The Unz Review - Mobile
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 TeasersiSteve Blog
Baron Max von Oppenheim: The Kaiser's Jewish Catholic Jihadist
🔊 Listen RSS
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New ReplyRead More
ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
AgreeDisagreeLOLTroll
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Troll, or LOL with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used once per hour.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

I’m perpetually in awe of and aghast at the various dreamers / adventurers / maniacs who during World War I conjured up vast plans to redraw the map of the world, from the semi-successful like Lawrence of Arabia to the farcical like Zimmerman of Mexico. One of the more colorful was the Imperial German diplomat-archaeologist Max Von Oppenheim, who tirelessly funded jihads among many Islamic populations ruled by the British Empire.

One lesson is that while it can be intellectually appealing to assume that the course of 20th Century grand strategy inevitably reflected deeply rooted realities, it’s also worth reminding ourselves of how many intelligent men envisioned different and fairly plausible outcomes during the mad scramble of events.

From the Dublin Review of Books:

The Sorcerer’s Apprentice

The Berlin-Baghdad Express: Germany’s Bid for World Power, 1898-1918

by Sean McMeekin

Reviewed by Sean OHuiginn

… It is not unusual for the enthusiasms of the powerful to attract devoted acolytes to the cause, and the Kaiser’s interest in the Muslim card had no more fervent and colourful ministrant than Baron Max Von Oppenheim.

Sprung from a wealthy Jewish dynasty still prominent in German banking, his father had married a Catholic and converted to that faith. Von Oppenheim first met the Kaiser through their common membership of the elite Uhlan Guards regiment. The young baron found the allure of the Orient wonderfully incarnated in its seductive womenfolk, and began a lifelong engagement with the Islamic world which led him to learn Arabic, as well as taking full advantage of the Islamic amenity of temporary marriage. He also developed an interest in archaeology, the cover of choice of so many spies and adventurers in the Middle East. In his case it led to the discovery and excavation of significant neolithic remains at Tell Halaf in Northern Syria. …

Oppenheim managed to join the German foreign ministry, but only on a semi-detached basis, either because of his Jewish antecedents, or perhaps because of official mistrust of his free-wheeling ways. Nevertheless his dispatches reached the kaiser’s desk, and his artful massaging of Wilhelm’s predilections resulted in an appointment to Cairo, where he combined the roles of pasha and German diplomat, the latter’s salon carefully separated from the former’s harem.

I have this unusual suspicion that the fundamental impulse behind Palestinian-American scholar Edward Said’s immensely influential 1978 book Orientalism was “Don’t You Come Around Here No More:” a normal, healthy, masculine, slightly redneck aversion to European sex tourists in the Near East, both the straights like Von Oppenheim and, to judge by the grotesque cover picture of his book, especially the boy-botherers like Lawrence.

True to his belief, as expressed in one of the dispatches he rained down on the Wilhelmstrasse that “the striking power and demographic strength of Islamic lands will one day have a great significance for European states”, …

On the day Germany’s secret treaty with Turkey was signed, Baron Oppenheim was summoned to the Wilhelmstrasse and returned to the semi-formal embrace of the foreign office as the impresario of jihad. The German setback at the Marne enhanced the appeal of a German-Turkish attack on the Suez Canal, and a significant sum was earmarked for this project. Now Oppenheim turned his energies to planning how fuses might best be lit to detonate the Muslim populations in British, French and Russian territories. Some dozen rather motley German jihadists set out on his orders to the targeted territories to fan the flames of the holy work. All that was needed to set things alight, the baron promised, was the fatwa of the Sultan-Caliph.

Assiduous efforts in the end produced no less than five fatwas, satisfactorily ranking jihad against Germany’s enemies as the highest personal duty for all Muslims (as opposed to lesser obligations which a believer might, without reproach, leave to execution by others). Oppenheim’s pro-jihad pamphlets, cascading off the presses in all relevant languages, are astonishingly uninhibited in their invocation of the most sanguinary texts of the Koran on the killing of infidels. He even added to this bloodthirsty theology the modern refinement of a production quota, suggesting “each believer takes on him an oath to kill at least three or four of the ruling infidels, enemies of God and enemies of religion”. His recklessness was all the more reprehensible in that his extensive personal experience of the Islamic world must surely have given him a good notion of how inflammable the situation was to which he applied his talents. …

This triumph for the German-Turkish alliance [Gallipoli] gave Oppenheim a fresh surge of jihadist energy. He was in Constantinople in 1915 seeking to persuade Feisal, the son of the sherif of Mecca, to accept the Turkish caliphate and support its jihad. Feisal, known to English-speaking readers from TE Lawrence’s admiring account, had been deputed by his father to mollify the Turks and monitor their intentions, which he suspected might be to depose him as sherif in favour of a tribal rival. Oppenheim brokered extended discussions between Feisal and the Turks, with Feisal deferring to the inscrutable will of God whenever pressed for future commitment, but abounding otherwise with enthusiasm for jihad.

Oppenheim was fully aware of the cleavage between Shia and Sunni Muslims, and that a separate fatwa process was needed for the Shia.

… Oppenheim was busy in promoting an invasion of Egypt from the west by the Sanussi brotherhood in Libya. In spite of their glamorous association with the mahdi, who had laid General Gordon low some decades earlier, the attack by the brotherhood came to nothing in the now familiar welter of wasted bribes and broken promises. …

It is a striking irony of German policy that the strategy of infecting the enemy with an ideological virus failed abjectly with regard to Islam but succeeded beyond Berlin’s wildest dreams in its secularist version. The sealed train carrying Lenin to the Finland Station undermined the sickly tsarist regime and meant that Russia, the sledgehammer of the Second World War, ceased to threaten the Reich.

… [McMeekin] recognises rightly the shallowness of the thinking behind the Balfour Declaration, and of equivalent policy impulses on the German side – a lofty and indifferent condescension to Arab and Jewish aspirations alike is probably the best psychological key to these policies. That Germany, in different circumstances, might have become a champion of Zionism rather than of anti-Semitism is a plausible, if counterfactual conjecture.

My impression is that the German Foreign Office’s reaction to the Balfour Declaration in 1917 was roughly:

German Foreign Office: What a great idea! Why didn’t we think of it? Let’s issue our own Balfour Declaration giving the Zionists at least as much land.

Ottoman Foreign Office: Hey, wait a minute! We’re your ally. We own Palestine. You can’t promise to give away your ally’s territory.

German Foreign Office: Oh … right. Good point. Sorry. … Still, it would have been a lovely diplomatic counterstroke …

In general, Jewish opinion during the Great War tended to be pro Kaiser, since he was battling the backward anti-Semitic Czar.

The author is on more questionable ground in implying that Oppenheim’s bloodthirsty pamphlets had a significant influence on subsequent Arab attitudes. They were written to exploit and harness a pre-existing Islamic theology, and the notion of their enduring importance is at variance with McMeekin’s own caustic demonstration of their ineffectual role in the war itself. That the odious baron should recycle his jihadist notions for Hitler’s benefit is not as surprising as McMeekin seems to find it,…

I presume that one long-term effect of Von Oppenheim’s jihadist machinations was to remind Muslims that the ferengi were not, as they might appear at first glance, a united civilization that would work together intelligently to maintain European supremacy. Instead, the colonizers were deeply riven by national and/or imperial rivalries back in Europe, which would eventually undermine and exhaust Europe’s imperial ascendancy over the rest of the world, which had only been made possible by the Continent’s long peace over 1815-1914.

In 1913 European prestige was formidable in much of the imperialized world.

Europe seemed to be ruled largely by an interlock web of royal relations, such as the Kaiser’s first cousins the King of England and the Czar of Russia (who was married to the King’s cousin).

But in 1914-1918 there suddenly appeared brilliant envoys like Von Oppenheim telling Muslims that the Kaiser of Germany would bet immense amounts of gold that they would be able to drive out the King of England, or Lawrence telling Arabs that not even the Kaiser’s backing for the Ottomans could stop them from achieving their independence, which would be funded by the King of England’s gold.

In the movie Lawrence of Arabia, Lawrence writes Auda a promissory note payable in gold by the King of England. But Von Oppenheim really was an old soldiering buddy of the Kaiser.

As a historian, McMeekin sheds a new light on many hitherto forgotten dimensions of the First World War. The eccentric enterprise of the German jihad produced a correspondingly eccentric cast of characters, from the überFlashman Oppenheim downwards. …

The kaiser was a pioneer in the notion of using Turkey as a bridge between Europe and the Islamic world. The events chronicled in this book are not particularly encouraging, being more consistent with Dr Ian Paisley’s insight that the trouble with a bridge was that it went over to the other side. …

Sean OHuiginn retired from the Irish diplomatic service in 2009. His most recent foreign postings included service as Ireland’s Ambassador to Washington, Berlin and Rome.

 
Hide 145 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
    []
  1. Altai says:

    That Germany, in different circumstances, might have become a champion of Zionism rather than of anti-Semitism is a plausible, if counterfactual conjecture.

    Is that a necessary contradiction? (Here the author compares these policies without outright saying so as being manifestations of the different interests of ethnic Germans and German Jews and their relative influence on the German state.) Can’t one be a champion of Zionism for the anti-Semitic reason of wanting to be rid of the Jews?

    Small detail that it was, the Haavara agreement did happen. I don’t think most Nazis were much concerned about where the Jews went.

    • Replies: @Prester John
    , @Jack D
  2. syonredux says:

    I’m perpetually in awe of and aghast at the various dreamers / adventurers / maniacs who during World War I conjured up vast plans to redraw the map of the world, from the semi-successful like Lawrence of Arabia to the farcical like Zimmerman of Mexico.

    Buchan’s Greenmantle captures the atmosphere of the era:

    Sir Walter lay back in an arm-chair and spoke to the ceiling. It was the best story, the clearest and the fullest, I had ever got of any bit of the war. He told me just how and why and when Turkey had left the rails. I heard about her grievances over our seizure of her ironclads, of the mischief the coming of the Goeben had wrought, of Enver and his precious Committee and the way they had got a cinch on the old Turk. When he had spoken for a bit, he began to question me.

    ‘You are an intelligent fellow, and you will ask how a Polish adventurer, meaning Enver, and a collection of Jews and gipsies should have got control of a proud race. The ordinary man will tell you that it was German organization backed up with German money and German arms. You will inquire again how, since Turkey is primarily a religious power, Islam has played so small a part in it all. The Sheikh-ul-Islam is neglected, and though the Kaiser proclaims a Holy War and calls himself Hadji Mohammed Guilliamo, and says the Hohenzollerns are descended from the Prophet, that seems to have fallen pretty flat. The ordinary man again will answer that Islam in Turkey is becoming a back number, and that Krupp guns are the new gods. Yet—I don’t know. I do not quite believe in Islam becoming a back number.’

