The Vanguard of Modern Terrorism in Revolutionary Russia
Santa Barbara, Calif.: Praeger Security International, 2010.
by Anna Geifman
A 21-year-old woman walks into a police headquarters, a normal occurrence most days, except for this one. Thirteen pounds of explosives and a detonating device are attached to her body underneath her clothes. But before she has the chance to blow herself up along with the building and everyone in it, she is, fortunately, apprehended.
Almost weekly, an act of suicide terrorism is announced somewhere in the world. But this barley averted attack did not occur in Gaza, Pakistan or Chechnya, or any other well-known terrorist hot spot. The lady in question was not even Muslim or a “black widow”, seeking to avenge a dead relative or to expunge her shame for her unmarried status or for alleged sexual misconduct before marriage.
The year of this failed suicide mission was 1907. The name of the young woman determined to end her existence and the innocent lives of others in such horrific fashion was Evstiliia Rogozinnikova, a member of the Socialist Revolutionary Party, one of the deadliest terrorist organizations in pre-revolutionary tsarist Russia. Along with numerous other socialists and anarchists, Rogozinnikova was part of one of the most sanguinary, and unknown, terrorist campaigns in modern times that, between 1901 and 1917, killed and wounded 17,000 people in 23,000 terrorist attacks.
The Rogozinnikova case is only one of the highly original comparisons that Anna Geifman, a Professor of History at Boston College, makes between the terrorist groups in tsarist Russia, primarily from 1905 to 1910, and modern-day Islamic terrorism in her remarkable and fascinating book, Death Orders: The Vanguard of Modern Terrorism in Revolutionary Russia. In her well-detailed work, Geifman maintains modern-day terrorism has its roots in the pre-revolutionary tsarist state and traces its development to the present day. Her approach to this century-old scourge is a psychohistorical one, which has led her to conclude there is no difference in mindsets between the followers of Lenin and those of Osama bin Laden, Hezbollah and Hamas.
Geifman is well qualified to write a work of this kind. As a professional historian of Russian revolutionary violence and modern terrorism, she has written the well-received books Thou Shalt Kill: Terrorism in Russia, 1894-1917; Entangled in Terror: The Azef Affair and the Russian Revolution; La mort sera votre Dieu: du nihilisme russe au terrorisme islamiste (Death Will Be Your God: From Russian Nihilism to Islamiste Terrorism) and was the editor of Russia Under the Last Tsar: Opposition and Subversion. Author of several journal articles, Professor Geifman, who is originally from St. Petersburg, Russia, also teaches history of contemporary terrorism at Jerusalem’s Hebrew University.
Geifman argues early twentieth century Russian terrorists and modern-day Islamists possess the same psychological motivations because they are thanatophiles, or people who worship death (Geifman also includes the Nazis in this group). Moving between the two time periods, Death Orders contains numerous examples of thanatophilia as the basis for modern terrorism. Although the two eras are decades apart and very different in culture and traditions, Geifman shows the terrorists’ indiscriminate and deadly violence has the same psychological underpinnings.
THE GOVERNMENT OF ITALY AND THE CITIZENS OF MURFREESBORO
In the epic struggle of the Free World against totalitarian Islam what does the government of Italy have in common with the citizens of Murfreesboro, Tennessee? Click my name for the answer.
“In regard to religion, mutual toleration in the different professions thereof is what all good and candid minds in all ages have ever practiced, and, both by precept and example, inculcated on mankind. And it is now generally agreed among Christians that this spirit of toleration, in the fullest extent consistent with the being of civil society, is the chief characteristical mark of the Church. Insomuch that Mr. Locke has asserted and proved, beyond the possibility of contradiction on any solid ground, that such toleration ought to be extended to all whose doctrines are not subversive of society. The only sects which he thinks ought to be, and which by all wise laws are excluded from such toleration, are those who teach doctrines subversive of the civil government under which they live.” Samuel Adams
http://history.hanover.edu/texts/adamss.html
Islam is subversive of American civil government (Constitution) as well as America's natural law of unalienable human rights (Declaration of Independence).
Marxism is also subversive of American civil government (Constitution) as well as American's natural law of unalienable human rights (Declaration of Independence).
Geifman maintains modern-day terrorism has its roots in the pre-revolutionary tsarist state and traces its development to the present day.
May be true since technically modern day terrorism and Islamic terrorism, which in reality is one form of jihad out of many different and varied forms of jihad, both violent and non-violent, are in fact two entirely different things altogether. Nevertheless, Muhammadans have been striking terror into the hearts of kafir infidels since the days that Muhammad was still rampaging, pillaging, raping, torturing, and slaughtering kafir infidels in the Arabian Peninsular almost 1400 years ago.
