.

.
Library of Professor Richard A. Macksey in Baltimore

POSTS BY SUBJECT

Labels

Friday, June 2, 2017

The Irish Savant : Initial thoughts on the Manchester attack

Tuesday, 23 May 2017

Initial thoughts on the Manchester attack

Desperate attempts will be made to link Russia to the attack.

The main focus will immediately switch to avoiding Islamophobia and not 'stigmatising' Muslims

We'll learn that the attacker was being tracked by the police. Right up to the time he set off the bomb!

Obama, voice quivering with emotion (/s) will claim that 'the victims are in our thoughts and prayers'

The streets will be thronged with Muslims protesting this outrage (/s)

Firm action will be called for: Like having a candle-lit parade in which everyone holds hands, chanting Peace & Love while wearing Please Don't Kill Me bracelets

In conclusion I see that London Mayor Saddiq Khan says that 'terror attacks are part and parcel of living in a big city'.  Well that might be true from where you come from boy...

And apart from those directly affected, the crime will be largely forgotten within a few days, Muslims will continue to flood in and the police will resume focusing on purveyors of 'hate' speech. But look on the bright side: Think of what the world would be like if Saddam Hussein and Gaddafi hadn't been overthrown
 
 

The Irish Savant : What should South Africa's Whites do? What CAN they do?

The Irish Savant

Saturday, 27 May 2017

What should South Africa's Whites do? What CAN they do?

A close friend of mine is a regular visitor to South Africa. These are substantial visits, 10-14 days at a time, undertaken about four times a year and taking in the main metropolitan areas. Not having been there for a considerable time myself - and I have no plans to go there! - I've tasked him with keeping a close eye on the economy, infrastructure, societal changes and attitudes among the people. No surprise to learn that things have come to a sorry pass, despite the glowing reports from large sections of the Western media.

So much so that the normally quiescent business community have been driven to take out huge advertisement of the South African Sunday Times newspaper, claiming that the country is 'in crisis' that the state has been 'captured' and its 'natural and financial assets stolen'. It claims that the government is guilty of ‘propaganda, slogans, racism and lies’ to silence criticism. In other words heading towards your typical African failed state. Government bonds were recently downgraded to junk status and, a la Rhodesia, the country has gone from being the breadbasket of the region to importing necessary foodstuffs.

My friend tells me that compared to ten years ago the situation in every arena has deteriorated drastically. Essentially everything has got worse. A lot worse. But one thing is going well. The war against Whites. 
This takes many forms, from low-level thefts and assaults to mass murder on the country's farms. And hardly a week goes by that doesn't see another piece of legislation enacted with the objective of furthering dispossessing and marginalising Whites. My friend tells me that every visit reveals White professionals and executives replaced by incompetent and corrupt black buffoons. Whole swaths of business activity have been crippled as a result.

Despite this many Whites still hold onto the dream of the Rainbow Nation. But their numbers are falling. Fast. Not surprising when the country's President  gives vent to that rollicking old ditty 'Kill The Boer, Kill The Farmer', followed up by an impassioned version of 'Bring Me My Machine gun'. 
Julius Malema, who commands a huge following among the 'youth', openly talks about physically eliminating Whites. In a recent speech he said ‘We are not calling for the slaughter of white people' adding hastily on seeing the dismayed look of his followers 'at least for now.’ And as is common elsewhere, strenuous efforts are being made to separate Whites from their guns. Little wonder that Genocide Watch chief Gregory Stanton, himself a former anti-apartheid activist, has warned that white South African farmers are facing full-blown genocide.

So what are the options for the country's Whites?


Well they could leave, and huge numbers have already done that. But given the collapse of the Rand and the raft of expropriation measures in place almost all will have to accept a major drop in living standards. And bear in mind that their racial kin in Europe have been conditioned to see themselves as having more in common with Indonesian Muslims than with their apartheid-loving cousins from SA.

They could try to form a White homeland within South Africa, as they're already doing with the likes of Orania. There's also vague talk about a major one in the Western Cape. But in a doomsday scenario such a homeland would be overrun by waves of impoverished savages, aided and abetted by the 'international community'.

The third alternative is to establish a doomsday contingency plan, one which enables White to muster and defend themselves. A number of such contingency plans are being prepared, volunteers being trained and survival resources put in place by groups such as the Suidlanders, This organisation, which says it has around 6,000 active members, 12,000 associate members, and 70,000 family members, estimates that some 800,000 people will participate if and when the need arises to put its evacuation plans into effect. The general plan is to escape the cities and head for well-stocked farms in the countryside. There are hundreds of routes planned to get out of South Africa’s cities in the event of crisis, and hundreds of separate destinations depending on where in the country the members are located. The organisation also has a national headquarters, communications systems, refugee coordination, security, and medical preparations in place for if and when they are needed.

Maybe the 'final solution' will incorporate elements of all three. In any event be aware that the situation is dire and gets worse by the day. And lament the tragedy of a First World nation reduced to Third World status by primitives whose claim to the nation arose only from their ability to outbreed its creators.

The Irish Savant : Iceland dies


The Irish Savant

Wednesday, 2 September 2015

Iceland dies

The Icelanders are an amazing and admirable people. With a language and culture going back over a millennium, they have survived in one of the world’s most inhospitable environments. Frozen over for half the year, and at any time liable to be engulfed by an earthquake, smothered by a volcano or swamped by a tsunami , they have not alone survived, but prospered. You should note that this capacity to prosper in adverse conditions is the polar opposite of Africa, where, even with abundant natural wealth and resources, the population is mired in poverty and ignorance.

I wrote that paragraph in this post, lamenting the impending slow destruction of this unique people's identity: 60% Nordic, 40% Celtic (Irish/Scottish). But the impact of the African breeding pair I referred to pales into insignificance compared to what now looms on the horizon for this tiny nation of fewer than 300,000 people. "More than 11,000 families in Iceland have offered to open their homes to Syrian refugees" proclaimed the headline in the London Independent.  Bryndis Bjorgvinsdottir (pictured) the architect of this monstrous scheme, is almost a caricature of the modern female, adherent of a masochistic self-annihilating ideology exacerbated by toxic status whoring, she's single, has but one child, and no commitment to any man.  She'll end up of course alone in a room of hungry cats. But meanwhile she and her ilk will have destroyed  the country that nurtured them. 

