Archive | April, 2012

The Two Types of Anti-Modernism

The Two Types of Anti-Modernism

In the months leading up to the 2008 Olympic Games in Beijing, there were a number of protests in which the status of Tibet was a central issue.  Around that time, the American anti-war libertarian activist, Brendan O’Neil, in an article at, criticized such protests saying that, “Western pro-Tibet campaigning is driven less by a passion for freedom, than by disgust with modernity”.  This raises a question, for, if the most vociferous calls for Tibet independence are represented by self-proclaimed “progressives,” it would seem ironic that these people would oppose modernity and love things associated with the past.  It would be nearly impossible for us to believe that the same liberals, who idolize the Dalai Lama, and who indulge in buying trinkets of questionable worth, would pay the same reverence to Pope Benedict XVI, or ever consider displaying a crucifix in their homes.

Though I disagree with libertarianism as a political philosophy, I must admit that O’Neil is correct in the sense that liberals do hate modernity.  However, his analysis is ultimately incomplete.  Western liberals are quite content to strut around in the latest fashions, carrying the high-tech cellphones and MacBooks, buy coffee from Starbucks, and boast of their dedication to “modern” causes such as unrestricted immigration or affirmative action.  Therefore, they cannot hate modernity as a whole.  The hatred that liberals have for modernity is a selective, bourgeoisie one which is inherently decadent and without any underlying logic; it is a hatred which stems from their own ‘wurzellosigkeit‘ (rootlessness).  When liberals display an affinity for any sort of Tradition, it is clearly only because, at best, they feel a emotional nostalgia for that group, or because they believe in their minds that such a group is inferior.  Their “anti-modernism,” at best, is one which is superficial and false.

But we might say the same for modern conservatives.  With the notable exception of the Burkean school of thought, conservatives generally preach about “conserving” the status quo, even if that status quo happens to be a progressive or liberal one.  While the original “conservative” outlook was one which combined conservative social attitudes with a classical-liberal economic outlook, as time went on, these two positions switched places (or rather, the terminology did).  Over time, the majority of conservatives in the Western world came to adopt free-market economic ideas, to the extent that such ideas are now generally considered and termed “conservative,” and also took on many trappings of the left-wing with regard to social issues.  The neoconservative strain of thought, with its origins in the Frankfurt School and Trotskyist line of thinking, is a whole matter entirely, despite the use of the name “conservative”.

Yet both liberals and conservatives try to claim that they are, in some way providing solutions to the modern condition.  Leftists and liberals believe that by superficially opposing certain technologies, or by opposing the trappings of capitalism, or by idolizing certain indigenous or pre-literate societies, they’re somehow bucking the trend.  On the other hand, the conservatives since the 18th century have merely been a less radical version of the leftists.  This is especially prominent in Europe, where even “conservative” candidates promote leftist social values as “Western” values, and the endless Romanticist talking of “taking back Europe” refers only in name, and not even in theory, any longer, to constructs which at this time have already been killed by these faux-conservatives and their leftist allies.  Even in America, the “conservative” movement, while they might claim to support “Traditional” values, is merely a pro-establishment clique that is all to ready to make compromises with the left.

Hence, it is at this point where O’Neil’s analysis breaks down.  The leftists are only concerned with eliminating the most superficial and outward symptoms of modernity, such as technology or industry, without giving attention to the complementary aspect of degenerating spirituality.  Thus superficially they hate cars, factories, and capitalism, but subconsciously are reliant on things in the material world.  Moreover, they are inconsistent in their so-called ‘nostalgia’ for the past.  They would care little to resurrect the moral orders of any religious group, much less authentic the warlike times of the kśatra.) Even when an interest in spirituality is present, it is only a reaction to their own traditions (in this case Christianity); they seek Buddhism only because they want to use it to further the goal of individuality, but few would genuinely care for either exoteric or esoteric Buddhist practice — this is obvious when we hear such people say “I’m a spiritual Buddhist” or similar statements.

The Traditional outlook, then, is completely different from the modernist, liberal one, either “conservative” or liberal.  Traditionalists believe that it is the modern world which has failed, and thus it is in the past that answers may be found.  In other words, not only can we not look to the “status quo,” as the conservatives do, we cannot believe that “progressing” under that same path would be beneficial.  the Traditionalists look to the civilizations of the past, not in pity, but rather in search of the ideals that they possessed.  At the same time, a Traditionalist need not reject science or technology, but rather must place it in its correct position with relation to man.  Ironically, to the left, the solution to those aspects of modernity that they hate is to bring those “primitive” cultures which they claim to admire into the fold of modernity, as if to do so should benefit the human race at large.  But historical data tells us that this is not so.  If we limit our analysis to the past 200 years of Western Civilization, the effects have clearly been visible.  The consequences of “liberalism” and all “modern thought” have been a unmitigated disaster.

