Features

The new Saudi Borgias

3 October 2015

8:00 AM

3 October 2015

8:00 AM

A young Saudi prince, Majed Abdulaziz Al-Saud, has apparently fled to the Wahhabi kingdom on his private jet after a bleeding woman was found trying to escape from his Los Angeles mansion. She filed sexual assault charges against him, claiming her injuries were sustained when he tried to force her to give him a blow job. Other alleged female victims have since detailed a three-day orgy of violence. But what are the chances they will have their day in court? The prince will certainly not be compelled by the Saudi royal family to return; and we can be equally sure that Washington will not hold its Saudi masters to account for facilitating his escape. Two Nepalese women imprisoned as sex slaves by a sadistic Saudi diplomat in New Delhi are unlikely to see justice either. Locked in his luxury flat for months, they were starved, tortured, raped and sodomised. The police described it as an open-and-shut case. But a few weeks ago he, too, was flown back to the Land of the Two Holy Mosques.

Both these scumbags should be quite happy to be back in Saudi Arabia, where maids from impoverished countries, and western women who work in Saudi homes, have long complained of sexual harassment. During dinner at a Saudi friend’s house in Jeddah, my host — the gentle, pious son of a general in the Saudi army — told me his college friends were ‘giving him hell’ because he wouldn’t let them have their way with his adolescent Filipina maid. They simply could not fathom his refusal. That was a decade or so ago, and that generation of brats are now the sexually warped, slave-owning Saudi princes and diplomats as ubiquitous around the globe as the hate-preachers they fund.


Saudi sexual depravity has been the stuff of legend for decades. Today, however, there are so many scandalous cases that it is difficult to keep track. One Saudi man has been questioned about an assault on an 11-year-old girl in London, and another arrested in the Philippines on human-trafficking charges. Both were freed, like the New Delhi monster, after claiming diplomatic immunity. Another, this time in cahoots with one of his wives, has evaded a litany of charges for enslaving a group of women in London.

The recent upsurge in Saudi sex-and-slave scandals is one consequence of the death of King Abdullah in January, and the ascension to the throne of his half-brother Salman. For the first time since King Fahd, who spent most of his time whoring and gambling in Beirut, popped his clogs, the Al-Sudairi branch of the Saudi ruling family are back in charge. Under the (relatively) austere Abdullah, who hailed from a different branch of the family, Saudi scions had to watch their backs. Now there are no restraints on the most debauched and corrupt ruling clique since the Borgias.

The failure of the international community to take a stand suggests that the brazen exploitation of diplomatic immunity has instilled in the Saudi royals a greater sense of impunity than ever. Even the most deranged liberal cheerleader of the Arab Spring could not sensibly envisage the emergence of a liberal, progressive regime to replace them. Indeed, with the rise of the Islamic State, the West is more terrified than ever that the House of Saud may fall. The jihadists have made no secret of their desire to see an Arabia without Saudi princes. And the kingdom is such a mishmash of tribal and sectarian hatreds and divisions that, were an uprising to occur, the chaos that would ensue would dwarf the combined slaughter of Iraq, Libya and Syria. The ramifications on the global economy of the loss of the Saudi oilfields, and the ensuing battle between Isis and Iran (and the West) for control, are likewise incalculable. Jordan and Bahrain, both Saudi client states, would fall within days.

The Saudis, in short, have us pinned over the proverbial barrel. There is a tragic irony in that fact. For it was funding from Saudi Arabia that, in no small part, was responsible for creating the jihadist groups in Syria that morphed into Isis. The jihadists’ ideology is barely distinguishable from Riyadh’s Wahhabi religious establishment. And the jihadists also spend much of their spare time raping and enslaving non-believing women they happen across. Given this appalling state of affairs, one can but marvel at the Al-Sauds’ extraordinary capacity to survive. Last week, it was announced that the Wahhabi kingdom will head an important UN human rights committee. But instead of greeting the news with the howls of derision it merited, western leaders extended hearty congratulations.

John R. Bradley’s books include Saudi Arabia Exposed: Inside a Kingdom in Crisis.

Subscribe to The Spectator Australia today for a quality of argument not found in any other publication. Subscribe – Try a month free


Show comments
  • rtj1211

    Stiffeh the crows: a Spectator article that doesn’t say ‘Yes sir, yes sir, three bags full sir!’ to the Saudis.

