Comments on: MSM Germany: Anti-Islamic Party smeared as ‘Far Right’ and ‘Playing With Fear’ http://sheikyermami.com/2008/01/04/msm-germany-anti-islamic-party-smeared-as-far-right-and-playing-with-fear/ Fri, 25 May 2012 04:10:42 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.2 By: Leslie White http://sheikyermami.com/2008/01/04/msm-germany-anti-islamic-party-smeared-as-far-right-and-playing-with-fear/comment-page-1/#comment-26582 Leslie White Sat, 05 Jan 2008 08:43:19 +0000 http://sheikyermami.com/2008/01/04/msm-germany-anti-islamic-party-smeared-as-far-right-and-playing-with-fear/#comment-26582 "the neo-Nazi National Democratic Party (NPD) in western states. The NPD — which tends to line up with Israel-hating Muslim groups — has tried to block the new competition by mounting similar anti-mosque efforts." Ironic, isn't it? the Nazis are faced with a dilemma. If they align themselves with their "Glaubensgenossen" (the Islamics, those who share in their main belief: Jew-hatred), they are pro-mosque. If they try to gain political power by being anti-mosque (anti-Islam), they are seen as siding with a pro-German element that is not openly agitating for Jew-hatred. They are then more-or-less on the same side as the objects of their insane hatred: the Jews. What to do? As I am not a Nazi, this is not my problem. They can go to Hell along alongside their Islamic companions in Jew-hatred, as far as I am concerned. Would I side with Nazis who are against the Islamics? If we look back at History, shifting alliances of convenience were used to achieve a desired goal. I will not take this any further as circumstances and situations will have to be evaluated (instantly) before a decision is made as to which would be the most favorable path to take without becoming too befouled by association. When faced with two threats by two equally disgusting opponents, the most immediate danger must be allayed first. Then, the second, lesser threat can be faced. Tricky, dangerous, and frought with possible disaster? Yes, of course. But who said it will be easy and simple to slay two threatening dragons? “the neo-Nazi National Democratic Party (NPD) in western states. The NPD — which tends to line up with Israel-hating Muslim groups — has tried to block the new competition by mounting similar anti-mosque efforts.”

Ironic, isn’t it? the Nazis are faced with a dilemma. If they align themselves with their “Glaubensgenossen” (the Islamics, those who share in their main belief: Jew-hatred), they are pro-mosque. If they try to gain political power by being anti-mosque (anti-Islam), they are seen as siding with a pro-German element that is not openly agitating for Jew-hatred. They are then more-or-less on the same side as the objects of their insane hatred: the Jews.

What to do? As I am not a Nazi, this is not my problem. They can go to Hell along alongside their Islamic companions in Jew-hatred, as far as I am concerned.

Would I side with Nazis who are against the Islamics? If we look back at History, shifting alliances of convenience were used to achieve a desired goal. I will not take this any further as circumstances and situations will have to be evaluated (instantly) before a decision is made as to which would be the most favorable path to take without becoming too befouled by association.

When faced with two threats by two equally disgusting opponents, the most immediate danger must be allayed first. Then, the second, lesser threat can be faced. Tricky, dangerous, and frought with possible disaster? Yes, of course. But who said it will be easy and simple to slay two threatening dragons?

]]>