In this, his fourth in a series of six essays, Peter Carl examines the urgency of the situation of the West and the reasons why Churchill’s Principle says indisputably that there is no longer time for ideological polemics. The future is now, says Peter Carl, and it’s not pretty. He peers into post-Breivik electoral politics across Northern and Central Europe as well as at the realities of the “Left”/”Right” situation, offering a glimpse into some of the changes that have occurred due to Breivik’s massacres. He also considers how a poorly crafted message on the part of the Movement has, for many outside of it, now made the use of the “Nazi” label seem ever more justified. Looking back to World War II and the Nazi collaboration with Islam then, the author considers the polemics and realities of the word Nazi then and now, which both history and present politics show has left the general public, the media, and governmental authorities terribly misguided – and the Movement itself sorely damaged.

Across the West, as Churchill put it in the quotes that I have used to preface Part I of these essays, for the few who “…see things in their true proportion…” – the future does not look exceptionally bright. In light of the self-defeating destructiveness of “Left”/”Right” polemics in the context of the Counter-Jihad Movement and Breivik’s purposeful and horrendous attacks upon seventy-seven wholly-innocent people, upon this Movement, and upon all Westerners, the situation today looks more earnest than ever before.  As I have laid out in Part I, Part II, and Part III of these essays,  in the case we are unable to move past present patterns of “Left”/”Right” antagonism and cure the lack of unity of vision that continues to cause the alienation of large numbers of our potential voters, to self-inflictedly and publicly paint the Counter-Jihad Movement as “Right-wing”, and, as a consequence, to fail to succeed in gaining political influence in national assemblies across the West, we are destined to an ever bleaker future.

The reasons for this are adequately apparent. The facts are well-recognized. Birth rates far below replacement levels for Europeans and extremely high immigration and birth rates among Muslims make for much of the difference. Worldwide, the Muslim population is predicted to double to 2.2 billion by 2030. In Europe, however, the writing is already very much on the wall. In England, the Muslim population is increasing at a rate ten (10) times faster than that of the rest of the population. In Oslo, Norway, forty-three percent (43%) of all of Oslo’s schools already have a non-Norwegian speaking majority population. In France the number of mosques has doubled to over 2,000 in just the past ten (10) years and, as should not surprise anyone, a new study shows that Muslims in France are intentionally segregating themselves from the rest of the country to the country’s detriment. The small city of Hagen, Germany is evidence of both the present and the future all rolled into one; its downtown now has its third “Grand Mosque” while the Lutheran Church there is slated to be abandoned. In Sweden, a leading clergyman has suggested that Sweden begin demolishing the majority of its churches; in France Muslims have requested religious use of the country’s less used and vacant churches. According to the father of terrorism research, Walter Laqueur, due to birthrates and rampant Islamism the continent of Europe is already well on its way to becoming a part of the Islamist’s Ummah. The situation in the United States, though still far less serious in terms of numbers, is tracking these patterns found in Europe and elsewhere.

Meanwhile, as a consequence of the Breivik Massacres, the results of this lack of unity and a very poorly crafted and defectively delivered Counter-Jihad message over the short life of the Counter-Jihad Movement has shown its consequences. As an indicator of things likely to come, in a poll taken shortly after the Breivik atrocities, the percentage of the Norwegian population favorable to a “multicultural” society – though most still do not actually understand the high-impact day-to-day realities of such a proposition – was found to have increased post-Breivik by twenty-five percent (25%). Similarly, in Norway’s post-Breivik pre-election polls a three percent (3%) drop for the Counter-Jihad “Progress Party” (Fremskrittspartiet) was predicted as well as an increase in support for the Labor Party (Arbeiderpartiet), mostly to be at the expense of the Conservative Party (Høyer). In the actual Norwegian local and county elections, which took place nationwide on September 12, 2011, the previous poll showed itself to be generally accurate – however, it underestimated both the loss and the winner. In the end, the Progress Party (Fremskrittspartiet) lost 6.1% and 6.8%, respectively, in each the local and county elections. The Labor Party, the target of Breivik’s violence, however, increased its gain by 2.0% and 2.4%, respectively, while the Conservative Party as the big winner – seen as an actual mainstream protector of human rights as compared to the perceived “right-wing” politics of the Progress Party – gained an impressive 8.9% on the county level and 8.7% on the local level.

Formulating sensible public asylum and immigration policy and recognizing hard truths about non-Western immigration to Norway will not, however, be a part of the Conservative Party’s platform. Weeks after Breivik’s heinous acts, as was pointed out in previous parts of these essays, Norway’s Conservative Party declared Muslims of present-day Norway to be suffering persecution comparable to that of the Jews of the 1930s. The sentiment showed itself widely accepted in the elections. Much of this is due to systematic structures in parliamentary election systems. In European party list systems, where the party leadership of each party – even without formal quotas – generally determines itself who will be entitled to stand for any given seat, all parties – most especially the Norwegian Labor Party – reacted to the Breivik rampage by expediting the process of replacing native Norwegians on their party lists with candidates from immigrant backgrounds. The leader of the Labour Party (Abeiderpartiet) in Oslo, Jan Bøhler, assured Norwegian Radio (NRK), however, that these actions had little to do with these individuals’ backgrounds. “These are people who are active and have been active in politics. We are not distinguishing between individuals by their backgrounds, but by whether they are talented.” Apparently it was just a coincidence that within the pool of candidates shortly after the Breivik atrocities a smaller part of the population suddenly became largely over-represented in the party’s choices for these seats while the majority part of the population – apparently due to their sudden lack of talent in proportion to their part of the population – suddenly became largely underrepresented. Bøhler’s words rang hollow.

Two Norwegian newspaper articles looked into this phenomenon. It looked at the fifteen (15) largest communities in Norway where the proportion of city council representatives of “non-Western background” was increased in this recent post-Breivik election due to the intentional choice of the various parties’ leaderships alone from fifty (50) to sixty-seven (67), making “non-Westerners” holders of a full thirty-four percent (34%) of all council seats reviewed. The greatest changes occurred in Oslo, Stavanger, and Bergen. For this election in Oslo alone, the Labor Party leadership placed “minorities” in more than fifty percent (50%) of its eligible seats on the Oslo City Council. An additional five (5) were placed by other parties. Of course, the concern is and should not be the nationality, ethnicity, or race of any person holding any given seat; the concern is, instead, the ideas and cultural priorities, solutions, and reference points that such a person carries or does not carry with him or her to a position in public service. Nothing more and nothing less has made Norway and Norway’s politics, thus far, distinctly Norwegian (for all the good and positive that connotes, as backed up by decades of statistics) and, naming one example only, Pakistan so distinctly Pakistani (for all the bad and negative that connotes, as backed up by decades of statistics).

