Saturday, July 16, 2005

The Left Marches On

Lock-step Left

Illiterate and stupid Mulsim kiddie-thugs are takin' over the 'hood. Sex, drugs, and rock-n-roll have given way to Allah, shahadah, death to the Jews. Make haj not peace. Long gone are are the Hitler Youth, and following in their wake, the Muslim Martyrs. It's the latest fad. And old hippies are falling all over themselves to climb onto the parade float to boogie with the kidddies. Ah, to be hip again. To be cool.

Well, no, it's not cool. It's no more cool for middle-class pseudo-intellectuals to play with Muslim terrorist teenagers than it is for the impotent homosexuals to leer at children around the public swimming pool.
Kids end up abused, twisted, and murdered when we don't put an immediate stop to it. It doesn't matter what the excuses are from those who set up the scene: that it's educational for kids, for their own benefit, good training for the future in a hard world, or that the perverts simply get their own sick kicks from it.

The Left is sick. The Left is perverted. We sit on our hands wondering what's wrong, not really asking out loud but wondering, and thinking that it's us, in spite of what we see daily. We might be the sick and perverted who are innately racist and hateful, aggressive and brutal, killing children in Asia, polluting the Earth, destroying the whole world. That's what we hear all day, what we read, what we gather from television and radio. We must be wrong to live as we do. If we're not going to actually change our ways, we must at least make the right sounds in support of our guilt, we have to at least apologize for our evil behaviour and claim it's not us but the Right-wing religious bigots in Washingtom who do this in spite of us. Or is it a CIA plot? No, it's the Jews. It's the oil companies. Whoever it is to blame for the world hating us, it's not our fault, it's the fault of someone else, and here's support to prove it. I'll buy you button, your bumper-sticker, your newspaper, a few bucks here and there and a march against the war if my friends are going too. It's a blind eye when the kids go missing in the bushes with a pervert. It's "Oh my God, how could it have happened?" It is a sickness of the mind.

It's the fault of the Right. They're no better than the fascist Muslims. If it weren't for them stirring up trouble this never would have happened. The Right-wingers are just as bad. They're religious fanatics too. Look at the death-toll in the world. It's all their fault. We created the Taliban. We supported Saddam. We invaded Panama. We took Manhattan from the Natives. It's no wonder the world hates us. Them blowing up buses full of children is morally equivalent to us dropping bombs on them. their religious fanaticism is the same as our Christian war-mopngers, except that we are worse because we have superior weapons, and the 'others' have to resist us by whatever crude means they can, like small-time terrorism. It's really us at fault. We're the ones to blame for all this.

Below we have three views of the fascist Left alliance with fascist Islam. Our defintion of fascism is perhaps broader than the dictionary definition, but it is accurate and responsible. The articles below further elucidate the position that the Left is fascist and collaborating with Islamic fascism. Perversion of anything progressive, that's the state of our Left tradition today. Hide your children.

Europe's Islamist Alliance

By Amir Taheri
Jerusalem Post | July 12, 2004

When the US-led coalition invaded Iraq in March 2003, few would have imagined that the move might lead to the formation of an alliance between the radical Left and hard-line Islamists in Western Europe. But this is precisely what happened.

In this month's election for a new European Parliament, voters in several European Union countries, notably France and Britain, are offered common lists of Islamist and leftist candidates, often hidden under bland labels.

Europe's moribund extreme Left has found a new lease on life thanks to hundreds of young Muslim militants recruited from the poor suburbs of Paris and the Islamic ghettos of northern England.

The Islamist groups, for their part, are learning many tricks from the Left about how to exploit the inevitable weaknesses of an open society.

In Britain, the new Marxist-Islamist alliance is the offspring of the so-called anti-war coalition set up two years ago to prevent the liberation of Iraq. The coalition has a steering committee of 33 members. Of these, 18 come from various hard Left groups: communists, Trotskyites, Maoists, and Castroists. Three others belong to the radical wing of the Labor party. There are also eight radical Islamists. The remaining four are leftist ecologists known as Watermelons (Green outside, red inside). The chairman of the coalition is one Andrew Murray, a former employee of the Soviet Novosty Agency and leader of the British Communist Party. Co-chair is Muhammad Asalm Ijaz of the London Council of Mosques.

A prominent member is George Galloway, recently excluded from the Labor party, who is under investigation for the illegal receipt of funds from Saddam Hussein. Galloway heads a list of candidates backed by several radical leftist groups, notably The British Socialist Workers Party (SWP), as well as the Muslim Association of Britain, the British branch of the Muslim Brotherhood, and a dozen Palestinian groups financed by Yasser Arafat.

The Palestinian checkered headgear, worn by the leftists as a cache-col, has become the symbol of this left-Islamist alliance.

The New Statesman, the organ of the British moderate Left, calls the new Islamist-Marxist alliance "Saddam's Own Party." The label is not fanciful. Many of the groups involved in the alliance had been financed for years by Saddam through his so-called Cultural Relations Office in London.

IN FRANCE the radical Left alliance of Revolutionary Communist League (LCR) and Workers' Struggle (LO) groups counts on Islamist militants to help it win seats in the European Parliament.
Arlette Laguillere, the pasionaria of the Workers' Struggle, claims that "the struggle for Palestine" is now an integral part of the "global proletarian revolution."

Similar Marxist-Islamist alliances have been formed in Belgium and Germany, where the Muslim Brotherhood itself has been taken over by radicals sympathetic to al-Qaida.

Talks are underway for holding a pan-European conference next year to give the Marxist-Islamist alliance permanent organizational structures.

The European Marxist-Islamist coalition does not offer a coherent political platform. Its ideology is built around three themes: hatred of the United States, the dream of wiping Israel off the map, and the hoped-for collapse of the global economic system.

Europe's hard Left sees Muslims as the new under-class in the continent.

"Are these not the new slaves?" asks Olivier Besanconneau, leader of the French Trotskyites. "Is it not natural that they should unite with the working class to destroy the capitalist system?"

The idea of an alliance with Islamists has even seduced the more traditional French Communist Party (PCF), which commissioned a study of the possibilities of electoral alliances with Muslim organizations.

The Islamists, for their part, are attracted to the European hard Left because of its professed hatred of the United States and Israel.

"We say to anyone who hates the Americans and wants to throw the Jews out of Palestine: ahlan wa sahlan (welcome)," quipped Abu-Hamza al-Masri, the British Islamist firebrand who is awaiting extradition to the US on various criminal charges. "The Prophet teaches that we could ally ourselves even with the atheists if it helps us destroy [the] enemy."

The first to advocate a leftist-Islamist alliance against Western democracies was Ayman Al Zawahiri, al-Qaida's #2. In a message to al-Qaida sympathizers in Britain in August 2002, he urged them to seek allies among "any movement that opposes America, even atheists."

The idea has received support from Ilich Ramirez Sanchez, the Venezuelan terrorist known as Carlos the Jackal. In his book Revolutionary Islam, published in Paris last year, Carlos, who says he has converted to Islam, claims he has advised Osama bin Laden, the al-Qaida leader, to forge an alliance with "all guerrilla, terrorist, and other revolutionary groups throughout the world, regardless of their religious or ideological beliefs."

Carlos says Islam is the only force capable of persuading large numbers of people to become "volunteers" for suicide attacks against the US. "Only a coalition of Marxists and Islamists can destroy the US," he says.

Europe must wake up to the dangers that this new version of the red-and-black alliance poses to its democracy, indeed to its political and social peace.

To criticize the fascism of the Left is to rouse to fury the counter-revolutionaries and reactionaries and the born-again conformists who know nothing but the status quo regardless of its status, regardless of its quo. The uncritical, the intellectually incapable, the our-right vicious among us jump through hoops of the most outrageous double-speak to make 2 plus 2 equal five, and they will believe it. For the majority of people anywhere they will believe what others believe, and that belief comes from the intellectuals of our time, the pseudo-intellectuals of the Left, our perverted intelligensia.

Yes, the Right is sickening too. Where would we think people come from who don't recognize evil as such just because it comes from the Right? Smarmy apologetics from the Left, moral equivalnce, pandering, procuring, appeasement, pimping for paedophiles just because "eveyone does it," those people are pure filth. If the Left will not redeem its historical mission to spread the Revolutions of Modernity, if it continues its fascist reaction, we must battle the Left to the death.

We read often letters from those in the middle of this quandry that we must write letters to the editors of newspapers. Yeah, send letters to the Washingtom D.C corphagist club feasting at the feet of fat Muslim multi-millionaires oozing oil out of every pore. Sickening, and yet the Left is worse.

True Left Versus the Lunatic Fringe

By Norah Vincent
Los Angeles Times
April 3, 2003
Web site:,1,3692270.story

The left is not dead.

It isn't dying.

It hasn't lost its moral mind.

In fact, after nearly a decade of decline and dissipation, it is finally enjoying a quiet renaissance, though you may not have heard about it above all the shouting from the "Blame America First" brigade, which was born on 9/12 and instantly became the de facto voice of the left.

Since then, its rallying cries have become ever more outrageous and degenerate.

Latest cases in point: During an antiwar teach-in at Columbia University last week, assistant professor Nicholas De Genova told a gathering of students that he hoped the war in Iraq would produce "a million Mogadishus," referring to the 1993 killing and desecration of U.S. troops trapped in Somalia.

In the Boston Globe, James Carroll equated the allied "shock and awe" bombing campaign in Baghdad with 9/11, calling it "terrorism pure and simple."

The hyperbole has boiled over, prompting critics such as Salon columnist Andrew Sullivan to declare: "Once the left starts equating legitimate acts of war ... with the unprovoked terrorist attacks on civilians, it has lost its mind, not to speak of its soul."

But the truth is that a few brilliant voices on the sane left -- most notably writers Christopher Hitchens, Nat Hentoff and Paul Berman -- are spearheading a long-awaited rebirth of the intellectual left. And they have been doing this all along, if anyone cares to follow their admirable lead.

