Whitewashing Muslim Violence and Blacklisting Reality

SellwynThumbby Selwyn Duke8/6/16
The media and effete powers-that-be have been twisting themselves into Halal pretzels Islamsplainin’, rationalizing how a given Muslim terrorist attack isn’t really “Islamic” or isn’t significant. These contortions can become quite ridiculous, such as suggesting that recent Allahu Akbar-shouting Munich shooter Ali Sonboly might somehow have had “right-wing” motives because, among his violent passions, was an interest in Norwegian mass murderer Anders Breivik.

A more common (un)intellectual contortion is the minimizing tactic of claiming, as is politically correct authorities’ wont, that a given jihadist attacker “has no ties to IS” (the Islamic State), as if there’s nothing to see here if a man doesn’t provide notarized evidence of allegiance to the boogeyman du jour. Yet this is much as if we’d claimed during the Cold War that a Marxist terrorist attack wasn’t really a Marxist™ terrorist attack because we couldn’t find a connection to the Soviet Union. The issue and problem wasn’t primarily the Soviet Union but communism (Marxism birthed the USSR, not the other way around), an evil ideology that wreaks havoc wherever it takes hold. Likewise, the IS didn’t birth Islam; Islam birthed the IS.

Nonetheless, moderns will often use the misdirection of focusing inordinately on national or group associations when discussing terrorism. This is a dodge, one designed to help us avoid uncomfortable truths and which relegates us to playing an eternal game of whack-a-mole. The USSR is gone but communism is still a problem (witness North Korea and Cuba), and insofar as it’s less of a threat, it’s largely because its ideas have been discredited. Bad ideas’ standard bearers will change. But as long as the bad ideas remain tolerated and credible, they’ll always win converts.[pullquote]Islam is not an anomaly, historically speaking. Rather, it aligns more closely with man’s default for belief sets: violence-enabling/tolerating wickedness. It is Christianity that is anomalous — as a real religion of peace.[/pullquote]

In fact, the reality that today’s terrorists are diverse makes the point. They may be Iranian, Afghani, American, Albanian, German or from any nation whatsoever; they may be part of Hamas, IS, al Qaeda, the U.S. Army (Maj. Hassan), some other organization or no organization; they may be of any race or ethnicity, be rich or poor, and male or (occasionally) female. They only have one truly common thread: being Muslim.

The point is that, ultimately, this is a battle not of nations or organizations but of ideas, and ideas are powerful. Beliefs matter. Every action begins with a thought — or, at least, with a reflex response reflecting a world view that has shaped one’s thoughts and emotions.

Yet there’s more to understanding Muslim violence. A comprehensive German study of 45,000 immigrant youths, reported in 2010, found that while increasing religiosity among the Christian youths made them less violent, increasing religiosity among the Muslim youths actually made them more violent. Not more violent “if they join Islamic State” — but more violent, period. And while the study authors had their own, mostly politically correct explanations, I think I know a major reason why.

Becoming serious about a faith and digging into it generally means getting closer to its actual teachings. A lukewarm cradle Catholic may have little knowledge of even the Bible, but a devout one will likely have read that and the Church’s catechism. Likewise, an indifferent nominal Muslim (you know, the kind they call “moderate”) may not know much of the Koran, nine percent of which is devoted to political violence. Yet a pious Muslim may scour that book — and more. He may also imbibe the remaining 84 percent of the Islamic canon, the two books known as the Hadith and Sira.

And, respectively, 21 percent and 67 percent of their texts are devoted to political violence.

That’s what you call a full dose. Also note that while access to these two more obscure Islamic canonical texts was once limited, the Internet age places them at everyone’s fingertips. Couple this with the violent preaching of immigrant Imams and that Muslims consider violent warlord Mohammed “The Perfect Man” and thus the ultimate role model, and the German study’s findings are no mystery. Speaking of mysteries, though, the true effect of Islam will remain one unless we delve further — and break ourselves of certain misconceptions common to our times.

In the grip of religious-equivalence doctrine, many moderns have a habit of painting all faiths with the same brush; militant secularists hiss that they’re all bad while many conservatives will behave as if all “real” religions are good; consequently, conservatives sometimes reconcile dislike for Islam by insisting it is “not a religion.” But like ideology, “religion” is a category, not a creed; it contains the good, the bad and the ugly. So while religion isn’t bad, there is bad religion.

