The Neo-Conservative Tragedy

Tags

America, America 911, American Liberty, Barack Obama, BBC, Christianity and Islam, Civilisation, Coffee, Counter-Jihad, Defend the modern world, Democracy, Facebook, Iraq War, Islamisation of London, Islamism, Israel, jordan, Liberalism, Multiculturalism, neo, neo con, neo con iraq, neo conservative, Race and ethnicity in the United States Census, Twitter, United States, Zionism

I used to consider myself something of a neo-conservative (pejoratively abbreviated ‘neo-con’ by the left, often with an anti-Semitic edge to it). I was genuinely enlivened by the prospect of the West enforcing its moral and political standards on the rest of the world, believing for some time that the project was a simple yet complete fix for the problems of our time; most importantly, the problems of terrorism and Islamic anti-development.

Like many, I now know better. Neo-conservatism has failed, and failed badly, in practice. The use of the doctrine to liberate and improve the condition of Iraq has barely succeeded. While the country is now technically democratic, it remains crippled by religious tradition, unable and unwilling to develop beyond the limitations of that tradition. This should really have been predicted from the get-go. The fact that it wasn’t exposes the fundamental naivety at the heart of the neo-conservative experiment.

Put at its most basic, neo-conservatism pushes the idea that democracy has a positive value. Neo-cons (if there still are neo-cons) believe that democracies are less likely to go to war, less likely to collapse into chaos, tolerate corruption and extremism or shelter terrorists than are dictatorships and autocracies. On the surface this sounds reasonable enough. The Western democracies of today are certainly more averse to these evils than the third world; as are the remodelled nations of the far-east. Why wouldn’t the same be true for the rest of the world?

The answer in the case of the middle east is Islam. As political equations go, Islam plus democracy equals regression is one of the most reliable. The evidence for this can be found in modern ‘liberated’ Afghanistan – a country which has gone from a tribal theocracy controlled by the Taliban, to a democratic theocracy policed by the Taliban. One can also point to ‘liberated’ Iraq, which itself has gone from a secular Baathist dictatorship to a democratic Shia theocracy. Looked at from this vantage point, was either project worth thousands of free Western lives lost in the course their completion?

I was a fool to have ever thought so.

As well as Iraq and Afghanistan, neo-conservatism has also destroyed the nation of Libya, a country that previously had the highest Human Development Index ranking in the world. Post-liberation, the country is a sharia-ridden desert, robbed of its infrastructure, foreign investment and political coherence. As to whether Syria falls to the neo-con wave remains to be decided. One can justifiably presume that if democracy does strike the country, it will swiftly go the same way as Iraq and Afghanistan have.

If neo-conservatism was – as its detractors have always maintained – merely an ideological cover for destroying the Muslim world, then it has been remarkably successful. But I don’t believe in that conspiracy. Neo-conservatism – I think – was simply an embarrassing misfire of the Western intellect. We will be living with the consequences for a very long time.

D, LDN

Advertisement

The World is Not a Nature Reserve

Tags

American Liberty, BBC, Civilisation, Counter-Jihad, Counterjihad, cultural relativism, cup, cups, Defend the modern world, Facebook, festive cups, Multiculturalism, Race and ethnicity in the United States Census, starbucks festive cups, starbucks jobs, United States, West is best, west west, western luxury, western world third world, Women in Islam

The Left, particularly the cultural relativist Left, object loudly to the spread of what they consider (derogatively) ‘Western cultural values’. They consider things like human rights, a free press, equality for the sexes and even industrialisation as luxurious vices, tolerable in the West, but which the rest of the world should be spared at all costs. In this spirit (with a Starbucks cup in hand and clothed in a Gucci winter coat) they protest all available cases of ‘cultural imperialism’ – the opening, for example, of a McDonalds in Marrakesh, or of a Gap in Kabul. They are willing – grudgingly they would have us believe – to put up with the benefits of modernity themselves, but insist that the ‘Neo-liberal’ project to extend such advantages to the third-world be shut down.

