Russia Vs America

Tags

America, American Liberty, Assad, Assad war, Barack Obama, BBC, Bombing, Britain First, Counter-Jihad, Counterjihad, Defend the modern world, Facebook, frozen, ISIS, Multiculturalism, No to Turkey in the EU, nuclear war, Putin, putin macho, putin photos, Race and ethnicity in the United States Census, russia in syria, russia middle east, russia putin, Soviet Union, Syrian rebels, Twitter, United States, War, World War 3

Russia’s intervention in Syria seems (so far) to be a very positive historical development. Seems to be , yet I cannot quite say ‘is’.

My sense of caution doesn’t derive from any hostility to Russia’s policy (which I generally support), but rather from my suspicions over the world response to it. While I personally love to see Russian bombs bursting in Islamist neighbourhoods, I am aware that members of our political elite are altogether more troubled by it. I am also aware of the reason for their unease.

Though it is the catchphrase of many lunatic characters, there really is something called the ‘New World Order’ – and in that ‘order’, things like this are never supposed to occur.

The NWO (the real one) is simply another name for the post-Soviet order, itself a slightly updated design of the post-WII order, with which it still bears many similarities. Conservative journalist Peter Hitchens (younger brother of Christopher) summed it up by rehearsing the following famous attitude – ‘Keep the Americans in, the Germans down, and the Russians out.’

Put in greater detail, the order was designed to keep America as the worlds only accepted military superpower. Expeditionary exercises by states unallied to Washington were to become the stuff of history. There were to be no more Stalins, Hitlers and Nassers; no more upstart challenges to the US military’s global predominance in the air, on land or at sea. This is why Milosevic and Hussein were so quickly disposed of, why Germany and Japan’s economic growth was once so unnerving, and why Putin’s Russia is now regarded as so threatening.

In the NWO, only Washington’s opinion on world affairs matters (the UK being little more than a button on America’s shirt). Most Europeans (myself included) are fine with this. Though it tends to make world affairs rather lopsided, American hegemony plays a very positive and important role in maintaining peace. If American might was suddenly subtracted from the globe, vicious, large-scale wars would begin almost immediately. China would begin bombing Taiwan (and possibly Japan). Iran and the stronger Arab states would start threatening the Israelis. Pakistan and India would recommence their nuclear stand-off over Kashmir. The Serbs (backed by Russia) would retake Kosovo and attack Albania. The Turks would move ruthlessly against the Kurds. Sudan (backed and armed by China) would retake South Sudan and begin a campaign of ethnic cleansing. Long-simmering tensions between Venezuela and Colombia would be brought to the surface. Russia would follow through on its threats to invade the Baltic and move its forces close enough to menace Poland and other Slavic EU states. Etc…

America has thus given the world a very long and very prosperous period of calm. We should be thankful for it. But now, Obama’s astonishing weakness on foreign affairs is now threatening to undo it all. Who can accurately say how far this will unravel and with what historic effect?

As anyone could have foreseen, America has loudly condemned Russia’s activities in Syria. Only today, Obama rather idiotically claimed that the airstrikes will end up ‘strengthening ISIS’ (by weakening those charming US-backed Islamists in the Al-Nusra Front, for example).

And in Britain, the reliable, chew toy-seeking David Cameron has since barked his agreement with the Washington line, followed swiftly by the human-shaped cardboard art-exhibit known as Francois Hollande. The media has been similarly obedient. As Russia Today drily noted “No sooner had Russian planes taken off to bomb ISIS terrorists.., claims made by the West’s anti-Russia lobby (were) repeated in much of the western mainstream media… (alleging that) Russia wasn‘t really targeting ISIS but “moderate rebels” and its strikes killed scores of innocent civilians… Now there’s two possible explanations for the lightning fast way this new chapter in the “information war” against Russia has been launched… The first is that the anti-Russian lobby have fantastic sources in Syria and know exactly who has been killed in air strikes moments after the bombs are dropped, or, in some cases possess clairvoyant powers and know who the victims will be even before the bombs fall…The second explanation is that the accusations and allegations that we’ve seen were already written up – filed and saved – and ready to be posted online as soon as Russia’s parliament authorized the use of military force.”

