Originally posted from 12-21-03 to 12-28-03
Islamo-Fascists and 20th Century Nazis:
Historical Connections
by Jennifer Seago

At first look, a reader might think that this editorial might be a diatribe about how Radical Islam and the National Socialist Workers party of Germany were similar, which they are, but the reason for this editorial is to show a more direct, historical link between the two.
However, before getting to the historical significance of the relationship between the fascist Nazis and the terrorists who happen to be Muslims, let the diatribe begin.

The Nazis used terror and killing to drive fear into an otherwise peaceful people in order to get what they believed that they deserved. So do the fascist terrorists of today.

The Nazis hated Jews and had absolutely no problem with exterminating them. So do the Islamo-fascists.

The Nazis used a twisted form of German mysticism to justify their cruelty and teach others to do the same. The terrorists use a twisted form of Islam to justify their hatred of the West.

So, it should come to no surprise to the reader that the radical “Muslims” were once allied with the Nazis. That is the history lesson that everyone seems to have forgotten, and I would have never known about it if the History Channel had not pointed out that Himmler once hired Muslims to work at the Nazi death camps, which just happened to be killing Jews by the millions. See the connection? What a surprise! I was never taught that in public school nor in college!

After doing some quick research on the internet, I found an article by Marc Erikson in the Asia Times linking Islamism, Fascism and Terrorism. What did I learn but that Yasser Arafat’s mentor worked with the Nazis during Hitler’s time through the Muslim Brotherhood. The article states, “A key individual in the fascist-Islamist nexus and go-between for the Nazis and al-Banna became the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, Haj Amin el-Husseini - incidentally the later mentor (from 1946 onward) of a young firebrand by the name of Yasser Arafat.” Hey, go figure. Arafat isn’t fighting a new war against ‘Zionism’. He is fighting the same war that the Nazis did, and wants the same end that the Nazis did. The death of all Jews.

I have also found pictures of this same Amin el-Husseini in his Muslim/Nazi garb at another website. Should I have been surprised to find pictures of “Bosnian Muslim Nazi soldiers”? Did we protect former Nazis in Kosovo? That question needs answering. In this online pictorial article, you will see that former Nazi Amin el-Husseini helped to mold the Arab League, the World Islamic Congress, and Islamic conferences and had ties with Muslims in Malaysia, Pakistan and just about every other place of unrest on the planet.

It is said that Osama bin Laden is an ardent follower of Amin el-Husseini. No shock there. It comes as no surprise to me that a current sick terrorist would get his insane ideas from a former Nazi. Should it come as a surprise to me that the Nazis got their idea of a ‘final solution’ for the Jews from their twisted “Islamic”/Nazi friend, Amin el-Husseini? Tellthechildrenthetruth.com claims that he did and has documentation defending their stance. This website deserves some rousing through by people more read than me.

A new fire has lit inside of me after learning more on this subject, and it all started with a little quip from the History Channel. God bless the History Channel. It seems to me that we are still fighting fascist Nazis, only these are the ones that we forgot to try at Nuremburg. How is it that Amin el-Husseini got away? And look at all the trouble that he has caused us in the 21st century! He was allowed to spread his twisted form of Islam and has produced a new goose-stepping, brown shirted army in the guise of radical terrorists. Let us not make this mistake again.

Originally posted from 12-14-03 to 12-21-03
Grace Under Pressure?
(The Similarities Between The People of Tikrit and the Liberals)
by R A. Hawkins

Well I have to admit I knew it would happen eventually but I was still exuberant this morning when I woke up to find Saddam was where he belonged. I opened up my browser and saw that and was lifted aloft as surely as the bullets the Iraqis are firing off into the air just like when the boyz in dah hood were done in. Even though the liberal press will say nobody cared over there. Part of what made me happy was the rather obvious fact that, as surely as those bullets go up so shall they come down. (My sons probably got
to dodge those again this time.) Just like the spirits of the liberals in this country. One of their last great hopes just got caught. All of their ranting about how the Iraqis loved Saddam will now be proven wrong in one of their courts.

How did they catch him? Well..He was ratted out by some of those who according to the liberal press love him so deeply. He was 'loved' out of fear over there. You loved the man or you died or someone close to you died or was tortured. Over here the liberals loved him because they thought he was making an ass out of Bush. Here they are now, caught in that horrible adolescent dream where you're on the school bus or in school with nothing on
but a blush. They are exposed and have to be feeling quite vulnerable.

