An ideological Axis of Evil: Islamism, Leftism, and neo-Nazism

 An article by Donald Husting

When Mussolini turned form socialist agitator to fascist leader, writes Alan Cassels in his book, Fascism, he, “[…] did not regard his actions […] as a betrayal of socialism at all. He merely changed brands of socialism”. Later, with only minor adjustments to their personal beliefs, Nazi leaders were able to secure high-up positions in Communist East Germany.

The fluid nature of neo-Nazism and contemporary Socialism also needs to be stressed. While Leftists across Europe denounce as “Nazis” and “fascists” any party opposed to Islamism, a review of neo-Nazism shows that neo-Nazis are – to the contrary – pro-Islamist. Neo-Nazism and contemporary socialism in fact are almost inseparable in their positions: pro-worker/trade union, anti-American, anti-colonialism/anti-imperialism, anti-neo-Conservative, anti-Israel, and, though sometimes disguised, anti-Semitic. But, as Islamism has become an increasing concern for the West, neo-Nazis and socialists are especially alike in regard to their support for it.

John Rosenthal of Pajamas Media has pointed to a report from the domestic intelligence service of the German city-state of Hamburg, which shows that neo-Nazis – like their socialist counterparts – opposed Pro-Cologne, the citizen’s group recently physically attacked by Leftists and Islamists while protesting the building of a mega-mosque.

Hamburg’s domestic intelligence office’s report shows that while opposed to immigrants generally, German neo-Nazis, “take precautions against criticizing Islamic influences or Islam as such, since the latter is rather ‘to be seen as an ally,’” i.e., in their opposition to the Jews. However, this same position is taken by neo-Nazi organisations in Britain. Final Conflict, a British-based blog/e-magazine that is virulently ant-Semitic and sympathetic to the Palestinians has even linked to a website called “I Love Palestine.” In case you’re wondering about the exact nature of this organisation, its online shop sells a Waffen SS recruiting poster, and Blood and Honor memorabilia, as well as many other similarly repugnant items.

Likewise, at (inspired, of course, by the 20th century British fascist leader, Oswald Mosley) can you find a free e-book called Arab or Jew, the description of which lets the reader know that it is an attack on Zionism, and a defence of the Palestianians. And there is also an article extolling the virtues of “European Socialism” in language that would be entirely at home on Britain’s Socialist Workers Part website – no surprises there.

Another example is a related National Party for Europe (also based on Mosley’s fascist ideology), the policies of which are clearly a form of socialism. One policy promotes trade unionism. Another promotes a united Europe. Another policy calls for the withdrawal of troops from Iraq and Afghanistan, and an end to cooperating with the US. And, another policy offers the National Party for Europe’s:

“[…] complete support to the Palestinian people and their right to a Palestinian state shall define our policy in the Middle East.”

Why? Because the Palestinians are fighting the Jews. But, in case you’re wondering about the nature of this group as well, its online store sells books including, Ten Points of Fascism, Mosley’s Blackshirts, and, tellingly, Islam and the Third Reich, which, according to the description, “serves to assist in an understanding of the Muslim world today against the background of the resistance against European colonialism before and during World War II”. (Contrary to what you might think, neo-Nazis, like contemporary socialists, are anti-colonial, because it is equated in their imagination with US foreign policy, which, in turn, is believed to be under the control of Zionists/Israel).
Articles also appearing on this site include one explaining that fascism has been “misunderstood”, and another claiming that the London 7/7 terrorist attacks had nothing to do with Islam and everything to do with the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. (Another article condemns the BNP for “Islamophobia”, and for being pro-Jewish. In fact every one of the sites mentioned in this article condemns the BNP. Neo-Nazi groups claim the BNP is pro-Jewish and anti-Islamist, and the Socialist Workers Party claim it is “racist”. Considering the positions of the Socialist Workers Party toward Israel and Islamism, however, it seems likely that this must also be a factor.)
This same mix of socialism and anti-Zionism (and anti-Semitism), pro-Palestinianism, and pro-Islamism can also be found among Britain’s socialists proper. While no doubt common even in Britain’s governing socialist Labour Party, it will be worth noting that Socialist Workers Party member, Sabiha Iqbal, 18, has recently been enlisted as an advisor to the government. Specifically, she, along with several other young Muslims, will advise ministers how to stop the spread of Islamism among young people.
Question: what kind of advice do we imagine Iqbal is giving the government on radical Islam? Because, as a member of this radical party, Iqbal can’t really be an honest broker, can she?
The Socialist Workers Party supports, among other things, “the right of black people and other oppressed groups to organise their own defence and […] support[s] all genuine national liberation movements.” Presumably, as the party believes Muslims to be oppressed, they would support them being armed. What about Iqbal?
However, even closer to the neo-Nazi groups mentioned above, in a piece entitled, The attacks on New York and Washington, published on the Socialist Workers Party’s website, is it stated:

“If bin Laden is indeed shown to be responsible [for the 9/11 terrorist attacks], then it will be yet another case, in the long and sordid history of American imperialism, of blow-back.”

(You’ll note the National Party for Europe uses the same justification for the London bombings.) And, again that the 9/11 attacks:

“[…] were in fact a stark revelation of the nature of global capitalism. Our rulers believed that they could preside over a world heaving with poverty, suffering, and injustice and yet insulate their own metropolises from the consequences. The folly of this belief was exposed as the southern tip of Manhattan disappeared amid smoke and flames. There can be no peace without justice.”

(Bear in mind that this piece – still posted on the Socialist Workers Party website – was written the day after the attacks, when sickening images of innocent people jumping to their deaths from a hundred stories up, were still fresh in the mind, if not still being repeated on television.)
Another article on the website, Roots of Israel’s violence, finally brings the Leftist ideology round full circle to that of the neo-Nazis. And another article, while critical of Islam, more than hints at the contemporary fusion of Leftism, Islamism, and Nazism, that I have meant to highlight:

“The left has made two mistakes in relation to the Islamists in the past. The first has been to write them off as fascists, with whom we have nothing in common. The second has been to see them as “progressives” who must not be criticised. […] The need is for a different approach that sees Islamism as the product of a deep social crisis which it can do nothing to resolve, and which fights to win some of the young people who support it to a very different, independent, revolutionary socialist perspective.”

And there you have it – cue Mussolini.

nazi and neo-nazi: two versions of the same result

Read the line in the article again that starts with: THE FLUID NATURE ...

Trying to parse nazi lies from neo-nazi lies is exactly the same false/pretense-at dichotomy of "good Islam/bad islam" that is very prevalent among those who want to sell supposed free willed analysis skills to those suckered to buy them. They are the same becuase the results are the same.

 It doesn't work to tell someone: "Your ideology is okay. I just don't like what you are doing with it." much less "I just don't like what you are doing with it comparison with what those of the past have done with it." To then say "I don't like either your ideology or what you are doing with it comparison to what those of the past did with it." is just as impotent.


Your supposed analysis is based on the neo-nazis holding on to the most pure form of their ideology that makes the rest of their lies look half-logical. In reality, they will chunk the whole "pure" doctrine out the window to save their pride as having a place in something they think is "good". Hitler started out with "pure" doctrine and the doctrine transformed into a poly-glot of whateverisms to simply keep him the Man: he started with racism and then started parsing out 'which' race because he needed troops --any troops that would beleive his lies. So he conformed his doctrine to a bit of their ( whoever's )  best honesty to hook them in to working for him. His doctrine at that point was indeed a heresy of his own former doctrine --and he could have cared less. He got other races to work for him BOTH while he was saying they were inferior and saying they were not inferior.

Lies don't care about being so consistent they can't work with other versions of lies that are VERY obviously logical opposites. They certainly don't care about being perceived as emotional opposites as a public face to be allies in secret.

 Yes, You can go to places that have lied or been inaccurate in the past  ( SPLC ) about everything and write them off as untrustworthy because they didn't hold to your own notion that the doctrine of liars can't change or morph into something else before your very eyes and ears once they have written it down in a book or published it on a website.

Obviously, you have never witnessed God be a genius through a retarded person one moment and that person not even know what they had said, see the effect of what God had done on those around them, try to replicate it on their own and then take a dump in their underwear when it doesn't work. You smell the stench and forget God can do that again at any moment even in the middle of that person taking that dump with all the social/emotional faux paus therein. Just because God makes thre truth stink to you in that instant doesn't change the truth.

