The Dark Enlightenment

Tags

America, BBC, beef, Blog, dark, dark enlightenment, DE, Denmark, England, enlightenment, essay, face, Facebook, Internet, internet internet, Japan, lamb, magazine, manosphere, matrix, mencius, mencius moldbug blog, moldbug, neo, neo matrix, neo-reactionary, Newsnight, online, politics, pot, reactionary, red pill blue pill, right-wing, social media, Standpoint, subculture, the face, the matrix, The West, Twitter

• First published on this blog in November, 2015

If you’re one of those people not yet not au fait with the internet phenomenon/subculture referred to as the ‘Dark Enlightenment’, perhaps the best way to describe it is with reference to its adherents favourite movie scene. This is the moment in The Matrix, when Neo is offered two pills – one blue, one red. The man offering the medicaments, Morpheus, informs Neo that the pills have different metaphysical powers. One of them, the blue one, will send him back to the artificial world of the Matrix (a computer simulation) that he is already familiar with, completely ignorant of the existence of the alternate (real) world. The other pill, the red one, will make it impossible for him to go back to the sleep of unreality. Upon taking it, he will tumble down the rabbit-hole of the truth, however ugly or traumatic he may find that truth to be. As you’re probably aware, Neo boldly chooses the red pill, and so begins the main action of the film. Well, Dark Enlightenment adherents view themselves as embarking upon a comparably journey to Neo’s, and will often refer to themselves as being ‘red-pilled’. But what truths exactly are they discovering? What reality have they entered that is hidden from the majority? The answer is complicated.

It is certainly accurate to say that the Dark Enlightenment is on the political right. Its followers have little sympathy for feminism or political correctness, and on matters of race and racial difference, their views tend to align with those advanced by the likes of Madison Grant and T.H Huxley. Furthermore, one of the labels embraced by the movement since their beginnings is ‘Neo-reactionary’; a pretty baggy definition, but one that clearly denotes a rightward bent.

Some press commentators have even suggested a fascist sentiment motivates the Dark Enlightenment subculture. Jamie Bartlett (writing for the Daily Telegraph), for example, describes the bloggers associated with the movement as ‘sophisticated neo-fascists’.

“Since 2012” he writes “…a sophisticated but bizarre online neo-fascist movement has been growing fast. It’s called “The Dark Enlightenment”… Supporters are dotted all over the world, connected via a handful of blogs and chat rooms. Its adherents are clever, angry white men patiently awaiting the collapse of civilisation, and a return to some kind of futuristic, ethno-centric feudalism… The philosophy, difficult to pin down exactly, is a loose collection of neo-reactionary ideas, meaning a rejection of most modern thinking: democracy, liberty, and equality… The neo-fascist bit lies in the view that races aren’t equal (they obsess over IQ testing and pseudoscience that they claim proves racial differences, like the Ku Klux Klan) and that women are primarily suited for domestic servitude. They call this “Human biodiversity” – a neat little euphemism. This links directly to their desire to be rid of democracy: because if people aren’t equal, why live in a society in which everyone is treated equally? Some races are naturally better to rule than others, hence their support for various forms of aristocracy and monarchy (and not in the symbolic sense but the very real divine-right-of-kings-sense).”

Is this a fair evaluation? I don’t think that matters. What does matter is why men (and presumably some women) find it necessary to hive off into subcultures in the first place. The Dark Enlightenment is clearly a reaction to the culture of extreme (and unnecessary) self-censorship by the academic and intellectual mainstream. We simply don’t talk about the important facts of the world for fear of alienating a single part of it. No, the races are not equal in average intelligence. Nor are the sexes equal. The first-born child is generally more intelligent than his/her younger siblings. The tall are more successful than the short. Women are physically weaker than men. Egalitarianism is a lie. And yes, even Democracy is a stupid idea when reduced to its fundamentals. For if the majority are wrong about something, then society is every bit as doomed with democracy as it would be with a wrong-headed dictator. Etc… Etc…

But creating subcultures around forbidden truths is a dangerous game. Whenever hives of thought arise, the trust generated by basic truth-telling grants the hive-leader authority over his/her followers. Having earned their trust with real (but publically denied) facts, he/she can then sprinkle any kind of abject stupidity on top. And if any mainstream condemnation of this stupidity comes about, it can be ascribed to ‘Leftism’ or the ‘blue pill’. “They told you the races were equal, so why listen to them when they say authoritarian monarchy is bad?”… “They told you affirmative action made sense, so why believe them when they say Jews aren’t in control of the government” Etc…

Denying self-evident truths risks handing intellectual authority to some very shady people indeed. The Dark Enlightenment must be replaced with a straightforward enlightenment. No ‘darkness’ is necessary.

D, LDN

Advertisement

Normalising Muslim Britain

Tags

BBC, Blog, Britain First, Christianity and Islam, Civilisation, Counter-Jihad, Counterjihad, Defend the modern world, EastEnders, Facebook, Islam, Islam and the West, Islamification of Britain, Islamisation of London, moderate, Moderate Muslims, Multiculturalism, No to Turkey in the EU, Race and ethnicity in the United States Census, trum, trump, Twitter, wordpress

• First published on this blog in January, 2016

The presence of Islam in 21st century Britain is no more natural or inevitable than the presence of Sikhism in Chile. It’s worth repeating this fact whenever possible or appropriate. This is because many fake liberals continue to push the argument that Islamophobes such as you or I are somehow unworldly, retrograde, or unrealistic for opposing Muslim settlement in the contemporary West.

Some commentators go even further, saying that far from being a new and foreign element in our society, Islam is a traditional part of Europe, citing irrelevant factors like the antique conurbations of Muslim Sicily, Malta or Andalucía. Islamic influence, they claim, can be found in Europe’s system of law, code of social ethics, philosophy, medicine, architecture and geography. Given that this is so, why shouldn’t Muslim Pakistanis, Turks or Arabs live in present-day Leeds or Stockholm? They are as responsible for the greatness of these places as the natives…right?

No. Not right at all. It is certainly true that Islam’s Andalusian Golden age imparted a great number of ideas to European elites, many of which are now claimed as entirely and originally European. However, such contributions were mostly limited to disciplines of what we would now call ‘academia’ and in-any-case are dwarfed many times over by the influence of European ideas on Muslim civilisation. Do Europeans have the moral right to settle in Muslim countries on that basis? No, of course they don’t. And vice versa.

Leftists like to push the myth of European-Islamic co-development for one reason above all; they think it will normalise the presence of Islam in Europe and erase the memory of a Europe without Islam. For if the Muslim presence in Europe can be made to seem normal, traditional or ancient, objections to it will naturally seem irrational, unreasonable and unrealistic.

