We have to figure out that we are at war with Islam because Islam has always been at war with us. In that realization, face to face with the Enemy, we will also rediscover our own constitution, our true titanic ethos.

Some commentators on the Right have pointed out that Franklin Delano Roosevelt, who is often lauded by liberals, implemented an even harsher anti-immigration policy against Germans, Italians, and Japanese during the Second World War than Trump is proposing against Muslims. According to the logic of this comparison, Muslims-in-general stand in for Axis-power citizens because we are, presumably, at war with the Islamic State. In other words, the Caliphate of Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi is just what it claims to be: the embryonic form of an Islamic world state that implicitly demands allegiance from all good Muslims and does not recognize any political borders other than those between Dar al-Islam (the realm secured and pacified) and Dar al-Harb (the realm of perpetual war for the establishment of Islam). Most of those drawing this comparison are not prepared to defend that claim, but that is exactly what I have been doing [see Parts I and II of this essay]).

Trump’s policy is more correct than he knows, and to compare his proposal to FDR’s policy is perfectly legitimate, because we are at war with Islam. It is a war that was declared on us centuries ago. Actually, it was declared on the entire Aryan world – including Iran and India. The Persians were defeated and colonized, culturally and psychologically (not to mention by forced miscegenation), and then parasitically preyed upon to pass off the greatness of their science, poetry, art, and architecture as “Islamic”only after the Arabs failed to destroy and efface these – which is what they tried at first. Half of India, and its most Aryan half – the northern birthplace and bastion of pacifistic Buddhism – also fell to the invaders, who went on an idol-smashing rampage against the Buddhist heritage, an iconoclasm that the Taliban more recently revived in Afghanistan.

Only the Western Aryan world, namely Europe, was able to push these armies back through the defensive Crusades by the likes of the Knights Templar and the later campaigns against the Ottoman Turks on the part of heroes such as Vlad Dracula. Badly outnumbered, they were forced to resort to the most terrifying psychological warfare to turn back the world’s worst terrorists and carve out a “safe space” for the Italian Renaissance of the pagan arts and sciences before Islam nipped it in the bud. What we need now is another Dracula, a new Order of the Dragon.

The Koran calls for killing in the name of Islam’s just cause (25:68) and a fight to the death against unbelievers: “Those that make war against God and His apostle and spread disorder in the land shall be put to death or crucified or have their hands and feet cut off on alternate sides, or be banished from the land…Fight valiantly for His cause, so that you may triumph.” (5:33-35) The only unbelievers that are tolerated are dhimmis, or those who have been utterly subjugated by Muslims, have accepted their authority as legitimate, and pay them a hefty non-believers’ tax: “Fight against such of those to whom the Scriptures were given as believe neither in God nor the Last Day, who do not forbid what God and his apostle have forbidden, and do not embrace the true Faith, until they pay tribute out of hand and are utterly subdued.” (9:29) The Koran enjoins one to fight against unbelievers, who are evil-doers, because they are the Lord’s enemies and he does not love them: “Do not yield to the unbelievers, but fight them with this [Koran] most strenuously…Surely, the unbeliever is an enemy to his Lord.” (25:52,55) “God does not love the evil-doers.” (5:64) “He does not love the unbelievers.” (30:45) “God is mighty and capable of revenge.” (5:94)

Jihad is the duty of every able-bodied Muslim male. The Koran even explicitly chastises shirkers or would-be conscientious objectors inclined towards pacifism: “Fighting is obligatory for you, much as you dislike it. But you may hate a thing although it is good for you, and love a thing although it is bad for you. God knows, but you know not.” (2:216)

The attempt on the part of liberals to blur the line between Muslims outside our country, who do not enjoy the constitutional rights of citizens, and Muslims inside America may be an exercise in propaganda, but it also has more profound implications. Of course, Trump’s proposal is not unconstitutional because Muslims seeking to immigrate into the United States are not citizens who enjoy the rights enumerated by the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. However, we have to ask whether avowed Muslims inside this country ought to have their freedom of religion protected if the religion that they adhere to constitutes its own political system that would fundamentally endanger everything that this cornerstone of the Bill of Rights is intended to protect (even and especially for those with the courage to leave Islam): Freedom of Religion, Freedom of Speech, Freedom of the Press, and Freedom of Assembly. The Master’s Thesis that I wrote on Islam and Human Rights at New York University back in 2008 exposed the basic contradictions in liberal democratic political theory that this question reveals. (Suffice it to say, while it passed, I was punished in terms of a severely narrowed range of doctoral institutions that would welcome my further study of Philosophy.) The answer to this question reveals a supremely inconvenient truth, the one that catalyzed my eight-year trajectory from Left-wing liberalism to the New Right.

