Islamophobic right has reached Germany?

[PeteEU]

Hitler and his party was socialist, and I'm not basing on the name. If they were called the National confederates I would still call them socialist. For instance in their party program they wanted to abolish all sorts of income apart from labour income. They want to abolish profits. Hitler has called himself a socialist severall times. Just listen to some of his quotes

And yet they never even remotely got close to this. In fact the opposite happened in many ways. Big industry flourished.. big privately owned by the elite of Germany who use to back the right wing royalist parties and now were Nazi party members. You know them today .. Krupps, Thyssen.. was two companies back then, and others.... heck even Ford was involved.. Again, Hitler was a populist who would use any thing to gain power and keep it.. if it meant calling himself a socialist because the conservative parties were highly unpopular at the time, the so be it.

And the people you talked about was his enemies, so of course he shipped them away. And it is nothing wierd about trade unions. A lot of communist regimes has abolished trade unions. Trade unions had too much power, he wanted the power to be given to the state. He hated marxism, he was a national socialist and he was left wing. I mean, Mein Kampf was published in 1925. Do you think he made everything up? I don't think so.

Hitler was a nationalist populist facist that used parts of left and right wing policies to get and hold power. Putting him and his party into "left" or "right" is simply not possible. Many of the policies he followed on social aspects were very conservative, as well on aspects of his economic policies. For one his "socialist" ass did not nationalise companies.. he worked with them big time. He hated anyone he saw as a threat, and in the 1920s and30s the threat came from the left since the left was a rising star within politics around the world. The old parties were highly discredited due to the economic policies that had failed and lost wars, so people turned to left leaning parties in droves.

Nope, the most anti-semetic countries was Russia. And they were marxists. And I don't know about the US (they didn't kill or send anyone off), but I know that Europe as a whole was very anti-semetic and it was mostly the left that hated jews. Also, America wasn't really right wing back then.

The US was highly anti-Semitic and was the cradle of the eugenics movement that used the "jewish form" as an undesirable aspect of the human form. Jews were banned from schools (Jews were not allowed into some Ivy league schools until after WW2) and aspects of government work across the US. US immigration policy targeted the Jews indirectly and it frankly cost a lot of people their lives. There was hard small quotas from Eastern Europe where most Jews were, and larger quotas from areas where the people were generally blood and blue eyed. Henry Ford, the American industrialist was highly anti-Semitic, as was much of the US population at the time.

As for Russia,.. well that is debatable. Anti-Semitism was ripe all over Europe and had been for centuries thanks to the Church and others making the Jews scapegoats. We still suffer the after effects of this today. And saying Russia was worse than Germany or the UK (we talking populace here not government policy) is just.. silly. And for the record, Russia (USSR) was against Jews, Christians and any other religion. So saying they were anti-Semitic is not accurate.. they were anti-religion.

But if you look at the political spectrum you would see that the parties to the left that hated jews the most. I mean, Hilter was to the left. The marxists in Parliament backed them up. In the UK they had a right wing government and they didn't dislike jews as much.

LOL sure... live in that right wing illusion. The British right wing governments hated the Jews.. even Churchill is know to have used not so politically correct words about them. Remember, Many Jews were terrorists back (not all, far from it) then because of their actions in Palestine, who was under British control. So in the UK, Jews were seen with the same view as Muslim are seen today due to Islamic terror. Add to that the Zionist movement had been lobbying British governments for decades for a home-land, the British were getting really tired of "Jews", because of the Zionist movement. I remember reading documentation from the Versailles negotiations after WW1, where the Zionists movement played hardball with many countries to get a home-land, but ultimately failed because of the still imperialistic views of the victorious allies. Same for Ho Chi Min and Vietnam.

And again, Hitler being left wing is not correct. I know the right wing propaganda machine has been pushing this falsehood for decades to get some distance between their policies and action of the time but like it or not it is not entirely true by any means. And no I dont deny he used left wing policies or wording, but I tend to look at his actions more than his rhetoric before he got elected to office and gained ultimate power. He would have done anything to gain power.

 

[MSgt]

And isn't it sad that it's impossible to make a posting about islamophobia in Germany, without chauvinists of all kinds showing their colors, giving a good demonstration of their mindset, their attitude and their prejudices?

Well, let's get this clear. It was your chauvinism....

