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 RĂ©gime, 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?


Charles Henry said...

".....Islam, in spite of what many believe, does not mean "peace." It means "slavery." Muslims are "The slaves of Allah"......"

Dag, I think it is so important to constantly clarify our definitions, as you do with this one small detail. There are many possible meanings behind the sincere wish for "peace". We need to clarify what islamists mean when they use the term, and we need to be even clearer with our own meaning when we use it.

Surrendering, and living as a prisoner, is a form of "peace".

Victory over an adversary, a decisive victory leaving the enemy in no condition to continue fighting, is also a form of "peace".

Agreeing to disagree, letting bygones be bygones, is yet another "peace".

Sad to admit, but too many people today confuse the three, or neglect the likelyhood of all three, possible meanings of the same term. Part of our success at persuading people will rest on getting them to acknowledge the authentic definition inherent in the name of the ideology we rise to challenge.

A slightly off-topic question for you: In my research today I came across the school of the Mu'tazilites in islam. Is this a historical subject that you have previously posted on, that I could find in your archives?
If not, are there any books you trust on the subject, that you could recommend?
Thanks, as ever.

max said...

Slaves of Allah, Slaves of Mahummed" hmm there is a cartoon there.

Aisha's lost doll said...

Islam is quite simply gangsterism. The gangster demands respect, not in the sense that respect is earned and deserved by such people the Dalai Lama or Mother Teresa, but respect in the sense that "If you diss me I'll chop your head off". To a gangster, hatred and fear are synonymous with respect.

So no gangster can tolerate being dissed. To his paranoid mind it brings him down in the eyes of the world, and all gangsters are very vain about their reputation as hard men.

You can't argue rationally or appeal to some universal code of ethics when dealing with these people. They are pre-rational and totally lack any concept of ethics being applicable to anyone outside their own gang/umma.

Their whole concept of interpersonal relations can be summed up as dominance/submission. If you don't do one, you do the other - no inbetweens.

So if appeals to reason and common decency won't influence them, what will?

Well if you really want to send them totally screwy you diss them good and proper. Parodies, cartoons, silly animations, satirical songs, caricatures. Anything that makes their belief system look ridiculous will send them rabid and drive them to self-destructive paranoia.

Those whom the Gods wish to destroy, the bloggers first make mad.

dag said...

I missed some of the comments above. I'll try to address some of them today.

kevin said...

I hate to say it, but it looks like we are going to have to suffer at least one more 9/11 type attack before the nation "gets it".
I've added you no my blogroll.
Check out my 'toon;

dag said...

I wrote one of my least popular pieces on Euripides. It was very interesting. I also greatly admired an essay I wrote on Hobbes, which my reader also complained about. Those whom the gods would destroy they first make them read some of my better essays. No wonder there are so many atheists.

Back to reality: the concept that Islam is gangsta-ism has a lot of resonance in the West. It is a low-brow social norm. They do act like children and gangsta idiots who go berzerk when one spits on their shiney shoes. I addressed just this problem in another of my famous essays in which I wrote about "Left Dhimmi Dystopia and the Pegagogy of Feral Orthopraxy." I'm sure everyone has a copy near-by so I won't repeat it here.

Yup, when yer hot, yer hot.

Improbulus Maximus said...

Islam is nothing more than the last vestige of a save, uncivilzed world which was abandoned by the West long ago. Islam has been at war with civilization since it began, but we haven't been at war with it, and we're still not fighting. Islam must be destroyed, and all its followers killed or converted. Liberals and weak conservatives will piss themselves over this statement, but that's exactly what islam has in store for us, and it's us or them.

Improbulus Maximus said...

"Savage", not "save". It's too early.

dag said...

The emphasis here is usually on reforming the West. We might well watch the Islamic world kill itself through rage and hysteria, we might see millions of people isolate themselves from Human affection to the point that we feel nothing but just in slaughtering them in their millions, and the few left over might well starve to death as we sit by indifferent to them; however, in winning the natural struggle for supremacy, in ridding ourselves of Islam and its innate primitivism and its drag on our Modernity, we might also lose too much of our innate decency to claim any pride in our achievement.

The contraditicion between Modernity and Islamic primitivism is too great to constinue without a resolution. There is no possiblility of reconciling the Space Age with 7th century Islam. The question is whether our own are more inclined to struggle on behalf of Islam than on behalf of Modernity.

We in the West can conquer and subdue and transform the Islamic world wholly. We can destroy Islam and the concept of the ummah, and in its place we can install Modern schools and Modern values, and within a few generations the Islamic world will be no more but Modern, as Modern as we care to live it, we being colonists in it. We have the power to spread Modernity by force to every village on Earth. But we have to decide among ourselves first whether we wouldn't really rather "get back to the land" and be "at one with Mother Nauture" and live in some hippy-dippy dystopia of Left dhimmi fascism. We have to clarify our own goal and reson for being. We have to grasp the Moral of our own story before we can address the nature of our response to our enemies.

Carter, Clinton, Gore, they crawl to our enemies and roll over to display their yellow bellies. Those are our people doing that. We have to decide how we feel about them doing so. We can't simply decide on an individual basis, me hating them for it, another feeling nothing, a third wishing for the chance to make some easy money. We have to decide as a whole society how we feel. We need not only a consensus of opinion, we need a public consensus of the public. I say forget the intelligentsia, the church leaders, the politicians, the university professors, the media buffons, the movie stars. We, the people, we have to decide how we feel about the reason we exist as we exist in the modern world. If we don't like our lives and our societies as they are, if we feel more sympathy for the barbarians' course than we do for our own future then let us change our ways and be done with it. If we are guilty of all the crimes throughout history and our only works will be worse than before, then let's abandon them. But if we value our Modernity, if we understand the nature of our good, then let's organise to save it from those who would destroy it. Let's sort out ourselves and find out who we are and where we want to go in the future.