In fact, political extremists almost always commit modern day terrorism, whereas Islamic terrorism is really one form of jihad out of many different and varied forms of jihad, both violent and non-violent, that Muhammadans employ in pursuit of their main goal, which is the subjugation of the world via the imposition of Sharia. Hence, modern-day terrorism is almost always a desperate act of extremism, whereas Islamic terrorism, on the other hand, is a standardized form of jihad employed by Muhammadans since the earliest origins of Islam.
As a matter of fact, all Muhammadans if backed into a corner will resort to Islamic terrorism (violent jihad, qitaal) if forced to fight, because all Muhammadans have been inculcated cradle to grave to emulate Muhammad, the perfect model for emulation, as Muhammad was the most archetypal Muhammadan that ever lived.
Nevertheless, Islamic terrorism aside, it is not the most dangerous form of jihad. The stealth and deceptive non-violent forms of jihad that are employed much more ubiquitously around the world, are overall more dangerous because they operate via stealth and deception often times completely undetected.
Geifman argues early twentieth century Russian terrorists and modern-day Islamists possess the same psychological motivations because they are thanatophiles, or people who worship death
Now I agree fully with that assessment as Muhammadans are inculcated cradle to grave to love death more than they love life.
while Islamist terrorists are often ignorant of the Koran’s tenets.
That assumes that violent jihadists, or what she would label as terrorists, are misunderstanders of Islam and that is a totally absurd assumption, since the Koran and the Hadith unequivocally commands Muhammadans to wage jihad against unbelievers for the spread of Islam by any and all means including terrorism, which is really a standardized form of violent jihad. In fact, this jihad ideology couldn’t be anymore mainstream within Islam as it is taught and advocated by all sects of Islam and by all schools of Islamic jurisprudence in both Sunni and Shi’a Islam. Indeed, the subjugation of the world via the imposition of Sharia is the main goal of Islam and the means to attaining that goal is through jihad. In other words, the ends always justify the means.
In fact, to differentiate between politically motivated terrorism and terrorists on the one hand and Islamic motivated violence perpetrated by jihadists in the cause of Allah on the other hand, Muhammadan motivated violence should always and only be labeled violent jihad and the perpetrators of such violence – violent jihadists, instead of the words terrorism and terrorists that are applied way too liberally today. It would help alleviate much of the confusion.
And Obama…a Muslim Communist. God help us!
No Robert, God help obamas Bin Ly'n. The people of the book believe he is to be prayed for as a means of God grace to set upon his soul to see the light, so to speak. Whoa unto those who call good evil and evil, for they shall inherit the bowels of hell as their reward.
It is good to pray that Obama sees 'the light" but we DO need God's help to defend ourselves against the Evil One's minion "Calip" Obama(nation).
Islamic verses preaching peace were superceeded by new verses preaching Jihad. In Islam old verses became defunct when new verses were added,
Those Talibani (means Students of Islam) who embrace the peaceful superceeded verses are called "Bad Muslims" while Jihadists are called "Good Muslims". You statement about the bowels of hell makes my point.
The "72 virgins" will be those they find in Hell.
while Islamist terrorists are often ignorant of the Koran’s tenets.
That assumes that violent jihadists, or what she would label as terrorists, are misunderstanders of Islam and that is a totally absurd assumption,
I"m not sure from this article, at least, that she assumes that. They get the gist of their religion and behave accordingly-death as a sacrament of their religion.
There is the same undercurrent running among groups dedicated to hate — whether they are Islamic terrorists, communists, or the anarchists who currently aim to destroy London and the status quo: they all are protagonists of Lucifer, and, with their actions, they open another portal to hell on earth. Our purpose for existence is to bring heaven, goodness and love to our earthly home; anyone who deviates from the path of light is an agent of evil. Is there anyone who looks at, as Melanie Phillips so aptly described it, our world turned upside down, and still doubts that we are on the stage of the End Times as described in Revelation?
The values of Islam are not those of our civilized world. Nor would it seem that the values of the Russian revolutionists matched those of the society they wished to overthrow. We should also concern ourselves with those who order such suicide missions, but show no desire to be a martyr themselves. Without the king to direct them, the pawns are useless.
With the exception of a few brief periods, the men of reason, the producers have not been the leaders or the term-setters of men’s societies, although the degree of their influence and freedom was the degree of a society’s welfare and progress. Most societies have been ruled by Attila and the Witch Doctor. The cause is not some innate tendency to evil in human nature, but the fact that reason is a volitional faculty which man has to choose to discover, employ and preserve. Irrationality is a state of default, the state of an unachieved human stature. When men do not choose to reach the conceptual level, their consciousness has no recourse but to its automatic, perceptual, semi-animal functions. Thus the mountains of corpses that are attributed to collectivism in all forms and as well to organized religions.
