Macronism vs. Radical IslamRobert Hampton
Polish version here
French President Emmanuel Macron issued a declaration of war this month against radical Islam after a school teacher was stabbed to death for showing Muhammad cartoons to his class. “What we must attack is Islamist separatism,” Macron said earlier this month. The president emphasized that “secularism is the cement of a united France” and the nation must create an “Islam of France” that respects liberal values such as gender equality and free expression — at least the kind tolerated by the regime.
“Samuel Paty [the slain teacher] . . . became the face of the Republic, of our will to shatter terrorists, to (do away with) Islamists, to live like a community of free citizens in our country,” Macron said at the teacher’s funeral. “We will not give up cartoons, drawings, even if others back down,” he added.
Macron believes secular liberalism cannot tolerate Islamic fundamentalism and Muslims must conform to his ideology. But does secular liberalism, backed by a semi-authoritarian government, have what it takes to vanquish radical Islam? And is Macron’s vision something for the Right to cheer on, or to look on with horror?
Macron did back up his words with action. The government rounded up hundreds of suspected extremists and would deport over 200 of them. Over 50 Islamic nonprofits are under investigation for their ties to radicalism. The government also vows to end Islamic homeschooling and bar foreign imams from entering the country. French police also protected the projection of Charlie Hebdo’s infamous Muhammad cartoons onto government buildings, signaling to Muslims that they must tolerate this blasphemy.
Police stand guard as Charlie Hebdo cartoons of Muhammad were projected onto a town hall in Montpellier, France as a tribute to the history teacher who was beheaded by a Muslim refugee. In 2015, 12 people at Charlie Hebdo magazine were killed by jihadists. pic.twitter.com/yOmzUWZJtM
— Andy Ngô 🏳️🌈 (@MrAndyNgo) October 21, 2020
This hostility toward radical Islam outraged the Muslim world. Turkey, Iran, Pakistan, and other Muslim states have condemned Macron’s crackdown. “It is unfortunate that he has chosen to encourage Islamophobia by attacking Islam rather than the terrorists who carry out violence, be it Muslims, White Supremacists or Nazi ideologists,” said Pakistan Prime Minister Imran Khan. Muslims throughout the world are threatening to boycott French products until Macron apologizes and makes amends.
Macron seems unfazed by this response. There is something refreshing about this stance, even if it comes from a poster boy for globalism. For years, Western politicians have done nothing about Islamic extremists and would desperately appease them every time a terrorist attack occurred. They would say how much they stand with the “real Muslims” and how the attack’s primary victim is Islam. Consider how George W. Bush visited a mosque after 9/11 and fervently defended Islam as a “religion of peace.”
Macron, on the other hand, acknowledges that Islamism is a threat and must be dealt with. France cannot both have no-go zones and Charlie Hebdo. Macron is choosing the Left-wing satirical paper over unassimilated minorities. Marine Le Pen, Macron’s primary election challenger, is defending the president. “This situation calls for a strategy of reconquest,” Le Pen said in support of the crackdown. “Islamism is a bellicose ideology whose means of conquest is terrorism.” Both the nationalist and the liberal are now on the same side against radical Islam. This probably comes as a shock to liberals who fawned over Macron as the antidote to national populism. The French president now steals nationalist ideas. Macron’s ministers also exhibit a political stance atypical of globalists. His interior minister, Gerard Darmanin, says France has grown more “savage” and extreme force must be used to counter this effect. The education minister, Jean-Michel Blanquer, accuses the university system of enabling radical Islam with its promotion of intersectionality. Blanquer also believes this is a foreign import from America. “There is a struggle to be lead against an intellectual matrix which has come from American universities and intersectional theories . . . which are polar opposites to our republican model,” he said in a recent interview.
Can this model succeed against radical Islam? Maybe. Secular liberalism corrodes people’s culture wherever it takes root. The banlieues gravitate toward Islamic fundamentalism due to official state tolerance of their differences and their profound alienation from French society. They know they don’t belong in France and they do not want to become French. They turn to radical Islam to give themselves a strong identity within an alien environment. Immigrants know they can make more money in France and it’s less of a shithole than their homeland, but that’s it. They don’t love France.
Most Western liberals are ok with that — they don’t love their countries either. They fawn over exotic cultures and encourage multiculturalism to undermine national homogeneity and identity. However, Islamic fundamentalism is a bit different from immigrants refusing to speak the native tongue and honor national history. It refuses to stay in its ghetto and accept the rest of the Left-wing coalition. It encourages migrants to attack gays, “oppress” women, lash out at secularism, and plot terror attacks against manifestations of degenerate culture. It doesn’t accept the moral superiority of France’s blasphemous cartoons.
