skip to Main Content
Kerry Bolton

Islamophobia: Trojan Horse Amidst the Right – Part 2

Series: Islamophobia: Trojan Horse Amidst the Right

The true Right may have more in common with genuine Muslims than with anti-Islamicists.

The Myth of the Great Replacement as a Muslim Strategy

Much has been said about the ‘invasion’ of Europe by Muslims, who will outbreed Whites and convert Europe to Islam. Renaud Camus of France is credited with coining the term The Great Replacement, and it has become particularly notorious because of its use by the Christchurch gunman, Tarrant. Camus states the undeniable: Europe is succumbing to migrant waves from the south. But is it a Muslim strategy or rather more a strategy by globalists to undermine Europe by manipulating the crises they have created in the region? The wikileaked Rivkin Project showed how globalists manipulate uprooted Muslim youth to destroy European identities, with the focus in that instance being the so-called ‘xenophobia’ of France.1

A Muslim migratory invasion to a non-Muslim state is not a desirable situation for a Muslim, other than a Wahhabi, and can be classified as a sin. Clearly, it is a situation into which many Muslims have been forced. A Muslim commentary on migration to non-Muslim countries states:

A Muslim who is born and raised in a Muslim country where he consciously and subconsciously absorbs the laws, values and teachings of Islam, grows up into a young person who is aware of the customs of his religion, following its path and is led by its guidance. On the other hand, a Muslim who is born, and brought up in a non-Muslim country demonstrates the influence of that environment very clearly in his thoughts, ideas, behaviour, values, and etiquette unless his Lord helps him. This un-Islamic influence is seen more in the second generation of those who have migrated to non-Muslim countries.

This was the reason for Islam’s view on at-ta’arrub ba’d al-hijra as reflected in many ahadith. At-ta’arrub ba’d al-hijra literally means ‘becoming shorn of one’s perceptions of faith after migrating [to city],’ and technically, it means leaving an environment where you could follow Islam and moving to a place where you may be prone to not following Islam. Such a migration is counted as one of the major sins.2

Muslim scholars have tried to establish reasons of mitigation when Muslims are confronted with death, and must flee for their lives. But to claim that Muslims are eager to invade Europe through migration does not seem justified from an orthodox Islamic perspective. When the Rivkin Memorandum was exposed by WikiLeaks it was shown that the U.S. State Department tries to subvert and secularise Muslim youth through such culture-junk as Hip Hop, not only to detach them from their roots, but to use them as part of an assimilative process against European states. There might seem to be a basis for collaboration between the genuine Right and Muslim traditionalists in common opposition to modernism and secularism and the inculcation of the Late West’s liberal ‘values’ among Muslim youth in the name of ‘assimilation’. There is also a common Wahhabist enemy that is supported by America’s allies. As Islamic principles regard such corruption of Muslim migrants as ‘sin’, is it really apt for the true Right to be part of the same agenda as the globalists, assimilationists, liberals, Zionists, and indeed Wahhabists?

Does the true Right want Muslims to adopt the lifestyles of the West in its cycle of decay, when Rightists themselves are, if anything, the harshest critics of the West’s decadence?

Does the true Right want Muslims to adopt the lifestyles of the West in its cycle of decay, when Rightists themselves are, if anything, the harshest critics of the West’s decadence? While little research seems to have been undertaken on the matter, there is a contrived panic that Europe is somehow going to go Muslim. Conversely, there is the problem of Muslims becoming secularised in the West in precisely the manner about which Islam warned in regard to migration. Darren E. Sherkat, Professor of Sociology, Southern Illinois University, writing for Foreign Affairs, the organ of the globalist Council on Foreign Relations, stated of this:

It is true that marginalization pushes some young Muslims to the brink of extremist fundamentalism. But radicals are few and far between, and there has been little scholarship on the average religious behavior of younger immigrants and second-generation immigrants raised as Muslims. … In truth, the West’s embrace of secular multiculturalism has created a groundswell of increasingly non-religious Muslims, though quantitative research is lacking documenting this trend. Simon Cottee’s The Apostates: When Muslims Leave Islamprovides readers with a powerful depiction of this group. Cottee examines how Western secularism challenges Islamic thought in ways that lead some to abandon their faith—an outcome that is much more common than resorting to fundamentalism. Data from the General Social Survey in the United States show that 32 percent of those raised Muslim no longer embrace Islam in adulthood, and 18 percent hold no religious identification. Rates of defection could well be higher in Europe and Canada. …

Leaving the faith has both personal and social consequences that take an emotional toll. But it gets better. As apostate and secularized Muslim communities grow and ethnic Muslim communities become more integrated into Western societies in subsequent generations, social pressures against apostasy will decline. Further, international campaigns to increase tolerance and reduce racism and Islamophobia will spur integration. Rather than enabling radical Islam, embracing Muslim communities as part of the broader society will weaken radical religion and promote secularism and civil, rather than uncivil, religion. 3

While liberals celebrate this secularisation and liberalisation of Muslim youth, should the actual Right rejoice in seeing yet another Tradition succumb to the cultural and spiritual syphilis of the Late West? Should genuine Rightists regard Muslim youth joining the ranks of zombified, corrupted Western youth in the great liberal-capitalist melting-pot as a triumph of assimilation? It is an issue that Alain de Benoist of la Nouvelle Droit attempted to address with the contention that since foreign migrants are en masse in Europe, it ill fits the Right to be backing or demanding Government policies – such as ‘ban the burqa’ – aimed at destroying identities in the name of a fatuous assimilation.

Australian ‘nationalists’ in campaigns to ‘ban the burka’ define ‘Australian culture’ as bikinis and beer swilling. Muslim migrant crime can be expected when youth are alienated from the discipline of their religion and their elders; these problems are caused by assimilation rather than separate identity. Perhaps ‘Sharia law’ should be encouraged rather than succumbing to fear-mongering about Westerners eventually being subjected to it? In a relatively successful state, Singapore, where it might be assumed that a ‘one nation’ standard is imposed rigorously to hold the multi-ethnic population together, rather than an assimilationist policy, its strength seems to be predicated on recognition of separate identities, including the success of Sharia courts for Muslims, so dreaded by Western Islamophobes. Joseph Ozawa, senior deputy director of the Family and Justice Centre, Subordinate Courts of Singapore, writes of this:

‘Doing your own thing’ and ‘freedom of expression,’ related to ‘indecent’ actions are not permitted in Singaporean society which still exercises censorship, demands modest dress codes of all students, and respect for teachers and elders. There is an Islamic Sharia Court which operates in specific matters pertaining to Islamic families and many of the Muslims in Singapore insist on conservative values and morality. This is supported by a conservative evangelical Christian community as well.4

The character of Sharia law has been misinterpreted both by outsiders, and by oddities within Islam, akin to those within Christian, Buddhist, Hindu, and Jewish denominations.

The Islamic rejection of ‘progressivism’ aligns with the Right’s ‘revolt against the modern world’, to cite Evola. We might be reminded of the reason why René Guénon converted to a mystical branch of Islam. Of Muslim historicism, an American-Muslim spokesman, Daniel Haqiqatjou writes:

The vast majority of us are, knowingly or unknowingly, progressivists. What I mean by this is that we view ourselves and the present age as, historically, the latest and greatest. The question is, are we justified in believing this?

The way I use the term, ‘progressivism’ is the broad philosophy that humanity is on a perpetual path of progress. As human civilization advances through time, it gradually improves on the intellectual and moral plane as our knowledge of the world around us increases. Sure, there might be setbacks here and there (e.g., world wars, genocide, etc.), but the overwhelming trend is that of advancement.

