![]() |
| 2020, Sam Pak Wan, Discovery Bay, East to Central, HK. |
The Blog of Peter Forsythe in Hong Kong
I’ve been banging on about the threat of Islam to western societies for the best part of two decades now.
So how’s about I let someone else bang on about it. Tim Dieppe in this case. Whose article below draws on his new book “The Challenge of Islam”. It’s long, but worth the read.
If anything he’s too measured. Shouldn’t his book be “The Threat of Islam”, for example, rather than “The Challenge…”? His critique too polite and mannerly. It’s time for a bit of blood and fire in the rhetoric, no? And also to say clearly “what we should do about it”.
I’m churlish though to say this. For Dieppe’s is a thorough survey of the issues and challenges. An almost exhaustive listing of what’s happening to Blighty, as a result of its own policies.
Dieppe quotes Sir Trevor Phillips:
‘Sir Trevor Phillips, former head of the Equality and Human Rights Commission, acknowledged in 2016 that ‘the integration of Muslims will probably be the hardest task we have ever faced’.
There must be a lesson for my own Australia here. We must not let it get to anywhere near this stage in Oz. So far, we haven’t. But it seems we have some kind of death wish for Islam. Some kind of precautionary Sharia Supplication.
I do want to be wrong. Please, Australia. Look and learn. Prove me wrong.
From Dieppe:
Carrying on the great political tradition of ‘never buggering off’, former Prime Minister Kevin Rudd is back – sort of – offering advice.
To my great annoyance, he might even have a point.
Taking a momentary break from the substantial role of Global President and CEO of the Asia Society, Kevin Rudd appeared at the National Press Club.
Who better, I hear you say, to steer Labor through difficult geopolitical waters than the man with friendly knives embedded in his suit jacket?
Suffice to say he is not on the ‘comeback trail’. (Rudd hinted that Tony Abbott might be.) He is also not running for UN Secretary General because ‘Malcolm [Turnbull] took care of that last time round’.
Kevin Rudd gave a sermon on the rise of China, calling for a ‘radical change in our national psychology’ and a new sense of ‘national urgency’.
Describing Australia as a ‘complacent country’,
I’ve followed and supported Manya Koetse for years.
See below and support if you value independent English language coverage of issues re China and the World.
On a separate but related note, it’s regrettable to see more English-language China-focused projects disappear. WIRED has discontinued Made in China, the newsletter created by Zeyi Yang and Louise Matsakis. The podcast China Decode, co-hosted by Alice Han and James Kynge, has been shut down due to a lack of advertising support. |
Independent reporting on China is becoming harder to sustain at a time when it matters more than ever. There is more fast China news than ever, but deeply researched work is struggling, while readers are seeing more hot takes for clicks and biased coverage serving political agendas. |
So this is both a reminder and a personal appeal: please subscribe to the newsletters and podcasts you value, where independent creators actually invest time, effort, and expertise into China-related research. We need your support to keep doing this work. Without it, more independent voices will disappear. (You can join as a paying member to this newsletter here). |
![]() |
| Canada and PM Carney’s idea of “associate relationship” with the EU |
Australia be like…
Like Canada, but looking at China instead of the EU.
At least from many talks here in Oz. And debates on the ABC. China.
Such is the hate for Trump, Aussies now hate their main ally. And cast lurid glances at tyrannical communists. Sinical, no?
![]() |
| Hmmmm… |
Cassandra warned the Trojans about the wooden horse – she was given the power to see the future, but was cursed that no one would believe her. In Silicon Valley’s version of this story, the Trojan horse is superintelligence, and its Cassandras warn that AI researchers are “gambling with our lives” in the race to build it.
But there’s a twist, Geoffrey Cain writes in this issue’s cover story.
The ending stays the same, but first, instead of ignoring the Cassandras, “the elders hear them out, agree with every word.” The people who most vocally proclaim that AI might kill us are also insisting that they must be the ones to “pace” its development. Anthropic’s Dario Amodei has said that AI development must slow down; OpenAI’s Sam Altman agrees, as does Elon Musk, who has warned that humanity is “summoning the demon.”
