Islam’s Cowardly Critics

There are many solid critiques of the Islamic religion.

Well-formed theological refutations of the Islamic conception of God, skepticism over the origins of the Quran, and legitimate criticisms of certain maladaptive traits that become apparent in those who adhere to often the most prominent interpretations; all of these are both interesting and intellectually meritorious.

But most criticisms of Islam do not center around these points, they instead are propagated from the perspective of bourgeois Liberalism, which is, in its ‘principled’ form, offended by the guest who comes into the house and does not play by house rules; those rules being adherence to the doctrine of the self, the eternal quest for emancipation. It is of course no coincidence that the very word ‘Islam’ means submission.

Let us first acknowledge that most Liberals are not at all critical of Islam, not openly at least. Their almost sexual fascination with ‘the other‘, with that which overtly challenges their ancestral inheritance, knows few bounds. This has as much to do with ethnicity as it does with religion.While there are a growing number of white Muslims, it is rare to see a Liberal leap so joyously to their defense as to that of an Afghan or Libyan migrant. Most Liberals are in a certain mode which has as its primary directive the ferreting out of any possible privileged or discriminatory systems, and anybody of an exotic background is sure to be classified as part of a victim group.

would-be martyrs for Liberalism are few and far between
but they exist

However, there is another school of Liberal (admittedly a fraction of the rest), which runs with a different prime directive, and that is the defense of Liberalism, even if it means occasionally violating some of its tenets. This type is far more aware of their surroundings, and is usually fully cognizant of the fact that their ideological brothers and sisters are sleepwalking into oblivion. Are these people cowards? In some senses, no. Many of them actually risk their lives in being critical of Islam, and most certainly risk their reputations. While Islamophobia isn’t as severe a heresy as homophobia, the point is that once you have been declared as such, you are likely to be treated the same way as a racist, no matter how much you argue that Islam isn’t a race. So, I don’t mean these people are cowards in the sense that they are scared into silence by the threat of Islam (for the record, I don’t think their detractors are guilty of that either), but instead they are guilty of a cowardice with regard to self-reflection and assessment.

In many ways, critics of Islam such as Douglas Murray, Pamela Geller, Geert Wilders, etc. are much like those who say that if only we had a nice white country things would be okay. Remove the external parasite that has somehow leeched its way in, surround ourselves with a moat and our problems would disappear.

Think back a moment to one of the key critiques of feminism; this being that the concept of the ‘patriarchy’ as an international body of men with nefarious designs to disenfranchise women at every turn, is a conspiracy theory without basis. It’s a conspiracy theory that has to be appealed to in order to explain the existence of this inequitable system that we have. If there was no conspiracy, feminists would have to admit that the way societies treat men and women are in fact grounded in brute facts about male and female behavior. While conspiracy theories such as ZOG or the Eurabia Project are not without merit (indeed aspects of such theories tend to be true in some instances), underlying this are the same problems. Blame is deliberately shifted away from oneself in order to avoid unpleasant conclusions. The unpleasant conclusion that we can reach with regard to the Islamization of Europe is one that many of Islam’s critics will not acknowledge: that there is something intrinsically wrong with our societies, and this is why they are being eroded and transformed by a hostile foreign power.

Saying that Liberal society or Western civilization simply deserves to survive is like saying that any number of now extinct species deserved to survive. Complain as much as you like, but Darwin’s laws remain binding. If your society is failing to compete, then either you are the victim of horribly bad luck (something that the West can never lay claim to) or your survival strategy is lacking. Some will scoff and say “have you seen British GDP? Look at our education levels, look at our technology”. Valid points, but if these things are so important in the great game of civilizations, then why would you feel threatened by Islam? Perhaps you subconsciously realize that all the corporate development in the world is no good if it causes rich monopolies to import cheap labor, that over-funded universities telling young men that they need to ‘rethink masculinity’ might render them docile as women are gang raped in a subway, and that the most advanced weaponry in the world does little good if much of your population is in the retirement home. As the West has climbed Maslow’s hierarchy, it has engaged in the rather bizarre practice of kicking off the rungs below it.Now it’s trapped at the top, and there is a long way to fall.

this is horrible!
they should be in sex ed class learning how to fist themselves

There are two things to consider and these are; survival itself, and the value of that survival. It’s easy to conflate the two, but there is a distinction. What you often find however is that the two concur with each other. Societies lacking in intrinsic value do not survive. It’s that simple.

