Saturday, 5 January 2013

A useful principle

Read an interesting piece in the National Review recently which underlined a most important principle when dealing with Muslims.  Here's Andrew McCarthy:

An Egyptian court recently upheld the blasphemy conviction of Makarem Diab a Coptic Christian. Diab had gotten into a discussion with a Muslim acquaintance, Abd al-Hameed, who, in the course of mocking Diab’s faith, insisted that Jesus was a serial fornicator. Diab countered Hameed’s baseless taunt with an assertion most Islamic scholars regard as accurate: namely, that Mohammed had more than four wives. Yet, because the context of Diab’s assertion evinced an intention to cast Islam’s prophet in an unfavorable light, Diab was prosecuted for “insulting the prophet” and “provoking students.” He was sentenced to six years’ imprisonment.

The principle is this: Muslims can not discuss their religion rationally. Even those highly educated and seemingly open-minded and modern, even when they're friends. Even when the discussion is laced with joshing and laughter I've found this out personally, and ironically, it was a Coptic Christian who warned me. (I ignored his warning). I didn't end up in jail but was frozen out of a particular country for all time.

Be warned. .

54 comments:

Anonymous said...

Are they any different from 'Irish liberals' when holocaustianity is questioned?. I'm not even going to consider the screeching that doing same to tribe members would produce. People in jail right now in Germany for just translating these questions

kulak said...

Muslims know the meaning of the word 'sacred'.

Just as anti-whites do.

SAVANT said...

@anon 13.37. A fair point indeed.

I suppose my post was aimed at warning people who might make the same mistake I did, with potentially seriously unpleasant consequences.

At least we know the way our own 'liberals' are going to react.

nastiestuncle said...

I used to have sympathy for the Copts, until I met and had to do business with a load of them.
Very charming... but liars, scammers and thieves to the last. May they face extinction for the good of humanity.

Anonymous said...

5 January 2013 14:11
nastiestuncle said...

I used to have sympathy for the Jews, until I met and had to do business with a load of them.
Very charming... but liars, scammers and thieves to the last. May they face extinction for the good of humanity.


Your spelling is appalling but I fixed your mistake.

Anonymous said...

I used to have sympathy for the Jews, until I met and had to do business with a load of them.
Very charming... but liars, scammers and thieves to the last. May they face extinction for the good of humanity.

David said...

@NastiestUncle
Spoken like a true Hebrew, your hatred of Christians is palpable, in Communist Russia it was an offence to be Anti-Semitic, yet Christian priests were considered enemies of the Revolution and could be shot on sight.

Lazar Moiseyevich Kaganovich was born in 1893 to Jewish parents. In the 1930s. He also oversaw the destruction of many of the city's oldest monuments including the Cathedral of Christ the Saviour.

But of course we remember him with fondness for giving the world that often forgotten word (strangely enough) the Holodomor. 10 million Christians dead and forgotton.

Fuck you.

prepper said...

Anon 15.27. Those jews you dealt with, were they that way only with us goyim or with each other as well?

kulak said...

Those jews you dealt with, were they that way only with us goyim or with each other as well?

In America, the rule of business is "the customer is always right."

In Israel the rule of business is "the customer must be proven wrong."

Anonymous said...

Just curious which Islamic republic you were banned from, Savant.

Was it France, Norway or the UK?

Seriously, though... Sounds like an interesting story. I hope you write about it more in a future post.

nastiestuncle said...

@David 16:41

"@NastiestUncle
Spoken like a true Hebrew, your hatred of Christians is palpable, in Communist Russia it was an offence to be Anti-Semitic, yet Christian priests were considered enemies of the Revolution and could be shot on sight.

Lazar Moiseyevich Kaganovich was born in 1893 to Jewish parents. In the 1930s. He also oversaw the destruction of many of the city's oldest monuments including the Cathedral of Christ the Saviour.

