During an ongoing discussion under a post on Counter-Currents, someone with the username “Middle Class Twit” asked me why I (a non-White) tried to engage with White Nationalists.
The following was my reply:
Aryan Meditations – از قلم آریایی
"إَنَّ الظَّنَّ لاَ يُغْنِي مِنَ الْحَقِّ شَيْئًا" – "Assuredly conjecture can by no means take the place of Truth." (10:36)
Note: What follows lacks the progression of a properly structured essay. I apologize to the reader in advance if he finds its disorderliness irritating.
I have been following dissident cyberspace for some time now. An ocean of audio-visual material, blog posts, e-books, etc., occupies my hard drive. The reason being that the critique of modernity that arises in the dissident sector aligns greatly with what we have been saying for years against the Ravanas of ‘enlightenment’ and ‘liberal reform’ in our part of the world. And then there is the English language which I happen to know as well as my mother tongue. Naturally, it makes the endeavor all the more interesting since I do not have to rely on secondary and biased sources to get familiarized with the subject at hand.
Our contact with the Western White races during the colonial era incubated an army of native ‘social reformers’, ‘rationalists’, ‘modernists’, etc. who pushed something which was purely historical [Renaissance, Enlightenment, etc.] as natural.
Thus, we were introduced with absurdities like:
-‘a modernist interpretation of Islam’,
-‘a scientific approach towards Quran’,
-‘too much religion took us no where; just look at the West how it abandoned superstition and moderated its religious opiate and attained such prosperity.’
That ‘prosperity’ [whatever that means] proved a poisoned chalice for the White race. Today, when it is facing ethno-cultural dispossession on its own soil, its spiritual arsenal lacks effective weapons to repulse highly organized and absolutely satanic assaults.
Now, many a writers, bloggers, vloggers, activists, etc. just consume sub-standard, intellectually lazy ‘critiques’ of Islam when displaying their anger towards continuous non-White migration into their territories.
They may counter this objection by saying, ‘why should we care?, what do we gain by caring about semantics?, we just don’t want Muslims on our lands; plain and simple.’
But precisely here lies the rub. ‘Muslim’ is a theological category. It is not racial.
(((Whoever))) first deployed phrases like ‘Islam vs the West’ or ‘Muslims are on the verge of taking over Europe’ in mass communications killed many birds with one stone.
It denied Whites a mobilization on the basis of race. A racial mobilization implies that the threat is first and foremost biological. And since ‘Islam’ & ‘Muslim’ are not biological terms, room could be made for those who oppose Islam but are not themselves necessarily White.
An equation like ‘Islam vs the West’ hollows out the White racial element from the term ‘the West’. Just as anyone can embrace Islam, likewise, anyone can also adopt the West and become Western.
Welcome to ‘civic nationalism’.
The battle has never been between Islam and the West. Islam is innate. It deals with the metaphysical dimension of the human nature. One can adhere to Islam and be a White Nationalist at the same time. There is no contradiction.
It was a mistaken view of history plain and simple perpetuated by Whiggish historiography; an approach that blurred many visions.
The battles, however, were ethnic/racial and tribal:
– Arabs VS the Germanic tribes of Hispania,
– Berbers VS Hispanic Celtics,
– Ottoman Turks [most of them were erstwhile Byzantine Romans and Greeks who gradually got Turkified when they adopted Islam] VS Greeks, Slavs, and Romanians.
– Berbers VS Franks
– Arabs VS Franks
(to be continued)