Islam is Ruining Everything

Tags

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

D, LDN

Advertisement

The Banality of Terror

Tags

anti-islamism, antijihad, banal, BBC, blogging, Christianity and Islam, Civilisation, Coffee, Defend the modern world, Demographics of Europe, DTMW, dtmw dtmw, Facebook, facebook twitter, france attack, france terrorism, hashtags, hollande, Internet, ISIS, ISIS France, Islamism, Jihad, Multiculturalism, nice, nice attack, nice france, No to Turkey in the EU, online, politics, radio, Television, Terror, Terrorism, Twitter, United States, War

The attack in Nice, France – which resulted in the death by crushing of over 80 innocent civilians – has hardly caused a ripple on social media.

After the news had come through the place-name ‘Nice’ trended on Facebook for little more than an hour or so, after which it rapidly tumbled out of the ranking, replaced by such stories relating to the appointment of Boris Johnson as Foreign Secretary to the UK government, speculation over Donald Trump’s VP choice, and the latest gossip relating to the Palin family.

There have been no diaphanous tricolours draped over the profile pictures of my friends this time around. Few have chosen to mention the incident in a status update, or even to share a relevant news story. And I have been no different.

I just can’t quite bring myself to be angry over this latest atrocity. I am not shocked, frightened, or agitated by it. The news of the attack has hit me rather like a report of sleet in Scotland, or wind in Wales. Terrorism, especially terrorism in France, now seems ordinary, banal, unremarkable.

This attitude (which is largely involuntary) is especially disturbing when one contemplates the gruesome manner in which the victims of the Nice attack perished. Unlike the more professional attack of last November, the victims this time were not put out of their happiness by a painless bullet to the head. They were crushed by several tonnes of metal and rubber; flattened, deformed under wheels. As banal as the observation might be, this must have been a hellish way to die.

But still, I’m not outraged – only bitter and depressed. I want all this to stop, but I really don’t think it will. And if an anti-Islamist blogger is becoming desensitised to terrorism, how on Earth can we expect the average Joe to maintain the required level of interest?

The man suspected of carrying out the Nice truck attack: French-Tunisian – Mohamed Lahouaiej Bouhlel

The official response to Nice has been just as lacklustre as the public reaction. Boris Johnson, (whose appointment as Foreign Secretary must rank as the worst national embarrassment in years), has expressed little more than sadness at the news. In America, Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton offered only cheap, hollow solidarity on her personal Facebook page. Even Donald Trump has been more muted than usual.

The only exception to this icy disregard has been (or seemed at one point to be) former US house speaker Newt Gingrich, who used the aftermath of the attack to suggest a very sensible policy by which the US would quiz individual Muslims upon entry to America on their views of Sharia Law.

Unfortunately, if also inevitably, when this commonsensical notion received the usual abuse from the usual abusers, Gingrich promptly drained the idea of its force, over-clarifying the concept to the point of retraction. How pathetic; how telling.

The reaction of the Western media (or at least the UK/US media) was to dampen out any loose sparks of anger that might have escaped the general apathy described. The ever-reliable ‘don’t panic’ libertarian Simon Jenkins, for example, hot-footed it into the Guardian offices to inform us that: “A Nice truck driver does not remotely threaten the security of the French state, any more than such acts do the security of America or Britain. The identification of the nation state with random killings of innocent people has become a political aberration….The implication that leaders can somehow prevent such attacks by armed response is a total distraction from the intelligence and police work that might at least diminish their prevalence. It nationalises and institutionalises public alarm. It leads governments into madcap adventurism abroad and “securitises” the private lives of citizens at home…What has happened in France is tragic and calls for human sympathy. Beyond that, there is nothing we can usefully do – other than make matters worse.”

Though this argument has the flavour of reasonableness, the implication of it is surely that we should do absolutely nothing in response to terrorism; indeed, that we should actively prevent our governments from doing anything about it – on libertarian grounds.