But of course we remember him with fondness for giving the world that often forgotten word (strangely enough) the Holodomor. 10 million Christians dead and forgotton.

Fuck you."

My brother in Hinduism. That was some bad craziness you just spouted.

I do not dislike Copts because they are Christians but because they are liars, scammers and thieves, as stated in my post. Egyptian Copts conduct themselves in the same manner as Egyptian Muslims so may they both wipe each other out for the good of humanity.

And may you stop seeing Jews in your cornflakes.

nastiestuncle said...

@Anonymous 15:03

"Your spelling is appalling but I fixed your mistake."

My brother in Sephardism. I've done business with lots of Jews and mostly it turned out ok. One criticism I do have though, and this criticism also applies to many other groups, is that they sometimes favour each other, thereby enriching each other at the expense of other members of society, which I would understand enrages the host population and could lead to pogroms.

Magnificent Randolph said...

liars, scammers and thieves to the last--------well, alright; ok then.But I find it a little difficult to reconcile this with my own experiences. In London I was working among them for three years and found them not only profoundly decent and honest but also humane, kind, optimistic and generous-hearted; in Israel they were unfailingly courteous, obliging, honest. In Egypt, by comparison, the natives were tediously and persistently dishonest at every turn.

SAVANT said...

@anon 19.47. Was not formally banned as such. Rather I had major problems with visas and the projects we were working on - they were going extremely well - were not renewed. My Coptic colleague warned me they would not be and he was right.

Too dodgy - not for me, for others - to name the country right now. Just say it was a Gulf state.

SAVANT said...

@Nastiest... they sometimes favour each other, thereby enriching each other at the expense of other members of society, which I would understand enrages the host population

That's a fair admission and it's true. In one company I worked in the non-Jewish staff were really pissed off at how Jews always got the plum positions. Let me say these appointments were not grossly unfair, such as what you get in Muslim and/or african countries, but nonetheless the 'us versus them' mentality was strengthened as a result. I truly believe that Jews are not ultimately helping themselves by such behaviour for the reasons you mentioned.

nastiestuncle said...

@SAVANT 22:24

"I truly believe that Jews are not ultimately helping themselves by such behaviour for the reasons you mentioned."

I used to wonder about this from an early-ish age when reading history books. One theme I would come across over and over again was violence against Jews in Christian lands and I thought that the violence was so widespread across history and pretty much wherever they went that rather than always being the fault of the host population, the Jews must continually do something to provoke it.

As well as the obvious distrust which Christians have towards Jews (Jews killed Jesus, blah blah), I noticed that nearly every Jewish community managed to enrich themselves whilst the host Christians largely stayed impoverished. I can understand (but do not condone) that an immigrant community may want to deal amongst themselves on favourable terms, but especially since for example in Medieval England the Jews were allowed to engage in the practice of usury but the Christians were not, this would account for the Jewish community becoming enormously wealthy whilst the local Christians could only look on and do nothing to improve their own lot. No wonder then that every so often, the Jews were slaughtered and burned out of their homes, their wealth being used as an excuse to expel them.
About a decade ago I put it to a bunch of Hasidic Jews I knew that they ought to not discriminate in their business practices and their response was that since they have always been persecuted, it made sense for them to look out for their own kind. I can understand this, but surely they must realise that this causes envy and anger within a host population.

SAVANT said...

@Nastiest. This is true. Another thing that has contributed to historical animosity towards Jews is their practice of cornering a particular component of the supply chain (loosely defined) and then extorting excess profits. This has been a common cause cited in pogroms from Odessa to Lithuania, Siberia to Germany.

Again, if the intention is to 'disappear' within the host community this would seem to be short-sighted tactics.

Julian said...

Randolph, are you referring to Jews or Copts when you refer to your acquaintenances in London?

Magnificent Randolph said...

Julian, they were Jews---straightforward Golders Green type Jews, mostly Ashkenazim and some Sephardim. I have never knowingly met a Copt.

nastiestuncle said...

