Could Islamic State Kill Islam?


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


For the first time in a blue moon, Anglo-American liberals are telling the truth. Islamic State (or ISIS) are increasingly unpopular with ordinary Muslims. Although few can doubt that the actions of the terror regime are explicitly rooted in Quranic text, the exotic barbarism and random flashes of violence employed by its fighters are rarely endorsed by anyone outside of its own ranks. A swelling number of Muslim regimes (themselves backward and detestable in separate ways) are calling for the annihilation of the Caliphate, with some even looking to the infidel West for help in doing so.

The bigger picture here is fascinating. I’m starting to wonder if the very public cruelties of ISIS are causing a quiet crisis of identity for hundreds of millions of mildly devout believers. Magnifying the most extreme implication of this, I’m starting to wonder if ISIS may prove to be Islam’s fatal wound.

Islamic State is the Quran in action. That point is very important to understand. When you read the Quran, you are reading the basis for the blood-soaked terror currently engulfing Syria and Iraq. If you believe the text is endorsed by heaven, you are silently condoning the same slaughter. Now, I don’t believe that the majority of Muslims are stupid or lacking in humanity. Most of them are ordinary people, often very good-natured people, who have simply been brought up in a climate of ritualised stupidity. Given the deep roots of their cultural heritage, it was always going to take something frightful and extreme to make them question it. Has that ‘something’ now entered the stage of history?

Recall that Communism, as a philosophy and as an aspiration, declined greatly in the latter half of the Twentieth century. Most scholars agree that this process had something to do with the discovery (by historians and statisticians) of the Biblical-scale famines and state genocides of the first half of that century – events that were previously only rumors (deniable rumors). When faced with the realities of the Gulag even the most hard-hearted card-carrier began to wonder if his system of thought stood on faulty ground.

As ISIS continues to expose the consequences of applied Islam, even Saudi Arabia (the ideological source of many ISIS doctrines) finds itself swerving into panicked hypocrisy. Last month it was announced by Saudi officials that the Kingdom will be building a multi-million dollar wall spanning the entirety of its northern border to lessen the threat of an ISIS invasion.

The state of Jordan, after one of its pilots was murdered in the most bestial manner, has sworn to mobilise its military to crush the Islamic State. Egypt, having witnessed the spread of ISIS to neighbouring Libya, has brutally crushed Islamist forces within its own territory. In Tunisia, after Islamic State blew up a tourist destination in the capital city, the local population exploded in horrified shame and patriotic anger. Even Iran is warming to the West (and vice versa) as both powers seek to contain the same barbarism.

As someone who monitors these things, I have personally seen the membership of atheist groups rooted in Muslim countries swell in recent months. The citizenry of countries like Indonesia, Malaysia, Morocco, Bangladesh, Qatar, Bahrain and Algeria are increasingly aware of how fragile Islam makes their prized social peace and growing economic fortunes.

Has Islamic State – organised to promote and expand the domain of Islam – sent the religion into its death-spiral?

Food for thought.


Orwellian England.


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


The fear of being watched is innate within the human condition, having been developed over millions of years of evolutionary time and experience. The right not to be watched when going about private or legal business has equally ancient roots, having been fought for from the earliest flickerings of human civilisation.

Despite that long struggle (and its success in other parts of the West) the amount of active surveillance in the United Kingdom remains a disgrace. Take this from someone who is coming to the close of an extended period working abroad – a period that has been marked by a strange and bracing sense of personal freedom and responsibility.

When British people complain of a nanny state or of a ‘Big Brother’ society, the popular tendency is to snigger and judge. Such people (others feel) are simply exaggerating, guilty or else unduly paranoid. To ruffle up this lackadaisical (not to mention extremely irresponsible) serenity, let’s rehearse some important figures:

According to the Guardian (a most un-libertarian rag) there is now one CCTV camera in operation for every 32 British citizens. This means that a total of 1.85 million cameras currently operate in the United Kingdom. There are more CCTV cameras operating in the London borough of Wandsworth than in Dublin, San Francisco, Boston and Johannesburg combined. In the capital as a whole (not the greater region), there are 7431. This compares to just 326 operating in the city of Paris. Indeed, there are more cameras operating in the town of Wigan than in the terror-hit French capital.

