Amin al Husseini and Adolf Hitler

Amin al Husseini and Adolf Hitler (Photo credit: Wikipedia)



1. The issue of Hajj Amin el Husseini and the Jews by Francisco Gil White

2. Analysis of this article by themarxistblog


3. Photos of Hajj Amin el Husseini and their relevance

(this article is under construction, a work in progress)


Immediately after the war, Husseini’s  Nazi activities were well understood, as the article from The Nation (1947) which I have posted  to the right of this column attests. But then a tremendous silence about  Husseini and his Nazi years developed. Certainly the media, which displays  always the latest news on the Arab-Israeli conflict in its front pages, has  had nothing to say about the Nazi  origins of PLO/Fatah ever since  PLO/Fatah was created in the 1960s.  The silence in academia has been equally deafening.

Historian Rafael Medoff,  in an article from 1996, wrote the following:

“Early  scholarship on the Mufti, such as the work of Maurice Pearlman and Joseph Schechtman, while hampered by the inaccessibility of some  key documents, at least succeeded in conveying the basic facts of the Mufti’s  career as a Nazi collaborator. One would have expected the next generation of  historians, with greater access to relevant archival materials (not to mention  the broader perspective that the passage of time may afford) to improve upon  the work of their predecessors. Instead, however, a number of recent  histories of the Arab-Israeli conflict have played fast and loose with the  evidence, producing accounts that minimize or even justify the Mufti’s Nazi  activity.”[1]

What Medoff refers to  above as “early scholarship on the Mufti” is early indeed. The work of  Pearlman and Schechtman that he cites is from 1947  and 1965:

Pearlman, M.  (1947). Mufti of Jerusalem: The story  of Haj Amin el Husseini. London: V Gollancz.

Joseph B. Schechtman, The  Mufti and the Fuehrer, New York, 1965.

After this ensued a  tremendous academic silence on the Mufti Husseini. In fact, Medoff can refer us to no academic work on Husseini  before 1990. His article, recall, is from 1996. The few academic mentions of  Husseini that he could find from  1990 to 1996 were either completely  silent on the Mufti’s Nazi years—as if they had never happened—or else  they relegated a ‘summary’ of those years to a single paragraph (or even just  a sentence) that left almost  everything out. Some authors even claimed (entirely in passing) that Husseini’s Nazi activities had been supposedly imagined  by “Zionist propagandists.”

But recent scholars who have studied Hajj Amin al  Husseini in depth, such as Rafael Medoff, have  confirmed what his early biographers had already established:

<!–[if !supportLists]–>1)     <!–[endif]–>that  Husseini traveled to Berlin in late 1941, met with Hitler, and discussed with  him the extermination of the Middle Eastern Jews (whom Husseini had already  been killing for some 20 years);

<!–[if !supportLists]–>2)     <!–[endif]–>that  Husseini spent the entire war in Nazi-controlled Europe as a Nazi  collaborator;

<!–[if !supportLists]–>3)     <!–[endif]–>that Husseini helped spread Nazi propaganda  to Muslims worldwide (one of his famous exhortations goes like this: “Arabs,  rise as one man and fight for your sacred rights. Kill the Jews wherever you  find them. This pleases God, history, and religion. This saves your honor.  God is with you.”[2]);

<!–[if !supportLists]–>4)     <!–[endif]–>that  Husseini recruited thousands of Bosnian and Kosovo Muslims to Heinrich  Himmler’s SS, who went on to kill hundreds of thousands of Serbs, and tens of  thousands of Jews and Roma (‘Gypsies’).

It is beyond  dispute that Husseini did all that.  And in fact photographic evidence of Husseini’s  Nazi collaboration abounds on the internet.

But there has been quite an effort to whitewash Husseini’s responsibility in the German Nazi death camp  system specifically—in other words,  his responsibility in the Holocaust,  or as the Jews more properly say, in the Shoah (‘Catastrophe’). One  example of this whitewashing effort is Wikipedia’s page on Husseini.

