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.

Advertisement

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

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

Saudi Arabia: The Brat Country

Tags

arabia, arabian peninsula, Barack Obama, BBC, chop chop, Christopher Caldwell, Civilisation, Coffee, Counter-Jihad, crane fall, crash, Defend the modern world, haj collapse, incompetance, Iran, iranian pilgrims, kuwait, mecca, mecca crush, medina, Middle East, Muslims, pilgrimage, pilgrims, Qatar, Race and ethnicity in the United States Census, Saudi, saudi disaster, stampede, UAE

As you’ll be aware, two major disasters have afflicted Saudi Arabia in the past fortnight, each causing multiple fatalities. First, a crane ‘inexplicably’ crashed onto the most sacred Mosque in Islam, killing dozens. Then, a stampede during the traditional ‘stone the devil’ ceremony (not far from the site of the first incident) killed hundreds more.

On the off chance anyone finds this incompetence surprising, let’s build a context for it. In the first case, the Saudi construction industry is globally regarded as an institution of thinly disguised slavery. The workers, usually imported from impoverished areas of the Indian sub-continent, are provided with little training, guidance, insurance or protection. In this sense, the only wonder is why cranes aren’t falling on the hour.

In the second case, this is far from the first time that Saudi security forces, in total numbering barely 100,000 men (and only men, of course), have found large-scale co-ordination projects impossible to manage. A wave of animal chaos condemns countless families to an early, pious demise every year.

And this dysfunction, of course, is not isolated but general. Saudi Arabia is plainly not a developed country. Not by any measure. Though the Human Development Index continues to mistake wealth for sophistication, the nation is merely a third world state splashed with unlimited resources.

Like any crackpot regime, the Saudi government – knowing no better – wastes every dollar of (unearned) revenue on a bloated military and on spreading propaganda abroad (the result of which has been the rebirth of Sunni Islamic militancy and the deaths of thousands of Western citizens). Security and policing are brutal, often savage and yet also notoriously inefficient. The education system is appalling. Illiteracy is rife. Women are granted no rights whatsoever. Obesity is a national characteristic. Despite all the investment available, the national life expectancy is the same as in penniless Libya. The hospital system, while slightly better than the school system, is little more than a crude institutional plagiarism from the civilised world, and one that would collapse without that world’s continued instruction. Agriculture is non-existent (though, as other barren countries have shown, not impossible). If oil is subtracted from the equation completely, the economy is less productive than Jordan (a country with population of 6 million to Saudi’s 31 million).

Saudi Arabia is a brat country. A spoilt, lazy, bloated brat. Unaccustomed to ever working for a living, a brat never develops intelligence or a worthwhile skill. Money comes in whatever the case. So why do anything other than grow fat and play computer games? Why move with the cultural times at all? Why not freeze the clock at the very moment black gold first ejaculated from the ground?

I am an Islamophobe, admittedly. But I do nevertheless feel bad when innocent people die. Saudi incompetence has cut short the lives of a great number of people this week; people with futures, dreams and histories. They firmly deserve the blame of their co-religionists, as well as our unending contempt for their staggering lack of competence, compassion and innovation.

D,LDN

The De-Saudification of the Middle East.

Tags

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

D, LDN.

Who Knew?

Tags

Civilisation, Counter-Jihad, decadence, Defend the modern world, Detroit, Facebook, Imam, Iran, Islamisation, Islamism, masturbation, Multiculturalism, Muslims, Race and ethnicity in the United States Census, sex, sex and, sexuality, Turkey

According to a Turkish Imam, when men masturbate they risk impregnating their hands.

Once again… According to a Turkish Imam, when men masturbate they risk impregnating their hands.

Now, before you jump to any rash conclusions about the scientific basis on which this claim is made, I must inform you that the hands are only impregnated in the afterlife, and this explains the lack of earthly evidence with which the Imam might back up this theory in the present, terrestrial domain.

Though he has not been pressed much further on the matter, the idea he imparted has great implications for those who hope to survive death, and such people are understandably desperate for certain clarifications. For example, if the hands are pregnant, from what part of the body does the child emerge? Is morning sickness in the wrists?

It’s very easy to laugh at Islamic madness. Despite that, I thoroughly recommend it.

D, LDN.

The Islamic World War.