    You still say: ‘do nothing about it’, despite 50 years of slavering killing all over the Middle East.

    One does have to say that ‘losing the Saudi oilfields’ might make the price of oil go back up again, for which certain nations and regions would be immensely grateful. Including Nicola Sturgeon and the SNP…….

    All in all, I’m absolutely amazed that Donald Trump isn’t calling for a war with Saudi Arabia forthwith and the Barclay stable of journalists aren’t piling in with their self-righteous claptrap too.

    Of course, the Donald is one well known for running close to the wind where sexual depravity is concerned, so maybe he wouldn’t want too many cans of worms opened there……

    But there is surely a case for sending in the Marines to kidnap these vile diplomats, flying them back to wherever they need to stand trial and sparing those who aren’t raving sexual deviants the horrors of Operation Shock N Awe mark II…….?

  • sidor

    Hopefully, Iran will fix that wahhabi problem for good.

    • Bob-B
      • sidor

        Look at the facts rather than the Amnesty BS. There are well-established Christian and Jewish communities in Iran, and they are presented in the parliament. Women work in public offices. It is ridiculous to compare it with KSA.

        • Antonia Willis

          True, but only a reckless person would imagine good results from a full-on Iran / Saudi war, surely???

        • Franks Trate Writes

          Can you name me some Jews who live or work in Iran ? Can I have their address? the tiny number of Christians are routinely persecuted.

          • sidor

            Wikipedis:

            Iran’s Jewish community is officially recognized as a religious minority group by the government, and, like the Zoroastrians and Christians, they are allocated one seat in the Iranian Parliament. Siamak Moreh Sedgh is the current Jewish member of the parliament, replacing Maurice Motamed in the 2008 election. In 2000, former Jewish MP Manuchehr Eliasi estimated that at that time there were still 60,000–85,000 Jews in Iran

            Iranian Jews have their own newspaper (called “Ofogh-e-Bina”) with Jewish scholars performing Judaic research at Tehran’s “Central Library of Jewish Association”.[58] The “Dr. Sapir Jewish Hospital” is Iran’s largest charity hospital of any religious minority community in the country;[58] however, most of its patients and staff are Muslim.[59]

            Chief Rabbi Yousef Hamadani Cohen is the present spiritual leader for the Jewish community of Iran.[60] In August 2000, Chief Rabbi Cohen met with Iranian President Mohammad Khatami for the first time.[61] In 2003, Chief Rabbi Cohen and Maurice Motamed met with President Khatami at Yusef Abad Synagogue which was the first time a President of Iran had visited a synagogue since the Islamic Revolution.

          • Microaggressive

            It’s nice how you are completely blind to the fact that non-Muslims are considered dhimmi slaves to their Muslim masters.

            Nice Potemkin villages you got there.

          • Roger Hudson

            We have not forgotten or forgiven how the Saudis forbade British troops having Christian services in 1990 while trying to save sad Saudis arses from Saddam.

        • samton909

          Yes, I am told Iran is a paradise.

          • sidor

            It is definitely a paradise for religious minorities as compared with KSA.

        • Gilbert White

          Brilliant whatabouterry keep up the good work!

      • bionde

        In the Middle East everything is relative

    • LittleRedRidingHood

      What! you mean a mushroom cloud over mecca? Can’t see it happening to be honest.

      • sidor

        Iran can crash the Saudis in a couple of weeks without any nukes. And Mecca is irrelevant: the entire significance of KSA is oil which is in the Gulf area.

        • LittleRedRidingHood

          Mecca is not irrelevant. If it’s not there you can’t bow to it.

          • sidor

            Historically Mecca belongs to Hashemite dynasty. They should get it back from the artificial wahhabite kingdom created after WWII by Jack Philby (sheikh Abdullah) for his buddy Saud.

          • LittleRedRidingHood

            I don’t care who you think it belongs to. It has been the focal point of an inhumane doctrine for 14 centuries. The world wouldn’t miss it.

