Wednesday, January 5, 2011

How to Make Islam Respectable





Someone has had to say all this for a long time.  The West created Western civilization from the Roman idea of citizenship and from Christian ethical thinking all brought into modernity through the egalitarianism of the Enlightenment.  The East created two civilizations informed by Buddhism particularly.

Islam grabbed pieces of the civilized world and imposed a code of barbarian law over its preexisting parts while imposing an anti rational religious structure that flies in the face of modernism and actively seeks to destroy just that.  It says much for common humanity that much of the Muslim world has found ways to preserve the ways of civilized man in the face of this.  Allowed freedom of religion, Islam will soon transform itself into a very different ethos.

The world’s citizens are engaged with Islam, like no other religion and it is not an engagement from which Islam can hope to prosper.  Every hate filled diatribe may encourage a few hundred believers, but in the world of modern communications, thousands learn to reject Islam. 

In many regards, Islam is visibly faltering.  The alignment of radical Islam with political power that has proceeded for centuries is not unnoticed and is strengthening the resolve of anti Islamic forces whose strength is waxing.  Picking up the sword will bring the sword down on your own head.

Every Islamic barbarism produces a million anti converts to Islam.

How to Make Islam Respectable

Posted By Mark Tapson On December 26, 2010 @ 11:00 am In Email,Feature,Islamic Groups in the U.S.,Middle East,Radical Islam,Religion,Terrorism (Islamic),The Concession Stand,Top Twenty,War on Terror 


Regardless of whether one subscribes to the notion of a clash of civilizations, I think we can all agree that relations between “the Islamic world” and “the West,” however one defines those labels, are, well, strained. President Obama was elected at least partly because, with childhood roots in Muslim Indonesia and an Arabic middle name no one was allowed to mention until after the election, the Left believed him to be the perfect candidate to heal that rift. When he wasn’t healing the racial divide, America’s reputation abroad, and the planet, that is.

So right out of the gate, Obama made his first order of business an appearance on al-Arabiya TV, in which he made seven references to “respecting” the Muslim world, his flashing neon semaphore to them that he was no imperialist exploiter like his predecessor (Daniel Pipes notes here how common a motif the word “respect” was for Obama, ironically so for a man who commands none either at home or abroad). Then it was on to a self-important speech from Cairo, in which Obama flattered the Islamic world so effusively that one wondered if he was angling to ask it to the prom. And of course, who can forget his show of contemptible dhimmitude – I mean deep respect – to the Saudi King?

His efforts haven’t exactly mellowed the clash of civilizations into a Kumbiya campfire circle. And yet Obama was at least theoretically on the right track. Because a recent poll by the new Abu Dhabi Gallup Centre reports that a large majority of Muslims say that the best way for the West to improve relations with them is to “respect Islam.” But the West has made every effort at “Muslim outreach” and bent over backwards to make social and cultural concessions to its Muslim citizens. President Bush himself expressed a distasteful degree of deference toward Islam, and Obama far surpassed even that; so how much more respect will it take to make the Muslim world feel sufficiently respected?

The issue needs to be reframed. Since even our most gushing genuflection seems to have accomplished nothing except to incite further expectations of respect, it’s time for the West to take charge of this dialogue on our terms. We in the West – apart from Obama and his sycophants – are accustomed to the understanding that respect cannot simply be expected, much less demanded; it has to be earned. So now the question becomes, what must that majority of Muslims who want respect for their religion do to earn it? How can they make their religion, well, more respectable?

What follows are ten suggestions (some of which mirror Robert Spencer’s five ways to end Islamophobia) for those Muslims cited in the Gallup poll to take to heart – those who, like Rodney Dangerfield, lament that they can’t get no respect.


10. Stop waging violent jihad.

Let’s get the most obvious one out of the way first. If Muslims are tired of having the words “Muslim” and “terrorist” linked (on those rare occasions when our leaders and media actually do link them), a painfully obvious solution leaps to mind: stop committing acts of terrorism in the name of Allah and his prophet.

Ending atrocities against innocents and non-combatants (as we define them, not as the Islamists define them), and striving to actually live up to Islam’s Religion of Peace™ label, would be a nice good-faith gesture to lay the groundwork for better relations with the West. It’s certainly the most urgent step to take, and the most necessary – without it, none of my subsequent suggestions will matter.

For Muslims who already are not plotting or committing acts of terrorism, confront your co-religionists who are and nip them in the bud. After all, as it’s often pointed out, they constitute a TME – Tiny Minority of Extremists™ - that should easily be overwhelmed by the moderates’ superior numbers. At the very least, report the TME to the authorities…
… Which brings us to number nine: The police are your (and our) friends. 

9. Cooperate to the fullest with law enforcement to root out the terrorists in your midst.

New York Times article last week noted that Rep. Peter T. King of New York, who will become the chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee, intended to look into a lack of cooperation in terror investigations:

When I meet with law enforcement, they are constantly telling me how little cooperation they get from Muslim leaders.

He cited the case of Najibullah Zazi, arrested last year for plotting to bomb the New York subway system. A Queens imam had tipped off Zazi that he was the target of a terror investigation.