If someone asks them if they would hold the same view were they a woman in Saudi Arabia, or a starving child in Mali, their answers almost always rely on crazed speculation. What if Saudi women like wearing Veils? What if they like not leaving the house? Maybe they are the free ones, and we are the prisoners – what with all our shallow material riches, festive coffee cups and boundless freedom.

It is too easy to write off these demonic numbskulls as ‘stupid’. Easy and – I think – inaccurate. They are not stupid, not even ignorant. They are rather the purest kind of immoral bourgeoisie. They adore imperfection, variety, living history, strange customs and exotic religions – all provided they are someone else’s everyday reality. For them the world is a kind of nature reserve; a museum they may learn about at their leisure, keep books about on their glass coffee tables, and visit in the summer or as part of their gap years.

We neo-liberals are very different. We do not see the world as a nature reserve, but as the terrain of a single species, our own species – humanity. If we see a bad thing happening, we feel compelled to intervene. For us, Sunnis killing Shias isn’t the same as lions killing antelope. The veil obscuring the face of Arab women is not like the plume of a strange bird. None of it is an inevitable display of the ‘cruel beauty of the natural world’. Those Shias and those women could be carrying festive coffee cups and laughing with friends were it not for the injustices we lazily allow to continue.

It is important to remind oneself of this periodically. Though they claim contrariwise, the moral high ground belongs to the Islamophobes. Those who would insist on the perpetuation of a demonic condition merely out of ‘respect’ for ‘diversity’ have no moral grounding to speak of. If you tolerate Islam, you hate Arabs. You hate Pakistanis, Iranians, Indonesians and Southern Thai. You are racist, arrogant and killing the world with kindness. Wipe that smile off your face.

D, LDN

The De-Saudification of the Middle East.

Tags

Arabian empire, Britain First, Civilisation, Coffee, Counter-Jihad, Counterjihad, Defend the modern world, Gulf, Gulf Monarchies, Iran, Islam, Islamisation, Modern, Modernism, Modernity, Muslims, OPEC, Qatar, Race and ethnicity in the United States Census, Saudi Arabia, Saudi Imperialism, United Arab Emirates, Wahabbiism, Wahabi, Wahabiism

After Hezbollah’s last war with Israel, swathes of Lebanon lay in heaped ruins. Proud and distinct, the country quickly set itself the goal of rebuilding – a goal it met with staggering speed. Within months, there were office blocks, shiny new transport hubs and large, well-equipped schools. Where did the money for this come from?

Excepting Western aid, the money came from the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, and it came with a price-tag. In exchange for the flow of cash, Islamic institutions designed to cater to Lebanon’s small Sunni community were erected, most of them set up to preach the uniquely hateful brand of Islam that is Saudi’s most notorious export.

Similarly when Pakistan hit dire economic times in 2010, having been struck by natural disasters and waves of terrorism, Saudi money poured in like never before. New schools, Mosques and madrassas were built on the banks of the flooded plains, all of them designed to adhere to the Saudi religious tradition.

And in Europe, a large proportion of the new ‘Mega-Mosques’ sprouting up in Berlin, London and Paris are likewise funded by Saudi money, the same kind of theology central to their intended operation.

With the power and influence that naturally comes from limitless financial resources, the Saudi royal establishment has radicalized much of the modern Middle East, and from that base, now seeks to Islamise the world.

The motivation behind this project is obvious. Saudi Arabia, being the birthplace of Sunni Islam and in control of its holiest sites, aspires to be the executive of the Muslim world, with Riyadh as the Islamic capital, Saudi wealth funds as the Islamic bank, and the Saudi military (best-described as the world’s largest arms-dump) as the Islamic armoury.

You would be wrong to think that the rest of the Middle East approves of this arrangement. Far from it in fact. The Saudi elite are generally recognised for what they are; a corrupting influence holding restless millions back in a savage, unworkable past.