Not only has society has become destabilized, life is now mundane and full of much suffering, and irreparable damage has been inflicted on the natural world. The Dalai Lama concisely summarizes some of those ills of modernity in a short work called The Paradox of Our Age:

We have become long on quantity, but short on quality.
These are times of fast foods but slow digestion;
Tall men but short characters;
Steep profits but shallow relationships.
It’s a time when there is much in the window
But nothing in the room.

Tradition is concerned with the primacy of eternal principles, and as such, it is independent of time, and to a further extent, independent of space.  While certain segments of traditionalist anti-modernism do have an agrarian tendency, such Luddite persuasions are not the individual hallmark of a Tradition-centered framework of thought.  Nowhere is this better demonstrated in the mock anti-modern attitudes of the Left, who, while decrying technology and consumerism outwardly, simultaneously promote the very vices of the modern world and openly show hostility towards any spiritual authority!

"Friendly Western Values" in action?

In general, we may define traditionalism a being subset of within “conservatism,” but this, too, is incomplete.  While Traditionalism indeed is considered conservative by its very nature, what is commonly regarded as “mainstream conservatism” would be regarded as a lukewarm endeavor which is solely concerned with the politics of the lowest common denominator.  In modern times, we anti-modern Traditionalists must also be revolutionary in ideology,while being transcendental in action.  Unlike mainstream conservatives, we do not merely accept the “status quo,” as that status quo which is often touted has deviated so much from a primordially pure state, that it is not a viable option.  To illustrate this, we need only look towards the American politicians, who brazenly claim to talk about the “American way,” supposed “American values,” and their “American traditions,” all the while advocating poisonous alliances with foreign countries, and while also failing to realize that at best they are promoting an idealized version of 1950′s America.  Of course, the fact that America has fallen so far so quickly can only mean that the 1950′s wasn’t as ideal as it was portrayed to be, and that whichever symptoms which finally erupted in the subsequent decades had been festering for decades.

Has the West gained anything from, for instance, allowing women to vote, or even emancipating the slaves?  Have we Westerners gained anything for all their professions of egalitarianism, secularism, democracy?  Have we gained anything, aside from marginal and temporary economic benefits, which are slowly fading away due to globalism and massive immigration?

In fact, if we in the West had cared to be honest with ourselves, we might say that the “benefits” of the majority of the social movements in the 20th century were detrimental to our societies.  Women’s suffrage lead, inevitably to feminism, which in its second and third waves, have destroyed families, and in combination with immigration, will lead to Europeans becoming a minority in our indigenous land.  We also need to realize that when certain so-called “nationalists,” such as Geert Wilders, or that rag-tag mob called the EDL, speak about defending our “Western Values,” they mean liberalism.  They belong to that insidious clique of militant secularists who insist that one must be liberal to belong to the West or to be an “assimilated foreigner”.  Their nationalism is merely the defense this secular false messiah.

The correct view on anti-modernism lies with the Traditionalist line of thought which is interested not only in self-preservation, but the preservation of societies, cultures, and peoples.  The liberal version of “anti-modernism” is really only a counterfeit ideology which is meant to re-draw authentic tradition in its own image, whilst the conservative variation, only marginally better, does the same at a slower pace.  Within the realm of Traditionalist thought, there is a calling not towards the praise of what is perceived to be inferior, but rather a call to embrace strength, balance and prowess as one’s way of life.

Traditional conservatives draw upon the knowledge of the past, but this does not mean we cannot look to the future and plan ahead for our posterity.  Let us therefore defeat the enemy within by identifying and confronting the fake anti-modernists, who, despite their empty slogans have done everything to plunge societies deeper and deeper into worldly perdition!

Posted in Culture, Most Recent, Society0 Comments

The importance of learning martial arts

The importance of learning martial arts

In today’s uncertain world, the necessity of physical self-defense cannot be denied.  Modern cities are by no means safe places, and crime is on the rise every day.  As anybody who’s lived in a dangerous urban environment can attest to, you can’t always wait for the police to come and defend you in an emergency.  Even when there are police around, they may be corrupt, incompetent or unwilling to do anything.  While some — especially the politically correct types — might say that violence is always wrong, this line of reasoning only works with rational, peaceful, law abiding people; you cannot count on street toughs, thieves, or would-be killers to be rational, law-abiding or peaceful.  Therefore, no matter how much you might dislike it, there may be a time when you have to fight.  In such tense situations, whether confronted by a common street thug or with other enemies, one needs to be ready to fight in self-defense as a necessary condition for his own survival; you need to be prepared to take on criminals, especially when your life depends on it.

