Saturday, August 18, 2007

London imam seriously injured in brutal attack; castrated, stabbed 13 times, set on fire while still alive.

Muslim attacked; eyes gouged out, castrated, stabbed, burned to death, and hardy a peep from the press. Truepeers picked up on part of this story recently, and now there is more after the killing:

Three members of the gang ran away to Pakistan when they heard that police had arrested the 4th gang member. Our "Tough on crime, tough on the causes of crime" Home Secretary Jack Straw has no plans to attempt to extradite them.1.

One of the imams of the London's Central Mosque is in serious condition in hospital following a brutal attack by a white man of Irish origin, the Muslim News has exclusively learnt. 2.

The crime which was to shock all Scotland was discovered the next morning by a car salesman cycling to work. At first thought he was seeing a dead animal on the track. 1.

A police spokesman told The Muslim News that a 40-year old man had been arrested and charged with grievous bodily harm and assault. The spokesman said that he was not charged with a racially aggravated offence, but the Director General of the mosque, Dr Ahmad Al-Dubayan, suspected that the attack was religiously motivated in the current atmosphere of growing hostility against Muslims. 2. Swearing revenge and threatening to "cut up the culprit and take out the person's eyes", X amassed a five-strong gang of armed helpers, including Zahid, to prowl the streets in a stolen Mercedes looking for his attacker. 1.

He accused the media of creating "an atmosphere of Islamophobia" that led to this and other attacks on mosques.2. So there you have it, a native Scotsman (boy) can be tortured to death in the most hideous of ways (tongue cut out, eyeballs gouged out, castrated, stabbed 13 times, and finally set on fire whilst still alive) and the media and Government go out of their way to cover it up and allow the killers to remain free.1.

The Muslim Council of Britain also said it is the latest example in a string of anti-Islamic crimes in Britain. "There is clearly a growing anti-Muslim climate in this country and it has some very worrying implications for all of us," an MCB spokesman warned.

Dr Al-Dubayan said that the 58-year old imam, who did not want to be named, was attacked on Friday morning after the man, who was wearing a cross, entered the mosque claiming that he wanted to be converted to Islam. The imam offered him dates and explained to him about Islam and suddenly the man threw himself on the ground and began saying something the imam did not understand. Then he suddenly got up and began punching the imam on his forehead until the imam fell on the floor. The man then stood on top of the imam and began poking into the eyes of the imam with his fingers, damaging them badly. The imam tried to defend himself but could not free himself. The imam began shouting and the security came and called the police. The man was apprehended after much difficulty as he resisted the arrest. 2. Kriss was held down while he was stabbed. He was then laid on a pile of newly-felled logs, doused with petrol, and set on fire, before his attackers drove away. A horrified jury heard how the youngster, with blood rapidly draining from the severing of three major arteries, rose from the logs in flames and crawled towards the river, leaving a trail of burnt clothing and scorched grass.Kriss never reached the water. He collapsed in a rain-filled depression, rolling in agony in the mud to try to douse the flames, before succumbing to his terrible internal injuries and burns. 1.

The violent assault comes after an increase in attacks against Muslims and mosques since the recent failed car bombings in London and at Glasgow airport. The Muslim News editor Ahmed Versi called on the Government and the police to ensure that Muslims and their places of worship are protected in the current hostile climate. "Such Islamophobic attacks should not be tolerated. There are causing further alienation in the community and add to the dangers of radicalizing young people." Versi warned. 2. At first thought he was seeing a dead animal on the track. 1.