          • Gilbert White

            Mecca belongs to David Lean and the late OmarSharif? Tried to suggest Saudi woz a pleasant place a while back especially for well qualified medical practioners on short term contracts. Got blasted of course. Muslim sex fiendism is universal now. If the Iranians could get Mecca there shitt fantasies would come true.

          • Antonia Willis

            If only someone had the guts & the resources to help them do it….

          • Jackthesmilingblack

            That little arrow pointing towards Mecca on the ceiling of hotel bedrooms. You got those in UK yet, Britisaher pals?

          • LittleRedRidingHood

            Would swapping it around be considered a gate crime… Lol!

        • Arthur Paulo Kamuntu

          What do you mean? According to Richard Burton in all his journals, the Persians have always delighted in raping their sexual partners? Are you saying that they abandoned their delight when they became Iranians? That may be a rouse not frighten their intended new victims!!! Think of the Bible Stories and draw your lessons!! Even, Abraham, their great forebear, could not stop the men of Sodom and Gomorrah from attacking his Angelic visitors!!!

          • sidor

            Read the Bible instead of Burton. The persians are described in it as liberators.

          • amphibious

            ..err.. that would be Lot, not Abe.

        • Weaver

          You badly overestimate Iranian conventional capabilities, especially in logistics and deep strike.

          • Roger Hudson

            Britain could help with the deep strike.

        • Jackthesmilingblack

          Or even crush.

    • Antonia Willis

      Sure, if you want another zone of anarchy & bloodshed with no end in sight….

      • amphibious

        … like mess o’potamina, thanks to the Coalition of the Shilling. Pun intended.

    • Teddy Mcnabb

      IRAN IS EQUALLY DEPRAVED !

      • Roger Hudson

        I would chose a Persian over an Arab every time.

    • Itinerant

      Only to replace it with another form of Islamo-totaliterianism?
      No thanks- a plague on both their houses and hope they only weaken each other and keep it regional.

      • sidor

        I can imagine what would have been your problem in 1941: to ally with Stalin or with Hitler. Pure liberals are always hesitant to define their side in a war.

        • Itinerant

          You imagine wrongly- stabalising Assad’s rule for now is the least worst option.
          Pure ‘insert’ are always quick to make sweeping assumptions based on scant evidence.

          • sidor

            And why do you find ISIS more attractive? Any affiliation with wahhabi Islam? Or business with the Saudis?

          • Itinerant

            Non-sequitur- try again;
            the clue was in previous reply, that I would rather Iranian-backed Assad remain in power as the least worse option-which apparently you either didn’t read or didn’t understand.

          • sidor

            I apologise for my unfortunate mistake: I inadvertently missed “the least” in your text.

          • Itinerant

            You’re reading too much into what I said, yes Assad is the least worst option but that foes not mean I am unaware there is a larger battelfield.
            I’m in agreement with much of what you say- that the enemy has not been delineated- unfortunately our ‘leaders’ think they can manage jihadism via fatuous cultural equivalence and repeating Islam is a religion of peace often enough, in the vain hoppe it will eventually turn into one.
            Thanks to the doctrine of multiculturalism, mass immigration and political correctness- the situation is even more convoluted than WWII or the Cold War- no-one was ever called Communist-phobic for pointing out flaws in the Soviet Union.
            Until the West faces the absurdity and gaping flaws of these doctrines, (never-mind oil, petro-dollars and attendant appeasement and corruption), Islamist groups like the Muslim Brotherhood will continue to exploit them and odious regimes like Saudi Arabia will continue to fund divison and hatred in the West.

            It is a battle we’re losing at the moment- things can change rapidly however.

          • sidor

            “odious regimes like Saudi Arabia ”

            That’s where you miss the point. KSA is THE source of the trouble. The only one. And there is no movement in Islam called “islamism” or “jihadism”. There is Wahhabi Islam which is the official ideology in KSA. And they spend billions every year to spread it around the World. Both politically and militarily, using proxies like Taliban or ISIS.