Another way the same effect can be achieved is via the media, and especially the screen media. Over Christmas, like most Britons, I found myself slouched in front of the television for extended periods of time. During that time I witnessed an astonishing barrage of British Islamic subject matter. There was the Citizen Khan Christmas special on BBC One (Note: CK is a woefully unfunny Muslim sitcom). There were the quiz shows with a disproportionate number of Muslim contestants, many of whom wore Hijabs or prayer caps. There was Eastenders – perhaps the most popular show in Britain today – with gripping plotlines involving characters called Shabnam, Kush, Tamwar, Masood, Fatima, Kamil and Ali. National (and even more so) local newsreaders and weathermen/girls were disproportionately Muslim. And so on. Over time, this normalises something abnormal; the slow bleed of east into west; the merging of two contraries into a single untenable consensus.

This is new. This is unnatural. And this is not something we should be tolerating.

D, LDN

Phoney War: Why a French Burkini Ban Would Be Meaningless

Tags

American Liberty, BBC, burkini, burkini ban france, burkini controversy, burkinis, Christianity, Christianity and Islam, Civilisation, conflict over women's rights, Defend the modern world, Demographics of Europe, DTMW, Facebook, Feminism, ISIS, ISIS war in Syria, Islam, Islam and the West, Islam in Europe, meaningless, No to Turkey in the EU, phoney war, politics, Race and ethnicity in the United States Census, Rihanna Muslim, security

In September, 1939, after the Nazis had triumphantly rolled their tank battalions over the corpse of the Polish defence forces, there began a period now referred to by historians as the ‘phoney war’.

This period – which lasted roughly eight months before terminating dramatically at the Battle of France in 1940 – saw little to no actual military activity in Europe, despite the war being officially underway and there being no diplomatic solution considered feasible by European leaders.

That is not to say that nothing happened. There were, of course, war-like gestures by both sides, such as the digging of trenches, the erection of barbed wire fences and other military deterrents etc… What was missing, what made the war phoney, was the absence of any pro-active initiatives, any real engagement of the enemy, either with policy or force of arms.

In regard to Europe’s confrontation with Islamism, we have been locked in a period of phoney war for over ten years now. In this period, no real battles have been fought, or at least none to any great consequence. Only war-like gestures have been made. Nothing big. Nothing loud. Nothing enough to scare the pigeons.

The burkini ban proposed by the French government last week is one such gesture. Though the ban (which has since been blocked in the French courts) was greeted initially by some in the cultural-defence community as bold and meaningful, I cannot for the life of me think why.

Woman wearing the ‘burkini’ swimsuit in Nice, France

The burkini ban was simply a token move by the French government designed to convince the smaller-skulled among the French public that it cares, that it is willing to do something about the threat of Islamisation.

By itself, the ban would have done nothing at all to improve security, guarantee the secular character of French society, or even liberate the women concerned from their religious obligations. Indeed, it may have even robbed them of liberty, since, given that Muslim women are governed ultimately by their husbands, such women would almost certainly have been ‘advised’ to avoid the beach rather than risk breaking Quranic law.

The ban would contribute nothing. It was nothing – nothing pretending to be something.

To avoid the charge of picking on the French here, it should be noted that many such token gestures have been enacted or proposed by the British and American governments also. I can still recall the fanfare and fake controversy when the Home Office announced that it would be no longer acceptable for Muslim women to wear the veil in their passport photos. Imagine that…

The Niqab – often referred to as the ‘Burka’. No legal restrictions on Muslim dress have been successfully enforced in Western nations.

Whatever explanations they manufacture for their apathy, the truth is that the governments of the West are simply too scared to take any serious action to combat the Islamist threat. And, to be fair, it isn’t difficult to imagine why they would be.

If the reader is on Facebook – and has a representative selection of friends on this site – he/she will have observed with dismay the absurd intensity of the backlash against the burkini initiative these past few days.

Self-defined Liberals, both in France and outside of it, have branded the idea ‘fascist’, ‘totalitarian’, and (of course – drum roll please….) ‘RACIST”. The idea was even said by some to violate the rules of feminism and sexual equality – including, it should be noted, by Muslims themselves, who ordinarily have scant regard for the notion of female empowerment.

In the Independent newspaper columnist Suhaiymah Manzoor-Khan went further than most by pressing the accusations of racism and feminist betrayal into one incoherent lump, arguing that French feminism is itself explicitly rooted in “colonialism and imperialism.”

“Correct me if I’m wrong,” she wrote, “but I thought this was a pretty black and white thing we feminists were agreed on. An article of faith if you will: Thou Shalt Leave Women To Do As They Will With Their Own Bodies. France, often posturing itself as the beacon of feminism because apparently feminism was born of the French Revolution… should surely know this article more than most. And yet, here it is – the French state itself – forcing women to wear or not wear certain clothes! Incredible!…Muslim women are posited always as victims of their dress who require liberation from the French authorities. And here’s the catch: this French desire to liberate Muslim women and the positing of Muslimness as ‘oppositional’ to Frenchness has a long and bloody history (in the colony of Algeria).”

Former French President Nicolas Sarkozy has spoken in support of the burkini ban

The comment section beneath this article contains numerous criticisms of Khan’s leaky reasoning, but just as many agreeing voices. Khan is, furthermore, in the solid majority within the closed world of the Western press and the activist mainstream it feeds.

In France, Britain and America, protests against the burkini ban have been staged outside French embassies and cultural centres. On the internet, petitions have been drawn up and generously endorsed with signatures from right-thinking undergraduates and bearded Guardianistas.

If this timid, pointless gesture cannot pass into law without triggering such hysteria, one can well understand why our governments are averse to doing anything more profound.

I will not here deal with the specific arguments for and against the burkini ban in France (or elsewhere), since the initiative is too meaningless and tokenistic to merit our consideration. Instead, let us consider (for contrast) a meaningful, serious policy; one with which the governments of the West could take the fight to the Islamist forces threatening our way of life and physical existence. To do this we must necessarily turn away from Europe and look to America.

The Donald Trump speech I referenced last week (which addressed the issue of US foreign policy) advertised many novel and impressive strategies for pushing back against the Islamist ranks. Of these, one stood out to me as particularly commonsensical: namely, the drawing up of an ideological test for prospective migrants to the United States prior to their admission. This brave idea is logical and reasonable not just for the US, but for the entire Western world.

Donald Trump addresses supporters in Ohio

As Trump explained, this would be no different in practice to the tests used (effectively) by many Western nations during the Cold War. As with Communism during the Soviet era, Islam (Trump still insists, for political reasons, on calling it ‘radical Islam’) represents a massive and feasible existential threat to the social and governmental norms of all Western countries. It is only natural, therefore, that the West should take the same precautions now as were put to use then.

What would such an ideological test look like? No-one knows for certain (Trump has the habit of being rather vague). I can only say at this juncture what I think it should look like.

