Sunday, February 19, 2006
Reform, Rebellion, Revolution, and Reaction.
Reform, Rebellion, Revolution, and Reaction.
Islam as it is cannot continue. Muslims of all sects and opinion realise as well as anyone outside that Islam is in a state of catastrophic upheaval and it is incapable of co-existing with other modes in the world today. This conflict began with Napoleon's conquest of Egypt in 1799, and it is at a crisis point today that cannot fall back into another splendid torpor of times past. Islam faces the Modernist world, and Islam is psychotic in reaction: insane, suicidal, and murderous. Something must be done, and in our immediate future. Islam is not compatible with the greater world, nor is it competent to sustain its own adherents in any sense economic, social, religious, or moral. Islam is a disaster. What is to be done?
There are four alternatives to Islam as it is. Our preferred design, the complete annihilation of Islam as a public concept, is not yet on the table for discussion in meaningful terms; hence we must deal with the possible in this time.
For those outside of Islam the greatest hope they have is for internal and self-directed reform of Islam. What that reform entails no one seems able to say. At their most naive, those who call for Islamic reform claim, without understanding Islam, without having read even the primary texts of Islam, certainly without having studied Islam beyond the local newspapers and a few select magazines or a bit of blather from a snake-oil Islamic salesman, that Islam is a religion of peace recently hijacked by a small minority of extremists who misinterpret Islam for their own personal and vile interests. To make such claims, that Islam is a religion of peace, betrays a willing and determined ignorance of Islam as it is and as it has always been. No one in good faith can know Islam and make the claim that Islam is a religion of peace, and few can make a claim that Islam is a religion at all. Islam is a violent poligion, a political religion, a 7th century warrior creed of ideological tribal supremacy. The whole of the ideology is premised on the sayings and doings, mostly mythological of one savage, ie Mohammed. To strip away the life and doings of Mohammed is to eviscerate Islam to the point there is literally nothing left; and to leave it as it is is to retain nothing more than the sayings and doings of a primitive and unrestrained violent criminal. Islam, is religion according to Saddam Hussein-like phantasies or those of any other unrestrained primitive warlord. There is nothing to reform.
But, to claim that there is nothing to reform leaves little for the cautious of this world to deal with in the struggle to accommodate Islam, a movement of over a billion people in today's world. What to do? How do we cope with an insane population driven to madness and violence by despair and rage and self-pity and self-righteousness? How do we deal rationally with irrational primitives who make up such a large population of our world? The cautious claim we must encourage reform.
What is reform? Reform is a matter of doing what is always done with minor or even significant adjustments, leaving everything structural intact. Reform is to continue as before but differently. For Islam to reform and still accommodate itself to the modern and greater world is not possible. To be a triumphalist poligion that requires the domination of Islam throughout the entire world by whatever means necessary is not a good place to look for reform. To strip out the references to violent conquest from the Qur'an, the ahadith, the sira, is to annul Islam as the perfection Muslims accept it to be. The alternative, to simply ignore the violent bits as Christians and others do in their canonical texts, is to delay the problem only, to give breathing space to those who can and will and do claim that violence is an Islamic religious duty. To suggest that Muslims say "Yes, but...." is to ignore the legitimacy of violence as it is in the canon. They cannot legitimately ignore the precepts of the religion and still be Muslims. Islam is not capable of reform. One cannot be gently violent. Islam, in spite of what many believe, does not mean "peace." It means "slavery." Muslims are "The slaves of Allah." Central to Islam, it's core precept, is that all must submit to the will of Allah. Without that core belief there is no Islam. To believe in the total submission to the will of Allah in every aspect of life and death is to engage in its triumph. There is no outlet for anyone, even the incapable who are required by the poligion to assist those who are able. Consider Christianity without Jesus, without the Bible. Islam without violence and conquest is not Islam. It is apostasy, the penalty for which, under Islamic law, is death. There is no way to practice Islam differently from the way it has always been authentically been practiced. The history of Islam is one of continuous war against its neighbours and others. And inside Dar al Islam the history of Islam is one of decay in all terms, economic, social, and moral. For refences to the history of Islam, one may look to Andrew Bostom, The Legacy of Jihad: Islamic Holy War and the Fate of Non-Muslims .
Reform: To improve by alteration, correction of error, or removal of defects; put into a better form or condition.
To abolish abuse or malpractice in: reform the government.
To put an end to (a wrong). See synonyms at correct.
To cause (a person) to give up harmful or immoral practices; persuade to adopt a better way of life. v.intr.
To change for the better.
Rebellion is one alternative seemingly preferred by today's political practitioners in the West. One sees in our current antics in Afghanistan, Iraq, the Palestine Authority attempts at imposing rebellion from outside. Rebellion is a change of leadership with the retention of the system intact. Rebellion is the exchange of one ruling group for another. One might hope that new rulers will rule better than the last group, but when faced with Saddam on the one side and sharia on the other, one wonders if rebellion is in fact preferable. A coup d'etat is a rebellion in which the state remains but the players rotate.
Rebellion: NOUN:1. Open, armed, and organized resistance to a constituted government. 2. An act or a show of defiance toward an authority or established convention.