          • Itinerant

            “There is Wahhabi Islam which is the official ideology in KSA. And they spend billions every year to spread it around the World”
            In short- the odious Saudi regime- an alliance of Saud and Wahhabi.
            Which is at the heart of many problems but they are not exclusive to the KSA, anywhere the sword of Islam fell, has had a gigantic handbrake on development since arguably the 11th century nor is it the only Islamic country to export literalist and supremacist Islam- Deobandism and take-overs of nearly half the mosques in the UK for example or the Muslim Brotherhood agenda to infiltrate Western institutions- which seems to be doing well in the US.
            There are many fronts- cultural and material with many appeasers, collaborators and conflict of interest- The KSA and its Wahhabist Dawa, its relationship with the US are important aspects but far from the whole story.

  • Bonkim

    Nothing is for ever.

  • zanzamander

    Saudi Barbaria is a super power, not US. US merely says “how high?” whenever the Saudi Barbarian masters shout “Jump!”.

    It is the land that my god has forgotten – for now. Wait until she wakes up then the revenge will be like nothing on this planet. Then these Saudi Barbarians will know the meaning of the word sodomy.

  • Murti Bing

    ‘For all the nations have drunk the maddening wine of her adulteries. The kings of the earth committed adultery with her, and the merchants of the earth grew rich from her excessive luxuries.’

    For wine read oil.

  • Graeme S

    Be afraid , be very afraid , Iran is coming and it is gonna kick the bejezzus out of this lot

    • 2fishypoliticians

      And where will they all flee to?? Hmmm…

    • 1Juvenis1

      Iran is a sophisticated ancient culture with a glorious history . The West can deal with them as regardless of the regime Persians are civilized people to the core . Saudis ( and the Gulf States) are a bunch of barbaric enriched camel drivers coming straight out from the middle ages after the discovery of oil in the 20th century . The house of Saud is nothing but a creation of clueless greedy US which continue to bet on these savages , the same ones who are financing the terror America is supposed to be at war with . Absurd ? No its called greed. The march of folly goes on !

  • Christopher Dalton

    History will not be kind to us for allowing this sort of thing without even a word of rebuke.

  • plainsdrifter

    Very nasty people. The world’s most enthusiastic torturers and slavers – with the rest of their fellow (if that is the word) Arabs.

  • Arthur Paulo Kamuntu

    Hum, only the really West, looks at this as a new phenomenon!!! It is a truism that cultural changes have always lagged behind what we nowadays call liberal trends. In a primitive enclave, where young men are still taught that if they do well they will be rewarded with seven-virgins, for their good behaviour, how would you expect the same young men to respect any one. I have always believed that these hormone filled Saudi Prince are allowed to rape any woman and man they fancy. Forget about the Koran; its provisions are for the slaves—

  • Zhang Wei

    The gold diggers that cavort with these men know the risks

  • Zhang Wei

    The gold diggers that cavort with these men know the risks….

  • Fasdunkle

    There is plenty the West can do – first we have to start treating the islamo-fascist saudi state as a pariah

    • Franks Trate Writes

      Good man. But what about their oil?

    • Hippograd

      What’s “fascist” about a regime that allows blacks and other non-Arabs to enter Mecca if they’re Muslim? Islam is far closer to communism than fascism, but of course lots of neo-cons have no problem with communism. In fact, they want to see it come back.

      • Fasdunkle

        There are millions of black people who are not allowed into Mecca

        • Hippograd

          Yes. The non-Muslim ones.

      • Itinerant

        It’s not racially based supremacism, it is religious and you our own comment highlights this- “if they’re Muslim”.
        But in the end such labels are meaningless- totalitarianism always ends up meeting at the extreme- whether Commie b’tards or Fascist ones.

        • Hippograd

          The word ‘fascist’ is easier to say

          Are you familiar with Orwell?

          Why so great an importance was attached to ease of pronunciation will be made clear later in this essay. Ultimately it was hoped to make articulate speech issue from the larynx without involving the higher brain centers at all. This aim was frankly admitted in the Newspeak word duckspeak, meaning ‘ to quack like a duck’. Like various other words in the B vocabulary, duckspeak was ambivalent in meaning. Provided that the opinions which were quacked out were orthodox ones, it implied nothing but praise, and when The Times referred to one of the orators of the Party as a doubleplusgood duckspeaker it was paying a warm and valued compliment.

          http://www.newspeakdictionary.com/ns-prin.html

          It will be seen that, as used, the word ‘Fascism’ is almost entirely meaningless. In conversation, of course, it is used even more wildly than in print. I have heard it applied to farmers, shopkeepers, Social Credit, corporal punishment, fox-hunting, bull-fighting, the 1922 Committee, the 1941 Committee, Kipling, Gandhi, Chiang Kai-Shek, homosexuality, Priestley’s broadcasts, Youth Hostels, astrology, women, dogs and I do not know what else.

