Communists, Terrorism-Apologists and Palestinian Supporters

[NewsGuy]

The following is from a round-table discussion held by Frontpage Magazine, in which the panelists were asked about the relationship between Communists and terrorism-supporters.

---
The panelists are : 1) Vladimir Bukovsky , a former Soviet dissident who spent twelve years in Soviet prisons, labor camps and psychiatric hospitals for his fight for freedom, and whose works include To Build a Castle and Judgement in Moscow; 2) Daniel Pipes, Director of the Middle East Forum and author of a new book, Islam in America, which will be available in the frontpage bookstore; 3) Paul Hollander, professor emeritus of sociology at the University of Massachusetts, Amherst and author of Political Pilgrims, Anti-Americanism and most recently Discontents: Postmodern and Postcommunist; and 4) Michael Ledeen, Resident Scholar at the American Enterprise Institute author of Machiavelli on Modern Leadership and Tocqueville on American Character, and a forthcoming title, The War Against the Terror Masters, to be published by St Martin’s Press.
---

Q: How would you comment on the fifth column supporters of Communism vs. the fifth column abettors of and apologists for the terrorists?

Pipes: The same people (i.e. George McGovern) are saying roughly the same things. (Editors note: In his NR article, Pipes argues that the cause lies in the fact that "The Left, in keeping with its materialist outlook, sees communist or fundamentalist Islamic ideology as a cover for some other motivation, probably an economic one. . . .The Left sees Western hostility as a leading cause for things having gone wrong. . . .It's the old liberal "blame America first" attitude.")

Bukovsky: Those are usually the same people with the same reaction.

Hollander: People who hate the West, the U.S. and capitalism are eager to embrace any movement that is anti-Western, hence the current support or benefit of doubt regarding Islamic fanatics, Palestinian guerillas
etc. These people do put a brake on efforts to fight them (e.g. the great solicitousness toward the civil rights of accused terrorists) but they don’t stop the efforts.

Ledeen: Nothing to add except "amen."

* * *

Q: Yes, the fifth column supporters of Communism and the fifth column abettors of the terrorists are the same people. If we dig deeper, what do we find here? Why does the liberal-left fall in love with America's enemies? Is it a self-hatred? A hatred of life? A death wish?

Pipes: Fifth-column supporters is too strong a term for the liberals; they are appeasers who sincerely believe that (1) showing good will go very far, (2) the West is to blame for the world's ills, and (3) all men have good in their hearts.

Bukovsky: Intellectuals are the most power-hungry stratum of any society. They crave total power. That is what explains their embrace of totalitarianism and, particularly, of the Left ideologies which, if you look closer, give them a unique and privileged position in the utopian society. They hate anyone else who might be viewed as being in power.

Hollander: I agree with Pipes; "5th column" is too strong a term.

Ledeen: Vladimir has it right. They hate America because America gives them low status. They want to play the consigliere to a powerful Prince, and Americans give little glory to intellectuals. Only Arthur Schlesinger Jr. fulfilled the intellectuals’ dream, which is why he was so happy for so long.

* * *

Any thoughts on the anti-Western connection?

[Vic]

Fighting the last war, all over again.

An evident example: the CP of the Cold War Soviet Union an entirely different power than the Communist Party in today's Russia, which is mainly a militant nationalistic organisation (hence its anti-Western stance). With due respect to the suffering and personal heroism of Bukovsky, he seems to be living in a time bubble. This is not 1970 anymore.

And, Mr. Bukovsky, Mr. Ledeen, the communist terror was founded - among other things - on the rejection of intellectuals as a significant factor in a society. I recommend re-reading Lenin on this. Or Chairman Mao, remember the Chinese "Cultural Revolution"? Communism is one of the strongest modern anti-liberal movements, Mr. Pipes.

Any (radical) left movement in the West I can think of has either changed its position to accept new realities or can be discounted as a political force. In fact, in Europe the some of the more radical groups originating from the Muslim world tend to associate themselves openly with right-wing to conservative local groups - a new development, with antisemitism, misogynism and other common views obviously serving as a glue. Others still stick to their old leftist friends.

Then there are of course the top-level economic connections, oil etc., amply discussed in this forum. Does anyone see the Saudi oil sheikhs plot a communist world revolution? Or their Western business partners?

This right-vs.-left-equals-pro-Western-vs.-anti-Western-equals-good-vs.-bad theory is a dangerous delusion. It's time to face new realities.