As might be obvious from the confusion of the story above, it's from two separate assaults. Below is the story of the first. If this weren't already lengthy I'd have included the story from France of the Jewish kid, Ilan Halimi, who was lured into a ghetto where he too was tortured, castrated, and then burned to death by Muslims. This is not to rile the masses against Muslims, but ask why Muslims are not criticized for murders and tortures but are cast as victims of Islamophobia when people do get riled. It does no favors to Muslims to pretend they are victims when it is too obvious they are often terrorists and murderers. If our intelligentsia continue to play down the culpability of Muslims who are killers and to continue to play up the convenient guilt of the general society and blame them for Muslim criminality and terrorism, then there will be a genuine back-lash by those who simply hate the intelligentsia and who will not listen to reason any longer, turning on the innocent Muslim as well as the guilty indiscriminately. The intelligentsia will lose what little authority and credibility they now still have, and the people will simply attack the nearest Muslim out of unrestrained hatred of the past atrocitiies, whether the individual is guilty or not. It is usual for people to respect authority; but it is not unconditionally given; and the way our intelligentsia conduct themselves and our public affairs it is nearly certain that they will find themselves cast over in favor of the maddened. Stop the lying or face the wrath of the enraged. Muslims must demand it or they will suffer.

Evening Times (Glasgow),

A CALLOUS thug who helped in the abduction and slaughter of school- boy Kriss Donald has been found guilty of Scotland's first race murder.

A jury at the High Court in Glasgow unanimously convicted shopkeeper Daanish Zahid, 20.

The killing was a revenge attack stemming from an incident the night before when a person, who can only be referred to as X for legal reasons, was attacked with a bottle in a Glasgow night spot.

The attacker, a white youth, belonged to a group called the McCulloch Street Team.

Swearing revenge and threatening to "cut up the culprit and take out the person's eyes", X amassed a five-strong gang of armed helpers, including Zahid, to prowl the streets in a stolen Mercedes looking for his attacker.

Innocent Kriss, 15, was last seen alive as he was bundled into the Merc near his home in McCulloch Street, Pollokshields.

He had been heading with his pal, Jamie Wallace, 20, to play computer games. He was targeted for no other reason than he was white and lived in the area.

The next day Kriss' body, naked save for the charred remains of his underpants, a sock, and a trainer, was found on the Clyde Walkway in Parkhead, Glasgow.

In a crime which shocked all Scotland, he was stabbed and set alight with petrol while still alive.

During the trial the court heard Zahid claim that he did not brutally plunge the knife 13 times into defenceless Kriss' stomach, back and arm. Nor did he set him on fire.

In court, Zahid, 20, admitted staying with Kriss during a 200-mile terror journey, buying the petrol used to torch him, and disposing of weapons.

He said that as Kriss was being horrifically murdered, he sat in the car, watched—and didn't do anything to help the stricken boy.

But yesterday a jury found Zahid guilty of Kriss' racially-aggravated abduction and murder.

A member of the victim's family whispered "Yes" as the verdict was read out.

Zahid was also found guilty of racially-aggravated assault on Kriss' pal and attempting to defeat justice by torching the abduction car.

The judge, Lord Philip, told Zahid the price for his participation would be a life sentence.

Because Zahid, of Shields Road, Pollokshields, Glasgow, is a first offender, Lord Philip, told the jury he was obliged to call for reports before sentencing him and calculating the number of years he should serve before being allowed to apply for parole.

In the dock with Zahid was 20-year-old Zahid Mohammed, also of Shields Road.

Mohammed was also originally charged with abducting and murdering Kriss, but on the first day of the trial, prosecutor Mark Stewart accepted he was not guilty of murder because he left the car hours before Kriss was killed.

Mohammed, however, admitted abducting Kriss and attempting to defeat justice by asking a friend for an alibi.

He then went into the witness box to give evidence for the prosecution and told why he left the others.

He had been sentenced to wear an electronic tag on his ankle for carrying a knife, and had to be home for 7pm when his curfew began.

Lord Philip called for reports on Mohammed who will be sentenced along with Zahid at the High Court in Edinburgh on December 16.

The judge told the jurors it had been a "distressing, harrowing, and demanding" case for them, and said they wouldn't have to sit on a jury again for 10 years.

