Don’t Tread on Dhimmi:
The Alt-Right Guide to Islam
In the aftermath of failures to manage diversity in Paris and San Bernardino, cucking for Islam is now in vogue among the signaling classes. After all, not all Muslims are terrorists, and as a designated oppressed group—a group identified as a permanent victim in Western society and therefore morally authoritative over indigenous Whites and encouraged to rent-seek—they apparently require White liberal apologists to champion their cause.
Siding with Middle Easterners/Muslims or any non-white group on the basis of their otherness is not new; since at least the 1960s, the ((((new left)))) has primarily championed ethnic or gender based conflict over class conflict as the engine of progress and liberation. This grew out of the international ideological and physical struggle over decolonization, but in the contemporary absence of colonies to side with against metropoleis, the conflict comes home, especially for so-called nations which practice multiculturalism. Here we witness a vibrant coalition of White leftists, overseas Israelis and other minorities organized as a bloc in the name of abstract principles, ethnocentric interests and gibsmedats against the receding White majority. In the wake of repeated diversity containment failures, standing with Islam takes on new urgency for signaling liberals because more and more people are becoming xenoskeptic about foreigners and heathens, as exemplified by the political successes of The Unstumpable One. The coalition’s most other members, Muslims, have come under intense scrutiny by the Trvmpenkrieg, and despite them being electorally worthless, liberals feel obliged to defend kebab. But of everyone to cuck for, why Muslims?
Relating to Islam in the Postmodern West: Victimhood, Altruism and the Primacy of Color
A majority of both parties feel threatened by Islamic extremism, though most Democrats appear to believe it isn’t the fault of Islam that Muslims are violent (they may actually be right for the wrong reasons). If you are looking for a cause to support in Western countries that will truly show how brave you are in the face of terror, it’s Islamic apologism. Don’t give into the ((((politics of fear)))). I mean, “Daesh” wants you to be afraid of Islam, right? That’s why you shouldn’t even call them the Islamic State. Don’t let the terrorists win! We must be brave and continue to welcome the Afro-Islamic Völkerwanderung. For an anti-racist progressive who thinks Whiteness and Christianity are a blight on our big happy human family, taking the side of such a disliked class of people is irresistible. There are so many bigots for her to rack up points against by signaling how brave she is for defending this designated oppressed group. #IllRideWithYou
The second reason why Islam is so great to signal on behalf of is that Muslims won’t return the favor, establishing the signaler as a true altruist. Their ingroup morality doesn’t reward infidels, a lot like another group of desert-dwelling volcano worshipers. You can champion Islam and turn a blind eye—as well as try to blind others—to the demographics of terrorism as much as you want, but Muslims don’t have to embrace you. A great example of this phenomenon is the famous ((((feminist)))), (((((queer theorist)))) and ((((critical theorist)))) known as ((((Judith Butler)))), who once described Hamas and Hezbollah as “social movements that are progressive, that are on the Left, that are part of a global Left.” I can’t help but feel that a jewish lesbian would be thrown off a building if she found herself living in their world. The frog can ferry the scorpion across the pond if he chooses, but it is in the scorpion’s nature to sting and thus drown them both. The liberal frog knows it did the right thing though. What could be more altruistic than supporting a people who did not ask for your help, will not be reciprocating it, and may actually be dangerous? Therefore, to cuck for Muslims is one of the most selfless things a degenerate leftist can do.
Finally, there is the issue of Muslims being a third world population, something the new left idolizes as authentic in its struggle against oppression and for liberation. Again, think of the archetypal contemporary ((((leftist academic)))), (((((Judith Butler)))). Muslims in the United States are like an internal colonial people resisting oppression for the left to side with against the ‘racist, imperialist, white supremacist’ establishment (which no longer exists and actually works to bring them here by the hundreds of thousands). Yet, the colonized have no love for their colonizers; in most cases they harbor resentment. Westerners who supported the decolonization of African and Asian territories got nothing in return from those territories as thanks; their inhabitants wanted Whites expelled and purged from their countries. (And some of their descendants would end up migrating to Europe and North America so they could continue to be oppressed under a functioning White government with jobs and welfare.) What cucks did get was the approval of other White people, which is the objective of social signaling as a means of raising social capital and standing among one’s peers. What really did South Africa and Rhodesia in was their abandonment by Europe and Anglo-America, not the grumbling of the Non-Aligned Movement. Any perceived approval from colonial peoples was not so much actual approval as it was the mirth of victory. That same phenomenon of phishing for approval for morally correct opinions about our dispossession is now playing out inside our own borders.