[NewsGuy]

Originally posted by Vic
Any (radical) left movement in the West I can think of has either changed its position to accept new realities or can be discounted as a political force.
Sure, Communist parties have had to contend with accepting a certain amount of capitalist trade to survive, but when it comes right down to it, North Korea, China and Cuba are the same as they've been thoughout the cold war.

I think that it is the Communists who are still fighting battles of days past.


In fact, in Europe the some of the more radical groups originating from the Muslim world tend to associate themselves openly with right-wing to conservative local groups - a new development...

Actually, there is a close association between Islamic terrorists and radical right wing groups, as well as with radical Left wing groups. Both extremes lend themselves to supporting the destructive force of extremist Islam.



This right-vs.-left-equals-pro-Western-vs.-anti-Western-equals-good-vs.-bad theory is a dangerous delusion. It's time to face new realities.

What would that new reality be? Do you think that "evil" has disappeared just because it has been declared unfashionable by some people? I think not. It is alive and well and living in the Islamic movement all over the world, and in the reemergence of Nazism on a large scale.

Hey, I even read yesterday that Leonid Brezhnev's grandson has launched a new Communist party designed to appeal to misguided youth. I don't know if it counts for evil exactly, but it shows me that our society will need to fight the same old battles we thought we won decades ago.

[cerulean]

Originally posted by Vic
And, Mr. Bukovsky, Mr. Ledeen, the communist terror was founded - among other things - on the rejection of intellectuals as a significant factor in a society. I recommend re-reading Lenin on this. Or Chairman Mao, remember the Chinese "Cultural Revolution"? Communism is one of the strongest modern anti-liberal movements, Mr. Pipes.

But here in the West, intellectuals were effusively praising Lenin, Stalin, and Mao at the same time that these three were engaged in liquidating intellectuals in their home countries. Another conundrum.



Any (radical) left movement in the West I can think of has either changed its position to accept new realities or can be discounted as a political force. In fact, in Europe the some of the more radical groups originating from the Muslim world tend to associate themselves openly with right-wing to conservative local groups - a new development, with antisemitism, misogynism and other common views obviously serving as a glue. Others still stick to their old leftist friends.

What's an example in Europe of a right-wing conservative group that is embracing Muslim radical support? (I did read Haider had a pleasant meeting with Khadafi's son during which Haider supposedly mentioned a desire to convert to Islam.) In the United States, the obvious example is David Duke and his organization which seems to be making common cause with Muslim extremists (as mentioned on the Weird Conspiracies thread).

As mentioned elsewhere, Islam tends to be a religion that zealously seeks converts, and it does appear to be doing that quite successfully in both the US and Europe. I don't get why this is happening, other than there must be a strong need on the part of the converts to belong to something, anything, and have some sort of structure imposed on their lives.

Whether it's fair to bring this up or not, for the 2000 elections, the Republican Party did make an effort to court the votes of Muslims in the United States and the idea was that the same social principles which the right-wing is seen to support would also appeal to Muslims (speaking generally). Muslim support for the Republicans was greater than the Democrats. I don't know if this will change in upcoming elections.



Then there are of course the top-level economic connections, oil etc., amply discussed in this forum. Does anyone see the Saudi oil sheikhs plot a communist world revolution? Or their Western business partners?

I wouldn't see a communist revolution as a Saudi goal. I would see an oligarchic takeover with large quantities of societal repression as a goal. The leaders of any successful revolution usually end up with a pretty high standard of living, whatever they choose to call their movement.



This right-vs.-left-equals-pro-Western-vs.-anti-Western-equals-good-vs.-bad theory is a dangerous delusion. It's time to face new realities.

So pick your own dichotomy. What should it be? (I realize the answer may be that one should do away with dichotomies altogether.)

[cerulean]

Originally posted by NewsGuy
Actually, there is a close association between Islamic terrorists and radical right wing groups, as well as with radical Left wing groups. Both extremes lend themselves to supporting the destructive force of extremist Islam.

True. But there has to be a difference of philosophical orientation between the right-wing and left-wing groups in respect to why they support extremist Islamic groups. I have not really figured out what this is yet. Maybe it doesn't matter in practice.

[Mediocrates]

Well in the west at any rate, to paraphrase Evelyn Waugh "sodomy, drunkeness are ok but to be middle class is an unforgivable sin". Truly I think it's a class snobbery thing. If you can't travel to exotic Andalusia for lunch you can at least appreciate some indigenous rebels who do. What wine goes with their national cheese?