Salam al-Marayati, the executive director of MPAC, the Muslim Public Affairs Council*, “expressed deep concern” that [King] basically wants to treat the Muslim-American community as a suspect community.

I’m sorry to break this news to Mr. Marayati, but the Muslim-American community is suspect – not because of bigotry or Islamophobia, but because the terrorists and radicals in its midst have made it so. Resisting cooperation with law enforcement naturally lends even more weight to that suspicion. It doesn’t help when Muslim community leaders cry “civil rights violations” while claiming that people like King are undermining the relationship that Muslim leaders had sought to build with law enforcement officials around the country.

Relationship? Law enforcement officials nationwide are complaining that there isn’t one. Short of infiltration, which Muslim leaders also oppose, law enforcement has no way of knowing what radical activities may or may not be going on inside the mosques. And that brings us to our next recommendation…


*Check out the Investigative Project on Terrorism’s devastating piece about MPAC’s unfitness to serve as a liaison with law enforcement.

8. De-radicalize your mosques

Estimates are that upwards of 80% of all mosques in the United States are controlled by the fundamentalist Wahhabi strain of Islam promoted by the Saudis’ bottomless funding. Preaching Jew-hatred, the supremacy of sharia, and the downfall of democracy isn’t likely to win us over. I’m just sayin’.

Now former Iranian Revolutionary Guard Reza Khalili reports that Iran is using mosques and Islamic cultural centers in Europe and the U.S. as centers of terrorist recruitment and planning:

They recruit, they train, they sell the ideology of martyrdom, and many, many are guided and connected to terrorist groups.


There is no surprise in this, except for those Westerners who buy the politically correct line that mosques are benign houses of worship that are never used for any nefarious purposes. In reality, mosques have been used to preach hatred; to spread exhortations to terrorist activity; to house a bomb factory; to store weapons; to disseminate messages from bin Laden; to demand (in the United States) that non-Muslims conform to Islamic dietary restrictions; to fire on American troops; to fire upon Indian troops; or to train jihadists.

If Muslims don’t want their mosques infiltrated or investigated by non-Muslim law enforcement, then it’s up to them to clean house and rid themselves of the elements – including the imams themselves – who might be fomenting and plotting subversion, hatred, and terror.

Seditious

7. Start respecting the rights of women

One of the West’s bigger bones to pick with the Muslim world is the latter’s (mis)treatment of women, which rockstar scholar Reza Aslan angrily insists is a non-issue:

If you’re somehow arguing that Islam has a different conception of women in society than Europe does, it’s just wrong.

Women such as Ayaan Hirsi Ali and my friends Brigitte Gabriel and Nonie Darwish beg to differ.* Here is how Nonie’s must-read book Cruel and Usual Punishment begins:

For the first thirty years of my life, I lived as a virtual slave. I was a bird in a cage; a second-class citizen who had to watch what I said even to my close friends. Under Islamic law I had to live in a gender-segregated environment and always be aware that the legal and social penalty for “sin” could end my life. This is what it is to live as a woman under Sharia law.

Last week it was reported that each year an estimated 600,000 lashes are dealt to women in the sharia wonderland known as the Sudan, for such shockingly heinous crimes against humanity as wearing pants. Women in sharia-controlled Saudi Arabia must conceal their seductive charms in black Hefty bags and veil their faces in public, of course; but now even that’s not enough for the Saudi “Commission for the Promotion of Virtue and Prevention of Vice.” A Commission spokesman announced that

The Commission members have orders to tell any women in public to cover up her face if they find that her eyes are seditious.

Ah, seditious eyes – potentially more threatening than seditious bare ankles, although the Commission doesn’t explain what constitutes “seditious.” No word either on how the Commission feels about “Bette Davis Eyes.”

* Not that Aslan will listen. In 2009 I attended an event at which Aslan was speaking, and Nonie Darwish rose in the audience to challenge him about the condition of women under sharia. After conceding one small point, he said, “Everything else you said is wrong” – and turned away from her, ending their discussion.


6. Start reciprocating religious tolerance

There is no more religiously tolerant country in history than the contemporary United States, although you’d never know this from the constant wailing refrain of “Islamophobia!” from Islamists and their leftist sympathizers. The notion of a tsunami of Muslim-hatred washing over the nation is a shameful PC myth, as a November “hate crimes” report reveals. Muslim-Americans enjoy as much, if not more, religious freedom here as anyone else.

By stark contrast, no Bibles, churches, temples or synagogues are allowed on the Arabian peninsula, the home of Islam. Non-Muslims are not even allowed in MeccaUnder Islamic rule elsewhere, no new non-Muslim houses of worship are allowed to be built, and existing ones may not be repaired.

Then there is the violent persecution of non-Muslims. My friend Mark Durie, the brilliant scholar of Islam, notes in his The Third Choice that

The human rights situation of Christians in many Muslim countries has been getting steadily worse over the past half-century. This deterioration has been directly linked to the worldwide Islamic revival and reinstatement of sharia law.


Christians in Arab countries are no longer being persecuted; they are now being slaughtered and driven out of their homes and lands.

And then, of course, there’s the Koran-mandated Jew-hatred and Muhammad’s command of death for those who leave Islam.

