Anti-Semitism: Real and Imagined.

Tags

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

Dohany-Street-Synagogue-Budapest

Ever since the rather hysterical reaction to Binyamin Netanyahu’s speech to congress and later re-election as Prime Minster of Israel, I’ve been thinking at length about anti-Semitism in the modern world, how intense it is, and where it might ultimately lead. I’ve also tried to properly define ‘anti-Semitism’ – that is, of the most serious kind, as opposed to the ethnic banter that occurs (between all groups and cultures) on a daily basis.

After all, not all anti-Semitism leads to Auschwitz. Some of it is simply laziness. I remember, many years ago, passing a London Synagogue with a friend. As we were directly outside of it, he pointed at the building and sighed “Look at that” in a low, defeated tone of voice.

“What?” I asked, adding “It’s a Synagogue.”

Frowning at my reply, my friend shifted his fingertip to the parking lot outside. “Those cars, I mean… Jags, BMWs, Mercs. You know what I mean?”

And the conversation (if it can be called that) ended there. The insinuation was obvious and was duly taken on board.

Now, is this Anti-Semitism, or just plain envy? Many people readily confuse the two, and this, I think, detracts from our ability to face down anti-Jewish hatred of the most serious kind. (My friend incidentally is a working-class, apolitical Irishman, with whom I used to bunk off school and who more or less belongs to the ‘salt of the earth’ type.)

If that is ‘casual’ anti-Semitism, another modern type is comical or ‘ironic’ anti-Semitism. In an episode of Family Guy, a Jewish high school pupil objects to being asked to dissect a pig, to which the teacher drily replies, “Believe me Neil, it’s no thrill for the pig to touch a Jew either.”

This is clearly near to the bone, but nobody upon hearing it would think of joining the KKK or ANP. This is sub-political thinking and doesn’t treat Jews with the seriousness preferred by genuine fascists.

Of course, even I have at one time or another been accused of anti-Semitism, as has anyone who forwards arguments of the political kind. I once noted for example that American Jews enjoy a dominant position in the American film industry. I found (and find) it bizarre and unnecessary to deny something so obvious. For this, I received emails of mockery and hateful accusations.

The use of the ‘Anti-Semite’ label in cases like that is irresponsible, especially as anti-Semitism of the most lethal kind appears to be enjoying a secretive renaissance. Let’s break some more taboos…

Jews have vastly superior verbal intelligence scores than Gentiles. Ashkenazi Jews are more intelligent on average than any other division of the human population. Jewish representation in the scientific, political and cultural elites of the West is massively disproportionate to their numbers. Jews have taken pains in their history (for religious reasons) to prevent integration with non-Jewish communities. The Jewish religious belief that they are a chosen tribe favoured by God has often contributed to the hostile attitudes of those who live alongside them.

Not one of these observations is powerful or scurrilous enough to unleash a new Holocaust and should not be treated like that. The ideas motivating real hostility to Jews in the modern world have nothing to do with widely known, if publically denied, facts. Rather they are the product of a uniquely complex style of conspiratorial thinking.

Kevin Macdonald, a Canadian professor of Evolutionary Psychology, should be considered the grand wizard of modern anti-Jewish feeling. His trilogy of books – The Culture of Critique, A People Who Shall Dwell Alone and Separation and Its Discontents – have encouraged millions to sign up to a hatred that had been in a period of terminal decline.

Macdonald’s basic theorem is that Jews have organised in such a way as to degrade the spirit of kinship in their ‘host’ societies, thereby preventing an ethno-nationalism that could exclude or threaten them from coming into existence. They are said to achieve this by organising cultural, political and intellectual movements that complicate or oppose White ethnic interests. Examples of this include Bolshevism, Psychoanalysis, interracial pornography and open-door immigration.

Macdonald backs up his assertions with a heavy weight of evidence and quotation, giving the ideas expressed a veneer of scientific detachment and legitimacy. Despite this, no respected figure in Macdonald’s field of evolutionary psychology takes his contentions seriously, and luminaries from other fields – including Steven Pinker and Jared Diamond – treat them with lofty ridicule.

They are wrong to be so dismissive. Macdonald’s thesis is spreading like wildfire. The explanatory promise of his ideas makes them irresistible in an age as distrustful and anti-political as ours.  On websites like 4chan, Stormfront, reddit and on innumerable blogs, the idea that Jews have damaged the prospects of White civilisation is omnipresent. I spend a lot of time on these sites (to attune myself to the popular zeitgeist) and come across arguments traceable back to Macdonald on a daily basis.

Part of what makes Macdonald’s theories so strong is the inbuilt defences he has implanted in them. His family of theories are designed in such a way as to make Jewish counter-arguments seem like a confirmation of their validity. In ‘Separation and its Discontents’, Macdonald argues that the charge of ‘anti-Semitism’ is an integral part of the Jewish project to stop Whites finding an independent voice.

I don’t know how this shadowy renaissance will pan out, but the fact these ideas remain plausible should teach us all a vital lesson: that Anti-Semitism remains a dangerously toxic and regressive element in the global system, and that if it ever reaches 20th century proportions again, it will not be due to comical or political asides, but to the semi-scientific theories of the intellectual fringe.

D, LDN.

Islam’s View of Christianity.

Tags

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

crucifix_2010024c

When photos were published this week depicting ISIS fighters in Iraq tearing down the cross from a church roof and replacing it with the flag of their movement, some in the West were moved to express surprise. This is because, for all their hatred and self-absorption, Islamists are said to be respectful of Christian beliefs, seeing the religion as a kindred, yet imperfect, predecessor to their own.

Jesus (or ‘Isa) is venerated in Islam as a ‘Prophet’ and many other Biblical figures from Moses (Musa) to Joseph (Yusaf) to Abraham (Ibrahim) are awarded a similarly lofty place in the same tradition.

Of course, Muslims do not believe that Christ rose from the dead, that he will return to gather his flock into a new paradise, or that he was the literal son of God. But they do revere him, in the same way they revere Muhammad – as a non-divine speaker of spiritual truth.

And it’s also true that the Qur’an’s brotherly talk of the ‘People of the Book’, said to announce and promote a communion with Christians and Jews, is pleasantly unique in a monotheistic text.

Nevertheless, whether Islam as a whole can be commended for this depends completely on whether such a sentiment is put into practice.

It isn’t.

Despite the theological overlaps claimed by their clerical class, Muslims have proven themselves anything but friendly to the Biblical faiths it arose originally to supplant.

Consider the following summary of the situation in Iraq by the Christian charity ‘Open Doors’ –

“In the 1990s, Iraq was home to 1.2 million Christians. Now, just 300,000 Christians remain. Since the US-led invasion of Iraq, anti-Western (and by association anti-Christian) sentiments have grown, and Islamic extremism has been strengthened…There are few Christians lefts in IS-controlled parts of Iraq, if any. IS has forbidden public gatherings that are not organised by them, and churches have been demolished or turned into jails, stables and Islamic centres. The punishment for breaking the strict laws enforced by IS range from cutting off hands to public executions.”

Thousands of Christians have been executed in the Middle East and North Africa since 9/11. In Pakistan, the penalty for converting to Christianity remains lethal. The ancient Christian community of Egypt, despite their large numbers, are effectively 2nd class citizens and are exposed to attack or bullying by the nation’s Islamic majority. During the Islamic conquests of the Middle East, the number of Christians executed can only be estimated. It is not fanciful to propose the toll numbers somewhere in the hundreds of thousands.

It is always important to ensure that myths, especially political myths, do not go unchallenged. By that principle, the myth of a brotherhood between Islam and Christianity is too dangerous to ignore.

D, LDN.

Repression, “American Bitches” and Muslims Raping Horses.

Tags

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

5423358057_r923481_9613492_xlarge

Someone posted a song on my Facebook timeline the other day. It’s not by a band I know anything about, and far from the style of music I usually enjoy. Enquiring why it had been posted, my friend told me to listen to the lyrics.

The song “American Bitches” is by the Bloodhound Gang, a self-consciously juvenile pop-punk outfit from Pennsylvania, US. The target of the song’s lyrics is said to be Islamic terrorists, with the song’s core insinuation being that such people are violent largely out of sexual frustration, rather than the declared motivations of religious belief.

This is not the first time this theory has been advanced (although it might conceivably be the first time it has been put forward acoustically), and it’s a theory I have always more or less agreed with. That being said, it will no harm to re-state why this is.

No prohibition of sexual feeling is possible without damage to the male psyche. Whatever tradition first advocated it, hostility to sex is an anti-natural quirk that should never have been countenanced and which, when enforced, has consequences even more dire than the hysteria of famine and economic breakdown.

The inner-hothouse created by Islamic prohibitions on sexual feeling (prohibitions so strict that even observing female beauty is considered sinful) deform the inner life of a developing male in ways so gruesome we’d rather not imagine them. But if it is accepted that Catholic Priests have statistically higher rates of paedophilia due to their chosen regime of chastity, one must surely extend the same style of analysis to the consideration of Muslim misbehaviour.

Let’s be in no doubt as to the extreme nature of these deformities. In Britain, the number of young girls sexually interfered with by Muslims is as yet unknown, but could well ascend into sextuple figures. In Greece, Muslim asylum seekers have wasted no time establishing a reputation for being lewd and aggressive towards native girls. In Australia, a gang of Lebanese Muslims were fined for openly masturbating in front of a woman on the Subway. And last but not least, in Italy, a young Moroccan immigrant was convicted of anally raping a horse.

These are the bestial extremes of human potential. We may all have such wickedness latent within us, but those who have been kept in a hormonal prison for their developmental years are uniformly like this when faced with the colourful temptations of the modern world. They are raised for life in a monastery and let loose, as it were, into a brothel.

Of course, this might sound like the author is ‘tarring all with the same brush’ here. That is a reasonable accusation and I’m really quite unrepentant about it. It frankly sickens me to think that at this very moment, in some ragged, post-industrial town in the North, a young girl might be talking to Muslims outside a Pakistani kebab shop, and that from there, she may fall into a life of pre-Victorian sexual slavery.

Psychosexual illness is inherent in the Islamic condition and plays a larger part in violent extremism that we might ordinarily concede. Consequently, of all the people who will lose out by an Islamisation of Europe, young women stand to lose the most.

D, LDN.

Credit Where It’s Due.

Tags

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

BUDGET_PORTAL__7_2856733b

This was never meant to be a purely negative blog. I am not immune to enthusiasm and the rose-tinted view of the world. That is why I must praise the astonishing success of our Chancellor George Osborne, with whose leadership and talent, we have risen from a state of socialist bankruptcy to become one of the strongest economies in the world.

If you remember, when the Conservative-led coalition took office, cynicism filled the air like petrol fumes. And in some cases, that cynicism has been rewarded. Our defence budget has shrunk to disgracefully low levels for example. No real effort has been expended to solve the Muslim issue in our society, or to stem the flood of immigration that so weakens our solidarity and emboldens our enemies.

But the economy is a clear odd man out. More jobs have been created Britain over the past 5 years than in any other advanced economy. As reported in the budget speech on Tuesday, that number is 7 times higher than that of socialist France (for greater comparative illustration, Osborne added that more have been created in the county of Yorkshire than in our wayfaring maritime neighbour as a whole).

I am a patriot. I want Britain to succeed, to follow the American way and shun the socialist poisons of the continent. For those reasons, I must be honest and admit that Osborne has steered the ship in the right direction, even as the fifth column rotting the wood-beams of our living quarters remains untouched.

D, LDN.

Political Correctness, Jeremy Clarkson and the BBC.

Tags

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

Jeremy-Clarkson-ranting-h-007

So, as even the cave-dwelling Taliban must now be aware, Top Gear presenter Jeremy Clarkson has been suspended (perhaps permanently) from the BBC following a row in which he is alleged to have thrown a punch at a producer.

Since the news of this broke, a storm has consumed the British media in a way that must bewilder outside observers. Despite the official explanation, many have sought to connect the dispute to Clarkson’s long-standing hostility to political correctness, the insinuation being that the Left-wing BBC has forced Clarkson out for his provocative sense of humour and ‘fringe’ opinions.

I don’t personally buy that. If Clarkson’s views were so intolerable to the BBC executive, they would have discarded him long before now. It seems more likely to me that, in this isolated case, the Beeb is telling the truth. You can’t throw punches in the workplace and survive. In any other field of work, the result would be the same.

Nevertheless, the underlying issue that has dominated public discourse in the last week – the issue of political correctness – is worth talking about whatever the provocation. It is far from hyperbolic to say that in Europe’s post-war history, there has been no concept more damaging.

What exactly is political correctness? According to its defenders like English comedian Stewart Lee, it is nothing more sinister than an ‘institutional standard of politeness’. According to its critics meanwhile, it is the spear-head of cultural Marxism, a covert method of Communist expansion advocated by the Frankfurt School.

Who is correct?

The latter explanation has gained a lot of (tarnished) popular support ever since Anders Breivik promoted the idea in 2011. In his manifesto, the killer quoted Pat Buchanan as saying ‘Cultural Marxism is Political Correctness. Political Correctness is Cultural Marxism’. Nevertheless, the truth – as they say – has no agenda, and so we’d be wrong to discard this because of Breivik’s personal stupidity.

And more than anything, we shouldn’t discard it as it seems to be the correct explanation. Allegations about the Frankfurt school aside, political correctness is clearly a political project of the Left, and only of the Left. It benefits no-one else. It serves no apolitical function.

As a quote attributed to the great writer Doris Lessing has it: “Political correctness is the natural continuum from the party line. What we are seeing once again is a self-appointed group of vigilantes imposing their views on others. It is a heritage of communism, but they don’t seem to see this.”

Such a quote, if its attribution is authentic, is hard to knock down. Lessing was no reactionary, and one does not need to be reactionary to spot the absurdity of thought-control. It is believably posited that George Orwell, having survived miraculously into the present day, would have some unkind things to say about this erosion of the right to private autonomy.

Of course, politeness, the cloak with which PC has long sought to disguise itself, is a positively essential virtue. You should never be rude or unkind without reason, and there are very few reasons one can ever find. Politeness is distinct from PC in that it is voluntary. It is a virtue we may embrace or discard, at our own risk.

Should you be free to call a black man a nigger? Of course you should. But as a corollary, when that black man beats you to a bloody pulp, you will have no claim to public sympathy. Some things are self-regulating.

D, LDN.

Jihad vs. McWorld.

Tags

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

800px-McDonalds_Times_Square

It’s been a full ten years since the publication, originally to much derision and apathy, of American political scientist Benjamin Barber’s book ‘Jihad Vs. McWorld: Terrorism’s Challenge to Democracy’.

Seen by some as a dumbed-down popularisation of Samuel Huntingdon’s ‘Clash of Civilisations’ thesis, this slim volume (and especially its title) has always seemed to me a more accurate framing of the same struggle.

The struggle with/against Islam is a clash of civilisations (in that Islam is a civilisation and that there is a ‘clash’ involved) but not entirely in the way Huntingdon predicted. The war is not Islam pitched against the West specifically, but Islam versus the modern age and all who aspire to dwell in it. Muslims are as hostile to Kenyans and Japanese as they are to Brits and Americans. The Jihadi elite correctly identify the modern ideal of globalisation as a lethal threat to the integrity of Islamic culture. This is not then a clash between ‘East and West’, but a battle between progress and the 6th century, between Starbucks and the Mosque, the Lexus and the Olive Tree (to quote the title of an excellent book by Thomas Friedman).

Islamism derives it energy from the same place as neo-Nazism. Those who pine for ancient castles, Germanic runes and maidens milking cows are one and the same with those who pine for the tent-life of ancient Arabia. Though officially opposed to one another, Islamists and Nazis alike share a burning disgust at the golden arches of McDonalds, at the white tick of Nike sportswear, at the homogenisation of the global high street and of national cultures. Both long for a misty utopian past; an older, simpler way of living that was cruelly interrupted by industry, but that is recoverable if only the capitalists (Jews) can be brought down from their dominant position.

This is what Barber meant by ‘Jihad’ – the poisonous ideas that appeal to those ill-equipped to compete in a meritocratic world. This is broader and more interesting than the crude differences Huntingdon presented us with. As Barber’s definition allows us to see, we have our own Jihadis in the West, and not all of them are Islamic.

The modern world needs to be defended from all its enemies, whatever they look like and whatever language they speak. We would be fools to presume, like Huntingdon, that the battle lines will fall neatly on the borders of cultures and languages.

D, LDN.

Between Paradise and Hell: The Precarious Happiness of the Christian Lebanese.

Tags

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

50305-lebanon-flag

This past week, various friends of mine have sent me the link to a viral video from MEMRI TV. It features a sultry Lebanese TV anchor cutting the microphone of a London-based ‘Imam’ after he arrogantly seeks to insert his sexual-religious authority into the conversation.

I’m not as impressed by this as others seem to be. That is because I have never truly considered Lebanon a part of the barbaric construct we call the ‘Islamic World’. Indeed, after the State of Israel, Lebanon seems to me the most civilised and modern country in the greater Middle East.

While it’s true that Muslims now make up a slight majority in the country, the civilising effects of Lebanon’s Christian elite extend deeply into its social and educational fabric. As a consequence, Lebanese Muslims tend to be more ‘secular’ than Syrians or Jordanians, and arguably for reasons directly attributable to Lebanon’s cultural diversity (one of the very time that phrase can be used positively).

If you look through an album of photographs taken in modern Beirut, you might find it difficult to distinguish the streets and piazzas from parts of Portugal, Spain or southern Italy. Despite the ancient mosques and grungy madrassas, one will also notice billboard advertisements for premium wines and Heineken Lager, bare-armed women in tight jeans and sunglasses, as well as gaudy bars and upmarket pubs catering to American and English tourists respectively.

The Lebanese Christians are proudly aware of this geo-cultural strangeness and view any comparison with other Arab states like Saudi Arabia or Jordan as wholly derogatory. Biology plays a role in this. Though all Arabs are a mixture of ancient ancestries, the Lebanese are known to be especially diverse. Genetic investigation of the Christian community has revealed a mixture of Greek, Arab and Western European genetic markers, the last being a hangover from the time when Lebanon functioned as a base for the Crusaders, some of whom remained, intermarried and got lost in the biological stew.

Though we in the West might look down on sectarian attitudes, it is surely easier to sympathise in this case. Imagine for a moment that we in England belonged to a modern, affluent and liberal(ish) country neighboured to the North and East by lands of hellish confusion. We would all eventually come to rely on sheer hostility to prevent the damaging integration of outside elements, especially if defensive alliances seem unavailable.

Only a few miles from the wine bars of Lebanon, the sub-humans of ISIS cut the heads off people accused of summoning demons or practicing witchcraft. Just a short drive from a Beirut Miss Universe pageant is a tent-city where women cannot even leave their homes.

It is hard to think of a more terrifying fragility or a more perfect misery than that of the Christian Lebanese.

D, LDN.

When Is a ‘Brit’ Not a Brit?

Tags

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

434

Language in politics is notoriously prone to abuse. Given the right intent, truth can be made to sound like lies, and lies made to sound like truth. And when language erodes like this, liberty itself is made vulnerable. This is why politicians, being well aware of this, don’t use the same kind of language as you or I.

When Jihadi John is reported as being ‘British’, the definition of the word dissolves like sugar in hot tea. I don’t believe that is by accident. It is deliberate and we should resist it actively. That is if we are to retain any national reality to defend.

Even if it qualifies as ‘obvious’, one should state it at any given opportunity – to be British is not to have a British passport, or to speak with a London-Caribbean twang. It requires the acceptance of values and beliefs.

If that is ever forgotten, half the battle is already lost.

D, LDN.

I Know Jihadi John’s Swamp.

Tags

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

1410782350243_Image_galleryImage_A_frame_from_video_releas

The revelation that the frozen-blooded ISIS executioner ‘Jihadi John’ was until recently a ‘normal, quiet’ student at Westminster University couldn’t have surprised me less. I am very intimate with the state of London Universities and the close, sinister relationship many of their students have with radical Islam.

I didn’t attend Westminster, but my own University was just a few miles from it. Along with Greenwich, London Metropolitan and my own, Westminster University is part of an ever-growing variety of crowded, multicultural colleges popping up around the English capital like Starbucks restaurants.

Given their demographic profile (the Islamic percentage of the intake is often as high as 50%) all of these institutions are sharply Left-wing in political orientation, with some of them allied to the wild extreme.

At my own place of study, I don’t remember a week going by without a demonstration for ‘Palestine’, against blasphemy or in favour of immigration. During these events, bearded enforcers in white dresses (some of whom came in from other colleges) would stalk the halls of the campus, its library and halls of residence. To have been openly critical of Islam at this time would invite the same consequences as in ISIS-controlled Syria.

It has been noted before (including in the excellent book ‘Londonistan’ by Mail columnist Melanie Philips) that the Muslim youths of London are particularly devout, even by the standards of other European cities like Paris and Berlin. Consequently, at demonstrations by my college’s Islamic Student Union, leaflets spoke openly of Jihad, ‘infidels’ and religious para-militarism. Some Muslim students blamed the Jews for 9/11, others took credit for it proudly.

The non-Muslim students were mostly shy and timid, bullied into silent acquiescence by a thick atmosphere of violent potential. Once, on my way to a lecture, I saw a student in front of me wearing a Hezbollah hoodie (‘Hezbollah’ in roman script, lest there be any confusion) and when I promptly pointed this out to a fellow non-believer from my class, he said he thought it was ‘cool’…

Despite having been established as places of free-thought and learning, the Universities of London have more-or-less adapted to suit the bigotries of the fanatics. The year before last, London Metropolitan University banned the consumption of alcohol on its campuses due to complaints from Muslim students, thereby radically altering the traditional student experience for those from other backgrounds.

At my own place, a harmless ‘Valentine’s Day Singles’ Ball’ at the local nightclub was abruptly cancelled after complaints from the Muslim Union alleged that it might ‘promote un-Islamic behaviour’. Never did it seem to cross the minds of the student office that non-Muslims still (at least officially) have rights in the UK; that the UK is a modern, secular country, and that Islam is foreign to it.

This atmosphere of censorship quickly developed to affect the process of education itself. During my first month of study, I noticed there was a small section of books in the library devoted to atheism (‘The God Delusion’, ”The End of Faith’, ‘Letter to a Christian Nation” etc…). As months turned into years, that section of books seemed to mysteriously disappear. Perhaps that attests to a booming atheism on campus; perhaps they were being borrowed continuously by eager secularists. Or perhaps something else was occurring… Perhaps unbelief was being rooted out, just like alcohol, pork and innocent social gatherings before it.

For all their faults, the Conservative Party has sought to address the London University problem in the last few years, albeit in a very light-handed and incomplete fashion. MPs, including cabinet members, have acknowledged that some places of study are functioning as immigration waiting camps, in which people from the worst countries in the world use their brief window of legal residence to apply for permanent residency, and failing that, a life of illegal settlement.

Certainly, many of the students in my accommodation professed a will to remain beyond their graduation, or even if that day never came. The countries of their descent were all plagued with sadness or barbarity – one guy was from Sudan, another from Pakistan, one hailed from Iran, another from Albania. What do we expect these people to do? Is it not fair to say that allowing a Black man from Sudan to study in Britain in the era of the Janjaweed is to make certain he never leaves? It is obvious what is going on in London and it is going on right under the noses of the powerful.

What can we do about it? Here are a few common sense suggestions:

  • Close down any college or ‘language school’ that fails to attract students from inside the EU.
  • Block (through legislation at the governmental level) any attempt to ban alcohol, pork or other Haram products at British universities.
  • Rigorously enforce the intermingling of the sexes. Never allow sexual segregation in lectures, places of rest or in common areas.
  • Expel any student who actively promotes terrorism or anti-Semitism.
  • Ban the Niqab on all University grounds.
  • Offer security services to Christian and Jewish student unions and provide guards at pro-Israel or anti-Jihad events.
  • Create a branch of student services dedicated to helping the victims of Muslim grooming or intimidation.
  • Redefine the talk of ‘infidels’ for what it is – hate speech.

Despite how bad all this must sound, it is still too early to despair. While Jihadi John is undeniably a product of London’s degraded environment, so – in many ways – is this author. I went into higher education as a damp liberal, but emerged as something different. Perhaps the swamp, as well as being a factory-line of violent Jihadis, will also turn out radicals of the other direction.

We must hope so.

D, LDN.

Are Terror Groups Becoming More Powerful Than Nation-States?

Tags

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

aasas

The terrorist ‘rebel’ forces of Syria, who – even if combined – number less than 25,000 men, have fought the million-man army of the Syrian State to a bloody stalemate. Despite the thousands of tanks, APCs, missiles, chemical warheads, fighter-bomber jets, and trained soldiers at Assad’s command, he has failed to prevent massive swathes of his nation falling into the hands of a rugged, relatively disorganised opposition.

In Iraq, another terror group, ISIS, has held its ground against the US, Saudi and Jordanian air forces, the Iraqi army, and various Kurdish paramilitaries.

And finally, in Ukraine, the pro-Russian separatist militias of the Donetsk People’s Republic have held off the armed forces of NATO-backed Western Ukraine whose ranks, even accounting for Russian counter-measures, dwarf the resources and technologies of the opposing side.

What does this tell us about our world?

For me, it raises the vitally important question as to whether the power of terror groups are evolving to a state of parity with national armies. It certainly seems that way, looking at the evidence.

Much of the improvement in guerrilla warfare over the past ten years is due to the development of one particular weapon – the mobile anti-tank missile. Once so large, they had to be hauled about on wheels, modern variants of these weapons are so small they can be carried like a rucksack.

It is a well-grounded fact that anti-tank missiles are cheaper to produce and more efficient in operation than the vehicles they destroy. If they are effectively designed and accurately deployed, 1000 anti-tank missiles can theoretically go against 1000 tanks and triumph.

The Israelis don’t need to be told this. Their brief and unsuccessful war against Lebanon in 2006 is judged in retrospect to be a Hezbollah military victory (a military victory, I emphasise, not an abstract ‘ideological’ or ‘moral’ victory – a military victory by Hezbollah over the Israeli army).  How did the Lebanese movement achieve this? In the main, it was via anti-tank missiles, the latest, most upgraded type used by the Russian military. Hezbollah is rumoured to possess many thousands more.

To understand this requires counter-intuitive reasoning. We naturally assume that a huge, hulking Israeli tank is more likely to triumph over a single Shia terrorist, however well he is armed. But that’s not what happened on many occasions.

It is suspected that the Syrian state has passed more varieties of Russian equipment on to Hezbollah since the beginning of the Syrian implosion. This fact, along with the ghost of the 2006 war, goes some way to explain why Israel has not displayed enthusiasm for a rematch.

By way of conclusion, there is no reason, no reason at all, why a terror group cannot triumph over a modern nation state, and we are seeing them do so in many parts of the world today. That these groups are often only 10 or 20 thousand man strong, should give us all cause for concern, especially at a time when Muslims flow into Europe by the million.

D, LDN.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 245 other followers