The clash of civilizations thesis offered by “counter-Jihadism” establishes an existential conflict between monolithic “European civilization” on one hand and monolithic “Islamic civilization” on the other. This model offers an ultimate fight to death between the two as the ultimate solution: either European civilization triumphs over Islam, or vice versa. The end result is either an Arab world that has been completely Westernized and forced to be liberal, or a Europe under the heel of Sharia law. This is an absurd false dichotomy. It is precisely this attitude that fuels jihadist terrorism and Western intervention in the Middle East, both of which benefit the Zionist, globalist political establishment at the expense of Europe and the European peoples. For the liberation of both Europe and the Arab world from the domination of this very political establishment, the model of the “clash of civilizations” must be discarded in favor of an ideology of co-existence and mutual aid against this common enemy.
This “clash of civilization” model fits perfectly with the “War on Terror” offered by the United States, which states that radical Islam exists because they “hate our freedom.” In their eyes, there is apparently a deep, intrinsic hatred for the West at the core of Islam that can only be treated through military intervention in the Middle East. This analysis fails on many levels. Firstly, the intrusion of Zionism, which has been supported by the United States and their allied governments in NATO-occupied Europe, is roundly ignored as a cause. This Western-backed imperial power in the Middle East has done more to fuel hatred between Europeans and Muslims than a thousand crusades. Moreover, Islamic terrorism and the Western political establishment has had, and continues to have, a symbiotic relationship. After the creation of Israel, the leading forces in the Arab world were secular nationalist, such as the Pan-Arabism of Nasser or Michel Aflaq, the Christian founder of Ba’athism. In cases where Islam played a role, such as Libya or Iran, it was not of the expansionist, Salafist variety. Salafism was used by the United States, rather than Arab nationalists (who actually attempted to suppress it), to attack the Soviet Union in Afghanistan via various jihadi groups that were supported by the CIA and which later evolved to become Al Qaeda, and after that, ISIS.
Moreover, the Salafist Gulf States were and continue to be dependable allies of the United States. The United States and their allies in the Gulf became the new employers of radical Islam against their enemies. In the former Yugoslavia, the United States used jihadists against the Serbs to seize Kosovo. The Saudis provided massive financial aid to the Bosnians, and have financed the construction of the massive King Fahd mosque there, which is the largest in the Balkans. In Libya, radical Salafist forces became the tools of United States with which to overthrow the Gaddafi regime, and now we are seeing them once again being deployed in Syria in an effort to overthrow the Ba’athist government of Assad. We should note that in these latter cases, the victims of radical Salafism were Muslims, and it is Muslims fighting on the front lines to stop these radical terrorists. In reality, it is Islamic civilization itself fighting Islamic barbarism that is being funded by the United States and their Salafist allies. The brunt of the fighting against radical Islam has truly been carried out by Muslims themselves. The forces of Hezbollah, Iran, and the Syrian Arab Army defend religious minorities such as Christians from the Salafists, while the United States continues to back the “opposition,” which is dominated by fundamentalist groups. In effect, the United States plays a double game. They use radical Islam to destabilize and destroy their opponents in the Middle East, and then use the specter of radical Islam that they have conjured to justify further involvement in the Middle East. This in turn benefits the major American ally in the Arab world, Israel, as a divided Arab world poses no threat to its existence. Sectarianism maintains the Arab world in a state of division and weakness, which gives Israel more power to further annex the lands of the Palestinians and their other neighbors and thus prepare the way for a “Greater Israel,” as outlined by the “Oded Yinon Plan.” The destruction of the Arab nation-states will allow Israel to annex, piece by piece, all the land extending to the Persian Gulf south of the Euphrates, as Herzl himself stated: “The area of the Jewish State stretches: ‘From the Brook of Egypt to the Euphrates’” (from Herzl’s Complete Diaries, vol. II, p. 711-Ed.).
The consequences of this American-Zionist meddling exacerbate the already massively dangerous issue of immigration into Europe. In addition to the cheap labor imported by the political class in Europe, which is itself subservient to the dictates of Washington, Europe now has to deal with refugees from the regions that have been caught in the crossfire of these artificial wars. This furthers America’s immigration agenda for Europe, to the extent that this migrant crisis has been directly controlled by the United States. As noted by the French writer Nicolas Bonnal, “The Austrian journal Info-Direkt shows that, according to a leak from the Viennese secret services, the smugglers of migrants who cross the Mediterranean to settle in Europe were being paid by the Americans. We know that all these smugglers are, as agents of the Arab spring, highly equipped with technology, and that they have Facebook, Twitter, and Skype.” The enemy here is not Islam, but the globalist agenda directed by Washington to create a deraciated, servile Europe. It should be stated that America openly wants to influence the culture of these immigrants through “hip-hop diplomacy,” where they are indoctrinated into the latest trends of American thug culture. One of the progenitors of this policy, Charles Rivkin, the US ambassador to France, invited a delegation from the Pacific Council on International Policy to generate some policy recommendations concerning Islamic-French relations, more precisely in relation to how to advertise American-style multiculturalism to the Islamic immigrant inhabitants of France’s banlieues, specifically the younger generation. Thus, the United States sponsored a French Black History Month in February 2013, and encouraged Islamic students to join the US-sponsored International Visitor Leadership Program. In 2010, the US embassy sponsored a symposium featuring the head of the “Black Paris” travel agency, Monique Wells, who noted the popularity of rap music among France’s youth. The European Institute, a think tank co-chaired by former Lehman Brothers executive Yves-Andre Istel, praised Rivkin’s work in undermining France’s traditional social order:
Charles Rivkin isn’t your traditional American ambassador in Paris: a political appointee with a career background in entertainment, he is regularly spotted doing things like this: hosting hip-hop artists and ethnic-minority politicians at embassy receptions; inaugurating a large art mural in Villiers-le-Bel, the site of major urban riots in 2007; visiting a youth cultural center and engaging in debates with the audience; dropping in on embassy-sponsored seminars on social issues and engines of change; or surprising French high school students by bringing along Hollywood star Samuel L. Jackson for a discussion about his growing up in the segregated American South. These are but a few of the initiatives taken by the Obama envoy. Since taking up his post in summer 2009, Rivkin has pursued a vigorous public effort to connect with the poorer, multiracial suburbs of major French cities. Les banlieues, as they are called in French, have become a code word for largely unassimilated, mainly Muslim immigrant communities. Too often feeling ignored or mishandled by local authorities, by the central government and by mainstream political parties, these marginalized groups often become resentful, socially explosive sources of the ethnic tensions that roil France. Now the U.S. government is trying to help France defuse these changes by providing encouragement and real-life models for minority activists to learn how to use American techniques and help their communities succeed, integrate — and who knows? — perhaps one day lead their nations.