When we speak of survival, we are making positive judgments. A civilization either will survive, or it won’t. When we speak of the value of survival, we are making normative judgments, whose objective grounds are based on Tradition and by extension, God. The present Liberal order is not only devoid of any higher spiritual value, but in addition, the purging of such elements has crippled the resolve of our civilization to even defend itself. Value tracks survival, at least in the long term.

The key thrust of Modernity has been that civilization is unimportant. Instead, individuals are important. It is impossible to remain consistent with Liberalism and still assert that civilization (even your own) is in fact important. Muslims still value civilization. Whatever faults it may have, and however alien to us it may seem, their continued self-understanding of basic truths is one of the key reasons they are running circles around Western man who grumbles from his armchair as demographics slide away from him. 

In an article for The Spectator, Douglas Murray raises opposition to an open-door policy for refugees, by pointing out that Europe cannot assimilate the Muslims it already has. What he won’t admit is that telling a Muslim to assimilate is like telling a dueling opponent to empty his bullets into the dust. What motivation is there? It’s like when Americans decry China for stealing patented ideas, but why would China stop when the US is not only willing to allow this theft, but its public will then buy Chinese products in their marketplace no questions asked? The Muslim is in the same situation. A vanishingly small number will accept assimilation but most will not because clearly our present culture has done us little good. Monkey see, monkey stay far away. They also might have something of an axe to grind as American planes continue to bomb Pakistani weddings and Yemeni funerals, how over and over again through various avenues the West inserts itself into Arab and Persian affairs when they are not wanted.

Since the dawn of contemporary terrorism, the left has been keen to purge out all reference to Islam when considering its options. Vague terror is the problem. Conservatives respond by repeating radical Islam until they are blue in the face. Then, the counter-Jihadists go one step further and say that it isn’t about radicalism at all, it is about Islam.

to the chalkboard!

Wrong on all counts. The present crisis is not about Islam, the expansion of which is only symptomatic. The problem is us. The problem is the assumptions we have built our Modern World around, many of them appealed to still by Islam’s critics. If the peoples of Western countries are to survive, and indeed if they want that survival to have any value, they must examine themselves. Their volley against Islam cannot be based on the bile of women’s emancipation, gay rights, the freedom to satirize everything, expulsion of religion from public life, and on and on. It must be rooted in two very-easy-to-understand truths that justify resistance to Islamization, which were the basis of our forefather’s resistance:

Islam is a false religion
Muslims do not belong in our lands

32 thoughts on “Islam’s Cowardly Critics

  1. Couldn't have said it better myself. (((Pamela Geller's))) 'critique' of Islam is designed to justify Israel's rent seeking relationship with the West, and the application of further resources to addressing the externalities of Israel's destabilizing behaviour (which has included slaughtering Palestinian and Lebanese Christians!).

    Let us be very clear: The European world of modern times does not have problems with the Muslim world as a whole which could not be solved by (a) refraining from dicking around in their lands and (b) ceasing to self-inflict Muslim immigration (some of it resulting from point A) on ourselves. Israel, by contrast, snaffled Arab land, and we facilitated the background conditions to make this possible. Hence, Israel falls under (a), so far from being a common ally against the MOOOOOSLEMS they are in fact a liability.

    Another thought I had was that a common mistake the Christian fundamentalist influenced anti-Jihad crowd (think Gates of Vienna) make beside their Zio-cucking is an inability to recognize a religion may authentically evolve, or come to a greater understanding of itself. Modern Islam in many cases has filtered out the worst of Mohammed's excesses, despite American backing of Islamic traditions that favour, shall we say, an 'originalist' interpretation of the Koran. Whatever calls for domination of the kafir the Koran makes, it is not practiced in countries like Muslim majority Syria. Christians have guaranteed representation in Iran's parliament, while in Israel they are spat on. See also these photos of Hezbollah rendering honours to Christian icons and churches:

    Although Muslims differ from us theologically, there are perennial truths and spiritual dedication within Islam which I am quite prepared to admire and endorse *when it occurs in their own lands*. If it weren't for the Shia tradition in Iran for example, they'd be unable to resist Anglo-Zionist predations. (Conservatives apoplexy about Iran taking measures against this hostility is actually a combination of genuine Islamophobia and ZOG induced Stockholm Syndrome).