By way of a Facebook campaign she's succeeded in convincing 11,000 Icelanders to open their homes to an army of 'Syrian refugees'.  Which as we know in practice means anyone claiming to be a Syrian refugee. Read Africans, Afghans, Pakistanis etc.  People like those in the bottom picture. 
Imagine the impact tens of thousands of these primitive humanoids will have on the unique Icelandic gene pool. Within a few generations the country will be destroyed, no more. Because the invaders, unable to create  or sustain a civilisation in their own more hospitable environments will abandon Iceland once that country's native inhabitants have been bred out of existence. Another sumptuous achievement of the White race will then slowly revert to its natural state, an abandoned land of snow, ice, earthquakes and volcanoes.

http://irishsavant.blogspot.gr/search/label/Race

The Irish Savant : Germania delenda est

Friday, 15 March 2013

Germania delenda est

A classical Jewish response to accusations of German hatred (and I’ve personally heard this) goes ‘they tried to exterminate my people, literally wipe us off the face of the earth, every last man, woman and child.’ Except that they did not. The Germans wanted all Jews out of their sphere of influence, to seize their property and to work them as virtual slave labourers. After that to banish them to the wilds of Russia where their ultimate survival would be a matter of indifference.


Callous and cruel yes, a policy of extermination, no.  In the fog of war vast numbers of Jews were murdered, starved or worked to death. But nowhere, not even in the minutes of the famous/notorious Wannsee Conference, where the details of the alleged extermination were supposedly worked out, has such a plan been found.  And trust me, they’d find it if it were there.
Now if it’s a detailed carefully worked out plan for racial extermination that you’re looking for, well I can help. Exhibit 1 Julius Rosenberg lookalike Theodore N. Kaufman, a New York based Jewish businessman who  in 1941 wrote a book with the cheery and unambiguous title Germany Must Perish. Here the author made clear that Germans as a race must be wiped out.  He ruefully acknowledged that the direct murder of upwards of fifty million people was ‘impractical’ and instead proposed a neater but equally effective solution: Sterilisation for every German male (not sure if he had females in mind as well).  In one fell swoop the extermination of the German race would be accomplished within a generation. You might imagine that such malevolence would have resulted in his being committed to jail or a lunatic asylum, but far from it.  The press gave it respectful attention and he earned handsome money by lecturing on his plan throughout the country.
Doubtless inspired by Kaufman’s foresight Treasury Secretary Henry Morgenthau (Jewish) came up with the eponymous Plan which would have resulted in ten million Germans being killed by starvation within two years of war’s end and which would have totally destroyed Germany’s industrial base, coal mines, colleges and universities. 'I realize this would put 18 or 20 million people out of work,' he modestly  acknowledged, adding reassuringly ‘but able- bodied Germans could be transported to Central Africa as slave labour on some big project like the TVA’ (the Tennessee Valley hydroelectric project). 
Be aware that this was a real plan, detailed, costed, with milestones and accountabilities.  It was not just something drawn up on the back of an envelope.  The detailed work on the plan was undertaken by another Julius Rosenberg lookalike Assistant Treasury Secretary Harry Dexter White (Jewish) who was revealed after the war to have been a Soviet spy. These two worked assiduously behind the scenes to convince Roosevelt to accept it. The President, in near terminal failing health, acceded to it, monstrous and all as it was, in fact suggesting that the Germans in future should  live off just soup-kitchens.’  Secretary of War Henry Stimson was appalled:It is Semitism gone wild for vengeance and, if it is ultimately carried out (I can't believe that it will be) it as sure as fate will lay the seeds for another war in the next generation.’ He added that Morgenthau was ‘so biased (sic) by his Semitic grievances that he is really a very dangerous adviser to the President.’
Neocons, anyone?  Plus sa change, plus c'est la meme chose. (The more things change........)
(Incidentally, one of the reasons Stimson failed to  get involved in the Morgenthau Plan was, by his own admission, his work on rewriting the historical documents relating to Pearl Harbor ‘to save the President’s place in history.’)  He also marvelled at the gay abandon with which civilians (Roosevelt and his circle) blithely discussed the potential slaughter of hundreds of thousands of war prisoners and civilians.  (I’ve read many such reports and in my opinion the callous indifferent psychopathy displayed is little different to that of Stalin and his Court.)
Churchill initially, and to his credit, was bitterly opposed to the plan. He asserted that it flew in the face of civilised norms and, glaring at Morgenthau, added that it was ‘deeply unChristian’. Ouch! But Morgenthau had an ace up his sleeve in the form of Frederick Alexander Lindemann, 1st Viscount Cherwell. Despite the fancy title he in fact was a Jew from Germany who had moved  to England. Despite being described by Sir Anthony Eden as ‘evil, and quite possibly mad’ he astounded everyone by becoming a close advisor to Churchill. Amazing, isn’t it? Here he became the inspiration for the notorious Bomber Harris with his enthusiasm for carpet-bombing the cities of his native country. Unsurprisingly he was also a keen supporter of Mogenthau’s plan to wipe his ex-countrymen off the face of the earth. In any event Churchill was eventually induced to signed up to The Plan, which largely due to the outraged reaction of the American public when it was leaked, was never fully implemented.
Meanwhile on the Eastern Front we have Ilya Ehrenberg, another Germanic Jew calling, nay, begging, for the total destruction of his ancestral stock.  A prolific writer and one of Stalin’s main propagandists, he had this helpful suggestion for the common Russian soldiers entering German lands: 'The Germans  are not human beings. From now on, the word 'German' is the most horrible curse……We will kill. If you have not killed at least one German a day, you have wasted that day ... If you cannot kill a German with a bullet, then kill him with your bayonet. If your part of the front is quiet and there is no fighting, then kill a German in the meantime ... If you have already killed a German, then kill another one - there is nothing more amusing to us than a heap of German corpses. Don't count the days, don't count the kilometres. Count only one thing: the number of Germans you have killed. Kill the Germans! ... - Kill the Germans! Kill!"
Sadly, the soldiers took him at his word and did him proud. And you’ll be glad to know that this splendid chap lived to be a ripe old age and died in his bed. Like Lazar Kaganovich (Jewish), the butcher of millions of Ukrainians.
You should of course be aware that while all of this was going on 'The' Holocaust™ had yet to be discovered. Or invented, if you prefer.  And you doubtless will have noted that the people I’ve cited in this post were, almost without exception, Jews of Germanic origin. You’ve seen what they said, did, and tried to do. As Sir Anthony Eden bitterly observed at the time ‘these ex-Germans seem to wish to wash away their ancestry in a bath of  blood’. 
So I’ll leave you with this question: Who were the real exterminationists?

The Irish Savant : How bad was apartheid?

Monday, 25 February 2008

How bad was apartheid?

Apartheid was the cause celebre of the latter half of the last century. It was the only one which united all moral and principled people. Opposition became a kind of morality play by which we could all demonstrate our worthiness. In my case I gave up eating Outspan oranges (replacing them with an Israeli variety) while others made even more draconian sacrifices to bring down the hated regime.

And of course the wheels started falling off in the late eighties and the system collapsed entirely in 1994.