Investors give them billions to continue building their “safer” machines. And so the Trojan horse – slightly hobbled by regulation, accompanied by auditors – will trundle along, straight through the gates.
The result is in. Ninety-two per cent of the voters in the tiny Oxfordshire village have voted to secede from the United Kingdom – 285 yes, 26 no. Why? Because the British government plans to dump hundreds and hundreds of small boat ‘asylum seekers’ in a military base slap bang next to the Piddingtonians.
Of course, this is a symbolic gesture. There is no legal mechanism to actually achieve secession, which is perhaps just as well. As we know, it’s hard enough to get British politicians to acknowledge the results of an official national referendum, let alone a wildcat local one.
So relevant to where I’m now, Australia, a land of immigrants. Somewhat nerdy, the article below, but worth the read…
For centuries, economists have tried to understand why some countries are rich while others are poor. Numerous explanations have been proposed—geography, inclusive institutions, and knowledge—but all seem to fail at explaining empirical reality.Iceland, South Korea, and Israel are prosperous despite their geography and lack of natural resources. China and Russia outperform most countries despite having extractive institutions. Canada, the United Kingdom, Australia, New Zealand, and Germany have recently become economically stagnant despite their inclusive institutions. Poor countries tend to remain poor despite decades of good advice from competent economists.
Look at what happened to the women in these countries.
They once wore their own colors, clothing and traditions. Their faces were visible. They looked like they belonged to their own culture.
Then Islamist rule took hold.
The color disappeared. The women were covered. Their choices were taken away. Their voices were silenced. Culture after culture, the same thing happened.
And somehow, we are told this is “diversity.”
There is nothing diverse about erasing women. There is nothing tolerant about forcing them to hide their faces and bodies while men continue walking around as themselves.
That is always the part they leave out. Women are expected to surrender their freedom, their identity and eventually their place in public life.
Europe sees what is happening. Spain sees it. So do London, Paris and Dearborn. We were told this was cultural enrichment, but women are once again being told to step aside, cover themselves and stay quiet.
This is not about Muslims who practice their faith peacefully. It is about an ideology that controls women and calls anyone who objects hateful.
Women in the West had better start paying attention before the freedoms our mothers and grandmothers fought for are handed away.
Below from Grok. I asked it to summarise the AfD platform, in the wake of big wins for the AfD in Germany. Which are widely labelled “far-right” even “neo-Nazi”.
But these policies are close to those of a Bill Clinton. Or an Australian Labor’s Bob Hawke. Or a British Tory Party of recent years. They would never have been characterised as “far- right”. Conservative, yes, or centrist-Democrat (Bill Clinton, even Obama). But not “far-right”, let alone “neo-Nazi”. That’s how far the Overton Window has shifted Left, that anyone gives these slurs any credence at all.
I read the AfD platform below and I agree with most of it. As would anyone who yearns for a decent, well-run, safe and secure country. As have a majority of Germans in recent elections.
The push back on the“far right” and “neo-Nazi” slurs should be strong.
Alternative für Deutschland (AfD) is a German right-wing populist party. Its 2025 Bundestag election program (“Zeit für Deutschland”) and longer-standing Grundsatzprogramm emphasize national sovereignty, strict limits on immigration, lower taxes and regulation, traditional energy sources, and a more direct form of democracy.
Immigration, asylum, and citizenship
This is the party’s signature issue. AfD calls for:
Economy, taxes, and welfare
The party presents itself as pro-social-market-economy and pro-Mittelstand:
Energy and climate
AfD rejects the Energiewende as implemented and questions or downplays anthropogenic climate change as the basis for current policy:
Europe, euro, and foreign policy
Society, family, security, and institutions
These positions come from the party’s own 2025 election documents and earlier basic program. Implementation would require major legal changes (including EU and constitutional law) and is contested by other parties and parts of the German state. For the full text, see the official AfD site (afd.de) under the 2025 Wahlprogramm and Grundsatzprogramm.
Germans have had enough. GB News. It’s a tactical mistake for conservative parties to refuse to deal with the AfD.
