By Guillaume Faye | 4 Comments | 
Print
Intolerance & Deception in Islam
Islam is in essence intolerant, and its highly Machiavellian logic alternates between force and deception: deception, when Muslims are weakest and form a minority; force, when their dominance begins to be assured. Among Arabo-African immigrants Islam is not conceived of as a spiritual religion (its moral precepts are seldom followed) but as a revanchist form of ethnic self-assertion against Europeans, often called “crusaders.” Much more than Christianity, today enfeebled, Islam is fundamentally a religion of the imperative revealed truth and it has always believed, with a thoroughly blind conscience, in its own rightness, and it has justified all acts, even atrocities, committed in the name of Islamic expansion and for the glory of Allah.
Europeans, naive defenders of Islam, fail to comprehend it and interpret the Koran as a sincere whole, as a single unified text with a consistent logic, whereas in fact it is rich in prevarication, a text with multiple gears.
Islam can propose “tolerance and fraternity among religions” and “the freedom of the believer’s preferred faith” on the basis of a Koranic precept: “Let there be no compulsion in religion” (Sura 2.256); it can insistently reject any fundamentalism and fanaticism: “Islam is the community of the just balance” (Sura 2.143) or “no violence in matters of religion! Truth stands out clearly from error” (Sura 2.257). Islam can commit itself to compassion and forgiveness of offenses: “evil must be requited by good” (Sura 41.34; 22.96); Islam can even commit itself to humane treatment of an enemy and the Islamic obligation to offer him aid (Sura 9.6).
Yet these verses are absolutely contradicted by fourteen centuries of Islamic behavior, for Islam has always preferred violence whenever the balance of power is in its favor, ignoring forgiveness and compassion, eradicating or subjecting in ghettos other religions in the territories that it has conquered, and tolerating in the latter neither pagan polytheists nor atheists.
These peaceful Koranic verses are a ruse. Theologically they have been annulled by the bellicose verses written later, in particular those of Sura 4.
Almsgiving (zakat), which constitutes the third “pillar of Islam,” is completely different in character from Christian charity. The latter is universalist and altruistic — which seems quite naive to a Muslim. Although Muslims and their allies, by a pure propaganda trick, attempt to convince us that Islamic almsgiving is a philanthropic requirement that demonstrates the humane and peaceful spirit of Islam, reality is very different.
Zakat concerns only the umma, the community of Muslim believers. A Muslim is by no means held responsible for giving alms to impoverished Jews and Christians, nor to succor them in any way; as for acts of charity toward the pagan or the atheist, they are deemed blasphemous. Charity is not based on commiseration or love of one’s neighbor in this conquering, intolerant and warlike religion. It is motivated, according to the Koran, by two considerations: first, to practice solidarity toward indigent members of the umma, in order to foster cohesion within the community; second, to teach any Muslim that he is not the real owner of the goods at his disposal, which are merely a loan authorized by Allah in order to illustrate his power and to spread Islam everywhere, by conversion or the sword.
There is thus no question of a Muslim indiscriminately coming to assistance of other human beings. For this implacable revealed monotheism, the Infidel is unworthy. Some may have noticed, though the media largely ignored it, that the Muslim Red Crescent during the wars in the Balkans only aided Bosnian refugees or Muslim Kosovars, completely indifferent to the fate of the Orthodox Serbs or the Croatian Catholics afflicted by war. The Red Cross, on the other hand, did not make any ethnic or religious distinctions.
Generally, Islam practices a policy of peace and apparent tolerance only when it is weak and remains in the minority.
Many Muslim countries, such as Saudi Arabia, absolutely proscribe the construction of churches in their territory. Christian worship is prohibited to foreigners stationed in these countries. In the majority of Muslim countries, the entry or residence of Christian priests is almost impossible; any proselytism is prohibited, under penalty of immediate expulsion. In Europe, however, Muslim proselytism is encouraged and financed (e.g., the construction of mosques) by the authorities, whose secularism is tantamount to naivety. The rule of reciprocity that governs international law is completely scorned; to their discredit Europeans readily accept this double-standard, which in the eyes of Muslims betrays a sign of weakness and resignation that encourages and legitimates, as though justified by divine will, their movement of ethno-religious conquest in Europe.
