Tag Archives: France

I Am Yellow Vest!

By Jim O’Neill
A grassroots movement made up of citizens who have become fed up with the political establishment in France has been growing since early November and it has come to a head this month. The movement, known as “gilets jaunes” or “yellow vests” began as an anti-tax protest but has since merged folks from the left and the right into a much broader anti-government movement. The movement has become so large that political experts are now calling it a “new revolution.”  [Italics added]
Matt Agorist “‘Yellow Vest’ Protests Spreading Globally as Citizens Rise Up Against Corrupt Governments”
The yellow vest (gilets jaunes) movement in France has grown from a protest against increased gas taxes to a broad coalition of anti-government demonstrators drawing from both sides of the political spectrum.  It is truly a grassroots populist movement, with no individual leader or organization directing it – think Tea Party fused with Bernie supporters.
Les Gilets Jaunes, the yellow vests, is a movement of the people, but it is worth noting that elements within the French military are none too happy as well.  Recently French General Antoine Martinez penned a letter to French President Macron warning him that he was treading dangerously close to treason.  The letter was signed by an additional 11 French generals, a former Minister of Defense, and an admiral.  Hmm…coup d’etat, that’s French right?
In any event, as Erik Rush points out, the movement has grown increasingly ugly.  Violent affrontements (clashes) between the police and protesters have increased both in number and severity.
While the demonstrations in France started out reasonably peacefully, they have become increasingly violent over time, with current damage estimates at around $1 billion. French police have employed tear gas and water cannons against demonstrators, and well over 1,000 of them have been taken into custody. Several deaths have been reported….

Erik RushRiots in France: Coming to America next?

 Rush ponders in his article’s title if the yellow vest riots will be coming to America next.  To which I say “Absolument mon frere!”  It is only a question of time.  And that brings me to the main point(s) of this article.
America is currently in Civil War II – it is still largely a cold civil war at this point, but it could morph into a hot and bloody civil war on any given day.  I hear and read patriots who opine that it took a long time to get to where we are today, and it will take an equally long time to work our way out of it.  I strongly disagree.
We the People do not have the time; we are out of time; time has run out.  Trust me, if you think things are ugly now, you ain’t seen nothing yet.  Things are only going to get worse, count on it.  When Mark Levin asked journalist Heather MacDonald where she saw America in a few years she told him either in a civil war or backing away from one.  Levin then asked her “You mean a physical civil war?”  She replied “I absolutely do.”
We’ve seen civil violence grow — people, with impunity, with the celebration and encouragement of politicians, beating each other up…Antifa harassing Tucker Carlson, harassing politicians or shooting them. Again, the universities are teaching students to hate on the basis of race and gender. Unless we counter that narrative, which originates in the view that America is oppressive. Unless we fight that narrative of endemic racism, we are in civil war.” 
Fox News “Heather MacDonald warns US colleges are breeding hate
I agree with MacDonald, except for the timeline.  As I say, we are in a civil war right now.  The only question is if/when it will go explosively physical.  Time is not on our side folks.  As older generations who were raised on patriotism, personal responsibility, and Judeo/Christian values die off, they are being replaced by indoctrinated sheeple who have been largely spoon-fed globalism, climate change, identity politics, multiculturalism, socialism, relativism, anti-capitalism, and anti-American pap since kindergarten.
A recent poll showed that 53 percent of American teens and twenty-something’s do not respect America.  At sporting events, millions of students fail to stand for the national anthem.  In southern California, you see more Mexican flags being displayed and flown rather than the Stars and Stripes.  In Detroit, Michigan, you see the Islamic black flag with Arabic writing that Americans cannot decipher.

Frosty Woolridge “Hating Your Own Country: Teaching U.S. Kids to Loathe America

Look at the support that socialist/communist Bernie Sanders got and gets.  Look at the support socialist Andrew Gillum had running for governor in Florida, or “Beto” O’Rourke had running for senator in Texas.  Many of their supporters are fanatical, and they are only going to grow in numbers as our “educational” indoctrination centers churn out more and more dumbed down zealots who are sure that capitalism sucks and socialism is the best thing since sliced humus.
The left, at least the thoroughly brainwashed ones, have gone rabid and are off the chain.  There is no reasoning with them, no debating them, no relating to them.  And their numbers grow exponentially, fed on a constant stream of anti-Trump (read that as anti-America, anti-you) media propaganda.  I’ll say it again, it’s not going to get better, it’s going to get worse.  Either We the People put the brakes on things NOW, or we’re toast.  Just what do I mean by “putting on the brakes?”  Glad you asked.
First let me outline what’s at stake here.  If we continue down the road we are on we will soon be living in a world of brutal tyranny.  Call it globalism, call it communism, call it fascism, call it any d—n thing you want, it will be a tyrannical form of global governance run by an elite class of potentate wannabes and their toadies.  And it will be brutal.  It may not start out that way, but eventually as people resist the evermore burdensome weight of uncontrolled government demands, the rulers will use force and more force to ensure compliance to their Draconian edicts (“Anyone need a gilets jaune, anyone?”).  And you thought it would be utopia?  Grow up.  The only ones living in any semblance of utopia will be the ruling elites.
Well, they perhaps might live in some semblance of utopia were not for the fact that tyrannies traditionally do not end well, what with all the revolutions, bloodshed and such.  All of which I would very much like to spare America from experiencing.  Which brings me once again to putting on the brakes, NOW.
We the People are quickly drifting toward the point of no return…some would say we are already past that point.  I think that there is still hope for America to rise again as a free and democratic republic, but action needs to be taken, and soon.
Seeing we have our own self-proclaimed “messenger” in the White House, how about we ask him to deliver a message for us?  Not a message in words, but in actions.
I’m your messenger. The message is simple. We’re gonna take our country back.
President Donald J. Trump
We want to see some arrests, lots of arrests.  And we don’t mean small fry, we mean big time movers and shakers – arrest them!  Too big to fail or fall my butt.  Enough of this two-tiered “justice” system bulls—t.  Find the them guilty and jail them for crying out loud.  H—l, some of them deserve to be taken out and shot.  Seriously.
Take away FCC operating licenses and shut down the globalist/government propaganda machine.  Have the military run the TV stations if necessary.  Build the f—king wall and clamp down hard on sanctuary cities/states – all of which are illegal in any case.  Sweep out all the leftist c—p from our schools and start teaching American civics and true American history again – warts and all is fine, but the heavily slanted myopic anti-American propaganda has got to go.  The “Pledge of Allegiance” and “one nation under God” need to be taught and practiced in our schools again.
I’m just getting started, but you get the idea.  Yes, there will be hell to pay, but it will be over in a relatively short time and the damage to America will be minimized.  But, unless radical preemptive proactive actions are taken soon, there will be hell to pay in any event, and it won’t be over any time soon — and the damage to America will be catastrophic.  You hear me?  Radical.  Preemptive.  Proactive.  Actions.
Words, words, words, and putting up with more Uni-party crapola from Congress won’t cut it any more.  And God spare me from the Democrat’s insane anti-Trump hysteria once they get the House.  Unless radical, preemptive, proactive actions are taken soon by President Trump…then I guess it will be left up to We the People to take action.
I’ve been practicing my French – “Jes suis gilets jaunes!” (“I am yellow vest!”).  Pronounce it (approximately) “Jah swee jillay june” with a raised clenched fist and your message should get across to other Gilets Jaunes.  No joke.

Before Saying, “I Support France,” Please Read This


Comments from Evert Evertsen: There is a video in the first link which you do not want to watch if you have a weak constitution.

Until some of our members of Congress, LGBT group members, leaders of the Roman Catholic church and Progressives personally receive the type of treatment seen at this link: http://shoebat.com/2015/02/03/watch-horrific-video-isis-burning-pow-jordanian-pilot/
the expansion of the caliphate will continue unchallenged!

parisviolence Please don’t say things like, “I stand with France,” or “Those poor French people, victims of that attack!” unless you’re prepared to say and do the following things:

Stop saying “Islam” is about peace and love. It’s not. It’s about submission; the people who really get this are the ones who launch these attacks in the name of their religion.

Stop supporting politicians like Obama, who insist that Islamic nations like Iran have our same fundamental values and can be trusted with billions of dollars in unfrozen assets (Obama’s treaty), and who don’t mean what they say when they want to wipe Israel off the map.

Stop saying we don’t really need a strong military and we cannot, under any circumstances, use the full might of our military arsenal to do things to stop militant Islam in its tracks, to quite literally scare the Allah out of these people.

Unless or until you start to rethink your stance, you have no business expressing compassion towards the victims of people in attacks whose perpetrators – knowingly or not – you aid and support via your positions.

The president of France calls the attacks in Paris by militant ISIS supporters an “act of war.” Excuse me? Haven’t we been at war since at least 9/11? Even going back as far as 1979, when the first openly organized Islamic government, Iran, took Americans hostage and brutalized them for a year before setting them free?

We’re not supposed to admit we’re at war with Islam. But Islam has been at war with everyone else for decades now. And it’s not going to stop.

I am so sick of people saying, “We can’t fight terrorism with violence. We have to understand them and figure out what makes them act this way.”

Envy, brutality and collectivist/social/racial hatred are what make them act this way. They’re not going to change, and they’re not going to stop. By trying to appease and understand them every chance we get, they interpret this as weakness, because it is, from their point-of-view. They respond with more brutality. They’re not ever going to stop, any more than Hitler and the Nazis would have stopped if, instead of taking them on directly, we had said, “Let’s try to understand them.”

You cannot defeat a morally certain enemy without moral certainty. But we do not live in an age of moral self-assertion. It’s considered mean, unkind and politically incorrect.

You do not have moral certainty if you keep insisting that your enemy really does not mean it.

Stop waiting for the “moderate” or life-loving Muslims to come out of the closet and morally condemn their violent brethren. These moderates are nowhere to be found. Either they do not exist, or they’re too weak or frightened to take on the people who do these things in the name of their faith-based philosophy.

Obama has stated that these attackers do not share certain basic, universal values with the rest of us. But Obama is the one who insists we cannot really fight terrorists because they operate underground, without state-sanctioned armies, and the like. Obama is the same one who gave away America’s credibility and unfroze billions in assets to the government of Iran, the one actual government known to sponsor and morally support Islamic terrorism around the world. What business does he have expressing outrage and horror? He might as well be on their side. Because he makes life easier for them, through things like this insane treaty he rammed by the Congress.

So before you rush to show others how sad and angry you are about what happened in Paris, stop to think of the ideas, attitudes and elected officials you’ve been supporting.

Ideas have consequences, and if you support the wrong ones, this is what you get.



Court Says Disabled Patient Can be Starved to Death Against His Will Just Like Terri Schiavo

By Steven Ertelt for LIFENEWS.COM
After a European court issued a ruling saying a disabled patient can be starved to death against his will, the brother of Terri Schiavo says the parallels in the case are eerily similar to what happened to his sister.
Vincent Lambert, a tetraplegic patient who has been in a state of minimal consciousness in hospital for six years following a car accident, is current receiving food and water via a feeding tube. The decision to cut his intravenous food and water supply has divided his family. Lambert’s doctors and wife wanted to starve him to death while his parents, who are vehemently opposed to ending his life, took his case to court.
In January 2014 a court in France ruled against starving Lambert to death. But, in June, the European Court of Human Rights issued its decision and, by a vote of 12-5, the Grand Chamber held that a State may take Lambert’s life against his will.
As Terri’s family did when courts determined her estranged husband could starve her to death, Lamberts parents plan to appeal the decision.
In comments to LifeNews.com, Bobby Schindler, Terri Schiavo’s brother, says the case reminds him of how poorly the court system treated his sister.
“With so many questions in this case, why would you err on the side of death? As in my sister’s situation, we don’t know what Vincent’s wishes are,” he says. “Vincent’s parents are willing to care for him and have the right to do so. We strongly support their efforts and oppose the court’s ruling.”
“This case parallels my sister Terri’s case in so many ways,” says Schindler. “Vincent’s family is fighting for his life, wanting to continue therapy. Since Terri’s death, there have been dramatic breakthroughs in treatment and promise of new technologies on the horizon. There are documented cases in which brain-injured patients become capable of moderate levels of consciousness and actually regain some level of functionality. There are also cases on record where such patients regain full functionality and today live active, independent lives.”
On this tenth anniversary year of Terri Schiavo’s death, the case has resurfaced leading up to the 2016 presidential campaign and Jeb Bush’s candidacy.
“I always felt Governor Bush was sincere,” says Schindler. “He never backpedaled and he worked hard to help Terri. When Congress passed Terri’s Law, it was one of the most bipartisan laws enacted at the time, passing unanimously in the Senate with no objections. In the House, the bill passed 203-58.”
Schindler tells LifeNews that a growing number of laws put life and death treatment decisions in the hands of hospital boards, ethics committees and healthcare professionals.
“Our hope is that a nominee for president would support efforts to protect people in medically vulnerable situations,” Schindler adds. “Protecting those who cannot advocate for themselves is the mission behind the Terri Schiavo Life & Hope Network, and we are raising awareness around this issue and advocating for change.”
Schindler says Lambert’s case shows how family members of patients like him are willing to step up and provide care, even when other family members aren’t interested.
“Many family members are willing to take on the responsibility of care and the long, hard work of rehabbing their loved ones to higher levels of consciousness. All they ask is for the right to do so,” says Schindler.
Lambert experienced a profound brain injury seven years ago after a motorcycle accident. His wife and some siblings agree with a doctor’s recommendation that his life should end. But Lambert’s parents and other siblings say he is showing progress and needs better care. On June 5, a court ruled that the decision to stop intravenously feeding Lambert did not violate European laws.

