Nearly 3 years ago, this site was founded as a stridently anti-Islamic blog. My first post was written about Geert Wilders’ 2015 visit to Australia, and the crude reception he received.
Since those days, I’ve shifted some focus away from Islam, primarily towards issues of immigration and identity.
To be clear, my core opposition to Islam as an expansionist ideology that seeks to enforce Sharia has not changed. Islam is a subversive force within Western civilisation, and its influence should be eternally diminished.
Yet, my political development has come full circle back to where it all began. I’ve come to a changed conclusion: opposing Islam entirely for human rights reasons is deeply inadequate. My previously held anti-Islam, liberalist position was articulated by Ayaan Hirsi Ali;
“Just like Nazism started with Hitler’s vision, the Islamic vision is a caliphate – a society ruled by Sharia law – in which women who have sex before marriage are stoned to death, homosexuals are beaten, and apostates like me are killed. Sharia law is as inimical to liberal democracy as Nazism…. Violence is inherent in Islam – it’s a destructive, nihilistic cult of death. It legitimates murder.”
Now the execution of gays, apostates, blasphemers and adulterers under Sharia law should remain condemned. Terrorism in Western countries and the disregard for disbeliever life should likewise be opposed. But opposing Islam in a purely negatory manner is insufficient.
Equality, democracy, free speech and tolerance are often counteracting values cited by anti-Islam crusaders such as Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Pamela Geller, and Geert Wilders. But these are neutral ideas, not ends in themselves. All are tools that can be potentially used against native populations. Equality has led to anti-white, anti-Asian attempts to establish affirmative action, that actively counteracts equality of opportunity. Democracy has enabled the ethnocide waged against white South Africans. Free speech allows Islamic radicals to recruit followers with impunity across the West, as Anjem Choudary did for years. Meanwhile, a literalist interpretion of tolerance, can lead to the collapse of tolerance itself.
Furthering liberal values doesn’t resonate with individuals like group identity does. More importantly than securing rights for themselves, people seek benefits for a group that extends beyond their temporary individual existence and thus serves a far larger purpose. The question for most is not what society should be, and how to advance universal ideals for those presiding within a state’s boundaries. Instead, pertinent questions relate to who and whom society is secured for. This quest for identity is manifested in racial, cultural, gender and religious voting patterns, as endearing loyalties direct individuals towards particular trends. Consider: in the 2017 Alabama Special Senate race, some 96 % of blacks voted Democratic.
But when racial, religious, national and cultural identity is absent (as a human rights opposition to Islam largely necessitates), what are we left with? Besides, liberal values that are readily degenerative, there is hedonism, intemperance and materialism. These are behaviours that do not inspire people beyond their own lives, which contrasts with the coherent worldview and commands prescribed by Islam, that are intensively followed by billions across the world. See below for a telling exchange in the Netflix series Homeland, on who would prevail in such a struggle:
Moreover, when one is entirely fixated upon carnal, temporal pleasures, these individual behaviours may provide short-term satisfaction, yet cannot answer bigger questions of long-term fulfilment and belonging which all humans intuitively desire.
It should therefore come as no surprise that a divorced, materialistic, drug-using Omar Mateen consequently sought refuge in Islam. Mateen then pledged loyalty to ISIS before attacking a Florida nightclub in June 2016. Likewise, a fatherless, lost, irreligious Nikolas Cruz sought meaning through shooting up his old school in February.
So while such outbursts of terrorism or violence should be deplored, we are selling ourselves short to ignore the deeper, genuine problems that underpin such evil.
Rather than purely advocating against Islam, nationalists must envision and articulate our own positive vision for society, that stand as meaningful, unique alternatives.
For if our society and people is instead constructed around vague liberal values, and is not distinct in any particular way, we will cease to maintain a distinguishable existence. In this event, people will gravitate towards meaningful, material belief systems including Islam, over those who have no cause at all.