The common image of SA was that of a violent seething cauldron with the lid kept on only through the means of a highly militarized police state. Gun-toting police and soldiers on every corner no less, whites fearfully barricaded behind multiple layers of security. If true, this would indeed have represented a damning verdict on the system.

However, it was not true.

In fact it grotesquely misrepresents the real situation. SA in fact, even in the latter decades of apartheid (the most violent time) had a police/population ratio of about 1:2000. This was lower than in most other countries, including advanced Western ones such as the USA, France and Germany. Military spending as a proportion of GDP was also lower than in most Western states. It’s anecdotally indicated that most whites left their doors unlocked at night until well into the eighties.

And by the way, since ‘freedom’ was gained in 1994 there have been an incredible 300,000 murders, despite a huge ramp-up in the numbers of police. Just like India has become an outsourced destination for call centres, SA has become one for crime management. It now stands proudly as an international centre of excellence for money laundering, international prostitution rings, drug-trafficking and child pornography services.

So how bad was apartheid?

Well, it should first be realized that South Africa as a state was the creation of (white) European immigrants. It was run for their benefit, blacks were seen as a source of cheap labour, to be kept out of sight and sound as much as possible. They were not permitted to own land outside designated areas and were of course effectively excluded from the political system. They were deprived of various other rights, frequently humiliated and subjected to rough justice.

None of this was nice, but in terms of cosmic injustice it doesn’t even register. Comparatively few people were directly killed by way of the system. Sure, executions of blacks were at a rate which made GW Bush’s Texas seem almost liberal, and then there was the infamous Sharpeville massacre.

Let’s talk about Sharpeville. 69 people killed. Let’s assume that they were all killed in cold blood (they weren’t, in fact). But how in God’s name has this become a byword for state terrorism and criminality? Leave aside the tens of millions killed by the systems of Stalin PolPot and Mao. Four million have been killed in the Congo. When Robert Mugabe sorted out Matabeleland in the early eighties (well after Sharpeville) he, within the space of six weeks, killed more than 2000 civilians. Most of the dead were killed in public executions involving between one and 12 people at a time. And he was a hero to us in the West at this time. I could in fact list 1000 other examples incomparably worse than Sharpeville or anything else under apartheid.

It should also be borne in mind, as I've mentioned in other posts, that nobody – nobody - treats, or treated Africans worse than they do themselves. It was the first thing that hit me when I went there. Africans themselves know that, which partially explained why they flooded into apartheid SA at every opportunity and at great personal risk.

The only ones, in terms of lousy treatment of Africans, to give the Africans themselves a close run are the Arabs. Arabs see, and treat, Africans as lesser humans. And they don’t make any apologies for it (their ‘holy’ book justifies it, by the way). And they still do it. Associates of mine in Abu Dhabi recoil in horror at the thought of allowing blacks into the UAE. They believe deep down that they should be treated as slaves.

Hindus see blacks, literally, as the lowest form of life

So why then, given that its offences in comparative terms were small beer, did apartheid and SA draw such odium? Let me think. No, can't think of any reason, seems no logic to it.

Ha wait! Of course – the South Africans were white! Silly me. I forgot, only whites are racists. 


http://irishsavant.blogspot.gr/2008/02/how-bad-was-apartheid.html

The Irish Savant : The Tyranny of White Guilt

Monday, 11 October 2010

The Tyranny of White Guilt

I've just finished reading The Tyranny of Guilt: An Essay on Western Masochism, by French philosopher Pascal Bruckner in which he claims that "all of modern thought can be reduced to mechanical denunciations of the West, emphasizing the latter's hypocrisy, violence, and abomination." He shows how Europeans see themselves as "the sick man of the planet" whose pestilence causes every problem in the non-Western world. When the white man set foot in Asia, Africa, or America, death, chaos, and destruction followed. Europeans feel themselves born with stigmata: "the white man has sown grief and ruin wherever he has gone."

Well, maybe he’s over-stating his case. But there’s no doubt that one of the staples of our delusional post-colonial romantic self-flagellation is the myth of the Noble Savage. Coined originally I think by Rousseau in the eighteenth century, it’s characterised by misty-eyed fantasies about early men and women, living in Bambi-like harmony with nature while selflessly looking out for each other. But then the (white) colonialists came along to spoil everything, with their pesky hospitals, colleges, literature and so on.

Of all the delusions supporting the anti-white agenda, this is surely the most egregious. So hopefully I won't bore you by taking a look at the reality of some of those idealised lives.

The American Indians.
 
We have had it drilled into us now for more than forty years. I remember as a small boy when the Indians in movies were depicted as cruel, whooping, primitive savages, while the heroic cowboys or cavalry (calvary!) always kept one bullet – for themselves – in case of capture. You know, these savages would torture him horribly before his ritual slaughter.

We can look back now at this simplistic, ‘offensive’, ignorant and narrow-minded characterisation. We know this from an endless series of moves, and from the full range of ‘White Studies’ (ugh!) programmes, which show the Indian as being brave, peace-loving and chivalrous.
.
In fact, our unsophisticated 1960s view was far more accurate than that portrayed in Soldier Blue, Dances With Wolves or any of the other myriads of panegyrics to the poor Indian. For the Indian was indeed violent, cruel, savage, merciless and at constant war with his own kind, ever before the white man came to spoil everything.

Warfare was ubiquitous; every major culture area of native North America has produced archaeological, ethnohistorical, osteological, or ethnographic evidence of endless armed conflict and ritual violence.

A few examples:
In the Eastern Woodland cultures, warfare often served as a means of coping with grief and depopulation – itself driven by interminable warfare. Such conflict, commonly known as a “mourning war,” usually began at the behest of women who had lost a son or husband and desired the group's male warriors to capture individuals from other groups who could replace those they had lost.

The captive could be lucky. He could be spared and become the mourner’s new husband.

Or he could be unlucky.

“If the women of the tribe so demanded, captives would be ritually tortured, sometimes to death if the captive was deemed unfit for adoption into the tribe.”

Thomas E. Emerson’s study of Mississippian warfare for the period AD 900--1400 concerns the archaeological recovery of disturbing evidence from mass interments of war captives and/or sacrificial victims. According to the author, recent findings reveal that precontact-era hostilities resulted in the massacre and mutilation of hundreds of men, women, and children. He refers to “intensive and bellicose patterns of internecine warfare involving massive casualties.”
The Indians also demonstrated considerable vision and improvisation in developing methods of torture. Apart from the normal slow death by turning on the spit, specialities included smearing the victim with honey and then tying him (or her) to an ant’s nest. The agonising death throes could last for days before the partially eaten victim expired.

Various studies suggest that such practices were also widespread all over pre-Columbine America, including the Caribbean. Here the Carib Indians exterminated – and consumed – their Arawak enemies, before in turn succumbing to white man’s diseases, the poor dears.

