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

Advertisement

The De-Saudification of the Middle East.

Tags

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

D, LDN.

The Worst Country in the World.

Tags

America 911, American Liberty, anti-Semitism, Defend the modern world, Dictatorship, Europe, House of Saud, Inside the Saudi Kingdom, Kim Kardashian, Muslims, Pakistan, Race and ethnicity in the United States Census, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, Saudi men, Saudi women, United States

Of the 196 countries currently recognised by the UN, only a small number are of any global consequence. The count of those countries we call ‘civilised’ is even smaller. This means – unfortunately – that there are uncivilised countries of consequence; states without high culture but which nevertheless wield political, economic and cultural power.

The most iconic mismatch of this kind is undoubtedly the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia.

Occupying the lion’s share of the Arabian peninsula and with a population of over 28 million people, Saudi is a country of great influence. It is one of the richest countries (per capita) in the world. Its religious capital Makkah provides the spiritual focus for 1.3 Billion Muslims around the world. Funded by oil revenues, the over-equipped Saudi military is the third most powerful in the Middle East (after Israel and Egypt). The youthful Saudi population is growing rapidly and will reach 40 million by 2050.

This concentration of power, together with Saudi’s lack of civilisation has made for the world’s biggest geopolitical headache.

Even though the Saudi government publically professes a Westerly inclination, the country’s religious elite – all of whom are within the royal family’s social orbit – are responsible for the maintenance of Salafism – the most devilish interpretation of the Islamic religion in a thousand years.

Inflexibly opposed to moderation, adaptation and modernity, Salafism regards the Qur’an as the only source of accurate reflection and human practices deviating from it as Haram. Salafi clerics preach that only the example of the ‘original’ (6th and 7th century) Muslims can serve as an accurate guide for contemporary believers, and it is this demonic contention that directly influences the acts of puritanism and violence we see on a daily basis. (Many of the terror groups in operation today are acting under the influence of Salafism rather than Wahhabism – the latter being a parent theology of the former.)

The original Muslims, as you’ll be aware, were cruel, zealous warriors. They slaughtered anyone who dared to hold a different conception of the divine (including, most famously, the Jews of Yathrib), and they expanded the domain of Islam with martial sadism, sexual terrorism and cultural vandalism. The Berbers, Persians, Nabataeans, Phoenicians, Palestinian Jews and Egyptians were all trodden ruthlessly underfoot and forced to revere a religion plagiarised from their own ideas.

Saudi Arabia’s original inhabitants destroyed the ancient Middle East and their descendants use oil money to keep this tragedy from being reversed or even moderated. So far, only Israel has succeeded in undoing this ancient offence. The Lebanese Maronites tried desperately but failed. The Persians dream of reversing it, but seem unlikely to get the chance.

In the modern era, Saudi men have earned a reputation (and this is all they have earned) for being the most charmless of all the national varieties. Just today it is reported that a Saudi prince has offered £1,000,000 dollars for a night with the  ‘celebrity’ Kim Kardashian. This shabby behaviour fits in neatly with the rumoured excesses of this vile royal house. In 2012, a Swiss hotel worker was chastened for revealing the business had to purchase hundreds of condoms for visiting Arab princes. London hoteliers, too, will be familiar with the same faces and their limitless indulgence in prostitutes and strippers. Even London’s commoners have noted the graceless arrogance of these playboys. The Sunday papers are routinely bulked out with photographs of their citrus-coloured Lamborghinis and gold-plated Porsches.

Saudi Women – along with North Koreans of both sexes – are among the most invisible people on earth. Even if you think hard about it, it’s unlikely you can recall the face of one of them beyond the odd escapee Princess. Within the sweltering oppression of the desert Kingdom, women are left to grow old and fat in house-shaped prisons. They cannot drive or leave the house without male permission, nor can they talk with men outside of their extended family.

Apart from destroying cultures, funding prostitution and spreading extremism, the Saudis can also be personally thanked for the collection of tragedies grouped under the date of 9/11; that aquamarine morning in 2001 when 3000 Americans were immolated by madmen acting under the influence of desert know-nothings. People who read chick-lit, listened to Coldplay and Nirvana, shopped at Victoria’s Secret and Tesco – ordinary modern-world citizens – were destroyed by a fire of hatred, the kindling of which began in a faraway desert.

