[this analysis was written for the Unz Review]
When I wrote my recent article “Deconstructing Islamophobia” I expected a rather outraged reaction from the usual circles, but I have to admit that the actual level of outrage and even pure rage really surprised me. In fact, I never realized that hatred for, and fear of, Islam had reached such a level, especially in the USA. From time to time I write something which really rattles the cages of those who like their reality simple, black and white, and who have a profound aversion for analysis, nuance or any form of complexity. But I have to admit that the article on Islamophobia is probably the one which resulted in the most hysterical outbursts of a weird kind of impotent rage. I therefore want to revisit this topic and give the other side a chance to respond to some of the absolutely unavoidable questions which western Islamophobia at least should elicit in the thinking person. Here are a few questions to which I would love to hear some fact based or logically developed answers.
But first, let’s make a few key assumption purely for argument’s sake.
- Islam is a religion of violence, it was spread with violence and it condones violence, including for religious reasons. In fact, Islam encourages violence in its followers.
- Islam is a medieval and barbaric religion. It is completely incompatible with western values.
- Immigrants from Muslim countries represent a clear and present danger for western societies and if their number exceeds a certain percentage they can take over a western society and impose their religious values including Sharia law.
Now, I think that even the most rabid Alt-Righter is at least vaguely aware that Islam has several schools of jurisprudence and theological interpretation, even if, by our definition, these schools are all equally “bad”. Which brings me to my first question for my detractors:
The question of discrimination
From their own words, it appears that Islamophobes have come to the conclusion that all this talk of different “strains” of Islam is totally useless and potentially self-deceiving. The truth is, at least according to the Islamophobes, that all of Islam is evil and dangerous, maybe with some minimal variations here and there, but only on the margins. Okay, if I take the point of view of the Latin Papacy towards what they called the “Photian Schismatics” (aka Orthodox Christians), there are three “solutions” the Latins came up with to “solve” the Photian Schism:
- Convert 1/3rd of the Orthodox Christians
- Expel another 1/3rd of the Orthodox Christians
- Murder the remaining 1/3rd of the Orthodox Christians
Since the Latin Papists are probably the most advanced and experienced “genociders” (not sure if that is English or not) in history, let’s apply their wisdom to the “Islamic problem” and offer the same “solutions”:
- Convert 1/3rd of 1.8 billion Muslims
- Expel 1/3rd of 1.8 billion Muslims
- Murder 1/3rd of 1.8 billion Muslims and, just to cover our bases
- any combination and ratio of the three solutions above
Yes, genocide, as a concept, was invented by the Papacy which was also the first to engage in it.
True, the leaders of the West never hated Islam as much as they hated Orthodoxy – hence their recurrent “ecumenical war coalitions” à la “Crimean War” or à la “NATO War Against the Serbian Nation”
So much for the so-called “Christian West”…
Now if that is our plan, then I suggest that discrimination between the various Muslim groups would be absolutely crucial. If you really and sincerely believe that you can convert, expel and/or murder 1.8 billion Muslims then I would like to also sell you a few bridges in prime locations on our beautiful planet, really. In fact, I would also offer to sell you the Moon, Mars and Venus for one cheap price since, truly, you apparently have no ability to think critically. Because, let’s be honest here, anybody with a minimal knowledge of history would immediately see that this plan is simply not doable, regardless of how much hatred one has for Islam and Muslims.
I submit that whether you hate Islam or not, the ability to discriminate between various “strands” of Islam (which is one of the things I have always advocated) is crucial irrespective of whether you think that Islam is a religion of peace or a religion of war.
So here is my first question: are you seriously advocating taking on and declaring your intention of aggressively dealing with a religion which has a total potential of 1.8 billion people closing ranks and resisting your aggression?
