Share |

Saturday, 4 September 2010

Has Tony Blair woken up to the reality of the threat from ‘radical’ Islam?

In an interview with the BBC Blair said of ‘radical Islam’:
"There is the most enormous threat from the combination of this radical extreme movement and the fact that, if they could, they would use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons.

"You can't take a risk with that happening."

Mr Blair said he agonised over how to respond to radical Islam and still had doubts that he was right.
These are really difficult issues, he said, but added: "This extremism is so deep that in the end they have to know that they're facing a stronger will than theirs."
So, Tony Blair has revealed that he sees ‘radical Islam’ as the ‘world’s greatest threat’. In ideological and practical security terms, I think that he is correct, but only half so. Only half so because he fails to own up to the fact that ‘radical Islam’ is nothing more than applied Islam. It seems to me that this failure in his understanding is linked to his own personal ‘faith’ position and his unwillingness, shared by millions, to either acknowledge or accept that Islam is in many respects very different to other religions: dangerously different.

Blair has for many years, particularly since he resigned his position of Prime Minister, been open about his profession of Christian faith. Whatever your personal thoughts on Blair as a man and a politician, I think that his longstanding Christianity and conversion to Catholicism are sincere. It is indeed from his personal adherence to Christianity and its doctrines of the power of forgiveness, turning the other cheek and standing up for the underdog, that many of his problems in comprehending Islam flow. For him, he mistakes what Islam ought to be for what it is, i.e. he thinks that like Christianity it should be intensely pluralistic, flexible and accommodating to changing social mores, whereas it is not.

Like most Christians (indeed followers of any religion or secular political dogma) Blair cherry-picks the elements of Christianity and Catholicism that he finds palatable whilst ignoring others, and thus for example supports contraception despite papal opposition to this practice and the doctrine of papal infallibility. In this case, Blair thinks he knows (as indeed he does) better than the Pope. Doctrinaire Muslims do not behave in such a way. For them, all they think they need to know about how to lead a moral life is contained in the Qur’an. The majority also accept the legitimacy of the Sunnah and the hadith, although not unsurprisingly there are slightly different takes upon the legitimacy and application of their various aspects. In essence however, all doctrinaire Muslims are unified in their belief of the veracity and universal applicability of the qur’anic message.

Blair’s failure to develop a logical and adequate strategy of containing and dealing with ‘radical’ Islam thus arose from his confused apprehension of Islamic ideology. Whilst being at the vanguard of military efforts to ‘defeat’ this menace in Afghanistan and allegedly in Iraq, Blair simultaneously encouraged and protected Islam in the United Kingdom through the promotion of multiculturalism and an open borders mass immigration policy. Under the aegis of multiculturalism the population of the UK was subjected to draconian ‘hate’ laws such as the 2006 ‘Racial and Religious Hatred Act’ which were consciously formulated to protect and privilege Islam; ‘faith’ schools were encouraged, entrenching pre-existing segregation by providing state funding for Muslim institutions where pupils wasted (and still do waste) time on memorising the Qur’an and absorbing its anti-scientific and anti-rational dogma; the national curriculum required the brainwashing of non-Muslim children into believing that Islam is a ‘religion of peace’, thus leaving them vulnerable to Muslim predation and proselytisation.

Due predominantly to the deliberate engineering of mass immigration to the UK, the Muslim population under Blair swelled rapidly, rising from an official 1.6 million in 2001 to 2.4 million by early 2009. So-called ‘refugees’ from the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq also swelled this expansion. At the same time as he removed pressures from Muslim immigrants and the established Muslim population to integrate into the life of the host population through assimilation, he buttressed its sense of separation through privileging and incentivising Muslim identities, doling out state funding to specifically Muslim projects and so-called ‘community leaders’.

As they expanded, the established Muslim enclaves in Britain’s cities and towns grew increasingly separate, their sense of exclusivity bolstered by the ongoing revolution in telecommunications presaged by satellite television and reaching its apotheosis in the spread of domestic internet access. Coupled with increasingly cheap transcontinental flights and ongoing large-scale chain migration, these factors ensured that the Muslim population in the UK increasingly alienated itself from the host population and sensed a growing sense of solidarity with a transnational ummah rather than with fellow non-Muslim citizens.

To this combustible mix of legal, political, demographic, sociological and technological factors working in favour of Islamisation in the UK, Blair then added two wars against Muslim majority states. Unsurprisingly, the state-sponsored fifth-column – UK passport holders belonging to the Ummah – responded negatively to these wars. That they hated non-Muslims beforehand and saw themselves as superior to non-Muslim Britons was beyond dispute, but Blair not only did not recognise this, but seemingly chose to goad them with his foreign policy. Although a case could be made for some form of military action against Afghanistan upon the grounds of combating Islamism, none could be in the case of Iraq. Admittedly, having looked at the relevant UN resolutions I am of the opinion that the Iraq War that began in 2003 was technically legal, but whether or not it was the right thing to do is a matter for debate. Personally, I do not think that it was wise to become involved in that particular conflict, for it had nothing to do with fighting Islamism. If we had wished to do the latter, it would have made far more sense to attack Saudi Arabia or Pakistan.

