Do Zionists dream of Islamo-Christian enmity ?
The case against alliance with the Muslims. Part 1: Islamic psychology
Recent news of the stabbing of Mar Mari Emmanuel, a Syriac Christian settled in Australia, by a Muslim man, can be the occasion of a much-needed reflexion about the intoxication of the “Dissident” movements by a recurring discourse, always with great online visibility: Muslims who do bad thing ? Nope. Zionists in disguise.
Quite a couple of infamous figures of that broad milieu have been trying to push the idea that a Christian-Muslim alliance is the key to most of the West's problems. There are many variations of that idea, which can call to mind Philippe Baillet's typology, used in his book on European “Right-winged” (in fact not so Right-winged) Third-Worldism, in which he distinguishes two faces of that ideology : a political and strategical one, focused on alliances with Third-Worlders to fight against “imperialism”, and an idealist and metapolitical one, focused on their alleged virtues (for example, religiosity, sense of community, fanaticism, virility) which the West is seen as lacking, and which sees such alliances as essential, leading some to go as far as saying that what is typically Western (especially racism and Christianity) is the root of "decay" and needs to be overcome through conversion to Islam.
This was (and still is) the way the European “Other Third-Worldism” mainly reasons. An element that has become more and more developped is antizionism. The opposition to the State of Israel was seen as a rather anecdotical thing at first, post-WW2, and was usually only a part of anti-americanism. Israel has gained, over time, a far more autonomous status, and for the more radical fringes of the “Dissidence”, the framework is now completely inverted : anti-americanism primarily is an opposition to "zionists", who are seen as using the United-States as a tool to the benefit of Israel.
The American radical Right usually adheres to this kind of, let us say, “America First antizionism”, focused on fighting against what is felt as a form of parasitism, but in their case, not for Europe's sake but for the United-States. Such a position is legitimate. However, one needs to examine the current concrete attitude of both the Islamic world and American zionists towards the White (usually Christian) America, before calling for alliances with “the enemy of zionists”. Some examples of the Trump administration come to mind, and Trump himself is far from being antizionist.
A clear definition of one's positive goals, an understanding of the real goals of other groups, a precise knowledge of both history and the actual world dynamics seem essential to be able to make sound political judgements. Therefore, such questions can be asked : Are “the enemies of zionists” really friends of the Americans (and globally speaking, Westerners) ? Are their respective fights compatible ? What is their concrete attitude towards Americans and Westerners ? Do Americans even know the Islamic world ? Are terrorists like the guy who tried to stab Mar Mari Emmanuel really puppets of the zionists, used to divide us, or can this behavior be understood in another way ?
Islam is a quite complicated topic, and virtually unknown, at an existential level, by the vast majority of the Americans : only a bit more than 1% of the Population (around 3.5 million) is Muslim. The prime-hand knowledge some may have is due to the military who fought in the Gulf Wars or in Afghanistan, but I don't think it pervaded the American society. Therefore, except if one has a very particular interest in Oriental matters, there is no reason to acquire knowledge on that religion and the people who profess it (this point is very important, Islam being not an abstract matter; we will see that).
This makes judgements on Muslims and Islam difficult, and often inorganic. The neocon (usually zionists) clichés about them may be rejected due to that, but an opposition to their authors sometimes becomes, out of a lack of knowledge too, an appraisal of their enemies. Let us dare to explore that matter, with a focus on what is trivially called “Brown people” in certain circles.
The French have the great chance of having known this question for a bit more time than their ultramarine counterparts : we had an African empire from 1830 to 1962, among which a majority of Muslim countries. We fought several times against North-Africans. Nowadays, 10% of our population is Muslim, which is around 7 millions. Two times what America, a far bigger country than ours, has. The Islamic experience is becoming very habitual in France, since Muslims are not only located in major cities but everywhere, due to the government forcing cities to create or build social housing1 that is very often allocated to non-White French (either foreign-born or now installed) for a couple of reasons, one of which being that they made up for 40% of the French births as of 2016. Therefore, we know far more about you on that, and this very topic is a good occasion to give international readers fruits of the French Right-winged intellectual effort, as I want to do so on this substack. It will however not be a presentation of the religion itself, but rather impressionist brushstrokes on the people who made it, adopted and were forged by it.
They are not like us.
The main problem, which is difficult to understand when one reasons like a White person, is that these people (be them Black, Middle-Eastern or South-Asian) are not like us. They are different on all levels, to the point that it is often difficult to conceptualize the deepness of what separates us.
