Fascism OK for the Left as Long as it is Islamic Fascism

Hat tip to Gates of Vienna.

In yesterday's post I reasserted my position that Islamic culture is not compatible with a Western society. As long as a Muslim population is statistically insignificant or is otherwise too small to result in any real manifestation of political power or influence, things tend to be OK. Once that changes, Muslims begin to demand more and more concessions, violence increases, and fundamentalistic thought becomes more predominant.

Until today I was not aware of a particular political movement among Turks of many different nations. The Grey Wolves appears to be the self-applied name used by the Turkish Nationalist Movement Party (MHP). Its goal is to create a Turkish nation that stretches from the former Ottoman-ruled areas of the Balkans (Which was the entire Balkans and then some) to the regions of Western China, which is peopled by ethnic Turks was near to the point of origin of the original Turkish tribes.

As I have noted earlier, Turks never existed anywhere near Asia Minor/Anatolia/Modern Turkey until later Medieval times. So when you hear that St. Nicholas lived in Myra, which is in Turkey, you can correct anyone who claims that Santa Claus was a Turk.

This party has an outlook that is Fascist in that it is strongly associated with radical nationalistic/ethnic thought. Due to the historical origins of Fascism, I along with many others classify it as a doctrine of the Left. It was designed with some of the same intentions of early Leftists; strong central control of industry, political organization of the working classes, etc. The main difference with the traditional Left is that Fascism is not international in its outlook. The former seeks to eliminate all national borders and sovereignty. Some early proponents of fascism actually viewed it as a stepping stone to true Marxism.

Another point on which I have written is the Year Zero concept. This is the idea that, to create the society of the future, which to a leftist is full-bore international Communism, all cultural influences of the past must be eradicated. The most well known examples of this were seen in the purges of the Khmer Rouge and Mao's Cultural Revolution. In the West, we are experiencing the exact same thing. The only difference is that here no one is as of yet being sent to labor camps or being executed. 

The means by which the Left seeks to realize Year Zero in the West is to denigrate or otherwise strategically ignore all the historical works of Western Civilization and to consign them to the dustbins of history. It is a fairly effective measure; ensure that people are either completely ignorant of their past or detest it so much that it is consequently ignored by the sheep-like masses, and the plan if at least halfway accomplished. Once that obstacle is out of the way, Western Culture is poised to be swept aside by the tide of Marxism.

Hillaire Belloc noted in How the Reformation Happened that the Great Schism of the West went a long way towards excising from Western Europe the idea that a unified Church had any importance. In the Church were two individuals who claimed to be the legitimate Pope. At one point a Church council muddied the waters further and named another claimant, thus resulting in three claimants. I will go no father on this other than to note that at no point was their any more than one legitimate Pope at any time, but the conflict nevertheless resulted in various groups/nations supporting one claimant vs. the other(s) and that this confusion created a sort of disillusion and possibly apathy in Western Europe in regards to the concept of a unified Church. Belloc noted that an entire generation had grown up and aged while witnessing this period of confusion and competing loyalties. The first act of the play that ended in the Balkanization of the Western Church was completed.

The following essay posted in Gates of Vienna describes the paradox that exists today in Leftist-influenced societies in how they respond to nationalistic movements. Those that support nationalism of European nations or the protection of a people's (In this case those of Western Europe) sense of identity are attacked without mercy by the Left. Those that advocate the same thing for other peoples, such as the Grey Turks, are left to themselves and are not bothered in any way. In applying the maxim of "the enemy of my enemy is my friend", the Left is fine with a Fascist group that would help in undermining Western Societies and rid the West once and for all of Christianity, Judaism, and the sense of historical/ethnic identity of its peoples. 