For leftists, there are strong pull factors to side with Muslims in the event of any Muslim attack on our society—designated oppressed groups are morally superior because of their sacred victimhood and since they are so disliked they need protection from society. But what conservatives and the alt-right are left scratching their heads over is the dromedary camel in the room: “Didn’t any of you notice the push factors?” There are a lot of good reasons not to cuck for Islam, which Muslims are pretty transparent about if you read what they have to say. Let’s review what those are ideologically, to say nothing of the impact of Muslim terror acts on our conclusion, which are known and ignored by liberals anyway in their quest for context denial.
Islam is Neither Ecumenical with Other Faiths nor at Peace with Secularism
When people argue against the under appreciated motif of “Islam is incompatible with modern/Western society,” they might as well be saying that our society means nothing. Over a thousand years of separate cultural and geopolitical developments and population differences are just gone because reasons. The Islamic theology behind the conflict with the West is either not even grasped or just ignored entirely. The alt-right and even some of the normie right are not irrationally ‘Islamophobic’ but reasonably skeptic. It is the left that is irrationally afraid of giving up their tactical nihilism regarding the meaning of the world’s religions. Diversity is real, even if it isn’t particularly valuable to us.
Islam, unlike most Western forms of organized religion, has an agenda against existing subordinate to the secular state—their world never had Westphalia. There is seldom peace with other denominations, and wherever mass Islam and populist democracy exist there is an Islamic government. Because Islam is as much of a political system as it is a creed, they cannot be separated in most cases. And most Muslims don’t want them to be—they favor sharia, or Islamic law. They don’t do Constitution-worship or ‘rights,’ at least not in the sense that we have them. Muslims have more rights than non-Muslims in an Islamic country, the complete opposite of how minorities are delicately handled in Western countries. In the aftermath of Islamic terror attacks, liberals want to give Muslims with blood on their hands the benefit of the doubt even though they were merely following the traditional interpretation of their religion—war over peace and church over state.
Muslims are not uniquely warlike or devout, but they don’t have to be for us to find a conflict of interest between identity-driven bellicosity and secular postwar democracy, assuming we want to keep our secular postwar democracy (which the left mostly does). While I am no expert on Islamic theology and jurisprudence, I certainly know more than my rival non-Muslim but pro-Muslim polemicist, archetypically a 26-year-old pansexual Seattle barista with a degree in postcolonial studies and a shelf of ((((Chomsky)))) books, who is a future member of the Catlady Ascendancy and invariably an ardent champion of the rights of the designated oppressed. And even if I don’t, I have enough agency to read up on Islam using sources other than Occupy Democrats or Huffington Post. It’s honestly a fascinating religion, and I think it would be best that it continues to be fascinating somewhere far away from me.
The simple fact of the matter is that Islam was born of war against non-Muslims, its theology teaches Muslims to make war and discriminate against non-Muslims, and its history encourages Muslims to follow in the footsteps of Islamic warriors before them, thus providing enduring inspiration to commit violence in the name of the great snackbar in the sky. Against us. Meanwhile, the interpretation of Islam that liberals incorrectly believe is dominant around the world—so-called moderate Islam—is one practiced by upper-class, college-educated Westernized Muslims who treat their religion like average White liberal Catholics treat theirs. But even those moderates can become “radicalized.”
There is a huge problem of understanding here, and while true believers in the innocence of designated oppressed groups are unlikely to recant when presented with evidence, our own side should be rhetorically equipped with a powerful counter-narrative to the idea that Islam is just like any other religion but with third world flavor text. The text actually matters. So let’s learn some Arabic, the language of algebra and al-Qaida.
