Enter your keyword

Wednesday, April 21, 2010

Competing for Islam's Favor Against Ourselves

WWI was caused less by the assassination of Archduke Ferdinand, and more by Germany and Austria Hungary's eagerness to appease the Muslim Ottoman Empire. Before and during WW2, England and Germany both assiduously courted Muslim support in the Middle East. The Holocaust was one of the byproducts of this rivalry, as Germany courted Arab Muslims by appealing to the genocidal impulses of the likes of the Mufti of Jerusalem, while England courted them by reneging its agreements, and shutting the door to Jewish refugees trying to flee Europe for Israel. While the Holocaust would have happened regardless, it is likely that the death toll would have been significantly lower, without the presence of Islam in the equation.

After the war nothing changed much, except the names of the players. The competition itself however still went on. Instead of England and Germany competing for Islam's favor, it was not the US and the USSR. Both sides cultivated patron Muslim countries, spent and lost huge sums of money on them, and then got a knife in the back for it, time and time again.

The US courted Saudi Arabia under the fanatical rule of the House of Saud, America's oldest partner in the region. In return the Saudi royal family nationalized American oil companies (for which the US government compensated the companies with taxpayer dollars) and then used that money to fund a global Jihad, while the royals incidentally began buying up major chunks of America. 9/11 was only the topper on a large poisonous cake that had been baking in the febrile heat of the Saudi desert for a long time, as petrodollars fed fanatical Islamic pre-medieval beliefs that had been growing steadily more arrogant and insane in direct proportion to the amount of wealth flowing in.

The USSR tried to export Communism, but had to settle for backing the likes of Egyptian dictator Nasser, despite his casual slaughter of domestic Communists. The heap of corruption in Cairo was considered such a great prize that both the US and the USSR competed feverishly for it. The US betrayed England, France and Israel in 1956 by backing Nasser's seizure of the Suez Canal and forcing their withdrawal through economic blackmail, an act that Eisenhower would later admit he deeply regretted. Nevertheless Nasser threw in with the USSR, which was the most willing to pile on the weapons exports.

But devotees of happy endings will be glad to hear that after losing several wars with those same weapons, the United States finally won the bidding war for one slightly used alliance with Egypt. At a cost of only a few billion dollars a year and turning a blind eye to the persecution of Christian Copts. And things have never been better. The Obama Administration recently slashed funds for promoting democracy in Egypt by 50 percent off. Which is a discount when you think about it, because 50 percent off Egyptian democracy is a bargain, when you consider that it's an item much harder to find than platinum or gold.

When Obama visited Egypt's Al Azhar University, he naturally made sure to praise it as a source of knowledge and enlightenment. He may or may not have had in mind one Al Azhar scholar who issued a Fatwa which said that a grown man and woman could be alone together, only if she breastfeeds him first. (This sort of radical reformism would not fly in Iran, where students of different sexes studying together are required to get temporarily married first, a procedure also used to legalize prostitute. One can only imagine what European educational systems will look like under Islam.)

But while the breastfeeding Fatwa may seem ridiculous, Al Azhar University is also the source of far less humorous fatwas. It also happens to be a source of terrorism and Islamic extremism. But don't worry about your tax dollars going to indirectly fund terrorism. At least not if you're British, because then your tax dollars are going directly to Al Azhar University, to run the The Al-Azhar English Training Centre (AAETC), whose mission is to "give students the skills to "discuss and explain Islam". It is certainly generous of British taxpayers to be forced to underwrite training for Muslim missionaries, because the "Captain Hooks" of tomorrow can't be expected to set up shop in Manchester with no English skills. But this program nevertheless needs to be praised for trying to teach Al Azhar graduates to promote Islam by speaking to people, instead of blowing them up or chopping off their heads.

This is what courting Islam looks like. A flattering speech here and there. Loose immigration policies. A terrorist set free by the British government in exchange for an oil deal. The US government turning a blind eye to Saudi Arabia and the UAE's role in terrorism in exchange for more oil deals. The French government shaking its fist a little at a few rogue imams and then quieting down, hoping that the 5 million Muslims got the message, and will try and keep the car burning down on weekends, and then promoting a Mediterranean alliance, just as Russia is promoting a Bosporus alliance-- as if Muslims would allow themselves to be ruled by non-Muslims for very long.

Madness? No, competition. The Muslim world has a lot of oil and a lot of people, and Western governments want the former, while keeping the latter peaceable. And that means competing for Islam's favor with each other, with the newly resurgent Russia which is back to its old ways of shipping weapons by the fleet, China which is feeling its global oats and poking its head well beyond its borders now-- but mostly the Muslims themselves.

