An indigenous people mowed down by armed members of the ruling ‘group’. A peaceful demonstration that ends up as a bloodbath. Unarmed civilians mowed down by guns and tanks in order to remind them of their inferior status. This was the situation when 28 Copts were massacred by the Egyptian military under direct orders from the Supreme Council of Armed Forces in Cairo on 9 October 2011. The international response was rather pathetic. British foreign secretary William Hague said this:
“I am deeply concerned by the unrest yesterday in Cairo and condemn the loss of life. I urge all Egyptians to refrain from violence and support the Egyptian Prime Minister’s call for calm. It is essential that all sides calm the situation and engage in dialogue.”
President Obama also spoke in similar vein:
“The President is deeply concerned about the violence in Egypt that has led to a tragic loss of life among demonstrators and security forces. The United States expresses our condolences to the families and loved ones of all who were killed or injured, and stands with the Egyptian people in this painful and difficult time. Now is a time for restraint on all sides so that Egyptians can move forward together to forge a strong and united Egypt.”
How could there be ‘restraint’ from the side that was not even armed in the first place? Once again truth is sacrificed on the altar of political correctness and global dhimmitude because of course it depends on who exactly does the massacring.
Resistance to Cultural, Linguistic, Religious and Racial Imperialisms
On 16 June 1976 thousands of black schoolchildren from Soweto township outside Johannesburg marched against the imposition of Afrikaans as the medium on instruction. The children were met with dogs and then live ammunition from the South African police. Twenty-three people died on that first day with the corpse of thirteen-year old Hector Pieterson being carried through the township becoming an icon of what became the Soweto uprising and attracted international condemnation of apartheid. The day after 1500 armed police patrolled the area with armoured vehicles and helicopters. Up to 600 deaths were reported with at least a thousand other casualties. The UN Security Council Resolution 392 condemned the actions of South Africa. Richard Attenborough was to bring these events to the movie screen with Cry Freedom in 1987.
After what became known as the Soweto Uprising apartheid was never going to be as secure. Black workers went on strike as well and joined them as the campaign progressed. Riots also broke out in the black townships of other cities in South Africa. About 300 white students from the University of Witwatersrand marched through Johannesburg in protest against the massacre of the black schoolchildren. African resistance to apartheid grew and the calls for an international economic boycott against South Africa grew stronger. The contrast with what happened in Egypt on 9 October 2011 could not be greater.
Of course there are important differences. Under apartheid a white minority ruled over vastly superior numbers of indigenous people, as well as non-white minorities. African languages did not give way to the tongue of the ruling class as happened in Egypt where tongues literally did give way when a previous generation of indigenous people had their tongues cut out so that in future they would only speak Arabic. The differences between Copts and the Muslim majority in Egypt are religious and not racial with many of the latter being descendants of natives who were forced over many centuries of Arab and Turkish colonialism to embrace Islam. Before the demographic watershed Muslims and Arab speakers were a minority and like in other parts of the caliphate and assorted successor states did indeed practise a form of apartheid to the vanquished natives. By the fourteenth century Coptic was confined to the sphere of church liturgy. Coptic rebellions against the Umayyad Khilafat, especially due to the onerous taxes put on Christians, were ruthlessly suppressed. The Bashimunite revolt by the Copts in 831 was violently crushed with massacre, conversions to Islam, and replacement of Coptic with Arabic. Therefore Arab rule was a cultural and ethnic disaster for indigenous Copts who remained faithful to their Christianity. They lost their own language, retaining it only for liturgical purposes as Arabic was foisted upon them. Coptic numbers were severely reduced further under the successive imperialism of the Mameluke and Ottoman Turks. It was a similar story across the Maghreb indigenous populations such as the Berbers were extinguished via thorough Arabisation and conversion to Islam by a fresh influx of invaders and colonialists.
But racism is not just apartheid. The same politically correct excuse manufacturing that the useful idiots on the Left (and indeed even regretfully conservatives) will employ for my audacity to compare what happened in Egypt with atrocities under apartheid was once used to defend racial innocence on the part of Portugal as it held fast to colonies in Africa right up until the military relinquished control of that European country in 1974. Native peoples were said to enjoy equal rights if they became Catholic and disowned their African culture and languages in favour of Portuguese. These assimilados were honourary whites who not blacks with equal status caught in a racial and cultural no-mans land.
Australia provides another key in creating the analogy with apartheid. Even before its inception as a federation in 1901 this southern outpost of the British Empire adopted a whites only immigration policy which it retained right into the 1960s. South Africa was therefore not the exception with its policy of apartheid but part of a much wider and accepted expression of how whites should segregate themselves from darker ‘inferior’ races. However unlike South Africa the dark natives here had been ravaged by disease, alcohol, or shot like wild animals so that their numbers plummeted and it was believed that their extinction as a race was inevitable. From 1869 Native Australian children were taken into state custody from their parents, especially those of mixed race. The Chief Protector of Aborigines in Western Australia, AO Neville, wrote in an article for The West Australian in 1930:
“Eliminate the full-blood and permit the white admixture to half-castes and eventually the race will become white.”