    ‘Look at it in another way,’ he went on. ‘If it were Enver and Germany alone dragging Turkey into a European war for purposes that no Turk cared a rush about, we might expect to find the regular army obedient, and Constantinople. But in the provinces, where Islam is strong, there would be trouble. Many of us counted on that. But we have been disappointed. The Syrian army is as fanatical as the hordes of the Mahdi. The Senussi have taken a hand in the game. The Persian Moslems are threatening trouble. There is a dry wind blowing through the East, and the parched grasses wait the spark. And that wind is blowing towards the Indian border. Whence comes that wind, think you?’

    • Replies: @songbird
  3. inertial says:

    I presume that one long-term effect of Von Oppenheim’s jihadist machinations was to remind Muslims that the ferengi were not, as they might appear at first glance, a united civilization.

    If so, he wasn’t wildly successful. Bin Laden, not the dumbest jihadist in the world, blamed America for Serbian war against Kosovo Muslims and Russian war against Chechen Muslims. Because who can tell the difference between a bunch of infidel Crusaders?

    • Replies: @Colin Wright
  4. syonredux says:

    During the Great War, Kermit Roosevelt* (TR’s son) served with the British in the Middle East and recorded his thoughts in War in the Garden of Eden:

    When General Maude took over the command, the effect of the Holy War that, at the Kaiser’s instigation, was being preached in the mosques had not as yet been determined. This jehad, as it was called, proposed to unite all “True Believers” against the invading Christians, and give the war a strongly religious aspect. The Germans hoped by this means to spread mutiny among the Mohammedan troops, which formed such an appreciable element of the British forces, as well as to fire the fury of the Turks and win as many of the Arabs to their side as possible. The Arab thoroughly disliked both sides. The Turk oppressed him, but did so in an Oriental, and hence more or less comprehensible, manner. The English gave him justice, but it was an Occidental justice that he couldn’t at first understand or appreciate, and he was distinctly inclined to mistrust it. In course of time he would come to realize its advantages. Under Turkish rule the Arab was oppressed by the Turk, but then he in turn could oppress the Jew, the Chaldean, and Nestorian Christians, and the wretched Armenian. Under British rule he suddenly found these latter on an equal footing with him, and he felt that this did not compensate the lifting from his shoulders of the Turkish burden. Then, too, when a race has been long oppressed and downtrodden, and suddenly finds itself on an equality with its oppressor, it is apt to become arrogant and overbearing. This is exactly what happened, and there was bad feeling on all sides in consequence. However, real fundamental justice is appreciated the world over, once the native has been educated up to it, and can trust in its continuity.

    *

    In 1917, as he was about to be transferred to a Russian branch, the U.S. entered the World War. He attended the Plattsburg School for officers from May to July 1917 but resigned from the U.S. Army to join the British Army. On August 22, 1917, Roosevelt was appointed an honorary captain in the British Army.[3] He saw hard fighting in the Near East, later transferring to the United States Army. While his other brothers had had summer training at Plattsburg, New York, Roosevelt had missed out on this training.

    Roosevelt joined the British Army to fight in the Mesopotamia (modern-day Iraq) theater of World War I. He was attached to the 14th Light Armoured Motor Battery of the Machine Gun Corps, but the British High Command decided they could not risk his life and so they made him an officer in charge of transport (Ford Model T cars). Within months of being posted to Mesopotamia, he mastered spoken as well as written Arabic and was often relied upon as a translator with the locals. He was awarded a Military Cross on August 26, 1918.[4]

    Roosevelt relinquished his British commission on April 28, 1918, and was transferred to the AEF in France.[5] In 1918, he learned that his youngest brother Quentin, a pilot, had been shot down over France and had been buried by the Germans with full military honors.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kermit_Roosevelt#Military_service_in_World_War_I

  5. Anon[594] • Disclaimer says:

    +++++++1000000000 Steve !!!!!
    Pure , raw , bloody , fresh meat for the fan bois . Salivating carnivores from the other side of Unz will positively converge on this delicious orgy of words and blast this one to 500 comments . To the descendants of Loki , let the games begin !!!!

    • Replies: @duncsbaby
  6. Luke Lea says:

    In Isaiah Friedman’s “The Question of Palestine: 1914-1918,” based on declassified documents in the British Foreign Office, we learn that The Balfour Declaration was the product of a secret set of diplomatic negotiations on the part of the three major allied powers, Britain, France, and Russia, with two major objectives:

    1. To bring the United States into the war on the side of the Allies and the Anglo-American establishment by securing the support of the influential American Jewish community, to which it had hitherto been opposed on account of it hostility to Russia. Of course the two other major immigrant groups, Irish Americans and German American were also opposed, the former on account of hatred of England, and the latter on account their being, well, German.

    2. To redirect the flood of Eastern European Jewish immigration away from their shores (or in the case of Russia and France away from their borders) by giving someone else’s land away.

    Thus while Germany’s machination gave us the Soviet Union, the Allies bequeathed us the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

    I personally think Europe needs to acknowledge its historical responsibility for causing the conflict and be prepared to offer a generous package of material compensation to the Palestinian refugee population as a necessary ingredient in any final settlement. Blood money paid by the party in the wrong is the only recognized way to end blood feuds in that part of the world.

  7. The sealed train carrying Lenin to the Finland Station undermined the sickly tsarist regime and meant that Russia, the sledgehammer of the Second World War, ceased to threaten the Reich.

    The syringe injecting Lenin into the Russian body undermined the sickly tsarist regime and meant that Russia, the sledgehammer of the Second World War, ceased to threaten the Reich.

  8. BenKenobi says:

    Inshallah, the lowly and diverse kuffar will pay an onerous jizya to the righteous White man for the privelege of proximity.

  9. Anon[594] • Disclaimer says:
    @Luke Lea

    PaLie$tinians should be settled in Sweden and Germany . Germany and Sweden will send their Jews to Israel.All parties will be thrilled.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
  10. One of the few benefits of living in the multicultural poz is that Middle Eastern women live here now.

    • Replies: @Diversity Heretic
  11. istevefan says:

    His recklessness was all the more reprehensible in that his extensive personal experience of the Islamic world must surely have given him a good notion of how inflammable the situation was to which he applied his talents. …

    Nice to see them recognize how flammable certain parts of the world are. It’s also reckless and reprehensible to import it into our lands.

  12. snorlax says:
    @Luke Lea

    To bring the United States into the war on the side of the Allies and the Anglo-American establishment by securing the support of the influential American Jewish community

    America entered the war on April 6, 1917, and the Balfour Declaration was issued on November 2, 1917.

    • Replies: @syonredux
    , @JLK
    , @meh
    , @nebulafox
  13. @Luke Lea

    . To redirect the flood of Eastern European Jewish immigration away from their shores (or in the case of Russia and France away from their borders) by giving someone else’s land away.

    Shed a tear for those poor Ottomans.

  14. syonredux says:
    @snorlax

    To bring the United States into the war on the side of the Allies and the Anglo-American establishment by securing the support of the influential American Jewish community

    America entered the war on April 6, 1917, and the Balfour Declaration was issued on November 2, 1917.

    The idea had been circulating in elite circles for some time:

    Immediately following their declaration of war on the Ottoman Empire in November 1914, the British War Cabinet began to consider the future of Palestine; within two months a memorandum was circulated to the Cabinet by a Zionist Cabinet member, Herbert Samuel, proposing the support of Zionist ambitions in order to enlist the support of Jews in the wider war. A committee was established in April 1915 by British Prime Minister H. H. Asquith to determine their policy toward the Ottoman Empire including Palestine. Asquith, who had favored post-war reform of the Ottoman Empire, resigned in December 1916; his replacement David Lloyd George, favored partition of the Empire. The first negotiations between the British and the Zionists took place at a conference on 7 February 1917 that included Sir Mark Sykes and the Zionist leadership. Subsequent discussions led to Balfour’s request, on 19 June, that Rothschild and Chaim Weizmann submit a draft of a public declaration. Further drafts were discussed by the British Cabinet during September and October, with input from Zionist and anti-Zionist Jews but with no representation from the local population in Palestine.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Balfour_Declaration#April_to_June:_Allied_discussions

  15. JLK says:
    @snorlax

    America entered the war on April 6, 1917, and the Balfour Declaration was issued on November 2, 1917.

    It was in the works for some time before that.

  16. Stogumber says:

    Here in Germany Max von Oppenheim is remembered mostly as a philanthropist: founder of an institute and a museum (both gone now) . Most of his collections are now in the Ethnological Museum of Cologne which keeps him in friendly memory. https://www.museenkoeln.de/rautenstrauch-joest-museum/Oppenheim

    • Replies: @Jack D
  17. Dave Pinsen says: • Website

    A couple of contextual notes about this. In the late 19th century, with the resurgence of blood and soil nationalism, a number of Jewish intellectuals in Europe embraced their Mideastern lineage, and thought of Arabs romantically as “Jews on horseback”. In general, they seem to have had inflated opinions of Arabs. Also, there weren’t that many Arabs back then. The entire Ottoman Empire back then had fewer people than Iraq alone does today.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
  18. Dtbb says:

    If you like dreamers/ adventurers/ maniacs you should read about James Brooke the “White Rajah” or Josiah Harlin the “White Afghan Prince.”

  19. @Canadian Observer

    To each his own, but my impression of Arab women, of which I’ve seen a lot in France, is that they have a cruel look to them, even if they are otherwise bangable.

  20. I have this unusual suspicion that the fundamental impulse behind Palestinian-American scholar Edward Said’s immensely influential 1978 book Orientalism was “Don’t You Come Around Here No More:” a normal, healthy, masculine, slightly redneck aversion to European sex tourists in the Near East, both the straights like Von Oppenheim and, to judge by the grotesque cover picture of his book, especially the boy-botherers like Lawrence.

    That cover, Gérôme’s painting Le charmeur des serpentes, is unthinkable in 2018, even though it serves as a solid Exhibit A for what follows, Said’s accusatory thesis about “Orientalism” and what is now called the “Western gaze.”

    Here’s an article on how the cover was chosen

    https://www.thecitizen.in/index.php/en/NewsDetail/index/4/12404/On-The-Cover-Of-Edward-Saids-Orientalism

  21. Twinkie says:

    Imperial German diplomat-archaeologist Max Von Oppenheim

    German “von,” meaning “from” or “of,” referring to place of origin/land ownership for the nobility, is not capitalized unless at the beginning of a sentence. So it should be “Max von Oppenheim.”

  22. Speaking of “Lawrence of Arabia”, one of my favorite scenes references the Sykes-Picot Agreement (“…an agreement, not a treaty” in the words of the Claude Raines character, the appropriately elusive British diplomat, Dryden). S-P is Exhibit Number One of what happens when two countries, in this case France and England, involve themselves in a region about which they know virtually nothing but in their own minds think they know everything.

