Netherlands: “Hamas, Hamas, Jews to the gas”
This video depicts Dutch parliamentarian Harry van Bommel of the Socialist Party and other Leftist useful idiots calling for intifada against Israel during a Jew-hate, pro-jihad terror rally in Amsterdam yesterday — while the crowd behind them (at 1:05) chants “Hamas, Hamas, Jews to the gas.”
Every decent human being on the planet should be standing with Israel today.
With respect to irrational hate for Jews (and its analogous love for terrorists), the leftist movement in the 21st century is not far from the egregiousness of the right as it expressed itself and presented itself in the 20th century.
Don’t forget that the Nazis were the German Nationalist Socialist party! They were far left…
Hitler would be rolling over in his grave if he knew his movement was described as leftist. The Nazi movement and their brethren fascists were far Right.They were the deadly enemy of the Soviets and the social democrats who were lumped together with the Jews as enemies of the German Reich. You cannot rewrite history.
Again Peskin you show your ignorance and bias:
Hitler was a Leftist
Fascism is Leftist
MODERN LEFTISM AS RECYCLED FASCISM
http://constitutionalistnc.tripod.com/hitler-leftist/id8.html
The ideas of Benito Mussolini (1883-1945), the founder of Fascism, are remarkably similar to the ideas of modern-day Western Leftists. If Mussolini was not the direct teacher of modern-day Leftists, he was certainly a major predecessor. What Leftists advocate today is not, of course, totally identical with what Mussolini was advocating and doing 60 to 80 years ago in Italy but there are nonetheless extensive and surprising parallels. Early in the 20th century, he prophesied that the 20th century would be the century of Fascism and he got that right in that most of his ideas are still preached by the modern-day Left.
What Mussolini refers to as “Socialists” were in fact Marxists rather than social democrats and those whom Mussolini refers to as “liberals” were advocates of laissez faire and would hence be described as conservatives today. Mussolini started out as a Marxist but eventually devised Fascism as a “third way” (sound familiar?). He saw it as offering a middle way between Marxism and capitalism — Leftist but not Marxist.
Despite recent upsurges of antisemitism among extreme Leftists in the Western world in connection with the Arab-Israeli conflict, most Leftists today probably continue to deplore antisemitism. The early Mussolini would have had no argument with them over that. He was a most emphatic Italian nationalist but it is perhaps important here to distinguish patriotism, nationalism and racism. These do to some extent tend to slide into one-another but there are differences too. Most notable in the present case is the contrast between Hitler’s persecution of the Jews and Mussolini’s reluctance to have any part in that.
Under Hitler’s prodding, Mussolini did eventually put antisemitism on his agenda and did in 1938 pass generally unpopular antisemitic laws but it was no part of his own original program. He had never expressed any antisemitism prior to his alliance with Hitler. In fact, Italian Jews had been prominent as leaders in some of the early Fasci di combattimento (Fascist bands) and the antisemitic laws were largely ignored by Italians — so much so that one of the safest places in Europe for Jews to be during the second world war was undoubtedly Fascist Italy. Jews were in fact routinely protected by both Fascist and non-Fascist Italians (including the clergy) and many Jews to this day have grateful memories of wartime Italy. At a time when Jews had very few friends anywhere in the world, they had friends in Fascist Italy (Steinberg, 1990; Herzer, 1989). Contrast this with the way in which Eastern Europeans and even the French actively co-operated with Hitler’s round-up of Jews. It should also be noted that, unlike Hitler, Mussolini did not set up any concentration camps for the Jews.
It must of course be conceded, however, that the Ethiopians suffered considerably at the hands of their Italian invaders but most human societies make a distinction between war and murder and Mussolini certainly did. Nazis and revolutionary Leftists, on the other hand, do not seem to.
Nonetheless there still seems to persist in some minds the view that two groups as antagonistic as the Nazis and the Communists or the Fascists and the Communists just cannot have been ideological blood-brothers. Let me therefore try this little quiz: Who was it who at one stage dismissed Hitler as a “barbarian, a criminal and a pederast”? Was it Stalin? Was it some other Communist? Was it Winston Churchill? Was it some other conservative? Was it one of the Social Democrats? No. It was none other than Mussolini, who later became Hitler’s ally in World War II. And if any two leaders were ideological blood-brothers those two were. So I think it is clear that antagonism between Hitler and others and between Mussolini and others proves nothing. If anything, the antagonism between Hitler and other socialists and between Mussolini and the “Reds” is proof of what typical socialists both Mussolini and Hitler were.