Because of its emblematic nature, I shall now quote  from the  Wikipedia article on Hajj Amin al Husseini as I found it on 14 July, 2013  and then comment.

[Quote from  Wikipedia begins here]

Al-Husseini settled in Berlin in late  1941 and resided there for most of the war.[153] Various sources have repeated allegations, mostly  ungrounded in documentary evidence, that he visited the death camps of Auschwitz, Majdanek, Treblinka and Mauthausen.[153] At  the Nuremberg trials,  one of Adolf Eichmann‘s  deputies, Dieter Wisliceny,  stated that al-Husseini had actively encouraged the extermination of European  Jews, and that he had had an elaborate meeting with Eichmann at his office,  during which Eichmann gave him an intensive look at the current state of the   “Solution of the Jewish Question in Europe”   by the   Third Reich.  Most of these allegations are completely unfounded.[153]

[Quote from Wikipedia ends here]

Consider first the phrase “completely unfounded” as  it attaches to any part of Wisliceny’s Nuremberg testimony.


Is this article useful? Help us do    more with a donation .     Would you like to be notified of new articles? Sign up (it’s free) .


As part of the legal proceedings at the Nuremberg  War Crimes Tribunal, two independent witnesses (Andrej or Endre  Steiner and Rudolf Kasztner)—both of whom had had personal contact with  Dieter Wisliceny during the war—reported to the  Tribunal that in wartime conversations with Wisliceny  he had said certain things about Husseini’s role in  the Final Solution (the genocidal enterprise in which Wisliceny  was not just anybody but a highly-placed administrator). The Steiner and  Kasztner testimonies are quite similar to each other. Before his execution  for crimes against humanity, Nuremberg Tribunal investigators called on Wisliceny to either confirm or deny what these two  independent witnesses had said. Wisliceny did  correct them on minor points but he confirmed what they had both stated  concerning Husseini’s central and originating role  in the extermination program (consult footnote [3] to  read the Steiner and Kasztner testimonies).

So are these “completely unfounded” allegations? If  so, that would mean:

<!–[if !supportLists]–>1)     <!–[endif]–>that  in light of other, better established evidence, what Wisliceny  stated is impossible; and/or

<!–[if !supportLists]–>2)     <!–[endif]–>that Wisliceny  is less credible as a witness than witnesses who contradicted his statements.

So I ask: On  the basis of what evidence do the Wikipedia  editors argue that “most of these allegations are completely unfounded”?

At first it seems as though Wikipedia editors have  provided three sources but on closer inspection it is the same footnote,  repeated three times (in the space of four sentences). The footnote contains  this:

Gerhard Höpp  (2004). “In the Shadow of the Moon.” In Wolfgang G. Schwanitz.   Germany and the Middle East 1871–1945. Markus Wiener, Princeton.  pp. 217–221.

The title is incomplete. Gerhard Höpp’s  article is: “In the Shadow of the Moon: Arab Inmates in Nazi Concentration  Camps.” The full title makes it obvious that this article is not about  Husseini, something that readers who see only the truncated title in the  Wikipedia reference will not realize.

But, anyway, what does Höpp  say—entirely in passing—about Wisliceny’s testimony concerning Husseini? He says this  (and only this):

“Al-Husaini… is said not only to have had knowledge of the  concentration camps but also to have visited them. Various authors speak of the  camps at Auschwitz, Majdanek, Treblinka, and Mauthausen. While the assumption that he visited the  Auschwitz camp in the company of Adolf Eichmann is supported by an affidavit  of Rudolf Kasztner, referring to a note by the Eichmann collaborator Dieter Wisliceny, the other allegations are entirely unfounded.”   (p.221)

Recall that Höpp is  Wikipedia’s thrice-cited source to ‘support’ that “most” of the following  three allegations are “completely unfounded”:

<!–[if !supportLists]–>1)     <!–[endif]–>that  Husseini visited death camps

<!–[if !supportLists]–>2)     <!–[endif]–>that  Husseini encouraged the extermination of the Jews;

<!–[if !supportLists]–>3)     <!–[endif]–>that Husseini met with Eichmann to  discuss said extermination.

