Civilisationism

The European culture I am firmly grounded in is being attacked from within and without, with almost no reaction or resistance.  In its defence I felt pressure to ascribe to myself a political identity which I call ‘civilisationist’.  I say this because I regard civilisation as the highest good, as the best protection against vicissitude.  Its nature is to solve problems, but solutions tend to create problems over time which in turn need to be solved.  By means of this continuous incremental improvement, progress is made.  So I call myself a progressive which I hope will annoy real ‘progressives’ who probably think I’m Right-wing.  But real ‘progressives’ want to change society, not improve it, according to an ideology which promises the triumph of aspiration by force with no thought of consequence.  It does not relate to human nature or the reptilian cortex and indeed refutes its importance.  

When such an ideology as Marxism was external, as it was during the Cold War, it offered the West shadow projection enabling it to exceed all other nations in social and economic progress.  But the loss of it at the end of the Cold War brought about an era of increasing self-criticism grounded in inherited Christian guilt, opening the doors to two ideologies known with certainty in the past to be diametrically opposed to Western values and virtues.  These are now operating internally, destroying the foundation and fabric of the greatest civilisation the world had ever seen.  These are firstly cultural Marxism, through Gramsci’s theory of cultural hegemony which evolved into ‘woke culture’ ably assisted by the Duchy of Muscovy in pursuit of its own goals.  The second is Islam, through a confluence of factors enabling its resurgent form to use oil money and uncontrolled borders to expand into the West at a rate not seen since the Ottomans’ conquest of the Balkan peninsula in the 14th century.  Ironically this seems not to be recognised by Humanists as the danger it is, since Humanism in principle opposes Islam’s telos, that of global theocracy.

When I revised this piece I found Google AI placed ‘civilisationism’ as an “often far-Right ideology…characterized by the belief that this civilization is under threat and must be defended.”  Support for civilisation as the highest good, not so much.  The corollary would appear to be that the far-Left supports civilisation’s destruction, and this is in line with Marx’s ‘forcible overthrow of all existing social conditions’ and Islam’s deen, the imposition of divine law and the institutions which enable it.

The European culture I am firmly grounded in is being attacked from within and without, with almost no reaction or resistance.  No other nation or civilisation is having ‘diversity’ forced upon their people or told that their civilisation is grounded in the sins of slavery and colonisation by a detached and educated elite unaware of the ideology that formed their opinions.  No enemies to the Left; only racists, bigots, xenophobes, Islamophobes, far-Right, extreme-Right, fascists and Nazis to the Right.  Things fall apart, the centre cannot hold.  There’s a Gramscian morbid symptom right there.

This, then, is the perspective through which I view the present, the most polarised and irresolvable in my lifetime.

Diary of Defeat, February 2026

PAULINE HANSON QUESTIONS THE EXISTENCE OF "GOOD MUSLIMS" and well she might.  "You say, 'Well, there's good Muslims out there.' How can you tell me there are good Muslims?"  The Spectator gives us the transcript which makes it clear that whatever Hanson’s faults might be, she certainly understands Islam. 

‘Good Muslims’ fall into the ‘millions of moderate Muslims myth’ category.  No question that there are good and moderate Muslims who want nothing more than to live the great life that Western civilisation offers and the Islamic world does not.  (Their children might not see things that way, but that’s another matter.)  But it’s worth examining the role played by moderate Muslims in terms of Islam’s telos.  Here are six reasons why ‘moderate Muslims’ are not a group the West can count on.

1.      Moderate Muslims do not drive Islam’s agenda, the Islamists do.

2.      Moderate Muslims are more fearful and less able than Western authorities to criticise, resist or change Islamists’ activities.  Hamas' wilful slaughter of its fellow citizens shows the power that Islamists have over the moderate and the good.

3.      When push comes to shove and shove comes to jihad, moderate Muslims will have no role to play in defending either side.

4.      Moderate Muslims will be regarded by Islamists as ‘friends of the enemy’ and will have to make a choice – support jihad or face death as apostates.  They know this.  Islamists’ fake narratives of grievance and oppression, of Western attacks on the Middle East and Islam itself, and Hamas’ attack and Israel’s reaction will force moderates’ polarisation. 

5.      Moderate Muslims serve the fundamentalists’ agenda in presenting Islam with a moderate face – Potemkin villagers – and a lesser evil for pandering and leveraging purposes. 

6.      Islam is regressively essentialist.  The children of moderate Muslims will have to make a choice between Western liberalism and Islamic conservatism and there is no guarantee of them being moderate.  European-born Islamists testify to that. 

“There is no moderate Islam.  Islam is Islam and that’s it.”  Recep Tayyip Erdoğan
"There is no radical or moderate Islam. There is only authentic Islam." Mohamed Achamlane
“Islam is very similar to our ideology.” Heinrich Himmler 

Further reading
https://spectator.com/article/the-myth-of-moderate-islam/
The Quranic Concept of War by Brigadier K S Malik
Takfirism in Wikipedia