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.