The author of the essay holds that Fascism is a far-right ideology, but I would agree with him that, if it were so, it is certainly (as he notes) a "mirror image" of Leftist ideology.

http://gatesofvienna.blogspot.com/2012/08/no-fight-against-right.html#more

-From the Gates of Vienna translator:

"The Grey Wolves (Graue Wölfe) is the designation for members of the Turkish Nationalist Movement Party (MHP) founded in 1961. They also call themselves the “Idealists” (Turkish, Ülkücüler). The goal of the Grey Wolves is to unite all Turks by the establishment of a Turkish nation stretching from the Balkans through Central Asia into Xinjiang in China. German Intelligence (der Verfassungsschutz) of North Rhine-Westphalia, which monitors the Grey Wolves, alleges that the organisation is contributing” to the emergence of a parallel society in Europe” and sees it as “a hindrance to the integration of the Turkish population” (Source: Metapedia). Enemies of the Grey Wolves are made up largely of the Kurds, Jews, Greeks, Armenians, and the Americans. The Turkish ethno-nationalist movement can “howl their fascistic slogans”, as Sattler puts it, because “those responsible can file suit with reference to the anti-discrimination law” [Westdeutsche Allgemeine Zeitung (WAZ)]

The Bunte Republik (The Multicoloured Republic of Germany) is a political expression in Germany. M. Sattler uses it repeatedly in place of the official name for Germany,Bundesrepublik Deutschland (Federal Republic of Germany), hence ‘The Multicultural Republic of Germany’. The word play is on Bund (Federal) and Bunt (multicoloured, coloured, mottled, spotted). .............."

The aforementioned essay in Gates of Vienna:

Bolding is added.

No Fight against the Right
By M. Sattler

The anti-fascism of the Bunten Republik [Multicoloured Republic] makes distinctions according to criteria of nationality: German right-wing extremism is opposed, Turkish right-wing extremism is tolerated. By contrast, the anti-fascism of East Germany was a universal anti-fascism: right-wing extremism was a generalised enemy, independent of a particular nation. The reasons for these entirely divergent stances are to be sought in the ideological backgrounds of these two left-doctrinaire states.

1. The Anti-fascism of East Germany

The anti-fascism of East Germany arose from its Marxist-Leninist tradition and its self-conception as part of the communist world revolution: The goal of the Marxist-Leninist worker’s struggle is in fact the worldwide overcoming of national identities through the construction of a social identity defined by class struggle. The Fascism founded by Mussolini formed the direct counter-thesis to that: in response to Lenin’s October Revolution, Mussolini called for overcoming of the class-antagonisms, not by struggle, but by national solidarity within the great totality. Both ideologies, Marxism-Leninism and Fascism, therefore deal with the same themes of “class” and “nation”. They form a typical pair of opposites providing divergent answers to the same question. Marxist-Leninist communism means necessarily rejection of its laterally reversed mirror image; that is, uncompromising anti-fascism, and vice versa [“laterally reversed mirror image”, des seitenverkehrten Spiegelbilds, can also mean a mirror image reversed left to right].

Since Marxism-Leninism strives to overcome the idea of nation and for the internationalism of the working class, it can combat Fascism consistently only in an anti-nationalistic way; that is, it does not differentiate Fascism by the criterion of nationality, into a “good” and a “bad” Fascism. It attacks the enemy, right-wing nationalistic fascistic thinking, on a worldwide basis: in Italy under Mussolini; in Poland after the military putsch of 1926; in Germany of the late 1920s; in the 1930s in Thailand and Japan and in Spain under Franco; in the 1950s and ‘60s in Turkey and in the 1970s in Chile. The anti-fascism of the Marxist-Leninist East Germany also stood in this tradition of a universal, worldwide oriented anti-fascism until 1989.

2. The Anti-Fascism of the Bunten Republik

In contrast to East Germany the foundation of our present-day “Bunten Republik” is to be sure unmistakably left-wing doctrinaire, but not Marxist-Leninist. The left-doctrinaire ideology of theBunten Republik rests on the strongly Maoist-created Cultural Revolution of the ’68ers — a left-wing revolution which never took place in the Marxist-Leninist sphere of influence of the Soviet Union. As distinct from Marxism-Leninism, however, Maoism is not only a movement oriented toward class struggle, but is first and foremost a culture-war movement inimical to civilisation. The new communist man can only emerge insofar as he annihilates the “old” culture altogether. The core questions of Marxism-Leninism and its fascistic antithesis therefore play only a marginal role for Maoism. The Maoist does not struggle either against other classes or other nations; his fight is introverted and auto-aggressive; his image of the enemy is his own culture as part of the human civilisation.

