Category Archives: terrorism

An eschatological philosophy in a post-religious world

Marxism, writes Dalrymple,

served more than one psychological purpose.

It gave those who adhered to it

the comforting feeling that they understood the inner or hidden workings of the world; that they were far superior in this understanding to those who did not adhere to it; and that they were participating in something far bigger than themselves. It gave them an illusion of transcendence.

Dalrymple points out that although many Marxists claimed that communist Russia’s downfall did not affect their faith in the truth of their secular religion,

Marxism as an intellectual system was deeply discredited by the now-undeniable failure of the Soviet Union to deliver on any of its utopian promises.

On the contrary, Marxism

provided the pretext for the murder, as well as causing the miserable living conditions, of many millions of people; and it was as implausible to deny the connection of these with Marxism as it is now to deny the connection of terrorism with Islam.

Instant access to the 72 houris in heaven

Screen Shot 2016-08-04 at 09.31.28Inside the minds of guilty debauched lapsed Moslems

Writing of the intellectual nullity of the ideas behind Moslem terror attacks, Dalrymple observes that

it is as if a whole society is being held to ransom by its worst and most stupid members. This is in contrast to the intelligence that is expended on trying to understand the stupid. The stupid are the stoat and the intelligent are the rabbit.

He notes that a number of the Moslem terrorists

indulge in somewhat crude debauchery before suddenly turning puritanically pious and killing others in the certainty that they themselves will be killed.

According to the historian of philosophy Rémi Brague, the depraved Moslems

still have some attachment to Islam in their debauched phase, rather as a lapsed Catholic. They feel subliminally that what they are doing is wrong from the Islamic standpoint, and some of them are suddenly overwhelmed by guilt.

But a slow process of repentance is not for them.

It would involve a life without the pleasures that are so important to them. By killing others and being killed in the process, they are getting their repentance over in one fell swoop. They will not have to face a long life of self-denial, but accede at once to the heavenly virgins. Heaven is debauchery without the guilt.

1

Islam: global force for a new totalitarianism

Emblem of Egypt's Muslim Brotherhood

Emblem of Egypt’s Muslim Brotherhood

Dalrymple wonders whether Islam is

an intrinsically totalitarian religion.

It is worth remembering, he says,

how few of us gave any attention to it as a serious political force only twenty years ago.

He suspects that

the downfall of the Soviet Union and the consequent destruction of the possibility of socialistic nationalism as a means for poor or desperate countries (poverty and desperation not being the same thing) to escape their predicament, stimulated the rise of Islam to the position of latest utopian pretender.

There had been Islamists before the downfall of the Soviet Union,

but they offered only one bogus solution among other bogus solutions. After the downfall, Islam had the field to itself, apart from liberal democracy, which is inherently messy and unsatisfying for the lazy and impatient.

Screen Shot 2016-07-29 at 08.03.02Islamism, Dalrymple points out,

is a real threat, made far worse by the cowardly response to it by most Western governments, including that of the United States.

Take the Danish cartoon crisis, which, Dalrymple notes, was highly

significant for our civilisation and way of life in the long run. There the British and American governments failed the test miserably; de facto, they gave aid and succour to the Islamists.

As for the neo-atheists, they are right to see the threat of theocracy in Islamism, but

in attacking all religion, they are like the French government which banned not only the wearing of the headscarf in schools, but the wearing of all religious insignia, despite the fact that wearing a Star of David or a crucifix has and had a completely different social signification from wearing a headscarf. In the name of non-discrimination, the French government failed to discriminate properly: and proper discrimination is practically the whole business of life. If there were large numbers of Christians or Jews who were in favour of establishing a theocracy in France, who had a recent record of terrorism, and who terrorised each other into the wearing of crucifixes and Stars of David, then the banning of those insignia would have been justified too.

Screen Shot 2016-07-29 at 08.06.20The wearing of the headscarf should be permitted again

when Islam has become merely one personal confession among others, without the political significance that it has now.

In attacking all religion so indiscriminately, the atheist authors are

strengthening the hand of the Islamists. In arguing that for parents to bring up a child in any religious tradition, even the mildest of Anglicanism, is to abuse a child, with the corollary that the law should forbid it, they are giving ammunition to the Islamists, who will be able with justice to say to their fellow-religionists, ‘See, it is all or nothing. If you give the secularists an inch, they will take a mile. No compromise with secularism is possible, therefore; cleave unto us.’