Considering craziness around the Tea Party, 9/11-mosque debate or Quran burnings you American buddies have to contemplate about these days, I thought it might cheer you up a little when I tell you you at least aren't alone anymore".

You see, it's not the comment about the rediculous Tea Party, or the insensitive Islamic Learning Center near Ground Zero, or backwoods Christians expressing a desire to burn Qur'ans. It's the "you aren't alone anymore" garbage. As if Muslims in Europe have been just fine up to now. I pointing out that Muslims have been murdered across Europe, they have rioted, political bigotry abounds, and Muslim Turks in Germany have long replaced the Jew as the source of wrongness in its society. You retaliated with America's past as if it had anything to do with typical European behavior through the centuries.

But no matter America's past, it has never been as depraved morally as Europe and Muslims aren't murdered on the American landscape, or rioting, or the source of political rage. Even Bush was careful to separate the Islamic extremist problems from wider Islam so let's not pretend that Europe is catching up to us. Americans have a way of dealing with internal strife just fine. It's Europe that has always had difficulty behaving in times of crisis. So your statement of "you aren't alone anymore" is garbage. We are always alone and it's always the European that uses our stumbles or trips to ease their disasters and depravities.

There is absolutely nothing wrong in anything I have stated. It's your deflections and your personal defenses that sought to mock.

 

[MSgt]

Are we paying attention German Guy? Here we go...

The US was highly anti-Semitic and was the cradle of the eugenics movement that used the "jewish form" as an undesirable aspect of the human form. Jews were banned from schools (Jews were not allowed into some Ivy league schools until after WW2) and aspects of government work across the US. US immigration policy targeted the Jews indirectly and it frankly cost a lot of people their lives. There was hard small quotas from Eastern Europe where most Jews were, and larger quotas from areas where the people were generally blood and blue eyed. Henry Ford, the American industrialist was highly anti-Semitic, as was much of the US population at the time.

Despite the slaughter campaigns (as training) of Christian warriors upon European Jews on their way to the Crusades, despite scapegoating for the Black Plague, and despite overall hatreds for centuries towards Jews in Europe, Hitlers genocide machine is attributed to Americans? Try as you must, anti-Semetic Americans had nothing to do with what Eruope did. This is your burden alone. We could hate all we want, but we did not heat up furnaces to celebrate it. And if Europe re-discovers its historic "genius" and deals with these Islamic immigrants swiftly, will people like you 50 years from now remark on how Americans were all about burning Qur'ans to soothe yet another European depravity? Does this mean that America can blame a hundred years of social injustice towards blacks on Europeans that were racist? Does this work the other way around?

Even in a time when Europeans are trying to convince the world that they are independent and self-reliant they can't even own their own moral depravities. It's someone else that led them or forced them or whatever. They didn't start World Wars? They haven't perfected ethnic cleansing and genocode? They were able to handle "Yugoslavia" without foriegn intervention? This is a joke. Own your holocaust and your history without finding pathetic ways to use America as your comfort.

And again, Hitler being left wing is not correct.

Hitler was all over the place. He was against capitalism and for socialist programs making him Left. People like to think that his dictatorship and intolerant prescriptions make him Right. However, Mao and Stalin were also dictators of intolerant prescription and they were very much Leftists. The 20th century proved that religion isn't the killer of humanity and that militant activity isn't a definition of the Right. Militant activity is merely the tool from which ideologues and power mongers achieve their core beliefs. Hopefully, the European fascination for ideology has run its course and we can truly state that the "Age of Ideology" (1789-1991) is dead.

 

[Andalublue]

Are we paying attention German Guy? Here we go...



Despite the slaughter campaigns (as training) of Christian warriors upon European Jews on their way to the Crusades, despite scapegoating for the Black Plague, and despite overall hatreds for centuries towards Jews in Europe, Hitlers genocide machine is attributed to Americans? Try as you must, anti-Semetic Americans had nothing to do with what Eruope did. This is your burden alone. We could hate all we want, but we did not heat up furnaces to celebrate it. And if Europe re-discovers its historic "genius" and deals with these Islamic immigrants swiftly, will people like you 50 years from now remark on how Americans were all about burning Qur'ans to soothe yet another European depravity? Does this mean that America can blame a hundred years of social injustice towards blacks on Europeans that were racist? Does this work the other way around?