  23. Anonymous[123] • Disclaimer says:
    @Dave Pinsen

    It was also a reaction to the anti-Semitism fostered by the rise of nationalism, which would culminate in the genocidal nationalism of WWII:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wilhelm_II,_German_Emperor#Antisemitism

    Wilhelm’s biographer Lamar Cecil identified Wilhelm’s “curious but well-developed anti-Semitism”, noting that in 1888 a friend of Wilhelm “declared that the young Kaiser’s dislike of his Hebrew subjects, one rooted in a perception that they possessed an overweening influence in Germany, was so strong that it could not be overcome”. Cecil concludes:

    Wilhelm never changed, and throughout his life he believed that Jews were perversely responsible, largely through their prominence in the Berlin press and in leftist political movements, for encouraging opposition to his rule. For individual Jews, ranging from rich businessmen and major art collectors to purveyors of elegant goods in Berlin stores, he had considerable esteem, but he prevented Jewish citizens from having careers in the army and the diplomatic corps and frequently used abusive language against them.[31]

    On 2 December 1919, Wilhelm wrote to Field Marshal August von Mackensen, denouncing his own abdication as the “deepest, most disgusting shame ever perpetrated by a person in history, the Germans have done to themselves … egged on and misled by the tribe of Judah … Let no German ever forget this, nor rest until these parasites have been destroyed and exterminated from German soil!”[32] Wilhelm advocated a “regular international all-worlds pogrom à la Russe” as “the best cure” and further believed that Jews were a “nuisance that humanity must get rid of some way or other. I believe the best thing would be gas!”[33]

    • Replies: @Jack D
    , @Flip
  24. Bill B. says:
    @Luke Lea

    The Balfour plan did not intend to give away the land but imagined that it would work harmony with the local Arabs.

    Barbara Tuchman’s Bible and Sword is good on the British attitude towards what came to be called Zionism.

    The Europeans already give very large sums of money to the Palestinians. Presumably as part of your “settlement” the Arab countries in MENA will also compensate the Jews and Christians forced to flee for their lives.

    • Replies: @meh
  25. utu says:

    Jews did pretty well in WWI. They got Balfour agreement and Russia was destroyed.

  26. istevefan says:
    @Luke Lea

    Will the islamic world do the same for the Balkans?

    • Replies: @J.Ross
  27. songbird says:
    @syonredux

    My favorite Buchan novel. There’s something wonderfully un-PC about a British agent posing successfully as a whirling dervish and Islamic fundamentalist leader to frustrate the evil plans of the Turks.

    Buchan is certainly not the type of propagandist that they would hire today.

  28. Bill B. says:

    “Don’t You Come Around Here No More:” a normal, healthy, masculine, slightly redneck aversion to European sex tourists in the Near East

    Really? How many sexual adventurers were there in the age before mass tourism and quick and easy travel?

    Surely Edward Said’s “research” was the ravings of man curled up by racial resentment and cultural jelousy who resisted the idea that any “white man” could dare claim insight into the Middle East? The painting may have been intended to titillate but it was not necessarily impossible or inaccurate.

    (One of the benefits of following Steve Sailer is the regular opportunities to unload on Edward Said.)

  29. @Bill B.

    How many sexual adventurers were there in the age before mass tourism and quick and easy travel?

    Among the Orientalist writers and painters whom Said, a literary critic, wrote about, a fairly high percentage I would guess.

  30. I’m perpetually in awe of and aghast at the various dreamers / adventurers / maniacs who during World War I conjured up vast plans to redraw the map of the world, from the semi-successful like Lawrence of Arabia to the farcical like Zimmerman of Mexico

    Not forgetting two of the most visionary, if that is the right word, founding fathers, namely Lenin/Parvus plan to establish the Soviet Union and Herzl/Balfour plan for a Zionist Israel.

    The genesis of the latter vision is too well known to dwell on. The gauzy myths shrouding the set up of the Soviet experiment conceal a writhing can of worms.

    And, surprise surprise, the name of Max von Oppenheim pops up at this critical juncture. He was a subordinate of one Hans Freiherr von Wangenheim, regarded by Russian Statesman Sergey Sazonov as “the most successful of the German fighting diplomatists”.

    von Wangenheim was Parvus handler, the conduit of German military intelligence funds to Lenin. Parvus was far more than a bag man. He was generally considered the expert on the Russian economy. And the Bolsheviks, being Marxists, relied on his advice for tactical political moves, particularly in the latter half of the war as the Romanov state broke down. Wikipedia states:

    While in Turkey, Parvus became close with German ambassador Hans Freiherr von Wangenheim who was known to be partial to establishing revolutionary fifth columns among the allies. Consequently, Parvus offered his plan via Baron von Wangenheim to the German General Staff: the paralyzing of Russia via general strike, financed by the German government[18] (which, at the time, was at war with Russia and its allies). Von Wangenheim sent Parvus to Berlin where the latter arrived on the 6 March 1915 and presented a 20-page plan titled A preparation of massive political strikes in Russia to the German government.[19]

    Parvus’ detailed plan recommended the division of Russia by sponsoring the Bolshevik faction of the Russian Social Democratic Labor Party, encouraging ethnic separatists in various Russian regions, and supporting various writers whose criticism of Tsarism continued during wartime. Basing himself on his 1905 experiences, Parvus theorised that the division of Russia and its loss in the First World War was the best way to bring about a socialist revolution.

    In April 1917, in a plan strategized together with Parvus, German intelligence sent Vladimir Lenin and a group of 30 of his revolutionary associates from Switzerland through Germany and Sweden in a train car under supervision of Swiss socialist Fritz Platten.[25]

    Spartacus fills in some juicy details:

    In 1915 Hans von Wangenheim sent Parvus to Berlin in March 1915 endorsing his plan that Germany should give support to the Bolsheviks in an attempt to overthrow Tsar Nicholas II. (40) According to one German document Parvus told a representative of the government that “about 20 million roubles would be required to get the Russian revolution completely organized.” (41)

    Alexander Parvus arrived in Switzerland to carry out negotiations. He made contact with Richard von Kühlmann, a minister at the German Foreign Office. Von Kühlmann sent a message to Army Headquarters explaining the strategy of the German Foreign Office:

    “The disruption of the Entente and the subsequent creation of political combinations agreeable to us constitute the most important war aim of our diplomacy. Russia appeared to be the weakest link in the enemy chain, the task therefore was gradually to loosen it, and, when possible, to remove it. This was the purpose of the subversive activity we caused to be carried out in Russia behind the front – in the first place promotion of separatist tendencies and support of the Bolsheviks had received a steady flow of funds through various channels and under different labels that they were in a position to be able to build up their main organ, Pravda, to conduct energetic propaganda and appreciably to extend the originally narrow basis of their party.” (49)

    Parvus also made contact with General Erich Ludendorff who later admitted his involvement in his autobiography, My War Memories, 1914-1918 (1920) that he told senior officials: “Our government, in sending Lenin to Russia, took upon itself a tremendous responsibility. From a military point of view his journey was justified, for it was imperative that Russia should fall.” (50)

    General Max Hoffmann, chief of the German General Staff on the Eastern Front commented: “We naturally tried, by means of propaganda, to increase the disintegration that the Russian Revolution had introduced into the Army. Some man at home who had connections with the Russian revolutionaries exiled in Switzerland came upon the idea of employing some of them in order to hasten the undermining and poisoning of the morale of the Russian Army.”

    Hoffmann claims that Reichstag deputy Mathias Erzberger became involved in the negotiations. “And thus it came about that Lenin was conveyed through Germany to Petrograd in the manner that afterwards transpired. In the same way as I send shells into the enemy trenches, as I discharge poison gas at him, I, as an enemy, have the right to employ the expedient of propaganda against his garrisons.” (51)

    Not surprisingly, the close cooperation between German reactionaries and Russian revolutionaries in overthrowing a legitimate state is something that the concerned parties have very little interest in public scrutiny. The German political establishment sanitised German archives after the war to make sure no skeletons were found rattling in the closet by radical politicians or Allied negotiators. And the Russians have shut down access to their archives after the brief Glaznost thaw.

    But it is clear that the German foreign ministry really took seriously the Kaisers call for a “Weltpolitik”.

    • Replies: @Yngvar
  31. ‘…That Germany, in different circumstances, might have become a champion of Zionism rather than of anti-Semitism is a plausible, if counterfactual conjecture…’

    Actually, to some extent Germany wound up championing both. They aren’t mutually exclusive — far from it.

  32. @inertial

    ‘If so, he wasn’t wildly successful. Bin Laden, not the dumbest jihadist in the world, blamed America for Serbian war against Kosovo Muslims and Russian war against Chechen Muslims. Because who can tell the difference between a bunch of infidel Crusaders?’

    Our ability — or even willingness — to distinguish between different flavors of Muslim isn’t exactly impressive.

  33. Überflashman? Not so Oppenheim was more Shekelbergerman.

  34. @Luke Lea

    ‘…I personally think Europe needs to acknowledge its historical responsibility for causing the conflict and be prepared to offer a generous package of material compensation to the Palestinian refugee population as a necessary ingredient in any final settlement…’

    ? Just give them back Palestine. Pull the plug on Israel and it’ll be gone within a year. As it is, 40% of the Jews there want to emigrate.

    • Replies: @Anon
    , @Anonymous
  35. meh says:
    @snorlax

    America entered the war on April 6, 1917, and the Balfour Declaration was issued on November 2, 1917.

    You do realize what “secret agreements” mean, don’t you? You don’t talk publicly about secret agreements until after their secrecy has become moot.

    The Balfour Declaration was issued when it was, because it no longer was required to be a secret; and to make public note of the fait accompli, so that the interested parties were on record.

    But even then the full nature of the secret deal was not revealed, although the Germans figured out the bulk of it by the time of the Treaty of Versailles, ergo “the stab in the back”.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HhFRGDyX48c

    Benjamin Freedman’s 1961 Speech at the Willard Hotel (Complete)

    It is a striking irony of German policy that the strategy of infecting the enemy with an ideological virus failed abjectly with regard to Islam but succeeded beyond Berlin’s wildest dreams in its secularist version. The sealed train carrying Lenin to the Finland Station undermined the sickly tsarist regime and meant that Russia, the sledgehammer of the Second World War, ceased to threaten the Reich.

    Everyone wants to talk about Lenin in the sealed train; no one wants to talk about how Trotsky and the other NYC/USA based Bolsheviks managed to get past the Royal Navy blockade to get to Russia to join Lenin.

    • Replies: @Tyrion 2
  36. meh says:
    @Bill B.

    Really? How many sexual adventurers were there in the age before mass tourism and quick and easy travel?

    Surely Edward Said’s “research” was the ravings of man curled up by racial resentment and cultural jelousy who resisted the idea that any “white man” could dare claim insight into the Middle East? The painting may have been intended to titillate but it was not necessarily impossible or inaccurate.

    (One of the benefits of following Steve Sailer is the regular opportunities to unload on Edward Said.)

    Which Said richly deserves.

    However, both things could be true at the same time; actual (pre-mass tourism, pre-air travel) European sexual adventurers could have existed (they did), while at the same time Said could be all the things you say he is (which he is).

    Just because the Arab world has valid grievances doesn’t mean that everything they say, do, or feel about us/against us, is valid.

    • Replies: @Almost Missouri
  37. Flip says:

    n 1913 European prestige was formidable in much of the imperialized world. Europe seemed to be ruled largely by descendants of Queen Victoria, such as her grandsons: the King of England, the Kaiser of Germany, and the Czar of Russia.