To suggest

that all forms of religion are equal, that they are all murderous and dangerous, is not to serve the cause of freedom and tolerance. It is to play into the hands of the very people we should most detest; it is to hand them the rhetorical tools with which they can tell the gullible that our freedoms are not genuine and that our tolerance is a masquerade. It is to do what I should previously have thought was impossible, namely in this respect to put them in the right.

The siren song of idiot Islamism

Screen Shot 2016-07-26 at 23.23.04

Adel Kermiche

For the moment, writes Dalrymple,

it will have to be accepted as a regrettable fact that substantial numbers of young people in European countries are susceptible.

Obviously,

there must be properly directed surveillance of susceptible types.

Screen Shot 2016-07-27 at 09.15.06But

surveillance will never be enough: criticism of Islam itself must be free and unconstrained and relentless. For example, in the very small town in France near which I live some of the time, there was a demonstration against terrorism. The small and generally well-integrated population of Maghrebis there was conspicuous by its absence. Of course, citizens are free to demonstrate or not demonstrate; but it is at least possible that some of the young Maghrebis did not demonstrate because of fear of denunciation, of accusations of apostasy.

Screen Shot 2016-07-27 at 09.15.37Mohammedans

live in fear of one another more than in fear of others, at least in the modern world, and this is because of a fundamental incompatibility of Islam with the modern world.

The accusation of apostasy in Islam is

potentially fatal to the accused. So long as this is so, so long as Muslims fear to adopt another religion or publicly proclaim their atheism or detestation of Mohammed and Islam, intellectually justified or not, the religion is incompatible with our notions of what our polity should be.

Screen Shot 2016-07-27 at 09.17.41The prevalent

insincere (and cowardly) homage to Islam as a religion of peace and tolerance

must cease. No religion

that makes apostasy a punishable crime is tolerant. On the contrary, it more resembles a criminal conspiracy, at least when the punishment is severe. This is so no matter what proportion of Muslims are decent people (the people of Egypt, for example, have often struck me as among the most charming and hospitable in the world, as did the Syrians in the good old days of uncontested secular dictatorship), or how troubling or hurtful they find the thought.

How the West invites terror

Riaz Khan Ahmadzai

Riaz Khan Ahmadzai

Muslims, writes Dalrymple,

are not deceived by pusillanimous, odious, unctuous, and fatuous expressions of understanding for their feelings that have emerged from official circles, in a vain and cowardly attempt to defuse the situation by a precipitate though insincere abandonment of the best values of the Enlightenment.

Islamic fundamentalists

know perfectly well that the West does not respect them, and that the only way they can cut a figure is by terror. Technologically, scientifically, artistically, philosophically, economically they are nullities: but they know how to be vicious, and that makes up for every other defect. If the world will not listen to their tedious religiose lucubrations, it will at least pay heed to their bloodcurdling threats. Each expression of pseudo-understanding is music to their ears: they know that threats of mass decapitation and killing in the streets have worked. It is an open invitation for more of the same.

Mohamed Lahouaiej-Bouhlel

Mohamed Lahouaiej-Bouhlel

The Western democracies, says Dalrymple,

have demonstrated a lack of resolve comparable only to that of Chamberlain and Daladier in the face of Hitler.

When, he says,

we see the freedom that the Enlightenment wrought challenged in so intellectually primitive and thuggish a way, we realise how very much we owe the Enlightenment. You don’t really appreciate something until you have lost it.

The problem of the Muslim world is that

it wants the material fruits or benefits of the Enlightenment without the Enlightenment. A considerable proportion of the large migrant population from Islamic countries to Europe has wanted this too, which is why many such migrants are notably less successful in their adopted countries than their Hindu, Sikh, and Chinese counterparts. Muslims have been trying to square this circle for well over a century, since they first became aware of how retarded they were by comparison with a civilisation that theirs once more than equalled. Like the inhabitants of the ghetto, they want the respect of the rest of the world without wishing to do the things necessary to obtain it.

Screen Shot 2016-07-23 at 09.45.50

Judicial leniency and the terror threat in France

Screen Shot 2016-07-20 at 07.02.38Un petit délinquant devenu djihadiste

The perpetrator of the Nice outrage, Dalrymple relates,

was born and raised in Tunisia and, a totally unskilled man, was given leave to enter and stay in France because he had married a French citizen of Tunisian origin in Tunisia. The decision to allow him into France was based on an abstract doctrine of human rights—in this instance, the right to family reunification—rather than on France’s national interest, which is never allowed to enter into such decisions.

