Friday, 29 February 2008

Living under apartheid (2)

Very interesting comment from Hal on my previous post. He quotesw the following from my post:

"Perhaps you’d look for alternatives, some way of humanizing the system. But basically you’d look away. You’d hold your nose and pray that the system holds up, and that you can continue to lead your privileged life."

He goes on: "I disagree. I think the most effective method would be to teach them race guilt. Have special remembrance days for black on white slaughter. Create TV documentaries that describe the many times the Africans killed whites. Teach their babies before they are old enough to resist. Show mini-series on TV that dramatise the suffering of whites at the hands of blacks.

Build museums in your national capital that memorialize white slaughter at the hands of black even if all that slaughter happened in a different county. Make sure several units of race guilt for white slaughter is added to all the school curricula for all minority schools. Remember, it is race guilt you are trying to create, and therefore any black slaughter anywhere in the world can be used to intimidate your blacks. They must be taught that they suffer from some strange disease that compels them out of the blue to attack and kill whites for no good reason.

Give it a special name: call it antiwhiteism. Blame your own blacks out loud for not defending white people when they were slaughtered by blacks on the other side of the world. Blame blacks for not taking in white refugees from those countries.And don't forget your own people. Build black on white racial slaughter into the very liturgy of your church: have a Massacre Day every year in which you make special prayers for the whites slaughtered by blacks and preach "Never Again!" to your children. And don't forget black-on-white slaughters that are hundreds of years old, either.

All of them can be remembered in a religious litany that will guarantee the solidarity of white people.Hell, these techniques have worked extremely effectively for some folks. They have worked so well that most European countries and the USA are so guilt-ridden they let immigrants pour in unchecked. Rather than complain about these tactics, a minoritized white people should recognise their incredible psychological power and use them on the evil majority.

As the Overseas Chinese, the African Lebanese, African Hindus and Jews know, you cannot "just look away" when you are a market dominant minority.You have to manage the majority and create in them a powerful sense of eternal majority guilt and a deep conviction that they and their children are all slaughtering psychopaths under the skin."

Sure is interesting, isn't it? And there may be a lot of insight there. Can't say that it's textbook race relations, but maybe we do need something like this. Sure as hell, it's gone totally the other way now.

Wednesday, 27 February 2008

Living under apartheid: What would YOU have done?

Consider the reaction when a halting site for our blessed compatriots the travelers (tinkers, knackers, call them what you will) is proposed. A joy to see political correctness go out the window as the local respectable community goes apeshit.

They go apeshit because they know what will happen if the knackers move in. Housebreaking, violence, litter, filth, caravans and burnt-out cars will be the new reality. Everything in the vicinity, houses, schools, clubs, all will spiral downwards in quality and value. That's the reason so few halting sites get permission. The majority sees to it that democracy prevails.

But what would happen if itinerants were in the majority? Say a majority of about six to one? What would the solid citizens do then?

They’d know that if knackers ran the country life as they know it could not go on. So I suppose they’d try to separate into their own enclaves, schools, clubs. Create a cordon sanitaire between themselves and the untermenchen. But how can they maintain this if itinerants are in the majority, looking enviously at their possessions?

I'd say they’d do what the white South Africans did.

I think that's what you would do if you’d been in SA under white rule. You’d probably shake your head at apartheid’s cruder manifestations, but you’d know what side your bread was buttered. You’d understand black Africans and their culture in a way Europeans never could. You’d know that if they got democratic control the country would, er, well, be like it is now. Heading to be the next Zimbabwe.

Perhaps you’d look for alternatives, some way of humanizing the system. But basically you’d look away. You’d hold your nose and pray that the system holds up, and that you can continue to lead your privileged life. ‘And why not?’ you’d rationalize. Whites made the country, everything the blacks have, not much admittedly, is paid for by the whites (there being no black tax-payers). And if it’s that bad, why are blacks from all over Africa trying to get in here?

You’d have no shortage of explanations.

You see, it’s easy to suffer on another man’s wound. It’s easy to get a moral orgasm when it doesn’t cost you anything other than, as in my case, not eating Outspan oranges.