Whilst being cognisant of the Islamist threat emanating from Afghanistan, Blair remained unwilling to acknowledge its deep roots within the UK’s hostile fifth-column. His domestic policies, as those of his successors, served only to further entrench and nurture doctrinaire Islam in the UK. It is doctrinaire Islam that must be dealt with, and we can only deal with it effectively if we abandon multiculturalism and implement the following measures in the UK: make Muslim faith schools illegal; repeal all ‘hate’ legislation relating to religion; ban the proselytisation of Islam as being inimical to the public good; ban Muslim charities; ban all further Muslim immigration, including the ‘right to family reunion’; ban the further construction of mosques and madrassahs; withdraw from the European Convention on Human Rights; purge the curriculum of dhimmitude and encourage apostasy within the resident Muslim population. This package of measures will be popular and just.

Instead, Blair continues to adhere to a schizoid path that will bring unnecessary bloodshed to our country. A radical change in domestic policy would be more productive in combating Islamism than military intervention overseas. Only once we have secured our own territory can we hope to extend moral assistance to those seeking to rid themselves of Islamism.

Like most rational people, I would not be happy if the incumbent Iranian regime acquired nuclear weapons, but more to the point, the Pakistanis already have them. Pakistan is an existing threat, yet this is not clearly articulated in our mass media or by our political elite because of the large Pakistani presence within our shores. If any military action were to be employed against Iran, it would need to be of a very precise and measured type. The Iranian people should not suffer because of the folly of the incumbent regime. Given time, pressure will further build for reform in Iran, but if we were to launch an indiscriminate attack upon the country it would gravely undermine the position of reformist voices. We must not fall into this trap.

Although it is encouraging to see Blair describing Islamist ideology as “regressive, wicked and backward-looking” he needs to wake up to the fact that ‘radical’ Islam is nothing more than applied Islam. Once Blair and others like him have finally recognised what Islam is, then we will be able to get down to the business of dealing with this problem effectively and decisively. Ultimately, the resolution of this problem must be ideological, but for us to triumph our people must possess the necessary resolve, and this can only be acquired if we ditch the misguided political dogma of multiculturalism. This is something to which Blair remains deeply committed. He means well, but as the old proverb goes, the road to hell is paved with good intentions.


  1. I still find it hard to believe anybody can be so "ill informed" or so blind for so long without intentionally wishing to be blind - and them being somebody who does actually "see it" but pretends it is not true because it does not fit in with the ideals of their "visions" of the future of the world.

    I think he is a megalomaniac, somebody who blinds himself to the horrors his 'labour' policies have created for this country, and that he never "meant well" at all. He nailed the nails of our ethnic coffin well and truly shut since 1997, for ideological purposes.

    I think he meant harm and chaos from the start - harm carried out for his own beliefs and for those of people pulling his strings.

    I think he wanted to transform the world, including this country, by methods of chaos and disintegration (to allow it to be "reshaped").

    I cannot remember much of his speeches, but there are two he made which stood out. One was about internationalism and faith, and the other was one from a Labour party conference 2001.

    In the latter, he spoke of shaking the kaleidoscope, having pieces in flux, and then resettling them again.

    "This is a moment to seize. The Kaleidoscope has been shaken. The pieces are in flux. Soon they will settle again. Before they do, let us re-order this world around us."

    We should remember that Blair was linked to both the LSE (London School of Economics) which is a hotbed of radical leftwing thinking and that he is also linked to the Fabians society, whose socialist credentials and their logo of hammering the world into a new shape or "new world" is quite famous. (Also, the design of a wolf in sheep's clothing which accompanies the Fabians society).

    I also seem to remember Blair making Muslims laugh (not to his face) by talking about how he kept a Koran by his bedside and had "read it, from cover to cover".

    Anybody who knows anything about the Koran and Hadith will know such a remark is complete ignorance and blatantly a lie.

    This might explain why he said, after the 9/11 atrocity, the same old garbage from the Koran about "If we Muslims kill one man, it is as though killing all mankind"..(cannot remember the quote)....but like the other world leaders, he did not seem to finish the passage which would reveal a certain caveat to that otherwise noble stance.

    I think he is just mouthing off about the so called "threat" from Iran, because that is the next move on the chess-game they are playing.

    Although I am cautious of the risk of Blair and Co being the "boy that cried wolf" and not believing their tales this time around, I find it hard to believe Iran would be a threat to the west - but it may be a threat to the established order regimes, which is why it is next on the radar.

    When it comes to integration and/or segregation of Asians/Blacks/Muslims - I am afraid I am a tough cookie and find it hard to compromise.

    I do not want them integrated, leading to a demographic drip feed of our destruction via expansion and "walking like a duck and talking like a duck" - and I do not want them here separated (and as separatists in the future) either. Ergo, I wish for neither avenue as neither I find to be acceptable situations.

