Tuesday, May 5, 2009

Echos of the 1930s

In the 1930s, adherents to Fascism and to Communism both claimed to stand on the verge of seizing control of various nation-states, with the goal of inevitable global domination. The Union of Soviet Socialist Republics had been carved out of the corpse formerly known as the Russian Empire. Fascists in Italy had bullied their way into power, threatening ideologues who opposed them then bludgeoning or incarcerating those who persisted in resistance. Their German counterparts followed suit several years later. Communists were sowing havoc within the fragile society of China throughout the 1930s, provoking a civil war. With the Great Depression gripping most of the world's economies, it appeared that capitalism and representative democracy were stumbling toward extinction.

Fortunately, Fascists and Communists spent a considerable amount of time and resources attacking each other. These two sects of totalitarianism fought each other in venues such as the Spanish Civil War and in the streets of towns in Germany, the Netherlands and other European lands. In the next decade, they continued their blood feud on the Eastern Front of the Second World War. The Free World survived in part due to the fact they did not focus solely on destroying freedom first before turning on each other.

In our current decade, Islam and neo-Marxism both threaten the Free World.
Neo-Marxists seek to destroy the Judeo-Christian cornerstone of Western societies; Islamists share the same objective. Neo-Marxists have knee-jerk sympathies for "people of color" if those people have disputes with Europeans or descendants of Europeans, regardless of the merits of the claims of either side. Islamists have insidiously convinced their useful idiots that the jihad to destroy Western civilization exists as merely a response to the establishment of Israel and prevalence of American influence in the world. Neo-Marxists instinctively lionize those perceived as "poor", regardless of the poverty resulting from centuries of contempt of scientific research, the creation of works of art or the study of history or philosophy except for those glorify or propagate Islam. Neo-Marxists' immoderate paranoia of receiving accusations of exhibiting any politically incorrect "ism" leads them into moral contortions like justifying or excusing suicide bombings of civilians, oppression of women's rights and freedoms in addition to death threats against and murders of critics of Islam. Socialist governments throw open their borders to Mohamadans for immigration in hopes of gaining future voters. In turn, Islamists readily accept state-supplied housing, food allowances and financial support from the governmental girth created and maintained by Socialist governments. Anyone paying attention can easily discern their symbiotic relationship.

Further credence to this alliance can be found in a widely-reported event from a few years ago. In an audio recording broadcasted on the al-Jazeera Network on the eleventh of February 2003, Osama bin Laden referred to the impending battles in Iraq. He advocated, "Under these circumstances, there will be no harm if the interests of Muslims converge with the interests of the socialists in the fight against the crusaders, despite our belief in the infidelity of socialists." (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/2751019.stm) What a ringing endorsement of cooperation from the world's most famous jihadi!

Recent news has demonstrated that the British government has strengthened this totalitarian alliance. Home Secretary Jacqui Smith released the list of personae non gratae. The Labor Party-led government played the role of Socialist appeasers by banning radio talk-show host, Doctor Michael Savage, from entering the United Kingdom. http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/16-banned-from-britain-named-and-shamed-1679127.html
Apparently with a straight face and no hint of sarcasm, Secretary Smith stated, "This is someone who has fallen into the category of fomenting hatred, of such extreme views and expressing them in such a way that it is actually likely to cause inter-community tension or even violence if that person were allowed into the country."

Despite having never engaging in public demonstrations against any "community" in Britain, Doctor Savage has been offered as a sacrificial lamb to Islamists. Savage's frequent denouncements of Islam and those who advocate it has already led to the fifth column calling itself the Council on American Islamic Relations to file suit against him in American courts in an effort to silence his dissent. Considering that Savage's show is not broadcast in Britain, one must question how Brown's socialist regime decided that Savage deserved the ban and public defamation accompanying it.

The current British government has revealed its hypocritical enforcement of standards. Where was Smith's concern about tension or violence when five thousand Mohamadans marched in London on the third of February in 2006? (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1509664/Muslim-protests-are-incitement-to-murder-say-Tories.html)
Were their signs with messages such as "Slay those who insult Islam", "Europe, take some lessons from 9/11" and "Butcher those who mock Islam" not likely to provoke tension or violence? Have Britons already kowtowed to Islamists and accepted dhimmitude so those slogans no longer qualify as threats? Who is more of a threat to public order, someone who criticizes a totalitarian ideology or someone who advocates the murder of that critic? This spineless administration has chosen to bar one Savage instead of the tens of thousands of savages already within its borders, poised for a demolition of the last vestiges of liberty in Britain.


1 comment:

Tarquin said...

"This spineless administration has chosen to bar one Savage instead of the tens of thousands of savages already within its borders, poised for a demolition of the last vestiges of liberty in Britain. " How right you are! Clearly dhimmitude is standard operating procedure in the UK. It is almost unbearably sad.