Western governments have previously left Islamists alone, but Macron is taking a different stance. He wants to use the full brunt of state power to make them conform to secular liberalism. It may succeed. Without tolerance for difference, Muslims may just become deracinated “Frenchmen” just like the indigenous French. France has tried for years to make them conform, but a more aggressive campaign may do the trick.
This isn’t necessarily a good thing, though. Macron’s goal is to eradicate minority identities and force them into the liberal framework, as they have done with the French. This makes it very different from American “intersectionality” which encourages minority identitarianism while denying majority identitarianism. Everyone has to be the same, whether you’re white or brown, Christian or Muslim. In this scenario, French identity is defined by its blasphemous cartoons and gay rights, not by its people or traditional culture. It’s more Francis Fukuyama than Jean-Marie Le Pen.
While Macron claims to defend the right of free expression, his government persecutes people for the crime of free expression. Marine Le Pen has faced hate crimes charges for statements similar to her comments in support of Macron’s crackdown. Popular commentator Alain Soral was recently arrested for inciting “racial hatred” and previously served a jail sentence for questioning the Holocaust. Meanwhile, the state musters all of its power to defend the Left-wing Charlie Hebdo’s right to offend Muslims. The difference here is that Le Pen, Soral, identitarians, and other dissidents actually challenge the regime — Charlie Hebdo supports the regime. “Free speech for me, but not for thee” indeed.
Macron is an authoritarian liberal. His liberalism is not the weak mush of the Democratic Party that enables rioting and rampant black criminality. Macron will target the enemies of the Republic, whether they’re Muslim immigrants or French nationalists. The American Left only wants to target white people and is fine with disorder. Macron has zero tolerance for disorder.
But his values are no different from American Democrats. He wants his citizenry to accept a multicultural, multiracial France. Liberal values make France France, not its people or traditions. Anyone can be French, so long as they respect Cuties and blasphemy. This is the same pablum American liberals and cuckservatives promote and it’s what all true right-wingers oppose.
It cannot ultimately win. People are more than economic machines. No one will die to defend a cartoon, but people will die (and kill) for their faith.
If you want to support Counter-Currents, please send us a donation by going to our Entropy page and selecting “send paid chat.” Entropy allows you to donate any amount from $3 and up. All comments will be read and discussed in the next episode of Counter-Currents Radio, which airs every weekend on DLive.
Don’t forget to sign up for the twice-monthly email Counter-Currents Newsletter for exclusive content, offers, and news.
The Fabulous Pleven Boys
Žluté vesty zviditelnily tu nejfrancouzštější část Francie
A “Novel” Approach to the Understanding of Evil
Charles de Gaulle a válka v Alžírsku
Forgotten Roots of the Left: Fichte’s Moral & Political Philosophy, Part II
The Populist Moment, Chapter 12: Liberty — Equality — Fraternity: On the Meaning of a Republican Slogan
Russian Eurasianism: Its History & Core Ideas
Ian Kershaw’s Personality & Power
Hoping to integrate the Muslims into France through deracination is a recipe for disaster, as it this very deracination they are rebelling (and hence becoming “radicalized”) against. This strategy only works on White people because they are not allowed to have an identity that is true to them and which they can fall back on. Every other race and ethnic group will consciously rebel against liberalization after they feel its effects.
Of course, this varies by degrees depending on the ethic groups and the individuals within them. You might have the “moderate Muslim” father who wants his daughter to get her PhD, but that’s only to make her more “marriageable”, not out of any sense of women’s rights. This same “moderate Muslim” father will still attend mosque every Friday and will always stand on the side of Muslim radicals over Western “liberal” moderates when push comes to shove.
France needs immigrants more than immigrants need France, so there is only one way that will turn out. And it ain’t good for secular liberalism.
How exactly does France, or any other western nation need immigrants?
France has an aging population and not enough young people to support the old.
Same story in every European nation.
Not a single European nation NEEDS immigrants.
France has an aging population and not enough young people to support the old.
Good thing immigrants never get old, then. And that they pay more taxes than they take out of the system.
Immigrants reproduce, unlike Europeans.
So, what you’re saying is that as the White populations of Europe and North America die off, immigrants from every Third World backwater should be moving in. So, it’s a slow-moving suicidal path for us (Whites) all from now on? I’m too old to join the fight full force, but I will definitely spend my last years fighting any way I can. But it’s depressing to read that our younger people — you — actually think we need immigration. Makes me want to weep.
