Challenging the Islamic Mind-Trap

Tags

BBC, Britain First, Christianity and Islam, Civilisation, Counter-Jihad, Defend the modern world, defend the modern world blog, Demographics of Europe, DTMW, dtmw dtmw, EU, Eurabia, Facebook, facebook facebook, ISIS, Islam, Islam and the West, Islamic psychology, migrant crisis crisis, migrant crisis news, mind trap Islam, Multiculturalism, Muslims, Race and ethnicity in the United States Census, refugee crisis, refugee migrant crisis

• First published on this blog in February 2016 

In terms of its reputation among non-believers, the past 15 years must rank as some of Islam’s worst. Every since the planes of 9/11 carved into New York glass, the international media has barely missed a beat in making known the faults of Islamic theology, tradition and social policy. The UK Daily Mail, once the grumpy advocate of small government and Victorian morals, is now better defined as The Daily Islamophobe. The Telegraph, Sun, WSJ, NYT and Star have likewise reshuffled their priorities to place a greater and more critical eye on the Islamic World. The result of this is that every Muslim wrong-doing the world over is reported as international news. Every honour killing, beheading, murder-by-explosion, corrective rape or stoning (though all common enough before 9/11) is now given headline treatment. One can only wonder what this has done to the average Muslim mindset.

It is fair to say that most Muslims sincerely believe Islam is the best religion for mankind to universally adopt; that Islam is a better recipe for peace, progress and happiness than its rivals. Indeed, one cannot be an authentic believer unless one believes this. And yet nobody paying any attention to the contemporary situation can possibly come to this conclusion – or indeed sustain this conclusion – without unimaginable contortions of logic and tricks of the mind. The most visible of these tricks has been to blame the ills of Islam on other forces, whether economic, racial or political. ‘True, Saudi Arabia is a barbaric, undeveloped desert, but it would have been very different were it not for the Zionists’. ‘True, illiteracy and incest are Pakistani specialities, but this would not be the case were it not for the wicked Indians’. And so on.

This self-deception, though ludicrously fake, has held out remarkably well. Apostasy rates from Islam are no higher than in the 1990s. Minority faiths (LDS, Scientology etc…) excepted, Islam remains the fastest growing religion in the world. The impression given is that Islam is the perfectly designed mind-trap; that it has inbuilt defences against criticism and failure that cannot be overcome by reason or reality. But this is unduly pessimistic, I believe. Though strong on the outside, Islamic psychology is substantially weaker in its design that its current reputation might suggest. Inflexibility is being mistaken for strength, disorder for complexity.

The psychology of Islamic belief is best understood as a simple loop of deterrence, aversion and reward. When someone criticises Islam (its truth value, historicity or moral nature), a functioning Muslim will at first rationally process and understand the criticism, perhaps even to the point of agreeing with it. After this, in a state of profound unease, the Muslim will think of the Qur’anic verses drummed into his consciousness since infancy. He will think especially of those passages admonishing the ‘unbelievers’ – those who are bound for hellfire and who stray habitually from the ‘right path’. This then creates a feeling of terror and a desperation to obey Allah (who can perceive thoughts, reasoning, and even inclinations). To get rid of this discomfort, the believer admonishes the critic with harsh and even violent words. How dare he question the perfection of the Qur’an! He must have no soul! The aggression towards the critic is for the eyes of Allah and not the critic himself. The greater the aggression, the more relief will be felt by the believer. He is angry at you because you derailed his circular thoughts. You convinced him of something forbidden, something he tries with every fibre of his being not to think about. The force of aggression you unleash in him is proportionate to how convincing he (almost) found your argument; to how close you pushed him to the edge of reason.

Circular thinking is central to Islamic belief

This process also governs how Muslims integrate (or fail to integrate) the contemporary realities of the world. When viewing the chaos of Quranic rule in Syria, the loop described above prevents the processing of the stimuli into moral judgement and understanding. The believer is not ignorant. He knows everything we know. He just has a disorder of thought which allows him to dispose of un-Islamic stimuli as fast as he imbibes it.

How could one disrupt the loop? This is question best answered by those who have been raised in Islam only to discard it at a later stage. Since I am not from a Muslim background, I will have to go from the accounts of others.

As you’ll be aware, testimonies by ex-Muslims are notable among apostatatic statements by their emphasis on the aspect of ‘fear’; fear of Allah, of hellfire, of divine retribution awaiting them should they fail to live a morally perfect life. To understand why this is so characteristic of Islam, one must first appreciate the system by which human beings are said to be judged in Islamic theology.

According to Islamic tradition, a Muslim has two angels beside him at all times – one to the left, another to the right. One of these keeps a record of the good deeds and thoughts the believer performs and has during his earthly tenure, and the other keeps record of the bad. At the day of judgement, the two records are ‘weighed’ to see which is more reflective of the human in question, greatly influencing (but not deciding) whether he is to go to hell or paradise.

In a comparative sense, this is one of the more endearing and just-seeming of Islamic concepts. But a side effect of it is that the believer becomes subject to the divine equivalent of thought policing. As I say, the Kiraman Katibin do not only record your deeds, but your inner reflections. They make note of your intentions, temptations, lusts and transgressions, preserving all of them down to the finest detail. A bad deed is never forgotten or forgiven. There is no equivalent of Catholic confession in which one may wipe the slate clean. You sin and you are stained. Black marks last forever.

Try to imagine the effect this concept would have on your psychology were you to believe in it. You would be unable to enjoy a single private emotion without the fear of upsetting an omniscient authority. And since even temptations are recorded, you would be compelled to avoid any environment or stimuli which might lead you astray. This explains why Muslims are so seemingly afraid of female flesh. A girl in a mini-skirt prompts ‘impure’ thoughts in the believer, which in turn upsets Allah. The recorded acts of aggression against such women (Cologne, Rotherham etc…) are attempts to impress Allah, to make up with him for brief deficiencies of thought control. The believer might have been weak-minded for a moment, but he can still be a soldier of Islam by punishing the kafir in question.

You would also avoid un-Islamic knowledge as a matter of course. This explains why Muslims read little other than Islamic texts, and why they remain ignorant of scientific concepts like evolution and cosmology. The Muslims themselves might be intelligent and academically gifted, but their fear of wrong-thinking deters them from building on these gifts. One might posit this anxiety as the reason for the un-development of the Muslim world as a whole.

Islam, as a mindset, is a permanent state of anxiety, never-ending panic attack, perpetual psychosis. This must be understood by anyone who wishes to break through Islamic psychology to where the captive human is being held. One must treat a Muslim in the same way one would treat a victim of OCD or any comparable neurotic illness. Muslim fanaticism is based in fear. Muslim confidence is fake. Muslims do not like their God. They are afraid of him.