His views were echoed by the Northern Territory Protector of Natives, Dr. Cecil Cook, who perceived the continuing rise in numbers of “half-caste” children as a problem:
“Generally by the fifth and invariably by the sixth generation, all native characteristics of the Australian Aborigine are eradicated. The problem of our half-castes will quickly be eliminated by the complete disappearance of the black race, and the swift submergence of their progeny in the white.”
Australian historian Robert Manne suggests “approximately 20,000 to 25,000” were removed in this manner by the state between 1910 and 1970. Some commentators such as Sir Ronald Wilson have alleged that what has become now known as the Stolen Generations was nothing less than a case of attempted genocide because it was widely believed at the time that the policy would cause Aborigines to die out. But if it is then what does it say when applied to the indigenous people of Egypt? Were the Copts who were stopped from speaking their language and forcibly assimilated into Arabic culture and in many cases also Islam not also a ‘Stolen Generation’?
The Australian government has since apologised to the Aborigines for the children who were snatched from their parents by state sanctioned kidnapping. The ghastly saga has been dramatised most notably in the 2002 film Rabbit-Proof Fence in order to educate the wider public on how Native Australian people and culture was pulverised by a racist and paternalist state enacted what at the time was ‘politically correct’ ideology. But as the Maspero Massacre demonstrated in Islamic states were sizable non-Muslim minorities eke out bare existence in their now colonised homelands, the state continues to add numbers to the ‘Stolen Generation’ through officially sanctioned kidnapping, rape and forcible conversion.
Good Neighbourliness in Egypt
President Obama has congratulated Mohammed Morsi on his election as Egypt’s elected president. Like so many western leaders he has naively swallowed the silky and devious rhetoric of taqiyya as Morsi in his victory speech stressed the importance of building national unity stating that “Muslims and Christians are advocates of civilisation and construction”. Yet does this not smack of what Hendrik Verwoerd, a self-confessed “extreme Afrikaner” and architect of what became Grand Apartheid, defended racial segregation in South Africa thus in 1961:
“Apartheid could just as easily and perhaps better be described as a policy of good-neighbourliness.”
It did not stop South Africa from being expelled from the Commonwealth. In reality the ‘good-neighbourliness’ involved forcible removal of millions of blacks, their lives governed by an Orwellian system of pass books determining where they could live and work, and a whole range of legal mechanisms governing everything from what sexual relations and even public toilets were permitted. In like manner behind Morsi’s well-rehearsed taqiyya playing to an audience of world leaders already brainwashed through years of Saudi-funded politically correct dhimmitude lies the stark dystopia of jizya poll tax, restrictions of worship, the shackling of free thought as the New Order of Wahhabism takes root and permeates all elements of life.
If we look closely we find that 1948 election of the National Party did not bring apartheid to South Africa. Even under the liberal Jan Smuts there had been haphazard racial segregation. But white minority rule had never been in doubt even during the days of Cecil Rhodes who in fact introduced important elements which were later reinforced by the Afrikaner Nationalists.In many ways this group only systematised and codified what already existed in terms of racial realities in South Africa. But 1948 does stand out as a seminal moment, when South Africa turned its back on liberal principles even if it did not actually fully jettison democracy, even if it was just for the whites. Similarly under Mubarak the influence of radical Islam was everywhere. Anti-Semitism was rampant with blood libel being aired on national television as established fact. Restrictions on non-Muslim aspirations and worship was enforced by the state. Yet foreign NGOs espousing liberal and democratic principles managed to survive. The peace treaty with Israel was kept intact. Now all that is in doubt with the Muslim Brotherhood elected into government. As with South Africa in 1948 we now have a rather unpleasant cohort of Nazi sympathisers in control of the state. It must be remembered how he Brotherhood’s founder, Hasan al-Banna, was a devout admirer of Hitler and the Third Reich, much like Verwoerd and Vorster. But unlike the latter we must not assume it will somehow democratise or moderate. After all South Africa under apartheid found itself out of step with the western nations whose ranks it always assumed it was part of. By 1970 civil rights had won legal victory in America, laws prohibiting racial discrimination were passed in Britain while its southern Commonwealth member had abandoned the White Australia policy on immigration. South Africa became an anomaly and it was only a matter of time before apartheid fell. Even formerly pro-Nazi figures such as Vorster made the first tentative steps at reform.
None of this can be assumed with the Muslim Brotherhood. We must remember the same naive assumptions were made by when Hamas became the first ‘democratically’ elected government for the Palestinians. It did not wait long before launching rocket attacks into Israel with the latter being blamed for aggression when it dared to respond with much greater restraint than it should have done. The reference point of the Muslim Brotherhood will be that of a New Order of the neo-caliphate. Slavery, dhimmitude, jizya and genodical anti-Semitism will all become essential elements. Such a system can never be reformed. It can only collapse. Of course unlike apartheid but very much like the Nazi and Communist ideologies so admired by al-Bana, this ideology is meant for aggressive export through jihad and terrorism. In this Morsi will no doubt oblige. After all he is of course al-Bana’s Lenin.