Here are some suggested questions for Trump’s ideological test (and I write these fully in the knowledge that they are too extreme even for Donald Trump’s campaign):

Q1: Do you recognise, understand and accept a causal relationship between the strength of Islam in a country and the backwardness of that country?

Answer required for a pass: Yes.

Q2: Do you recognise, understand and accept that what attracts you to the Western world is the cultural superiority (freedoms, secularism and sophistication, etc.) of the Western world?

Answer required for a pass: Yes.

Q3: Do you recognise, understand and accept that those things you wish to escape by leaving the Muslim world are the natural and inevitable by-products of Islamic culture?

Answer required for a pass: Yes.

Q4: Do you believe women, homosexuals and followers of non-Islamic religions should have the same rights and freedoms as anyone else?

Answer required for a pass: Yes.

And finally: Q5: Do you swear on the Quran to put your commitment to the liberal, bohemian values of the West over and above any commitment you retain to the Muslim faith?

Answer required for a pass: Yes.

While imperfect and incomplete, I think this little questionnaire would go some way in filtering out the more honest Islamists from among the migrant hordes. Lying (a virtue in Islam) is obviously a possibility, but, even in that case, such an interrogation would nevertheless succeed in putting unwelcome thoughts in previously closed minds.

When the phoney war is finally over, and when the competing sides are clearly identified and ready for an honest confrontation, I believe Muslim immigration to Europe and America will be outlawed entirely. But we are not at that stage yet. The war of gesture vs. gesture still has a lot of life left in it – not to mention appeal.

All people, of all backgrounds, are naturally inclined to oppose confrontation and support the status quo. Even during WWII, the British, German and French populations were almost certainly relieved by the break in hostilities offered by the phoney war. They knew deep down that it couldn’t last. They knew deep down what the Nazis were really about. But they wanted space to breathe, to continue life as normal. It is no different now.

Ultimately, of course, the same thing will get us out of our comfortable trenches as got the French and British armies out of theirs in 1940. We will have no choice.

D, LDN

Islam is Ruining Everything

Tags

2001, 9/11, American, BBC, Christianity and Islam, Defend the modern world, DTMW, dtmw dtmw, dtmw dtmw blog, Facebook, german, Hindus, Indian, Iranian, Islam, Israel, Jews, kosovan, Multiculturalism, munich shooting, Muslims, No to Turkey in the EU, political commentary, politics, Race and ethnicity in the United States Census, racial tension, Siklhs, taylor, tension, Terror, Terrorism, turk, Twitter, USA, War

The past fortnight has seen Islamic (let’s stop calling it ‘Islamist’) violence in Nice, Turkey, Germany (twice) and the narrowest prevention of terrorism in Latin America. The breathing space between atrocities is progressively diminishing, leaving the public disorientated and confused, and politicians struggling to issue apologies and rationalisations at a matching speed.

The situation is now clear as day. In small towns and large cities alike, Westerners are no longer able to go about their everyday lives without the risk of horrific and merciless slaughter at the hands of people who shouldn’t even be in the same part of the world as them. Even if one still feels moved to deny this, one runs the risk of being interrupted mid-sentence by reports of a fresh atrocity. In the time it takes to say the sentence ‘Not all Muslims are like this’, the chances are some fresh batch of innocent humans have been dispatched to an early grave by Islamic hands. It is no wonder then that even the most doctrinaire leftists are pausing for as long as possible before offering excuses for their pet Rottweiler’s latest ‘aberration’.

Where is all this leading? Where can it possibly end? It is to me entirely infeasible to expect Europeans or Americans to put up with Islamic violence indefinitely. Even a castrated man still possesses adrenaline – the base material of anger and resistance; the same is true of a castrated population. It may take time, and I cannot say exactly when it will happen, but there will one day be a ferocious rebellion against the deteriorating condition of the Western World; a unified, grassroots drive to wind the clock back in order to wind it forwards. Who knows who will start it, or what event will provide the back-breaking straw. We can only be sure that it will happen.

And what will it look like when it does happen? Fascism? Concentration camps? Ultra-nationalist racism and anti-democratic thuggery? On current trends, I see no reason why not. Madame Le Pen, with her indoctrinated anti-German bigotry and anti-free-market fanaticism, is fast rising in France. The anti-Semitic far-right in Austria only narrowly lost out in the country’s last presidential election and look set to make it the next time around. And here in the UK, renegade Brexit supporters, buoyed by their unexpected triumph in June, are attacking foreigners en masse; not only third-world migrants, but also Poles, Bulgarians, Portuguese and Ukrainians.

Let there be no doubt about whose fault this is. It is the doing of Muslims and of Islam, a toxic degeneracy that, having long ago ruined the countries now oppressed under the star and crescent, is actively poisoning the world. Islam is ruining everything.

Before September 2001, the European Union was broadly regarded (by most Europeans) as a noble and constructive enterprise that promoted unity and peaceful cooperation; the dream of such patriotic visionaries as Winston Churchill and Charles De Gaulle. Now, after decades of Islamic violence and rape, the EU concept is seen as being decidedly anti-patriotic, even anti-European. This was never inevitable and it is something worth being angry about.

Before September, 2001, the far-right in both Europe and America was close to oblivion. No-one beyond a few tattooed skinheads took the likes of David Duke or Nick Griffin seriously. Now, after 15 years of global chaos, both men command a social media following of thousands; numbers which continue to grow rapidly by the hour.

Before 2001, race riots in the United Kingdom were small enough and rare enough to be ignored altogether by cultural historians. Though there were often local tensions over black muggers and Indian corner shops, these were minor, resolvable blips on an otherwise shining record of integration and social harmony. Now, with Muslims slitting throats faster than non-Muslim migrants can make positive contributions to society, that happy reality is all but disappearing. All migrants, of all faiths and traditions, are having their record of integration thrown into jeopardy by Islamic misbehaviour.

It matters little to a rage-infected, low-IQ skinhead whether a bearded man adheres to Sikhism or Islam. As long as he looks like Anjem Choudary, he is Anjem Choudary. Muslim evil has endangered all Asians equally, and who can say for sure this wasn’t intentional?

Even Jews, the most valuable allies the Western world possesses against the Islamist hordes, have been assaulted and victimised by numb-skulled hotheads intent on punishing Muslims. It would take a very imaginative mind to come up with a more appalling irony than that.

And the fallout continues to get even stranger. Though the details of the story are still developing, the massacre in Munich yesterday is thought to have been carried out by an 18-year-old Iranian migrant suffering (as many Iranians do) from a cultural identity crisis.

According to the Guardian – just before the killer turned the gun on himself, he is said to have engaged a member of the public in a vicious argument about his national status, screaming at one point “I am a German!” and cursing ‘Fucking Turks’ and ‘Dirty foreigners’. This makes a lot of sense to me.