Race, world-view, religion, family-structure, social structure, environment2, all these things have an effect on their attitudes towards situations in life.
A key element in order to understand such an attitude is their social structure, which is profoundly clanic/tribal. The concept of face (purely externalized, social honor) is central to them, and completely warps their conception of Truth, Justice and other things We cherish3. What is socially damageable (both individually and collectively) is not acceptable, especially when said by a person foreign to the clan. If a North-African man steals from you, he will assure you that he is not guilty, even if he is caught red-handed. Confronting him on that fact as if an alleged innate sense of truth and justice would make him feel guilty will rather make things escalate. Any person that experienced it knows that it is preferable to either give up, use their very Oriental touchy hypocritical pseudo-friendliness (emphasis on agreeing that he's not guilty of anything) to get your stuff back (“my friend, I really need to call my mother, maybe you found my phone ?”), or show extreme severity or force, since it is probably the only thing that they respect.
They never accept the idea that they faulted since in clanic systems, that gives a pretext for retaliation and therefore a cycle of endless vendettas. Countless video material showing very subtile kinds of such behaviours exist, but one needs to have some knowledge of their behavior to understand. Otherwise, it is unintelligible. Recently, a 89-old woman was attacked by three “youths” and nearly died. His son and the father of one Maghrebi were both invited to a TV-show to talk. The French was teary-eyed, nearly ashamed of not having been able to protect her, talking about what happened to his poor mother, about how it was unimaginable for him. The Arab had his chin up, talked about how “we all do bad things”, “well it happens”, how it created problems for his family, and asked for pardon in a grandiloquent, purely hypocritical way. This is typical of such an attitude : blind clanism, pride, pseudo-excuses that are just de-escalation out of fear of violence. No sense of justice, of truth whatsoever. Questioning oneself is excluded.
This psychology is also tied to their biology and religion. Incest is rampant in Islamic societies (first-cousin marriage is permitted in Islam while the Church forbade unions up to the third-cousin; polygamy also is problematic4), which has dysgenic effects that can be seen on the national mean-IQs (Brown “Caucasoids” such as North-Africans, Middle-Easterners and Pakistanis have far less IQ, between 75 and 80, than Whites who are around 100), on genetic diseases linked to inbreeding, but also on mental disorders, which are reinforced by violent cultural practices.
The French ethno-psychiatrists from the Algiers school of psychiatry, targeted in the 1950s by the infamous negro-marxist Frantz Fanon (1925-1961)5, studied in the early 1900s the psychology of colonial subjects. Some of their observations are of great interest, especially since a contemporary and completely mainstream psychiatrist, Maurice Berger, observed the exact same things in his field of juvenile violence and wrote about it6.
Berger works in a structure probably similar to youth detention centers, and gives in his book on juvenile ultraviolence some incredible data and anecdotes on what he had to deal with. He underlines the ethnic aspect of such violence (sadly, scientific institutes cannot legally do ethno-racial statistics in France, so we lack this aspect in all our data on crime; however, an over-representation is a very highly-probable hypothesis) : 88% of these ultraviolent criminal youth were of North-African descent. He sees several reasons for that, namely the aforementioned biological issues, but also the exposure to domestic violence (69% of the children he saw), incoherent education, neglect (he mentions how many of them cannot recognize emotions on others' faces due to their parents completely neglecting them, leading them to be akin to “acquired-psychopaths”, but also their incapacity to show empathy, to think hypothetically), and the tribal mentality shared in these social environments.
Long before Berger, from the 1910s to the 1940s, Antoine Porot7, from the Algiers school of psychiatry, wrote about the extremely common irrational violence, impulsivity and primitivism that exists among the natives in Algeria :
A braggart, liar, thief and lazy person, the North African Muslim can be defined as a hysterical moron, subject, moreover, to unpredictable homicidal impulses.8
Indigenous criminality has a development, a frequency, a brutality and a savagery that are surprising at first and that are conditioned through that special impulsiveness to which one of us has already been able to draw attention. Out of the seventy-five mental assessments of natives one of us has had to perform over the last ten years, sixty-one of them concerned seemingly unmotivated murders or attempted murders. (...) Whereas the ‘evolved’ individual still remains, in part, under the domination of higher faculties of control, critique and logic, which inhibit the liberation of his instinctive faculties, as for the primitive [i.e., the native], he reacts, beyond a certain threshold, with a total liberation of his instinctive automatisms. We rediscover here the law of all or nothing: the native, in his madness, knows no limits.9
He also observed the sort of psychological tendency to an extreme subjectivism among natives, perfectly in the vein of clanism, which is only an extended form of subjectivism.