A handgun can get you out of a difficult situation - but they are harder and harder to acquire

If you live in America, especially in a rural environment, or a locale where it is easy to purchase, store, or carry a firearm, this may be a good idea.  You should always become proficient with using your weapon, so that you won’t accidentally shoot any innocent bystanders.  When carrying a firearm, you should always do so within the confines of the law, so as to avoid any complications later.  However, firearms laws are becoming increasingly strict, and many states have made “concealed carry” impossible, especially in urban centers.  Despite this, one needs to be ready to fight in self defense as a necessary condition for his own survival.

Martial arts have been used for thousands of years all over the world for self defense, and learning one or more styles of self-defense can be quite useful when you’re on the street and have to face a potential attacker unarmed.  While this is not always a guarantee to protect you from any everyone, at least a quick jab to the nose or similar attack can can do so much slow him down, and at least buy you some time to run away.

If you do decide to learn a martial art for self defense, it is best to choose something practical.  Which style “works” for you is ultimately up to a number of factors such as your build, musculature, and personal preference, but various world armies have developed systems, such as Special Combat Aggressive Reactionary Systems (used by the American military) or Systema (used by Spetznaz), which can be learned via video.  Boxing can also be learned in a short time and can be made useful in a fight.  While the various Eastern martial arts can also be effective, they suffer from a lack of decent experts in non-Asian countries, and as a result are mostly taught in the West as sports or as health regimens, and not for fighting.  While this kind of martial art is good for building self-discipline, it may take years before one is proficient enough in the techniques to fight effectively.

That said, self-defense and fighting ability are not the be all-and end-all of martial arts.  Herein lies a fundamental shortcoming of the purely exoteric system of fighting: while it can be said that there is a certain masculinity to fighting, people often take the wrong attitude towards fighting and can become too aggressive.  Self-defense is an indispensable skill,  it is also wise to be able to avoid danger in the first place, or learn how to negotiate with a would-be thief to diffuse a hostile situation.  To quote Sun Tzu’s Art of War: “To subdue the enemy without fighting is the acme of skill.”

In this regard, some of the traditional Eastern systems hold sway over the Western ones. In this manner, the properly taught Eastern martial arts in some ways, are remnants of ancient initiatory rituals.  In ancient times, the study of the codified martial arts (as oppose to mere ‘street fighting’) made high demands, and to join a lineage of martial artists often invoked the mystical world.  In others, martial ability was part and parcel of being a perfected gentleman: in ancient China, archery was considered to be a gentlemanly pursuit alongside intellectual endeavors, with the arrow and the target being the very symbols of the path to achieve super-human states, which the warriors were actively occupying and then transcending.

While this is not applied today in its original form, the historical origins of Eastern martial arts belie a certain asceticism of action not found directly in many Western martial arts.  Properly done martial arts demands a willingness to confront interpersonal human aggression directly, developing the habit of taking the initiative when confronted, not being intimidated, and the habit of meeting the challenge presented by a committed aggressor with the determination to prevail.  At the same time, a martial artist needs to avoid becoming a bully who jumps into unnecessary conflict.

Thus, it can be said that it is necessary in the Eastern tradition to embrace both the inner world while defeating the outer world, whereas most Western arts merely pass on exoteric forms of punching and kicking.  It is true that the esoteric component of the Eastern martial arts are quite far removed today, but they are even further obscured among the Western fighters.  For example, there was certainly a method of unarmed physical combat practiced by Greeks (“pankration,” a combination of boxing and wrestling), but did Greeks practicing this believe that they attained a level of spiritual development through it? Certainly in the Olympics it was consecrated, but it is doubtful if such consecration encompassed the actual action itself or the search for intuitive knowledge and enlightenment (samadhi and satori) such as we practiced in the East.  An exception to this might be the presence of the Catholic military orders of the Middle Ages, which can be regarded as the pure distillation of the Ecclesia Militans into physical action.