These auto-aggressive Maoist influences also gained a foothold in West Germany after Mao’s 1966 Cultural Revolution, where they influenced the revolt of the 1968ers quite substantially. They also explain the different perspectives on Fascism between East Germany and the Bunten Republik. In the Marxist-Leninist East Germany a fascist was a fascist, no matter which country he came from. In the more vigorously Maoist cultural-revolutionaryBunten Republik on the other hand, Fascism counted as an enemy only in the auto-aggressive context. When 6,000 Turkish right-wing extremists [Grey Wolves] gather in the Grugahalle [an indoor sports arena on 19 Nov. 2011] in Essen and howl their fascistic slogans, this is no issue for the Bunten Republik. In Germany, to oppose Turkish Fascists would be counterproductive for the cultural revolution. Very definitely it is an issue however, when five German right-wing extremists gather in front of a drink-kiosk.

Unlike East Germany, therefore, the Bunte Republik by no means fights “against the Right” universally, it fights selectively. Out if its budget of millions for the “war against the Right”, it will never allocate even a single penny for the fight against the Turkish Grey Wolves. This apparent “double standard” is not, however, a consequence of a naïve misjudgement of the real situational danger stemming from right-wing extremism in Germany. It is a deliberate and entirely consistent course of political action which is immediately derived from the auto-aggressive character of the multicoloured ideology [bunten Ideologie], itself influenced by Maoism from the outset, and directed against its own culture and civilisation. To characterise the Bunte Republik as “anti-fascistic” or indeed to see it in the tradition of the universalised anti-fascism of East Germany is not only to misjudge the East German context taken by itself. Such an evaluation also misconstrues the historically evolved variations internal to the left-doctrinaire world of ideas, and hence the entire ideological foundation of our present-day Bunten Republik.

Sweden's Cultural Identity Denied and Attacked by Left

A standard game play of Leftists is the excising of the identity of a people. In the US, this is done by the systematic portrayals of every notable American personage as racist, greedy, haughtily aristocratic, or just plain bad. Significant events in our nation's history are consequently made out to be motivated by all of the bad things attributed to the bad guys who created our awful system.

I noted in an anecdotal fashion in an earlier post how things have changed in our American schools.
http://thehotgates480bc.blogspot.com/2012/02/us-again-descends-into-third-world-mode.html

-From the above post:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"My oldest, now 21, was probably of the last generation of public school students who learned to appreciate the legacy of George Washington. This man, in giving his support to our independence movement (Unlike the one we praise today, who is honored because he won an election), risked almost certain confiscation of his considerable property and his probable execution for treason to the Crown. He then secured his honored place in history by twice walking away from quite powerful positions of authority (Once when he resigned his commission after the Treaty of Paris and the second after the conclusion of his second term as President).

In doing so he truly became the American Cincinnatus, the man of the early Roman Republic who, after holding the Senate-ordered Office of Dictator and leading his people out of the crisis that necessitated his rule, resigned and returned to his small farm after a mere fifteen days of his allotted six-month tenure.

Washington certainly deserved the song that my oldest sang in school for his birthday. It was a treasure to watch the five and six year-olds sing this on the stage.
Unfortunately, I can't find the entire text.

'George Washington, George Washington,
We honor you today
George Washington, George Washington,
Father of the USA'

When my youngest, now fifteen, came home from school as a first-grader after Washington's birthday, I asked him what he learned about our first President. He replied "He owned slaves".

I did not make that up.

There it is - a man is remembered for a fault, the guilt for which can certainly be, at least in part, mitigated by the facts that he was born into a particular time period, that he is not known to have been cruel to those in bondage, and that he also freed his slaves after his death. We must also note that he did not have the legal authority to free the slaves who were the property of his wife, the amount of which were considerable."