In October, after more than 20 years at the left's house organ, the Nation, Hitchens announced his decision to leave the magazine. "I have come to realize that the magazine itself takes a side ... the amoral side ... in this argument and is becoming the voice and echo chamber of those who truly believe that John Ashcroft is a greater menace than Osama bin Laden," he said.

Since then, Hitchens has made a leftist moral case for the war in Iraq, based largely on his contention that using American military power is legitimate if it ends gross human rights violations like those being committed against Iraqi civilians by Saddam Hussein, a sentiment notably absent from most antiwar rallies.

Berman was quoted in the New York Times as similarly upbraiding the peace movement: "It's something of a scandal in my eyes that hundreds of thousands of people are not marching in support of the oppressed Iraqis."

Berman's book "Terror and Liberalism" advocates aggressive foreign intervention to promote democratic ideals. His thoughts could be a manifesto for the left reborn, a road map for worldwide liberal revolution and the dreamed-of liberation from totalitarianism that communism failed to accomplish.

Meanwhile, in a recent column in the Village Voice, gadfly Hentoff explained why he didn't march against war in Iraq, though he once marched against the Vietnam War.

"If people want to talk about containing Saddam Hussein and don't want to go in forcefully and remove him," Hentoff said, "how do they propose doing something about the horrors he is inflicting on his people?"

Hitchens, Berman and Hentoff are not apostates, though they may be tarred as such by the stultified left.

All three have been tirelessly critical of the Bush administration, especially regarding its heinous abuses of civil liberties in the wake of the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks.

All three stand for the values the left once championed: human rights, liberty, equality, empowering the downtrodden and resistance to abuses of power.

Since 9/11, faithful Muslims have decried terrorists' hijacking of their religion. The true keepers of leftism in the United States might say the same of their movement, whose usurping lunatics have made the left into a human shield for fascism and a mouthpiece for vile anti-American propaganda.

The lunatics may be making headlines, but Berman, Hentoff, Hitchens and other real thinkers are making history.

Norah Vincent is a senior fellow at the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies.
Below are excerpts from a socialist website. Even they have better sense than the fascist monsters of the middle-classes of dhimmi Europe and America. Even socialists can see clearly the fascism of the current Left. Seemingly the only ones who cannot see or speak of the fascism that dare not speak its name are the ordinary middle-class members of the West.

Anti-Americanism: The "anti-imperialism" of fools
By David North and David Walsh
22 September 2001

A section of middle class commentators has reacted to the horrific attack on New York City and Washington with cynicism and callousness.

What took place on September 11? A group of individuals apparently inspired by Islamic fundamentalism, one of the most reactionary ideologies on the face of earth, smashed two airplanes into the World Trade Center and a third into the Pentagon, while a fourth hijacked plane crashed in western Pennsylvania. The result of this carnage was the death of more than 6,000 human beings, the overwhelming majority of them civilians, representing the greatest loss of life in a single day on American soil since the Civil War.

This was a heinous political crime whose predictable outcome has been to strengthen the capitalist state, fan the flames of right-wing chauvinism and clear the way for US military intervention in Central Asia.

The socialist future of mankind depends upon the awakening of the most humane and generous instincts of the working people of the world. What happened on September 11—the awful deaths of thousands of innocent people, among them office workers, firemen, janitors, and business people—profoundly offends those instincts.

In our first statement on the tragedy [The political roots of the terror attack on New York and Washington] the World Socialist Web Site initiated an analysis of the event's deep political roots. Our abhorrence of the terror attack does not signify any lessening of opposition to the US government, or any intention to absolve American officials of their responsibility for the building up of the Islamic fundamentalist forces. Having said that, however, the reprehensible response of certain petty bourgeois opinion makers to the event underscores the gulf that divides socialist opposition to imperialism from vulgar anti-Americanism.

A case in point is an article that appeared in the Guardian, the British daily newspaper, on September 18, authored by Charlotte Raven, a former member of the Militant Tendency, editor of the now-defunct Modern Review and currently a semi-celebrity and professional cynic. The piece is headlined, "A bully with a bloody nose is still a bully," the bully in question being the US. In the first place, the September 11 tragedy was not "a bloody nose," it was a catastrophe. Thousands of people were incinerated instantly when the airplanes hit the buildings, thousands more died when tons of rubble collapsed on them. Anyone who was emotionally unaffected by the terror and suffering experienced by tens of thousands as a result of this attack has no right to call himself or herself a socialist.

Raven writes: "It is perfectly possible to condemn the terrorist action and dislike the US just as much as you did before the WTC went down. Many will have woken up on Wednesday with that combination of emotions... America is the same country it was before September 11. If you didn't like it then, there's no reason why you should have to pretend to now." Raven's references to "the US," full stop, is no slip of the pen. It is repeated throughout the article. She never once uses the phrase "the US government" or "the US ruling elite", or an equivalent. Using nationality as an epithet is always reactionary. Confronted with the most monstrous government in history, Hitler's Nazi regime, socialists never descended to referring with contempt to "Germany" or "the Germans."

To present "the US" as some predatory imperialist monolith, as Raven and others do, can only confuse and disorient. It not only serves as a barrier to genuine internationalism, it overlooks the contradictory character of American history and society. What does it mean to "dislike the US"? What sort of social element speaks like this? The United States is a complex entity, with a complex history, elements of which are distinctly ignoble, elements of which are deeply noble. The US has passed through two revolutions—the American Revolution and the Civil War—the mass battles of the Depression and the struggle for Civil Rights. The contradiction between the democratic ideals and revolutionary principles on which the nation was founded and its social and political realities has always been the starting point of the struggle for socialism in the United States.

The US was, if one considers the relationship between theory and politics, the product of the great Enlightenment. It established political principles, embodied in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, rather than religion or ethnicity, as the basis of national identity. This origin of the nation in the struggle for abstract ideals—democracy, republicanism—reverberated across the globe. The American Revolution played no small role in inspiring the events that transformed France a decade later.

Even after 200 years, the United States is still fighting through the political and historical implications of its own founding principles. The American population, polyglot and highly diverse, is obsessed with ideological problems, although its approach is often maddeningly pragmatic. As the popular response to the Bush hijacking of the 2000 election demonstrated, there remains a deep commitment to elementary democratic principles. A low level of class consciousness and the failure of masses of Americans to generalize from their experiences, however, provides the ruling elite the opportunity to play on precisely these democratic notions in order to blind layers of the population temporarily as to the true nature of its plans. For Bush and his ilk "defending freedom and democracy" is merely a code phrase for the right of the American elite to have its way around the world. To the ordinary American citizen, these words mean something quite different. The sinister reality of the US government's new "war against terrorism," with its grandiose aim of reorganizing an entire region of the world in line with American geopolitical interests, will make its way into popular consciousness providing the necessary work is conducted by socialist internationalists.

In many ways all the vast problems in the struggle for socialism find their most complex expression in America. How could that not be the case? If one cannot find points of departure for a higher form of social organization in the US, in what corner of the globe are they to be found?

America is, at once, the most advanced and the most backward of societies. Its culture attracts and repels, but always fascinates.... The US has produced Franklin, Washington, Jefferson and Lincoln, as well as extraordinary working class and socialist leaders. Its immense contradictions are perhaps exemplified by the figure of Jefferson, the slave-owner who wrote one of the greatest and most sincere hymns to human freedom.

Raven continues, resorting to the terminology of Postmodernist drivel: "When America speaks from its heart, it retreats into a language that none but its true-born citizens can begin to understand. At the root of this is an overwhelming need to control meaning. America can't let the world speak for itself. It was taken unawares last Tuesday and part of the trauma of that event was the shock of being forced to listen to a message that it hadn't had time to translate. The subsequent roar of anger was, amongst other things, the sound of the US struggling to regain the right to control its own narrative."

If Raven is speaking of George W. Bush and other servants of American imperial interests, then the first sentence has no meaning. Such people clearly don't speak from the heart on this or any other occasion; they are in the business of lying and deceiving. But pardon us for pointing out that, in fact, when "America," in the form of its greatest political and cultural representatives, has spoken "from its heart," millions around the world have listened and understood, beginning in the aftermath of July 4, 1776. The most advanced British workers certainly paid attention to the issuing of the Emancipation Proclamation on January 1, 1863. One could mention the appeals to the international working class on behalf of Sacco and Vanzetti and numerous other examples. And such instances, we hazard to predict, will occur in the future too.

One might add that the finest products of American culture have also attracted and moved masses of people around the world, from Poe and Whitman, Melville and Hawthorne, in the 19th century, to Dreiser, Fitzgerald, Richard Wright and others in the 20th. Nor should one entirely forget the influence of American music, popular and otherwise. A few people, one imagines, have heard it speaking from the heart. This to say nothing of contributions with international implications in film, painting, sculpture, dance and architecture. Raven apparently counts upon her readers being so consumed by subjective venom and their own self-importance that they overlook obvious historical and cultural realities.

It has always been an essential task of socialists in the US to awaken the positive and generous instincts that are so deeply embedded in the American population. There are, after all, two Americas, the America of Bush, Clinton and the other scoundrels, and another America, of its working people. Revolutionary internationalists have continuously insisted on this. James P. Cannon, the leader of the American Trotskyists, devoted a speech to this theme in July 1948. Of the "Two Americas" he observed: "One is the America of the imperialists—of the little clique of capitalists, landlords, and militarists who are threatening and terrifying the world. This is the America the people of the world hate and fear. There is the other America—the America of the workers and farmers and the 'little people.' They constitute the great majority of the people. They do the work of the country. They revere its old democratic traditions—its old record of friendship for the people of other lands, in their struggles against Kings and Despots—its generous asylum once freely granted to the oppressed."