Next, comes the question of positive values
This is another basic and simple one. If you condemn Islam or even oppose it vs some western values, you should at least have a rough list of such western values which you want to defend and in the name of which you will oppose Islam in general and the potential actions of Muslim immigrants in the West. I mean, you cannot at the same time declare that Islam is “homophobic” AND declare that you are defending the values of the “Christian West”. Likewise, you cannot ban Sharia law for corporal punishment AND support torture in your own jails. Finally, you most definitely cannot accuse Islam of advocating the crushing of pluralism and free speech when you yourself use all the power of the state and the power of the corporations (which, in reality, own that state) to crush free speech and pluralism in your own country. If you prefer, you cannot oppose Islam BOTH in the name of Pope Pius XII AND Conchita Wurst.
So here is my next question: in the name of what, and with which values, do you propose to deal with Islam? what alternative model can you offer the Muslims which they might find as an attractive alternative? What are your (so-called) “Western values”?
If, say, “family” is a western value, who do you think did more to destroy it, the French themselves with the rabidly anti-religion and anti-family 1789 Revolution or the Arab Muslim immigrants (which the French capitalists deliberately imported into France, even with their entire families!). For all the (partially true) accusations of homosexuality being present in some (true, but not all!!) Muslim countries, who do you really think does more to show “understanding” and “an open mind” about homosexuality (even going as far as allowing homosexuals to adopt children!) – western Christians or Muslims?
Next, the question of the dangers of what I call “ignoring Bismark”.
Bismark once famously wrote that “politics is the art of the possible”. I fully agree and I submit that this also applies to how non-Muslims ought to shape their relationship with the Muslim world. Next is the issue of intention vs capability. I call that:
The question of the commensurability of goals and means
Again, that is a very simple one. Whatever you propose to do with Muslims and Islam – first you need to make sure that you have the tools needed to implement your plans. Let’s take a simple example: France. According to a research paper from the Pew Foundation as of mid-2016, there were 5.7 million Muslims in France (8.8% of the country’s population) and Islam is the 2nd religion in France after Latin Christianity. Also check out this graphic from the same article, as it gives you estimates of the number of Muslims living in Europe.
In reality, however, the real number of Christians in France is artificially bloated because, just as in Russia, these figures simply include those who identify themselves as “Christians”, including in the cultural sense, and who, in reality, are not practicing Christians at all. I believe that since the proportion of Muslims who take their religion seriously is much higher than in Christianity (including Orthodox Christianity) and so if we really could compare the figures of God-fearing and pious Muslims versus God-fearing and pious Christians then the first religion of France (and probably Russia) already is Islam and not Christianity.
Still, since I cannot substantiate this in any way, let’s stick to the official figures and allow me to ask a few basic question about France (but they are valid for most western countries).
When you propose to expel Muslims from France, are you seriously contemplating the deportation of almost 6 million people?
Did I hear you say “oh no, we will only deport two categories: illegal immigrants and religious extremists”. That is all fine and well, but let me ask you how many people currently living in France qualify under these criteria? And, no less importantly, how many Muslims are there in France who do NOT qualify under your criteria, but who WOULD vehemently oppose the deportation of their family members, friends, members of their cultural or religious communities? How many of these “good Muslims” will demand due process in each case? How many of these “good Muslims” will also collect funds to oppose Islamophobic policies and propaganda?
Because one thing is clear: if you want to deport only illegal immigrants and all religious extremists, then maybe you have a chance. But if you declare “Islam per se” as the threat, then all you are doing is uniting all Muslims to resist you and your hatred of their religion. Not very smart, to put it very gently.
Alternatively, when you propose to curtail the religious rights of French Muslims, what tools of the state do you plan to use to enforce their compliance? The special services (intelligence? counter-intelligence? counter-espionage? counter-terrorist?). The police forces? The armed forces?
As somebody who has personally dealt with exactly that question (how to deal with mass social explosions of the future based on past experiences) from the inside I can tell you that this was one of the tasks which was often discussed in (strictly confidential) meetings between military, internal security and police experts in all western countries, even those who would never admit it. Furthermore, western powers also engaged in numerous (very interesting) command-staff exercises in which the issue of how to deal with explosions of social unrest were also modeled, tested and evaluated. I cannot discuss the details of our findings, but I can tell you this: neither the intelligence community, nor the police, nor the military are the correct “tool” to deal with such issues. Why? Because typically the intel community is already busy with other issues and has neither the manpower nor the finance to start seriously monitoring millions of people, especially when many of those millions speak a different language and have a very tightly knit community.