    “If a race has lost contact with what alone has and can give resistance — with the world of [Beyng (sic)] — then the collective organisms formed from it, whatever be their size and power, sink fatefully down into the world of contingency.” – Heidegger quoting Evola.


  2. Hi Mark,

    Sorry for this off-topic comment/question. As a traditionalist, you have expressed a significant admiration for the work of people like Rene Guenon and Frithjof Schuon. And yet, both of these men regarded Islam as a genuine Divine Revelation. Indeed, both of these men became serious practicing Muslims- in Guenon's case, for the rest of his life after his conversion. In view of their spiritual and intellectual stature, how do you make sense of that ?


  3. “For all the mistakes and errors the migrants’ Muslim faith might have, by far not all of what they believe is false. What is false can only be seen in comparison with the Gospels. But in comparison with the liberal catechesis and moral situation of the modern West, we see the falseness of the latter. The Muslim looks preferable. The Muslim believes in the future life, in heaven and hell. This is something unseen for him until the time of its reality. The European laughs everywhere at such “archaism”. For the Muslim the body is what will resurrect on the Last Day. The body must not be defiled while alive or burned after death. For the European it is the other way around: Debauchery during one’s lifetime is the norm, and after death—throw it into the fire with no thought for the resurrection. The Muslim does not value his own biological life above all, and he especially doesn’t value the biological life of his ideological opponent. Above all for him are the laws of the Most High—as they have been explained to him. Therefore he is not afraid to die, or to kill. The post-Christian European knows no other values besides biological existence. Meeting face to face with a culture that looks differently at death is threatening and unbearable for the post-Christian European. So he loses the battle halfway down the road to this meeting.” Archpriest Andrei Tkachev


  4. To your point Chris, it is important to say that Sufi Islam is distinct from what the vast majority of Muslims (and certainly the vast majority of migrants) practice. Secondly, both men were essentially perennialists and viewed salvation as well as knowledge as being attainable through any Traditional religion. While I agree that knowledge is attainable, I only believe that salvation is found in Christ. This is why I call myself a mild Christian hermeticist, rather than a perennialist.


  5. I did want to go into the Israeli aspect of this, but I felt it would lead me off-topic. For the record, I find that extensive conspiracies involving Jews and Muslims are ways to avoid self-assessment, at least for those on the supposed right. Yes, Muslims rape white women. Yes, Jews produce pornography. But we would not be in such a state without our own consent to this condition. As Codreanu said, such things can thrive only “in the swamps of our sins”.


  6. Mark,

    Thank you for responding to my question- especially since I might be coming off as cantankerous.

    “…it is important to say that Sufi Islam is distinct….”

    Quite true. Nevertheless, both Guenon and Schuon would have undoubtedly accepted the proposition that “exoteric” Islam gives everything its adherents need for salvation. This is precisely the whole point of their central thesis- that esoterism/mysticism doesn't “self-stand”, but rather, is found embedded within a traditional framework.

    Mark, I must confess that I have struggled to understand Christian reaction apart from a Perennialist metaphysic. If there is, indeed, the one true faith, what we have then is a universal claim, not just for all of humanity, but for all of creation. How does that square with the notion of distinctive racial/spiritual categories, for example, “Europe is the Faith and the Faith is Europe”?


  7. A very fair question.

    I believe that religions of a Traditional character, which find some root in a 'primordial religiosity' are revelatory. They are snapshots of the Divine Realm. However, these snapshots can be blurred, or be too dark, and often incomplete. As such, I view Christianity as the 'fullest' religion, that is, I believe it to be the one religion affirmed in all its aspects (when understood correctly), and this comes from Jesus not being merely a messenger, but God Himself. Not a deity, but THE deity, above all other divine agents. Those who follow non-Christian religions are getting Traditional sustenance, they are partaking in a genuine religiosity, but it is not religiosity at its fullest.