Western government and Western media are thus united in hostility towards the Kremlin. This might not end well.

I don’t believe our leaders are ready to intervene in Syria (that is, against Russia) – or not just yet. We nevertheless have to be prepared for such an occurrence. With Russia fighting proxy wars against American security assets, it isn’t Bond-novel fiction anymore.

And just what would happen if the West did intervene on behalf of its preferred barbarians? World War III? Quite possibly, yes.

D, LDN

Advertisement

Trump, Kelly and the Corporate Right.

Tags

America, America 911, American Liberty, Barack Obama, Civilisation, CNN, could trump win, Culture, Defend the modern world, Fox News, Glenn Beck, kelly, megyn, megyn kelly, megyn kelly blood, No to Turkey in the EU, Race and ethnicity in the United States Census, the apprentice, trump

They say you know you’re onto something when your opponents begin to lie. Donald Trump will be more keenly aware of this than anyone right now.

As you’ll be aware, during the first Republican debate, the Billionaire became embroiled in a battle of emotions with the aggressive Fox anchor Megyn Kelly (who was co-hosting the debate). After Kelly asked Trump a stupidly personal, off-topic question about the candidate’s views on women, Trump responded with a witty one-liner which sent the audience into hysterics. To this, Kelly’s reaction was one of visible annoyance, if not rage. Later in the day, when asked about the exchange, Trump mentioned the anger apparent on Kelly’s face, adding that he could see “blood coming out of her eyes, out of her ears, out of her wherever…” before moving quickly onto a different point. Having nothing better to beat Trump with, the media then collectively agreed to a fraud of deliberate misunderstanding. The “wherever” in Trump’s statement was portrayed as “obviously” referring to Megyn Kelly’s vagina, making the otherwise innocent comment a lewd reference to the presenter’s menstruating cycle.

This is old news for America now. The public was not fooled at the time, and they are not fooled now. But it is worth dwelling on in order to take the temperature of the American mood regarding Mr Trump, and also to reflect on what the scandal says about the American right-wing.

Fox News (with the possible exception of Sean Hannity) would appear determined to end Trump’s campaign. It is obvious who they prefer and wish to succeed, and that is Ted Cruz (not a bad choice, but inferior, in my opinion, to Trump). Never prone to subtlety, the behaviour of the Fox hosts during the debate was childish, manipulative and insulting to the independence of their audience. They went for Trump with a naked bloodlust, a rabid determination and yes, with blood (metaphorically) pouring from their eyes.

It is an obvious but frequently overlooked fact that the corporate right-wing is very different to the intellectual right wing. While the latter operates for primarily ideological motivations, the former does so for money and ratings. This could be the reason why the Fox News gang went for Trump, a man who is so confidently right-wing that the corporate right-wing can only lose by his success.

Fox News thrives best during Democratic administrations. That’s when the conservative population is most angry and in search of a voice sympathetic to their mood. When a Republican is in office, the Fox Network can prosper only by moving to the right of the President (a relatively easy manoeuvre in the Bush eras).

But if we take Donald at his word, a Trump administration would follow through on every policy the Fox audience endorses.

What would Fox do then?

D, LDN

Is It Crazy To Back Trump?

Tags

America, America 911, American Liberty, Barack Obama, BBC, Blog, Britain First, Civilisation, Defend the modern world, donald, Donald Trump, Facebook, ivanka, John, mccain, Race and ethnicity in the United States Census, social media, trump, trump 2016, trump 2017, trump could win, trump donald, trump net worth, trump speech, Twitter, United States, usa politics, vietnam, wordpress

The developing support for Donald Trump’s nomination for the 2016 Presidential election is seen by many intelligent people (at first consideration) to be a joke, a strange kind of satirical protest, a sigh of ideological exasperation. It can’t possibly be serious, they reason, for Trump is little more than a clown, a jumped-up celebrity, no more suitable for office than Paris Hilton or Honey Boo Boo.

