Nigel Farage and Islam.


, , , , , , , , , , , , , ,


Last week, the United Kingdom Independence Party gained its second MP. Mark Reckless, a Tory defector, overturned a Conservative majority of 10,000, rubbishing most early predictions and lighting a fire in the bellies of right-wingers up and down the country.

Could UKIP win in 2015? Is it still impossible? These were and are no longer stupid questions to ask. Though it’s highly unlikely that UKIP could secure even half the required number of seats in 2015, these enquires have a longer shelf-life.

Could UKIP win in 2019/20? I strongly believe it could, yes. Does that excite me? I’m not sure.

Politically, as I’ve said previously, I’m quite difficult to categorise. I tend to agree with the right on some things and the left on others. Consequently, UKIP have many policies that appeal to me, and many that scare me.

Nevertheless, I would be willing to grant my vote to UKIP in spite of any uncertainty if the party was able to present a valid policy on issue of most concern: the issue of the Islamisation of Britain. On this matter, I’m afraid, UKIP still has a lot to make clear.

Given the repeated accusation of racism by the media, Nigel Farage has tried to present a liberal image on the subject of ethnic difference. He has allowed numerous ethnic minority candidates to stand for the party, and tends to make a big deal of them when they do, forcing them in front of any camera in his vicinity. He routinely badmouths the British National Party and its leader Nick Griffin and claims (almost convincingly) to have a multi-coloured social circle.

When asked about Islam in particular, the ex-city-trader all but winces and then goes on to reheat the (phony) distinction between ‘moderates’ and ‘radicals’. Indeed, on his Wikipedia page, Farage is quoted as having endorsed the following sentiment:

“You’re welcome to come here and to have your children here… but if you’re coming here to take us over, you’re not welcome.”

I’ll be frank. This bizarre way of describing the issue greatly alarms me. The problem of Islam in the West has never been a dichotomy between peaceful immigrants and fire-breathing colonists. They are one and the same. Either Farage doesn’t accept this and is speaking honestly, or he does and is lying to wrong-foot the liberal inquisition. Either way, he does not seem ready to speak about the challenge in detail.

In recent months, Farage has been pressured by his restless electorate to comment on the war crimes in Rotherham. His response has been to unload his clip on social services and political correctness. The third, more essential, element of culture and race he has left untouched.

And what about the members of his party who do have the guts to raise this issue? Again, Farage’s behaviour doesn’t inspire hope. When a candidate for the European Elections tweeted that Islam ‘is evil’, he was expelled from the party within hours, seemingly without being granted the right of reply. Later, a local activist took to saying bad things about Muhammad’s sex life on facebook and suffered the same swift reprobation.

There is also the problems of Tory defections. It’s all well and good for one or two Tories to jump ship and in doing so bolster the profile of the party. However, if – as Farage hungrily predicts – the drips become a flood, the result will surely be the Toryfication (and thus de-radicalisation) of UKIP as a whole. For all his popularity, Douglas Carswell (the first defector) is a pedestrian social-democrat on most issues, and he is already being touted as the Farage’s successor. This will kill off any hope of UKIP stepping up to the Islamic challenge.

I’m far from saying that Farage is not the right man to vote for in 2015. Indeed, a strong UKIP performance would delight me. It would show that the centre ground is rapidly losing its force of gravity; that the electorate is beginning to read more broadly than the mainstream press; and most of all, that there is finally an appetite for radicalism developing amongst the hedges and bowling greens of real England.

If UKIP disappoint that radicalism, it will not die. It will just have to wait for a real leader to arise.


The Cartoon World of the Anti-Semite.


, , , , , , , , , , , , ,


When Germany fell into the deep psychosis of Hitlerism, its people were led to identify Slavs and Jews as the greatest enemies of Western culture. The Jews, they were told, were a canny collective mobilising dull-witted East-European muscle in a struggle against the Aryan race. They heard this. They believed this. And in the course of the Second World War, a fourth of Poles, a Fifth of Russians and a third of Jews were murdered for no reason other than this misbegotten idea.