All this of course is a closed book to the smug middle class philistine and snob, satisfied to make use of words and phrases that come most easily to hand. Raven's variety of anti-Americanism is no more original than it is insightful. It is available cheaply and in large quantities in middle class circles in Britain, France, Germany and, for that matter, in the United States. It is available, so to speak, "on tap." Such an outlook has the virtue of appearing oppositional, while not committing its adherent to any course of political action that might cause inconvenience. It is a form of pseudo-socialism, the phony "anti-imperialism" of cynics and fools.

The Left is perverted, and it's murdering its child victims. The Left is filthy. It is fascism. And those who sit back and sip while the perverts do as they will with the kids, they deserve the worst.

Friday, July 15, 2005

You're kidding....

The post-modernist pseudo-Left is a joke
only in the most Jerry Lewis fashion. The post-modernist Left is a fascist bundle of irrationalist cliches parading across the intellectual landscape in a dance of death, cavorting and posing and posturing for itself and itself alone. we must see the Left and its adheerents as nothing more or less as fascists, and we must call them so by that name. The Left is dead. It is rotting on the roadside of history, crawling with the maggots of dying Islam and its philobarbarist allies. There is no Left. There is only the legitimate Modernist Revolutionary fighting to maintain Modernity to push the limits of our modern revolutions to the furthest global extremes. All others we condemn to the dust-bin of history, as Trotsky said.

Left fascism is a fad of the mind in our time. It's time to don a new dress for the future. Left fascism is worn-out and filthy. It stinks. And once we've re/adressed our position vis the Modernist Revolutions of our lives it's time we change not only our outer garments of behaviour but that we take a good long shower, washing away the years of crusty ideology of pseudo-Leftism, that we cleanse our minds of the poison of reaction and fascism, the we wash our brains.

It's time that we turf the dictatorship of 18 year old sociology students as the rulers of our social discourse and our cultural ethos. Spoiled suburban kids do not have legitimate answers to the collective problems of the world, not even if they took a couple of sociology courses at the community college.

It's time for mature adults to reclaim the dominant position in our societies and send the kids back toschool to learn just a little bit more about the nature of fascism before they lecture us on the evils of the West. Then we might send the nasty little brats off to war and replace them with a better lot altogether. they don't want no blood for oil? Well, take away their car keys for a week and see how they react.

The struggle against fascism is the greatest moral challenge one can face in a lifetime, and it is ours to win if only we will. If we don't see the fascism of the polst-modernist Left as the fascism it is then we will sink with the drowned, nameless and unmourned, not even having lived to be remembered as worthless. Or we can rise to the challenge and be the heroes of our time, Revolutionaries of the first rank. It is time for us.

Below we include an article by Andrew Sullivan on Left fascism, and further we include excerpts from Mark Humphrys' blog on the nature of Left idiot fascism.
The Agony of the Left
Forced to choose between the West and the Taliban, some have trouble deciding.

Thursday, October 4, 2001 12:01 a.m. EDT

One of the most telling things I have seen since the Sept. 11 massacre was an early "peace movement" e-mail. It listed three major demands: stop the war; stop racism; stop ethnic scapegoating. A liberal friend had appended a sardonic comment to the bottom. "Any chance we could come out against terrorism as well?"

One of the overlooked aspects of the war we are now fighting is the awakening it has spawned on the left. In one atrocity, Osama bin Laden may have accomplished what a generation of conservative writers have failed to do: convince mainstream liberals of the illogic and nihilism of the powerful postmodern left. For the first time in a very long while, many liberals are reassessing--quietly for the most part--their alliance with the anti-American, anticapitalist forces they have long appeased, ignored or supported.

Of course the initial response of left-wing intellectuals to Sept. 11 was one jerking of the collective knee. This was America's fault. From Susan Sontag to Michael Moore, from Noam Chomsky to Edward Said, there was no question that, however awful the attack on the World Trade Center, it was vital to keep attention fixed on the real culprit: the United States. Of the massacre, a Rutgers professor summed up the consensus by informing her students that "we should be aware that, whatever its proximate cause, its ultimate cause is the fascism of U.S. foreign policy over the past many decades." Or as a poster at the demonstrations in Washington last weekend put it, "Amerika, Get a Clue."

Less noticed was the reasoned stance of liberal groups like the National Organization for Women. President Kim Candy stated that "The Taliban government of Afghanistan, believed to be harboring suspect Osama bin Laden, subjugates women and girls, and deprives them of the most basic human rights--including education, medicine and jobs. The smoldering remains of the World Trade Center are a stark reminder that when such extremism is allowed to flourish anywhere in the world, none of us is safe." The NAACP issued an equally forceful "message of resolve," declaring, "These tragedies and these acts of evil must not go unpunished. Justice must be served."

Left-wing dissident Christopher Hitchens, meanwhile, assailed his comrades as "soft on crime and soft on fascism." After an initial spasm of equivocation, The American Prospect magazine ran a column this week accusing the pre-emptive peace movement of "a truly vile form of moral equivalency" in equating President Bush with terrorists. Not a hard call, but daring for a magazine that rarely has even a civil word for the right.

Most moving was Salman Rushdie's early call in the New York Times to "be clear about why this bien-pensant anti-American onslaught is such appalling rubbish. Terrorism is the murder of the innocent; this time, it was mass murder. To excuse such an atrocity by blaming U.S. government policies is to deny the basic idea of all morality: that individuals are responsible for their actions." Whatever else is going on, the liberal-left alliance has taken as big a hit as the conservative-fundamentalist alliance after the blame-America remarks of Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson.

It's not hard to see why. Unlike previous Cold War battles, this one is against an enemy with no pretense at any universal, secular ideology that could appeal to Western liberals. However repulsive, the communist arguments of, say, Ho Chi Minh or Fidel Castro still appealed to a secular, Western ideology. American leftists could delude themselves that they shared the same struggle.
But with Osama bin Laden, and the Islamo-fascism of the Taliban, no such delusions are possible. The American liberal mind has long believed that their prime enemy in America is the religious right. But if Jerry Falwell is the religious right, what does that make the Taliban? They subjugate women with a brutality rare even in the Muslim world; they despise Jews; they execute homosexuals by throwing them from very high buildings or crushing them underneath stone walls. There is literally nothing that the left can credibly cling to in rationalizing support for these hate-filled fanatics.

This is therefore an excruciating moment for the postmodern, postcolonial left. They may actually have come across an enemy that even they cannot argue is morally superior to the West. You see this discomfort in the silence of the protestors in Washington, who simply never raised the issue of bin Laden's ideology. You see it in Barbara Ehrenreich's sad plea in the Village Voice: "What is so heartbreaking to me as a feminist is that the strongest response to corporate globalization and U.S. military domination is based on such a violent and misogynist ideology."
You see it in the words of Fredric Jameson, a revered postmodernist at Duke University, arguing in the London Review of Books that the roots of the conflict are to be found "in the wholesale massacres of the Left systematically encouraged and directed by the Americans in an even earlier period. . . . It is, however, only now that the results are working their way out into actuality, for the resultant absence of any Left alternative means that popular revolt and resistance in the Third World have nowhere to go but into religious and 'fundamentalist' forms." The only adequate description of this argument is desperate. And, of course, it ducks the hard question. What does the left do now that these forces are indeed fundamentalist?
The other rhetorical trope that is fast disintegrating is the antiracist argument. The doctrine of "postcolonialism," which now dominates many American humanities departments, invariably sides with Third World regimes against the accumulated evil of the West. So the emergence of the Taliban is a body blow. If dark-skinned peoples are inherently better than light-skinned peoples, then how does a dark-skinned culture come up with an ideology that is clearly a function of bigotry, misogyny and homophobia?

One immediate response is to argue that the U.S. itself created Osama bin Laden in its war against Soviet communism. This isn't true--but even if it were, doesn't this fact, as Mr. Hitchens has argued, actually increase the West's responsibility to retaliate against him?

It may be, in fact, that one of the silver linings of these awful times is that the far left's bluff has been finally called. War focuses issues in ways peace cannot.
Leftists would like to pretend that any criticism of their views raises the specter of domestic repression. But in a country with a First Amendment, no suppression from government is likely, and in the citadels of the media and the academy, the far left is actually vastly overrepresented. The real issue, as pointed out this week by Britain's Labour prime minister, is that some on the left have expressed "a hatred of America that shames those that feel it."
The left's howls of anguish are therefore essentially phony--and they stem from a growing realization that this crisis has largely destroyed the credibility of the far left. Forced to choose between the West and the Taliban, the hard left simply cannot decide. Far from concealing this ideological bankruptcy, we need to expose it and condemn it as widely and as irrevocably as we can. Many liberals are already listening and watching--and the tectonic plates of politics are shifting as they do.
Mr. Sullivan, a senior editor of The New Republic, writes daily at

The mind of the left - The continued appeal of socialism and totalitarianism to the young:

?What is wrong with us that we are attracted to leftism when we are young??

Stanley Kurtz describes the leftist mind [thus:] Defending democracy and opposing tyranny "is just too obvious - too embarrassing" for the sophisticated modern mind. The young modern leftist prefers to feel that only he understands the true state of the world - that the rest of the population is too "stupid" to see it.

The ordinary people don't agree with him because they have their consent "manufactured" by the media - they do not think for themselves - but the leftist does. He can see beyond the propaganda and realise that the poverty, famine and tyranny in the world is caused by the West (rather than, for example, by the moronic ideas of the non-western world). Concepts like "The Free World" are the absurd and simple-minded propaganda of ignorant Americans who do not understand the world. The ordinary people deal in concepts like "good" and "evil". - Our leftist sophisticate understands how simplistic such ideas are, and how genocidal police states are just another culture, and not to be regarded simplistically as "inferior".

The leftist liberates himself from the ideas of the "stupid" people around him, and feels vastly superior to them. In the extreme case he will quite literally end up defending tyranny and opposing democracy.