Sharif Don’t Like It: Words Every Kafir Should Know
Dhimmi — This would be you in an ideal Islamic world. A non-Muslim citizen of an Islamic country is called a dhimmi. Since Islam is both a religion and a method of political organization, it contains rules for governing conquered infidel populations, which would have made up the majority of the “Islamic” world in its early days of expansion. Historically, dhimmis paid a higher punitive tax, called jizya, for the privilege of being allowed to live under an Islamic state as a second-class infidel. Convert or die had a loophole—turn over your shekels on a regular basis. It’s why places like Greece and Serbia are still Christian after hundreds of years of Muslim rule and why you can still find native Christian minorities in Egypt, Lebanon, and Palestine. In the contemporary Islamic world, charging higher taxes on non-Muslims is no longer practiced since that’s a tough human rights violation to maintain if these countries want to participate in international organizations and forums chaired by Europeans and Americans, who ostensibly care about ‘human rights.’ Less difficult to pull off is generic persecution of and discrimination against religious minorities, which can be easily found in places like Saudi Arabia and Egypt. And Rotherham. Dhimmitude survives in spirit—though not as strictly as it was historically—anywhere Muslims oppress non-Muslims, which is to say anywhere Muslims are a majority. The only place where ‘Golden Age’ dhimmitude is practiced is the Islamic State, which makes Christians who refuse to flee or convert pay jizya. But don’t be fooled, kafir. Muslims didn’t give up their right to treat non-Muslims as second-class citizens because they wanted to—égalité was a value of the European colonizers foisted upon them, much like anti-slavery.
I would argue that when the Afro-Islamic Völkerwanderung comes to our lands, they bring dhimmitude (along with other Islamic concepts) with them, just as all immigration brings varieties of cultural enrichment. The arrogance with which many overseas Muslims dismiss our culture and civilization and expect to be treated well is telling of how we are conceived of as future dhimmis. Britain’s Anjem Choudary comes to mind. In some ways, we are already dhimmis in the contemporary West. Our jizya taxes go towards resettling Muslim colonists and expensive counter-terrorism programs necessary to manage diversity, while our opposition to Muslim immigration and ‘refugees’ is largely ignored or pathologized by establishment politicians. French novelist Michel Houellebecq’s recent novel, Submission, describes a world in which a degenerate France ends up taken over by an alliance of leftists with the nation’s growing Muslim population in order to block nationalists from being elected to power. Dhimmitude is just around the corner if Muslims have their way, and I would never put it past the left to ally with an alien people to counter nationalism. Antifa welcomes dhimmi status if it means no more White privilege.
Taqqiya — This is one that many are familiar with and one that, ironically, Muslims will deny at every opportunity. Mainstream Muslim jurists say taqqiya is something a Muslim can do to defend his faith under persecution, but let’s just call this what it is, a codified form of dual morality. It’s okay to lie to infidels if telling the lie advances the interests of Muslims. That’s the rule. Isn’t that great? That interest could be saving one’s skin before a religious inquisition, telling the infidels that Islam is a religion of peace, denouncing terror attacks only because you fear reprisals from the infidels, etc. Really makes you wonder about those ‘moderate Muslims’ that are always squawked about after an Islamic attack, though. Once you make it clear your code of ethics allows you to deceive outgroups for your benefit, why would any non-cucked individual trust you? People who are cucking for Islam need to realize that what immigration you permit is a lot like choosing a roommate; is this really something we want tossed into our already dysfunctional, heterogeneous society? A religious and often ethnic minority with a dual morality and supremacist attitudes?
Jihad — This is another concept that everyone has heard of and one that Islamic apologists and jurists will attempt to explain away with Semitic semantics. The narrative is that jihad just means “struggle” and that those evil terrorists who have no religion have stolen or misappropriated this concept in a way that stains the reputation of Islam. Struggle can basically mean anything since it’s so subjective, so don’t even worry about what jihad means because it don’t matta.