Now, most belief sets that have been embraced by man — whether we label them “ideology” or a “faith”; be they Nazism, communism, the Aztec religion involving mass human sacrifice or something else — have been what we today would call lacking to awful. This understanding lends perspective:

Islam is not an anomaly, historically speaking. Rather, it aligns more closely with man’s default for belief sets: violence-enabling/tolerating wickedness. It is Christianity that is anomalous — as a real religion of peace.

Why does grasping this matter? The common assumption that a belief set labeled “religious” must involve generally peaceful injunctions is a result of projecting our own historically anomalous Christian standards onto other, often historically normal belief sets. This understanding can break us of the emotional reluctance to accept that what we call a “major religion” could be destructive. Instead of wrongly believing we must place Islam in a lonely, sparsely occupied “abnormal” category, we realize we merely have to accept that it’s closer to that oh-so tragic, bloody human norm. Now, there’s yet one more thing to consider about the impact of Islam.

When analyzing the effect of a religion, people understandably focus on its injunctions. What does it dictate? Yet such an analysis is insufficient because man’s default is not to be saintly but uncivilized; people will naturally display many if not all the Seven Deadly Sins and be generally barbaric unless some civilizing agency tempers their fallen nature. Thus, as with a person, the true measure of a religion is not just what it does but what it fails to do — its faults of omission, not just of commission.

It is clear to me that while Islam may be better than the Aztec and some other pagan religions, it nonetheless does a relatively poor job taming the beast. In fact, it apparently gives great license to our sinful nature. Considering greed, lust and sloth, why is it that many Muslims believe it’s licit to rob, rape and leech off kuffars (non-Muslims)? Does Islam do much to temper the envy and pridefulness inspiring so much anti-Western hatred? What of the officially approved bearing of false witness called taqiyya? Then there’s that father of violence, wrath. Danish psychologist Dr. Nicolai Sennels, who worked for years with incarcerated Muslim youth, points out that anger is highly accepted in Muslim cultures; moreover, the ability to intimidate, he writes, “is seen as strength and source of social status.” He concludes, “Islam and Muslim culture have certain psychological mechanisms that harm people’s development and increase criminal behaviour.”

Also note that the West’s foundational faith, Christianity, and its root, Judaism — the two faiths Westerners are best acquainted with and whose norms they may reflexively (and unwisely) project onto Islam — have as the basis of their moral law the Ten Commandments. Islam’s moral law is Sharia. And ne’er the twain shall meet.

In other words, even if given Muslims aren’t mindful of their canon’s violent injunctions, even if jihad is the furthest thing from their minds, they will as a group still be more prone to violence. That is, as long as their hearts and minds embody what Islam does, and what it fails to do.


Contact Selwyn Duke, follow him on Twitter or log on to SelwynDuke.com • (811 views)

Share
This entry was posted in Essays. Bookmark the permalink.

37 Responses to Whitewashing Muslim Violence and Blacklisting Reality

  1. Timothy Lane says:

    Judaism, like Islam, started out as a theocratic religion (though not intended for rule of the entire world, merely the land of Israel). After the Romans enforced the Diaspora due to one Jewish revolt too many, the Jews worked up the Talmud to modify their religion for a subordinate population. From that point on, Judaism was purely a religion, and no longer a political ideology. Islam needs the same sort of reform — but the problem is that Muslims do rule a large part of the world already, and thus see no need to reform their satanic cult.

    • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

      Interesting thoughts, Timothy. That makes me wonder if many secular Jews have taken it upon themselves to do the same thing to Christendom. If Jews can’t have their way then by god (or by Jehovah) so will no one else.

      One area I disagree with Selwyn is in regards to conservatives not being willing to identify Islam as a religion. I think it’s fair to point out that Islam is a totalitarian system whereby it specifies the correct political, legal, social, and religious way for a person to be.

      Even a theocracy doesn’t necessarily cover all these areas. Islam is complete and total (aka “totalitarian,” as is the Left). I don’t think even Nazism laid such a specific and total template onto the lives of the Germans. In that regard, I think Selwyn is arguing against a rational conclusion that Islam is not just merely another religion — some good, some bad, some indifferent. And if the aim of this article is to open our eyes about what we are facing, he should probably correct that aspect.

