Perspective

Getting it Right on Islam – Part III

We have to figure out that we are at war with Islam because Islam has always been at war with us. In that realization, face to face with the Enemy, we will also rediscover our own constitution, our true titanic ethos.

Some commentators on the Right have pointed out that Franklin Delano Roosevelt, who is often lauded by liberals, implemented an even harsher anti-immigration policy against Germans, Italians, and Japanese during the Second World War than Trump is proposing against Muslims. According to the logic of this comparison, Muslims-in-general stand in for Axis-power citizens because we are, presumably, at war with the Islamic State. In other words, the Caliphate of Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi is just what it claims to be: the embryonic form of an Islamic world state that implicitly demands allegiance from all good Muslims and does not recognize any political borders other than those between Dar al-Islam (the realm secured and pacified) and Dar al-Harb (the realm of perpetual war for the establishment of Islam). Most of those drawing this comparison are not prepared to defend that claim, but that is exactly what I have been doing [see Parts I and II of this essay]).

Trump’s policy is more correct than he knows, and to compare his proposal to FDR’s policy is perfectly legitimate, because we are at war with Islam. It is a war that was declared on us centuries ago. Actually, it was declared on the entire Aryan world – including Iran and India. The Persians were defeated and colonized, culturally and psychologically (not to mention by forced miscegenation), and then parasitically preyed upon to pass off the greatness of their science, poetry, art, and architecture as “Islamic”only after the Arabs failed to destroy and efface these – which is what they tried at first. Half of India, and its most Aryan half – the northern birthplace and bastion of pacifistic Buddhism – also fell to the invaders, who went on an idol-smashing rampage against the Buddhist heritage, an iconoclasm that the Taliban more recently revived in Afghanistan.

Only the Western Aryan world, namely Europe, was able to push these armies back through the defensive Crusades by the likes of the Knights Templar and the later campaigns against the Ottoman Turks on the part of heroes such as Vlad Dracula. Badly outnumbered, they were forced to resort to the most terrifying psychological warfare to turn back the world’s worst terrorists and carve out a “safe space” for the Italian Renaissance of the pagan arts and sciences before Islam nipped it in the bud. What we need now is another Dracula, a new Order of the Dragon.

The Koran calls for killing in the name of Islam’s just cause (25:68) and a fight to the death against unbelievers: “Those that make war against God and His apostle and spread disorder in the land shall be put to death or crucified or have their hands and feet cut off on alternate sides, or be banished from the land…Fight valiantly for His cause, so that you may triumph.” (5:33-35) The only unbelievers that are tolerated are dhimmis, or those who have been utterly subjugated by Muslims, have accepted their authority as legitimate, and pay them a hefty non-believers’ tax: “Fight against such of those to whom the Scriptures were given as believe neither in God nor the Last Day, who do not forbid what God and his apostle have forbidden, and do not embrace the true Faith, until they pay tribute out of hand and are utterly subdued.” (9:29) The Koran enjoins one to fight against unbelievers, who are evil-doers, because they are the Lord’s enemies and he does not love them: “Do not yield to the unbelievers, but fight them with this [Koran] most strenuously…Surely, the unbeliever is an enemy to his Lord.” (25:52,55) “God does not love the evil-doers.” (5:64) “He does not love the unbelievers.” (30:45) “God is mighty and capable of revenge.” (5:94)

Jihad is the duty of every able-bodied Muslim male. The Koran even explicitly chastises shirkers or would-be conscientious objectors inclined towards pacifism: “Fighting is obligatory for you, much as you dislike it. But you may hate a thing although it is good for you, and love a thing although it is bad for you. God knows, but you know not.” (2:216)

The attempt on the part of liberals to blur the line between Muslims outside our country, who do not enjoy the constitutional rights of citizens, and Muslims inside America may be an exercise in propaganda, but it also has more profound implications. Of course, Trump’s proposal is not unconstitutional because Muslims seeking to immigrate into the United States are not citizens who enjoy the rights enumerated by the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. However, we have to ask whether avowed Muslims inside this country ought to have their freedom of religion protected if the religion that they adhere to constitutes its own political system that would fundamentally endanger everything that this cornerstone of the Bill of Rights is intended to protect (even and especially for those with the courage to leave Islam): Freedom of Religion, Freedom of Speech, Freedom of the Press, and Freedom of Assembly. The Master’s Thesis that I wrote on Islam and Human Rights at New York University back in 2008 exposed the basic contradictions in liberal democratic political theory that this question reveals. (Suffice it to say, while it passed, I was punished in terms of a severely narrowed range of doctoral institutions that would welcome my further study of Philosophy.) The answer to this question reveals a supremely inconvenient truth, the one that catalyzed my eight-year trajectory from Left-wing liberalism to the New Right.