But notice that Höpp says absolutely nothing about allegations 2  and 3.

And notice that, concerning allegation 1, Höpp uses the phrase “entirely unfounded” in a manner exactly opposite to the Wikipedia  editors who invoke him. For the Wikipedia editors, “most” of what Wisliceny says is “completely unfounded,” whereas for Höpp it is those allegations not backed by Wisliceny’s testimony  that he considers “entirely unfounded.”

Moreover, Höpp states:

“Speculation  on this and other misdeeds by the Mufti appear  unnecessary in view of his undisputed collaboration with the Nazis…” (p.221)

In other words, since we already know that Husseini  was a rabid anti-Semite who himself organized mass killings of Jews before he met the Nazis, and then also   with the Nazis, and discussed with  Hitler the extermination of the Middle Eastern Jews, and shouted on the Nazi  radio “Kill the Jews wherever you find them,” is it not a waste of time to  argue back and forth whether Husseini did or did not visit this or that death  camp with Eichmann?

But, I might add, why doubt it? And why doubt that  such a man encouraged the Nazis to exterminate the European Jews and also met  with Eichmann to discuss this program? (Unless, of course, such expressions  of doubt are intended as an apology for the Mufti…)

Let us now continue with the Wikipedia article:

[Quote from  Wikipedia continues here]

A single  affidavit by Rudolf Kastner reported that Wisliceny told  him that he had overheard Husseini say he had visited Auschwitz incognito in  Eichmann’s company.[154] Eichmann denied this at his trial in Jerusalem in 1961.  …Eichmann stated that he had only been introduced to al-Husseini during an  official reception, along with all other department heads. In the final judgement [sic], the Jerusalem court stated: “In the  light of this partial admission by the Accused, we accept as correct Wisliceny’s statement about this conversation between the  Mufti and the Accused. In our view it is not important whether this  conversation took place in the Accused’s office or elsewhere. On the other  hand, we cannot determine decisive findings with regard to the Accused on the  basis of the notes appearing in the Mufti’s diary which were submitted to  us.”[157] Hannah  Arendt, who attended the complete Eichmann trial,  concluded in her book Eichmann  in Jerusalem: A Report on the Banality of Evil that, “The trial revealed only that all rumours about Eichmann’s connection with Haj Amin el  Husseini, the former Mufti of Jerusalem, were unfounded.”[158]

[Quote from  Wikipedia ends here]

I am confounded by Wikipedia’s choice of reliable  experts. The Jerusalem court that tried Eichmann for Crimes Against Humanity  concluded that “we accept as correct Wisliceny’s  statement about this conversation between the Mufti [Husseini] and the  Accused [Eichmann]” (the topic of which was to discuss how to exterminate the  European Jews); but Wikipedia editors prefer the contrary opinion of  philosopher Hannah Arendt, according to whom any claim of a relationship  between Husseini and Eichmann is “unfounded.” And why do they prefer Arendt?  Because she “attended the complete Eichmann trial.”

Didn’t the judges also attend?

Anyway, let’s look at Arendt more closely. To her,  two independent testimonies at Nuremberg concerning Husseini’s  relationship with Eichmann, later corroborated by Wisliceny,  a highly-placed eyewitness, are “rumours.” This is  strange. And, against this, Arendt simply accepts Eichmann’s denial. Doubly  strange. Why has Eichmann earned so much respect from Hannah Arendt?

But more to the point: Do we have reasons to  consider Eichmann a more credible witness than Wisliceny?