If you type the words “We are not Arabs” into google or facebook (and manage to scroll past the Iranian websites and blogs) you will find the same protest from Egyptians, Syrians, Lebanese, Algerians, Moroccans and even Palestinians. The ‘Arab world’ is an empire of language, held together by the influence of the original Arabian nation, now called ‘Saudi Arabia’ but best described as simply ‘Arabia’.

And it’s certainly accurate that little loyalty binds a Moroccan to a Sudanese, a Syrian to a Yemeni, or a Lebanese to an Algerian. Little if anything at all. Understood this way, Saudi Arabia is the head of an ’empire of the imagination’, and this means the West has considerable leeway to fragment a hostile bloc and diminish its collective power.

It is often pointed out by the Islamic world’s apologists that prior to the Iranian revolution in 1979, Muslim countries enjoyed a very long period of docility and reform. Before that unwholesome climacteric, Egypt, Syria, Iran and even Afghanistan were taking steps to democratise, liberalise and secularise. There are photographs of women wearing Western dress in 1920s Iraq, 1940s Afghanistan, 1960s Egypt and 1970s rural Pakistan. Multi-sex schools of Western design used to peacefully operate in places now fully segregated by Islamic custom. Music, even Western music, used to be played openly in Afghan villages. Locally brewed beer used to be a significant Egyptian export. And for most of this period, Socialism not Islamism was the main repository of popular discontent.

Something changed all this. Something served to derail it. It is easy (and conventional) to blame the Iranian revolution itself, which certainly ruined a lot of progress both in and outside the sphere of Iranian influence. But this is not enough to satisfy.

I think it more likely that the Saudi regime, having recently demonstrated its economic power in the 1973 oil boycott, took over at this point as the Islamic world’s political kingpin – and soon after, as the premier source of Islamic theology.

How might we encourage the de-Saudification of the Middle East? How might we wind the clock back to the period of slow but real modernisation that was interrupted by the growth of Saudi economic power?

One answer to this may be fracking, a method of energy extraction that will see America go energy independent in this decade and could provide a similar liberty for Europe.

Only Environmental concerns (often misguided) are preventing the West from unlocking the full benefits of this technology. The protests from Saudi and Russian officials are inevitable and loud but can be safely ignored if we redevelop our confidence.

I believe that by sinking Saudi we will not only liberate ourselves, but also the third world from a demonic monopoly, a regressive authority and the leading cause of violent Islamism.

D, LDN.

The Question of Kosovo.

Tags

Balkans, Bombing by US, Bombing of Serbia, Christianity and Islam, Counterjihad, Defend the modern world, Degradation, Ethnic animosity, EU, Hatred, Kosovo is Albania, Kosovo is Albanian, Kosovo is Serbia, Multiculturalism, NATO, Race hatred, Russia, Serbia vs Albania, Slavic nations, Turks, US bombing in the Balkans

Although considered by Western Powers to be ‘resolved’, the military conflict between Serbs and Albanians over the territory of Kosovo continues with great intensity at every sub-political level. On internet forums in particular, poetically restrained and level-headed comments like the following are uploaded almost every day:

“Fucking Anal-banian goat-herding Turks! Get the fuck out of Europe, you filthy Muslim mongols! We should fucking genocide you.” – “Serbian monkey filth, bending over and taking Russian Slavic dick. How does Putin’s cock taste, fucking bitches.” – “Albanian Pakistani Arab goat monkey Turk swine! Don’t act fucking Italian, Turkish filth!” – “Funny Slavs called us Turks! Slavs were Turkish slaves! That’s why they are called SLAVS! You are lower than sand monkeys, Slavic Serbo-degenerate peasants.”

And so on…

Needless to say, these crazed ejaculations are degrading to their authors and wholly unbefitting of European affairs.

How did this happen? How did two neighbourly European countries become charged with an enthusiasm for genocide?

The answer is the Islamic religion and the chaos caused by its introduction onto a Christian continent.