Mohamed Lahouaiej-Bouhlel

was very violent to his wife and she divorced him, but it was impossible to deport this père de famille, for to do so would have been contrary to his children’s right to a father. His children therefore acted as his permis de séjour, which was renewed when the original ran out.

Screen Shot 2016-07-20 at 07.03.25

Paterfamilias: Mohamed Lahouaiej-Bouhlel

Trivial little offences

The public prosecutor of Paris

described him as a petit délinquant, though his offences included damage to property, robbery, making threats and repeated acts of violence.

He hit a man

with a baseball bat (which he happened to have with him, though baseball is not played in France) because the man asked him to move his van, which was blocking traffic.

He was sentenced to six months in prison. The sentence was suspended. Dalrymple asks:

Is a state that cannot bring itself to punish a man who attacks another with a baseball bat one with the will to thwart terrorism?

In the CDG bookstore

Screen Shot 2016-06-04 at 13.33.11

Enjoy your flight

Browsing in a bookshop at Charles De Gaulle, Dalrymple finds that there is a very extensive section devoted to Islamic terrorism, which, he notes,

has taken over from the Occupation as the favoured theme of non-fiction in France.

Dalrymple is

a good customer for such books, even if I can never quite remember the names of the individual terrorists or of the various terrorist groupuscules that they have joined.

Something to read on the plane

Something to read on the plane

Publishers

can’t go too far wrong, it seems, with books about Hitler or the Occupation, and these days with books about Islamic terrorism.

The fact that terrorism

ought not to be a suitable subject for reading matter in an airport or a passenger aëroplane suggests, however, that in our hearts most of us believe that we are statistically not very likely to be victims of it, and that Islamic terrorism is a vile and stupid nuisance rather than the existential threat to our civilisation as some have claimed it to be. The main danger is from our reaction to it, enfeebled or destructive of our civil liberties (or both) as the case might be.

What they’re hiding about EgyptAir 804

Screen Shot 2016-05-28 at 15.46.44An electronic pulse, the UK legal system and a cabal of airlines

Browsing the internet, Dalrymple comes across some analysis of the EgyptAir Flight 804 crash affair that has

a degree of certainty

Screen Shot 2016-05-28 at 15.51.39suggesting

contacts in high places.

Headed

EgyptAir 804 Shot Down with Electronic Pulse – Intel Report – 5-19-16,

the summary of the exposition (the full theory is set out in the YouTube video) reads:

Mossad did it

Mossad did it

Stew Webb and Tom Heneghan go over the latest Intel from US and French Intel concerning the EgyptAir 804 crash. They have been told by French Intel it was taken down with an Electronic Pulse weapon and Israel did it. Only Israel and the US have this type of weapon. A French satellite picked up the shoot down. Please visit and share the hardcore truth on http://www.stewwebb.com censored by all controlled opposition in alternative media.

Imagine, says Dalrymple,

trying to discuss the matter with the author of this opinion. Before long you would have entered a mental labyrinth from which there was no exit. Any evidence you adduced would be discounted as having been manufactured by the very conspirators who brought the aëroplane down. His conclusion would be irrefutable: the very attempt to refute it would prove to him just how far the conspirators had succeeded in covering their tracks.

UK legal system: encourages and motivates terrorism through its nonsensical procedures and judgments

UK legal system: to blame for the bringing down of Egyptair Flight 804 because of the way it encourages and motivates terrorism worldwide through its nonsensical procedures and judgments

Another observer says:

We can blame the nonsense UK legal system for encouraging and motivate terrorism.

Dalrymple comments:

One imagines that the evidently enraged writer had had some slight legal problem in Britain and that he did not fully understand the arcane process by which it was resolved, probably not in his favour. Be that as it may, it is not easy to see why or how deficiencies of the law in Britain (I leave aside the fact that Scottish law is different from English) should have encouraged or motivated someone to blow up an aëroplane going from Paris to Cairo.

A third critic remarks:

It is up to the authorities to get this sorted out, it seems to me they are turning a blind eye to it. After all this is not the first time. Corruption and back-handers come to mind.

Dalrymple comments:

The best interpretation that I can give to the above is that the security authorities at the Paris airport (at all airports?) have been bribed consistently not to do their work properly. By whom they have been bribed the author does not venture: perhaps by the terrorists, perhaps by the cartel or cabal of airlines who do not wish their passengers to be further inconvenienced by security measures, about which they already grumble. On the other hand, of course, terrorism can hardly be good for the airline business.