Tags

Algeria, American Liberty, Christianity and Islam, Civilisation, Defend the modern world, Egypt, France holidays, Iran, Islamism, Multiculturalism, No to Turkey in the EU, Pakistan, Race and ethnicity in the United States Census, Saudi, Sunni vs Shia, Turkey, Turkey holidays

With news of Saudi F-15 warplanes carrying out airstrikes on Shia positions in Yemen, the formation by Egypt of a United Arab military force, Sunni militants seeking the violent overthrow of a pro-Iran regime in Syria, and bubbling tensions in Bahrain and Iraq, you would be forgiven for thinking an Islamic World War is on the near horizon. You may well be right.

Having simmered and spat for over a decade now, Sunni-Shia hostilities seem to be rushing to the surface in every country in the Dar es Salaam. Despite the likely cost of such a civil war, no Western policy seems capable of arresting it, and the process has an energy detached from all economic or political consideration.

Before looking at where we, in the West, should stand on all this, let us first look at the military, or civilizational balance between the two sides.

The Shia Coalition.

1. Iran.

According to outside analysis, the Islamic Republic of Iran has a military capacity roughly on a par with Saudi Arabia, with the latter’s technical edge sanded down by the former’s weight of numbers. Unlike Saudi’s quarter-million standing force, Iran’s army can marshal up to 900,000 soldiers (excluding state militias) and there is a wealth of dated yet still operational equipment from the Soviet Union for them to employ.

2. Iraq.

Despite the fact the two countries were once bitterly at war, it is increasingly naïve to consider modern Iraq as a separate political entity to Iran. Politically and diplomatically, the countries are in lockstep with one another, and the true source of Iraqi policy is now Tehran. All this means in practice is that Iran’s military-age population has increased by about 20 million and its oil reserves by 100%. If this integration continues, Iran will be a regional superpower, possessing or having influence over the greatest store of extractable oil in the world.

Iraq is yet to develop regular armed forces capable of acting independently

3. Southern Lebanon.

The Southern part of Lebanon (and to a limited extent, the national capital, Beirut) is currently occupied by Hezbollah, a Shia terrorist group loyal to Iran. At war, Hezbollah has proven to be surprisingly capable and it remains armed to the teeth due to historic weapons transfers from Russia, via Iran and Syria.

Hezbollah has between 4,000 and 65,000 fighters.

The Sunni Quintet.

1. Turkey.

By far the most militarily powerful country in the Islamic World, the Republic of Turkey is also increasingly aware of its position as a bulwark of the Sunni coalition. Having wrecked its alliance with Israel, elected an Islamist government, abandoned attempts to break into Europe, and made no attempt to resolve the conflict with the Kurds, Ankara appears readier than ever to play a part in a regional conflagration.

Turkey has already offered Saudi Arabia logistical aid in combating the Shia rebels in Yemen, and has vocally condemned Iranian activity in the region as a whole. The nation has pre-existing links with a variety of Sunni countries, including Egypt and Syria.

Of course, Turkey’s anti-Iranian sentiments may be due to more than religious conviction. Ankara is famously terrified by the aspirations of the Kurds, an Iranic people who possess strong links to Pan-Iranic Nationalists in Iran. Further complicating this is the fact that at least a quarter of Iran’s population are Turkic Azeris who routinely complain about Persian supremacism in the Iranian state.

Turkey can marshal roughly 1 million soldiers.

2. Pakistan.

The only Islamic country to possess an independent nuclear force, the Islamic Republic of Pakistan must be taken into account in any analysis or projection. Virulently anti-Shia, riddled with extremism and perennially unstable, Pakistan has been warmly embraced by Sunni supremacists like Osama Bin Laden, and the country remains an invaluable ally for the Saudis, who are said to be close to securing a nuclear weapon from the Pakistani stockpile.

Pakistan can marshal over a million soldiers.

3. Egypt.

The state of Egypt and its future direction is hard to judge. Despite being over 85% Sunni and the historic birthplace of radical Islam, the government in Cairo claims (for now) to be intent on a pro-Western path of secular reform. Only time can tell us whether this is possible or sincere, but if it isn’t, then the Sunni side of the conflict would benefit immeasurably, Egypt having the second most powerful military in the Islamic world (1.3 million soldiers).

4. Saudi Arabia.

The spiritual, financial and historic executive of the Sunni world, Saud Arabia has the world’s fourth largest military budget and the largest known oil reserves on Earth. Saudi investment companies own a considerable slice of Western meta-economy, granting Riyadh considerable diplomatic influence over the modern world. Saudi’s standing army numbers around 250,000 soldiers, but there are plans to increase this.

5. The Gulf.

The states of the Gulf, namely, Kuwait, the UAE and Qatar are among the richest nations on Earth, and possess small but very high-tech militaries. Gulf foreign policy is usually harmonious with that of the Saudis.