The First Amendment’s very idea of a state being politically “neutral” with respect to any and all religions is incoherent, especially when it is duly acknowledged that a religion consists not merely of opinion or belief but of fundamental convictions on ultimate matters. This would require a definition of the “state” as nothing more than “the political status of an organized people in an enclosed territorial unit.” In his seminal book The Concept of the Political, Carl Schmitt argues against this empty definition of the state, wherein the concepts of the “state” and the “political” are used to define each other in a circular and tautological manner. The political agency or “state” can only exist if it can compel its citizens to use violence against others and to sacrifice themselves in defense of the character or common ideals of their society. The state is defined by its holding such a monopoly of violence, and it exists only so long as no other social, economic, or religious force makes demands on its citizens to go out and kill or be killed for some other cause.

Islam introduces a division of the sovereign power in America, because the Koran is a competing constitution and Allah – as represented on Earth by the Caliph of an extra-territorial, trans-national state – is a rival of the secular sovereign. There has always been a Caliphate of one kind or another at war with some branch of Western civilization. The last incarnation of the Caliphate before the current Islamic State was the Ottoman Empire based in Turkey that was taken apart after the First World War. This is only yesterday in terms of the historical depth of the Muslim memory. I have even heard some liberals claim that the Ottoman Caliphate was relatively tolerant. They should talk to the descendants of dhimmis (subjugated non-Muslims) who lived under it in southeastern Europe. The Greeks and Romanians also have a long memory, and it is not an accident that Hungary is a bastion of resistance to the Muslim demographic invasion of Europe. But none of these words are really meant for anyone on the liberal-democratic or socialist Left. I have given up on them, and so have many other fellow apostates who are tired of being seen as “racist self-hating Muslims.”

The Daily Show, hosted until recently by Jon Stewart, is a mainstream media program representative of liberal democrats in this country. Its new host, Trevor Noah, just engaged in an on-air exchange with a political commentator in the course of which Donald Trump and his supporters were compared to the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria. Whatever one thinks of Trump, it is absolutely unacceptable to laugh and cheer while an equivalence is drawn between him and a movement that has implemented the strictest form of Sharia law – including slavery and the utter subjugation of women – while going on a rampage of rape and genocide of the Kurdish population. The Islamic State has also destroyed numerous World Heritage sites, from precious statues in northern Iraq to an entire Syrian city full of awe-inspiring monuments dating to the peak of Classical cosmopolitanism. Furthermore, this is yet another example of liberal democrats turning the ideological conflict between Western civilization and Islam into a racial conflict, and framing opposition to Islam as “racism” – the way that Bernie Sanders did a couple of weeks ago.

Our priority is a crushing defeat of this liberal-democratic enemy within, since it is this treasonous rot in our own house that has really rendered us most vulnerable to the enemy on our frontiers. Now I understand why people support Donald Trump. I am a native New Yorker who grew up in the kind of circles that make it clear who this fellow New Yorker is and what he isn’t. I am under no illusions about him (illusions of the kind that shamefully convinced me to vote for Barack Hussein Obama in 2008), and I think that the people who idolize Trump are pathetic.

But I get it now. Trump is the answer to those so-called “Americans” who are so hatefully ignorant of our incomparably great Western civilization that they think it is cute to frame opposition against him in terms of the hashtag “WHISIS” – just like those Black Lives Matter protestors who hash-tagged “fuckparis”. Donald Trump has my support, not because of what he is for but because of who he stands against. Not because he has the answers, but because his presidency will buy us the time and serve to carve out a sociopolitical space beyond PC censorship, which will allow more people to “figure out what the hell is going on” – to figure out that we are at war with Islam because Islam has always been at war with us. In that realization, face to face with the Enemy, we will also rediscover our own constitution, our true titanic ethos.

The Koran (Penguin Classics)

N. J. Dawood’s masterful translation of The Koran  in a fully revised edition The Koran is universally accepted by Muslims to be the infallible word of God as first revealed to the prophet Muhammad by the angel Gabriel nearly fourteen hundred years ago. Its 114 chapters recount the narratives and rules of conduct central to […]

Additional images:

Product Thumbnail Product Thumbnail

Price: $15.00

Buy Now

About The Author

Profile photo of Jason Reza Jorjani

Jason Reza Jorjani, PhD is an Iranian-American and native New Yorker of Persian and northern European descent. After receiving his BA and MA at New York University, he completed his doctorate in Philosophy at the State University of New York at Stony Brook. Jorjani currently teaches courses on Science, Technology, and Society (STS) and the history of Iran as a full-time faculty member at the New Jersey Institute of Technology. He is a professional member of the Society for Scientific Exploration (SSE) and also works with the Iranian Renaissance, an organization dedicated to bringing about a cultural revolution in Greater Iran on the basis of the pre-Islamic Persian heritage. His first book, Prometheus and Atlas, was published by Arktos in 2016 and went on to win the Book Award from the Parapsychological Association. As of October 2016, Jorjani has become Editor-in-Chief of Arktos Media.