@SAVANT 00:02

"cornering a particular component of the supply chain (loosely defined) and then extorting excess profits. This has been a common cause cited in pogroms from Odessa to Lithuania, Siberia to Germany."

Such as?

SAVANT said...

Check it out NU..the world is at your fingertips on the keyboard!

Similar things but without the violent reaction occurred in the USA. For example Jews took control of the NYSE and Hollywood/MSM by selling only to other Jews. It's happening at the elite universities there to this very day.

Before you jump in an occasional exception is just that - an occasional exception.

Again, looking at it purely from a utilitarian point of view I'm not sure if this is ultimately a successful strategy due to the resentment it generates.

Shaunantijihad said...

Nastiest Aunty said:

"I used to have sympathy for the Copts, until I met and had to do business with a load of them."

"I've done business with lots of Jews and mostly it turned out ok."

"About a decade ago I put it to a bunch of Hasidic Jews..."

My, my, Nastiest, what a strange business you must be in. To be in the British isles yet doing loads of business with Copts, Jews and Hasidic Jews. I'm surprised you find time to come here.

Anonymous said...

In the old pre-internet days,in discussions and arguments with DWL friends,I used to find it amusing-and useful-to simply invent "facts" off the top of my head.

I would cite imaginary scientific studies and sources on say black intelligence or criminality or Islam or indeed,anything that caught my fancy.

I could not prove anything I said but neither could my friends disprove it.

I had a lot of fun observing their apoplexy.

But then along came the internet and,to my mild surprise,my inventions proved to be tepid compared to the actual truth.

The simple truth should be damning enough but don't be afraid to make things up because,no matter how outlandish your assertion,the chances are that it will prove to be true.

mr.a

nastiestuncle said...

@SAVANT 09:30

"For example Jews took control of the NYSE and Hollywood/MSM by selling only to other Jews."

Yeah but I had a look at all this before.

Examples: UK media groups - only one out of many owned by Jews and this only one is actually an anti-immigration 'they took our jerbs' kind of rag.

US media groups - owned by pension funds in the main, with admittedly many Jews in executive positions, however these groups are run on a for-profit basis on behalf of the shareholders, not on the basis of brainwashing the population. It seems that the population laps up politically correct crap; if they didn't, the companies wouldn't earn money and new executives would be appointed. Oh, and I should add that in the "Jews own the media" type articles I read, many a lie was told.

NYSE - currently being bought by a non-Jewish company.

nastiestuncle said...

@Shaunantijihad 09:31

"My, my, Nastiest, what a strange business you must be in. To be in the British isles yet doing loads of business with Copts, Jews and Hasidic Jews. I'm surprised you find time to come here."

In my business it is unfortunate that it is quite rare to have the opportunity to do business with British people.
A further problem is that these foreign people in the UK who I do business with tend to only employ their own kind as well. In the case of these Copts for instance, their business is run terribly badly because the only pre-requisite for employment with them is that the person is a Copt. Although they make money, they have missed out on millions over the years because of their shoddy practices. But like I said, they are in the business of employing Copts, not making money. Many businesses owned by foreigners are effectively run as charities employing their own kind and excluding the English.

Anonymous said...

National Review is a fine one to talk. Under the Political Correctness religion a White person is not allowed to publicly discuss the true nature of black people.

National Review proved it by firing John Derbyshire after he did so.

This, of course, is not limited to public discussions about blacks. We all know what can happen to you if you publicly fail to accept the Six Million dogma. Doesn't matter if what you say in dissent is undeniably true.

Under the West's current religion of Political Correctness the truth is no defence.

a swedish friend of this blog said...

@Nastiest. That's my experience of Egyptians here in Sweden as well. Cannot say whether they're Copts or what but they employ only other Egyptians and they're bad businessmen and not very honest, sad to say.

00:43 said...

@ nasitiestuncle

"It seems that the population laps up politically correct crap; if they didn't, the companies wouldn't earn money and new executives would be appointed."

