … END all monentary governmental ‘aid’ to the ‘Palestinian’ Arab Muslims. Stand with Israel in the UN.
Second: end ALL Muslim immigration into their own country; deport ALL non-citizen Muslims; and … make it plain that Turkey must NOT be let into the EU. For good measure they could help the Greeks round up and turf out all non-citizen Muslims who have poured into Greece, of late.
And encourage every other government in western Europe to do the same!
If they did all of this then they could go down in history as having helped to *save* both Israel and Europe from the Jihad.
patriotliz says
Imagine if during WWII—“Not all Germans are Nazis who kill Jews….just a small number do that…no reason to indict a whole country OR the ideology of National Socialism. We should be more tolerant and celebrate diversity and multiculturalism. Stop HATING Germans just because their different.”
Unfortunately the Germans still feel the guilt for their sordid history to the point of being blind to the New Nazis on the block, i.e., the IslmaoNazis who they welcomed into their country to rape and kill their citizens w/ the goal of civilization jihad:
See commentary on Germany @7:40 min.