Mass immigration is not a tool of jihad, but a tool of American foreign policy. (For more information on this, see Kerry Bolton’s Babel Inc.) Those who think that the solution is to ban the Qur’an or the hijab are deluded at best; at worst, they are open and willing tools of Zionist Americans such as Pamela Geller of Jihad Watch. This simply reinforces the conflict that they have created to gather foot soldiers. On one hand, these foot soldiers can be Europeans who want to stop Islam by following the aggressive politics of America towards the Middle East; on the other hand, these foot soldiers can be young Muslims who go off to wage war against American’s target, Syria, perhaps returning to commit atrocities against Europeans to further the plans of their real masters. The grand scheme at the basis of the “clash of civilizations” thesis is the destruction of both Arab and European civilization and their assimilation into the rootless world marketplace directed by Washington and Wall Street. It is quite disappointing that European nationalists occasionally get trapped into this web of American counter-jihadism, as it demonstrates a rejection of the great history of collaboration that European nationalists had with Arab nationalists, who count among their number such essential figures as Francis Parker Yockey, who worked with the Nasser government, and Jean Thiriart, who advised the Palestinian Liberation Organization. It is necessary to reclaim this heritage, which implies that the liberation of Europe necessarily involves alignment with Arab nationalism against Zionism and the United States.
The question now remains: what is to be done. The first issue is for both the states of the Arab world and Europe to regain and maintain their sovereignty. They cannot be subject to the dictates of the United States and their puppet governments. The wars against the Arab world waged by America must be rejected, and European nations should withdraw from NATO to avoided being drawn into the conflicts created by America. Once their sovereignty has been regained, they can close their borders and stem the flow of immigrants. Next, European nationalists must align with Arab nationalists in a common front against Zionism and American hegemony. Support for the Assad government is the primary issue facing both today, as it holds back the tide of American-backed Salafism. A victory in Syria will be a stinging blow against the march of radical Islam. The front line against radical Islam is manned by Muslims, and they deserve the utmost support from the European nationalist community.
After the reassertion of national sovereignty in Europe and the Arab world, arrangements of friendship can be arranged. It is here that the immigration issue can be dealt with. First, it is impossible to simply uproot the immigrants without giving them a place to go. To simply expel immigrants at gunpoint, including entire immigrant communities that have been in Europe for one or two generations, is out of the question. This would only stir enmity between Muslim immigrants and native Europeans, setting the stage for the worst-case scenario of civil war. In the case of civil war, this would give the United States the perfect excuse to intervene massively, leading to the permanent installation of subservient governments. The clash of civilizations would play out in a fatal occupation of Europe by American forces, far worse than the current occupation, which was installed after the Second World War. There would be no chance for genuine nationalism to survive in this condition, and these puppet governments would receive carte blanche to open their borders. To avoid this civil war scenario, a voluntary policy of repatriation should instead be negotiated between European nationalist and Arab nationalist governments. The immigrants and their recent descendants can be recruited and educated or trained for roles in allied Arab states. Rather than the Arab world providing cheap labor for European capitalists, Europe could provide educated labor to the Arab world to recover from the Zionist and American wars of recent decades and to thus develop their own independent path in the world. People who have been sent to Europe as refugees could one day return to Syria to assist in the rebirth of the Syrian nation. This policy would further the alliance between the Arab and European nationalist communities, thus strengthening the geopolitical strategy to oppose American globalism and Zionism. This would defuse the “clash of civilizations” and return these problems to the realm of the normal politics of national borders and populations. Any future fights between Arab and European states would not be wars of complete annihilation, but those of territorial disputes to be solved by satisfactory reallocation of land, resources, and populations. The European and Islamic worlds would meet on an equal political footing to resolve their disputes, not as intractable enemies that require the death of the other as a precondition for their survival.
The future of the world will be one of great civilizations, such as those of Islam and Europe, thriving independently and in accordance with their own unique paths of development, or it will be one of the dominance of globalist consumer anti-civilization directed from Washington and Wall Street. Against the rootless future offered by the “clash of civilizations,” we must assert the coexistence and cooperation of great civilizations in a multipolar world, where the European and Islamic civilizations are just a few of the many that will exist according to the unique principles of their own peoples.