I think they lap it up because it's pretty much all that's on offer these days. I remember programmes like Clarke's "Civlisation", and Irish programmes like Radharac. There used to be language learning programmes on Sunday morning and then a BBC production of a Shakepseare play. There's nothing like that in the media today. Today's media does nothing for encouraging critical thinking. It does the opposite in fact.

Likewise I remember pictures of patriots hanging in my primary school. I don't think you'd find any pictures anywhere these days in public buildings. Patrioism is not encouraged anywhere today. Why did RTE stop playing the national anthem when they used to close for the night?

No, critical thinking and patrioism are simply not taught anymore. That's why people lap up the PC meassage wheter it be in the media or education, it's because can't think for themselves and they have no love of country.

The dumbing down started long ago, probably after World War II but certainly by the time the baby boomer generation could vote.

And the thing is creating mass concensus gets easier as it progresses. That's why we're in the state we find ourselves today.

Heraclitus said...

eah: Dumbing down has been in my view the single most effective strategem used against us.

The corollary is of course the program of dysgenics whereby the most stupid and useless are incentivised to out-breed the rest of us.

Anonymous said...

Egyptians are virtually the same as Turks, totally dishonest, lying,
seditious, violent, paedophilic
retards. In other words, a total waste of space.

nastiestuncle said...

@Anonymous 00:43 said...

"I think they lap it up because it's pretty much all that's on offer these days."

People are not forced to watch telly. Games are taking over. The internet is taking over. The tube sites are chock full of politically incorrect stuff and it's popular. People are still watching Fawlty Towers with its lovely 'wog' and 'nigger'-tastic language.

"I remember programmes like Clarke's "Civlisation", and Irish programmes like Radharac. There used to be language learning programmes on Sunday morning and then a BBC production of a Shakepseare play. There's nothing like that in the media today."

One word: ratings. The same format will not work forever. People want change.

"Today's media does nothing for encouraging critical thinking. It does the opposite in fact."

I disagree. The internet does more to promote critical thinking than any TV I've seen in my life.

"Likewise I remember pictures of patriots hanging in my primary school. I don't think you'd find any pictures anywhere these days in public buildings. Patrioism is not encouraged anywhere today."

That's because schools are full of lefty teachers. Not Jews, lefties. LEFTIES. L-E-F-T-I-E-S.*

"Why did RTE stop playing the national anthem when they used to close for the night?"

Because you idiots voted to join the EU because you were told to twice and the EU wants to destroy the nation state?

"No, critical thinking and patrioism are simply not taught anymore."

Taught? It isn't the state's job to teach these things. It is the parents' jobs.

"That's why people lap up the PC meassage wheter it be in the media or education, it's because can't think for themselves and they have no love of country."

People could never think for themselves anyway. Back in the days of patriotism, people were only patriotic because they couldn't think otherwise. I don't even think that today's patriots can think for themselves if the blogs are anything to go by. Did you know that apparently, you cannot be a patriot if you don't hate gay people. Yes, that's right. I, and others, have been told that to be a true patriot we have to hate gays. To be a patriot we actually have to give a shit who somebody fancies. Fancy that.

"The dumbing down started long ago, probably after World War II but certainly by the time the baby boomer generation could vote."

Yes indeed. Our good friend Adolf (alternatively, the worst person to ever happen to nationalism ever) saw to it that patriotism and racial pride would forever be seen as necessary pre-requisites for total war and genocide.

"And the thing is creating mass concensus gets easier as it progresses. That's why we're in the state we find ourselves today."

It's our own faults we are in this situation. We became decadent. A foreign holiday each year, a new car every two, and big TV and the desire to fit in became all-consuming.

nastiestuncle said...