Not only does Muslim misbehaviour poison attitudes among the natives of the West. It also distorts and deforms the thinking of those unfortunate enough to be caught somewhere between modernity and darkness. Think of it this way: If you were a young Moroccan, Turkish or Iranian migrant in Europe, in love with modernity and desirous of shedding your Islamic identity, you might well find yourself whipped up into an anxious frenzy by the growing backlash against people who look like you, and for whom you might naturally be mistaken in the whirlwind retributions to come. In order to make yourself safe from those future pogroms, you would have to strive to differentiate yourself from your own community, all the while risking the disapproval of your family and friends (some of whom might be inclined to punish your cultural apostasy with death). And even if you managed this, you would still have to find a way of marking yourself off physically or bureaucratically from the community you have left. And so on.

This is a very hard task, and many see no way of getting all the way through it. (*As I say, details are still emerging about Munich. Even if I am wrong about the intentions of the shooter, I will leave this part of the text as it is because I feel the point is worthy of being made).

When liberals, despite their doubtlessly manipulative intentions, claim that Muslims are the principal victims of radical Islam (or Islam – as it’s more accurately called), I tend to believe them. No-one is born a Muslim. No child believes in Allah before he or she has learnt to fear violence and hellfire. To reflect on what 1.6 billion people could have achieved were it not for Quranic indoctrination is one of the saddest thoughts one can entertain.

In so many countries and in so many ways, Islam is ruining everything.

D, LDN

Islam and Black Americans

Tags

10 points, African Americans, african-american Muslims, America, America 911, American Liberty, anti-Semitism, Barack Obama, BBC, Christianity, Christianity and Islam, Civilisation, Coffee, Defend the modern world, Islam, Islam in America, Islamic, Islamism, Muhammad Ali dead, Muhammad Ali Muslim, Multiculturalism, Muslim program, nation of Islam, No to Turkey in the EU, noi, noi noi, race, Race and ethnicity in the United States Census, race politics, racism, Radical Islam, reverse racism, United States

A common perspective holds that America is a haven of non-Islam, of kafirdom and cultural infidelity, and that while Europe is destined to become ever more Middle Eastern and North African in the future, America shall long remain a shining city on a hill; proudly old-fashioned in its Christian, patriotic Anglo-Saxonism.

This is not entirely inaccurate. Compared to Western Europe, America has certainly retained an enviable cultural-religious clarity. It is still uncontroversial to postulate that America is a ‘Judeo-Christian’ country, either in the media or from the political podium. The only protest aroused by such a claim tends to be from spectacle wearing atheists, and who on Earth could find them intimidating? By contrast, if one made the same claim about Europe, the backlash would be of an immeasurably more serious kind. People would die. Windows would be smashed. Heads might possibly be removed. America is simply more confident and self-assured than Europe – more willing to stand its ground and preserve its original identity.

But this is not to say that America doesn’t have a problem with Islam. On the contrary, the nation may have more of a problem with Islam than Europe, depending entirely on how ‘Islam’ is defined.

African-American Muslims are today the most powerful Muslim community in the United States and in the West more broadly. Unlike the Arab and Persian Muslim communities, African-American believers are socially and culturally integrated, acceptable, part of the national fabric. Many African-American icons are or were Muslims: from Malcolm X (AKA el-Hajj Malik el-Shabazz), to the late Cassius Clay (AKA Muhammad Ali), to Shahrazad Ali, to Louis Farrakhan. These figures are not like marginalised Arab-American activists or obscure Pakistani-American Imams. They are nationally recognised faces, with enduring influence on the mainstream media and the mainstream political conversation.

Louis Farrakhan

They are also protected against the kind of contempt one might safely direct against Arabs and Pakistanis by the firewall of political correctness. You cannot speak as liberally about Black people as you can against Middle-Easterners. Given the horrors of the African-American past, Black leaders are typically treated gently and apologetically by White political analysts. Their comments, however ridiculous, are rarely dismissed, but debated and scrutinised. Therein lies political power.

Of all the African-American Muslim movements in operation today, none is more famous, or infamous, than the so-called ‘Nation of Islam’. Conceived in Detroit in 1930, the Nation of Islam (or NOI) now commands the allegiance of up to 50,000 American citizens; a membership that has in the past included such figures as Muhammad Ali and Malcolm X.

The NOI ‘brand’ is recognised across the United States. Few people have never heard of the organisation. And this notoriety is well earned. NOI members are routinely condemned for their homophobic, anti-Semitic and anti-White demonstrations, some of which have proven very difficult and expensive to police. NOI chapters on university campuses are also noted for their combativeness and hostility to rival groups and demographics, including more moderate or secular African-American fraternities.

Women of the NOI

So what do they want? It’s difficult to say. The NOI website currently features a list of ten ‘demands’, entitled ‘The Muslim Program’. It functions as a kind of manifesto, and has been little changed for several years. I won’t paste the entire thing, since many of the demands are vacuous and jingoistic. But here are three of the most interesting:

“3. We want equality of opportunity. We want equal membership in society with the best in civilized society.

4. We want our people in America whose parents or grandparents were descendants from slaves, to be allowed to establish a separate state or territory of their own – either on this continent or elsewhere. We believe that our former slave masters are obligated to provide such land and that the area must be fertile and minerally rich. We believe that our former slave masters are obligated to maintain and supply our needs in this separate territory for the next 20 to 25 years–until we are able to produce and supply our own needs…..

10. We believe that intermarriage or race mixing should be prohibited. We want the religion of Islam taught without hindrance or suppression.” – Source: https://www.noi.org/muslim-program/

The Nation of Islam was founded in 1930

Eagle-eyed readers will notice at once that all three of these demands are in contradiction with each other. How can there be equality of opportunity (presumably they mean between different races) in a Black-only state? Why also would race-mixing need to prohibited in that state? And so on…

But while one can nit-pick this manifesto for hours on end, that is not the point of this article. What we are trying to scrutinise is the nature of Black Islam and what its followers are aiming to achieve in the United States of America. Judging by the text quoted (as well as other texts available on the Nation of Islam website), Black Islam appears to be a movement dedicated to racial separatism; that is, to the permanent separation of Whites and Blacks, ostensibly for the benefit of both.

Whether you find this a good suggestion or not is not the issue to focus on; rather, we should ask: What has this to do with the Islamic religion authored by the Arabs in the 7th century? Indeed, is this Islam at all? Does the Nation of Islam actually care about Islam, or are they merely using it as a façade, as a cosmetic and/or political cover?

Few questions are more important for the future of America. Given how many African-American ‘Muslims’ there are in the country, and given how mainstream some of them have become in the Black community, the answers to these questions may reveal whether Islam, in the truest sense of the word, has any future in America at all.