Before WW1, Western European nations were competing with each other for the favor of Muslim rulers. Before WW2, England and Germany were competing for the favor of Muslim rulers with each other. During the Cold War, the US and the USSR were competing for the favor of Muslim rulers. But today the remnants of the civilized world are competing for the favor of Muslims, against the Muslims. In effect we're bidding up against ourselves. Because the big threat today is no longer Western, it's Islamic. The old competition was about forming alliances with the Muslim world against the enemy of the day. Today the enemy of the day is Muslim. That phantom menace we call "Islamic Extremism" if we're feeling terribly politically correct, and "Islam" if we're not.

If the old rivalries at least provided some rational justification for this gamesmanship, today it's more like holding up a sign reading, "We're nice. Please don't kill us." On paper we're competing to uphold "moderate" Muslim regimes against the Islamists who would otherwise take over. Which means we're competing with the Islamists to win the favor of Muslim rulers and populations. This is considered Realpolitik. Meanwhile the left argues that we're only upholding dictators, and that if we stopped supporting them, the people would overthrown them, stop hating us and form socialist republics. The last time this was tried, the Carter Administration gave us Iran.

But of course this is only two sides of the same insane coin. Either we pacify the dictators, who already support Islamic terrorism, so that the real awful Islamist dictators won't come to power... and then really support terrorism. Or we overthrow the dictators, and let the real awful Islamist dictators come to power, because maybe they're not so bad after all. Maybe we can have an oil deal with them. And train some of them to explain Islam to us in good English, hopefully without chopping our heads off first.

And that right there is the problem. Our foreign policy is a debate between the realists who want appeasement, and the lunatics who think the natural outcome of every revolution is socialism, and even when it isn't (as in the case of Iran) they'll pretend it is anyway to avoid looking as stupid as they should feel. Of course there's always a third option, and I don't mean invading them, rebuilding them, and then withdrawing in time for them to adopt Sharia law. Stop competing. Stop courting the good opinion of a backward ideology that still thinks women are a form of inconvenient bacteria and that non-Muslims should always defer to Muslims. Stop pandering to them. Stop bowing and scraping to them. Stop giving them weapons, visas and then wondering what happens when the bombs begin going off.

Once upon a time we competed against each other, today we're courting one side of the Muslim world's schizophrenic split personality, against the other side. We approach the two-headed hound of Islam, and then argue over which head we should pat first, to keep the beast from biting us. It's all one beast. And feeding scraps to one head or the other, won't win us anything except more bites. The thing to do is to stop feeding the beast and stop being under the impression that there's more than one hound in question. It's all one animal. And it hates us. And it will go on hating us. And it will go on biting us for as long as we let it.

We are no longer bidding for the Muslim world as an ally. We are bidding to prevent it from being our enemy. But the problem is that the very people we're bidding for, already see us as the enemy. We are not going to change that with free English lessons, weapons and speeches praising their enlightenment, and clapping with delight when one of their clerics sorta suggests that terrorism is probably wrong. We're not children and we're not cowards, and we should stop acting like both. By competing for Muslim favor, we are only bidding ourselves, and paying up to the very people who are our enemies. By competing for their favor, we are only undercutting ourselves.


  1. Mikec22/4/10

    There is an election coming up in UK, and the main threat to national security is not even an issue except to the British National Party which is an overtly nationalist and socialist version of the Labour party, complete with the same anti-semitism.

    The three main parties have their heads in the (oil rich) sand, and are basically offering the same agenda. Its enough to make one believe the conspiracy theories...

  2. Daniel, this is an absolutely devastating piece, which is to say that you did an excellent job of showing us that we are on the brink of hell.

    The Husband told me a story about some kabbalist type calling into the Michael Savage radio program with the suggestion that Ahmadinejad and Obama together make a two-headed beast. He saw Obama as the feminine (energy, not gender) and Ahmadinejad, the masculine. I think he had it backwards though; what Obama projects is Chesed without limitation, which is a masculine energy -- and Ahmadinejad, the very picture of Gevurah, which is "feminine." Either way, the image itself is very apt. And might be helpful... should someone have the necessary photoshop skills :)

  3. Anonymous22/4/10

    In short "Separationism" as propounded by Laurence Auster, and me, for quite some time now. That is, separation from the Islamic world in easy steps.

