The Waking Giant cross posted an article by Alain Wagner
that draws an awesome analogy of political correctness hypocrisy contrasting
society’s view of Nazism and Islam. Good Read!
JRH 3/23/16
**********************
Nazis and Muslims…..
Posted by twg2a
PitBull
Article by Alain
Wagner
Posted on March 23,
2016
Nazis versus Muslims
by Alain Wagner
by Alain Wagner
I regularly receive a newsletter written by a female friend
who is a professor of philosophy in Canada. Her most recent newsletter dealt
with the apparent discrepancy between how “Joe Public” viewed Muslims versus
how Nazis were perceived, and what it revealed about the nature of the modern
psyche.
The case of the Nazis
In the mind of the overwhelming majority of people today,
all Nazis without exception are directly linked to the Final Solution, to the
slaughter of the Jews, the Gypsies and of homosexuals and ultimately to the
extermination camps. Nobody in their right mind would dare to suggest it might
have been the fault of a few Nazi extremists whose actions gave a bad name to a
political set of ideas which might have otherwise been viewed as quite
respectable. All Nazis are tarred with the same brush: all shared the same
ideology, the same set of beliefs, all had a hand in it and all were guilty of
a horrendous crime.
My friend rightly reminded her readers that the Final
Solution was only fully conceptualized and implemented in the year 1942, that
the Nazi regime kept a tight lid on their plans, and that the existence of a
police state made it very difficult for information to be circulated. There was
at that time no Facebook on which to post video-clips of SS soldiers herding
the inmates into the death camps, and no Internet to publish photos of grinning
torturers in the process of putting their victims to death.
It is therefore perfectly plausible that a good number of
Nazis weren’t in the know and remained ignorant of what was happening in the
extermination camps masquerading as concentration camps.
This does not mean that they were either philo-Semitic or
great lovers of democracy, but it does render the equation of Nazi = Holocaust
rather moot, as not all Nazis were party to the extermination plan. It is,
therefore, within the realm of possibility that amongst those opportunistic
individuals who joined the party to further their social or professional
standing, not all were monsters.
The conclusion drawn is that not all Nazis were killers and
that, had they been privy to the real darkness at the heart of their ideology,
many would probably have turned away in disgust and revulsion.
We might have called these “moderates” or “reformed-Nazis”,
whilst the rest of them, those who could quietly contemplate unspeakable
horrors and still remain faithful to the Nazi party were complicit in the
crime, far past any possible redemption and as guilty as they come.
Muslims and a case of
double standards
The way Muslims are perceived is exactly the other way
round. Even though all Muslims, including each and every Taliban and each and
every killer from the Islamic State, belong part and parcel to the same
ideological core set of beliefs, (i.e. Islam), which is characterised by the
worship of the same Book (the Koran), the same man as an example to follow
(Mohammed), the same common law (sharia), we are told in no uncertain terms
that we must not on any account let some rotten apples spoil the whole bunch.
To be totally honest, I do agree with this point of view. I
always like to remind people in the audience when I am giving a lecture that
generalisations always lead to falsehoods and unjust prejudices, and that one
mustn’t conflate what people think and what they are. Individuals are not
equivalent to their ideology, and ideas aren’t people.
What made me think long and hard is the difference in
treatment when we start comparing the Nazis with our current set of Muslims: we
are ordered to not lump all Muslims together, or as the French put it
“Padamalgam”[1], which freezes our powers of thinking and then forbids us to question
those Muslims who are currently living in our societies in accordance to their
obedience to Islamic doctrine.
Likewise, this injunction to “never ever lump together” aims
to force us to automatically absolve any Muslim who has not committed a violent
act from any guilt by association, even moral guilt.