Mayor In France Gets Forced Into A Mental Asylum For Saying That Islam Should Be Banned From France

By Theodore Shoebat at SHOEBAT.COM

A mayor in France, Robert Chardon, was forced into a mental asylum for saying that Islam should be banned. I did an entire video on this:


According to one report:

Robert Chardon was hospitalized under the involuntary confinement provision.

Involuntary confinement applies to psychiatric issues as per French law (How French administration explains the involuntary confinement)

Robert Chardon was forcibly confined to hospital this Friday as per a third party request for reason of ‘incoherence of his statements’

Robert Chardon, the (Bouches-du-Rhône) UMP mayor who tweeted many times that Islam must be banned in France, was forcibly hospitalized this Friday.

Hospitalization was requested by someone close to him for reasons of ‘incoherent statements’. Robert Chardon, who is in cancer treatment, confirmed his statements and assured everyone his Twitter account had not been hacked.

“Absurd statements”

To say the least, the UMP vice-president (Nathalie Kosciusko-Morizet) says that “she requested an ‘exclusion provision’” for his absurd statements which do not reflect in any way UMP values.

Nicolas Sarkozy also reacted through tweets on his Twitter account. He “condemns this proposal” from the mayor of the borough with a population of 8,000.

According to Robert Chardon, “anyone that practises Islam must be immediately returned to the border”. He is asking for an amendment to the Constitution to achieve his goal: “I am asking to abolish the legislation of 1905 and to proclaim the Republic favors Christian values.”

He wants to be a candidate for the regional and presidential elections.

Should the UMP party expel him, he says he will “set up a new party”.

Involuntary hospitalisation confinement

“I risk exclusion”, Robert Chardon acknowledges to AFP (Agence France Presse). “Should this be the case, I will set up a new political party,” confirms the elected official who wants to be a candidate for the regional and presidential elections.

As per AFP who cites a source close to Robert Chardon, he had been treated for some months for cancer and was forcibly hospitalised this Friday afternoon. This hospitalisation request was issued by “a third party as a result of his incoherent statements”.
Mr. Serge Gouteyron — Deputy Prefect of Aix — replied to La Provence that “Mr. Chardon was hospitalised as a consequence of his disease and no legal procedure was undertaken for forcible confinement in a psychiatric facility,” as stated by AFP. Contacted by Scan, the sub-prefect confirms this version of the story.

In a press release (communiqué), Robert Chardon’s First Deputy — Patricia Saez — assures everyone that Robert Chardon’s tweets “are clearly the result of his precarious health situation since the past few months. They do not reflect in any way Robert Chardon’s past opinions,” it is stated.

The First Deputy Mayor confirms that “the town is looking into all possible solutions to be implemented to end this situation while working with competent authorities to resolve the matter.”


Mayor In France Pushes For New Law In France That Will Ban Islam, Saying, “We must ban the Muslim faith in France.”

By Theodore Shoebat at Shoebat.com

A French mayor, Robert Chardon, is calling for governmental legislation that will ban Islam. He said in a recent statement:

We must ban the Muslim faith in France.

He also stated that “it’s the only solution for most of France’s problems,” and that “We also need a Marshall Plan to send Muslims to countries where the religion is practiced”. This man is the mayor of Venelles, a French town with a population of about 8,000 people, and he is more righteous than any of the politicians in Paris. Its amazing how small town people have a better understanding of how to deal with evil, than metropolitan people. Chardon also said (and this is what makes his statements even better):

the Republic should promotes the practice of the Christian faith.

This makes Mr. Chardon superior to those secular conservatives who just say, “ban Islam, but allow homosexuality” and all of the other drivel that they say.

Robert Chardon, modern day French Crusader

I believe at times that the the French can get falsely accused of ultra liberalism. In many ways they can be more radically Christian than people in the US. Unlike the “freedom of religion” crowd in America, they put a ban on the hijab, and the society in France is so proud of its culture that the environment it produces compels everyone to speak the language of the land. But most of all, let us not forget that France was the first country — and probably the most active nation — to participate in the beautiful Crusades against Islam. They were not secular wars, but Christian wars. We should not doubt that remnants of the Crusader spirit are flowing through the blood of the French people. Fads come and go, but the ideas of eternal beauty, live on. Trends are manufactured, and they shrivel up and perish before the shining sun of eternal idea.

Freedom of religion, or the opinion of “doing whatever you want and believing whatever you want” are transient in the presence of timeless truth. To die unto the self, to fight for lands destined by Heaven, to fight for the advancement of eternal love — that is, the Holy Cross — these are ideas that surpass the temporary and the temporal, they surpass the carnal impulses and transcend the obsessions of the flesh, and move the heart to a timeless love, emanating from that which is spaceless and boundless, free from the ego, free from selfish desires, free from Satan, and bringing us to the holy ark, to sail away from the capricious waves of human fascination, into the realm of selfless compassion, and upon the lofty Mount Ararat, where the dove brings the olive branch of peace. This is the true peace, “not as the world gives do I give to you.” (John 14:27)

Peace from the wiles of the devil, peace from the works of Satan which Christ came to destroy. If the society is truly going to have peace, then it must be a Christian society. Not one where sodomites dictate laws, where they crash planes (like what happened to the Germanwings plane) and derail trains (as what just took place with the Amtrak train), or where Muslims hijack planes and crash them into buildings. A society where goodness is given liberty to be done, and where evil is given no license. The state is to “punish those who do evil and to praise those who do good.” (1 Peter 2:14) But now, the states of the Western world are pursuing the opposite of this.

I remember when I was in Spain I saw a beautiful statue in the middle of a plaza in Madrid, showing a great Spanish warrior of the Reconquista (the longest war in Christian history, lasting almost 800 years), stepping on the head of Muslim Ghazi (Arabic word for a warrior of Islam). I was in absolute awe of the photo and had to take a picture of it:

head of Muslim

I love the beautiful illustration it illuminates of Christian supremacy and empire. Spain — the terra sancta of Europe, and the flower of Christendom. That this statue, alongside a whole array of statues of Reconquista warriors and Conquistadors, still stand tall with all conspicuous pride in modern Spain, tells us something quite profound: Underneath all of the debris of modernism, the Spirit of Christian Militancy still stands; behind all of the ruins of an almost forgotten history, the heart of Christendom is still beating in a body that only needs to be awakened, so that the holy blood of sacred land — destined by mighty Heaven and consecrated by the Cross — may flow with all zeal and tenacity. I believe that the body of Christendom will be reinvigorated, with the true Body of Christ rushing with all honor and love, and throwing away all transient nonsense, will defend the precepts that will live on for now and forever.


France, the West and the Islamist Challenge

This piece is from Gatestone Institute’s website and written by Amir Taheri, syndicated columnist and author of 11 books on Islam, the Middle East and Iran, is Chairman of Gatestone Institute Europe. The above is an edited text of inaugural remarks at Gatestone Institute’s conference held in Paris, France, on March 23, 2015.

It is long but well worth the time; it was elucidating for me.  I knew what was happening but not the why.  

_______________________________________________________Amir Taheri

Even in poor countries that become breeding grounds for Islamic terror, the funds needed always come from richer Muslim nations. What we are facing is not a revolt of the poor.

What matters is what you are taught, where and by whom and for what purpose. Many jihadists are taught a vision of the world and the place of Islam in it that is bound to lead to conflict, violence, terror and ultimately war.

Non-Western cultures have no doubt that they are the best… it is only Western civilization that regards self-criticism as an almost sacred duty. In a civilization built on critical, and self-critical, thinking, we are invited to practice censorship and self-censorship. If danger there is, it comes from those who wish to silence such voices in the name of multiculturalism and “respect for the other.”

The adepts of political correctness in the West measure everyone’s worth with the degree of his or her victimhood.

The problem was misguided Islamophilia not bigoted Islamophobia. Islamophilia is often mixed with anti-Americanism, blaming America for whatever goes wrong under the sun.

The Imperialism of guilt blames the West, especially America, for everything, and denies “the other” any credit, even for his own mistakes. Every year a group of Americans travels to Jerusalem to meet Arabs and apologize to them for “the Crusades.” The fact that at the time of the Crusades the U.S. did not even exist is conveniently forgotten, as is that Arabs at best played second fiddle in the Crusades, which was mostly the affair of Turks, Kurds and Mamelukes.

That ideology [Islam] is aimed at world conquest. Islam seldom tried to convert people by force, but always insisted on control of territory and imposing its values and its rule. The next step is to cleanse the area of “pockets of kufr [infidels],” such as cinemas, cafes serving alcohol, and book and music shops offering non-Islamic material. This is what the “brethren” do in the suburbs of Paris.

Jihadist movements did not come into being in reaction to American “imperialism” or Zionism.

There are those who insist that Islam is a religion of peace. There is no word for peace in Arabic. There is “silm,” which means submission. They ignore the fact that Islam will be a religion of peace only after it has seized control of the entire world.

The sad fact is that Islam cannot be reformed, if only because it lacks a recognized authority capable of proposing, let alone imposing, reform. Today, the bulk of Islamic energies are devoted to political issues, with theological work not even getting a stool at the high table.

What France and the West in general face today is a war waged by part of Islam against the democratic world. The silly slogan, “this has no military solution,” is based on a denial of the reality that Western democracies are being attacked in a multifaceted war. The only question that really matters in a state of war is: Are you with us or against us? The unwillingness of Western democracies to agree on an analysis of the situation enables opportunist Muslim powers by tolerating the terrorists.

Three months after the Islamic terror attacks in Paris, France is still grappling with the diagnosis of what happened and remains uncertain on how to cope with what everyone agrees could be a long-term threat to French freedom and security.

There is disagreement, even at the highest levels of state, on the designation of the terrorists who carried out the attacks.

While France’s Prime Minister Manuel Valls has spoken of Islamic fascism and announced that France was at war with “terrorism, jihadism and Islamist radicalism,” its President, François Hollande, has insisted that “the events had nothing to do with Islam.” Paris Mayor Anne Hidalgo has gone even further by claiming that the men responsible for the carnage belonged to no religion at all. They were simply “men without faith.”

The phrase “this had nothing to do with Islam” is found everywhere, a mantra for those who say they are concerned about pouring oil on fire.

That inability and/or unwillingness to decide who the adversary is has affected the debate on the origins of the threat and ways of dealing with it.

Poverty and Terror

As usual, some analysts have blamed “society,” an all-purpose abstraction that is supposed to be capable of both good and evil, for the evil deeds of the men who carried out the attacks. Thus we are treated to a litany of woes about how French society had forced the would-be terrorists into a life of poverty, which presumably made terrorism an attractive, if not the only, option for them.

The fact that none of the men involved was especially poor and that, in a welfare society such as France, violence is not the only way out of poverty, is conveniently ignored.

In reality, Islamist terrorism in its latest manifestations is not a product of poor Muslim countries or poor Muslim communities in non-Muslim nations. In the past 40 years or so, Islamist terror has come from fairly wealthy countries such as Saudi Arabia, Iran, the United Arab Emirates, Kuwait, Iraq, Algeria and Nigeria, more than poverty-stricken nations such as Bangladesh, Mauritania or Sierra Leone. Even in poor countries that became breeding grounds for Islamist terror, countries such as Afghanistan, Somalia and more recently, Yemen, Mali and Niger, the funds needed for creating and operating terrorist networks — the training and financing necessary and the theological-political guidance — always come from richer Muslim nations.

In the past two years, thousands of volunteers for jihad from rich European countries, as well as the United States, Canada, Russia, China and Japan, have joined various Islamist terror outfits including the Islamic State in Syria and Iraq, the Al-Shabaab in Somalia and the Ansar al-Allah (Helpers of God) in Yemen, among other groups.

In its early form, Al Qaeda was created with seed money from several oil-rich Arab states to fight the Soviet Union in Afghanistan. When those states stopped the flow of funds in the 1990s, a number of wealthy Arab families, often operating in the guise of Islamic charities, stepped in to keep the wheels of jihad lubricated.

Today, the Taliban in Afghanistan, Boko Haram in Nigeria and, of course, Islamic State (Da’esh in Arabic) are better funded than some small developing nations. Recent footage from Raqqah, capital of the Islamic Caliphate in Syria, reveals a city flush with money. The jihadis go around in the latest 4-wheel-drive gas-guzzlers manufactured in “Satanic” lands. The Caliph who has just renamed himself Abubakar Hussein al-Hashemi himself drives a bullet-proof Mercedes 600 and, when in public, likes to show off his $25,000 Swiss gold watch.

Thus, the claim that poverty causes terrorism is a moot point at best. What we are facing is not a revolt of the poor but a movement that attracts relatively well-to-do individuals from all over the world. After all, to reach the area controlled by the Caliphate, one would need cash to buy airline tickets to Turkey and then hire a taxi for a 200 mile drive south to Raqqah.

Failure of Education

The second diagnostic, that the terrorists represented a failure of the education system, is equally open to debate. The men who carried out the Paris massacres had all benefited from an educational system that many French boast about as the best in the world. They had obtained their “Bacs” and could also have proceeded to secure university education had they so wished.

More broadly, the current international jihad movement is not an affair of uneducated individuals. Members of the top echelon of the Islamic State all have higher education, as do the leaders of various Al Qaeda franchises in North Africa and Yemen. All the top five theoreticians of Da’esh have the equivalent of PhDs from the Al-Azhar University in Cairo, reputed to be the most exclusive center for Sunni Islamic theological education.