Progressivism finds its origins in the Enlightenment and its peak in the widespread acceptance of Darwinism in the 20th century, which gave progress its first scientific expression. Thinkers as influential and diverse as Locke, Descartes, Kant, Hegel, and Marx all propounded on the power of human rationality to overcome the baseness of human nature and continue to propel mankind to a shining destiny of his own choosing….

Of course, there have also been skeptics of this kind of progressivism. The most prominent strand of critique reasons that modern man, living in a primarily global capitalist technocratic world, is clearly not better off than certain of his predecessors. Industrialized capitalism, for all its technical achievement, has struck a weighty blow against the health of the planet. And liberal democracy, for all its aspirations of justice and equality, has written checks the modern nation-state, with its tendencies for corruption and violence, can’t cash. As for Darwinism, its application to sociology and social engineering in the early 20th century and beyond has had less than stellar results.5

The view is in accord with the doctrines of Spengler, Yockey, Evola, and the father of Western historicism, Giambattista Vico (1668–1744). However, Islamic historicism is not an adaptation of Western historicism, but originates from the Muslim scholar, Ibn Khaldun (1332–1406).6 It seems that Islam and the Primordial Tradition that informed the works of Evola and Guénon share a common outlook: Islam sees all Traditions as manifesting from a common source, as does the traditionalist Right. They differ insofar as Muslims regard their faith as the culmination and perfection of all others. As for the maligned and infamous Qur’an, which we are assured by Geert Wilders and Robert Spencer is antithetical to the West, it is surely more advisable to read the Qur’an first-hand. The Islamic rejection of feminism and hedonism is indeed an affront to the liberalism of the Late West in its epoch of decay, but to what extent are its Traditionalist values repugnant to the actual Right? Some examples, which I have hopefully not taken out of context, but which are best read by the reader first-hand:

But if you want to replace one wife with another and you have given one of them a great amount [in gifts], do not take [back] from it anything. Would you take it in injustice and manifest sin?7 So for whatever you enjoy [of marriage] from them, give them their due compensation as an obligation. And there is no blame upon you for what you mutually agree to beyond the obligation. Indeed, Allah is ever Knowing and Wise.8

Islam includes a warrior ethos, although it is denounced by neocons as an intrinsically war-mongering pseudo-religion, while they maintain their zeal for Greater Israel. For those of the actual Right, such as Evola, Islam was commendable for this warrior ethos, like the samurai, ksyatriya, or Gothic knights. Of war, the Qur’an states:

Islam includes a warrior ethos, although it is denounced by neocons as an intrinsically war-mongering pseudo-religion, while they maintain their zeal for Greater Israel.

O you who have believed, when you meet those who disbelieve advancing [for battle], do not turn to them your backs [in flight].9 And whoever turns his back to them on such a day, unless swerving [as a strategy] for war or joining [another] company, has certainly returned with anger [upon him] from Allah, and his refuge is Hell – and wretched is the destination.10

However, Islam, unlike Judaism, does not seem to counsel ‘wars of extermination’; and contrary to the assumptions that are being propagated, there is not a religious duty to continue a war against an enemy that has been defeated or has become non-belligerent:

If you [disbelievers] seek the victory – the defeat has come to you. And if you desist [from hostilities], it is best for you; but if you return [to war], We will return, and never will you be availed by your [large] company at all, even if it should increase; and [that is] because Allah is with the believers.11 But Allah would not punish them while you, [O Muhammad], are among them, and Allah would not punish them while they seek forgiveness.12 Say to those who have disbelieved [that] if they cease, what has previously occurred will be forgiven for them. But if they return [to hostility] – then the precedent of the former [rebellious] peoples has already taken place.13 And if they incline to peace, then incline to it [also] and rely upon Allah . Indeed, it is He who is the Hearing, the Knowing.14 O Prophet, say to whoever is in your hands of the captives, ‘If Allah knows [any] good in your hearts, He will give you [something] better than what was taken from you, and He will forgive you; and Allah is Forgiving and Merciful’.15

Robert Spencer, erstwhile sentinel of The West, in his examination of the Qur’an is glib at best on these obligations.16

It is interesting that someone of the intellectual and cultural calibre of Gustave Le Bon, a man of the Right, could draw conclusion about the Qur’an and Islam so contrary to the views of Robert Spencer, Geert Wilders, Ann Marie Waters, Daniel Pipes, and David Horowitz. Le Bon stated in his La Civilization des Arabes (1884):

Islam, from among all religions, best suits the science discoveries and is the most ready to edify souls and force them to abide by justice, kindness and toleration.17

The reader will see, in our discussion of the conquests of the Arabs and the causes of their victory, that force was not the main factor of the spread of the Qur’an. The Arabs left the conquered free to practice their religions. If it happened that some Christians embraced Islam and took Arabic as their language, this was due to the justice they saw from the victorious Arabs the like of which they did not see from their previous masters, in addition to the ease of Islam which they knew not before.18

The Arabs of Spain had ideal chivalry by virtue of their great toleration. They used to show mercy to the weak, be kind towards the conquered and abide by the conditions they imposed upon themselves, to the end of those good traits.19

The political ingenuity of the early caliphs was no less than the military skill they acquired very soon. Since the very first events, they contacted the native inhabitants of the neighbouring territories who, suffering for long centuries from the transgression of their conquerors, were willing to receive, with warmth and gladness, any new conqueror to lighten the severe pressure from them. The way the caliphs had to follow was very clear: they knew how to refrain from compelling anyone by force to leave his religion and not to put to sword those who did not embrace Islam. They announced publicly anywhere that they respected the peoples’ creeds, customs and habits and rather satisfied themselves with taking, in return for protecting those peoples, a very little Jizyah much less than what they paid to their previous masters.20

Muhammad was a man of noble manners, wisdom, kind-heartedness, compassion, mercy, truthfulness and trustworthiness.21

Somehow, did Le Bon miss what the scholarship of Tommy Robison and Pauline Hanson have discerned about Islam?

Common Ground Between Shi’a Islam and True Right

What then of the attitude of Islam (Shi’a) towards the contemporary Right? Arash Najaf-Zadeh, Senior Research Fellow with the University of Tehran, the Seminary at Qom, and the Cultural Front of the Islamic Revolution, states it in his friendly critique of the European New Right from a Shi’a cleric’s viewpoint, while condemning Wahhabism:

We agree with Professor Dugin that Liberalism is ideologically bankrupt, based on its actions, which form the reality of what Liberalism actually is in practice, and which reality in turn undermines the theory with which it is at radical variance. We also believe that it is ideologically bankrupt, being a profane and imperfect substitute for the world order which God intends for us. What we are referring to is not just the foreign policy of the Liberal Order which is allied with the Wahhabist heretics who have a stranglehold on Arabia and allied with the Zionist entity, whose crimes in the open-air prison of the Gaza Strip have been made to pale in comparison with the criminal actions of the Wahhabeasts and their Atlanticist enablers in the Yemen; but also to the economic realities in the ‘First’ World (First on the road to Hell), where the people ‘democratically’ choose to be exploited by less than 1% of the population, which continues to own and control the vast majority of the resources in these countries, and where their systematic financial malfeasance in Wall Street and the City of London has brought all of the European countries who are part of the NATO alliance to the brink of bankruptcy and kept them there, waiting for the Big Bubble to burst into flames and consume that civilization like the Ouroboros serpent eating its own tail.

And we agree with this apt summary by the erudite scholar Michael O’Meara that ‘the liberal today loudly proclaims the “rights of man,” but has not a word for the rights of communities, the rights of peoples, the rights of nations, the rights of states, or what Catholics once referred to as “the rights of God.” Of these rights, whose integrity resists unregulated markets and the atomizing forces of bourgeois individualism, the liberal accords no recognition.’ Indeed, we (in the besieged Shi’a citadel) still ardently affirm the rights of God (haqq ol-‘Āh), and are in the same camp as Dugin, O’Meara and the European New Right (henceforth, ENR) when it comes to community rights trumping individual rights. Thus, when we offer a critique of Alexander Dugin and Alain de Benoist and the ENR, it is because we agree with their diagnosis and even with their prognosis of what will become of liberal democracy, and consider them to be allies in the struggle to defeat the evil hegemonic impetus of what is left of this dying zombie-giant.22

As a Shi’a cleric he takes a different approach to solutions based on his faith, but adds that,

irrespective of these radical differences (and there is a huge chasm that separates us, as we shall see presently), we consider the work of Alexander Dugin and Alain de Benoist and the European New Right as that which is closest to our own take (in terms of the deconstruction only) and as that which has the most merit and is most worthy of intellectual engagement in the field of those thinkers who are talking and writing about the big picture.23

In regard to the migrant crisis, which has been caused by globalists interfering in the Middle East, he writes:

And perhaps you will not have any choice, because with the Empire of Chaos bombing the MENA back to the stone age and Europe receiving all the Islamicate-trash economic migrants and not being able to do anything about it because your governments have been taken over by the ZOG24 hegemon, then it would seem that Shi’a Islam would be the only remaining way to civilize them. (Needless to say, we are against Moslems emigrating to non-Moslem lands for economic or any other purposes).25

Who on the actual Right can say that they have more in common with Daniel Pipes, Pamela Geller, Tommy Robinson, David Horowitz, or Geert Wilders, than with Najaf-Zadeh? The neocons wish to defend ‘The West’ as it presently exists against ‘radical Islam’ and see the USA as the paragon of this ‘West’, and Israel as the key ally. To these the beauty of ‘The West’ is its secularism, humanism, Enlightenment scientism, positivism, hedonism, consumerism, the ‘freedom’ to self-destruct, the jabbering inanity of parliamentary democracy as a façade of plutocracy – everything that the ‘True Right’ abhors, if it has any meaning.

Who on the actual Right can say that they have more in common with Daniel Pipes, Pamela Geller, Tommy Robinson, David Horowitz, or Geert Wilders, than with Najaf-Zadeh?

To the neocon strategists the cultural syphilis and spiritual leprosy of The West is its strength insofar as it can contaminate the world, and every state will succumb to its sick embrace. Military strategist and media and government adviser Ralph Peters explained this:

Contemporary American culture is the most powerful in history, and the most destructive of competitor cultures. While some other cultures, such as those of East Asia, appear strong enough to survive the onslaught by adaptive behaviors, most are not. The genius, the secret weapon, of American culture is the essence that the elites despise: ours is the first genuine people’s culture. It stresses comfort and convenience – ease – and it generates pleasure for the masses. We are Karl Marx’s dream, and his nightmare.

Secular and religious revolutionaries in our century have made the identical mistake, imagining that the workers of the world or the faithful just can’t wait to go home at night to study Marx or the Koran. Well, Joe Sixpack, Ivan Tipichni, and Ali Quat would rather “Baywatch.” America has figured it out, and we are brilliant at operationalizing our knowledge, and our cultural power will hinder even those cultures we do not undermine. There is no “peer competitor” in the cultural (or military) department. Our cultural empire has the addicted – men and women everywhere – clamoring for more. And they pay for the privilege of their disillusionment.26

This, the ‘Great Satan’, is the common enemy of Islam and the Right, and every state, people and culture that values identity beyond the crass and the putrescent. This is the ‘freedom’ and ‘democracy’ that the Islamophobes of the pseudo-Right defend as the epitome of human achievement. It is, as one of their great historians has called it, ‘the end of history’, and once this global hegemon has been achieved, there is nothing beyond.27 Another ideologue of the present era sees this millennial end being forestalled by a ‘clash of civilisations’.28 The world is caught between this nightmarish dialectic.

In 2008 Fukuyama wrote of the Islamic challenge: ‘Democracy’s only real competitor in the realm of ideas today is radical Islamism. Indeed, one of the world’s most dangerous nation-states today is Iran, run by extremist Shiite mullahs’.29

This is Not ‘Right’

The confusion of Classical Liberalism, capitalism, neocon-ism, Zionism and Islamophobia with the actual Right has been enabled by the eagerness of Rightist politicos to jump aboard a bandwagon that can win easy converts and votes, but lacks the depth of historical and ideological perspectives. This does not contribute towards a coherent, long-term and stable movement. It is reminiscent of the focus of the British National Front on immigration, which collapsed when Margaret Thatcher started making some noises about being ‘flooded’. Much ideological baggage is being taken aboard, and some strange alliances made. A European Muslim writes of this:

It’s somehow funny how those presenting themselves as right-wing and conservatives (from the most different ethnic and national backgrounds) don’t see any issues with embracing typical liberal/leftist/progressive standards when it’s about criticizing Islam.

People who should otherwise respect and look up to Islamic values and ethos due to the relative similarity to their outlook on several issues, instead embrace the most progressive degenerate stances about female emancipation (while theoretically opposing feminism), LGBT rights (while allegedly defending ‘traditional family’), ‘separation of church and state’ (while maybe being pro-theocratic traditionalist Catholics!), material development and capitalist prosperity (while mumbling old nazi maxims about ‘blood against gold’ and ‘spiritual against material’), progress and development (while calling themselves ‘traditionalists’ and hating on French Revolution), etc. etc.30

Umar al-Rumi poses challenges that must be asked on the Right. On the other hand, as I examined in a previous article,31 it is also very strange how Imams in the West are embracing typical liberal/leftist/progressive standards when it comes to criticising what they are calling (usually falsely) ‘white supremacy’. Both Muslims and Rightists are marching along to the tunes composed for them by Zionists, neocons, and globalists.

Character of ‘Right-wing” Islamophobes

Mosque shooter Tarrant was an Australian, not a New Zealander. What was the milieu in Australia that might have fed Islamophobia? Alt Right? Far Right? White Nationalism? No. Islamophobia in Australia, as elsewhere, is promoted by pro-Israel devotees of Late Western Classical Liberalism. I am not saying that the latter was the source of Tarrant’s Islamophobia – just that Islamophobia is not part of the ‘Far-Right’ narrative in Australia.

Dr. Jim Saleam, president of the Australia First Party, and primary ideologue of Australian Nationalism, explained the Australian Nationalist position in terms at variance with that of the sundry ‘Australian patriots’ committed to Israel, and the oxymoron they call the ‘Judaeo-Christian heritage’.32 In an address to the Sydney Forum in 2011 Dr. Saleam pointed out the origins of the ‘war on terrorism’ as a means of extending American hegemony, Israeli interests, and globalisation with the need for a new ‘world threat’ after the implosion of the USSR. Another world bogeyman was required:

After the fall of communism, the western elites, those concealed rulers of our world, were sure of their ultimate triumph. There seemed no competitors – even unappetising ones. They wanted to extend the boundaries of the market empire, to destroy all cultures, to create economic man, that bio cog in a vast machine of trade and commerce. Super-profits forever, nirvana – the New World Order.

But there was still a number of hold out societies. India and China had joined the global economy, even if they could not be globalised politically. Russia broke free. There was also the Islamic world.33

The globalisers had used Islamic radicals since the 1980s when they created and funded the Mujahideen to fight the Soviet Union in Afghanistan, then the Kosovar Muslims against Serbia, and jihadists in Libya, and Syria. ISIS also seems to have been convenient in providing the USA with a pretext to invade any land that required bombing into oblivion.34

Now there was blowback. These Islamists looked at the USA and they saw a state a little like the USSR in some ways – materialistic, imperial, hypocritical, in both its religion and its irreligion. So against the USA they went to war and the USA went to war against them. And the opportunity! The existence of this new enemy gave the free market empire, this New World Order, a chance to interfere in the Islamic world. To break it open as a market. To seize its oil. To serve Israel and protect Israel, the guilty little false-moral symbol of Western liberalism.

In the 1990’s, elite academic and opinion-maker forces identified a new enemy for the democratic globalisers – it was Islamism. Sometimes they called it Islamo-fascism because it was violent and it disliked Israel. One could demonise this enemy and crusade against it that way. They said Islamo-fascism had a basis in Nazism and it wanted to kill the Jews and that it associated we ‘westerners’ with the Jews and wanted to kill us all. Our ‘Judaeo-Christian’ world was the enemy of the Islamo-fascists they said, of these utter primitives. Why? We Judaeo-Christians supposedly represented a type of God-derived civilisation superior in both its traditionalism and its liberalism. But in secret the elites knew they could break the Moslem world open for the market economy by going to war against Islam in the name democracy, the essential political creed of Judaeo-Christianity.

The world was set for the war on terror. When the system decided that, it simply needed all sorts of political allies and dupes. It had to convince wide sections of society that such a war was good. It had to create a false politics to get us to fight the Islamists.

The people here, in part, not completely of course, belong to a type of would-be pro-Australian political camp. We are not internationalists. We are like others in many countries who’d like to put their own people first. We tend to be a little suspicious of those who come to a society and then work against it (as the Islamists do). So, finally, we also became one target-market to be (hopefully) co-opted into the evolving system of the New World Order and its plans for war.35

Dr. Saleam posed the question as to the extent of ‘Islamism’ being a threat to

Australia. He analysed causes rather than symptoms, and when in the light of this analysis a different perspective emerges. ‘Islamism’ becomes a threat only to the extent that it is made into one by outside forces that are as much against the integrity of Muslim states as they are against any states that resist integration into a global economic system. Saleam also pointed out that despite the murderous conflicts between Muslims and Zionists, Zionists are in the forefront of promoting Muslim immigration into European societies,36 while ensuring that foreign migrants get short shrift from Israel. The spokesman of Australian Jewry, Isi Liebler, could say out of one side of his mouth that ‘Australians can capture the spirit of multiculturalism which is under threat’, and out of the other, ‘multiculturalism has no pace in Israel, created as a Jewish state for Jews’.37

References

1K. R. Bolton, Babel Inc. (London: Black House Publishing, 2013), 183-186. Also: ‘The Rivkin Project: How Globalism Uses Multiculturalism to Subvert Sovereign Nations’, Foreign Policy Journal, March 12, 2011.

3Darren E. Sherkat, ‘Losing their Religion: When Muslim Immigrants Leave Islam’, Foreign Relations (CFR) June 22, 2015.

4Joseph Ozawa, Juvenile Justice: ‘A Study of National Judiciaries for the United Nations Asia and Far East Institute, for the Prevention of Crime and the Treatment of Offenders: A Focus on Singapore and Selected Comparisons with California (USA) & Australia, 139th International Training Course Visiting Experts’ Papers’, 66.

5Daniel Haqiqatjou, ‘The Problem with Progressivism’, Islam & Evolution, March 11, 2014.

6See: K. R. Bolton, The Decline & Fall of Civilisations (London: Black House Publishing, 2018).

7Qur’an, An-Nisa, 4:20.

8Qur’an, 4:24.

9Qur’an, Al-Anfal, 8:15.

10Qur’an, 8: 16.

11Qur’an, 8: 19.

12Qur’an, 8: 33.

13Qur’an, 8: 38.

14Qur’an, 8: 61.

15Qur’an, 8: 70.

16Robert Spencer, ‘Blogging the Qur’an’, Jihad Watch.

17Gustave La Bon, La Civilization des Arabes, 126; adapted from the Arabic translation by Dr. Ragheb El-Sergany, Islamstory.

18Ibid. 127.

19Ibid. 278.

20Ibid. 134.

21Gustave La Bone, la religion et la vie, 67.

22Arash Najaf-Zadeh, The European New Right – A Shi’a Response: A Radical Critique of Alexander Dugin, E. Michael Jones, and Alain de Benoist (London: Black House Publishing, 2018), 13.

23Ibid., 14.

24Zionist Occupation Government.

25Arash Najaf-Zadeh, op. cit., 16.

26Ralph Peters, ‘Constant Conflict’, Parameters, U.S. Army War College, Summer 1997.

27Francis Fukuyama, The End of History and the Last Man (Free Press, 1992).

28Samuel P. Huntington, The Clash of Civilization (Simon & Schuster, 1996).

29Francis Fukuyama, ‘They can only go so far’, Washington Post, August 24, 2008.

30Umar al-Rumi, ‘New Zealand and the Fallacies of the Anti-Islamic Identitarianism’, Islam4Euroepans.com; March 17, 2019.

31K. R. Bolton, ‘Cant Overtakes New Zealand in Wake of Mosque Shootings’, Arktos Journal, March 29, 2019.

32An oxymoron insofar as Jesus, the Galilean, rebelled against Judaism, and is in turn hated by the rabbinic tradition stemming from the Pharisees, while honoured in Islam as a prophet.

34See: K. R. Bolton, ‘America’s Jihad’, Foreign Policy Journal, October 17, 2014.

35Jim Saleam, op. cit.

36NGOs Issue Vision Statement ahead of UN Meeting on Refugees and Migrants’, Hebrew Immigration Aid Society, August 2, 2016.

37Bolton, Babel Inc., op. cit., 146-47.

This Post Has 4 Comments
  1. Thank you Kerry Bolton for another refreshingly insightful and non Islamophobic analysis from the authentic Right.

    “The Islamic rejection of ‘progressivism’ aligns with the Right’s ‘revolt against the modern world’, to cite Evola.” – Indeed it does and expresses my own thinking precisely.

  2. The irony of it all would be hysterical if it wasn’t so sad. Daniel Pipes recently attacked me for speaking out against Islamophobia in my book, Washington’s Dark Secret: The Real Truth About Terrorism and Islamic Extremism. His large anti-Muslim following has joined in with an onslaught of hate speech and sheer ignorance:

    “The extent to which a professed Muslim is “moderate,” is the extent to which he is not an authentic Muslim. Islam is BY NATURE extreme.”

    “Islamophobia is a bogus word created by fascists and used by cowards to manipulate morons.”

    “A bogus God and a bogus anti-human religion.”

    These rants by Pipes and his followers (along with many more) can be found at the links below:

    https://lnkd.in/fPkxbHv
    https://lnkd.in/fUzc-Yy

    Pipes claims not to be an Islamophobe, but his own statements and those of his followers speak for themselves.

    1. Yes, I noticed that Pipes et al deny Islamophoibia, while asserting that Islam per se is a criminal political creed. Perhaps they are getting confused with Zionism. Yet it surely this bilge from which actual Rightist elements are feeding.

Leave a Reply

The comment section of Arktos Journal will be regulated by standards consonant to the principles of the project itself. Our general rules are as follows:

  • Comments will not be moderated on the basis of the opinions expressed (controversy is welcome), but rather on their quality.
  • Contributors are requested to obey the rules of civility, without which all discourse is null, and to avoid crude personal attacks. Wit is welcome, but argument, and not insult, will be the expected means of refutation.
  • Obscenities, vulgarity and slurs will not be tolerated.
  • Contributors are invited to check their contributions for general grammatical correctness (allowances will obviously be made for second-language speakers) and logical cohesiveness.

As a general guideline, all contributors should imagine that they are speaking their minds aloud in a public space, unhindered by political correctness but bound to the older standards of honour and decency in speech.

All decisions of the moderators are final.

Back To Top