Such commentators, writes Dalrymple, feel that

they have understood what others have not, that they have penetrated an essence of events that less astute or well-informed persons have not been able to divine. If you listen to any conversation in any bar of any provincial town, you will soon realise that almost everyone involved in it is party to the inner workings of the world, though by day they are all minor functionaries in businesses or organisations whose headquarters are elsewhere.

Screen Shot 2016-05-28 at 15.59.38

Cabal of airlines: intel report confirms payment of large bribes to security authorities at Charles de Gaulle and many other airports

Cabal of airlines: intel report confirms payment of large bribes to security authorities at Charles de Gaulle and many other airports

Multiculturalism breeds terrorists

Screen Shot 2016-03-22 at 21.32.25And patriotism is left to the savages

In Britain, writes Dalrymple,

patriotism has been left to the brutes: the kind of ignorant savages who tattoo a bulldog on their biceps and Made in England round their nipples, and who in equal measure revolt and terrorise the cheaper resorts of the Mediterranean.

The intellectual’s

equation of patriotism with xenophobia, and pride in past achievement with an arrogant superiority complex, has left a population demoralised and without any belief in its own nation. Orwell saw this happening. It has created a vacuum for the English Defence League to fill.

Many of Britain’s homebred terrorists

are not culturally isolated and alienated figures, cut off from mainstream British life by ghettoes and the multicultural nonsense that leaves them unable to speak English. Nor do they derive their suicidal-utopian fantasies from an unalloyed Islamic tradition. Their utopianism is at least as much secular as it is religious, though their religion is one that lends itself well to political violence.

Many of them are educated,

if attendance at a modern British university counts as an education; they have jobs and prospects. No, they have seen British values and culture close up, or at least what British values and culture have become, and they don’t like them.

They are quite right not to do so.

The fact that their response is grotesquely disproportionate and even more stupid than the culture they despise does not alter the correctness of their apprehension. Better a live slut than a dead pedestrian, say I; that does not make me pro-slut. It means only that I detest terrorism and its works as among the worst of evils.

In reacting as terrorists,

the young Muslims are following Bakunin and the Baader-Meinhof gang as much as the Koran. It is not for nothing that they go to Western universities.

Just because multiculturalism is not a major direct contributor to home-grown terrorism

does not make it right. On the contrary, it is a sentimental and harmful doctrine that turns the mind to mush, is evidence of an underlying indifference to real lives, and is a provider of pseudo-work for lots of people such as community organisers.

Multiculturalists, with their doctrinal sentimentalism,

are seldom interested in the culture of others. Very few of them read books in foreign languages, for example, let alone immerse themselves in the Pali scriptures or the writings of the Sufi. I don’t blame them: it is the work of a lifetime to be able to do so, and we each have only one lifetime, to say nothing of limitations of ability and inclination. But let us at least not pretend that our interest in other cultures extends much beyond their cuisine.

Multiculturalists rejoice at mass, and indiscriminate, immigration,

not because they are admirers of, say, Somali political philosophy, but because they want the culture of their own country to be diluted as much as possible, for only by rejecting what they have inherited do they think they can show their independence of mind and generosity of spirit. Let the heavens fall, so long as I am thought (by my peers) to be a free thinker.

The multicultural mindset or emotionset, characterised as it is by extreme sentimentality,

seems to destroy the critical faculties, if not the brain itself.

Almost by definition, multiculturalists

are not interested in the national interest. The world is their oyster, and they demand that we all swallow it.

Scary without Mary

Screen Shot 2016-03-22 at 14.30.18We must guard against abuse of authority

The rule of law, writes Dalrymple,

is a fragile construction, easily abandoned in times of crisis or high emotion. This makes defence of it the more imperative.

Dalrymple makes a point that, though self-evident to most civilised people, is apparently not grasped by some media commentators, namely that Sven Mary, Salah Abdeslam’s lawyer,

should not be decried for defending his client as best he can.

At the risk of labouring the obvious, Dalrymple points out that under the rule of law,

every accused has the right to a defence, and someone has to be Abdeslam’s lawyer.

Dalrymple reports that Mary himself made this important point:

What motivates me is the fight against arbitrariness and abuse of power. You remember the press conferences given live by the federal prosecution in the days, and even in the nights, that followed the Paris attacks? What sickened me was this way of using fear in order to obtain more power.