Zahid, who ran his family newsagents business in East Kilbride, had denied while acting along with others, abducting Kriss in Kenmure Street, Pollokshields, Glasgow, on March 15 this year, driving him to Strathclyde Park, Motherwell, Dundee, and then back to Glasgow, and murdering him at the Clyde Walkway near the Celtic Supporters Club in Glasgow's east end.

The Crown claimed that the abduction and murder was racially aggravated.

Zahid lodged a special defence incriminating X and another person who cannot be legally identified.

During eight days of harrowing evidence the jury heard that Zahid, Mohammed, X and the two others, set out to find the youth who had attacked X the night before in Victoria's night club in Glasgow.

When Kriss and his pal, Jamie, were spotted, X said: "They'll do", and ordered the car to be stopped.

X and the others, including Zahid and Mohammed, jumped out, and as Jamie tried to defend himself and distract the attackers from his friend, Kriss was punched and kicked and bundled into the Merc.

He was heard to plead with his captors: "Why me. I'm only 15."

The schoolboy was then taken to Strathclyde Park in Motherwell where Mohammed got out and returned to Glasgow by taxi.

During the journey. Kriss, face down in the well of the rear seat, listened in terror as X phoned friends to ask for a flat where he was to be tortured for information.

But when nobody was willing to help, X ordered the Merc to be driven back to Glasgow. On the way, they stopped at a filling station and Zahid was ordered to fill a canister of petrol which he put in the boot.

Terrified Kriss was then driven to a deserted and dark walkway on the banks of the Clyde.

The court heard that for a minute Kriss thought he might survive the ordeal when X told him: "You're all right. It's your friends I'm after."

Zahid told the court X ordered the youngster out and followed him with two others to the rear of the car.

He claimed he remained in the front passenger seat and told how he heard screams and then saw a fireball. When X and one of the others returned, their hands and clothes were covered with blood.

The prosecution said Zahid must have seen the slaughter because bloodspots on the bonnet and wing of the car proved Kriss had been stabbed at the front of the vehicle.

Kriss was held down while he was stabbed. He was then laid on a pile of newly-felled logs, doused with petrol, and set on fire, before his attackers drove away.

A horrified jury heard how the youngster, with blood rapidly draining from the severing of three major arteries, rose from the logs in flames and crawled towards the river, leaving a trail of burnt clothing and scorched grass.

Kriss never reached the water. He collapsed in a rain-filled depression, rolling in agony in the mud to try to douse the flames, before succumbing to his terrible internal injuries and burns.

The crime which was to shock all Scotland was discovered the next morning by a car salesman cycling to work.

At first thought he was seeing a dead animal on the track.

In the meantime, a drug dealer who supplied X and the gang with cannabis, was ordered to buy petrol. Zahid met him at a prearranged spot in the west end of Glasgow, took the can of petrol from him and left a bag containing a knife and a hammer in the back seat of his car.

The Merc was then torched in nearby Granby Lane.

During his evidence, Zahid spoke weasel words to Kriss' mum, Angela, and his sister, Samantha, who had sat feet away from him throughout the trial.

He said that he prayed for Kriss and his family every day, and he apologised for doing nothing to help him.

Zahid claimed he went along with the episode because he was terrified of X, and of being "done in".

He also claimed that the murder had been committed on the spur of the moment by X, described by defence counsel Ian Duguid QC as a "psychopathic lunatic" and that it could not have been anticipated.

But Mr Stewart told him he was guilty because he had participated at "every gruesome stage" of Kriss' ordeal, and had failed to take advantage of endless opportunities to get away.

After the verdict, when asked about continuing police inquiries, detective superintendent Elliot McKenzie said: "The job is only half done as far as we are concerned.

"The Crown and the police will not rest until those others have been brought to justice."

Original article

(Posted on November 22, 2004)

I found this story in this form at American Renaissance. I have to wonder why I had to find it there and not in a standard press.


reliable sources said...

I would have had difficulty understanding this if you hadn't told me in advance that you were going to intermingle two separate stories.

At the end, I couldn't finish reading the straight newspaper account of the boy's murder. It was so sickening, it was draining my energy.