The ordinary people have no irony. They just say flat out that America is "superior" to some illiterate Islamic theocracy, or some famine-wracked totalitarian gulag state. The leftist thinks they have never thought about it. In reality, they are grown-ups who understand all too well how the world works. The leftist understands nothing except the coffee-house world of safe, sheltered, protected, rich people.

[Some of] the main problems in thinking on the left, including:
1. Illiterate people from poor societies are superior to Americans.
2. Differences between individuals or groups are unfair.
3. For Designated Victim Groups, strong feelings excuse all behavior;
1. [The 'opressed'] defend the right to free speech for themselves], but anyone else whose speech hurts [their] feelings must be censored.
2. In any conflict between a third-world nation and a first-world nation, the third-world nation is always right.
3. All criticism or disagreement with any policy of a third-world nation, culture, or person is, by definition, racism.

* Victor Davis Hanson

The Western Disease - "There is something terribly wrong, something terribly amoral with the Western intelligentsia ... thousands of the richest, most leisured people in the history of civilization have become self-absorbed, ungracious, and completely divorced from the natural world - the age-old horrific realities of dearth, plague, hunger, rapine, or conquest." They do not understand: (a) what it is like to live outside of their nice, safe, free world: "what it is like to be in a village gassed by Saddam Hussein"; and: (b) they do not understand the awesomely brave military that protects the existence of their world: "how hard it is to go across the world to Tikrit and chain such a monster."

The postmodern left simply cannot handle good and evil. "Nuance is the essence of relativist interpretation. Manichean notions of barbarity and civilization, Western culture juxtaposed to eighth-century Islamic fascism, good versus evil - these "reductionist" and "simplistic" notions of the present Bushworld simply cannot stand. If such clear polarities were to be valid, the entire foundation of postmodern thinking would collapse"

* Face up to the truth, Nick Cohen, The Observer, July 10, 2005, on the mind of the left:
o Leftists have not understood "that Islamism was a reactionary movement as great as fascism, which had claimed millions of mainly Muslim lives in the Sudan, Iran, Algeria and Afghanistan and is claiming thousands in Iraq. As with fascism, it takes a resolute dunderheadedness to put all the responsibility on democratic governments for its existence."
o "I feel the appeal, believe me. You are exasperated with the manifold faults of Tony Blair and George W Bush. Fighting your government is what you know how to do and what you want to do, and when you are confronted with totalitarian forces which are far worse than your government, the easy solution is to blame your government for them."
o "But it's a parochial line of reasoning to suppose that all bad, or all good, comes from the West - and a racist one to boot. The unavoidable consequence is that you must refuse to support democrats, liberals, feminists and socialists in the Arab world and Iran who are the victims of Islamism in its Sunni and Shia guises because you are too compromised to condemn their persecutors."
o "Again, I understand the appeal. Whether you are brown or white, Muslim, Christian, Jew or atheist, it is uncomfortable to face the fact that there is a messianic cult of death which, like European fascism and communism before it, will send you to your grave whatever you do. But I'm afraid that's what the record shows."

Most of us get along by going along, even up to the point of surrendering to death in the lager by following the rules, as Primo Levi writes in Surviving in Auschwizt.

If we are to continue being social animals living in relative peace and security with each other then we must take back the control of our daily attitudes rather than allowing the West to be controlled by children and idiots, by primitive fascists and monsters. Our first task is to admit openly that we don't like them.

We have to find the personal courage to admit openly our personal dislike the primitives among us. They are primitive and ignorant and violent and disgusting. They might well be "Others," and in fact they are. What else can they be? If they won't be us, then they have to stop whatever it is they are until they are us. The primitives are fascists. Their cultures and religion are innately evil. We have not only a legitimate right to defend ourselves against the primitive fascism of islam, we have a moral duty to smash their cultures and their religion and replace it by whatever force necessary until they are Modernists--like us.

There are arguments against the above position, but who cares? It comes to a matter of violence against force. Ours is the violence of the people against the force of the history of Humanity. Ours is the Revolutionary violence required to destroy fascist reaction and primitivism and enforce our mode of life on the world. The fact that it's the right thing to do is totally irrelevant to this discussion. We have the violence, and if we have the Will, then the world will continue to progress toward rightful Modernity universally. Nothing we do to destroy the slavery of primitive fascism is immoral. Our just end justifies our just means. And if teenage college students whine, well, so what?

A gentle reminder that my book, An Occasional Walker, is available at the link here:
And here are some reviews and comments on said book:

Thursday, July 14, 2005

Ummacide, Policide, and the Bi-Cameral Mind

Moslems are commiting ummacide, the suicide of the whole of the Moslem population. It's not a celebratory occassion for those of us not Moslems. It's a sickening event for us. And if we do not stop it physically, we will physically suffer to death from the suicide of the umma, the death of a billion Molsems means their rotting bodies on the ground are going to be impossible to burn and bury before the corruption spreads plagues across the face ot the world. Even the most choking nutter has to concede that the deaths of a billion people is dangerous to him, and that simple prudence requires we stop the self-extermination of the Moslem population.

It's the Moslems themselves who are so far from prudence and instincitive self-preservation that we must intervene to save ourselves from their destruction. [cf. William Walker; Aether Uber-Mench; Melian Dialogue; What is to be Done?]

How can it be that even Moslems born, raised, and educated in the West can turn out to be homocide bombers? How can people raised in the West and seemingly 'normal' turn into Human bombs used to kill their neighbours? These are educated and intelligent people. Have we done something wrong? Is there anything wrong at all? Or is this simply the nature of biology at work? Is this the outcome of the Darwinian theme of survival of the most adaptable? Is this Nature's way of telling the dysfunctional that it's time to shuffle off this mortal coil, its hour passed? How can seemingly ration people commit suicide by murder and murder by suicide? How can a whole, massive sub-group of Humanity simply commit "suicide by cop" by antagonizing the world at large to drop the big one on them? It's crazy, and these suicidal types are born and raised here, educated, like us. But obviously there's something very different about them.

In revisions we'll include quotations from V.S. Naipaul, Among the Believers in which he qoutes Moslems from around the world living with two internalized and opposed world-views; and that opposition between the one and the other world-view is where we might find the answer to the problem of the homocidal Moslem killer who seems so normal right up till the time he kills as many of his neighbours as he can in a mindless attack on people much like himself-- and himself.

The umma is commiting suicide, ummacide, because it cannot cope with both Modernity and its innate primitivism. When the cognative dissonance of the voice within the bicameral mind reaches an intolerable pitch, "Boom goes London, boom Paree," to quote Randy Newman. And boom goes the Moslem bomber and his victims. The whole of the Moslem population is a bomb, imploding. The shriek of madness is driving them to kill themselves and anyone else they can take with them in their hatred of Modernity and the schizoid terror it causes in their minds. The basic Moslem in dar al-Islam is little better than a farm animal, living his miserable life as a displaced hunter/gatherer or subsistence farmer unchanged from the life of his ancestors of 5,000 years ago-- except that the Modern world is now all around him, and even in his own daily life: the shoes on his feet, the Pepsi in his mouth, the Olvin Klien jeans, the Sunny Walkman, the Ace Aftershave. The compartmentalization of his mind, the way he is and the way of his outer life cannot meet in conjunction without massive emotional turmoil and conflict. When the primitive confronts the conflict of his two mind-rooms, when the wall cracks and the contents of the two comingle, the Moslem explodes.

From what we've seen so far of the emotion of fascism: the cult of death-worship; the hatred of mediocrity, and the need for a grand gesture to redeem the man in his own estimation; the authoritarianism, and hero worship of the leader; the blood purity fetish; the soil idolatry; the hatred of urbanity; the hatred of cosmopolitianism; the false nostalgia; the Romance fallacy; the irrationalism and emotionalism of primitivists; the utopianism; the mysogyny; the homophobia; and the castration anxiety due to maternalistic smothering until adolescence; all these things confront the primitve who is also living on the periphery of Modernity, dependent on its material goods and wealth to keep him alive phsically; and of that Modernity he has little or no part, being not the hero of his ideal self but a minor parasite in the over-all scheme of things. For the Moslem parasite in the body of Modernity it is enough to take on the trappings of Modernity by learning the minimum adapations that allow him to continue feeding: he becomes a technologist if he's capable, rising into the middle-class economically, sucking up the Modernity without contributing to it in any significant sense, not being part of Modernity itself, simply coming along for the ride. The significant aspects of Modernity, the intellectual revolution that seperates the primitive from the Modernist is lost on him. He can pick up the use of numbers well enough to work as an engineer, perhaps, but he can't pick up the sense of Modernity well enough to fake being a Modernist himself because the walls crash when he tries to truly understand the nature of the equality of women, for example, or the beauty of Bacon's essays. He canb pretend rationality at work, perhaps, and for a short time, but he cannot live as a Modernist in his own mind. He cannot be rational in the world that is Rational. Thus he compartmentalizes his life and it doesn't work. He explodes. He kills others.

The whole of the Islamic world is commiting suicide in its hatred of and rage at the Modernist world. All across the globe we witness the primitives of Islam killing and dying in struggle against Modernity, even in less than modern lands like Thailand and India. The reactionary struggle to return to the pristine primitivism of the true caliphate drives the Moslem world to frenzies of suicidal murder. In the Western Moslem, the interior walls of his bi-cameral mind collapse, and when he explodes the neighbours wonder how such a nice boy, who only a few days ago was strumming his guitar and singing folk songs on the stoop could have turned out net day to be a raving, loony bomber.

"The leader of the Japanese delegation, [at the Versailles Treaty meeetings,] Prince Saionji Kinmochi, ...still thought about natural objects and emotions in Japanese, [but] he thought about technical subjects in French." Piers Brendon, The Dark valley. Vintage Books: New York; 2002: P. 21.

