By Karl Radl

Extremism seems to be everywhere these days, from Animal Rights  Extremists to Islamic extremists to Far Right Extremists, everything  seems to be ‘extreme’. The irony of this is that this  identification tag of ‘extremism’ is extremely arbitrary since there is  no way to definitely label one group ‘moderate’ and another ‘extremist’  other than to look at them as subjective expressions of value to the  System.

In other words, when one is assigned the tag of ‘moderate’ then it is a  positive valuation since ‘moderate’ means that one is willing to work  with and promote ideological positions that are either less harmful to, or in sync, with those of the System. Therefore, when one is assigned  the tag of ‘extremist’ then it is a negative valuation since ‘extremist’  means that one is willing to work with and promote ideological  positions that are either harmful, or out of sync, with those of the  System.

Thus, we can see that ‘extremist’ is simply a propagandistic synonym  for ‘enemy of the System’ while ‘moderate’ translates to ‘friend of the  System’.

What in general makes an ‘extremist’ an ‘extremist’ in the eyes of  the System is that they are unwilling to bend their ideology – be it  religious, political, social and/or economic – to the ideological  requirements of the System and are thus enemies of the System because  they stand in opposition to the norms and forms that it wishes to  establish. Therefore, what makes an ‘extremist’ an ‘extremist’ is  uncompromising belief in their ideology that supersedes any loyalty they  have to the System and therefore places them outside the System.

They are the opposite to those with the ‘slave morality’ that Nietzsche  so deplored in that they are prepared to fight for what they believe in  and they will not back down from a fight with the System if one is  required. This is part of why ‘extremists’ tend to perform the best out  of any group. While ‘extremist’ ideologies can lead to  ideologically-based missteps – like Islamic State provoking the United  States into a fight in Iraq and Syria based on their belief that it  would trigger Allah to send them angelic reinforcements – if an  ‘extremist’ ideology is based on reason and science (for example:  National Socialism) rather than metaphysical speculation and established  ritual (for example: Wahhabi Islam), then it will not likely make such  mistakes, but instead stand tall, strong and true as a revolt against  the modern world.

Those who want to ‘compromise’ ideologically are the sort of people  who believe – seemingly seriously – that if you are ‘nice’ to  homosexuals and jews as a National Socialist then you are going to get  somewhere because they’ll be ‘fooled’ into voting for you since you  are ‘not so bad’. The problem – as exemplified by groups such as the  ‘Sweden Democrats’ and ‘Alternative for Germany’ – is once you start  doing this then your ‘LARPing’ turns out to be serious and all of a  sudden your nationalist party has become a civic nationalist group  promoting gay rights in Saudi Arabia.

In other words: you have become a ‘moderate’ and reinforce the myth  of political choice that the system has created as a defense mechanism  to keep the average citizen fat, happy and believing they are masters of  their own destiny.

The other problem is that by not being ‘extremists’ then you cede the  recruiting pool of young radicals – i.e. future activist cadre – to  other groups who are willing to occupy that ground.

A good example of this: the French convert to ‘radical Islam’, Michaël  Chiolo, who was behind the recent violent revolt at the Conde-sur-Sarthe  high security prison. What you may not have picked up even if you saw  the news concerning this event was that prior to converting to Islam and  becoming an Islamic activist and proto-leader, Chiolo flirted with the  French Nationalist scene (presumably that around Le Front National that  has now become part of the System) and found it far too milquetoast for  him without the answers he sought. So he looked into radical Islam and  found his answers. Nationalism lost a potential activist and leader, while Islam gained one, and all because Chiolo realized that many  so-called ‘nationalists’ do not truly believe in their ideals, let alone  act on them.

Another example is the case of US Air Force Intelligence Officer, Monica Witt, who became disenchanted with US foreign policy towards Iran –  and rightly so – and started to look for other answers; she found  them, like Chiolo, in Islam. She then began working as a mole for Iranian  intelligence and has since fled there and taken up a new life. Yet, if  nationalism were extreme enough and offered her answers she would not have converted to Islam  and begun working for Iran.

That is a pathetic state of affairs, isn’t it?

Without extremism nationalism is nothing, and without nationalism there is no future for the peoples of Europe.

That is why extremism is necessary and is to be applauded, not deplored.

Therefore – to paraphrase Joseph Goebbels - the most extreme nationalist is today only just extreme enough.