‘Conventional’ American Muslims

It is revealing (and comforting) to note that Black Islam has yet to be formally recognised by any conventional Islamic authority, either in America or around the world. The Sunni and Shia religious establishments have only limited ties with the NOI. Even al-Qaeda, an organisation usually welcoming to Western supporters, has greeted Black Islam with a mistrustfully slow handclap.

We hardly need wonder why this is the case. The Nation of Islam has a very, very liberal attitude to Islamic dogma. Not only do NOI clerics preach the infallibility of the Qur’an; they also provide a generous heap of new-age, Afrocentric Apocrypha to go with it. In NOI theology, for example, White people (understood as those of pure Northern – but not Southern – European descent) are a breed of scoundrels and devils, inferior to the pure and ancient Black African race (the race, allegedly, of the Egyptians, Moors, Ancient Arabs, Hebrews, Romans and Greeks). NOI theorists explain White misbehaviour as being congenital to – and ineradicable from – White psychology. Slavery was not, then, a terrible aberration by an otherwise civilised people, but merely the natural expression of White human nature, of White evil.

As much as they might find this kind of analysis appealing, given the contemporary antagonism between East and West, no orthodox Muslim would recognise these ideas as Islamic. They are not based in the Qur’an, and nor do they have any root in the sayings or teachings of the Prophet. For those reasons, Orthodox Muslims will reject a great portion of Black Islamic thought outright. Then there are the UFOs to consider…

The NOI has a lot to say about spacecraft, especially a peculiar UFO called the ‘Mother Wheel’. Minister Farrakhan is quoted on Wikipedia as having said the following: “That Mother Wheel is a dreadful-looking thing. White folks are making movies now to make these planes look like fiction, but it is based on something real. The Honorable Elijah Muhammad (Note: NOI leader from 1934-75) said that the Mother Plane is so powerful that with sound reverberating in the atmosphere, just with a sound, she can crumble buildings.”

Ufology is integral to the NOI worldview

I think that’s probably enough to prove the point. These frankly daffy beliefs are not compatible with any major school or tradition of Islam. On the matter of theology, Black Islam is out on its own.

What about politics? What about the aims of Islamism? Well, happily enough, I have yet to hear of a single case where a Black Muslim (of the NOI style) has travelled to join either al-Qaeda or ISIS, or has carried out, or been apprehended in the process of carrying out, a major terrorist attack. This is most probably because there is a major disconnect between the goals of the NOI Muslims and those of the conventional Islamists. Radical Islamists of the conventional style wish to create a global, multiracial caliphate under the rule of Sharia law. NOI Muslims, by contrast, wish only to create a Black homeland in America or in Africa where they can be free from non-Black oppression. Would NOI Muslims be happy living in an Arab or Pakistani-controlled caliphate? No, of course not. The NOI only exists because Black Americans became tired of being treated as secondary human beings. In a caliphate, the White devils would quickly be replaced in NOI grudge-theology by Arab devils.

For these and various other reasons, I find it quite unlikely that Black Islam will ever threaten American culture in the same way that real Islam threatens Europe. Black Islam is just too silly, too fake, and too cobbled-together to ever mount an effective opposition to modern civilization.

D, LDN

Decorating Chains

Tags

Amazon, American Liberty, Ban the Burka, BBC, bukr, Burka, burkha, Christianity and Islam, Civilisation, Coffee, coffee coffee, Defend the modern world, defend the modern world blog, DTMW, dtmw dtmw, Facebook, Islam, islamic women, Islamic world, Masculinity, Muslims, No to Turkey in the EU, Race and ethnicity in the United States Census, Rape, sexuality, Twitter, women and islam, women's rights in Islam

Pierre Berge, influential fashion pioneer and co-founder of the Yves Saint Lauren designer firm, (I’d never heard of him either), caused an outcry last week when he boldly condemned the fashion industry’s growing embrace of Sharia-compliant clothing. Addressing the concept of the ‘burkini’ – a piece of swimwear designed to cover the body and head of the wearer, Berge remarked that “Designers are there to make women more beautiful, to give them their freedom, not to collaborate with this dictatorship (Islam) which imposes this abominable thing by which we hide women and make them live a hidden life…These creators who are taking part in the enslavement of women should ask themselves some questions.”

Since the remarks were made, numerous comment pieces have been published, both for and against. In the ever-reliable Guardian newspaper, columnist Remona Ali stated frank disagreement with Berge’s sentiment. “A burkini to cater for wider audiences?” she wrote “How dare they! Stop them! In the name of freedom, don’t let women wear what they want! Seriously, though, it’s time to grow up…I really don’t get the urge to disempower Muslim women over and over again. The only person who should have ownership over a woman’s body is her. If I want to buy a burkini from M&S, I bloody well will. If anyone else wants to buy a bikini, well guess what, that’s available in stores too. Bergé bangs on about freedom, yet taking freedom of choice away is where enslavement begins. But I think the irony is lost on him…”

Voices sympathetic to Berge’s sentiment were largely confined to the secular and international press. Atheists inevitably lined up to agree that burkinis (as well as other cultural compromises with Sharia) are a step too far, that they oppress women and represent a capitulation of modernity to the forces of regression.

Fully body coverings in the Muslim World

You’ll be able to guess my own standpoint. I think the burkini (since it has no relation to the Burkha, it should really be called the ‘Hijabi’) is an insult to the women unfortunate enough to be expected to wear it. We in the West should be encouraging Muslim women to break their chains, not decorating those chains with a veneer of elegance and choice. In the 21st Century West, women should be free to dress in whatever way they please. No-one has the right, nor should anyone have the inclination, to judge a free human being ‘virtuous’ or ‘dishonourable’ by their clothing alone. It is barbarism. It is primitivism. It belongs in the primitive world.

Despite the heat she has subsequently taken for it, the French minister who compared Sharia-compliant women to the ‘negroes who supported slavery in America’ hit the issue wonderfully on the mark. Just as abolitionists rightly ignored the opinions of negro ‘uncle toms’ who were hopelessly devoted to the whims of their ‘Master’, so can we feel comfortable in ignoring the bleatings of women who are so institutionalized by Islam, so broken by it, that they have come to support their own imprisonment. These poor women are warped. They have been brainwashed by time and cruelty.

And how dare we excuse their condition? We, who have all the blessings of freedom and individuality, who think it entirely pedestrian to go for a drink with someone of the opposite sex, who never have to worry about morality police or ‘honour’ killings; how dare we intimate that this is appropriate for other human beings to endure.

I have always been particularly enraged by those airhead liberals who excuse the mistreatment of women under sharia by saying ‘it’s their tradition’, or ‘it’s their culture’. It is not ‘culture’ at all! It is anti-culture – the resistance of pre-civilization to civilization. Culture is exactly what is being denied these poor souls.