The Ottoman Empire’s European domain was maintained in the same way that it was created, with the sword and the heavy-hands of the state. In occupied Albania, proud, inassimilable Europeans were treated like second-class citizens in their own countries, and only converted subjects were entreated with privilege and the favour of the authorities. After many patriotic residents, repulsed by the Islamising trend, fled to the safety of Western European countries, the orthodoxies of Islam slowly became the norm in Albanian society, with the nation all but Islamised in two centuries of occupation.

From that moment on, Albania has been a geopolitical oddity on the European continent; an oddity whose accommodation has proven beyond the wiles of various European statesmen. It is undoubtedly true that Albania is a European country, and DNA tests on the general population have confirmed that is native to the land. But what is more difficult to decide is whether Albania is a part of the European cultural community.

This confusion would lie dormant for many centuries, eventually only coming to the fore as a result of tensions with the Serbs.

Serbian nationalists claim Kosovo as a hallowed territory in their national history. It was the sight of a destructive battle ‘The Battle of Kosovo’ in 1389 in which Serbian troops sought to repel an Ottoman invasion. Since that date, the territory has been romantically evoked by Serbian nationalists in poetry, music and literature.

When the territory eventually was secured by the Ottomans (after the Battle described above), the region was overwhelmingly Serbian. By the fall of the Ottomans in the 19th century however, the region was markedly more cosmopolitan, with Muslim Albanians now comprising a large proportion of its inhabitants.

This miserable time for Serbia was later horribly exacerbated by the long dictatorships of the Nazis and Soviets. After the fall of the latter, the region of Kosovo once again became a matter of racial dispute.

The Serbs, seeking to carve out a new state along the lines of their historic homeland naturally wanted to reverse the injustices of the Ottoman period. The Albanians, having benefited immensely from their centuries of favour with the Muslim authorities, naturally wished for the region to remain Albanian. When the conflict became bestial and corpses piled up in the forests, the US intervened on the side of the Albanians, leading to the quasi-independent state of Kosovo.

The trend for Counter-Jihadis, for obvious reasons, has been to back the Serbs and I don’t see any reason to depart from this consensus. The state of Kosovo is as illegitimate as any other entity created by force during a period of imperialism. When the Nazis carved out lebensraum from occupied Poland, throwing out the rightful inhabitants and transplanting the towns and villages with foreigners, this was understood by every fair-minded observer to be a wrong in need of righting. The Ottomans, given their treatment of the Armenians and Slavs, should be considered a fascist empire alike that of the Germans. Their Islamist project in the Balkans was designed to gain a synthetic foothold in Europe, from which to launch a later conquest. We must reject this with a united voice and a common energy.

D, LDN.

Never Forget Armenia.

Tags

Armenia, Armenian genocide, Armenians, Britain First, Christianity, Christianity and Islam, Civilisation, Counter-Jihad, Defend the modern world, Genocide, Islamic, Islamism, Kim Kardashian, Muslims, Ottoman Empire, Robert Spencer, Turkish genocide, Violence

I write this post in part to heartily recommend a book ‘The Burning Tigris’ by the scholar Peter Balakian, which has so gloomed my imagination for the past week. Its subject-matter must be reflected on if we are to stand any chance of understanding our current predicament.

Though the numbers continue to be debated – both dispassionately and for crude political reasons – few can deny that the Armenian people were subjected to a nightmare by the Ottoman Empire in the first decades of the Twentieth Century, or that this massacre or genocide has things to tell us about the European future if we fail to uphold our geo-cultural integrity.

Whether 300,000 or 1.5 million, the Armenian population dropped sharply in numbers as the Ottoman Empire entered its final collapse. The Young Turk barbarians, seeking to carve out a single homogenous Turkic state out of a multi-cultural empire, felt they had no choice but to remove the elements most hostile to their design. Naturally, this meant those who did not wish to be subsumed by an Islamic majority. Naturally this meant the Armenians.