New research coming to light (published in Discovery, September 20, 2010) shows that much of the violence was genocidal. “The entire assemblage comprises 14,882 human skeletal fragments, as well as the mutilated remains of dogs and other animals killed at the massacre site—Sacred Ridge, southwest of Durango, Colo. The unearthed bones and artefacts indicate that when the violence took place, men, women and children were tortured, disembowelled, killed and often hacked to bits. In some cases, heads, hands and feet appear to have been removed as trophies for the killers. The attackers then removed belongings out of the structures and set the roofs on fire.”
Must have been whites who did this, surely? Er, no. This took place about 800 AD.


Native New Zealanders

“There is not a bay, not a cove, in New Zealand which has not witnessed horrible dramas, and woe to the white man who falls into the New Zealanders' hands.”
.

When Felix Maynard and Alexandre Dumas wrote this (in The Whalers) they didn’t have the All Blacks Rugby team in mind. Although the similarities are striking, this, being written about 200 years ago, was referring to the native New Zealanders, the Maoris. And he was right to be apprehensive. Here’s a sample of what he could have expected:
.
“In the meantime, a fellow that had proved a traitor wished to come and see his wife and children. They seized him and served him in like manner. Oh, what a scene for a man of Christian feeling, to behold dead bodies strewed about the settlement in every direction, and hung up at every native's door, their entrails taken out and thrown aside and the women preparing ovens to cook them!”

“On our side, there were eight men killed, three children, and two women, during the siege. They got sixteen bodies, besides a great number that were half roasted, and dug several up out of the graves, half decayed, which they also ate. Another instance of their depravity was to make a musket ramrod red hot, enter it in the lower part of the victim's belly and let it run upwards, and then make a slight incision in a vein to let his blood run gradually, for them to drink.”

“I must here conclude, being very scanty of paper; for which reason, columns of the disgraceful conduct of these cannibals remain unpenned.”

Another Sheriden, Daniel Henry this time, wrote “Calm light airs from the north all day on the 23rd November hindered us from putting out to sea as intended. In the afternoon, some of the officers went on shore to amuse themselves among the natives, where they saw the head and bowels of a youth, who had been lately killed, lying on the beach, and the heart stuck on a forked stick which was fixed on the head of one of the largest canoes. One of the gentlemen bought the head and brought it on board, where a piece of the flesh was broiled and eaten by one of the natives, before all the officers and most of the men.”
.
“One of the cannibals thereupon bit and gnawed the human arm which Banks had picked up, drawing it through his mouth and showing by signs that the flesh to him was a dainty bit. Tupia carried on the conversation: ‘Where are the heads?’ he asked. ‘Do you eat them too?’ ‘Of the heads,’ answered an old man, ‘we eat only the brains.’ Later he brought on board Endeavour four of the heads of the seven victims."
.
Edward Tregear, in The Maori Race (1904) tells us “an English missionary has reported that Pomare, a chief of the Bay of Islands, ate six entire heads. Chiefs' heads are usually dried and perfectly preserved by an ingenious process. Before the feast of victory, each warrior drinks the blood of the enemy he has killed with his own hand. After battle comes the terrible and revolting episode of the cannibal feast. Prisoners taken in the fight were slain in cold blood, except those reserved for slavery – a mark of still greater contempt than being killed for food. Sometimes after the battle a few of the defeated were thrust alive into large food-baskets and thus degraded for ever. As a general rule, however, they were slain for the oven. ”
.

Damn white man – coming and ruining this delightful culinary experience and shoving his so-called civilization down their throats (if you’ll pardon that particular analogy).

And a final delight from Garry Hogg, Cannibalism and Human Sacrifice, pp. 197-199

“The warriors, entirely naked, their long black hair, although matted with human gore, yet flowing partially in the wind; in the left hand a human head and in the right hand a bayoneted musket held by the middle of the barrel. Thus, with a song, the terrible expression of which can only be imagined by being heard, did they dance round their wretched victims, every now and then approaching them with gestures, threatening death under its most horrible forms of lingering torture.
.
The captives, with the exception of one old man and a boy who were sentenced to death, were apportioned amongst the conquering warriors as slaves. The tables were laid. About a hundred baskets of potatoes, a large supply of green vegetables, and equal quantities of whale-blubber and human flesh, constituted the awful menu. The old man, from whose neck suspended the head of his son, while the body formed part of the cannibal feast, was brought forth and subjected to torture from the women before the last scene of all.”


In short, the native New Zealanders (and Pacific Islanders generally) were violent bloodthirsty cannibals. Interaction between tribes almost invariably resulted in internecine warfare leading to death on the battlefield, or, if it was your unlucky day, captivity. In the latter case your destiny was to be on the lunch menu for the following day, having first been subjected to the most appalling torture. Another characteristic of these people was the extent to which women and children partook of the torture and general prisoner abuse. This of course was also characteristic of their fellow noble savages on the American continent.

Australia.

In a nutshell, the pre-European Australian aborigines made their contemporary natives in America and New Zealand look like Swedish Social Democrats. I've posted here about what Kevin Rudd called their ‘ancient and proud culture’. Ah yes. If you have the, ahem, stomach, read it. I truly believe that these people were (are?) not fully human.

Africa:

Where to begin, where to end? Does anybody seriously believe in African ‘civilisation’? Well, the answer to that of course is, yes they do. None more so than guilt-crippled white masochists. To them I dedicate the following tiny snippets.
.
In west African there were slave wars, where the coastal African tribes were armed and encouraged to raid in­land and bring their captives to trading ports for sale and shipment. These cannot I suppose, if one is being pedantic, be strictly representative of er, ‘African civilisation’, being as they were, instigated by the white man. But the natives didn’t need much encouragement.
.
The result was a never-ending series of tribal wars and the devastation of immense areas. While some 8,000,000 Africans were sold into the Americas (only about 400,000 into what's now the USA) during the period of slave trade, it has been estimated that at least 40,000,000 more were killed in the wars and raids or died on the voyage. No mercy was shown in any of these encounters, and even the hardened white slavers were shaken by the brutality and savagery displayed by the Africans against one another. (Nothing’s changed in the meantime, then!).
..
Most of African history of course is unknown, as their ‘civilisation’ never got around to inventing reading or writing. Until of course whitey came with his evil ways. We can though get a good sense of the southern and eastern parts of the continent. Due mainly, of course, to the early arrival of whites to this part of the Dark Continent.
.
What they saw did not bring Switzerland to mind.
.
Now, are all you liberals and race-traitors in the back paying attention?

Let’s go!

As every schoolboy knows, Shaka Zulu created a highly centralized, well organized nation-state, with a large and powerful standing army. Then he did what we thought only the evil whites did. He used this army to expand his control! Can you imagine a noble savage doing such a thing?