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

In Sweden however, our dilemma would be considered small potatoes in comparison. There, the national and cultural heritage are both denied and demonized; this in a nation with no real colonial history to provide a source for blame and zero slavery for a thousand years. Yes, I get the irony - How can something that is purported not to exist be also ridiculed and severely criticized? Well, the Left never lets logical thought  dictate its actions. If they did, after all, they would no longer be Leftists.

The following are excerpts from the recent comments by Swedish politicians and academic made around Sweden's national Day. Conspicuously absent are any references either to anything that would cause ethnic Swedes to be proud of their heritage and any mention of the enormous crime problem with its ever-increasing Muslim immigrant community. Swedes can't even have one day to be proud to be Swedish.

Bolding is mine:

http://gatesofvienna.blogspot.com/2012/06/swedens-national-day-of-self-loathing.html

"In the case of Sweden, there are many past examples of a type of dislike and critique of being Swedish. The former leader of the Social Democrats, Mona Sahlin, expressed this at a conference, stating that she could ‘not think of anything resembling Swedish culture.’ And that this further ‘makes Swedes jealous of immigrants who have a culture, identity and a history which unite them.’ This, ‘whilst Swedes only have midsummer celebration and such ridiculous things.’

The current prime minister of Sweden, Fredrik Reinfeldt of the Moderate Party (‘Conservatives’ in Sweden), stated in 2006 that ‘the only feature of Swedish culture is barbarism, whilst everything else is thanks to immigration’.

On National Day the media did not make us wait for this criticism. On the early morning news, Channel 4 launched a ‘discussion’, on the topic ‘What is Swedishness? Is there such a thing?’. There were three participants in the discussion — None of whom viewed themselves as ‘ Swedish’. The TV show’s host asked whether if they felt the day meant anything special to them, resulting in their bursting into laughter. One of them, Qaizar Mahmood, said that he ‘wished it might mean something, but it really didn’t.’ Mahmood then went on to describe Swedishness as an onion, made out of different layers. One of these layers, was ‘the passivity (read cowardice) of the Swedes, which was shown during WWII,’ when Sweden did not take a stand against the Germans. [ But the Nazis enjoyed tremendous moral support from Muslims] He continued, asserting that ‘There are new layers constantly added to this onion, but if you peel these off, there is no core of Swedishness or of being a Swede.’ In other words, there is nothing to celebrate as there is nothing or no one who is Swedish in the end.

This line of thinking finds expression in every source of journalism during this day. The journalist Jan Anders Olsson called for using the National Day as a ground for fighting ‘hate-crimes’. ‘The terms ‘Swede’ and ‘Swedishness’ in principle now refer to everyone,’ he argued. Therefore, ‘the National Day serves the function to remind us that all who hold a Swedish citizenship are de facto Swedes’. Christian Fernandez and Anders Hellström, researchers at Malmö University, called for making the National Day the ‘Day of Citizenship’. They meant we need to construct and celebrate an ‘Us’ which rejects the current, narrow understanding of ‘Swedishness’. In a chronicle in one of Sweden’s major evening papers,Aftonbladet, Elisabeth Höglund criticised the use of Sweden’s national anthem. Höglund meant the song expressed imperialism and brutal colonialism [What is she talking about?] , as the song illustrates 17th century Sweden. She therefore meant that the anthem should be ‘re-written’, so that it would more correctly reflect ‘contemporary Sweden’.

This madness did not stop with journalists and academics; it also came from a more official level. I suppose The Royal Family of Sweden simply does not have much choice but to follow the political line of the establishment. For them to appear in the media celebrating being Swedish is no longer acceptable. At the National Day, parts of the Royal Family instead visited multicultural Malmö in the South of Sweden, where around 40% of the habitants are ‘non-Swedish’. In a highly covered presentation at the city’s Opera, Swedish Crown Prince Daniel welcomed the 300 so-called ‘New Swedes’ who were invited as guests. He introduced his speech stating that ‘being Swedish does not refer to skin or hair colour, nor accents’. To be Swedish, ‘is to share a place on the earth and to share a commonality and responsibility’. In the city which has recently seen an unprecedented murder-wave in Scandinavia, the Prince of course also emphasised how ‘Sweden has been enriched socially and culturally through immigration’.