    As to the question of the spiritual race, this relates to something I have put forward on a number of occasions, that I do not believe 'Christianity' exists in the abstract. There is an Armenian Christianity, there is a Russian Christianity, there is a Greek Christianity etc. These are distinct expressions of Christian truth through the races that hold to it. I must believe of course that Christianity is, in some form, appropriate for all, but the emphasis here is on 'some form'. It is utter foolishness to suggest for example that a Chinese Christianity ought to be based on American protestantism (which is unfortunately becoming more of a reality). No, the Chinese government makes a good point in that Christianity in China must be sinicized (now, I would say the CCP are the last people to decide what is truly 'Chinese' given their horrific record of destroying cultural China, but the point is still valid).

    When I would say 'the faith is Europe and Europe is the faith', this would be qualified by defining what 'faith' means in this instance. I would define it as Occidental Christianity, which speaks specifically to our spirit. It cannot be replicated anywhere. This is I suppose a big contributing factor to my discomfort with the papacy.


  8. Hi Mark,

    I have said this before- I really enjoy your clear and well-measured writing style.

    “Those who follow non-Christian religions are getting Traditional sustenance, they are partaking in a genuine religiosity….”

    I, of course, totally agree. This is a kind of blend of Inclusivism and Perennialism. Inclusivist, because all authentic traditions are “Christian”, in the sense that they participate in the Logoi Spermatikoi;
    Perennialst, because there are “distinct expressions of (Christian) Truth through the races that hold to it”.

    It seems to me that you have a staked out a middle position. The concept of “denomination” is not only valid, but necessary because “I do not believe 'Christianity' exists in the abstract.” The Perennial Philosopher fully concurs, just that they hold to a wider scope of what constitutes Truth. I am inclined to say that your discomfort with the Papacy is analogous to the Perennialist's discomfort with the exoteric believer's claim of exclusive Truth. Which brings me to my next point, which I find both interesting and disheartening.

    Traditionalists (not of the Perennialist persuasion) are all too often ferociously opposed to each other since other “religions” are heretical, false, or just downright evil. In the modern era of mass communication and transportation, the different “spiritual worlds” are no longer remote from one another resulting in conflict and (in my opinion) harming the cause of Tradition in general. Thoughts?


  9. > Yes, Muslims rape white women. Yes, Jews produce pornography. But we would not be in such a state without our own consent to this condition.

    Consent of whom? The people? It's not like your average joe or peasant throughout history had much consent in the way things are. The reality of our situation is that the elites of Western/European societies made concessions to our enemies if they weren't outright eliminated by them. Next thing we know the West is filled with hedonism, and the people are as powerless as they've always been to change anything. We never had a chance to say yes or no, consent was never on the table.


  10. Remember Maistre: “Every nation has the government it deserves”

    Horrible leaders, or we might be more accurate to say, a string of horrible leaders who get progressively worse, are reflections of populations who have degenerated. Consider the Old Testament. No doubt the horrific Canaanite ceremonies of child sacrifice were instigated and required by the tribal leaders, the kings of the Canaanites. And yet, God dispossessed and destroyed them all, not just their leaders. God would be unjust to give death to those who had no culpability, so we can only come to the conclusion that the given leaders represented where the population was spiritually, morally, etc.

    It isn't so much that we actively consented to the present state (think frog in boiling water analogy), but we consent to the continuation, we consent to the permanence of our decline. Only if we escape this, or rather, only if a few good men can escape this, then our victory is all but assured.


  11. Well, I must clarify something. I do believe in one 'Church'. The Church is different to Christianity, and means 'a body holding to infallible councils, who can in good conscience share a chalice'. True Christians must be part of the Church, but like I said, this does not necessitate some nebulous, universal 'Christianity'. For the record, I have strong sympathies with Copts and Armenians, that the supposed 'heresies' that caused schism were largely due to translation difficulties, and that in fact they do belong in the Church, and may be truly Christian.

    Now, to the point of religious conflict. When we speak of something like the hermetic Tradition, like the primordial religiosity, like Augustine's statements about Christianity, we are dealing with the highly ESOTERIC. These things are incomprehensible to laymen in almost all instances. I don't see religious divides as something to be campaigned hard against. To me, this is like trying to 'end poverty' or 'cure hunger'. Our very nature renders it a fool's errand.

    In being a Traditionalist, my aim is not to bridge the gap between the world religions or indeed anything of the sort. My aim is to better understand societies particularly at the metapolitical and spiritual level. This requires of course understanding the key differences between peoples, but also the similarities and correlations, many of which are down to extra-material factors. I must stress I approach these issues not as a theologian or indeed an expert on world religions, but rather a metapolitical analyst.