Someone should really inform Mr Jenkins that Western states in fact need little encouragement to under-react to terrorist atrocities. Doing nothing has been standard operating procedure ever since the twilight years of the Bush administration.

I personally have no doubt that Francois Hollande’s bungled security measures (including his declaration of an extended state of emergency) will end up doing more harm than good. Nevertheless, the general preference of the public must surely be for the state to do more to address this threat, not less. Jenkins and his ilk appear obsessed with getting the masses to calm down and to put things in a rational, non-emotional, context. We have been doing that for over a decade. A bit of non-rational rage really wouldn’t go amiss at this point.

French President Francois Hollande

All things considered, Nice has been an unmitigated triumph for ISIS. Not only have the swinish degenerates managed to send dozens of unbelievers to perpetual hellfire, they have also further diminished the life-force and rage-reflex of the continent on which they resided.

(On a side note  – It is worth noting that Westerners have not become incapable of getting angry about anything. We are still liable to go ape over the unlawful killing of gorillas and lions. It is only the value of human beings, and of Western culture, that is collapsing. One might justly speculate that if a dog or a cat had been caught under the wheels in Nice the reaction would have been rather more vigorous.)

Europe seems ever more like a wounded animal, yelping and moaning, bleeding and weakening. The old spark, the energy behind colonisation and empire, has been all but exhausted. The deathly prefix ‘post’ is now attached to every formerly noble concept: post-modern, post-national, post-racial, post-Christian etc… Everything is watered down and submissive enough that even the most barbaric challenger can overcome it.

I have nothing original to say about Nice. I will simply close by reiterating that Islam does not belong in Europe and never will. It is backward, violent, boring and false down to the letter. It must be resisted with everything with we have.

If indeed we still have anything at all.

D, LDN

The Wolf at Israel’s Door

Tags

America, American Liberty, anti-Semitism, BBC, Britain First, Caroline Glick, Civilisation, Counter-Jihad, Defend the modern world, Glick, ISIS, Islam, Islamism, Jerusalem, Jerusalem Post, Multiculturalism, Muslims, No to Turkey in the EU, Palestinians, Race and ethnicity in the United States Census, stabbings, stabbings in Israel, Terror, Terrorism, War, war in M.E

One of the more unpleasant consequences of Russia’s involvement in the Middle East is the formation of a formidable military and political coalition along Israel’s northern border. As I write, Hezbollah, Assad’s Syria and Iran are establishing a united force in southern Syria, protected and armed by the Russian military, and with tight links to the New Iraq.

This coalition is unlike any enemy Israel has faced before. It is not a force that Israel can simply bomb out of existence (like Hamas in Gaza, or – formerly – Hezbollah in Lebanon). Moscow will not allow that. What’s more, in combined strength the new Anti-Israel Northern Border Coalition (from here-on AINBC) is perfectly capable of defending itself. Though his country itself has been burnt out, Basher Al-Assad’s huge military still exists and is now dangerously concentrated in the south of the country. Hezbollah is the most effective terrorist force Israel has ever had to contend with. And Iran, unleashed by Obama’s utopian ‘nuclear deal’, now awaits a payment of 100 billion dollars in previously frozen funds; enough to purchase an army strong enough to dominate the region. To have this monster in the most contested area of the Middle East may prove to be a game-changer.

How might Israel get out of this? No commentary (in Israel or the West) as yet seems to offer an answer. Nuclear weapons (Israel is estimated to have over 200) are practically useless because of Moscow’s involvement. A conventional bombing campaign would risk Russian and Iranian reprisals. The Syrian army, so concentrated in the area adjacent to Israel, forbids a ground invasion. What can be done? At the moment, precious little.

AINBC doesn’t have a single policy yet, but when it develops one, several things will almost certainly be on the agenda. Syria will want the Golan Heights back. Hezbollah will want Sheba Farms back. The Palestinians, emboldened by a sympathetic super-power in the neighbourhood, will demand an acceleration of the peace process.