There are more PhDs, often from U.S. universities, in President Hassan Rouhani’s administration in Tehran than in that of President Barack Obama in Washington. And, yet, the Rouhani administration, claiming a duty to “export revolution,” is the principal supporter of a variety of Islamist terror groups, including branches of Hezbollah, the Ansar Allah, the Palestinian Islamic Jihad and Hamas.

In any event, no education is ever neutral. What matters is what you are taught, where, by whom and for what purpose. Many jihadists do attend Islamic madrassahs to complement and counter-balance their education in schools they do not consider halal. They are taught a vision of the world and the place of Islam in it that is bound to lead to conflict, violence, terror and ultimately war.

“Crusader-Zionist” Claim

Another suggested explanation of why terrorists did what they did is based on the classical claim that Muslims have been victims of Western Imperialist or “Crusader-Zionist” injustice for centuries, and are thus venting their anger through “violent extremism,” to borrow a phrase from my favorite lexicographer, Barack Obama.

In his book “The War for Muslim Minds”, French Islamologist Gilles Kepel echoes the Obamaesque cliché. He denounces the phrase “war on terror” as “a phrase engineered to heighten fear” among Americans. He writes, “Stigmatizing the enemy by calling them ‘terrorists’ is of little help in defining the nature of the new threat.”

The domestic variation of the same theme is that Muslims living in Western democracies, including France, are somehow deprived of full citizenship rights or are subjected to Islamophobia.

French journalist Edwy Plenel has devoted a whole book called “Pour les Musulmans” (“For Muslims”) to the claim of victimhood for Muslim communities in Europe in general and in France in particular. He questions the idea that there is any specific “Frenchness” and argues that France belongs to whoever lives there at any given time.

To drive in the point, he asserts: “We are a little America after all.”

His whole thesis is based on the rejection of the idea that in a secular republic founded on the principles of equality and fraternity, there could be such a thing as a Muslim community. That, however, is anathema to many Muslims who firmly believe that an “Infidel” could never be regarded as an equal to a follower of “The Only True Faith,” that is to say, Islam. Plenel undermines his own thesis with the title of his book. If Muslims do not represent a distinct reality in France, how could one be for or against them?

The Racism Claim

Another claim is that the jihadists are angry young men from ethnic groups subjected to racism in France.

That claim, too, is hard to sustain.

To start with, Islam is not a race; there are Muslims of all shades and colors, including quite a few ginger-heads, and not only in Europe. In any case, though France has had and continues to have its share of racist bigots, it has one of the best records in Europe for accommodating ethnic and racial diversity. It has had black members of parliament and Senators, Cabinet ministers and other ranking officials long before people like Colin Powell, Condoleezza Rice and Barack Obama injected a bit of color into the upper strata of American politics. For at least two decades after World War II, France was a haven for black American writers and musicians and artists, among them Richard Wright, James Baldwin, Miles Davis and Josephine Baker. Since the Second World, there have been black and “colored” faces in almost all French Cabinets and parliaments.

France also had Arab/Muslim members of parliament long before such “exotic” figures could enter the British or any other Western legislature. While the US is yet to have a Jewish president and Britain a Jewish prime minister, France has already had two Jewish prime ministers and a president who is a grandson of a Rabbi. Add to that at least two Protestant prime ministers, while Britain has not yet had its first Catholic premier, and France’s record as a fairly tolerant society would be hard to challenge.

The Islamophobia Claim

The next claim one has to deal with is that of Islamophobia as at least a partial cause of the resentment that is supposed to have pushed those “angry young” men towards jihad.

That claim, too, is based on little evidence, if any.

France is, in fact, one of the few countries in the world, all of them Western or Western-style democracies, where Muslims of any and all denominations could live, practice, and propagate their faith in freedom and security. In every one of the 57 Muslim majority member-nations of the Organization of Islamic Conference (OIC), only one version of Islam, the one approved by the state, is allowed basic freedoms.

If you are a Sunni Muslim in the Iranian capital, Tehran, for example, you are not allowed to have a mosque of your own, even though your fellow believers number 2.5 million.

In contrast, if you set up a Shi’ite mosque in Cairo, you are likely to get killed, as was the case in 2013 with the Egyptian capital’s now-destroyed single Shi’ite mosque and its founder. Editions of the Koran printed in Saudi Arabia are banned in the Islamic Republic of Iran, and Saudi Arabia repays the compliment by confiscating Korans published by the Iranians. In Paris, however, you could buy both editions, and many others, without fear of arrest or worse.

In many cases, rare texts of Islamic scholarship, often saved from destruction in their original Islamic homelands, are available in the Bibliothèque Nationale in Paris. French universities and other centers of learning and research do more work on all aspects of Islam than is done in almost any Muslim-majority nation.

The label “ethnocentric” has become an all-purpose device to shut down any critical scrutiny of communities and cultures supposedly “oppressed by the West” since the dawn of history. Interestingly, the very concept of ethnocentrism is a Western invention and remains unique to the West. It started with Montaigne four centuries ago in his essay “Les Cannibales,” written to castigate reports by Western travelers that pockets of cannibalism persisted in some parts of the world beyond Western influence.

If no other culture has developed the concept of ethnocentrism as a means of questioning its own values and world view, the reason is that non-Western cultures have no doubt that they are the best and that, as such, fully merit being at the center. The Chinese are not ashamed of being labeled “Sinocentric,” nor would Persians have any qualms about being accused of Persocentrism. It is only Western civilization that regards self-criticism as an almost sacred duty. In other civilizations, it is self-reaffirmation that is highly prized. It was on that basis that Imam Muhammad al-Ghazzali, the first Muslim scholar to be given the highly coveted title of Hojat al-Islam (Proof of Islam), castigated philosophical speculation as anti-Islamic.

“The task of the Muslim scholar is to seek knowledge that reaffirms the message of the Koran and the teachings of the Prophet,” Ghazzali wrote. “Philosophy, however, sees casting doubt on all certainties by questioning them as its principal task.”

Islamopologia or Islamophobia?

Often, in the post-modern Western view, the concept of otherness — altérité, made famous with Claude Levi-Strauss’s seminal work — implies at least the equality of the other, if not his superiority, in terms of cultural value.

There is, in fact, evidence that France may have more of a problem with Islamopologia than Islamophobia. Was it Islamophobia that persuaded President Jacques Chirac to try to suppress a report he himself had commissioned on the emergence of Islamist ghettos around Paris and many other French cities? Though it focused on what was going on in state-run schools, the Obin Report, eventually released a year later, portrayed a wider picture of a society that, as admitted by Prime Minister Valls recently, practiced a form of Apartheid for fear of angering its Muslim minority. The fact that a small minority of radical Muslims imposed their “way of life” on others, including a majority of French Muslims, showed that the problem was misguided Islamophilia, not bigoted Islamophobia.

In a small Paris street, Rue des Petites Ecuries, in the 10th arrondissement, one finds Muslims of many different backgrounds living side by side as shopkeepers and residents.

In many parts of the so-called Muslim world itself, however, they would not even address the routine “salam aleikom” to each other, or they would be killing one another in sectarian wars.

France is estimated to be home to around six million Muslims, the vast majority of them not practicing. However, in 2013 the country had just under 2000 mosques. Not a bad number when we remember that Tehran, with a population of 14 million, has only 720 mosques. Riyadh, the Saudi capital, has 3000 mosques for a population of 7.5 million.

It is also hardly a sign of Islamophobia that the French Republic, always proud of its secularism, financed the creation of what President Nicholas Sarkozy dubbed “une église française de l’Islam” in the shape of Le Conseil français du culte musulman.

Even an occasional viewer of French television would soon find more evidence of possibly well-intentioned but ultimately misguided Islamophilia than Islamophobia. Over the past few years, dozens of documentaries showing Islam in the best possible light have been screened, including a few claiming that had Islam not saved the pre-Christian Greco-Roman heritage, modern Europe would have been impossible. One documentary even suggested that cinema was invented by a certain Abu-Hufus, a Muslim lens-maker in 10th century Baghdad, echoing similar claims by President Barack Obama in his notorious speech at Cairo University.

By encouraging the illusion that Islam is really better than it is, and regardless of their intentions, Islamopologists do great harm both to Islam and to France. At the same time, the creation of a new category of topics beyond any critical scrutiny prevents France from developing policies needed to cope with Islam’s positive as well as negative aspects.

Islam is the Solution

In his “Relire le Coran” (“Re-reading the Koran”), the late French Arabologist Jacques Berque tried to prove that there was something miraculous about the “Holy Book” by showing that in one of the suras the same word was repeated on two pages facing each other in exactly the same place. That, in fact, is a reduction of the Koran to a book of jumbles, even though supposedly of divine origin.

I remember Michel Foucault, a French philosopher, who came to Tehran in 1978 to watch our “revolution.” He loved every moment of it. “Here we have the explosion of spirituality in the street,” he opined. “In the West we have nothing but crass materialism.” But when the mullahs started shooting people by the thousands, and hanging gay men, including one of the Frenchman’s Iranian lovers, in public, Foucault was outraged. “The revolution has been sullied,” he moaned, as if a revolution could ever be immaculate.

“Islam is the Solution” has always been a slogan of the Muslim Brotherhood. However, some Western writers, some of them converts to Islam, have adopted it in a broader civilizational sense.

Roger Garaudy, a Stalinist who converted to various versions of Islam in succession, starting with that marketed by Colonel Kaddhafi and ending with the version patented by Khomeini, argued that the West is at “an historic impasse” created by the Enlightenment, with Islam offering the only way out.

In his book, “The Promise of Islam,” he claims that only Islam is capable of offering mankind a future. “The future is depicted by men like Kaddhafi and Bani-Sadr,” he writes. Today, of course, no one knows where Kaddhafi is buried, while we know that Bani-Sadr is an exile in a Paris suburb.

Tariq Ramadan, an Islam advisor to various European governments, echoes that analysis in his book “The Future of Islam in Europe.” He claims that Islam, “more than any other civilization has advanced science to a higher level” while maintaining “the spiritual aspect of human existence,” supposedly neglected by the West.

Ramadan struggles hard to decide how to define the West. He rejects the concept of the West as Dar al-Harb (Abode of War) as outdated. He then suggests the label Dar al-Sulh (Abode of Truce) but translates the word “sulh” as “peace” which is entirely misleading because ‘sulh’ means truce, not peace. In fact, there is no word for peace in Arabic in the sense found in Indo-European languages. There is “silm” which means submission,” the root of the words Islam and Muslim.

Conscious that his trick might be exposed, he then considers the terms Dar al-Ahd (Abode of Treaty) and Dar al-Dhimma (Abode of Tribute). But these, too, appear unsatisfactory because there is no overall treaty between the West and the Islamic states, while no Western nation pays tribute (jizya) to an Islamic Caliphate.

Ramadan ends up with the term Dar al-Shihadah (Abode of Testimony) which, although it sounds inoffensive, suffers from the disadvantage of being meaningless.

He reveals his full hand when he suggests that the Islamic shariah law offers “creative and innovative possibilities” for solving the problems of a Western civilization in terminal decline.

In his book, mentioned earlier, Gilles Kepel suggests that the West should go “beyond bin Laden and Bush” — who are, by implication, in positions of moral equivalence — and aim to create the “New Andalusia,” a 21st-century version of what he imagines southern Spain to have been under Muslim rule, this time in the whole of the European Union.

Kepel does not say who would rule, but waxes lyrical about his Islamo-Christian utopia. “Andalusia must come to symbolize a place where the hybridization and flowering of two distinct cultures can produce an extraordinary progress in civilization. The advent of the New Andalusia is the only way out of the passions and impediments [sic] that Osama bin Laden’s Jihad and George W. Bush’s war on terror have produced.”

Kepel would have done well to read some of the Islamic texts, especially the poems of the Emir Al-Mutamed, which depict part of the atrocities committed by the Al-Moravids in the heyday of the Andalusian utopia.

Islamophilia is often mixed with anti-Americanism. Blaming America for whatever goes wrong under the sun has always been a favorite sport of a section of the French intellectual elite, and Kepel is not alone in indulging in it.

As early as the 19th century, several French writers, among them Stendhal and Villiers de L’Isle d’Adam, adopted anti-American postures in the name of preserving Europe’s “authenticity” or rejecting “crass materialism.” JK Huysmans saw America as “a gigantic whorehouse” and warned against “the invasion of American manners and its aristocracy of wealth.”

The French neo-anti-Americanism may not be as direct or as brazen. But it is certainly no less intensely felt.

In his book “Le Pacte de Lucidité,” the philosopher Jean Baudrillard describes the US as “a negative power that disregards [other nations’] sovereignty and representative democracy.”

According to Baudrillard, what we are witnessing is “The antagonism between world power [i.e. the US] and terrorism.” He writes: “The current confrontation between American hegemony and Islamic terrorism is the visible aspect of the duel between an integral reality of power and the integral refusal of that same power.”

The background to that epic struggle is the death of Western reality itself.

Baudrillard writes: “In fact, this profane and desacralized reality has slowly become a useless function, a fiction that we desperately try to save as we did with God’s existence in the past. Deep down we don’t know how to rid ourselves of it.”

If Western democracies are attacked by terrorists, it is, once again, their own fault.

Baudrillard writes: “The capitalist world order is no longer facing the specter of Communism but its own specter: terrorism.”

