Euro-Wingnut rightist converts to Islam

Post Reply New Topic

http://drdawgsblawg.ca/2013/03/far-righ ... slam.shtml

the article raises some interesting points.

Therein exposes the inherent racism within the right wing, despite their common hatred of egalitarianism, socialism and equality to the right wing islamists will never be 'equal' or potential allies purely for the skin deep differences.

Not sure if trolling...

Right Wing fundamoentalist Christians and Fundamental Islamist are exactly the same, if they were smart they would ally them self together.

Speaking of the neo-Nazis, a number of neo-Nazis and (white) Holocaust deniers have converted to Islam over the years. David Myatt, Roger Garaudy, Johann Leers, Ahmed Huber...



They have hatred of Jews for being Jews in common.

In fact, Islamism is surprisingly similar in its worldview to Nazism. They're both totalitarian ideologies that desire world domination, and they both have a hatred of Jews at their centre.

Incidentally, I wish him the best of luck. I hope he is able to leave Islam easily and is not threatened or bullied if he decides it's not for him, which might well be the case if he spends a lot of time in fundamentalist Salafist type circles. Strictly speaking under Islamic law he is not allowed to covert away from Islam.

Well, the proverbial fat lady hasn't sang, yet.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer

Hatred of socialism, yes; equality, no; and egalitarianism, it's complicated. Most of the right favors equal opportunity, but not any entitlement to equal out come. Not only does attempting to force equal outcome paradoxically require people in a position to assert their will over others, but all the variations in intelligence, aptitude for job skills, variations in social skills, and luck with relationships, it all leads up to there will never be a logical end in concluding what determines if everyone has been given an equal lot in life.

Egalitarians more advanced than scavengers at the mercy of their environment only exist in science fiction.

When it comes to opposing entitlement to equal outcome, that's only common sense with individuals. But unfortunately, whole races of people have been denied legal protection ensuring equal opportunities, by the implication that they are intellectually or spiritually inferior.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer

Globally, the social issues some places are facing make those in the US look trivial. Forced marriages/acid attacks, no freedom of religion, starvation, political oppression, and countless regional wars where Islamic groups and governments are clearly the aggressor even when they meet little resistance. If one wishes to look for legally enforced inequality in societies, the US is not the best place to start looking.

Oh, and Islamists despise Communism too, and Socialism, but will be happy to get assistance from parties and groups that have these ideologies if it advances the cause of Islamism.

Islam is meant to be subordinate to nothing and in that sense, anything that is not Islamic is its enemy.

It worries me when ANY kind of religion-following person (practicing not just believing in one) is in office.

Thats why im so glad Romney didn't win... and that Santorum didn't make it to the ballot.

Santorum seemed like a proper arsehole and Romney... I wouldn't have voted for him.

I might have voted for Ron Paul, but that would be as far as it goes for me.

You did rightly. Mitt Romney is a schmuck with a goyische kopf.

ruveyn

If anything, I was referring to the United States of the past. Our country, I am proud to say, has made genuine and effective strides for equality.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer

Oh, and as for things going the other way, and Muslims joining neo-Nazi political parties:

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9qxgdrPHM0Y&feature=player_embedded[/youtube]

Here's a Bosnian Muslim who is a prominent-ish politician in the essentially neo-Nazi German NPD party.

This confirms everything I have been suspecting about the dishonesty of so called "nationalists" and so called "anti jihadists". If only I had completely followed "intuition" (for lack of a better word).

The article is quite accurate about "the left" (so to speak) being falsely perceived as alligned with islamism only because of skepticism about the intentions and effectiveness of the foreign policies of the U.S. and countries complying with them for selfish reasons. It is important to note that progressives and islamists oppose these policies for entirely different reasons.

The far right and advocates of western interventionism define radicalism and extremism only in terms of how hostile it is to the blurrily defined "priorities" of the U.S. and it's collaborator the EU, not in terms of how much suffering it creates, the intentions of the extremists, or even national security and preserving order.

This is why the U.S. supported terrorist "freedom fighters" in Afghanistan against "the communists". As everyone should know, these "rebels" have been veritable savages and have not been any less dangerous to world peace and national security than Iran, especially in light of what is happening in Pakistan, which owns a frightening stash of nuclear weapons. In an effort to conceal this historical fact, certain advocates of western intervention have tried to make it seem like only their political adversaries were responsible for the increase in terrorism.

One should try to think in more abstract terms than political divisions that are intentionally intensified so people fight only the branches of extremism and its selfish collaborators instead of all unsavory and dangerous movements. Politicians responsible for foreign and domestic policies appeasing islamists and their "will to power" ideology have done so mostly for mercenary and geopolitical reasons. It does not make sense to argue that collaboration with islamism and other extremisms is motivated by either "progressive" or "conservative" positions because anyone remotely involved in this or even considering this has no principles. Or if they have any values at all, they care more about finding pretexts for militarism and sadism than about the causes they supposedly stand for.

There should not be any more illusions about any politician or media being innocent in terms of not collaborrating with islamism and other fascist movements. I never trusted them, yet this insidious alliance between the most extreme elements of "the right" and salafists has been a suspicion I ignored because both the European and English speaking media on "the right" have made it seem that only "the leftists" sympathized with radical islam (to conceal far right admiration for violent and twisted ideologies), while the pro-EU "leftists" have capitulated to certain individuals who despise anything remotely resembling "communism" and take advantage of anyone who is naive and depraved enough to view islamists as "freedom fighters". Meanwhile the EU has done nothing about the rise of neonazi political movements.

I wonder whether this politician admires nazism considering the most virulent branch of islam, salafism, contains aspects of nazi ideology. Those who created it helped the nazis against the British army and Jewish settlers in what is referred to as "the middle east" during World War Two. The founders of salafism were "inspired" by this poison.

I do not know what our future looks like. The worsening conditions in "Europe" force me to question everything. Maybe this leads to nihilism or maybe we just need to renew our priorities and judgements on a fresh slate. At this rate, social and religious views do not matter as much as the difference between decent people and those who are trying to needlessly divide our societies and promote sadistic and militarist ideologies.

Last edited by petitesouris on 14 Mar 2013, 8:59 pm, edited 26 times in total.