Indeed, who can say with certainty that the current Palestinian hate-crime epidemic is not related to a new feeling of political invulnerability?

In case you’re unaware of this epidemic (not impossible given the shameful lack of media coverage in the West), you should know that Palestinian criminals in the Greater Jerusalem area are stabbing people with kitchen knives simply for being Jewish. Dozens of Israelis have now been killed or injured, every one of them completely innocent of any wrongdoing. The IDF military, designed for much larger and very different operations, is overwhelmed, along with Israel’s police force, health sector and local funeral services. No end to the violence has yet come into view.

Given these mounting troubles, it must be conceded that Israeli leaders have been far too serene about the prospects for regional and internal peace in recent years. The surrounding states (or ‘ring states’ as some Israeli strategists refer to them) – with the pleasant exception of Jordan – are demographically booming, developing in arms, and degenerating in attitudes.

If the State of Israel is to survive (in the very long term), its leaders must regain their previous realism. They must confront AINBC while it is still in its larval stage. If that develops to its fullest potential, and if it allies itself (which it surely will) with the most intolerant factions of the Palestinian movement, Israel may find itself facing the greatest existential risk in its modern history.

D, LDN

The Fraud: Anjem Choudary’s Quest for Notoriety

Tags

America, America 911, anjem, Anjem Choudary, anjem choudary arrest, anjem choudary bbc, anjem choudary fox news, anjem choudary muslim, anjem choudary newsnight, BBC, Civilisation, Counter-Jihad, Counterjihad, Defend the modern world, deport anjem, Facebook, Muslims, No to Turkey in the EU, Political Correctness, Race and ethnicity in the United States Census, Terror, tiwtter

From relatively modest beginnings, ‘English’ hate-preacher Anjem Choudary has risen through the ranks of evil to become the star of the British tabloid press. After the hook-handed, one-eyed nightmare Abu Hamza was carted off to America to face overdue terror charges, and the equally horrific cleric Abu Qatada was deported to Jordan for similar offences, the red-top media has had to rely almost entirely on Choudary to provide their readers’ daily fill of anger and indignation.

If you sense a cynical tone in my words, you are right on the nail. The transformation of radical Islam into a pantomime, complete with quasi-humorous oddball villains is a very dangerous and inappropriate game in my view. No issue is more serious or more threatening to our country than Islam, and the reality is far darker than low-risk, smooth-talking pieces of shit like Choudary would suggest.

Serious (active) Jihadis don’t appear in documentaries, and nor do they jostle for supremacy with Sean Hannity and Pamela Geller in Fox News debate shows. They keep their rotten little heads down and plot the murder of women and children – that’s what they do. The people waving placards suggesting the murder of the Pope are usually cowards who do not have the courage of their own hideous convictions. Anjem Choudary fits that definition perfectly.

Choudary is certainly an Islamist (and an enemy of the West), but unlike some of his peers, he is a fundamentally spineless. He has never directly taken part in terrorist attacks (which, though nefarious, must involve a willingness to tolerate pain and the loss of liberty). Despite suggesting that others do so, he has refused to join his brothers in the ranks of ISIS, a refusal that makes no sense if one believes his claim to agree with their agenda. For all his hostility towards the British state, he continues to live off the British taxpayer, receiving thousands upon thousands in benefits every year. And according to certain reports (most of which he has denied), he cannot even resist the pleasures of secularism, like alcohol and casual sex with native women.

Choudary is a gigantic fraud and a gutless nobody. He doesn’t incite outrage to promote or protect Islam, but solely because he enjoys the limelight. Like a twisted Islamic Katie Hopkins, Choudary thrives on column inches and airtime, regarding himself as heroically honest, brutally articulate and historically essential.

Even Muslims are beginning to see through the act. I have read numerous accusations on social media alleging that Choudary is a state agent, hired by MI5 to whip up hostility against the Religion of Peace. He isn’t, of course. But the fact such accusations can be brought to mind is further evidence of his ideological amateurishness.