And he didn’t mess about, creating a waterfall effect of violent tribal displacement and extermination. Refugee groups escaping Chaka invaded the lands of present-day Botswana creating chaos as they tramped westward. The Basotho were pushed into the mountains where they were harassed by cannibals. Setting villages on fire, the Ndebele swept ahead of the Zulu Impi to settle in present day Zimbabwe. Along the way they encountered King Thulare's Pedi empire, which was destroyed and its people wiped out. They then attacked the Mokololo to the northwest. Meanwhile the Xhosa expanded into Khoi-khoi lands, forcing many into the arid Kalahari Desert. The Tlokoa marched from Natal leaving a path of destruction all the way to Botswana. They attacked the Fokeng forcing them west. The Fokeng in turn marched north to the Zambezi River and beyond, where they raided destitute refugees.
.
Fokeng confusing, isn’t it?

All of this was in fact part of a broader series of ghastly massacres in which powerful armies annihilated their weaker neighbours, confiscated their possessions and moved on, knowing full well that if they loitered they too would be attacked by wave upon wave of people advancing from the east. The whole sub-continent was hurled into a maelstrom of destruction, until eventually an estimated twenty-eight distinct clans disappeared, leaving not a trace of their former existence.
.
Oh dear! Who could have imagined?

Anyway, this invariable lead to food supply problems which the victors solved by the simple expedient of consuming their captives. When they ran out of captives to kill and eat, the bodies of the already dead were disinterred and began to appear on the menu. But there are only so many bodies you can dig up, and it wasn’t long before starvation drove them to devouring their wives and children. Having once acquired the taste for human flesh, the cannibals formed themselves into hunting bands and set out daily to replenish their menus.
.
But the end was nigh, as the voertrekkers were heading their way, all set to spoil this pastoral idyll. They have a lot to answer for, them boers.

Conclusions?

Ok, all of this is innocent fun, but there’s a serious side too, one that brings us back to The Tyranny Of Guilt. You might justifiable conclude from what I've written that the noble savages were in fact for the most part grunting dehumanised beasts. Their societies were not comprised of happy hippies harvesting free-range animals who dropped dead naturally, and encounters between tribes were not pipe-smoking love-ins. They killed as many animals as they could, and they killed (and usually ate) as many enemies as they could. Unfortunately —for them— whitey had superior firepower. That’s all.
.
Can you have any doubt, based on what you’ve just read, as to what any of those native leaders would have done, had they only had the white man’s power? As General Phil Sheridan (from Cavan, of all places) said to Red Cloud: “If you had our power and we yours, you’d slaughter every one of us, to the last man, woman and child”.

Hobbes in Leviathan, held that the natural state of mankind is a "war of all against all" in which men's lives are "solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short". Well, that certainly sums up the Noble Savages we discussed. But what about whitey? Is he alone immune to these natural impulses? Surely not. But what whitey has done is to create and develop, over many centuries, an uncanny assemblage of science, philosophy and ethics, supported by complex legislation and an array of supporting governance institutions. These have not been perfect of course, but they have dramatically mitigated the risk of "war of all against all." In whitey’s world, peoples’ lives are assuredly not poor, nasty, brutish, or short. Some non-Western countries are of course successful, and more will be. But they'll make it by adopting Western inventions, medicine, industry, agriculture, communications.

.They understand this perfectly, unlike our lofty academic assholes, lauding the illiteracy and misery of others as they savour their latest Reisling. These academics will tell you that third-worlders want to come here because the capitalist system has corrupted them, and eroded their "Authenticity". Yeah, right. See, if only we had left them in their pure state, they would revel in hookworm and illiteracy.

Gimme a break. For three centuries just about everything that makes life tolerable has come from the West. I know it, you know it, the whole world knows it. And so do the academic assholes. They just don't like it.

We have everything to be proud of - our race indeed represents the March Of The Titans. Don’t let them take that from us.
 
 

The Irish Savant : Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn: The Incredible Disappearing Man

The Irish Savant

Sunday, 8 March 2015

The Incredible Disappearing Man 

 
Of course you all know of Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn. Who doesn't?  Legendary Russian dissident during the Soviet era, prisoner in the gulags, starved, tortured, ostracised.  But never broken. He spoke truth to power like few have ever done. His novels such as The Gulag Archipelago, The First Circle and Cancer Ward were not only brilliant literature but offered the rarest of insights into the life of a dissident in the USSR.  He came to be regarded as one of the most eminent writers and philosophers of his age.  Which contributed to his being awarded the Nobel Prize for Literature in 1970 "for the ethical force with which he has pursued the indispensable traditions of Russian literature".
Feted wherever he went, his books became international best sellers, translated into dozens of languages, the world was at his feet.  Then almost overnight it all stopped. He became a non-person. The transformation was virtually unprecedented in the field of literature. Why did this happen? Because Alex stepped on the Third Rail.  Well he didn't so much step on it, rather dived on it full length. You see he wrote a book called 200 Years Together that traced the Jews' colourful relationship with the Russian people and especially their role in the Bolshevik Revolution and its ensuing murderous tyranny.

He didn't pull his punches.  He placed Soviet Jews centre place in perpetrating the worst mass murders of the 20th century. While acknowledging that some Jews also suffered under this tyranny he clarified that it was not as Jews per se, rather that they were in the wrong faction at the wrong time. Solzhenitsyn's own estimate for the number of Christians (his word) who died was 60 million.

He documented all of this in meticulous detail.... names, dates, times. But he did something else, something more insidious and dangerous. Something that had strategic international consequences for the Tribe. For a start he shone a light on the extraordinary Jewish capacity to magic themselves into the position of victimhood irrespective of their actual accountability. This in turn depended on - as he pointedly noted - their uncanny ability to seize control of media outlets.  "There are pages of this history which one does not open without trembling. And these are the pages that are systematically and purposefully eradicated from the consciousness of the Jews."

Other observations that cut to the bone included their practice of manipulating the legal framework to reflect Jewish interests.  (Think "hate" legislation.) “Russian people are now confronted by a Jew both as their judge and hangman. Why was it that anyone who had the misfortune to fall into the hands of the Cheka could count with high probability on standing before a Jewish investigator or being shot by a Jew?" He meticulously debunked Jewish writers who sought to portray Soviet Jews as having no choice in what they did. 'Just following orders'  How ironic is that? He carefully traces the ways in which Jews, both within the USSR and internationally, favoured and supported Jewish interests under the cloak of universalistic altruism.

Sound familiar?

