What is Left and what is Right? 8

One of the villainous deceptions that the Left has gotten away with is its labelling of Nazism as “right-wing”.

In fact the Nazis were what they said they were: National Socialists.

For a year and ten months (August 23, 1939 t0 June 22, 1941), the period during which Stalin’s Russia worked with Hitler’s Germany to carve up Poland between them, the International Socialists refrained from criticizing the Nazis. For that period, Communism was not the “opposite” of Nazism – as the Left had claimed before the iniquitous Molotov-Ribbentrop pact was signed, and has claimed ever since it was broken by Germany’s suddenly attacking the Russians’ stolen piece of Poland before invading the Soviet Union itself.

The real political Right in the Western world is conservative. It is essentially individualist and forever profoundly, immovably against collectivism. That is why real conservatism is the real opposite of both Communism and Nazism.

But as we said, the Left has brought off its lie. Nazism is commonly regarded as being a “far-right” ideology. The mass media in general, all over the Western world, habitually label politicians who oppose the Islamization of the West “right-wing”. (See for example here and here and here.) They seldom say that a politician on the Left is “left-wing”. Whenever they say “right-wing” they know, and surely intend, the connotation of “Nazi” to hover round the label.

And when they say “far-right” they certainly mean “Nazi”.

This aura, this spell, put upon the Right has worked wonders for the Left everywhere, and especially now for the left-wing governments of western Europe. (All the governments of Europe, and the Dictatorship of the European Union, are actually left-wing, even though some ruling parties call themselves “conservative”.) Any organized opposition to their nihilistic policy of handing over their countries and the continent to the ruthless Mohammedan invaders who are slowly and steadily seizing power, has only to be called “right-wing” or “far-right” for millions of their voters to reject that party, that movement, that campaign, that leader. Because Nazism.

Yet the Mohammedan invaders – invited in, richly rewarded, protected by the state and the law courts from any penalty for crimes and even from criticism –  are in fact like the NazisIslam preaches and practices the same authoritarianism, the same intolerance, the same genocidal intention against the Jews, the same ambition to conquer and subjugate the rest of the world.

Islam enslaves women; punishes the victims of rape and acts of private consensual sexual freedom with death; kills gays (while many Islamic leaders and imams habitually practice homosexuality); treats Blacks – even Muslim Blacks – as inferiors; routinely tortures prisoners; denies evolution; imposes theocracy; hates liberty and dreads free speech.

Yet the international Left passionately supports it, promotes it, helps its accelerating advance.

And lies about it even to itself.

Even such atrocities as the bombing of spectators at a concert in Manchester, England, on May 22, 2027 –  which killed 22 and maimed at least 59, mostly young girls – do not move the hearts of the European, and at least nominally Christian, leaders.

Here’s one who is actually a devout Christian, talking through his hat. We quote German Finance Minister Responds to Manchester Attack: Christians Can Learn from Muslim Migrants,  by Virginia Hale, at (British) Breitbart:

The growing number of Muslims in Germany represents not a threat but a learning opportunity, said Finance Minister Wolfgang Schäuble, discussing Islam in the wake of the Manchester attack.

 “It is fanaticism, not only in Islam, that leads to terrible crimes,” he said, speaking on German public radio station Deutschlandfunk … when asked about the Islamist attack in which 22 mostly young people, including an eight-year-old girl, lost their lives.

“It is certainly a misunderstanding of religion when belief slips into fanaticism or, at worst, violence. The world’s great religions all preach the message that one must look upon others as their sisters and brothers, and that one must live with the other because man cannot live alone,” Schäuble told presenter Christiane Florin.

Wrong! Islam does not “preach the message that one must look upon others as their sisters and brothers”. It preaches that the infidel must be forced to convert to Islam, or else be killed, or – if spared – pay tribute to Muslim overlords. Schäuble had simply not troubled to inform himself about Islam at all. Deliberate ignorance of what Islam preaches is common to the members of the ruling class of western Europe.