British people are watched to an extent that even Orwell’s famous dystopia would have found excessive. When this is added to other forms of surveillance, Britons are reckoned (by serious observers) to enjoy less privacy than East-Germans at the time of the Stasi.

Why is this the case? Of course, the government will reflexively claim that it is for ‘our own good’ – that it is to protect us from crime, terror and accident. But if this were true, why on Earth are the citizenry of Wigan considered to be at greater risk than the Parisians?

None of the official excuses make any sense. And while I don’t want to become a tin-foil hat-wearing type, (I don’t believe in the grand conclusions of Alex Jones et al) something does need to be done if we (and our posterity) are to retain the most basic levels of dignity and freedom of action.

As is well known, Americans are more naturally attuned to the barometer of liberty than we are. On occasion, they are rather too attuned to it. But we really need to take a leaf out of their book when it is necessary to do so. The UK government currently retains the power to read our private emails, to watch what we do in the street and (in urban environments) to film our own back gardens.

This isn’t natural. This isn’t necessary.


Looking Ahead: Republican Candidates for the 2016 Election.


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


The long, dysfunctional reign of Barack Hussein Obama is drawing at last to its close. Almost 8 years have elapsed since the whooping coronation of America’s first mixed-race President, and in those years, little has been achieved that could possibly justify the initial hype.

Immigration rates are much as they were in 2008. Guantanamo Bay remains open, despite the promises of 2008. The Iraq debacle has plainly not been resolved (despite bewildering Obamanoid claims to the contrary). New, frightening zeros have been added to the National Debt. ‘Obamacare’ has been so unpopular that it looks certain to be revoked on the next regime’s first day of term. Bin Laden, as we are never allowed to forget, was put out to sea on Obama’s watch, but really this only represents a shameful theft of credit from the United States military.

All in all, Obama has not lived up to his initial promise. The spreading realisation of this fact means that the contest to succeed him is destined to be a bombastic and emotional ride. Republicans, from the globally famous (and notorious) to the nearly unknown, are elbowing furiously for media coverage and endorsement.

Given the critical and violent days we live in, the choice of Republican runner will have great international consequences, including for Britain. For that reason I offer here my opinions on the current pack….

Mike Huckabee.


Mike Huckabee isn’t particularly well known outside America, but within the country, he is widely regarded as the most religious Presidential candidate since Jimmy Carter. A folksy southerner, Huckabee’s election book is (I think/hope humorously) entitled “God, Guns, Grits and Gravy” and the Senator is vocal in his commitment to traditional conceptions of the family, gun rights, and brash, uncomplicated patriotism.

Huckabee is a naturally divisive figure, as are all overtly religious politicians. Given this reality, I doubt he has the popular support to win a nomination, much less a national election.

DTMW Rating: 6/10.

Jeb Bush.


A member of the politically lucrative Bush dynasty, Jeb Bush should be familiar to most foreign observers. Like his brother and father, he is a middle-ground, compassionate conservative, open to reform of immigration and willing to spend money on public services. On foreign policy, he is tediously conformist – pro-democracy, pro-two state solution, tactful with Russia etc…

There is really nothing to recommend Bush beyond his ability to appeal to a broad selection of Americans. He is not a favourite of the right-wing establishment, and if he is selected as runner, grassroots support may be thin on the ground.

DTMW Rating: 6/10.

Marco Rubio.


Marco Rubio is a telegenic, Hispanic neoconservative with opinions and standpoints torn right out of an issue of the Weekly Standard. He is loudly pro-Israel, hostile to the nuclearisation of Iran, committed to halting Russia’s consumption of Eastern Europe, and full-square in opposition to communism and socialism.

For these reasons I rather like him. He might have a shallow, car salesman-like, professional sheen, but he also has an ‘American Dream’ backstory and the right sense of priority to keep that dream alive.

DTMW Rating: 8/10.

Rand Paul.