Muslims want us to respect Islam? End the persecution of non-Muslims, reciprocate religious tolerance, and abolish the death penalty for “apostasy.” Then we’ll talk.


5. Update your penal code from “medieval.”

While our own legal system has a far-from-perfect record of dispensing justice, and punishment can be harsh (that’s why it’s called “punishment”), sharia is the very definition of draconian. This “cruel and usual punishment,” as Ms. Darwish calls it, includes lashings for drinking alcohol, amputations for thievery, beheadings for more serious crimes, being hanged or thrown from a roof for homosexuality, and – the real gem in sharia’s crown – the stoning of adulterers.

This last method of execution requires that the stones used be neither too small to do serious damage nor large enough to cause a quick death. So it’s clear that the ordeal is intended to be as excruciating and prolonged as possible.

Say what you will about our own electric chairs and firing squads, which we’ve largely abandoned in our search for the most humane method of execution (itself reserved for only the most heinous of crimes); sharia’s punishments are characterized by barbarism. News flash: barbarity doesn’t generate respect.


4. Let the whole cartoon thing go.

Speaking of barbarity…

This would seem to be a no-brainer, but apparently it bears explaining: “taking offense” is not a license for frenzied rioting, murder and mayhem. The most notable example is the worldwide rage over a set of cartoons published years ago in a Danish newspaper, which no one outside of that tiny country would have seen if not for the cartoons’ shrewd distribution by Islamists themselves eager to unite the ummah, the worldwide Muslim community, against the blasphemous West. That murderous outrage is ongoing: Danish cartoonist Kurt Westergaard was recently set upon in his home by a Muslim attacker seeking vengeance.

Similar, more recent examples include the threats to kill the South Park creators for their tame, satirical, animated take on that same hypersensitive hysteria, and the death fatwa issued against cartoonist Molly Norris, who has since “gone ghost” in fear for her life. Not to mention the death threats, explicit or implied, over innumerable other things that offend many Muslims.

Apologists like to point out that many Muslims take disrespect toward Islam, Allah, and his prophet very seriously, and they suggest we tiptoe respectfully around that religious sensibility. I would like to point out that such apologists are cowards, appeasers, and religious hypocrites, and remind them that violent lunacy is not deserving of respect. And this segues into suggestion number three…


3. Stop trying to curtail our free speech and to criminalize Islamophobia.

From the Salman Rushdie affair to Molly Norris’ sad vanishing, the list of Islamist assaults on our precious freedom of speech is far too long to do justice to here. And the West has too often responded not with firm resistance, but by preemptively censoring itself: witness Random House rescinding its offer to publish The Jewel of Medina, a novel that an academic warned might outrage Muslims, or the Yale University Press publishing a book about the Danish cartoons that will not include the cartoons themselves.

Islamists know that the key to winning the war of ideas against the West is to keep hammering away at our freedom of speech – our right and our ability to critique and denounce a totalitarian ideology that is hell-bent on bringing the West under its heel. Criminalizing blasphemy, defamation of religion, “Islamophobia” and the like will put us at a mortal disadvantage. Indeed, the world’s largest Islamic assembly, the Organization of the Islamic Conference, has made the criminalization of religious defamation, specifically “Islamophobia,” its number one priority – and Obama has sent a sympathetic envoy to that party to help them achieve it.

To earn our respect and the beginning of trust, you must embrace, not threaten, our freedoms and our values.


2. Stop letting the Muslim Brotherhood speak for you.

For decades now, the Muslim Brotherhood has shrewdly worked to establish its subversive presence in America through a complex network of front groups and “legacy groups” which includes virtually every recognized Muslim organization in this country. Over time these groups – most notably the ubiquitous CAIR, the Council on American Islamic Relations – have gradually muscled their way into position as the representative voice of all Muslim-Americans.

Maddeningly, our government, law enforcement, and media have taken the bait and embraced these groups unquestioningly – blindly engaging an enemy that seeks the “elimination of Western civilization,” as an internal Brotherhood document proclaims. Such Islamist groups completely control this country’s dialogue with our Muslim citizens.

Americans have been asking since 9/11/01:

Where are the moderate Muslims? Why have they not risen up en masse to show that they stand with us against the extremists?

For Muslims to earn the respect of the West, those moderates in America and around the world must prove first that they exist – by uniting, organizing, promoting themselves not only to the media and government but to the public, and fearlessly confronting the deeply-rooted network of  Brotherhood groups. They must speak out forcefully in unqualified solidarity with the West against their co-religionists’ terrorism and stealth agenda.


1. Start taking responsibility for your own destiny instead of blaming the West

In contrast to Western notions of self-reliance and free will, the Arab world suffers from what Hugh Fitzgerald calls an “Islam-inculcated inshallah-fatalism” characterized by the habitual mantra “Inshallah,” or “If God wills it,” used in reference to virtually every action. As Fitzgerald writes,

Why try very hard when, in the end, every fiber in your individual or collective being tells you that, in the end, it’s all up to Allah, and he will intervene, quite inexplicably and suddenly, whenever he wants?