[NewsGuy]

Originally posted by Mediocrates
Well in the west at any rate, to paraphrase Evelyn Waugh "sodomy, drunkeness are ok...

Or even encouraged! :D

[NewsGuy]

Originally posted by cerulean
True. But there has to be a difference of philosophical orientation between the right-wing and left-wing groups in respect to why they support extremist Islamic groups. I have not really figured out what this is yet. Maybe it doesn't matter in practice.
Right, thre end result is the same. But the conspiracy between Palestinian terrorist groups and radical Leftist, Fascist and Racist groups has to do with these factors:

1. A network of illegal weapons sales among the groups.

2. A desire to overthrow the establishment and damage the institutions that are required for a civilized, democratic society.

3. A deep hatred of Jews.

[Vic]

By association: http://www.communistvampires.com ;)

[elke]

Originally posted by Vic
By association: http://www.communistvampires.com ;)

Is this one of Anne Rice's masterpieces? :D

[cerulean]

Looks to be a funny production :)

I don't mean to stereotype, but everyone I've met from Romania (both Jews and non-Jews) has a really bent, ironic sense of humor. This was probably developed as a defense mechanism.

[Mediocrates]

The online magazine "Exquisite Corpse" is edited by a Romanian who is a contributor to NPR. Very very ironic.

[cerulean]

http://www.opinionjournal.com/taste/?id=110001946

Leaning Lexicons
Dictionaries call Castro a "leader" and Stalin a "statesman." ...

(Article about several common US dictionaries.)

[cerulean]

Mediocrates, thanks for pointing out that site. I'm enjoying it so far.

Exquisite Corpse
http://www.corpse.org/

[elke]

Originally posted by cerulean
http://www.opinionjournal.com/taste/?id=110001946

Leaning Lexicons
Dictionaries call Castro a "leader" and Stalin a "statesman." ...

(Article about several common US dictionaries.)

My personal favorite:
Pol Pot: "Cambodian political leader whose Khmer Rouge movement overthrew the Cambodian government in 1975."

This is priceless! :rolleyes:

[Vic]

Originally posted by Cerulean
So pick your own dichotomy. What should it be? (I realize the answer may be that one should do away with dichotomies altogether.)People do tend to think in dichotomies, I suggest plotting the overall tendencies on three axes, the result would be a sphere:

1. totalitarian <-> liberal (pluralistic)
2. left-wing <-> right-wing
3. nationalist <-> non-nationalist

The first two hardly require explanation, the third is probably more Europe-specific: whether or not someone is demands that his ethnic group should be the dominant if not the only one in a certain geographical and/or social space. This is in the real world much less of a historic atavismus than it may sound to most of you.

The scheme is not perfect but it might help to avoid many apparent contradictions.
But here in the West, intellectuals were effusively praising Lenin, Stalin, and Mao at the same time that these three were engaged in liquidating intellectuals in their home countries. Another conundrum.Which proves that an intellectual is neither a person whose morality the general public can rely upon nor automatically a liberal. Maybe we should distinguish between true and false intellectuals? The former tended to recognize soon enough what was concealed behind the impressive rhetorical mask.



---------------------------------------------
Originally posted by NewsGuy
Actually, there is a close association between Islamic terrorists and radical right wing groups, as well as with radical Left wing groups. Both extremes lend themselves to supporting the destructive force of extremist Islam.
---------------------------------------------
True. But there has to be a difference of philosophical orientation between the right-wing and left-wing groups in respect to why they support extremist Islamic groups. I have not really figured out what this is yet. Maybe it doesn't matter in practice.Depends on the kind of practice itself. To me the difference is more "cultural" than anything else: rhetoric, overall style, certain habits, the books the person reads, the people he/she would associate with, etc. This can be valuable information for personal approach, but offers no exhaustive description of the underlying mental scheme, whether or not translated into political action.

Nor were the barriers there historically. The Nazis happily allied themselves with the Communists against the Socialists for a certain period (somewhere in the 20ies). This didn't prevent them from slaughtering the Communists later on. Stalin's Gulag was basically an implementation of working laws proposed earlier in Tsarist Russia by some of the most conservative forces imaginable, who were unhappy with the abolition of peasant slavery. Feel free to continue :)

[Vic]

Originally posted by NewsGuy

---------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Vic
This right-vs.-left-equals-pro-Western-vs.-anti-Western-equals-good-vs.-bad theory is a dangerous delusion. It's time to face new realities.
---------------------------------------------

What would that new reality be? Do you think that "evil" has disappeared just because it has been declared unfashionable by some people? I think not. It is alive and well and living in the Islamic movement all over the world, and in the reemergence of Nazism on a large scale.

