Muslim supremacy is orthogonal to Muslim traditionalism (Hoejabis are the real threat) ⭐

Also published on Twitter

Essentially the entire “Conservative vs Liberal Muslim” spectrum corresponds only to the most hardline section of Hindutva, with Conservative Muslims corresponding to Traditionalists and Liberal Muslims corresponding to Savarkarites.

In both cases, the latter (Liberal Muslims/Savarkarites) are actually much more potent than the former despite being less religiously orthodox. The difference is:

1. Leftists and Muslims realize this, which is why they target Savarkarite/Sangh RW rather than Hindu traditionalists (who don’t even meaningfully exist anymore); while RWs foolishly make epic pwns like “haha poor Muslims are so conservative while elite Muslims drink alcohol and get bhagwa love tapped”

(I can understand American RWs doing this because their introduction to Islam was dehātī suicide-bombers yelling Allahu akbar, but for us to be so delusional is inexcusable: our introduction to Islam was with gay-sex painting Mughals and Jinnah-type “modern Muslims” who created Pakistan)

1. All Muslims fall into this spectrum, and accept the basic premise that their people should be sovereign—the disagreement is on what policies they should then adopt, on their own volition, as sovereign people.

Whereas among Hindus it is only a small number of clear-minded Hindutvādīs who even think in these terms. The treasonous liberal nominal-Hindu, or even the Lay Hindutvādī who hasn’t thought things through with as much clarity, has no analog on the other side.

Also published on Twitter

Man, these guys will call an actual terrorist “obviously not an Islamist” if he kisses a man before blowing himself up.

https://x.com/DrewPavlou/status/1937758214147477817 All jokes aside, Zohran is pretty obviously not an Islamist. He does not appear to believe in Islam as a religion at all - for example he supports LGBT stuff

I think he just identifies with Islam as a kind of race thing

It’s like saying “Soros can’t be a leftist, he’s rich!”

The most radical islamists i’ve known have been Muslim women whose lifestyles would make conservative muslims rope.

But why would that be relevant to us? Our cause is to make them not murder us, not to make them shitlibs.

“obviously not an Islamist”

Also published on Twitter

This is a fundamental misunderstanding of what Islamism is.

Egypt or Oman do not have particularly more extreme blasphemy laws than e.g. Germany; urban Pakistan is not particularly oppressive towards women, yet you would be laughed out of the room in any of these countries if you claimed they weren’t Islamist or Muslim-supremacist.

Zohran has praised Anwar Al-Awlaki (an al-Qaeda propagandist), he has repeatedly spread malicious blood libel about Hindus, his aides are on video calling for jihad.

Perhaps a reason westerners do not get the Islamism=/=Muslim orthodoxy distinction is that their experience with Islamism is via bearded guys blowing themselves up. But in India we literally had two Islamist states carved out of us by an alcohol-drinking, pork-eating “secular Muslim”; and before that had a brutally oppressive Muslim empire that proudly painted its nobles having gay sex.

Also published on Twitter

While I agree with “no identity politics” in general, commenting on Islam is not identity politics. Unlike races or even other religions, Islam is a totalizing ideology for its adherents.

“He’s not an Islamist he’s a leftist” type rhetoric is simply counter-productive: we need to draw an almost-equivalence between Leftism and Islam (because as things stand their beliefs and interests are very much intertwined), in the same way that Leftists claim “Palestine IS queer liberation IS climate justice IS BLM”. Omnicause-building is not some weird quirk of leftists, it is essential for keeping your base constantly “mobilized”.

With that said, a little bird mentioned this to me in a DM: the “Islamist” accusations against Zohran simply don’t stick: while he is Islamist(-adjacent), this is a point that actually needs to be made: until the “Muslim supremacism =/= orthodoxy” and “Red-Green alliance” memes are widely-understood, crude memes about 9/11 and burqas will not stick.

The Islamist problem with Mamdani is:

• He would compromise every one of your nation’s interests to prioritize vile Islamist causes like Palestine or Kashmiri separatism. (yes, I know he has no influence on foreign policy as mayor; don’t be a midwit)
• the incredible Muslim ethno-narcissism of endlessly complaining about the (almost non-existent) “backlash against peaceful Muslims” and turning it into another “great American crime” to be repentant for.

“but a Leftist of non-Muslim background would do the same!”

yes, and that tells you exactly how much influence Islamism has over American politics, that it is the number-1 cause for the American Left! You cannot turn a blind eye or pretend it doesn’t exist.