Think you'd have been different?

Tuesday, 26 February 2008

Something good from Iraq at last

Though twisted and bitter by nature, your Savant does have one weak spot. Dogs. So it was with some emotion I read this story from Associated Press.

"It began with a simple act of kindness to save an abused, injured dog from becoming one more victim in the Iraq war. But what followed for Marine Maj. Brian Dennis and the mutt was a tale of friendship and loyalty that spanned miles and overcame long odds — one set to take a turn Friday with the anticipated arrival here of the Marine's best friend.

"This dog who had been through a lifetime of fighting, war, abuse ... is going to live the good life," Dennis told his family in an e-mail from Iraq."

While on patrol in the Anbar province, Dennis spotted what appeared to be a gray and white, male German shepherd-border collie mix. He named the dog Nubs after learning someone cut the ears off believing it would make the dog more aggressive and alert.
What savage bastards!

Within weeks, Nubs was greeting Dennis during routine patrol stops along border communities. The Marines fed him bits of their food and by November, the Marine and his unit were keeping an eye out for the dog, which routinely chased their Humvees when they departed.

Life on the run, however, was taking a toll on the dog. He had lost a tooth and been bitten in the neck. In late December, Dennis found Nubs near death in freezing temperatures. The dog had been stabbed with a screwdriver.
Dennis rubbed antibiotic creme on the wound and slept with Nubs to keep him warm. "I really expected when I woke up for watch he would be dead. Somehow he made it through the night."

Dennis thought he had seen the last of the dog days later when his squad headed back to its command post some 65 miles away. He couldn't take the dog with him and watched as it tried to follow the Humvees away from the border.
Two days later, while Dennis and a comrade were working on a Humvee, he looked up and saw the dog staring at him.

"Somehow that crazy damned dog tracked us," he wrote.
But the reunion was short lived. Military policy prohibits having pets in war zones, and Dennis was given four days to get the dog off the base or kill him.

The decision was easy: Nubs was going to San Diego!

If that doesn't make you feel good, check for a pulse.

Well done, Major.

And isn't Nubs lovely?

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. 

Sunday, 24 February 2008

Check this out

A commentator on the previous post sends me this link:

It's from a chap called Ifran Yusuf, who's an Australian 'diversity lawyer' and commentator. It's well worth checking out. Ifran tells us that Pipes misrepresented Australia's HR Commissioner Graeme Innes, the Commissioner saying in effect the expulsions had 'nothing to do with Islam'.

And our diversity lawyer is correct. Innes does agrees that he was turfed out of taxis on about 20 occasions on account of his dog. He also adds that no driver ever mentioned Islam as the reason.

And here's the good bit.

Based on this he concludes that Islam was not the cause!

So all over the West we have Muslim taxi drivers refusing entry to guide dogs, we don't seem to have non-Muslim drivers doing it, yet Graeme Innes seems unable to discern a pattern, simply because he wasn't directly told why.

Isn't this the ultimate in supine dhimmitude? Has this craven capitulation become so internalised even the most blatant facts are shoved under the carpet?

Far from undermining Pipes' comments, this development only underlines the extent of the challenge we face.

Saturday, 23 February 2008

Anti-Islamic counter-attack

Daniel Pipes has some strange views, not least his desire to have the US nuke various countries that don’t find his favour. Even his friends sometimes treat him like the rest of us would the mad aunt in the attic.

However, he runs a very effective organization that keeps an eye on the progress of Islam in the West. Just like Robert Spencer keeps an eye on the jihadists, Daniel covers the, in my view more dangerous, creeping extension of dhimmis status to the (for now at least) non-Islamic world.

In a recent letter he shows how the constant probing of our defenses can be repelled if we unite in opposition. The ongoing refusal of taxi-drivers (especially Somalis – the worst immigrants) is a case in point.

He tracked various news accounts of Muslim cabbies rudely rejecting blind would-be passengers, yelling at them, "No dog, No dog, Get out, get out"; "Get that dog out of here"; and "No dogs, no dogs." The blind find themselves rejected, humiliated, abandoned, insulted, or even injured, left in the rain, dropped in the middle of nowhere, made late for an appointment, or caused to miss a flight.