While most conservatives want to scale back the power of the state, Rand Paul wishes to make it all but disappear. Son of ancient populist Ron Paul, Rand is the young, handsome, smooth-talking and hugely radical driver of the libertarian tea-party movement. He is by a very great distance the most popular candidate with the grassroots of the Republican party.

The only reservations I have with Paul relate to his isolationism. Unlike Rand, I resolutely do not want America to ‘mind its own business’ (as his father would put it). On the contrary, I want the American military to remain the spearhead and shield of modern, democratic civilisation. For that reason alone I would advise voters to look for another candidate.

DTMW Rating: 6/10.

Ted Cruz.

And that candidate might look a bit like Ted Cruz.

Texan Senator Cruz offers a bracing synthesis of neo-conservatism, domestic libertarianism and compassionate social conservatism. Right about most things, willing to use the great American military to protect our friends and punish our foes, anti-government in spirit, compassionate on questions of race and with a long and proven record in practice, I believe that Cruz would make a very competent successor to Obama’s failed regime.

DTMW Rating: 9/10.


Other candidates running or likely to run include Donald Trump, Rick Perry, Scott Walker and Rick Santorum. I don’t believe any of these outliers has the charisma or substance to beat the runners mentioned above.


Eurovision: What the EU Was Supposed to Be Like.


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


Yesterday in Vienna the Eurovision song contest was held for the 60th time. Sweden won this year, with Russia second and Italy third. The UK came a pathetic 22nd.

Most educated people view Eurovision with a ticklish sense of irony. The contest is camp, loud, colourful and – in its founding vision – hopelessly idealistic. The stated goal of ‘uniting Europe through the power of music’ is dreamy. The songs are often ludicrous ballads with ludicrous dancers and ludicrous lyrics. In Britain, there is a well-established tradition of having a comedian drily commentate over the proceedings in order to make the event tolerable for a snobby, postmodern British audience.

I actually enjoy Eurovision. I rather like the idea of a united Europe, of a European ‘community’ or extended family. Nobody is forced to enter Eurovision or to take it seriously. We all laugh politely at each others eccentricities. We work together for the sake of friendship and to celebrate our differences and similarities.

Perhaps this was what the EU was supposed to be like in everyday practice. Though it hasn’t worked out that way, Eurovision reminds us that the idea of a united Europe isn’t as unpleasant or infeasible as its current implementation would suggest.


Gun Control and Tyrannical Government.


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


The debate over gun ownership has dominated the politics of the United States for over 20 years. No Presidential candidate can afford to ignore it. The Media covers it obsessively. After abortion, it provokes more demonstrations than any other issue.

The American Left (and much of the centre) support the Europeanisation of US firearm laws – in other words, the restriction of guns to security and military use. The political Right, with a passion many find confusing, see the right to keep and bear arms as an integral part of American democracy – and the attempt to restrict it as an omen of impending dictatorship.

That last anxiety in particular must be pondered if one wishes to understand the spirit of America. For over 300 years, the Patriotic Right have argued that American democracy is vulnerable to abolition by a tyrannical elite, and that such a regime can only be effectively resisted by an armed population.

As the commentator Glenn Beck put it in his recent book Control: The Truth About Guns – “If we continue to stand up for our rights, none of us alive today will ever have to pick up a weapon against our government. The bad news is that if those rights are watered down or taken away, the risk of tyranny will increase with each passing generation.”

For a long time, like most Europeans, I found this American belief in the importance of firearms absurd. But the more I have reflected upon it, the more suspicious I find the refusal of our own government to bestow the same liberty.

While it’s true that a real totalitarian regime could not be overthrown by civil militias armed with semi-automatic weapons, the general populace, so equipped and working in concert, could surely resist arrest, molestation or abuse by that regime.

When Nazi henchmen jackbooted their way through German suburbs to capture Communists, Jews and democrats, they were cheerful and fearless from the certainty their prey was unarmed. Had the general population been equipped to the extent Americans are today, communities could have disrupted the process to such a degree that state policy may have been altered.

Had SS troops been killed or injured by the dozen as they sought to round up Jewish families, the situation might have arisen in which the groups who wished (anyway) to rebel finally found the occasion to try.