For the Islamic mind, the fact that Europeans do not demand from Muslim countries the same secular neutrality, the same freedom of worship that we extend to Muslims, means this: “Europeans know that they are in error, they recognize the superiority of Islam and the superiority of Allah; they prostrate themselves before us and acknowledge themselves to be Infidels, and thus it is just that they should become a land for our conquest.” These remarks were made by an Egyptian imam in the Cairo newspaper Al Ahram.
Europeans are unaware of the very foundations of Islam, notably the cynical imperative of the three stages of conquest. Initially a Muslim community established in a foreign land and still forming a minority practices Dar Al-Sulh, “temporary peace,” because the Infidel, in his blindness and naivety, permits Islamic proselytism in his country, without demanding any reciprocity on Muslim soil. This is the stage that Europe is currently experiencing, which makes many believe that a “secular and Europeanized Islam” is possible.
Only in the second stage, after the settlement of an Islamic community has been established, does the requirement of conquest and violence become apparent. This is Dar Al-Harb, in which the Infidel’s soil becomes a “zone of war,” either because of resistance to the establishment of Islam, resistance that must be broken, or because Muslims, now in sufficient numbers, no longer need peace and can abandon the prudence that marked the first stage of their conquest. This phase will soon be upon us: We can already see its premises.
In the third stage Muslims end up dominating. This is Dar Al-Islam, the “reign of Islam.” The Jew and the Christian are tolerated but reduced in status, enjoying at best an inferior position, that of dhimmis (”protected”) paying a special poll-tax and deprived of most of their rights; pagan polytheists (”idolaters”) and atheists are persecuted; and the whole population must submit to Islam’s social regulations. Under this “reign of Islam” the non-Muslim has no chance of occupying any leading social position. In Morocco, where Christians and Jews were the most tolerated and protected, they were nevertheless compelled to leave at the end of the French protectorate, even though there had been no war, as was the case in Algeria.
For many of the leaders of international Islamic networks today, the ultimate objective is to impose on Europe the law of Dar Al-Islam. It is a consequent project, propelled by an unwavering political will, which has already been set in motion. Because God has so ordained.
From Guillaume Faye, La Colonisation de l’Europe: Discours vrai sur l’immigration et l’islam (Paris: L’Aencre, 2000).
Guillaume Faye
Guillaume Faye is one of the leading thinkers of the European New Right. He is the author of Le système à tuer les peuples (Paris: Copernic, 1981), La NSC: Nouvelle société de consommation (Paris: Editions du Labyrinthe, 1984), Les nouveaux enjeux idéologiques (Paris: Editions du Labyrinthe, 1985), Le Guide de l’engueulade (Paris: Hors collection, 1992), L’Archéofuturisme (Paris: l’Æncre, 1998), La colonisation de l’Europe, Discours vrai sur l’immigration et l’Islam (Paris: L’Æncre, 2000), Pourquoi nous combattons. Manifeste de la résistance européenne (Paris: L’Æncre, 2001), Avant-guerre: Chronique d’un cataclysme annoncé (Paris: L’Æncre, 2003), La convergence des catastrophes (sous le pseudonyme Guillaume Corvus, Paris: DIE, 2004), Le coup d’état mondial, essai sur le nouvel imperialisme américain (Paris: l’Æncre, 2004), and La nouvelle question juive (Chevaigné: Les éditions du Lore, 2007).
This reads like your typical French theoretical essay.
The same could be said of Christianity in most of its incarnations- but especially of the Byzantine and Roman Catholic expansion cycles.
As far as I can see the one thing, not that there aren’t others, that unites the three religions of Christianity, Judaism, and Islam, is Blind Obedience. It’s true that with Christianity it became attenuated, and more implied, especially as the West became more secularized, but it’s still there. Just look at the Left, and not just the Left.
And I don’t mean only the Jewish dominated Left, but the Left. Which would exist with or without contemporary Jewish influence.
Today in the non-Jewish White West that Blind Odedience has been reduced to the stubborn and immature willfulness of your average adult-child. Pretty pathetic.
Politically it’s totally useless. Or, well, useful in a terms of insuruing a state of cultural self-destruction. Which, sadly, would have to include the rest of us who have so far been unable to mobilze our rage. A rage that for sure is there, but as yet not channeled in a way that can produce results.