The ‘Burkini’

While it’s probably not possible for a man, let alone a man in the free west, to imagine what life is like for a Muslimah in the Muslim world. we can at least ponder the question. How can it feel to walk around in a Niqab? How does it feel to know that if you are raped, you may be raped as a punishment for being raped? How does it feel to read a holy book that describes you as biologically, socially and intellectually ‘inferior’ to half of humankind? It must be a condition of misery. I will accept no other answer.

We should care about this, not just for moral reasons, but because Muslim women are vitally important to any effort to diminish or destroy Political Islam. As the iconoclastic commentator (and devout atheist) Johann Hari noted “One of the central tenets of this ideology (Jihadism) is the inherent inferiority and weakness of women… If you haven’t spoken to (Jihadis), it is hard to explain just how obsessed with sexual apartheid they are. At least two of the London bombers (on 7/7) refused to make eye contact with women outside their families. Image the sheer effort and repression that required…The best way to undermine the confidence and beliefs of jihadists is to trigger a rebellion of Muslim women, their mothers and sisters and daughters.” (Italics added).

Hari is surely correct here. Islamic women are (if you’ll excuse the implied misogyny) the soft underbelly of the Islamic religion. They are ‘soft’, not because they are weak, but because they are more rationally inclined to apostasy when presented with the opportunity that Islamic men are. Muslim women are also more important to Islam’s future prospects than men. Should we succeed in triggering the rebellion Hari suggests, we would halve both the present problem and the problem’s next generation. Muslim women are viewed as little more than talking wombs by their partners. They are weapons factories, producing a constant supply fight-ready believers to replenish the ranks diminished by infidel technology. Remove the women and you disrupt the supply of Jihadis. This is surely the last thing the Islamists want, and the thing they fear the most.

Islamism relies on excessive reproduction

How might we go about triggering this rebellion? Hari suggested two things in his article: a boycott of oil, and a Western programme to lend capital to Muslim women who wish to start their own businesses. I’m afraid I find both of these suggestions quite unsatisfactory. These measures might well improve the lot of individual women, but neither has the potential to topple the patriarchy (and for once this word is merited) ruling Islamic society. This patriarchy itself must be toppled before women can be empowered. They cannot be empowered before that point.

A better strategy would involve reaching out to Muslim women directly and encouraging them to quit Islam. This can be very safely and easily done online – by making videos for YouTube, setting up groups on Facebook, sending personal messages and tweets, and so on. Make it a movement; a large-scale, organised campaign. Muslim women currently resident in the West have very few places to turn if they wish to be liberated from Islam. Existing apostate groups like the well-meaning CEM (Council of Ex-Muslims) do not presently offer the kind of protection necessary to make female apostasy a desirable prospect. To rectify this, organisations – preferably citizen-based – should be set up with the specific purpose of providing safe shelter and funding for those women who wish to leave the religion of peace. Though the number of women using this kind of service would be small at first, this would quickly change as successful escape stories fill up the international and religious press. We have to do something. It would be scandalous to carry on pretending there isn’t a problem to be solved.

The burkini row is not nearly as funny or light-hearted as some commentators seem to have decided. It represents at its base a life-or-death struggle between slavery and freedom for half of the world population. Chains should not be decorated. They should not be beautiful. They should be as ugly as the purpose for which they exist.

D, LDN

The Consequences of White Decline

Tags

anime, BBC, Britain First, Christianity and Islam, Civilisation, Coffee, Counter-Jihad, Counterjihad, days, Defend the modern world, Demographics of Europe, demographics of Europe religion, demographics of the west, Demography, EDL, English Defence League, Eurabia, Europe, Europe demography, Facebook, Multiculturalism, Muslims, No to Turkey in the EU, Race and ethnicity in the United States Census, saddest, the future of europe, Twitter, United States

A mournful yet grimly poetic comment on a newspaper article captured my attention last week. It was on the Guardian‘s Comment is Free webpage (of all places) and read as follows:

“Europe has been dying for decades with negative growth rates. There are not enough young people to turn the demographic process around. Young Muslim men are being imported to alter the nation. These are the saddest of our days.”

The last line deserves thinking about. One could argue, as I’m sure many other commentators on the article later did, that this kind of talk is hyperbole (and dangerous hyperbole at that). Europe has a very long and remarkably dramatic, often blood-soaked history. To suggest the present day is its saddest era is a statement in need of concrete, supporting information.

Regretfully, that evidence is easily found. As regular visitors to this blog will be aware, Europe is faced with an apocalyptic downward trend. Low birth rates, high Muslim birth rates, low workforce numbers, high immigration numbers. The perfect storm. The end of the European organism seems all but guaranteed.

It’s interesting to note that this was actually predicted a long time ago, including by the mainstream press. Back in the year 2000, the Observer printed an article which has subsequently been forgotten in the wake of events the following year. It was entitled (rather dramatically) ‘The Last Days of a White World’. Here is an extended quotation:

“The past millennium was more than anything the era of the whites. Just 500 years ago, few had ventured outside their European homeland. Then, with several acts of genocide clearing the way, they settled in North America, South America, Australia, New Zealand and, to a lesser extent, southern Africa…But now, around the world, whites are falling as a proportion of population. The United Nations collects and produces a vast array of statistics on population… the UN’s State of the World Population 1999 predicted that 98 per cent of the growth in the world’s population by 2025 will occur in lesser developed regions, principally Africa and Asia. The most significant reason for this is lower birth rates in rich countries: in 61 countries, mainly the rich ones, people are no longer having enough babies to replace themselves…In its World Population Profile 1998, the US Census Bureau predicted that by the second decade of this century all the net gain in world population will be in developing countries. ‘The future of human population growth has been determined, and is being determined, in the world’s poorer nations”

Fertility Rate by Country (enlarge to read)

The article then went on to muse on the social and economic consequences of this imbalance, with a special focus placed on the issue of immigration: “In Britain the number of ethnic minority citizens has risen from a few tens of thousands in the 1950s, to more than 3 million – or around 6 per cent of the total population. While the number of whites is virtually static, higher fertility and net immigration means the number from ethnic minorities is growing by 2 to 3 per cent a year…One demographer, who didn’t want to be named for fear of being called racist, said: ‘It’s a matter of pure arithmetic that, if nothing else happens, non-Euro peans will become a majority and whites a minority in the UK.”

Utopians like to argue that this doesn’t really matter, insisting that it is the character of a country, and not its biological content, that matters most. I can only partially agree with that. It is certainly true that were the newcomers culturally European, then a semblance of Englishness/Britishness could be maintained without an English/British majority. Alas, the newcomers are not culturally European. They are Pakistani, Afghan, Syrian, Indian, Sri Lankan, Korean and Bangladeshi.