On top of choosing ignorance, Herr Schäuble has the cheek to assert this:

“‘Islam is part of Germany’ is a sober, factual statement,” the minister remarked, commenting on sentiments voiced by Chancellor Angela Merkel on more than one occasion – which are not shared by the majority of Germans. “Anyone who denies this denies reality and is therefore not suited to being a politician, because politics begins with the confrontation of reality,” he added.

The country’s rapidly growing Muslim demographic presents an “opportunity” for “Christians, and all who live in Germany”, Schäuble stated, adding: “We can learn from them. Many human values are very strongly realised in Islam. Think of hospitality, and other things like, what is there … And also tolerance, I believe, for example.”

He hesitated. He didn’t know what “human values are very strongly realised in Islam”. He had heard of the stereotyped Arab’s hospitality, but he was hard put to think of anything else. He opted for “tolerance”. Sucked it out of his thumb. In fact, no ideology could be more intolerant than Islam.

Discussing his recently published book, Protestantism and Politics, the Christian Democratic Union (CDU) minister said the church has no monopoly on truth and criticised voices within who “argue too much in secular matters from a point of religious conviction”.

So why does he believe what he purports to believe if he doesn’t believe it is the truth? Well, other “truths”, he implies, are no less true, even though they contradict the Christian Protestant “truths” that he believes in – sort of.

And here is comment on Schäuble’s bilge, from Jihad Watch, by Christine Douglass-Williams:

The German Finance Minister’s outrageous statements may be an attempt to absolve himself and his party of any responsibility for what Muslim migrants are bringing to his country. Germany spent more than $21,000,000,000 on refugees in 2016, as its Muslim migrant crisis outstripped state budgets. In addition, the number of migrant criminal suspects soared by more than 50% in 2016.

Germany has been brutalized by Muslim migrants, with an epidemic of sex assaults, attacks on churches, and a massive crime surge. 

Finance Minister Wolfgang Schäuble’s shameless propaganda in the face of this chaos is the all too common pose of leftist politicians as they continue to burden taxpayers, betray their own citizenry and tradition of democratic rule. They are astoundingly insensitive to victims of Muslim migrants.

In its insane passion for protecting the invited Mohammedan conquerors from the least criticism, the present government of Germany is acting like the Nazi and Communist regimes that ruled Germany in whole or in part in the last century.

An article by Chris Tomlinson at Breitbart illustrates this:

A computer scientist in Germany has been fined over 3,000 euros after he complained in 2015 that criminal asylum seekers were being let go by police after robbing supermarkets.

The 52-year-old German made his comments on August 22nd of 2015 at the height of the migrant crisis, Wochenblatt reports. He noted that asylum seekers were going into German supermarkets and helping themselves to items and instead of being arrested they were let go with warnings.

He wrote on Facebook: “I am in favour of the setting up of civil defences and the punishment of flogging, then they might feel at home when they get their skull smashed with a truncheon. Violence is probably the only thing that they understand, and we should try to make them understand us.”

After his post, the 52-year-old was arrested by police and taken to jail. He was then put on trial and accused of attacking asylum seekers’ human dignity, slandering them, and insulting them. He was eventually convicted and forced to pay a fine of 3,150 euros. …

The case is another in a series of convictions in Germany for either speaking out about the migrant crisis or against migrant crime. Last year German police raided 60 homes in an operation against “xenophobic” speech online.  Federal Criminal Police (BKA) president Holger Münch said the raids were to prevent “verbal radicalisation” online.

A couple in the German town of Vierkirchen were also sentenced for “hate speech” after they formed an anti-asylum seeker group on Facebook.

Peter M., one of the defendants, said after the conviction: “One can not even express a critical opinion of refugees without getting labelled as a Nazi. I wanted to create a discussion forum where you can speak your mind about refugees.”

More recently the German government has set its sights on the social media companies themselves. Last month the German government was slammed by social media giants after passing a law that would introduce heavy fines for sites who do not remove hate speech posts in a timely manner.