I find it quite interesting that this comes on the heels of Bush's visit to Baghdad. Although it was touted as a vote grabbing photo-op by the liberals who would never say anything such as that about Hillary's trip, it had its desired affect. Bush going there for dinner showed the Iraqi people we aren't leaving until the job gets done. The people of Tikrit have now fallen from power and had better grow up. I would suggest the same for the liberals over here.

Speaking of Hillary's visit, a friend of mine has a friend over there. They couldn't find anyone who wanted to greet the former first witch, so they had to draft a few. These are people who have been trained to face death without flinching. I wonder how it felt to have face stupidity without laughing. I have always found that to be a bit hard to do. When she arrived for her little visit in Afghanistan she was late by about one hour as usual and
didn't serve anything to anybody. She and her pathetic entourage went to the front of the line and wanted to be served by the troops. Once again she and those of her ilk show their contempt for the military. It is obvious that anything she says should be ignored.

Speaking of the similarities between Tikrit and the Democratic Party; Gore, Clintons' temple cash bag man, has endorsed Dean and like a whiney baby stated that they need to take the Democratic Party back. He has turned on their Saddam Hussein. That would be Bill and Hill. It will be interesting to watch as they all unravel while their last hopes for power slip through their fingers. Even Russia doesn't understand what is happening here. They told us we will lose miserably there and in Afghanistan. If we did any of this the way the Liberals, the people of Tikrit or the leaders of Russia want us , we would lose. We are liberating them not conquering them. I have heard from many people that we are disarming the people of Iraq. I have pictures my son has sent me of people he photographed standing there waving with their AK47s' on their shoulders and waving. That was yet another
liberal lie meant to create division here at home.

I will warn you however that it still isn't over. There are numerous predictions that there will be another major attack against us on or around February the second of 2004. I suspect these attacks will have something to do with the missing Russian sounding rockets, which have a range of about ten miles. There also seems to be some radioactive material missing to put on them. Once again the Russians are operating in the plausible
deniability area they love so much. They won't get to fire too many of them before they get turned into high velocity carnage by one of our own missiles. No matter where they launch those missiles from they will be attacking at random and not hitting what they are aiming for, ensuring they take their rightful place in hell. Once again they will be killing innocent
people at random which is forbidden in their religion. But like the liberals, who cares about the rules or the truth, when they just seem to get in the way so often.

This will draw Saddam's supporters out into the open for one last "Ablahi Akhbar!". It will produce one last major and final backlash.

R..A. Hawkins is the author of "Through Eyes of Shiva", available through Amazon.com.
Visit Entropical Paradise - The Home of R.A. Hawkins - for more commentaries and editorials by R.A. Hawkins.

Comments are always welcome. Please send them to ra_hawkins@earthlink.net

Originally posted from 11-16-03 to 11-23-03
National Mentalities
by R.A. Hawkins

As the Berlin wall and the many other components of the iron curtain fell I felt a certain joy and a sense of hope. For the first time in years it seemed that a threat had been removed which had hung over my head, and the heads of all who live in the West. It appeared that the sword of Damocles had been indeed sheathed, or at least set aside. As time has progressed I have decided that it was simply removed from public display and taken to the
back room to be sharpened. Please forgive me as I now display the Angletonized side of my psyche, as they call it in the C.I.A.

Let me frame this in the current Mid-East crises and discuss its foundations, which lay to the north and east of that region. That's right I'm talking about our brethren in Russia and our MFN PALs in China. Yasser Arafat is a KGB creation. His real name was Rahman al-Qudwa. He used to be the head of a puny and insignificant terrorist organization. One might ask how the KGB could ever gain control of one so mighty as Yasser Arafat. Let
me explain. They have the video, pictures and audiotapes to show he likes little boys and men. I rather doubt that would play too terribly well with the chaste and puritanical locals of that benighted land over there (see "Outing Arafat").