An ancient people, and a very important one at that, the Armenians were among the first to adopt Christianity as their national religion, and some argue the faith’s later spread would have been greatly retarded had they not converted when they did. Some of the oldest and most ornate churches stand in Armenia and the Christian faith has dominated its affairs for over 1500 years. To the grinning lust of Jihadi eyes, this made them a symbolic target as well as a political one. They were a spot missed by the Islamic conquests, and a disgracing patch of dissent in a sea of barbaric consensus.

When we speak of the Islamic conquest, we are not speaking of a single, continuous event but of two massive Blitzkriegs, each of them centuries apart. The first is most familiar. Acting on Muhammad’s sayings, the Arabs of the Arabian peninsula stormed the ancient world, converting the nations of the Middle East and North Africa before petering out in France.

Much later, the Turks, a Mongolian people who had laid down roots in Anatolia, picked up the muddied banner of Jihad and pushed into South-Eastern Europe and Central Asia. By the time both storms had passed, the Armenians, by some miracle of fortune, had survived.

Their Turkish political overlords had failed to extinguish and were now intimidated by their ethnic self-awareness and deeply held Christian beliefs. The Ottomans arrested Armenian intellectuals and outlawed the expression of Armenian identity (as they do now to Kurds). In that grimly familiar process, physical persecution is always the final policy.

The majority of the Armenians who died in the genocide were resident in what is now Turkish territory. Most of the early fatalities were military-age males, judged to be a threat to Turkic supremacy and ongoing nationalist reforms. Later in the campaign, men, women and children alike were driven into the unforgiving Syrian desert and left to die.

There is ample evidence to suggest Adolf Hitler took inspiration from the Turks when designing his own sick project. The world’s inaction when civilians were disposed of in frightening numbers, suggested to the devils of the world that anything was possible with a black heart and an iron will. Pure evil begat pure evil.

Until very recently, the history of Modern Armenia has been one of different tyrannies. The Ottoman Empire and Soviet Union held the nation in bondage for much of the Twentieth century. The free Armenia that stands today deserves our most energetic solidarity and respect.

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.

Delayed Thoughts on Osama Bin Laden.

Tags

Afghanistan, America, America 911, American Democracy, American Liberty, Bad people, Bin Laden, Bush, Civilisation, Counter-Jihad, Defend the modern world, George, Iraq, Michael Scheuer, Multiculturalism, Osama, politics, Saudi Arabia 9/11, Terror, Terrorism, War, Why does America support Saudi Arabia?

Those who read the child-killer Anders Behring Breivik’s manifesto following his misadventure in Oslo were understandably quick to accuse the murderer of hypocrisy for his stated admiration of Osama bin Laden. How could a man so virulently anti-Islam and willing to confront Islamism speak in a positive voice about the leader of al-Qaeda?

It actually makes sense the more you think about it. Indeed, I think I also feel a twinge of respect for the 9/11 ringleader (as hideous as that sounds). You only have to read his notorious ‘Fatwa against America and Israel’ to realise the wildcat millionaire was by-and-large on the money about Western-Islamic relations.

Bin Laden recognised, long before most, that Islam and modernity were (and are) incompatible and that (eventually) one must make way for the other. He knew that the only way Islam could reassert itself as an alternative to modern living was through huge waves of violence; that Islam will have to outdo the modern world in savagery if it cannot (and it cannot) compete in terms of economic growth or cultural vibrancy. Most importantly, he also knew that there is a dark place in human nature that respects violence, even of the most horrid and savage kind and that this respect can sometimes overcome the rational part of the mind that values banks, music stores and coffee shops. It is out of ignorance of this that we are shocked by the pampered London Muslims who abandon Kensington, iPhones and PlayStations for Syria and Iraq. Bin Laden understood only too well the ancient, occult lure of the primitive and all its apparent ‘purity’.

