Refujihad in Britain and Australia: Interview Friday 9 June, 7.10am

Join me for an interview on Friday morning with talk back king Alan Jones on the rising tide of refujihad across the West. A week before the London terror attacks, I wrote:

Britain has been invaded. Whitehall has revealed that there are 23,000 suspected terrorists inside the UK. What it didn’t say is that the British army reserve has just 29,940 active personnel. The implications are clear, but no politician will admit them. When the number of enemies inside a nation nears the number of its active army reserve, the nation cannot hold. Britain and the Commonwealth states should be on a war footing. That means closing borders, strengthening treason laws and bolstering defence.


Islamists are engaged in total war against the West … and free world people. In the 21st century, total war is commonly conducted by non-state actors that aim to destroy legitimate states by any means necessary. The chief enemy of the modern West is a coalition of non-state actors whose militant front is Islamic jihad. Its combatants aim to overthrow liberal democracies by subverting the central organs of the state and replacing the governing principles of free society with sharia. However, Western leaders are conducting the war against 21st century jihad with a 20th century mindset. They focus on foreign wars and militant acts while the enemy subverts our nations from within.


The best Western leaders protect our borders, the worst appease or collaborate with the enemy, but few openly state the alpha and omega of the jihadis’ total war: a global empire under Islam that requires the death of the West.


Minimising the link between porous borders, refugee programs and the development of jihad as a Western phenomenon is a common Islamist tactic. In the information age, intelligence services would be better to admit the threat of jihad while repeating the obvious truth that not all Muslims are jihadis.


I warned in 2015 that the West would win the battle against Islamic State but lose the war against Islamism unless Western leaders recognised jihad as a substantive ideology. Jihad is an ideology first and last. Its militant expression is Islamic terrorism whose primary purpose is not to instil terror but to destabilise and exhaust the protective capacity of legitimate governments. In that sense, jihad is akin to militant socialism. The end of revolutionary socialism is the communist state. The end of revolutionary jihad is the Islamic state.


The comprehensive ideology of jihad is set out in Management of Savagery, the Islamic State playbook reportedly written by former al-Qa’ida official Mohammad Hasan Khalil al-Hakim. In it, Hakim clarifies that gradual, subversive jihad is a total war strategy. He states that jihadis are: “Progressing until it is possible to expand and attack the enemies in order to repel them, plunder their money, and place them in a constant state of apprehension and (make them) desire reconciliation.”


… To counter jihadists’ total war against the West, the government should consider the powers created to protect Australia’s freedom during the total wars of the 20th century.


The piecemeal approach employed by the West in response to jihad is born of a reluctance to face reality. The laws of peacetime can no longer accommodate the jihadist menace within Western states. When the number of potential enemy combatants inside Britain is only 7000 men short of its army reserve, we must face the reality that the enemy is inside the gate. It is time to state the four words the West hoped never to utter again: we are at war.

Instead of acknowledging the threat of jihadism, the hard Left responded predictably by defaming me online. When Leftists can’t win an argument, they try to destroy the politically incorrect messenger. They are bullies.

A week later, the jihadis struck yet again. They killed innocents in London before striking in Melbourne, Australia. In between the London and Melbourne jihadist attacks, my column Politically correct leaders looking for somewhere to hide was published in The Australian. I wrote:

After the jihadist attack on Britain’s children in Manchester, ­Islamic State warned: “What comes next will be more severe on the worshippers of the Cross.” Islamists incited jihadis to “hunt prey” in Britain. Whitehall confessed there are 23,000 suspected jihadis in Britain — 20,000 more than it had admitted previously.


On Saturday night, the terrorists went hunting. They drove a van into innocents on London Bridge before stabbing dozens more in Borough Market.


The British government responded by declaring war on the enemies of the Cross and killers of British children. It invoked war powers.It closed the borders to states that fund terrorist propaganda and combatants. It shut down the mosques where treason is preached as divine Islamist destiny. It classified the 23,000 people sworn to jihad as aliens and enemies of the commonwealth.


In a time of crisis, Britain recovered its resolve and snatched freedom from the fangs of tyranny.


I write from a thinning vein of hope. Britain did none of the above. It did not recover its resolve by battling the foot soldiers of Islamist tyranny where they stand. Instead of fighting jihad, the police tweeted official advice from the UK government: “What you should do in a terror attack: Run, Hide and Tell.” If that’s reverse psychology, it’s working.


The political class is committed to running and hiding from the ­Islamist threat within — perhaps because its members can hide.


After the Manchester bombing, the police force amassed to protect the anti-Brexit, politically correct heart of London where cosmo­polites still toast the illusion that porous borders and multicultural ideology are the measure of free society.


Yet all the while, the West is forced to sacrifice the liberal order as our freedoms are surrendered one by one to accommodate the Islamist menace within: the surveillance state, the deployment of paramilitary forces, the erosion of free speech, the attack on public reason, the defence of sharia over secular law, of barbarity over ­civilisation.


How many more innocents must die, how many more freedoms must we lose before politicians admit the failure of Western accommodationist policy in the face of Islamist aggression?


… The PC class is protecting ideology over Western innocents. The jihadist army in Britain is an imported problem utterly alien to the West. It entered by non-discriminatory border policy. It took root in the collective Western guilt cultivated by multicultural zealots. Its propagandists were protected by the ideology of minority supremacy codified in racial discrimination law. Its foot soldiers were milked on the teat of Western welfare.


We are at war. Does any Western leader have the courage  to declare it?


Time to Confront Local Islamists: This Is War

Politically Correct Leaders Looking for Somewhere to Hide

4 thoughts on “Refujihad in Britain and Australia: Interview Friday 9 June, 7.10am

  1. Dear Ms Oriel, I had just entered my vehicle when I heard the commencement of your interview with Alan Jones. I was too transfixed to drive off … as I needed to. I sat, totally absorbed in listening to the common sense that you were making. At the risk of over doing it, you were brilliant.

    I spent the rest of the day telling all who I came in contact with, of this woman I had heard on Jones’ programme. I had heard, though never read your commentary before. I have taken the time to read a good number of your works in The Australian and on this blog.

    First rate Ms Oriel. Do continue, please.

  2. Keep up the good work Jennifer. Your columns are a rare breath of fresh air in the Australian media.

    The problem the political class has created for us is that our economy, wealth and salaries are to a large extent dependent on dealing with the kinds of regimes and people that we’d prefer not to have to deal with (e.g. Chinese-financed construction and Saudi/Islamic-backed $$ via things such as the importation of students, clients etc in the international ‘education’ racket etc).

    One can either have principles, stay away from it all but be poor – or, do what we do now, and take the short-term money and in the long term have our cities and societies changed beyond demographic, security and aesthetic recognition.

    I weep for what places like Melbourne and Sydney have now become due to our desire for immigration-led economic growth and our idiotic and naive belief in multiculturalism and mass immigration which has let in the problem (discussed) among many others…

  3. ‘What comes next will be more severe on the worshippers of the Cross,’ says it all.

    The post-Christian West can’t bear to admit it, but this latest threat is directly attributable to the West’s abandonment of its Christian origins. Jihadis are most violently opposed to what they call the ‘Crusader’ nations. Islam swept through Christendom over centuries … until the Christian world began an organised attempt to repulse it and re-open a corridor to the birthplace of Christ … (Due to) our aggressively secular culture, (many cannot accommodate) the reality that this latest outbreak of jihad is essentially religious. Until we accept it, we are fighting at a disadvantage.

    Kind Regards

Comments are closed.