          Yet underneath all this mess there does lie a kind of buried meaning. To begin with, it is clear that there are very great differences, some of them easy to point out and not easy to explain away, between the régimes called Fascist and those called democratic. Secondly, if ‘Fascist’ means ‘in sympathy with Hitler’, some of the accusations I have listed above are obviously very much more justified than others. Thirdly, even the people who recklessly fling the word ‘Fascist’ in every direction attach at any rate an emotional significance to it. By ‘Fascism’ they mean, roughly speaking, something cruel, unscrupulous, arrogant, obscurantist, anti-liberal and anti-working-class. Except for the relatively small number of Fascist sympathizers, almost any English person would accept ‘bully’ as a synonym for ‘Fascist’. That is about as near to a definition as this much-abused word has come.

          http://orwell.ru/library/articles/As_I_Please/english/efasc

          and has more immediate connotations than Islamo-Communist, which would sound, to a conditioned eu-ear- like a quaint, monastic commune somewhere.

          I don’t want them to be called Islam-communists: I want them to be called “Muslims”, because that is what they are.

          MIslamo-fascist however and the connotation is clear- a violent, expansionist and supremacist ideology.

          So Blair, Bush and the neo-cons are Christo-fascists or Judeo-fascists or Trotsko-fascists? People who use the term “Islamo-fascist” have no problem with violence or expansionism or supremacism when it operates in the right cause.

          • Itinerant

            c

          • Hippograd

            “People who use the term “Islamo-fascist” have no problem with violence or expansionism or supremacism when it operates in the right cause.” Bollocks.

            Christopher Hitchens, Mark Steyn and Nick Cohen all use the term Islamo-fascist. All of them supported the Iraq war. The only good fascist is a dead fascist, innit.

          • Itinerant

            ‘people’ -‘human beings in general or considered collectively.’
            If you meant three journalists you should have said so, surprised someone who takes semantics so seriously, would make such a bollocksy generalisation.
            But thanks for reminding me I’m in such good company.
            ‘innit’
            Don’t try, really, it doesn’t suit you.

          • Hippograd

            Steyn is a good but dishonest writer. Cohen is a mediocre and dishonest writer. Hitchens was a painfully bad and dishonest writer. If you think that’s good company to be in, little more need be said.

          • Itinerant

            Better company than that high-horse you’re riding.

          • Kate S.

            I can assure you that I have a problem with supremacism in every incarnation! I also do not favour expansionism. As for the Iraq war? I was an outspoken opponent who predicted much of the resulting mess and de-stabilisation of the Middle East back in 2003. Unfortunately, nobody of consequence listened to me.

          • Hippograd

            Then how do you think one should deal with “Islamo-fascists”? With words of reason? And do you think it’s a good idea to important large numbers of “Islamo-fascists” into the UK?

          • Kate S.

            Firstly, I am neither a communist nor a fascist, and find both ideologies decidedly unappealing. I am not quite sure where you picked up the idea that the way to deal with Islamo-fascist is “words of reason”. The only language they appear to speak is utmost brutality. I do not favour importing large numbers of anybody or anything anywhere. I have been an outspoken critic of the lack of Muslim integration and the forming of parallel societies since I was a teenager. Islam in general is stuck in a rut and is in desperate need of moderation, reform and modernisation. The Sufi tradition with its mystical focus and self-reflection would appear to be ideal, but as I am a realist who knows human nature doesn’t change I do not think that it’s a viable option.

          • Hippograd

            Do you use the term “Islamo-fascist” and mean it seriously? If you do, then you’re not typical of those who do. If you don’t, we have no point of disagreement.

          • Kate S.

            Before responding to you, I’ve never used the term Islamo-fascists at all. You used it twice in your post above, and asked me how I thought one should deal with them, hence the reason why I mentioned it at all.