I suppose bin Laden was also (though we are loathe to admit it) something of a freedom fighter. It’s not pleasant to acknowledge, but bin Laden was exactly correct about American policy in the Gulf. It was (and is) deeply hypocritical of America to posture about democratisation in the Middle East whilst at the same time maintain a relationship with a hand-severing despotism in Riyadh. And to be sure, were bin Laden’s aims limited to the liberation of his homeland from the House of Saud, it wouldn’t have been crazy for liberals to have supported him.

He was not limited to such noble aims of course, despite what the Left occasionally argues. He wanted an Islamic superpower under his direct command, primed to target and bully the free world for outlandish demands. Those who replace him maintain those aims, but lack entirely the reason he undeniably possessed.

It serves all the while to remember this though. Bin Laden was a monster, but the sleep of reason that gave birth to him was our own.

D, LDN.

The Middle East Without Islam.

Tags

Conquest of Iraq, Conquest of Persia, Conquest the Mahgreb, Defend the modern world, DTMW, Invasion, Islamic Conquests, Islamisation, Levant, Muslims, North Africa, Pre-Islamic, War

It has been said that Counter-Factual history is academically useless since it dedicates itself solely to what might have been, and – more often than not – cannot be. This is mostly true, but not in all cases. Used correctly, the technique can wire us to the pulse of historical movement and expose the cost of non-resistance to the forces of our opponents.

To this end, let’s imagine a very simple distortion of the past: What would have become of world history had Muhammad never been born, or had his message never been well received? As questions go, few are of this global importance. For the sake of brevity though, we’ll limit our enquiry to the region most immediately affected by the initial spread of Islam – the greater Middle East and North Africa.

Israel.

The differences possible to Jewish history had the Islamic settlement of Palestine never taken place are potentially transformative. Some of the most morally expensive disasters in the history of the West could have been avoided had the Holy land remained hospitable for Jewish culture. Indeed, the most deadly of these – World War II – can be blamed on a crackpot theory which caricatured Jews as ‘rootless’ parasites, innately hostile to the nation-state. Had the Jews never been dispossessed of their ancestral land in the first place, such views would have been impossible. Israel would flower today on a bed of centuries, undisputed and at peace.

Without Islamisation, the wars today convulsing through the Levant would also be buried beneath the weight of time. No lethal divergence in cultural content would separate the Phoenician Lebanese and Nabatean Jordanians from the Israeli Jews, or at least no more than today separates the Sikhs and Hindus of India, who – though diverging on matters of theology – nevertheless recognise a common history.

Egypt.

In America, where Islamophobia is known to bubble over into anti-Arab sentiment, the myth that Ancient Egypt was populated primarily by Negroes has become disgracefully well-accommodated. Indeed the references, throughout mainstream African-American culture, to ‘black’ heroes like Cleopatra and the Pharoahs no longer tend to elicit either comment or surprise.

The truth is very different of course. The ancient Egyptians were a Semitic people, and they live on today in diluted form within the same national boundaries. The legacy of Kemet has naturally been corrupted and Islamised over time, but it has not been extinguished.

And that should greatly depress any secular descendant of that society. Without the Islamic invasion, or had that invasion been repelled, the Egyptians could well have today enjoyed an Italian, Cypriot or Greek version of modernity. They could have been a wine-making, Mediterranean café culture, furnished with and supported by an ancient renown. An Egyptian passport could be amongst the most prized in the world, with resentful foreigners chasing the sunlit grandeur of Alexandria and the kingly opulence of Giza.

As it happens, only a madman would exchange European life for the cities of the Nile, and religious developments alone are equal to explaining this.

The Maghreb.

Few cultures made a more direct contribution to the creation of Christian tradition than the territory now called the ‘Islamic Maghreb’. This region, now the theatre of much disquiet, was the birthplace of Augustine of Hippo (Saint Augustine) and the scene of the first significant (and voluntary) European-African point of contact. Up until the 6th century therefore it was Roman – not Arabic – influence which predominated here and which served to foster an atmosphere of relaxed scholarship and quick development.