Convincing (or trying to convince) a Muslim that their religion is axiomatically false must necessarily be a perilous operation. If you do not succeed, he will kill you for trying. But it is not impossible. The best approach is not to impose conclusions on the believer, but rather to ask questions. The most developed, rich and powerful parts of the world are those in which Muslim believers are few. Are these enemies of God blessed by something else? Why are so many Muslims killed by other believers? Why are non-Muslim women happier and more secure from domestic violence and rape than Muslim women? Why are so many claims in the Quran provably false? Why do Muslims seem naturally drawn to non-Muslim societies over Muslim ones? Why do Muslim countries fail at science and technological development? Why are non-Muslims so petrified of Muslims in particular (and not, say, Hindus and Sikhs)? Why do Muslim armies fail to win battles against non-Islamic armies? Why are non-Muslims more plentiful than Muslims? And so on.

The more questions one leaves with a Muslim, the more effort he will have to put into diverting them from his rational mind. True, some believers are superhumanly stubborn, but these are far from typical. Many have never been presented with un-Islamic arguments before. A missile shower of reasonable doubts can severely degrade the conviction of a semi-committed believer.

While Islamic psychology cannot be broken in a society which prohibits un-Islamic concepts from being entertained, it can at least be attempted in the Western world, where no form of speech is (officially at least) off-limits. Muslims shouldn’t be written off as hopeless. It costs nothing to try and liberate their minds. You may be surprised by your success.

D, LDN

Advertisement

Letter to the Muslims of Europe

Tags

American Liberty, anti-Semitism, Barack Obama, BBC, Britain First, Civilisation, Counter-Jihad, Counterjihad, Dear Muslims, Defend the modern world, EU, European Union, Islam, Islam in Europe, Islam in Europe and America, Islam versus the West, Israel, Multiculturalism, Muslims, Muslims in Europe, No to Turkey in the EU, Race and ethnicity in the United States Census

*Originally published on this blog in July, 2015

If you (reader) are one of the twenty million devout Muslims currently resident in Europe, I’d like to try explain to you why I believe your beliefs are incompatible with the culture of your adopted home. But more than this, I hope also to persuade you that this view (shared by a growing majority of Europeans) does not emanate from ignorance or racism, and why it may not be a defeat or a humiliation for you to agree with it.

You or your parents probably came to Europe initially for economic reasons, seeking a better life and a more secure future. There is nothing dishonourable or unusual about that. Most non-Muslim migrants make the journey with the same ambitions. The West is very wealthy and safe relative to the rest of the world and so it is only rational to want to join it.

Once here, you or your parents probably planned to exist in a peaceful but separate state to the majority, maintaining your beliefs and traditions quietly in the same way that Orthodox Jews and Eastern Orthodox migrants have done in the past. Increasingly, this doesn’t seem to be possible, if it ever was. And in my view, the reasons for that directly relate to the nature of Islamic belief and the sense of mission that is so inseparable from it.

Unlike Christianity or Judaism, yours is a conquering faith, not a persuading one. Relatively little importance is given to peaceful proselytization in Islam. While there are occasionally stalls set out in front of tube stations or elsewhere in city centres to preach Islamic doctrine, this is an imitation of Christian practice and not something organically ‘Muslim’. Rather, Muslims have historically sought to attain dominion over society by violence, sometimes later permitting religious diversity within that society, but never allowing any symbol to enjoy precedence over the crescent. Their hope, indeed their announced intention, has always been to exalt Islam to a position of cultural dominance and authority. While Christians and Jews have peacefully resided as minorities in many different parts of the world, Muslims have always struggled with the very concept of minority life. Since Allah is supposed to be the only authority to which submission is made, it is seen by most Muslims (and perhaps by you specifically) to be incongruous that a divine authority is subordinate to any non-Islamic regime, whether secular or religious. Minarets are built to tower above all other buildings for grander reasons than amplification. They proclaim symbolically the primacy and authority of Islam over the territory Muslims inhabit. It will simply not do that cathedrals or government buildings are larger or invested with more power and importance. Indeed, it is blasphemous and idolatrous. As Islamists never forget to proclaim before they demolish some priceless artefact – “Nothing and no-one is worthy of veneration except Allah”.

This sense of mission, inherent within Islamic theory, has radically altered human history. The nations of Lebanon, Libya and Syria were once Christian. The territory of what is now Pakistan and Afghanistan was once Buddhist. Persia was once Zoroastrian. That these places are now Muslim is testament to Islam’s conquering urge and military spirit. Islam seeks not only to convert, but to dominate and subdue. It is expansionist by its very nature. It was not designed to be one faith out of many, but to be the one and only faith of all humankind. The Quran itself is not shy of stating this. I would quote the passages urging the subjugation of unbelievers here but this would be so long as to be disruptive to my argument.

Your faith is antagonistic to everything but itself. And since you began settling in Europe back in the 1960s, members of your community have behaved in a way harmonious with that analysis. Just recently in Britain, there has been a wave of serious sexual assault committed by Muslims against exclusively non-Muslim children. Some estimates put the number of girls assaulted by British Pakistanis as high as 200,000. In the town of Rotherham alone, at least 1400 girls are known to have been forced into sexual slavery by Muslim gangs.

And even when it doesn’t lead to assault, your behaviour around women (if you are a man) is infantile and tactless. It would appear customary that upon meeting a woman (Muslim or otherwise, online or in real life) your first words either involve sex or invite a personal relationship that can lead to sex. It might surprise you – it probably has surprised you – but non-Muslim women do not enjoy being asked for their phone number or address by a complete stranger without any preceding conversation. Your lack of charm – indeed, your failure to even understand the idea and purpose of charm – is absolute. To you, women are merely sexual animals, possessing no greater value or agency than cats and dogs. For this reason, perhaps more than any other, I find it difficult to breathe the same air as you.

Then there are the acts of extreme violence. Members of your community blew up the train network in Madrid, Spain and the subway in London, England. Members of your community massacred the staff of a cartoon tabloid in Paris. Members of your community have beheaded European citizens, the most recent case occurring only a month ago. You even hunt your own kind! Hundreds of Muslim women have now been killed in Europe in the name of ‘honour’ – and usually by members of their own family. Every year, thousands of Muslim girls are taken abroad to have their vagina mutilated by a shaving razor and then brought back to lead a miserable, painful existence with the perpetrators.

How could we possibly put up with this? What kind of people would we be if we did?

Face the facts, a growing proportion of the native population of Europe actively despises you, and does so without allowing any distinction for your race, Islamic school or individual contribution to European society. After decades of aggressive dysfunction and sickening crime, people simply hate you. They hate you and they fear you. And it is becoming difficult for even the most committed liberal to propose a reason why they shouldn’t.

There is an obvious – some would say cartoonish – contrast between the Islamic conception of society and the hopes and opinions of the Europeans. We value things you view as Satanic. You value things we regard as barbaric. You put faith before reason. We put reason before faith. You regard women as second-class human beings. We regard the sexes as equal. You view freedom of speech as being limited to secular matters. We believe it should permeate every corner of life and thought.

