Errors of the 8th Crusade

for a while, this was the ‘extreme right’ which made headlines

Some have asked from where did I emerge? Above, you have your answer. In 2010, I became heavily involved behind the scenes in the burgeoning sphere of online thought known collectively as the ‘Counter-Jihad’ which had a broad swath of members from the United States (Pamella Geller), the United Kingdom (Tommy Robinson), the Netherlands (Geert Wilders), and Canada (Mark Steyn) just to name some notables. Our cause? To erect a roadblock to Islamic expansion wherever we could.

At this time, almost every right wing force on the European continent was invested in this issue, and many still are today. It is from this milieu that reactions against Islam gathered steam in the United States, from anti-Sharia constitutional changes in certain states, to opposition to mosque constructions.

Establishmentarians hated us of course. Both ‘center-right’ and ‘center-left’ parties were quick to denounce our movement as racist, to which we so readily replied that “Islam is not a race!”. We couldn’t understand it. Muslims represented everything that the left despised ideologically: patriarchy, religious doctrinairism, a hostility to public schooling, etc. And yet time and time again, we the Counter-Jihad crusaders were rebuffed by the people we thought would sympathize with our concerns. Some members took great pains to appeal to these groups, for example the street movement known as the ‘English Defence League’ featured divisions for Sikh and LGBT members! Even this high status signaling proved ineffective. Everyone opposed to Islam’s growing presence in Western life was deemed either racist or just as devastating, ‘Islamophobic’. We can only assume this word was built from the success of the etymologically dubious ‘homophobic’ slur.

For a while, this was my crusade. At that time, nothing seemed scarier to me than the invasion of foreign hordes practicing their bizarre religion and imposing it on everyone. My two most visited websites during this time were the well-known GatesOfVienna and BareNakedIslam which features the wonderful tagline ‘It isn’t Islamophobia when they really ARE trying to kill you.’

It was during this time that I really began to despise the left. I had previously disagreed with them on most issues of the day, but their complicity in the ‘Islamization’ of the West just seemed like an example of either an unforgivable stupidity, or a painfully confusing wickedness.

It wasn’t as if we were without strong intellectual roots either. If Mencius Moldbug is the chief ideologue of the NeoReactionary movement, then a little-known Norwegian essayist who wrote under the pseudonym ‘Fjordman’ was ours. His long and well-researched essay ‘Defeating Eurabia’ remains in my library, and I highly recommend it to anyone (You can read it in its entirety here). Everyone marveled at what Fjordman had done. Through careful collection of data, testimonials from officials, a close study of history, and statistical projections, we had a compelling and pre-packaged weapon we could use to get our case across. For anyone willing to put the time in, nobody could remain unconvinced of the threat the West faced from Islam after reading what Fjordman had compiled. We seemed destined for some kind of success. How could the contradiction between the dominant Liberalism and Islam continue?

Breivik gives his trademark salute in court

Well, what happened next effectively put the Counter-Jihad on the global stage as the worst mass shooting in history occurred on the 22nd July, 2010. After producing his own proactive manifesto which cited the works of Fjordman repeatedly, thirty-two year old Anders Behring Breivik, a Norwegian national, detonated a car bomb in the executive government sector of Oslo. While the country reeled in confusion and no doubt suspected Islamists were behind the attack, Breivik slipped away and journeyed in disguise to the remote island of Utøya where he opened fire with semi-automatic weapons on members of AUF, the youth wing of the country’s ruling Norwegian Labour Party who were at a retreat. Sixty-nine teenagers and young adults were killed. By the time special responders got to the island, Breivik was holed up in a cabin and ready to surrender without incident. He was later found guilty, and given the maximum sentence in Norway of 21 years. Claims that he was part of a larger terrorist network known as ‘Knight’s Templar’ appeared to have been fictitious, and the consensus is that Breivik was a lone wolf, motivated by a desire to save wider ‘Western Culture’ from annihilation.