In summary, the Swedish establishment, together with its branches in the media and academia, propagates a view of the country which ferociously attacks the notions of ethnic Swedes and of Swedishness. The day the population is supposed to celebrate this otherwise fantastic country, has been hijacked to serve as a political tool."

There is more in the link.

- Another example of Year Zero, the complete erasing of a people's past to prepare them for a new Leftist Dawn.

Revised: One-World Government, Marxist Terror, Bill Ayers

Added 4/7/12 I thought that the reader should consider purchasing the following book that describes what it (And many of us) calls "The New Barbarism:

http://www.amazon.com/Left-Dark-Times-Against-Barbarism/dp/140006435X

...and a review of the same:

http://www.telospress.com/main/index.php?main_page=news_article&article_id=288

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From The Blaze:


"Capitalism took it on the chin as well. A recent Blaze article by Madeleine Morgenstern highlighted Ayers stating his everyday dream: “Today I’m going to end capitalism.” But what you have not heard is what Ayers said beforehand.

“We have to begin to imagine a world without war, a world without prisons, a world without borders,” he explained before adding, “We can’t imagine a world without Capitalism!? What the F–k would that look like?' "
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/bill-ayers-bernadine-dohrn-advice-to-occupy-the-end-of-america-capitalism-is-here/

I have noted on previous posts that Marxists of the US strain are much more concerned about ensuring that no one gets to live free of a Marxist government than they are about establishing a place in which these who desire to live in such a society may be able to do so.

Bill Ayers echoed the sentiments of a whole lot of people when he made to statement quoted above. There is an entire genre of books, articles, educational materials, and websites dedicated to the elimination of nation-states and the institution of one-world government. While Marxist terror groups, such as the Weather Underground, the Red Army Faction (Baadher-Meihnof Gang) and others once operated on the fringe, their devotees have made themselves into a presence that is much closer to a sort of mainstream movement.

It is interesting that these people regularly stress that they want to eliminate war. As I have also noted earlier, this does not indicate in any way that Marxists are pacifists,. They have every intention of using armed force to shove Marxism down our throats. Those who need to be re-educated will be sent to camps to have that nasty business taken care of. Those who prove recalcitrant to these measures will have to be eliminated.
This of course seems unbelievable. I myself was a long-time holdout from admitting this threat. I dismissed these people and their agendas for years, thinking that their romantic notions would pass in time. Below is a link to an interview with a former FBI Agent, Larry Grathwohl, who was able to infiltrate The Weather Underground (Ayer's group) back when it was in its heyday. The statements that he make are startling:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tRg9il_V328

This is an article from last year on the same subject:

http://www.thecomingattack.com/fbi-agent-bill-ayers-was-planning-to-murder-25-million-americans/

In case you caught the subject of the link, the number is the same as the one given on the video. When pressed for answers on what the Central Committee had in mind for those who refused to submit, the estimate of the elimination of 25,000,000 people was given. This was to be achieved with the generous help of occupying Cuban, Soviet, North Vietnamese, and Chinese forces. Mr. Grathwohl states that the most disturbing part of this was that, here were college graduates from  prestigious universities who were calmly discussing the extermination of what was, at the time, over an eighth of the US population.

Leftists have long supported the horrific slaughters of many millions to lay the foundations for (Intended) permanent Marxist governments in China, the Soviet Union, Cambodia, and others. There seems to be a smug sense of satisfaction in these individuals when they note that such atrocities were simply the necessary means of doing business. Others made a point of ignoring Stalin's forced famine of the Ukrainians or the Cambodian Genocide on the 70's, in which up to a third of the people of that nation were murdered. The New York Times, for one, is reported in the book Modern Times, by Paul Johnson, to have published a total of three very small articles on the terror in Cambodia during the rule of the Khmer Rouge. These were buried in back pages of the paper.

The following site has a wealth of information, including dozens of links, on the support of, or the purposeful turning of blind eyes to, the extreme but thorough violence of Marxist groups from the pre-WWI period until our times:

http://markhumphrys.com/left.tyranny.html

I had no choice but to offer the link - the amount of quotes and links was so massive that I literally had no idea of where to start.