Origin of UK Immigration

Does the passing of White peoples concern the world? I believe it should, whether it does at present or not. A post-white world – or a world in which White influence is suppressed – would be a much darker world in ways quite apart from pigmentation. As well as the Holocaust, slavery, colonialism, apartheid, communism, and fascism, the White race has invented (and largely still abides by) the most progressive racial attitude in world history.

One could prove this with an experiment. Put a White man, a Persian and an Arab in the same room. Whilst the White man is there, the Persian and Arab will pretend to be modern, evolved human beings, no longer concerned with race, tribe or ancient grievance. If the White man secretly sets a tape recorder and then leaves the room, however, he will record a remarkable and horrifying transformation. The Persian and Arab will tear into each other for reasons buried under centuries of time. A similar result will arise from using Japanese and Chinese, or Turkish and Kurdish subjects. 

The idea that modern people are not blamed for the behaviour of their ancestors is crucial to post-racial practice. It is the reason Russians do not wish to annihilate Germans. It is why Spanish people do not wish to annihilate the English. White people judge people of other races on an individual, case by case basis. Even if black people do commit more crimes than other races on average, post-racial whites give every black person they meet the benefit of the doubt, restraining judgement until evidence of criminality or malevolence is provided. After the White age ends, this pleasant sophistication will fade away, unleashing an age of primitive darkness. Racism, which has never faded as a concept in the hearts of non-White peoples, will rise to the surface, causing wars, genocides and general misery.

Religious moderation is another gift of the White peoples to the world. One of the reasons Hindu women are no longer tossing themselves on burning funeral pyres is because the English banned the insane practice outright. In the same spirit, Whites are the only race loudly protesting the use of FGM, breast-ironing and forced marriage. Without a global white standard for the third world to aspire to, the old errors and imbecilic traditions will regain prominence.

And none of this is to touch upon the moral question in all this; namely, should Whites – as much as any other tribe – have the right to resist their overcoming? The obvious answer is yes. Like any other, European (and Europe-derived) cultures are the product of thousands of years of evolution, innovation and struggle. To see the work of 3 thousand years vanish in the course of 100 is rightly perceived (by ordinary Whites) as a tragedy without precedent. It isn’t ‘genocide’, as some hot-headedly claim. But it is destruction. Something of value is being destroyed to be replaced by the excess of something that already exists. The Third World already houses and assures the continuation of Third World culture. Only Europe (and its offshoots) can incubate European culture. For the cultures of the Third World to build an annex on formerly European ground represents a loss of something. The world will be impoverished by it, not enriched.

European culture is the undergirding of modern popular culture and has been for centuries. Without European innovation there would never have been television or radio, let alone Hollywood, Disney or any of the other specific glories of the entertainment industry. The political, social and economic stability that results from a White majority supports even minority art-forms. If black people are naturally talented at hip-hop, why isn’t Africa the leading exporter of rap music? Surely the answer is that it is the combination of black talent with White culture and technological expertise that allows the creation of hip-hop, not to mention jazz, jungle, RnB, rock etc… Without it, such minorities might not be as able to express or enrich themselves.

White culture is defined more than anything by its stability. White people are boring. They pay taxes, raise families, rarely take illegal substances and by and large stay out of prison. It isn’t glamorous to be that way. But it is essential to everyone in the West that one part of society bothers to take care of these things; that one part continues to provide the straightened backbone supporting the whole. If Whites no longer worked or paid taxes, the boasted-about riches of rappers, drug dealers and street hustlers would vanish, as would the welfare, healthcare provisions and commercial life of urban minorities.

White civilisation is the only civilisation to share its territory (voluntarily) with imported foreign peoples. There are no black areas in Japan. There are no Pakistani enclaves in China. Multi-racialism (which must always be distinguished from multiculturalism) is a White virtue, exclusively and originally. Whilst we might unimaginatively consider the presence of Afghans in Canada to be in tune with the music of the universe, it is actually absurd. It is absurd for the mountain villagers of Kandahar to nest on the native soil of the Inuit. And had the Inuit retained sovereign dominion over their continental home, we can justly assume that Afghans would never have been invited to settle as they have. It is entirely because of the attitudes of the White colonisers of North America that such people have been integrated into the Western hemisphere.

White majority societies also provide by a considerable distance the world’s most tolerant environments for minority sexualities and lifestyles. Gay villages – areas in which gay men and women can openly and freely congregate – are a fixture in most European capital cities, but remain rare to non-existent in the Third World, where anti-homosexual sentiment is close to universal. In non-White communities within the West itself, anti-gay violence remains a constant feature of life, and has led many gay minority men to flee to the safety of White areas. When Whites are no longer the dominant cultural player in these countries, a renaissance in anti-gay politics seems almost certain to occur.

Whose fault is the decline of Whites? According to the internet, the blame lies squarely upon the Jewish people; specifically, on the liberalising effect of their instinctive political and social bias. Such people argue that Jews, being a minority, are naturally inclined to be suspicious  if not hostile to White ethno-centrism (which almost always excludes and/or seeks to persecute them). In this spirit, they have been at the forefront of liberal politics in the Western world for over a century. But this theory (The MacDonald Thesis) is pocked all over with gushing holes. Why would Jews want to fill Europe, currently filled with post-racial Christians and atheists, with race- and Islam-obsessed foreigners? That makes no sense to a reasonable person, and for this reason MacDonald’s ideas remain decidedly fringe.

Other candidates for blame include socialism, the Frankfurt School and the European Union. But in reality the mass import of non-Europeans into European domains is just another unpredicted by-product of international business and free trade. Globalisation, the shrinking of the world and the harmonisation of its peoples, is an irresistible force. Money rules everything. Our governments answer to it, crave it, and attend to its requirements far more readily than to yours or mine.

Even if cannot be resisted, my purpose here has been to show that the end of the White age is not a cause for celebration. No-one is enriched by it. The further the colonisation of Europe progresses, the more desperate and un-civilised the Europeans will become. To defend the ancient lines of their homelands, Europeans will come to resemble (morally and politically) the third world. They will fight with the brutality of Muslims, erect governments alike the authoritarianisms of Asia, and so on. It seems that whatever happens, the unique and invaluable European personality will be deformed, setting the world back centuries.

D, LDN

Note of Absence

Tags

articles, articles articles, Blog, blogging, D, Defend the modern world, defend the modern world blog, Facebook, inter, Internet, LDN, notebook, notes, politics, sharing is caring, Twitter

Hi,

Just a note to say I haven’t managed to write anything for this week. I’ve been away from my computer. This is only the fifth time this has happened in 3 years. I still self-identify as efficient.

Thank you,

David.