These include (see image) Australia's Human Rights Commissioner, who has been thrown out of taxis on a number of occasions! And I have no doubt that if anyone said a word to these these savages they'd run squealing to said Commissioner.

Islamist organizations initially responded to this problem by supporting anti-canine cabbies. The Council for Islamic American Relations(CAIR) pointed out how Muslims generally regard dog saliva as unclean. We got the explanation "the saliva of dogs invalidates the ritual purity needed for prayer. People from the Middle East especially … have been indoctrinated with a kind of fear of dogs" and justified a driver rejecting a guide dog on the grounds that he "has a genuine fear and he acted in good faith. He acted in accordance with his religious beliefs."

However, when the police and the courts are called in, the legal rights of the blind to their basic needs and their dignity almost always trump the Muslim dislike for dogs. The Muslim proprietor or driver invariably finds himself admonished, fined, re-educated, warned, or even jailed. The judge who found a cabby's behavior to be "a total disgrace" spoke for many.

CAIR, realizing that its approach had failed in the courts of both law and of public opinion, suddenly and nimbly switched sides. The new CAIR position is that "Islam allows for dogs to be used by the visually impaired."

Really. So why all the fuss then?

Pipes correctly points out that CAIR's capitulation contains an important lesson: When Westerners broadly agree on rejecting a specific Islamic law or tradition and unite against it, Western Islamists must adjust to the majority's will. If you'd like to get a flavour of some more of the treats from Islam that we'd need to guard against, check this post.

He concludes with words of great wisdom and practicality: “ If Westerners stick together, the Shari‘a is doomed. If we do not, we are doomed”.

Quite so, Daniel.

Thursday, 21 February 2008

This is not England - it's Saudi Arabia

The Evening Standard gives us an insight into Saudi-financed 'education' establishments in Dar al Harb (the Land of War, i.e. the West). It tells us that a "prestigious Islamic school" (is that an oxymoron?) in London, funded and controlled by the Saudi government, was eventually forced to shred 2,000 textbooks used to 'poison pupils' minds with lessons of hate'.

Colin Cook, a former teacher said, pupils as young as five were being taught by rote from Arabic textbooks describing Jews as "monkeys" and Christians as "pigs". (Mmmm... - I thought it was the other way around. Must recheck the sacred texts). Mr Cook said that when he exposed the racist teaching, the school's head Dr Sumaya Alyusuf lied on television, insisting that hateful passages had never been taught. That's called taqqiya, Colin. Lying to the kuffir is no sin.

Its 1,250 pupils have included the five children of jailed claw-handed cleric Abu Hamza and those of Abu Qatada, who was said to be Osama Bin Laden's right-hand man in Europe.
Mr Cook, 58, said that when he queried how the preachers could be paying school fees when they were said to be on state benefits, he was told to mind his own business.

Mr Cook said the Ofsted inspection in March 2006 failed to identify major issues including parental complaints, unqualified teachers and indiscipline. Now isn't that amazing? I thought the inspectors would have gone through the place like a dose of salts.

He says he was sacked on trumped-up grounds in 2006 after he blew the whistle on the school for covering up cheating by pupils in a GCSE exam. "In any normal workplace, an employee would not be sacked for whistle-blowing or indeed treated as a second-class citizen for not being Saudi Arabian," he said.

"However, as the head of human resources put it, 'This is not England. It is Saudi Arabia'."

Well,,,, not quite yet. But give them time. Give them time.

Where do Nigerians come from?

A very relevant comment from anonymous (I do wish there were more names de guerre) to this post. He/she says:

"According to the Department of Trade a total of 276 nigerians were granted work visas since records began.The Department of Justice has stated in June 2007 that a total of 133 nigerians were granted refugee status at first instance.according to the 2006 Census there were 16,300 nigerians residing in Ireland.The number of nigerian student visas given to nigerians was negible and does nt feature in the statistics.This means that 97% of nigerians accounted for in the Census came to Ireland as illegal immigrants."