On the rare occasion such people are persuaded the support is actually serious, they reflexively attempt to put out the flames of madness with a barrage of warnings, three of which I will try to answer here…

1. Warning No. 1: “Trump would destroy the economy”.

This objection seems to be largely based on the charge that Trump is an economic protectionist – and on the fact that protectionism has proven highly disruptive to the world economy when previously attempted by the countries of Europe. This can be answered simply with a correction: Trump is no more a protectionist than any other candidate. All Republican candidates (‘mainstream’ or otherwise) promise during election season that their administration will ‘bring back American jobs’ and transform the trade situation with China to one more favourable to American companies. This is not ‘eccentric’, as currently alleged, but entirely, almost boringly orthodox. The real question is whether Trump is more sincere in his electioneering than his rivals. And that, I suppose, can only be answered by the future.

2. Warning No.2: “Trump is a loose-cannon. He will crumble under the spotlight of an extended campaign, eventually saying the ‘N’ word or insulting the poor etc…”

This is not a groundless observation. Mr Trump is as straight-talking as human-beings come, and though that is an advantageous trait in the world of business, it can certainly be ruinous in politics. Thankfully, I do not believe Trump is the psychopath so eagerly portrayed by the left-leaning (and centre-standing) media. The glitches in his personality are not set in concrete, but can be tamed, altered and reformed by advisors, of which Trump will already have hired a sufficient number. Finally, it should be remembered that the charge of being a ‘loose-cannon’ was used (unsuccessfully) to stunt the ascendance of many great historical figures, perhaps most notably of all Winston Churchill, with all his loose, rash and reckless talk of a re-arming and nefariously-inclined Germany…

3. Warning No.3: “Trump’s nomination will guarantee a Hilary victory”.

This is nonsense. Despite all the hype, it seems increasingly likely that Hilary Clinton’s campaign will not be the bloodless coronation her supporters had hoped for. Bernie Sanders, a renegade, post-American socialist, is the new darling of the liberal establishment and will tear strips out of Clinton every bit as viciously as Obama did in 2008. The final outcome is uncertain, but whether the Democrats eventually field a confident and radical Leftist, or a brutalised and diminished centrist, a Trump vote will only get more attractive as the clocks tick down to 2016.

Conclusion:

If you wish to see the final defeat of the Islamic State, the re-isolation of Iran, the strengthening of Israel, action to halt illegal immigration into the United States, the resurrection of the United States military and its global vision, then please do not write off Trump too soon. Have confidence in the ability of a great and iconic dreamer and embrace the possibility of connecting his passion to the potential still inherent within the material of America.

D, LDN.

American Übermensch: Donald Trump’s Thrilling Confidence

Tags

America 911, American Liberty, Art of the deal, Barack Obama, Capitalism, Civilisation, CNN, Defend the modern world, Donald Trump, Donald Trump 2016, Donald Trump could win, Donald Trump NBC, donald trump speech, donald trump wiki, Envy, Fox News, New York, Philosophy, Race and ethnicity in the United States Census, Riches, trump speech, United States

So, Donald Trump, the brash celebrity billionaire and star of TV’s ‘The Apprentice’ has dramatically announced a bid for the Republican nomination for President of the United States. Cue hysteria. Cue mob humour. Cue intellectual laziness.

I understand how conventional it is to laugh at Trump; at his braggadocio, his squirrelly hair and material emphasis. He is clearly someone who enjoys the media spotlight and who often speaks with the media in mind. But away from the quirks in his character, it cannot be denied that Trump, via his achievements and lived philosophy, also personifies America at its most unapologetic, creative, tough-minded and independent.

He is a throw-back in that regard; the living relic of an era – fast being lost – in which the United States was the country to imitate if you wanted your own to succeed. It was an era of unipolar domination, whether on the economic, cultural or military plain. It was the era in which most of the skyscrapers you see on the dazzling Manhattan skyline were constructed, when the bridges were built (on budget and on time), and when the US army considered concepts like ‘retreat’ and ‘failure’ to be eccentricities unique to Europe.

I believe this American spirit still survives, in pockets and enclaves, but the condition of America in general is increasingly tenuous. Toxic issues are beginning to develop in the marrow of American life; issues that if left without treatment, could prove lethal to its long-term prospects.

Trump announced his bid for presidency this week with a resounding rally held in his Manhattan skyscraper ‘Trump Tower’. The fallout would last for days. Here are some of the more ‘provocative’ statements emphasised by the press:

On immigration  – “When Mexico sends its people, they’re not sending their best. They’re not sending you. They’re not sending you. They’re sending people that have lots of problems, and they’re bringing those problems with us. They’re bringing drugs. They’re bringing crime. They’re rapists.”