In Mein Kampf, Hitler expressed great admiration for Mussolini and did in the early days regard Mussolini as his teacher so at least part of Hitler’s National Socialism is traceable to Mussolini’s innovations. As noted, however, Mussolini did NOT reciprocate Hitler’s regard and correctly divined and loathed Hitler’s murderous personality from the beginning (Andriola, 1997). Hitler’s mania about the Jews was also one reason why Mussolini derided Nazism as a doctrine of barbarians. Few modern-day Leftists would argue with that judgement.
Ted my ans. to Peskin blocked can you retrieve and post
Here are a few items from the Nazi party platform. See if you recognize anything:
- That all unearned income, and all income that does not arise from work, be abolished.
- We demand the nationalization of all trusts.
- We demand profit-sharing in large industries.
- We demand a generous increase in old-age pensions.
- We demand the creation and maintenance of a sound middle-class.
- The State has the duty to help raise the standard of national health.
- We demand the abolition of the regular army and the creation of a national (folk) army.
The party as such represents the point of view of a positive Christianity without binding itself to any one particular confession. It fights against the Jewish materialist spirit within and without, and is convinced that a lasting recovery of our folk can only come about from within on the pinciple:
COMMON GOOD BEFORE INDIVIDUAL GOOD
The Nazis were also radical environmentalists and animal rights advocates (Hitler was a vegetarian).
You see peskin, those items that you and your messiah embrace are not dissimilar to those that the Nazis embraced. Rude awakening, isn’t it?
Same here Ted, although yamit probably said all that had to be said to discredit our local neighborhood JHJ (Jew-hating Jew).
Peskin continued:
HITLER WAS A SOCIALIST
http://constitutionalistnc.tripod.com/hitler-leftist/id9.html
Hitler’s Anti-Tobacco Campaign
How the Nazis greatly restricted tobacco advertising, banned smoking in most public buildings, increasingly restricted and regulated tobacco farmers growing abilities, and engaged in a sophisticated anti-smoking public relations campaign. (Suing tobacco companies for announced consequences was a stunt that mysteriously eluded Hitler’s thugs.) Despite the frightening parallels to the current war on tobacco, Mr. Proctor never even hints at the analogy. Curiously, he seems to take an approach that such alleged concern for public health shows Nazis to be a more complex dogma than commonly presumed. While nothing present in the book betokens even a trace of sympathy for the Third Reich, this viewpoint seems incredibly naive. It’s easy to wonder if Hitler and company were truly concerned with promoting public health. The unquenchable lust for absolute control is a far more believable motive.http://constitutionalistnc.tripod.com/hitler-leftist/id1.html
Hitler’s Animal Rights Campaign http://constitutionalistnc.tripod.com/hitler-leftist/id11.html
Nazi Gun Control
“The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to allow the subject races to possess arms. History shows that all conquerors who have allowed their subject races to carry arms have prepared their own downfall by so doing. Indeed, I would go so far as to say that the supply of arms to the underdogs is a sine qua non for the overthrow of any sovereignty. So let’s not have any native militia or native police. German troops alone will bear the sole responsibility for the maintenance of law and order throughout the occupied Russian territories, and a system of military strong-points must be evolved to cover the entire occupied country.” –Adolf Hitler, dinner talk on April 11, 1942, quoted in Hitler’s Table Talk 1941-44: His Private Conversations, Second Edition (1973), Pg. 425-426. Translated by Norman Cameron and R. H. Stevens. Introduced and with a new preface by H. R. Trevor-Roper. The original German papers were known as Bormann-Vermerke
Hitler and Abortion
When the Nazis came to power in 1933 one of the first acts Hitler did was to legalize abortion. By 1935 Germany with 65 million people was the place where over 500,000 abortions were being performed each year. Although Hitler and his government encourged Aryan women to produce a lot of children, he left the matter of abortion and all its facets in the hands of a decidely pro- abortion medical establishment. Even in the midst of Nazi propaganda aimed at increasing the Aryan population, scores of Aryan women still chose to abort their unborn children. The medical publication Deutsches Aerzleblatt reported the abortions in Germany each year reached a half-million.http://constitutionalistnc.tripod.com/hitler-leftist/id15.html
Hitler’s Leftist Economic Policies
http://constitutionalistnc.tripod.com/hitler-leftist/id10.html
Professor Silverman argues, as a result of impressive research in Nazi archives, that it was work creation programs that account for this “miracle” and it was the 4-year Plan announced in 1936 that represented an emphasis on autarky and arms and a seller’s market. Plans called for motorization and the famous autobahns. It is natural to compare Hitler’s achievements with FDR’s New Deal. Strangely Silverman hardly mention the USSR as a source of ideas in the Hitler years, though the 4-year Plan itself was inspired by the Soviet FYP, the second of which was being completed by the time Goebbels began administering the German equivalent. Earlier (February,1935) Soviet-type “work books” necessary for employment were introduced.