A man at Kinmochi's level of sophistication is lis above the average Moslem peasant living in Leeds, and yet Kinmochi is still locked into his personal history of Emperor worship and bushido. For the Moslem living in a self-contained Islamic ghetto in Britain there is no hope of becoming British in any but the least possible way. He will always revert in monments of privacy to his first, Islamic, emotional state. He will kill you because the inner conflict is driving him literally insane, and there's nothing one can do to stop it.

As there is the ummacidal Moslem, next to him is the policidal dhimmi.

Leaving aside the hate-filled fascist loser for now we can view the average dhimmi in the writings of Primo Levi, Survival in Auschwitz,"The Drowned and the Saved."

To sink is the easiest of matters; it is enough to carry out all the orders one recieves, to eat only the ration, to observe the discipline of the work and the camp. Experience showed that only exceptionally could one survive more than three months in this way. All the musselmans who finished in the gas chambers have the same story, or more exactly, have no story; they foollowed the slope down to the bottom, like streams that run down to the sea. On their entry into the camp, through basic incapacity, or by misfortune, or through some banal incident, they are overcome before they can adapt themselves; they are beaten by time, they do not begin to learn German, to disentangle the infernal knot of laws and prohibitions until their body is already in decay, and nothing can save them from selection or from death by exhaustion. Their life is short, but their number is endless; they, the Muslemanner, the drowned, form the the backbone of the camp, an anonymous mass, continually renewed and always indentical, of non-men who march and labour in silence, the divine spark dead within them, already too empty to really suffer. One hesitates to call them living; ne hesitates to call their death death, in the face of which they have no fear, as they are too tired to understand. (Levi: 1996, p. 90)

Those who are the drowned are the anonymous dhimmis on the streets protesting for this or that current faddish cause, against this or that faddish and imagined manufactured outrage. They are not the saved. They are the drowned who will go down without a murmur. The capos of the lager that is the West today are those who will stuff their predecessors into the ovens as their first task, the Left dhimmis who act in favor of the Moslems who are trying so desperately to conquer the world before they give up and die out forever. It is the drowned, not the capos, who are the policidalists, those who are dying as a political entity by stupidity and complaceny, too slow to grasp the fundamentsals of survival in a lager building itself before their eyes for thier extermination. They, the policides, are dying, and they just don't see it coming or care if they do. They're too tired, too stupid, too mesmerized by the voices inside their heads that tell them this cannot be happening, that all that they see around them is just some temporary nightmare that will go away if only they follow the rules and live quitely. The divine spark within them is gone, and one struggles to say they were ever really alive in the first place. The problem is that they might wake up before it's too late, and they might kill off a billion people in a final act of self-preservation that will kill us all in a plague the world has never seen the likes of before.

Wednesday, July 13, 2005

Calling a spade a rose by any other name

"She wasn't listening to me because I wasn't really talking to her but to some dark listener within myself." John Steinbeck, East of Eden.

Can we understand the discourse of "Others?" Our post-modernist compatriots in the West tell us no. We are shut out from any real understanding of them by our positions of privilege as imperialists and racists who can never understand the truth of the Other's discourse.

We can't understand each other among ourselves either, from what we will read below by Tony Blair. Nor will we truly understand the idiocy of the Moslem writer immediately below. Should we even bother trying?

Metaxy points out that the Left has the hegemony of public discourse in the West at this time, i.e. that the Left defines our social discourse, how we say what we say, and therefore how we think what we assume is right and wrong, how we express our basic social attitudes. In an earlier post we looked at how Dawkins claims, to paraphrase, we express our social discourses in the form of memes, as dominant ideologies in the form of living biological entities, as a personified group-think bug. We think within the confines of the "General Idea."

The General Idea today among most Westerners is that of post-modernist reaction, the clawing back toward the pre-revolutionary period of our time. We speak of our own time in terms of our enemies' vocabulary and within the meme of the enemy's discourse. We privilge the Other's discourse over our own, giving the highest regard to the ideas of the Left and the fascist Moslem agenda for fear that if we contradict them we will be what they claim is racist, sexist, homophobic, Islamophobic, reactinary, fascistic, and so on. We give way to the Left discourse constantly, allowing stupidities to grow and flourish at the expense of Reason and Rationality until such points come that we find ourselves adopting the discourse of the Left dhimmis as our own without examining it and without criticizing it clearly.

Below we'll look at some contrasting discourses: the first by a Moslem fascist; next a few comments for the Right, so-called; then some drivel from Tony Blair; and a snippet of history on the nature of Islam in the West that shows all too clearly that Islam is a fascist poligion.

In all, we'll see that we are not speaking to each other. We can't make sense of the situation of Modernity under assault by fascist Moslems and their fascist dhimmi collaborators if we can't understand the terms we use to define our plight. If we use the langue of the Left dhimmis we will forever find ourselves on the defensive in our discourse among ourselves, and we will find our natural allies ranged against us becuause of the hegemmony of the Left discourse.

The BBC likes to pretend it's objective. 'One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter.' That might well be true but it's an ideological position in itself. It's not a Rationalist stance, not an intellectual postion, but a Scholastic pose, little better than Medieval philosopher Scholasticus himself who claimed that because suicide is proscribed: "One should not enter the water till one knows how to swim." That might well be true. Or maybe it's only true for him and the BBC.

Our position is that we Modernist Revolutionaries must reclaim the discourse of our revolutionary past. The examples of how we speak and therefore of how we act and assume based on those actions, those speach-acts, lays the foundations of our relationships with our realities. Our view of life is very different from those who hold to a heliocentric world-view. If we argue Modernist principles using post-modernist discourse and dhimmi Left dialogue to express ourselves we can't really communicate with ourselves intelligently and critically.

Below is some discourse from a Moslem. If we indulge him and speak in terms of cultural relativity, then we will find ourselves arguing to no purpose.

Immediately following the first posting by the Secret Operations Group, one signing himself ‘Bu Badr' on the Tajdeed forum warned against his fellow mujahideen indulging in too much applause, noting that "those who defend al-Qaeda actually live in Britain" which "gathered in our Muslim brothers who had been expelled from their countries due to their opinion and views opposing their regimes … Our brothers in al-Qaeda are too clever to strike the thugs in their own country." For this commentator, another candidate was more suspect: "This is [simply] a game played by the swine Blair in order to strike at Muslims and Muslim refugees … a plot to put pressure of the expatriate Muslim Arab communities, and enable the passing of legislation to expel our Muslim brothers from Britain and hand them over to their agents, the ruling regimes in the Middle East" [].

Fighting a War Against Fanatics
By Herb London | July 13, 2005

After all, this is not merely a war for hearts and minds, it is a war of life and death. Remarkably even those I consider sensible refuse to consider current reality. The West is at the crossroads. It is one thing to say, as Tony Blair has, that we will prevail. How we will prevail; what we must do to prevail? These need to be answered.

Many people I’ve talked to after the London attack share my basic opinion, yet very few are willing to say so. They have been chastened by the orthodoxy of liberalism, fearful of being called reactionary or racist.

Now that body parts have been exploded on to London streets, the public may awaken from its tranquilized state. This war depends on an all-out effort to win. Half measures won’t do, nor will good-will. The time has come to remove our ideological shackles and fight this war with every once of strength we, as a people, can muster. Our destiny and the destiny of our civilization depend on it.

Herbert London is president of the Hudson Institute and Professor Emeritus at New York University and author of the book Decade of Denial (Lexington Books).

Tony Blair has the plan to save us from fascist Islamic terror:

He told the Commons the government had a four-point plan, in which it would:

Begin the process of consultation on planned counter-terrorism legislation within the next couple of weeks, with a priority being measures to combat the incitement and instigation of terrorism.

Look urgently at how to strengthen the process for excluding from the UK those who incite hatred, and make it easier to deport such people.

Start discussions immediately with Muslim leaders on combating "the perverted and poisonous misinterpretation of Islam" which lay behind the attacks.

Talk to other nations on how to mobilize the "moderate and true voice of Islam."

July 12, 2005
How a Mosque for Ex-Nazis Became a Center for Radical Islam

by Ian Johnson
Wall Street Journal

North of this prosperous city of engineers and auto makers is an elegant mosque with a slender minaret and a turquoise dome. A stand of pines shields it from a busy street. In a country of more than three million Muslims, it looks unremarkable, another place of prayer for Europe's fastest-growing religion.

The Mosque's history, however, tells a more-tumultuous story. Buried in government and private archives are hundreds of documents that trace the battle to control the Islamic Center of Munich. Never before made public, the material shows how radical Islam established one of its first and most important beachheads in the West when a group of ex-Nazi soldiers decided to build a mosque.

The soldiers' presence in Munich was part of a nearly forgotten subplot to World War II: the decision by tens of thousands of Muslims in the Soviet Red Army to switch sides and fight for Hitler. After the war, thousands sought refuge in West Germany, building one of the largest Muslim communities in 1950s Europe. When the Cold War heated up, they were a coveted prize for their language skills and contacts back in the Soviet Union. For more than a decade, U.S., West German, Soviet and British intelligence agencies vied for control of them in the new battle of democracy versus communism.

Yet the victor wasn't any of these Cold War combatants. Instead, it was a movement with an equally powerful ideology: the Muslim Brotherhood. Founded in 1920s Egypt as a social-reform movement, the Brotherhood became the fountainhead of political Islam, which calls for the Muslim religion to dominate all aspects of life. A powerful force for political change throughout the Muslim world, the Brotherhood also inspired some of the deadliest terrorist movements of the past quarter century, including Hamas and al Qaeda.

The whole story is available to subscribers at:

I like to think that we can make some progress toward our (ill-defined) goals by recreating a public vocabulary in this struggle:

We are not kafirs.
We are Revolutionaries. We struggle for the continuation and spread of our revolutionary heritage of the triune revolution: the American, French, and Industrial Revolutions.

We are not imperialists.
We are Modernists. Ours is a struggle for the good that has arisen from the past 250 years of revolution for progress in the world; progress not shared by the vast majority of people today; and progress that is unknown to all for all of our history until 250 years ago.