Neither are police forces a solution. They are much better trained in law than security or military personnel, but they lack both the expertise and, literally, the firepower needed to deal with severe social unrest or, even less so, a full-scale insurrection.
As for the military, it has plenty of firepower, but it is trained to destroy enemy forces. If the 92% majority chooses to unleash its armed forces against an 8% minority that is called a civil war and, by the way, that is EXACTLY what happened in the Ukraine and the Donbass. Do you really want that for your country?
In theory it is really simple: ban halal killing of animals (but don’t touch kosher animal killing), ban halal butcher shops (but not kosher shops), ban Quranic schools (but don’t touch Ulpanim or Yeshivas), ban mosques (but not synagogues), ban hijabs (but not sheitels, shpitzels or yarmulke), etc. If asked about this, the simple reply is that Islam is a medieval religion which is a religion of violence and wars whereas Rabbinical Judaism (aka Pharisaic Talmudism) is a progressive religion of love and peace, that’s all. Heck, the so-called “Christian West” has now even officially adopted the so-called Noahide Laws which declare Christianity a form of idolatry! Last, but certainly not least, wage war on as many Muslim countries as possible and allow Israel to turn you into a voiceless colony, proud of its host status, at least for the Judaic parasite.
Reality is very different however.
First, being the Judaic’s/Zionists’ “bitch” usually makes you hated and despised everywhere, including in Israel, by the way. That also inevitably alienates a big chunk of your patriotically-inclined population. But let’s ignore all that. In fact, let’s forget about the Middle-East and let’s assume that 92% of the French people are totally united behind a plan to “de-Islamize France”. Now think it through and you will immediately see the problem.
Even if only 1M of the 5M Muslims in France actually resist, your combined security/police/military forces could not deal with that kind of resistance without a huge bloodbath which will ruin your country (again, this is exactly what the Nazi-occupied Ukraine tried after the Euromaidan coup!). Furthermore, civil wars tend to radicalize people. Thus a mass deportation of Muslim immigrants will inevitably generate a sense of outrage combined with a much revived sense of what the French call “communautarisme”: a type of identity politics centered on the clan, the tribe, the ethnicity. In other words, those kinds of policies will only serve to create more, not less, crazed jihadis! Is that really a good idea? Civil war with a simultaneous rise of extremism? How smart is it to advocate for this?
Besides, are you really sure that you got the right target?
The question of cause and effect
When I was a small kid I was taught that pre-1917 Russia was some kind of Russian Orthodox heaven on earth. Everybody was heroic, kind, brilliant, the Russian people loved the Czar and the Court, they even loved the aristocracy and the intelligentsia. In other words, Russia was happy and if it wasn’t for the evil Jews and the evil Germans, nothing at all would have happened in 1917. When you are 10, that kind of narrative makes sense. But not when you are an adult (at least one would hope so!).
Simply put: there is simply no way that the thesis that Jews and Germans destroyed Russia can be sustained; it is prima facie ridiculous! Empires don’t simply collapse because of some foreign agents, that is counter-factual. Besides, if you look at which Russian social class did the most to destroy Russia, it ain’t the Jews or the Germans, it is the Russian aristocracy, especially the (comparatively) new Petrine aristocracy. Simply put, Russia has been under various degrees of foreign occupation since 300 years now, from Peter I to Eltsin. And the only reason why the Bolsheviks could seize power so easily is that all the Bolsheviks overthrew was the terminally incompetent regime of Kerensky which itself only came to power by means of a (absolutely illegal and immoral) coup against Nicholas II organized by, you guessed it, the Russian aristocracy and intelligentsia! Bolshevik Jews overthrew a totally corrupt, oligarchic regime which was Masonic through and through and which was no less russophobic than the Bolsheviks themselves.