Just like that decisive moment when a schoolyard bully is enfeebled in front of his victim by another (stronger) child, thus leading to the collapse of the bully-victim relationship, in a totalitarian society a moment of state weakness can be fatally provocative. That is why if the North Korean regime (or any other regime like it) ever collapses, it will be the result of the people losing respect for the state, rather than because the state weakens in its systemic design.

You cannot respect a state whose enforcers run from your own bullets, whose bodies line the street having tried to line it with the bodies of your family. Little victories lead naturally onto bigger ones.

So the next time you hear Americans link gun ownership to the maintenance of liberty, try to empathise with them. You may even see your own security in a different, rather more horrifying light.


Varieties of Colonisation.


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


While all Western European nations are currently enduring a process of Islamisation, not all face the same kind of process. By this I mean that Europe is not facing conquest by a single race, nation or even Islamic school. There are varieties of colonisation, and it is important and worthwhile to look at each one in isolation.

Despite the end-point being the same in all cases, some of these processes are worse than others in the short term. Each Muslim sub-culture goes about Islamisation in a different way, with a different level of enthusiasm, with differing levels of unnecessary cruelty, and with a different potential for success.

Here then is an analysis of four cases, noting the character of each individual process and how they differ from each other.

Germany – Turkish Muslims.

Only 75 years ago, the city of Nuremburg was the setting for the National Socialist Party’s most glittering rallies. Red, white and black Swastika flags billowed sideways down the walls of banks, libraries and municipal offices. In public squares, speeches extolling notions of ethnic supremacy – or more specifically, of German supremacy – brought gathered crowds to a state of thoughtless euphoria. German-ness, Aryan-ness, and Nordic-ness ruled as unquestionable virtues, exalted above all other considerations.

Today, the city is ostensibly democratic, free and modern. There are no mad theories to intoxicate the public blasted from tannoy speakers; no banners with flashy symbols designed to replace the task of thinking. But there are also fewer and fewer Germans to be found.

Nuremberg is increasingly a Turkish city, with Turkish shops, Turkish eateries and a Turkish character. In a 2011 study, more than 37% of the urban population have an immigrant background, with Muslim Turks accounting for the vast majority.

A similar process has occurred in various other cities across the nation. There are now over 1,500,000 Turks resident in Germany and this population has a birth rate way in excess of the slovenly rates of the Germans themselves. In fact, this is worth recounting in detail. The birth rate for German natives is 1.4 children per woman. For Muslim Turks on the other hand, it is above replacement level (2.4). If that weren’t frightening enough, due to national infertility, the native German population is slated to decline every new decade, requiring – if the worker-retiree ration is to be maintained – yet more immigration. And where is the main source of that immigration predicted to be? (You guessed it) Turkey.

Now, while the Turks are not always as criminal and aggressive as other European Muslim populations, they do account for more crime than other citizens, and the meteoric rise in groups like Pegida testifies to the sheer panic running through the minds of native communities.

Unless Germany finds a way to reverse its demographic collapse, or (just as well) decides to turn to another source of human replenishment, the prospects of an enlightened, Judeo-Christian future there seem really rather dim.

The United Kingdom – Pakistani Muslims.

In case you are unaware, the British ‘commonwealth’ is a compensatory ’empire of consent’, chiefly maintained in order to keep alive the idea of British global influence. Of the many countries included in this club, most are pleasant enough (Canada, Australia, India etc..), but one or two have fared very badly under the conditions of self-rule. Unstable, barely democratic and economically barren, the Islamic Republic of Pakistan has undoubtedly fared the worst. For this reason, over time a very large (and fertile) contingent of Muslim Pakistanis have flocked to the shores of England (note: not Scotland, Northern Ireland or Wales). As recorded in 2011, there are 1,500,000 Pakistanis living in England and most are clustered in urban areas like Leicester, Bradford, Birmingham, Luton and metropolitan parts of Yorkshire.