On jobs – “Our real unemployment is anywhere from 18 to 20 percent. Don’t believe the 5.6. Don’t believe it… That’s right. A lot of people… can’t get jobs. They can’t get jobs, because there are no jobs, because China has our jobs and Mexico has our jobs. They all have jobs.”

On health-care reform – “We have a disaster called the big lie: Obamacare… Yesterday, it came out that costs are going for people up 29, 39, 49, and even 55 percent, and deductibles are through the roof. You have to be hit by a tractor, literally, a tractor, to use it, because the deductibles are so high, it’s virtually useless. It’s virtually useless. It is a disaster.”

Shortly after these comments were made, left-leaning cable channels set about presenting them as stand-alone bigotries, considerably more extreme and stupid seeming than in their original context. The television network NBC responded quickly by severing all ties with Trump, accompanied by the retail giant Macy’s, hair-product brand Farouk Systems, and the Latino TV networks Univsion, Televisa and Ora TV.

I won’t deny that the comment about Mexican rapists was lazy and ill-advised. There doesn’t seem to be a problem with sexual violence in Mexican communities more serious than in others. But outside of these unfortunate snippets (incidentally, I don’t share the Republican anxiety over subsidised health-care either), I found the speech rather inspiring.

Trump offered his audience an honest, easy to understand diagnosis of real and important maladies. His remarks about the pathetic failings of the Iraqi ‘military’ were dead on the nail. His comments about China’s cynical devaluation of its currency were timely and brave. His stated willingness to protect Israel should comfort the hearts of besieged democrats around the world.

But more than anything, it was Trump’s call for a ‘cheer-leading’ President who can resurrect the attitude of exceptionalism that truly impressed me. As I have written perhaps too many times before, positivity and the “Let’s Win!” spirit is not only useful on the football field or basketball court. It is the same attitude that destroyed the Empire of Japan and liquidised Iraqi divisions in Kuwait. It is the attitude that built the Hoover Dam, and which drives the world economy.

Trump understands this. He understands the psychological basis of American strength, that this strength is not derived from virtue alone, but from arrogance, determination and unilateralism too.

Despite my enthusiasm, I am soberly aware that a Trump administration is as unlikely Caitlyn Jenner birthing triplets. Impossible, of course, but perhaps not wholly undesirable.

D, LDN.

Is America Behind ISIS?

Tags

9/11 truth debunked, Alex Jones, America, America behind al-Qaeda, Americs Behind ISIS, Conspiracy Theories, Defend the modern world, Demographics of Europe, ISIS, Prison Planet, Theories of 9/11, United States

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.

D, LDN.

Technology and Western Survival.

Tags

Christianity and Islam, Civilisation, Counter-Jihad, Counterjihad, Defend the modern world, Demographics of Europe, Eurabia, Europe, Islam and the West, Killer robots, Military of Islamic World, Military Robotics, Miltary of the West, Multiculturalism, Race and ethnicity in the United States Census

The news that China has tested a Hypersonic ‘vehicle’ will unnerve many in the smoking circles of the Pentagon. For the rest of us, it probably doesn’t matter, or at least it doesn’t with me. I’m generally relaxed about the rise of China as a counterweight to American superpower. While there are undoubtedly things to be wary of, the Chinese (if history can inform us) are a peaceful tribe, prone more to creativity than warfare.

And Hypersonic weapons have already been tested of course, by the US and arguably Russia too. They are only a small part of a coming revolution in military affairs which promises such exotic concepts as nano-weapons, satellite missiles, space-based nuclear warheads, and (perhaps most significantly of all) killer robots.

‘Killer robots’ might sound a lot like bad (and let’s be honest – British) science fiction, but it is much, much closer than people realise. The impact robotic warfare will have on human history will be considerable. The first civilisation to develop robotic armies could be set to dominate the planet for hundreds of years.

Bio-technology may also prove decisive, transforming the battlefield, and perhaps removing it entirely. Whole populations may one-day become prey for deliberately engineered viruses, unstoppable and untraceable. By such principles, China could be wiped out in an afternoon, and the US in a morning.