Hitler was named “Man of the Year” in 1938 by Time Magazine. They noted Hitler’s anti-capitalistic economic policies:
“Most cruel joke of all, however, has been played by Hitler & Co. on those German capitalists and small businessmen who once backed National Socialism as a means of saving Germany’s bourgeois economic structure from radicalism. The Nazi credo that the individual belongs to the state also applies to business. Some businesses have been confiscated outright, on other what amounts to a capital tax has been levied. Profits have been strictly controlled. Some idea of the increasing Governmental control and interference in business could be deduced from the fact that 80% of all building and 50% of all industrial orders in Germany originated last year with the Government. Hard-pressed for food- stuffs as well as funds, the Nazi regime has taken over large estates and in many instances collectivized agriculture, a procedure fundamentally similar to Russian Communism.”
(Source: Time Magazine; Jaunuary 2, 1939.)
You See Pesky old Chap, You know Nothing, What you know is a lot of programmed Tripe. THE TRUTH WILL SET YOU FREE
Ted another blocked.
Peskin:
Here is a sequel even better I think:
Pro-Hamas Demonstration – Fort Lauderdale FL
http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=j3Xl68kP4wo
It is no surprise that Holland is a has-been country.
Written by our marvelous midwest maven on the mideast-referring to America’s unwillingness to bomb Iran.
Chas. don’t despair there are many effective medications available to alleviate the symptoms of delusional paranoia.
peskin
Only one of us is deluded and it ain’t me.
Tell ya what, if you agree to stop taking your pathological masochism out on the Jews, I’ll agree to bitch-slap you anytime you get the urge.
Peskin:
You dam fool here is how it might go down if you get your wet dream whish.
With Nukes the idea is to use them or lose them. If Israel were to be nuked the pico second our radar detects incoming attack we loose our 2-5 hundred nukes at a hundred targets around the world and three will target Montreal
Charles Martel (#12)
LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Charles you even here have topped me!!Kudos.
By: Louis Rene Beres, Yoash Tsiddon-Chatto
Wednesday, April 18, 2007
Peskin; Clintons statement and Bushes that America would defend and even attack Iran were Iran to attack Israel first: This is nothing more than cynical BLACK HUMOR:
Israel now faces the distinctly plausible prospect of a nuclear Iran. Fearing just such a development, the Project Daniel group had already advised former Prime Minister Ariel Sharon back in January 2003 that Israel do everything legally and operationally possible to prevent it. Our then, still-confidential recommendations included, if necessary, the preemptive destruction of key Iranian nuclear assets and infrastructures. Such an essential action, we understood, could fulfill the authoritative criteria of “anticipatory self-defense.”
There is both a legal and strategic precedent for preemptive action against Iran. More than a quarter-century has now passed since Israeli fighter-bombers destroyed Iraq’s Osiraq nuclear reactor shortly before it was ready to go “on line.” At the time, the general global community reaction was hostile. Even the UN Security Council, in Resolution 487 of June 19, 1981, said that it “strongly condemned” the attack and that “Iraq is entitled to appropriate redress for the destruction it has suffered.”