I’ll pull no punches here. The Muslim Pakistani population of this country are its most disliked, in some cases detested, constituent. Mass rape, paedophilia, corruption, low-level crime, bullying, harassment, stalking, sexual intimidation, terrorism and racist anti-Kafir violence have collectively served to bar the integration of Muslim Pakistanis into English (or British) life.

Muslim Pakistanis in the UK are often radical, prone to extremist views and actions, and intent on cultural conquest. I would venture that they are far more disruptive to English life that the Turks in Germany are to German life. While German Turks are rarely found to be members of violent Jihadi groups, British Pakistanis are arrested every day for such membership. Reflecting this, the largest ‘European’ contingent in the Islamic State’s ranks are British and Pakistani.

France – Maghrebi Muslims.

When the French colonial grip on the nation of Algeria began to loosen, some Algerians (in the hope of a better life) began to migrate to the land of their colonial masters. Since then, they have been joined by millions of other Maghrebis (including Muslims from Morocco, Tunisia, Libya and Mauritania).

Today, the full figure of North African Muslims in France is unknowable, owing to a French ban on collecting ethnic data. Some estimates put the figure at 4 million, some at 5, others (on the political right) claim it could be as high as 8 million. Whatever the exact number, the transformation of many French cities is obvious and extreme. Marseille and Paris are dominated by immigrants. The number of Mosques in France is rapidly catching up with the number of churches. Despite a very brave and sensible ban, the veil is still a common sight in poorer suburbs.

Like British Pakistanis, the French North Africans have earned a solid reputation for aggressiveness and obedience to the criminal impulse. In 2005, much of urban France was set on fire, as Muslim youths rampaged through the streets of cities smashing buildings, vehicles and police officers (some – notably – shouting ‘Jihad!’ when doing so).

Despite this, and unlike UK Pakistanis, some North Africans in France have begun to integrate in recent years, much in the same way as African-Americans eventually integrated into America – that is, via sport, television and rap music.

Unlike the Arabs and Berbers, the French natives are increasingly atheistic and whether this makes Islamisation easier or more difficult remains to be seen. In my personal opinion, having a religious identity to defend is crucial if one is to resist conquest by another.

Sweden – Pick n’ Mix

By 2050, over one in ten Swedes will pray facing Makkah. This is an astonishing fact, and one that, only forty years ago, would have seemed absurdly dystopian. Unlike France, Germany and the UK, there is no single source of Muslim migration to Sweden. In the capital and in all major cities, one will find communities of Kurds, Iranians, Turks, Syrians, Pakistanis, Iraqis and North Africans.

This variety, though it may not seem as much now, is potentially good news for Sweden. As any worldly observer will realise, for Islamists to forge an Islamic coalition of Iranians and Arabs, Turks and Kurds, Pakistanis and Bangladeshis, Sunni with Shia, is a very tall order indeed. For that reason, I think Islamisation will be a fragmentary and slow process in Scandinavia, albeit one that must nevertheless be actively and energetically opposed.


Based on a continent-wide analysis, the more homogenous the Islamising force a country faces, the greater the violence and cruelty will be along the process. In Britain, the Pakistani community are emboldened by their local homogeneity – something that allows for confidence and common aspiration against the interests of outer-communal rivals. The same is true in Germany with the Turkish community. If tensions between the Turks and the German police (which are already strained) inflame further, the Turks will be able to retaliate with a common front, potentially leading to ‘Bradford riots’ kind of scenario.

In France, the North Africans are socially merging with the Black Africans – with whom they already share many cultural traits. If this continues, Black Hip-Hop culture may in time dilute the commitment to Islamic virtues that are incompatible with it. If not, then the North Africans may find enough in common with each other to pursue a united Islamising effort.

Finally, Sweden, despite playing host to a massive and growing Islamic community, has not been transformed to the extent of Britain and France. This must be for a reason. The explanation I would advance is that inter-Islamic divisions (racial and theological) inflame just as much passion in Muslim migrants as does the division of Muslim and non-Muslim. While this is advantageous in the short term, the likely end result – namely, the formation of what Christopher Caldwell called a multi-ethnic ‘Team Islam’ – promises to be every bit as destructive as the homogenous conquests ongoing in other European societies.