The First Amendment’s very idea of a state being politically “neutral” with respect to any and all religions is incoherent, especially when it is duly acknowledged that a religion consists not merely of opinion or belief but of fundamental convictions on ultimate matters. This would require a definition of the “state” as nothing more than “the political status of an organized people in an enclosed territorial unit.” In his seminal book The Concept of the Political, Carl Schmitt argues against this empty definition of the state, wherein the concepts of the “state” and the “political” are used to define each other in a circular and tautological manner. The political agency or “state” can only exist if it can compel its citizens to use violence against others and to sacrifice themselves in defense of the character or common ideals of their society. The state is defined by its holding such a monopoly of violence, and it exists only so long as no other social, economic, or religious force makes demands on its citizens to go out and kill or be killed for some other cause.

Islam introduces a division of the sovereign power in America, because the Koran is a competing constitution and Allah – as represented on Earth by the Caliph of an extra-territorial, trans-national state – is a rival of the secular sovereign. There has always been a Caliphate of one kind or another at war with some branch of Western civilization. The last incarnation of the Caliphate before the current Islamic State was the Ottoman Empire based in Turkey that was taken apart after the First World War. This is only yesterday in terms of the historical depth of the Muslim memory. I have even heard some liberals claim that the Ottoman Caliphate was relatively tolerant. They should talk to the descendants of dhimmis (subjugated non-Muslims) who lived under it in southeastern Europe. The Greeks and Romanians also have a long memory, and it is not an accident that Hungary is a bastion of resistance to the Muslim demographic invasion of Europe. But none of these words are really meant for anyone on the liberal-democratic or socialist Left. I have given up on them, and so have many other fellow apostates who are tired of being seen as “racist self-hating Muslims.”

The Daily Show, hosted until recently by Jon Stewart, is a mainstream media program representative of liberal democrats in this country. Its new host, Trevor Noah, just engaged in an on-air exchange with a political commentator in the course of which Donald Trump and his supporters were compared to the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria. Whatever one thinks of Trump, it is absolutely unacceptable to laugh and cheer while an equivalence is drawn between him and a movement that has implemented the strictest form of Sharia law – including slavery and the utter subjugation of women – while going on a rampage of rape and genocide of the Kurdish population. The Islamic State has also destroyed numerous World Heritage sites, from precious statues in northern Iraq to an entire Syrian city full of awe-inspiring monuments dating to the peak of Classical cosmopolitanism. Furthermore, this is yet another example of liberal democrats turning the ideological conflict between Western civilization and Islam into a racial conflict, and framing opposition to Islam as “racism” – the way that Bernie Sanders did a couple of weeks ago.

Our priority is a crushing defeat of this liberal-democratic enemy within, since it is this treasonous rot in our own house that has really rendered us most vulnerable to the enemy on our frontiers. Now I understand why people support Donald Trump. I am a native New Yorker who grew up in the kind of circles that make it clear who this fellow New Yorker is and what he isn’t. I am under no illusions about him (illusions of the kind that shamefully convinced me to vote for Barack Hussein Obama in 2008), and I think that the people who idolize Trump are pathetic.

But I get it now. Trump is the answer to those so-called “Americans” who are so hatefully ignorant of our incomparably great Western civilization that they think it is cute to frame opposition against him in terms of the hashtag “WHISIS” – just like those Black Lives Matter protestors who hash-tagged “fuckparis”. Donald Trump has my support, not because of what he is for but because of who he stands against. Not because he has the answers, but because his presidency will buy us the time and serve to carve out a sociopolitical space beyond PC censorship, which will allow more people to “figure out what the hell is going on” – to figure out that we are at war with Islam because Islam has always been at war with us. In that realization, face to face with the Enemy, we will also rediscover our own constitution, our true titanic ethos.

Also read: Getting it Right on Islam – Part I, Getting it Right on Islam – Part II

Leave a Reply

3 Comments on "Getting it Right on Islam – Part III"

Notify of
avatar
Sort by:   newest | oldest | most voted
JohnEngelman
Guest

Muslim countries have high birth rates and schools that teach little besides Islamic religious doctrine. Millions of young men enter stagnant economies that have little use for them. Many long for the attentions of 72 virgins in Paradise because they despair of being able to attract and support a wife on earth.

JohnEngelman
Guest

Everything liberals hate about the religious right and the Bible Belt is far more true of the Muslims they make excuses for and welcome to Europe and the United States.

jsigur
Guest
Well, I would be more impressed with Jason’s Islamaphobia if he balanced it out with the more problematic Talmudaphobia. I have read at least four or five articles of Jorjani and not heard him comment on the problems the Talmud poses for all non-Jews once. Then, add to that the clear reality of Jewish power, Jewish subversion and Jewish control of the media in order to make it seem like Jews don’t exist in any form other than victimhood status, and I must assume till otherwise, Jason is serving under a Jewish hand, because this Islamaphobia, though Jason paints it… Read more »