A Radical Traditionalist Critique of the Anti-Islam Movement
Source: radixjournal.com
The terrorist attack against the staff at the magazine Charlie Hebdo in Paris shook an entire continent. In a European climate in which protests against the perceived Islamization of our civilizational sphere becomes ever more widespread, showing in increased electoral success for moderate nationalist parties, as well as in expressions of mass public dissent, the recent resurgence of violent Islamic fanaticism fell well into accord with the zeitgeist.
While this might contribute further to a welcome popularization of critique concerning extreme multicultural policies, we are still living in a time when it might be wise to pause for a moment and reflect upon the choices that the pro-European Right are faced with, and especially one of the most decisive considerations of all, namely the question of who is the Principal Enemy.
According to many on the generic pro-European "Right," the Principal Enemy is Islam. This thinking is familiar to anyone from Identitarians in the vein of Guillaume Faye to considerably more liberal and moderate so-called "counter-Jihadists." The idea is understandable, but no less problematic in that it is based on shallow judgment and tends to be outright opportunistic.
I will now argue why we need to stop and think twice before we, emotionally empowered by popular trends, become too enthusiastic in identifying Islam as the enemy and focusing our forces on the anti-Islamic campaign, which has a curious habit of going at the expense of some vitally essential principles.
Bearded Islamism with eyes burning with fanaticism stands out as an easy and obvious enemy to mobilize against from the perspective of the West, seeing that their values differ from "our" own on just about every count.
An especially dramatic flavour is added to the cocktail when Islam in general is equated with Wahhabism/Salafism; a modern ideology of politicized Islam with dubious authenticity in the light of more orthodox Islamic traditionalism, whether it be Shia or Sunni branches. Serving to reinforce a brutal parody of Islam and destroying political stability in the Middle East, this phenomenon becomes ever more worrisome even here in Europe with the return of “European” Muslims from Jihad holiday in the camps of ISIS.
"Better yet," radical Islam, and by extension genuinely religious Islam in general, represents an "acceptable" enemy in the eyes of the Western liberal establishment. We'll return to that shortly.
I do not deny the problem of Muslim mass immigration to Europe that concerns the counter-Jihadic right. This is a real problem that will have to be solved, lest we shall find ourselves confronting a social crisis that is no longer controllable. Realizing this fact, nevertheless, does not by necessity imply any attack on Muslim religion or civilization per se, only the confrontation of elements that are posing a threat or unmanageable demographic complication in our own homelands.
Despite being aware that this irresponsible policy of our "elites" must end, and firm measures taken to resolve the mess they have created for us, I still have to say, in all sincerity, that I have much more respect for Islam in its more refined forms than I do for the reigning values in contemporary European civilization, which has lost its spiritual centre that was Christendom, leaving behind only a black vacuum of infinite capacity for filling up itself with ever new expressions of the greatest degeneracy and impurity.
What we need to understand is that even though the increasing Islamic presence in Europe, being an inseparable part of the greater problem of extra-European mass immigration, has to be confronted for what it is, with our sight unblocked by blindfolds of naivety and illusion. There is one risk that we as representatives of the pro-European opposition must cautiously guard ourselves against: Becoming a mere proxy for the continued liberal hegemonic domination of the world.
No, you didn't misread that one. This is always an imminent danger for any opposition. It is no secret by now that Western intelligence operations throughout the years have attempted to use the radical Wahhabists for their own purposes, as pawns in the game of geopolitics. More recently, we have discovered that neither European ultra-nationalists are necessarily above falling into this trap of the "useful idiot," in effect causing problems for all of Europe. I am of course referring to the tools of US foreign policy dominating the ranks of Ukrainian nationalism.
The national right plays an increasingly prominent part in European politics and is the only opposition that realistically might change the political direction of Europe in the near future. Make no mistake though; the powers that be are fully aware of this. And they are not above using us, directing our efforts to false ends if it is within their power to do so.
But now you ask, how on earth could anti-Islamism on the nationalist right possibly become a proxy for the liberal elite in the West?
It's quite simple. Increasing demonization of Islam justifies an aggressive foreign policy in the Middle East, in the service of the unipolar global order of the transatlantic liberal elite. Last but not least, it serves to reinforce the "enlightened" agenda of neutralizing religion. Because most attacks against Islam—or at least the acceptable Islam-critique—originates from the same poisonous wellspring that weakened Christianity beyond recognition.
Speaking of that. What's up with these numerous so-called "Christians" who go all "I am Charlie"? Do they identify themselves with a bunch of decadent leftists who have dedicated their lives to slandering the conservative foundations of European culture and heritage, going as far as drawing Christ sodomizing God? Shocking as it may be to modern liberalized Christians, the Charlie Hebdo staff would have been burned at the stake for their blasphemy during the Middle Ages, and Dante Alighieri, one of the greatest Europeans of all time, would have placed them in the eighth circle of hell.
It is only one more testament to the profound decadence of our time that Christians, unquestioningly following in the footsteps of the "tolerant" masses instead of consulting higher principles that are beyond changing popular trends, care to "respect" these blasphemers simply for accidentally being victimized by Muslim militants. For these people, it is obviously more important to feel good by standing with the rest of the politically correct crowd, or to score cheap points against Islam that do not collide with liberal orthodoxy, than to actually stand up for truth and faith, which takes real courage.
Undeniably, the hostility that many of you feel towards Islam is justified. I am not denying that; far from it. But Islam is not the central issue here. The Islamic problem is a side-effect of a much graver problem that becomes clouded in our minds if we over-focus on Islam, especially if we obsess with Islam in the West (or even outside the West, which makes us instantly useful idiots in the game of the Neocons!) as an absolute religious enemy instead of one problematic effect of liberal immigration policies.
So if Islam isn't the absolute enemy, what is? We'll get to that shortly.
My honesty requires of me to state that my respect for the victims of this attack, the men behind the Charlie Hebdo magazine, is non-existent. Which, no need to say, does not diminish my condemnation of this barbaric act of terrorism which was absolutely abhorrent. So much more for being carried through by non-Europeans who are abusing our hospitality. That point is important to convey.
Still, any truly pious Muslim is principally speaking more deserving of my admiration than a bunch of leftist satirical "artists" for whom "nothing is sacred"—a fact they proudly stated and extolled as a kind of bizarre anti-virtue. It is the people of that same spirit—that same internal psychological orientation and signature—who have wrecked Europe, who have spat upon our symbols and perverted our civilization.
The civilization we were supposed to hand over to our children so that they may lead noble lives in a meaningful context.
How much remains of that now?
[...]
Read the rest: radixjournal.com