This is a very good point. In fact as we all know, the Census was a joke. Can you imagine the tens of thousands of illegal immigrants dutifully filling in their forms? There are probably 50,000 Nigerians here. One of the main reasons I think lies with the huge influx of heavily pregnant cultural enrichers in the early parts of this decade.

At one stage nearly 25% of all births in Dublin hospitals were due to them. Due to their offspring being born here, they, and their parents (well, the mother and some man or other) got citizenship. This scam was of course thwarted, amid squeals of outrage from the Immigration Industry, in the referendum a few years ago. But not before major damage was done.

I'd say the vast majority of the rest came in from Northern Ireland or else overstayed their, er, welcome.

Wednesday, 20 February 2008

Limerick babies

Who said......?
"Schizophrenia is 9 times more common in African-Caribbeans and 6 times more common in black Africans than in the white British population"
A:Institute of Psychiatry at King's College London

Monday, 18 February 2008

Ok, once again....

If I may be bold enough to quote the Preamble of the US Constitution (or is it the Declaration of Independence?), I hold the following to be self-evidently true.

Large scale immigration has always caused major societal problems, and always will.

Such problems are directly related to differences in race, religion and culture, the greater the differences, the greater the problems

When blacks move in, either to neighbourhoods or schools, whites (and usually other races) move out

The resultant black environments demonstrate vastly higher levels of crime, family breakdown and welfare dependency

All attempts to address shortcomings in blacks societies, be it through foreign aid, affirmative action or black empowerment have failed and will continue to fail for the foreseeable future.

Islam, in that it recognizes no distinction between religion and the state, is inherently incompatible with Western democracy.

Muslims will not assimilate, rather they will form their own communities where they will enforce Islamic principles

Once a critical mass of Muslims is reached in a Western democracy, they will try to enforce such principles on the wider community.

Sooner or later, Westerners will have to decide whether to submit or fight back against this pressure.

In terms of demographics and numbers, the situation is rapidly deteriorating throughout the West.

It is bordering on sedition for those in power to encourage this self-destruction.

Is not all of this self-evidently true? And if so, why are we walking - make that sprinting - into a crisis?

Friday, 15 February 2008

Celebrating diversity in Denmark

The Gates of Vienna correspondent in Denmark brings us an update in that country's struggle with The Beast.

It’s just about all those small-scale riots all over the country, setting ablaze cars, trash-containers and whatnot. And when the fire brigade arrives they have to wait for the police to arrive in order to avoid being stoned. No injured humans, so far…OK, it’s a mini-intifada, but in no way out of control.And it has nothing whatsoever to do with ‘de autonome’.

The punks are 100% Muslims, initially whining about ‘police brutality and harassment’, ‘racial profiling’ (strip-searching all dark-skinned ‘youths’) etc.- - - - - - - - -
But when PET foiled the murder of Kurt Westergaard and almost all newspapers re-printed the ‘turban bomb’ cartoon, they changed their motives to ‘insults to our dear prophet, Mohammad (pbuh)’.The general opinion in our country is getting more and more anti-Islam by the hour…Now we’re waiting for Friday prayers to finish.

If the imams are smart they’ll calm things down and postpone the fun for a few weeks, because the weather forecast promises frostbite tonight. And Arabs slow down considerably in cold weather…

It's coming to a place near you soon, just as soon as a critical mass of Muslim cultural enrichers is reached

The Clintons' new dog

Thursday, 14 February 2008

Turkey: The mask slips

We’re constantly told, the Turks, even the current Islamic government, are ‘moderate’ Muslims. We’re told by our masters that if we don’t let them join the EU they’ll – wait for it – turn elsewhere! They won't accept our billions in aid or won't send their emigrants to join us.

What a terrible thought. After all, what could be better than 70 million poverty-stricken Muslims flooding across the Continent? Or money that we could have wasted on our own schools being more usefully deployed building madrassas in Turkey?

