Islamophobia: Trojan Horse Amidst the Right – Part 3

Parties of Islamophobia – More Zionist than Rightist

Among the most well-known parties that are variously called ‘populist’ and ‘far-Right’ are those that prioritize supporting Zionism and Israel. They fail to offer a coherent Rightist ideology, and their defence of ‘identity’ often does not extend beyond demands for banning the burqa, banning the Qu’ran and generally delegitimizing Islam, at times in the name of a bogus ‘Judaeo-Christian heritage’, Western Enlightenment-liberal-secularist ideology, or even a bizarre mixture of both, augmented with an Israel First foreign policy. As Dr. Saleam noted, opposition to the incursions of ‘Islamism’ in Western nations, that is to say, the Wahhabism promoted by the USA’s Saudi ally, and rejected by the supposed rogue states, Iran and Syria, should be differentiated from foreign policy entanglements in support of Israel, and the century of Western-imposed chaos that has caused the migrant crisis.

The most well-known opponent of the ‘Islamization’ of Australia is One Nation, despite the Israeli lobby being an altogether more aggressive opponent of the party¹ than any Muslim association. Their policy on preventing ‘radical Islamic terrorism’ is that,

The Federal Government has a role to play in urging Islamic leaders to modernise their faith. A literal reliance on the ancient words of the Koran is a recipe for demonising gays, non-submissive women and non-believers. This adds to the likelihood of terrorism via the radicalisation of confused, alienated youth. It is insufficient to say that the meaning and application of the ancient text can never change. Just as other religions have tried to move with the times, to apply the principles of the Enlightenment to their traditional beliefs, Islam must do the same. ²

As with Islamophobic parties generally referred to as ‘Right-wing’, the ideological premise of One Nation is Enlightenment liberalism. The problem is that Islam is not sufficiently liberal – an odd complaint for any type of Rightist. One Nation seeks the assimilation of Islamic youth into Australia as beer swilling consumer-ockers.

The Rise Up Australia Party has a policy statement specific to supporting Israel and the USA’s globalist agenda.³ Rise Up lauds Israel as ‘the sole functioning democracy in the Middle East’, and commends the state for its generosity towards the Arabs. The party sees Sharia law as a threat to ‘democracy’, which is to say the Late West’s liberalism, and favours the melting pot. The party lauds the Sykes-Picot agreement that carved the region into artificial states after World War I, and regards Jordan, not Palestine, as the home of Palestinians. Rise Up endorses Israel’s governance of the Holy sites, presumably oblivious to the long record of Zionist desecration.⁴

The Australian Liberty Alliance (ALA) likewise sees Israel as having a special place as the ‘only liberal democracy in the Middle East’, with the right to the occupied territories and Jerusalem as the capital.⁵ Again, foreign policy is linked with opposition to ‘Islamization’. Islam per se is regarded as a threat.⁶ The party sees Islam as having kinship with Communism and Fascism.⁷ Totalitarianism is the only ideological definition the party can offer, indicating the intellectual bankruptcy and historical illiteracy of ALA. Again, the ideal is the melting-pot of integrated ethnicities welded together by ‘Judaeo-Christian’ and ‘humanistic roots’. Among the determinations to resist Sharia law are that there will be ‘No amendments to our taxation laws to suit the peculiarities of Islamic sharia finance’.⁸ Islamic Sharia finance, far from being a ‘peculiarity’, is in accord with the traditions of the West’s High Culture epoch. Both Islam and Catholicism condemn usury (Islamic = riba) as a sin. The party’s finance policy cannot get beyond fiddling with taxation.⁹ There is no understanding of the banking system such as is understood by both traditional Islamic and Catholic thinking.¹⁰ The ALA also condemns Islamic states for not having adopted the United Nations Declaration on Human Rights – a liberal, Jacobin legacy – but have adopted a Qu’arnic-based Cairo Declaration of Human Rights in Islam.¹¹ Hence, the ALA betrays itself as a neo-Jacobin party, without a Rightist foundation. When the ALA states that Sharia law is a threat to Australian law, they are defining Australian law as that of neo-Jacobin United Nations ideology. As with the ‘one nation’ ideology of much of what is called ‘Right’, the appeal is to negate identities in favour of the melting-pot and the preservation of separate identities is condemned as akin to South African ‘apartheid’: ‘We believe the only way to overcome disadvantages and racism in our society is to eliminate what divides us. True equality and genuine respect cannot come from different laws for different classes of people. Apartheid South Africa had different laws for different races. We do not want this in Australia’.¹² Because of lack of ideological coherence, liberal assumptions about ‘apartheid’ are adopted in promoting neo-Jacobin civic nationalism. ‘We stand against apartheid and racism’¹³ sounds like a slogan from some Communist faction. In regard to the ‘arts and Australian culture’ policy,¹⁴ no member apparently has the ability to define this for the land of Henry Lawson, and the ALA is still searching for someone who can.