    Maybe that's why I get so depressed, as there is no longer any easy way out.....ironically enough, no thanks to Blair. But of course, he wasn't alone.

  2. Sorry but I disagree durotrigan. I think there is nothing naive or even remotely idealistic about Blair. And as for his 'christianity' being sincere, I think there is more chance of me knitting fog. His book will sell bucketloads in America. His money now is mainly made speaking to the right wing christian circuit over there. His book (and i'm reading it now) is entirely designed to pamper to his pay chiefs. Cygnus.

  3. There is no radical islam. Radical islam is the political arm of sharia law islam

  4. BA, I'm at one with you in thinking that Blair has megalomaniac, indeed messianic, tendencies. When I wrote that he “meant well” my meaning was that he “meant well” in his own terms, which is of course very different from meaning well in our terms. He deliberately pursued policies (mass immigration, multiculturalism, Islamisation and PFI to name but a few) which have been ruinous for the UK.

    Like you, I recall his rather alarming speech (it’s that messianic strand again!) relating to the kaleidoscope having been shaken and him wishing to re-order the world. I don’t doubt that the majority of Muslims view killing an ‘innocent’ person as being a very serious matter indeed, but their definition of what constitutes an ‘innocent’ person is very different from ours. As I am an atheist and consciously reject the Qur’an (or any other scripture) I am in their eyes not ‘innocent’ and thus any ‘good’ Muslim would be free to kill me or anyone else who refuses to submit (depending upon when they would find it strategically possible and profitable to do so mind you). By their definition, anyone who consciously rejects Islam is not ‘innocent’.

    As for the matter of segregation/integration, I think that my recommended policies for dealing with the Islamic question in the UK would render this largely redundant, as the great majority of such people would leave of their own volition were all of my recommendations to be implemented and to remain in place. A small remnant population of apostates could be absorbed readily enough just as the small influxes of people that we’ve received over a very long period of time have been absorbed. I think that my policy recommendations would for most people rest at the very outer limits of palatability, so I would not push for anything further. Politics, after all, is the art of the possible.

  5. Hi Cygnus. Thanks for your perspective on Blair. I think that he is ‘idealistic’ in the sense that he is certainly a believer in globalism and multiculturalism; the problem being that these are ideals to which neither you nor I subscribe. He seems to me to genuinely believe in God, as this is something that he harped on about when it wasn’t really profitable to do so as it seemed a bit eccentric to the domestic electorate. This was an element of his personality that made me distrust him even further, for it seemed to me that when he was PM his ‘faith’ had a negative impact upon his judgment (e.g. on WMD) for he failed to rationally think things through. He strikes me as a shallow thinker, which is why he is unable to draw the requisite logical conclusions about the essential nature of Islam. This is the sense in which I see him as being naïve.

    I do not doubt that your observation re Blair playing up his religiosity for the American religious right is correct. I’ve never liked nor trusted the man and never will.

  6. Read up on the Baha'i Faith... This is the spiritual vehicle that is driving Agenda 21 and the Earth Charter Initiative.. muslims are the local control mechanism for the Green Agenda...

    Baha'i are not our friends in the fight against islam... The Baha'i are relying on muslims to be a natural cause of population reduction for their Green Agenda..

    Tony Blair is parroting the Baha'i Faith of Universalism... Any belief that accepts islam as legitimate is inherently evil... Tony Blair knows exactly what he is doing..

    British prime minister praises Baha'i community
    7 April 2005
    LONDON — The prime minister of the United Kingdom, Tony Blair, has praised the work of the nation's Baha'i community in assisting social cohesion and the interfaith movement.

    'social cohesion'

    Key words I'm sure anyone familiar with the islamisation of the UK knows well...

    The Baha'i are the Apocalypse Religion.. They know 'social cohesion' isn't going to happen.. They know 'interfaith' is anti-islam... Yet they support muslims continuing to flood Europe...

    Don't be fooled by islamic persecution of Baha'i.. muslims view Baha'i as competitors for the end goal of ruling the earth...

    btw.. It's not like this is a conspiracy theory... The Baha'i are open about their plans (New World Order)...

  7. Van Grungy, thanks for your interesting comment and link. I'll have to read up more about the Baha'i.

    Oh yes, those nonsensical terms 'social cohesion' and 'interfaith' are wearisomely familiar. I have to shut my mouth whenever anyone at work utters these words.

  8. Keep a wasp at arms length and there is no harm done... but kick the nest - then don't cry when you get stung.

  9. When a wasps' nest is found, we destroy it; then the problem is removed forever. Your comparison of Islamists with wasps is apposite, for both are: malevolent, suicidal and pointless.


Comments that call for or threaten violence will not be published. Anyone is entitled to criticise the arguments presented here, or to highlight what they believe to be factual error(s); ad hominem attacks do not constitute comment or debate. Although at times others' points of view may be exasperating, please attempt to be civil in your responses. If you wish to communicate with me confidentially, please preface your comment with "Not for publication". This is why all comments are moderated.