Even if this weren’t the case, your religious tradition is not the one that we are used to and which has inspired and characterised our manners and rituals over centuries. No European books are dedicated to your God. No statues of your Prophet (even if this were allowed) grace the Piazzas of our cities. Few if any Qur’anic phrases have entered our common parlance. We don’t celebrate your holy days, and have no regard for your heroes and saints.

You might reply that Hindu and Sikh mythologies do not inform our ways either, but then Hindus and Sikhs have proven themselves to be comfortable with that. I have never heard of an act of Hindu terrorism, nor any religiously-motivated outrage committed by a Sikh, Buddhist, Scientologist or Jain organisation. Islam has actively distinguished itself in violence, in readiness to fight and to make war where there is peace.

You are wrong if you take us for fools. We know well enough what the phrases Dar al-Harb and Dar al-Islam mean. We recognise the desire on your part to transfer us from one to the other and by what means. You must have known from the start that a project of this historical magnitude would be resisted with passion and fire. And, please believe me, that passion and fire is already generated in sufficient quantity should we ever be given the excuse to unleash it.

There are people on this (uniquely civilised) continent who would gladly slaughter you like dogs. It is not fantastical anymore to foresee a new Nazi movement emerging in Europe and going on to behave in a Hitlerian fashion. Nobody (save a few lunatics) wishes to go back there. Peace in Europe has been a blessing. Democracy is deserving of all the celebration dedicated to it. But your behaviour is testing the hold of democracy to its white-knuckled limits.

How then can we defuse this bomb? How might we organise a solution that forbids the need for mass violence and the self-destruction of democratic liberalism? This of course is the great question of my generation, and the most important task of the Western World, ahead of the environment, Russia, or any other exaggerated diversion.

That there is – or rather, that you are – an issue in need of resolution can no longer be sensibly denied. We are obliged by everything we hold dear to guarantee that the Islamisation of Europe ceases and that what progress it has already made is reversed. The Western way of life is not just ‘different’ to your own, but a million times superior. We are behaving very rationally by seeking to protect it.

Incidentally, you can deny this last fact as much as you want. It makes no difference to me. Deep down, beneath all the evasions and the layers of self-hypnosis, I’m sure you accept it as much as I do. If you didn’t, you wouldn’t still be here.

And that is the real, embarrassing truth, no? Whatever your friends have scrawled on placards in the past, you don’t ‘hate our way of life’ at all. You are simply jealous of it, and angry that your ancestral lands have failed – and are still failing – to develop in a like fashion.

For an effective and rapid solution to this problem, I propose the following measures – If you are brave, honest and intelligent enough to rid your mind of the numbing circularities of Islamic thinking, a space in the European future can and should be found for you. If not, and if you continue to display the toxic side effects of Islamic belief, then no more kid glove treatment should be forthcoming. If you espouse anti-Semitic, anti-Democratic and anti-Western ideas, you should be arrested and receive criminal records, with all the implications that has for finding employment, pursuing political office and securing tenancy and accommodation. The wearing of the Niqab must be outlawed and repeat offenders deported to a country where it is still the prevailing fashion. All Muslims involved in the mass-rape of British children must hang. Any Mosque preaching violence against Jews, Christians or Homosexuals must be shut down and demolished, and the same with colleges and Islamic faith schools. There must be an end to all immigration from Muslim countries, including from those cultures touted as exceptional (like Tunisia, Turkey or Iran). The culture of the West must be openly celebrated as the supreme culture of the world, and no ‘noble’ savagery must ever be taught as a desirable alternative to our children.

Our foreign policy must also be redesigned to reflect our desire to survive. Turkey should be expelled from NATO and replaced by Armenia. Any sanctions lifted from Iran must be reimposed. Investment in alternatives to Middle Eastern oil, including fracking (in lightly populated areas), fusion technology, nuclear and renewable energy must be radically increased. Western arms should only be exported to regimes which ruthlessly suppress Islamist activity (like Egypt and Jordan) and never to theocratic countries, whether ‘allies’ or not (Saudi, UAE, Kuwait etc…). Needless to say, our support for Israel must be great and unconditional.

In all these efforts, our motivating principle (and final goal) must be that Islam is forever segregated from the Western World.

Finally, reader, I promised at the beginning to tell you why it isn’t a humiliation for you to agree with my arguments… This is for the simple reason that you were a human being long before you were a Muslim, and this will always be the most salient fact about you. You are no more biologically predestined to ignorance and poverty than a Swede or a German. If you wish to become free, you can become free! And if you prefer slavery, well, then there is no defeat in relocating to pursue it, if that is your dream. There can no ‘shame’ in wanting to be where you belong. Nothing is more human.

Whichever condition you choose (and we will make you choose), understand that the West is the homeland of the free, the creative and the happy. A slave will always be foreign here.

D, LDN.

Why are We Letting Anyone In?

Tags

adults, adults posing as children refugees, asylum seekers, BBC, calais, Christianity and Islam, Civilisation, Coffee, Defend the modern world, Demographics of Europe, dover, DTMW, EU, Europe, Facebook, Guardian, Islam, Islam and the West, Islamophobia, jungle calais, kids, london, Multiculturalism, Muslims, No to Turkey in the EU, photo, Race and ethnicity in the United States Census, Telegraph, Terrorism, Twitter

Many in the UK have been outraged (and often simultaneously amused) this past week by the arrival on our shores of a batch of Calais asylum seekers billed as unaccompanied ‘children’, yet who are in appearance seemingly well over the age of 20. As bizarre and brazen (and obvious) as the fraud appears to be, I think this outrage somehow misses the point. The bigger scandal – and the one worth focussing one’s anger on – is that asylum seekers are being allowed into Britain at all.

What obligation does Britain have – legally or morally – to those refugees (if they are indeed refugees) stationed in the safe, democratic nation of France? None is the answer, and no-one can (or has even attempted to) reasonably argue otherwise.

As opponents of asylum fraud are right to consistently point out, a central principle (even if not a law) holds that refugees should settle in the first available safe haven they come across that is willing and able to accommodate them. To illustrate this idea with reference to Syria, a refugee from ISIS-controlled territory who has been accepted into Turkey has no right to demand entry into Greece. A refugee from ISIS-controlled territory who has been accepted into Lebanon has no right to demand entry into Cyprus, and so on. If the purpose of emigration is, as stated, to avoid violence, war or persecution, then only in the first accommodating nation can asylum be rightfully claimed. Should the refugee flee from one safe haven to another, that is called migration and no country is duty bound to facilitate it.

This isn’t a very difficult principle to understand – and, to be sure, most ordinary folk do understand it, which is partly why the Calais Jungle infants have been so poorly and unsympathetically received.

Now, I am an Islamophobe – no doubt about that. I despise the Islamic religion with a white-hot passion. I’m also not over-keen on the adherents of the Islamic religion. Nevertheless, I am, like the reader will be, a moral person, or at the very least someone with a moral sense. We do have an obligation as human beings to ensure that the innocent do not suffer any preventable evil. 