    The King and the Kaiser were grandsons of Victoria while the King and the Czar were grandsons of King Christian IX of Denmark. The Czar’s wife was a granddaughter of Victoria.

    • Replies: @AndrewR
  38. Anon[594] • Disclaimer says:
    @Colin Wright

    Enlighten us “Colin”. Since you are obviously a muslim pretending not to be . Good for stealth talkiyah and gaslighting ,surely. Theological question : are you practising takkiyah or kitman ?

    • Replies: @Colin Wright
  39. meh says:
    @Colin Wright

    Our ability — or even willingness — to distinguish between different flavors of Muslim isn’t exactly impressive.

    tfw you remember normie goy-cons thinking, back in the day, that this newfangled “Sunni vs. Shia” thing was just some kind of liberal commie plot to invalidate and undermine the Bush War in Iraq….

  40. Neoconned says:

    The rest of Europe hates, fears, or lusts after Germany and it’s boring stingy manufacturing economy and lobe of pious order.

    This necessitated through it’s history the need for odd allies like the Turks, Japanese etc

    • Agree: Almost Missouri
  41. meh says:
    @Bill B.

    The Balfour plan did not intend to give away the land but imagined that it would work harmony with the local Arabs.

    Key word there is “imagined”.

  42. @Reg Cæsar

    That Ottoman mustache looks kinda fake, like Justin Trudeau’s eyebrows.

    • Replies: @Reg Cæsar
  43. “Berlin-Baghdad Express”, “Cape to Cairo Road”
    ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cape_to_Cairo_Road ):
    I wonder what role alliteration played in choosing the termini of these grand routes.

  44. Anonymous[276] • Disclaimer says:
    @Steve Sailer

    More recently, Keynes and Aleister Crowley were infamous for touring North Africa to engage in pederasty.

    I suspect it may have been worse before jet age mass tourism. Mass tourism involves the middle class, most of whom are not sex tourists or if they are, tend to be interested in regular heterosexual activity with adults. Pederasty was an upper class vice, and before mass tourism, well off gentlemen like Keynes and Crowley could travel relatively easily to the Near East and elsewhere. With the travelers and expats being predominantly well off gentlemen, adventurers, and administrators who might have been involved in such activity in public schools or whatever, they might have been disproportionately involved in that scene.

    • Replies: @Hodag
  45. DuanDiRen says:
    @Bill B.

    How many? My impression is: a lot.

    Reasonably cheap access to the Arab and North African lands coincided with the period of maximum sexual restraint in the West (1850-1930s), and there were very few effective restraints on what a White man could get up to, provided he avoided powerful local families.

    An outstanding book that deals with some of these issues obliquely is “A Cure for Serpents”, by an Italian doctor, Alberto di Pirajno, in Ethiopia. As I recall, a local potentate rewarded the physician for his successful treatment by giving him a virgin slave girl.

    I recommend the book.

  46. J.Ross says: • Website
    @istevefan

    No territory once Islamic can be yielded back to pagan darkness.

  47. duncsbaby says:
    @Anon

    I think you left off a zero. As it is your comment makes no sense.

  48. 1661er says:

    Not a direct report to Max, but one of his spies during WWI was Jewish socialist doctor, Minna Weizmann, sister of Chaim, aunt of Ezer.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minna_Weizmann

    Chaim and Ezer didn’ talk about her much, I wonder why.

  49. @Luke Lea

    The best way to end a blood feud in that part of the world was described millennia ago:”Enter now into the city and do kill everyone and everything with it. Spare no one, but do kill every man, every woman and every child. Spare no thing, but do kill every cow and every calf, every horse and every foal, every sheep and every lamb, and every goat and every kid……”

  50. Anyone else done the crazy tree in Hearts of Iron4 where you bring back the Kaiser and he kicks out all the communists and they have to flee to France?

  51. Tyrion 2 says:
    @Colin Wright

    Bin Laden was probably the best educated, most well-travelled and most privileged Jihadi ever. He was also obsessed with this stuff. If he couldn’t tell the difference, imagine what the rest of the Jihadi world believes!

  52. Tyrion 2 says:
    @meh

    No-one would have been naive enough to enter WWI on the basis of the British privately promising to issue a proclamation in 6 months’ time. Even the heavily romaticised honourable Arabs of the Lawrence of Arabia movie were not actually that stupid.

  53. Anonymous[273] • Disclaimer says:

    Perhaps, that was the last era, in Europe at least, that ‘men were still men’.

    It must be remembered that Europe was only a few generations away from feudalism. The notion still persisted that men of valor, the military men, were still very intimately involved with the state as sovereign at the highest level. It was still recognised that nation states were carved out and delineated by ‘right of conquest’, by battle and annexation. In this context, martial daring and good generalship were crucial to the fates of empires, peoples and nations.

    Thus the cult of the martial maverick, the heroic man – in the truest sense – which dated at least from the time of Alexander, was still current.

    Perhaps the ‘Indian Raj’ of the 19th century provides a good case study.

  54. AndrewR says:
    @Flip

    Came here to say this. Then again, George and Nicholas were almost physically identical, albeit obviously not due to Victoria’s genes.

    • Replies: @Steve Sailer
    , @LondonBob
  55. Anonymous[273] • Disclaimer says:
    @Anonymous

    In this respect, it’s worth noting the political career of former ukip leader Nigel Farage.

    Not quite the same to be sure, but reminiscent of another type of ‘stock character’ from feudal times.
    Rather like the Scots religious reformer John Knox, Farage arose out of nowhere to shake the establishment to its core, by sheer power of force of personality and argument.

  56. LondonBob says:
    @AndrewR

    Prince Michael of Kent is popular in Russia, and spends a fair amount of time there, due to his physical resemblance to Tsar Nicholas II, and his grandfather King George V.

    • Replies: @AndrewR
    , @Jack D
  57. @Bill B.

    Probably a bit different, but Brit soldiers returned from Egypt in WWI, WWII and the Suez campaign with the expression “shuftakush” or “shuftikush”, meaning sex.

    I guess even in Cairo the laws of supply and demand apply.

    (If you like magnificent adventure stories, the tale of the Emden’s voyage and her landing party’s escape back to Germany from the Cocos Islands is an epic. Edwin Hoyt’s book is fairly recent.)

    • Replies: @PiltdownMan
  58. @Anonymous

    Read Charles Allen’s “Soldier Sahibs” for portraits of some swashbuckling Brits in India – really remarkable characters like James Abbott (of Abbottabad) and of course Nicholson.

    At the same time you had the Brits who retrieved the lost treasures of India. Allen’s 2003 book “The Buddha and the Sahibs: The Men Who Discovered India’s Lost Religion” is worth a read – practically every Buddhist site in the North seems to have been destroyed by the Muslims (Mughals) and rediscovered by some Brit amateur.

    • Replies: @PiltdownMan
  59. @Anonymous

    Perhaps the ‘Indian Raj’ of the 19th century provides a good case study.

    The British Raj, you mean.

    The Indian Raj is what the H1-B visa rules have created at the commodity end of the programming industry here in America.

  60. @YetAnotherAnon

    Thanks for the recommendation.

    The Oriental Renaissance: Europe’s Rediscovery of India and the East, 1680-1880 by Raymond Schwab is a very good read, too.

    It recounts the story classically trained Europeans in the 18th century realizing, with great excitement, that Sanskrit was a parallel language to Greek and Latin, among other discoveries .

  61. @Tyrion 2

    OT: Please note that I’ve replied to you on the “Tribal Trouble” article, but I don’t think it registered as a direct reply to your comments account, so you may not be aware of what I’ve said.

    • Replies: @Old Jew
  62. @YetAnotherAnon

    My mom met the captain of the Emden in the early 1950s at a party and he recounted some of the story to her. Seeing your post I wish I’d listened more carefully to what she said about it.

  63. Assiduous efforts in the end produced no less than five fatwas, satisfactorily ranking jihad against Germany’s enemies as the highest personal duty for all Muslims

    It did raise a tricky problem for the Germans, though. As Peter Hopkirk notes in his wonderful “On Secret Service East of Constantinople: The Plot to Bring Down the British Empire” (p4):

    But even for the Germans the Holy War raised one awkward question which had to be addressed lest it undermine the entire enterprise. What, it would be asked by many Muslims, was a Christian sovereign doing fomenting and funding a Holy War aimed at killing those of his own faith? Wilhelm’s advisers, who included a number of eminent German orientalists and scholars, were ready for that one. In mosques and bazaars throughout the East rumors were circulated that the German Emperor had been secretly converted to Islam. ‘Haji’ Wilhelm Mohammed – as he was now said to call himself – had even made a pilgrimage, incognito, to Mecca. Muslim scholars friendly to the cause were able to find mysterious passages in the Koran which purported to show that Wilhelm had been ordained by God to free the faithful from infidel rule. Later, word was to be spread that the entire German nation had followed their emperor’s example and converted to Islam en masse.

    The claim that the entire German nation converted to Islam en masse may yet turn out to have been an accurate enough prophecy; they just got the dates wrong;-)

    Anyway, I highly recommend Hopkirk’s book. https://www.amazon.com/Secret-Service-East-Constantinople-British-ebook/dp/B005HVR9WY

    • Replies: @Hunsdon
  64. European sex tourists in the Near East

    Is that a thing? Hair fetish?

  65. Hodag says:
    @Anonymous

    How Morocco became a haven for gay Westerners in the 1950s

    https://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-29566539

    Pederaary and hashish. The Beats perhaps most famously in the US.

    No wonder they hate us.

    • Replies: @nebulafox
    , @stillCARealist
  66. The sealed train carrying Lenin to the Finland Station undermined the sickly tsarist regime….

    But the Tsar had already abdicated by the time Lenin got there. What it did was to take Russia out of the war.

  67. Anonymous[248] • Disclaimer says:
    @Anon

    This is intended as a joke but yes, the likeliest final outcome to the Palestinian problem will be for them to be settled outside of the Middle East, probably Europe.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
  68. Anon[594] • Disclaimer says:
    @Colin Wright

    78% of “palestine” is Jordan.Bonus the Jordanian royal family already spends most of their time in France.

  69. Anonymous[116] • Disclaimer says:
    @Anonymous

    It’s already happening.

    In drip by drip fashion.

    The ultimate irony is that, assuredly, they will mostly end up in Germany.

    A further irony is that due to the EU, it is likely that Poland – the heartland of the Ashkenazi – could well end up hosting a massive Palestinian population.

  70. Anon[230] • Disclaimer says:
    @Steve Sailer

    Well, that’s what happens when you dare to throw off the yoke of YHVH. Always remember, the Jew is our moral superior, right, White Nationalist?

  71. I was made to read Said’s Orientalism in grad school. I only recently became aware of Robert Irwin’s 2006 answer: Forbidden Knowledge or, more interestingly titled in the U.K., For Lust of Knowing.

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/For_Lust_of_Knowing

    • Replies: @Sergeant Prepper
  72. peterike says:

    That Germany, in different circumstances, might have become a champion of Zionism rather than of anti-Semitism is a plausible, if counterfactual conjecture.

