Whenever Islam is defended by its Western enablers an insidious sentiment of implied yuppie universalism lies just under the surface. “It’s a religion of peace!” we hear like clockwork every time Muslims peacefully relieve someone from the burden of being alive. Embrace diversity! When demographic shifts alter the very character of streets, neighborhoods or entire towns. All men do it! After the last refugee rape accusation. This belief has not only brought down entire countries abroad through Western intervention, but now threatens Western society as a whole with large scale immigration from the very regions that we’ve destabilized.
What do I mean here by ‘implied yuppie universalism’? It’s simply radical egalitarian projections applied to the nature of man, to put it simply, all peoples of the Earth secretly want to be live in a secular, liberal society with no restrictions to personal, sexual or economic freedoms whatsoever. Everyone wants to be ‘free’ like me. This belief is supported by such ideas as “The End of History”, which posits that Western Liberal Democracy is the apotheosis of human political development. Masai herders really just want to watch Two and a Half Men on Blu-Ray, Bedouin are just repressed homosexuals waiting to attend their first Pride Rally, the Chinese don’t need that pesky Confucius to burden them with antiquated ‘family values’ and okay sure, Islam effectively prohibits democracy, but wouldn’t it be grand if you Muslims could vote? At its core it relies on the same assumption as the generic “Freedom” the Neocons loved to spread forcefully, but rather than spread Freedom through bombs, the Liberal Establishment has found a new fascination with importing millions of people who adhere to the same Religious Ideology we’ve been in conflict with not just for 15 years, but for 15 centuries under the odious ideology of multiculturalism.
Liberal projections in specific, but Western assumptions in general, are one of the more fascinating remnants of “White Man’s Burden” and other colonial forms of self-assured, self-serving altruism that remain with us today. The difference is we can no longer outright say our culture, society, way of life, or even our people, are in any way superior to any others that have existed. At most, we should passively aggressively imply it is through some sort of virtue signaling. Some on the Left would even like to contend that we are inferior in every way, our prosperity being the result of exploitation in general, and on an individual level, privilege. Female Genital Mutilation? That’s just an expression of their culture, you bigot, now let me literally shit on your flag.
Despite this contradiction, however, Liberals and Neocons have both assumed that our vaguely atheist, sexually ‘liberated’, decadent, secular democracy with a powerful Hollywood ‘non-culture’ is the end of the line, the destination that all peoples, in all places at all times were somehow on the path towards; we just happened to stumbled upon it first. Neocons wanted to rush this process on with Kickass Country Ballads, American Flags and Stealth Bombers. My one begrudging concession made to Bush Jr. was his assertion that ‘Islamo-Fascism’ (an inaccurate, nebulous term) was indeed the enemy, and in light of 9/11 a dangerous enemy that needed eradicated (but first let’s eliminate their biggest rival, Saddam Hussein!). Their overall mission destabilized an already precarious political environment in the Middle East, ushering us, 15 years later, into a world where Islamic Fundamentalism is more powerful than ever.
The new Liberal Establishment, however, doesn’t see Islamic Fundamentalism as an enemy, and especially not a religiously motivated one. In the typical leftist fashion, socioeconomic injustices, especially ones caused by colonialism or, somehow, Islamophobia, are the main causes of violence perpetrated by these “temporarily embarassed liberals”. Instead of bombing people with an utterly incompatible worldview into accepting ours, the Left has instead invited millions of Muslims into Europe and North America in, ostensibly, a display of compassion and human rights for refugees.
The facts of this, of course, are utterly incongruent with the manipulative and obviously staged images of children washed up on the beach or covered in ash. The media propaganda is meant to tug the heart-strings of women and weak men everywhere into accepting not just actual war-refugees escaping Islamic persecution, but of mostly young, illiterate men from far from Syria. These economic migrants have been whipped into a frenzied search for their own El Dorado, where housing, money and the very real prospect of getting your very own blonde girl (jungfrau, alter!) are the prizes for the long, often dangerous, journey.
The issue is, however, is these migrants don’t really seem interested in the liberal democracy part of the deal. And are certainly not in it for the safety. Most migrants pass through half a dozen war-free zones that also, just a total coincidence I’m sure, don’t happen to have very generous welfare packages. Strangely enough, some of these men from societies that condone and encourage tribal warfare, subjugation of women and the total submission of apostates aren’t just plopping on the sofa and playing xbox like their western, emasculated counterparts.
Instead, they’re grabbing axes and murdering people on trains. They’re assaulting women en-masse. They’re driving rigs through crowds of people. They are utterly rejecting the Western worldview while leeching from the prosperity of the decadent West. Most importantly, they are enacting demographic changes that Europe may never, ever, recover from. The Left will contradictorily espouse both multiculturalism and an expectation of assimilation in response to normal, every day European resistance to this mass movement of people. A light-bulb, say, from Somalia, is completely interchangeable with a light socket in France. Right? Right?!
What the Left fails to realize, however, is the extent that the Islamic religious worldview informs their lives; Islam isn’t practiced in a mosque on Sundays between 9 and 10:30am followed by a fun brunch and mimosas, but a holistic political ideology that dictates how entire societies should function.
Religion, and this is the projection I spoke of earlier, is at best seen as a weekly inconvenience to a Westerner. It may be a good way to keep up with friends and continue a family tradition, and hey, it may even stem from genuine belief in the Lord! But Christianity is seen by many as either a decorative religious affectation or evil incarnate, not as a viable economic, political and judicial system with a deep jurisprudential tradition. Christianity has certainly informed many of our beliefs, values and judgement protocols. We do not, however, base our legal system directly from its teachings. We do not base our daily economic interactions from it. We do not belong to the Christian State, but rather to a hypothetical Kingdom of God that exists solely in the next life. Just as the early Christians did not renounce their valued Roman Citizenship, we today can be staunchly French and Catholic, American and Protestant and follow their respective legal codes based either in Common, Roman or Napoleonic Law.