          • Hippograd

            Sorry, then I thought you were trying to defend the use of “Islamo-fascist”, which is what I was criticizing in the post you replied to (I think). It looks as tho’ we are in agreement on Islam and on the stupidity of allowing mass immigration by Muslims.

          • red2black

            The foundations of Fascism are Race, Nation, and Religion.
            Those of Communism are Class, Internationalism, and Atheism.

          • Hippograd

            The foundations of Fascism are Race, Nation, and Religion.

            Yes, race. Islam is not based on race. Islam is not fascism or communism, but it is nearer to the latter than the former. Communists could and did persecute homosexuals and oppress women. They also destroyed monuments representing the unenlightened past.

            Those of Communism are Class, Internationalism, and Atheism.

            Not atheism: materialism. Rejecting the old forms of God does not mean God isn’t smuggled back in other guises. Communism is clearly a form of religion:

            Bertrand Russells History of Western Philosophy:

            To understand Marx psychologically, one should use the following dictionary:

            Yahweh = Dialectical Materialism
            The Messiah = Marx
            The Elect = The Proletariat
            The Church = The Communist Party
            The Second Coming = The Revolution
            Hell = Punishment of the Capitalism
            The Millennium = The Communist Commonwealth

            The terms on the left give the emotional content of the terms on the right, and it is this emotional content, familiar to those who have had a Christian or a Jewish upbringing, that makes Marx´s eschatology credible.

            http://onlyagame.typepad.com/only_a_game/2006/09/marxism.html

          • red2black

            I’m not a Marxist. Marx replaced religious man with economic man in the great scheme of things. Mr Russell’s parallels seem fair enough to me.

          • Hippograd

            Then you accept that Islam is less similar to fascism than it is to communism.

          • red2black

            As religion means reconnecting with God, I’m not so sure, as Communism is atheistic, so there is no God to reconnect with. Marx’s class struggle was inspired by the race struggle he was already familiar with, both of which further remove Communism from Islam. I’d say it’s a mixed bag, but what they all have in common is that they’re monopolistic, authoritarian and totalitarian. I understand that Communism can be regarded as a sort of surrogate religion in a structural sense, but Fascism is arguably more similar to Islam in that the religious component remains Theist, whereas Communism is Atheist. The idea of a godless religion is a contradiction because of what the word religion means.

          • Hippograd

            Buddhism in its purest form is atheistic and a religion. Whether it’s a materialistic religion is another question. The concept “God” has no fixed definition. Some of the roles fulfilled by God in a traditional religion are filled by, say, historical necessity in communism. The important thing about communism is that it claims to be strictly materialistic and scientific. However, it has substitutes for the supernatural and claims knowledge that it can’t actually possess, except by supernatural or extra-scientific means.

          • red2black

            If Buddhism is godless, then I’d suggest it’s more a philosophy.
            I’m not sure that Communism replaces God with anything, especially if there’s no belief in God in the first place. What things claim to be, and what they actually are, are seldom the same thing. Marx’s historical world-view is a version of the millenarian ‘ages of the world’, and that may explain any apparently ‘supernatural’ knowledge such as the general course of future events or the purpose of our lives.

          • red2black

            Orwell was a self-declared Socialist who fought for the Marxist (anti-Stalinist) POUM in Spain’s Civil War, and reflected that if he’d really known what was going on there, he would have joined the Anarchists.

      • Gordon

        Have you seen how labourers and maids are treated there, no matter what faith they are.

        • Hippograd

          Yes, I have seen. That’s what the article is about.

      • sfin

        “Communism and fascism are the same thing” – Benito Mussolini.

        Don’t misinterpret “Fascism”. Mussolini was one of the most foremost socialist, philosophers of his day, as a young man. He brought back from the trenches of WW1 a more muscular brand of socialism – based on the collective military zeal of the mission – which he branded “fascism” (named after the original Italian trade unionists – the fasci – whose symbology denoted strength through unity)

        Fascism is authoritarian collectivism. It originated on the left and continues on it till this day (you don’t hear a conservative calling his political opponents “scab” or “scum”).

        Religious authoritarianism fits the fascist label very well. The Islamic world is bitterly resentful that, what they declare is the truth for all mankind, lags far behind Western, Anglo Saxon civilisation in indicators like freedom, wealth, longevity and happiness. They are so resentful that they seek to destroy it.