The Turkish government has played a blinder so far in pulling the wool over our eyes. Until now. They let the mask slip in Germany this week. In classical taqiyya style, Prime Minister Erdogan provided smooth integrationist blather to his kuffir hosts, but a very different message to the country’s 2 million Turkish community.

The message – don’t assimilate. “Assimilation is a crime against humanity” no less, was his message. In this of course he’s being 100% consistent with the plan to Islamicise Europe (this is not paranoia, check this).

Have the kuffirs gotten the message? Well, Green Party MP Memet Kilic (obviously Turkish) warned that Erdogan’s slogans were ‘a wake-up call’. Well done, Memet!

But no – by this he didn’t mean negotiations should be broken off with Turkey and Turks in Germany forced back to the kind of Islamic paradise they’re obviously looking for.

No, apparently ‘when you ostracise migrants you leave them no choice but to identify with another state’.

Exactly what the PM suggested they do.

Fine. Identify with it and then bugger off back to it, I say.

Wednesday, 13 February 2008

Our prisons celebrate diversity

According to the Irish Prison Service Annual Report 2006 just short of one third of prisoners in Irish jails are non-Irish. This has gone largely unnoticed in the MSM, as you’d expect. However, some of the comments that did appear included ‘staggering’, horrifying', 'astonishing reading’, ‘unexpected’.

All true, apart from ‘unexpected’. Anyone reading this blog, or talking to prison staff would not have found it in the least unexpected. In fact to me the ratio looks low, especially for Africans, who comprise nearly 6% of the inmates (up 16% on the previous year, you'll be pleased to know). My sources tell me (admittedly these are from Cork Prison only) that Africans, overwhelmingly Nigerians, on their own make up well over 10%. My belief is that Africans who have bluffed their way into Irish citizenship, and who now are guests of the prison service, are included as Irish.

Whatever way you look at it, it’s another blinding example of the folly of our immigration policies.

Monday, 11 February 2008

Bravo, Rowan Williams!

After hearing of Rowan Williams' enthusiasm for sharia I couldn't sleep with anguish. I thrashed about, tortured by images of beheadings on BBC and mosques in Hyde Park. But with the dawn came light and hope. Maybe, I thought, just maybe, this might be the straw that breaks the camel's back. Maybe the veil will fall from the eyes of the swinish herd.

And, as the bishop himself might say, so it came to pass. And lo, a great tumult arose from the multitude, crying out as with one voice 'why hast thou betrayed us to The Beast, thou stupid fucking prat?' And the bishop was much anguished.

The Defender of the Faith doing a Neville Chamberlain struck a chord, especially the bit about sharia being inevitable. The reaction shows that there might still be hope.

Sunday, 10 February 2008

UK Minister warns of ‘inbred’ Muslims

According to the London Times, a UK government minister has warned that inbreeding among immigrants is causing a surge in birth defects - comments likely to spark a new row over the place of Muslims in British society.

Phil Woolas, an environment minister, whose views were supported by medical experts this weekend, said the culture of arranged marriages between first cousins was the “elephant in the room”. Medical research suggests that while British Pakistanis are responsible for 3% of all births (for now at least - this will continue its rapid increase), they account for one in three British children born with genetic illnesses.

“If you talk to any primary care worker they will tell you that levels of disability among the . . . Pakistani population are higher than the general population. And everybody knows it’s caused by first cousin marriage. “The problem is that many of the parents themselves and many of the public spokespeople are themselves products of first cousin marriages. It’s very difficult for people to say ‘you can’t do that’ because it’s a very sensitive, human thing.”

To which my considered response would be ‘fuck that. If it’s causing huge stress to our heslth systems and a myriad of social problems, we’re making it illegal. If you want to marry your first cousin, here’s a free ticket to Pakistan.”

Woolas was supported by Ann Cryer, Labour MP for Keighley, who called for the NHS to do more to warn parents of the dangers of inbreeding. “This is to do with a medieval culture where you keep wealth within the family” she said.

And check this:

“There was one poor girl who had to have an oxygen tank on her back and breathe from a hole in the front of her neck. The parents were warned they should not have any more children. But when the husband returned again from Pakistan, within months they had another child with exactly the same condition.”