    • Kung Fu Zu Kung Fu Zu says:

      From that point on, Judaism was purely a religion, and no longer a political ideology.

      Interesting observation. From the nineteenth century on, it would seem many secular Jews, having lost their religion, returned to the political ideology side of things, pushing a type of theocratic leftism which damns those who do not agree with their beliefs.

    • Steve Lancaster says:

      Suppose every Jew in the world were gone, similar to Childhood’s End, would there be any philosophical reason for the continuance of Christianity?

      As for Islam, it is pagan and is not in any way an Abrahamic religion or philosophy

      • Kung Fu Zu Kung Fu Zu says:

        Suppose every Jew in the world were gone, similar to Childhood’s End, would there be any philosophical reason for the continuance of Christianity?

        Yes.

      • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

        That’s an interesting proposition. The way I understand it, God created man. Man is a work-in-progress…so much so that God did a “do-over,” flooded the earth, drowned 99.99% of the population like rats, and then started over.

        But he made a covenant with the the sons and daughters of Abraham, Isaac , and Jaboc. He would steer them into being god-fearing and god-loving righteous human beings.

        And then the Creator saw that man was ready for a new covenant. It would not replace the old one which is still in force. He would create a new, wider one. It derives from the Jews, if only because Jesus was a Jew. But it’s not dependent upon the Jewish race or religion, per se.

        If the above is more-or-less the way things are, then both Jews and Christians have been at cross purposes for some time. They both have a role to play. Authentically religious Jews (not the Leftwing ones whose religion is Leftism) should be looked upon with deep respect. These were there first. We owe them much.

        But God had plans larger than just one tribe. And Jews should learn to see this as not making them less special. Instead, they should understand that they can act like a city upon a hill and be a necessary and needed example for all (that is the job of the chosen ones…The mold…The model). Guidance and direction are needed as Christians often blunder their way through a disparate variety of tribes, customs, laws, and circumstances on the way to a universal understanding.

        And Satan, not wishing to be outdone, started Islam.

        • Timothy Lane says:

          A nice interpretation of Judeo-Christian history. Note that the Orthodox Jews of New York tend to vote Republican these days, having noticed (as have so many others) that the Demagogues are the party of perversion.

          • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

            Thanks, Timothy.

            Dennis Prager is probably the most visible advocate of smoothing over Jewish-Christian relations. And he’s generally pretty frank that he himself is not an orthodox Jew (he doesn’t keep the plethora of minute laws and rules). He’s obviously a conservative Jew of some type. I forget what he calls himself.

            But he makes no bones about the apparent fact that a majority of “religious” Jews are not religious in terms of adherence to the Tanakh. Instead, they adhere to Leftist values, the Jewish liturgy sprinkled superficially over the top. Same as what happens in Christian churches that are sometimes barely marginally Christ-centered but are certainly Cultural-Marxist-center (aka “Progressive,” “social justice”).

            My guess — and it is just a guess or impression — is that many modern Christians have become schizophrenic about their own religion (“schizophrenic” as in “splitting of selves”). It’s as if the New Testament is all that exists while the “old stuff” in the Old Testament is considered no longer important or, most disastrously, relevant. It’s not driven by anti-Semitism but, rather, an orientation toward exclusivity.

            Prager bridges this gap. No, orthodox Judaism does not accept Christ as part of a trinity. He’s just another rabbi. Fair enough. One thing Prager emphasizes is the idea of “ethical monotheism” which is defined at Wiki as:

            …a form of exclusive monotheism in which God is the source for one standard of morality, who guides humanity through ethical principles.

            I would disagree with this article about Allah having a piece of that ethical monotheism, if only because it is central to the Islamic totalitarian system to lie as a standard and accepted means of advocating itself. Christians understand the Devil as “the father of lies.”

            Long story short, I consider myself a heretic. I would have been pursued by the Inquisition. And I don’t wear that as a Lefty badge-of-honor for being a nihilistic contrarian to the established order (or what was established back then). I mean, much as with our national politics, the crazies are in the majority and we in the minority (politically, religiously, socially, educationally, even emotionally) are The New Subversives.