I believe that one of the reasons for the West’s success as a civilization is its almost unique capacity for self-criticism.

However, that unique capacity is undermined when Islam, which is now part of the Western reality, is allocated a special category labeled “handle with care” or “vilify at will.”

Sometimes, that “handle with care” position on Islam is taken to the limit of the absurd. For example, some stars of La Gauche (The Left) appeared on television to call for a campaign of silence against Michel Houellebecq’s novel, “Submission,” which, they claimed, insulted Islam. Former Trotskyite Edwy Plenel invited reviewers simply to ignore the novel, a new form of censorship.

As far as Islam was concerned, omerta was in order, just as it is in the case of the Corsican Mafia.

In a civilization built on critical, and self-critical, thinking, we are invited to practice censorship and self-censorship. Would Milton be allowed to publish what he wrote on Catholics? And what about Voltaire and what he wrote on blacks? Need one mention Chateaubriand on Muhammad and Thomas Jefferson on Islam?

What happened to that great European dictum “Error has no rights”?

The French are, of course, not alone to get carried away in their enthusiasm for “the other” whether it is Mussolini or Hitler or Stalin or Mao or the Red Khmer, and, more recently, Khomeini and Osama bin Laden.

Susan Sontag’s admiration for the “courage” of Al-Qaeda bombers of 9/11, Noam Chomsky’s passionate support for the Taliban in Afghanistan, and Ramsey Clark’s boundless admiration for Ayatollah Khomeini and Saddam Hussein, are too well known to need being recalled here.

In a recent nook, the British author Michael Axworthy reflects similar fascination with the Khomeinist regime in Iran. A former diplomat who headed the Iran Desk of the Foreign Office for years, he notes that as “Jean-Paul Sartre once wrote that the French were never as free as they were under Nazi occupation, in the sense that moral choice and the seriousness of consequences were never as sharp as they were at the time. That too is true in Iran. In Western countries, for many of us, we have it easy and have become morally lazy, relativistic and cynical. In Iran, the essentials of right and wrong, freedom and repression have been everyday matters of discussion and choice.”

In other words, the estimated 150,000 highly educated Iranians who flee the country each year, creating the biggest “brain drain in history,” according to the World Bank, do not know what a good thing they are leaving behind in Iran. Let us also remember that under Nazi occupation, Sartre continued to live a comfortable life of philosophical speculation while quite a few French men and women took up arms to drive out the occupier.

The Imperialism of Guilt

In the past two centuries, contemplating the outside world, the West has passed through a number of phases. The optimism of the 18th century, with its rose-tinted spectacles, was followed by 19th century romanticism and the tragic pessimism of the 20th century.

The Imperialism of arrogance, based on the belief that the West had a sacred mission to civilize the rest of the world, was replaced by the romantic illusion that “the other” had developed a lifestyle closer to human nature and nature in general.

In our time, the Imperialism of arrogance, which denied “the other” any positive achievement, has been replaced with an Imperialism of guilt that blames the West, especially America, for everything and denies “the other” any credit, even for his own mistakes.

Thus, the Imperialism of guilt invites us to see the crime committed by the Kouachi brothers as somehow related to “French atrocities” in Algeria.

Sometimes, peddlers of the Imperialism of guilt go even further. Every year, a group of Americans travels to Jerusalem to meet Arabs in the eastern part of the city and apologize to them for “the Crusades.”

The fact that at the time of the Crusades the U.S. did not even exist is conveniently forgotten, as is that Arabs at best played second fiddle in the Crusades, which was mostly the affair of Turks, Kurds and the Mamelukes.

One of the 14 papers presented during the annual “Death to America” conference in Tehran was also devoted to the role of “The Great Satan” as leader of the Crusades against Islam. That Iran was in no way involved in the Crusades, a clash between the Europeans and the Turkic, Mameluke and Kurdish principalities of Egypt, the Levant and Anatolia at the time, was overlooked.

In a political version of the Original Sin, the West is invited to account for all its real or imagined misdeeds, including those unjustly imputed to it by its enemies, to apologize for them and, as often as possible, even pay compensation.

The adepts of political correctness in the West regret everything and measure everyone’s worth with the degree of his or her victimhood.

And, yet, to quote Spinoza, “after hatred, regret is the most fundamental enemy of mankind.”

Self-Loathing and Submission

Sometimes, self-criticism degenerates into self-loathing and a longing for peace even through “submission,” in line with the Stockholm Syndrome.

Eric Zemmour, a TV journalist, has become the bête-noire of the politically correct crowd in France because he dared warn against the danger that Islamism posed for Europe and Western civilization as a whole.

However, Zemmour’s main target is France, or more precisely the French intellectual elite, who, he claims, are leading their civilization to suicide in the sense meant by British historian Arnold Toynbee: by failing to meet their challenges. Zemmour is not blaming Islam in the sense claimed by Islamopologists. He is blaming the French, who have lost their will to fight back in defense of their own values and way of life.

Zemmour’s “suicide” warning is echoed in a new book by former Prime Minister Michel Rocard, in which he claims that France and Western civilization as a whole are digging their own graves.

Even Michel Houellebecq, now castigated as the paragon of Islamophobia, in his latest novel “Submission,” points the explosive anger of his derision at the French rather than Islam and Muslims. He portrays a civilization gripped by self-doubt, obsession with sex and consumerism, and lacking the will to take any risks in defense of its fading values.

France and Europe in general are prepared to listen to the voice of the tempter promising them tranquility, if not peace. As described by Mark Lilla in the New York Review of Books, in Houellebecq’s dystopian novel, the tempter tells the narrator, a wobbly François, that

“the summit of human happiness is to be found in absolute submission,” of children to parents, women to men, and men to God. And in return, one receives life back in all its splendor. Because Islam does not, like Christianity, see human beings as pilgrims in an alien, fallen world, it does not see any need to escape it or remake it. The Koran is an immense mystical poem in praise of the God who created the perfect world we find ourselves in, and teaches us how to achieve happiness in it through obedience. Freedom is just another word for wretchedness.

In other words, Houellebecq is, in a roundabout way, endorsing Kepel’s claim that only a New Andalusia could save France and Europe from their current decline. Houellebecq’s novel is a fruit of cultural pessimism, which has a long history in the European civilization. And, yet, Houellebecq’s novel is routinely castigated as an “Islamophobic” tract rather than a caricature of French society supposedly in decline.

Since I reject the very premise of the novel, as well as Kepel’s analysis, that European and/or Western civilization in general is in decline, I need not dwell on the nature of their pessimism. However, what I wish to emphasize is that, contrary to what they think, Islam is torn between currents of self-aggrandizement and self-loathing at least as strong as we witness in Europe today.

The danger that Europe faces is not from pessimists like Zemmour and Houellebecq, who continue a long line that goes back to Saint Augustine, Tomassino Campanella, The Song of Rolland, and more recently, Dostoyevsky, Kafka, Oswald Spengler, Thomas Mann, Robert Musil, George Orwell, and Thomas Bernhardt, to name but a few. If danger there is, it comes from those who wish to silence such voices in the name of multiculturalism and “respect for the other.”

Terror without Frontier

What we face today is terrorism without frontier in the context of globalization, which was so ardently desired and anticipated just a generation ago.

I think the question whether or not this new brand of global terrorism is Islamic cannot be settled by outsiders such as François Hollande and Anne Hidalgo. During a television program, I was taken to task by a blond sheikh from California who, having recently converted to Islam, was angry at my readiness to accept Osama bin Laden’s claim that he acted in the name of Islam.

However, since Islam has no mechanism for excommunication, one could not reject anybody who says he is a Muslim. All that one could do is to have recourse to “bara’ah,” a mechanism for self-exoneration indicating that the reprehensible deeds of some Muslims do not concern all Muslims.

In its most dynamic and active current manifestation, Islam is a religion transformed, upgraded or downgraded as you wish, into a political ideology. That ideology is aimed at world conquest as a long-term objective, which could be attained through a relentless fight against all other forms of organized human existence.

To fight this new brand of terrorism, the Western democracies need to take its claim of representing Islam seriously, even if they regard such a claim as misplaced. It is up to Muslims themselves to practice “bara’ah,” that is to say self-exoneration, and put some clear water between themselves and those who pretend to be the champions of modern Islam. Hollande and Hidalgo cannot do that for them.

A growing number of people in France are beginning to face the reality of the problem Islam poses for the French way of life, if only by providing a radical alternative. François de Closets, best-selling author of the book “Don’t Tell God What He Should Do,” insists that the French should openly admit that the presence of a large Muslim community in the country poses a problem. This does not mean that Islam is good or bad; what is at issue is that Islam is different, and with things the rest of the French might not want. The only way to deal with the problem is to admit its existence, examine it as calmly as possible and seek solutions compatible with the values of a modern Western democracy. In other words, the ostrich-style denial preached by people such as Plenel simply misses the point.

Islam’s Civil War of Ideas

Islam is going through a major civil war of ideas, a civilizational conflict between those Muslims who regard religion as just a part of life, and others who believe religion must be assigned no more than a well-defined place in the public space. That such a conflict should trigger violence, part of which is transferred to non-Muslim lands, is no surprise.

Violence was woven into the very DNA of Islam from the start. After all, the Prophet imposed his domination on parts of Arabia with a series of wars conducted in the style of razzias [raids], from the Arab word “ghazva” [battle]. Islam seldom tried to convert people by force, but always insisted on control of territory and imposing its values and its rule. Even today, the aim is not to force anyone to convert; what is demanded is “submission.”

Of the four Well Guided Caliphs of Islam, three were assassinated by Muslims from rival factions. Since then, the history of Islam is dotted with countless political murders at all levels. Jihadist movements did not come into being in reaction to American “Imperialism” or Zionism, the two punching-bags routinely blamed for any surge in Islamic violence. The Kharijites massacred people in what is today Iraq almost 1500 years ago. The Thaqafites, in turn, conducted massacres 1300 years ago. In the 19th century, The Akhund of Swat, in what is now Pakistan, had never heard of America, let alone George W. Bush and his “neo-cons.” Zarraq Khan in the Afghan uplands, Mullah Hassan in what is now Somalia, and the Mahdi and his Ansars in the Sudan waged jihad in pursuit of political power, rather than the settlement of theological disputes with Christendom.

Control of territory, by force if necessary, has always been and remains at the heart of Islamic ambitions. This is what the “brethren” do in the suburbs of Paris and other major French cities which they are trying to “halalize” [make permissible, according to the tenets of Islam] through a mixture of force, intimidation and bribery. The first step is visual “halalization,” that is to say a suburban landscape in which beards, hijab, and Islamic dress codes and appearance in general predominate. The next step is to cleanse the targeted area of non-halal “pockets of kufr” [pockets of infidels], such as cinemas, cafes serving alcohol, wine and spirit shops, restaurants serving heathen food, and book and music shops offering non-Islamic material.

The Khomeinist mullahs try to do the same through surrogates such as Hezbollah in Lebanon, Hashad al-Shaabi in Iraq, Haras al-Watani in Syria, Ansar al-Allah in Yemen, and Islamic Jihad in Gaza. Large chunks of Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan and Yemen have already been “halalized” under huge portraits of Ayatollah Khomeini and his successor, Ali Khamenei.

Sunni Muslims are reacting to the threat of Shi’ite expansion, which would mean loss of territory for Sunnis, with their own land-grab schemes, the latest of which has taken the form of the Islamic Caliphate in Iraq and Syria.

“A pure Muhammadan Islam”: This is what the Islamic State promises in its propaganda, much of it in cyberspace, to deliver once the Caliphate, established in parts of Iraq and Syria, has defeated “Infidel” enemies and secured its position.

It is not solely thanks to its blitzkrieg victories that IS has attracted universal attention. Perhaps more interesting is the group’s ability to seduce large numbers of Muslims across the globe, including in Europe and the United States, with an ideological product designed to replace other brands of Islamism marketed by the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, not to mention that of Taliban in Afghanistan and Khomeinists in Iran. Da’eshism, to coin a phrase, also tries to transcend the ideological hodgepodge marketed by Al Qaeda franchises since the 1980s.

The Three Rejections

The “Pure Muhammadan Islam” promised by Da’esh is based on three rejections, explained by the late Islamist ideologue, Yussef al-Ayyeri, in a book published more than a decade ago.

The first rejection is that of traditional Islamic tolerance for Christians and Jews who, labeled “People of the Book”, could live in an Islamic Caliphate by paying protection money (jizya).

The idea is that the “protection” offered by Muhammad belonged to the early phase of Islam, when the “Last Prophet” was not strong enough to claim total control of human destiny. Once Muhammad had established his rule, he ordered the massacre of Jews and the expulsion of Christians from the Arabian Peninsula.

What is now needed is “cleansing” (tanzif) of the world, starting with areas controlled by the Caliphate, of other religions. People of other faiths could always convert to Islam and escape death. Last summer, the Druze in northern Syria did that by sending a delegation to Caliph Abubakar Hussein al-Hashemi al-Baghdadi to swear on the Koran and announce the community’s mass conversion.

The Zoroastrian Yazidis refused conversion and were massacred, driven out or taken into slavery. Some Christian towns and villages captured by IS also refused conversion, “obliging” the Caliph to order massacres and mass expulsions.

In his book, Al-Ayyeri argues that the history of mankind is the story of “perpetual war between belief and unbelief.” As far as belief is concerned, the absolutely final version is Islam, which “annuls all other religions.” Thus, Muslims can have only one goal: converting all humanity to Islam and “effacing every trace of all other religions, creeds and ideologies.”