Ah, the joys of diversity.


Saturday, 9 February 2008

Scissors Sisters ride again

Everyone celebrates diversity in their own way. And that’s as it should be. The Mulhall sisters (both members of the oldest profession) and their mummy did it with Farah Noor, an asylum tourist from Somalia.

This particular cultural enricher, though a devout adherent of the Religion of Peace, proudly professed himself to be both a rapist and a murderer. He also had a kuffir lady as a lover – none other than the sisters’ mother. These splendid young ladies ended up by killing him and cutting up his body before disposing of it.

Why? Well, one shocking incident drove them to it. According to the Examiner, ‘matters came to a head when he made a pass at one of the sisters’. Is it any wonder they killed him?

Can you just imagine. They’re all at home, the girls counting the nights takings, when suddenly Noor makes an inappropriate remark. The poor innocent girls must have swooned with the shock. So they killed him. As one does in such circumstances.

Now the Court of Criminal Appeal has ruled that Linda’s 15 year sentence was invalid as the trial judge should have taken a psychiatrist’s report into account before sentencing. She might be back with us sooner than we thought.

Interestingly, according to the Examiner, ‘to this day, his head and penis were never found’. I never realised how easy it was to get rid of blackheads. And regarding the penis, hint to police: try shaking the ma.

There's a goldmine in the sky....

So His Holiness Maharishi has turned his Prada-clad toes up and levitated to the great goldmine in the sky. Like Deepak Chopra, he parlayed non-materialism into a multi-billion dollar business. His ability to shake down wealthy donors was legendary.

He made a fortune for example on the Important Planetary Transit of Guru Mesha Rashi, due to have occurred in May 2000. This Transit apparently was a Bad Thing, and His Holiness promised to counter it with a Global Yagya performance. For this ‘many large contributions are needed.’ Fair enough, Global Yagya doesn’t come cheap.

But he also flogged a wide range of products apart from Global Yagya. These include Blissful Joy oil, Peace of Mind tea and Golden Transition - the so-called ‘bliss in a bottle’.

When the Maharishi ‘University’ was established in the UK in the mid-nineties I was approached (maybe because I had done TM) about becoming a professor there. The remuneration package? Well, er, nothing actually. Mention of same elicited a sad shake of the head at my crass materialism.

The son of a tax inspector (sic), his superb business sense made him a multi-billionaire, and he lived appropriately. Although claiming to abstain fully from sex, evidence from recovering females adherents suggest that His Horniness Holiness was a randy little bugger who’d hump the leg of a table.

Did all of this then make him a complete fraud and mountebank? In my view, he simply identified a product (TM), stripped it of its Hindu philosophical context, and flogged it to gullible Westerners. In this he was not much different to so many other providers of spiritual sustenance. And just like Norman Vincent Peale, who parlayed about two paragraphs of useful life skills into nearly 100 books, he minted it for every possible cent.
And at least his value proposition applied in this world.

Thursday, 7 February 2008

What makes a terrorist?

What makes a misunderstander of Islam terrorist?

According to Marc Sageman, a 'forensic psychiatrist', as quoted in the Economist, terrorist are a bit like you and me. It might be comforting to think that angry young Islamists are crazed psychopaths or sex-starved adolescents who have been brainwashed in malign madrassas. But Sageman seeks to explode each of these myths, and others besides, and provides an unsettling account of how al-Qaeda has evolved from the organisation headed by Osama bin Laden into an amorphous movement 'leaderless jihad'.

He's a leading advocate of what is called the 'buddy' theory of terrorism. He has spent much time asking why well-educated young men, from middle-class backgrounds, often with a secular education and wives and children, become misunderstanders of Islam suicide bombers. He suggests that radicalisation is a collective rather than an individual process in which friendship and kinship are key components.

The process has four stages. The initial trigger is a sense of moral outrage, usually over some incident of Muslim suffering in Iraq, Palestine, Chechnya or elsewhere. This acquires a broader context, becoming part of what he calls a morality play,in which Islam and the West are seen to be at war.