    1. Gradually reduce, then stop all Muslim immigration.

    2. Voluntary repatriation, followed by more vigorous measures.

    3. Trade in essential commodities only.

    4. Any terrorist attacks makes the the country of origin, as well as the country of origin, subject to massive retaliation.

    5. By these actions, we transform our present relations with the Arab/Muslim world, from one of a dhimmi like nature, to one of respect.

    The only problem is- how do we get to a situation, when it becomes politically possible, to institute what are sensible defensive measures?

  4. Anonymous22/4/10

    Mikec said...There is an election coming up in UK, and the main threat to national security

    UKIP recognizes the threat of Islam quite clearly.

    UKIP covers all the issues that matter.

    1. The EU -out of it asap, replace with Swiss style association with the EU. Good.

    2. immigration - stop for 5 years. Good.

    3. Stop all this nonsense of Carbon taxes. We are lready paying fopr this in our bills. So fat they amount to about 10% of the total gas and electricity bill.

    4. Energy policy- re-start coal mines, coal fired power stations, and build nuclear power stations. Use gas for domestic heating and cooking. Good.

    Its a good platform, but the people are stuck on LibLabCon. What to do. The people are being given a choice, and yet they go blindly for the same old.. and then expect the political landscape to change.

  5. Anonymous22/4/10

    The only problem is- how do we get to a situation, when it becomes politically possible, to institute what are sensible defensive measures?


  6. either things get so bad that our self-preservation instincts take over and overcome the ideas in our way

    or we attack those ideas head on now

  7. I go for attacking the situation head on now. Too many lives have already been lost to wait.

    Waiting would be criminal.

  8. Morry Rotenberg23/4/10

    I know I sound like a broken record. By pushing the price of oil below say $30/ barrel would lead to the collapse of the oil based, terror sponsoring regimes. That would take real leadership like when Regan spent the Soviets into submission. Since then the vampire that is Putin has resurrected the corpse that was Russia with the transfusion of high priced oil. We have no leadership to do what is either militarily or economically necessary to defeat these seventh century Luddites.

  9. Anonymous23/4/10

    1. either things get so bad that our self-preservation instincts take over and overcome the ideas in our way

    or we attack those ideas head on now

    2. I go for attacking the situation head on now. Too many lives have already been lost to wait.

    3. pushing the price of oil below say $30/ barrel would lead to the collapse of the oil based, terror sponsoring regimes.

    #1 and #2 are essentially the same.

    #3 - how can we make any diffrence here?

    Attack is the best form of defence they say. So go for the attack. Attack what?

    France is in the process of banning the burqa. The aftermath is going to be very interesting, specially so as the summer carBQ season is fast approaching.

    Will France take the opportunity to enforce secular rules so vigorously that Muslims start to leave France?

    As no one is advocating attack, in the way 'loyal' and 'peaceful' Muslims do to the countries that were stupid enough to give them sanctuary, we can only advocate attacking the barbaric customs of Islam.

    Is the USA ever likely to adopt such a policy?

  10. There is attacking Islam, or attacking our own ideas that allow Islam to thrive and take over

  11. Anonymous23/4/10

    DG wrote: There is attacking Islam, or attacking our own ideas that allow Islam to thrive and take over.

    The last one is interesting. Which ones? How do we attack them?

  12. We can't change Islam. At least not without a whole lot of time and force. But we can change our own culture. Islam isn't taking over because it's changed, so much as it's taking over because we have.

    Our cultures and countries are the problem here.

  13. Anonymous24/4/10

    Turkish jihadists subverting Germany

    A patriotic German Muslim who headed two Islamic societies closed to non-Muslims, reveals a clandestine Turkish Muslim movement to take over Germany.

    Rich oil states are financing the movement through IKHWAN al MUSLIMIN, of Pakistan and the RABITA al ISLAMI of Mecca. Numerous mosques and Islamic centers are being built in Germany and elsewhere in Europe, not just to serve and educate growing religious populations, but for less advertised purposes.

    Radical Muslims who finish military service in Turkey are brought to Germany by IGMG (Islamic Society of Millî Görü?) to be reservists in an underground Muslim army. The Society encourages members to have their German-born daughters marry incoming Turks, to provide them with permanent residency.

    Radical Muslims privately have been demanding dual citizenship for resident Turks. Germans, unaware of the danger involved, took up the cause and enacted dual citizenship. Now, if conspiracy is revealed, there cannot be large-scale expulsion in self-defense.