America’s ‘alliance’ with Saudi must count as the most cynical piece of economic opportunism in history. Even the West’s brief friendship with Josef Stalin made more sense and bore more justifying results. There is no state worth fighting that Saudi would help us defeat. Riyadh is on civil terms with Moscow, Pyongyang and Beijing. The use of the word ‘alliance’ in this context drains it of any meaning.

And it isn’t just America degrading itself in this way. The West in general has functioned as Arabia’s main armoury for over 40 years. Britain alone has supplied Riyadh with billions of dollars’ worth (you read that right) of military equipment including fighter jets, air defence systems, tanks, armoured personnel carriers and STA and STG missiles.

Saudi Arabia is the worst country in the world. There is something blasphemous in even calling it a country. Germany is a country. A country of great, industrious, well-evolved human-beings. Saudi is a cultural black hole. It sucks in anything of value that falls within its gravity. And that sucking void; the darkness where the Syrians, Persians and Egyptians went, waits now for the West with a burning hunger.  

D, LDN.

Gay Marriage in Saudi Arabia: Prospects and Obstacles.

Tags

Ann Coulter, BBC, Defend the modern world, Executions, Fox, Gay Marriage, Gay Rights, Gulf, Inside the Kingdom, Jeddah, Muddy Waters, Persian Gulf, Princess, Redeye, Religion, Right is Right, Riyadh, Riyahd, Saudi Arabia, Saudi Kingdom

As I write, the passage of the Gay Marriage bill in Saudi Arabia still hangs tensely in the balance. Opposition from the religious establishment shows no sign of relenting with peaceful protests held overnight in Jeddah and Riyadh.

Meanwhile, supporters of the bill have delivered a petition with over a million signatures to the office of domestic affairs in Jeddah. The government has promised to consider both sides carefully.

Divisions between the two sides have been civil but impassioned and both feel strongly that they are on the brink of triumph.

Abu-Majid, a prominent advocate of gay liberties and executive of Saudi Gay Empowerment Committee (SGEC), said to reporters:

“This is obviously very tense. It’s also hugely exciting. The vote could go either way but I have faith it will be in the right direction: Forward. This is a chance to show the world the true progressive spirit of the Saudi people. Our values can help to lead the world.”

Meanwhile, across the ideological barricades, Sheikh Mohammad Sulayyil claimed his camp was the better placed to succeed.

“We represent the conservative majority in this country” he said “.. the silent majority, who oppose the desecration of marriage but are too polite to make their voices heard. We are a progressive, friendly society, but this is one step too far.”

Asked whether he harboured any hostility toward homosexuals (a frequent allegation by the SGEC), Sulayyil responded resolutely; “Of course we don’t. You cannot hate anyone in Islam. We love and care for homosexuals. We wish only that they respect our believes as well as their own.”

Despite observers predicting a close result, the ‘yes’ faction has easily been the most high-profile to date, with celebrities from throughout the Kingdom lining up to demonstrate their support for the bill. The 30 year old Lesbian actress Aafreeda Aftab has spoken at rallies up and down the country, accompanied by such LGBT superstars as Mohammad Badaidah, Abdul Laqiya and Osama Bin Haroum.

Some events in support of the bill have more dramatic than others. Laqiya and Haroum courted controversy by French-kissing in Medina during the Hajj season. Some clerics deemed this to be inappropriate behaviour and letters of complaint were written to various elected officials. Both actors may face a small fine if officials concur with the motion.

Within religious circles the debate has been particularly profound, with liberal and female imams taking a cautious stand in favour of tolerance and hard-line clerics stating frank opposition.

One thing is clear. Whichever way the result goes, the bill threatens to redefine the traditional identity of this gilded Kingdom and cause waves through the settled political landscape.

D, LDN

(That my satire here is almost see-through exposes how alien the Saudi world is to the one we inhabit).

The Answer Once Lived.

Tags

American Liberty, Civilisation, Counter-Jihad, Counterjihad, Cultural Marxism, Defend the modern world, Islam, Islamisation of London, Multiculturalism, Netherlands, No to Turkey in the EU, Pim Fortuyn, Pym Fortuyn, Saudi Arabia

As I’ve said previously, although I don’t have a solid political affiliation, I would gladly align with any movement capable of both preventing Islamisation and at the same time upholding the virtues of European liberality.

This might well seem like something of a tall order. Many (if not most) parties professing the will to resist Islam also profess the will to resist secularism, Jews, individuality and sometimes even democracy. For all his virtues, even Geert Wilders has made some very smelly alliances with the Dutch ethnic right. Marine Le Pen is known to schmooze with those who doubt the facticity of the Holocaust. In both (and many other) cases, the apple has an attractive skin, but is sour inside.