  • Deacon James

    Jason : We hear your appeal but where is the Lion roars from the Persian Right and the Farsi Academics now ?? Even after the Iraqi Republican Guard was incinerated, the Voices of Cyrus are silenced. Do they too agree to give the Arabic Overlords the Hydrogen weapons to pirate Big Oil? The West and Zionists will have to answer soon but Persia and the Turks have a first stage appeal to move toward the “CYLINDER” .

  • Kamran Maharramov

    What the fucking fuck is the essay about?

  • Trismegistus

    “…we are at war with Islam because Islam has always been at war with us. In that realization, face to face with the Enemy, we will also rediscover our own constitution, our true titanic ethos.” —Jason Reza Jorjani

    Who is the “we” he is talking about? Apparently we’re dealing with a group-concept whose true constitution is a promethean and “titanic ethos.” Do anyone here remember what the Titans actually represented for the Hellenic tradition, or has the word lost all original meaning to you? Similar to the Asuras in the tradition of the Vedic Aryans, who were opposed to the Devas (the celestial gods) in perpetual struggle, titanism means a rebellious egotic revolt from below against the rightful sacred authority of the solar Olympian principle. Julius Evola made this very clear. Titanism, rather than being something “Aryan”, represents one of the original principal adversaries of traditional Aryan spirituality. The Titanic principle, however, is even problematized in non-Aryan traditions, such as in the Biblical myth of the “Tower of Babel”. Arrogant spiritual pride, or hubris, as the Greeks would call it, is a key concept here. In general, any unrighteous, illegitimate attempt at conquering “Heaven” from below, going against the Olympian order rather than aligning with it in true spirituality, may be characterized as Titanic. The idea of a ‘Luciferic’ counter-spirituality is not far removed from it, as the Guénonian traditionalist writer Charles Upton has convincingly demonstrated in his book ‘Vectors of the Counter-Initiation: Course and Destiny of Inverted Spirituality’.

    Those of you who care for Tradition and spiritual Truth would be wise to carefully consider which forces you are really aligning with when flirting with notions of the Titanic, Promethean and Faustian to mention a few—for this is indeed a hall-mark of what Guénon designated as the ‘counter-initiation’: the deep forces that are at the root of the modern deviation that has completely destroyed every properly Traditional, sacred principle in mainstream Western civilization. (‘The Reign of Quantity and the Signs of the Times’). These calls for a world-war between a generalized “Islam” and the “Titanic” West (in which the titanism is outright glorified by the author) are sinister, to say the least, and so it also raises questions as to why Right On and Arktos Media, who claim to be on the side of Tradition, are lending a voice to such attitudes. What’s next? May I suggest a slight reformulation:

    “…face to face with the Enemy [“Islam”], we will also rediscover our own constitution, our true satanic ethos.”

    This may seem a less pretty way of wording it, I suppose, but it is certainly no less true. In sounding the war drum against “Islam”, this academician from New York does not appeal to traditional Christendom, Europe’s true spirituality, which used to be the foundation of sacred order in our civilization and which preserved in essence the higher principles of ‘pagan’ antiquity in times before the West fell into materialistic decadence—no, to the contrary, he appeals to a promethean titanism which is everything that traditional Europe was not; indeed the very essence of what has ruined and depraved this civilization and detached it from Truth. If this is the “we”, then we are the Enemy, for we have betrayed true spirituality as such, and I will have nothing to do with “us”. In identifying with titanism, any restoration of sacred civilization in Europe and the West is rendered impossible, and such a restoration is the one and only purpose of a True Right. Then opposition to “liberalism” matters little. Such deviant ideas seem to have become a bit of a trend within the “New Right”, as in Guillaume Faye, who also advocates for what in principle could be characterized as a titanic counter-tradition, to use one of Guénon’s terms, instead of true tradition and real spirituality. This has nothing to do with Reaction or the True Right, though, and is spiritually subversive.

    • John Morgan

      We give voice to many points of view, we do not support one particular version over others. We’ll be running another text in the coming days that may be more to your liking.