Combined, the number of active soldiers in the Gulf States is 105,000.

The Balance.

Sunni Quintet Military Forces – 3,655,000 – the larger Sunni world having 80% of the world’s Muslim civilian population.

Shia Coalition Military Forces – 930,000 – the larger Shia world having 15% of the world’s Muslim civilian population.

As should be obvious from this analysis, the Sunnis resoundingly outgun and outnumber the Shia. Indeed, if Iran was to fall apart or be drawn into a self-destructive war with Israel, the Shia would be left almost defenceless and vulnerable to outright genocide.

With that being said, a war as large as this can cause a lot of destruction before an inevitable outcome is reached.

Where Should We Stand?

Who should we side with in this developing conflict? In my own view, we should pick no side at all. A mad, religious conflict of this type has no relevance to the Western world, and neither the Sunni or the Shia have behaved in a such a way as to merit our allegiance.

Who will we side with? Well, given oil politics and the economic structure of the world, the West seems predestined to back up the Sunni-dominated order of the Middle East. The Saudis, Qataris, Kuwaitis, Egyptians and Turks are currently allied with the EU and America, while all the Shia states (save Iraq) are considered enemies. This will mean a short but destabilising war, ending in a Sunni victory.

Along the way, America may use the aggression of Iran towards Sunni states as a green light for action against the Ayatollahs. Israel may feel compelled to act against Hezbollah. A direct confrontation between ISIS and the Iranians may occur in Syria and central Iraq. Nevertheless, the end result can be foreseen in photographic detail, a Muslim world unchanged in its fundamental poverty.

I’ll close with an obvious but vital reflection: As all this blood is pointlessly shed in faraway lands, we should remind ourselves how luxurious it is to live in a 21st century civilisation; a condition far from perfect, but one that is infinitely preferable to the alternative.

D, LDN.

Are Shia Muslims an Exception?

Tags

Are shia more moderate?, Civilisation, Counter-Jihad, Defend the modern world, Hezbollah, Iran, Israel, Lebanon, Middle East military balance, Nuclear program, Persia, Persians, Shia vs Sunni

It has been put to me more than once that Shia Muslims represent a more civilised portion of the Islamic multitude than the Sunni majority. For evidence, those who hold to this argument present the cases of Iran and Lebanon.

Despite their troubles and imperfect governments, it is undoubtedly the case that these two countries enjoy a higher and more recognisably (to a European) civilised form of social order that the lowly standards of the Islamic world. Iran, regardless of its theocratic state, rarely experiences beheadings and terrorism. Lebanon, despite Hezbollah, has retained a level of social peace conducive to a flourishing tourism industry. It is less surprising to hear of an Iranian or Lebanese intellectual being nominated for a Nobel prize than it would be to hear of the same honour bestowed on a Saudi or Afghan. And when one looks at a photograph of Tehran or Beirut, it is easy to imagine one is looking at a city in Eastern or Southern Europe.

In Iraq, where 70% of the population is Shia, the civil war further revealed this distinction. During Abu Musab al-Zarqawi’s reign of terror, almost all of the acts of terrorism in the conflict were Sunni against Shia. And when the Shia did respond, it was more often with law and state, rather than bomb and machete.

It’s all very convincing isn’t it? To be sure, an increasing number are very convinced of it. I’m not yet one of them though and I have 3 reasons to support this stubbornness:

1. Despite the undeniably unique aspects of their religious system, Shia Muslims nevertheless revere and follow the Qur’an as their infallible manifesto of life and behaviour.

2. Despite the moderation of the Iranian population, the Iranian state continues to stone women and hang gays for explicitly Shia Islamic reasons.

3. (related to No. 2) Shia Islam exercises Sharia law just as fervently as Sunni Islam and believes it should supersede civil legislation.

I’m not saying we shouldn’t add greater nuance to our dealings with Shia countries than with Sunni ones, because we probably should. But I don’t believe (or have yet to be convinced) that a Shia country can serve as a reliable ally of the West. Too much separates us and that which does so is of crucial importance.

D, LDN.

Kill it Before it Grows.

Tags

Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, Al-Qaeda, Amputations, Beheading, Bin Laden, Bomb, Bombardment, Iran, Iraq, ISIS, Islamisation, Jihad, Missiles, Muslims, Saudi Arabia, Sharia, Syria, Violence, War, WWIII

Talking of the Middle East, the conquest of this region by the Stone Age lunatics ‘ISIS’ continues apace.