Ideology does not equal the man; nonetheless adherence to it
remains a conscious, deliberate act which engages individual responsibility
I obviously do not mean to suggest that all Muslims are
terrorists or supporters of the Islamic State, or that they they [sic] may have
killed somebody or are planning to at some point in the future. What we must
ask ourselves is this: in the name of what exactly are we suppose to refrain
from asking these people whom we are told are our fellow citizens, to clarify
their position as to their obedience to Islamic ideology? An Islamic ideology
which, as anybody who is honest enough would be hard pressed to deny, all
criminals who slaughter, rape and enslave in the name of Islam have shared
throughout history.
We also owe it to ourselves to ask in whose name we should
accept without any further questioning those “This is not Islam” retorts, which
are an insult to our intelligence and a slap in the face of tangible reality,
whenever heinous crimes and intolerable behaviours are indulged in in the name
of Islam.
Disingenuous excuses must stop and responsibilities must be
assumed
Why, exactly, should we carry on accepting the premise that
Muslims are ignorant of the tenets of Islam, that they cannot know its content?
Is the objective and unchanging [2] doctrine of Islam and the behaviours that
are allowed or proscribed by it totally unknowable?
Of course not! What do you think they teach in Islamic
universities? How would their imams otherwise know and teach their own
doctrine?
The political, discriminatory and violent nature of Islam is
a solidly established fact. What a relentless process of disinformation aimed
to sell us as a “religion just like any others” finally revealed its true colours
to all unbiased observers: Islam is, at its core, a totalitarian ideology.
The “spiritual dimension” found in this ideology should not
divert attention from its true nature; specific mystical belief systems, books,
supreme leaders and the project of a type of society for the entire humanity
were also to be found in Nazism and the Chinese brand of communism.
Why should we continue to accept, as a given, that those
Muslims living in our countries must not be under the obligation to learn the
contents of the Islamic doctrine, in the light of what is happening in the
world today, and then draw the obvious conclusions: should they abide by it or
not?
The Muslims currently living in Western societies cannot, in
any way, shape or form, be compared to the Germans of yesteryear. They can
freely access the history of Islam and its long retinue of horrors and
unspeakable crimes, or read books describing sharia law or the life of the man
they are supposed to model their lives on.
In contrast with the Germans who lived in a police state,
they are free to reject without risk a creed whose tenets are antithetical to
human freedom and dignity.
It would be quite condescending as well as patronising to
view those Muslims who live in the West as being incapable of getting hold of
the proper information and of making a responsible choice.
The West offers Muslims the amazing opportunity to free
themselves from the shackles of Muslim ideology and become free human beings,
respectful of the natural rights and freedoms enjoyed by their fellow citizens.
Who would then carry on insisting that Muslims cannot freely
choose their own destiny, decide where their loyalty lies and assume
responsibility for the choices that they make?
Why do we insist on humouring them so as to not offend their
supposed sensibilities, and why do we carry on treating them as though they
were irresponsible, illiterate, or slightly retarded children?
Today we share our society with people who may or may not
adhere to an ideology that’s extremely violent, discriminatory and destructive
of our way of life. Knowing where these people stand is now a question of
survival.
And in view of the consequences that necessarily follow this
ideology when it is put into practise in the real world, why exactly should we
be satisfied with being shrugged off, with getting an ambiguous reply
accompanied with the usual protests about a so-called stigmatisation of their
faith?
Adherence or non-adherence to Islamic ideology and to sharia
law must no longer be a question unasked and unspoken. This question, left
unasked, is the breeding ground which will beget chaos and the tearing asunder
of our society. And today, people die for this on French soil.
To finally ask the question that has, up till now, been left
unsaid is to force a choice, and so choosing means to renounce one of the
choices.
It means either:
Disown those who adhere to Islamic ideology, to sharia law
and the inevitable violence and oppression that follow in their wake,
Or
Abandon the idea of being part of Western societies, which
are based upon respect for liberty and the freedoms enjoyed by all citizens.
There can be no compromise, no meeting part way, no grey
areas: that time has come and gone.
Our duty to keep our societies safe gives us the right to
ask Muslims the following question: “Where do you stand: for or against sharia
law?” We mustn’t let ourselves be fobbed off.