The second rejection is aimed against “infidel ideologies”, especially democracy, that is to say government of men by men rather than by Allah.

Al-Ayyeri writes:

“Various forms of unbelief attacked the world of Islam in the past century or so, to be defeated in one way or another. The first form of unbelief to attack was “modernism” … which led to the emergence in the lands of Islam of states based on ethnic identities and territorial dimensions rather than religious faith. The second was nationalism, which, imported from Europe, divided Muslims into Arabs, Persians, Turks and others. … The third form of unbelief is socialism, which includes communism. That, too, has been defeated and eliminated from the Muslim world.”

All along, many Muslims have fallen for those “heathen ideologies,” thus postponing the inevitable unification of mankind under the banner of Islam.

Hilmi Hashem, currently regarded as chief theological advisor to the Caliph, believes that the decision by Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt to take part in democratic elections, with tragic consequences for “true believers,” was “a sin rather than an error.”

Hashem is one of the four disciples of al-Ayyeri, all of them Egyptians, to provide the new Caliphate with theological arguments and methods of applying the Islamic law (sharia). Hashem is now acting as “Grand Mufti” (religious Guide) for Da’esh. He is joined by Abu-Moslem al-Masri, who has been appointed Chief Justice, and Abu-Hareb, who is Chief Judge in Aleppo, Syria’s most populous city.

The third rejection in IS ideology is aimed against what is labelled “diluted” (iltiqati) forms of Islam. For example, there are those who insist that Islam is a religion of peace. They ignore the fact that Islam will be a religion of peace only after it has seized control of the entire world. Until then the world will continue to be divided between the House of Islam (Dar al-Islam) and the House of War (Dar al-Harb).

Like the Taliban, Boko Haram in Nigeria and Al-Shabaab in Somalia, the Islamic State also rejects the “aping of infidel institutions” such as a presidential system, a parliament, and the use of such terms as “republic” to describe a Muslim society. The only form of government in “Pure Muhammadan Islam” is the caliphate; the only law is the sharia.

It is clear that if Islam has a problem with the West, and indeed with the whole world, as testified by tensions in more than 50 non-Western countries, including India, Burma, Thailand, the Philippines, China and even Japan, not to mention more than a dozen African states, it is because Islam has a problem with itself, not knowing whether it is a religion or a political movement.

Dreams of Islamic Reform

When at a loss as how to deal with what they admit is an Islamic threat, some writers and public officials in France reach for the hope of an Islamic reform movement.

The pious hope that Islam could be reformed has hovered in the background of many debates since the early 19th century, but has never been a serious basis for building an effective policy to face the challenge. The sad fact is that Islam cannot be reformed, if only because it lacks a recognized authority capable of proposing, let alone imposing, reform. I know this from personal experience, as in the 1970s I covered the proceedings of a working group from eight Muslim countries, led by Tunku Abdul-Rahman, a former Malaysian prime minister, appointed by the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC) to propose a package of very mild, non-theological reforms such as regulating the Haj pilgrimage and fixing the fasting month of Ramadan. The whole exercise collapsed after a few meetings, because no one knew how to propose reforms, let alone find an authority to impose them.

Today, reforming Islam is harder than ever, if only because the bulk of Islamic energies are devoted to political issues, with theological work not getting even a stool at the high table. The last credible Islamic theologians one could cite died over 50 years ago. The few noteworthy theologians one finds in the seminaries of Mecca, Medina, Cairo, Najaf and Qom, among other places, are focused on either esoteric topics or tinkering at the margin of practical problems of modern life.

What France, and the West in general, face today is a war waged by a part of Islam against the democratic world. The most effective way for the West to deal with this situation, and eventually win this war, is to mobilize the resources of its nation-states for facing the challenge on all fronts — political, economic, and cultural and, when needed, military. The silly slogan “this has no military solution” is self-defeating, if only because it is based on a denial of the reality that the Western democracies and their allies in the Muslim world are being challenged and attacked in a veritable multifaceted war.

Once the Western democracies have admitted to themselves that this is a war, they would be in a position seek allies in the Muslim world by posing the only question that really matters in a state of war: Are you with us or against us?

Today, they cannot pose that question because they are dancing around the issue, talking of social injustice, education, colonial heritage, racism, ethnocentrism and other fashionable shibboleths already mentioned.

The unwillingness of Western democracies to agree on a common analysis of the situation, enables opportunist Muslim powers to hedge their bets by helping or at least tolerating the terrorists under the banner of Islam. And that is bound to prolong the deadly struggle, which terrorism in the end cannot win.

Les Docks de Paris – Celebrating the Refusal to Surrender


From the JERUSALEM POST by NACHMAN SELTZER 04/13/2015 23:23

The city of lights on the edge of the River Seine has become a hotbed of Islamic terrorism that is manifested in oh-so-many- ways. Paris presidential residence . (photo credit:REUTERS)

When I told my friends that I was being sent to Paris on assignment, I saw a certain look crossing every face. How should I put this delicately? They were afraid.

“Are you sure it’s safe,” they wanted to know.

“Yes,” I replied. “I’m going from the airport to the convention center and back to the airport.”

“Okay,” they said, somewhat mollified.

“As long as it’s safe.”

Welcome to Paris 2015.

The city of lights on the edge of the River Seine has become a hotbed of Islamic terrorism that is manifested in oh-so-many- ways. The Jews of France no longer feel welcome in the world capital of fashion and good food.

This was not my first visit to magical Paris. I was there in 2010. At the time, I felt safe enough to stroll through the streets with a kippa on my head, to ride the Metro, to visit the Eiffel Tower and to even take a boat ride on the Seine. Unfortunately, the illusion of security exists no more.

As a child recently asked his mother upon catching sight of an obviously Jewish man walking through a hostile Parisian arrondissement – “what’s he doing here Mommy? Doesn’t he know that he will be killed?” Welcome to Paris 2015.

Matters came to a head recently with the terrorist attack on Charlie Hebdo, followed by the shocking attack and subsequent day-long siege on the Hyper Cacher kosher supermarket in which four Jews were senselessly murdered. It seemed like Europe was standing poised on the cusp of disaster. And then more than three million people took to the streets in a spontaneous display of outrage.

Suddenly everyone was Charlie.

Yet, though the outrage was properly displayed when it came to fighting for freedom of speech, one couldn’t claim the same regarding the terrorist attack on Paris’ Jews. Everyone might have been Charlie, but it was equally as obvious that not everyone identified with the Jews of France.

It is against this frightening backdrop that the Jews of Paris recently gathered to celebrate Torah learning and all it represents in their lives.

Welcome to Paris 2015.

Paris appears the same. The same graceful architecture of buildings, roads and boulevards steeped in culture, the same museums and landmarks, the same corner cafes serving tiny cups of coffee to passerby, the same River Seine winding through the city.

On the surface, everything seems fine.

Les Docks de Paris is a convention center somewhat akin to the Javits Center in New York or the fairgrounds in Tel Aviv. Used for auto shows, large business events and conventions hosting thousands, Le Docks de Paris was recently utilized for an entirely different purpose, as the Jews of Paris gathered to reaffirm their very essence.

Under the aegis of Rabbi Dovid Hofstedter, the Dirshu organization has succeeded in creating an unstoppable force of Torah renaissance around the globe with hundreds of thousands of Jews taking part in one or another of a wide range of daily Torah programs offered. While in Paris, I participated in the celebration of the completion of Dirshu’s signature seven-year Daf HaYomi B’Halacha, Mishnah Berurah – Jewish law study program. The sense of excitement was palpable as the keynote speakers of the Orthodox Jewish world stood up to address the crowd. There was a sense of great achievement and an underlying promise for continuance. You were able to feel it in the room, in the very atmosphere. The people in attendance were clearly growth oriented and serious about life.

But there was an additional, somewhat intangible feeling coursing through Les Docks de Paris.

A sense of pride in who they are – a sense of ethics and morality – a sense of being surrounded by the finest of French Jews – and a sense of pride in their ability to live life as Torah-observant Jews in a time of such uncertainty.

The crowd was excited by what they have accomplished over seven years of daily learning, while ambitiously contemplating future Torah study. They stood united against the background of the worrisome political situation and the growing danger in the streets. They expressed indignation when Charlie Hebdo was attacked and cried for their brethren when four fellow Jews were laid to rest – murdered on the Sabbath eve for the crime of being Jews. And now they gathered to express their belief in God and their readiness to study His laws.

They were eager, jubilant and filled with a sense of mission.

I heard many words and messages. Powerful speeches and touching stories. And as I looked around Les Docks de Paris, I knew that the message I heard that evening would resound within my heart for days to come, as I recall a convention center in Paris filled with Jews proudly proclaiming their belief in God and their readiness to stand up for what they know to be true.

The gathering was poignant, authentic, genuine and emotional, its message triumphant.

“Je suis Dirshu.”

“Je suis proud Jews of France.”

And perhaps most importantly “Je suis Torah.”

Welcome to Paris 2015 – where the battle is being fought with graceful perseverance, a link to eternity and a refusal to surrender.

The writer is a rabbi and the author of 20 books, runs a boys’ choir based out of Jerusalem, writes a regular column for the Hamodia International Magazine and lectures around the world. He can be reached at nachmanseltzer@ gmail.com.

My comments in red: It has been over 20 years now that the Simon Wiesenthal Center has been warning Jews to not travel to France.  As famous journalist Oriana Fallaci stated, “Europe has become Eurabia.”

The Holocaust – We Must Remember – Dr. Charles Sydnor -Soldiers of Destruction

Holocaust -Sydnor-Soldiers of Destruction


30-Hour Series of Interviews broadcast on the Roger Fredinburg Radio Program

12-03-1997 Fifth Program in Series

Guest: Dr. Charles W. Sydnor, Jr.


In this show Roger Fredinburg interviews Dr. Charles Sydnor on the topic: Soldiers of Destruction – SS Death Head Division.  Here is a video clip from this wonderful interview.


ISBN-10: 0691008531 and ISBN-13: 978-0691008530

Roger: Welcome to the program, ladies and gentlemen! I am Roger Fredinburg, radio’s regular guy. Our presentation tonight is Part 5 of our ongoing series, The Holocaust: We Must Remember. I once again want to thank Chey Simonton and Kelleigh Nelson for all their help in putting together this incredible array of guests we’re having during this series. It’s just unbelievable, a mind-boggling group of folks who have incredible stories to tell us! So far, it’s been very fascinating! I’m really enjoying it and I hope you are too.

Tonight we speak with a gentleman who has spent a lifetime really dedicated to service to his community and to bringing forth educational principles that will forever endure and help Americans and other learn the lessons of the past. He’s been assigned and appointed to numbers of boards and commissions, had numerous appointments, was a college professor, was the President of Emory and Henry College from 1984 to 1991, was assistant to the Governor of Virginia and has had a remarkable career in television documentaries and radio. He’s certainly no stranger to the medium. We’d like to welcome Dr.Charles Sydnor to the program this evening. We’re going to talk about his book, “Soldiers of Destruction: SS Death’s Head Division.” It has been continuously in print for 20 years now. Dr. Sydnor, welcome to the show!

Dr. Sydnor: Roger, thank you! It’s an honor to be with you!

Roger: It’s a real pleasure to have you here. I know I didn’t do you any justice with your biography; but, it’s so incredible, I didn’t know where to begin!

Dr. Sydnor:  Well, thank you. I heard what you said and that’s just fine! I have probably changed careers, I think nine times now, more than the average person my age. I’m in my mid-50s. Through all of this; as a college professor, as a college administrator, a gubernatorial assistant, a college president, and now a general manager in a public broadcasting operation,the continuous thread that runs through all of this has been my training as a professional historian. I was trained in modern German history at Vanderbilt University in Nashville, TN, completed my graduate education at the University of Fribourg in the Federal Republic of Germany in the late 1960s. While I completed my graduate education, I spent a year and a half in the archives of the West German National Archive system doing research in the original records of the SS. I worked in the Himmler files; the surviving records of Himmler’s office that are deposited in the West German National Archives in Coblenz, the records of the Waffen SS which are deposited at Fribourg, the records of the concentration camp expectorate, part of those records are in Munich at the Institute for History and the rest of them are up in Coblenz, and on and off, about four different times over a period of about four months, in the Berlin Document Center which houses all of the surviving personnel records of the SS Officer Corps.

Over that period of time, from 1968 to 1976, I put together the research that became the book, “Soldiers of Destruction,” which Princeton University Press first published in 1977. It’s a history of one of the original three Waffen SS Divisions; the SS Totenkopf or Death’s Head Division, that was created in the fall of 1939 from three regiments of SS guards from the concentration camps in Germany. The man who was the first commander of the SS Death’s Head Division, Theodor Eicke, is one of the still unknown, or less well known, major perpetrators of the holocaust. It was Eicke who built the concentration camp system, trained the men who administered it and instilled in the SS camp guards, in the period before the Second World War, the ethos of brutality and harshness that became the basis on which the extermination of the European Jews in Auschwitz and other concentration camps was carried out.

Roger: Maybe you can help us out here because we hear a lot of definitions and things regarding the Nazis; but, I’d like you to explain what the SA was, what the SS was? What were the different branches of Hitler’s army?