In Denmark, the trend has also already become visible in the Dane’s recent post-Breivik election that took place on September 15, 2011. Denmark has been perhaps the one country in which the Counter-Jihad concerns have been most understood by politicians and electorate alike across the political spectrum, from “Right”, “Left”, and “Center”. Even so, months after Breivik, two of the main parties that have been outspokenly committed to stemming Islamization – the Danish People’s Party (Dansk Folkeparti) and the Socialist People’s Party (Socialistisk Folkeparti) – both took significant losses for their views. The Danish People’s Party (Dansk Folkeparti) and the Socialist People’s Party (Socialistisk Folkeparti) respectively lost each twelve percent (12%) and thirty percent (30%) of their previously held parliamentary seats. Though the new coalition government is headed by the Social Democratic Party, the Social Democratic Party has also generally been supportive of and open to the stricter, more rational immigration laws and the valid concerns about Islamist expansionism in Denmark. One Swedish newspaper reported prematurely that, due to the commitment of the Social Democratic Party to past stricter immigration reforms, little would be likely to change; Denmark’s stricter immigration policies and laws would continue to be applied, she believed. “The one issue that could cause some problems in negotiating a new coalition could be immigration politics,” it predicted. “The Social Democratic Party has said that it would continue to be strict, contrary to that which the big winners in the election, the Social Liberal Party (Radikale Venstre) and the Red-Green Alliance (Enhedslisten), desire.”

The decisive role in the new “Left” coalition government has been handed, however, not to the Social Democrats, but to the one party least committed to issues of Islamization – the Social Liberal Party (Radikale Venstre) – a free-market non-Left bloc party actually located in the “Center” of Denmark’s political spectrum, which went on to increase its number of seats in parliament in the post-Breivik election by forty-seven percent (47%) over its previous holdings. This party, the centrist Social Liberal Party (Radikale Venstre), is the one party which has declared, for example, that it wants to remove the limitations placed on immigrant marriages – created in order to prevent forced and child marriages and immigration fraud – that require an immigrant be at least twenty-four (24) years old at the time of marriage to receive permanent residence. Danish Public Affairs professor, Marlene Wind, of Copenhagen University puts it this way: “The Social Liberal Party (Radikale Venstre) is the party that stands furthest from [the ideals and goals] of the [Counter-Jihadist] Danish People’s Party (Dansk Folkepartiet).” She offers each party’s campaign slogans as evidence. “The Social Liberal Party (Radikale Venstre): ‘We Feel Confidence. Including in Foreigners.’ The Danish People’s Party (Dansk Folkeparti): ‘We Trust. Especially in Danes.’” Wind concludes, “The parties are the absolute opposite of one another. This [change] will have consequences for [Danish] politics.”

It already has. The recent decision by the new coalition government to actually dissolve the Ministry of Immigration and rollback some of the important immigration reforms of the past ten (10) years is evidence enough of the reality of what Wind predicted and what a “Centrist” winner and the new coalition built around it now holds for the future of Denmark. Meanwhile, emboldened by these changes, Islamists in Denmark have made post-election calls for enforced “Sharia Zones” in Copenhagen, as has recently occurred across England, in response to which Denmark’s new Social Democratic Prime Minister, Helle Thorning Schmidt, publicly told Islamists that if they don’t like Denmark as it is, they would do well to leave. Yes; she is a so-called “Leftist”.

In Sweden, election-wise (definitely not prime minister-wise), approximately the same has happened to the Social Democratic Party (Socialdemokraterna), with the Social Democratic Party gaining support and the Counter-Jihad Sweden Democrats (Sverigedemokraterna) falling. Shortly after the Breivik attacks, one Swedish newspaper boasted a headline that read, “[It’s] Encouraging that Fewer Support SD [- the Sweden Democrats]”. “The Social Democrats,” the article explained, “…are up 3.6 percentage points in polling completed after the terrorist attack, while the Sweden Democrats, Sweden’s anti-immigration party, has fallen 3.3 percentage points over the same period of time.” As one of Sweden’s more usual apologists for Islamism has written: “Maybe it’s a new time, when the populist right finds itself in the backwaters. Where it can not set the agenda. The Danish People’s Party and the [Norwegian] Progress Party’s successes have long inspired [Sweden’s] Sweden Democrats (Sverigedemokraterna). Hopefully the winners of the Norwegian and Danish elections who unambiguously opposed this ‘immigration fixation’ can inspire friends in Sweden and all across Europe.” In Sweden, even after one full year in parliament, Political Correctness still forbids other parties from openly communicating, collaborating, or negotiating with the Sweden Democrats (Sverigedemokraterna).

This same type of anti-democratic peer pressure has also prevented the Sweden Democrats from filling the seats to which it is entitled in city and county councils. In fact, it was recently reported that since the Sweden Democrats were first elected to parliament in September of 2010, 154 of the Sweden Democrats’ local politicians have resigned and a total of twenty-five (25) seats now stand empty across nineteen (19) different localities. Certainly not due to some lack of popularity on the part of the party itself, but merely because people are afraid of being socially ostracized in and outside of the democratic process. The Counter-Jihad Movement’s self-inflicted injuries due to unending “Right”/”Left” polemics – now in light of the Breivik atrocities – certainly have not helped. The result is that, if at all, the other political parties hold “secret” meetings with the Sweden Democrats and then deny that any meeting took place. Or, even now, the other parties refuse to take part in television debates because they “do not want to stand on the same stage” next to the Sweden Democrats. An understanding of Western “PC” politics strongly suggests that, though many Swedes support the Sweden Democrats, simple social, political, and peer pressure prevent these same individuals – especially at the local level and publicly – from wishing to identify themselves, their families, and their professions with a party that, in fact, asks for nothing more radical or “extreme” than an ability to discuss openly sensitive public policy and social issues, a rational and productive immigration policy, and assurances of our Common Freedoms and the rights of all people.

In other countries, were other attacks to occur comparable to the Breivik massacres, increased rejection of the Counter-Jihad Movement may become even more widespread if the broad message of human rights and Common Freedoms does not come to replace “Left”/”Right” polemics. Marine Le Pen of France’s Front National understands very well that the problems of the past have come equally from both the “Right” and “Left” – and that her party must both become more than a “one-issue” party as well as home to “Right”, “Left”, and “Center”. In the Netherlands, Geert Wilders and his Freedom Party (Partij voor de Vreiheid (PVV)) have also shown a similar understanding and have generally remained stable if not gained in the polls. This has been much due to the recent persecution and prosecution of Mr. Wilders by the Dutch government – for nothing more than his words and views on the detrimental ideas and realities presented Western societies by Islamism. His position on the European debt crisis has not at all hurt him either, where fifty-four (54%) of Dutch voters – among whom one can assume a large number of “Leftists” reside – want Greece and other high-debt countries out of the Euro zone.