For all of our disagreements I don’t think many will argue that Whites are one or two moves from being placed in Checkmate. In my view, nothing in our cultural history is more inspiring and shows more promise than Romanticism. But I am well aware of the chances of that catching on any time soon, though there are many very good reasons to think that it could. But that is for another time and context.
The one thing I will say for it now is this. All three religions are driven by Blind Obedience to its Authority, and a certain self-will run riot, with the Christian (and that includes the Secularized Left and Right) rushing in the direction of surrender and suicide and the other two in the direction of conquest and murder.
Muslims will simply kill us, whereas the Jews will use us to kill Muslims, a process long since underway, as the events in the Middle East make perfectly obvious.
Though Jews are killing us with their control of our Foreign policy, they are also killing us with their control of our, or, “our” Domestic policy, and for that matter, or Economic policy (Invite-Invade-In·hoc).
I rarely hear it mentioned, and then only by me, that the other thing the three religions have in common, and Romanticism as well, is what unites all of human behavior – Explanation. Life without it is impossible. Humans can never – ever – get outside of verbal behavior. It is what connects us to the world.
It is our principle means of adaptation, perhaps our sole means. But the catch is until now, it has come in the form of belief systems that claim to redeem us if we follow them, when they only redeem verbal behavior. A fact implied by the above article.
To cut to the chase, the most sophisticated model of relating ourselves to the world through verbal behavior is the scientific process, or Modern Science, and Modern Science is the result of high culture Romanticism. All of the great thinkers and scientific workers of the 19th and to some extent the 20th centurywere steeped in Romantic culture, Darwin being a conspicuous example. Modern Science is the most complete method we have from Observed Event to the termination of an Explanation of that event. And it is rendering, albeit indirectly, all previous explantory systems obselete. The reason is that science is based on a process of continual feedback. Whereas all of the other explanatory systems are fixed and rigid, from the Jewish, Christian, Muslim, and the secular versions found in the West. PC being a crude, watered down combination of Old Testament vengence with New Testament mercy (the less shall have more). And PC is the new religion influencing the other two important areas of human activity – Business and Politics.
There are four reactions to any distrubing stimulus.
1 – Ignore it
2- Reject it (violently)
3- Accept it (through misrepresentation and perversion)
4- Accept it (by modifying your belief system to respond more adequately)
The culture built around Christianity has made the “success” or triumph, of Judaism and Islam possible. Their response is entirely predictable.
Radical ingratitude, and unapologetic resentment/contempt. They are just itching to finish us off and the entire West is being reduced to a showdown between these two.
That is why nothing – NOTHING – conservative will ever help, but only hurt, our chances, since it’s roots are deep in the very culture that made our current dilema possible in the first place.
For this reason I simply do not see any alternative more promising and inspiring than Romanticism. Call it White Nationalism if you want, since we need to mobilize politically, and fast. But it will have to be Romantic in character or forget it.
Romanticism is for the strong, for the tough-minded man committed to reality.
Judaism and Islam are violent and cunning, but they are not strong, intellectually, psychologically, emotionally and spiritually. Not at all.
From this perspective, the perspective of human behavior and cultural history, Whites only appear sick now because we are the only race in the process of kicking a thousands of years long addiction to salvation systems, that Romanticism views are really archaic, obselete, and childish. But that doesn’t mean we don’t see them as dangerous, of course they are. We’re up against criminals. People so sick they don’t even know they’re sick. That’s the source of their “pride.” Head to toe bullshit.
Geez, isn’t knowing that enough to inspire one to want to thump them?
If Whites can snap out of our current collective trance we can defeat them.
But only if we can snap out of it.
Some might say we stand before something truly horrible. Even more reason to embrace Romanticism.
In the words of Morse Peckham,
“The first task of the Romantic is to face fully the horror, the brutality, and the evil which before had been either thought away or dismissed or regarded as either temporary or ultimately unreal. The flower of value must be plucked not on the sunny mountaintop, but in the very abyss…..It is the Romantic’s tradition that is really tough-minded. To him nothing is so beautiful as fact, and the world, the only world we can know, for the Self can only be symbolized, not known.”
There is no question that we’re perchd on the abyss. The question is, are we tough enough to get out of what is essentially a dilema of our own making?