Dr. Sydnor:  Neither the SA or the SS were part of the German Army. The apologists for the SS after WW II claimed the SS was simply another military branch of the German Armed Forces which was not the case! The SS was an affiliate and an agency of the Nazi Party. Briefly, the distinction between the SA and the SS is this: the SA was the original brown-shirted storm trooper Nazi Party army created in the 1920s that were used to demonstrate in the streets of Germany the Nazi political muscle. Most of the political parties in Germany in the 1920s had paramilitary formations; that was an outward visible sign of the political strength and might, was the nature and discipline and size of your paramilitary unit. The SA was the Nazi Party’s paramilitary unit.

The SS was created in 1925, originally as a very small group of men who were very highly trained and disciplined and served their original purpose performing security duty as Hitler’s personal body guards. That group of men, from the outset, were very elite. In 1929 a young man named Heinrich Himmler, who had joined the Nazi party in 1922, had been a member of the SA and at one time was secretary to Gregor Strasser, one of Hitler’s original confederates. Heinrich Himmler became the chief of the SS, which was still a very small unit within the SA. It was part of the SA. It remained part of the SA until after Hitler came to ower in 1933.

By the time Hitler came to power in 1933 the SA brown-shirt, storm trooper army had grown to nearly 4,000,000 men. The rapid growth of the SA caused disciplinary problems. There was a sort of breakdown of Hitler’s authority and control over it . The leader of the SA, a man named Ernst Rohm, wanted the brown-shirted army to become the new army of Nazi Germany, the political Nazi army of Nazi Germany. The old traditional officer corps and the military establishment in Germany which had survived after WW I did not want this radical mob of undisciplined bullies to take over the military functions of the state. In 1934 the leading figures in the military basically gave Hitler a choice. He had been in power about a year and a half. He was trying to consolidate a totalitarian system with an internal political and repressive apparatus that would do away with other political parties, control the press, media, universities, schools, etc. He needed the military establishment for his long-range goals of re-armament and eventually making war. A brown-shirted army of storm troopers was not in any way qualified for that mission.

The leaders of the military establishment said, ‘look, you’ve got a choice. You can either deal with Rohm and the SA and bring the SA under control and get rid of Rohm or we’ll take matters into our own hands.” Hitler needed the military so he arranged, with the assistance of Herman Goring who at that time was probably Hitler’s closest paladin, and the two principal figures in the SS, Heinrich Himmler and Reinhardt Heydrich, Hitler arranged to have Rohm and the leadership of the SA murdered. This is the notorious Night of the Long Knives, June 30, 1934. Basically, they decapitated the SA! They murdered all the leading figures in the SA with Hitler’s blessing and on his orders. Subsequent to that, Hitler issued a decree that separated the SS completely from the SA and the SS became a separate and distinct institution.

At that time, Hitler had also sanctioned the beginning of a process by which Himmler was taking control of the police forces in Germany. Between the Night of the Long Knives at the end of June, 1934 and the middle of June, 1936, Heinrich Himmler and Reinhardt Heydrich consolidated control over all the police forces in the German states and basically merged the police forces of the country with the SS as a Nazi Party institution.


Heinrich Himmler


Reinhardt Heydrich

Roger: Oh, boy!

Dr. Sydnor: In June of 1936, Germany had for the first time what it had never had in it’s history, it had a National Chief of Police. The German system at that time was a federal system like ours with police powers reserved to the states. The police forces were regional and localized police forces; in states, communities and counties, like here in the United States. Himmler consolidated police power at the national level in June of 1936 under himself as the chief of the German police in his capacity as   of the SS. From 1936 on, the police forces in Germany worked outside the normal standards of law.

At the same time, one of the other principal figures involved in the decapitation of the SA in June, 1934 was this man, Theodor Eicke. Eicke, in 1933, had been appointed as second commandant of a detention complex that had been hastily erected outside Munich at a little town called Dachau. Himmler had a great deal of confidence in Eicke’s organizational ability. He had a nasty, mean, brutal streak; he was just the kind of man to organize a permanent detention center or concentration camp for political prisoners in Bavaria. By June, 1934 Eicke had made Dachau into what quickly became known as a model concentration camp. It was Eicke, acting on Himmler’s orders with Hitler’s blessing, who actually shot Ernst Rohm to death in his cell behind Stadelheim Prison in Munich. As a reward for murdering Rohm, and because of his achievements at Dachau, in July of 1934 Himmler appointed Eicke to the new post of Inspector General of Concentration Camps and ordered him to create a permanent system of large concentration camps staffed and guarded by SS soldiers who would be trained by Eicke. The system that emerged by 1938 was based on four and then five large concentration camps; Dachau, Sachsenhausen, Buchenwald- the notorious camp near Weimar, Ravensbruck — that became the concentration camp for women. After the Anschluss which was the incorporation of Austria in March of 1938, the Mauthausen-Gusen concentration camp near Linz, Austria.

Theodor Eicke

Theodor Eicke

It is noteworthy that four or five of the most notorious mass murderers of the SS, people associated in the minds of victims, survivors, students and historians, as principal SS perpetrators, served in the SS concentration camps at one time or another and were proteges of Theodor Eicke. They were trained by him! They were taught the business of brutality and mass murder by Theodor Eicke. They included:

Adolf Eichmann who served as a guard at Dachau in 1934;

  1. Rudolf Hoss, the later commandant of the Auschwitz extermination complex who served at Dachau and also at Oranienburg under Eicke,
  2. Odilo Globocnik, the SS General who ended up as the central figure in Operation Reinhardt (the code name for the extermination of the Jews of Poland). Globocnik had served briefly as a guard in a concentration camp unit.
  3. Paul Werner Hoppe (sp?) who became the commandant of the Stutthof concentration camp near Danzig in Poland, was a protegé of Eicke.
  4. Karl Otto Koch, the commandant of Buchenwald.
  5. Anton Kaindl was commandant of the Sachsenhausen
  6. Friedrich “Fritz” Hartjenstein, also a camp commandant at Auschwitz/Birkenau and later at the Natzweiler concentration camp.


The generation of hand-on camp administrators, perpetrators, murderers were the proteges of Theodor Eicke and their experience in the SS all went back to the early history of the concentration camp system in the 1930s, from 1933 on.

Roger: So, when these initial concentration camps were established, what was the objective?

Dr. Sydnor: The objective was two-fold. Hitler’s objective, which Himmler and Heydrich understood from the first, was to create a detention center, a prison (which they preferred to call a concentration camp) into which they could throw anybody who potentially was any kind of threat to the Nazi Party or Hitler’s regime, or anybody who might conceivably challenge the new Nazi state in any way. That included people who were Communists, Socialists, members of the Catholic Center Party, Democrats, Jehovah’s Witnesses. The Nazis had a particular distaste and dislike for Jehovah’s Witnesses because they refused to recognize the secular authority of the state and the Nazis believed they were particularly seditious, Catholics, Protestant clergymen and, of course, Jews in larger and larger numbers.

In Germany in the 1930s a concentration camp was not a prison that was under the control of the Ministry of the Interior or a state agency like the Dept. of Corrections here in Virginia. The concentration camps were under the jurisdiction and command authority of the Inspector of Concentration Camps who was a senior officer in the SS. So, the concentration camps existed outside the normal confines of authority and accountability to any state agency.

Roger: Now prior to this…..

Dr. Sydnor: …There’s another essential thing that needs to be explained.

Roger: Go ahead!

Dr. Sydnor: In 1933 the Nazis very quickly developed a special kind of arrest procedure that was illegal. They used that special arrest procedure on people they specifically wanted to throw into concentration camps. That procedure was called “Protective Custody” or “Protective Detention”. The Gestapo, the secret state police, came into existence at the same time. It was also an agency of the SS after 1936. The Gestapo issued the protective custody warrants. If you got picked up on a protective custody warrant, you were hauled into the police station, fingerprinted and shipped off immediately to a concentration camp and held there indefinitely. You had no right to make a phone call, no right to summon a lawyer, no right to an appearance in court! You could be held, originally for 30 days, subsequently for 60 days and then 90 days. After the war broke out, if you were in concentration camp you could be held indefinitely. Only the Gestapo decided whether you got out, or when you got out. So, everything involved, using the camps as instruments of terror, was based on the procedures that were outside the normal laws, the checks and balances of a legal system in a civilized state.

Roger: Now, before Hitler, there was the Weimar Republic. It was a republic, just like the Republic of the United States of America?

Dr. Sydnor:  It was a federalized system in which the national government and the individual state governments of Germany shared powers. The federalized system that existed in the Weimar years was an outgrowth of the merged state system of the German Empire between 1871 and 1918. Germany was a collection of individual states; Prussia, Schleswig-Holstein, Hanover, Wurtemburg, Baden, Bavaria, Saxony and a whole collection of smaller states.

Roger:  Hold it right there. We’ve got to take a quick break. We’ll come back and develop this whole evolution of the Waffen SS group that you’ve studied. Ladies and gentlemen, our guest this evening is Dr. Charles Sydnor. His book is “Soldiers of Destruction.” He follows the evolution of one of these groups right through to the bitter end, so to speak. Fascinating reading! Fascinating book! Our phone lines will not be open until we get a little deeper into the discussion.


Roger:  Welcome back, ladies and gentlemen! Dr. Charles Sydnor is our guest this evening. We’re discussing his incredible book. Charlie, are you with us, my friend?

Dr. Sydnor: Yes, sir! I’m right here.

Roger: I want to develop this story a little bit. First of all, on the front of your book it says, “the SS Death’s Head Division.” What does that mean?

Dr. Sydnor:  “Death’s Head” in German is “Totenkopf.” The Death’s Head is the “skull and crossbones” symbol that is on the bill of the peaked cap worn by the officers, it’s the little silver symbol in front of the cap. The Death’s Head units that guarded the pre-war concentration camp had the Death’s Head emblem on the right collar tab of their tunics. After the three SS units were formed into the Death’s Head Division and trained for combat in 1939, it became the name of the Waffen SS Death’s Head Division. The German name is the SS Totenkopf Division.

WaffenSS_police_ghettoWaffen SS outside Warsaw Ghetto Uprising

Roger: Let me see if I’ve got this format understood. This would be like a charismatic Democrat or Republican or Libertarian leader coming into power by way of building a giant paramilitary group. It would be like Bob Dole had his army and Bill Clinton had his army. If Bob Dole had a bigger army then he’d be president, right?

Dr. Sydnor: That’s partially correct as an analogy. In the Weimar period, all political parties had paramilitary groups, even the Social Democratic Party had a paramilitary group, a marching army. Germany was a country that placed deep faith in the traditional military values. It was a country that had millions of men who served in the ranks of the army or navy in the First World War. It was a country full of demobilized veterans. Using paramilitary groups was one way to flex political muscle. Once Hitler was in power, the militarized SS who were heavily armed and trained became the political shock troops. The SS Death’s Head Units, between 1934 to 1939 guarded and administered the concentration camps, into which all the political and ideological enemies of the regime were thrown, the people who were rounded up and arrested by the Gestapo. And their numbers grew as the years went by. There were also a couple of regiments of SS recruits that were trained as Special Service troops. They were to be used if there was an attempted coup or a domestic insurrection. They could be deployed to defend the regime.

There was another special militarized SS group that was Hitler’s bodyguard. It achieved regimental strength by the beginning of the war. It was called the Leibstandarte SS Adolf Hitler that translates to the Lifeguard of Adolf Hitler.

You take these three groups; the SS Death’s Head units that guard the pre-war concentration camps, the Leibstandarte SS Adolf Hitler which was his big praetorian guard and the SS Special Service troops and after the Germans defeated Poland in 1939, units from these three groups were organized into field divisions and became the nucleus and origins of the Waffen SS or the wartime SS. Throughout the Second World War, from 1939 on, SS concentration camp guards remained part of the Waffen SS. The SS grew into a huge, enormous conglomeration of agencies, institutions and men.

Roger: This Totenkopf, am I’ saying that correctly?

Dr. Sydnor: Totenkopf or Death’s Head Division.

Roger: This group that you followed, what is their legacy?

Dr. Sydnor: Their legacy is a vast swamp of destruction everywhere they went. They were fanatically devoted Nazis. They were thoroughly indoctrinated ideologically. Theodor Eicke set the stamp of his personality upon the character of that division. He was a fanatically driven man. He was an absolute racist, a complete Nazi fanatic! He insisted that his men be like him and he drove himself as hard as he drove his men. He inspired tremendous devotion and loyalty from the SS soldiers who served under him, both in the concentration camps before 1939 and in the Death’s Head Division after 1939. He was not an educated man who possessed any great military skill. The SS hallmark was to simply attack and assault the enemy with the greatest vigor possible; never mind the casualties, take the objective whatever it is and expect to take heavy losses!

The Death’s Head/Totenkopf Division was first deployed in combat as a Division in the Battle of France in 1940. It distinguished itself in France, not militarily; but, for two of the most notorious early atrocities committed by German units. In late May of 1940 a unit of the Death’s Head Division murdered 100 British prisoners of war near a little village in Flanders called Le Paradis. Three weeks later in southern France, units of the SS Division systematically murdered Senegalese and Moroccan French troops, black soldiers serving in the French army. If they attempted to surrender to units of the SS Death’s Head Division, they were simply shot! The Division’s great fame came a year later when it fought in the assault of the Soviet Union. The Death’s Head Division fought exclusively in Russia from June, 1941 until the collapse of the Third Reich in April, 1945.
Roger: So, all the while, not only are they out on the battlefield; but, they’re back home running the concentration camps?