These ideas have not gone away; they have only become modified. The Slavs are now forgiven for their heritage and are sought as allies for the cause. In the West and the world of Islam, open loathing for the Jewish race is as ubiquitous as ever.

The absurd image above is signed ‘Ben Garrison’ but only parts of it were drawn by him. In Garrison’s original, the caricatures referred to big government and the ‘New World Order’. Online pranksters (mostly from the website 4chan) added the Semitic embellishments, as they have done to numerous other works by the same cartoonist.

This has meaning by itself. The anti-Semitism of the modern world has become so entwined with popular mistrust of authority that the labels can be exchanged for one another and yet retain the same effect. Across the world, Jews are held responsible for the banking collapse, the decline of White birth-rates, false-flag terrorism, Islamophobia, Black immigration, homosexuality and AIDS. Even when such theories lead to self-contradiction (funding both homosexuality and AIDS?) the pace is maintained. Accuracy is not the point. Accuracy spoils the high of racist thinking.

Hatred of Israel and Zionism are no longer features exclusive to the international Left. The nativist Libertarian movement is also beginning to lose its love for the Jewish State. The Rand/Ron Paul school of insular cowardice views Israel as a whining child sucking the US into pointless wars. They do not countenance the fact that Israel is actually an early-warning system of the most reliable kind.

As Muslims continue to dominate the capital cities of Europe, anti-Zionism is morphing into a centre-ground position here too. Ed Miliband’s Labour Party has declared a willingness to recognise the hallucinatory ‘State of Palestine’, a move with potentially severe existential consequences for our friends in Jerusalem. David Cameron, an allegedly conservative leader, promised to abstain on the vote. UKIP don’t seem to care one way or another.

Outside of the mainstream, the same hatred is growing more elaborate with the passage of time. The most successful anti-Jewish theory of modern times holds that Jews are actively seeking to promote miscegenation (race-mixing) between Whites and non-White peoples in order to lower the IQ of Whites and make them easier to control. The ways they are said to achieve this include the proliferation of interracial pornography (a near-obsession of biological nationalists) and by the normalisation of multiracial society in Hollywood films.

That’s right: Whereas the ‘sheeple’ might deem the inclusion of a black character in an otherwise homogenous sitcom as good-natured political correctness, for anti-Semites, it is a conscious evolutionary strategy: Brainwash White kids into thinking that having a black friend is normal and socially acceptable at school, and thus make it more likely that they will date outside of their race later in life.

I wish I could tell you that these ideas are limited to the Middle-East, but that would be a lie. They are well-established and are being forwarded along the highways and byways of the internet at an ever-increasing pace.

The counter-jihad blogger ‘Cheradenine’ (formerly of IslamVersusEurope) has endorsed the theories of Kevin Macdonald – only a slight refinement of the ideas described above – and now describes Jews as every bit an enemy of the West as Muslims.

There is obviously no evidence for these claims. Anti-Semites inhabit a cartoon world of conspiracy, cigar smoke and invisible ink. The source of their mistrust is most likely an envy of Jewish intelligence and a lack of appetite for learning the details of reality.

But we can never take it for granted that they will remain on the fringes of this increasingly crazy world.


Sensible Feminism: Pornography.


, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,


I seem to be criticising Feminism on this blog much more than I every planned to, and I fear this might be giving the impression that the movement for women’s rights is something I disapprove of in general. This isn’t true, so every now and then, I’m going to focus on those issues Feminists are right to focus on; starting today with pornography…

When a man under 50 claims to have never seen hardcore pornography, it is customary (and wise) not to believe him. Almost every red-blooded male in the modern world has been forced by his instincts to betray his moral sense and it’s more virtuous (I think) to admit to it.

I remember my first encounter with the genre on holiday in Belgium. After my parents were asleep one night, I crept downstairs in the chalet, turned on the television and received the shock of my life. The messy communion of flesh filmed without gloss or censorship transfixed and frightened me. I must have been 11, a year by which (these days) one has already performed the act in a variety of styles. Back then, however, I was virginal to the thought of sex, let alone the desire for it.

Fast forward to University and the first week spent alone with an internet connection (we didn’t have it at home). It seemed to be everywhere. Whether you wanted it or not, you were offered it at every digital street corner. How ugly it seemed, how immoral and invasive. Why should anyone be forced to think about women this way?

Nowadays, I’m averse to this prominent feature of Western decline. It never did anything for me, and I’m frankly confused what it does for others. What’s more, I agree with the family-values crowd that pornography is wreaking a corrosive effect on our society at large.

Islamists make a big thing about porn. It is a symbol, so they claim, of the West’s inferiority to the world of Islam; a sign that we oppress and exploit ‘our’ women even more than they do their own.

I suppose, as Islamic arguments go, this isn’t the worst. Pornography – particularly the rough, almost gladiatorial type currently favoured – demeans women more effectively than any other aspect of our civilisation.

When David Cameron suggested last year that a ban on hardcore pornography be implemented by Internet providers in the UK, he was loudly condemned as a fantasist. His critics explained that such a ban would be nigh on impossible to enforce. The internet is dripping with sex. Millions if not hundreds of millions of videos are shared along its neon arteries every year and it would take a Chinese-style regime to intercept such traffic.

And a ban is not what I would suggest either. More logical and effective would be a denormalisation of porn-viewing; the making of watching these gruesome videos abnormal and shameful. We should stop granting the cover of humour to a phenomenon that is humourless.

I do not view the reverence of beautiful women and the female form as wrong or unhealthy. Indeed, the opposite. Men should be allowed to men without apology. Erotica is a powerful and worthwhile art-form. But pornography is not erotic. It demeans the erotic and make men animals; it makes men think like animals.

For all the nonsense they spew on other subjects, feminists who oppose pornography deserve the solidarity of the sensible. This wolf is real.


Knowledge and Ignorance.


, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,


I witnessed a slight altercation at the weekend. A brief argument in a tube station between a drunk female native and a believer led to the native stating that he (the believer) ‘shouldn’t even be here’ (‘here’ being a larger area than he perhaps appreciated). Although I generally disapprove of loutish behaviour in public, I must say I quietly approved of this case.

After all, the believer wasn’t alone and the girl was. He backed down and she didn’t. What’s more, he seemed genuinely offended, as if her comment (more of a bark really) challenged something very important in his self-concept. He was also undoubtedly the guilty party, having barged in front of her as she queued at the oyster machine.

Afterwards, the Muslims topped up their cards at a separate machine and then departed, waiting until they were at the turnstiles before having a go back. Their chosen rejoinder was ‘ignorant bitch’ and it fell largely on disinterested ears.

Still, as weak as it was, let’s address the comment here and identify its error.

Nothing in modern life is more infuriating to the logical mind than the misuse (and misunderstanding) of the word ‘ignorance’. We are constantly told (by the press and by minorities) that an offensive opinion is always based on it and that racism in particular is motored by this misdeed alone.

You think intelligence has a genetic cause? Then you’re ignorant. You think Black people commit more violent crime than Whites? You’re ignorant. You think that Muslim terrorists are basing their actions on the Qur’an? You’re ignorant.

The irony here is obvious. Knowledge is now Ignorance (just as Orwell prophesised it would be in a totalitarian state) and Ignorance is now knowledge.

There is a lot to object to in racism, but it is rarely, if ever, caused by the practitioner not knowing something. There is no magical fact that can turn a racist into an egalitarian. It’s crazy even to consider it.

And as concerns Islam, ignorance (of the real kind) is the only reason they are still allowed to live here.


Rotherham: The Full Picture.


, , , , , , , , , , , ,


Even if the horrors of Rotherham – the mass rape of 1400 White girls by Muslim savages – was a one-off phenomenon not replicated outside of the town’s borders, it would still stand as one of the greatest crimes in British history. Standing alone, it would easily outrank the crimes of Jack the Ripper, the Kray Twins, and even the medieval Witch burners in its number of victims and callousness of execution.

Of course, the crimes of Rotherham are in no way limited to that small town. Evidence is quickly mounting that similar waves of rape have afflicted towns, villages and cities the length and breadth of the country. Sprees are rumoured in Greater Manchester, Leicestershire and Birmingham. They are known to have occurred (on an as yet undetermined scale) in Rochdale, Oxfordshire and Burnley.

What will the final figure be? 10,000? 20,000? 100,000? Nobody knows, but one thing becomes clearer with every crime discovered: we are dealing with something altogether unprecedented – something more destructive and harmful to our civic life than Ebola could ever be.

I wrote in a prior post that these rapes amount to war crimes, and I stand by that. The scale demands it. Let’s speculate that the final figure is something like 10,000. That is, 10,000 girls raped for ideological motives by a foreign population. Is that really a matter for the national courts or is it one for the Hague?

I would suggest the latter, given that this figure is not greatly inferior to those from Serbian or Sudanese warzones, both of which are considered provocations of international disrepute. It would also (incidentally) serve our cause greatly to have these crimes designated crimes of war, since that would place the issue in its proper historic context.

Though terror attacks seem to fade from the public brain with ever-increasing speed, Rotherham will take much longer to be forgotten, let alone forgiven. The number of lives ruined chills the blood. Children who should have been skipping along in a haze of innocence were forced to confront the adult world at its absolute worst. Experiences that would scar the imagination of a battle-hardened US Marine were etched by razorblade onto the soft, undeveloped material of infant brains.

I truly hope that some of this countless number grow up to understand why they were so mistreated. I hope that the liberal carwash of education doesn’t convince them that the biggest issue was a ‘failure in social services’ or some comparable nonsense.

If they come to know the truth, they are given the option of pride. There is nothing shameful or weak about falling prey to these creatures. We all have in one way or another. These children are martyrs. Their suffering may yet deliver us.


Citizen Khan: The Funny Side of Cultural Destruction.


, , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,


I don’t watch much television (I prefer to read), but if I did, I understand that this month I would have been treated to the return of ‘Citizen Khan’, the BBC ‘sitcom’ which introduces (or seeks to introduce) the softer, funnier side of Muslim culture to our cynical, semi-hostile nation.

If you’re not from Britain, it’s probably best to think of this show as the British version of ‘Little Mosque on the Prairie’. Though the storylines are different, the intended political function is the same in both cases: Make Muslims seem capable of humour and integration; disarm the country at large with the use of comedy.

I’ve only watched two or three episodes of Citizen Khan. That was enough to gauge the nature of the thing. It is a very amateurish production and the Islamic element is tacked on in such an arbitrary way as to seem irrelevant.

And that is obviously the point. The message intended is as follows: “Muslims are people, just like you. They argue about who left the toilet seat up, just like you. They use toothbrushes, just like you. They watch X-Factor, just like you. etc…”

This is the great liberal delusion about Islam; the idea that Britain would be the same in a prayer cap as it is in a trilby; that Islam is something private and therefore largely irrelevant to everyday life. This is the lie told by shows like Citizen Khan. Muslims might pray to a different God, but other than that, they are as English as battered fish. I simply don’t buy that, and for evidence, I call to the stand every sentient witness of the modern world.

Of course, I don’t doubt that Muslims who were born and raised here have picked up some cultural practices along the way. But, as the subjects riffed on in Citizen Khan accidentally demonstrate, these are usually the shallow and unimportant aspects of British life, many of which we could do without.

Even if Citizen Khan was funny (and it really isn’t, in any way), British Pakistani life is very difficult to make humorous after Rotherham – after the 1400. How indeed are the numberless victims of the rape-Jihad to feel when watching shows like this?

If British Muslims really wanted to use media to demonstrate their capacity to integrate, they would produce dramas criticising the demonic misbehaviours of their peers. They would own up and examine the rape culture (for once, that term is justified) in the Pakistani hamlets popping up throughout this otherwise harmonious nation.

And they would also concede that we are a long way from being able to laugh at their ways. We have been blown up by them, raped by them, threatened by them innumerable times, insulted and infiltrated in the most destructive ways imaginable. It will take more than jokes about the toilet seat to undo the harm that has been inflicted.


London Vs the United Kingdom.


, , , , , , , , ,


The time has come to treat London (the uber-rich city-state landlocked by rural England) as a separate country to the UK. For at least a decade, the alleged national capital has enjoyed a reality wholly distinct from every other part of the country and consequently can no longer be considered part of it.

The ethnic English are a minority in London, having been overtaken by the African, Asian, Russian, Polish and South-European communities, many of which are now established beyond the second generation. As a result, London’s culture is markedly different to that of England and its citizens are becoming increasingly aware of this.

The capital thrives on the artificial and the shallow-rooted. England looks back to the glories of the past and seeks to maintain a connection with land and ancestry. England is generally conservative and inward looking. London is multicultural to the extreme and its political class kindles an internationalist politics to match.

All of the things ‘England’ is internationally praised for belong in fact to London. When people from England do well in society they tend to emigrate to the Smoke as soon as they can, often looking back scornfully at the country they leave behind them. London sucks the talent out of England, leaving a swelling, increasingly dominant working class, disconnected from an elite playground they feel no relation to.

While England ostensibly has many ‘cities’ of its own, only London matches the global conception of a metropolis. The large towns of the English north like Manchester, Liverpool and Newcastle could only rival London if they were connected into a single city by a large underground rail network.

England is being deprived of a centre, of a capital and of a government. London’s government cannot speak the English language let alone understand the English heart. To the English, Londonians seem (and are) from another country. They are too slick and multiracial, too postmodern and accentless. Whenever they visit the barbarian territories of Stoke or Derby, they do so with the manner of charity campaigners visiting Africa to raise funds for a clean water supply. The barbarian natives of England who approach them and pitifully request that they ‘do something’ for their local ‘community’ are patiently patronised, just as an African would be in a Comic Relief short.

While it might seem as natural as rain, this internal divide has a lot to answer for. I know of no other country in which the mere mentioning of the capital city incites such deep-seated contempt.

There is even a movement, as yet marginal and undeveloped, to make London independent. If successful, this would destroy the United Kingdom as we know it and yet As things stand, the population of England would probably support this.

They are sick of the way things are. They are sick of seeing Londonian politicians visiting the Sub-Saharan classrooms of Greater London to launch pledges to an overwhelmingly White country. They are sick of a metropolitan ruling class dictating the pace to a predominantly rural nation.

The chemicals are gathered for an anti-elite explosion; a descent into the French-Revolution politics of envy and self-destruction. This isn’t something we can afford and something needs to be done about it.


Book Review: A Patriot’s History of the United States.


, , , , , , , , , , , ,


I tend, as a rule, to avoid very long books. I more or less agree with Nietzsche’s sentiment that ‘if a man can write at all, he can write concisely’. Life is too short for books over 400 pages. Beyond that limit, they are just an indulgence of the vanity of their authors.

Still, exceptions to this often arise, and one such case is ‘A Patriot’s History of the United States’ by Larry Schweikart and Michael Allen.

This bulky volume, written in 2004, was developed as a counterweight to Howard Zinn’s critically adored ‘People’s History…’, and provides a very different, less politically correct version of the American past to the one we are taught in schools. The book’s subtitle is ‘From Columbus’s Great Discovery to the War on Terror’ and this dizzying span is covered thoroughly with vibrant, partisan prose and well-referenced detail.

The facts contained in this work are so numerous and interesting that the reader risks becoming the pub bore for many weeks after finishing it. Did you know, for example, that liberal states managed to have it both ways on segregation by the over-use of IQ tests? That’s right, in liberal Northern states, Blacks were separated from Whites from a young age by the use of cognitive exams, despite the fact that at this point the Northerners claimed superiority over the racists in Dixie for the same (differently arrived at) situation.

Also chronicled are the hideous, racist roots of the Democratic party and how its behaviour contrasted with the morally beautiful conduct of the Republicans on the issue of African liberty.

As you’d expect, slavery is covered extensively in this book but (with the authors’ skill and determination) it mostly serves to illustrate the brightness that surrounds the aberration.

America might have a history riddled with controversy. It may have made mistakes. That’s not really in doubt. But, at its best, the country is a superhero among the nations; the St George who slayed the dragons of fascism and communism, and the sharpest weapon we possess against their gruesome Islamic inheritor.

I tend to go a bit watery-eyed when thinking or writing about America. That’s because every year I spend in Britain is a year spent away from where I want to be. One day, in the right circumstances and with my best efforts invested, I want to live within the picturesque suburbs of Alabama, Mississippi or Georgia. We all have dreams and that’s mine.

Beyond the personal, America is big enough, strong enough and radical enough to survive any of the criticisms made of it. It is the best hope we have for survival and the best model for our continued prosperity.



Stop Travelling to the Muslim World.


, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,


Each week, the world is treated to another episode of ‘Lend me your ears’, the oddly compelling news series fronted by an abducted war-photographer turned puppet of ISIS called John Cantlie.

In each instalment, no doubt to stall for time before his decapitation, Mr Cantlie, in a Guantanamo-Orange t-shirt and seated behind a black desk, puts admirable effort into the role he is cruelly being forced to play; a Westerner who has come to know and accept the arguments of the Islamic State (ISIS).

The beginning of each episode is the same. Mr Cantlie (with a strange, dull-eyed sincerity) states “I’m John Cantlie, the Westerner abandoned by my government”.  This line, almost certainly written by his jailers, is an effort to extract money for Mr Cantlie’s freedom, just as worked with the French government for the release of one Mr Cantlie’s former cellmates. It almost certainly won’t work with Britain.

The story of how Mr Cantlie fell into this morbid predicament is tragi-comic. The journalist was originally kidnapped two years ago by Islamist fighters in Northern Syria and was held hostage until moderates from the Free Syrian Army managed to secure his release. After heading back to Britain where he stayed for a couple of months, Mr Cantlie decided to revisit the increasingly lawless patch of Syria that provided him with his previous misfortune. He was soon re-captured, this time by ISIS, and now he seems to possess no hope of seeing the civilised world again.

I do sympathise with Mr Cantlie’s situation. I really do. But the question must be asked all the same: why the hell would any rational person – no matter what their objective and however noble it is – travel from the world of parliamentary democracy to a domain run along 6th century Islamic lines? What was the prize of such adventurism? A glossy shot of a corpse or a used tank shell? Surely the statistics reported by the Assad government and FSA sources illustrate the tragedy unfolding there in perfectly stark terms. What is the obsession with seeing everything?

The issue is broader than this one case of course. It isn’t just terrorism that potentially waits for you in the world of Islam, but uncountable instances of rape, abduction, sexual harassment (especially in Egypt) and ludicrous judicial punishments (in Abu Dhabi and Dubai).

The solution? Don’t go to the Islamic world. Stop travelling there. Whatever ancient (pre-Islamic) marvels, or professional thrills attract you, they are not worth your death or the tears of your family and friends.

If you want the ancient world, travel to Israel instead. Walk the hallowed streets of Jerusalem and Safed. Enjoy the thrill of seeing everyday people with assault rifles slung around their backs, charged with the maintenance of the civilised world’s frontline. See what happens to your political views when you try to imagine what it’s like living so close to the previous millennium that you feel its vile breathing.

Muslims are a generally dangerous people. It isn’t just a few bad apples. The whole barrel is rotten. And for the same reasons you wouldn’t travel to a Papuan jungle filled with cannibals, stop travelling to the Islamic world.


Is America Behind ISIS?


, , , , , , , , , , ,


Though they have been with us for millennia, Conspiracy theories are today enjoying their first golden age. The internet, social networking and the technology of instant global communication have made starting a rumour or advancing a minority viewpoint as easy as sending an email.

You’ll undoubtedly know the more popular theories… al-Qaeda didn’t knock the Twin Towers down for Islamic reasons. They did it for the military-industrial complex and their employer, the CIA. The Pentagon wasn’t hit by al-Qaeda at all and the evidence that it had been was achieved by a cruise missile, fired on government orders. JFK was taken out for taking on the federal reserve. Princess Diana was guided into a concrete pillar by an Israeli hit squad. etc.. etc..

Most ordinary, well-adjusted people take these claims with a pinch of salt. Looked at closely, none of them bear relation to historical reality, and the people that formulate them usually have a few skeletons in their own closet.

Nevertheless, we must never rule out conspiracy in general. Conspiracies do happen, and some of them have changed the World we live in.

The 6 million Jews destroyed like unwanted livestock by the Nazi State were the victims of a conspiracy. A conspiracy so bizarre in fact that it makes 9/11 Truth claims seem almost feasible. How much stranger is a false-flag attack than the secretly planned project to wipe out a people?

There is always an element of truth in a conspiracy idea, even if that truth has been doctored along the way in order to conform to a wrong-headed thesis. And sometimes, even if rarely, a theory that seems crazy turns out to be entirely correct.

Among those circulating on the internet today, I only want to look at one. Namely, the theory that Islamist movements are being directed, armed and sponsored by the United States of America in order to topple regimes it doesn’t like.

Proponents of this argument include Alex Jones; the excitable Texan radio host who sees everything from the warped angle of a comic book detective. The followers of Ron Paul and Glenn Beck have also voiced the same suspicion, and the theory has millions of adherents across the political spectrum.

On the face of it, this isn’t necessarily ridiculous. There has been a strange tendency of late for Islamists to wage war on anti-American regimes, and the American response to these cases compared to its view of Islamist struggles against pro-American regimes is (shall we say) messy.

When Islamists (of the most orthodox and brutal kind) toppled Muammar Gadhafi in Libya, America fully supported the project. Then, when Islamists (including ISIS) began a brutal war on the Assad regime in Syria, America was only narrowly persuaded out of intervening on their behalf.

Now compare these cases to those of Algeria and Egypt (both friends of the EU/United States). In these nations, Islamist revolutions have been brutally put down by the state at a cost of hundreds of thousands of lives. And on these occasions, the state forces were described by Washington to be the ‘lesser evil’ and the rebels were abandoned to their own destruction.

Is this just hypocrisy or something more?

Did the Syrian insurgency which later metastasised into ISIS arise organically, or was it with the co-ordination of American and British intelligence? Why is some violent Islamism acceptable to our elites and other variants not?

Regardless of the kind of people who raise them, these are valid and important questions and we have no right to ignore them. If the answers are not as we would expect, the implications for our democratic integrity are extreme.

Personally, I don’t believe America would be as morally corrupt as to unleash the forces of hell on innocent people. It’s more likely to me that Obama is a hypocrite and a liar, that he lied on Benghazi and on Libya more broadly, that he lied and blundered on Syria too, and that he’s not to be trusted and that his Presidency has been a disaster for the world.



Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 202 other followers