The British National Party: An Obituary.


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


The vote share of the BNP has collapsed. At this month’s general election, the Party polled 97% fewer votes than it did 5 years prior.

This is excellent news and for many reasons. First and foremost among them is the fact that the BNP and its ideologues are wholly destructive to the cause of British resistance to Islam.

While the noises made by the party seem superficially in our favour, they are made with such a lack of grace, intelligence and literacy that they play as Mozart in the ears of our Leftist opponents.

It is all very well to say ‘Ban the Burka’, ‘no to Sharia’ or ‘support freedom of speech’. But when these common sense attitudes are espoused by people who – in other contexts – claim that Jews (who else) are secretly lobbying for the destruction of the white race via forcible miscegenation, they are liable to fall flat.

I will admit to visiting the BNP website far more often than I should. But over time, this has left me in no doubt that these thugs are doing incalculable damage to our cause and ultimately to our chances of cultural self-preservation. The demise of the organisation (and the eventual defection of its electorate to more moderate and sensible parties like LibertyGB) is a victory for all of us.


Take Them Seriously.


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


Today, Western-located affiliates of the Islamic State (aka ISIS – aka ISIL) have posted onto the internet photographs (taken by themselves) of tourist spots in various European cities. In the picture above, the card held in front of the camera warns that “We (ISIS) are in your streets” and was taken in the Italian Capital, Rome.

This (in my opinion) should be enough to trigger a state of emergency, one that allows for drastic police actions and the suspension of normal order. Given the nature of the enemy and its ambition, the presence of ISIS-affiliated fighters in Europe demands serious and immediate precautionary measures from our security services.

None will be forthcoming of course, and the reason? We can never take a threat seriously anymore. Our defensive reflexes are worn out, drained of their former vitality.

I write this fully aware that it is futile. I do it simply because I don’t want to feel any guilt when the treasures of Rome become like the treasures of Nineveh.


500 Pages of Intimidation.


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


“Only a sense of duty could carry a European through the Qur’an” – Thomas Carlyle.

So, I finally got around to reading the Holy Qur’an (Dawood Translation, published by Penguin World Classics), having previously only browsed through it for selected passages about selected subjects. Given my political orientation, this was a necessary undertaking, and one I should have performed long before now. I can only plead laziness and lack of time as a defence.

So what’s my ‘review’?… In short, this book is 500 pages of intimidation. By that I mean that little can be gathered from the text beyond the fiery destinies of those who doubt it.

The Quran takes so long in telling us the penalty for doubting its claims that it forgets to tell us much about what is supposed to be believed. Sentences like “do not be like the unbelievers’ or ‘do not be like the doubters’ appear in every surah, sometimes 4 or 5 times a page. The descriptions of hell, the penalty, are primitive and cartoonish – lots of fire, despair and random agony (incidentally, why is it only fire that is used to torture the condemned? Why not ice, chili peppers or acid? It seems rather lazy).

Makkah is repeatedly advertised as a place worth visiting, something contradicted by most modern travel writers. The battles of Muhammad are relayed in obsessive detail. Women – those wicked, vagina-bearing sirens –  are rightly taken down a few notches, implored not to leave the house or fraternise with (male) friends.

A very brief and ambiguous passage outlaws (or seems to outlaw) gambling and the consumption of alcohol. I can understand how this has produced different interpretations over the centuries. It is far from clear and seems only to apply to getting drunk rather than drinking in moderation. Had its later interpreters been more liberal, I think this would have made for a very different Muslim culture, possibly a more philosophical one.

Violence is a strong theme in later chapters. The battles local Muslims fought in the years before the revelations are described (if they went well) as a proof of God’s mercy, or (if they went badly) as an indictment of the believers’ moral character.

Poetically, the text is not without merit. The descriptions of paradise are occasionally sublime. Epicurean promises of dark-eyed women serving opiating beverages in a celestial garden remain undeniably appealing and almost seem French in their worldly lust.