    Our very own Ron Unz has already written about the fact that Nazi Germany was very much a “champion of Zionism.”

    http://www.unz.com/runz/american-pravda-jews-and-nazis/

    • Replies: @Seraphim
  73. Mr. Anon says:
    @Tyrion 2

    No-one would have been naive enough to enter WWI on the basis of the British privately promising to issue a proclamation in 6 months’ time. Even the heavily romaticised honourable Arabs of the Lawrence of Arabia movie were not actually that stupid.

    Naive enough? No. Certain enough? Quite likely. American financiers had more leverage over the British Government than a handful of Bedouin did. Besides it’s not as if a lot of the backers of America’s entry into the war were wagering their own lives or that of their children.

    • Replies: @Tyrion 2
  74. nebulafox says:
    @Tyrion 2

    Bin Laden had a lot of wacky beliefs, but he actually could tell the difference between Americans and Russians. He had extensive dealings with both. Unfortunately, he and other Islamists took the fact that they could succeed against the Russians-whom they viewed as far less “soft” than Americans-as a sign that attacking the US was not going to be a problem in the long run. Essentially, they viewed the US as a paper tiger.

    With the wave of religious conservatism that has spread in the Islamic World since 1979, what can basically be termed their version of “Sunday School” (I have no idea what the Jewish equivalent is) has stressed the life and times of the Prophet and Rashidun-era history, with not much of a focus on anything after the death of Ali or before the birth of Muhammad. There’s also an extensive relying on hadiths, none of which existed until a couple of centuries after Muhammad’s death. Take away those, and you are left with the Qu’ran: which is a supremely tough book to understand. It does contain some pretty useful hints as to what the history of the early religion really was like and what Muhammad thought, but those require a background knowledge of the Near East at the time: and that’s something that Islamic education these days is supremely uninterested in providing.

    This has resulted in a *lot* of Muslims being unfamiliar with the greater history and development of their religion. Of course, this is generally a problem with the hoi polloi everywhere-because most people just don’t read-but with the absolute lack of an Enlightenment-style event in Islamic history, what the religion officially evolved into matters way more in those societies. It’s not just the theological system, it is the culture, the shared assumptions and axioms of thoughts, the way of life, everything. It’s hard for someone who has never lived in an Islamic country or society to quite grasp, I think, the level of difference from even the more conservative parts of the West.

    Also, I’m sure you are already aware of this, but in the Islamic World, it is pretty common belief that with the America-Israel relationship, the tail is controlling the dog. (To be fair to the Muslims, the GOP pulling stunts like letting Bibi soapbox in the Senate while clapping for him in Stalin-esque fashion *really* does not help here.)

    Given all this, it is important that we don’t give jihadis too much credit. Your typical ISIS candidate isn’t interested in the details and nuances of Islamic theology and history, he’s interested in acting out his own personal nihilistic fantasies under the cover of literalist, 7th Century-style Salafism, dumbed-down for 21st Century consumption. The more conscientious ones might know a dozen or so conveniently selected verses from the Qu’ran for the purpose of winning Internet debates.

    He’s also typically a regular consumer of pornography, drugs, American rap music, likely has a prison record, and probably comes from a broken home. In other words, if he were American, he’d be a likely candidate to become a gangbanger or a mass shooter, making the lives of other unfortunates miserable. He just wouldn’t have the chance to join a global ideological movement that poses a threat to the stability of countries from West Africa to Southeast Asia. These guys are anything-anything-but impressive.

    • Replies: @YetAnotherAnon
  75. Sean says:

    I presume that one long-term effect of Von Oppenheim’s jihadist machinations was to remind Muslims that the ferengi were not, as they might appear at first glance, a united civilization that would work together intelligently to maintain European supremacy. Instead, the colonizers were deeply riven by national and/or imperial rivalries back in Europe, which would eventually undermine and exhaust Europe’s imperial ascendancy over the rest of the world, which had only been made possible by the Continent’s long peace over 1815-1914.

    Japan was the only non European country that had not become a Western colony The Ottoman Empire was the only Muslim country run by Muslims. I think the defeat of Russia by Japan was the thing that made non Ottoman Muslims start to think they could overthrow their oppressors, and the Ottoman empire think it could win a war against West Europeans.

    World War Zero? Re-assessing the Global Impact of the Russo-Japanese War 1904-05 Aydin proves that even before the Russo-Japanese War contacts and cooperation existed between such pan-Islamists as Abdurresid Ibrahim and anti-Western Japanese pan-Asianists, such as Tōyama Mitsuru, Uchida Ryōhei and Inukai Tsuyoshi; these only intensified thereafter (Politics pp. 83-89). The Russians, who had fought the war under the banner of Christianity and had been encouraged in that stance by Wilhelm II and other German propagandists, had to recognize that, together with nationalism, three major non-Western world religions—Islam, Buddhism, and Hinduism—experienced a reawakening and revival in the aftermath of the Russo-Japanese War (Aydin, Politics p. 78).

    Similarly, Turkish enthusiasm for Japan for racial reasons is dealt with by Bieganiec in Kowner/Rethinking. Intellectuals were sympathetic to the victory of an Asian nation over a European one, since they accused the Western countries of treating the Turks, together with the “yellow” Japanese, as being at the bottom of the racial hierarchy. Now the Turks would also recover their pride. There seemed to be clear evidence that modernization need not necessarily mean Westernization (so also Hirama pp. 126-30).

    In Worringer, the author maintains that provincial Arab elites under Ottoman rule viewed Japanese ancestral rites as a pattern for Muslims to emulate in revering their Arab forefathers. Their admiration for Japan, however, had a negative effect on Turkey: the Arabs gained neither cultural recognition as a special group within the empire nor a share in real political power. As a result, they deepened their identity as Arabs, and the discourse on Japanese modernity in the pages of the Arabic press shifted to a politicized critique of Ottoman failures in comparison with Japanese successes, particularly in the area of education.

    Babrak Kermal took the lesson that the Ottoman Empire had failed because it tried to rule over non–Turkish peoples. Germany had not much of an Empire and did well. If WW1 showed anything it was that Imperialism was on the way out.

  76. nebulafox says:
    @snorlax

    Unlike the Germans and Irish (the two ethnic groups who had very, very good reasons to be leery of the shrill, nuance-free neocon-esque screeds coming from the pro-UK elite and intelligentsia of the time), I don’t think the Jews held enough political or demographic power at the time to factor into anybody’s political calculations. Jewish immigration to the US was still a relatively new thing compared to those two ethnic groups. Most Jews were probably just happy to be as far away from the Pale as possible, even if they were now in some tenement slum in New York.

    I wonder what would have happened had the Tsarist regime survived? Would they have welcomed the idea of a Zionist state to get rid of all their Jews, or would they have immediately reacted against the idea?

  77. @Percy Gryce

    I only recently became aware of Robert Irwin’s 2006 answer

    Some of the other, earlier answers by e.g. Bernard Lewis and Ernest Gellner were quite interesting, too. In case you’re interested, here’s a recording of a debate between, inter alia, Said and Lewis:

    I can’t find an ungated copy online, but the exchanges between Gellner and Said in the Times Literary Supplement back in the early 1990s were rather entertaining.

  78. @Colin Wright

    That’s true–on both sides. Nevertheless, it may not matter so much for rank-and-file Muslims–or Westerners either, but for the elites who actually negotiate and cut geo-political deals, there is some awareness.

    The (half-Ethiope) Saudi ambassador to the US, Prince Bandar bin Sultan, for example, was very successful at exploiting Soviet vs. American hostility and then intra-Western factionalism to keep his regime (and himself) in the munificent good graces of whomever happened to be in charge in America at the time.

    Or on the Western side there is … uh, probably someone …

  79. ferengi

    According to Google, this is something to do with Star Trek. Perhaps there is an esoteric reference here (I’m no Trekkie), but I suspect Steve means “farang“, the Asiatic (originally Persian) word for a European.

  80. nebulafox says:
    @Hodag

    On the contrary, “down-low” homosexuality is rife in the Muslim World, or at least in the more backwards or religiously conservative parts of it. Young and unsuccessful men don’t have much access to women and older successful men are used to having everybody cater to their whims.

    In Saudi Arabia, willing bottoms are in high demand. Opposite of the US. That should tell you something about the dynamics going on here. And of course, in the truly redneck/ghetto parts of the Muslim World, like Afghanistan and rural Pakistan, having “dancing boys” is a time-honored local tradition that US troops were ordered to ignore. Nothing short of institutionalized pedophilia.

  81. @Anon

    ‘Since you are obviously a muslim pretending not to be…’

    And here I was thinking I was a Jew in disguise. At least, that was the last such accusation, if I recall aright.

    You realize you’re so far out there you’re not even seriously offensive any more?

  82. @Almost Missouri

    ‘That’s true–on both sides. Nevertheless, it may not matter so much for rank-and-file Muslims–or Westerners either, but for the elites who actually negotiate and cut geo-political deals, there is some awareness…’

    That’s precisely what’s a tad worrisome. Our leaders — the Netanyahus, the Boltons, the Adelsons — issue warnings and make pronouncements that strongly suggest they’re not aware of the distinctions.

    I used to think, ‘this is just for public consumption,’ — for example, when Wolfowitz announced that the goal was to remake Iraq as ‘a secular democracy with a tilt towards Israel.’ After all, such a project was obviously demented and doomed to failure.

    But then we went ahead and tried to do it. Ever since, I’ve been inclined to take these assholes at their word. They really do practice what they preach. They mean it.

  83. @meh

    I recall from reading Southeast Asian jihadi websites from the late 1990s that the most striking thing among those pre-9/11 Islamists was their motivations. What motivated them? Israeli colonization of Palestine? Western blockade of Iraq? Embargo of Iran? US support of corrupt tyrants as Custodians of Mecca? (Three of those four were cited by Osama bin Laden.) No. No. No. And no. What was chapping their asses was that foreign men were swooping the local women. Islam was just a convenient basis for organizing a local gang to reassert local sexual hegemony. Hard to blame ‘em, really.

    A mostly unremarked process since 9/11 has been that the various parochial grievances of various parochial “Islamist” groups (of varying degrees of actual Islamic-ness) have gotten subsumed into the larger Osama-ist/al Qaeda-ist narrative, which has also become the narrative accepted by Western media.

    This has happened partly through the bounteous funding of Islamist movements by Gulf Arabs, partly through Osama’s seizure of the spotlight in 9/11, and partly through the West’s masochist media finding a superior cause in Islamists’ apparent “strong horse”. Local Islamist groups usually found that their parochial concerns could also get satisfied as a side-effect. For example, as the Islamic reputation became more fearsome, Western tourism–and therefore Western competition for local women–tailed off. At the retail level, a SE Asian Muslim in competition with a Western man for the affection of a local woman could more credibly threaten the Westerner, even invoking (possibly fictional) Islamist reinforcements if he doesn’t get his way.