Dr. Sydnor: It’s interesting the way the system worked. The reserve and replacement units, their rear echelon units, continued to serve as guard units in the concentration camps. Men would be recruited to serve in a Death’s Head formation in, let’s say, the Buchenwald concentration camp. They would get military training at Buchenwald; learn how to guard prisoners and basic military tactics, how to handle weapons, how to march, learn the basics of military service. They’d serve in Buchenwald for several months, then be rotated out of Buchenwald if they were physically fit enough for combat duty, and sent to someplace in Poland.

Roger: We’ve got to take a quick break here! Ladies and Gentlemen, we’re talking to our guest, Dr. Charles Sydnor, about his book, “Soldiers of Destruction.” We’ll be right back! Don’t go away!


Roger: Charlie, we’re back! You were telling us they had a pretty good system for training and replenishing these SS guys?

Dr. Sydnor:  Yes, sir! The guard units in the concentration camps served as a manpower pool, a replacement pool for the SS Death’s Head Division during the war. SS men came from other types of SS units; but, a number of them came from the concentration camp guard formations thoughout the war. In addition, the flow of personnel worked the other way, too. Officers and men in the Death’s Head Division who were wounded in combat or for some other reason became physically unfit to continue with the rigors of front line combat, were transferred back to rear area SS units. Most of those men ended up going back to the concentration camps because their experience in concentration camps was badly needed. The two most notable instances in this regard were Paul Werner Hoppe, Theodor Eicke’s adjutant in the SS Division. Hoppe was wounded in northern Russia in 1942. He had served as Eicke’s adjutant when Eicke was the Inspector General of the concentration camps. Hoppe was transferred to Auschwitz as commander of the guard company. After several months at Auschwitz, he was promoted to the position of Commandant of the Stutthof concentration camp near Danzig. He served for the rest of the war as commandant of that concentration camp.

Friedrich Hartjenstein who was a battalion commander in the Death’s Head Division in Russia was relieved for incompetence as a battalion commander and transferred to Auschwitz and was, for a time, the commandant of the Birkenau death camp in the Auschwitz complex. In 1944 he was tranferred from Birkenau to France and became the commandant of the Natzweiler concentration camp. There was a constant movement of personnel back and forth between the division, the concentration camps and the death camps during the Second World War.

Roger: The thing that has always bothered me, and I think it bothers a lot of folks,s how it would be possible…. you talked a bit ago about these troops killing the Moroccan black soldiers when they were surrendering….. they were brutal killers! How do you get people to think like that?

Dr. Sydnor:  It was easier to train men like that in the Death’s Head Division than anywhere else except the Einsatzgruppen, the special SS mobile killing commandos that operated in Czechoslovakia in 1938, in Poland in 1939 and in the Soviet Union in 1941 and 1942. It involved harsh discipline, a rigid code of conduct and ideological indoctrination. It involved exposing men to concentration camp inmates who were ragged, hungry, filthy, who looked the part of the sub-humanity that the Nazi ideology portrayed them to be. The ethos in the SS was that an “enemy behind the wire”, that’s a literal term that Eicke used with his concentration camp guards. Prisoners were enemies who just as potentially lethal and dangerous and insidious as any other enemy; racial, political or ideological, only they happened to be “behind the wire”. They had to be guarded very closely and carefully. They must not be shown any pity, any mercy. They had to be given no quarter. The regulations for punishing prisoners were totally within the authority of the concentration camp commandant. The commandant of a concentration camp could sentence a prisoner to death for an infraction of camp rules! That prisoner had no appeal, no recourse! There was no way any outside judicial authority could intervene in the camp. Once you were in a concentration camp, you were totally in the mercy of the SS Guards. The SS guards, basically, showed no mercy!

It’s very easy once you have trained, hundreds of men, thousands of men, to think this way about enemies of the state who were in concentration camps…it is then very easy to convince them with ideological training that when they’re in a combat division facing an enemy across the front line is the same type of racial sub-human, the same type of human garbage, he’s more dangerous now because he’s not locked up behind the wire and he’s got a gun in his hand! So, the object in war, the object for the men in the SS Death’s Head Division was not to defeat the enemy’s army, not to capture his military leaders, it was simply to destroy the enemy, to kill as many of them as possible!

Roger: Wow! We’ve got to take a news break. We’ll come back and talk about how this turned into an extermination experiment. Ladies and gentlemen, our guest this evening is Dr. Charles W. Sydnor, Jr. His book is “Soldiers of Destruction: the SS Death’s Head Division 1933-1945″ We’ll be right back!


Roger: Ladies and gentlemen, welcome to our 2nd hour of the program. I am Roger Fredinburg, radio’s regular guy. Nice to have you aboard. Our guest this evening in our continuing series, The Holocaust: We Must Remember is Dr. Charles W. Sydnor, Jr. His book is “Soldiers of Destruction: the SS Death’s Head Division, 1933-1945.”

We have a pretty good foundation laid, Charlie. I want to go back to something you said on the first hour of the broadcast. You talked about people being perceived as sub-human. You described them as ragged, tattered, filthy people. You mentioned indoctrination, the discipline and rigid training, all of those things that went into making these “killing machines” that were human robots, for lack of a better definition.

I know you were an expert witness for the Justice Department on a number of court cases. It never seems to be properly addressed as to how the human mind is altered in such a way that it could commit the evil we witnessed in Hitler’s Germany. I’m trying to figure out what people need to be aware of so that can never happen to them!

Dr. Sydnor:  I’m not sure we can really fathom that. I’m not sure that is a question that is susceptible to a clear and distinctive answer. Clearly, different things motivate different people to do murder. In the SS, years of racist education in Nazi schools with Nazi teachers using books that contained pornographic, stereotypical cartoons depicting Jews and other undesirable people (particularly gypsies) was followed by years of indoctrination in the SS. Having grown up and been surrounded by a massive state system, it gave the veneer of legality to what was going on. At some point, nearly everybody in that system crossed the line. The people who were in the SS were there because they wanted to be in the SS! They volunteered for the SS! It was the elite of the National Socialist Order! It was to be the cadre of the future of the Thousand Year Reich in Europe once Hitler won the war, defeated Russia and established a new Nazi millennium!

I’m not sure that the question is susceptible to an answer because that indecision lies at the heart of why it is so important to remember what happened. Not only to remember it generally; but, to remember it factually, to remember it specifically, to remember it accurately, not to enlarge it in some way or embellish it or embrace it! Heaven knows, it’s horrible enough in the dimensions that it actually took place in! In my estimation as an historian, it’s precisely because we don’t know the answer to that question, that we have to remember.

Roger: As an historian, you clearly are well aware of the old adage that if you don’t learn from history, it will repeat itself!

Dr. Sydnor: That’s George Santayana! That has been recycled so much that most of the tread’s off of it!

Roger: Ha, ha, ha!

Dr. Sydnor: Just because something is a cliche doesn’t mean it is not true! And that, of course, is very true! Many of us who are trained historians come to a point in our careers where we’re really not certain that people in government are capable of learning anything from history, or very much from history!

Roger: What I want, by the end of this series, is for people to look around and see the signs of indoctrination, of propaganda. What do the average citizens of the world look for? What are the signs that tells us we’re headed down a bad chunk of road?

Dr. Sydnor:  I think the clearest sign, the most unmistakable marker and the sharpest and shrillest warning is any situation in which people attempt to organize hatred into a political program; or any cause, or group, or association seeks to justify it’s own existence or perpetuate an agenda or develop and manifest a program based upon the presumed demonization or anathemetization of other peoples, individuals or groups. Whatever their motives and public manifestations, if hatred and prejudice and presumed projection of inferiority and intolerance of other human beings is the statement of their programs, that’s the first warning sign.

Roger: How about the KKK?

Dr. Sydnor: It’s interesting that after George Lincoln Rockwell was killed in 1957, the Klan and the American Nazi Party basically merged. The staple of the two programs really merged and the American Nazi Party lost its distinct identity after Rockwell’s death. The hangers-on in that movement, many of them ended up in the Klan.

Roger: How about the Nation of Islam?

Dr. Sydnor: It’s the same principle on the other side of the coin. Farrakhan is a little more difficult to typecast than Elijah Mohammed was a generation ago because he moved in a different direction. I’m not sure that’s any more convincing than David Dukes efforts were in Louisiana to portray himself as a kind mainstream American political conservative when his background had been in the American Nazi Party, the Klan and the White Citizens Councils in Louisiana.

I think the proposition boils down to this; in every society there are potential Hitlers, in every generation there are potential Hitlers. What keeps those people on the fringe, under the mattress of acceptable society, are conditions of relative normality. Bear in mind what happened in Germany in the 1920s and into the early 1930s, there was a remarkably unique conglomeration or collection of historical circumstances. If Germany had not gone through the trauma of defeat in the First World War, the French occupation, the inflation of the 1923, the huge upheaval of the Great Depression where there was no social security net, when one third of the country was unemployed and had no welfare, unemployment benefits, etc., those sorts of conditions radicalized an entire population into accepting Hitler as a legitimate politician. The closer a society comes to conditions like that, the graver the danger is that lunatic fringe people will be looked upon as credible, as people who have something legitimate to offer in a political program.

Roger: So, bad times seem to precipitate these events. Hard times…. people in despair!

Dr. Sydnor: There are historians who point out Hitler’s popularity really peaked after the Great Depression had begun to ease somewhat in Germany. The Nazi Party politically became popular before the worst part of the Great Depression hit Germany in 1930. The Wall Street crash in 1929 precipitated a chain reaction causing world economies to collapse. Germany fell like a domino about 19 months after the Wall Street crash. Hard times, unusual circumstances, economic and social turbulence and upheaval and chaos, are the stuff these types of movements, or “would be” Hitlers feed upon because they are circumstances ideally suited to getting across a message based on hate.

Roger: Capitalize on the anger, I suppose. Taking that into account, you and I spoke the other day about a project you are working on, the National Smokers Alliance. I had jokingly said to you that it was kind of fascist! There are people out there demonizing folks who smoke! If we see that if the dominant media culture doesn’t like somebody, they begin to “demonize”! I began to equate that with some of the techniques used by Josef Goebbels!

Dr. Sydnor: I don’t think the American media has been as focused as Goebbels was; but, the National Smokers Alliance with 4 million members in the association, it’s a group with one very simple objective; to promote accommodation and toleration of people who, as adults, choose to smoke. The Smokers Alliance is not interested in promoting the tobacco industry. It doesn’t want kids smoking; but, if adults make a decision to smoke, the Alliance feels they ought to have that right and ought not to be subjected to discriminatory regulations and ordinances that prevent them from doing that. 20% of the people who belong to the NSA are non-smokers!

Roger: It’s a freedom issue! The thing that concerns me, the smoking is one of those issues you’re “for” or “against”; but, it’s the way they demonize people for something they do or something they believe in. That bothers me! That seems like the same propaganda tools we want to avoid!

Dr. Sydnor:  Yes! There’s nothing to be gained for the stability of a free society in demonizing or anathematizing anybody! In recent statewide elections here in Virginia, I went to help a friend who was up for re-election to the House of Delegates. At a polling place a man who voted for his opponent really got in my face. He was consumed with anger and became irrational, spitting out this stream of invective, accusing my friend of being dishonest, saying he was guilty of everything except commiting unnatural acts with barnyard animals! My response was, you don’t need to be this way. You don’t have to demonize somebody to vote against them. All you have to do is disagree with them to vote against them. It’s not necessary to work yourself up into such a state.

Roger:  I just worry about the whole sentimentality that surrounds this concept that seems to be growing in this country. I’d like to see it stopped!

Charlie, are you ready to take some phone calls? Folks, the phone lines are open. We’re talking with Dr. Charles Sydnor about his fascinating book,, “Soldiers of Destruction: the SS Death’s Division – 1933 to 1945″ If you really want to know how the SS got to be what they became, how bad and nasty they really were, you’ll find it in this book! You can order the book from Princeton Publishing at 1-800-777-47261-800-777-4726 FREE.

Alright! We’re going to Brian out in Springfield, Illinois! Hello, Brian!

Caller-Brian: I heard that were French, Dutch, Danes, Norwegians and even some Russians that served in the SS.

Dr. Sydnor:  That’s absolutely correct. In fact, there was a Flemish legion in the Waffen SS led by a Belgian collaborator by the name of Leon Degrelle. There was Dutch SS unit, there were Norwegians and even some Swedish volunteers in the Waffen SS also. There was even a Moslem SS created in 1943 in the Balkans. There were Russians who served in the Waffen SS. There was a Ukranian, Latvian and Estonian legion created late in the war. By 1945 the Waffen SS was really a kind of multi-national fighting force.

Caller-Brian: I’ll bet a lot of those SS men smoked cigarettes!

Roger: Ha, ha, ha! Brian, thank you very much!

Dr. Sydnor: Himmler was a cigar smoker. Ha, ha!

Roger: Matt in Eugene, Oregon, how are you?

Caller-Matt: Fine, Roger! Thanks for taking my call. Dr. Sydnor, it’s a great show!

Dr. Sydnor: Thank you.

Caller-Matt: I couldn’t help but call. I was listening to you talk about the Jews and how Hitler and his buddies had to first make this group of people somehow non-human and not entitled to the protection of the state. We hear over and over, again and again, that we need to keep this from happening again. Do you see any group of people in our culture that have lost the protection of the state?

Dr. Sydnor: Any group in our culture? None that I’m really familiar with.

Caller-Matt: Not even the unborn?

Dr. Sydnor: I guess you could make that argument.