To help the Syrian people, Donald Trump has endorsed a workable and perfectly logical initiative. Allied forces, he says, should carve out a safe-zone in Syria into which the innocent can flee while the conflict burns itself out. This would not be difficult to achieve. Though Assad and ISIS would inevitably object to the idea, both forces have been so degraded that neither is capable of mounting an effective resistance.

Turkey, rich in manpower and arms, must be told to do the work on the ground or face expulsion from NATO. The Gulf States, especially Saudi Arabia, must be made to cough up the money to support the campaign or face a year-long suspension of Western arms sales. This is the solution. Let’s pursue it.

As for the Calais ‘children’, Britain and the West are under no rightful obligation to take in anyone. No asylum seeker, not one, whether from Eritrea, Syria, Afghanistan or the Congo, should be allowed to settle here. And we have every right to expect our government to prevent them from doing so.

D, LDN

Trump’s Best Speech (So Far)

Tags

2016, 2016 American elections, America, American Liberty, Ann Coulter, Barack Obama, BBC, chances, Christianity and Islam, Civilisation, clinton, Coulter, Defend the modern world, Democrats, Demographics, Donald Trump, DTMW, election 2016, electoral college, Email, EU, Facebook, GOP, Hillary Clinton, Internet, odds, Race and ethnicity in the United States Census, republicans, trump, trump chances, trump odds, Twitter, United States

ICYMI, this was Trump’s best speech of the campaign so far. He placed his candidacy in the broader historical moment, justifying the extraordinary nature of his platform.

D, LDN

Justifying the Extraordinary: Trump and the Debates

Tags

ABC, America, America 911, American Liberty, Barack Obama, BBC, Civilisation, clinton, Clinton Foundation, CNN, Defend the modern world, Donald Trump debates, DTMW, EU, Facebook, Fox News, Hillary 2016, Hillary Clinton, Hillary Clinton debate, Immigration, Internet, Islamism, london, moderators for debate, Multiculturalism, NBC, pol, politics, polls, presidential debates, trump, trump 2016, Trump Clinton debate, Trump election, trump odds, Twitter, United States

In seven days time the first of four presidential debates between Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump will take place in Hempstead, New York State. It is probably fair to say that no such debate has been as hotly anticipated in recent memory as this one now is. The debate marks the biggest test Donald Trump has faced since the launch of his candidacy for the Republican nomination back in 2015. It represents a vital trial of the New Yorker’s presidential character, professionalism and natural wit.

Hillary Clinton, now lagging behind Trump in many national polls, will be placing a lot of her hopes on the debates. Unlike Trump, the Democrat is a natural when it comes to conventional political combat. She – and her team – will be hoping (and expecting) Trump to be suffocated by the polite constraints of traditional procedure and to show his unease by lashing out wildly at Clinton’s character, appearance, dress sense, femininity, etc. Put simply, they hope and expect Trump to suffer a meltdown.

Whilst I would love to say that Clinton’s strategy is unrealistic, I cannot, as it is perfectly feasible. Trump’s Achilles heel, as he has proven time and time again, is his volcanic and unpredictable personality, his tendency to hit back after every real or perceived slight with much greater force and immaturity than is required or appropriate. All Clinton has to do in these contests is provoke that kind of reaction. All she has to do is poke the tiger until it growls.

This is the most obvious and likely strategy for Hillary to pursue, but there are other possibilities open to her. The rabidly pro-Clinton Washington Post made the following suggestions for their preferred candidate: “Take (Trump) up on his word. He said he “regrets” certain things. Invite him to apologize to Judge Gonzalo Curiel or the Gold Star parents of Capt. Humayun Khan… Another tactic is to press him on empty and unintelligible answers. Trump rarely completes a sentence or can articulate any level of detail about his proposals. When Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) and CNN’s Dana Bash tag-teamed, forcing Trump to explain what was in his health-care plan, it became patently obvious that he had a whole lot of nothing to offer. She can certainly take a page from New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie’s book (used against Rubio) in pointing out that Trump repeats the same platitudes. Tell us, Donald, what’s your plan to reduce crime in Chicago? Have you ever sat down with law enforcement?… There are oodles of issues (such as the nuclear triad) about which Trump knows nothing. Challenge him to spell out his stance on net neutrality, the South China Sea and student loans. In other cases — the minimum wage, repayment of U.S. debt and immigration, of course — he has been all over the lot. Force him to pick a position and explain why he has said the opposite.”

The first presidential debate will be held at Hofstra University, Hempstead, New York

Trump’s strategy for the debates is less clear at this point in time. When asked about his intended approach, the Republican has wisely dodged the question, explaining that he would prefer to not give anything away to the opposition prior to the event. We can thus only speculate.

I have a inkling that Trump’s strategy will hinge on portraying Clinton, as he has done all through his campaign so far, as ‘crooked’, dishonest, corrupt and in the pocket of the financial elite; an image he will then contrast with his own man-of-the-people persona.

The email scandal will undoubtedly be raised repeatedly, with Trump going off track and questioning Clinton directly about the thousands of inexplicably deleted messages. He will also link these questions to the issue of the Clinton Foundation and its highly suspicious ties to foreign leaders (including foreign and Islamic dictators).

The Clinton Foundation is coming under intense scrutiny for its ties to foreign regimes

This approach will carry Trump some of the way, but not all of it. He will need to have more strings to his bow prepared if he is to the win the debate outright.

To arrive at the best strategy for winning the debates, Trump would do best to look at what has carried him through the process thus far. I would say that, more than anything else, it is his credentials relating to the Islamist threat that have won over the hearts of patriotic American voters (including true liberals and Democrats). His positions on ISIS, Muslim immigration, Syrian refugee policy and other connected issues have been wildly popular with a broad cross-section of American society. Pushing hard on Clinton’s weakness on Islamism will pave the way for a very important ideological touchdown.

It is possible that in the days that remain before the November election there will be another Islamist atrocity somewhere in the world, perhaps even in the Western World*. This will serve as a timely reminder of how extraordinary the problems we (as a civilisation) face really are, and thus how inappropriate it would be to elect an ordinary candidate to solve them.

ISIS/ISIL/Islamic State

The Islamist challenge is so total and grave that all other issues melt under its heat. Trump and his team must realise this fact and base their approach on it. Sure, there are problems with the American economy which require ironing out; sure, illegal immigration from Mexico is undermining American sovereignty and nationhood; sure, the trade deficit with China is growing at an alarming rate.  But none of these issues are new or so extraordinary as to justify the American electorate taking a risk on a provocative and unconventional candidate (and that, undoubtedly, is what Trump is). Trump’s presidency is so unique and strange a prospect that he must build an equally strange and unique context in which it will seem appropriate and necessary. The only way he can achieve this, in my opinion, is with reference to the Islamist threat.