            It is a heretical notion in Christian circles to judge someone (when judging is appropriate) by the content of their character instead of the color of their skin (the core of multiculturalism and “diversity”). It is a heretical notion in Christian circles that we are in this world but not of this world. (Much of Christianity has been subverted to materialistic pursuits, either helping “the poor” by classifying them as victims of capitalism or materialism via naked pursuit of the material — or emotional therapeuticism — via various flavors of “prosperity” gospel and kumbaya).

            It is a heretical notion in Christian circles that an individual is responsible for his sins, not “society.” It’s also, especially, heretical to view Christianity as a means to sanctify one’s soul (come what may) instead of a subtle means of gaining a Cosmic entitlement.

            But I think most Jews are now lost sheep, the tribe of Israel being about as scattered as it could ever be, and not just geographically. Christians are getting that way as well. Time for another flood?

            • Kung Fu Zu Kung Fu Zu says:

              many modern Christians have become schizophrenic about their own religion (“schizophrenic” as in “splitting of selves”). It’s as if the New Testament is all that exists while the “old stuff” in the Old Testament is considered no longer important or, most disastrously, relevant.

              I would say it’s as if the Bible does not exist.

            • Timothy Lane says:

              A nice parody of liberal Christian churches can be found in The Mackerel Plaza by Peter DeVries, which features the pastor of a Liberal church (I think in Connecticut; it’s been years .I read the book). It’s actually called that; no other denomination is specified.

              • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

                I was having lunch with a pastor friend of mine the other day. He was telling me that 85% of people in my area are either agnostics or atheists, so it’s a ripe market. Of course, we should remember what they say: There are lies, damn lies, and statistics.

                He’s sort of given up on me as a convert (at least to his church). He was telling me about a new technique he’s using in his sanctuary. Instead of standing in front of the congregation and preaching he’s set up the room with several round tables scattered about for people to sit around. I don’t know if he goes from table to table or what. But he says it’s more conducive to young people.

                I have sort of a Trumpian “Whatevah” mindset about it. Church is a business, so market as you will. Besides, original Christian gatherings could have been much like this (somewhat of necessity, for I believe early-on they met in secret). So, okie doke.

                Still, I wonder if that doesn’t water down the authority of the preacher. I wonder if the roundtable approach makes it easier for people to think that church is about catering to their existing predilections instead of the congregant being challenged to change.

                My one and only experience with this communal roundtable approach was in 8th grade math. Instead of devoting a teacher to a roomful of students and teaching them, someone thought it would be a great idea to take an entire cafeteria-sized area (about 8 or 10 times the size of a normal schoolroom), group the kids at tables, and then the teachers would roam the room as needed. The emphasis was on self-teaching which, of course, meant most people screwing around instead of working. It seemed as if this was a break for the teachers as well. The whole thing had more of the feeling of a study hall.

                It was a disaster. I liked math and worked through the entire semester’s worth of “levels” in about 2/3 of a quarter. I then became somewhat of a roving teacher myself. So after having applied myself and done all the work that was required I, of course, then mostly screwed off. But there really wasn’t anything left for me to do. There were some higher levels I could have started but they were boring (“topography,” for example) and certainly to do these more advanced levels I would have needed a teacher…and they were, for all intents and purposes, not available in this socialist-style method of teaching.

                So parodies of Christian churches may be all around us…including inside Christian churches.

              • Timothy Lane says:

                Your concern about the consequences to the religion of this round-table approach may be why it’s so conducive to young people, brought up on an “anything goes” mindset.

                Was that topography or topology?

              • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

                A teacher in front of a class presupposes there is something to be learned and that the teacher has something to teach. A roundtable suggests the kind of approach where the wisdom is considered to already be inside and with nurturing, creative techniques, and a lot of “evoking,” the student can self-learn (basically to pander to existing beliefs and notions).

                Again, I don’t know the pastor’s exact approach, but he’s long been into marketing-is-the-message. I don’t say that as an insult but as a reality. He’s a terrific guy and by all accounts gives a good sermon.

                You’re right. It was “topology.”

    • Rosalys says:

      Islam is never going to reform. You may just as well ask Satan to repent! Islam is a hellish, vile, evil, disgusting, perverted, murderous, foul, nasty, repulsive, revolting system. It is often also ridiculous and stupid. There is nothing – NOT ONE THING – redemptive about Islam. Allah is Satan, and his “prophet” was a narcissistic, murderous, stupid jerk!