There is a moral, social, cultural, psychological and even spiritual equivalent to AIDS. This is also an immunity disorder, but rather than affecting our biological immune system, it affects our moral, social, cultural, psychological and even spiritual “immune systems”. Pre-1917 Russia was suffering from “spiritual AIDS” (that category includes all the others, at least in my terminology) and probably *any* foreign hostile agent could have taken over in 1917. History decided that the Russian monarchy would collapse under the treacherous actions of the Russian elites, and that Russian democracy would collapse under the (no less treacherous) actions of the Bolsheviks. But if these had not seized power, than some other group, any group, would have eventually seized power. The ugly truth is that pre-1917 Russia was already dying and except for a (sizable and therefore important) minority of Christians which chose death over apostasy, most Russians by 1917 were spiritually blinded (if that topic interests you, read Solzhenitsyn, especially, his “Red Wheel” saga or any book by Ivan Solonevich and, especially, his “The Grand Fraud of February” (assuming you read Russian or can find a translation). Memoirs of those who actually witnessed 1917 are also most interesting.
Bottom line is this: empires fall when they are weak and that fall always begins with a loss of identity.
Now, Alt-Righters & Co. blame others (Jews, Muslim, Blacks, immigrants, whatever) for what they perceive as a loss of identity for White westerners. They are both right and wrong. They ARE right when they observe a loss of identity of White Westerners, that is quite true, but they are naive to the extreme when they attribute it to “others” (whatever “others” happen to be blamed at that moment). The truth is that many factors have come together to de-Westernize the West. And yes, the West was mostly White. I find racial categories poorly defined, thus useless and even misleading. But even I won’t deny that Europe is a White continent. I just don’t think that color is what defines it, or makes it different from other parts of the world, but the notion that other races played a major other role in European history (other than that of victims of European imperialism, of course) is rather silly. Okay, the Arabs (if you want to think of them as Brown as opposed to White), did contribute a lot to the rediscovery of antiquity by a Europe which was mostly ignorant, but even that influence should not be exaggerated either. And yes, the Judaics were successful in infiltrating and subordinating the Vatican to their ideology, but most of that really only happened after WWII.
What Alt-Righters & Co. fail to realize is that most European borders are completely artificial, along with some of the main European countries (Germany and Italy for starters!). Furthermore, Europe always lived through wave after wave of immigrants (just like Russia, by the way), and none of them made Europe weaker. If we want to be really honest we would admit that those who did the most to destroy Europe were the clueless European ruling classes which committed collective suicide during WWI. Only then came the man who did even more than anybody else to destroy Europe, and he was a famous European nationalist: Adolf Hitler. In a way, Europe did with WWI what Russia did in February 1917 (suicide) and Europe did in WWII what the Bolsheviks did to Russia (rule of fanatic extremists). First came the clueless “democrats” and “liberals” and only THEN came the tough SOBs.
When I see the USA today, or the EU, I see a civilization which committed suicide long before any immigrants, foreigners, heretics, or any other “other” came to use a opportunity which presented itself.
The real traitors to Russia are first and foremost Russians themselves (say the Russian aristocracy)
The real traitors to the United States are first and foremost US Americans themselves (say the Dems and the Hillary & Biden gang of Neocons)
The real traitors to Europe are first and foremost Europeans themselves – say those who first bomb barrier nations to immigration, like Libya, and then whine when a tsunami of african immigrants crosses Libya and the Mediterranean to find a better life (by the way – these countries are in a shape Trump would refer to as “shithole” primarily – even if not entirely – courtesy of the collective West who turned these parts of the world into shitholes in the first place!).
I find it hilarious when US Americans complain about Hispanic immigration. They don’t realize that these immigrants from Latin America are a real blessing: they are family oriented, hard working people who do not contribute to criminality at all (Ron Unz proved that a long time ago) and who are much more Christian than most US Americans. If you really want to defend your “Western Civilization” then the first step might be to completely open the border with Mexico and declare that all Latin Americans are welcome to live in the USA. And if the US is concerned about too many Latin American immigrants coming to the USA, then the first thing to do to stop that trend is to stop Yankee imperialism in all its forms and finally give the countries of Latin America a chance to prosper in peace.
