Muslims are strange people!

Professor Thomas S. Harrington (professor of Iberian Studies at Trinity College in Hartford, Connecticut) writes in

After the bombing in Manchester and the bridge attack in London, it is more clear than ever: Muslims are very strange people, inherently violent and desiring of death in a way that few of us can even begin to imagine.

The proof is there for all to see.

For example, when the US-led “international community”, under enormous pressure from pro-Zionist power brokers decided, in 1948, to award the land occupied for centuries by Palestinians to a group of Jews from Europe, and then looked the other way while those same Jews engaged in ethnic cleansing and herded the surviving Palestinians into squalid camps far from their legally-titled homes and lands, some of those Palestinians got angry and, and as part of their attempts at redress, lashed out violently at some of those Jews.

Very strange. No non-Muslim that I know would ever think of doing such a thing under similar circumstances.

In the 1950s, a charismatic Egyptian army officer named Nasser got tired of having his country and its resources, including the strategically located Suez Canal, treated as British properties on which their native presence was tolerated only insofar as they showed proper deference to the foreign Sahibs. He thus began to educate his people, including the country’s women, in secular and modern ways, and made moves to nationalize important elements of the country’s means of production thus keeping Egyptian wealth in the country for Egyptians, while at the same time encouraging Arabs in neighboring countries to do the same.

His efforts were greeted with an unprecedented campaign of demonization and, in 1956, a French, British and Israeli invasion of his country. He continued undeterred in his efforts and 11 years later, was treated, despite what you might have read and been told elsewhere, to another unprovoked attack by the Israelis.

In the wake of his death, the Western powers succeeded in finally putting a “reliable” satrap by the name of Anwar Sadat in power in that country. For the last 40 years the satrapy he institutionalized, supported by billions of dollars of bribes from the US, has systematically betrayed the most basic aspirations of the great majority of the Egyptian people. As they starved and the country’s once encouraging leap into modernity stalled, a grotesque and bullying class of parasites weaned on the pork of American “aid” grew fat and happy. Egyptian dedication to the aspirations of freedom and non-colonial dignity among other Arab nations was replaced with slavish loyalty to US, Saudi, and Israeli strategic interests.

All this has made some Egyptians feel angry and hopeless and desirous of revenge against the people from abroad who engineered this turn of events. This, of course, is very odd and aberrant, indeed, pathological behavior, something that,  were it to happen to non-Muslims, would clearly result in much different and much more peaceful and accepting  behavior.

In 1952, Iran elected a leader who had the audacious idea of using the oil that lay under the ground of his proud country to finance the well-being of its people. This obviously ridiculous idea (how could he not know that the US always has first dibs on all natural resources in the world regardless of geographical location.) resulted in a coup planned and carried out by the CIA and MI6 which ended in his overthrow and imprisonment, and the installation of a pro-US puppet with the pompous title of Shah who tortured and terrorized his own people with impunity over the next quarter century, while simultaneously spending the part of his county’s wealth that US allowed him to keep,  on himself and on  the purchase of US weapons systems.

This angered a lot of people in the country and in 1979, having seen that the route of secular reform and modernization that they had initially chosen in the wake of World War II blocked (the aforementioned overthrow of Mossadedgh in 1953), and then turned into a grotesque and ghoulish parody of itself during the reign of the Shah (1953-1979), they turned to a religiously-grounded form of resistance.

This is clearly very strange behavior, indicative of a deep cultural sickness. No other non-Muslim nation that I know of would ever think of doing such a thing.

Can you imagine if during the communist era in Poland when most secular forms of resistance to the Soviet controlled dictatorship were blocked, people were to have turned to the inherently non-democratic and sexist Catholic Church led by Cardinal Wyszinski and then Cardinal Wotyla in their fight against the foreign domination of their society?  It would have been absolutely outrageous, something no one in the civilized would of freedom-loving peoples would ever tolerate or embrace, never mind support through billions of dollars in covert funding!

Upon the fall of the Ottoman empire,  the British plucked an obscure Wahhabist-oriented family,  disdainful of most forms of modernity as well as inter-sectarian tolerance, something  that—for all of the Ottomans’ other faults— had marked  their domination of the Mashriq and the Arabian Peninsula for centuries,  and turned them into the absolute rulers of  a new entity called Saudi Arabia.

The terns of the deal were clear. The Saudis could do whatever the hell they wanted to their people and to their Peninsular neighbors want as long as they kept the oil under their country flowing   to those, who by dint of their whiteness and superior culture actually hold title to it.  And with the exception of a few testy moments in the 70s when the Saudis suffered from unusual pangs of solidarity with their both their fellow Arabs and fellow oil-exporting nations, they have lived up to their side of the bargain.  And the Anglo-Americans have done likewise, letting the robe-wearing pre-moderns pretty much do whatever they want at home, including consolidating—with the inestimable help of US arms and technology—the most overtly oppressive civil society in the world, one that, for good measure,  operates on various forms of slave labor.

This made a number of people in that country and the satellite nations on the Arabian Peninsula that they effectively dominate feel downtrodden and hopeless, and in some cases, prone to attempts to salve their sense of locked-down desperation with violence.

Can you imagine any group of Christian people dominated by a corrupt and medieval caste of  “nobles” invented by a far away country and kept in power those same foreign people in order to insure the effective looting of the country’s resources, getting angry about such things?

As you and I know, there would be no excuse for any outburst of frustration and violence from such good Christian people. Yes, Muslims truly do have a unique predilection to violence . . . click here