Why cannot the electorates of western Europe see that in trying to avoid a return to Nazism, they are inviting it to come back and rule them again?

This time for keeps.

  • I used to think the terrorist attacks were a miscalculation by the enemy but I don’t any more. They are spaced out and thereby produce a very particular reaction. People don’t really feel in danger as they go about on their daily routine because the attacks are statistically insignificant. The terror attacks therefore do not have an effect to change attitudes significantly among the general public, but they DO substantially influence politics.

    The current leaders (who are inept) are doubling-down and closing ranks, making it ever harder for voices of reason to get through the bubble. The populace overall rally round their leaders and accept increasing surveillance and limits to freedom of speech as “a price worth paying to stay safe”. The warning voices are thereby suppressed and the inept governments are further empowered.

    So now I fully expect that people in general will not come to their senses after the latest terror atrocity. One more voice of reason has emerged however who’s words we have recently published:

    Manchester Slaughter – Time For A Change Of Attitude

    Whether enough people will join us in time remains to be seen, but at least its one small glimmer of hope.

    • liz

      Thanks for the link- good article. His quote of the Chief Constable of Manchester, that “(he) won’t tolerate hate” – not directed at the murderers inspired by their hate-filled religion, but at their victims! – perfectly illustrates the insidious, insanity inducing mental disease of Leftism.

    • I have written a comment on the article you link us to. It is a call to action. I forgot to put in, you will need funds. That is why courting a trade union may be the way. Yes, I am saying, incite the British people to action against the enemy Islam. I know it all too easy for me to sit safe in America and urge you even to risk going to prison. I am chained by age and weakness. You are all young and strong. This is one of the moments in history when people who can see disaster looming are called to a great endeavour. Who will answer the call if not you?

  • liz

    Very good description of the “Mohammedan Invaders” – like Nazis, and worse.
    The Left is also, as you point out, basically Nazis who differ only by being “international” as opposed to “national” Socialists. Yet in the insane asylum ruled by Leftist media propaganda, it’s conservatives, who oppose them both, who are labeled Nazis. The classic Leftist technique of ‘projection’.
    How fitting that the President of the Federal Criminal Police is named Munch, because the whole bizarre Gestapo-like scenario being played out in these arrests evokes the madness portrayed by Edvard Munch in “The Scream”.

    • International Socialists – I call them Glozis (Globalist Socialists).

      • The old Left could be roused. There are still old leftists in the trade unions – :more Methodist than Socialist”, they used to say of English Leftists. Cultivate an influential ally there. Stress that the newcomer are “taking British jobs”. Get in touch with Douglas Murray personally. Go talk to him. See if he will help you take action. He’s a great talker and writer. – will he act? Also Richard Kemp. Through him other army people. Retired and so free to do as they choose. Remember the Jarrow March? Were your ancestors braver than you? No. Make it clear to the stupid women of both sexes who rule you that you will not tolerate this state of affairs any longer. Borders must be closed. Mosques must be closed. No-go areas must be policed. Do not ever of course suggest that any person be harmed (unless he has done something wrong in which case the police must be called upon insistently to act). his is all in addition to my comment below and my comment under the article on your site, Chauncey.

        • Thanks very much for your feedback Jillian, good ideas to mull over. I had almost forgotten about RK, . I did make an attempt to contact DM before but its certainly worth trying again. As for the trade unions I fear they are very much compromised nowadays by the modern left-wing lunatic ideas, but nonetheless I will explore the idea. Peter Tatchell is one from the left/gay rights movement who has spoken out strongly for freedom of speech (from his own bitter experiences), and there may be others on the left who think more sensibly on Islam. I really dislike Polly Toynbee’s attitudes on many fronts but she is another lefty who spoke out once strongly against Islam.

          • An approach to individuals is useful if it leads to institutional support. You need powerful organizations on your side. I am out of touch – I may be wrong about trade unions. You know better than I which institutions might be recruited to the cause.