This is fatal to cultural, technological, scientific, economic, and spiritual development. Without the culturally ingrained confidence that human beings can, through their own decisions and choices, impact the external world and to a large extent steer their own destinies, a people is doomed to stagnation, jealousy, and parasitism, and tends to look outside themselves to affix blame.

To earn the West’s respect, such Muslims must stop shrugging “inshallah” about all things great and small, stop laying the blame for their conditions on conspiracy theories of Western imperialism and thievery, and actively take responsibility for a better future and a peaceful, shared destiny with the West.


Article printed from NewsReal Blog: http://www.newsrealblog.com

Elephant Bird





Egg gathering wiped out its share of wild life, mostly long before modern fire arms ever showed up.  The elephant bird surely had no strategy beside physical presence and that was no deterrent to humanity.   Simple noise making would lead such a bird away while a confederate grabbed the prize.

I suspect that sooner or later we will develop the ability to resurrect all these lost genomes from DNA samples.  Plenty of remains have been found and secured in museums so that this is becoming highly likely for all recently extinct species. 

The ones I want to see most are the mammoth and mastodon.

In fact I think it is time to set up a global  extinct genome recovery program against the day of species restoration.  Madagasgar is an important refugia as is New Guinea for Age of Reptiles types.  Perhaps Alaska can have a few mammoths and mastodons and their friends.  We will isolate other obvious islands for additional groups.

We will no longer be passive bystanders.


David Attenborough and the mystery of the elephant bird


The largest bird to ever live on the planet was driven to extinction by humans eating its massive eggs, according to a new television documentary by Sir David Attenborough.






An elephant bird and Sir David Attenborough with the elephant bird egg  Photo: De Agostini Picture Library /BBC

By Richard Gray, Science Correspondent 7:30AM GMT 19 Dec 2010

As souvenirs go, the giant fossilised egg that Sir David Attenborough keeps wrapped up for safe-keeping in the cellar of his London home is not bad for someone with a 60 year career as Britain's foremost natural history documentary maker.

Now in a bid to find out more about the foot long egg he collected on the island of Madagascar 50 years ago and the birds that laid them, Sir David has returned to the island off the east coast of Africa for a new BBC documentary on a quest to discover what happened to the largest birds to ever live on the planet.

The egg was laid by an elephant bird, which were more than 10 feet tall and weighed around half a ton, but what caused the huge birds to die out has remained a mystery, with some claiming they were hunted to extinction by humans and others blaming climate change.

But Sir David claims there is now compelling evidence that suggests the birds were gradually killed off by the early human inhabitants on the island stealing the giant eggs for food. He believes the birds themselves were revered by the indigenous populations, but the use of their eggs for food, combined with the destruction of the forests where the elephant birds lived, led to their eventual demise.

Recent archaeological evidence has revealed the fragments of elephant bird egg shells among the remains of human fires, suggesting that the eggs, which are 180 times bigger than a chicken egg, regularly provided food for entire families.

Argentine Nazi Dark Migration






This is another retelling of the tale of the purported escape of a cadre of devoted Nazis in several U-boats to the Argentine.  No one actually reports that Hitler was ever seen among them and the reports from the bunker are rather convincing and would need a conspiracy beyond the possible.

I rather suspect that it was not in Hitler’s make up to do other than any war lord would do, but to shoot himself at the bitter end.  Yet such an escape may well have been planned and followed by the escape team itself at war’s end when it was obvious that none of the hierarchy would be joining them.  It would certainly provide a false trail.  They also had the escape loot.

The fact that a few did surrender in Argentine waters certainly conforms that some made the effort.  The missing ones may well have been scuttled or even sunk or as likely simply did not exist at that point in the war.  Once unloaded, there was nothing left to do.


That fact alone gives credence to the tale itself, and it is a fact that a surprising number of right resumes made it to that part of the world after the war.  They are all gone now.



POSTED BY ADMIN ON DECEMBER - 23 - 2010
Nazis in South America


Hitler allegedly fled to Bariloche, Argentina following WWII.

On Sunday, July 11, 2004, the Chilean newspaper Las Ultimas Noticias published a brief interview with an author whose book had created a stir throughout South America. Abel Basti’s Bariloche Nazi openly suggested that the German Führer Adolf Hitler did not die in a Berlin bunker, but managed to escape to South America along with his mistress Eva Braun. Both spent their last days in the Argentinean mountain resort of San Carlos de Bariloche in the Andes.

According to Basti, Hitler died in 1960. No date for Braun’s death has been put forth. One of the locations identified as a hideaway for Hitler in Argentina is the San Ramón estancia or ranch, owned by the German principality of Schaumburg-Lippe. Another is the Inalco Mansion on the shores of Lake Nahuel Huapi.  Hitler’s days in Argentina were apparently uneventful. He went for long hikes along the shores of Nahuel Huapi and took in the clean Andean air. His trademark mustache shaven and his hair gone gray, the architect of millions of deaths had settled down as a householder.

If Hitler did, in fact, live out his final years in South America, how did he get there from the bunker in Berlin where he is believed to have committed suicide?