Ayers' claims have all the marks of that of a psychopath. We must remember, though, that psychopaths are often quite good at what they do. Like the people of Ayn Rand's type*, he has no empathy at all. He simply cannot feel. He calls for a world without prisons. OK, in his world, one free of private property (The Left is fond of claiming that private property created crime), there would be no reason to incarcerate people for, say theft, since no one would need to steal. Does that mean that rape will no longer occur, or does Ayers hold that rape is not something that needs to be punished? Judging by the disgusting actions of the Occupy movement, where those suspected of sexual assault were provided Counseling**, and victims were told to refrain from reporting attacks to the police, I suspect that he holds to the latter.

Ayers calls for the elimination of borders. This is another main goal of the Left. The idea is that anything that excludes someone from anything is inherently wrong. Leftists have long claimed that anyone has a right to live wherever he or she chooses. So, for example, any amount of people from any region of the world have a right to walk, sail, or fly to Norway, Denmark, or the US demand entry, and be allowed to live there permanently and become voting members of the body politic. The Left excuses this behavior by holding that nations that have colonial histories only became prosperous at the expense other peoples. Although this does not hold any water at all with nations such as those of Scandinavia, especially with Norway (Which has zero colonial history), that does not matter. They too are at fault for profiting by being associated with other colonial nations and must absorb ever-increasing numbers of peoples who are openly hostile to their society. The idea is to guarantee either an economic collapse, the extinction of the Norwegians as an identifiable people, or both.

http://www.hrea.org/index.php?doc_id=409
"Immigrants are directly affected by this freedom due to the fact that they have entered a new nation intending to settle there. If they are not allowed into that nation, or the government in any way restricts movement within their new society, then clearly this is in violation of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights as well as the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights."

Again, there is no concern for how many people a nation is able to absorb before it becomes not only completely unrecognizable from what it was, but also collapses under the sheer weight of a massive influx of new residents. This is exactly what psychopaths such as Ayers want; force nations to open their borders until the system simply breaks down. A nation that limits immigration to manageable numbers can ensure that, generation by generation, children and grandchildren of immigrants will assume the culture of the new nation. That will not work for the Marxists. A common theme to which I refer in the Year Zero*** idea; one in which the slate is completely wiped clean of any history, culture, beliefs, traditions, or anything to which a people can cling in order to have sense of identity, Marxism has no room for the identities of either people or groups. All must surrender not just their bodies and rights, but their very being to the State. A nation that has suffered economic collapse is fertile ground for the Grand Revolution.

Ayers and his boys and girls would of course have no intention of allowing small groups of people to retire to faraway places and live on their own in free communities in which they bothered no one but lived in a subsistence state. These people would be gathered up and sent to be reeducated or eliminated. (Please see the video). This is where Ayers again proves himself a liar in stating that there would be no war in his utopia. Even he cannot delude himself with the notion that his people can go around mopping up enclaves of holdouts without violence. Neither can he truly believe that, once his Grand scheme is implemented that, no generals, governors, local Soviets or committees, what have you, will set up on their own and create breakaway provinces. This is what annoyed Stalin so much with Tito in Yugoslavia. Tito, refusing to be incorporated into the Soviet orbit, was the target of several assassination attempts. In fact, Tito got so fed up that he told Stalin that, if Uncle Joe did not knock it off, he (Tito) was going to send an assassin to Moscow. Tito laconically added that he would not need to send a second assassin for another attempt. Even future North Korean tyrant Kim Il-Sun was tossed out of Comintern in his guerrilla days due to the fact that his ideas of Marxism were clouded by too much nationalistic thought.

I personally believe that a more likely outcome of the elimination of sovereign nations would be five or six regional governments. This would be much more manageable but would leave the door open for conflict between these bodies. (Example - Orwell's 1984). Either way, the handwriting is on the wall. The Left is doing all that they can to undermine prosperous nation-states. The incorporation of the underdeveloped world into a Marxist utopia  is expected be an easy task. As I wrote yesterday, the Left is engaged in John Locke's State of War with us. We can no longer deny this fact.