But people like myself, even if we lack representation now, once did have a champion. His name was Pim Fortuyn.

A noted iconoclast, Pim Fortuyn managed in his truncated career to confuse the intellectual establishment like no other other modern politician. He was the first political leader to oppose Islam for entirely liberal reasons. And this naturally made him dangerous.

When Nick Griffin (or his faceless successor) criticise Islam; the liberal elite have no trouble dismissing their claims by associating them with the other claims they have made.

Griffin might speak sense on Islam, but he speaks (or has spoken) garbage on the Second World War. This self-cancelling poise is repeated across the continental far-right.

Fortuyn by-contrast was a classical liberal. He was also (and this is important) a nice, friendly, charming man. Unlike many others on the far-right, he made no secret of his homosexuality and fought consistently for a cosmopolitan morality. Indeed, he used this minority status to justify his politics:

I don’t hate Islam.” he said in a much-referenced 2002 interview “I consider it a backward culture. I have travelled much in the world. And wherever Islam rules, it’s just terrible. All the hypocrisy. It’s a bit like those old reformed protestants. The Reformed lie all the time. And why is that? Because they have standards and values that are so high that you can’t humanly maintain them. You also see that in that Muslim culture. Then look at the Netherlands. In what country could an electoral leader of such a large movement as mine be openly homosexual? How wonderful that that’s possible. That’s something that one can be proud of. And I’d like to keep it that way, thank you very much.”

How could (or can) a Leftist, a self-proclaimed ‘liberal’ take issue with that?

They can’t, and so every argument deployed against Fortuyn from the Dutch left rang hollow. His party ‘The Pim Fortuyn List’ was enjoying a rapid increase in support at the time of his assassination.

That’s right – in case you didn’t know – Pim Fortuyn was assassinated. The killer was a Leftist who (in his own words) disliked the ‘victimisation’ of Muslims.

In reality, the murder reflected the impossibility of refuting Fortuyn’s arguments from a Left-wing direction.

There are many ways of confronting Islam. Most of the options currently suggested are either self-destructive, ineffectual or regressive. But we are a great civilisation, capable of producing a better answer to the Islamic conquest. I know that because the answer once lived.

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.

Latent Vs Active: A Replacement Typology of Muslims.

Tags

Christian, Christianity, Christianity and Islam, Counter-Jihad, Cultural Marxism, Defend the modern world, Egypt, English Defence League, France, Islam, Islam by country, Lebanon, Multiculturalism, Muslim, Muslim world, No to Turkey in the EU, Organizations, Quran, Religion and Spirituality, Saudi Arabia, Social Aspects, Turkey, United States, World Muslim, Zombies

I’ve mentioned elsewhere that the often proposed division of Muslims into ‘Fundamentalists’ and ‘Moderates’ is unconvincing to me. The distinction is obviously political in origin and obscures more than it enlightens.

I would like therefore to propose a replacement theory, or rather definition, to explain the real difference between the believers who merely pray, and the believers who hijack airliners.

There are, I propose, two distinct types of Muslim in the world; Those who are Latent, and those who are Active. (*There will always be a minority who elude definition).

The Latent Muslim is in the clear majority, accounting perhaps for three quarters of the World Muslim population.

This kind of believer is typically serene and apolitical. He is opiated by his beliefs, rather than stimulated by them. Devout though they may be (and unlike Christians) they often have little curiosity for the battle of ideas.

The Active Muslim – by contrast – is someone whose experience has engaged the less sedating aspects of his faith. He is inclined towards the excitement of violence, death, punishment, procreation and conquest.

These Muslims will fight you until you believe exactly as they do, and possibly even afterward.

Crucially, (unlike with the false Fundamentalist/Moderate antonymy) the Latent Muslim can become an Active believer at any given time. The two conditions are not opposed, merely different, and the Active state is always quiescent in the Latent.

The signature fallacy of EU/US leaders has been to assume that extremism and moderation are real elements of Muslim self-identification; that they are innate, unchangeable and permanent. This couldn’t be further from the truth.

As Daniel Greenfield wrote:

“Politicians… wall off that vast majority of Muslims who did not actually come down to Woolwich and hack at a soldier with a machete and did not fly two planes into the World Trade Center from those who actually did. The hackers and pilots are extremists. The couch potatoes watching at home and cheering them on are moderates. That might be fine if we were discussing a gas station robbery in Cleveland. But to Muslims, Jihad isn’t an act of violence; it’s an act of faith.”