  12. “….we are dealing with the highly ESOTERIC. These things are incomprehensible to laymen in all instances.”

    You make a very important point here. I'm with you completely. My Perennialist sympathies notwithstanding, I am very skeptical of the squishy-ness of much of contemporary ecumenism- and so is the Traditionalist School of Guenon and Schuon.
    I get so frustrated when my more liberal Perennialist-minded friends are too quick to claim that there are “many paths that lead to the same summit”.

    That being said, I am equally frustrated with the tribalism and automatic demonization of traditions other than one's own- and this is most common among traditionalists themselves! Here's the problem- it is traditionalists that are the most serious and committed to their spiritual patrimony, and yet, it is also these same people who (it seems to me) that are least aware of Tradition as such, evidenced by the tribalism that I alluded to before. (I guess how could it be any other way?)

    Kind Regards


  13. Iancu here. With a heavy heart I have to strongly dissent from this; all of this. Strongly. A few points:
    1) It is unclear to me to what extent exactly the invading foreign settlers (not “migrants”) hold to the “Muslim faith” (wrong choice of words – a “Muslim” is a submitter, a “Mumin” is a believer – makes me question how much the Rev. Father is acquainted with what Muslims actually believe, when they know their own religion, that is). Surely they are more religious than the average Westerner, but the whole thing looks like mainly an interethnic conflict to me with religion merely an identifier. Compare attacks by Al Qaeda and ISIS with random acts of violence by random Muslims, and one gets the point that the problem seems to be the average Muslim.
    2) The Rev. Father is an European. Russians are European, whatever some of them keep saying (till they're red in the face). This is a very weird sort of – to use a Marxist term – false consciousness. Russians have literally more Nordic heritage than any Mongolic traces in both their blood and their culture. Such terminology betrays a political infiltration in his thinking.
    3) No, the Muslim is not preferable! Nooo! Has the Rev. Father forgotten the Chechens, or the burning of the Relics of St. Sava in the middle of Belgrade, the rape of Bulgaria, the Tatar yoke. No one in this part of Europe needs explaining on this point as we can see it with our own eyes, even today in some parts of the Balkans & the Caucasus. I can only suppose political expediency (understandable for the Russian state, but let's not kid ourselves).
    4) Europe is not post-Christian, some parts of it just… lost themselves birefly. The existance of Russia proves it, Poland proves it. Imagine some Irish catholic saying in 1960's quite convinced that Russia is now forever atheist and “post-Christian”. My temperament is usually pessimistic but I am completely faithful on this point – Europe will revive, it just needs a little… push.


  14. 5) Certainly not the Rev. Father but some people here have an <> (not you Mark).
    6) Ok, yeah, I concede we should let the Persians alone to do what they want in their own lands this obsession with Iran is unhealthy; Iran and the Si'as in general are the least problematic for Europe they don't believe in the idea of Caliphate, they have no tendency to destroy heritage, they're not so bad (though mark my words, the Ayatollahs made numerous mistakes and missteps that will have as a result eventually the turning of Persian culture to Atlanticist trends – we can see it already – and in the end the downfal of the Persian nation)
    7) I agree with Mark's article (completely) but this last thing by Prot-presv. Tkachev turned my heart heavy. We need more clergy, and people, like Vladika Njegoš. This is not the time for infighting because of our cultural differences or political and philosophical errors and aberrations (of, for instance, the French). These Muslims are not our friends, are not Russia's friends and are not more friends to the Rev. Father than “Europeans” might soon become. The Russian elite needs to soon update it's political line, things are advancing quickly in Western Europe. If the Russians will side with the Muslims when the time comes, I don't know…


  15. Iancu here. Funny, Mark, how I form my thoughts on something and then I read those thoughts written by you. I thoroughly agree with you here. Also I think it would not be such a bad idea to get an MA or something in Orthodox theology at some point – you show a good understanding of a lot of things.

    As for Chris's concerns, well, some religions are wrong-er than others and some heresies are really, *really* wrong. It bears remembering that. I do not share for instance the conciliatory attitute some people in Traditionalist cirlces seem to have about Islam. Those people should really conider a 1-month trip to Ossetia or Republika Srpska.