The results were far-ranging. The attack proved once again the problematic nature of gun control, exposed the ineptitude of Norwegian security services, and produced an eye-roll worthy amount of misleading headlines declaring Breivik to be a ‘Christian terrorist’, when his own manifesto designated him a cultural Christian and nothing more. Importantly for me however, the event was in hindsight, the funeral bell of the Counter-Jihad movement. Not long after, the most successful street movement in a long time, the EDL, broke apart as its leader Tommy Robinson turned his back on it following a government sponsored reign of terror against him and his family. He then joined a ‘moderate Muslim’ led think tank against extremism of all varieties. The implosion of PEGIDA figurehead Lutz Bachman is somewhat reminiscent. The only places where the movement against Islamization in particular experienced an upswing in the wake of the attacks were Sweden (where the populist Sweden Democrats clawed themselves some impressive electoral gains) and Germany, where it culminated in the aforementioned Dresden PEGIDA rallies in late 2014.

fun fact: American radio host Glenn Beck declared PEGIDA a neo-nazi organization

What went wrong? I had been sure that I was part of something great, which would change the Occident and wake people up to a well-documented danger in their midst. It’s wrong to blame the attacks in Norway for the death of the movement, it was inherently flawed from the start. It failed to recognize exactly why things were occurring as they were, blaming the problem on admittedly villainous bureaucrats caught in shameless acts of treachery. The fact was, and remains, that Islam is simply a stronger culture than that of Western European countries. It is superior because despite its myriad flaws, it maintains many trappings of Traditionalism long since jettisoned by our secular elite. I detailed these in my proposal on parallel societies, so I won’t go into them again.

The Counter-Jihad never recognized this. It refused to. Like contemporary Conservatism, while it certainly saved a vitriolic anger for the left, seen as the gatekeepers who let in a pack of hungry wild dogs, it always supported the bedrock dogmas of that very same left. The reason Islam was opposed was not xenophobic by any measure, indeed my cohorts in the movement had bend-over-backwards positive views of every other religious group which had come to the West via immigration, Sikh’s, Jews, etc. Islam was opposed because it was against ‘women’s rights’, because it ‘killed homosexuals’, because it ‘mistreated animals’, because it sought to ‘dominate’, because it solved its problems often through ‘violent means’, and perhaps most importantly because it was opposed to ‘free speech’.

If you took a scalpel and cut through the exterior of crude cartoons and political incorrectness, what you found was that the Counter-Jihad, this movement so opposed to what Liberals were doing to the West, was in fact itself Liberal at heart, it just hadn’t kept up with the dogmatic evolution of the Cult of Progress, hadn’t been able to believe the most blatant contradictory lies of the Cathedral, or perhaps just slammed on the breaks in a grasp at survival. They were not tuned in correctly to the latest iteration of something Auster called the ‘worship of the other‘, a hallmark of late Liberalism. But nothing stops this titanic shift into the abyss. Cry, scream, kick, use logic all day long if you want, it won’t get you anywhere in terms of preserving the sanity on this stretch of the world once so secure, now teeming with hostile invaders.

The problem with this eighth crusade is that it wasn’t one, nor did it ever have the capacity to become one. It was a boisterous coalition largely consisting of concerned evangelicals, dissident Jews, and secularists who hadn’t had quite the right Kool-Aid dosage. Destined for failure, the Counter-Jihad was the most notable attempt in recent memory for a group of malfunctioning Modernists to try and save Modernity from itself, from its own inherent self-destructiveness. The reality is that the things they wanted to defend the most were precisely the things which had weakened Occidental civilization to the point where an Islamic conquest was actually feasible, few shots fired. Geert Wilders for example, couldn’t acknowledge that he wasn’t being tried for hate speech because Islam was so diabolically evil, but because of the smoking crater which now sits where a proud Dutch Christian culture once stood. In all honesty, these people would have opposed authoritarian Christianity just as vigorously as they opposed authoritarian Islam. 

In the spirit of his era’s anti-semitism, Corneliu Codreanu had an observation about Romania’s Jews which was rather startling:

A country has the Jews it deserves. Just as mosquitoes can thrive and settle only in swamps, likewise the former can only thrive in the swamps of our sins.

With Breivik as perhaps the ironic exception to the rule, the Counter-Jihad movement which got me started down my right wing track was marked by a complete inability to look inward. It told us to stare a raging beast right in the eye, but never look in the mirror for fear of our own rotting face, the corpse-like visage of the dying west. To succeed in holding up that mirror with a courage born of detachment and transcendence, that is the criteria of a true rightism. It is the never-easy task of the Reactionary, and as we are continually reminded, it is a cross we bear alone.