Germany, on the other hand, in a manner similar to Denmark provides yet another insight into what will happen to Counter-Jihad parties and politicians if they themselves do not separate themselves from and begin to proactively change the message of, take issue with, and enforce consequences for those who push “Left”/”Right” polemics. If Counter-Jihad politicians and parties do not do so, events happening across Europe suggest that most of these parties will eventually become confirmed by their own “Left”/”Right” polemics as being irrelevant “Right-wing” one-issue parties. The proof? While in a very few parts of Germany actual Nazis have gained ground this year in places such as Sachsen-Anhalt, at the same time René Stadtkewitz and his Freedom Party (Die Freiheit) have achieved little, showing little more than one percent (1%) in polls even in his home district. Why?

The situation of René Stadtkewitz and Die Freiheit exposes one of the greatest dangers for the Counter-Jihad parties and their politicians: If the Counter-Jihad parties continue with the unproductive and self-destructive attacks on the “Left”, fail to focus on the Counter-Jihad Argument and our Common Freedoms, and thereby fail to make Counter-Jihad parties a home for “Left”, “Right”, and “Center” equally, the Counter-Jihad parties and their politicians will have wasted precious time and opportunities by continually pushing Counter-Jihad parties toward irrelevance as appears to be happening with Die Freiheit. This will be especially the case once other parties of the “Right”, “Left”, and “Center” – as has happened in Denmark and parts of Germany – wake up to the fact that Islamization means the end of our Common Freedoms. Since all Westerners, “Right”, “Left”, and “Center”, do actually believe in our Common Freedoms, in the worst hit places in Germany the more established parties are beginning to understand Islamization far more rapidly than one might think.

A recent journalist in Germany, in examining the ineffectiveness of Mr. Stadtkewitz and Die Freiheit, while perhaps overstating the depth of understanding on the part of Germany’s political parties in addressing Islamization, has in any case recognized this very fact. “Where other countries have right-wing populist parties,” he writes, significantly overstating the situation there, “Germany has an open debate across the political spectrum in which representatives raise the issues of immigration, migration, Islam. And that’s better. In this sense, thanks to Mr. Buschkowsky.” The journalist’s point is well taken in any case. The man referred to, Heinz Buschkowsky, would be defined as a so-called “Leftist” in the terminology of most Counter-Jihad bloggers since, in this case, he is and has been a committed member of the German Social Democratic Party (Sozialdemokratische Partei Deutschlands (SPD)) for most of the past forty (40) years. He also happens to be the mayor of one of Germany’s largest and most Islamified suburbs, Neukölln, a district of Berlin in which, according to a report to the Council of Europe, forty percent (40%) of the Neukölln’s population and approximately eighty percent (80%) of its school children are of immigrant background – while ninety percent (90%) of their parents are unemployed.

The “Leftist”, Mr. Buschkowsky – long before most “Conservative” politicians such as David Cameron, Nicolas Sarkozy, and Angela Merkel definitively had said it – had been among the very first meaningful politicians in Europe to openly recognize and state the obvious – that “multi-culturalism is a failure.” In Neukölln, the disconcerting truth of this assertion is amply evident. Buschkowsky, together with the Neukölln SPD, were endorsed by and received a monetary donation from Mr. Thilo Sarrazin in Buschkowsky’s recent re-election campaign. Sarrazin is yet another “Leftist” Counter-Jihad SPD politician who, after the publication of his controversial book on Islamization in 2010, also survived an attempt to oust him from his long-time membership in that same “Leftist” Social Democratic Party. He has also shrugged-off numerous threats on his life from Islamists. Considering that only about sixty percent (60%) of the population of Neukölln is ethnically German, the fact that Buschkowsky and the SPD won the September 2011 election - by gaining fifteen percent (15%) over previous election results and by taking forty-two percent (42%) of the total vote - is both impressive and quite noteworthy. So noteworthy that an actual German Marxist website suggested that Buschkowsky and Sarrazin’s discussion of real concerns regarding Islamization in Neukölln and Berlin would undoubtedly soon be having a significant effect on the national platform of the German Social Democratic Party (SPD). “The result for Buschkowsky,” notes the Marxist journal, berating a so-called “Leftist” Social Democrat and quite oblivious to the horrific realities of the situation in Neukölln, “with just over 42 percent of the vote (an increase of 15 percent), is a grandiose electoral achievement - which was closely monitored within the SPD. There is a danger that the [Sarrazin-] Buschkowsky arguments will be integrated more closely into the SPD platform in order to win votes on the backs of immigrants.”

One comment posted on a relevant blog suggests that, due to the ineffectiveness of the Counter-Jihad parties in unifying across political ideologies and focusing upon our Common Freedoms and the Counter-Jihad Argument, growing numbers of voters are aware of the identity and danger real Nazis pose and, therefore, are looking for either Counter-Jihad parties or the more established parties to take serious steps to reverse Islamization. In the link above, that “Conservative” commenter supports this view. His comment proves all within the same sentence that the Counter-Jihad Movement has failed in its message and, at the same time, that being Counter-Jihad is the opposite of being anti-democratic, “far-right”, or a supporter of “neo-Nazis”. “It is,” he writes of the recent increase in support for Nazis in his region, “really high time in Sachsen-Anhalt that an electable alternative finally be offered. Only then will these unspeakable ghouls [e.g. Nazis] finally reach their end.” To the extent Counter-Jihad parties can drop the “Left”/”Right” polemics and methodically attract large portions of the “Left”, “Right”, and “Center” into these parties focusing on Common Freedoms while avoiding being seen as simple one-issue parties, success is there for the taking for Europe’s Counter-Jihad parties and politicians. To the extent they remain unable to do this, two things will happen: 1) Islamization will continue to accelerate; and 2) the mainstream parties (though likely far too late) will capture the issue just as has happened among the SPD in Berlin this fall and as has generally happened, quite convincingly, across the political spectrum in Denmark.

There is still another reason for those who care about the Counter-Jihad Movement to heed the insights and advice offered in these essays. One blogger has written regarding how governmental authorities – in this case in England – more and more view the Counter-Jihad political parties and Movement. “The unprecedented repression,” the blogger writes, “directed at the EDL [English Defense League] and other dissidents demonstrates that the authorities are frightened by mass opposition to Islamization and Sharia, and are determined to use any means to suppress dissent.” If such is the case, since it appears that both members of the public and governmental authorities are afraid or repulsed by the Counter-Jihad Movement, it does not take a genius to deduce that both the general public and governmental authorities must immediately have their concerns alleviated regarding whether the Counter-Jihad Movement is “right-wing” or “far-right” or, equally as importantly, any danger to human rights and our Common Freedoms. That means Counter-Jihad parties and politicians – in order to achieve this and to reassure the general public and governmental authorities and, most importantly, to gain voters across the political spectrum – must cease exacerbating “Left”/”Right” polemics and arguments and focus on the Counter-Jihad Argument and the Common Freedoms in which all Westerners “Left”, “Right”, and “Center” all believe.