The leftist tendency during the last half of the Nineteenth and all of the Twentieth Century was to (1) persuade the world that the industrial workers and not those who had the ideas and raised the money were the producers, and (2) to institute rule of the world by the industrial worker through revolution. The defining struggle during that 150-year period has been between those who believe in those two things and those who do not.
The radical Muslim tendency has a much older pedigree, namely that Allah rules the universe and it is the mission of the believers in Allah to institute rule in his name throughout the world. The point at which Islam and the left cojoin is in the area of lying for the purpose of advancing their causes, and tormenting the body to save the soul, or what passes for the soul in leftism.
“Understanding socialism as one of the manifestations of the allure of death explains its hostility toward individuality, its desire to destroy those forces which support and strengthen human personality: religion, culture, family, individual property. It is consistent with the tendency to reduce man to the level of a cog in the state mechanism, as well as with the attempt to prove that man exists only as a manifestation of non-individual features, such as production or class interest.” Igor Shafarevich
http://www.robertlstephens.com/essays/shafarevich…
“There is, first of all, the profound experience of Russia, the significance of which we are only now beginning to understand. The question therefore arises: will this experience be sufficient? Is it sufficient for the entire world and especially for the West? Indeed, is it sufficient for Russia? Shall we be able to comprehend its meaning? Or is mankind destined to pass through this experience on an immeasurably larger scale? There is no doubt that if the ideals of Utopia are realized universally, mankind, even in the barracks of the universal City of the Sun, shall find the strength to regain its freedom and to preserve God's image and likeness–human individuality–once it has glanced into the yawning abyss. But will even that experience be sufficient? For it seems just as certain that the freedom of will granted to man and to mankind is absolute, that it includes the freedom to make the ultimate choice–between life and death.” Igor Shafarevich
http://www.robertlstephens.com/essays/shafarevich…
Certainly Carlos the Jackal's transition from Marxist to Muslim was seamless.
Political terrorism does not need death. II you can accomplish your clearly defined objects by threatening to kill people, without killing anyone, you have succeeded.
The Jihad needs death. That is why we are having a difficult time fighting the jihad. We think that by making concessions, the terror will stop. It never does. They just think of new excuses…er… demands.
You know what the Koran says of the Jews? (Among many things.) It asserts that the Jews know that they are on a false path, and it "backs up" that assertion by noting that the Jews love life. The Koran says there, that if the Jews were sure they were on the right path, they wouldn't cling to life; they'd long for death, anticipate death with great clamoring.
Hassan Nasrallah (may he rot in hell soon, amen), leader of Hezbollah, is quoted even in the perpetually clueless Israeli MSM as "having nothing but scorn for the Jews' love of life." What they don't know is that he's only being true to Islam and its psychology.
"And thou shalt choose life" says the Torah. No to abortion, no to suicide-murder, saith HaShem!
Well "love life" might be true. But it might be noted that the 7th armored did not "cling to life" in 1973 and the presumably Islamic Syrian Army did.
And come to think of it, in 1683, the Turks barely put up a fight when the Poles arrived, which also sounds rather like Moslims "clinging to life".
Everyones world view is affected by either accepting or rejecting absolute truth. There is one central truth that is meant to guide the thinking of all humankind. Without acknowledging that central truth the mind naturally accepts the lie. That lie can then take many forms all of which "lead to destruction". The absolute truth is in the man/God Jesus the Christ. Without Him there is No hope.
And some one remind me why we seek to root out this evil all around us in these times, if not for these types of works, we would understand less of which has become the "norm" in our time. The world is under going a "pang" as one Ms. Rice said just a few years back. That "pang" should have been a warning to most but it seems to have fallen upon deaf ears. The good book reminds us, among the living ( or to those of us who remind ourselves daily) to keep God's commandments,. one of which happens to be "thou shall not commit murder". but still reminds us that we have a duty to the living to defend God's work, that being our way of life, the USA is God's gift to the world.
Mr. Brown, what does this book tell us about suicide bombers in revolutionary socialist movements in other parts of Europe? Is this something that is "Eastern" in nature, i.e. something found in Orthodox and Islamic nations?
this is a joke? muslum and Red? if not a joke its time to go real deep under.
Both Islam and Marxism are forms of collectivist feudalism – one system run by a self-serving elite religious class – one system run by a self-serving elite class of atheists. From the point of view of a serf it makes no difference.