*http://thehotgates480bc.blogspot.com/2012/03/ayn-rand-vicious-and-depraved-mindset.html

**http://www.fortliberty.org/sexual-assault-and-rape-at-occupy-wall-street.html

http://patdollard.com/2011/10/occupybaltimore-discourage-sexual-assault-victims-from-going-to-police-will-%E2%80%9Csupply-abuser-with-counseling/

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/female-protester-raped-at-occupy-philadelphia-camp-suspect-in-custody/

***"The idea behind Year Zero is that all culture and traditions within a society must be completely destroyed or discarded and a new revolutionary culture must replace it, starting from scratch. All history of a nation or people before Year Zero is deemed largely irrelevant, as it will (as an ideal) be purged and replaced from the ground up."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Year_Zero_(political_notion)

"Israel is Finished"- Says British Lecturer

http://www.jpost.com/JewishWorld/JewishNews/Article.aspx?ID=264267&R=R1&utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter

"LONDON – A British university lecturer told Global March to Jerusalem protesters on Friday evening that Jerusalem “does not belong to Jewish Israelis or to Jews” and that Israel is “finished.” .......

“We have no alternative but to act. The only way we can stop Israel is to act against it, against its interests, against its apartheid and policies,” she told a gathering of around 200 protesters."

Again, Israel is being targeted by the Left. The term Apartheid, the old South African system that was rightfully scrapped* in the 90's has been employed in an attempt to discredit Israel. It was a 2000's approach that followed the old UN resolution that equated Zionism with racism. Israel's policies towards her Arab citizens do not fall within a thousand miles of being anything like Apartheid. The Arab citizens can vote, hold office, and enjoy all the rights inherent in a Democratic nation.

A recent post of mine treated the recent circus of the One-State Conference hosted by Harvard. As I noted in the post (Link Below), One-State is not a typo; it is the new demand of the Left that Israel give up its Jewish identity and incorporate with the Palestinians of the West Bank and Gaza. As noted by several speakers at the conference, giving  up Jewish identity means that they need to just admit that they are actually Arabs anyway. This patently false assumption is also refuted in detail in the below post. For that to be true, the Arabs would have to be the base group from which all other Semitic peoples sprung. In fact, Arabs are a group that developed out of the base group/hub of the original and widespread Semitic peoples thousands of years ago. This is no different than the Jews, Phoenicians, Syrians (Who are not Arabs) and others.(More details in the below post). The Arabs are simply another spoke of the Semitic wheel and are not the hub itself.  

The Left, keen on enforcing "Year Zeros**" all over the world, know that, prior to painting the world Marxist, they must first destroy the identities of every ethnic and cultural  group by priming over their pasts. In the US, this is accomplished by a sustained campaign of excising (Or making the people and events look as badly as possible) all references to our historical legacy. You can't convince people to drop who they are and embrace the Leftist agenda unless they first are deprived of the knowledge of who they are in the first place.

http://thehotgates480bc.blogspot.com/2012/03/israel-one-staters-tell-them-to-be.html

The West is no longer in a position where it can pretend that there is any room to compromise with the left and those who seek to enforce Islamic rule throughout the world. The Left is marching with drums and fifes playing and red flags unfurled. If they are no longer hiding their intentions, it is we who will be to blame if we let them get to the point where we cannot stop them without a catastrophic struggle.

*Unfortunately, the tables have been turned in the opposite direction in South Africa. Rural whites live under an absolute reign of terror in their country.

http://thehotgates480bc.blogspot.com/2012/02/genocide-of-afrikaners-in-south-africa.html

http://afrikaner-genocide-achives.blogspot.com/2011/03/rural-deaths-names-details-sources_18.html

http://thehotgates480bc.blogspot.com/2012/03/south-african-president-sings-about.html

**"The idea behind Year Zero is that all culture and traditions within a society must be completely destroyed or discarded and a new revolutionary culture must replace it, starting from scratch. All history of a nation or people before Year Zero is deemed largely irrelevant, as it will (as an ideal) be purged and replaced from the ground up."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Year_Zero_(political_notion)