In stage three, the global and the local are fused, as geopolitical grievance resonates with personal experience of discrimination or joblessness. And finally the individual joins a terrorist cell, which becomes a surrogate family, nurturing the jihadist world-view and preparing the initiate for martyrdom. Many Muslims pass through the first three phases; only a few take the final step.

Or so he tells us.

Sunday, 3 February 2008

Australia's aborigine apology

Check this out ("Apology at last", Irish Times, Feb. 2):

"The West Australian Aboriginal community of Balgo… is one of the most depressing places you’ll ever visit. Obese drunken adults sat around a dusty main square, gambling with piles of $50 notes earned through mining royalties or cheques from indigenous art works.

The betting stopped only when a local woman picked up a fist-sized rock to swing at the head of a neighbour. The brawl went on for about five minutes before she was disarmed. The blood spilled was invisible on the red soil.

The ruins of squalid homes, some repaired and cleaned just weeks before only to be destroyed again, sat abandoned and uninhabitable. Children raced among the adults, mucous and fluid pouring from infections in their noses and ears.

The government-paid workers – police and nurses and repairmen – lived in homes protected by giant cages. The teenagers were invisible in daylight, coming out at night to throw stones, drink, or sniff petrol."

The writer could have added that up to 70% of children are subjected to sexual abuse, with many as young as six suffering from VD or AIDS.

A few points of note here. First, this was part of a piece which attributed all of the problems identified to the activities of whites. Second, they gambled $50 notes, ‘earned’ from mining royalties (i.e. they get the money because whites discovered the minerals in virtually uninhabited land). Note that police, repairmen and nurses, all paid by the white government, have to be protected by cages.

So we have the villagers provided with substantial money by the government, who also provide their health, accommodation and policing for nothing. Despite this, the village is a dystopian nightmare. And it’s all the fault of the whites.

Do you spot the causal relationship?

I don’t.

There’s no doubt that the aborigines were treated dreadfully, but does that justify their behaving like animals for generations? They came many thousands of years ago from Africa, and they’re demonstrating typical African characteristics. Is the description of Balbo much different from your typical African village or South African shanty town?

When blacks slide down to the bottom of every metric on every social scale, either in Africa or the West, the response is always the same. The whites are to blame. And we want cash compensation. Now please.

The problem stems from the nature of the Africans (see this). And things will never improve until this indisputable fact is recognized.

And by letting huge numbers of Africans into Europe we're importing their problems here.

Saturday, 2 February 2008

Connell weasels out again

Desmond (“I paid nobody”) Connell is a bloodless, treacherous, arrogant, lying, buck-toothed hermorphadite. He’s a man/woman constantly at war with the facts. He presided over a clerical pedophile ring in the Dublin Archdiocese whereby known abusers, once outed, were quietly shipped to virgin (indeed) territory elsewhere to destroy a whole new group of lives. It was for these reasons that I gave him such a hard time in my interview with him last year.

Despite this he was promoted by his CEO at the time – John-Paul II (The Abominable Showman) to Cardinal. Eventually when the scandal became public, s/he denied all knowledge. S/he even had the temerity, amid much be ringed hand-wringing, to wail about how painful the scandal (well, its becoming public anyway) was for the bishops.

Can you believe that? Countless lives ruined on his watch, and all she can talk about is how embarrassed the fucking bishops were.

Now this Creeping Jesus has crawled out of his coffin and seeks to have access to all the incriminating evidence blocked.

Obviously he has good reasons for this. But why now? This has been going on for years.

There are a lot of strange sub-plots here. One relates to the murky dealings whereby the Church’s insurance company backed out of its policies (they got lied to about potential liabilities?). Another is the notorious little arrangement whereby Michael Woods and Opus Dei officials at the Dept. of Education took on the Church’s financial obligations on our behalf (see this).

And am I being too cynical in thinking that the dispute between Connell and DiarMuid Martin could be contrived? Could Martin be saying ‘I swear, I knew nothing of this’ while hoping that Connell’s court action succeeds? Top executives like them do that kind of thing all the time.

Bring on the cleansing hellfire.