In pursuit of this goal, the Eastern traditions have come to encompass a wide variety of training methods that improve the body and mind, and the best coaches and instructors train both the mind and the body.  They aim to develop focus, self-discipline, and balance.  To perform at a high level in martial arts you have to embrace, accept and ride the wave of anger. You become intimately acquainted with fear, frustration, anxiety, and loss of focus. Unlike in life, in martial arts you have a way to learn from those experiences and you have the opportunity to accept them as a natural part of discovery and learning. Most importantly, you are allowed to display these emotions as a man in a martial arts environment.  The experience should at once be cathartic and energizing.

Whether you choose to undertake a study in martial arts purely for reasons of self-defense, or for other reasons, you will be well-rewarded if you are willing to invest the time and energy.  This breadth of training requirements, and the level of intensity that can be achieved in martial arts, rarely coalesce in a single activity. The range of potential effects are so vast, leading one researcher to suggest the martial arts are a potentially-rich source of research for psychological fields including perception, attention, problem-solving, pattern recognition, and consciousness.

Posted in Culture, Most Recent0 Comments

An alliance between Muslims and the European ‘Far Right’? – Part 2

What follows below is the conclusion of the translation of Albert Ali’s article, “Osons Marine?” in which he tackles the issue of institutional Islamophobia among various French political factions, and concludes with some comments on why Marine Le Pen is a possible candidate for some French Muslims.

The first part of Ali’s article, as well as an explanation of its background from both the editor and the translator, is available here.  Once again, the ideas herein are solely those of Mr. Albert Ali.  Francophone readers are encouraged to read Ali’s original article (link available in Part 1).

The Grand Mosque of Paris: Even today it serves as a reminder of the complex relationship between France and its Muslim population

III. Islamophobia as placebo for legitimate concerns of the French.

All Muslims today are worried — with good reason — about the sudden explosion of Islamophobia, institutionally, politically and in the media. They also correctly point out that “far right” parties in Europe, with their Zionist orientation, have widely used Islamophobia to promote their own interests. But in this respect as well, are we asking ourselves the right questions? It is beyond any reasonable doubt the Front National has anti-Islamic tendencies, but there are also “pagans” who even consider Christians as invaders. Others are “Traditional Catholics” of the Crusader mentality, while others are nostalgic who yearn for the time of Charlemagne. Still others are disappointed about the loss of French Algeria.

There is a multitude of reasons which explain the historic Islamophobia at the base of the Front National. However, if “lack of Islamophobia” is to be a criterion in the selection of the Islamic vote for the presidential elections, then not a single candidate can meet our requirements, except perhaps [Nicholas] Dupont-Aignan [1]? It is true we have not yet seen him distance himself from certain aspects of Islamic practices in France. Dupont-Aignan remains a solid electoral choice to initiate Muslims in the authentic and transcendent French sovereignty.

But this is not the question at hand. The main concern is whether or not this French reaction towards Islam and Muslims has to be one of those historic contradictions of our country – a metaphorical fascination and disdain of “Madame France” towards her mysterious neighbor “Mister Islam”. France, the country which started the Crusades, is also the country which has seen the alliance between Charlemagne and Harun al-Rashid, between Francis I and Suleiman the Magnificent. The distrust and the animosity towards certain Islamic customs can be found both with the ultra-secular apostles of lethal Leftist atheism as well as at the base of the Right-Wing government.  For the latter, it happens in the name of protection of a certain notion of French identity. Contrary to where one could place her father because of his past, the current exaggerated Islamophobia of Marine is strangely enough mixed in with an unexpected rise in secularism for a party which has for the most part been anchored in less Republican notions, or which at the very least could be related to Catholicism and tradition.

Hence, the question at hand is how we are to interpret the Islamophobic ecumenism of our politicians. For the Marinists, this translates into using the paradigm of the “Clash of Civilizations” as an electoral strategy which could pay off (they think they will be able to control the intensity of the shock). Unfortunately, too few Muslims are interested in influencing these people to take up a less radical position. Concerning other parties, it is but a political strategy of deceitful camouflage, considering they can’t deny what it’s actually all about: massive and uncontrolled immigration.

This sentiment has been instilled onto the French population by the same elites which overflow with antiracist rhetoric. On the one hand the Left, is immigrationist by ideology, and on the other hand the Right hides its economic immigration under the pretense of a few small, symbolic charters.  Both sides use Islamophobia as an electoral issue, because ultimately it is but an overused way to answer the legitimate identitarian concerns of the French and to vent their anger through abstract notions such as gender equality, animal welfare and public order in the streets. This is so they don’t have to take responsibility to call the physical people by their name: immigrants.