At the debates, Trump must be specific about how he will deal with this extraordinary issue. Soundbites, however popular they may be, should be avoided. It simply isn’t enough to say things like “We need to get tough and we need to get smart.” This is so vague as to be meaningless. Trump must map out a strategy for pulverising Islamism, demolishing it so severely that it will not dare raise its evil head for decades to come.

*Today, as I write, debris is once again being cleaned up from the streets of a Western city. In Manhattan, NYC, two bombs have exploded, injuring almost thirty innocent civilians. Meanwhile, in the peaceful, Scandinavian-American State of Minnesota, eight people have been stabbed at a shopping mall, the attacker allegedly interrogating potential victims as to their religious beliefs prior to attacking them.

These are indeed extraordinary times. They require an extraordinary leader. Next week in New York, Donald Trump would do best not to try and make himself seem ordinary, but rather embrace his uniqueness, tying it to the uniqueness of the times in which we find ourselves.

D, LDN

Milo Yiannopoulos: The Good and the Bad

Tags

America, American Liberty, analysis, BBC, breitbart, catholic, Christianity and Islam, Civilisation, Coffee, Conservatism, Conservative, Defend the modern world, DTMW, EU, Facebook, gay, greek, homosexuality, Immigration, Internet, Iran, Iraq, ISIS, Islam, Islamism, Jewish, migration, milo, milo yiannopoulos, milo yiannopoulos orlando, Multiculturalism, neil degrasse tyson stupid, orlando, politics, politics politics, right-wing left-wing, trump, trump support, tyson, United States, War, writing

Few stars are rising faster at the moment than that of conservative writer/broadcaster Milo Yiannopoulos. Virtually unknown just three years ago, the Greco-British journalist, 32, is now fast approaching the kind of iconoclastic status attained by such writers as Gore Vidal and HL Mencken (both of whom expended considerably more time and effort to achieve it).

What can explain this success?

Well – for one thing, Yiannopoulos is a quite formidable debater, and it is for this talent that he is primarily known. Type in ‘Milo Yiannopolous’ into YouTube and many of the videos returned to you will have titles containing words like ‘destroys’, ‘eviscerates’, ‘owns’ and so on… These are not exaggerations. Yiannopoulos has a unique way of making the people he engages seem naive, foolish and weak-minded. He is even – I have found – able to achieve this effect when the other person is in the right; and there is surely no greater testament to a debater’s skill than that.

Yiannopoulos is not merely good with words, he is good with emotions, presenting his side of any argument in a relaxed, self-assured and matter-of-fact style that naturally makes the arguments of the other side seem less certain, more bizarre and fundamentally weaker. In this sense he reminds me in speech of Mark Steyn in print. Both put to use the same rhetorical trick – the insinuation – quite deliberate – that they know they are right. Both treat contrary points of view as amusing, forgivable, even charming eccentricities. Yiannopoulos and Steyn are not trying to make the other side look stupid, so they have us believe, they are trying are help them understand reality – and by arguing this way, they do make them look stupid. There is surely no better way of wounding an intellectual’s reputation than to sympathise with his failures and politely excuse his errors.

Yiannopoulos’s writing, though less spectacular than his debating, still passes with ease any quality test for the journalistic mainstream. Here is a representative excerpt from an article taking down the goodwill-bloated ‘astrophysicist’ Neil Degrasse Tyson:

“Neil deGrasse Tyson is a philistine with no love of learning except for popularisations and oversimplifications that serve his political purposes… (He) constantly situates himself in the big brain league, but he has done nothing in his life to demonstrate that he belongs there — and a lot to suggest he doesn’t…. (He) claims to have been “mentored” by Carl Sagan, for instance. Yet it appears this “mentorship” boils down to little more than a couple of traded letters. If Tyson thinks that qualifies as mentorship, I wonder what he’d call my nocturnal liaisons with other men who share his skin colour. Adoption?… As dumb as Tyson is, his fans are even more preposterously thick, which is probably to be expected given that they’re all liberals. But the extent to which they hoover up and retweet his contradictory and brainless provocations is matched only by the hilarity of the occasional social justice car crash, in which the politics of grievance that Tyson likes to encourage comes back to bite him.”

But neither Yiannopoulos’s skill in writing or debating can fully explain his meteoric ascent. Beyond the mechanics of his profession, Yiannopoulos is himself remarkable. For one thing, he is gay. Indeed, if homosexuality can be graded, he is very gay; audaciously, flamboyantly so. He is also Greek, Jewish and Catholic. This exotic quality, brim-full of apparent contradiction (Gay, Jewish, Catholic, Conservative – are not words used to being in each other’s company), has combined with Yiannopoulos’s oratorical (and occasionally bitchy) style to produce a ready-made object of media fascination. Yiannopoulos gets ratings up in a way no other public commentator has since the death of Christopher Hitchens, a person with whom the journalist bears many important similarities.

Like Hitchens, Yiannopoulos expresses with intelligence arguments traditionally expressed with stupidity. Though I do sympathise with many right-wing concepts, it is nevertheless a fact of politics that the conservative side of the political spectrum attracts more dullards than the liberal side. Many – perhaps the majority – of those inclined to oppose Islam, for example, do so in a crude, yobbish style that puts off the discerning classes and fails to excite anyone else.

Yiannopoulos is successful precisely because he refines gut-sentiments into intelligent arguments. People watch Yiannopoulos debate Islam on television and scream ‘That’s what I think!” or “That’s what I’ve always said!”. He articulates feelings many desperately want to – but cannot – put into words.

So, that’s the good. Now for the bad.

Despite the considerable talents I have described, Yiannopoulos is not without his faults. He has, for one thing, consistently demonstrated a worrying lack of intellectual discipline; a tendency to seek controversy (for its own sake) over positive political impact. On twitter the writer has repeatedly engaged in pointless arguments with entirely apolitical pop-cultural figures, most recently Leslie Jones, the simple-minded comedienne and star of the much-maligned 2016 Ghostbusters remake. After a brief back and forth over various trifles, Milo made a joke implying that Jones (who is admittedly unfeminine looking) is actually a man. This comment then led to Yiannopoulos’s twitter account being deleted by the administrators of the site – (he is still banned).

Was this necessary? Did it serve a purpose? I don’t think so.

Like this author, Yiannopoulos is an outspoken supporter of Donald Trump’s 2016 bid for the US Presidency and has written countless articles explaining this support, most of which have been reasoned and compelling. But on this matter, too, he has a tendency to drift into inexplicable weirdness. Yiannopoulos often refers to Mr Trump in a sexualised voice as ‘Daddy’ and once stated that the “trashier” the Republican nominee becomes the more he loves him.

Now, I have no moral objection to any of this, but surely such unseriousness runs the risk of undoing the good work the journalist has done elsewhere. Once again I ask, is it necessary? Does it serve a purpose? Does Milo wish to be a neo-Orwellian truth-teller or a contestant on Celebrity Big Brother? Christopher Hitchens or Pete Burns? One cannot combine the two aspirations indefinitely.