  2. Kung Fu Zu Kung Fu Zu says:

    The USSR is gone but communism is still a problem (witness North Korea and Cuba), and insofar as it’s less of a threat, it’s largely because its ideas have been discredited. Bad ideas’ standard bearers will change. But as long as the bad ideas remain tolerated and credible, they’ll always win converts.

    I think Selwyn misses something here. He should include much of the Democrat Party and various political parties in Europe along with North Korea and Cuba. While their goal is state control, communists do not have to control a state to be communists.

    • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

      Two observations on that. Paraphrasing, in part, some of the wisdom of Dennis Prager:

      1) People will always be amenable to getting something for nothing.

      2) There will always be people who will vie for power with no principle other than power.

      You can obviously combine the two in various formulations of Communism, socialism, “social democracy,” the welfare state, or Progressivism. You have those built-in two tiers: The “true believers” (and power brokers) at the top and the “useful idiots” (read: “moochers” or “looters”) at the bottom. Such things most decidedly have not been discredited. They can’t be.

      That’s why those who ascribe to some version of collectivism insist it’s simply never been done right. Indeed, I hope Selwyn frequents this site and can gain a few good ideas for next time. But overall, this was a nice takedown of the evil reality of Islam.

      • Timothy Lane says:

        This is why I refer to the liberals as the Inner Party (who know exactly what they’re doing and why) and the Outer Party (who are either bought voters, or simply choose to believe the Inner Party regardless of contrary evidence), aka the leeches and sheep coalition.

        • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

          That’s why the new change in policy, Timothy…or one of the reasons. Either we work to put conservatives into power and/or we adapt our marketing to the low-information voters. Perhaps we need a special blog here titled “I feel better now that I’ve analyzed things to death and/or have blown off some steam but haven’t actually materially done a god damn thing.”

          I think the Braintrust here understands Communism about as well as we can short of living under it as they did in eastern Europe.

          And it’s a very difficult educational process. We’ll likely lose the low-information voters when we skip to the end and tell of the end goal of the queer-loving, diversity-loving, “Progressive” leaders. They want to destroy the family, destroy religion, destroy capitalism, and emasculate men for good measure (although that is not their only grievance that plays out sadistically).

          “What? You’re nuts. We’re for saving the planet, marriage equality, treating all races, religions, and creeds with dignity and respect, and preserving a woman’s right to choose. You conservatives are loons.”

          And that’s the challenge inherent to unmasking who Obama and these guys really are. You can try to educate them about Agenda 21 and its implications, for example, but the problem is they have an implicit trust in their Leftist leaders. Just as Rush said that nothing Trump could do would break the bond with his supporters, it’s questionable whether anything the Left can do would do the same, thus my running thought experiment about just what would it take for air-headed “Progressives” to wake up. Nuking New York? I honestly don’t know.

          The problem is, you need an active, savvy, and courageous opposition party in place to pick up the pieces, which we don’t have. We have Trump kinda-sorta playing the part. He is indeed opposing something (almost always anyone who simply won’t kiss his ring).

          But endless parsing of reality a la American Thinker, as Frank Sinatra sung, “…practically everything leaves me totally cold.” In fact:

          I get no kick from campaigns
          Mere criticizing doesn’t seem so enticing.
          So tell me how the should I opine?
          ‘Cause I get no kick out of whine

          Back to Marilyn movies. Actually, I think I’ll switch gears a little on that. I’ve got “My Man Godfrey” ready to roll when I get the chance.

  3. Kung Fu Zu Kung Fu Zu says:

    A comprehensive German study of 45,000 immigrant youths, reported in 2010, found that while increasing religiosity among the Christian youths made them less violent, increasing religiosity among the Muslim youths actually made them more violent.

    That’s because those involved actually read and followed their respective holy texts.

    • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

      And this outlines the inherent difference between Islam and Christianity. The perfect Christian (or nearly so) is Saint Francis. The perfect Muslim is Osama bin Laden.