This story underscored how Muslim loyalty to one another in relation to the infidel can suddenly dissipate ...when one is facing a long jail sentence. If I remember correctly, one guy with the name Zahid testified against another guy with the name Zahid. Where have all the martyrs gone.

truepeers said...

Any country that can declare one murder worse than another, or at least worthy of greater punishment, because it is racially motivated or aggravated, or whatever, has already gone off the deep end, in my opinion. It is playing to the cult of victimhood, as if one is a greater more worthy victim when killed my the Other than by one of "one's own". It is to insist we belong to tribes and are not simply individuals, having evolved to a stage of history where only individuals, or that particular form of Western civilization that sacralizes individuals, matters. The fact that Western sacralization of personhood is, historically, a product of Christianity, i.e. of one particular kind of culture, should not provide us any basis for re-tribalizing the individual, as the victimary left does when it calls freedom's sacralization of the invidual a white male bourgeois "Christianist" conspiracy to control people through market mechanisms, etc. Similarly, when certain forms of conservatism say only whites are capable of Western civilization, or that this civilization, in its particular shapes and forms, can only really belong to whites, we should have our doubts because: a) this has hardly yet been proven by history (which is not necessarily a claim that we should allow mass immigration, as opposed to export of Western culture); and b) no culture or tradition, (even authoritarian ones like Islam) can long remain the same and still survive.

A country or political culture prostrate before the cult of victimhood shouldn't, perhaps, be shocked by sadistic murders or attacks on Imams; but it's likely gone too far off the deep end of serious thinking, in which every individual is made sacred as a thinking individual, to realize this.

I would like to say that the political scandal (as distinct from the moral scandal) of the sadistic murder of Kriss Donald was that the authorities were loathe to extradite the killers from Pakistan, lest it stir up trouble, as it did for the MP who pushed for the extraditions.

But this post seems to make Donald's murder itself into a political as well as an obvious moral scandal. Has Britain gone so far down the tubes that it is necessary to make a vile murder political (whatever the desires of the murderers)? Must we rebrand the "lunatic psychopath" as a "Muslim"? Well, of course it was a gang of Pakis/Muslims, fighting to defend and revenge their identity, and we can at least say that Islam (and whatever else) failed to make these young men into moral human beings.

But every culture and religion has its failures. Every culture creates resentment; but when this resentment is taken to extremes some of us refuse to recognize it as ours - we do not see great resentment as a human inevitability on the statistical margin, something inherently, if only feebly, pathetically, political; but rather we want to write it off as "lunatic psycopathy". And maybe when we're dealing with the average "psychopath", the politically correct thing to do is indeed to deny the political element in the psychopath's makeup... because there is no dignity in it.

To politicize this one murder into a Muslim problem, we really have to be convinced of either or both of two things: 1) Muslims are disproportionately murdering, that the single murder is but illustrative of a larger trend; and/or 2) the intentionally shocking, sadistic and vengeful nature of the crime is such that it could only have been "racially" or "religiously" motivated - keeping in mind that it is the nature of an idealized Islam and its "Ummah" to confound race and religion - and that this motivation speaks to or encourages a wider desire.

I am quite ready to believe that this crime was racially/religiously motivated. But, if my original statement in this comment is correct, why should I think this one murder worse than any other? Why should I politicize it as such? The law, I believe, must treat all people and all murders equally - there can be nothing worse than pre-meditated killing of any individual, full stop. One is not a greater victim because of the motive of one's killer. When premeditated murder is beyond any doubt, a sadistic political murderer and a "clean" professional killer should both hang from equal lengths of rope.

But here, when discussing a particularly sadistic crime, in an inevitably politicized context, is a situation where the discussion must inevitably go beyond the universal law and its remedies, to questions of motivation. The issue must become political because the law cannot differentiate among motivations and remain the universal law. In our post-rational society, where we are afraid of and outlaw certain kinds of public debates, we want the law (in the sterile environment of the court room, or perhaps in some bureaucratic dark room) to do the job of the public forum and in asking it to do this, we begin to undermine the disinterested neutrality on which the legitimacy of the law depends.