    Though it cost him his life, Osama’s project was spectacularly successful. He not only unified worldwide Islamist grievances around his own goals, he got his infidel enemies to accept those goals as the official grievances of Muslims worldwide. And most Muslims today have found their own conditions and prospects improved, whether for marrying local women, or for immivading to the West to exploit their women and treasure.

    • Agree: inertial
    • Replies: @Colin Wright
  84. @nebulafox

    ‘Unlike the Germans and Irish (the two ethnic groups who had very, very good reasons to be leery of the shrill, nuance-free neocon-esque screeds coming from the pro-UK elite and intelligentsia of the time), I don’t think the Jews held enough political or demographic power at the time to factor into anybody’s political calculations…’

    Equally important, Zionism was a fringe cult in 1917. I recall some survey that showed that only 2% of American Jews identified themselves as Zionists.

    Of course there were some prominent Jews who were Zionists (to be actually practiced by other Jews, of course), and perhaps more important (and this continues to be true today) there was a definite cult of Christian Zionism. Lots of people felt that Jews should go to Palestine — it’s just that few of them were to be the Jews who would do it. That’d be one reason Zionism was kind of a bust until Hitler came along. Historically — and this continues to be the case — few Jews with an authentic choice have ever wanted to move to Palestine.

    Finally, hey: the Balfour Declaration was worth a try. The British wanted to do something to get world Jewry on the winning team — and off of Germany’s. Suggest they might get Palestine. After all, the British didn’t even have it yet. Easy enough to give away.

    It was a cost-free gambit by a power that at the moment, was very far from confident it would win the war. You do whatever you can think of.

  85. @Almost Missouri

    ‘…No. No. No. And no. What was chapping their asses was that foreign men were swooping the local women…’

    This is always a hot seller. What bugs the British about Pakistanis? To read the complaints, apparently it’s their taste for young white girls. One would think the entire male Pakistani population of Britain are slavering rapists — and that’s the beginning and end of the problem.

    • Replies: @Almost Missouri
  86. “Boy botherers” LOL. I don’t know if you coined that term, Steve, but it’s another gem worthy of the Zeroeth Amendment.

  87. @Tyrion 2

    What nebulafox said.

    Also,

    “most well-travelled”

    Other than maybe to Lebanon and his original jihad to Afghanistan, I don’t know that Osama ever got off the Arabian Peninsula until the Saudi security service kicked him out, first to Sudan, then to the Af-Pak region.

    • Replies: @Jack D
  88. @nebulafox

    “Also, I’m sure you are already aware of this, but in the Islamic World, it is pretty common belief that with the America-Israel relationship, the tail is controlling the dog.”

    Can you believe how brainwashed people can be?

  89. @Mark Spahn (West Seneca, NY)

    That Ottoman mustache looks kinda fake, like Justin Trudeau’s eyebrows.

    That confused me for a second. Then I realized, you said Trudeau, not Timberlake.

  90. @Hodag

    I like the part where the article writer says the Beat authors were rebelling against a soulless McCarthyite suburban America (what a string of insults!) in their behavior. The interviewee just says, “No, they were after boys and drugs.”

    Ah, the justifications that people will come up with for their sins. I’m no pervert! I’m rebelling against repression and fighting for tolerance! It’s like a guy I know right now who is bailing out on his 25 year marriage and claiming that the whole institution is just a way to subjugate women. He thinks marriage should be done away with because he can’t stand to stay with his wife.

  91. AndrewR says:
    @LondonBob

    Both his mother’s mother and his father’s father were first cousins of Tsar Nick II

  92. @Altai

    “I don’t think most Nazis were much concerned about where the Jews went.”

    True, but then came the invasion of Poland and the Wannsee Conference, after which they became VERY concerned.

  93. Ian M. says:

    I have this unusual suspicion that the fundamental impulse behind Palestinian-American scholar Edward Said’s immensely influential 1978 book Orientalism was “Don’t You Come Around Here No More:” a normal, healthy, masculine, slightly redneck aversion to European sex tourists in the Near East…

    Sheesh, if that’s true, that’s certainly a case of the pot calling the kettle black.

  94. Benjaminl says:
    @Steve Sailer

    It was true for Flaubert in the 19th century.

    https://newrepublic.com/article/117696/flaubert-biography-review-frederick-brown-christopher-benfey

    It is the depth of Flaubert’s learning that partially accounts for the aggrieved tone in Edward Said’s pages in Orientalism (a work that Brown pointedly ignores) devoted to Flaubert’s sexual tourism in the Middle East—where, as Brown notes, “no whorehouse between Cairo and Nubia was so low” that Flaubert and Du Camp “wouldn’t stoop to enter it.” How could Flaubert, Said wondered, who “came to the Orient prepared for it by voluminous reading in the classics, modern literature, and academic Orientalism,” conclude that “the oriental woman is no more than a machine: she makes no distinction between one man and another man”?

    And for the gay beatniks in the 20th century.

    https://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-29566539

    For decades Tangier and other Moroccan cities were magnets for gay tourists. Prior to independence in 1956 Tangier was an international zone that was administered by several different European countries, without a very rigid rule of law. In the words of the English academic Andrew Hussey, Tangier was “a utopia of dangerous, unknown pleasures.” The Americans who turned up in the 1950s were escaping from a repressive society where homosexuality was outlawed. In Morocco, attitudes were much more relaxed and, provided they were discreet, Westerners could indulge their desires, without fear of harassment, with a limitless supply of young locals in need of money, and smoke an equally limitless supply of the local cannabis.

    No doubt for Thailand, Cuba, etc. now. One of the great things about Houellebecq (in *Platform*) is that he faces this issue squarely, and clearly shows how dystopian and awful sex tourism is, rather than trying to put a romanticized spin on it.

    • Replies: @syonredux
  95. @nebulafox

    The Tsarist regime would never have agreed to a homeland in Palestine for Jews. The Russians had strong religious feelings about the Holy Land. In fact, it was sentiment over the Holy Land which was one of the reasons for the Crimean war in the 19th century

  96. Anonymous[231] • Disclaimer says:
    @Colin Wright

    Taqiyya.

    And give “back” Palestine (sic) to whom? The Ottoman Empire? The Fatimid empire? The Byzantines?

    • Replies: @Colin Wright
  97. Old Jew says:
    @Tanya Goldbergsteinowitz

    Avatar?

    Goldstein name exist.

    Goldberg name exists.

    Never saw Goldowitz.

    What is the point of overdoing when picking a pseudonym?

  98. Hunsdon says:
    @Steve Sailer

    Captain Sir Richard Francis Burton?

  99. Hunsdon says:
    @Sergeant Prepper

    I am a huge fan of Peter Hopkirk’s books on the Great Game.

    • Replies: @Sergeant Prepper
  100. Jack D says:
    @Altai

    Can’t one be a champion of Zionism for the anti-Semitic reason of wanting to be rid of the Jews?

    Sure. When my father was a young man in Poland in the ’30s, one of the favorite chants of the Polish anti-Semites was Żydzi do Palestyny! Sort of ironic now that people want the Jews OUT of Palestine. One might even surmise that anti-Semites don’t really like Jews anywhere, but especially not in the anti-Semites’ own country.

    Of course part of the impetus for the Final Solution was that the Nazis had no practical way of expelling the Jews under their control to any other country in the midst of a war so the only possible way of getting rid of them was extermination. But there was more to it than that – in their mind, the war was a unique opportunity to rid Europe of its Jews once and for all and one that would be remembered as a great historical accomplishment. As the other goals of the Nazis crumbled in the course of the war, they felt that this was one goal that they could still accomplish.

  101. syonredux says:
    @Benjaminl

    It is the depth of Flaubert’s learning that partially accounts for the aggrieved tone in Edward Said’s pages in Orientalism (a work that Brown pointedly ignores) devoted to Flaubert’s sexual tourism in the Middle East—where, as Brown notes, “no whorehouse between Cairo and Nubia was so low” that Flaubert and Du Camp “wouldn’t stoop to enter it.” How could Flaubert, Said wondered, who “came to the Orient prepared for it by voluminous reading in the classics, modern literature, and academic Orientalism,” conclude that “the oriental woman is no more than a machine: she makes no distinction between one man and another man”?

    On the other hand, …..

    The scale of the street grooming crisis in the UK almost defies belief. Hundreds of girls and young women were raped in the city of Rotherham, and hundreds by similar exploitation rings in Rochdale, Peterborough, Newcastle, Oxford, and Bristol. Now, up to a thousand girls are thought to have been drugged, raped, and beaten in Telford between the 1980s and the 2010s.

    Responses to the crisis are contentious because most of the perpetrators are British Asians; specifically British Pakistanis and Bangladeshis. Child abuse is not uniquely or largely a problem of particular demographics but grooming gangs – that is, multiple offenders exploiting women they have met, manipulated, and abused outside their homes – are 84 percent Asian, and this does not mean Chinese, Korean, Japanese, or Indonesian (other perpetrators have been Somali, Romani, Kosovan, Kurdish, and white British.)

    Some have pointed the finger at Islam. I support the criticism of Islamic texts where appropriate but think this factor can be over-egged. Quite apart from being abusively adulterous, these criminals drank, did drugs, and made their victims have abortions. These were not, in other words, devout Muslim men. Yet Taj Hargey of the Oxford Islamic Congregation has observed that “the view of some Islamic preachers towards white women” and “an attitude where women are seen as nothing more than personal property” might have been contributing factors in the stew of thought processes that characterised these men, along with provincial machismo, clannish contempt, and degenerate sexual appetites.

    https://quillette.com/2018/03/14/britains-grooming-gang-crisis/

    • Replies: @Almost Missouri
  102. Jack D says:
    @Almost Missouri

    Not true.

    https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/nov/01/newly-released-journal-confirms-osama-bin-laden-visited-the-west

    But like his ideological mentor Qutb, to know the West was not to love it. His impression of the West (rural England circa 1971 seen from the eyes of a 14 year old) was that the British were “morally loose”.

    And here he is in Sweden that same year, posing with a bunch of his 1/2 siblings:

    But I don’t know that he was ever in the West as an adult.

    • Replies: @Almost Missouri
  103. @Hunsdon

    Whenever I find myself growing grim about the mouth, I read a chapter from one of Hopkirk’s books (or, alternatively, one of George MacDonald Fraser’s Flashman books). Never fails to cheer me up. Incidentally, Hopkirk lived a fairly interesting life himself. Inter alia, he served as a lieutenant in the King’s African Rifles in the late 40s, in the same battalion as a certain Lance Corporal Idi Amin.

    • Replies: @Hunsdon
  104. Jack D says:
    @Stogumber

    Most of his collections were burned to ashes by Allied phosphorous bombs dropped on Berlin. The stone sculptures survived the flames but shattered when the fire hoses were turned on them. But apparently the Nazis did not hold his Jewish background against him and did not burn the man himself into ashes, so he got off better than his collections did.

  105. Jack D says:
    @Anonymous

    It’s hard to say whether he meant this literally but Hitler sure took him literally. This is the danger when you say things like that even half in jest. Something to keep in mind today.