      Similarly, a “cafeteria Catholic” is likely to rationalize some bad behavior in his own life because he’s only partially molded by a good doctrine. On the other hand, a “cafeteria Muslim” is less likely to be a rabid dog and is the proverbial “moderate Muslim” which simply means he (thankfully) hasn’t imbibed the full poison of Islam (but, of course, he acts as absolutely no impediment to those who do, thus the uselessness of the “moderate Muslim” in the scheme of things).

  4. GHG says:

    The transformation of the United States into a totalitarian state is much different than Stalin’s USSR, Mao’s China, and other communist “paradises” when the totalitarian yoke was put on the masses. Those takeovers happened relatively quickly and the intellectuals and media were purged and replaced with statist flunkies. But here in the U.S. it has been a gradual infiltration and indoctrination of the education and media establishments so that the masses have been the proverbial frog in the boiling pot. There was no demarcation point – it has been death by 1,000 pin pricks.

    Our leaders and their sycophant media don’t name Muslim violence because the chaos serves their purpose toward subjugating the American people. Once the American people are disarmed and the yoke is firmly in place, then the effort to hide who the terrorists are will not be of any further use to them.

  5. David Ray says:

    Damned good article.
    So . . . the german study found the key difference between Christianity & islam.

    Please send a copy to those fools Merkel and Bush before they parrot that bullshit “religion of peace” phrase again.

    • Timothy Lane says:

      The Bushes are all irrelevant in that respect now (unless George P. Bush makes it to the top with jihadism still rampant). Obama and Hillary, on the other hand, could definitely use the lesson — if they’re capable of learning it.

      • Kung Fu Zu Kung Fu Zu says:

        Obama and Hillary, on the other hand, could definitely use the lesson — if they’re capable of learning it.

        They have the same aptitude for learning by their mistakes as those intelligence pundits who were mentioned in the Asia Times article which I posted early, i.e. none. Their philosophy is “if at first you screw up, keep doing the same thing again and again until you get the desired result.” Of course, that the result may never come or that multitudes may suffer under the experiment, means little to these bloodless types.

  6. David N. says:

    “Becoming serious about a faith and digging into it generally means getting closer to its actual teachings. A lukewarm cradle Catholic may have little knowledge of even the Bible, but a devout one will likely have read that and the Church’s catechism. Likewise, an indifferent nominal Muslim (you know, the kind they call “moderate”) may not know much of the Koran, nine percent of which is devoted to political violence. Yet a pious Muslim may scour that book — and more. He may also imbibe the remaining 84 percent of the Islamic canon, the two books known as the Hadith and Sira.”

    “And, respectively, 21 percent and 67 percent of their texts are devoted to political violence.”

    ‘9%, 21%, 67%, devoted to political violence’…

    Selwyn – I have not seen these books broken down into percentages like this before. Where did you find these numbers? Thanks.

    • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

      It’s time to start deporting these animals.

    • Timothy Lane says:

      Apparently Sweden and Norway are learning that the more young male Muslim immigrants you have, the more rape you get. I suspect that the percentage of the young males who will commit rape is a large fraction. But elite opinion, there as well as here, favors such immigration and therefore refuses to see the negative results. After all, they aren’t the victims. This is why every Muslim immigrant should be sent to an upper-class liberal community. Let them face the problems instead of the rest of us.

      • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

        Somewhere out there in Europe there is an “unidentified yute” who is getting more than his share of…well…the-Trump-word.

  7. Kung Fu Zu Kung Fu Zu says:

    Here is an interesting article on problems in Indonesia where Muslims from one part of Indonesia are invading another part with a different ethic and religious makeup. Something like the Californians moving to Texas.

    http://www.atimes.com/article/communal-violence-powder-keg-west-kalimantan/

    Unlike in most other cases, it is the Muslims who are getting the short end of the stick.

    For those who might be interested, West Kalimantan is part of the Indonesian area of Borneo. The Dayaks are what used to be known as the Wild Men of Borneo i.e. headhunters. The Madurese are Muslims from the island of Madura, located off the north east coast of Java; a place known for its violence and thuggish inhabitants.

    • Timothy Lane says:

      This gives an idea of the dimension of the Muslim problem. Even in a country in which Muslims tend to be moderate and pluralistic, 30% are hardliners. That’s a lot of people at war with modern society.

    • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

      The Dayaks are what used to be known as the Wild Men of Bornea i.e. headhunters.

      They also gave Dr. Who a hell of a run for his money.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *