For my debut post, I’m going to post an extract from Marek Chodakiewicz’ Op-Ed piece to the Eurasia Review, Naming Names. The full piece can be found here.
Chodakiewicz writes: “Arguably, neither of these characteristics applies to the phenomenon mis-labeled as “Islamofascism.” First, unlike Islam, Catholic Christianity is not a total, comprehensive system of government. It is primarily a revealed religion that sometimes endeavors, but mostly hopes, to influence a political system. Second, the Third (Catholic) Way is to construct a space in modernity and post-modernity that would accommodate faith and Christian sensibilities and, thus, to modernize without abandoning the foundation and continuity of the Catholic thought and institutions. Thus, Catholic Christianity is conservative in an evolutionary sense. Islam, on the other hand, is thoroughly reactionary and fossilized. Islam precludes any modernization whatsoever for it leaves no space for the secular element in its temporal system. Modernization is haram. Hence, to label Islam as a form of fascism reflects a woeful misunderstanding of its thoroughly reactionary character. Fascism is modern; Islam is reactionary. Thus, both are mutually exclusive. Islamofascism is an oxymoron. That the reactionary jihadists employ modern technology (e.g., firearms and the internet instead of spears and galleys) as well as modern warfare techniques (e.g., suicide bombing instead of slingshooting) detracts not an iota from their reactionary aim of ushering in the Caliphate, a retrograde theocratic system as it emerged from the sands of Arabia in the early 7th century. Ayatollah Khomeini used a fax machine with a gusto, after all, to establish his benighted antediluvian autocracy.
Third, the aim of Catholic nationalists and corporatists was to achieve the Augustinian tranquillitas ordinis, tranquility of order. That simply means an earthly state where social and political peace applies. It intends neither to build a utopian monastic polity for that would be heretical nor a Christian paradise on earth for His kingdom is not of this world. Division of Church and state applies in the union of Christianity and nationalism that the Komintern and its latter-day Western emulators dubbed “clericofascism”.
In contradistinction, the aim of those who invoke Islam as their inspiration (Muslim Brotherhood, Al Quaeda, Islamic State) is to forge a state that would embrace all aspects of the human experience mercilessly and submit it to the straight jacket of the Mohammedan law as explicated in the Koran. Jihad is the vehicle to achieve this subjugation under sharia and the end result is eminently temporal: a state, the Caliphate. Thus, a precise designation of those mislabeled as “Islamofascists” should be “Caliphatists” and their ideology: “Caliphatism.” This nomenclature would solve more than a few problems for us.
First, the terms “Islamofascism” and “Islamism” sacrilegiously defame the Muslim faith, according to its followers. Thus, they consider such labels a smear and mobilize to oppose their purveyors. To this end, they assist, consciously or not, the Caliphatists. However, second, Caliphatism is an ideology fixated on temporal power of the state and, thus, plainly not otherworldly. For its adherents, Islam is a tool to achieve the Caliphate, and not the other way around. Third, designating the followers of this temporal project as Caliphatists would eschew conflating the Islamic faith, on the one hand, and terrorism by some Muslims, on the other. Thus, far fewer run of the mill Muslems would be offended at the term “Caliphatist” then at the label “Islamofascist” (Islamist) and consequently fewer would be still ready to defend it.
Fourth, debunking religious flavor from our designation of the enemy would allow us to foster cleavages in the Muslim ranks more handily. Many Muslims reject terror, although, illogically and incongruously, they support the Caliphatists for reasons of religious solidarity. Yet, not too many, even those passively supportive, seem to want a global Caliphate in practice. A few are cosmopolitan and secularized, while many – in addition to their universalist religious consciousness – embrace local, regional, and national identity more readily. Fifth, calling the enemy as the Caliphatists unties our hands in labeling our struggle as the “War on Caliphatism.” Hitherto we have crippled ourselves by sticking to the politically correct “War on Terror.” Imagine if we called our fight during the Second World War as the “War on Blitzkrieg.” The latter is a fighting technique, just like terror. We fought an ideology, Nazism, and its adherents, the Nazis. So it was “War on Nazism,” just as now it should be the “War on Caliphatism,” and against the Caliphatists.”
This piece by Chodakiewicz has been instrumental in developing my view on where our attention should lie and how our foreign policy should be constructed. It has at times been difficult to properly differentiate who is our enemy and who isn’t – not only abroad but also at home. The controversial and devoutly left-wing comedian, Bill Maher has had the pleasure of interviewing American Muslims who fiercely deny their support of terrorism, yet offer their support to Hamas. The above view simplifies that paradox real quick.
An understanding of who our ideological counterparts are (besides Obama and his flock) is crucial towards winning decisive and permanent victories over the Caliphatists while sparing the Muslim reformists who have discarded the parts of their ideology which are incompatible with our free Democracy and Western egalitarian values. Those people deserve our support and will prove indispensable in neutralising the spread of Shariah from devolving our society to 7th-century luxury ISIS territory so happily enjoys.
The war of cultures is at our doorstep and we need to organise ourselves to face the menace quickly. The enemy is looking for nothing less than to shackle us to their rigid and barbaric value system and dismantle our free institutions. They’re going to continue attacking us at home until they either get it or we stop them. In the words of president Reagan, “My idea of American policy… is simple, and some would say simplistic. It is this: We win and they lose.”
How’s that for a clear mission.