And it seems to be just such a needed political discussion of a problem with Muslims (for which there is more evidence than this one crime) that is being blocked by the British media and political class, for fear of stirring up trouble. This undermines the law. This is a sign that Britain is now a society divided and on the edge. You argue that Muslims must be forced to recognize that there is a problem in their culture that needs to be dealt with. I think that's right. But, if forcing recognition on them promises (in the eyes of the media) to cause them and their "leaders", but also perhaps the racialist whites, to go ballistic, as they are prone to do, what is really the responsible thing to do?

It is a classic blackmail situation. Refusing the blackmail will cause damage. Accepting it will too. How do you really know that playing for short-term peace is a fool's bargain? How do you know that things won't settle down in the end if the immigrant/Muslim problem is more quietly mediated in the ways of the bureaucratic classes?

Ultimately we must move beyond our moral indignation at one particular crime and develop a calm and lucid understanding of the stakes on the table. How much of reality, how much of a working or not working system for providing peace and order is at play in the given moment? How much does a certain hard-boiled "realism" actually undermine things like the disinterested law?

Our friend, Adam, has convinced me that playing to either the short or the (unimaginable) long term is a mistake in the present age, because the bureaucratic/media class's understanding of realism is no longer able to build a satisfactory reality. They've lost touch with what underlies our conflicts or with the anthropological means to transcend them. In this situation, we should think in terms of the medium term, because this is the domain in which real thinking is again made possible, in which the stakes on the table to be played for become the actual stakes, no holds barred. The short term vainly "realist" players say placate the Muslims, play power politics, and through various means keep a lid on things. The long term players have more or less utopian fantasies - e.g. isolate the West from the Muslim world (or vice versa), or, on the other side, let the Ummah win.

The medium term players say: no more blackmail, all the stakes, that are in reality the stakes in this situation, like it or not, are on the table and so where are the real Muslim leaders/informers who are willing to put their future in our society on the line in order to play for the non-utopian stakes of membership in a less than perfect society like ours, but at least a society that is real, pretty free, and not a projection of religious or political fantasy. Where are the Westerners who are willing to put their non-utopian faith in Western civilization on the line by truly testing whether Muslims or Pakistanis will, in any significant numbers, be capable of assimilating to (a future version of) it? Or are we so smug as to think we already know the answers and there are only short and long term moves to that end - kick them out, close the doors, let more in... ?

We should not be so scandalized by the Kriss Donald murder that we don't start trying to figure out what are the real stakes on the table in this political game we're playing. The moral and legal question should be beyond doubt or need of much emotional display.

Dag said...

In a way I do apologize for the format of my presentation above. It's no doubt confusing to the reader, which it was meant to be, but i do hope it was confusing in an enlightening way, which Peer's comments elaborated mightily.

To summarize my position here: Murder is murder, and regardless of who commits or or why, the neutral and universal law must act without bias. It is what it is, and it cannot be personal. The law cannot be one thing for Pakistanis and another for crazed Scotsmen. No exceptions. All must be equal before the rational and positive law.

Peers is right in pointing out that this murder of Kriss Donald is not necessarily a Muslim act. I included the link to the similar story from Paris of the torture and murder of Ilan Halimi, burnt, castrated, and tortured for many long hours before he too was set alight. That wasn't necessarily a Muslim crime either, even though it was committed by Muslims for the most part and was anti-Semitic in its intent.

I deliberately confused the cases to show that it matters not what is done to whom or why, the crime is the crime, the criminal is the criminal, and the law is the law; and I confused the cases to show that the outcomes were utterly different in both cases, that when the Scottish boy was killed, it was against the wishes of the state to extradite the criminals from Pakistan, and that today, the Muslim M.P. who moved the case forward and did get them in court is now under threat of death by Muslims who are angry at him for turning on "his own." The police in Britain were desperate not to bring the killers back from Pakistan, and it was a Muslim M.P. who demanded it. Now it is Muslims in Britain who are trying to kill the Muslim. the Muslim M.P. has regard for British las, but the British law seems not to have even as much as unassimilated Muslims.