The Latent Muslim, as the name I have chosen implies, is not a moderate. He is unactivated. He lives quietly and habitually, enlivened only by foreign stimulus. It is this Foreign stimulus that tends to change the Latent into the Active. This explains for example, why those Muslims in 99% Muslim countries (Turkey, Saudi Arabia etc..) are largely Latent, whereas those in religiously divided lands (Lebanon, Egypt, Serbia/Kosovo, Britain, France) are more Active.

A more frivolous illustration would involve the mythology of Zombies.

Zombies (in some depictions) are unaggressive and docile among each other, but faced with a thinking human, become drones of monstrous conquest.

In the logic of Zombies, there is no ‘friend or foe’, but simply ‘fellow or food’. And as wrong-headed as we would be to negotiate with the undead, perhaps we’d do better to reconsider our approach with Muslims based on the criteria described.

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

Stop Arming Turkey.

Tags

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

D, LDN.

If you like Lady Gaga, You’re already anti-Islam.

Tags

Christianity, Christianity and Islam, Counter-Jihad, Defend the modern world, English Defence League, Eurabia, Islamic Defenders Front, Katy Perry, Lady Gaga, Mark Steyn, miley cyrus, Multiculturalism, Muslims, No to Turkey in the EU, Pamela Geller, Race and ethnicity in the United States Census, Saudi Arabia

When trying to convince a person of something, it’s often best to reduce the subject concerned to its fundamentals. By doing so, the essential message is easier to understand, and once understood, tends to strike harder. It also helps if your argument involves concepts and actors familiar to the person one is trying to persuade.

With this in mind, a good way to proselytize about the Islamic threat is to highlight the fate of popular culture should the Muslims win. Though such arguments might appear frivolous relative to those within tomes like Lewis’s ‘What Went Wrong’ or Berman’s ‘Terror & Liberalism’ (both worth reading incidentally), it may be the only language younger generations understand.

Take for a start the case of Lady Gaga and her planned 2012 concert in Jakarta, Indonesia. Just weeks before this (sold-out and heavily anticipated) concert was scheduled to take place, organisers were forced to cancel it. The reason? Threats of violence by a Muslim collective calling themselves ‘The Islamic Defenders Front’ (FPI). According to spokespeople for the militant group, Gaga was targeted because her dance moves would ‘corrupt’ and ‘sexualise’ the country’s youth.

After the concert’s cancellation was announced, a member of the FPI exclaimed – ‘This is a victory for Indonesian Muslims. Thanks to God for protecting us from a kind of devil.’

Whatever your views on Lady Gaga, or indeed the effect her example has on young people, you can surely smile at how this must have embarassed Western liberal opinion. Not much was made of it at the time, but we’d do well to make a point of it now.

If a young person likes Lady Gaga, or indeed Miley Cyrus, Katy Perry, or whoever else is in vogue on the Western pop scene, they cannot simultaneously like Islam – or at least not without being exactly hypocritical.

Gaga will not soon be performing in Saudi Arabia, Pakistan or Somalia. Why? Because she stands in direct opposition to everything Islamic clerics promote and fulfills everything they condemn.

An Islamised West – by extension – will have no room for music of any kind, save for the spirit-numbing chantings of Qur’anic verse. Music and orthodox Islam are opposed. Totally. And since one cannot have both, one must choose one or the other.

So why, you ask, are there so many liberals who defend Islam one minute and listen to Katy Perry the next?

Although it looks like hypocrisy on their part, one mustn’t discount simple ignorance as a factor. Many people simply don’t know that Islam prohibits music, or if they do know, cannot believe that such a prohibition could be enforced. Such people must be helped.

To do so, ask them (without sounding obviously sarcastic) to produce a list of their favourite musicians from countries run along traditional Islamic lines. If they’re stubborn, they’ll google ‘Arab musicians’ – something entirely different – and return with a list of Maronite and Coptic singers now based in the West. It’s highly unlikely that they’ll return with a Jazz-Fusion collective from Jeddah, or a punk band from Kabul.

After this, simply walk your point home.

This rule holds true not just for music, but for comedy, fashion, and most kinds of sport too. Beneath the surface, almost every Western citizen is (by lifestyle and social preference) actively anti-Islam. ‘Islamophobes’ are merely those who don’t care to hide it.

D, LDN.