I felt no compulsion to reread any chapters. Fifty pages into the book is enough to get to the essence of it – a crowded circus of psychological bullying and desert superstition, lacking in moral nuance and philosophical depth.

I must emphasise how bafflingly repetitive the Qur’an is. This quality came as a real shock to me, even though I had developed a scattershot knowledge of the text many years before. After finishing a couple of Surahs, the paragraphs had me flicking back to past chapters to check if there had been a printing error. “Haven’t I just read this?” – “This is familiar” – “Move on to something new!”

500 pages (the penguin translation is just under) is rather short for a holy text. That – I suppose – is a positive. Good marks are also given for the fact there is no racism in the book, or at least beyond occasional anti-Semitic seeming phrases (in fact, these are plagiarisms from the Bible, so not ‘hateful’ in the modern sense).

All the way through the volume, I tried to keep in mind that this book dominates the thought of over a fifth of the human population. That is both staggering and unfortunate. When the words were originally scraped onto animal bones under a sweltering Arabian sun, the authors must have realised they were interfering with world history. As to their moral responsibility, that depends wholly on whether they believed in what they were inscribing or, like ancient Dan Browns, whether they merely wanted attention.

What will be the final destiny of the Qur’an? It seems possible that it will still be believed after people stop believing in the Bible (a grave literary injustice, but one that is backed by the unstoppable tide of demographics). As to the very distant future, the age of AIs and robots, I don’t believe it has the strength to withstand science indefinitely.

In the meanwhile, burning this book is stupid. The best way to undermine it is simply to expose its content.


Intolerance Vs. Pamela Geller.


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


You’ll have heard by now that a repeat of the Charlie Hebdo massacre was only narrowly averted last Monday.

In the great state of Texas, a competition to draw the best caricature of the Prophet Muhammad was invaded by two armed Muslim militants likely intending on assassinating the organisers of the event, the iconoclastic blogger Pamela Geller and the leading counter-jihad politician Geert Wilders.

Thankfully, given the American way of security, the assailants were quickly disposed of before they could steady a shot. Some civilians were injured, some were simply rattled, but over-all the enterprise was a delightful failure. How wonderfully refreshing this seems from a British viewpoint! The old adage ‘Don’t f*** with Texas’ seems very well grounded in reality.

After the gun-smoke cleared, the event went on to trigger a new round of discussion on the near-ancient clash of Western notions of liberty and the religion of Islam. Unhindered by European notions of Political Correctness, the Fox News channel was particularly quick to orchestrate debates on this matter (one of which, incidentally, included an appearance by the nation-shaming piece of shit Anjem Choudhry. Let’s hope devoutly that one day he himself falls foul of the US police force).

One has to wonder how long this can possibly go on. The confrontation in question is so clear-cut and simple that the ‘debate’ over who is right or wrong demeans anyone who engages in it. Put most concisely, this is a wacky collection of bearded maniacs vs. everything worth living for.

In a conflict like that, who can possibly be on the fence?

As to Ms Geller herself, I urge you to re-examine your opinion of her. Brash, she certainly is. Abrasive, she certainly is. Jewish, she certainly is… But is she not also brave? Does any other figure in the Islamophobic community put life and limb on the line as much as she does? Has she not done more than any other public figure to raise awareness of the Islamist menace? If the answer to any of these questions is yes, then we are in her debt.

There are some who would view the title of this post as laughably contradictory. Pamela Geller vs. Intolerance? Ha! Don’t be ridiculous. She is the most intolerant person around.

To those I would say… of what is she intolerant? Of stonings, limb amputations and terror bombings?  Well, what kind of person is not intolerant of that? What value does tolerance have if it comes at the expense of life?

Sayyid Qutb, the Egyptian philosopher of political Islam, once wrote that “In a battle between good and evil, one step in retreat is blasphemy.”

Like it or loathe it, that is a noble attitude, and entirely correct (even if his idea of good and evil are the wrong way around). Consequently, there are no halfway houses, Swiss exemptions or island isolations worth retreating to. The Muslims want the whole world. They want you and your family, your daughters and your sons. Are you courageous enough to oppose them?

Pamela Geller is.



Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 264 other followers