The atheist Voltaire once remarked that the only prayer he had ever offered was ‘O Lord, make my enemies ridiculous’. I can well imagine Islamists and Leftists offering this same plea to the Almighty in view of current political circumstances. On the issue of Islam – as on many others – we are so far in the right that a misstep on our part is probably the best the opposition can hope for. Milo and others would do well to bear this in mind.

On balance, I am of the opinion that Milo Yiannopoulos can be a very effective soldier for the anti-Islamist cause. His oratorical skill, humour and minority-status make him a very difficult target for the Left to hit with their favoured weaponry. They cannot possibly call Milo, a gay man of partially Jewish descent, irrational or paranoid for worrying about the advance of ISIS. They cannot possibly accuse him of being a Nazi, a White nationalist, or a possessor of ‘privilege’ (the Left’s favourite buzzword of the moment). Milo’s exotic qualities form a wall of confusion around his arguments, giving them a better chance of being considered for what they mean rather than as an extension of who formed them.

And while there are those who will object outright to the inclusion of an actively gay man in the conservative movement, one must strive to remember that the threat of Islam is so broad that it will necessarily require an equally broad coalition to prevent its success.

If you find the right’s embrace of Yiannopoulos strange, you’ll be even more surprised by what the future holds.

D, LDN.

Victory is Bittersweet

Tags

BBC, bregret, brexit, brexit campaign, brexit farage, brexit poll, buyer's remorse, Civilisation, day, Defend the modern world, defend the modern world blog uk, economy, EU, eu eu, eu referendum, Europe, European Union, Facebook, Liberal, lobby, london, Money, Multiculturalism, news, No to Turkey in the EU, Paris, politics, politics eu, pound, prime minister, sterling, Twitter, UKIP, vote, vote leave, vote remain

Well… that was interesting. The polls, the bookies and the media were all wrong. Britain held its nerve, voting to leave the European Union by a clear margin of 2 percentage points. I am shocked and surprised, pleasantly and unpleasantly.

On the vital matters of sovereignty and immigration, I think the right decision has been made. The European Union was stifling Britain’s independent spirit, obstructing the British Parliament and overriding British courts. It couldn’t carry on. A civilised vote to leave is surely the most dignified way of bringing the relationship to a close.

Having said that, I must admit to being rather numb this morning (24th July). It feels like Britain has lost something. It feels like we, the British people, have lost something – a freedom, a set of liberties and privileges, many of which I have personally enjoyed.

Early last year, I spent some time working as a language teacher in the Basque Country in Northern Spain. In order to make my labour legal in that country, I had to visit the local council offices in Bilbao and apply for legal status. This process, which in non-EU countries would have taken many weeks, if not months to complete, was seen to in a single afternoon. I filled out a couple of forms and I was away – a Spanish taxpayer with the full and permanent right of abode.

This luxury is not something to sniff at. It really is (was) the most dazzling privilege. One can only imagine how much money the wretched refuse of the Muslim world would offer for such a right.

Bilbao, Spain

This morning, with Britain now committed irrevocably to disentangling itself from the European organism, I can’t help but wonder what kind of deal will replace the generous and advantageous contract we have just torn up. Will European states take revenge on us? Will they band together and punish the plucky, rebellious Brits with draconian measures and pointless, bureaucratic restrictions? It is certainly possible.

I am sad about this. I never wanted Britain to fall out with Europe. Though I fully understand and accept that Europe, the historic and cultural concept, is distinct from the European Union, the two are nevertheless so entwined at present as to be inseparable. In rejecting one, we necessarily reject – or at least offend – the other. What a shame. The Islamists must be euphoric.

Whether the right thing to do or not, Brexit will inevitably cause major disruption to the lives of ordinary British people. Many of us will come to miss the words ‘European Union’ at the top of our passports. Those words, though never triggering any kind of pride or patriotic emotion, guaranteed us the freedom to wander unobstructed across a magnificent continent. It gave us the right to live in Rome, Berlin, Stockholm, Madrid and Warsaw; to work in Krakow, Copenhagen, Helsinki and Tallinn. We will miss that freedom horribly until it is assured us once again.

EU governments have reacted to the referendum with shock and disappointment

On a brighter note, the benefits of us leaving the EU are not inconsiderable. We will soon have the right to decide exactly how many European migrants make it past our borders each year, as well as how many are allowed to settle permanently. No longer will an endless stream of labour gush through a doorless doorway, suppressing native wages and over-saturating the market for skilled labour.

As well as this, law-making will finally be returned to a sovereign British judiciary. No longer will we need to ask for EU permission to pass judgements on foreign criminals, terror suspects and ‘asylum’ seekers.

EU regulations, passed entirely in EU courts, will no longer apply, leaving us free to decide our own standards of quality, health and safety, as well as (crucially) the shape of our bananas and cucumbers.

Finally, and most importantly of all, our elected government will once again be the supreme authority over the British Isles. No longer will we need to waste calories and column inches whinging about ‘unelected bureaucrats in Brussels’ or ‘faceless EU dictators’. Now, if an unjust rule comes to prevail over this kingdom, we will be able to change it quickly and democratically. British rule, to oversimplify the matter, has returned to the British. We have our country back.

Boris Johnson has promised a ‘glorious’ future for Britain following Brexit

Five minutes ago, David Cameron addressed the nation from outside No.10 Downing Street. With rare emotion, the Prime Minister announced that he will be standing down sometime in the next three months.

As to who will replace him, almost everyone has the same person in mind; namely, Boris Alexander De Pfeffel Johnson – the yellow (not blonde) haired former Mayor of London and standout figure of the victorious leave campaign.

If this does come true – if Boris, perhaps joined by Michael Gove, rises to the executive of the British state on the back of Brexit – then that is another reason to temper one’s joy at the result of last night’s vote. Boris Johnson is an idiot, more of a clown than a politician. I would rather be ruled by almost anyone else.

Will Brexit be worth it in the end? Only time will tell for sure. I am honestly surprised by how lacklustre my enthusiasm for the result has been. I thought I would be tap-dancing with restless euphoria, possessed with native pride. But I’m not dancing. I’m not even smiling. The issue seems more nuanced in retrospect than it did in prospect.

If you derive from one of the nations still attached to the European Union, I would ask you to do whatever you can to prevent a grudge emerging between your country and Britain. We do not wish to divide the West. We are not, by leaving the EU, denying our European-ness. We are still one civilisation, one culture. Perhaps it would have been better to stay and reform the links that bound us together, but we’ve made our choice. Please don’t make it any harder for us than it already is.