        The definitions of “left” and “right” can be boiled down to collectivism versus the rights of the individual (to be left alone). Fascism is collectivism and Wahhabism is an extreme form of it. Saudi Arabia is evil and it is high time we started treating it as such.

        • red2black

          The foundations of Fascism are Race, Nation, and Religion.
          Those of Communism are Class, Internationalism, and Atheism.

          • sfin

            They are all collectivisms. Collectivism, amongst other things, defines the left and delineates it from the right.

            Another Mussolini quote:” Everything is the state and the state is everything”. Mussolini was an ardent socialist (like Hitler) that broke from the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics orthodoxy.

            The war on the eastern front in WWII can easily be described as a civil war of the extreme left.

          • red2black

            Religions are collectivisms. They incline towards the Right.
            Or is the Roman Catholic Church that backed Hitler and Mussolini actually Atheist Communist?

          • sfin

            ‘Right collectivism’ is an oxymoron.

            Funny you should choose the Roman Catholic Church as an example. Catholicism is as collective and authoritarian as Christianity gets and it has always been wedded to socialism – Catholics in Britain and the US overwhelmingly vote for left wing political parties.

            Catholicism, Islam, Communist, Fascist – all collectivist, authoritarian branches of the same left wing tree. All thinking that they have the answer to Utopia (another thing that delineates left from right) and all acting as a brake on human potential.

          • red2black

            ‘Catholics in Britain and the US overwhelmingly vote for left wing political parties’? Catholics vote Communist?

        • Hippograd

          Fascism is authoritarian collectivism. It originated on the left and continues on it till this day (you don’t hear a conservative calling his political opponents “scab” or “scum”).

          Yes. And communism is also authoritarian collectivism. The important difference is that fascism is based on racial collectivism, whereas communism is based on ideological collectivism. That’s one reason that fascism and Nazism didn’t need to spy on their subjects to the extent that communism did.

          • red2black

            Both doctrines are ideologically collective. For one, the basis of conflict is Race; for the other, Class. As for people spying on each other, I imagine being detained either by the Gestapo or NKVD can’t have been a pleasant experience for anyone.
            Soviet Communism was around for a lot longer as well.

  • John Andrews

    Arabs played a major role in the African slave trade and took many girls as sex slaves. So why are there no signs of African heritage in Arabia?

    • Fasdunkle

      many of the women enslaved by arabs and incarcerated in the harems came from Europe

      • John Andrews

        This is true of North Africa but probably not of Arabs in the Gulf states.

    • Kate S.

      Having studied this issue for years, I think I can explain why there are so few signs of African heritage. Most of the male African slaves taken by Arab traders, i.e., those who did not perish on the difficult journey, were turned into eunuchs. I am sure I don’t have to explain what that did to their ability to procreate. The women on the other hand, disappeared into harems, as Fasdunkle, stated. The children born to these women were often killed at birth.

      Resources: http://originalpeople.org/the-arab-muslim-slave-trade-of-africans-the-untold-story/
      http://www.arabslavetrade.com/
      http://www.salon.com/2001/04/06/segal/

      Murray Gordon’s well-researched book “Slavery in the Arab World”

      Happy reading!

  • 2fishypoliticians

    And still the Saudi’s spend billions on their govt ministry to propagate their wahhabist rop worldwide… including in our country. Our leaders are betraying future generations by allowing this to continue.

  • WTF

    I feel sorry for the Camels !

    • samton909

      Now you know why the camels spit at them

      • WTF

        I wonder which ones ‘perform’ best, the single humped dromedary variety of the two humped bactrian camel !

  • Antonia Willis

    An important article, because it tries to challenge our current foreign policy assumptions on a number of levels, especially with the statement that “the jihadists’ ideology is barely distinguishable from Riyadh’s Wahhabi religious establishment.” A vital point & thank you John Bradley.

  • Franks Trate Writes

    Well at least there is one magazine in this country that is prepared to tell the truth about this hideous regime. People who have worked there talk about how they saw servants being hit, women kept locked up, and there are no older women. Any woman past child bearing age gets no medical treatment, she is just left to die. The Koran justifies slavery and that’s what their whole system is based on. By the way, they own half of London.