These Australian parties seem to have taken their party line from one of the most well-known of Islamophobic politicians, Geert Wilders of the Netherlands, head of the Party for Freedom, assumed to be a significant party of the Right. Wilders, who as a youth spent a year on a kibbutz, also states that Israel should not concede any territory, refers to the borders drawn up by Anglo-French interests after World War I, states that Palestinians are not entitled to Palestine but should exist in Jordan, refers in rabbinic terms to Israel being above reproach, the light of the world, the vanguard of Western civilization, and states that Judaism is the foundation of the West.¹⁵ Wilders comes from a liberal milieu: he started his political career in the Peoples Party for Freedom and Democracy (VVD), an official affiliate of the Liberal International,¹⁶ splitting from that party to form the Party of Freedom. In seeking international alliances based on nothing other than opposition to Islam, he has always had trouble positioning himself on the Right, stating of the once strong British National Party, ‘The BNP is a party that, whatever you think of it, it’s not my party – I think it’s a racist party’.¹⁷

That is correct: Wilders is not a ‘racist’ (sic); he believes that all residents of The Netherlands must be subsumed into an undefined Dutch nationality. Wilders’ supposedly ‘far-Right’ party is a hyped-up version of his former liberal party the VVD, which rejects ‘sharia law’ as an attack on ‘Dutch democracy’,¹⁸ perhaps as part of the policy of ‘strengthening the position of LGBTI people’.¹⁹ ‘Civic integration’ is the ideal,²⁰ and this includes a ban on that most momentous of problems for the pseudo-Right, the burqa.²¹ The defining premise of such pseudo-Right, liberal parties is the free market, from which the holy cow of individual freedom emanates.²² That is the criterion by which citizenship, culture and society are defined. As for the Party of Freedom, one looks in vain for a cogent Rightist policy. Other than eliminating Islam, there are one-liner references to lower taxes, halving the motor vehicle tax, referenda, increased defence and police spending, withdrawal from the European Union. An ideology is elusive.²³ While Wilders is opposed to state subsidizing of political parties, and relies on private donations, he also opposes the transparency of such donors. As will be shown, he is funded by Neocon/Zionists, and hence does not require a coherent political programme.

Re-Orientating the Right

As Islam becomes a concern for traditionally liberal constituencies such as Jews and homosexuals, they have moved their allegiance to parties opposing ‘Islamization’ and ‘Sharia law’, presenting these as a threat to Western liberal values. In what has been called ‘pinkwashing populism’, a report stated of the ‘gay’ vote for the Front National and others:

A political party that would abolish same-sex marriage – one whose founder wanted AIDS patients rounded up and branded homosexuality “a biological and social anomaly” – is now winning LGBT votes in France.

Motivated in part by the deadly Islamic extremist attacks at home and at a Florida gay nightclub, a growing bloc of traditionally left-leaning gay voters has embraced far-right French presidential candidate Marine Le Pen, leader of the once-fringe National Front party.

‘Faced with the current threats, particularly from radical Islam, gays have realized they’ll be the first victims of these barbarians, and only Marine is proposing radical solutions’, said Kelvin Hopper, 25, a gay artist who lives in a hipster district of Paris and plans to cast his ballot for Le Pen. …

France is not the only place where far-right rhetoric conflating Islam with radical jihad has been used to shake up long-standing political alliances.

In the Netherlands, Party for Freedom leader Geert Wilders said that his party, which is hostile to Muslims and wants to halt immigration, should hold natural appeal for LGBT voters.

‘We were always one of the top parties that were supported by (the gay) community. We believe that like Christians and Jews and women and journalists, gay people are also one of the first to pay the price of … Islamization’, Wilders said.