Hey, I even read yesterday that Leonid Brezhnev's grandson has launched a new Communist party designed to appeal to misguided youth. I don't know if it counts for evil exactly, but it shows me that our society will need to fight the same old battles we thought we won decades ago.No, I don't think that evil has disappeared. It is there, it's just the labels that have changed. I think that clinging to all too customary associations can obfuscate the reality behind the evil, which can be dangerous in practice.

I have no idea of the new party you write about, I'll check out once I'll have time for it - sounds funny. The current official CP of Russia is not quite what it used to be. Actually, many European left-wingers, down to (Post-)Communists have long since turned away from it. (Btw. there is an English online edition of "Pravda" on the web, quite sophisticated compared to the party itself: they actually employ professional journalists ;) )

As for China, the ruling party may call itself Communist, but they seem more similar to the so-called neocons in the West. From what I hear the reality in China has little to do with Socialist/Communist theory. Cuba and especially North Korea are exhibits for the "historic curiosities" department, unless they manage to build nuclear bombs, of course. Although what I hear about North Korea sometimes reminds me of Saudi Arabia, only poorer. And all of it of Orwell's "1984".

Come to think of it, the amusing part is the inofficial Soviet terminology of the 1980ies. We used to call Communists rightists or conservatives because this is what they were in relation to the society as it existed at that time - and nearly anyone who opposed them were leftists or progressives to us. I had quite a culture shock upon arriving in (West) Germany in this respect. So much for definitions and dichotomies ;)

As for alliances with Palestinian propagandists/terrorists, they are not that "dichotomic" either. Please check another posting of mine: http://www.israelforum.com/board/showthread.php3?postid=14968#post14968 and/or http://www.israelforum.com/board/showthread.php3?postid=13734#post13734

[cerulean]

People do tend to think in dichotomies, I suggest plotting the overall tendencies on three axes, the result would be a sphere:

1. totalitarian <-> liberal (pluralistic)
2. left-wing <-> right-wing
3. nationalist <-> non-nationalist

I do like this scheme.
Every politican could be given their index values like this: (T, W, N)
(Each value could be ranked on a scale of 0-10, say, or maybe -5 to 5.)
Now imagine the graphs :)


Which proves that an intellectual is neither a person whose morality the general public can rely upon nor automatically a liberal. Maybe we should distinguish between true and false intellectuals? The former tended to recognize soon enough what was concealed behind the impressive rhetorical mask.

At some point, a lot of these intellectuals moved from praising Stalin to denouncing him, but some were a lot quicker than others. Were these changes made because the old ideas were no longer saleable, or because of "seeing the light?" If a distinction is made between "true" and "false" intellectuals, what happens when the person changes his or her mind? Also, apart from this rather serious problem of supporting Stalin, these same intellectuals were often engaged in social-justice work that was beneficial in their immediate communities.

[elke]

At some point, a lot of these intellectuals moved from praising Stalin to denouncing him, but some were a lot quicker than others. Were these changes made because the old ideas were no longer saleable, or because of "seeing the light?"

I don't have the book handy, certainly not in English :), but in Doctor Zhivago Pasternak addressed this question. He said something about how Yuri was at first fascinated with the straight-forwardness and unapologetic force of the edicts issued by the newly-formed Soviet government, but later realized that what he perceived as "unapologetic force" and "straightforwardness" was a rude and frightening assault on freedom. I think the change was genuine, at least for many people.

[NewsGuy]

Originally posted by Vic
No, I don't think that evil has disappeared. It is there, it's just the labels that have changed.

Agreed. And in some cases, society has decided that even the old "evil" movements are no longer evil if they have temporarily fallen in popularity.


As for alliances with Palestinian propagandists/terrorists, they are not that "dichotomic" either. Please check another posting of mine: http://www.israelforum.com/board/showthread.php3?postid=14968#post14968 and/or http://www.israelforum.com/board/showthread.php3?postid=13734#post13734

Those are good, thoughtful posts.

But there is certainly an alliance between Communists and Anti-Israel terrorist forces, between Neo-Nazis and Palestinian terrorists.