*Here's my take on lefties, and by lefties I mean the rabid self-hating type we get today.
Lefties have always existed, but historically in small numbers, until the last hundred years or so. Their increase in numbers is proportional to how easy it is to survive.
Back thousands or hundreds of years ago, life was tough and a person had to think to survive; the society had to think to survive. When in survival mode, a person is not a rabid lefty because rabid lefties do not survive because they do not value survival. When faced with a violent foe, lefties die. As time went on and life became easier, it became easier for a person to become a leftie because they no longer had to think to survive. Societies became decadent, hence the increase in lily-livered thinking. As survival is getting tougher again, we are seeing as expected a decline in the lefties. The common man, fifteen years ago, was not whining about immigration, corrupt MPs or a damaging elite class. This is something new, now that life is getting tougher and people are having to think. Look at Greece - life is hard and people are beginning to think for themselves. Look at the UK - people are voting UKIP more because they are beginning to use their heads.

Anonymous said...

Egyptians are virtually the same as Turks, totally dishonest, lying,
seditious, violent, paedophilic
retards. In other words, a total waste of space.


And as nastiestuncle pointed out south of Turkey is Syria, then the Lebanon, then Israel then Egypt - Semites all.

Heraclitus said...

@Nastiest 5.46. Excellent analysis.

And even though I'm an old duffer with no technical knowledge I too hold out great hope for the internet. Here there is a cornucopia of information and opinion that eludes, so far anyway, the machinations of the Thought Police.

nastiestuncle said...

@Heraclitus 11:45

"Here there is a cornucopia of information and opinion that eludes, so far anyway, the machinations of the Thought Police."

To a degree the internet allows freespeech. Call someone a nigger on Facebook and you'll get a knock at the door.

Currently, the internet is our last and best hope. Trouble is, you can't force someone to read what you want them to see. Even bigger trouble still are the idiots who fill the internet with all the Jews-did-everything crap so that even the sane anti-immigration people amongst us get tarred with the insanity brush.

Kevin R. said...

Nastiest. The people you call jews-did-everything may be misguided. But they're an alternative to the MSM and academia where all you get is jews-responsible-for-nothing.

I think what Heraclitus is getting at is that there is a source of alternative views compared to what we're force-fed with in our everyday lives.

nastiestuncle said...

@Kevin R. 12:42

"Nastiest. The people you call jews-did-everything may be misguided. But they're an alternative to the MSM and academia where all you get is jews-responsible-for-nothing."

Are you sure the MSM and academia find the Jews responsible for nothing?
Have you heard of the academic boycotts of Israeli universities? Or read the guardian for one of their lovely Jew-hating articles? Or read about how those nasty Jews dared to defend themselves without mentioning the thousands of rockets fired at them?

The MSM is hardly pro-Jew.

If there is a protected class it is the Muslims, not the Jews.

Anonymous said...

Nastiestuncle, you are a fudge stirrer but I must confess, some of it could be productive.

I have a question for you: are you as pro-White as you are pro-Jewish? IOW, if Jews have a right to their own homeland does my race, the White race, have a right to theirs?

BJKahn said...

I imagine Nastiestuncle is both. And I personally see no reason why he should not be. If top Jews, together with lots and lots of non-Jews are screwing up immigration it doesn't mean the rest support it. Ask those in France or Sweden being targetted by Muslims. Recent History shows that top Jews will throw their irdinary brethren under the truck if it suits their wider agenda.

00:43 said...

@ nastiestuncle 05:46

Some good insights there nu, but I disagree on some things. Where did all the lefties spring from? I like your analysis of decadence as in the Culture of Contentment but you don't seem to believe in a causality, ie. this dubming down is contrived. You seem to think it just happened bevause life got too easy, but I'd be interested in looking for causes. For instance you can watch a video on youtube from the 1950s called The Homosexual-https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=17u01_sWjRE.
That was the media then. Obviously there's been a big change in editorial style since then. Where did this come from? It didn't jusy happen. Someone must have changed the media. Your thoughts?

Canuck said...