When that is the case, when the average Scotsman can't trust a Muslim doctor not to kill him, can't trust the British government to punish a Muslim who commits an outrage against a boy, a British government that tells it's doctors not to eat at their desks during Ramadan so as not to offend Muslim doctors; then we get crazed vigilantes who attack random Muslims. Pretending it's not happening, pretending it's the fault of racist Scots, pretending the moon was in Virgo, none of it will work any magic other than pushing normal people into the arms of those who will leave the BNP for extremist organs. When American Renaissance picks up stories the press in general won't, then we will get our news and views from American Renaissance. When we cannot trust our governments and intelligentsia, we will get our safety and security from Smith and Wesson, a couple of uncompromising thinkers, last we spoke.

I wish to confuse the reader above to bring some clarity to this issue. Peers did so above.

The question remaining is where we will stand in our line-up to pick the term, long, short, or medium. We cannot continue as we have. We can see it already, if only in an instance here and there of vigilantism. There won't be less of it rather than more by allowing further Muslim outrages to go on as they do now. There will only be more vigilantism, more rage, and there will come a time when authority is hated as much as the Muslim himself, innocent or guilt, who will care to bother to find out.

This struggle we face is no and hasn't ever been about Muslims. It is very clearly about Islam, the thing that corrupts individuals and cultures and turns them violent and aggressive. Muslims are people, Islam is a proto-fascist poligion. One is the enemy, not just of the West but of all individuals.

Appeasement and exceptionalism won't lead to a multi-culti paradise of happy hippies in peasant costumes smiling and waving to the neo-feudalist minders. It will lead to death squads in the streets of our communities and to annihilation of nations.

Better to act now with full force than to play at hoping things will improve later. Yes, caution and prudence count in the world of reasonable men; but the world is short of such men, the world being fuller of crazed and irrational men who will power and the enslavement of the weak. Goad the seemingly tranquil hippo and see the beast that arises. It is not a happy sight. Nor is the average enraged man with the means and the hatred firing him to kill. this will only get worse because the will to stop it is lacking. There will come a time of force, now or greater force later. No, we cannot be certain; but we can see it in the eyes of men. There will be a reckoning. There is no confusion there.

truepeers said...

Small sign that some Brits are starting to get it.

Dag said...

That link is some depressing and refreshing reality. It's bad that things have sunk so low for no good reason at all; but it's good th we can finally read it openly and see the rot for what it is. The question is, what will happen before the majority of people wake up to the chilling reality that most Muslims nations have populations of 50 per cent or more under the age of 19?

truepeers said...

death of law, death of nations:

Meanwhile, the highest court in Italy was confirming an appeals court’s acquittal of the father and brother of a Muslim girl, whom they beat and locked up for becoming too Westernized—that is to say, for having a Western friend. The court ruled that, though they had undoubtedly beaten her and locked her up, this was not because of any culpable ill-feeling toward her. It was, rather, because of “her lifestyle, which did not conform to their culture.”

The sound of a civilization committing suicide can be heard in these stories; for civilizations collapse not because the barbarians are so strong, but because they themselves are so morally enfeebled.

Ultimately it may not be the Muslim youth but the bureaucrats who have to be fought and defeated

Dag said...