Arendt shouldn’t think so. She wrote Eichmann in Jerusalem: A Report on the  Banality of Evil so that she could extend herself in deep ruminations  about the human soul based on (odd choice) Eichmann’s strange behavior at  trial, which led her to call him a “clown.” Wisliceny,  by contrast, was universally considered by prosecutors as a very careful  witness, who was painstaking in correcting the smallest details in the  testimony he was asked to comment on.[4]

(And Eichmann most certainly had motive to lie in order to diminish Husseini’s role in the Holocaust relative to his own, for  he was obviously proud of what he had done. Moreover, Husseini was still at  large, and busy organizing the ‘Palestinian’ movement, so better not to say  anything that could support a manhunt plus extradition procedures that might  derail Husseini’s ongoing effort to exterminate the  Jews in Israel, a project certainly dear to Eichmann’s putrefacient  heart, a project that, as he sat in the witness box, no doubt swam before his  mind’s eye as a pleasant future outcome to engulf those sitting in judgment  of him, or their children.)

Let us continue:

[Quote from  Wikipedia continues here]

Rafael Medoff concludes that “actually there is no evidence that the  Mufti’s presence was a factor at all; the Wisliceny  hearsay is not merely uncorroborated, but conflicts with everything else that  is known about the origins of the Final Solution.”[159]

[Quote from  Wikipedia ends here]

Rafael Medoff is  expressing an opinion. Is it reasonable? Here is the full passage in Medoff’s article:

“With regard to  the crucial question of what the Mufti knew and when he knew it, the evidence  requires especially careful sifting, and earlier scholars did not always take  sufficient care. Pearlman, for example, accepted as fact the unfounded  postwar claim by Wisliceny that the Mufti was “one  of the initiators” of the genocide. Of course, Pearlman was writing in  1946-1947, when the genesis of the annihilation process was not yet fully  understood. Other accounts at that time, such as a 1947 book written by  Bartley Crum, a member of the Anglo-American Commission of Inquiry on  Palestine, likewise accepted Wisliceny’s claim. Schechtman, writing in 1964-1965, should have known  better. He made much of the fact that the Mufti first arrived in Berlin  shortly before the Wannsee conference, as if the  decision to slaughter the Jews was made at Wannsee,  when in fact the mass murder began in Western Russia the previous summer (at  a time when the Mufti was still deeply embroiled in the pro-Nazi coup in  Baghdad). Schechtman eventually conceded that ‘it  would be both wrong and misleading to assume that the presence of Haj Amin  el-Husseini was the sole, or even the major factor in the shaping and  intensification of the Nazi ‘final solution of the Jewish problem,’ which  supplanted forced emigration by wholesale extermination.’ Actually, there is  no evidence that the Mufti’s presence was a factor at all; the Wisliceny hearsay is not merely uncorroborated, but  conflicts with everything else that is known about the origins of the Final  Solution.”[5]

Medoff’s  argument turns on a semantic point. If we agree with him that the mass  killings of Jews on the Nazi Eastern front, which began before Husseini  arrived in Berlin, are part of the ‘Final Solution,’ then Husseini is not   “one of the originators” of the ‘Final Solution.’ But the question is not  what we agree to call ‘Final Solution.’ The question is whether the Nazis had  yet decided, before Husseini  alighted in Berlin, to create a death camp system to kill all of the European Jews. They had not. And that decision was formalized  at Wannsee, indeed shortly after Husseini arrived in Berlin.

Consider what historians say about the established  chronology of changes in Nazi policy on the so-called ‘Jewish Question.’