I haven't even begun to describe what he wrote in '200 Years Together' not least because I haven't read it, only certain chapters.  So why have I not read it? Aha, therein lies a tale!  You see, Solzhenitsyn's legendary status and guarantee of vast sales would in normal circumstances have had international publishers slavering at the prospect of getting their hands on the rights. But none did. None wanted it. It was never published in the West. In fact, incredible as it seems it has never been formally translated into English! Given that English translations exist for almost every half-assed writing in the most obscure of languages the disappearance of 200 Years Together is mind-blowing. The author himself became a non-person just as he had in the USSR.

Think about it. It is, as I said, mind-blowing. What sort of pressure could have resulted in every Western publishing house, every Western TV company, every Western magazine being intimidated into passing up such a unique and hugely profitable publishing coup?  How exactly was this Jewish power exercised?  Was it overt, subtle, physical, financial....or what?

It truly is frightening.

Is it any wonder that the American armed forces were afraid of commemorating the attack on the USS Liberty? Or that the country's so-called legislators should prostrate themselves before their true rulers in the sight of all?
 
 
 

The Irish Savant ; Living - for now - testaments to the New Woman

Sunday, 3 April 2016

Living - for now - testaments to the New Woman

Fascinating to watch 'em crash and burn, victims of their own design. Madonna and Angelina Jolie, the embodiment of the spirit of the New Woman, of Having It All. Sexually active while barely into their teens, an unfathomable number of subsequent partners (of both sexes), glittering careers, vast wealth, late onset "families", some of whom were purchased ready-made, home-wrecking, abandoned marriages (...AJ says of her first husband 'the greatest husband a girl could have......but I needed freedom'), feted and rewarded for dishing out democracy and women's rights to all those cute faces the rest of us see only on TV.

What more could the independent grrrlll of today ask for?

But now?  Being nearly twenty years older than she, Madonna reveals what awaits Jolie.  Excluding paid hangers-on she's now abandoned, alone and unwanted, so detested by her dysfunctional "family" that she used the law on her son when he chose in desperation to flee to his father. A bitter, squalling hair-trigger shrew, ricocheting between rage and self-pity as she frantically struggles to hang on to her collapsing career, each performance becoming more and more an exercise in self-parody.


And Angelina? Twenty five years of feminist freedom have left her a physical and emotional wreck with yet another disintegrating marriage and a squad of  mainly purchased children spiralling out-of-control. Luckily her non-stop filming, human rights status-whoring and stints in rehab mean she incurs minimal personal inconvenience from these little horrors. But pity the surrogate parents!

At least Madonna and Angelina have the wealth to purchase hangers-on and luxury. And, catastrophic as the results might have been, they have fulfilled their basic biological imperative by spawning their own offspring. But what about the ordinary woman, seduced during  her (long vanished) youth by the feminist illusion, and now toiling at her useless career in a tiny impersonal cubicle? For every Angelina or Madonna there are literally millions like her, and for whom a bleak future beckons.

Having decided to put off settling down she's horrified at the speed with which her child-bearing years are disappearing, while all those disposable 'good men' whom she confidently put to one side at an earlier time are no longer available, being married and/or interested only in girls a lot younger than she. The liberated kind  of girl who dispenses sexual favours with reckless abandon....like she herself used to do. But now as her eggs atrophy in her drying ovaries she's doomed to an atomised life with just cats as a surrogate family, doomed to negotiate a Darwinian cul-de-sac.

While I do feel a small tinge of schadenfreude at the fate of such women I also recognise that they're victims. 
Victims of feminism, the single most evil and destructive movement ever to beset the White race.  
 
A curse which most of us, men and women, have fallen under at one time or another. We now need to unambiguously proclaim that this has been a Jewish movement from start to finish, a fundamental component of the Cultural Marxist Revolution developed to destroy the White Christian family and with it the unique civilisation to which it gave birth.  
Feminism's intellectual genesis in the Frankfurt School, its icons such as Frieden and Dworkin, and its brainwashing enablers in news and entertainment have been overwhelmingly Jewish.
 As long as this central reality is denied or ignored there never will be a solution, a solution whereby our women revert to being friends and partners, not adversaries.

So let the deprogramming begin!
 

The Irish Savant : Not with a bang but a whimper


Thursday, 1 June 2017

Not with a bang but a whimper

I have (with the exception of sport, and I'm working on that) long ago given up watching TV.  It was surprisingly easy. But due to family circumstances I had to endure severe doses of it for most of last week. The scale, depth and overall pervasiveness of the indoctrination was breathtaking. 
 
 It starts with infants. The cartoon characters are close to 50% non-White, blacks and browns are portrayed as clever and well-spoken leaders, families invariably mixed-race, often featuring same-sex 'parents', androgyny is everywhere with everything dumbed-down to the lowest degree. The aphorism 'give me the child and I'll give you the adult' - variously attributed to Lenin and the Jesuits - never seemed more valid. 
 
On Sky News the two coal black presenters (one male, one female of course) were at one stage joined by the network's Chief Political Correspondent...... one Feisal Islam.

There followed a panel discussion on what it means to be British. Panel was wall-to-wall black and brown with a few carefully-selected  British eunuchs thrown in for ballast. The general consensus was that they all felt British. But would prefer if being British was less associated with being White! The limp-wristed moderator clucked in sympathy. And that's the way it's going. The resultant stew will have no common sense of history, culture, race or religion....the things that made them British. (The same syndrome applies all over western Europe, from Ireland to Greece, from Finland to Portugal). 
In such circumstances the nation eventually becomes fractious and atomised. Sedated and stupefied by bread and circuses an enormous cohort of welfare parasites will  continue to elect politicians that actively work to destroy their nation-states and enmesh them ever deeper into the international globo-homo power structures. 

But surely the White middle and working class males will not just sit back while they get dispossessed of everything their ancestors left them? Well that's where my excerpt from T S Elliot's Hollow Man comes in. I think they'll do just that.  
Despite Brexit and the inescapable signs of a White awakening I fear this is the way their world ends, not with a bang but a whimper. Already street-by-street vast swathes of their towns and cities have succumbed to the toxic black/brown sludge. And Whites retreat. Again and again. How long can this go on? Well, long enough for it to become an irreversible reality.

Before that happens the real nature of multiculturalism will of course have become clear. But this is where the carefully-constructed mind control programme comes in. Because as Orwell foresaw, when you constrain what can be said you eventually constrain what can be thought. 
 
My grandson's generation may well end up lying to themselves without knowing that they're doing it. Fyodor Dostoyevsky wrote 
 Above all, don’t lie to yourself. The man who lies to himself and listens to his own lie comes to a point that he cannot distinguish the truth within him, or around him, and so loses all respect for himself and for others.
 
 I became aware of this in the old Communist countries, especially Roumania. The lies and cognitive dissonance were so outrageous it seemed to me the authorities were not trying to convince but to humiliate, to break the people's spirit and will to resist. By forcing people to acquiesce to the lies and to remain silent, or even worse to regurgitate them rots the moral fibre, rendering them easily controllable and malleable.