In actuality, defining jihad as non-violent is the shallow and obfuscating interpretation, not the other way around. The original “struggle” of Mahomet was against the infidels of Mecca and Medina who did not embrace his own original monotheism. Subsequently, Muslims would struggle against the Persians, the Byzantines, the Egyptians, the Berbers, the Visigoths, the Franks, the Sicilians, the Africans, the Afghans, the Indians, the Greeks, the Venetians, the Serbs, the Hungarians the Bosnians, the Croats, the Albanians, the Romanians, the Russians, the Israelis and so forth. Those poor struggling Muslims. Make no mistake, jihad is war against the infidel, which is indeed a struggle as it is a contest of arms. I don’t see how it could possibly not be recognized as a form of jihad—if not the Platonic form of jihad—by anyone aware of any history at all. I will accept that at least some Muslims are sincere when they say that jihad is not inherently war and primarily means one’s daily struggle to live religiously. But I will have to call taqqiya on the notion that war is not a well-practiced form of jihad. The geopolitical history of the Mediterranean suggests otherwise.
Dar al-Islam and Dar al-Harab — Generally speaking, these refer to places under Islamic rule (the House of Islam) and places under non-Islamic rule (the House of War). Ooosh. Looks like we live somewhere destined to be conquered by the followers of the prophet Mahomet. Now, if we lived in a less cucked society, like 8th-century France, 17th-century Habsburg Austria or 21st-century Hungary, stopping the encroachment of Islam into our lands would be considered a national priority. It is something that would very easily stopped with some backbone and self-interest.
The Muslim concepts of the House of War and the House of Islam need to be memorized by every Western policymaker. The goal has always been to expand the House of Islam into the House of War. Even without any fancy theological trimmings, this is just basic territorial behavior, something the West has been neutered of since WWII. If German Lebensraum was such a great evil, what of non-negotiable Islamization? A population cannot survive where it currently exists by renouncing its claims to its own territory. Open borders with the Muslim world is basically an invitation to the House of Islam to annex the House of War. We have ceded control of our lands to whoever wishes to occupy them. Conquest will happen if nothing is done. Muslim populations are younger and more fertile than European ones, and so long as it is better to live in Europe (or Anglo-America) than it is to live in the Middle East and minimal effort is required to conquer, they will continue to trek north. The Moors and the Turks were stopped with a violent reassertion of central authority on the behalf of European states bordering them, whether it was the Frankish army at Tours or the Holy Roman-Polish armies at Vienna. Today the central authorities of Europe and Anglo-America, rather than defending their territories, choose to chastise anyone who dares bolt the gates shut to invasion. The defenders do not consider themselves at war and cannot win in the long-run if this persists.
I recognize that not all Muslims in the bag of vibrancy are poisoned. Some don’t care about their religion enough to inform their decisions and political views from it. But enough do, and furthermore we have no meaningful obligation to let in every single one that that wants to enter our lands. Indeed, much of Western history from 700 to 1700 was about resisting, halting and beginning to roll back the high tide of Islamic invasion. Some places, such as Bosnia, Albania, Asia Minor, North Africa, and the Levant were never permanently recovered. History seems like a million years ago to the deracinated Homo economicus, but it is much closer than that to those with a sense of identity, be they Muslim or nationalist. This stuff matters. What Muslims believe matters. What their scriptures say matters. How our society will change from immigration matters. Our future matters.
I hope I have made it clear that Islam practices a dual morality and that leftists are foolish, anti-white or both for siding with Islam against Western civilization. Cucking for Muslims is perhaps the highest form of cucking there is owing to Muslim dual morality—you get no reciprocal treatment for supporting them. I should clarify that I am not against dual morality per se as an ingroup survival strategy. It works quite well. What I am against is when Whites refuse to take their own side in a conflict and align themselves with an anti-white religious tradition that has such a blatant dual morality against the outgroup, to the point of exploiting that outgroup for its own enrichment. In fact, if our survival necessitates we abandon the universalism we’ve cultivated since the Enlightenment and embrace a wholly tribal worldview like most other peoples have historically and continue to do so, then that must be the synthesis of the cuck thesis and the jihadist antithesis. We need to take our own side.