Evidence of concerns about the Counter-Jihad Movement among governmental authorities – especially in light of Breivik – have become highly visible. For example, we see numerous countries (US, Great Britain, Germany, and even the State of Bavaria, etc.) following the Organization of Islamic Cooperation’s (OIC) lead in monitoring “Islamophobia” and “Islamophobic” groups, as opposed to considering and addressing the concerns raised by today’s many otherwise very disconcerting statistics. We see, for instance, in the EU in 2010 that excluding “Separatist” terrorism (meaning Basque/Spain, Corsica/France, and Ulster/Ireland), there were eighty-four (84) “Islamist”, thirty-seven (37) “Left-wing”, four (4) “Right-wing”, and six (6) “Other” “Convictions” or “Acquittals” in the entire EU in 2010. (See Report, Page 38). In other words, excluding “Separatist” terrorism in the EU, Islamists made up sixty-four percent (64%) of those tried for terrorism in the EU, the Left-wing twenty-eight percent (28%), the Right-wing three percent (3%), and all “Others” five percent (5%). For the sake of context, of the one-hundred and sixty (160) actual, planned, or foiled “Separatist” attacks all but two (2) took place on French and Spanish territories. (See EU Report, Page 36).

Meanwhile, at the same time, Islamists constitute a clearly disproportionate percentage of criminals in Western and non-Western prisons (e.g. France, England, Netherlands, Italy, India, etc.), as rapists and sex-traffickers (e.g. Norway, England, Sweden, U.S., etc.), and school dropouts (e.g. Netherlands, Sweden, Switzerland, Germany, India, etc.). They also, quite obviously, tend to be the lead candidates as potential terrorists. In Canada, for example, with numbers that are similar to those found in other Western European countries, authorities are not sure whether to be pleased or concerned with the fact that “only” thirty-five percent (35%) of Muslims in Canada see no reason to renounce Al-Qaeda. (So much for the “tiny minority of extremists” theory.) Or that “…62% want[] some form of Shariah law in Canada, 15% of them saying it should be mandatory for all Muslims.” Despite these realities, a body like the British Parliament has instead determined that an All-Party Parliamentary Committee on Islamophobia is necessary. That’s right, according to the British Parliament the situation requires the observation of people who, we are informed, supposedly have “irrational” concerns about Islam. This is the conclusion of the British Parliament, as opposed to the government wondering whether Islamism, Islamist criminals, sex offenders, criminals, and jihadists, and the daily litany of Islamist violence found across Britain and the world, including now in places very far from the Muslim world, is itself perhaps in need of some well-placed concern – and careful and coordinated examination and thought.

As is typical in the lack of understanding of both our own histories and the Counter-Jihad Movement in the mainstream media and among the general public, those – from every country, across the world, and covering the political spectrum from “Center”, “Left”, and “Right” – who have genuine and honest questions and criticisms relating to Islamism are simplistically written off as some “third wave” of “Nazis” and “right-wing extremists.” An Oslo newspaper, Aftenposten, and one of its journalists, Kjetil Kolsrud, has recently used exactly these words in a Norwegian-language article, quite ironically, to describe as the new “Nazis” or “extreme-right” of our time we individuals who express valid and substantiated concerns regarding Islamism’s attacks on humanity’s Common Freedoms. This is evidence of the fact that most of us, governments and journalists included, have long ago forgotten that Hitler himself had explicitly found inspiration and validation for his Social Darwinist Nazi views within Islam and held great admiration for the doctrine of Islamic Jihad. Contrary to historical fact, recent books such as Jihad and Jew-hatred: Islamism, Nazism and the roots of 9/11 (2007), for example, ignore the Koran, 1,400 years of Jihad, as well as Nazi interests and the history of World War II. Instead, books like the latter posit that Nazism actually influenced (if not caused) today’s Islamist movement and its hatred of Jews. In truth, the only way Nazism effected Islamism and Islamists was to provide the Muslim world with a pattern for political, military, and organizational structure as well as for the use of propaganda; every bit of today’s violence, supremacy, and hatred of Jews and other non-Muslims, as we will see below, had already existed for 1,400 years before National Socialism ever came into being.

The words of Adolf Hitler and those of numerous Islamists whom Hitler himself had met and supported paint a very different picture of history than the Aftenposten journalist or most other people are aware – if we take the time to look back in history. Allama Al-Mashriqi (1888-1963), for example, a South Asian mathematician, logician, political theorist, Islamic scholar and the founder of the Khaksar movement, writes author J.M.S. Baljon, “…categorically denies [his ideas and actions] to have been dependent on German Nazism. On the contrary, he claims to have been a source of inspiration for Hitler whom he met incidentally in the National Library of Berlin in 1926.” ⁱ Al-Mashriqi wrote in a letter dated 12 July 1955 of his visit with Hitler in 1926 that, “I was astounded when he [Hitler] told me that he knew about my [book, the] Tazkirah. The news flabbergasted me….”ⁱⁱ Al-Mashriqi’s book and writings contained such militant Islamist supremacist gems as: “If you have faith [in Islam] then dominate over all. Keep this command of the Almighty in view that we [Muslims] have again to dominate the whole world. We have to become its conquerors and its rulers.” ⁱⁱⁱ And, for example: “The Quran has proclaimed in unequivocal words to the world that the Prophet was sent with the true religion and definite instruction that he should make all other religions subservient to this religion, regardless if the domination of the world caused affliction to the Kafir [e.g. unbelievers, non-Muslims].”^iv Al-Mashriqi tellingly, in one piece, even referred to one of the world’s most revered pacifist leaders, Mahatma Gandhi, as “an effeminate leader” and the leader of a nation “which never wielded the sword.” Mocking Gandhi, Al-Mashriqi wrote, “Tell me frankly what else could the naked Mahatma teach you? The poor man not finding his people fit for anything else devised the rediculous [sic] methods of satyagrah, Ahimsa, non-violence and non-cooperation in the name of Hindu philosophy which have staggered the whole world….”^v If Gandhi and Hinduism were “effeminate” for Al-Mashriqi, Hitler and National Socialism’s Social Darwinism were to be enthusiastically admired for its common masculine war-lust. In reference to Hitler and Hitler’s interest and knowledge of the Koranic doctrine of Jihad, Al-Mashriqi glowed regarding their meeting, “I found him [e.g. Hitler] very congenial and piercing. He discussed Islamic Jihad with me in details.”^vi So impressed was Al-Mashriqi with Hitler, Al-Mashriqi wrote, “In 1930 I sent him my Isharat concerning the Khaksar Movement with a picture of a spade-bearer Khaksar at the end of that book. In 1933 he [e.g. Hitler] started his Spade Movement.” ^vii