Rogue Submarines

After the fall of Germany, the British Admiralty had issued a command to all German submarines in the high seas advising them to hoist a black flag or emblem after surfacing and to turn themselves in at the nearest port. This directly countermanded coded message 0953/4, the Nazi fleet’s last official communication, which advised U-boat commanders of the surrender and directed that their vessels be scuttled before falling into enemy hands.

As of May 29, 1945, the seas were believed to have been cleared of Nazi subs, until one of them pulled into the Portuguese port of Leixoes. The Allied Command began to wonder if Hitler could have escaped aboard one of his subs. A few weeks later, the U.S Navy reported that four or five U-boats remained unaccounted for. Hunted and running out of fuel, it was a matter of time before the dead-enders turned up. But where?

On July 10, the Argentinean submarine base at Mar del Plata was surprised by the arrival of U-530, commanded by Otto Vermouth. A month later, U-977 under the command of Heinz Schaeffer surfaced off the Argentinean coast and surrendered to two coastal patrol vessels engaged in exercises.

Were there more rogue submarines somewhere in the South Atlantic Ocean?

In the late summer of 1945, Basti alleges, two former crewmen of the battleship Graf Spee (scuttled outside the city of Montevideo, Uruguay, in 1939 to keep it from being captured by the British Navy) traveled to an undisclosed location in Patagonia to rendezvous with a submarine carrying some very important exiles from the shattered Third Reich.

Basti continues: “The sailors say that they slept in a Patagonian ranch and in the early morning hours were on hand to receive the submarines. They brought trucks and loaded baggage and people onto them. One researcher spoke with the sailors—now deceased—and they confirmed the story.”

The convoy of Kriegsmarine U-boats consisted of ten vessels carrying at least 60 passengers each, Adolf Hitler among them. According to Basti, the sailors went public with their story in 1950.

Allied forces reconstructed the trajectory of the U-977 from its departure from Norway on May 2, 1945, to its arrival in Argentinean territorial waters in August thanks to the U-boat’s log. Captain Schaeffer and his crew had sailed underwater from Bergen to the South Atlantic without surfacing.

Was this submarine part of the ten-ship convoy that the nameless sailors of the Graf Spee had received in Patagonia?

A book written in 1956 by Jochen Brennecke, another crewman of the Graf Spee, described having loaded half a dozen trucks with a series of boxes stamped geheime Reichssache, which had been unloaded from submarines off the Argentine coast, and later taken to an estancia or ranch deep in Patagonia. Other authors have suggested that these boxes contained nearly 90 kilos of platinum and 2,000 kilos of gold and precious jewels that formed part of the Waffen-S.S.’s treasure: enough to finance a war of resistance from a hidden location.

Stories like this one, or their variants, have been told for the past 50 years. The Führer and his closest advisors board a submarine (the Baltic port of Kiel is often mentioned as the point of departure) and take off for parts unknown, usually Antarctica or some South American location (Brazil, Paraguay, Argentina, or perhaps even Chile) from which the Reich could reorganize and strike back at the world. Some versions posit that advanced technology in the form of “flying saucers” was brought along during the escape, and that the blond haired, blue-eyed saucernauts were perfect Aryans achieved through advanced genetic engineering.

But what Abel Basti probably doesn’t know (and what many Nazi history buffs have probably overlooked) is that Hitler had cast a predatory eye on Latin America long before the rise of the thousand-year Reich. According to an article in Executive Intelligence Review by William F. Wertz, Jr., titled “The Nazi-Instigated National Synarchist Union of Mexico,” the Führer’s greater geopolitical strategy included Latin America as a fertile and very enticing part of the world to be brought to heel.

According to Wertz, Hitler believed that the Mexican Republic was “the best and richest country in the world, with the laziest and most dissipated population under the sun…a country that cries for a capable master. With the treasure of Mexican soil, Germany could be rich and great!” The source of this quote is Hermann Rauschning, the governor of Danzig who left the Nazi cause in 1934 and who is better known in conspiracy and paranormal circles as the source of information about Hitler’s terrifying contacts with extrahuman forces.

Hitler did not envision hundreds of thousands of infantrymen and mechanized divisions crossing the Atlantic to win this prize, rather, his plan was to make use of German nationals already living in Latin American countries, subverting the local political process with the assistance of the German industrial and economic presence in Latin America. It isn’t clear if he ever imagined having to take refuge in the lands he saw as ripe for the taking.

In the Shadow of the Swastika

Argentina remained neutral throughout World War II, though there was strong pro-Axis sentiment in the country. The Secretary of War at the time was Juan Domingo Perón, the legendary strongman whose wife was immortalized by a Broadway musical. In 1945. Perón countermanded an order given to the Argentinean Navy to intercept Kriegsmarine elements attempting to round Cape Horn and escape into the Pacific Ocean, presumably toward Axis Japan. The Argentinean fleet was instructed to return to its base at Port Belgrano. That very spring, Peron’s wife, the glamorous María Eva (“Evita”) Duarte, had received considerable deposits in her name from the Transatlantic German Bank, the Banco Germánico, and the Tornquist Bank. A year later, Evita Perón visited Genoa to play an instrumental role in getting Martin Bormann into Argentina.