00.43. I don't think NU will admit this but the genesis of the degradation sprang from the Frankfurt School.

nastiestuncle said...

@Anonymous 14:04

"Nastiestuncle, you are a fudge stirrer but I must confess, some of it could be productive."

I'm not a homo but if I was, would it matter? If so, then why?

"I have a question for you: are you as pro-White as you are pro-Jewish?"

You seem to misunderstand that my defence of Jews means that I am "pro-Jewish".
My view is that although Jewish (secular) academics are over-represented in leftist theory, Jews are not responsible for the condition which whites find outselves in. Jews and whites (and I'm going to class most Jews as whites anyway because they are whether you like it or not) share a destiny and should be allied with each other.

"IOW, if Jews have a right to their own homeland does my race, the White race, have a right to theirs?"

Yes. But more than this. Whites have a right to the territories which whites conquered. North America, Oceania, Caribbean and Europe should remain white with small amounts of non-whites living amongst us to remind us that there are other people out there as well.

Wanting a homeland and a future for whites does not mean that we should not care about the rest of humanity. Diversity is a good thing, and there is lots of room in the world for all that diversity. I would find it a tragedy if for example, the Chinese were to cease to exist. But then the Chinese know how to look after themselves so I don't have to worry about them.

Uncle Nasty said...

.
nastiestuncle said...

@Kevin R. 12:42

"Nastiest. The people you call jews-did-everything may be misguided. But they're an alternative to the MSM and academia where all you get is jews-responsible-for-nothing."

Are you sure the MSM and academia find the Jews responsible for nothing?
Have you heard of the academic boycotts of Israeli universities? Or read the guardian for one of their lovely Jew-hating articles? Or read about how those nasty Jews dared to defend themselves without mentioning the thousands of rockets fired at them?

The MSM is hardly pro-Jew.

If there is a protected class it is the Muslims, not the Jews.


Oh, it is to laugh. Nice try NU.

Taking a leaf out of Hollyweird's book ... "When you can fake sincerity, you've got it made ..."

NU has figured -- all by himself -- that if you can fake reasonable and intelligent discourse (well, for a couple of posts, anyway), NAZI White Debbil Slave-Masters will accept what you say. At least for a while -- then you can get back to the agenda.

Sorry Sweetheart ... the Leopard does not change his socks -- and the agenda keeps peeping through.

UN
.

mischling said...

UN, I agree totally. How NU can say that, with, we assume, a straight face, is beyond me.

Oh sure, they'll let a few boisterous students mouth off about Israel and Palestine, but do a check on who runs the universities - I mean really runs them. Check what MSM outlets would allow even the slightest criticism of jews - as jews - and you'll see where the power lies.

Kevin R. said...

Nastiestuncle. Don't usually agree with you but well said here (00.38).

Anonymous said...

Nastiest, I was not trying to imply that you are a homo. Perhaps "fudge stirrer" means something different in UK or Ireland than it does in USA. My apologies. Here it simply means a person who likes to keep controversy going. Fits you to a T.

I was more interested in you last paragraph. Just what do you mean by "diversity"?

kulak said...

Carbuncle Wormtongue wrote:

Jews and whites (and I'm going to class most Jews as whites anyway because they are whether you like it or not)

Rubbish. You don't know what a white man is.

Yes. But more than this. Whites have a right to the territories which whites conquered.

You mean Israel.

And for whites, you mean for them not to settle for survival, and thereby die.

Survival first. Our own territories, no matter how small. Everything else is negotiable.

There is no harm in whites giving up Aztlan. Or NYC for that matter.
Not as long as we survive. Brown places are all nowheresville, and white populations are not exactly bursting the seams of their territories.

Giving up some land wouldn't make darkie leave us alone, naturally, but we first have to have a territory that we can and are willing to defend. A territory that is worth defending.

@U.N.

What Carbuncle wrote makes some sense if you substitute "Israel" for "Jews". Especially outside of the U.S. media.

nastiestuncle said...