The Islamist goals of world domination and hatred of Jews described by Al-Mashriqi, he and others knew, long pre-dated Hitler and the Social Darwinist theory of Aryan supremacy that in the West had only first begun to take form in the decades that followed – by no doing of Charles Darwin (1809-1882) – Darwin’s central work, On the Origin of the Species (1859). In the years immediately following Darwin’s work, in Germany, biologist Ernst Häckel (1834-1919) and eventually philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche (1844-1900) cultivated and grew these ideas of social supremacy arising in natural struggle and selection. In fact, when the Nazis first realized the fanatical support for Hitler and the Nazis that existed naturally across the Arab world – long before Zionism and the establishment of Israel could ever be blamed for an Islamist love for Jihad and hatred of Jews – the Nazis also discovered that Hitler was being referred to across the Arab world as the returned Mahdi, the prophesied redeemer of Islam who is to come to earth before the Day of Judgment (yawm al-qiyamah) to violently rid the world of Jews and unbelievers and provide an Islamic rebirth.^viii Upon hearing how Hitler was being perceived across the Arab world, Himmler, on May 14, 1943, requested that the Reichssicherheitshauptamt (RSHA) look into “…themes in the Koran that lead the Muslims to the view that the Koran predicts and assigns to the Führer the mission of completing the Prophet’s [e.g. Mohammed’s] work.”^ix That much admired “work” being, of course, among other things, the obliteration of Christianity and the annihilation of the Jews.

In other words, to the majority of Muslims of the World War II era, they saw, based in the Muslim holy books, a person with Hitler’s ideas, goals, and priorities as one and the same savior described for them in their Koran and sent by Allah. For Westerners this is especially strange since Christians, quite contrary to Islamists then and now, immediately and very oppositely saw and continue to see Hitler as a form of anti-Christ. No Westerner – other than an actual Nazi – would describe Hitler as any kind of “savior” and then, in the case of a Nazi, only in figurative – not in actual religious terms. As a result of this theological connection that Muslims were making between Hitler and Islam, the Nazis actively did look into how Islamic theology might be used for propaganda purposes in the Muslim world. They concluded that, Hitler could “...not be passed off as either the Prophet or the Mahdi,” but that he could be suitably described “…as the returned Isa [e.g. the Muslim version of an Islamist violence-obsessed “Jesus”], foretold in the Koran, who…will vanquish the giant and Jewish king Dadjdjal at the end of the world.” ^x

Due to this mutual admiration, during most of World War II, the Nazis took in, harbored, paid, and housed as a guest of the Nazi state the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, Haj Mohammed Effendi Amin Al-Husseini (also El-Husseini) (1895/97-1974). The Grand Mufti, in turn, recruited Nazi Muslim troops for the Third Reich and understood that at the end of the war “the Final Solution” for the Jews would, with the support of Hitler and Nazi troops, become the end for all Jews across the Muslim world. Like Al-Mashriqi, the Grand Mufti Al-Husseini did not at all discover jihad and Jew-hatred for the first time through his relationship with the Nazis. Looking back into Muslim history and within the Koran itself, Al-Husseini challenged the Muslim world: “Do not fear your enemies and their propaganda and remember that you have never in history clashed with the Jews and not seen them lose. God has ordained that there will be no stable regime for the Jews….”^xi In another speech, again referring to Muslim domination of the Jews in past centuries, Al-Husseini noted that, “[Nazi] Germany is also the only country that has finally decided to resolve the Jewish question once and for all. This, of course, is of interest to the Arab world first and foremost. […] Until now, each has fought this danger separately – now we will fight it together. In this fashion we will also reach our goal together.” ^xii (Emphasis supplied). The admiration came equally warmly from the Nazi side. Waffen-SS General, Gottlob Berger, in charge of recruitment of non-German forces into the Waffen-SS, put it this way in 1942: “Between Islam and National Socialism a link is being created upon an open and honest basis. From the North it will be directed in accordance with Blood and Race and from the East within the sphere of the ideological and spiritual.” ^xiii

Thus, Islamism and Nazism, then and now, were made for each other. Both place an ideological and supremacist state in an absolute position over the individual and both are built upon Social Darwinist animalistic struggle aimed at subordinating all individuals and groups who do not adhere to the respective belief system. One is a mere modernist model of the Social Darwinist struggle for supremacy and the other is its 1,400 year-old original founded in the best ever theological expression of Social Darwinism. Sayyid Qutb (1906-1966), an early and leading member of Egypt’s Muslim Brotherhood noted these similarities as well. “In an [Islamic] State of this nature no one is able in any way to consider his matters to be personal or private. In this aspect the Islamic State exhibits a certain similarity to fascist and communist States.”^xiv The Grand Mufti echoed this view in a speech on October 4, 1944 to officers and imams of the Muslim SS divisions when he said that “…the parallels between National Socialism and Islam had become ever closer. These included: monotheism, defined as obedience to one spiritual, political, and military authority; an emphasis on obedience and discipline; and the celebration of battle [e.g. jihad] and of labor.”^xv

To ensure that the new recruits to the Muslim SS divisions would be guided spiritually in accordance with true Islamist values, the SS coordinated with the Grand Mufti to open “Mullah-schule” (Islamist Schools) in a handful of cities across Nazi Germany. In November of 1944 one was opened in Dresden to train Imams to guide each of the numerous Muslim SS divisions recruited by the Grand Mufti. “The establishment of the facility,” among other things, “was founded with the idea of developing [and realizing] opportunities for ‘war-like Islam’….”^xvi Hitler’s own words explain why. The Social Darwinist-based admiration for Islamism that Hitler and the Nazi Party maintained at their core – and their abhorrence for Christianity – was reflected in Nazi policy toward each of these religions. “If Charles Martel,” complained Hitler, “had not won [over the Muslim invaders] at Poitiers – we [in the West] took the Jewish world as a burden upon ourselves, Christianity is so very lifeless – we would have far more likely adopted Mohammedism [as our religion]. These teachings of the rewards of heroism – the warrior alone accedes to the Seventh Heaven! With it [e.g. Islamism], the Germanic tribes would have conquered the world. Only as a result of Christianity have we been kept from this [achievement].” ^xvii Hitler, Himmler, and every Nazi understood the connection.