As you’ll be aware, Mr Choudary was arrested this past week on charges of encouraging support for Islamic State. While this is good news, I doubt it will lead to a satisfactory conclusion of the Choudary saga. The only fitting end would be the exile of this fake, freedom-loving con-artist to the cultural and economic wilderness he pretends to prefer.

D, LDN.

Jihad vs. McWorld.

Tags

9/11, American Liberty, Benjamin Barber, Big Mac, Christianity and Islam, Civilisation, Counter-Jihad, Counterjihad, Defend the modern world, Jihadism, Lexus vs the Olive Tree, Multiculturalism, New York, New York holidays, NYT, Race and ethnicity in the United States Census, Terror, Thomas Friedman

It’s been a full ten years since the publication, originally to much derision and apathy, of American political scientist Benjamin Barber’s book ‘Jihad Vs. McWorld: Terrorism’s Challenge to Democracy’.

Seen by some as a dumbed-down popularisation of Samuel Huntingdon’s ‘Clash of Civilisations’ thesis, this slim volume (and especially its title) has always seemed to me a more accurate framing of the same struggle.

The struggle with/against Islam is a clash of civilisations (in that Islam is a civilisation and that there is a ‘clash’ involved) but not entirely in the way Huntingdon predicted. The war is not Islam pitched against the West specifically, but Islam versus the modern age and all who aspire to dwell in it. Muslims are as hostile to Kenyans and Japanese as they are to Brits and Americans. The Jihadi elite correctly identify the modern ideal of globalisation as a lethal threat to the integrity of Islamic culture. This is not then a clash between ‘East and West’, but a battle between progress and the 6th century, between Starbucks and the Mosque, the Lexus and the Olive Tree (to quote the title of an excellent book by Thomas Friedman).

Islamism derives it energy from the same place as neo-Nazism. Those who pine for ancient castles, Germanic runes and maidens milking cows are one and the same with those who pine for the tent-life of ancient Arabia. Though officially opposed to one another, Islamists and Nazis alike share a burning disgust at the golden arches of McDonalds, at the white tick of Nike sportswear, at the homogenisation of the global high street and of national cultures. Both long for a misty utopian past; an older, simpler way of living that was cruelly interrupted by industry, but that is recoverable if only the capitalists (Jews) can be brought down from their dominant position.

This is what Barber meant by ‘Jihad’ – the poisonous ideas that appeal to those ill-equipped to compete in a meritocratic world. This is broader and more interesting than the crude differences Huntingdon presented us with. As Barber’s definition allows us to see, we have our own Jihadis in the West, and not all of them are Islamic.

The modern world needs to be defended from all its enemies, whatever they look like and whatever language they speak. We would be fools to presume, like Huntingdon, that the battle lines will fall neatly on the borders of cultures and languages.

D, LDN.

Pakistan’s Everyday Madness.

Tags

BBC, Children, Christians, Civilisation, CNN, Counter-Jihad, Defend the modern world, India vs Pakistan, Islamism, Massacre of children, Multiculturalism, Muslims, NBC, Nuclear Weapons, Pakistan, Pakistani Taliban, Peshawar, Peshawar attack, Protests, Taliban, Terror

When Taliban gunmen abbreviated the lives of 132 children in a Pakistani school last month, it became customary on social media to report a feeling of ‘shock’. Via facebook and twitter, Westerners lined up to report their disbelief and surprise at an event that seemed to defy understanding.

This wasn’t a bandwagon I could leap onto myself, I’m afraid. To do so would have been dishonest and almost pretentious. Knowing what I know about Islam, about Pakistan and about the abusive relationship between the two, I couldn’t be less surprised by a massacre of this kind. To be sure, I couldn’t really be shocked by any act of bestial violence occurring in that horrible, irredeemable country. If tomorrow, 300 new born babies were slaughtered in a Pakistani maternity ward, my heart would ache, but my mind would be unchanged.