All leaders in power fear and hate the word. Revolution is what transformed the world from feudalism to Modernity. We, whether we are conscious of it or not, are revolutionaries in a profound sense. 5,000 people began an experiment in crop planting and harvesting that became the Agricultural Revolution. With it began the long road to Modernity. there are numerous and tragic side roads in this history. One group who refrained from joining that revolution were the bedouin of the Arabian Peninsula, the to-be Muslims. They maintained their earlier primitive economic hunter/gatherer mode of production, and it is in place today as one sees in the foraging merchant values embedded in Muslim societies. We of the greater world moved slowly and unstoppably toward greater plantation and productivity and surplus. Our revolution in agriculture have recently, in the past 250 years, given rise to Modernity, to industry and technology and high science. In those regards we are the revolutionaries of our time, unlike any other peoples in history, and we are few. Our revolutions are more profound than any other changes in the human condition. The triune revolutions of America, France, and Industry have separated us from the mass of today's people and from the history of Mankind in ways so fundamental that we are in effect a different species. The purpose of this blog over this past nine moths has been to explore the revolutions of Modernity and the reactions against it.
Today our revolutions are under threat by the Muslim world. Our world is under threat from those who hate our revolutions, and they are not only Muslims. They are primarily the prime beneficiaries of Modernity: Ourselves.
We, revolutionaries of Modernity, are under threat from Muslims and Left dhimmi fascists. We are bifurcated, and there is no return to co-existence of our two worlds. Thus: one norm or the other must prevail without compromise. There will be a triumph of the cave man or a triumph of the space man. If Islamic populations are to survive, they must either join the revolutions of Modernity or destroy them and return the world of man to his previous and historical position as farm animal. One group or the other must undergo a revolution. There is no practical alternative.
Revolution: The overthrow of one government and its replacement with another.
As things were, so things should be. Today's reactionaries include not only those who wish to restore the caliphate and the rule of the times of the Rightly Guided Caliphs of Islam. Today's most menacing reactionaries are our own: they are the neo-feudalists who wish to restore the age of European feudalism in which the privileged, those who ruled by divine right and title assigned by God from Heaven lead the masses from the cradle to the grave. Those are the Left dhimmi fascists who are our greatest enemies, the enemies of Modernity. In conjunction with Muslim rulers and the mass of the ummah the neo-fuedalists hope to restore the world of elitist rule, and they do so by promising security, the legitimation and validation of the feudal rule of ago. To restore the time of manorial rule, of privilege and entitlement and superstition, of gnostic awareness from those who rule as philosopher kings, that is the agenda of the European elites to restore. This blog is an examination of that struggle by the fascist reaction over the past 250 years in the West, those who would destroy our revolutions and return us to the times of primitivism. Europeans in particular attempt to return people to the simplicity of rural idiocy, to the communalism of feudal living, to the control of the manor, the crown, the pulpit. That they are obviously allied with the most violent and prolific of savages is hardly surprising. That they are allied with the most idiotic of courtiers and intellectual pretenders is also not surprising. And that many people wish for that long ago lost simplicity is not surprising either. It is the simplicity of primitivism, savagery, barbarism, and violence. That, dear reader, is our future if we do not extend our revolutions to the entire world.
Reactionary: (or reactionist) is a political epithet typically applied to extreme ideological conservatism, especially that which wishes to return to a real or imagined old order of things, and which is willing to use coercive means to do so. The term is primarily used as a term of opprobrium (groups rarely identify themselves as reactionary), meant to assert the idea that the opposition is based in merely reflexive politics rather than responsive and informed views. More specifically, the term "reactionary" is frequently used to refer to those who want to reverse (or prevent) some form of claimed "progressive" change. (An equivalent term would be regressivism. The term reaction is sometimes used as a general term for the program or philosophy of designated reactionaries.)
It was coined in the context of the French Revolution to refer to those who wished to restore the conditions of the Ancien Régime, as a synonym of counter-revolutionary. Through the nineteenth century, it was used to refer to those who wished to preserve feudalism or aristocratic privilege against industrialism, republicanism or classical liberalism. Marxists used the term in a dialectical sense to refer to those who resist revolutionary change whether they be the conservatives who opposed the liberal revolutions of the eighteenth and early to mid nineteenth centuries or those in the bourgeoisie and their allies who opposed socialist demands for power to be given to the working class and particularly those who resisted socialist revolution.
The same bourgeois who is a "revolutionary" in one context could be considered to be a "reactionary" in another, as the bourgeoisie refers to an intermediate upper-middle class who thrived on service, but not absolute loyalty, to the aristocracy.
The future of Modernity today is in relation to Islam today. It is more importantly a division between our own: are we committed to Modernity or are we interested in returning to an imagined Golden Age? We must make our stand on the basis of our relationship to the revolutions of Modernity: either we are for them or we are against. That is the defining position of man today. Islam and its Left dhimmi fascist supporters wish to return to the past. The rest of us must decide if we wish to aid them or fight them.
Can we reform ourselves? Must we rebel? Are we forced to stage a revolution in our states? And if we fail at all of the above, will we accept reaction as a legitimate alternative?