Instead, US ‘patriots’ want to keep their country Christian and White by reducing the amount of Hispanics currently living in the USA. All I will say is this: be careful, very careful, for what you wish for!
So are you really so sure that Mexican or Salvadorian immigrants are such a big threat to the “western civilization”?
Is it not high time for what is left of the so-called “West” to decide once and for all what it stands for and what kind of immigrants it wants or not?!
My humble suggestion is this: define once and for all what your so-called western values really are, then have the courage to stand up for them, always, and you might find that Muslims or immigrants are really not a problem at all. Or keep hating the wrong people and witness the end of your civilization by suicide.
The last question: and what about those pesky and evil Russkies? What have they been up to recently?
Well, very much UNLIKE the West, the “New Russia” of Putin has made major efforts to forge an alliance with traditional Islam against the western-backed Takfiris! I cannot discuss it all here, but I covered this issue in my article “Russia and Islam, connecting the dots and discerning the future“. I will summarize it here by quoting just the key part of the article:
Russia is also a member of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) which brings together China, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan , Russia , Tajikistan , Uzbekistan , India and Pakistan. Let’s look at the approximate number of Muslims in the SCO countries: China 40’000’000 , Kazakhstan 9’000’000, Kyrgyzstan 5’000’000, Russia 10’000’000, Tajikistan 6’000’000 , Uzbekistan 26’000’000, India 180’000’000, Pakistan 195’000’000. That’s a grand total of 471 million Muslims. Add to this figure the 75’000’000 Iranians which will join the SCO in the near future (bringing the grand total to 546’000’000) and you will see this stunning contrast: while the West has more or less declared war on 1.8 billion Muslims, Russia has quietly forged an alliance with just over half a billion Muslims! Russian nationalists (as opposed to Russian patriots) did try their best to infect Russia with her own brand of Islamophobia, but that movement was defeated by an absolutely uncompromising stance by Vladimir Putin himself who went as far as stating that: “I need to say that, as I have repeated many times before, from its beginning Russia had formed as a multiconfessional and multiethnic state. You are aware that we practice Eastern Christianity called Orthodoxy. And some theorists of religion say that Orthodoxy is in many ways closer to Islam than to Catholicism. I don’t want to evaluate how true this statement is, but in general the coexistence of these main religions was carried out in Russia for many centuries. Over the centuries we have developed a specific culture of interaction, that might be somewhat forgotten in the last few decades. We should now recall those, our national roots.”
By the way, this trend was also noted in the Alt-Right & Co. circles which then penned articles such as “Putin May Look Like an Ethno-Nationalist, But He’s Too Cozy With Russia’s Muslim Minority” I consider the entire Alt-Right movement a pure creation of the US Deep State and I consider most of what these folks claim to be counter-factual and illogical nonsense. But in this case, the author is *spot on* about Putin. He indeed is way too sophisticated to engage in ethno-nationalism. But what the author completely fails to realize are two basic facts:
- Russians are not, and have never been, ethno-nationalists
- Putin is a pure product of Russia’s history, he is not a fluke or an exception
By the way, there are also Muslims out there who broke free from the Neocon narrative (the Takfiri narrative IS a Neocon-promoted narrative) and who now seek an alliance with countries like Russia. The best known Islamic leader who openly advocates this is, of course, my dear friend Sheikh Imran Hosein. But he is not alone. In Russia Ramzan Kadyrov has embarked on the immense task of convincing his fellow-Muslims that Takfirism is not Islam and that Russia can be the ideal protector of true Islam. Why? Russia is unique in several ways:
- Russians don’t fear Islam (even if they remember 12 wars against the Ottomans!)
- Most officials of the Russian security services are either atheists, or agnostics or Orthodox Christians (they are thus much harder to infiltrate with crazed jihadis)
- Most Russian Muslims are Sunni (Shia Muslims are the traditional #1 enemy of Takfiris, but this issue is more complicated in Sunni countries and communities).
- The kind of Islam practiced by Russian Muslims is very traditional and conservative, which is very much “in tune” with the rest of the (mainly “culturally Orthodox”) Russian society.