Like Hitler then, “Himmler’s hatred of ‘soft’ Christianity was equal to his liking for Islam, which he saw as a masculine, martial religion based on the SS qualities of blind obedience and readiness for self-sacrifice, untainted by compassion for one’s enemies.” ^xviii According to SS-Sturmbannführer Wilhelm Beisner, Al-Husseini “…had good ties with Himmler and with Waffen-SS Gen. Gottlob Berger, who handled the recruitment of non-German forces into the Waffen-SS. SS leaders and El-Husseini both claimed that Nazism and Islam had common values as well as common enemies – above all, the Jews.” ^xix The thought has been confirmed on many occasions. Former Syrian militant and Baathist leader, Sami al-Jundi, reflected on the 1930s and 40s in his memoires writing, “We were racist, admiring Nazism, reading its books and the source of its thought, particularly Nietzsche…. We were the first to think of translating Mein Kampf.”²⁵ It was Islam that made Mein Kampf interesting to al-Jundi and many others back then and it is Islam that still makes the book of great interest throughout the Muslim world today. It is, therefore, no coincidence that Mein Kampf, as recent as 2010, was and has been a best seller in the Muslim world (Bangladesh, Turkey, Indonesia, Palestinian Territories, British Muslims, etc.). A book, of course, does not become a “best seller” in so many different places – since we all hear so often that “Islam is not monolithic” – if it is only some “tiny minority of extremists” that believe in such ideas and embrace such views. For this same reason, it is also not at all surprising that this relationship between Nazism and Islamism continues on well into the present day.

In a book entitled Globalisierter Rechtsextremismus?: die extremistische Rechte in der Ära der Globalisierung [Globalized Right-wing Extremism?: The Extreme Right in the Era of Globalization] (2006) written by Thomas Greven, a German researcher of actual right-wing extremists, Greven shows how the same attraction and points of commonality that brought Nazism and Islamism together during World War II have never ceased to exist and continue to present concerns up to and through the present. Two contributors to Greven’s book, Mark Weitzman in his essay Antisemitismus und Holocaust-Leugnung: Permanente Elemente des globalen Rechtsextremismus [Anti-Semitism and Holocaust Denial: Permanent Elements of Global Right-wing Extremism] and Michael Whine in his essay Eine unheilige Allianz: Internationale Verbindungen zwischen Rechtsextremismus und Islamismus [An Unholy Alliance: International Ties between Right-wing Extremism and Islamism], offer articles that discuss how Neo-Nazis and Islamists today continue to find common ground.

According to Weitzman, he sees “…a growing interest within the [Neo-Nazi] movement to build up ties to radical Islam based upon a common ideology of Anti-Semitism.” ^xxi Evidence of this can be found, for example, writes Weitzman, “…on the website of the ‘Aryan Nations’ which [have contained] greetings in Arabic…” as well as quotes glorifying the common points of Islamism and Nazism. The website, according to Weitzman, has referred to quotes from, for example, World War II era Nazis such as Himmler and Gottlob Berger and related Islamists including the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, Haj Mohammed Amin al-Husseini.^xxii Weitzman quotes the “Aryan Nations” website itself as reading (translated here from Weitzman’s German), “There is much information which attests to the respect and the willingness to cooperate that Adolf Hitler and others in the Third Reich maintained as to Islam. This [information] makes for good studies for every person who claims to be a National Socialist.”^xxiii The current version of the Aryan Nations website today, contains similar language. Announcing as “Required reading for all A.N. and affiliates!” it provides a webpage dedicated to numerous essays of the English neo-Nazi convert to Islam, David Myatt, which offer a selection of Myatt’s writings on the topic of what they promote as “Ethical National-Socialism”.

The website proclaims, the “Aryan Nations [have] adopted what David W. Myatt has renamed, Ethical National-Socialism,” which means, in short, that it “…promotes the ethical treatment of all races and individuals providing they also extend the same treatment of our Aryan peoples.” This is aimed at providing a modern-day bridge between Nazism and Islamism. Though there are suspicions that exist between each other from both the Aryan Nation and Islamist sides, Weitzman writes that today’s “Aryan Nations” “…see the possible positive outcomes of being brought into collaborations with Islamist extremists as being greater [now] than the negative outcomes foreseen immediately after 9/11” ^xxiv and, in any case, any hesitancy on the part of Islamists to work with Neo-Nazis today rests likely in the Islamists own supremacist beliefs. “[T]he Muslims,” writes Weitzman, “look upon [these Neo-Nazi] individuals from the West – despite their mutual Anti-Semitism – as non-Muslim non-believers….”^xxv That is, observant Muslims see non-Muslims as “unclean” or impure Infidels, also known as “Kuffar”. Tellingly, comments on one Sunni website discussing Myatt and other Nazi converts to Islam express a certain mistrust of these converts – but show joy in their conversion (“reversion”) and voices no clear objections to or criticism of Nazis or Nazism. As discussed below, meetings do continue to take place between these groups. Weitzman himself refers, for example, to an article from 16. April 2005 from the Boca Raton News which reported that “a Muslim student group in Florida invited a confidant of David Duke to hold a lecture.”^xxvi

Contributor Michael Whine, for his part, recounts the many connections that have led relationships from then to now. “The revelation of Ahmed Huber, the Swiss Neo-Nazi who converted to Islam, and his role in working to bring Islamists together with the Extreme Right in Europe and the United States has thrown a spotlight onto an unholy alliance that up until now has largely operated in the shadows.” ^xxvii This unholy alliance also known, in English, as “The Third Position” was examined in a CNN piece in which Ahmed Huber (1927-2008), a follower of both Osama Bin Laden and Adolf Hitler, discusses his efforts to give new life to an old relationship thereby bringing together Neo-Nazis and Islamists within a new globalized partnership. Huber’s efforts, however, were not merely limited to meaningless encouragement. “As a result of his Swiss nationality and his close relationship to the Muslim Brotherhood,” writes Whine, “he was named a Director in the Lugano-based Al Taqwa-Bank. The [Muslim] Brotherhood assets held by the bank were frozen by the government when it was discovered they were being used by Bin Laden to launder Al Qaeda money.”^xxviii In more recent years, Huber had spoken at, among others, meetings of the Neo-Nazi “National Democratic Party of Germany” (Nationaldemokratischen Partei Deutschlands (NPD)) as well as those of other Neo-Nazi groups across the world. He also spoke before Louis Farrakhan’s American-based group, The Nation of Islam as well as at at least one event organized by Holocaust denier, David Irving, and at numerous Islamist conferences, including one held in 1996 known as the International Kalim Siddiqui Memorial Conference then entitled “In Pursuit of the Power of Islam” held at The Muslim Parliament of Great Britain, Logan Hall, London University. ^xxix