Even in a time when Europeans are trying to convince the world that they are independent and self-reliant they can't even own their own moral depravities. It's someone else that led them or forced them or whatever. They didn't start World Wars? They haven't perfected ethnic cleansing and genocode? They were able to handle "Yugoslavia" without foriegn intervention? This is a joke. Own your holocaust and your history without finding pathetic ways to use America as your comfort.





Hitler was all over the place. He was against capitalism and for socialist programs making him Left. People like to think that his dictatorship and intolerant prescriptions make him Right. However, Mao and Stalin were also dictators of intolerant prescription and they were very much Leftists. The 20th century proved that religion isn't the killer of humanity and that militant activity isn't a definition of the Right. Militant activity is merely the tool from which ideologues and power mongers achieve their core beliefs. Hopefully, the European fascination for ideology has run its course and we can truly state that the "Age of Ideology" (1789-1991) is dead.

You make some reasonable points, some you overstate.

As a European I am fully aware that WWII in Europe was entirely the creation of Europe. Yes, US isolationism in the Thirties might have made Hitler a little bolder than he would have been, but it was Britain and France's appeasement that really convinced him he could get away with annexing the Sudeten, the Rhineland and, eventually Poland. This is not to say that anti-semitism wasn't a problem in the US, clearly it was, but a quite, quite separate issue from the holocaust.

Nazism, Fascism and Leninist Socialism do share some features, but socialism, as practiced in most western European countries, i.e. Democratic Socialism, shares virtually nothing other than a recognition that private enterprise isn't the only way of providing services to the population.

The idea that politics operates along a linear left-to-right spectrum has always been simplistic and inaccurate, hence Stalin, Hitler, Churchill, Mussolini, De Gaulle, Roosevelt, Mao and Tojo cannot be placed in any sequence that makes any logical sense. It's just rhetorical knock-about to say National Socialism was really left wing or that Mao was really a fascist. Simple labels don't describe complex ideologies very well at all.

Do I believe that the Age of Ideology has passed? No, not at all. What leads anyone to conclude that? Neo-conservatism is an ideology in a very classical sense. As is Islamic Republicanism. Zionism still maintains some intellectual momentum and Libertarianism, in both its left- and right-wing incarnations motivates many. The opposite of ideology might be defined as pragmatism, but I don't see any evidence that that is the driving force of most polities. Some yes. Brazil and Turkey and, to some extent China and India, but each of those major powers are driven by forces that are more complex than mere economic self-interest. Ideas of justice, equality, honour, pride, superiority, piety, solidarity will always drive decision-makers because they always have. These are the driving forces of ideology and none of them seem to be going away. Ideology never dies, but certain, specific ideologies do.

 

[MSgt]

Do I believe that the Age of Ideology has passed? No, not at all. What leads anyone to conclude that? Neo-conservatism is an ideology in a very classical sense. As is Islamic Republicanism. Zionism still maintains some intellectual momentum and Libertarianism, in both its left- and right-wing incarnations motivates many. The opposite of ideology might be defined as pragmatism, but I don't see any evidence that that is the driving force of most polities. Some yes. Brazil and Turkey and, to some extent China and India, but each of those major powers are driven by forces that are more complex than mere economic self-interest. Ideas of justice, equality, honour, pride, superiority, piety, solidarity will always drive decision-makers because they always have. These are the driving forces of ideology and none of them seem to be going away. Ideology never dies, but certain, specific ideologies do.

I believe we are talking about two different things. Ideology, in the sense of what we have experienced in the last two centuries(1789-1991), is very much dead. I'm not talking about a broad stroke of ideology. The era of the "-ism" is over. Socialism, fascism, and communism proved unable to organize people and resulted in millions of corpses between Berlin and Cambodia. Virtually all the blood shed in the twentieth century was proof that ideology as a motivator equals death. Before this period, ideology played an insignificant (if any) part.

What we see today is the remnants of a dying era. The powerful (though some American think tanks are struggling with it) have finally recognized that it is impossible to organize and manage a society under strict rules in order to achieve utopia. It's only a matter of time before the world recognizes that there is no such thing as a perfect society and that no amount of individual speeches can produce the perfect concoction. Imperfect people will always dissapoint the "perfect" plan.