Gunnar Paulsson explains  that “expulsion”—not extermination—“had initially been the general policy of  the Nazis towards the Jews.”[6] Tobias Jersak writes: “Since the 1995 publication of Michael Wildt’s documentation on the SS’s Security Service (Sicherheitsdienst SD) and the ‘Jewish Question,’ it has  been undisputed that from 1933 Nazi policy concerning the ‘Jewish Question’   aimed at the emigration of all Jews, preferably to Palestine.”[7] Even  after the conquest of Poland, writes Paulsson,   “Jewish emigration continued to be permitted and even encouraged, while other  expulsion plans were considered.”[8]  Christopher Simpson points out that, though many Jews were being murdered,  and people such as Reinhard Heydrich  of the SS pushed for wholesale extermination, “other ministries” disagreed,  and these favored “deportation and resettlement,” though they disagreed about  where to put the Jews and how much terror to apply to them.[9] And so, “until the autumn of 1941,” conclude Marrus & Paxton, “no one defined the final solution  with precision, but all signs pointed toward some vast and as yet unspecified  project of mass emigration.”[10]

Hajj Amin al Husseini arrived in Berlin in “the  autumn of 1941”—to be precise, on 9 November 1941. So yes, there had already  been mass killings of Jews on the Eastern front, but for the hypothesis that  Husseini had something to do with the Nazi decision to set up the death camp system in order to kill   every last living European Jew  (instead of sending most to ‘Palestine’), Husseini arrived right on time.

The last part of Medoff’s passage—the one that Wikipedia quotes—is  especially problematic. He writes:

“Actually,  there is no evidence that the Mufti’s presence was a factor at all; the Wisliceny hearsay is not merely uncorroborated, but  conflicts with everything else that is known about the origins of the Final  Solution.”

Medoff  disparages the evidence we have as “hearsay.” Is it?

Wikipedia explains the legal definition of ‘hearsay’:

“information gathered by one person from another person  concerning some event, condition, or thing of which the first person had no  direct experience.”[11]

What we have are two   independent testimonies before the  Nuremberg Tribunal, by Andrej (Endre) Steiner and  Rudolf Kasztner, about their wartime conversations with Wisliceny,  the topic of which was Husseini’s key role in 1)  the decision to exterminate all of the  European Jews and, 2) the administration of the death-camp system. If these  two independent claims about what Wisliceny said  had not been corroborated by Wisliceny they would  still be significant, because they are independent and they agree. But in  fact these two independent testimonies were  corroborated by Wisliceny  himself. And Wisliceny most certainly did have “direct experience” of the  personal relationship between Eichmann and Husseini, because he was  Eichmann’s right-hand man.


<!–[if !supportLists]–>1)     <!–[endif]–>we do have evidence that the Mufti’s  presence was a factor;

<!–[if !supportLists]–>2)     <!–[endif]–>this  evidence is not hearsay because it  comes from Wisliceny; and

<!–[if !supportLists]–>3)     <!–[endif]–>given what we know  about Husseini’s character, deeds, and timely  arrival in Berlin, Wisliceny’s claims certainly do  not conflict “with everything else that is known about the origins of the  Final Solution.”

So every word in the Medoff  passage that Wikipedia quotes is false.

We continue:

[Quote from  Wikipedia continues here]

Bernard Lewis also called Wisliceny’s  testimony into doubt: “There is no independent documentary confirmation of Wisliceny’s statements, and it seems unlikely that the  Nazis needed any such additional encouragement from the outside.”[160]

[Quote from  Wikipedia ends here]

The full passage from Bernard Lewis’s work is the  following:

“According to Wisliceny, the Mufti was a friend of Eichmann and had, in  his company, gone incognito to visit the gas chamber at Auschwitz. Wisliceny even names the Mufti as being the ‘initiator’ of  the policy of extermination. This was denied, both by Eichmann at his trial  in Jerusalem in 1961, and by the Mufti in a press conference at about the  same time. There is no independent documentary confirmation of Wisliceny’s statements, and it seems unlikely that the  Nazis needed any such additional encouragement from outside.” [12]

So Eichmann and Husseini deny it and this is enough  for Lewis… If we apply his standards to any ordinary criminal investigation  we will be forced to let the main suspect go the minute he himself and/or his  alleged accomplice deny the charges. Presto! This will save a lot of  unnecessary police work.

