We’ve a bigger foe in the West.

Worry about Islam’s rise in the West is a bit of a chorus in certain parts of the conservative right. I do not discount the validity of these worries, in themselves. Islam’s star is on the rise across the West as the church neglects its prophetic role to “[teach] them to observe all that I have commanded you” (Matt. 18:20). Mamdani in NYC, Humzar Yusuf in Scotland, Sadiq Khan in London, the famous cluster of Muslim US Congresswomen, etc. In certain parts of the US and England and Europe, Muslims are a local power and even a majority. But we need to recognize that, on a societal scale, Islam operates in the West as a client-power to the secularist (liberal) hegemon.

Islam does not hold the levers of power in any European nation or in America. In England (and probably at least a few other European countries), it has the potential to get that power in the next decades, relying just on demographics, but right now, it is not in charge. Muslims are in places of power, but they do not set the pace for power. They do not rule the roost any more than the Hindus or the Jews do. Indeed, Islam’s role in the political ecosystem is as a client ideology for the liberal hegemon.

The thought-system that rules the roost in the West is liberalism. Secularism, liberalism, wokism (a developed form), corporatism (a consequence of adding liberalism to capitalism), socialism (developed liberalism), bureaucratic elitism, neoconservatism, neoliberalism, critical theory, all of these are a part of the milieu which rules the West right now. The fundamental belief of this system is the possibility of creating a utopia of maximal freedom through man’s ingenuity, organization, and destructive capability. Western governments are bowed to this religion, not to Islam.

Islam is, in fact, wielded by secularist liberalism as a tools. In some places, Islam has assimilated to or assimilated parts of this liberalism, as with Muslim socialists, though this assimilation is also in part a coopting or a parasitic mimicry. In some places, Islam retains its antipathy to the liberalism it dwells amidst. But, to be blunt, Islam isn’t the one deciding to give Islam all the advantages that have accrued to it in our legal and social systems.

Islam serves in Britain as a means of weakening, scaring, and traumatizing (because that aids manipulation) the native people. Muslims were imported as a client voter group, to be bought with welfare and legal permissiveness, to vote perpetually for the liberal system. They’re not sticking to that program all that well, but still they serve as a counterbalance to the English people, to the English character.

Islam, particularly as a threat (rather than a constituency), serves in America as boogey-man to justify government power expanding. Islamic terrorism is let through leaky borders or let grow at home by intelligence agencies who are usually surveilling the successful shooters (and sometimes outfitting them) while arresting the innocent; this terrorism scares the public, and they accept further government tyranny: surveillance (USA PATRIOT Act) and police powers and less self-defense rights (because we don’t want the bad guys to have guns!). And then this terrorism is used to amp up the threat of people half-way round the world so that we can justify spending money and blood and blood and blood in foreign war after foreign war. Don’t worry, though; the money ends up right where it belongs: in the pocket of the people in America and the West who pushed the war. The corpses we ship back home too.

These roles I describe, note, are roles Islam serves in different ways in different places. These are examples, not complete description; Islam in America has that same role as an anti-native import that it has in Britain, and it’s a useful threat in Britain as in America. But the roles are more emphasized in certain ways in certain places.

Islam is also a parasite which liberalism has demanded and will not allow itself to be rid of. Britain’s government did not import and does not keep Islam from a Machiavellian impulse, not in complete, though assuredly some element of that rationale described above was important. No, Britain is importing (Europe is importing; America is importing) Islam because Islam is exterior to the society Christendom built. Liberalism hates God, and it recognizes that Western society was shaped by God’s law, imperfectly but extensively. Thus liberalism always favors that which is exterior to the West, even just aesthetically. Liberalism hates white people because Europe was Christian; liberalism hates monogamy because that is a Christian idea; liberalism hates punctuality because diligence is God’s virtue. It even hates those parts of liberalism which were borrowed, in fragments and parts, from Christianity, like so-called ‘classical liberalism.’ The secularist liberal hegemon imports Islam as a way of punishing and getting rid of the church, of destroying what Christians built.

Islam is a danger to our peoples. Islam is a threat. Islam is a religion which urges hatred of God and His people (John 15:18), which urges violence, which at the minimum promotes damnation and destruction of righteousness, with all the fruit of that destruction (Prov. 29:18). But Islam is a second-order danger. The central foe in the West is secularist liberalism, the religion-ideology-philosophy which holds the reins of power, which educates your children (if they’re in public school), which makes your laws, which governs your judges, which infects your churches, which poisons your very food.

Don’t let Islam distract you from Islam’s patron; don’t let the lesser blind you to the greater.

God bless.