  106. A State’s intelligence agency using Muslim Jihadists to destabilise their enemies, you say?

  107. Jack D says:
    @LondonBob

    I’m not so sure that he really looks much like the Czar other than that they have similar style beards.

  108. Flip says:
    @Anonymous

    Jews were pretty prominent in the German Empire, probably more so than in the British Empire.

    This interesting book from 1913 gives biographies of the movers and shakers in pre-war Germany.

    https://archive.org/details/menaroundkaiserm00wileuoft/page/n7

  109. syonredux says:
    @nebulafox

    Unlike the Germans and Irish (the two ethnic groups who had very, very good reasons to be leery of the shrill, nuance-free neocon-esque screeds coming from the pro-UK elite and intelligentsia of the time), I don’t think the Jews held enough political or demographic power at the time to factor into anybody’s political calculations.

    The Jewish vote in NY was certainly significant by the ‘Teens…

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jews_in_New_York_City

    And Jews were big players in international finance….

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacob_Schiff#National_loans

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacob_Schiff#National_loans

  110. Hunsdon says:
    @Sergeant Prepper

    Hopkirk and Fraser? We should have a pint!

  111. Seraphim says:
    @peterike

    Germany was a ‘champion of Zionism’ from the very birth of Zionism. Most histories of WWI shy away from discussing this inconvenient fact. We may thank Wikipedia which shed some light on this dark side of German warmongering and its hidden reasons. The biography of Max Bodenheimer is revealing:

    “Max Bodenheimer was born on 12 March 1865 in Stuttgart to an assimilated Jewish family. He studied at Tübingen, Strassburg, Berlin and Freiburg universities from 1884 to 1889.
    In 1890 he moved to Cologne to start a law practice. In 1891 he published his first Zionist article in the weekly “Die Menorah” (Hamburg). In Cologne he met David Wolffsohn and the two became close friends. Bodenheimer and Wolffsohn participated in various Zionist groups and activities in Cologne and also established a Zionist group named “Zion”. At that time Bodenheimer began correspondence with Theodor Herzl. In 1893 he helped found the Jüdische Humanitätsgesellschaft…
    Bodenheimer participated at the 1st Zionist Congress and was elected to be a member of the Inner Actions Committee. In 1898 he visited Palestine as a member of the delegation which accompanied Herzl to meet the German Emperor, Wilhelm II. Bodenheimer took part in the Zionist Congresses, helped to write the constitution of the Zionist movement and the Jewish National Fund (JNF), and was the chairman of the Board of Directors of the JNF in Germany. When the First World War broke out, he moved the JNF offices from Cologne to The Hague…
    In August 1914, at the outbreak of World War I, he submitted an ‘Exposé on the Synchronization of German and Jewish Interests in the World War’ to German military headquarters in Cologne. He set out his vision to Count Hutten-Czapski of the General Staff, chief of sabotage operations on the eastern front. With support from the General Staff and the Wilhelmstrasse, he established the ‘German Committee for Freeing of Russian Jews’, together with 6 German Zionist colleagues, on 17 August 1914. He resigned his chairmanship of the Jewish National Fund. Bodenheimer wanted the German army to assault the power of the Tsarist empire in the Baltic States, Poland, White Russia and the Ukraine, where he hoped for an ‘East European Federation’ in which ‘all ethnic groups were to enjoy national autonomy’, including the Jews, in the Pale of Settlement. It seems like he was the author of the conception of the establishment of the League of East European States – a German client state with autonomous Jewish cooperation, later referred also as Judeopolonia…

    “In 1902, Bodenheimer petitioned the Kaiser to form a league of Eastern European states in Poland, Lithuania and other areas*. This would, he believed, fit in with German East European Policy, which was to detach these lands from Russia and thereby reduce the Russian threat. He persuaded himself, and tried to persuade the German government, that the Jews would have a natural affinity for Germany, as they spoke Yiddish. To an extent, this was undeniably true, since young Jews in Russia compared their miserable condition to the splendor of German Jewry, and since they very often came to Germany to complete their studies…
    After the outbreak of World War I, Bodenheimer moved the head office of the Jewish National Fund to The Hague, foreseeing the problems that would ensue if the fund’s headquarters were not in a neutral country. In November 1914, Bodenheimer resigned as chairman of the Board of Directors of the Jewish National Fund. During the war, he initiated the Komitee zur Befreiung der russischen Juden – Committee for the liberation of the Jews of Russia, (later Komitee für den Osten – Committee for the East) in order to improve the situation of the Jewish population in areas occupied by the German and Austrian armies. Actually, the program of this committee was apparently a renewal of the 1902 idea of a Jewish and German supported league of Eastern European states. Anti-Semites converted this utopian and naive proposal into a mythical proposal for a “Judeopolonia” – Poland to be ruled by Jews, and it reappeared very often in postwar anti-Semitic propaganda, as well as in more recent Polish anti-Semitic ideology, such as the 2001 book, “Judeopolonia,” by Andrzej Leszek Szcześniak…@http://www.zionism-israel.com/bio/Max_Bodenheimer.htm

    *The League of East European States or Federation of East European States (German: osteuropäischer Staatenbund) was a 1914 proposal by the German Committee for Freeing of Russian Jews for a German-dominated consociational buffer state to be established in the Russian Partition of the multi-ethnic territory of the former Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth…
    The idea was conceived by prominent Zionist Max Bodenheimer, in the context of World War I and longstanding German Mitteleuropa ambitions, utilizing the concept of national personal autonomy or national curiae, which would allow Jewish representation in the government alongside other groups despite their Pale of Settlement dispersion. Bodenheimer was a founder of the German Committee for Freeing of Russian Jews.[4] The Committee drew up a plan to establish a buffer state between Germany and Russia, created from territory to be taken from Imperial Russia. The biography by his daughter describes a divide and rule strategy to the benefit of Germany: “In this Federation Ukrainians, White Russians, Lithuanians, Esthonians and Latvians would together serve as a counterbalance to the Poles, and the Germans, and Jews would hold the balance of power between the two groupings…
    Bodenheimer submitted a Memorandum with the proposal to the German Foreign Office in 1914, where it and the Committee received the support of Erich Ludendorff and then Paul von Hindenburg, as he made the case to them that eastern Jews could be Germanised.
    The plan soon proved unpopular with other German officials and Bodenheimer’s Zionist colleagues, and was dead by the following year. The only tangible result was an August 1914 military propaganda leaflet targeting the Jews of Poland, the final text of which greatly disappointed Bodenheimer. The Poles were not very keen on the plan either.
    The idea was criticized by various Zionist leaders as impractical and dangerous, and eventually was given up after Wilhelm II of Germany and Franz Joseph of Austria issued the Act of November 5th 1916 in which they proclaimed the creation of the Kingdom of Poland”.

    The German High Command adopted the alternative plan of Parvus/Trotsky/ Lenin of unleashing the revolution in Russia.

  112. @Jack D

    His impression of the West (rural England circa 1971 seen from the eyes of a 14 year old) was that the British were “morally loose”.

    He wasn’t wrong.

    here he is in Sweden that same year

    How do they know that was him? The physical resemblance is not strong.

    • Replies: @Jack D
  113. @Colin Wright

    “One would think the entire male Pakistani population of Britain are slavering rapists”

    Nah, just most of them.

    http://www.unz.com/isteve/guardian-number-of-child-sexual-abuse-victims-in-rotherham-raised-to-1510/#comment-2214507

  114. @Anonymous

    ‘And give “back” Palestine (sic) to whom? The Ottoman Empire? The Fatimid empire? The Byzantines?’

    The Palestinians?

    • Replies: @Anon
  115. @syonredux

    Now I like Quillette, and Ben Sixsniuth seems a decent cove, but this kind of thing is starting to annoy me:

    I support the criticism of Islamic texts where appropriate but think this factor can be over-egged. Quite apart from being abusively adulterous, these criminals drank, did drugs, and made their victims have abortions. These were not, in other words, devout Muslim men.

    When did western secularist journalists elect themselves the arbiters of who is and is not Muslim? I guarantee you that the perpetrators consider themselves good Muslims, and the imams at their mosques probably agree with them too. It’s like a miracle: a Muslim sips a beer, then suddenly some agnostic J-school grad who never lived in Dar al-Islam nor read the Koran is instantly transmuted into an Islamic theologian! “They’re not real Muslims!”

    “Quite apart from being abusively adulterous”

    Apparently young Mr. Sixsmith is not aware of the parts of the Koran that read like an adulterous abuser’s handbook.

    I kept hearing the same thing last decade: those 9/11 perps drank liquor and went to strip bars. “They’re not real Muslims!” Ah, so I guess Osama bin Laden will be dropping the jihad thing any time now ….

    It’s hard not to recall the journalist/academic response to the big crimes of the 20th century: Communists kill millions and millions … “That wasn’t real Communism!”

    Yeah, keep it up journalists. You’ll never get it right but if the Islamists win, maybe you’ll get a propaganda office job in the new Caliphate. After all, it worked great in the last century for journalist-propagandists with the Commies. Good times, good times…

    • Replies: @Jack D
  116. Anon[594] • Disclaimer says:
    @Colin Wright

    Some advocate you are . Jordan is 78% of PaLie$tine . You care about them so much you want them to split 22% of their “homeland” LoL

  117. Jack D says:
    @Almost Missouri

    This a photo taken, as I said, with all of his (1/2) siblings (Bin Laden Sr. had several wives). They remember him being there – no one (that I know of) seriously disputes that this is a picture of the Bin Laden family including young Osama.

    Here is another picture of young Osama (on the right) during his English course at Oxford, with 2 of his brothers and 2 Spanish girls – he looks about the same. They may have helped to give him the impression that the West was morally depraved, since they were allowed to go out in public unveiled,unchaperoned, provocatively dressed and with strange men. The girls say that they had “tea” with Osama and nothing kinky despite the suggestive poses (0r maybe they are lying). They recall Bin Laden’s sadness when he told them how the three brothers had different mothers and that his mother was a concubine.

    • Replies: @Dtbb
  118. Jack D says:
    @Almost Missouri

    This is not a fair comment. No (serious) Muslim theologian would approve of Muslims drinking alcohol, visiting strip bars, etc. They were clearly violating sharia when they did this. A certain amount of taqiyya or deception is permitted when you are in danger or on a mission of jihad so they might have approved of, for example, Mohamed Atta shaving his beard and wearing Western dress in order to conceal his mission, but this would not extend to getting drunk at strip clubs. The hijackers (who must have been under incredible stress) clearly did this “after hours” and despite (and not part of) their jihadist mission .

    Given that you are not a Muslim theologian, I don’t know why you are allowed to state your views of Islamic law but journalists are not.

    • Replies: @Almost Missouri
  119. The Kaiser’s actions were most dangerous. For the first time white Europeans were arming the wogs to fight other whites with out their control. The Kaiser gave them the weapons and told them to go to it.
    When others tried this , once the whites were driven out, the wogs turn on their supporters. Kind of like the Teliban turning on the USA after driving the Soviets out..

    • Replies: @Almost Missouri
  120. Dtbb says:
    @Jack D

    I thought he was 6 foot 6.