  16. Iancu here, again and OFF-TOPIC:
    Mark, soon (hopefully) I will trouble you with a rather SJW-ish (let's just say “needlessly intellectualist”) critique of your use of some words like “patriarchy” and “guardist” (what's a “guardist”? perhaps “legionnaire”, you know, like the Roman legionnaires that founded the Romanian people). As you know languages are being engineered and “enriched” in our sad days of last men… I am really interested for instance, if you've ever read in any Legionnaire source any of the borthers calling themselves “guardists”. I have to admit, I haven't read everything there is to read in regards to the Legionnaire Movement, but I've only encountered the term “guardist” in a book with a very anti-legionnaire slant so far.

    Also: I'm still thinking of what we've talked before but I still have a lot more to read until I can formulate my thoughts on particularism and regionalism, on “recovering” certain liberal ideas and transforming them through a reactionary prism or re-formulating them based on traditional pre-Enlightenment thought, etc. But I'll get back to you. I've also been thinking that Fascism and Christian-Democracy have a lot in common, based on Catholic Social teaching and those parts (like social corporativism) they also have in common with (other) Integralist ideologies. So we must identify what Christian-Democracy did wrong (obvously “Democracy”, but they used to call themselves “Christian-Social politics”), what Fascism did wrong (for instance in Spain; why did it not hold) etc. Again, I will have to read a little more on all this.


  17. There does have to be some element of tribal concern. The fact is, we must defend the honor and word of the Risen God, who is defamed by Islam as not being God. Your points here are very much valid. I think Chris was in general agreeing with my point that the present criticisms of Islam are weak, and I have no desire to repeat those criticisms. The two I outlined at the end of the piece are stronger.


  18. To address it point by point:

    1) The major point was the contrast between Islamic piety and European piety at present. Muslims take their faith seriously it seems, in many cases, while Christians do not. There certainly is a strong ethnic component to this, but you have to see religion in the adaptive sense, that strong religion aids in group dynamics, cohesion, and action. We don't have that, while the migrants (most of them at least) do. The Archpriest is correct to say that this is a massive disadvantage for us.

    2) History is very important here. Russia has always been European, but much like Britain, has been a frontier nation, never FULLY in Europe. This sense of separateness was really ingrained in Russians after the collapse of the Holy Alliance, when Russia became the last bastion of absolute monarchy. The French effectively won the battle for Europe. So the sentiment of an 'outsider's' view upon Europe makes sense when you think about it. And it is not as if Europe hasn't worked diligently (at the puppet strings of the US) to ensure that Russia is not considered to be European, post 1990.

    3) The Archpriest is not being literal when he says they are preferable, but that they 'look' preferable in comparison with the insanity that is occurring in the West: national suicide, feminism, etc. This is dire and without precedent. Chechnya and Serbia, yes, but those Christians killed were martyrs. Martyrdom is always preferable to apostasy, and this is what the Western mindset does to Christians, it causes them to abandon God. We could say the same about Communism in some ways. Would one prefer their country to have a Communist Revolution, or a French Revolution? Well, compare Poland and France, and do the math. One is more brutal, kills many more in the short run, but it cannot cut to the very heart of who we are like Liberalism.

    4) I have the same faith! I did say in my commentary that the Archpriest was too pessimistic, but also that his article was a 'wake up call'. It is ringing the alarm bell across the continent “wake up or you will be destroyed!”. However, we cannot trivialize the apostasy of the west in particular. Yes, the post-communist east has remained somewhat faithful (though even here there are big problems. I have no illusions about the true state of Russian Christianity), but the situation in the UK and other places is bleak indeed.

    5) I don't know what <> means?

    6) My point on Persia has been thus “either Sunnis or Shia will dominate the Muslim world politically. Which is preferable? I prefer the Shia based on their record, somewhat on their beliefs, and the fact that they are not American puppets”. That's as far as I've gone.

    7) Russia is not siding with the Muslims. If this was the case, it would not be funding groups like Front National in France. It seems you are misunderstanding the essence of the article, at least as I saw it. Russia is making a very blunt and factual point to Westerners. “You are dying. So are we, but at least we are not importing people who clearly have an advantage over us in the realm of political cohesion, solidarity, identity, and will. If you do not rediscover yourselves soon, you will be swallowed up by Islam, and if you are complacent enough to let that happen, then you deserve such a fate, as do we.”