The long, hot summer of 1945 was a busy one indeed. Gestapo chief Heinrich Miller emerged from a submarine at Orense Beach in southern Buenos Aires province while other U-boats were reportedly seen at Claromecó and Reta. In his book ODESSA al Sur (The Southern Odessa), Jorge Camarasa states: “Someone had told me that Heinrich Miller had come ashore at Orense in 1945, and that the trawler Ottolenghi had transferred him to Necochea, from where he headed to [the town of] Coronel Pringles to organize the escape of sailors from the Graf Spee who were interned in the old Sierra de la Ventana hotel.” Could some of these sailors have formed part of Hitler’s welcoming committee, as described in Bariloche Nazi?

Camarasa worked closely with the Simon Wiesenthal Center in Buenos Aires on the extradition of Nazi war criminals, and his research turned up some fascinating information. Over 50 documents from Argentina’s naval authorities were found regarding reports of U-boats on the Patagonian littoral in a 40-day period, including a landing in Quequén and multiple sightings off the coastal towns of Comodoro Rivadavia, Ingeniero White, and San Antonio Oeste. Camarasa believes that another landing occurred near the current location of Villa Gessell, where small numbers of personnel debarked with boxes of unknown content and remained there for a certain time before leaving to other destinations, perhaps elsewhere in South America.

In the 1990s, the World Jewish Congress pressured then-president Carlos Menem to declassify all information regarding the presence of Nazi war criminals in Argentina, but it would not be until May 2003 that President Néstor Kirchner ordered his Ministry of the Interior to look into the “dark migration” of war criminals to his country, a task which started with the opening of that department’s files. Entry cards for one Helmut Gregor (an alias employed by “Doctor Death,” Josef Mengele), for example, report his arrival in Buenos Aires in 1949 aboard a Panamanian freighter, describing him as a 38 year-old Catholic lathe operator from Germany.

Another investigative journalist, Uki Goñi, unearthed more leads on the Nazi migration southward and the complicity of government functionaries in allowing the entry not only of former Gestapo, SS, and military personnel, but also members of the Croatian Ustasche (at least 15 war criminals among 7,000 immigrants).

Two to four years after the U-boat landings, “superstars” like Adolf Eichmann and Erich Priebke began to arrive in Argentina, allegedly aided by members of the Catholic clergy, particularly an Italian bishop who facilitated their escape through the port city of Genoa.

Children of the Reich

In 1956, a land purchase took place in the Chilean locality of La Parra, some 400 kilometers south of Santiago de Chile. The buyer was a man named Paul Shafer, who quickly established the “Sociedad Benefactora y Educacional Dignidad” as a settlement for a small knot of European emigrés. Before long, the tiny settlement had evolved into a major center of activity, complete with an airstrip, several factories, filling stations, trucks, schools, and its own power station. It became known as “Colonia Dignidad” and become the focus of Nazi activity in Chile, playing a major role in aiding the Pinochet dictatorship.

This was just part of a process that had been taking place for decades. The first National Socialist organization in Chile was established in the town of Osorno in April 1931; within eight years, the Chilean Nazi Party had over 1,000 card-carrying members, most of them influential figures from the spheres of business and politics.

Chile is also the home of one of the most notorious proponents of “Esoteric Hitlerism,” former diplomat and author Miguel Serrano. Serrano’s career brought him into contact with Indian traditions while he served as Chile’s ambassador to India in the 1950s, soaking in the same Tibetan lore and wisdom that had so fascinated European Nazis. He later went on to hold a number of prestigious positions with the United Nations.

Serrano’s works of occult fascism appeared as a trilogy whose first book, published in 1984, bears the title Adolfo Hitler, el último avatara (Hitler, the last avatar) and tries to establish a link between Nazism and the Germanic mystical tradition, the Knights Templar, the ancient Aryans, and the belief in underground civilizations of supermen like Agarttha. In Serrano’s viewpoint, his ideology seeks to perform the holy task of keeping the world safe from a Zionist-Masonic plot for world domination and enshrining the sacred teachings handed down from the hidden realm presided over by the “King of the World.”


Written by Scott Corrales, a long-time contributor to Fate. He is the editor of Inexplicata: The Journal of Hispanic Ufology. Published in FATE Jan/Feb 2009.

Tuesday, January 4, 2011

Showdown with Evil





It goes without saying that insightful commentators find themselves challenged to face the apparently developing confrontation with what is labeled as radical Islam.  Yes, it is a confrontation.  Wherever it finds succor, it consistently practices sedition against its host.  We see its early stages at work in Canada and the USA and a maturer version at work in Europe.

It knows it is fighting for the mind and loyalty of young men who can be used to attack in the name of its fraudulent version of Islamic Jihad.  It is a profane ideology that subjugates women and its own and anyone else it can intimidate.  I see it as an evil that must be opposed and bled dry and antidotes applied as had to be done with Nazism and Communism.

A reformed Islam may arise and stifle any similar reemergence, but there has been not much sign of that.  The militants are permitted to threaten with impunity and cow more liberal Muslims into silence.