The hysteria about ageing populations is overblown. Economies no longer require hordes of young, unskilled labour to prosper. In fact, there are many social advantages that come with having a more mature population.
And even if a younger population was desirable, the most sustainable way to achieve this is through policies which encourage a higher native birth rate.
Mass immigration is not necessary for economic, social or environmental sustainability. In fact, it works against all three.
An elderly population that never reproduced has no future. They might as well be gay. And European welfare states specifically need young people in order to keep their benefits.
Of course the best thing would be to incentivize the few young Europeans to start families, but that ain’t happening.
Quite right. Plus, many Europeans are not really “old” – ie, 80+. Why can’t a man in his 70s, at least if in fair health, work? Maybe he cannot do backbreaking manual labor, but vast hordes of US immigrants do millions of low wage jobs that are NOT manual labor. The fact is that social democratic welfare states, including the US, wherein people are living longer and healthier than in the past, need to raise their old age benefits eligibility ages. Many Europeans retire at 60! I read somewhere some years ago that if the US Social Security age at first receipt were simply raised to a uniform 70, there would be no long term insolvency crisis.
I don’t know who exactly came up with this fox-in-the-hen-house “remedy” that people like yourself started parroting, but be assured, when it was pitched to colleagues at the weekly culture-wreckers meeting you can bet they all guffawed their fucking yarmulkes off.
Maybe the old, those like me who failed to do their racial duty and reproduce, can simply be expected to accept a lower standard of living instead? Also, don’t the old have savings (maybe not, to be fair, in socialist looter countries like France … and soon, America)?
Bringing in alien immigrants to finance old age pensions is not only immoral; it’s nothing more than a social Ponzi scheme.
Spoken like a jew. Say hi to Barbara for us, will you?
How does France need immigrants?
You have to be a part of the chosen ones in order to understand. Without immigrants France will not survive.
France needs more French births (and of course repatriation of foreigners). Cartoons of Muhammad are not essential for its survival.
“France needs immigrants because of an ageing population”
I have asked this question to numerous proponents of this talking point and none of them ever manage to provide an adequate answer – It is true that many European nations have an ageing population, but why are the shithole countries these immigrants are coming from not developed despite their large youth? Is it perhaps because the quality of the people is different and the non-ageing population of Niger or Pakistan simply cannot create a welfare state society because the people are incompetent and their populations have lower human capital?
Personally I would rather my race just dies off and risk an economic collapse as opposed to having invaders replacing my people and turning my society from a developed one to a third world one.
One protected class targeting another protected class can only be a good thing. It’ll be interesting to see if Macron can sustain the political will to engage in a prolonged fight with a group that he, up until now, literally let get away with murder.
“Diversity” is a cancer, and Moslem “diversity” is the most virulent cancer of all. Why does France need immigrants? To beef up the welfare state, say those who, like you, advocate “diversity” through immigration. The fact, is, however, that Moslem immigrants, being work-shy and low intelligence, cost considerably more to France’s welfare state than they contribute. If you have a low birthrate, you have a problem; if you have a low birthrate and Moslem immigration, you don’t have the solution to the first problem; you have two problems.
What are the chances that all of this emphasis on Islam is just a way to get the infrastructure in place to track down and attack the Yellow Vests?
Some news reports in the French media suggest the Chechen refugee who bumped off this Voltaire had contacts with Salafi militants fighting in Syria against Bashar Al Assad. Now, if this is true then this may be a joint operation facilitated by elements within French intelligence to create a diversion for sheeple. Also, Macron can now steal some nationalist clothes.
Erdogan has been flexing muscles in the Mediterranean treating the French and Greek concerns with utter disdain. And how does Macron respond? By portraying himself as some sort of a defender of (((Western Civilization))) whose brain produces stupid and infra-intellectual ideas like ‘Islam of France’ which accommodates sodomy and ‘gender-equality’.
Sunni militancy and their globohomo Western Military-Intelligence allies have been scrambling for the last 10 years. Shias have crushed (western backed and funded) Sunni arrogance whereas the (((Western political elite))) has desperately been trying to keep the home front from falling into the hands of justifiably angry Nativist and Kinist forces.
If hitherto pliant Sunni agents embedded in Western Europe turn rogue and decide to dare their friends for a duel then, given the degenerated, effeminate, and hedonistic nature of host societies, the result would be catastrophic and may result in independent Muslim majority enclaves where natives would be required to get permission for entrance.