In the United States, President Donald Trump, too, has used rhetoric expressing solidarity with gays as a means of attacking some Muslim-majority countries – claiming during the presidential debates last year that they ‘push gays off of buildings’.²⁴

Certain parties are re-orientating fundamental policies away from tradition and towards liberalism in the pursuit of an anti-Muslim platform, which includes pandering to feminist and gay agendas.

Pim Fortuyn, a homosexual, preceded Wilders in the Netherlands by forming a party generally described as ‘far-Right’, although his premise was the defence of Dutch liberalism against the anti-liberal character of Islam. Given that certain Imams can find it convenient to jump aboard an anti-white bandwagon together with Communists, feminists, LGBT, and sundry combinations thereof,²⁵ even while these types express comradely love for Muslims, the catalyst for the founding of Fortuyn’s party was the anti-gay and anti-feminist attitudes being brought into The Netherlands by Muslims. The bankruptcy of the pseudo-Right can be discerned on the issue in regard to Islam:

After Fortuyn, other right-wing and populist politicians such as Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Rita Verdonk and Geert Wilders took up the gay issue, crowding out the leftwing parties uncomfortable with the Islamophobic tone in the defense of gays and lesbians. Although the populist and right-wing parties may have had self-serving reasons to support women’s and LGBT rights, the performative effect of their pro-gay and pro-feminist stances should not be underestimated: almost the entire Dutch political spectrum from the far left to the far right now supports progressive positions that remain embattled in most other western countries.²⁶

Islamophobic populism had far-reaching effects on Dutch politics, subverting traditional values in the name of the ‘Right’ and opposition to multiculturalism:

Respect for gay and feminist rights became a prime battleground in the debate over multiculturalism and close to a litmus test for eligibility to immigrate to the Netherlands. The government made it part of its immigration policy when Verdonk was the responsible minister: a new immigration exam asked how the Dutch view gays and lesbians, though not whether the potential immigrant was in favor of homosexuality. Gay and lesbian rights thus became part of a test on Dutch citizenship. Some might consider this a positive development, which had been demanded by the LGBT movement, but it was a strange occurrence, suggesting that being Dutch implied embracing gay rights and practices.²⁷

The For Britain movement, led by a lesbian, Anne Marie Waters, is likewise referred to as ‘extreme Right’ due to its focus on Islam, while the rationale for that opposition is the defence of liberalism. Like Fortuyn, Ms. Waters began on the Left of politics in the Labour Party. After failing in her leadership bid for the UK Independence Party, she helped to establish For Britain. The economic policy of the party is ‘a free market and capitalist economy’, which places the party in the Whig tradition, not on the Right. Of Islam the official party policy states: ‘Indeed, there is no other world religion whose instructions and values are explicitly and fundamentally inconsistent with traditional British values of liberty, tolerance and compassion, in the way that Islam is’.²⁸ In an attitude as embarrassingly stupid as that of Australia’s One Nation, For Britain warns that there is no chance that, left to themselves, ‘the Muslim population of the UK would create and adopt a reformed liberal interpretation of Islam that would supersede the violent intolerance taught in the Quran and practised by Mohammed’.²⁹ Again, there is a focus on a gay agenda in opposing Islam, with Waters telling Pink News:

‘There’s a problem today and that problem is that gay rights campaigners, even prominent ones, are sanitising and ignoring religious homophobia, particularly from Muslim communities. There is much evidence to show that there is an alarming level of anti-gay sentiment among Muslims in Britain and across Europe, and large scale migration to Europe in recent years, has been from countries where high numbers of people believe that homosexuality should be criminal, some even supporting the death penalty. This matters, and it will affect our future. I will continue to speak out and raise awareness of this, in the interests of everyone’s liberty, including gay people. There are very few, if any, people involved in Electoral politics who will address this important issue, but I have, and will continue to’.³⁰

Consistent with other parties of the pseudo-Right, the condemnation of Islam per se is aligned with zeal for Israel, the party recognizing Jerusalem as the capital of Israel. The foreign policy is aligned with the USA as a paragon of ‘Western values and freedoms’.³¹ The party would also hold a public inquiry into ‘Islamic doctrine’, and provide state assistance to those leaving Islam.³²

Waters is founder of Sharia Watch UK. Among the ‘evils’ of Islam to which Sharia Watch objects are the prohibition on usury, which was also a feature of the Gothic West before the Reformation.³³ Waters was associated with English Defence League founder Tommy Robinson in trying to form the anti-Muslim Pegida movement in Britain.³⁴ In an attempt to save the United Kingdom Independence Party from ‘oblivion’, the party has hired Tommy Robinson as an ‘advisor’.³⁵ Robinson, like Wilders, is funded by neocons in the USA, which will be examined below.

After being jailed for contempt of court, the ‘Free Tommy’ campaign gained support in New Zealand, where several demonstrations were held. While there have been unjustified efforts by police and media to hound the indentitarian Dominion Movement in New Zealand, in the wake of the Christchurch Mosque shootings, what remain on the radar are projects that actually do oppose Islam. Perhaps their support for Israel makes them hands-off? Right Minds – NZ is described as ‘ a broad church right-wing movement for New Zealand conservatives, libertarians, traditionalists, capitalists, and nationalists: people who value our Judeo-Christian heritage, believe in personal responsibility, and want to see government play a lesser role in our lives’. That is to say, it is not a Right-wing movement, but places itself within Whiggery. Among those not welcome are ‘Communists’, and ‘Fascists’.³⁶ The victory of Donald Trump is its motivation. Islamic State Watch – NZ continues to operate on Facebook.³⁷ A New Zealand branch of the ‘Free Tommy Robinson – Global’³⁸ was established in 2018, organized by NZ Islamic State Watch.³⁹

World Network of Zionist/Neocons Behind Islamophobia

The Free Tommy Robinson international campaign was organized and funded by the Middle East Forum (MEF), run by Daniel Pipes, who founded the MEF in 1994. This is part of an influential global network. While the news media waxes hysterical about the ‘Alt Right’, and ‘white supremacy’, nothing is said about the present Islamophobia emanating from the source, which is Zionist. Pipes, a veteran government adviser, named among the 100 most influential living Harvard graduates, is credited – in a positive manner – by the mainstream media with being the first to declare Islam an enemy, and is hailed ‘as the most prominent scholar on radical Islam’.⁴⁰

The MEF, by-lined as ‘promoting American interests’, continues a Facebook presence, despite being the primary source of Islamophobic propaganda.⁴¹ The extent to which ‘American interests’ are made synonymous with Israel is indicated by its establishment of the Israel Victory Project, ‘to steer U.S. policy toward backing an Israeli victory over the Palestinians’.⁴² The MEF also states that it aims to protect ‘Western values from Middle Eastern threats’. While one might naively assume that this means defending the traditional Western ethos from Zionist subversion, to the contrary, it means subordination of Western interests to those of Israel, and a redefinition of ‘Western values’ as synonymous with liberalism. Among the aims is to ‘emphasize the danger of lawful Islamism’, and defend ‘anti-Islamist authors and activists’. ‘Islamism’ is synonymous with Islam per se; and the religion as such is delegitimized. This is the outlook adopted by sundry parties and groups across the world, thus equating Islam with criminality. The extent of the MEF’s outreach can be seen by its annual grants of $2,000,000 to 75 groups and individuals.⁴³

In 2011, the MEF ‘raised substantial funds’ and worked with Geert Wilders on a successful legal defence, when charged over his film Fitna with equating Islam with violence.⁴⁴ MEF defined Wilders’ party, as ‘libertarian’.⁴⁵ David Horowitz, editor of Front Page Mag and director of the David Horowitz Freedom Center, funded a US tour by Wilders in 2009, and provided other funding that year to promote Fitna in Britain.⁴⁶

Another sponsor of the Wilders US tour was the Gatestone Institute, founded by Nina Rosenwald, an heiress of grandfather Julius Rosenwald’s Sears Roebuck fortune. She is co-director of the William Rosenwald Family Fund, her father William having founded the United Jewish Appeal. Nina Rosenwald has been a member of the Board of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), the primary Israeli lobby in the USA, and is on other boards as well.⁴⁷ Rosenwald also funds Daniel Pipes and MEF, Pipes having been a notable influence on Norwegian shooter Anders Breivik, whose zeal for Israel seems to have been more pronounced than any Western-Rightist motive,⁴⁸ and who served as a role model for the Christchurch shooter, Tarrant. Rosenwald is also close to neocon eminences such as Frank Gaffney and John Bolton,⁴⁹ the latter now back in government as Trump’s national security adviser. Rosenwald money also sponsors ‘Greater Israel’ extremists, who want to extend the territory of Israel, such as the Israel Land Fund and the Central Fund for Israel (New York City), supporting the ‘settler movement’.⁵⁰ The Gatestone Institute’s commitment to Classical Liberalism extends beyond condemning Islam to condemning Pope Francis as a crypto-Marxist for his criticism of materialism and capitalism. Gatestone was appalled with a Papal speech in Bolivia, quoting a CNN report:

Pope Francis delivered a fiery denunciation of modern capitalism on Thursday night, calling the ‘unfettered pursuit of money’ the ‘dung of the devil’ and accusing world leaders of ‘cowardice’ for refusing to defend the earth from exploitation. Speaking to grassroots organizers in Bolivia, the Pope urged the poor and disenfranchised to rise up against ‘new colonialism,’ including corporations, loan agencies, free trade treaties, austerity measures, and ‘the monopolizing of the communications media’.⁵¹

Talking with government, trade union and business leaders, the Pope said, ‘I ask them not to yield to an economic model which is idolatrous, which needs to sacrifice human lives on the altar of money and profit’. Susan Warner, writing for Gatestone, of which she is a ‘Distinguished Senior Fellow’, stated, ‘Some high-profile commentators such as Rush Limbaugh think they smell a Marxist clothed in white papal robes, who dreams of redistributing the world’s wealth’.⁵² For any traditional Catholic Pope Francis’ 2015 appeals in South America against capitalism and materialism will be immediately recognized not as Marxism (sic) but as traditional Catholic social doctrine,⁵³ which often provided a basis for the genuine Right. Warner is founder of the Olive Tree Alliance, a Christian-Zionist organization committed to ‘standing with Israel’.⁵⁴ Perhaps nothing better encapsulates the distance between the actual Right and the Islamobic-neocon network (whether one is Catholic or not) than these befuddled assumptions about capitalism and Catholicism.

To make the position clear, Professor Alan M. Dershowitz stated that President Trump should be unequivocal in the condemnation of the ‘extreme right’: ‘He should focus his condemnation on extreme right-wing bigots who speak and act in his name, and leave it to those of us on the left to focus our condemnation on left-wing extremists and bigots’. He castigated Trump’s attempt at objectivity in response to the Charlottesville riots of police and Antifa against those legally defending Southern traditions, for suggesting ‘a moral equivalence between the Nazis and the KKK, on the one hand, and those protesting and resisting them, on the other hand’. Dershowitz commended William F. Buckley, founder of the iconic neocon flagship National Review, for his having marginalized former Reagan presidential aide, presidential candidate and paleoconservative, Patrick Buchanan from the bogus-Right:

I have long believed that it is the special responsibility of decent conservatives to expose, condemn and marginalize hard-right extremists and bigots. William F. Buckley showed the way when he refused to defend Patrick Buchanan against charges that what he had said amounted to anti-Semitism. Other decent conservatives followed Buckley’s lead, and marginalized anti-Semites and racists who expressed bigotry in the false name of conservatism.⁵⁵

This is precisely why Professor Paul Gottfried coined the terms paleoconservative and Alt Right; to distinguish the actual Right that was attempting to emerge from the morass of post-Trotskyite pro-Zionism of the type Dershowitz is calling ‘decent conservatives’. As is plain, the real bugbear was that the paleoconservatives such as Buchanan, who had fought an ideological civil war within the Regan Administration against the neocons, put ‘America First’ rather than Israel First. Journalists and academics are still too stupid to get the distinction, and so are many who call themselves Rightists, jumping aboard that bandwagon in alliance against Islam.

Hence, when Tommy Robinson was jailed in 2018 for contempt of court, the ‘Free Tommy’ campaign was organized by Daniel Pipes’ MEF, stating in a press release:

The full resources of the Middle East Forum were activated to free Mr. Robinson. We:

1. Conferred with his legal team and made funding available to them;

2. Funded, organized and staffed the large “Free Tommy” London rallies on June 9 and July 14 (see The Times, The Guardian, and the Independent);

3. Funded travel by Rep. Paul Gosar (R-AZ) to London to address the rally; and

4. Urged Sam Brownback, the State Department’s ambassador for International Religious Freedom, to raise the issue with the UK’s ambassador.⁵⁶

The other primary neocon organisation at the centre of the Islamophobic network is the David Horowitz Freedom Center (DHFC) which describes itself as a ‘political warfare’ school, and as a ‘conservatives’ think tank. The Center is ‘anti-Left’ to the extent that it embraces the classical liberal tradition, which is neither ‘conservative’ nor ‘Right’. That is to say, it is ‘neocon’, and Horowitz is one of a long line of disaffected Marxists who have embraced the USA as the citadel of a world revolution. This has nothing of a Right-wing tradition about it. Horowitz alludes to the ideological lineage: ‘America’s enemies beginning with the communist totalitarians of the Cold War and extending now to the Islamist barbarians seeking the destruction of Israel and the United States’.⁵⁷

The Center’s term ‘Islamo-Fascism’ betrays the mentality of ex-Marxists turned Classical Liberals. The Classical Liberal sees society as held together by a ‘social contract’ (a Rousseauan/Jacobin term used by Horowitz)⁵⁸ to ensure the orderly transaction of commerce. Hence to Classical Liberals such as Jordan Peterson, mis-identified as ‘extreme right’, all ‘identity politics’ is anathema, including that of the ‘Alt Right’, because it is group identity, equated with a return to ‘tribalism’. The individual is sacrosanct and above any group association in Classical Liberalism, whereas the traditional Right is nothing if not the defender of traditional group associations which were the basis of societies prior to the Jacobin Revolution. Therefore, when the Pope for example alludes to a social doctrine, the Liberal can only see some kind of ‘Marxism’. To the Classical Liberal, collective identity above the individual is ‘Fascism’, whether Left, Right, Catholic or Islamic; hence the term ‘Islamo-Fascism’. For Classical Liberals, of which the neocons are a manifestation, the American constitutional system is a model for the world, as it provides a social contract among individuals and their commerce. Another so-called ‘Right-wing extremist’, Stefan Molyneux, is quoted as stating, ‘When people encounter the free market and they recoil or react negatively to it, they’re merely confessing that voluntaryism, trade and negotiation are foreign and threatening to them, which tells you everything about how tragically they were raised’.

Among these also is Milo Yiannopoulos, an Islamophobic celebrity on the lecture circuit who is called ‘far right’ by the media, and an ‘American hero’ by Dr. Horowitz. Yiannopoulos recently performed a camp stand-up comic routine for a conference of the David Horowitz Freedom Center, lampooning Islam and Congresswoman Illhan Omar.⁵⁹ The routine having been videoed, with guffaws from the audience, YouTube viewers are spared the usual warning that accompanies material from the actual Right. Perhaps the Jewish sponsorship allows an exemption? Elsewhere, in an informal chat, Horowitz and Yiannopoulos discussed the war against ‘Christian America’, in which Horowitz states that Christianity and Judaism have the same ethos and lauds the USA as the product of Protestantism (because of its focus on the Old Testament), while condemning Catholicism as corrupt. The duo present themselves as the definers and defenders of the Christian West, while ridiculing the Catholic-Gothic foundations of the Western High Culture, in favour of the post-Reformation epoch of decay.⁶⁰

Numerous front organisations emanate from the Horowitz Center, including Jihad Watch, run by Robert Spencer, whose interpretations of the Qu-ran seem to be wide-reaching among the global neocon/Zionist networks and parties. To Spencer, Mohammed is a paedophile, a misogynist, and a war-monger.⁶¹ Spencer is ‘a Shillman Fellow’ at the DHFC. Something of the influence of this neocon network, as distinct from the ‘Alt-Right’ bogeyman, can be discerned from Spencer’s profile:

Spencer has led seminars on Islam and jihad for the FBI, the United States Central Command, United States Army Command and General Staff College, the U.S. Army’s Asymmetric Warfare Group, the Joint Terrorism Task Force (JTTF), the Justice Department’s Anti-Terrorism Advisory Council and the U.S. intelligence community. He has discussed jihad, Islam, and terrorism at a workshop sponsored by the U.S. State Department and the German Foreign Ministry.⁶²

The International Free Press Society (IFPS) was organised in 2009 in reaction to the Muslim uproar against the twelve puerile cartoons of Mohammed published by the Danish daily Jyllands-Posten on September 30, 2005. While Muslims resorted to rioting, what would have been the reaction had a daily newspaper published, for example, a cartoon of a stereotypical hook-nosed Jew rubbing his hands over the world? The IFPS claims to defend ‘free speech’ against ‘hate laws’. How far would that extend in an ‘anti-Semitic’ context? The difference is that Arabs and Muslims do not have much influence in Hollywood, Television, news media, publishing, banks, and their ability to respond in the face of vilification is of necessity somewhat cruder. The Board of Advisors is instructive for the number of Islamophobes and well-placed neocons, such as Bat Ye’or, notable for her theory on a conspiratorial Euro-Arabian axis;⁶³ Frank J. Gaffney;⁶⁴ Daniel Pipes, Robert Spencer, and Geert Wilders.⁶⁵

Another personality termed ‘far-Right’ is media personality Katie Hopkins, who shares the Islamophobic zeal for Israel. She was invited to Israel along with the Canadian Rebel Media in 2018. It is interesting that Rebel Media is supposed to be an Alt Right project, with which Lauren Southern,⁶⁶ Stefan Molyneux, and Tommy Robinson have been associated. Like the USA’s Breitbart news, Rebel Media was founded by a Zionist, Ezra Levant. Of her tour of the occupied territories, referring to Hebron, Hopkins commented: ‘We were there when young recruits for the IDF were shown around. That was so exhilarating. I met these young Israelis who were there because they wanted to belong to something’.⁶⁷

Pamela Geller, editor of The Geller Report, and President of the American Freedom Defense Initiative (AFDI) and Stop Islamization of America (SIOA), in addition to several Republican Party awards was in 2013 recipient of the Creative Zionist Coalition Queen Esther Award for Jewish Heroism. She has spoken at the David Horowitz Freedom Center conventions⁶⁸ and received an award from Horowitz in 2010. AFDI was co-founded with Robert Spencer to oppose those who capitulate ‘to the global jihad and Islamic supremacism’. Among its activities are ‘Organizing counter protests to anti-Israel, anti-Zionism demonstrations’ and ‘building strategic alliances with activist groups in Europe and Israel to engage in open and stealthy counter jihad measures’. An indication of Geller’s influence: ‘In October 2011, the United States Marine Corps presented her with the flag flown on September 11, 2011 over Camp Leatherneck, “amid the battlefields of Afghanistan during decisive operations against enemy forces in Helmand Province.’’’⁶⁹

While my book Zionism, Islam and The West, recently translated into Arabic by Dr. Mahmoud Braham, tracing the origins of the ‘clash of civilisations’ to Anglo-French duplicity, opposing Islamophobia, and condemning anti-Semitism, was purged from Amazon.com, the books of these well-placed Islamophobic neocons remain: Daniel Pipes, David Horowitz, Robert Spencer, Pamela Geller, Geert Wilders’ book Marked for Death: Islam’s War Against the West and Me, and Tommy Robinson’s Enemy of the State. Likewise, while Facebook purges itself of the actual Right, the English Defence League remains,⁷⁰ as does Pamela Geller⁷¹ and Stop Islamization of America, whose moderators include Geller, Robert Spencer,⁷² Daniel Pipes,⁷³ and Geert Wilders.⁷⁴

In New Zealand in the wake of the Tarrant shootings, while journalists and police try to discover a strangely elusive ‘Alt Right’, conjured up by several ‘expert advisers’, criticism of Islam has long been manifested, not from any Alt Right, but from relatively respectable sources. The veteran journalist Ian Wishart’s magazine, Investigate has been at the forefront of publishing on the ‘clash of civilisations’, writing of the scenario in 2007 in an article cogently headlined ‘Islam vs. The West’. While Wishart has provided some fine work in exposing the Left and the machinations of international finance, he has a Christian-Zionist background. The Investigate four-part series begins by citing the manifesto of an Islamic party:

Western Capitalism is a shameful and licentious civilization for which there is no precedent known in history. … The westerners and those infatuated by the west feel no embarrassment in saying that Islam deprived women their rights, or that it suppresses and oppresses them. How astonishing it is that such a people would protect her rights? Will it be a people who consider the woman a well-kept jewel or someone who degrades her and considers her a commodity? The one who wants her like a dairy cow working like a slave girl or as a mother and housewife? Those who oblige her to work or those who allow her to work? The one who gives his life to protect her as an honour or the one who does not know in which brothel she has spent the night? The one who embraces her and builds a family with her or the one who satisfies his desires with her on a sudden impulse and then abandons her to look after the children of fornication or to have an abortion?⁷⁵

As someone of Christian sentiments, I find it is difficult to understand why a Christian would regard this Islamic critique of Late Western capitalism as being objectionable? Specifically, who on the actual Right can disagree? Like pre-Stalin Bolshevism, the capitalist destruction of family bonds through feminism is understood in the same vein by these Muslims as by the Right. This passage could be from an Alt Right manifesto. Taking a cue from the neocons, Investigate refers to ‘Islamofascism’.⁷⁶

In 2016, Investigate ran a feature entitled ‘The New Jihad – The Radicals Next Door’. The theme is the neocon (Horowitz, Spencer, Geller) line that the Qu’ran is intrinsically suspect: ‘You can pick almost any book of the Qur’an at random, and verses urging followers to violence against non-believers are everywhere…’⁷⁷ (as you can with the Old Testament, which continues to inspire Israeli leaders).

The attitude towards Islam of the Alt Right is a contrast to that of the neocons, but journalists, academics and state authorities are too ignorant – or too disingenuous – to make the distinction. So when the authorities come after Idenititarians, on the pretext of a link with Tarrant, even in New Zealand, it is because this youth movement represents a genuine threat not to Muslims but to the Establishment. This actual Right seeks causes, not symptoms, and hence it has identified the situation, rejecting the so-called ‘right-wing populist parties’ of the Wilder type. The ‘one nation’ assimilationist demands of certain parties are rejected as antithetical to genuine Rightist aims, and therefore it is absurd to see anything of a ‘white supremacist’ character here:

We neither want a multicultural society, nor do we want to force members of other cultures to take our identity … Right-wingers! Stop defaming immigrants, stop insulting them and blaming them for our mistakes. Stop accusing them of wanting to hold on to their identities … Muslims and Africans! Take down your tents and leave this continent. Entire regions of the world already belong to you. We’ll gladly help you make your homelands better places.⁷⁸

The latter can only be achieved when Israel First and US hegemonic policies are halted and reversed. Of Islam, the Identitarian perspective contrasts with that of the neocon pseudo-Right:

No power in this world presents more of an obstacle to your ‘emancipated’ global village than Islam. The East turned against you with all of its power and strength, and challenged the West. The Muslims opposed your fanatical and heedless ideology with an equally fanatical religion, political Islam. You thought that by bringing your message to the East and the Muslim world, you would be greeted as the bearers of good tidings. You thought you would bring the Muslims to Europe in order to ‘enlighten’ and ‘educate’ them. You were convinced that the Muslims would modernise and reform their religion. Yet they did the exact opposite.⁷⁹

While the liberals hypocritically condemn an illusionary ‘white supremacy’, it is not the actual Right that tries to impose what the liberals and plutocrats claim are ‘universal values’ upon the entire world, or that insist the ideology of the Late West must be brought in messianic style to every tribe of the Amazon, Sahara and Kalahari, or that seek to usher in a millennial ‘end of history’. In seeing not a ‘clash of civilisations’, but a conflict between the remnants of tradition and of modernism, the actual Right states:

We don’t commit the error of many conservatives, who declare Islam to be their absolute enemy. We don’t believe that one should try and convert Muslims to so-called ‘Western values’ – quite the opposite! We neither want to disturb the identity of Muslims, nor do we want to launch crusades against the East as you did. We condemn neither Muslims nor Islam. Here we are a thousand times more tolerant than you ever were. We neither hate nor demonise. We don’t claim to have found the absolute truth, but we recognise the unique and legitimate truths of each and every culture. … The presence of millions of Muslims in Europe represents a continuing threat to the peace of our continent. Not because the Muslims are the embodiment of pure evil, but because your multicultural society doesn’t work.⁸⁰

In a review of a book in praise of the Ayatollah Khomeini by Troy Southgate,⁸¹ a former organiser of the British National Front, and of the London New Right Forums, Peter Rushton, assistant editor of the British magazine Heritage & Destiny, which actually would describe itself as ‘white nationalist’, succinctly poses the question to the Right in regard to ‘those who are serious about wishing to understand Islam in its various manifestations rather than tag along with the Tommy Robinson and Geert Wilders brigade on a Zionist-sponsored trek into the ideological wilderness’.⁸²

References