1,236 words
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.
1. We focus on the “Islamist” 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 “Islamic State.” 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 it’s a comparative bee sting. Far more dangerous than Islamic terrorism is creeping Islamization from below, as moisture rots the walls.
2. On the contrary, Islamist violence paradoxically causes an “anti-Islamic” 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 . . .
3. This is why the smart and cunning Arab-Muslims who want to gently conquer Europe (though immigration and demography) condemn all stupid “Islamist” 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.
4. Only the ignorant believe that there is a fundamental difference between Islam and Islamism. It’s 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 “corrected” 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.
5. 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 — in order to create “democracy,” which is incomprehensible to these people — 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 “crusaders.”
6. The only sensible solution would have been a “cordon sanitaire”: 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.
7. Countless declarations of Muslim authorities in Europe and throughout the world, in perfect accord with Qur’anic 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.
8. 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 “Islamophobia” is not condoned by the “secular” 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.
9. 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 “Arab policy,” 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.
10. 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.
11. 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.
12. 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: “Islamic terrorism” 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.
13. 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 “integration” but through the simple slogan: de-Islamize France and Europe.
Each in his own place, according to good Aristotelian sense.
Notes
1. Pity the Christians of the East, for whom France (and also Russia) was the protector. To prevent their massacre, an expeditionary force should have been sent to protect them. This was done — under Napoleon III. But even then, after the departure of the expeditionary force, muted persecution resumed as before. The only solution for the Middle East is a Christian state, separate and armed, on the Israeli model.
2. See report by Frédéric Pons in Valeurs Actuelles, No. 4061, 25/09-01/10/2014.
Source: http://www.gfaye.com/lislamisme-est-moins-dangereux-que-lislam/
9 comments
Faye appears to have devolved into some sort of neo-con, who believes that all Muslims are sleeper agents of the global Caliphate.
Muslims do not come to West to conquer it, they come because Western-globalist governments offer them benefits and Western-globalist corporations offer them jobs. Indeed the most virulent strain of Islam, Saudi Wahhabism, is backed by the dollars of the United States, and was backed earlier by the British Empire to destroy the Ottomans in World War I.
The enemy is not found in Iran, but in New York, London, and Tel Aviv.
He should go to Iran for a month.
1.- The rotten corpse of Europe is being savaged by non-european races and taking their culture with them. The problem is far more complicated and deep than any superficial analysis of Islam, Islamism, Arabism, ‘extremisms’ and all those liberal-loving ‘isms’.
2.- The burgoise and decadent culture is ‘fighting back’, degeneracy is fighting degeneracy. Sadly, our race needs to bleed a lot more before renewal, like a phoenix from the ashes will rise, if we dont rise and perish, we will do it because we proved ourselves not fit for the task at hand. The world is a cruel and hard place. All this alternative-right / identitarians are a bunch of crying babies or dumb jock-sniffing thugs. The only solution to the situation is the proper understanding of Shiism the aryanized version of Islam.
3.- The Arabs are the most pro-sionist and pro-usa and anti-shia and anti-aryan ethnic-political group in the whole africa-near east. They play a double card. They want to finish of once and for all the non-sunni islam.
4.- This statement is filled up with ‘sentimental charge’ Faye really needs to learn the basics of islam in the most neutral fashion posible, at least, read the “History of the Arabs” by Albert Hourani and Islam by David Waines. And several works of Henri Corbin and Sayyed Nasr.
5.- This statement shows the lack of depth of Faye intelectual analysis. Democracy is a weltanschuung, a Universal Ideology, religion, and way of life. The ‘best and one and only’ state the world has ‘ever know’. How does Faye think the ‘elites’ would otherwise work with it? Democracy is the ‘brute force’ of the modern decay. Fills everything everywhere. There’s no stop station for the freedom-force-rape train.
6.- You mean block all non-european immigration and re-integration to a pre-christian era of all the european-blood citizens, right? Oh, you want to go back to the worst and most degenerate form of christianism/catholicism? the guelf one? Oh Ok Faye.
7.- “Perfect accord with Qur’anic exhortations’ What is islamic school of thought and fiqh? what is the mutazila? what is the translation studiorum? Yeah, Faye really wants to live inside his bubble. There’s not “one islam” or “one sunna” or “one school of law”…. Faye, please, grab a book. Even evola in Metaphysics of War talks highly of the yihad in BOTH senses.
8.- Faye, you cant stop the flood with your hands, the only solution is to fight with arms or to fight with ideas sharp as a sword. You want to save europe from the Kali Yuga stage we are living on? Revitalice the best ‘heathenism’ and save all those willing to work with a Heathen Imperialism a la Evola or fill with ‘aryaness’ the only ‘worthy’ islam, that is twelver shia.
9.- Liberal countries fight non-alligned targets. Is it really that hard? Break up your monolithic point of view Faye.
10.- All abrahamic religion tolerate nothing but themselves.
11.- All the ‘book and revelation’ followers had been doing this for centuries.