(For post-Breivik analysis, I’ll leave you with an uncharacteristically short, unqualified reservation from Mencius Moldbug, a slightly more sunny view from Jim Donald, and some moral ponderings from Free Northerner)


17 thoughts on “Errors of the 8th Crusade

  1. Mr. Citadel…

    At some point perhaps you will see that you were part of a group that actually “helped” maximize the autonomy of Muslims in the West by allowing yourself to be pejoratively characterized as “white supremacists,” ie., racists. Islam and Liberalism are bound by a mutually murderous hatred of white Supremacy and said hatred subsequent desire for radical sexual autonomy. If you desire self-annihilation then the converting jihadist is your Huckleberry. “White” liberals and savage jihadists are locked in a symbiotic regression each justifying their next step deeper into self-annihilation. The crazier jihadi world equals accelerated nihilism equals even crazier jihadi world equals exponentially accelerated nihilism equals the symbiotic regression. The perpetuating self-annihilator is the closest that enemies of white civilization can get to falsifying Perfect Creation.


  2. Interesting post. I probably almost joined in with the Counter-Jihad movement, but they always took things a bit too far for me. Your post basically put it into clearer words what precisely I always felt was wrong about them.


  3. Huh? They only took it to Islam in defense of Liberalism. But even that belies the fundamental reality which is that the Counter-jihad movement only increased radical autonomy for all participants involved EXCEPT for the white male Christian. In a nutshell, Mr. Citadel left the Counter-jihad movement because it is a liberationist movement not amicable to the beliefs of a white Christian.


  4. One cannot defeat Islam because one cannot defeat the desire for radical sexual autonomy. One must look at Islam in a reverse-engineering fashion where one first visualizes the totality of reward of faithful conversion and works his way back to the mindset most susceptible to manifesting the reality of a faithful conversion which just so happens to be an act of murderous self-annihilation. To beat Islam, one would have to annihilate the mindset most susceptible to acts of murderoue self-annihilation for rewards of the most radical of sexual autonomy. Clearly, this mindset is proliferate in the Middle East and outward.


  5. HR…

    You must distinguish between Islam the meme and the Islamic vessel. The Islamic meme of a god granting eternal radical sexual autonomy for an obedient act of murderous self-annihilation is a meme that cannot be destroyed. On the other hand, and putting one's self in the mind of HBD, there is a singular mind most susceptible to the full assimilation of this Islamic meme. That mindset could theoretically be annihilated by totally eradicating the individuals with said mindset. Islam the meme would go dormant. This is in fact the very protocol set out against a certain mindset “susceptible” to the Christian Assertion with a subsequent mass obscuring due a chaotically unfocused analysis. In other words, there seems a German-Anglo hybrid most “susceptible” to the reality of Perfection and thus requiring their annihilation, but under a much blurrier milieu that only ever reaches an “anti-white” fevered pitch. So by a flawed analysis of a hostile anti-white regime within, a wider swath of white Christians can be annihilated. If the analysis were more acutely aware and recognized the protocol as annihilation of the German-Anglo Supremacist then many more liberal “white” Christians would be saved from annihilation by proxy.


  6. It's an error to believe that because Islam condones the annihilation of homosexuals that this then in turn makes Islam and homosexuals true enemies. This analysis seems oblivious to the dead silence of Western homosexuals in the face of Islamic imperialism. This fact alone is enough of a red flag to provoke one to dig deeper into the mutual psychology of the jihadist and “white” homosexual and how they are, in fact, ALLIES bounded by an anti-white Supremacy and driven by desire for radical sexual autonomy… Both jihadist and “white” homosexual hate the white Christian and his traditional sexual morality… A sexual morality antithetical to the perpetuation of self-annihilators.


  7. HR…

    Can you not “see” the fundamental problem? You won't destroy that which could be destroyed and futilely attempt to destroy that which cannot be destroyed. You cannot destroy the Islamic meme. You can only destroy its most potent carrier. Can HBD helps us pinpoint that carrier for destruction?