Christ himself sowed the seeds of secularism in the Gospel with the source of my title; Render unto Caesar what it Caesar’s / Render unto God what is God’s.
Mark 12:13-17 New Revised Standard Version (NRSV)
The Question about Paying Taxes
13 Then they sent to him some Pharisees and some Herodians to trap him in what he said. 14 And they came and said to him, “Teacher, we know that you are sincere, and show deference to no one; for you do not regard people with partiality, but teach the way of God in accordance with truth. Is it lawful to pay taxes to the emperor, or not? 15 Should we pay them, or should we not?” But knowing their hypocrisy, he said to them, “Why are you putting me to the test? Bring me a denarius and let me see it.” 16 And they brought one. Then he said to them, “Whose head is this, and whose title?” They answered, “The emperor’s.” 17 Jesus said to them, “Give to the emperor the things that are the emperor’s, and to God the things that are God’s.” And they were utterly amazed at him.
We see here an attempt by the Pharisees to test and expose Jesus’ teachings as false. If you truly proclaim the Kingdom of God as his earthly Son, how then, do you deal with paying taxes to an earthly power? Jesus’ response is up to some interpretation, but ultimately the message is clear; Give to your earthly power what they require from you (taxes, military or civil service) while also fulfilling your religious duties (prayer, worship and true belief). With this statement, even though the later Roman Empire could be aggressively Christian with its state church and pagan persecution, they still noted a distinction between Church and State, Holy Law and Earthly Law.
Mohammed, on the other hand, founded a distinctly political religious ideology. There was no Caesar, but only Allah, and his messenger was Mohammed. The fierce pagan tribal identities found in 7th century Arabia, with blood feuds, constant raiding, matrilineal merchants and patrilineal nomads and an established Jewish monotheistic influence simply could not find itself united by anything but a total cultural overhaul. W. Montgomery Watt writes “For us a religious body is a group of people who come together for common worship, and perhaps for some other limited purposes; but for Muhammad the religious community was a body of people associated with one another in the whole of their lives, that is, was also a political unit” (pg. 106 Mohammad: Prophet and Statesman). Furthermore, as Mohammad furthered his political community, the early Muslims “had no other way of describing it than to say it was an ummah. It was neither a tribe, nor a federation of tribes, nor a kingdom; and these were the only political units with which they were familiar” (pg. 107).
We see Mohammad deftly deal with the age old Arabic tradition of ‘striving’ (jahada), a clever Arabic euphemism for raiding loot-filled merchant caravans. This was effectively an age-old Arabic past time, meant to relieve the energies of young Arab men on the exciting, and only slightly dangerous equivalent of cattle rustling in the Arabian deserts. Caravan guards often ran away before anyone got hurt, and wise raiders only chose the weakest of targets to hit as to avoid actual battle. As more Arabs submitted to Allah and joined his ummah, however, Mohammad could no longer allow the caravan ‘striving’ to take place within his new community, lest his fragile alliances be beset by blood-feuds literally informed by lex talionis.
Once again Watt addresses the sanctification of economic activities while simultaneously allowing us modern readers to see how untruthful Muslims and their enablers are when they say Jihad is just some generic term for self-improvement:
“The word translated ‘ strive ‘ is jahada, and the corresponding verbal noun is jihad, or ‘ striving ‘ which came in course of time to have the technical meaning of ‘ holy war ‘. This change from the razzia to the jihad may seem to be no more than a change of name, giving the aura of religion to what was the same activity. Yet this is not so… A razzia was the action of a tribe against another tribe… Jihad, however, was the action a religious community against non-members of the community… It was this ‘ religious ‘ character of the jihad which channeled the energies of the Arabs in such a way that in less than a century they had created an empire which stretched from the Atlantic and the Pyrenees in the West to the Oxus and the Punjab to the East. It seems certain that without the conception of the jihad that would not have happened (emphasis mine)” (pg. 108-109).
Above not only demonstrates Mohammad’s deft politicking, but also the extent to which every action had a place within Islamic teachings and jurisprudence. Jesus never codified “not in peace, but a sword” into an established political system with details of court proceedings or how to negotiate a trade deal; rather his ideas were syncretized into an already established imperial system long after his crucifixion. The original Nazarene communities, effectively communes, were the closest thing to enacting Jesus’ Kingdom of Heaven on Earth itself. Though Mohammed did syncretize some pagan traditions, such as the supreme holiness of the Kab’ah, he did so tactically and as part of a living, established Islamic State that encompassed all aspects of the human experience. In an Islamic State, there is little distinction between a religious, political or judicial leader; Mohammad was all three. In fact, before his passing, Mohammad did not establish the first Caliph, Abu-Bakr, as the official head of state, emperor, king or prince but rather as simply “leader of daily prayers”.
This is just a small snippet of Islamic history which can highlight the Left’s inability to comprehend the current demographic upheaval taking place in Europe today. They naively assume that all people want what they have; a secular, liberal democracy and hope that exposing people, especially Muslims, to our decadence will somehow lead them to “see the light”. In the obvious and clear failure of these migrants to even attempt assimilation, the tired justifications of multiculturalism and accusations of Islamophobia come back into the playbook as Shariah law slowly ‘enriches’ our way of life while “Osmanen Germania” becomes more firmly established.