When Islam achieved its critical mass, almost every cultural edifice was torn down in a matter of decades and cultural nuance (the most vital ingredient in cultural sophistication) was replaced with an indistinct religious colony.  

A counterfactual approach here is fascinating in other ways. There is a very real possibility that had those conquests never occurred, the world of the Berbers would have been integrated (racially and politically) into Europe. North Africa, and no doubt by extension much of the Sahara, would have also provided a base for the Christianisation of the African continent, leaving the door open for an earlier – perhaps more humanistic – colonisation than that which later occurred.

Iran.

It is a concept well promoted by Iranian secularists that the degeneration of Persia into modern day Iran is rightly a cause for global – and not parochial – mourning. Ancient Persia, an empire with extremes in the Levant and Indian subcontinent, invested the world with many of its most celebrated advantages.

Persian culture was jealously noted for its social complexity and military talent. It was for many years a serious rival to the Empires of the West, and that the Islamic conquest put so inglorious an end to this happy tradition has never been forgotten by Iranian nationalists.

The most obvious focus for our counterfactual here is that without the Islamic invasion of Mesopotamia, there would be no Sunni-Shia war to appropriate the attention of millions of potentially gifted people. People would not be blown up in Iraq over dynastic quarrels. Iranians would be free to record music videos without fear of arrest. Bahrain wouldn’t be torn apart by the competing gravities of ethnicity and religion.

Lebanon.

Lebanon is a famously divided country, the Muslim and Maronite populations having dwelled uncomfortably with one another for many centuries. It is in the Maronite areas that we can best appreciate what Lebanon (ancient Phoenicia) would likely have become without Islam.

If you’ve been to Lebanon or have seen photographs of pre-civil war Beirut, you can appreciate how quintessentially ‘European’ this country once was. A photograph of old central Beirut with the Arabic script signs removed could be readily mistaken for Israel, Southern France or Greece, with bars, nightclubs, theatres and a young, relaxed, liberal population furnishing the well-built streets.

Conclusion.

The march of Islam has swallowed up (and destroyed) many of the greatest cultural achievements of our collective human history. Though the Middle East seems so congenitally barbed with troubles, this should not mislead us into thinking it couldn’t have been a fascinating, pricelessly rich area had the circumstances been different. Recognising this should also inform us of a very important truth. Those who doubt that England, Italy or Germany are somehow too ‘impressive’ to fall to the same force are deluding themselves.

D, LDN.

United in Hypocrisy: The Left-Right Reaction to Mandela’s Death.

Tags

Africa, Christianity and Islam, Cultural Marxism, Defend the modern world, Dutch, Dutch people, Multiculturalism, Nelson Mandela, Netherlands, Race and ethnicity in the United States Census, Rihanna Muslim, Rotterdam, South Africa, Zulu

In both the liberal and right-wing reaction to and subsequent commentary on the passing of Nelson Mandela, there has been (perhaps predictably) no shortage of hypocrisy.

Of these uncountable strands, there are two dominant fallacies which themselves give momentum to all the rest:

The first is found on the right-wing, and in particular amongst its White Nationalist faction. Members of this tendency seem to find no logical problem in defending the right of Dutch people to settle in the ancestral lands of the Zulu, while at the same time protesting the right of Zulu (and any other kind of Sub-Saharan African) to settle in Rotterdam. For such people it would seem, the mere fact of being European serves as a kind of universal passport; a transcendent liberty to settle, disperse, re-arrange, conquer and roam, without moral regard for any other tribe or hue.

