This post has been de-listed
It is no longer included in search results and normal feeds (front page, hot posts, subreddit posts, etc). It remains visible only via the author's post history.
Translated by Greg Johnson
The opinion proposed here differs from the conventional wisdom of the dominant ideology that sees the world in the short term and through the wrong end of the telescope. I will not rehash here all known facts disseminated by the media, but just cut simply and directly to an analysis which is not emotional but political. Here are the 13 points in defense of my thesis: Islamist terrorism is less dangerous than Islamization.
We focus on the âIslamistâ threat of fanatical killers, like Nemmouche or Merah, pseudo-Frenchmen who commit barbaric bombings and assassinations, then return from Middle East hardened, educated by the âIslamic State.â But I am sorry to say that terrorism, wherever it comes from, accounts for very little death and destruction compared to accidents, epidemics, and wars. Although due to its indiscriminate nature and excessive media coverage, it strikes and stuns public opinion. But itâs a comparative bee sting. Far more dangerous than Islamic terrorism is creeping Islamization from below, as moisture rots the walls.
On the contrary, Islamist violence paradoxically causes an âanti-Islamicâ backlash, raising awareness of the true nature of Islam and the danger of Islamization. Similarly, all the excesses of Muslims in France in their conquest phase (Dar al-Harb) are creators of awareness: identity claims, provocations, attacks, fully veiled women, riots, anti-Jewish atrocities, jihadist websites and blogs . . .
This is why the smart and cunning Arab-Muslims who want to gently conquer Europe (though immigration and demography) condemn all stupid âIslamistâ violence and all the provocations of fundamentalist and radical Islam. They see them as awkward and premature, counterproductive. Strategic and cunning calculation. Quite often, the denunciations of the slaughter of Westerners are crocodile tears.
Only the ignorant believe that there is a fundamental difference between Islam and Islamism. Itâs simply a matter of degree, phase, strategy of place and time in the struggle for conquest, jihad, which can take any form. Islam is a bloc. Intolerant of anything but itself, whether Sunni or Shiite. An Islam that is moderate or secular, or âcorrectedâ and updated, is an impossibility. It is a fantasy of naive Western sheep that fall into a trap, like Little Red Riding Hood falling for a wolf in disguise.
The Western strategy (under the direction the United States) of going to war or dropping bombs in Muslim countries to eradicate Islamist terrorists who threaten our homes â in order to create âdemocracy,â which is incomprehensible to these people â is total nonsense. We have no business in these countries.[1] This approach is counterproductive; it will lead to military stalemate and defeat as in Afghanistan and elsewhere. And increased fanaticism of the Muslim masses face of âcrusaders.â
The only sensible solution would have been a âcordon sanitaireâ: block any Arab-Muslim immigration into Europe and insure thorough internal security. From the moment beginning in the 1970s that millions of Muslims were allowed to settle in Europe (not counting other immigrants), the fox was in the henhouse.
Countless declarations of Muslim authorities in Europe and throughout the world, in perfect accord with Qurâanic exhortations, call for the conquest of Europe, especially France, for Sunni Islam. These calls have no commitment to violent Islamist jihad. They recommend a gradual acquisition of power, from the bottom, through demography and migration. France in their minds is destined to become Dar al-Islam (the domain of Islam). These calls and this goal are widely disseminated through the internet and many other channels to all Muslims in France and do not fall on deaf ears.
Two things are extremely worrisome: not only the numerical progression of native Europeans converted to Islam but, particularly in France, the Islamophilia of political and judicial authorities, of which many members of the media and cultural elites are unconscious accomplices. Islam acquires a privileged and protected status, and âIslamophobiaâ is not condoned by the âsecularâ state. While Christianophobia is ignored and Judeophobia repressed softly, especially depending on the religion of the guilty . . . This official Islamophilia syndrome is submission in advance, preparing the ground for widespread Islamization.
We note, therefore, an absolute contradiction between, on the one hand, the desperate efforts overseas, with military half-measures, to fight Islamist jihadism (which has been greatly aided by our stupid âArab policy,â as in Libya and Syria) or to try to track potential Islamist killers in France, and, on the other hand, the incredible encouragement given to the widespread and continuous Islamic colonization of France. This is schizophrenia.
Islamist attacks (which we will surely see) are, in the short term, a horrible thing. But they allow an awareness of the enemy. Far more terrible is the prospect, in the course of the 21st century, of the disappearance of France, its millennial identity, its being. Demographic projections, based on uncontrolled immigration and internal birthrates, are worrisome. Likewise for other European countries. For Islam ultimately tolerates nothing but itself. Unlike the carefree pusillanimity of Western ideologies, it has the following qualities and faults: memory, tenacity, intolerance, hypocrisy, patience and cunning, and violent fanaticism, open or concealed, simplistic dogmatic commitment to brutal domination. Its biggest weakness is that, like any elementary and ruthless hegemonic force, it fears retribution and easily retreats into cowardice and submission as soon as the balance of power is reversed.
The barbaric and murderous Islam of ISIS is not the sole cause of the martyrdom and extermination of Eastern Christians. Islam has been doing this for centuries. And the same fate could befall Christians in the West if though immigration we allow a Muslim majority, especially with the world-wide radicalization and fundamentalization of Islam. Cohabitation with another civilization or other beliefs is fundamentally unacceptable to Islam, except temporarily. Ultimately, we must submit or disappear.
The question is that of Carl Schmitt: who is the enemy? Not the adversary, that is to say, the competitor (e.g., the USA) but the enemy. The enemy is the one who threatens you and wants your destruction, your death, in the short or long term, even if you do not admit it; an adversary wants only to weaken you and win the game. We must have the courage to designate the primary enemy: âIslamic terrorismâ seems to be an illusion, or rather an avatar. An avatar of that which stands behind, inspires, and motivates it: Islam itself, in its ancestral truth.
To end on a positive note: in various ways, sociological and political, ethnic populations (especially in France) of the working classes, those in contact with reality and who have common sense, are showing a simmering revolt against Islamization and beyond, against controlled and uncontrolled immigration. Conversely intellectuals and elites of the mainstream media and political parties in power at the moment, have befuddled minds. This is good news. As long as it leads to the following conviction: the solution will not come through negotiations or by fantasies of âintegrationâ but through the simple slogan: de-Islamize France and Europe.
Each in his own place, according to good Aristotelian sense.
Subreddit
Post Details
- Posted
- 2 months ago
- Reddit URL
- View post on reddit.com
- External URL
- counter-currents.com/201...