Islam, you see, can only ever end in violence. Those Muslims who do not commit violence really are (as the extremists say) disobeying the spirit of the religion. That those children massacred in Peshawar were themselves Muslim means little. If Islam cannot fight those outside of its tent, it will turn on its own. Like the proverbial shark that must constantly move to survive, the pace of Islamic evil must be ceaselessly maintained. Noise must made (and what better noise than screaming) so that thought and conscience can be muffled and ignored. If the Muslims of the world could stand still and reflect without the presence of an (external or internal) enemy, even for a year, the culture would begin to crumble. Islam is total and permanent mobilisation of the lower instincts; a military-delusional complex.

Unlike Iran, Tunisia and other moderately infected nations, it is increasingly clear that Pakistan cannot be rescued. There is no cultural haloperidol we can airdrop to change the hearts and minds of that delusion-ravaged land. And when things like Peshawar occur, we should have the honesty not to feign surprise.

D, LDN.

Have You Read the Qur’an?

Tags

Christianity and Islam, Civilisation, Counter-Jihad, Counterjihad, Defend the modern world, ISIS, Islam, Islamism, Islamists, Koran, Muslims, Quran, Terror, Terrorism, Women

Last week, a commenter on this blog stressed how important it was for those concerned with the resurgence of Islam to read the Qur’an in its complete form. He was correct to do so, and his recommendation is sound.

I bought a Qur’an many years ago – the Penguin translation by NJ Dawood – and read most of the Suras in a random order. This was before I started writing about Islam, and my only motivation in visiting the text was to see how intolerant it was against Women. As you’ll know, there is a notorious Sura titled ‘Women’, and this contains most of the references to sexual equality in the whole work. The most famous passage from this chapter is undoubtedly verse 4:34 –

“Men have authority over women because God has made one superior to the other, and because they spend their wealth to maintain them. Good women are obedient. They guard their unseen parts because God has guarded them. As for those from whom you fear disobedience, admonish them, forsake them in beds apart, and beat them. Then if they obey you, take no further action against them”.

It’s strange to think that it was 1400 years ago that some gentleman in the Arabian desert wrote these words, and yet every detail in his articulation now affects over a billion living citizens of the world. The sentence “They guard their unseen parts…” has by-itself chosen the dress for a massive portion of female humanity. That person in the desert, scraping these words onto the bones of an animal, or onto papyrus or stone tablets, decided then what a Muslim woman in Leicester will wear today. Such are the giddying quantum mechanics of history.

As for examples of the promotion of violence, we are rather spoilt for choice. The anti-Islam writer Daniel Pipes collected the following excerpts:

“Regarding infidels (unbelievers), they are the Muslim’s “inveterate enemies” (Sura 4:101). Muslims are to “arrest them, besiege them and lie in ambush everywhere” (Sura 9:5) for them. They are to “seize them and put them to death wherever you find them, kill them wherever you find them, seek out the enemies of Islam relentlessly” (Sura 4:90). “Fight them until Islam reigns supreme” (Sura 2:193). “Cut off their heads, and cut off the tips of their fingers” (Sura 8:12).

I’ve no longer got my copy of the Penguin translation. I think I gave it to Age Concern just before I left for University. I will re-order the same volume and would strongly advise anyone concerned about Islam to order a copy too. It is hugely irritating to have one’s Islamophobia returned with the remark “You don’t know anything about Islam”. That was never true. I discovered as much as I need to about the Islamic religious system many years ago.

Nevertheless, a good knowledge of Qur’anic quotation is vital to successfully conduct a live argument with the faithful. A Muslim does not consider this text as Christians consider the New Testament. Muslims devoutly believe that God wrote the Qur’an and that every sentence must be the absolute truth. Given its purported author, Muslims also hold that it cannot be argued with or re-interpreted. It must be followed without question. This makes Qur’anic criticism by far the most effective means of confronting Islam as a manner of life and thought.

D, LDN.

Delayed Thoughts on Osama Bin Laden.

Tags

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

D, LDN.