The same can be said for his curious insistence that  without “independent documentary confirmation” the testimony of witnesses can  be dispensed with. But, naturally, a great many things that happen in the  world are not recorded in a document. Eyewitness testimony must be considered  carefully, but saying that “there is no independent documentary confirmation”   of a particular piece of testimony is not the same thing as producing good  reasons to doubt it. And to say, in the absence   of conflicting evidence, that our null hypothesis will be to consider as  true the opposite of what was  testified to, why that is simply absurd.

The above is obvious but Lewis’s last argument—“it  seems unlikely that the Nazis needed any such additional encouragement from  outside”—will appeal to many as reasonable, so it  deserves a more extended comment.

What Lewis is saying is that the Nazis decided on  total extermination for reasons that were ‘endogenous’ to their ideological  program. But though killing lots of Jews as part of a campaign of terror and  to make lebensraum for deserving  Aryan specimens on the Eastern front was certainly part of general Nazi  policy, the ‘Final Solution,’ as pointed out above, was initially and for a  long time a program of mass expulsion,  and did not contemplate (yet) exterminating the entire European Jewish population. Getting to that point required  some ‘exogenous’ prodding (“from outside”); it was not an ideological  requirement.

Historian Thomas Marrus  writes: “After the riots of Kristallnacht in  November 1938, SS police boss Heydrich was ordered  to accelerate emigration, and Jews were literally driven out of the country.  The problem was, of course, that there was practically no place for them to  go.”[13] The reason there was no place  for them to go is that no country would receive them. As historian James  Carroll points out:  “The same leaders,  notably Neville Chamberlain and Franklin D. Roosevelt, who had denounced the  anti-Jewish violence of the Nazis declined to receive Jews as refugees.   …Crucial to its building to a point of no return was Hitler’s discovery  (late) of the political indifference of the democracies to the fate of the  Jews…”[14]  Though one may argue that this was not really “indifference” on the part of  Roosevelt et al. but a very special   interest (in their doom).[15] The main point here is that, as  historian Gunnar Paulsson points out: “Expulsion  had initially been the general policy of the Nazis towards the Jews, and had  been abandoned largely for practical,  not ideological, reasons” (my emphasis).[16]


Is this article useful? Help us do    more with a donation .     Would you like to be notified of new articles? Sign up (it’s free) .


The Nazis were right bastards. No disagreement. But  they did need some encouragement to go that   far. They needed to be told, first, that they would not get rid of any  Jews by pushing them out to the ‘Free World.’ And then they needed to be  told, by British creation Hajj Amin al Husseini, that neither could they push  them out to ‘Palestine.’ Bernard Lewis is wrong.

Perhaps Wikipedia would like to try again with a new  set of ‘supporting’ sources? We will be waiting to examine them.





Barrie Nathan on Talk Radio Europe yesterday argued that there is nothing to worry about in the Prism spying programme.


The discussion took place over 2 hours yesterday on the portal Talk Radio Europe radio station.


The callers in were a cross section of British people and they were divided over the issue. One a supporter of Portsmouth Football Team argued that the people need this type of surveillance, and more, and the more spying on us according to this “Gary” the better.

(But when people like Gary call for more and more state spying on the population and states that he does not mind because “he has nothing to hide” then he forgets that the jews in 1930s Europe were the most law abiding people on earth, but that did them no good against the Nazis.

It is exactly the same here. We do not know in politics how things are going to develop and whether all of our democratic rights will be taken away by a dictatorship.

Already the two completely law abiding citizens of America, Robert Spencer and Pamela Geller, have been banned by the British Foreign Secretary from attending a meeting in Woolwich in two weeks time, and the reason for this is political, that they are opposed to the method and practice of Islam as contained in the Koran.

Thus gone, at the stroke of a pen, is the right to free speech, the pen wielded by the present elected government of Britain.)


Barrie Nathan also called Snowden a traitor. Nathan was the very centre and pivot of the discussion.


Why is what Barrie Nathan claims important?