The motives for cooperation may be slightly different, but the end result is the same -- support for the hatred of Jews and the destruction of the State of Israel.

Also, the second post you mentioned is a very true one, stating that in Europe they view Islamic terrorists as different from the Palestinian terrorists. It is a misconception and a product of intellectual dishonesty.

It comes down to this - If the Islamic Jihadists pose a danger to Europeans, then the Europeans oppose them. On the other hand, if the Islamic Jihadists and their fellow Arab terrorists pose a danger to Jews in Israel, then it is OK to reward the Islamic terrorists by giving them parts of the Jewish homeland and hope that it will only be the Jews who are destroyed.

Funny that after all these years, the Europeans have not learned their lesson about appeasement of a genocidal enemy.

[Mediocrates]

Damn I just hosed my own post

There is a strong economic interest as well - not just oil. The arab states are interested in banking, media, tourism, internet, multiligual software, heavy machinery. Morever while the titular heads of many of the state sponsored or quasi public industries are technocrats they are not hands-on managers.

My company does outsourcing in Arab countries and they are the kind of customers that write a big check and don't get interested let alone bogged down in the details. They care about results but not how you do it. There is a huge gap between the skill set of their own people and what they want to accomplish so the opportunities for intellectual support & consulting are huge.

Also it's important to understand oil only primes the pump - there are large markets for machine parts, defense technology, (& operating it) computers and all the infrastructure of a modern society that they can't or don't do themselves.

http://www.ameinfo.com
http://www.arabbankers.org/my/shared/home.jsp
http://www.alshabaca.com/hosting/ameinfo/amemtmp.jhtml
http://www.arabdatanet.com/links/index.asp?catid=10&cattitle=Media


There's even a link to arabic CNN.
http://arabic.cnn.com/

I don't read arabic so lord only knows what it says...

[cerulean]

I couldn't help but be reminded about the ongoing discussion about the nature of the French when I read this article. It's true that at least from my academic experience that Raymond Aron is hardly mentioned at all, while Sartre and Foucault (and of course Derrida) are continually referenced.

http://www.nationalpost.com/search/site/story.asp?id=AA3AB297-C017-46F2-A290-373EBD026565
French intellectuals don't age well
Robert Fulford
National Post

Saturday, July 27, 2002

Quotes from the article:

...Aron noticed that in geopolitical terms intellectuals consider mass murder justified, maybe admirable, when committed in the name of an appropriate ideology. On the other hand, they are "merciless toward the failings of the democracies." Why? Because, he decided, revolution has poetic charm. Its mythology intoxicates the mind, whereas democracy involves too much prosaic detail. Daringly, Aron used "prosaic" as a term of praise and said that The Opium of the Intellectuals, the book many consider his masterpiece, was an attempt to reduce "the poetry of ideology" to "the prose of reality."

Allan Bloom wrote that Aron for 50 years made sound judgments about the realities of politics: "He was right about Hitler, right about Stalin, and right that our Western regimes, with all their flaws, are the best and only hope of mankind." In other words, he was nobody a smart young cultural theorist would want to study. Sartre made fun of him for his dedication to justice, democracy, and other antiquated notions.
[...]
Today, you could make a rule governing the period 1945-2002: The more respect an intellectual gets in the universities, the less that intellectual matters in the real world. The more brilliant he is, the less he means in public life.

[cerulean]

http://www.jewishworldreview.com/cols/horowitz1.asp
David Horowitz
The Destructive Romance of the Intellectuals

=======
Covers many of the above points.

[cerulean]

http://www.meforum.org/article/37/
Spring 2000
The Wacky World of French Intellectuals
by Laurent Murawiec
Whence comes the phenomenon known as fundamentalist Islam or Islamism? Some French analysts from a range of disciplines (international affairs, Orientalism, security studies, journalism) have come to an agreement: it comes from. . . the United States. Despite the inherent implausibility of viewing a movement engaged in a sustained attack on Americans as a diabolical U.S. plot, this argument has considerable persuasive power. It presents Islamism as an American attempt to retard progress in Muslim countries and divide them from their natural allies in Europe. Such ideas come at once from the Right and the Left, representing both nostalgia for the French empire and a residual "Third-Worldism." They have as their common denominator a hatred of the United States and all it stands for. Although still marginal, these ideas about Islamism have spilled over into policy-making circles and have had a skewing effect on French policies toward the Middle East.
...