But then again China is not an enemy in my mind, so let’s focus instead on the (more vital) technological divide between the West and the Muslim world.

In ‘The River War’, Winston Churchill famously wrote that “(Islam) has spread throughout Central Africa, raising fearless warriors at every step; and were it not that Christianity is sheltered in the strong arms of science, the science against which it had vainly struggled, the civilisation of modern Europe might fall, as fell the civilisation of ancient Rome.”

How strong remains the defence of Western scientific advantage?

In many ways, the Western technological edge has never been so impressive. Our fighter jets are massively superior to those manufactured in the Muslim world. We have (collectively as a civilisation) over 14 aircraft carriers. The Muslims world has none. Our militaries have bases in the Muslim world, while the Muslim world (officially at least) has no such bases on our territory. Only Pakistan and (arguably) Saudi Arabia are known to possess nuclear arms, while under the Nato nuclear-sharing policy, all Western countries are protected by a combined stock of thousands of warheads. Our navies are bigger and more extensively positioned. Our soldiers are better trained, and more experienced. Finally, we also have the most refined missile technology and guiding systems in the world.

But with all this said, the Muslim world has something we don’t have; namely, an almost inexhaustible supply of human capital. Should they desire it, the Muslim world could raise an army of 400 million of men of fighting age. The West would struggle to reach 200 million.

In the future, this disparity will widen considerably, leaving the West more exposed to what military strategists call ‘saturation’, the concept of overcoming the qualitative edge of an opponent by the means of quantitative strength (100 tribesmen with spears could by this theory overcome a troop of ten soldiers armed with assault rifles etc…).

Many of the sayings of Winston Churchill, read in a modern context, have an eerie feel to them. The man was prone to an extraordinary prescience, and the excerpt quoted above continues to inform us to this day. If we want to preserve our freedom from more barbaric and numerous foes, technology – the nurture of our past (and the investment in our future) innovation – matters immensely.

D, LDN.

Stop Arming Turkey.

Tags

Christianity and Islam, Counter-Jihad, Cultural Marxism, Defend the modern world, Israel, Middle East, Multiculturalism, Muslim Brotherhood, Muslim world, No to Turkey in the EU, politics, Saudi Arabia, Soviet Union, Turkey, United States

The American Cold-War network of alliances is out-of-date. The power they were designed to deter – Russia – is no longer an aggressor, or at-any-rate, an aggressor capable of mounting a military threat.

Within the Islamic world in particular, US alliances were created with defensive politics in mind. The Soviet Union was a perpetual menace, and so to prevent its influence expanding, America shipped billions of dollars of advanced weoponry to Egypt, Saudi Arabia and Turkey. These three advanced military powers helped repel the advance of socialism (Arab and otherwise), allowing America to secure critical access to the materials of the Gulf.

But times have changed since then, and yet the network remains in place.

Only one of these powers – Egypt – is it in America’s interest to arm. The Egyptian army has arguably proven its worth by removing the Muslim Brotherhood from power and tackling terrorists in the Sinai. The ‘alliance’ with Saudi Arabia meanwhile, as a matter of crude economics, cannot be ended until America becomes self-sufficient in energy. For that we will have to wait for ‘New Nuclear’ and Shale technology to be developed.

The remaining alliance however, that with the Republic of Turkey, can and should be dropped sooner.

For a long while, Turkey was a reliable and obediant cog in the American security complex, taking part in military drills with the Israelis, but otherwise keeping out of the politics of the Middle East.

But recently the Turks have reverted to type. A 99% Islamic country has become (once again) an Islamic state. The regime of Recep Tayyip Erdogan has single-handedly cancelled out decades of modernization and attempted (with great cynicism) to re-attach the country to the Islamic world.

But this is only natural. Despite what its aspirational elite might think, Turkey is not and has never been a European country. Considered thus, Europe is not strengthened but threatened by Turkish military prowess.

The Turkish Armed Forces are currently stronger than any of their European equivalents. Turkey’s Air Force has over 700 manned aircraft, including over 200 F-16s. The Turkish land army possesses over a thousand US and German-engineered battle Tanks. The Navy operates over 100 ships, and as part of he NATO nuclear sharing agreement, Turkey possesses over 200 Nuclear weapons.