We all know Muslims in France aren’t native Bretons, but rather represent an aggregate of over sixty nationalities and their descendants, who speak over twenty languages and dialects passed on to them while living in exile. In other words, the Muslims of France an irreconcilable mishmash of uprooted communities, who live in a permanent state of rivalry and conflict. Not one unifying power, not even Islam, can unite their interests. The media-powered Islamophobia reacts to this shock of diversity by focusing on the immediately observable elements, which are the visible manifestations of Islam: normative clothing, street prayer, halal shops. In every society, there is an “optimum of diversity”, a limit to variety which cannot be crossed.  Once crossed, this notion suddenly transforms from being a weak nuance which ‘enriches’ the majority to a clash of cultures. Our France has, despite and thanks to ourselves, turned into a demographic bomb of conflicting diversity, as if it were a bundle of chemical concoctions which have turned unstable.

Is Islamophobia being used as a surrogate for anti-immigrant sentiment that cannot be openly expressed by politicians? If so, then French Muslims must re-examine their attitude towards immigration, says Ali.

To many, immigration is reverse colonialisation, a substitution of the populace and the cultures as planned out by the political elites. It suffices to take the subway to Seine-St-Denis [2] in order to see first hand this inescapable atmosphere and oppressive “Babelization,” which is destructive to our cohesion. The immigrants and their children have both turned into the instrument of destruction of this nation as well as its first victims by social dumping, in which they work as the pillar of support! Those who don’t think immigration is a stumbling block should know this is in fact the central matter at hand!

Muslims who are in favor of immigration should be more honest in expounding their arguments in favor of immigration. Also, they should also realize to which extent their categories of analysis are being dictated by the Left. How can one justify the support of illegal aliens from an Islamic point of view? Every politically conscious person who is not dominated by sentimentalism and who surpasses emotional imagery (that of the crying African mother holding onto her child after having “forgotten” her papers in Africa while being surrounded by the police) can only reject the current migration policies. Elsewhere, in Muslim countries, people don’t mince words: “in certain Gulf countries, one can’t tell anymore whether one lives in an Arab Muslim country or some Asian region. We can’t speak of “diversity” here. No nation on earth can accept the erosion of its culture on its own soil.” [3]

Protecting the cultural foundations of a people is part of the fitra [4]. Ideological multiculturalism is a rejection both of the fitra and of the Divine Volition which divided the people in separated and homogeneous communities so they can come to mutual understanding, not so they can mix [5]. If this is true, then it is even less desirable for people to be uprooted and to mingle, thousands of kilometers from their native lands, in a globalized “stew” without standards.  This is the cemetery of Islam in Europe and it undermines every reinvention of the ijtihad meant to reach an Islamic surge. I would like to see people show me how immigration is supposed to be a good thing for Islam and their country. Personally, I believe this is its black hole of impoverishment and sectarian disconnect.

On the matter of antiracist ideology – a religion founded by Leftists – it has been forbidden to the French to complain about instilled “diversity” ever since the thirties.  What should we do about the accumulated frustrations of the “underdogs” (translator: In French, “sous-chiens,” referring to the native French) which should testify to “the erosion of their culture on their soil”? How does one suppose politics will react to this catastrophe when they caused it themselves, without channeling the legitimate concerns in the face of disownment of their nation and collapse of their culture? Their response: by legal and media-fueled Islamophobia! They would much rather have us being despised because of our exotic Islam, so can submitted to the populist wrath of the people!

Thus, today, one can no longer claim “France for the French”, one now says “France without Sharia”!

We must look at the peculiar paradox which — to me — is the primordial paradigm of our current situation. Why have our friends of the system’s Left and Right kept up this massive and useless immigration for the past 40 years, while being equally violent in the face of the religion indissolubly connected to these immigrants? Answer this fundamental question and you will have the key to understanding these quasi-inescapable conditions in which we find ourselves locked. A prison which is subtly pulling us towards civil war with discontent and blindness on every side, as can be seen in the comments here (translator: this article first appeared on, which are the counterparts of the comments on Fdesouche (translator: a French identitarian blog).

IV. Vote — if you must!

If voting is “halal” is a topic which is already in need of some serious debate between Muslims considering the democratic travesty and the criticism of the democratic-oligarchic system in which we live today, then we have to surpass the usual slogans of the Muslim elites of the past 25 years.