An Islamic caliphate has now been officially declared and the loyalty of every Muslim in the world formally demanded. The shaggy beatnik ‘Caliph’ of this empire (Abu-Bakr Baghdadi) announced these initiatives in a public speech in which he also justified a global war aimed at making the borders of his hell-state globally circular.

“I am the wali (leader) who presides over you” he stated “…God gave your mujahedeen brothers victory after long years of jihad and patience… so they declared the caliphate and placed the caliph in charge… This is a duty on Muslims that has been lost for centuries.”

Despite the hypocritical resistance of states like Saudi Arabia and Iran, this is actually the logical endpoint of Islamic politics. Consequently, it will find a worryingly large audience if left to advertise itself with this kind of propaganda.

It is my view that we must act and that it is better to act now.  

The New Caliphate, although already notorious for its cruelty and martial zeal, is small and poorly organised; it has no economy that couldn’t be torn down by the most elementary measures, and – most vitally – it is surrounded by states who (officially at least) answer to our leadership.

Little stands in the way of action except cowardice.

So, as a Fox News anchor was stupidly ridiculed for suggesting, bomb them. Annihilate them from the air, not only to cripple this threat in its youth, but to prepare a message for those which may appear in the future.

Since 9/11 we have become so wearily accustomed to the spectacle of bearded revolutionaries prophesying our death or enslavement, that we no longer seem especially concerned by it.

More often that not, our strength justifies this indifference, but it may not forever. A Caliphate encompassing the angry youth of the Muslim world is not something to be brushed off from the imagination like a threat from the glorious military of North Korea. These people are closer. Much closer. Via Turkey, they can very easily infiltrate our continent.

To allow the enemy a base of operations and training only miles from the EU is a death wish, and many lives can be saved by acting sooner rather than later.

D, LDN.

Bomb Iran.

Tags

Bahrain, Christianity and Islam, Counter-Jihad, Defend the modern world, Demographics of Europe, Iran, Islamic Republic, Israel, Lebanon, Middle East, Multiculturalism, No to Turkey in the EU, Pakistan, Persian Gulf, Race and ethnicity in the United States Census, Saudi Arabia, Soviet Union, Strait of Hormuz, Tehrangeles

Like Saudi Arabia, the Islamic Republic of Iran is not a country whose ambitions are limited by its borders. Tehran’s ruling clerical elite views itself as the logical executive of the Shia Muslim world, for which they would claim Iraq, Lebanon, North-East Arabia, Bahrain, and parts of Pakistan.

For this purpose, the Iranian military (including paramilitary forces) now marshals over 2.5 million men; the largest standing army in the most heavily-armed region in the world. Given its geographic position, the Iranian republic is also able to fire sophisticated missiles at Europe, Saudi Arabia and Israel, as well at US bases in the Persian Gulf. The Iranian navy meanwhile can halt oil transit in the Straits of Hormuz, potentially devastating the global economy.

And perhaps to all this, Iran may be about to add a nuclear capability.

The day the Islamic Republic first tests a nuclear device will mark the birth of a new Great Power; an Islamist Soviet Union, shielded by the threat of apocalypse to arm and manipulate the world, from Bahrain to Mexico to Tehrangeles.

The Obama administration has today consented to lay off the Islamic Republic for a period of six months, being assured of a ‘freeze’ in Iranian nuclear development. Given that Iran once hid a secret enrichment facility under a mountain, this seems foolhardy in the extreme.

Of the deal this weekend, the Israeli Prime Minister has said the following::

“Today the world has become a much more dangerous place because the most dangerous regime in the world has taken a significant step toward attaining the most dangerous weapon in the world… This agreement and what it means endanger many countries including, of course, Israel. Israel is not bound by this agreement. The Iranian regime is committed to the destruction of Israel and Israel has the right and the obligation to defend itself, by itself, against any threat.”

It appears only Israel and Saudi Arabia are now willing and able to do anything about Tehran’s drive for the big league.

If, in the coming weeks, the former decides to act alone, and if the press tells you that Israel is being reckless, or selfish, or fanatical, or is somehow a ‘rogue state’, know this: This is the same state which stopped Iraq and Syria from developing WMD; weapons which could have just as easily been aimed at London as Tel Aviv. There is a clear and undeniable overlap between Israel’s security and our own, and Iran, along with Saudi Arabia and Turkey, is part of a terrifying cultural revival, aimed ultimately at our common destruction.

We have been warned.

D, LDN