The smaller "-isms" like Islamic Republicanism and Zionism and Libertarianism, etc. are insignificant players. These are the ideologies that merely float along the current. The "Age of Ideology" sought to change that current.

 

[ric27]

So what's your point, i still dont see what you are getting at.

I'll start a new thread...A look at the ongoing "Islamification" of France.

 

[Andalublue]

I believe we are talking about two different things. Ideology, in the sense of what we have experienced in the last two centuries(1789-1991), is very much dead. I'm not talking about a broad stroke of ideology. The era of the "-ism" is over. Socialism, fascism, and communism proved unable to organize people and resulted in millions of corpses between Berlin and Cambodia. Virtually all the blood shed in the twentieth century was proof that ideology as a motivator equals death. Before this period, ideology played an insignificant (if any) part.

Again, some good points and some overstated. Certain of those big, utopian -isms: Nazism, Leninist Communism, Fascism are indeed dead. Socialism isn't and many countries are still run by Socialist governments and policies. The over-statement is this, "Virtually all the blood shed in the twentieth century was proof that ideology as a motivator equals death." WWI, one of the bloodiest event of the 20th century, was nothing to do with utopian ideology, but with nationalism and power-bloc politics. WWII in Europe certainly was, but how would you describe the utopian ideological basis of the Japanese involvement?

What we see today is the remnants of a dying era. The powerful (though some American think tanks are struggling with it) have finally recognized that it is impossible to organize and manage a society under strict rules in order to achieve utopia. It's only a matter of time before the world recognizes that there is no such thing as a perfect society and that no amount of individual speeches can produce the perfect concoction. Imperfect people will always dissapoint the "perfect" plan.

A vision of a utopian society is not the defining feature of Ideology, just of certain ideologies such as those you mentioned. Nor is the application of strict rules necessarily a feature of any Ideology, just of those with authoritarian strategies for achieving their ends.

I would point out that Neo-conservatism does have that idea of a utopian state - one of a liberal economic model, a strong faith-based, social concensus, a 'democratic', probably republican political structure, and a willingness to impose that utopia through force of arms.

The smaller "-isms" like Islamic Republicanism and Zionism and Libertarianism, etc. are insignificant players. These are the ideologies that merely float along the current. The "Age of Ideology" sought to change that current.

How do you define 'smaller' -isms?

 

[Moot]

Well, let's get this clear. It was your chauvinism....



You see, it's not the comment about the rediculous Tea Party, or the insensitive Islamic Learning Center near Ground Zero, or backwoods Christians expressing a desire to burn Qur'ans. It's the "you aren't alone anymore" garbage. As if Muslims in Europe have been just fine up to now. I pointing out that Muslims have been murdered across Europe, they have rioted, political bigotry abounds, and Muslim Turks in Germany have long replaced the Jew as the source of wrongness in its society. You retaliated with America's past as if it had anything to do with typical European behavior through the centuries.

But no matter America's past, it has never been as depraved morally as Europe and Muslims aren't murdered on the American landscape, or rioting, or the source of political rage. Even Bush was careful to separate the Islamic extremist problems from wider Islam so let's not pretend that Europe is catching up to us. Americans have a way of dealing with internal strife just fine. It's Europe that has always had difficulty behaving in times of crisis. So your statement of "you aren't alone anymore" is garbage. We are always alone and it's always the European that uses our stumbles or trips to ease their disasters and depravities.

There is absolutely nothing wrong in anything I have stated. It's your deflections and your personal defenses that sought to mock.

But GG wasn't speaking for all of Europe, and you certainly don't speak for all of America. He was speaking only of Germany who apparently up until recently didn't have the Islamophobe problem to the same extent the rest of Europe has and that America has been having since the tea party movement. Or should I say since JihadWatch? He was pointing out that Germany now has the equivalent of a Glenn Beck in this crazy, Thilo Sarrazin and that the fear mongering hatred against a minority ethnic group is on the rise in his country, just as it is in ours. All you have to do is read this forum to see it is true. He also mentioned that these nationalist hate groups in Europe and America are starting to communicate with each other and that in my opinion is cause for grave concern.

 

[MetalGear]

I'll start a new thread...A look at the ongoing "Islamification" of France.

Start another one called "the increasing anti-second amendment right wing movement of the US and tea party fear mongering".