D, LDN

The Assassination of Jo Cox, MP

Tags

American Liberty, BBC, brexit, brexit poll, brexit vote, Britain First, Civilisation, computer, Defend the modern world, EU, eu poll, eu vote, Europe, Facebook, facebook facebook, far right, fascism, fascist, immigration migrant, Jo Cox, Jo Cox murder, Jo Cox shooting, media, media media, Multiculturalism, neo-nazi, politics, Race and ethnicity in the United States Census, shooting, Terrorism, turner diaries, Twitter, Violence, william pierce

The murder of Jo Cox MP, 41, has prompted a seething fury across Britain that will take a long time, perhaps many years, to fully dissipate. The mother of two young children, Ms Cox was carrying out her democratic business at a local surgery in her constituency of Birstall, Yorkshire, when a man by the name of Thomas ‘Tommy’ Mair shot her twice with a home-made gun, later kicking her as she lay dying and remarking (according to eyewitnesses) either ‘Britain First’ or ‘Put Britain first’.

In the Guardian newspaper today there are reports that Mr Mair maintained links with the Neo-Nazi National Alliance party in the United States, an organisation from which he purchased a substantial amount of material online. This material, according to the SPLC, included the squalid and nasty volume ‘The Turner Diaries’ by Dr William Pierce, a Jurassic anti-Semite and favoured author of the Oklahoma City bomber, Timothy McVeigh. And when he appeared in court for a preliminary hearing on Saturday, Mr Mair seemed to confirm his radicalism by stating his name as ‘Death to traitors, freedom for Britain”. All things considered, it appears clear enough what motivated the killer to carry out his deed; fascism, unpolished and uncomplicated; a grudge against democracy.

Thomas ‘Tommy’ Mair

Since the murder was confirmed by local police, media outlets across Europe have been quick to seize upon the murder for explicitly political gain. It would be easy and conventional to beat them up for this, but it would also be dishonest. I made political capital out of Orlando on the day that it happened, as did many of the people currently complaining. We can at least be consistent. Like Orlando, this is an act of political violence with direct political implications. It must therefore be discussed in a political context.

What are those implications? Who deserves blame? Well, according to the continental media, the murder may have been connected to Ms Cox’s outspoken support for the ‘remain’ side of the upcoming EU referendum. This is based on the – not unreasonable – assumption that Mr Mair, given his rumoured nationalism, was/is firmly in the ‘leave’ camp. That, however, is where the evidence dries up. This is just an assumption. It may be an accurate one, but at the moment we simply don’t know enough to say one way or the other.

Others, most notably Jonathan Freedland in the Guardian, have blamed a climate of anti-politics stretching back to the ‘expenses’ scandal of 2009. In case you’re unfamiliar with that scandal, it was centred on revelations that numerous MPs had claimed public money for highly dubious reasons, such as the construction of a moat around a personal residence, or for expensive holidays or alcoholic drinks. Since that crisis, public opinion of politicians in Britain has been gutterishly low. In Freedland’s opinion, this climate has swollen out of all logical proportions.

Anti-political sentiment is rife in the UK

“For weeks, months and years,” he wrote, “‘politician’ has been a word more spat out than said. MPs have been depicted as a form of pond life, routinely placed on the lowest rung of the ladder of esteem, trusted less than estate agents and journalists, the butt of every panel show gag, casually assumed to be venal, mendacious, vain, stupid or malevolent… These complaints are repeated so often, we barely notice them. They’re like moans about the weather, presumed to warrant no disagreement….We don’t yet know what was in the mind of the man who killed Jo Cox. But even if we cannot locate a specific cause in the nation’s political debate and claim this murder as its direct effect, we can say this: that if you inject enough poison into the political bloodstream, eventually somebody will get sick.”

Finally, Britain First, the facebook-based activist group/political party has been specifically blamed by many, especially in light of the comment allegedly made by the killer cited above. Ms Cox was known for her impassioned activism on behalf of the children of Syrian refugees. Britain First is a very straightforward anti-Islam collective. It isn’t outlandish to propose that Mair agreed with the latter’s agenda. A photograph allegedly depicting Mair holding a Britain First banner is also circulating on social media, although its authenticity has yet to be confirmed at the time of writing.

I personally think the truth is a mixture of the first two (although it wouldn’t surprise me if the last was also a factor). The EU debate has taken on a decidedly histrionic character, with words like ‘fascist’ and ‘traitor’ thrown about with little serious regard for their meaning. The anti-political sentiment of which Freedland speaks is very real. People up and down this country feel that they have been duped, lied to, taken for fools. The EU referendum is where it all comes out; an opportunity, as some may see it, for vengeance against the political class.

David Cameron announced a pause in campaigning on the EU referendum in the wake of Jo Cox’s death

But we haven’t been lied to nearly as often as we think. The problems our country faces are the result of policies enacted openly, with advance warning and after copious explanation. Mass immigration was never a policy cooked up in a dark, smoke-filled room. It has been debated and discussed for decades. Even if it was difficult to take advantage of, there has always been a semblance of choice available to the general public. That popular discontent has yet to be converted into a change in policy is the fault of the people as well as the establishment.

So why is dissent on the issue of immigration always ineffective? Why is always left to fester underground, setting the scene for hatred and violence?The answer, I believe, lies in how anti-immigration dissent is expressed and who expresses it. 

Anti-immigration advocates, in the popular imagination and sometimes in reality, are uncouth, scruffy, loud and aggressive. They wear camouflage jackets and baseball caps, have tattoos and speak with a heavy, unattractive regional stamp. Even if you agree with them, you might be hesitant to say so for fear of being grouped in with them. All the pretty, successful and clever people are left-wing. The right is for misfits and dullards, for the underclass. This snobbish sentiment has forced many middle class voters into a reflexive, insincere leftism; one not based in reason, but in status-anxiety and snobbishness.

Anti-immigration demonstrators

Jo Cox, whether one agreed with her opinions or not, was a beautiful and civilised human being. Young, bright, warm and tolerant, she was everything you would look for in a friend and hope for in a colleague. The urge to side with her against the nasty, bellicose and ill-mannered ‘leave’ campaign must now be overwhelming. 

I have always tried to treat the subjects I discuss on this blog with restraint and moderation. I try not to hurl insults or baseless accusations. If I advance a theory about something, I make sure to back it up with explanation and examples. Most importantly, I try to put forward my arguments using measured and clean language. Without wanting to sound immodest, that should be the standard approach to all political discourse. It is on the left. It should be on the right as well.

The murder of Jo Cox may is no small event. It may well go on to change the course of history, keeping Britain in the European Union and thereby saving the EU from implosion. If so, the failure of the British commentariat, not just the British establishment, to make the case against unlimited immigration will be to blame. We had a good case to argue, but we failed to make it in a sufficiently civilised and intelligent way. Had we done so, the likes of Tommy Mair would scarcely have been able to appreciate our arguments, while the likes of Jo Cox may have found reason to agree with us. We repelled the good and the clever, whilst attracting the dull and the reprehensible. If Britain votes to remain, if only in order to stand with Jo Cox and against Tommy Mair, I fully understand why.  