Caller-Matt:  Do you agree or disagree? That’s a whole group of people who have lost their “human-ness”! They’re no longer human, they are blobs of tissue that no longer have the right to life! You have to first dehumanize them, of course! We’re doing that now! I agree with you! It was hideous what happened! But, we’re still doing it and we’re still blind to it, like we were then! We’re still blind!

Dr. Sydnor: If you’re asking if I believe in abortion, the answer is NO, I do not believe in it!

Caller-Matt: Okay.

Roger: Alright, Matt, I don’t want to turn this into an “abortion show”, folks, please! We’re talking about the Nazi SS here. We’ve got John on the line. He’s calling from Santa Rosa, California.

Caller-John: Good evening! I’d like to ask Dr. Sydnor, do these former SS officers and enlisted men get together like American veterans do? That seems pretty disturbing if they do!

Dr. Sydnor: Yes, they do. John, it’s a very interesting question! That has been a very controversial subject in Germany over the years. In fact, there have been reunions of veterans of the SS Death’s Head Division. It got to the point that the German press was very interested in this about ten years ago, so they began organizing these reunions under pseudonyms like the “Westphalian Hunting Club” or the “Sons of the Order of the Nibelungen” or something like that. They do get together from time to time.

Caller-John: Were any of the Waffen SS officers allowed to go into the West German Wermacht or whatever they called it after the war?

Dr. Sydnor: The Bundeswehr?

Caller-John: Whatever they called it.

Dr. Sydnor: No, not immediately.

Caller-John:  Adolf Gehlen (sp?) was an Ace, was allowed to go back in to the Luftwaffe. I was wondering….?

Dr. Sydnor:  Not that I know of. The Germans were pretty careful in the immediate post-war years. In the face of a pretty well-organized and highly financed campaign by Waffen SS veterans to rehabilitate the image of the Waffen SS, to create a kind of mythology about it…. of course, there were a lot of SS veterans after the war, a lot who survived the war. They became integrated into German society. Many of them emerged as prominent business figures in the 1960s when they were in their 50s, into the 1970s when they were in their 60s. They had a lot of political clout and and lot of political influence. They lobbied the West German parliament to restore benefits and to award pensions. It started out with enlisted men who served in the Waffen SS who became eligible for pensions, then NCOs and junior grade officers, then middle grade officers. Finally in the 1970s, they lifted the restrictions altogether. By that time there were only a handful of surviving colonels and generals who had served in the Waffen SS who qualified for pensions.

Caller-John: It’s kind of disturbing to me. I have nothing against the German Wehrmacht soldiers. They were just doing their duty. But, there’s something about the SS organization, a political organization. It was Hitler’s personal army, wasn’t it?

Dr. Sydnor: Well, it was; but, the longer the war went on, the more blurred that distinction became. One of the previous callers a few minutes ago raised a question about the multi-national character of the SS, the Waffen SS anyway. Keep in mind, that closely related and directly affiliated with the Waffen SS were the SS and police agencies that ran the instruments of repression in the conquered countries and occupied territories of Nazi Europe in the Second World War. The security police and the SD, armed SS units, were involved in the clearing of Jewish ghettos at Newvlene, Chestahova, Warsaw, Minsk, Bialystok. (all spelled phonetically) The SS was an all-purpose organization that was trained, equipped, ready, willing and able to serve the purposes of repression and persecution required them to do.

Roger:  All right, Charles, we’ve got to take a break. Ladies and gentlemen, we’re following the evolution of one of these Waffen SS groups, the Totenkopf. What an incredible story is told in the book! We’ll get back to it on the other side of the break!


Roger:  Welcome back, ladies and gentlemen! Dr. Charles Sydnor’s our guest. “Soldiers of Destruction” is his book, an incredible story following the evolution of the Waffen SS!

All right, Charlie! We’re back! Let’s go to Mike in Tampa, Florida and then I have a quick question for you! Mike, hello!

Caller-Mike: Yes, sir! I’ve lived in Paris, France and I personally know a number of Frenchmen who were in the Charlemagne SS as volunteers for Adolf Hitler. Today, these older Frenchmen are writing books and being interviewed on French national radio. They are very proud that they volunteered to help Adolf Hitler to fight Communism. I assure you, if you know them the way I know them, and you listen to them, you will see the whole war very differently and that we Americans have been lied to by the television networks about current events ever since WW II. These men are very proud about what they did and they believe Hitler was doing the right thing in fighting communism. They say they would do it again! They’re very proud of what they did!

Roger: Do you want to respond to that, Charles?

Dr. Sydnor: The Charlemagne Regiment in the Charlemagne Division was a unit of French SS Legionnaires that has less than an admirable record in the way they conducted themselves, particularly in the Battle of Berlin. That, in fact, was the unit that defended the government quarter of the city against the Red army in April, 1945. They didn’t exercise any particular care in who they killed. They killed a number of German civilians along with Russian soldiers.

France is still deeply troubled, and I think in some respects, still politically split by the lingering issues of whether one collaborated or whether one resisted. There are older men in France now, many of whom were never in the SS, who were collaborators or committed supporters of the Vichy French regime. They are not ashamed of their wartime service or what they did and make no apologies for it.

Roger: The question I had, because it was an obvious one when John called and asked about the SS getting together and having their reunions. How did those folks escape prosecution?

Dr. Sydnor:  The important point to make here is that everyone who served in the Waffen SS was not a war criminal. There were men who served in the Waffen SS who did not murder Jews, who did not shoot gypsies, who never worked in concentration camps. There were a lot of men in the Waffen SS who did. There were a lot of men in the Waffen SS who never shot civilians. or burned villages. or massacred groups of innocent civilians, or looted or plundered or did any of the other terrible things that some Waffen SS units did. We can’t stigmatize the whole group of the whole institution. The SS itself, the entire organization, was condemned as a criminal organization by the Nuremburg Tribunal in 1946; but, I interviewed a number of men in Germany in 1969, 1972 and 1976 who were veterans of the Waffen SS. I interviewed a number of men who served in the SS Death’s Head Division. Two of the most interesting and upright people I ever met were Otto Baum and Karl Ulrich, both veterans of the SS Death’s Head Division. They were not war criminals.

The point to Roger’s question is that many of the individuals who were responsible for atrocities, committed crimes and were war criminals were never identified, or prosecuted or held accountable for what they did. They got away with it!

Roger: You were state’s witness for US vs. John Demjanjuk. Just two or three days ago, he asked for his US citizenship back. Do you have any reflection on that?

Dr. Sydnor: Yes! I have a very specific and vigorous reflection on that! First, I served as an affiant. I did an affidavit for the court in Cleveland, Ohio in the second Demjanjuk case which was a deportation proceeding. Mr. Demjanjuk was de-naturalized and ordered deported from the United States legally under the law; the Holtzman Amendment and the Supreme Court’s Federenco Judgement which holds that anyone who served as a concentration camp guard and engaged in the persecution of human beings on the basis of race, religion, national origin, social status or economic station was never eligible for citizenship in the United States.

What’s happened is Mr. Demjanjuk’s extradition was requested by the Israelis subsequent to the deportation hearing. The Israelis tried him solely on the charge that he was Ivan the Terrible who operated the gas chamber at Treblinka. Subsequent to his trial in Israel and the collapse of the Soviet Union, there were documentary records that became available; interrogation protocols that the Soviets had conducted after the war when they were looking for former Soviet citizens who had served as death camp guards. Ivan the Terrible was high on their Most Wanted List. There was conflicting testimony about who Ivan the Terrible was. The Israeli Supreme Court came to the conclusion that they could not execute a man based upon event the faint shadow of a doubt about his past identity. Given the specific charge on which he had been tried, they were forced to turn him loose. If Mr. Demjanjuk was not, in fact, Ivan the Terrible of Treblinka, he was Ivan, the slightly less terrible, of Sobibor because his identity card, which is an authentic document from the period verified by historians, handwriting experts,chemists, forensic experts; his identity card as a Ukrainian Auxiliary serving as a Trawnicki guard places him in the Sobibor death camp.

Mr. Demjanjuk is not entitled to have his citizenship back! He should never have been let back in to the United States. He was allowed back into the United States because one of the appellate judges in the Sixth Court of Appeals saw fit to exercise judicial activism and take the law into his hands and let Mr. Demjanjuk back into the country! Mr. Demjanjuk is not entitled to have his citizenship back because, under American law, he was never entitled to it in the first place!

Roger: Now, I was under the impression he was vindicated. You’re telling me he has not?

Dr. Sydnor: He absolutely has not been vindicated! Absolutely not! This man was a death camp guard. He was a Ukrainian serving in the Red army who was captured by the Germans in 1942. The Germans trained him to be an SS auxiliary. They took him to a place in Poland called Trawnicki where they trained eastern European collaborators. He was trained, armed and deployed for the purpose of killing civilians, rounding up Jews and guarding camps. There is evidence now that after he served….. In point of fact, I myself believe that he was Ivan the Terrible of Treblinka!

Roger: Oh! Man!

Dr. Sydnor: The identity card places him in Sobibor. There’s evidence now that suggests that he was also a guard at the Flossenbürg concentration camp late in the war.

Roger: We’ve got to take a quick break! We’ll go to calls right on the other side, folks!


Roger: Ladies and gentlemen, welcome back! Dr. Charles Sydnor is with us. You can order his book “Soldiers of Destruction” from the publisher at 1-800-777-47261-800-777-4726 FREE. Charlie, we’ve got more phone calls! Are you ready?

Dr. Sydnor: Yes, sir!

Roger:  Kelleigh in Tennessee, you’re on the radio!

Caller-Kelleigh: Thank you, Roger! Dr. Sydnor, I wanted to mention two short questions. One, I have a difficulty in finding anything on the White Rose Society or the Odessa Files. Two, I recently watched a 3-hour program on Discovery Channel regarding the CIA that mentioned the CIA was responsible for bringing former Nazis to this country. I’m wondering how many, like Demjanjuk, sneaked in or were helped to get into this country? Perhaps that has something to do with the Odessa Files. I’m not sure because I have nothing on it. I’m interested in how many were brought over here because I know it is documented that a lot of them got into America.

Dr. Sydnor: Let me answer your questions in the order you asked them.

First, there are two or three books that deal with the White Rose Society, the student anti-Nazi movement during the Second World War at the University of Munich; the movement around the brother and sister, Hans and Sophie Scholl. Let me suggest a book by Canadian scholar, Peter Hoffman. It’s called, “The History of the German Resistance.” The bibliography is excellent for a whole range of sources on the different resistance movements in Germany during the war. I cannot remember the author’s name, but there is a book written in English on the White Rose Society.

Secondly, the Odessa is largely a figment of post-war fictional imagination. The SS veterans organization in Germany, the Waffen SS veterans which, I presume, served for the book and movie called “The Odessa File” is called HIAG, a German term that means a self-help organization. That’s the acronym for the SS veterans organization.

Thirdly, most of the men who had been SS guards at concentration camps or SS policemen got into the country after the war by posing as displaced persons, or lying about, or concealing the material facts about what they had done during the Second World War. However, it is true that some got in with the active assistance, sponsorship or support of the Army Counter-Intelligence Corps after the Second World War, and perhaps with the CIA. With the CIA I can’t even give you an educated opinion because whatever records there may be are, to the best of my knowledge, not available. I would assume there is the basis for a correct assumption, that some of these people did get in that way.

What I think is even more reprehensible in this vein is the active assistance that counter-intelligence gave to people like Klaus Barbie. There’s no question they helped him evade identification and capture, helped him get out of Europe to Latin America! It was not until the Bolivian military government was overthrown and civilian rule was re-established in the early 1980s that Klaus Barbie was finally extradited back to France and stood trial.

Caller-Kelleigh: Okay! Thanks!

Roger: Thanks, Kel! Slim in Salem, Oregon, hello!

Caller-Slim:  Good program, Roger! Dr. Sydnor, I wonder if you could make a comment or two about the event that led up to all the events you’re talking about….maybe start with the Versailles Treaty and how the Federal Reserve banks, known over there as the central bank or the Riechsbank…

Dr. Sydnor: Yes, the German Reichsbank, that’s correct!

Caller-Slim: Could you make a comment about their part in it and how they totally destroyed the economy and issued all those worthless marks?

Dr. Sydnor: The real issue for the historian is the huge collection of blunders that were involved in ending the First World War and imposing an absolutely ruinous peace on the Germans. Some of the circumstances of the First World War made that understandable. The French wanted revenge, the British didn’t want the Germans to ever regain the type of military strength that would enable them to inflict that kind of destruction on the world again. In brief, the Treaty of Versailles and the conditions the Germans were forced to accept sowed the seeds for all of the later upheaval and chaos that developed.

The great inflation of 1923 which was the effort undertaken by the banking authority in Germany to deliberately inflate the currency in order to de-value what the Germans were having to pay the French and British in reparations for war damages was deliberately allowed to get out of control. As you know, the currency became virtually worthless in a matter of months. You could take a bushel basket of 100,000 reichmark notes into a butcher shop and buy a couple of pounds of sausage with it.

Roger:  Dr. Sydnor, we’ve run out of time, my friend! I really appreciate your spending the evening with us tonight!

Dr. Sydnor: Roger, it’s been an honor to be with you and your listeners, thanks!

Roger: Thank you, sir, and God Bless!

(Transcription is from MP3 file converted from original cassette with minimal editing by Chey Simonton.

Errors, if any, may be due to unintelligible sections of original 1997 audio technology. Unknown/unintelligible words are spelled phonetically.)