On the Left meanwhile, a strange hypocrisy of the opposite kind can be felt, namely the idea that Dutch people have no business asserting themselves in Johannesburg, but that the Africanisation/Islamisation of the Netherlands is perfectly OK. Zulu and Nguni men and woman should not only be free to settle in Amsterdam, but should be allowed to feel as Dutch as the people who have always lived there, and furthermore, if their birth-rates condemn the Dutch to the dispossession of their ancestral land then well… if you snooze you lose…

Both of these points of view involve ridiculous errors of logic. Neither of them, hemmed in by self-contradiction, can move an inch either side. We shouldn’t argue with them therefore, but we can and should replace them with sound alternatives:

The only consistent and honest positions on South Africa are the following:

1. The White race is so crushingly superior that they can do whatever they damn well please. Therefore South Africa should be governed and organized by Afrikaners.

2. The White race is inherently demonic and therefore should not be allowed to settle in Africa, but (given the innate evil of the honky) all Africans have the right to settle in Europe just to make sure Whites behave themselves.

3. The Dutch people are not indigenous to South Africa and should return to the Netherlands. By the same principle, the Africans currently in the Netherlands should return to Africa.

4. The exchange of peoples from Europe to Africa and vice versa is a fact of history. Both Europeans and Africans have the right to settle in either continent insofar as their presence is consented to by the native population. People should be free to live in voluntary segregation, or to inter-mix. The issue should be left to human (not political) agency.

Personally, I would pick number 4. You might choose differently. But whatever your view, hypocrisy demeans us all. We’d do well to avoid it.

D, LDN.

Political Correctness, Godfrey Bloom and the African Tragedy.

Tags

Africa, African people, China, Christianity and Islam, Cultural Marxism, Defend the modern world, Demographics of Europe, Godfrey Bloom, List of sovereign states and dependent territories in Africa, Member of the European Parliament, Race and ethnicity in the United States Census, Race and Genetics, Race and intelligence, Romania, Saharan Africa, Sub-Saharan Africa

I was motivated to write this post after reading about the treatment of Godfrey Bloom, the UKIP MEP who has been severely reprimanded for protesting the transfer of British aid to a catch-all territory he called ‘Bongo-Bongo land’.

While the term Bloom used is obviously retrograde, silly and a throwback to the worst days of colonial racism, he was entirely correct to criticize the foreign aid budget which (alongside MP salaries) surely ranks among the great scandals of our day.

How can we justify, Bloom asked, giving any money to the foreign poor, when the poor here are becoming reliant on food-banks?

He could have gone much further, I’m sure, if political correctness hadn’t forbade it. Perhaps I can go further for him. Aid to Africa – though it has been a noble pursuit in the past – is today largely a swindle.

While the problems of Africa are real and tragic, they are usually self-created and self-maintained. Malnutrition for example, is the fruit of overpopulation. Aids is the fruit of irresponsibility. Tribal conflict is the fruit of culturelessness. 

To be absolutely frank, if we really cared about the welfare of Africans, we could solve their problems in a single decade by enforcing two commonsensical policies.

1. A child limit per woman.

Even though the same policy in China has led to horrid individual tragedies, Africa sees many, many more as a result of overbreeding. We must be clear that African parents who bring six or seven children into starving countries are not just uneducated, but frankly evil. They are behaving in a disgusting and reprehensible way and should be made an example of.

2. Economic policy, agriculture and city planning must be delegated to non-Africans.

Africans are not as bright as Europeans (the average IQ of a Sub-Saharan African is 70; the average for a European is 100), but they are still very much human-beings and deserve their share of human dignity. That dignity depends on their liberation from a state of darkness they evidently cannot escape.

African countries, even those considered to be merely ‘desert plains’, can be made into semi-modern countries with the right leadership. The Arabs and Berbers of North Africa manage to guarantee themselves a bassline standard of living (often in countries with little fertile land), but Sub-Saharan Africans clearly aren’t able to achieve the same. 

The only alternative to the status quo therefore is for Non-Africans to administer the economic and agricultural policies of Black-majority countries.

There you go.

Job done.

None of this will ever be undertaken of course, because to do so would wreck the Egalitarian order of the West. I just thought it might be nice to imagine a world in which we put peoples lives above theories.

Perhaps angry liberals could start thinking a little less about Mr Bloom, and a little more about that.

D, LDN.