The most important reason is that Nathan is Jewish and well known as Jewish, so he is linking this horrific spying to Jewish people. Is that not grand!!! The people who suffered most of all because of spying persecution by the Nazis namely the Jews here argues for it. Or at least Nathan is.


Before the Nazis rounded up the Jews and put them in holding centres prior to deportation to the death camps there was massive espionage on the Jews so that when the time came for them to be rounded up they were already identified precisely.


Barrie Nathan is not either intelligent or well read, especially about what is happening in current affairs. The big question about this massive spying by Obama and Cameron is that it is directed not at all against Islamic terrorists, but against ordinary people. Why do I say this?


I will limit myself to three things


  1. The US army major called Hasan who murdered his colleagues
  2. The Boston bombings
  3. The beheading in broad daylight of young Lee Risby

In the case of the major who murdered his colleagues in the American Army (mowed down 13 US soldiers while screaming allahu akbar on the Fort Hood military base in Texas in November 2009.)


Obama insisted that this not be called a Jihadist murder, but a “work-place murder”. Obama and Mrs Hilary Clinton have used this technique of whitewashing Islam from day one


In the case of the Boston murderers (the two Tsarnaev brothers) and maimers of good Americans the same pattern emerges… The information about these threats to life was already in the hands of the Obama regime. It did not come from the snooping. It came from two sources. First of all the Russian Government WARNED the US that they were Jihadists. Then the  Saudis did exactly the same BY LETTER. (Yes the Saudis do worry about Jihadists) But the US Government would not listen, would not hear of the threat from Jihad


Nip over the pond and look at the Woolwich killers. Here a soldier based at the nearby Woolwich barracks was beheaded by two machete-wielding assailants. Again they were so well known to the British that the British police actually had these Jihadists in their very hands and they were already spouting their hatred and plans to kill in the mosque, but that is exactly where the police in Britain are not allowed to spy inside. We do also know about Ken Livingstone and his support for Jihad in the form of support for Jihadist Qaradawi. Then Boris Johnson stopped any investigation of Islam and Jihad in its tracks. Cameron did the exact same.


All this information about these Jihadist murders was on the record, there to be acted upon.


It was not acted upon. Instead we are all investigated through spying techniques.


Keep in mind in all of this that although it is new technology there is nothing different to the Chile Coup, or the Nazi Holocaust. Before they acted they had the names and addresses.


They are covering for the Jihadists. The state covers for Islam which is a deadly and bloodthirsty ideology.


But as never before in human history…They are spying on us!


Those are the issues that Barrie Nathan did not raise in the Talk Radio Europe discussion. A copy of this article will be forwarded to Barrie Nathan. We will print his reply to us.


The Boston murders were done by immigrants who had been given everything by the host country America…


The Woolwich Muslim Knifemen were immigrants from Nigeria and again had been given everything by the English, including full access to advanced University Education


All immigration into a country is dangerous. Muslim immigration is lethal.


Immigration can very easily be used by a ruling elite which is in economic and political crisis (meaning of course the capitalist system) in order to break down the traditional structure of a nation.

Ending in a nation losing its pride and people becoming even less oppositional and independently minded than sheep


This is what has happened in countries such as Britain, Sweden, France and Norway, but it is very common.


It is also tied in with the overall global crisis in the capitalist system whereby millions of poor seek a way out. And you cannot blame them. But the results can be devastating, results that they do not mean to bring about from their individual viewpoint.


The lethal nature of Muslim immigration is clear when one gets to understand Islam.


The present left such as (but totally widespread) has betrayed socialism. But Marx was correct:


“German original:

„Der Islam ächtet die Nation der Ungläubigen und schafft einen Zustand permanenter Feindschaft zwischen Muselmanen und Ungläubigen.“

English translation:

“Islam ostracizes the nation of the unbelievers and creates a state of permanent enemyship between the moslems and the unbelievers.”