  8. Mr. Citadel left the counter-jihad movement because it really only existed to defend Western Liberals, BUT Western Liberals do not want to be defended. Western liberals are self-annihilators. So when you say that the counter-jihad movement “took things a bit too far” and you basically agree with Mr. Citadel, WHAT are you actually saying? Too far in what manner?


  9. I see your point, TD. Mr. Alighieri said the counter-jihad movement “always took things a bit too far” for him. Since Mark characterized the counter-jihad as an attempt at a robust defense of liberal society, Mr. Alighieri implies that there is a less robust defense of liberal society that might be acceptable to him.

    But you interestingly point out that liberal society is deliberately self-destructive–its devotees seek their own destruction, and so those who try to “defend” liberal society don't realize that they are in fact frustrating the aim of liberal society and its devotees. They're just “getting in its way”, so to speak.


  10. Mr. McKenzie…

    The fundamental assumption is that the Western Liberal is a deracinated desirer of radical sexual autonomy EQUAL TO the jihadist who is also deracinated and desirous of radical sexual autonomy. So, in fact, the counter-jihadist movement GAVE THE ILLUSION of two anti-white Supremacist entities being at war with each other. But this “war” is not for either one's actual survival as normal, healthy white men understand such a thing, but rather, a cover for a symbiotic regression of mutual annihilation (a true culling of their respective mass of citizens). The jihadist is a murderous self-annihilator who has at his back a robust Islamic breeding system that pays no mind to race or monogamy, ie., is a deracinated, polygamous breeding system, that can then easily maintain a mass of perpetuating self-annihilators then utilized as the very chaotic change agents justifying the Western Liberal's deeper dive into all out nihilism.


  11. The jihadist and the “white” homodyke are not enemies… Are not allies… But are radical autonomists desirous of radical sexual autonomy. The former in the belief of 72 virgins for eternal smashings due an act of murderous self-annihilation against the “infidel” and latter in a strict, literal, technocratic belief in the “right” to pleasure one's Self to death where homo=same=exact same=self…

    These mutual self-annihilators WORK TOGETHER given their ultimately antithetical ordering of “being.” The jihadist annihilates himself and is rewarded radical sexual autonomy. The homodyke indulges in radical sexual autonomy and is then annihilated. Together, each presses the radical button of the other. The indulgence of homodyke begets jihadist begets increased indulgence begets crazier jihadist begets decadent indulgence begets proliferate jihadist begets indulgent despair and so on and so forth. A symbiotic regression. The illusion of a jihadist versus Western liberal “war” is just that. An illusion to obscure two anti-white Supremacist entities routinely cutting each others' throats AS A MATTER of pure ideology.


  12. Mr. McKenzie…

    This is in fact the process at play between the “white” liberal masses and the coterie of radical liberationist movements (Jewish, niggers, homodyke, jihadist, miggers, etc). The closer these movement get to their ideal state, the closer the “white” liberal gets to total annihilation. It's simply a pain/pleasure paradigm. As the radicals of various “stripes” make their play at a painful domination, the impetus to pleasurable self-annihilation becomes irresistible to your run-of-the-mill liberal.


  13. Yes and Yes Thordaddy. I have thoroughly enjoyed reading everyone's posts here!

    I think to defeat Islam one should take a page out of the cult deprogrammer's playbook. The Islamic meme while certainly formidable, is just as brittle as other cults which generally offer sexual autonomy certainly to their leaders and the hope of the “spoils” to the faithful underling. I offer Zakaria Botros as an example of beating muslims at their game.

    A determined, concerted, spiritually minded approach could create the tipping point of doubt in a religion that forbids doubt.


  14. Al Cibiades…

    My aim is simple… All non-Christians and all deracinated “Christians” are simply some degree of self-annihilator. And in a radically diverse democratic society ALL DEGREES OF SELF-ANNIHILATION converge at the “top.” Of course, some degrees of self-annihilation are more equal than others with Islam representing one such example. But we are in this case on very volatile ground. Reality dictates an Islamic meme indestructible as a “matter of fact” with a “selected” mindset most definitely susceptible to total annihilation. So in the final analysis, it is both a deconstruction of the Islamic meme stripped bare to its base desire for radical sexual autonomy in exchange for a self-annihilating act of murderous conversion AND the systemic eradication of the mindset so easily afflicted by this memetic delusion.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s