‘In my view, nothing in our cultural history is more inspiring and shows more promise than Romanticism. But I am well aware of the chances of that catching on any time soon, though there are many very good reasons to think that it could. But that is for another time and context.’
I’m very confused. I thought Romanticism was an aesthetic and spiritual movement reacting against the so-called “Age of Enlightenment,” and typified by giants such as Adam Mickiewicz, Johann Gottlieb Fichte, Richard Wagner, and so on. In folklore, it was represented by the Brothers Grimm, Elias Lönnrot, and so on.
If that’s what you mean by Romanticism, I think it has been burning like an underground coal fire for decades, if not longer. The supposed values of the “Enlightenment” – logic, reason, criticism of dogma – are given lip service, but are not practiced. Conversely, the popular imagination is fired by stories of gods and wizards, such as “The Lord of the Rings.” The sullen, disaffected Western teenager who refuses to go to her family’s Christian church might crown her anti-Christian phase with some affectation – perhaps Enlightenment slogans from Mary Wollstonecraft, perhaps an entirely foreign affectation such as Hinduism, or pehaps some implicitly white symbol such as a heavy metal T-shirt emblazoned with runes and pentagrams.
Intuition, romanticism, and “the sleep of reason” are as popular as one could hope them to be – the only problem for white Americans is that white youths without persuasive white guidance might adopt Mexican brujeria instead of Norse Seiðr.
I’m very confused. I thought Romanticism was an aesthetic and spiritual movement reacting against the so-called “Age of Enlightenment,” and typified by giants such as Adam Mickiewicz, Johann Gottlieb Fichte, Richard Wagner, and so on. In folklore, it was represented by the Brothers Grimm, Elias Lönnrot, and so on.
If that’s what you mean by Romanticism
Dagezhu
Here’s some quotes from the Cultural Historian Morse Peckham that might give a better idea of what I mean by the word Romanticism.
“Romanticism is a sharp break with the rationalizing and sentimentalizing Englightenment, expressed in a number of works symbolizing spiritual death and rebirth.”
“Romanticism was the manifestation of a change in the way of thinking of European man, that since Plato European man had been thinking according to one system of thought – based on the attempted reconcilation of two profoundly different ideas about the nature of reality, both stemming from Plato – and that in the late eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries Occidental thought took an entirely different direction, as did Occidental art……The shit in European thought was a shift from conceiving the cosmos as a static mechanism (note: as Political Correctness does) to conceiving it as a dynamic organism.”
I capitalized the word “Occidental” for obvious reasons.
My basic idea, the one I try to share with TOO family is that in terms of Cultural History Whites have not been able to keep up with themselves.
I think Shaw once said that a great genius writes one masterpiece and then spends the rest of his life trying to understand and explain it.
I think in our – Whites – relation to history the same could be said about Romanticism (which I believe, strictly speaking, is the period of Cultural History we are still in)
That essentially the brightest and best Whites made the great leap out of the millenium long addiction to salvation systems and saw a way for us to move into a larger freedom. They did not lecture, they did, they changed.
Plus, if you haven’t changed you can’t lecture about it. Hence the creepy obnoxiousness of pretentious absurdities like Obama, who, along with the MSM, and Celebrity worship, is as much a product or creation of Jewish culture as Hegel, Darwin, and Nietzsche are of Romantic culture.
There is a two-fold reason why Peckham’s work on Romanticism was not given much attention. And I believe that an understanding of that two-fold reason would do much to help us gain a better understanding of our dilema and possibly improve our efforts to find a way out. And that two-fold reason has to do with a Hostile Elite and a Majority population so Enlightenment-centric, if you will, as to be impervious to anything else. But unfortunately, their historic regressiveness made them exceedingly vulnerable to manipulation by the aforementioned Hostile Elite.
That less than holy matrimony between a Hostile Elite and a Guillable Public, combined with almost completely ignoring the acheivements of the Romantics, and an understanding of Romanticism, has led to our current impasse.
Having devoted my life to not only understanding Romanticism, but to practicing its principles, I can honestly say that, as a man concerned for his race, and its crowning acheivement – the Sovereign Individual – Romanticism is the only answer to the verbal and spiritual cancer known as Political Correctness that I know of.