— Karl Marx (1818-1883)


(To find the source place the German in google)

(leads to

and to [“New-York Daily Tribune” Nr. 4054 vom 15. April 1854]


This is the main problem and although Marx did not write a lot about Islam, as we can see in the above, he wrote enough.


Marx had pinpointed the anti-humanitarian nature of Islam.


All the great recent studies of Islam by the likes of Spencer, Bat Yeor and Andrew Bostom points to the deeply anti-humanitarian nture of Islam.


It was not for nothing that Islam became a clear part of the Holocaust of the Jews, the leader of Islam at the time, the Mufti Husseini, an Arab from Palestine joining Islam for forever time to the Nazis and the Holocaust of the Jews. But Islam had pre-dated and anticipated the Nazis by 1300 plus years.





themarxistblog is very clear on the vital issue in relation to the Boston bombing. This is Jihadist activity. This is the same practice that led to the Nazis murdering 6 millions of Jews. This is the same practice that led the Arabs as a whole to join in with the Nazi Holocaust, and in the case of the main LEADER of the Arabs, the Muftí Husseini, close relative of Arafat, actually being a direct organiser of the Holocaust of the Jews.

Drawing from that experience of the Holocaust and the role of the Arabs and Islam in the Holocaust, then it is wrong to see Islam as just another religion, it is far different to a religion, it is a war ideology with Antisemitism at its heart.

There are now many people who are making excuses for the Jihadists. They are saying that these attacks on America are because of drones. But this leaves out the ideology of Islam as preached by the Jihadists all down through history.

What made Hitler murder 6 millions of Jews? the answer is Antisemitism, a very specific ideology. What makes Islam Jihadists attack America as in Boston. The reason again is Antisemitism, and they see America as being a Jewish country.

In this context the American GOVERNMENT is joining in with this Antisemitism. Kerry has just justified the Turkish Jihadists of the Mavi Marmora. Obama is backing the Jihadists of Syria against the secular Assad. Bush removed the secular Saddam and replaced him with Iran friendly Jihadist, Christian persecuting Iraq of today. The secular Gadhafi was murdered by Obama. Obama also is directly responsable for the secular Mubarak being overthrown and replaced by Morsi.

In the case of the Boston killers it is very likely indeed that the American GOVERNMENT was prepared to use these killers against Russia. As the CIA also used the Blind Sheikh.

Similarly the BBC is presently using the Jihadist Muslims in Burma against the Buddhists.

And so on. The fact is that the crisis in the capitalist system drives the capitalist class internationally (27 per cent unemployment in Spain announced today) to line up with the Fascism of Islam.

They did exactly this in the Holocaust to murder 6 millions of Jews.

It is quite sickening to hear on Talk Radio Europe this morning British people there on that station making continually excuses for these Jihadist Boston killers. Read the following:


Earlier I posted that the Boston Jihad Bomber’s “only American friend” had his throat slit. I said, “I think this case should be reopened in light of the Boston jihad. Throat slitting is a jihad speciality”

What I didn’t know was that all three vicitms were Jewish. We know that under Islam, slaughtering Jews is the most  desired of all kufar murder.“I killed my Jew!

Slain Boston Bomb Suspect Tamerlan Tsarnaev Eyed in Jewish Triple Murder The Forward, April 23, 2013, thanks to Nik  Best Friend Killed Along With Brandeis Grad and Devout Jew

Police in a Boston suburb are investigating whether slain Boston  Marathon bombing suspect Tamerlan Tsarnaev was involved in the unsolved  murders of his close friend and two other men, one of whom was a  Brandeis University graduate and the other a devout Jew.

Tsarnaev, who was killed in a shootout with police, was a close friend of Brendan Mess, who was found murdered in an apartment in Waltham, Mass. on Sept. 12, 2011, along with Erik Weissman and Raphael Teken.

Weissman was a devoted member of his synagogue, according to WCVB in Boston and Teken had majored in history at predominantly Jewish Brandeis.