Can I ever forget, twenty five years ago, early evening here in Hong Kong, when we heard that an airliner had crashed into the World Trade Center? The North Tower. And then a second plane. Which we saw live, in real time, before even the CNN reporter who was face-to-camera, back to the burning North Tower. At which I turned to my wife and said “it’s got to be Al-Qaeda”.
Can we forget?
Can I ever forget the next day, president Bush standing on the smoking rubble, declaring “we’ll get them”? But also declaring “Islam is a religion of peace”.
At which I thought “huh?”. How does that square with what we’ve just seen? How can it be a “religion of peace” when we already knew, to a moral certainty, that men driven by this very religion had done it? Had hijacked and flown planes into two towers full of innocent people?
Which started me on my quest to learn about this “religion of peace”. On my first reading of the Quran. Of the Hadith. Of the Sirah of Muhammad. Of the Umdat Al-Salik, the Classic Manual of Islamic Jurisprudence. And my library, now in the several hundreds, of books on Islam from the apologetics to the critical.
I concluded early on that “Islam is Islam”. Its most pious votaries say so. Its religious leaders say so. Its political leaders say so. All knowledgeable observers say so.
At the same time I recognised the tactical reason for saying there’s “Islam” and there’s “Islamism”. Tackling the massive thing that is worldwide Islam is too tough. Tackling a subset is more doable.
We’ve now reached a point in the west where the dangers of Islam to our societies, to our freedoms and tolerance are so apparent that we have to face the real truth. The uncomfortable truth. That the problem is Islam itself. The problem is its doctrines. Its values. That it’s an ideology more than it is a religion. That that ideology is incompatible with western enlightenment values.
Amy Mek’s discussion on the eve of our quarter-century anniversary of the horrors at The Twin Towers:
Don’t you love it when virtue-signalling goes wrong? When some progressive ponce gets so tangled in the weeds of woke jargon that they end up spouting pure shite? We’ve had not one but two such delicious moral implosions this past week, and even better they’ve involved two of the most insufferable women to ever draw breath. Buckle in.
“Why Arabs hate Palestinians”.
[It was the Romans who came up with the term “Palestinian” as a pejorative descriptor of the Jews living in the Levant. The term was appropriated by Yasser Arafat in the 1960s to galvanise a confected “indigenous people”. Bottom line remains: “Palestinians” are Arabs. So the “hatred of Arabs for Palestinians” is like the hatred, say, of Italians for the Mafia. All same-same; just some of them very tiresome]
Two reasons for the hatred of Palestinians by Arabs. Which changed over time.
1. It started off as a strategy: to pressure the new state of Israel. Arab leaders to Arab States: Do NOT accept any Palestinian refugees. Put all the pressure on Israel.
2. Then it morphed into hatred of Palestinians for what Palestinians do. Because Palestinians bring murder and mayhem wherever they go.
A Home Office whistleblower has said what many of us have suspected for some time: that the vast majority of “asylum seeker” claims are false.In fact, he says, only around one per cent are genuine. For the state to keep foisting strong, fit, aggy men onto communities that don’t want them, while barking “They’re asylum seekers, you racists”, is wicked and preposterous.If the state wants to put a stop to the kind of vigilantism we saw in Portsmouth, then it just needs to do one simple thing: its job.
Extreme Weather and Climate Change Dashboard
The above dashboard is extremely interesting. And useful to refer to whenever one sees a claim that this or that event is “unprecedented”. Usually with the rider that it’s “due to climate change”.
The dashboard doesn’t go into causation. But it does answer the “is it the worst ever” question. Where does what’s going on fit in with history? Based in our best data.
The dashboard covers the eight indicators suggested by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
For the World:
The Global Extreme Weather and Climate Change Dashboard.
Also: Global Typhoon Tracker.
Living here in Hong Kong, typhoon (aka “hurricane”) territory, I’m very interested in this one. So far this year, the typhoon events have been very much normal.
I recently heard a call for a “new Crusade”, and I’m like.. what?! Crazy, loony right-wing Christian stuff.
I’m a long-term atheist. But how can I not support actions to stop the genocide of Christians in Nigeria? It’s been going on for decades. Virtually unnoticed. I gave money to ETP. it’s not a big sacrifice. Just that it’s a little more practical than tweeting “Bring back the children”….