On the Shooting at Planned Parenthood

Tags

America, America 911, American Liberty, BBC, Britain First, Christian extremism, Christianity, Christianity and Islam, Christopher Caldwell, Civilisation, Counter-Jihad, Counterjihad, Defend the modern world, Memes, Multiculturalism, parenthood, planned parenthood, pp, Race and ethnicity in the United States Census, unsatisfactory

It didn’t take long for the shooting at a Planned Parenthood clinic in Colorado, Oklahoma on Friday to be exploited for cynical political ends. After three bodies were carted away to the morgue Colorado Springs, memes began to spring up everywhere (on facebook, twitter, reddit and other places) comparing the shooting to Islamic terrorism, and in doing so downplaying the suffering of its victims. A truly shocking exercise in cold, emotionless manipulation if ever there was one.

The memes, though multitudinous, differed from each other only very slightly. The most popular ‘Willy Wonka’ variant was typical: against the backdrop of a smiling Gene Wilder (taken from my favourite childhood movie), the text read as follows: “Christian extremist kills 3 people at an abortion clinic…Tell me again how Syrian refugees are a threat.”

You don’t need more than a few operational brain cells to perceive the startling un-worldliness of this sentiment. Indeed, many people on social networks have recoiled from the image in revulsion or responded to it with loud mockery. How on earth can one tragic, stupid action – the first of its kind in years – measure up to the daily bloodbath of Political Islam? How can one action – brutal, awful and yet discriminating – be placed in the same ethical category as the bombing of market-places, funeral parades, Parisian restaurants and concert venues?

Since the outrage in Colorado was committed, Christians across America have disowned the force behind it, branding him ‘psychopathic’, ‘crazed’, ‘lunatic’ and (most crucially) ‘un-Christian’. Compare that to the icy silence and tacit approval of Muslims communities after outrages in the West.

Let’s be clear – there has been no major Christian terror attack (that is, a terror attack committed explicitly for Christian theological motivations) in Europe or America for the last 100 years. There have been murders, random and cruel all, but nothing of the same malevolent grade as Islam manages to inspire on a daily basis.

The attacks in Norway in 2011 were not Christian. I don’t believe Anders Behring Breivik had a Christian bone in his body. The troubles of Northern Ireland don’t count either (despite the enthusiasm with which Islamic apologists bring them up). The Catholics of Ulster do not hate the Protestants of Ulster for religious reasons, but for ethnic and national reasons. Ulster Protestants are descendants of British colonisers and remain loyal to their imperial sponsors. The Catholics are native Irish who wish to have the northern corner of their island back under Irish control. Whichever way you lean on this, you can surely agree that religion plays no part (apart from the total coincidence of the religious divide between Scots-Irish and Irish which serves as an excuse).

Adherents of Christianity have certainly been violent at various points in history, but the period since they behaved in a way comparable to the adherents of Islam is measured in centuries. Let no one deny reality, or history, or seek to deform them into a reality or history synchronisable with their bigotries.

Islamic violence has no equivalent in other faiths.

D, LDN

Could a Country De-Islamise Itself?

Tags

America, America 911, American Liberty, Ann, Ann Coulter, ann coulter trump, ann coulter twitter, BBC, big bang theory, Christianity and Islam, Civilisation, convert, coulter quotes, Counter-Jihad, declaration, Defend the modern world, deislamise country, Egypt, Facebook, Iran, Islam, Islamic world, Islamism, Lebanon, policy, policy policy, Turkey, Twitter, we should invade their countries, wordpress, world

Iconoclastic commentator Ann Coulter once made headlines by suggesting that “(America) should invade (Islamic) countries, kill their leaders and convert the people to Christianity.”

Her idea – if it was really an idea – was promptly laughed out of court, as well as being branded an example of a corresponding American ‘fundamentalism’ by the apologist Left. I can’t really argue with that response. If an operation such as Coulter proposed were in any way feasible (or affordable) it would surely be the most worthwhile and benevolent action by a nation in human history. Sadly, it isn’t feasible, nor is it affordable.

Despite that, the idea that a Muslim country can be de-Islamised is not political science-fiction. There are isolated examples which may allow for it, owing to unique historic factors and local ethnic aspirations. I am frequently presented with the idea that Iran (Persia), Egypt, and Syria all have ancient identities which precede the Islamisation of their territories by Abu Bakr and his marauding armies, and for which they might be willing (if presented with the right amount of Western encouragement) to trade their rotten Islamic present. How might this be achieved?

The most notable case of a country attempting to rid itself of the strictures of Islamic doctrine is that of Turkey in the time of Ataturk. Although rarely explicit, Ataturk had little affection for the Islamic religion (or at least its social application) and his bold, sweeping reforms severely curtailed the faith in Turkish society. Ataturk (and his supporters) wanted a secular, Westernised Turkey; one that would bare little to no resemblance to the Ottoman Empire – with all its fanaticism and slovenly Eastern habits. The reforms so implemented were successful and would go on to secularise and partially Europeanise the Republic for over 60 years, before being rapidly reversed by the AKP party of Tacip Erdogan, a self-confessed Islamist and dedicated Sunni.

Turkey’s experiment with modernity was destined to fail all along. Despite their genuine desire to Westernise, the Turks remained overwhelmingly Muslim in allegiance, having Islamic funerals for the dead, Islamic rituals for the young and a large Crescent despoiling the national flag. Turkey did not de-Islamise because there was never an intention of de-Islamising.

A comparable experiment in Westernisation took place in Iran before the revolution. Backed by American and British leaders and inspired by the example of Ataturk, the authoritarian ‘Shah’ Reza Pahlavi enacted massive social reforms aimed at liberalising and modernising Persian society. In the urban elites this was a roaring success. Young middle and upper class urbanites fully adopted the freedoms of the modern world, celebrating the diminishment of Islamic authority. The descendants of these people are now largely living in the West, having fled the country after the Islamic uprising of 1979.

Why did that uprising occur? For many reasons, but one of the most essential is that a nation is not its elite. Working and lower-middle class Iranians (especially those from impoverished backgrounds) were not ready for such rapid change. When the rabble-rousing populists of revolution appeared, they thus found a sizable number of henchmen willing to topple the ‘arrogant’ pro-Western elite. The rest is history.

These days, the Iranian diaspora (descendants of the Iranian upper classes) assures the West that the next attempt at Westernisation will succeed. They may be right, they may be wrong. It will be a while before we can know one way or the other.

In Egypt, Lebanon, Tunisia, Syria and Algeria, the middle and upper classes are also secular. They too dream of civilising their respective countries; that is, bring the general population up to their own level of personal development. Yet as with Iran, the majority of Egyptians (excepting Christians), Lebanese (excepting Christians), Tunisians and Syrians are uneducated, jobless, illiterate, and supremely devout in their attachment to Islamic consolations. The elite can wish away the days and months, but nothing will change without a long, difficult and expensive process of public education and social reform.

De-Islamisation (of countries, societies, races) is not an impossible prospect. It may happen at some point in the future. But at the moment it is simply utopian, and as likely as the elimination of tradition from any nation, Islamic or otherwise.

D, LDN