Remember, this time around they are not at the gates but well inside.
There is no need for the Muslims to humiliate the natives by making them get permission to enter their area, there will be intimidation and aggression in the part of the Muslims of course but they won’t create independent enclaves, that would give the game away.
Out of curiosity, what is your background? I have been finding your comments to be most interesting.
I have Indo-Iranian ancestry.
One interesting little tidbit I noticed with the ongoing Multicultural Civil War in France (which is what this is), is that whenever the French attack Islam for being Islamic, they refer to it as “Islamo-Fascism,” which is an almost equally absurd neologism as “Islamophobia.” By calling Muslim militants “Islamo-Fascists,” they are in a very roundabout way putting the blame not on Muslims and their faith, but on authoritarian white society. It’s truly pathetic. All these liberals and social democratic people have as a mythology is World War 2, and everything that’s bad has to somehow be equated with National Socialist Germany or Fascist Italy. If France had Franco-Fascism today, it wouldn’t be having these issues, but this truth is lost on most Europeans.
Only the commands of the Quran speak for Islam, not any individual Islamist, liberal, moderate or otherwise.
The Quran is a book of COMMANDS, not pleas. It COMMANDS the faithful to convert the infidel by the word if possible, but the sword if necessary.
All the Islamist “moderates” in the world will not nullify the commands of the Quran.
Ultimately France will be lost without a resurrection of national pride similar to that tried once in a neighboring country… Macron’s reaction is not enough, certainly, but it’s a commendable improvement.
L’affaire Paty sets what could be a dangerous precedent. The same line of reasoning president Macron is using to suppress Radical Islamism can be employed against White Nationalists. All it will take is one incident where a WN (or reasonable facsimile thereof) shoots up a mosque or whatever and the state will use the attack as an excuse to swing the big hammer against the Dissident Right.
We have seen such come down in several countries since Charlottesville ’17.
Let’s note the growing encroachments against Free Speech in recent years, a direct product of the state enforcing the diktats of multicultic society. Add to this the de-platformings, shadow bans and de-financializations. And the criminalization of nationalist politicians in various European countries. Not to mention the encroachments on the Right to Bear Arms.
The threat posed by radical Islam is not the occasional jihadist who runs amok with a sharp edged weapon. There are automobile accidents which cause more mayhem. The threat is in the fundamental changes in culture and genetic pools caused by the presence of large third world populaces in White homelands.
Frodi Midjord commented in a recent podcast that people in the West are increasingly realizing that life is going to be worse for themselves and their children. A country where the French people have been replaced by third worlders is no longer France no matter how many smiling faces there are in the classroom or public square.
Radical Islamism is a tactical threat. The strategic threat is with the the Western world’s globalized hostile elites.
There is no such thing as “radical islam” “islamists” “islamism” etc. There is just ISLAM. It is incompatible with Western civilization. It is unchangeable.
To solve the endless decapitations, bombings, knife attacks, truck attacks, machine gunning, and every other method they use to obliterate us the infidels, we must remove all followers of islam from our countries. Period. There is no other workable solution.
Until I hear that they are being removed, there is no point in reading more hopeful drivel.
Correction: ALL nonwhites must be removed from ALL European nations. And for nations like the USA, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and South Africa – nations built by whites on mostly unpopulated territories which did, however, have indigenous nonwhite predecessor populations – we must carve out all-white ethnostates. Never lose sight of ultimate objectives.
You, people are dreamers. Nice dream, though. Why don’t you, why don’t we stick to some practical solution – seeking?
The beheadings were a response to the Hebdo cartoons disparaging. Macron, the Rothschild puppet, chose this moment, when his popularity at a nadir in France to associate France with the denigration of Islam. Too many on the right have reflexively backed Macron, a globalist who has waged war on the interests of the French working class.
You are perfectly right, but unfortunately it is too late.
Islam has been carefully designed to thwart exactly the kind of accommodations with secular society that Macron is hoping to build into it.
The entire point of Islam is that it is society which must always and invariably conform to Islam, not the other way around.
True Islam is literalist, absolutist, and despotic to a degree that Westerners have difficulty fully grasping. Any possibility of reform as we would understand it was anticipated and carefully weeded out by generations of Islamic scholars in the Middle Ages.
Islam has defeated much smarter challengers than Emmanuel Macron.
There is also a Polish version here:
Comments are closed.
If you have Paywall 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.
Edit your comment