I came to the conclusion some years ago that Muslims are not our problem. Muslims are victims of the West in a serious sense, not in the sense of colonialist subjects [add cliches] but as victims of fascists who wish to use them as proxies to destroy the West. Muslims get used by the Left dhimmi fascists as sticks to beat the nature of our cultures. The usual 'useful idiots.' Muslims aren't using the socialists to destroy the west, it is our own using the Muslims to do it. That is one reason I become upset when I see the looming extermination of the primitives by the enraged West: the primitives are too primitive to realize they are being used in a person fight between the Irrationalist fascists of the West and the Modernists who prize individuality, rational law, and so on. This is not about Islam. It is about the French Revolution, a continuation of WW11 and our struggle against the Nazis. Honestly, no one anywhere really gives a damn about Palestinians. It is impossible to care about them because they are utterly irrelevant to everything. They are a useful stick to beat the West, nothing more. and the Left fascists use them to the extent that the Palestinians will even blow up their own children, just like the Hitler Youth. Our Left is a continuation of Nazi Germany, and most of them just don't get it.

I don't begin to suggest that there is a conspiracy of secret Nazis in the world working to destroy the West. I suggest that there is an innate fascism in Humanity that draws some if not most people to communitarianism and violent suppression of individualism. That's why I argue that we few in the West for this short period of time in history are Revolutionaries going against the way of Humanity as it has always been and mostly is even now.

Before Hitler most of the world was comfortably Hitlerian, sans machine guns. We in the West have the technological edge but we fail in the "Moral of the Story." War whoops prevail in the mind of Man over a calm and dispassionate discussion of Supply-Side Economics.

Our Churches understand this, our Presbyterians, Methodists, Anglicans, and so on. They know intuitively that there is a struggle for the emotion of Man and that it is one of dominance and power over the weak, and a masochistic longing for rule by the strong. The primitives have a strength the West doesn't have in that the primitives have a Will to Intuition.

To restore the natural order of Humanity, the life of the strong dominating the weak, the life of Man as it has always been and here mostly still is, the Left intuitively grasped the Muslim world as the weapon they could use to beat the West to dust so it can be brought down, and the natural order of the primitive anti-Modernist revolution can be restored-- even if the triumphant of the West become enslaved by it.

The dhimmi church would be, to the Irrationalist minded Presbyterian, a good thing in that the natural order of Man would be restored, the triumph the Irrationalist desires whether he comes out on top or no. It's bigger than the man. It's about the true order of Life.

Why all the White Guilt? The West is not the nature of the world and its people. It is different from and offensive to the nature of things. It is a masochistic longing for the world of the primitive order, no matter who is ruler, who is slave. It is a suicide of interest. And it makes no wrong sense in the mind of the dhimmi that he will die because he will have triumphed in the restoration of the Order.

Doing for the primitive is not to do for him but to do against the Western order. It is to restore the lost Nature of Things.

To prevent such a collapse of the west into the past fascism innate in all of Human life, that means we must accept ourselves as part of that life as it is and deal with our own as we are and they are.

But what is the Moral of our Story. why bother fighting the Nature of Things? What, as I feel so uncomfortable with, is our better solution to the sado-masochist Nature of Life?

maccusgermanis said...

Well evidently I was more confused by your presentation than I first thought. "Murder is murder," but "grievous bodily harm and assault" is not murder.

However reprehensible you think the assualt, it was the act of an individual rather than a group of sniveling cowards that hadn't the courage to confront the actual target of their ire.

Further an imam is at least a symbolic leader of the oppresive onslaught upon Britons. Rather than, with a gang of his buddies, grabing some kid, a single man assualted the head of a self identified group that espouses the subjugation of the infidel.

Meanwhile muslims in the UK still pick on teenagers.

I understand that you're trying to engage leftist morons, and that assault is a serious crime to be punished by a lawful society, but you have quated that which is not equal.

Dag said...

Good points, Macc. That's one of the beauties of this possible dialectic over the Internet.

A gang of thugs and a frustrated Scotsman who can't trust his government is different in kind. A group who live in a nation and threaten with death a member of parliament for insisting on the extradition of killers is similar in kind to a police agency and state that would ignore the murder of a citizen for the sake of public safety on the larger scale.

again, my point in jumbling the two stories is to show how a Scottish life is not important to the authorities but the life of a Muslim is. Macc.'s point of the qualitative difference in subjects is telling.