The Muslims living among us must give a clear reply, in
words and in deeds, acknowledging that they reject once and for all sharia law
and all that it entails. Failure to do so would necessarily mean that they
endorse the horrors committed by Islam and should thus rightly be considered as
today’s Nazis
— Alain Wagner
[Blog Editor: When “twg2a
PitBull” cross posted this article the notes were not included on The
Waking Giant. For me that was a bit annoying since the reference note was to a
word that I did not have a clue as to its meaning – “Padamalgam”. In the process of Googling the meaning I discovered
the blog Gates of Vienna had posted
this Alain Wagner article of which was probably the original English translation
for the very original was in French.
By the way before I came
upon the Gates of Vienna version on Google I found a somewhat detailed
explanation of Padamalgam on a
website called Know Your Meme.
Although I’m still posting the notes after these editorial thoughts I thought
those of you as ignorant as I might be interested in the details of the word:
Updated about a year ago by Tomberry.
Added about a year ago by Tomberry.
About
Padamalgam is an internet slang, contraction of the French sentence pas
d’amalgame which means no conflation in English.
Initially used to convey mockery and criticism of the perceived overly
political correctness from the French mainstream media when reporting on acts
of violence committed [sic] by people of a specific social background and
religious orientation, namely Islam, the term has then been embraced by various
islamophobic groups on social networking sites.
Origins
Among the earliest blog posts
coining the term is an article from Les enfants de la zone grise [1],
issued on May 5th 2010 and titled “Grande peur des non-pensants”,
arguing that the French media were quick on dismissing any argument in favor of
a causal relationship between acts of violence comitted [sic] by muslims and
Islam itself under the pretense of not wanting to promote conflating or
denigratory comments against them.
Spread
While the slang didn’t get as much
notability online in the years 2010 and 2011, It began to spread on March 21th
2012 when it was converted to an hashtag [10] and
posted to Twitter, following the Toulouse
and Montauban shootings [2] (shown below).
On that same month, many articles
and blog posts [3]
[4] were
made reusing the slang in order to mock the media and the government on how
they covered the event by first claiming the attacks were done by a neo-nazi
before revealing the real culprit was muslim Mohammed Merah. The Huffington
Post also parodied this sentiment of “political correctness”, in a cartoon
presenting a spokeperson [sic] stating that no conflation should be made
between the shooting and Japan because the killer was riding a Japanese-made
bike[5] (shown below).
As a matter of fact, many French
right-wing groups took this new slang on their own to highlight perceived
threats coming from Islam [6].
The 2015 shootings
The hashtag #padamalgam got a
resurgence in popularity following the 2015 Charlie Hebdo shooting as
well as the 2015 Copenhagen shootings [9].
Many tweets were very critical of the fact muslims were the perpretrators [sic]
of both attacks. Some users even made parodie images of medicine tablets with
the name padamalgam as pills that enable people to be
oblivious to a perceived increase in attacks only perpetrated by muslims.
Newspaper Le Monde commented on the phenomenon[7] and
its islamophobic tone, highlighting the tweets as well as several facebook pages [8] made
after the name.
Twitter insight omitted
The Gates of Vienna
post had photos which I am omitting. Below is first the explanation on the
English translation and origin which will be followed by notes 1 and 2 of Alain
Wagner’s article.]
+++
Nazis Versus Muslims
March 19, 2016
The following article by Alain Wagner of Vérité, Valeurs et Démocratie was
originally published in French at the VV&D website.
Many thanks to Nathalie for the translation.
NOTES:
1. Phonetic
transcription of “Pas d’amalgame” = No conflation, never lump together
2. 75% of the content
of sharia law is common to all schools of Islamic law, the differences having
to do with minor points only.
________________________
Edited by John R. Houk
Any text within The Waking Giant post enclosed by
brackets are by the Editor.
No comments:
Post a Comment