In the past, the slogan was: “Vote for whoever you want, just vote!”  Beyond slogans, though, we have to muster the courage to name names, to make a choice and to justify this choice. The presidential elections really are pointless and the Muslims don’t have the power to realize any real change in this respect. It will always remain the old UMPS (translator: a play of words on UMP and PS, similar to Republicrat) model ever since the fall of De Gaulle in ’68, not in the least due to a current friend of Leftist Muslims. Some of the ignorant and naive call to vote for Maçon Mélenchon, who has been senator and member of the Parti Socialiste for 31 years and who today has suddenly become an enemy of the system, or they call to vote for some other small and folkloric organisation which is equally unable to realize anything whatsoever. But then we will once more vote for a second round of UMPS, so these people are grossly mistaken. During the presidential elections, we are not even a factor percentage-wise. Our electoral weight is insignificant. During a second round we will do nothing but solidify the UMPS system in its place, considering France – even before Greece and Italy in 2012 – had a banker at its helm, named Pompidou. Eventually, we will be presented the choice between those responsible for the current malaise and those guilty of the nearing cataclysm.

In conclusion: the presidential elections are an event of symbolic value without precedent, a moment for expression of opinion which only occurs once every five years, a specific moment where the deaf and condescending candidates are obligated to listen to our message. Again, should we recognise to be pro-democracy, know that if we now neglect the current call to Arabs, it will mean our message has truly aged. Then we are once more preparing the tag team, which is the oligarchical solution. Time to take up our responsibility.

Awaiting a better future, I invite every Muslim – just like in 2007 – to be conscious of our situation as the eternal losing side of history. Let us enter the political annals through the main gate. Let us become conscious of how only the political fundamentals are relevant today.


  • Let us safeguard our national sovereignty against the only enemy of importance: not the “younamare!” racism (translator: a play of words, “we have had enough”), nor the colonialization of the past, but in fact that of mondialism, the supreme ideology of the fasâd.
  • Let us safeguard our military sovereignty by quitting NATO, our economic sovereignty by quitting the Euro, let us abolish the Law of 1973 (translator: the banking law Pompidou-Giscard-Rothschild) and let us start the reindustrialisation. Safeguarding our cultural sovereignty by liberating public schools of the influence of the markets and of globalistt curricula, restoring our sovereignty over our foreign policy, our liberation of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and its Zionisation, our sovereignty over our borders. Only sovereignty can still allow us the recovery of a France which is capable of radiating and of reconciling itself with its Muslims.

"Choosing between Sarkozy and Hollande is no choice"

Antifascism has been surpassed. Anti-colonialism has dissolved. What remains is the probability of living in this country without clashes. As can be seen in what people write on the internet, we still have a long way ahead of us, it is rather a civil conflict which subtly announces itself. So, awaiting the awakening of the Muslims of France concerning the necessity of being rooted in this country which is ours, the beneficial and memorable transcending of what limits us, I invite militant anti-colonialists to do away with their antifascist and antiracist hysteria, to instead occupy themselves with marriage, children and cooking for your spouse. This is not a matter of machismo, but a fundamental question. Do they count on raising their children in the hatred for France and its “sous-chiens”? And concerning those who wish to vent themselves through the ballots, there is but one symbolic choice. The die have been cast for us these past 50 years, let us now undermine the UMPS game by launching the daughter of the father into the second round.

The only real choice in the second round, is having a choice. Choosing between Sarkozy and Hollande is no choice, so let us try Marine! We can accomplish that those who are supposed to hate the Front National the most, double the score of her father in 2007!

Let us for once make the political and media caste panic in such a way that will resonate as a sweet revenge on this system which positions itself paradoxically hateful towards Islam yet pandering to illegals. No advice or electoral support makes sense today. So, let us try Marine, despite everything, despite her Islamophobia, despite her Zionism, let us try despite everything! Let us try insolence, this is our sole choice in order to have a second round, the undeniable feeling this time we have chosen instead of having been chosen for!

-Albert Ali
Founder of the Coalition of Islamic Sovereignists.

[1] translator’s note: a Euro-critical politician from the Gaullist party “Debout La République”
[2] A French department with a high proportion of immigrant families
[3] Majeed Al Alawi, Minister of Labor in Bahrain. Arab News, October 2007.
[4] The fitra ( فِطْرة ) is an Arab notion which refers to the primordial nature of man in Islam.
[5] Sûrah 9:13, 30:20

Posted in Current Events, Society0 Comments

    Leave a Comment

  • Stay up to date

  • Subscribe to the RSS feed
  • Subscribe to the feed via email
  • Follow us on Twitter!

Find us on Facebook

Traditionalist Books

More books...