Islam is a poligion.
Islam is not a religion, but a fascist reactionary ideology pretending to be a religion.

Dhimmitude is fascism.
The Left is not inclusive, benign, caring, sharing, and peaceful: it is a corruption of Modernity, a turning away from our struggles in the past 250 years for progress. Dhimmitude is collusion with primitive fascism.

Our discourse has to change course so we see and that most know by the very meme of culture that Islam and dhimmitude are evils, just on-the-spot intuitive and unthinking knowledge of vile and demonic fascism is what Islam is.

Islam? Fascism!
Dhimmitude? Fascism!

Most people believe what most people believe. This struggle against the fascist poligion of Islam is going to be won or lost at the neighbourhood coffee bar and in the supermarket and at the watercooler.

My God! Those people are fascists, just like the Nazis.

If we speak to ourselves honestly about the nature of fascist dhimmitude and fascsit Islam, maybe no one will listen to us anyway. But we must speak to our inner selves to know if we're being honest. Once we can say yes or no to that we can move on to speak to others with the expectation that some will listen and that eventually others will simply follow along anyway.

Tuesday, July 12, 2005

Those darn social conditions.

Are we having fun yet? The social conditions of the West seem to be making some of us more and more unhappy on a daily basis; and due to social conditions some people in London are having no day all--they're dead.

What do we do? How do we sit back and accept that regardless of our desire to mobilize and actively challenge the global threat of jihadis and their evil dhimmi collusionists we really can't do much to make things even different, let alone better? We have to sit and wait for things to get worse before they'll get anywhere near the ripeness we need to mobilize against the world as it is now and is becoming more of as we sit passively awaiting our time to fight back. We are stuck.

Are we cowards?

Below is a piece of craziness that sums up one of the problems we must address as citizens of our time, if not of our places. The story isn't directly related to dhimmitude or jidhad but it is indicative of the state of dhimmitude in the West, the 'West' meaning, as we've written here before, places such as India and Peru. In this case it's France where the craziness of our modern times shows itself at its craziest. What we will witness below is Right dhimmitude in the form of corporatist fascism.

If we understand the nature of our societies and their histories, that we are small islands of Modernity and Human progress in the eternity of primitivism and reaction, that we few who live in the modern world are exceptional in history, and that we have very specific acheivements to our credit, works that come from the strange fabric of our societies alone and not from others or from other times, then we'll see that some of what happens is the fruit of the past wilderness weeds of the history of Humanity. Our long and collective Human heritage is one of fascism, and where we have hacked out space for our Modernity that fascist past continues to grow back through every crack in our modern societies.

Our struggle is against not just Islam and its terrorist believers but it is against those, the majority of the world's current population and the history of Human life itself, who hate and who try to destroy the Modernity of our revolution-of-the-mind of our Modern people. Most world-wide people hate Modernity. We who are modern are few in the world. We might lose our battle against those who will, if they can, destroy Modernity. They will wreck our progress and turn the world back to the way it was before the Revolutions of Industry, France, and America.

The majority of people on Earth today, like the history of the world before, are peasants. They have a specific world-view and life-style that they do not want to change or lose to Modernity. They want to destroy the flowering of Modernity in their lives. They want to kill us and the whole of our revolutions. They want to return to the time of feudalism and primitivism. They want to recreate feudalism by destroying Modernity.

The article below shows that the enemies of Modernity are not just loony Leftist professors and pot-smoking hippies who hate from within the privilege of our times and our locales: we see that it is also the corporatist Right that is primitive and reactionary, against progress as we know it; that the so-called capitalists are also against the progress of capitalism as a fundamental and foundational postion of Modernity. This story is not an exception but a clear example of feudalism prior to the French Revolution. This article shows "Neo-Feudalism" in theory and practice. This is another side of the face of fascist dhimmitude.

We have gone on at some length about dhimmitude on the Left, and rightly so. This story shows the Right as fascist in the corporatist sense, the very idea of Mussolini's proclamation that everything is the state, or in this case, the corporation. Forget individualism, private property, freedom, free will, democracy, and the other givens, the axioms, of Modernity. What we see below is fascism at work.

In coming posts on this theme we'll look at neo-feudalism, corporatism, property rights, privacy, and many other things both the Left and the Right despise, though they might show themselves in less than obvious ways. Here, though, the fascist corporatism and neo-feudalism is too plain to argue away. This is dhimmitude in a whole new light: this is Right dhimmitude.

What can we do about this craziness? Nothing yet, friend. We have to wait till the social conditions are ripe for yet another stage of revolution. And we might just lose. This could be the end.,3604,1525590,00.html

Bus firm takes car sharers to court

Kim Willsher in Paris
Monday July 11, 2005
The Guardian

They might have been congratulated for their "green" efforts in an area of heavy air pollution.

Instead a group of French cleaning ladies who organised a car-sharing scheme to get to work are being taken to court by a coach company which accuses them of "an act of unfair and parasitical competition".

The women, who live in Moselle and work five days a week at EU offices in Luxembourg, are being taken to court by Transports Schiocchet Excursions, which runs a service along the route. It wants the women to be fined and their cars confiscated.

Two years ago a business tribunal threw out the company's case. It is now pursuing the women in a higher court, claiming that their action has cost it €2m (£1.4m).

The women explained that for many years cleaners used the TSE line for the 40-minute ride across the border, which cost them €110 (£76) a month.

"Using our cars is quicker and at least twice as cheap. And on the bus we didn't have the right to eat or even to speak," said Martine Bourguignon. Odette Friedmann added: "In the evening instead of coming to get us at 9.30pm the bus would arrive at 10.30pm. If you made any comment to the driver you'd get a mouthful of abuse."

"It's absurd and ridiculous," said the women's lawyer, Cécile Klein-Schmitt. "I don't see how any magistrate can find any legal basis for this case."

TSE is also suing the women's employer, Onet-Luxembourg. "They've basically accused us of inciting the car-sharing scheme when we have nothing to do with the method of transport used by our staff," said director Frédéric Sirerol.
The court case will be heard in January next year.

A sure sign of a fanatic is that everything he says or thinks is related to a single issue. In this case, it's not fanaticism but real truth that Islam is a problem in the West, and that it is dhimmitude from the West that is our greatest threat in that it makes us so stupid and demoralized that we will go down to primitivism without even realizing we could have fought back.

The assault on Modernist values above is an example of fascism from the Right. With the Modernity of our societies under attack from the Left we tend often to forget that anti-Modernity, fascism, is originally a Right movement. Everything in the story above shows Right fascism at work. Our Modern Revolution is under attack, and we can't do anything about it till we understand what the hell is going on here. The fascists are coming at us from Left, Right, and Centre. We will have to show more of our enemy to make clear just what the enemy is-- and what we are not. We are not stupid, irrational, or the property of the Laird. Not yet. Nor yet can we fight back with any hope of victory. It's those darn social conditions. We still have a way to go to show the full extent of the danger and the face of our fascist enemy. But we will know.

We must somehow ride in the same cart to victory in spite of the power of those who are the Force of anti-Modernity. Neo-feudalism and Islam are both fascist ecxpressions. We have to fight them all because they are at root One. We have to change the very base of our opinions about the nature of our lives. We have to see that corporatism and Islam are both forms of fascism. Dhimmitude is fascism. Playing the same reactionary game on the side of Islam by playing dhimmi is fascist. Right, Left, Centre, all fascism is fascism. It's fascism to control the lives of the workers for the sake of the good of the corportation. It enables Islamic fascism. It is dhimmitude.

Our best hope of inveigling the furtherance of our revolutions is to know what fascism is and to know what we are. We might not know that many of our common assumptions are rooted in the 1960s hippie fascism of pop culture. If we don't know what fascism is we'll find ourselves in sullen and disturbed agreement with the likes of Michael Moore. We'll have an intuitive sense that somethin' just ain't right but who knows what. And until we can point and say: "But that's fascism!" we'll be stuck with fearing to express our misgivings, afraid of being tagged as --get this-- Fascists!

We are going nowhere fast because the majority of us do not want to be associatted with those we consider to be the bad guys. We've lost the discourse. It's taken over by those who've taken our vocabulary and turned it against us, and often we don't know what happened. When we see fascism for what it is we can say so and others will see it too. Then, when the ethos of the zeitgeist is ripe we can fight back and perhaps, if there's still time, we can win one for Modernity.

It's small things like the company above pulling idiot stunts that confuse us if we don't have the critical vocabulary to analyse it. But once we know that the play comes straight from Mussolini and that it's fascism, then the corporatist counter-enlightenment fascists will run like dogs from us. If not, if we don't articulate our concerns positively and confidently, we'll continue to cower. Till others grasp the nature of the fascist beast in our midst the social conditions for the rest of our Revolution won't be worth the seeds we toss. Right now it's not a lot of fun and the social conditions are awful. But at least we're alive and free. For now.

Monday, July 11, 2005

Barefoot in the Head

Must we be insane?

The top news story today on the Internet is the lessening of the hurricane off the coast of Florida. And those people who died in London, well, they were murdered by some teen-age rebel yobs who are really just nice boys acting-out as teen-age boys do, confronting their parents with some obnoxious noise, like listening to Elvis. What a storm! Phew, glad that's over. Were we all wet?

What are we going to do? What is to be done?

One of the first posts here is entitled "What is to be Done?" It comes from the title of a book by V.I. Lenin, on the nature of founding a party of professional and dedicated communist revolutionaries. Lenin is tops in the field of party organizing, a deadly man who won. We too could follow in his footsteps, organizing our own revolutionary party. That's the ultimate goal of this blog. But the question is: "Must we be insane?" How far must we go to save ourselves from the dhimmitude of our governments? Must we join with the forces of outright fascist Right reaction? Do we throw up and join the BNP? Who is our defender in this war against fascist Islam? Who will lead us? Must we join the crazies and the neo-Nazis of the BNP to find some alliance in our struggle against fascism?