Old truths and quite likely Huber’s own work, therefore, continue to bear fruit. Like CNN and Greven, others also see the old Islamist-Nazi connection expanding. “There are increasing signs of unlikely but disturbing alliances,” writes Angel Rebasa in his book The Muslim World after 9/11 (2004), “such as partnerships [between Islamists and] neo-Nazi and other extreme right-wing movements.”^xxx His use of the term “unlikely” alludes to the lack of knowledge of the historical and ideological relationship between Nazis and Islamists that characterizes the views of most today, including journalists and the vast majority of the general public. “Because of their racism and extreme nationalism,” Rebasa explains, “neo-Nazis might not be expected to cooperate with Muslim extremists. Indeed, in the past they have often been implicated in violent assaults on refugees, immigrants, and minorities. Now, however, there are signs of a rapprochement.”^xxxi It is, however, in fact, in many ways less a case of rapprochement than convergence. The global Islamist group, Hizb ut-Tahir (HuT), for example, has worked as Huber desired to bring Neo-Nazis into the religion of Islam. “HuT’s activities in Germany,” explains Rebasa, has focused on converting Germans to their Muslim faith and their cause by using a “…Leninist-style ideological drive to win over converts.”^xxxii HuT was eventually banned in Germany, in part, due to its relationships with Neo-Nazis. “In January 2003,” Rebasa recalls, “Germany’s top law enforcement official outlawed HuT and accused the group of establishing contacts with the fringe German neo-Nazi National Democratic Party [NPD] and spreading propaganda calling for the destruction of Israel and the killing of Jews.”^xxxiii Both of these groups have as their goal the destruction of democratic government and democratic institutions.

These contacts between the NDP and HuT have continued even in years after the banning of HuT in Germany. In words that echo the World War II era quotes above – from both the Islamist and Nazi sides – we read today of the central role of violence against those who do not adhere to the ideology as well as the loathing of Jews that lies at the core of the attraction between these groups. “There are similarities in the nature and platform of the groups, as well as in their inclination to violence. Another common bond is their shared hatred of Israel and/or the Jews.” ^xxxiv The Deutsche Orient Institut noted, for example, in the years just prior to 9/11 that “[a]s of late, Arab Islamists are even being allowed to use right wing extremist publications as a platform for their writings. For instance, the neo-Nazi magazine ‘Sleipnir’ published an article glorifying jihad.”^xxxv Only this past week, the German magazine Stern reported developments in the case of a policewoman’s murder in Heilbronn, Germany in April of 2007 in which links have now turned up between a neo-Nazi gang from Zwickau suspected of the policewoman’s murder and the Al-Qaida linked Islamist group, the "Sauerland-Gruppe". The connecting link appears to be a German-Turk named Mevlüt Kar, who, according to information from the German Federal Bureau of Crimes, worked as an informant in Germany for the Turkish secret police (Millî stihbarat Tekilât (MIT)) and had connections with the Islamist "Sauerland-Gruppe," which had planned and was tried for its preparation of terror attacks on US-installations in Germany. In the Sauerland case, Mevlüt Kar had obtained 26 detonators for the planned terrorist bombings.

Yet, all of these facts considered, we must recall that those of us today who have honest questions and desire an honest and open public discussion about Islamism, Islamists, Sharia, as well as the issues, dilemmas, and difficulties presented to Western societies and our Common Freedoms exclusively as a result of Islamist immigration, are quickly, publicly, and quite misleadingly defamed and written-off as being a “third wave” of Nazis. As history makes clear, however, not only do governments and journalists today very often forget or ignore history when they misguidedly refer to individuals who question and challenge Islamism and Islamist actions as a “third wave” of “Nazis”, “racists”, “bigots”, or “right-wing extremists”, they also very sadly forget that those who inform and are a part of the Counter-Jihad Movement – and who vigorously defend every journalist’s right to free expression, including the rights of the author, Kjetil Kolsrud, and each of the persons he named in his Aftenposten article – are not in any way or at all “Breiviks”. Those individuals willing to examine Islam at the risk of their own personal safety, reputations, and lives, in fact, are in all ways the very opposite. They are the bravest of individuals on the forefront standing up for the Common Freedoms and human rights of all people. These brave individuals are the very bravest of people – including among so many others, equally as well, “Leftist” newspapers and journalists – all of whom have our greatest of rights (that continue to exist precisely as a result of the defeat of Hitler, Nazism, and Islamism in World War II) and their freedom or even their lives to lose. They are:

Artists (here, here, here, here, here, and there), feminists (here, here, here, here, and there), filmmakers (here, here, here, and there), bloggers (here, here, and there), authors (here, here, here, and there), musicians (here, here, here, here, here, and there), cartoonists (here, here, here, here, here, and there), publishers (here, here, here, and there), politicians (here, here, here, here, here, and there), homosexuals (here, here, here, here, here, here, and there), comedians (here, here, here, and there), former or “insufficiently” pious Muslims (here, here, here, here, here, and there), beauty pageant contestants (here, here, and there), atheists (here, here, and there), women (here, here, here, here, here, here, and everywhere), girls (here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, and there), Jews (here, there, and everywhere), Christians (here, there, and everywhere), Hindus (here, there, and everywhere), and even dog owners (here, here, here, here, here, and there) as well as countless brave Muslims and former Muslims, known and unknown, including Ibn Warraq, Gjohn-Marko Berisha, Necla Kelek, Arslan Shaukat, Cahit Kaya, Serap Cileli and Malika Sorel, Amil Imani, Anonymous Malaysian, Hamad 'Abd-al-Samad, Nonie Darwish, Salim Mansur, M. Zuhdi Jasser, Wafa Sultan, Kamal Saleem (a former terrorist), Paris Dipersico, Taslima Nasrin, Bisnat Rashad, Bassam Tibi, Maryam Namazie, Mark Gabriel, and Ayaan Hirsi Ali to name just but a few.

As an example of the bravery of these people and the fragility of democracy, the same type of political violence and intimidation that Nazism once employed against its opponents are now being exercised by often violent and, in relation to its attacks on the Counter-Jihad Movement, misguided groups such as Antifa as well as exhibited by Islamists themselves. As has plagued politicians in Britain and elsewhere, the Swedish daily Expressen has reported on numerous incidents and the fact that threats and political violence against members of Sweden’s Counter-Jihad party, the Sweden Democrats (Sverigedemokraterna), have become a growing problem. Just prior to the election in September of 2010, which carried the party into the Swedish Parliament for the first time, one of its candidates, Issa Issa, a 31 year-old immigrant from Syria, who stood fifth on the party’s list for the City of Gothenburg (Sweden’s second largest city), was attacked by rocks shattering all of the windows of Issa’s apartment. Outside in the street rang words which revealed the religious identity and motivations of his attackers, “F----ng Christian, damn Sverigedemokrat, come down!” Shortly thereafter he was stabbed in the back and shoulder as he handed out flyers on the street. His attackers told him at that time that they would kill him.