I believe that mix to be unique to Russia (please do correct me if I am wrong!) and that unique historical mix means that the Sunni community of Russia is the best protected (by the “almighty FSB” amongst others) and at the same time the least likely to be seduced by Takfiri theories!
As for the outlet which posted that article, I would simply note that it is not a surprise for me to see such inanities posted by folks who run their donation campaigns with photos of Nazi soldiers…
In the past they censored my use of the word “Zionist”. Now this: True, genuine, ethno-nationalism at its best, I suppose…
Russians typically hate all of that, especially Nazism. No wonder when you consider the price Russia paid for crushing about 80% of Hitler’s forces (but not before the latter killed 27+ million Russians and declared us all to be “subhuman”).
Back to the real world now: the Kremlin is not naive about how much power and influence the AngloZionist Empire still has, especially over Takfiri terrorist groups. So next to this defense of traditional Islam, the Russians have also developed a tool to deal with BOTH influxes of illegal immigrants AND Takfiri terrorism: the Russian National Guard. In 2016 I wrote an article “Putin creates a Russian National Guard” in which I outlined the structure, function and purpose of the NGR (National Guard of Russia) and I won’t repeat it all here except to give you a few figures of what units/subunits were used to form this internal security force:
- Troops of the Interior Ministry (about 170’000 soldiers)
- Personnel from the Ministry of Emergency Situations
- The OMON riot police forces (about 40’000 soldiers)
- The SOBR rapid-reaction forces (about 5000+ soldiers)
- The Special Designation Center of the Operational Reaction Forces and Aviation of the Ministry of Internal Affairs including the Special Forces units “Zubr”, “Rys’” and “Iastreb” (about 700+ operators)
In my 2016 article I added that “so we are talking of a total force of about 250’000 soldiers which will probably reach 300’000 in the near future”. In fact, the latest current figure is 340’000!
Simply put, that is a force which CAN deal with any refugee crisis and “lock” the Russian border, especially with the help of the superbly trained 170’000 Border Guards, bringing the total of highly trained professionals who can lock any segment of the Russian border to over HALF A MILLION (510,000 exactly)!
Just for perspective sake, the armed forces of France total only 302,700 personnel on active duty (including the Gendarmerie) backed by another 87’300 reservists and 17’000+ “deployed personnel” for a grand total of 407’000. And I won’t even go into the training, equipment, rules of engagement, etc. issues.
So on one hand we have the West, in free fall since at least 2001, unable to even close its borders, never-mind protecting them. This same West wants to be White again and while it really ditched any pretense of Christianity decades ago, it finds it expedient to expand its hatred from “just immigrants” to Muslims and Islam in general.
Russia, on the other hand, currently with the most powerful military on the planet, AND one of the very best and most effective internal security forces (the FSB and the equally formidable FSO ) still found it prudent to field a large and very powerful internal security force like the “Federal National Guard Troops Service of the Russian Federation” (full official name of the RNG).
Why is that? (that is also an important question!).
I will just mention in conclusion that Muslims form a large minority among Russian special forces, anti-terrorist forces, military police, etc. They are still often supervised by non-Muslims, but that is mostly for political reasons. If the non-Muslim Russian special forces (or anybody else) had real problems with Muslims, they would never agree to go into combat with them. The reality is the opposite. By the way, Czarist Russia had Muslim units, as did the Soviet Union (including the famous “Muslim Battalion” which participated in one of the most amazing operations in the history of special forces: the seizure of the Amin Palace in Kabul in 1979).
And now I will conclude with my last question for western “ethno-nationalists” and other islamophobes:
Are you sure you are strong enough to take on Russia AND China AND Iran AND the entire Muslim world? Considering your advanced state of decay (which Alt-Righters deplore, therefore also implicitly admit), do you really think that by declaring urbi et orbi that Islam is evil and a threat to your “way of life” (nevermind local converts to Islam, a rapidly growing segment of the population of the West) you are doing yourself or your country a favor? And beware of the Dunning Kruger Effect :-)
One thing is sure: Russia will never become an Alt-Right or otherwise Islamophobic country. So don’t count on Russia to support you in your war against Islam.