    • Replies: @Jack D
    , @Dtbb
  121. Tyrion 2 says:
    @Mr. Anon

    You’re suggesting that these financiers were so powerful they could both be certain to hold Britain to account and bring America into a truly horrible war all for a proclamation?

    Fine, but why, just after the European powers had divided up the massive continent of Africa between them and just before they divided up the Middle East, did these financiers have to wait decades for a tiny sliver of land to actually result from that proclamation?

    Both paragraphs cannot be true.

    • Replies: @Mr. Anon
    , @Mr. Anon
  122. @Almost Missouri

    I like to imagine that currently buried in some Swiss vault is the manuscript of Prince Bandar’s autobiography, with instructions to publish it after his death. That would make interesting reading.

    • Replies: @Sean
    , @Almost Missouri
  123. Sean says:
    @Steve Sailer

    As the leader of a country under serious threat he had to have trusted insiders turned traitor assassinated. Khashoggi did not leave a suicide note, but he ignored countless warning not to enter that building.

    • Replies: @Almost Missouri
  124. Mr. Anon says:
    @Tyrion 2

    You’re suggesting that these financiers were so powerful they could both be certain to hold Britain to account and bring America into a truly horrible war all for a proclamation?

    Nothing in life is certain. It might have seemed a reasonable gamble, especially given the downside, which for a wealthy american financier in 1917 is – nothing.

    Fine, but why, just after the European powers had divided up the massive continent of Africa between them and just before they divided up the Middle East, did these financiers have to wait decades for a tiny sliver of land to actually result from that proclamation?

    If your goal is the restoration of Israel, an ancient nation that had been extinct for nearly 2,000 years, you are playing a rather long game, are you not?

    • Replies: @Tyrion 2
  125. Mr. Anon says:
    @Tyrion 2

    You’re suggesting that these financiers were so powerful they could both be certain to hold Britain to account and bring America into a truly horrible war all for a proclamation?

    Nothing in life is certain. It might have seemed a reasonable gamble, especially given the downside, which for a wealthy american financier in 1917 is – nothing.

    Fine, but why, just after the European powers had divided up the massive continent of Africa between them and just before they divided up the Middle East, did these financiers have to wait decades for a tiny sliver of land to actually result from that proclamation?

    If your goal is the restoration of Israel, an ancient nation that had been extinct for nearly 2,000 years, you are playing a rather long game, are you not?

  126. @Sean

    I think you are mixing up Prince Bandar bin Sultan with Prince Mohammed bin Salman.

    Granted, the al Sauds are confusing.

    • Replies: @Sean
  127. @Steve Sailer

    “That would make interesting reading.”

    It would make very interesting reading, but … Arabian Muslim culture has no parallel to the Western tell-all autobiography or the confessional memoir, so I wouldn’t hold my breath for this. The Western version is a secularized form of Roman Catholic confessional rites, which itself stems from St. Augustine’s Confessions. There is simply no equivalent in Islam.

    This might be a mini-subject someone like HBDchick would cover: how the outbred non-clannish culture and genetic history of Western WEIRDos leads to viewing the whole world as one’s own people, so it results in paradoxes like attesting one’s personal, intimate secrets to the entire planet, which to more more inbred clannish cultures seems like a depraved betrayal of one’s closest loyalties.

    Granted, there is an occasional Muslim dissident who indulges in some of this, but it is not very common nor very deep when it occurs, and usually the dissident is a dissident because he or she has already been cut out of his or her birthright and clan, so hasn’t much to lose. Bandar is still part of the ruling class, even if he is no longer so prominent as before, so I don’t foresee him trashing that, even posthumously.

  128. Jack D says:
    @Dtbb

    Not at age 14.

    • Replies: @Dtbb
  129. @Jack D

    Who’re we gonna believe, atheist journalists or actual Moslems?

    Imams don’t just abide Rotherham rapes, they participate.

    https://rotherhampolitics.wordpress.com/2015/09/24/mosque-missing-an-imam/

    Opportunistically “marrying” 12-year-olds? Hey, no problem! Even imams do it!

    https://www.memri.org/reports/criticism-arab-world-over-exploitation-syrian-refugee-girls-purposes-marriage

    Actual fatwa 6991 by actually influential imam Abdulaziz bin Baz says Al-Nasara (Christians, i.e., Europeans) should be killed or enslaved, or pay jizya.

    https://www.memri.org/reports/isiss-view-christians-echoes-official-saudi-fatwas#_edn15

    And of course one can beat or rape a slave, so no theological problem there.

    Anjem Choudary: Let me be absolutely clear: As Muslims, we reject democracy, we reject secularism, and freedom, and human rights. We reject all of the things that you espouse as being ideals.

    https://www.memri.org/tv/british-islamist-anjem-choudary-muslims-we-reject-human-rights/transcript

    One need not be on a special jihad mission to avail oneself of Taqiya. Taqiyya encompasses not just calculated deception, but any case of acting differently outwardly than one believes inwardly, and it is permitted to Muslims anywhere they are in the minority, which is to say to all Muslims in the West. Even influential liberal Muslim Brit, Lord Ahmed is sure that the Rotherham perpetrators were Mosque attendees in good standing.

    One of the “advantages” for Muslims adherents, particularity Sunni Muslims, is that unlike the Roman Catholic church, which has a hierarchy that promulgates and enforces dogma, Islamic theology is more like a giant buffet table where one can pick and choose among competing theologians. So yes, there are also modern, “liberal” imams who speak against child brides, sex slaves and other traditions, but these imams are typically marginal, westernized and with more of a following among Western liberals than among actual Muslims.

    • Replies: @Jack D
  130. BB753 says:

    Germany’s defeat in WWI was truly a tragedy for European civilization and world peace. It’s been downhill since then for the West and Christianity.

    • Replies: @Jack D
  131. @flyingtiger

    “For the first time white Europeans were arming the wogs to fight other whites with out their control.”

    I dunno if it was the first time. European colonists in America famously sicced their American Indian allies on each other since the 16th century. Similarly, there are probably cases of Europeans sponsoring locals to do down competing Europeans in India, Indochina, Indonesia and China.

    And it’s probably not the most egregious occasion either (if only because it didn’t work very well), with competition like this:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marocchinate

    Arguably, Rotherham rapes and even AFFH are modern, peacetime extensions of the same policy.

    Agreed though that it doesn’t reflect well on the Kaiser.

  132. Yngvar says:
    @Jack Strocchi

    Mein Gott, Germany have really committed to a hell of a lot blunder in world history.

  133. Sean says:
    @Almost Missouri

    I suspect Prince Bandar bin Sultan’s old phone book would be more reliable than his memoirs. Abu Zubaydah was a member of Osama bin Laden’s inner circle at the time of 9/11.

    https://edition.cnn.com/2016/08/05/politics/28-pages-saudi-prince-bandar-9-11/index.html
    The connection to Bandar was made through Zubaydah’s phone book, retrieved during the Pakistani raid in which he was taken. In it, the FBI found numbers linked to the United States, including an unlisted number for a company that managed Bandar’s estate in Aspen, Colorado. An unlisted number was also found for a bodyguard who worked at the Saudi Embassy in Washington.

    “Both of those numbers were unpublished, so they had to have gotten into Zubaydah’s phone book through a personal contact who knew what those numbers were and what they represented,” said former Sen. Bob Graham, co-chair of the congressional commission that compiled the 28 pages.

    Those 28 pages that were kept from the public for 14 years after 9/11. Some other pages remain classified to this day.

    The other day it was reported that the CIA wanted to use sophisticated drugs on a top operative of Al Qaeda, thought to know to about the architects of 9/11. Can you guess? Yup, it was Abu Zubaydah.

    In 2016 the Saudi finance minister threatened to divest all of his country’s estimated $750 billion in US assets if Saudi Arabia’s sovereign immunity against legal action for involvement in terrorism was revoked by a bill. Obama tried to veto it and Graham and McCain also campaigned for them to keep their immunity. You can imagine how much the Saudis spend on Washington lobbyists. No wonder Bandar was always chuckling to himself as if at some secret joke.

    Prince Bandar bin Sultan was one of those arrested in the purge that also saw Khashoggi’s patron have his wings clipped. Those 9/11 period intelligence agency people are all considered dangerous by the young crown prince and I would not be surprised if it was something to do with 9/11.

  134. Tyrion 2 says:
    @Mr. Anon

    Waiting for ages and getting little are not the actions of the very powerful. Powerful was the USSR taking Eastern Europe or Britain and France splitting the Middle East.

  135. Jack D says:
    @Almost Missouri

    Which is the fatwa that says it’s OK to get drunk at the strip club?

    • Replies: @Anon
    , @Almost Missouri
  136. Jack D says:
    @BB753

    The tragedy was starting the war, not losing it. I’m not sure we would have liked the version of European history where Germany won WWI. It would not have been as bad as Hitler but it wouldn’t have been great either.

    • Replies: @Seraphim
    , @BB753
  137. Anon[201] • Disclaimer says:
    @Jack D

    They all ignore anything inconvenient to them. The top mullahs in Iran , the supreme religious leaders are all enjoying bacha bazzi ( a Persian phrase btw), opium smoking , alcohol consumption, music and dancing girls and boys and any other pleasure they choose.

  138. Anonymous[370] • Disclaimer says:

    If I understand the logic, the reason for taking suicide bombers to strip bars is to motivate them with a view of what they can expect in paradise.

    • Replies: @Anon
  139. Seraphim says:
    @Jack D

    This is the truth. The real tragedy was the ‘Russian’ revolution as a result of the war irresponsibly started by Germany for the destruction of Russia.

  140. @Jack D

    You could ask Abdul Aziz al Omari, the 9-11 hijacker who was also an imam.

    Oh wait, you can’t. He’s dead.

    Well it’s probably covered by taqiyyah, since they were in a non-Islamic environment.

    Or as the Anon commenter suggests, if you’re trying to apply your Western concept of Aristotelian ethics to these guys, you are already on the wrong page.

  141. Dtbb says:
    @Dtbb

    Isn’t Oxford college aged?

  142. Dtbb says:
    @Jack D

    Your comment mentioned Oxford. I assumed college aged.

  143. Anon[201] • Disclaimer says:
    @Anonymous

    Makes no sense if you think about it . Its really no motivation at all . If paradise is like a strip club and you are currently sitting in a strip club , what does paradise even offer ? Go bang strippers right now.

  144. BB753 says:
    @Jack D

    Do you believe WWII, American and Soviet occupation of Europe, the Cold War, feminism and cultural Marxism, globalism and mass Third World immigration were preferable to the defeat of the Triple Entente? I think not. It wasn’t worth it.

Comments are closed.

Subscribe to All Steve Sailer Comments via RSS
PastClassics
Are elite university admissions based on meritocracy and diversity as claimed?
The sources of America’s immigration problems—and a possible solution
The evidence is clear — but often ignored
What Was John McCain's True Wartime Record in Vietnam?
Hundreds of POWs may have been left to die in Vietnam, abandoned by their government—and our media.