Saddam was the primary mazumah Mullah for the parents who sent their kids to be blown up (martyred for money) in Israel on Yasser Arafat's behalf. In 1998 there was an intentional leak in our intelligence services stating that Russia had just told the Iraqis to throw the UN inspectors out again and it would be all over. (Russia advised Iraq not to back down.) Things like that tend to happen when the Intel types know the Grand Pubah of the Potomac is on the other side. Right on schedule the inspectors were thrown out and,
happily for Saddam, it was the end of inspections until we got a real President with a real wife. During the first and second Gulf Wars we kept running into Russian advisors and equipment. One thing I did find quite amusing though was an article in Pravda where the Russians nonchalantly point a finger at China as the masters of Arafat. They do it by asking if maybe China has now turned its back on him. In that same article they are
also calling the Chinese the lackeys of Washington D. C. How cute (see "Did China turn its back on Arafat?").

China now plays the expansionist role by visiting the fascist in Venezuela who is also the President of OPEC. That wonderful little Castro-loving, red beret wearing dictator is just one of many in South America who have rolled out the red carpet for the Communists.

What is of particular interest lately is the slow drift back to Communism in Russia. I wonder if that's what Soros was talking about when he talked about his attempt to create a more open society in Russia. The children are slowly being turned to Communism. It is quite interesting to see the new and improved KGB, or FSU, taking their own country from the inside like Hitler did with his youth groups and I might add like they did in other countries
for years. Those people had no idea how to survive in a capitalist environment and their leaders knew they would fail at any attempts at Capitalism because of it. Tearing down the walls and cheerfully exclaiming, "You're all Capitalists now" was absolutely ludicrous. It is no different from taking your kids who have been coddled all of their lives by you and suddenly with no warning turning them loose on the world at the age of twelve or so, telling them they're free to get ahead on their own now. The leaders knew what they were doing when they knocked down those walls.

If we step back and cast off our desire to see peace as within our grasp and behave like adults, we can see where this is all heading. Just pause to view the history books for a while. Paranoid, bloodthirsty tyrants have always ruled Russia. That quite sadly is their national psychology. There was an Ambassador a long time ago that was going to Russia and he asked another American who had lived there to explain the Russian mind to him. The man simply told him that the weather there is so brutal that anything the government does to them is secondary.

China has also suffered for long periods under tyrants so the prospect of forced labor in laogis is simply expected behavior from their government. It is simply their national psychology. So, both of these nations have always been like they are and that may well be why they can so clearly and effectively communicate with the Mid-Eastern tyrants who have their own similar national psychology to feed.

But I do have to say that not everything that comes from tyrannical rule is bad. In my opinion there was one good thing that came out of the slave labor placed on the Chinese by their Emperors as they built the great wall. I sure do love those egg rolls.

(c) 2003 R.A. Hawkins

Comments are always welcome. Please send them to ra_hawkins@earthlink.net.

Originally posted from 04-06-03 to 04-13-03
Confessions of a Reluctant Hawk
by Jeffrey Quick

I support the attack on Iraq. I know I shouldn't, but I do. As a libertarian, I oppose in principle and practice the use of extorted resources to interfere in the affairs of other nations. I find it absurd that a Republican administration is proposing, and the Democrats opposing, reasons for war that are really two cherished Democratic platform planks: gun control (elimination of weapons of mass destruction) and welfare (liberation of the Iraqi people). At least in John Major's case, it makes sense. I'm opposed to altruism, but I also find that the alleged selfish "blood for oil" equation makes no economic sense. ( And in any case it's near-tautological; Total Fina Elf is trading blood for oil too, but it's Iraqi dissident blood, not French blood, which makes it more monstrous, but nobody is protesting.) So why is it that I've taken down the Gadsden flag and replaced it with the Stars and Stripes for the duration?

The reason I supported the war before it began was that it was not a new war, but the punishment of cease-fire violations from the unpleasantness of '91. Thanks to the perfidy of the UN, Mr. Hussein had been given the great privilege of staying in office. Generally, those who wage offensive war are removed from office upon defeat. In exchange, he was to get rid of his offensive weaponry (some of which is being used against us) within 45 days, which is UN-speak for "12 years". We are only completing unfinished business. And the necessity of following through with previous commitments and threats trumps the notion of isolationism.

The reason I support the war now that it has begun is that we're in it. Being in it, there's no way out but through. Should I be confronted with a NIONist protester shouting "Stop the war", I'd have to ask him, "OK, assume you are commander in chief. What do you want to do, RIGHT NOW?" And then I'd ask what the consequences of that would be, what he'd do about those consequences, what the consequences of THOSE actions would be, and so on. It's fine I guess to ask for immediate withdrawal, if you're willing to accept the consequences of that. The same of course is true of the pro-war position; blowback is. But some of the consequences are not bad at all; functional demolition of the UN, for instance.