The world seems to be happy pooh-poohing the cold-blooded murder of random people in London. It's just wild boys who need jobs. It's just this or that. Move along, there's nothing to see here.

Well, there is nothing to see. We've seen enough. All else is outright cowardice.
"There is no reason why good cannot triumph as often as evil. The triumph of anything is a matter of organization. If there are such things as angels, I hope that they are organized along the lines of the mafia."

Kurt Vonnegut, The Sirens of Titan.
How many books do we have to read to smell the corpses? How much history do we have to study to understand the legs lying on the sidewalk while the rest of the body lays across the roadside? How many times do we have to look at the eyes of the man to see that the eyes of the man are smashed out of his face? How many letters to the editor will it take to soak up the blood in the marketplace?

Write your congressman. Write your M.P. Write your obituary.
But a resolution to avoid an evil is seldom framed till the evil is so far advanced as to make avoidance impossible.

Thomas Hardy, Far From The Madding Crowd
Have we all gone mad? An old Brian Aldis novel comes to mind. Some excerpts from a review below if you want to get a small sense of tomorrow:
"The Metaphor of the Road: The Acid Head War"

In a world torn apart by hallucinogenic madness, a Europe in ruins, people ride the riff of the psychedelic music playing nonstop in their brains. After the "Kuwaiti millionaire" pilots flying French-made attack aircraft have aerosoled the Old World of Europe back into a mental Stone Age with the ultimate chemical weapon. A befuddled mass awaits the Messiah, an acid Moses ready to lead his people out of Past Times, and into the new. Man the Driver cometh.

Brian Aldiss' book Barefoot in the Head (Faber, 1969) is a no-contest work of genius. It's an acid Ulysses, difficult in proportion to the revelations contained. And it is quite a difficult book, a jungle of homonyms and allusive puns. Out of Serbia comes Charteris, his mind subverted by the persistent psychedelic agent dropped on Europe by an Arab coalition. He senses that the barriers of mind and time have fallen, and that the New Order is ready to be born. In a twisted Gurdjieffian gestalt, he sees himself as a spider, sitting in the middle of a web, each strand of which is another possible reality, all valid, the universe a multivalued matrix of potentiality. Through this matrix rolls Man the Driver, the avatar of the Metaphor of the Road. Charteris comes out of the continent to England, gathering his people for the great road trip back to the Wilderness world of the New Mind, where the wrongness of the Old world may be shed. He sees his Road as an endless chain of photographs, each freezing a tiny instant of time, from which any number of things may arise, which only can be known to Man the Driver.

The road trip is a combination of Mad Max, a portable Glastonbury Festival, and a literate language game. Many chapters end with the lyrics of the camp-follower bands or poetic meditations on the story, a strange acid haiku. The minds' eye points-of-view of Charteris and his travelling companion Angeline portrays the breakdown of their old mental structures under the influence of the PCA bombs. On one hand, Europe is falling under the spell of a chemical dance of madness, which is destroying civilization. On the other, Charteris' crusade is developing the tools to work within a new reality, and to make the choice between the known errors of the Old world and the possibilities of the New.

Do not blame your government for your own inaction. Our societies are insane. Our governments reflect our social insanity in the leaders we elect to public office. If we as individuals are sane, which seems unlikely, how much longer will we remain so in the light of murder carried out by "gangs." How much longer can we remain stupefied by slaughter in our cities without taking up with the worst of the worst-- the fascists of the BNP-- who at least are organized along the lines of the mafia. How long before our resolution to remain sane is nothing but dust in our mouths? And then what? What will we become if we don't act now?

If not now, "then" it could well be too late but to be anything other than mad beyond hope of reason. If we let this social madness go on we'll get pushed to the point that we're barefoot in the head.

(Want to know a secret? War is fun.)

Islamic Terrorism: "Like teens listening to Elvis...."

Are we going to fight the fascism of Islam in our day or are we going to roll over and take whatever we get because we just will not rouse ourselves to defend our world against barbarians? Is Islam fascism? Look in the archives here and you'll see careful and documented essays proving it so; and we will continue to prove it so from more and various angles. There cannot be any question of the veracity of the claim that Islam is fascism, and yet there is utter denial that this is true--in spite of the facts, and in spite of the dead.

We have argued in the archives that the West is facing a civil war between those allied with fascism and those opposed. Bynam writes on the causes of our conflict. Be low that we'll see some comments from Moslems and their sympathizers, their enablers, their fascist dhimmi supporters, the so-called ecumenical religious liberals, the multi-culturalist, the let's-all-hold-hands-in-peace idiots. And we can compare that sentimentality and cowardice to the comments of Islam from the mouths of Moslems themselves. Not all Moslems are fascists, you say? I say you are wrong, because we have documented proof in the archives here that prove you wrong, and you can find it in any Koran of your choosing: Islam itself is fascism, pure and simple, and those who are Moslem are by practice fascists. Like it or not, a Moslem is by definition from the Koran, the Hadiths, and the Sira, a fascist. Look at the written evidence. And then compare that to the absolute shite below in the New York Times and the Christian Science Monitor, two dhimmi rags we can turn to for evidence that we are losing the war against fascism because we will not even identify it by name. Shame! Shame! Look at the news coverage even now--before the dead are buried in London. Not a word on the front page of the Google news page to do with the dead. And the last line of the CSM claims the extreme Right is picking up support because they are the only ones seemingly in favor of fighting fascism. Shame! Shame! Shame!

Bynum: War Zone World

Jihad Watch News Editor Rebecca Bynum reflects on the slowly encroaching dhimmitude that threatens to do us all in:

Islamic doctrine refers to lands as yet un-conquered by Islam as the "House of War." In the Islamists' view, this area consists of the entire world at this point, since "pure Islam," much like "pure communism," has yet to be achieved in modern times. Accordingly, all of us live, move and have our being in a gigantic war zone which our Islamist enemies can make a bleeding, screaming reality any time they want to.

Many Muslims in the West are instructed by their religious leaders to believe they are living "behind enemy lines." Islamists scoff at our old-fashioned notions of national boundaries as relics of a corrupt, colonial past, an interruption of Islam's march toward world domination. Islamists envision a future in which the nation-state is no more.

Western leftist intellectuals also deeply despise nationalism: in their minds, nationalism is one of the leading causes of war. Leftists seek a war-free world. Islamists, despite their designation of the world as the House of War, seek the same: they strive so that the House of War will shrink away and ultimately disappear, so that only the House of Islam, that is, the House of Peace, should remain. In that House all peoples are "protected" – none less than non-Muslim dhimmis, or "protected peoples," who must labor under a system that despises and discriminates against them and then calls itself "tolerant." The rallying cry for both the Islamists and the Left is "peace and social justice." The result is that leftists all too often appease the fascism that now comes to us in the form of Islam.

The Left refuses to acknowledge Islamic fascism precisely because it comes from the left side of the political spectrum. The intellectual Left is so entirely focused on the possibility of fascism's entry from the right that they refuse to see the comprehensive Islamist strategy for what it is. The thinking seems to be that if various Muslims support leftist political causes, then all is right with the Muslim world. Most people on the Left and the Right, still think that accommodation of at least some Muslim demands is necessary and appropriate. A lot of people buy into the notion that the enemy can be appeased -- by pulling our forces out of Iraq for example. They don't understand that pulling out of Iraq in response to Islamist demands would only embolden them, not pacify them.

The history of those formerly Christian or Jewish capitulators was then slowly distorted and destroyed by the conquered peoples themselves, who preferred not to remember. They preferred to think what they had chosen was better, and refused to acknowledge what they had lost. According to the incomparable historian Bat Ye'or, "the civilization of dhimmitude does not develop all at once. It is a long process that involves many elements and a specific mental conditioning. It happens when peoples replace history by myths, when they fight to uphold these destructive myths, more than their own values because they are confused by having transformed lies into truth. They hold to those myths as if they were the only guarantee for their survival, when, in fact, they are the path to destruction. Terrorized by the evidence and teaching of history, those peoples prefer to destroy it rather than to face it. They replace history with childish tales, thus living in amnesia, inventing moral justification for their own self-destruction." The popular idea that Islam is a peaceful and a harmlessly beautiful religion is one of these childish tales. A childish tale nonetheless preferred, because to admit the truth of our truly dire situation would be too overwhelming and would make us feel too helpless in the face of it.

The question, according to Derbyshire, should be this: "Is the United States willing to fight this war the way it needs fighting, with grim ferocity and cold unconcern for legalistic niceties? To lay waste great territories and their peoples, innocent and guilty alike, to level cities, to burn forests and divert rivers, to smite our enemies hip and thigh, to carry out summary execution of captured leaders? Of course not — how barbaric! And yet (whispers the ancestral, tribal voice in our heads, and in British heads too) if not, then what's the point? War is a tribal affair, one tribe exterminating another, or reducing it to utter impotence and ignominious surrender. That's what war is, and it isn't anything else. We know this in our bones, from a million years of tribal living and fighting. If we are not willing to fight a war like that — which apparently we are not, being much too civilized — then we should not be too surprised if our allies turn and cut deals with our enemies. At least they'll have a quiet life, for a while."

And yet how can we fight a war like that when neither the British nor the Americans have come to terms with who our enemy really is? Andrew Bostom decries "the complete failure of Western intellectuals to study, understand, and acknowledge the heinous consequences of the living Islamic institution of jihad war," and Muslim intellectuals are only too happy to feed our denial with some of their own.

The truth that we do not wish to face is that we cannot guarantee peace and freedom for the majority our citizens while playing host to a minority who value not peace and freedom but their opposites. Until we face this, we will continue to living in a war zone world, while the clamor for "peace" through gradual surrender will only grow. Barbarism cannot be fought with "hope and compassion," not with love and understanding. Barbarism must be fought with will, with strength, and with war -- war and more war.