  • Deacon James

    “Only the Western Aryan world, namely Europe, was able to push these armies back through the defensive Crusades by the likes of the Knights Templar and the later campaigns against the Ottoman Turks on the part of heroes such as Vlad Dracula. Badly outnumbered, they were forced to resort to the most terrifying psychological warfare to turn back the world’s worst terrorists and carve out a “safe space” for the Italian Renaissance of the pagan arts and sciences before Islam nipped it in the bud. What we need now is another Dracula, a new Order of the Dragon. ” – Jason Reza Jorjani

    This is not a renewal of the wreched Crusades who’s ends were to rid the Byzantine Orthodoxy from interefering with the Papastry influence over the Emporial Courts in Europe. ……. This is pure evil “Terrorist” bulling organizations to leverage innocence, wherever it can find it, to gain the power and succession of the Islamic Caliparit, command Big Oil, as well as destroy Zionism .

    The new Order Of The Dragon is to not to be found in Europe and Trump; but the Turks and Persians and their quests for the conditions of Cyrus and not the Koran.

  • machiaevil

    “We have to figure out that we are at war with Islam because Islam has always been at war with us.”

    That’s total bullshit. Islam was never in the news before the west started wars and at the same time used its most radical elements for geopolitical puproses. The author is a cucked Jew-loving neconservative rat.

  • Deacon James

    machiaevil : You seem distraut here . Please don’t fall into the cesspools of inhumanities and a radicalized instrument of the terrorista realm.

    It is my view only that the authors are telling a story and substituting Trumpisms for the overloading Mullas of Iran. The Persians must tell us all of their plights in Iran choosing the true directions of their dreams whithout infighting threats.

    The Jew is again just a scapegoat only this time it is a fight to be the new Islamic Caliphate not a Roman Emporer.

  • Plotinus

    Dear Mr. Morgan (we actually met in person in Stockholm once!)
    I do understand that. However, I think this is a rather problematic approach to take. In the culture-war, which has a deep occulted dimension as well, one must be very careful so as not in practice (if not in self- acknowledged principle) contribute to the proliferation of ideas that serve the agenda of the spiritual Enemy, even if that is not one’s intention. One must have an extremely clear idea of where one is positioned in the occult war. You, having studied the traditionalists, will know that the only true and absolute principles are spiritual principles. Without right discernment based on such true principles, capable of identifying which deeper forces are at work within a certain tendency, one’s metapolitical effort will end up being used by the Enemy in one way or the other. (And the real enemy is perfectly capable of going beyond liberalism and “the left”…) Without a clear idea of what to support and what to exclude and discriminate against, the metapolitical strategy will consequently be confused at best. To be too inclusive, tolerant and “open-minded” is a dangerous game to play. Those who think that anything is acceptable as long as it is “illiberal” or pro-western in some way, will easily play the role of useful idiots to counter-traditional forces, to borrow Guénon’s expression (explained in the later chapters of ‘Reign of Quantity’, which you would know). When Titanism and this overly war-mongering attitude to a generalized Islam is coming up, it is pretty obvious you are dealing with a highly questionable influence. You cannot hide behind the innocence of not supporting “one particular version over others”; at Arktos and Right On, you are responsible for all the ideas that you help popularize, especially when publishing books for an author. As a very metapolitical, not neutral, publisher, it means you’re approving and think that a “particular version” is worthy of being spread to influence the minds of the world, in turn leading to concrete applications of those ideas. Of course, when getting caught up in mundane political and ideological fancies, it is easy to overlook the more subtle dimension behind it all. You are doing much valuable work as a publisher too, so understand that I am only friendly in offering this advice. I wish you a happy new year, Mr. Morgan. Vincit omnia veritas.

    • John Morgan

      If that’s the case, then nice to “meet” you again. I cannot concur with what you’ve written, since basically what you’re saying is that you expect us to comport ourselves as doctrinaire traditionalists – and that is not something that Right On, Arktos, or myself personally, are or are attempting to become. We are presenting ideas that fall within a certain purview. Over the years we’ve had a number of people, including several far less polite or well-reasoned than yourself, take us to task for the fact that we aren’t pursuing one specific ideological or philosophical line or other that they believe is all-important. The fact is that we do not follow any specific line to the exclusion of all others, nor will we. I personally do not agree with many of the points that this article attempts to make, but then Right On is not about propagating a specific editorial line that I myself favor – in which case I would simply set up a blog site featuring only my own writings and leave it at that. You claim we are “hiding behind” a particular innocence, but that is merely your own reaction to what we are doing, because you want us to advance your own particular point of view. I again reiterate: that is not what we are doing. We are not seeking consistency. If anything, it is healthy for people to be exposed to ideas that are different to what they themselves already hold, which will either affirm them in what they already believe and strengthen their viewpoint or else reveal flaws in their existing reasoning or belief systems. So it’s up to you if you want to continue to read our site or not, because we may occasionally run things that you find reprehensible. I appreciate the fact that you offered your criticisms in a friendly tone as well as your praise. Happy new year to you as well.

  • Pingback: Getting it Right on Islam – Part II – Right On()