In a war situation between Europe and the Islamic world, Turkey would blunt the European sword from the get-go. Similarly, should Germany ever decide to remove the Turkish, Kurdish and Arab Muslims currently within its territory, Turkey could threaten the country with annihilation. The same goes with France, Britain or any other country within the range of Turkish missiles.

America is doing its European allies no favours by continuing to pour weapons into the Turkish leviathan, and it would be nice if our leaders had the guts to say so.

D, LDN.

Somalis in Minnesota? Really?

Tags

BBC, Christian, Christianity and Islam, Counter-Jihad, Cultural Marxism, Defend the modern world, Feminism, Islam, Islamization, Islamophobia, Minneapolis, Minnesota, Multiculturalism, Muslim, Muslims, Race and ethnicity in the United States Census, Somali American, United States

As I browsed YouTube the other morning, a video in the ‘news’ sidebar caught my attention and quickly triggered a fit of laughter. The video’s title was ‘Minnesota Somalis Protest against al-Shabab’.

I had a personal reason to laugh at this. A friend of mine lives in Minneapolis and the city’s lack of diversity is a running gag in our correspondence. (‘A black guy came in to the bar yesterday. It’s closed down now’….)

But even without my private rationale, the headline is pretty surreal. Somalis in Minnesota… How? Why? When?….

After regaining my composure, I began to research the census figures on American Muslims. I haven’t done this before as the ‘Islamisation of America’ scenario spoken of by Conservatives has never felt real to me. America – I’ve always thought – is much too proud, too nativist and too various for Muslims to pose an organized threat.

Perhaps I was too hasty.

While it’s certainly true that America will never become a Muslim majority country, it seems the seeds of euro-style Islamic ghettos are being planted at an alarming rate. This is from the NY Daily News:

“A new survey reveals the dramatically changing face of religion in America, with the number of Muslims in the U.S. soaring 67% in the decade since the 9/11  attacks….Data released Tuesday from the 2010 U.S. Religion Census shows Islam was the fastest growing religion in America in the last 10 years, with 2.6 million living in the U.S. today, up from 1 million in 2000…..In the Midwest and parts of the South there are now more Muslims than Jews for the first time. Immigration from parts of the Muslim world and a small rise in conversions are the driving force behind the growth, researchers said.”

For the Muslim population of the US to double in ten years is not unworthy of concern. It should also warrant special attention across the Atlantic. As we in Europe know so well, breakneck growth of this kind is heavy-laden with political and social consequences.

What kind of consequences? Well, leaving aside the ‘Little Mosque on the Prairie’ fantasy world of the Left, almost all of them negative.

Take for example, our Minnesotan Somali friends from earlier. It turns out their ‘protest’ was actually more of an apology. “Six years have passed” reports the Mail “since Somali-American fighters began leaving Minnesota to become part of al-Shabab. Now the Somali community is dismayed over reports that a few of its own might have been involved in the violence at the Westgate Mall in Nairobi.”

So, a terror attack by Somalis on Kenyans in Nairobi… and connections are apparent with Minnesota. This is what you get with a blind immigration policy.

Though complete Islamisation might be unthinkable for the United States, there is a halfway condition between that nightmare and what the country is used to. This is ‘Europeanisation’. To be ‘European’ in respect to Islam is be in a state of castration, political correctness and deliberately naivety. It requires a sizable Muslim minority with a political voice and a proven threat of violence (the Netherlands perhaps, is the model for this). You’ll know you’ve reached this condition when, after an Islamist attack or riot, your politicians address the community responsible in a pandering language more appropriate to admonishing children for overturning a houseplant. “Come on guys, this isn’t what we expect…”

If it wishes to catch up with European decline, America has a lot of running to do (or should that be running backwards), but it’s a shorter walk than many realize from the burned out houses of Detroit to the burning cars of Paris. Islamism thrives in extreme poverty and racial resentment. Neither is in short-supply in contemporary America.  

Things can snowball quickly in the modern age. Before you know it, Somalis will be in Minnesota.

D, LDN.

So Who Won Syria?