12.- We are our own enemies, as individuals and as a race. we need to change that. We need to improve ourselves and fight like real intelectual soldiers. Counter-Currents is a great example of this fight.
Greg. You know I never comment this much on the site. Its hard for me to write my toughts in english. I’m anti abrahamic pagan but the jewish-like anti-islam is one of the things that the Right has to leave behind in order to improve.
Did you send ‘Notes on Moses’ to Faye? He really needs to catch up….
I could expand all the points a lot more but I lack the proper english-speaking skills yet. I completely understand everything but the construction of the sentences kills me.
Thank you for your time reading. Maybe I’m completely wrong. I dont think so, but I’m positive about the lack of intelectual depth and the femenine reaction of Faye.
I am impressed that Mr. Johnson is fluent enough in French to translate this not uncomplicated essay. The Muslim conquest is gradually occurring, in spite of seeming disadvantages such as significantly less resources and intellect. The conflict of Islam versus traditional Europe is, as I see it, a Darwinian struggle, a battle between two peoples with the deciding factor being each side’s level of Nietzschean “Will to Power”. The Muslims have a lot of it, and the native French lack it. Next to the committed Islamist fanatics, the French appear to be exhausted, spent.
There are a number of reasons for this, but I think the primary culprit is the loss of religious faith. Fanaticism and faith are both emotional attributes, that defy what we might see as logic and rational thought. The “logical” mind finds it difficult to understand, for example, why the warlords of ISIS would risk life and limb when they could probably live well and to a ripe old age somewhere if they chose. I am confident that the great majority of non-Muslim French would choose the latter if the battle was taking place in France.
This seems to be something that most of the WN intelligentsia miss, seeing religion/spirituality as unnecessary, a sham for the gullible. I think that the evidence shows that nations who have lost their faith lose their Will as well. The contrast between Charles Martel’s (or Joan of Arc’s) France in a time of faith and modern France is quite stRiki-Eiking. I liked Mr. Faye’s description of Islam’s qualities which are both faults and strengths, “tenacity, intolerance, hypocrisy, patience and cunning, and violent fanaticism”. In the Darwinian struggle these attributes are primarily powerful strengths. If France had a strong counter-faith, which was intolerant, tenacious and fanatical, Islam would not stand a chance in the nation.
Mr. Faye also mentions, “the numerical progression of native Europeans converted to Islam”. I see this as people seeking to fulfill a basic human need – authentic spirituality – which they were not raised with (bland, tired, effeminate forms of Catholicism do not offer spiritual sustenance to most). It is natural that humans are drawn to strength, confidence and virility, and Islam has these qualities.
To survive, a people needs more than just “logical” reasons for defending their civilization. They need a higher purpose that is sanctioned by a higher power. They need real emotional commitment, with a willingness to make real sacrifices. In a word, they need fanaticism.
It is not for lack of trying that Muslim armies failed to take Europe by conquest. In the 21st century they may come for handouts, but the caliphate is the gravy.
It is helpful not to think everyone who is revolted by the concept of Islamic Hordes in Western nations is some sort of neo-con stooge. There are those who know the greatest enemy is inside the walls and has been opening the gates to said Islamic Hordes.
How’s this for “a simple slogan”: de-Zionize Europe; de-Judaize America.
Yes, Jews and Muslims cooperated in conquering Spain. Muslims warriors would take a town and then leave a Jewish garrison to hold and administer it. They are cooperating again, though in a secret way.
I heard a Priest recommend becoming “brides of Christ” to his parishioners. This is an advanced form of bridal mysticism which few people will ever attain – thus inappropriate for a sermon. He should advocate becoming soldiers of Christ. That everyone can understand and try for. And if properly guided, this could save the West.
I think you are right. Men are supposed to be as feminine towards the church and submit to its authority whereas those who are in authority make men women. Actually, this leaves women as absolutely nothing if men take over the feminine role. Now I understand. The problem is when you have been considered nothing all of your life by the church, it comes as a revelation, that the church has nothing to offer women. One would think then, men who really do care about the women in their lives would object to this, both on their own merit as men and whatever relationship they have established with a woman. I read somewhere where the Basques when the inquisition came and took their women, they who were fishermen came back and defended them. I also read that women who knew they did not have a chance with the inquisition took their children and walked into the sea. Death before dishonour.
The Soul is feminine in relation to God. This includes both men and women. This should be seen as purely Transcendental – and not interfere with or be applied to a man’s earthly masculine personality. If it is made into a big deal, then normal men wont feel comfortable in church. And strange men and “empowered” women will take their place.
Hierarchy per se is normal and is found everywhere. It is normal for men take orders from other men. It’s problematic for men to take orders from women since women don’t respect men who are beneath them.
Comments are closed.
If you have a Subscriber access,
simply login first to see your comment auto-approved.
Note on comments privacy & moderation
Your email is never published nor shared.
Comments are moderated. If you don't see your comment, please be patient. If approved, it will appear here soon. Do not post your comment a second time.