  • Partner

    A superb analysis.

  • MacGuffin

    Before the inevitable fall of the Sauds, let’s get fracking.

  • Sohrob Tahmasebi

    The Saudis have gotten a pass for too long. I hope the fall in oil prices hits them hard. They are the root cause of so much radicalism around the world.

    • Gettingby

      They are one of the most evil regimes on the planet, but since they give billions to the traitors and whores that govern the western world we defend them. That makes the west nothing more than evil prostitutes. Even after they financed and their citizens attacked the US on 911 the longtime prostitute Bush family defended them and allowed the guilty, like in the article, to run home to escape justice.

  • Kasperlos

    Yes, the enslavement of the West is by the self-found grace of bowing down to the god of greed for wealth. They’ve sold their souls for shillings. The utter depravity herein exposed can only affirm the lack of progress humankind has made on this planet. The veneer of civility is just that, a mask behind which horrors lie. Shame on the so-called leaders of the ‘free world’.

  • Dukeofplazatoro

    Taki has long been writing about this loathsome bunch of degenerates as “camel drivers posing as princes” as they swan around Knightsbridge with their whores and vulgar cars.It is noticeable that they have not lifted a finger to help their Muslim brothers fleeing Syria – the wrong kind of Muslim I suppose – indeed the opposite, since they have effectively sponsored Daesh / IS or whatever we’re supposed to call it now. By that sponsoring them, they have made themselves responsible for the refugee / emigration problem which is now facing Europe. It is particularly galling to see our politicians and the Prince of Wales kow-tow to these hypocrites, and they are surely the best advert for fracking. Roll on the schadenfreude when they finally cop it.

  • 1Juvenis1

    SaudI Arabia , without doubt the most vile state on the planet and their leader from the rotten house of Saud are received in the west with the red carpet .

  • Roger Hudson

    Unfortunately slavery is not ‘un-islamic’.
    We must shun the Saudis completely, they are bombing Yemeni civilians with planes made in Britain.

  • Bodkinn

    We don’t need to do anything. Given time they will be the authors of their
    own destruction as history proves with all the other long dead, corrupt
    dynasties. Internecine strife will be
    their downfall. Like all families if an
    outsider attacks one they all band together but when free from external interference
    they turn on each other.

    • Margot5000

      As long as we’re all – well half of us – not burka-wearing by then.

  • Jackthesmilingblack

    “adolescent Filipina maid”
    Yet another thing I was right about, Jock. Be told lad, be bloody told.

    • Labour Mole Catcher

      About being a right creep.

  • Rockingham

    The west has been kissing the Saudi butt for decades, George Bush used the words axis of evil in 2002, he aimed that at Iran, Iraq, and North Korea, he should have included Saudi Arabia, but bottled out of it.

  • spirild

    Kingdom? Ha, ha, ha.

  • Steed

    I dream of a future where we are not dependant on oil. It will happen, and when it does the House of Saud will fall and these depraved people will be torn to shreds.

  • Margot5000

    Aren’t there any western kamikazi pilots willing to fly into that lump of old rock.

  • WarriorPrincess111111

    The Middle East has always been a World apart. Everything was fine so long as Westerners ignored their lifestyles and completely forgot about them. But now, it is realised that these hugely rich,backward countries are sitting on $billions of oil that the West want to take for themselves. On one hand we have Europe and the US attacking various gulf states, creating death and mayhem at will and leaving people in complete tumoil and on the other hand the invasions have revealed much criminal behaviour that is inherent in the Arab world and which also results in people being harmed.
    There really is little to choose between the two – Muslim legislation harms people, the actions of the Western countries harms people! Lust and Greed go hand in hand!

  • mohammad abdullah

    Once upon a time a devout but impoverished deset leader searched for water to supply to the Haj pilgrims, what was found in abdundance was not water but as we all know oil. Those devout Muslims had the opportunity to fulfil the tenets of Islam and share their wealth with their impoverished brothers, they could have re – instated the golden days of the Prophet s.a.w and the righteous caliphs. Instead the oil wealth has, as for most countries, been a burden not a blessing, That same country cannot even look after the pilgrims who flock there. Please do not confuse Islam with ignominy.

Close