Political violence, whether from the “Left” or “Right”, has not only been extremely rare but nearly non-existent in Sweden in decades up through the present. Up to now, these Northern lands have been characterized together in academic literature as “…the peaceful democracies of the Nordic countries…where there is no political violence of significance.”^xxxvi Now, however, quite ironically, the political violence that Mr. Issa left behind in Syria and which he as a member of a Counter-Jihad political party saw as a rising threat to Sweden, his new homeland – though a norm across Islamist’s home countries – has successfully caused him to leave both the Sweden Democrats and politics altogether behind. Mr. Issa, greatly intimidated and lying in a hospital bed under police protection, determined that for the safety of himself and his family he would need to fully suppress his political views and aspirations. Intimidation works; even better in Sweden than it does in the Middle East. That Mr. Issa was an immigrant is, in fact, not so unusual; a full thirteen percent (13%), that is, slightly more than 1 of 8 of all of the members of the Counter-Jihad Sweden Democrats are people whose parents or who themselves individually came as immigrants to Sweden.

Yet the journalist at Aftenposten – and like-minded but equally unthinking journalists, governmental authorities, and others all across the West – ridiculously and mindlessly label as “racists”, “bigots”, “Nazis”, and “right-wing extremists” the people from “Left”, “Right”, and “Center” who are actually brave enough to stand (in the face of actual and unending death threats) and discuss publicly the worldwide persecutions – as evidenced above – brought on by one very specific, very bad set of ideas. Even so, it is extremely important that the Movement internalize the reality mentioned previously above that if European and Western authorities, in fact, are “…frightened by mass opposition to Islamization and sharia…” then, in order to inform the unconvinced most quickly and to prevent any bloodshed brought on by government misunderstanding of the Counter-Jihad Movement’s goals and intent, it is now in all ways made even more imperative than ever before that “Left”/”Right” polemics and labeling be fully put aside, left out of speeches, conversations, and blogs, and that the Counter-Jihad Argument focusing only on our Common Freedoms be made in a consistent manner that makes it loud and clear to average citizens and governments alike all across the West that the Counter-Jihad Movement is truly made up of and open to the political “Left”, “Right”, and “Center” and that it is, without doubt, fully committed to the protection of human rights and the Common Freedoms for all people.

To do this, the Movement must cease to continually paint itself, by its own words and actions, as being of and for the “Right” and, equally as misguidedly, as an enemy of the “Left”. It is not. We have seen on numerous occasions that statistics and polls show that the Movement is made up very much of and supported by individuals covering the entire political spectrum. According to the Sweden Democrats’ (Sverigedemokraterna) own numbers, as mentioned in previous parts of these essays, among those who are actual members of that Counter-Jihad party, twenty percent (20%) had previously voted for the Swedish Social Democratic party, ten percent (10%) identified themselves with the “Left”, and approximately thirty-three percent (33%) identified themselves in the “Center” as being neither “Right” nor “Left”. Thus, in addressing Islamization and the Counter-Jihad Argument each of us including the Movement itself must fully put aside the use of and ignore alienating ideological terms. The Counter-Jihad Movement, its opinion-makers, political parties, and politicians must completely cease writing and arguing “Left”/”Right” politics. The Counter-Jihad Movement and we who desire to advance it must stick to the one sole non-ideological message: the Counter-Jihad Argument and our Common Freedoms – human rights, women’s rights, the rule of law, equality under the law, freedom of expression, freedom in inquiry, freedom of conscience, freedom of religion, etc. The reason being that no one – no one – can argue with that message because everyone “Right”, “Left”, and “Center” across the West believes in these same pillars of Western democracy.

In light of present-day politics and history, the only argument and conversation on the topic of Islamization and irrational immigration is and should be over a few very important questions. What happens and should happen, for example, when ideas informed or arising within a “religion” would turn out to be a danger to our Common Freedoms? What happens when knee-jerk respect for “religion” would place the above-named Common Freedoms at risk? Or, we might ask, whether the demands and actions of Islamism and Islamists are actually a danger to our Common Freedoms today – in, for example, exactly the same manner as Islamism was a danger when they joyously became an integral part of the Nazi war machine during World War II?

If we all refocus to our common Counter-Jihad Argument, there are more than enough examples in the news everyday all across the world capable of convincingly answering these questions with facts that leave no doubt for those who, up until now, have remained otherwise unconvinced of the dangers Islamism poses to the West and our basic freedoms. Our task today, as it was once the challenge of Sir Winston Spencer Churchill during World War II in defeating totalitarianism, is to find the most expedient manner of making our Argument to the broadest audience possible by putting all political ideologies aside within the context of this historic struggle against Islamization. To succeed, as we shall learn from Winston Churchill’s own words and actions in the next of this series of essays, we will need to emulate Churchill in his deep human insight by uniting despite ideological differences.

In Part V then, we will look at today’s Counter-Jihad Movement in light of one of Winston Churchill’s most ingenious insights. In the years leading up to World War II, Churchill determined that to succeed against fascist totalitarianism and Hitler’s all-out bid to annihilate Western institutions and freedoms, the situation required all partisan attacks on political ideology – within the context of the war – to be fully and indefinitely put aside by all political parties. Victory, Churchill foresaw, would require all parties and their members to voluntarily and consistently adhere to one new common “Ideology” and one new common “Principle” alone. In Churchill’s dire situation and ingenious actions, the author sees clear reference points and requirements for an end to today’s “Left”/”Right” polemics within the Counter-Jihad Movement – if the West is ever to succeed at both turning back Islamization and preventing the rise of true Nazis such as Adolf Hitler or Anders Behring Breivik.

 

The author, writing under the pseudonym Peter Carl, is an independent non-partisan advisor to a sitting American congressperson and a strategic political researcher and consultant on international and comparative political and public policy issues. He is also a member of the American Committees on Foreign Relations. The author maintains contacts with numerous present and former ambassadors from both the U.S. and European countries, a number of whom are serving or have served in the Middle East. Similarly, he also maintains contacts with present and formerly elected representatives from parties across the political spectrum who have been elected to the U.S. Congress, the EU Parliament, and various national parliaments within Europe. Fluent in five languages and possessing elementary abilities in others, the author was trained and works as an international attorney and possesses a Masters Degree in Public Policy from the top-ranked public affairs program in the United States.

The terms “Islamist” and “Islamism” are used in this piece in recognition of relevant and applicable European Union directives or national laws, while duly noting valid and correct concerns over these terms and any uses of such terms.

 

 

Other parts of this series:

Part I: The Conversation

Part II: Right v. Left

Part III: Breivik v. Hitler

Part V: Winston's Wars

Part VI: Back From The Brink

 

__________________

NOTES