The case against mass immigration from the Muslim world is a liberal argument, not a conservative one. The Syrian refugees Ms Cox championed have views so conservative they make Nigel Farage look like a bearded hippie. We must resist the influx of Muslims in order to preserve our freedoms, our democracy and our modern way of life. If we put our case like that all the time, we might be surprised by how many allies we actually have.

D, LDN

Hooray for Sweden and Denmark!

Tags

asylum seekers, asylum sweden, Christianity and Islam, Civilisation, Defend the modern world, Demographics of Europe, denmark eu, EU, european union vote, migrant crisis, Multiculturalism, Muslims, No to Turkey in the EU, Race and ethnicity in the United States Census, refugees or migrants, Sweden, sweden denmark, sweden deportations, sweden eu, sweden yes

A peculiar modern stereotype insists that the nation of Sweden is more deeply infected with masochism and political correctness than all the other nations of Europe. According to this caricature, Swedes are absurdly tolerant, pathetically naïve and feminised beyond repair, a fact that can explain the mass immigration of Muslims into the Kingdom in recent years.

Is it accurate? I don’t think so. While Sweden certainly has a more extreme feminist base than, say, Great Britain, there is no clear evidence that the country is populated by suicidal masochists. That portrait is an internet myth, more rooted in the age-old misperception of Sweden as a magical land of naked, blonde rationalists. Sweden is actually a very normal European country, with the same imbalance of naivety over realism as afflicts every major Western state.

And just in case that isn’t convincing, my contention has been supplied with fresh vigour this past week by the announcement that the Swedish government plans to deport 60,000 (sixty thousand) Muslim ‘asylum seekers’ – without compensation or right of appeal – in the coming months.

Needless to say, when I first heard of this, I was enraptured. It is perhaps the first piece of good news since the migrant crisis began. After this, my already elevated mood was further raised by the news that Denmark is also to carry out its own mass-deportations in the near future, albeit on a lesser numerical scale than its northern sibling. Hurrah and Huzzah! It might not be the whole job, but it’s a bloody good start.

The coming deportations are good news for many reasons besides the obvious pleasure of seeing invaders packed onto plane. One, not mentioned yet by the media, is that it will set a precedent of mass-deportation for the whole of Europe to take advantage of at a later point. Given that physical removal of problematic Muslim citizens is surely the only failsafe way of securing our societies against Islamist terrorism, this precedent could hardly be more timely.

Of course, removing 60,000 people from a Western nation (presumably to relocate them back in the third world) will be a long, occasionally chaotic process. There will be opposition, indignation, locking of arms, and waving of placards. Facebook campaigns will surely be launched to keep certain individuals within ‘their’ adopted communities. And so on. It is nevertheless imperative that the project is a success. If it fails, the whole idea of restoring Europe’s balance of cultural power will be lost, and the suggestion of it forever demonised.

That the countries embarking on this action are Scandinavian, and thus respected by liberals across the globe, makes the prospect of success greater than it otherwise would be. This is for the simple reason that international socialists have no better examples of its workability than the regimes of the Nordic peninsula. Will the likes of Michael Moore or Bernie Sanders really want to bad-mouth the left-wing success stories of Sweden and Denmark? If they did so, surely that would cast doubt on the viability of mass-immigration and political-social liberalism in general…?

Away from the liberal clique, I would guess that most Western observers wish this project the fairest of winds.

D, LDN

Islam and Petroleum: An Old Alliance and its Future

Tags

America, American Liberty, balance of power, BBC, Britain First, Christianity and Islam, Civilisation, Defend the modern world, end of oil, EU, Facebook, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, ISIS, Islam, Malaysia, Middle East, Military, Muslim, Muslims, oil collapse, oil price, oil prices, oil saudi, Race and ethnicity in the United States Census, Saudi Arabia, United States, War, Weapons

The collapse of the price of oil over the past few months has sent shockwaves through an already vulnerable global economy, slowing the ascent of China, threatening the recovery of America, and causing stock markets from London to Shenzhen to wobble precariously on their foundations. But surely no part of the world is more affected by fluctuations in the oil market than the Muslim Middle East, specifically the nations of Iran, Iraq, Saudi Arabia and the Emirates of the Persian Gulf.

If the downward trajectory in oil prices continues for just a few more years, the economies of these countries will be plunged into crisis, their social order, military upkeep and political power undermined and potentially destroyed. And there is something else to consider in all this. Seeing as oil and Islam have been locked in a very profitable alliance for the past 50 years, what will this decline mean for the civilizational balance of power? Can Islam’s political and military ascendance survive the shock of a post-oil era?

Optimists imagine that without oil, states like Saudi and the UAE would be without influence in the world. Since their economies are based entirely on energy revenues, they reason, such countries would – in the case of an oil collapse – be reduced to the diplomatic grade of Burkina Faso or Zimbabwe. This is not entirely accurate. While it is certainly true that without oil the nations of the gulf will see a massive decline in standards of living, this will not necessarily mean the end of their mischief-making in world affairs. Saudi Arabia, to take a prominent case, has invested much of its gargantuan wealth in blue-chip Western companies – companies which will continue to reap the Saudi state considerable profit for as long as they are trading. The Saudis have also purchased an astonishing array and quantity of modern weaponry, including – according to some – nuclear missiles from Pakistan. This military power will in the short term (or with nuclear weapons, in the very long term) guarantee the country a louder voice than it deserves.

As for Iran, Saudi’s arch-enemy, the outlook is rosier in some respects, and murkier in others. Since the revolution of 1979, the Islamic Republic of Iran has faced the boycott of its energy industry by much of the developed world. This has meant that Iran’s state finances have remained in poor shape, and also that they haven’t managed to buy up stocks in Western companies to the extent that Saudi has. On the other hand, this long period of boycott has forced Iranians to build an economy unreliant on the energy sector – a post-oil economy, if you will – and this will give the country a very important head start in the rush to regional economic diversification. The same is also true of Iraq, which has until very recently functioned without a petroleum economy.

Taken overall, the Islamic world will only face a sub-regional decline in diplomatic power from the collapse of oil. Outside of the oil-producing area itself, many Islamic countries have high economic growth rates even without energy reserves – these include the nations of Turkey, Egypt and Indonesia, all of which also possess considerable military strength to increase their bargaining power. Thus, the collapse of oil will sink Islamic power in the short-term, only for the power lost to be replenished later in different places. Given that these places will be less extreme than Saudi and Iran, the prospect for a general moderation of Islam is very real, if hardly as curative as liberal commentators would have us believe.

Here in the modern world, the end of oil politics is surely something to celebrate. A nasty and corrupt stench is about to be cleared from the air. The Islam-Oil alliance, even in so brief a period as it has existed, wrought real damage on the world at large. It is directly responsible for the 9/11 attacks in America, as well as for the crippling of Western economies in the 1970s. It has perverted American and British politics, enriched soulless monarchs and dictators, and radicalised much of the Islamic world against its will.

Good riddance.

D, LDN