It's a war zone world. Get used to it.

Show of Resolve as Religious Leaders Try to Cool Tensions

Published: July 11, 2005

LONDON, July 10 - A World War II commemoration on Sunday became a show of nostalgia and defiance, while Britain's religious leaders held a meeting to help thwart any violence against Muslims following Thursday's terrorist attacks.

In a sign of the authorities' desperation for clues, the police appealed to citizens to hand over any images taken at the sites of the attacks with cameras or cellphones because they might contain crucial information. At least 49 people were killed and more than 700 wounded in the attacks on three subway trains and a double-decker bus, the worst terrorist attack in Britain in decades.

[Where are the Moslems in the English communities who claim Islam is a religion of peace? Why aren't they turning in the conspirator? how can men plan and carry out six bomb attacks without the community knowing something to help the police? Instead the Moslem population cries that they are victims of racism.]

"The terrible thing today is that we don't know our enemies," said Dennis Jardine, an 81-year-old veteran in a wheelchair outside a memorial service at Westminster Abbey. "I knew who my enemy was because we all had our uniforms. So what can you really do against it?"

[We can start by admitting that Islam, fascism itself, fascist Islam, is our enemy; that Left dhimmis are enabling it, collaborating with it; and that the Right is as much to blame as is the filthy Left.]

While rescue workers toiled deep underground to retrieve bodies from one bombed subway tunnel, the country's most senior Christian, Jewish and Muslim leaders gathered, anxious to head off religious tensions caused by the attacks, which the authorities have said bear the hallmarks of Islamic extremists. A number of retaliatory acts against Britain's Muslim population have been reported since the attacks.

The religious leaders sought to distinguish between Islam as a faith and as a label for the terrorists.

[There is no difference. Islam is fascism. Look at the archives. Reigious leaders are dhimmi scum if they refuse to admit the fascists are Moslems.]

Sheik Zaki Badawi, head of Britain's Council of Mosques and Imams, said: "Anyone claiming to commit a crime in the name of religion does not necessarily justify his position in the name of that religion. People do things in the name of Islam which are totally contrary to Islam."

[This is a lie they tell over and over. We have proven in the archives that this is a lie. If one doesn't believe that then why think of anything at all? Why not go to the grave and save the Moslems the trouble of murdering you?]

He was speaking alongside other religious leaders - Sir Jonathan Sacks, chief rabbi; Rowan Williams, the Anglican archbishop of Canterbury; Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O'Connor, the Roman Catholic Archbishop of Westminster; and David Coffey, the moderator of the Free Churches.

Each took turns to read from a shared statement urging what Dr. Williams called "the continuing efforts to build a Britain in which different communities - including faith communities - can flourish side by side."

At St. Pancras Parish Church, close to Tavistock Square where 13 people died in the Thursday bombing of a No. 30 double-decker bus, Paul Hawkins, the vicar, urged 100 congregants to "name the people who did these things as criminals and terrorists, but we must not name them as Muslims."

Charles Clarke, the home secretary, said he was "very optimistic" that the bombers would be captured. But, like other officials, he warned of possible future attacks. "Our fear is, of course, of more attacks until we succeed in tracking down the gang that committed the atrocities. That is why the No. 1 priority has to be the catching of the perpetrators."

Sir John Stevens, the former head of the Metropolitan Police, said in a newspaper interview on Sunday that the bombers were "almost certainly" British. "I'm afraid there's a sufficient number of people in this country willing to be Islamic terrorists that they don't have to be drafted in from abroad," he said.

He said the probable suspects would be "highly computer literate; they will have used the Internet to research explosives, chemicals and electronics."

He said he believed that the suspects would be "apparently ordinary British citizens, young men conservatively and cleanly dressed and probably with some higher education."

"They are also willing to kill without mercy - and to take a long time in their planning," he said.

"We believe that up to 3,000 British born or British-based people have passed though Osama bin Laden's training camps over the years," he said. "Plainly, not all went on to become active Islamic terrorists back in the U.K., but some have. "

Waterstone's bookshop in London scrambled to cancel print advertisements for "Incendiary," a new novel written in the form of a letter to Mr. bin Laden by a woman whose husband and son died in a London terrorist attack, the BBC News reported.

But some of the ads were irretrievable, including posters already hung in the London Underground, where three of the four bombs went off.

[The only question remaining is what we will do in response to the governments of the West refusing to deal with the issue of the war on Modernity. What are we going to do?]

Souad Mekhennet and Jonathan Allen contributed reporting for this article.

A defiant Islam rises among young Britons
Thursday's attacks turn attention to a group alienated from British society.
By James Brandon, Correspondent of The Christian Science Monitor

LONDON – Thursday's coordinated terrorist attacks that killed at least 49 people have underscored competing forces within Britain's Muslim community: a minority that advocates violence against Western targets, and those who want to coexist peacefully with Britain's multifaith, multiethnic society.

Since the bombings, the media and Muslims have been at pains to explain that most of the country's 2 million Muslims are peaceful. "The Muslim community in Britain has a long history and is enormously diverse," says Anas al-Tikriti, a member of the Muslim Association of Britain.

But the attacks are turning attention to the increasing numbers of young British Muslims who are rejecting their parents' traditional culture in favor of a radical and expansionist Islam. This strikingly Western version of Islam combines an independence of thought with a contempt for established traditional scholarship and a theme of teenage rebellion.

"Getting involved in radical Islam is an emotional thing rather than a rational decision," says Abdul-Rahman al-Helbawi, a Muslim prayer leader. "And it's not a matter of intelligence or education - a lot of these radicals in Britain are very well-educated."

In Dalston market in north-east London on Thursday, "Abdullah," a Muslim watch-mender and evangelist, was in a pugnacious mood.

"We don't need to fight. We are taking over!" he said. "We are here to bring civilization to the West. England does not belong to the English people, it belongs to God."

Two days later in a prosperous West London cafe, Mr. Helbawi pondered the attacks. "It's not a surprise but I am still shocked," he said. "How can they do this? London is a city for all the world. This is not Islam."

Hours after the bombings, Helbawi logged onto an Internet chat room run by British Muslim extremists. "They were all congratulating each other on the attacks," he said. "It was crazy. They were talking about how they had won a great victory over the infidels, as if they had just come back from a battle."

Although so far, there is no evidence that British Muslims were involved in the bombs, there is little doubt that many British Muslims feel that Britain "deserved" the attacks for supporting the US invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan.

"Because Muslims explain the conflicts in Iraq, Kashmir, and Israel through Islam, every Muslim feels involved," said Helbawi. "People watch television and see Palestinian women being hit and pushed around by Israeli soldiers, and get angry and feel that they have to do something."

But beyond anger, a sense of alienation often drives radical Islam. Many second- and third-generation immigrants find themselves cut off not only from their parents' cultures but also from a British one that includes alcohol and looser sexual mores.

"If you don't drink, it really cuts you off from English society," says Ummul Choudhury, a London-based Middle East analyst for the Gulf Centre for Strategic Studies. "The view of the older generation is also that you do not integrate. If you do, you are told you are betraying your culture and religion."

The resulting isolation makes it easier for young Muslims to develop a contempt for British society.

"There is also a lot of racism toward white British people," says Ms. Choudhury. "It's not really something that people want to talk about, but there are definitely some things that Muslims say between themselves that they would never say in front of white people."

For frustrated and isolated young Muslims, radical Islam is not difficult to find. Girls in particular are often prevented from going out at night and can be easily drawn into online Muslim communities where they come into contact with other disillusioned Muslims from across Europe.

One leading analyst of the Islamic diaspora even compares the lure of extremist Islam to 1950s teens listening to Elvis in an attempt to shock their parents. "The son of a Pentecostal preacher in Brixton was recruited by the radical Muslims," says Nadhim Shehadi, acting head of the Middle East program at Chatham House.

"This young man initially tried to upset his parents by becoming a rapper," says Shehadi. "But when his parents stopped objecting, he became a jihadi instead."

The antiestablishment nature of this new Islam and its apparent status as an alternative to capitalism and secularism is also winning converts among native Britons.

"People come to Islam from all walks of life. It's not just middle-class people but also electricians, judges, and taxi drivers," says Sara Joseph, the editor of "Emel," a lifestyle magazine for Muslim women, who converted to Islam at age 17. "The main catalyst for conversion is often going out with a Muslim, although the primary factor is usually a search for spirituality."

While the estimated 1,000 British Christians, atheists, and members of other faiths who convert to Islam every year are often attracted by Islam's clearly defined teachings, this minor trend is overshadowed by Muslims' highbirth and immigration rates, which to many Muslims promises increased political and social influence in the future.

Indeed, taking advantage of Britain's rapidly expanding and increasingly Muslim population are new parties that aim to promote ethnic and religious agendas. One is Respect, a left-wing party founded by former Labour MP George Galloway, that aims to unite Muslims and socialists around opposition to American foreign policy and globalization.

Linked to the desire for increased political power are attempts by some radical Muslims to begin a process of Islamicizing British cities.

Last month, Muslim groups in Glasgow petitioned the City Council to ban an Italian restaurant from serving alcohol to diners seated at outside tables. Hospitals in Leicester considered banning Bibles from hospital wards to avoid offending Muslim patients. In Birmingham, a group called Muslims Against Advertising began a campaign of painting over billboards that they deemed offensive to Islam - targeting ads for Levi's jeans, perfume, and lingerie.

But these small campaigns are polarizing public opinion along ethnic and religious lines - and creating support for Britain's far-right groups, who present themselves as defenders of Britain's hard-won freedoms.

The West will, in a few more years of this, resemble Jugoslavia during the war. The treal tragedy is that we will be at war not only with Moslem but against ourselves. We are facing a civil war between those who will become fascists in response to the threat of Islam and Islam itself and its collaborators. The final showdown will be between Modernity and the last lunge of primitivism. To win our future for Modernity's continuance we might well be forced to go insane.