But Israel’s unilaterally defensive action of June 7, 1981, now looks very different. We know presently that Saddam Hussein’s plans to build a French-supplied reactor at his nuclear research center at Tuwaitha were designed to produce militarily usable plutonium. The reason that American and allied forces did not face a nuclear adversary in 1991 during Operation Desert Storm is partially because of Israel’s earlier resort to anticipatory self-defense. Israel’s “Operation Opera” at Osiraq is therefore also largely the reason that United States forces did not find nuclear weapons in Iraq at the start of Operation Iraqi Freedom.
International law is not a suicide pact. Under long-standing customary international law, every state is entitled to strike first when the danger posed is “instant, overwhelming, leaving no choice of means, and no moment for deliberation.” With respect to the openly genocidal regime currently ruling in Tehran, this right for Israel is now clear and incontestable. Well within the range of Iranian missiles, Israel could be obliterated by only one or two nuclear warheads. As to the western democracies, they are always quick to condemn Iran’s nuclearization, but are once again loath to actually do anything meaningful.
Israel did not commit aggression at Osiraq. Iraq had always insisted that a state of war existed with “the Zionist entity.” As aggression cannot be committed against a state with which a country is already at war, Jerusalem could not possibly have been guilty of a “crime against peace” on June 7, 1981.
Israel did not violate the international laws of war at Osiraq. Fourteen Israeli aircraft took part in the raid – eight F-16 Falcons, each carrying two 1000-kilogram bombs, and six F-15 Eagles serving as escort planes. The reactor was completely destroyed, without civilian casualties and before any radiation danger existed. Unlike Iraq’s 39 Scud attacks on Israel during the Gulf War, which were designed to harm civilians, Israel’s raid on Osiraq was executed for the protection of civilians.
Israel’s defensive strike against an outlaw enemy state preparing for extermination warfare was distinctly law enforcing. International law must often rely upon individual states to act on behalf of the entire global community. This is exactly what took place at Osiraq, when Israel’s fighter-bombers precluded an Iraqi nuclear option. Today, when waiting to absorb a “first shot” from Iran could sentence a New Jersey-sized state like Israel to literal disappearance, the right of anticipatory self-defense should be widely acknowledged. Of course, it remains easy for both Israel’s allies and critics to deny the Jewish state its legal and moral right to protect itself by citing “aggression,” but such denials will ultimately come to impair their own security as well.
It is now surely the time for the world community to acknowledge the obvious: Israeli preemptive action in 1981 was an indispensable act of international law enforcement. Regarding future essential resorts to anticipatory self-defense, whether by Israel or by any other state facing unconventional aggression, such an acknowledgment could provide an important incentive to do what is needed to save human lives. Although the operational requirements to prevent or delay Iran’s acquisition of nuclear arms are substantially more complex than what was needed at Osiraq (Iranian nuclear-related assets are multiplied, hardened and dispersed), a failure to attempt preemption altogether could threaten the lives of millions of Israelis, Americans and Europeans.
Any preemption must conform to the settled rules of international law. It is not permissible for a state to invoke “anticipatory self-defense” merely because it feels threatened. Rather, the danger posed must be imminent and substantial. In its original 19th-century expression, anticipatory self-defense required a situation that was actually “instant, overwhelming, leaving no choice of means and no moment for deliberation.” Today, however, in a nuclear age, reasonableness dictates a loosening of this requirement in particular circumstances. After all, waiting too long to satisfy the requirement of “imminence” could easily be suicidal.
Any country that resorts to anticipatory self-defense must also satisfy the Law of Armed Conflict. This means that the force used in such strikes must fall within the bounds of “discrimination,” “proportionality” and “military necessity.” Under
Martel:
Left,right, Hitler, Mao, Stalin, Saddam, Canadian Oligarchy, American Economic Elite.
Totalitarianism doesn’t choose sides,it has only one side which is it’s own.
Martel:
Chucky, I am not entirely without compassion. Here is a chance to redeem yourself.Upon reflection, do you still honestly believe that State really wishes to destroy Israel? In your heart of hearts, does that seem credible? Or was it some form of metaphorical expression?
Pingback: Israel fights for life-Inauguration Extravaganza in 6 Days « Riggword Weblog