Take a walk around the block before you answer and just think it through. If you can admit you've been deceived by the deception that each evil group has to hold to what they first said as their doctrine in order to "legitimately" hold to their own naming conventions of what their ideology/spirit is, then you have escaped that deception. If you can't .. they still have you even though they are now not where they first appeared and your targeting apparatus to fight their doctrine is therefore deceived and worthless as well.

<b>Jeremiah 48:30  I know his wrath, saith Jehovah; his pratings are vain: they do not as they say . </b>


In the Name of Jesus Christ, Amen

Neo-Nazi's in the USA

I can't speak for Europe but in the USA the neo-Nazi movement (which is very small) is an offshoot of the far right.

They are anti-semetic, but also anti-Islam, anti-Arab, anti-foreign, anti-homosexual and anti-left, anti-communist and very anti-black.

There never could be, in the USA, a coming together of Leftists, Islamists and Neo-Nazis.

In fact the Neo-Nazi movement is mostly angry young men, and it has no resonance with anyone. They have made themselves a pathetic, dispised minority because that is what they want to be.

They are of absolutely no political account. The only value they provide in the context of American politics is to put up enough swastika filled web pages to give Morice Dees at the Southern Poverty Law Center something new to sight in his never-ending fund-raising appeals. How ironic is that?

I've seen some video's of Russian neo-Nazi's and they, too, are adamently anti-Arab, anti-Islam and anti-foreign. For them all of the darker skinned people from the rest of the former USSR - whether from the Turkish border regions or the far east, are despised and beaten at every opportunity.

Thus, what you write may be true of one or more counties in Europe, but it's incorrect in other locations.

try again: David Duke, Dr. Neo-Nazii, went to Syria in 2005..

to show solidarity with the Syrians against both America and Israel and tried to play it off on his own website as "improving America's image in the Arab world".. He is a regular on Arabic radio to do the same rants..

As well, the 13th Waffen SS division was comprised of mostly Muslims. The Nazi-Islam connection is very old AND is well entrenched in the USA among white supremacists and black gangs with ties to Nation of Islam and other black groups sympathetic to communist/socialist causes.

a quote from that last link: "The enemy of my enemy is my friend," explained Art Jones, a neo-Nazi militant from Chicago. "I salute Louis Farrakhan and anyone else who stands up against the Jews.""

Read a little history before you boast, please. "There never could be, in the USA, a coming together of Leftists, Islamists and Neo-Nazis. " Two words: Barak Obama. Two more: George Bush.

you have fallen for the common deception that mere public emotional opposites are somehow genuine enemies..

Psalm 49:13 This their way is their folly, yet they that come after them delight in their sayings. Selah.

In the Name of Jesus Christ, Amen

Telder 1's comments

Since when is David Duke a neo-Nazi? Last I heard he was a former Klansman. Or are you using "neo-Nazi" in the current leftist American usage: anyone who argues forcefully against liberal positions?

I was addressing what I've learned of the actual beliefs of people who call themselves neo-Nazi's by reading their literature and web sites.

As for your Waffen SS point, so what? The American neo-Nazi's - rather obviously - have nothing to do with the historic Nazi Party, other than appropriating their symbols and a very very inaccurate pastiche of their philosophy.

It goes without saying the the SPLC is not a good source for understanding what the far-right thinks about or believes, just as Stormfront would not be a good place to learn what Jews actually believe.

Your examples of Bush and Obama uniting the Left and Nazi's and Islam is silly.

A few far-right types have suggested supporting Obama as a tactic to force people to be ruled by a black man, which they believe will lead to widespread adoption of their racist beliefs.

I'd wager I've read far more history than you have, but it hasn't made me into an arrogant person who goes around injecting ad-hominems into a simple discussion.


We need not forget that J-M LePen of France was openly rooting for his friend Saddam Hussein and America's defeat when the US attacked Saddam in 2003. As far as I know, the French press remained oddly silent in reporting this LePen outrage. I wonder where their sympathies laid? Hatred for liberalism makes for indiscriminate bedfellows.