The only intellectual resistance of which they [natives] are capable takes the form of a tenacious and insurmountable obstinacy, of a power of perseveration that defies all undertakings and that in general is only exercised in a direction determined by interests, instincts or essential beliefs. The wronged native quickly becomes a tenacious and obstinate plaintiff (revendicateur). This base of intellectual regression, coupled with gullibility and obstinacy, at first appears to invite comparison between the psychic composition of the native Muslim and that of the child.10
This mental puerilism nonetheless differs from that of our children, since it is devoid of the curiosity that leads the latter to formulate questions, to pose interminable ‘whys’, that urges their minds to make unforeseen connections, to make always interesting comparisons, which is the veritable beginning of the scientific mind, which the native lacks entirely.11
For primitivism is not a lack of maturity, a pronounced arrest in the development of the individual psyche; (…) it is far more deep-seated and we indeed think that it must have its substratum in a particular disposition, if not of the architectonics, then at least of the ‘dynamic’ hierarchization of the nervous centres.12
Of course, such assertions can be nuanced, especially since the Muslim world is quite diverse. However, they are an interesting historical document on the Muslim psyche, of great use since such traits are usually ignored, or rendered unintelligible due to egalitarianism or eurocentrism. They are even more pertinent when compared to modern data such as Berger's, or such as what the world nowadays shows us of them.
To end this post focusing on psychology, two very peculiar things in the Islamic mentality, deeply tied to their conception of the divine and of the creation (but that can also be linked with the nomadic way of life and so on), must be underlined, namely what we could call a magico-atomist worldview : the idea of a natural order doesn’t exist,
Arabs tend to see the world and events as isolated incidents, snapshots, and particular moments in time. Westerners tend to look for unifying concepts whereas Arabs focus on parts, rather than on the whole.13
and supernatural entities (be them demons [jinns] or “God”) are the only causal agents
Ideas of influence occur very frequently in the mental pathology of North African natives. They are the expression of very widespread and deeply rooted beliefs and superstitions in their culture. Indeed, what characterizes these natives from the psychological point of view is a rather special “primitivism” into which enters a large store of mysticism and of religious credulity, in the sense that Lévy-Bruhl and Blondel have established in their studies on the “primitive mentality”. Rational and scientific explanations do not exist for them; there are only ever affective values, supernatural and mystical acts that are not up for debate, cannot be controlled, to which one is subject and against which means of protection must be found, when they are baleful. (…) All these beliefs are found in the various manifestations of indigenous mental pathology. All the abnormal sensations that he experiences (synesthetic disorders, hallucinations), all his behavioural disorders will be ascribed to these magical influences14
This is, coupled with the aforementioned clanism, a central cog in the attraction for conspiracy theories that are extremely widespread in the Islamic world.
Muslims who say that ISIS or that this Lebanese Muslim who tried to kill churchmen today are puppets of zionists are very attached to that version of the event. In fact, they truly believe that.
Part 2: Contemporary facts and History.
Any city with more than 3500 residents has the obligation to have 25% social housing; any with 1500 or more when in the Parisian region; in case they do not do that, they get fines
Reading L. F. Clauß’ Race and soul (1926), I stumbled upon a very interesting etymological note on a common Arabic insult, miskine, which means miserable, wretched. Literally, it designates sedentary people, those who are not able to move, those unlike nomads. These details teach a lot on the psyche of a people.
The following quotes from authors of the Algiers school were found in an edition of Fanon’s collected works, Alienation and Freedom, 2018.
Maurice Berger, Sur la violence gratuite en France: Adolescents hyper-violents, témoignages et analyse, 2019.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antoine_Porot
Antoine Porot, ‘Notes de psychiatrie musulmane’, Annales médico-psychologiques, May 1918.
Antoine Porot and Jean Sutter, ‘Le “primitivisme” des indigènes nord-africains. Ses incidences en pathologie mentale’, Sud médical et chirurgical, 15 April 1939, pp. 11–12.
Ibid, pp. 4–5.
‘Notes de psychiatrie musulmane’.
Ibid, p. 18.
Arab Cultural Awareness: 58 Factsheets, US Army, 2006, page 13.
Suzanne Taieb, Les Idées d’influence dans la pathologie mentale nord-africaine. Le rôle des superstitions, Med. thesis: Algiers, 1939.