Could I be wrong? Sure. Maybe, faced with an inevitable war, I talked myself into taking the winning side. Gods know we've been propagandized with our very own set of Belgian War Orphans. Do I believe that Saddam is capable of doing what he stands accused of? Absolutely; that he has done those things in the past is not in dispute. Do I believe all reports from the "in-bed-with" reporters? Do I believe everything my government tells me? I didn't in peacetime; why should I now?

Sometimes they're so clumsy. We find 3000 chem suits in a hospital, and the inference drawn is that the Iraqis have and will use chemicals. Let's look at that syllogism: chem suits are necessary to use chemical weapons, the Iraqis have chem suits, therefore the Iraqis will use chemical weapons. Hmm, very interesting. Let's replace one term in that argument: the Americans have chem suits, therefore the Americans will use chemical weapons, QED. Maybe they have those suits for the same reason we do: paranoia. Sounds reasonable to me. If you were trying to protect a bunch of civilians, wouldn't you want to keep chem suits and atropine where you keep your ambulances? Especially when you're a bunch of sick puppies engaging in projection? (Of course that doesn't excuse the soldiers or the tank in the hospital.)

Mostly, I think we're getting the truth. I think we are targeting legitimate targets, and trying to protect civilians. And if you live next to one, you're going to get some slopover; nothing to be done about that. You're going to lose your windows, so don't stand in front of them.

Fact is, Saddam doesn't care about the Iraqi people. And we don't need to recount atrocities to get there. It's adequately demonstrated by the fact that he's still in power. Given the offer to leave or have his country attacked, a true patriot would leave. I'm certain that the Hussein family could live out its days in opulent exile on the proceeds of various Swiss bank accounts. They could hand things over to some Baath Party functionary, and Iraq would become another Syria: not a free country but not a big problem for the world.

So we're going to liberate Iraq. I called that welfare; most people don't value things they are given as much as things they've earned. And maybe they will earn freedom yet (the Kurds have). And maybe they'll hold on to freedom; Japan and German have managed to hold on to as much freedom as they can stand (which for me is not enough, but that's not my problem). But structuring a government for Iraq that will guarantee freedom will be a major undertaking. If we let the UN do it, they'll screw it up royally. I mean, these are the people whose charter says, "You have these freedoms- unless we say you don't." If we do it, we'll probably still screw it up, since we don't even value our own freedom these days.

An Iraqi constitution will have to correct the errors of the US constitution, being specific where we are general. It will have to be federal in nature, leaving adequate scope for Kurds, Shia and Sunnis to make their own rules. It will probably need to be downright hostile to religion, with a Berlin Wall between church and state. A similar wall between State and Education (including mass media) would be good. The rights and responsibilities of secession should be clear. And (and this will be the part we'll never countenance) the right to keep and bear arms must be protected.

So...how do I feel about this war personally? It's a pain in the ass. I have to watch the news. It's an itch I have to scratch. And the news is never what I want to see. Too many commercials, not enough detail, pictures of Baghdad by night without bombs (and unlike the Afghanis, those people look so much like us!) instead of shots of us Blowing Up Stuff and our soldiers cheering, reporters at news conferences asking questions which are statements of opinion rather that requests for information. I know better: keep the tube off, listen to NPR or read the paper--but there I am at 10PM wasting my time.

I want it to be over now. I want people to quit dying. And I want the protests to stop. Sometimes they come past the library where I work, and the mob sounds like a Nuremberg Rally. That's OK; power to dem Volk. I am big on the 1st Amendment, and what they do doesn't affect me. Then there are the folk who block traffic. That's a different issue than protest; it's sabotage. If we could just pass a law absolving citizens from criminal and civil liability for running over people who deliberately sit in the street, we could fix this. You wanna have a die-in? I'll help; I'll be the Dr. Kavorkian to your Rachel Currie.

If the anti-war movement would do any good, if it weren't run by Commies, if it had nothing to do with Mumia, if it wasn't trying to snarl rush hour, if it wasn't full of facile and offensive slogans, if it had just one bad thing to say about Saddam, maybe I'd feel differently. Because I don't want war either. But there are worse things than war.