Around the Muslim world, Egypt is struggling in a death grip with its own version known as the Muslim brotherhood.  The same forces are strongly suppressed in Saudi Arabia and elsewhere.  Except it appears that authoritarian states can be negotiated into a devil’s deal with these forces in order to preserve themselves.  Thus it continues.  The system appears presently broken in Iraq, but these forces are out there trying to grab control.

Many commentators see only the path to war.  In some situations that has happened and surely it will continue to happen.  More likely the demands of modernism will ameliorate all that.


Strangely, even with outrages ringing in our ears, I am optimistic that war can be generally avoided.  It has taken military confrontation where tribalism rules, but there a sharp lesson also serves.  I recall the Canadian forces arriving in Kandahar several years ago.  The militants saw an opportunity to attack an unseasoned force.  The result was several hundred dead militants after the Canadians induced them into an ambush confrontation.  A local leader discovered he had lost five grandsons and the local militants were hugely diminished in reputation.

Outside that the rest have central governments that need productive citizens.  The pressure on these societies to allow their women to contribute to family incomes is intense and can only worsen.  In time, it cannot be withstood.  This all leads to freedom for women.  With that the rise of a secular society becomes unstoppable.  The problem today is the age old suppression of both women and any other designated minority is ingrained and must be ameliorated.  This can only be done with economic liberation which is been forced on these societies.



A Showdown with Evil


POSTED ON DECEMBER 26 2010 9:30 PM


Phyllis Chesler is an Emerita Professor of Psychology and Women's Studies at City University of New York. For extended biography visit The Phyllis Chesler Organization.

Dr. Jamie Glazov and his Canadian publisher, Mantua Books, have just published a new kind of “samizdat” which is the Russian word for self-publications written by dissidents and passed from hand to hand. “Self-publishing” (by hand, on typewriters, on printing presses) was a 20th century way of dealing with Soviet government censorship. The Russian authors and readers who were found with such writing in their possession were routinely subjected to harsh imprisonment.

Westerners, (and this includes Israel), do not live in a Soviet Gulag and are not subject to political censorship, but we do face a new kind of Orwellian censorship and self-censorship. Independent and anti-totalitarian thinkers and activists are demonized, “disappeared,” legally sued, threatened with death—and in the name of anti-racism and human rights. Historian, journalist and Frontpage editor Glazov has been tracking this astounding turn of events—both the censorship and its denial—for a very long time, perhaps even in utero. After all, his parents were Soviet dissidents and he dedicates the book to his mother.

Glazov’s book is a careful compilation of selected interviews which he conducted with 30 dissidents, including one with himself and (full disclosure) one with me as well, between 2004-2010. These interviews appeared in David Horowitz’s Frontpage magazine. The book is titled: Showdown With Evil: Our Struggle Against Tyranny and Terror. Glazov understands that the new Evil Empire is the global alliance between Islamist totalitarianism and western liberal progressivism or leftism. The interviewees’ work is post the Intifada of 2000 and post 9/11.

This collection showcases some of the radically dissident work being done by those who are defamed and marginalized by the mainstream media as “conservatives,” “Islamophobes,” “racists,” and “traitors.”  Glazov stands with them. Included here are Steven Emerson, Victor Davis Hanson, David Horowitz, Andrew Klavan, Rep. Sue Myrick, Robert Spencer, and Charles Winecoff.

Glazov has consistently and persistently supported human rights, women’s rights and gay rights. He has a very moving interview with Charles Winecoff in this book. Winecoff “came out” as a conservative in the gay rights movement and had the same kind of “Darkness at Noon” experience that others, including myself have had.

Technically, Glazov did not “self-publish.” Publisher Howard Rotberg founded Mantua Books and is Glazov’s publisher. On the other hand, Mantua is a small, relatively new press, one which was forged in fire, and Rotberg is as determined as Glazov is to publish the truth-which-dare-not-speak-its-name in most mainstream western publications.

Rotberg, a Jewish lawyer, self-published his first novel, The Second Catastrophe: A Novel About a Book and Its Author, in 2003. He was not only defamed in a Canadian bookstore when two Arabs disrupted his lecture by calling him a “f**ing Jew” but was then labeled a racist-Zionist. His work was banned from the bookstore chain. Since then, Mantua has published six books, including David Solway’s Hear, O Israel and now this work by Glazov.

The interviewer, Glazov, and his interviewees all understand that their difficulties here are nowhere near as perilous as are those of their counterparts in the Islamic and communist world where the media is controlled by the state and in which anyone who publishes anything—however minor—against the party line (or which exposes the corruption of government officials), is jailed, tortured, or murdered. 

For example, in 2006, Moscow journalist Anna Politkovskaya was murdered because of her opposition to Putin’s policies in Chechyna; her murderer remains unknown. Attorney Sergei L. Magnitsky exposed official Russian corruption against an American firm. He was jailed in 2008, and then refused medical treatment while in custody; this purposeful neglect killed him. Finally, professor and human rights activist Liu Xiaobo was arrested, sentenced to eleven years in prison and, in 2010, not allowed to travel to Sweden to receive the Noble Peace Prize. His crime? “Inciting subversion of state power” by crafting and signing a human rights charter in 2008.