========
A relatively "old" article, but relevant nonetheless.

The author is better-known nowadays for his recent briefing at the State Department to the effect that Saudi Arabia is not a friend of the US.

http://www.usnews.com/usnews/opinion/baroneweb/mb_020807.htm

[Mediocrates]

Be careful - he's a long time rabid Lyndon LaRouche follower, some would say a nutcase....

What's probably important though is that those ideas are even being seriously discussed..true this is a non binding advisory group with no real power or influence but still, the fact that someone is talking about it says something.

The briefing was not to State but to an informal group of former military and cabinet officers who advise the Pentagon only.

[cerulean]

Originally posted by Mediocrates
Be careful - he's a long time rabid Lyndon LaRouche follower, some would say a nutcase....


Yow! Thanks for the warning. LaRouche's material (the small bit I've been exposed to) combines fact and vile conjecture. I would say more but I don't have the stomach to go and look for it at the moment.

[Vic]

Originally posted by Mediocrates
Be careful - he's a long time rabid Lyndon LaRouche follower, some would say a nutcase....

What's probably important though is that those ideas are even being seriously discussed..true this is a non binding advisory group with no real power or influence but still, the fact that someone is talking about it says something.

The briefing was not to State but to an informal group of former military and cabinet officers who advise the Pentagon only. More on it:

The PowerPoint That Rocked the Pentagon
The LaRouchie defector who's advising the defense establishment on Saudi Arabia.
By Jack Shafe
Just who the hell is Laurent Murawiec? http://slate.msn.com/?id=2069119&device=

[Miriam]

Originally posted by cerulean
What's an example in Europe of a right-wing conservative group that is embracing Muslim radical support? (I did read Haider had a pleasant meeting with Khadafi's son during which Haider supposedly mentioned a desire to convert to Islam.) In the United States, the obvious example is David Duke and his organization which seems to be making common cause with Muslim extremists (as mentioned on the Weird Conspiracies thread). Bringing back the subject... :)

Fascists for Che
White supremacists infiltrate the anti-globalization movement.
By Nick Mamatas
http://inthesetimes.org/issue/26/23/news1.shtml
Neo-Nazi rallies in America’s urban centers are most often the tiny affairs of a few racists, and are often drowned out by massive counter-protests. But on August 24, hundreds of followers of the National Alliance and other neo-Nazis, under a front called Taxpayers Against Terrorism, held their fourth and largest anti-Israel event in Washington since September 11.

The racist National Alliance and other white supremacist and neo-Nazi groups are piggybacking on anti-globalization and anti-Israeli occupation movements with a new enthusiasm by adopting anti-corporate and pro-Palestinian rhetoric, hoping to recruit young activists drawn to the post-Battle of Seattle political milieu.

Neo-Nazis “are definitely gaining confidence,” says Zein El-Amine, who helped recruit progressive Arabs to the rally’s counter-protest. “They are getting more sophisticated with their organizing. … They had Arabic signs at this demo that said ‘Zionism is terrorism.’ ”

The confidence shows in numbers. The rally of more than 300 on August 24 was significantly larger than its counterpart on May 11, thanks to online organizing and a new tactic of holding a “Rock Against Israel” concert featuring hate rock acts Brutal Attack, Celtic Warrior and Intimidation One at a “secret location” after the protest. Only those who attended the rally were allowed entry to the show, which was held at a National Guard armory in White Marsh, Maryland.

[...]

Of course, the pro-Palestinian gloss is just that. Before his death earlier this summer, William Pierce, the leader of the National Alliance, told Michelle Cottle of The New Republic: “My primary concern is not really for Palestinian freedom or how they run their lives over there-or for the Iraqis.” The National Alliance sees Arabs in France and Germany as little more than subhumans who need to be removed from the continent. The post-9/11 shift represents nothing more than the dovetailing of interests of white supremacists and the most extreme Muslim fundamentalists: the elimination of multiculturalism, extreme nationalism and vicious anti-Semitism.

[...]For Europe - a well-researched article, unfortunately in German only:

DIE UNHEILIGE ALLIANZ ZWISCHEN HAKENKREUZ UND HALBMOND
Neonazis und fundamentalistische Islamisten
von Anton Maegerle
(The unholy alliance between the Swastika and the Halfmoon: Neonazis and Islamic fundamentalists)
http://www.idgr.de/texte-1/rechtsextremismus/neonazi-arab/unheilige-allianz.html