Tags

Barack Obama, Bashar al-Assad, Christianity and Islam, Civilisation, Coffee, Counter-Jihad, Cultural Marxism, Defend the modern world, Demographics of Europe, English Defence League, John Kerry, Obama, Obama Humiliated, Putin, Race and ethnicity in the United States Census, Syria, United States, Vladimir Putin

It appears the attack on Syria has been indefinitely postponed. Russian pressure on both Damascus and Washington has yielded a peaceful solution based upon the destruction of Syria’s chemical arsenal. To this, it seems Mr. Assad has consented.

As to what to make of this turnaround, there are three popular interpretations:

1. America’s power has declined so far that it cannot now enforce its will on the international stage.
2. Barack Obama is a tactical genius who has shown how to deal with tyrants via the threat – not use – of military force.
3. Obama has been roundly humiliated by the wily and superior Putin.

The first, I believe, isn’t entirely baseless. American power is in relative decline, and has been so for many years. We would be wrong however to view a case like Syria as typical. Had the case for the intervention been more clean-cut and had it attracted support from the American public, there is every reason to believe that missiles would have been launched regardless of Chinese and Russian opinion.

The second interpretation has inevitably been promoted by the American Left, for whom every positive event in the world is part of Obama’s secret agenda. According to these folk, the Putin solution was what Obama wanted all along, and he was only threatening force to bring it into being. This is abject nonsense and can be dismissed without further analysis. If Leftists now believe Obama is imbued with powers of clairvoyance, that is their psychosis, not ours.

The third analysis here is the correct one. Obama and his government have been totally humiliated. The cause of intervention was wrong-headed from the start and both Liberals and Conservatives knew it. John Kerry’s stomach-churning speeches in favour of war were every bit as fake and shameful as Colin Powell’s notorious UN presentation in 2003.

We should be grateful to Russia for the outcome we now have. It would have been a moral disgrace to fire a single democratic bullet in the aid of Islamists. The US army could furthermore have been drawn in ever deeper, possibly tying up defence resources for many years to come. And this brings me to my next point:

There is a country the US army should be engaging, but it isn’t Syria, it’s Iran.

We are now perilously close to a nuclear Islamic regime in the heart of the Middle East. Such a regime would not only threaten Israel, but Europe, India and even China. We must never allow this. At the very least there must be a strike on Iran’s nuclear facilities, if not on its entire military infrastructure.

It’s a tricky situation, but the longer we wait, the greater the fallout will be.

D, LDN.

Syria: The Hard Truth.

Tags

Bashar al-Assad, Chemical warfare, Chemical weapon, Christianity and Islam, Civilisation, Counter-Jihad, Cultural Marxism, Damascus, Defend the modern world, Demographics of Europe, English Defence League, Middle East

Over recent weeks we’ve been treated to a horrid selection of photographs from conflicts in the Middle East. Hundreds of people have been killed, most recently over a thousand by the use of chemical weapons in Syria. Upon seeing such things, the natural human reaction is to say something like – “I don’t care what the situation is. There is no excuse for this.”

And I have some sympathy with that. Certainly the Assad chemical attack (and the sight of children killed by it) should depress us all. But despite this, we must keep in mind two essential facts:

1. In both Egypt and Syria, there are wars ongoing not between tyranny and freedom – but between secular government and Islamist terrorism.

And

2. Those who fight for the latter would butcher us all if they could.

These two facts must be preserved in our thoughts no matter how ugly the situation there becomes. When you see the bodies of innocent children killed by government retaliation – by all means cry for them, but never allow a moments sympathy for those who led them into harms way in the first place, and who prolong this conflict deliberately by acts of terror, and who would gladly bring the same conflict to where you live, exposing your loved ones to the same dangers.

The war between a strange and badly applied version of modernity (personified by the Assad government) and a force of 6th century barbarians hell-bent on Islamising the world should really be a no-brainer for anyone who values civilisation.

If Assad is now resorting to using Chemical weapons to repel the advance of the ‘rebels’, then perhaps the more rational countries of the West (as well as the famed ‘Moderate states’ of the Middle East) should provide him with more accurate non-Chemical weapons.

Assad is many things – a murderer, dictator, thief and anti-Semite – but his crumbling regime stands in the way of something unimaginably worse, not just for us, but for the people of Syria too.

D, LDN.