And, in the Islamic world: In 2006, Kareem Amer, an Egyptian blogger and former law student, was expelled from al-Azhar University for criticizing some of the university’s instructors, writing in his blog that the “professors and sheikhs at al-Azhar who … stand against anyone who thinks freely” would “end up in the dustbin of history”. The prosecutor admitted that he was on a “jihad” against Amer. In 2007, he was sentenced to 3 years in prison on charges of atheism (“There is no God except Man,” he wrote). His words were seen as defaming the President of Egypt, disrupting public security, and inciting hatred against Islam.

In September 2010, Hossein Derakshan, known as Iran’s “blogfather” because he helped to start Iran’s blogging revolution, was sentenced to 19 ½ years in prison, supposedly for spying on behalf of Israel. He left Iran for Canada in 2000 and visited Israel as a Canadian citizen in 2006. Although at first he was harshly critical of President Ahmadinejad, eventually he changed his mind and began blogging in favor of him, even comparing him to a modern-day Che Guevara. But the regime still decided to make an example of him when he returned to Iran in 2008.

In June, 2010, Bangladeshi authorities arrested the publisher Mahmudur Rahman and closed his newspaper because he dared to publish reports about government corruption and abuses of power. He has been beaten incustody, and 34 charges have been lodged against him. His fate remains unknown.

This does not occur in the West and in Israel. However, Glazov and his contributors have each sounded the alarm about a different and dangerously new kind of censorship. While there is no state censorship—there are no communist-style government-run publishing houses in the West—there is, nevertheless, “politically correct” censorship in public broadcasting which is partially government-funded and which wields enormous influence among the professoriate and the intelligentsia.

Thus, private publishing houses as well as university presses have become increasingly and rigidly left in orientation; the Party Line is an anti-American, anti-Israel, and pro-Palestinian line. No other views need apply. America and Israel are, allegedly, the world’s greatest imperialists, colonialists, racists, and aggressor nations. The long and tragic history of Islamic colonialism, racism, and jihad is not a welcome view.

More: Like the professoriate, publishers have become especially cautious, some might say cowardly or sadly, realistic. They do not want an Islamist bomb thrown through their windows, they do not want to absorb the cost of security for an author against whom a fatwa has been issued, nor do they want to pay to defend themselves against a battery of Islamist and leftist lawyers charging them with “racism” and “Islamophobia.”

The lawsuits and the fatwas are real. They have exerted a profound and chilling effect on Free Speech in the West. Salman Rushdie, Geert Wilders, Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Magdi Allam, Elizabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff, all come instantly to mind. All have required round-the-clock protection or have been sued for “racist” or “hate” speech by those who themselves specialize in telling Big Lies about America, Jews, and Israel. Theo Von Gogh was murdered, butchered, by a Moroccan-Dutch Islamist for daring to co-produce a film titled “Submission” about the normalization of barbaric violence towards Muslim women in Islam’s name.

Today, both in “Eurabia” (the term is Bat Ye’or’s) and in North America, any thinker, writer, academic, or intellectual who dares challenge the Party Line will be marginalized, scorned, demonized, not published; if published, not reviewed; if reviewed, reviewed negatively; and, in any event, not assigned by professors, and never quoted in the left, liberal, and mainstream media as an expert. In addition, friendships will end, political networks will crumble. The post-9/11 and “matzav” world viewers will not be hired as professors; their works will only be read by other post 9/11 world viewers.

Thus, in the wake of this steady tsunami, conservative internet sites, publishing imprints, and small, new publishers, such as Mantua Books, have arisen. I want to introduce you to the steadfast and principled Glazov by quoting from him at length from the excellent interview with him which was conducted by David Swindle, the editor of NewsReal Blog. Here is Glazov in his own words:

“Radical Islam is now the greatest threat the West faces. We are, as Norman Podhoretz has noted, in World War IV. We face totalitarian and religious zealots who seek to establish an Islamic caliphate worldwide. They hate freedom and liberty, and so they hate and need to destroy the United States and Israel the most, since these two nations are the bulwarks and representatives of freedom in the world.”

They also hate women: “…it is obvious that woman-hatred is intertwined with Islamic terror. The more fanatical and violent the Islamic terrorist and his milieu, the more misogyny you will find there…to fight for women’s rights under Islam is also to stick a dagger into the heart of Islamic jihad.”

Where Islamic gender apartheid is allowed to flourish, cancerous, violent extremism is destined to follow.

Glazov does not mince words about what is wrong with Islam in the 21st century. But there is a difference, he insists, between being blunt and being bigoted.

“This is not about demonizing Muslims or attacking Muslims,” he writes. “We are the allies of Muslims. I consider myself pro-Muslim. Muslims are the victims of Islam and its totalitarian structures. I spend a large part of my life fighting for the rights of Muslim women who suffer under Islamic gender apartheid. Does this make me anti-Muslim or pro-Muslim? I fight on behalf of Muslims who want to live in freedom and who don’t want to suffer the harsh punishments of Sharia Law. I fight for a world where young Muslim boys and girls are not brainwashed and forced to blow themselves up. Does this make me anti-Muslim or pro-Muslim?”

These are crucial questions and I expect that Glazov will keep asking them.

This article was originally published by Israel National News on December 26, 2010.