    Remember, the Archpriest states not only that Europe has no hope, but that Russia will be NEXT! He is trying to wake Christians up to the reality of changing demographics, and what this means. If we are not serious about our faith, then we will be replaced by people who are. I think such a message is not only true for Russians, but for all Europeans.


  19. I have read the term 'Guardist' in a few places, some with a negative slant, some being pretty objective. Never in Legionary sources themselves however. I use the terms largely interchangeably. It is of course not meant as a pejorative in any sense, and perhaps I have used it before because 'Legionary' can have many meanings, depending on the context. There are of course MANY Legions throughout history. But your point is well taken.

    Fascism and Christian Democracy have few parallels that I can see, except in some economic matters. It must be remembered that Mussolini was not particularly religious at all, and ran an effectively secular state. It was also a state with very much a realist outlook, where as Christian democratic states tend to have a Liberal outlook. This and of course, Fascism doesn't have democracy in it.

    I don't really think Spain had Fascism in the full sense. Franco is more comparable to Pinochet than he is to Mussolini. And in fact, the 'real' Fascists (or at least those close to Fascism) under Jose Antonio Primo de Rivera were sidelined by Franco. I am actually somewhat convinced he deliberately allowed Rivera to be killed, so that the Falange movement couldn't challenge him. What was the key mistake in Spain? Appointing the wrong king. He undid everything that had been achieved. However, there was a certain inevitability to it. A dictatorial Spain had a shrinking number of friends, and pressure from the USA was as huge then as it is now.


  20. 5) I was quoting you saying that some people have an “almost sexual fascination with 'the other' “. No idea why it didn't show. I was referring to people on our side, who in their opposition to Jews are given to develop a peculiar love for Palestinians, Arabs and Muslims. I was suggesting that was just as bad as “Zio-cucking”; you know those people exist.


  21. Love of Palestinians is more of a left wing anti-israeli thing, at least from what I've seen. And yes, I think its dumb. Personally, the conflict means nothing to me. Supporting either side is like getting passionate about the Kashmir dispute. What the hell does it have to do with us?


  22. Yet another rather off-topic comment, Mark: I would be interested in any short reaction of yours to especially in the light of your recent Fortress State article. If my understanding is correct you would be in a profound disagreement with the author. Would you consider his glossing over of the geopolitical situation of Sunni vs Shia Islam to be the root cause? Thanks in advance!


  23. “While I was writing letters to her as a lobbyist for an Iranian human rights organization at the time,”

    Immediate red flag for me. Virtually all 'human rights' organizations are tied to Soros. Also, neo-Zoroastrianism isn't happening. Honestly, Nordic Neo-Paganism has better prospects than a revival of Zoroastrianism. Calling for this is like calling for Egyptians to return to Anubis and Osiris.

    Also, someone who I strongly suspect is the author comments below talking about the AltRight not being pro-white. This is ludicrous. The AltRight, being an American racialist zeitgeist is EXPLICITLY pro-white. Its ties to the ENR are often over-emphasized, as too is its fascination with 'indo-Europeanism' and other such things.

    I've made pretty clear, I believe that while the Persians are closer to us than Arabs, they are still a foreign people and working with them would only be done from the standpoint of realist international alliance (i.e – we would prefer them over ISIS)

    In short, the author of this is something of an idiot, and its a black mark against Radix that they published him, but then I guess you can give them credit for hosting a variety of opinion. I just find this one to be stupid.


  24. Iancu here. I'm basically seconding everything you say, Mark, but especially the fact that while Asian peoples of partial Aryan descent such as Persians, Tadjiks, Lurs etc. are not “us”. “Us” is Native Europeans, including Basques and Finno-Ugric peoples (I have no idea if Volga Finnic peoples such as Mordvins and Udmurts is “us” or not – I'd tend to say yes, especially if Christian; Magyars, Finns and Estonians definitely are, though, and while not exactly “us”, the Sami people are “ours”.)


  25. Yes, I'd agree, although I always caution, from a continental and non-American standpoint, that “us” is very difficult to pin down in its significance. I have argued that unity of Occidental peoples is at the spiritual level, rather than the psychological and biological level.


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