Islamism is Less Dangerous than Islam

1,236 words

Islamism [1]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.


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: [2]