@Anonymous 14:55

"I was more interested in you last paragraph. Just what do you mean by "diversity"?"

I suppose it means to me what it means to everyone, diversity of culture, language and people.
The world is a big place and there is plenty of room for it, which is why it does not make good sense to bring all of that diversity to one small geographical location like the UK for instance.

An example: I happen to like watching African drumming. I forget the exact name for it, but it is the type which the females dance frenziedly to. White women cannot dance to it but that's ok with me because white women have their own cultural dances (ballet, maypole, etc). I have no desire at all to see white women dance to African drums.
What I don't want to see is a bunch of African women dancing to it at the end of my street unless they are here from Africa as part of a travelling African dance troupe who will go home once they have finished their tour. In return, we can send a ballet or some Morris dancers to Africa so that they can experience our culture. Then our dancers will come home. Everyone benefits, and different people learn to be friends or at least to tolerate the others' existence on this planet.
If I want to see a foreign culture, then I either want to travel to their country to see it or to see it as part of a cultural exchange. I do not want their culture imposed on my society by immigration.
Diversity is good as long as it is separated by distance, and distance is what we have lots of. It's 5000 miles between me and African drumming and I would like to keep it that way because then I can choose when I want to see it rather than having it rammed down my throat.

AnalogMan said...

Uncle Nasty said:

Sorry Sweetheart ... the Leopard does not change his socks -- and the agenda keeps peeping through.

Too true. And that's why I'm surprised that you even read the the troll's posts any more, let alone respond to them.

Old Chinese plovelb say: When you argue with a fool, that makes two of you.

kulak said...

But a reduction in creativity is a rather mild criticism of multiculturalism. A much more telling criticism of multicultural societies is the lack of trust between subpopulations -- which leads to less economic activity, less happiness, and more violence.

That is also mild, not telling.

Only white people have been told their countries must be "multicultural".

Multiculturalism does not mean just that everybody ends up distrusting each other.

Multiculturalism means whites, and only whites, by law, wherever the law can be brought to bear, must behave as if they can trust non-whites.

It is unilateral disarmament.

It is genocide.

Anonymous said...

http://www.barenakedislam.com/2013/01/10/this-is-the-sharia-muslims-in-the-west-never-want-to-tell-you-about/

just show them this

Uncle Nasty said...

.
Anonymous said...

http://www.barenakedislam.com/2013/01/10/this-is-the-sharia-muslims-in-the-west-never-want-to-tell-you-about/

just show them this


Yup ... it's pretty rough.

On the other hand I used to holiday in Mozambique in the sixties. Where the local nigs, if caught thieving, were subject to the bastinado. But on feet and palms

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bastinado

A friend of mine (Portuguese, with a home in Lourenco Marques) used to leave his groceries in the basket of his parked Vespa while he went upstairs for a beer or a siesta ... to be retrieved later.

He never lost a thing. It's the only thing that works with niggers. They understand pain. Every thing else is an abstraction.

UN
.

potgieter said...

UN. Oh yes, Lourenco Marques. It was lovely when the Portuguese had it. You're right, no worries about the coons robbing your stuff back then.

Look at it now. Have you seen any recent photo's?

Uncle Nasty said...

.
Something you may find interesting, Potgieter.

http://www.serenahotels.com/serenapolana/heritage-en.html

My late father told me that my Grand-dad (on my father's side) was the resident golf pro at the Hotel Polana during the twenties and early thirties.

My dad had very fond memories of living in Mozambique (or Moçambique as it was called by the locals) ... it was regarded as the Jewel of East Africa at the turn of the nineteenth century.

In my time it was regarded as a sort of low-budget Riviera. where you went for excitement and exoticism when the fleshpots of Durban, Margate and Hibberdeen began to pall.

I look at the state of the world today and ask myself: How much better off would the whole world be, if every Khazar had magically evaporated in, say, 1760.

I don't feel it's too late to find out ...

UN
.