Was this what Elliot had in mind when he wrote the final lines of The Hollow Man

In this last of meeting places

We grope together
And avoid speech
Gathered on this beach of the tumid river



http://irishsavant.blogspot.gr/2017/06/not-with-bang-but-whimper.html

Thomas Quiggin : The Muslim Brotherhood Connection: ISIS, "Lady al Qaeda," and the Muslim Students Association

  • "It should be the long-term goal of every MSA [Muslim Students Association] to Islamicize the politics of their respective university ... the politicization of the MSA means to make the MSA more of a force on internal campus politics. The MSA needs to be a more 'in-your-face' association." — Hussein Hamdani, a lawyer who served as an adviser on Muslim issues and security for the Canadian government.
  • Several alumni of the MSA have gone on to become leading figures in Islamist groups. These include infamous al Qaeda recruiter Anwar al Awlaki, Osama bin Laden funder Ahmed Sayed Khadr, ISIS propagandist John "Yahya" Maguire and Canada's first suicide bomber, "Smiling Jihadi" Salma Ashrafi.
  • What they have in common (whether members of ISIS, al Qaeda, Jamaat e Isami, Boko Haram, Abu Sayyaf or others) is ideology often rooted in the Muslim Brotherhood -- as findings of a 2015 U.K. government review on the organization revealed.
In August 2014, ISIS tried to secure the release from a U.S. federal prison of Dr. Aafia Siddiqui -- a Pakistani neuroscientist educated in the United States -- formerly known as the "most wanted woman alive," but now referred to as "Lady al Qaeda", by exchanging her for American war correspondent James Foley, who was abducted in 2012 in Syria. When the proposed swap failed, Foley was beheaded in a gruesome propaganda video produced and released by his captors, while Siddiqui remained in jail serving an 86-year sentence.


Part of an FBI "seeking information" handout on Aafia Siddiqui -- formerly known as the "most wanted woman alive." (Image source: FBI/Getty Images)

ISIS also offered to exchange Siddiqui for a 26-year-old American woman kidnapped in Syria while working with humanitarian aid groups. Two years earlier, the Taliban had tried to make a similar deal, offering to release U.S. Army Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl in exchange for Siddiqui. These efforts speak volumes about Siddiqui's profile and importance in Islamist circles.

Her affiliation with Islamist ideology began when she was a student, first at M.I.T. and then at Brandeis University, where she obtained her doctorate in 2001. Her second marriage happened to be to Ammar al-Baluchi (Ali Abd al-Aziz Ali), nephew of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the principal architect of the 9/11 attacks.

During the 1995-6 academic year, Siddiqui wrote three sections of the Muslim Students Association "Starter's Guide" -- "Starting and Continuing a Regular Dawah [Islamic proselytizing] Table", "10 Characteristics of an MSA Table" and "Planning A Lecture" -- providing ideas on how successfully to infiltrate North American campuses.

The MSA of the United States and Canada was established in January 1963 by members of the Muslim Brotherhood at the University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign campus. Since its inception, the MSA has emerged as the leading and most influential Islamist student organization in North America -- with nearly 600 MSA chapters in the United States and Canada today.

The first edition of the MSA Starter's Guide: A Guide on How to Run a Successful MSA was released in 1996. A subsection on "Islamization of Campus Politics and the Politicization of The MSA," written by Hussein Hamdani, a lawyer who served as an adviser on Muslim issues and security for the Canadian government, states:
"It should be the long-term goal of every MSA to Islamicize the politics of their respective university ... the politicization of the MSA means to make the MSA more of a force on internal campus politics. The MSA needs to be a more 'in-your-face' association."
In early 2015, Canadian Minister of Public Safety Steven Blaney suspended Hamdani from the Cross-Cultural Roundtable on National Security. No reason was given for the suspension, but Hamdani claimed it had been politically motivated -- related to his support for Justin Trudeau's Liberal Party. The French-language Canadian network TVA suggested, however, that the suspension was actually due to activities in which Hamdani had engaged as a university student, and radical organizations with which he was associated. During the 1998-9 academic year, Hamdani was president of the Muslim Students Association at the University of Western Ontario; in 1995, he was treasurer of the McMaster University branch of the MSA.

Several alumni of the MSA have gone on to become leading figures in Islamist groups. These include infamous al Qaeda recruiter Anwar al Awlaki, Osama bin Laden funder Ahmed Sayed Khadr, ISIS propagandist John "Yahya" Maguire and Canada's first suicide bomber, "Smiling Jihadi" Salma Ashrafi.

What they have in common (whether members of ISIS, al Qaeda, Jamaat e Isami, Boko Haram, Abu Sayyaf or others) is ideology often rooted in the Muslim Brotherhood -- as findings of a 2015 U.K. government review on the organization revealed.

Siddiqui's involvement in the MSA, her subsequent literal and figurative marriage to al Qaeda and her attempted release by ISIS, perfectly illustrate this ideological connection and path.
Thomas Quiggin, a court qualified expert on terrorism and practical intelligence, is based in Canada.

Saher Fares : Grooming Jihadists: The Ladder of Radicalization and Its Antidote

  • What you find is that behind every jihadist, who usually starts out as a young, often angry, Muslim seeking a purpose, lies a pulpit ideologue promising rewards and threatening punishments both on earth and in the afterlife.
  • Violent jihad may be postponed not out of concern for its victims, but rather if it might adversely affect a Muslim community. This view is frequently mistaken as "moderate."
  • Use the press and social media to expose young Muslims to facts other than those they are fed in mosques and the textbooks of their native countries, including the humanistic values of the West, such as freedom of speech and of the press; equal justice under the law -- especially due process and the presumption of innocence; property rights; separation of religion and state; an independent judiciary; an independent educational system and freedom of religion and from religion -- for a start.
On March 22, when Khalid Masood rammed his vehicle into pedestrians on Westminster Bridge in London before attempting to stab his way to the Parliament building, it was as if the heart and soul of British democracy were under assault.
As horrifying as the terrorist attack was, however -- murdering four innocent people and wounding scores of others -- it belied the magnitude of a much larger problem that has been plaguing Europe and creeping up on the rest of the West. Jihadists committing murder in the name of Islam have left a trail of blood across North America, the Middle East, Australia, the Indian Subcontinent, Southeast Asia, Africa and Europe.


Police officers stand guard on London's Westminster Bridge on March 29, 2017, a week after Khalid Masood began his murderous car-ramming and stabbing attack at the site. (Photo by Dan Kitwood/Getty Images)

In November 2015, a suicide-bombing and shooting spree in Paris left 130 people dead and hundreds wounded; in March 2016, three coordinated suicide bombings targeting travelers in Brussels killed 32 and wounded hundreds; and last December, a truck-ramming at the Christmas market in Berlin left 12 people dead and another 56 injured.