    Why Germany? Germany harbors the most Turks. Just as important, Germans are so sensitive to accusations of discrimination that they reject warnings as chauvinism and ostracize anyone hinting at anti-immigration positions. Actually, most Germans are not chauvinist. The unfortunate murders of some Turkish immigrants boomeranged. Radical Muslims welcome some such persecution, so they can oppose justified German self-defensive measures against jihad with arguments of political correctness as if they are the main victims. Muslims laugh at German naivete over this.


  14. Anonymous24/4/10

    DG and Sultan Knish readers, I have a request to make.

    Germany is the most important player in Europe - an economic giant, a manufacturing one at that, is hamstrung by its past. Therefore our support, particularly from England, Israel, Australia, NZ, Canada and America, is vital. If Germany is lost, because of Turkish/Muslim infiltration, then Europe goes with it. And at this moment in time, I have my doubts about America. Then all is lost. Game over.

    Germany is very pro-Israel. At this moment in time the Palis/Hamas and various other Islamic organisations, are organising a major conference in Berlin for the 8th May (BERLIN no less), who wish to change the situation, and make Germany, at the least neutral on Israel. In this, the usual bunch of communists, Leftists and other fascists and anarchists will assist them.

    The blog Politically Incorrect is opposed to this conference and is organising a counter demonstration. PI’s support for Israel is unconditional. However, as it is Germany and a German blog, it is weighed down by its past. Our moral support, particularly rising from England and Israel, will strengthen their moral fibre no end. Please help.

    Go over to Politically Incorrect - the largest German anti-Islamism blog. They wish to see more commentators from the English speaking countries, supporting their views.

    If you go over, let readers know that you are Israeli or Jewish, English or American, or whatever.

    Thanks Daniel.

  15. Anonymous24/4/10

    DG wrote: But we can change our own culture. Islam isn't taking over because it's changed, so much as it's taking over because we have.

    We can change the way our culture responds to an outside challenge that is threatening.

    1. This means that we cease to be PC.

    2. We recognise we are in a war

    3. Truth is a weapon

    4. Propaganda to be used

    5. Recognise who are our friends and who are the enemies

  16. Islam- the satanic cult of mass murder, mass forced conversion and gangrape- is the root cause of most of the problems of world. In any part of the world they reach, they start breeding faster than rabbits to gain control of that area, they live in their ghettos and never integrate with the mainstream and what is more, then they demand favours from governments for their backwardness which is due to their own practices. When they reach 15-20%, they syart demanding a separate nation and waging jihad for it. When they reach majority, forced mass conversions, riots and arsons in and about their ghettos starts. And after reaching 70-80%, they start cleansing the country of Kafirs by mass persecution, murders and rape (example- Bangladesh). Open-minded Europeans and Americans blundered by treating the Muslim serpents as fellow human beings, allowed them to settle in their countries and now are paying the price! In India, we can see the effects- already they've reached 15-20%. Do you think 26/11 was perpetrated without the help of local Muslims? Open your eyes and see, the truth is there for everyone to see. In India, alas, we have a whole mass of 'pseudo-intellectual' pseudo-secular Muslim appeasers and sycophants, who have made blatant lying, Hindu-bashing, distortion of facts and Muslim glorification the only mission of their lives. But you can't turn the day into night by just tightly closing your eyes! Don't believe me? Go watch http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XTV1spgb1-k. Go to http://www.faithfreedom.org/ and http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/index.html. Find out what happened in Lebanon and Malaysia. Find out about Kashmiri Pandits, Bangladesh. And, dear 'liberals' of India, tell me were Beslan massacre, Beirut bombings, 9/11 in response to Gujarat Riots (which contrary to what media claims was a bilateral affair and started in response to incineration of about 60 innocent Hindus in a train by 'peaceful' Muslims)? Mind you, once they are finished with getting rid of us unbelievers, they will turn upon you and kill you also, unless you convert or pay Jaziya and give your womenfolk for 'comforting' of the tired 'holy warriors'!

  17. Anonymous25/4/10

    Good article on Germany, and its pivotal role in Europe.


  18. Anonymous25/4/10


    You are absolutely right in every thing you write about Islam and its followers. This site by Sultan Knish are not innocents -We are well informed.

    But keep the good work. Also go over to Politically Incorrect blog - the English version, and comment there. We all have to help each other against this demonic evil that our idiot politicians have allowed in.

  19. Anonymous26/4/10

    BNP in the UK is no longer anti-Semitic. They have wised up. Big time.


  20. Not by the sound of Lee John Barnes

  21. Clegg, a leading candidate now in Britain is an anti-Semite and very popular with the Brits.
    Britain is going down the toilet quickly.



Blog Archive