These were just a few of the successful attacks; those thwarted were more numerous.

France's prime minister said last September that authorities were foiling plots "daily," while some 15,000 people "in the process of radicalization" were being monitored. Last year, British security services prevented no fewer than 12 other assaults.

The average European now knows the names of Masood and those of other publicized terrorists. But few in the West are familiar with the many people who put those terrorists on their path by leading them up the rungs of a ladder of radicalization.

If you spend hours listening to speeches and sermons -- and reading countless articles by "respectable" local imams, community leaders and Islamic scholars -- you can see a pattern emerge. What you find is that behind every jihadist, who usually starts out as a young, often angry, Muslim seeking a purpose, lies a pulpit ideologue promising rewards and threatening punishments both on earth and in the afterlife.

The following is a description of the ladder of radicalization, based on material from 45 detailed case studies, covering the period 2012-2015, compiled by the author from U.K. government sources:
  • A radical preacher commonly employs theological "carrots and sticks" as a spur to action. He attempts to terrorize audiences with passages from religious literature about the horrors of hell. He shames those he brands complacent or reluctant to engage in jihad, and instills a heightened sense of crisis. He does this while harping on the notion of Muslim superiority and providing an idealized reading of history that emphasizes "glorious Islamic conquests."
  • The preacher quotes passages from the Quran and hadith [the sayings and deeds of Muhammad], gradually ratcheting up his rhetoric until openly calling for the restoration of the caliphate through global jihad. The preacher determines whether jihad is beneficial at a given time -- or whether it needs to be deferred -- depending on the clout a Muslim community has attained in a host country or culture. In other words, he decides whether to "declare jihad" based on what he deems possible for the Muslim ummah [community] at that time. Violent jihad may be postponed not out of concern for its victims, but rather if it might adversely affect a Muslim community. This view is frequently mistaken as "moderate."
  • The preacher presents stark, simplistic choices, cornering his audience into accepting his particular reading of Islam, and leaving no option but jihad. He does this by using language that evokes gut emotions. He presents the Quran, hadiths and Islamic history in a way he knows his audience is in no position to challenge. He juxtaposes, for instance, incidents in Muhammad's life to explain modern geopolitics -- such as the Arab-Israeli conflict -- and that point to a particular course of action. Or he uses ancient Islamic conquests as an inspirational model for current jihadist attacks against the West.
At the root of such preaching is a totalitarian worldview. According to it, there is no distinction between private freedoms and the public good. The past and the present are on a continuum. Secular matters are meticulously "guided" by clerical judgements. 
The nation state, he alleges, will give way to the caliphate. Morality is stressed, but expressed more in outward appearance (such as modest dress) than as an internal spiritual goal. 
And he emphasizes that the purpose of public worship is to consolidate al-mumeneen (the believers) into a unified bloc in the cause of jihad -- which ultimately entails physical warfare. 
The underlying theme is that all "infidels" are to be held in perpetual hostility until, as is written in the Quran, "Allah's word reigns supreme."

One reason that this radicalization process has gone undetected in the West has to do with language. Imams and Islamist intellectuals use terms that are seemingly identical to those of Judeo-Christian or secular-liberal discourse, but which have an entirely different connotation in Arabic.

Salaam, "peace," means the peace that will reign only after the whole world has accepted living under the rule of Islam.

Shihada, for example, often translated as "martyrdom," usually refers to the act of those who kill or are killed in battle for a religiously-sanctioned cause. It is not a testimony of faith in laying down one's life instead of recanting under pressure.
Iman, translated as "faith," is proven by total submission to Allah, His Messenger Mohammed and the edicts of sharia as propagated by the leader. It is of great "faith" not to waver in battle against Allah's enemies.

Qassas, wrongly interpreted as "justice", often entails a sense of vindictiveness, and "eye-for-an-eye" revenge. It is also circumscribed by Islamic law, sharia: whatever is inside sharia is just; whatever is outside sharia is not just.
Fight them; Allah will torment [not "punish" as many current translations claim] them by your hands... and will give you victory over them and satisfy the breasts (give a great sense of satisfaction, relief) of a believing people. -- Quran, 9:14, after Sahih International
Power is elevated as an Allah-given right to the believers, whereas humility is scorned as a sign of weakness. The goal toward which you are urged to aspire is not equality but ascendancy.

It is a matter of ihssan, or "benevolence" of Muslims that they tolerate the life and severely limited "liberties" of dhimmis (subjugated non-Muslims) so long as the latter pay a "protection" tax, the jizya, and abide by a covenant of inferiority "while feeling themselves subdued". In a state ruled by sharia, equal citizenship between Muslims and non-Muslims is unthinkable.

To challenge Islam's authority, its prophet's character or received tradition, or to critique the religion, is construed as ihanah, or "insult"; sabb-e-Rasul, "disparaging the Prophet," is a libelous offense worthy of death. Failure to accept Islam is also regarded as an "insult" that justifies attack:
As to those who reject faith, I will punish them with terrible agony in this world and in the Hereafter, nor will they have anyone to help. -- Quran (3:56)
Counteracting the radicalization of vulnerable Muslims requires a multi-pronged effort on the part of governments, academic institutions and community leaders. Here are a few recommendations:
  • Discourage voluntary segregation in Muslim communities. Establish initiatives that introduce genuine multiculturalism into classrooms, neighborhoods and community centers. This is the only way that insular, extremist thought can be debated and challenged openly by Muslims and non-Muslims alike.
  • Prevent fundamentalist Muslim community leaders from hiding behind a "moderate" or "mainstream" façade. Hold preachers accountable for the content of their sermons, and make sure that what they are promoting in Arabic aligns with their public statements in English.
  • Subject the history of early Islam -- the conquests of Persia, the Byzantine Empire, the Middle East, North Africa, Greece, Spain and most of Eastern Europe -- to the same academic rigors to which Western history has been subjected. Do not allow a romantic view of it as a "superior" model to go unchallenged, and do not shy away from examining similarities between current and centuries-old jihadism. The same goes for religious texts and their modern-day interpretations.
  • Use the press and social media to expose young Muslims to facts other than those they are fed in mosques and the textbooks of their native countries, including the humanistic values of the West, such as freedom of speech and of the press; equal justice under the law -- especially due process and the presumption of innocence; property rights; separation of religion and state; an independent judiciary; an independent educational system, and freedom of religion and from religion -- for a start.
Those who preach hate simply build on ahistorical, uncontested narratives to spread the messages that inspired the Manchester, London, Paris, Brussels and Berlin terrorists and that groom the terrorists of tomorrow. When will correcting the record and addressing the root causes please start?
Saher Fares is an Arabic linguist and researcher from the Middle East.