The time for passivity and surrender to the elites who make decisions for us, those days are gone. We must speak to each other regardless of what Clinton tells the Saudis. He doesn't speak for me. But to be effective in speaking myself for myself, I must speak to you, and you to me. We must speak together with each other and with others like us. We msut conduct our dialogue of the people with the people. Silent and isolated disgust won't do. We must speak to each other. We must be able to greet each other on the streets and in the malls and in elevators. Let Clinton speak to the Sauds. Let us then speak to each other.

We must decide our own future. If we have done wrong and if we should dismantle our revolutions of Modernity, then let us do so without hesitation. If we are the most evil civilization in history, then let us destroy every vestige now. If we are right in our course, then let us say so, and let us work to further our Modernity. We cannot any longer sit by silently and watch. We must now speak. We must speak to each other. We msut meet to talk and ask where we wish to go and what we wish to do.

On Thursday from 7-9:00 pm we will meet again at McDonald's across the world to meet each other. You'll know who we are because we'll wear blue scarves to identify ourselves as the concerned. We talk. We must talk. We must meet, and we must decide.

I'll be at McD. in Vancouver, Canada at Main and Terminal sts. We must reform our world, one way or another, toward Modernity further or toward dhimmitude. Now there's no choice but to submit or to act. Nothing any more is as it was. The division is too vast for reconciliation. We msut choose.

aisha's lost doll said...

I hate cancer. But I do not hate cancer patients. I detest and despise Islam, but I do not hate Muslims.

Please recognise that Islam is a contagious mental disease. Winston Churchill realised this over a century ago in his boook 'The River War', when he compared Islam to the hydrophobia (rabies) virus.

Western philosophers such as Daniel Dennett, Richard Dawkins and Susan Blackmore have given a name to the phenomenon. Islam is a meme - a vile mental parasite as disgusting as a tapeworm and as cruel as rabies.

OK so we shoot rabid dogs. There's no cure and they're a menace to everyone else and it's humane to put them out of their suffering.

But ISLAM CAN BE CURED. The medical profession spend vast amounts of effort chasing up the very few people who spontaneously cure themselves of AIDS. There are far more people who spontaneously cure themselves of Islam.

Maybe we ought to investigate how they did it and perhaps we can develop the appropriate antibiotics and vaccines to cure the entire population.

Diseases are loathsome. People aren't.

Islam is memetic rabies inducing suicidal aggression and madness in its victims.

aisha's lost doll said...

Re previous post. I googled for Churchill rabies/Islam and got a magnificent piece of Churchilliana.

God, do I wish he was here now instead of that dhimmi Quisling appeaser Blair who would sell centuries of struggle for free speech for a few thousand Muslim votes:

Gregory Smith offers this Churchill comment on that great religion we are not fighting against, from The River War, first edition, Vol. II, pages 248 50 (London: Longmans, Green & Co., 1899).

"How dreadful are the curses which Mohammedanism lays on its votaries! Besides the fanatical frenzy, which is as dangerous in a man as hydrophobia in a dog, there is this fearful fatalistic apathy. The effects are apparent in many countries. Improvident habits, slovenly systems of agriculture, sluggish methods of commerce, and insecurity of property exist wherever the followers of the Prophet rule or live. A degraded sensualism deprives this life of its grace and refinement; the next of its dignity and sanctity. The fact that in Mohammedan law every woman must belong to some man as his absolute property‹either as a child, a wife, or a concubine‹must delay the final extinction of slavery until the faith of Islam has ceased to be a great power among men. Individual Moslems may show splendid qualities. Thousands become the brave and loyal soldiers of the Queen; all know how to die; but the influence of the religion paralyses the social development of those who follow it. No stronger retrograde force exists in the world. Far from being moribund, Mohammedanism is a militant and proselytizing faith. It has already spread throughout Central Africa, raising fearless warriors at every step; and were it not that Christianity is sheltered in the strong arms of science‹the science against which it had vainly struggled‹the civilisation of modern Europe might fall, as fell the civilisation of ancient Rome."

dag said...

I wrote here about Dawkins many months ago. If you have further details I'd love to read them.

Churchill's memoirs of the River War should have proven required reading for foreign policy analists in that since Kitchener blew the devil out of the Sudanese we had roughly 100 years of peace in the area. Today we give foreign aid and get a Taliban government in return.

Blair is seemingly willing to burn Milton and Mill and Orwell at St Paul's Cathedral square for the sake of votes from Muslims. It seems to be the norm across the West. However, like the pre-war years in Britain, the politicans are behind the people rather than in front of them. The appeasement policies of the British governments prior to Churchill were deeply unpopular with the average British voter, who hardly counted in the current parliamentary system. Such is the way it is today, from what I see. The Europeans are cowed by ruler rather than participants in a dynamic democracy. Hence the tradition of revolutions.

I'm not doing your comments justice here, and I do hope to address them futher and more coherently in coming posts.

If you have a chance to look further for historical commentary,try Carlyle and Gibbon. The impression Islam has made on England's writers is long and bitter.

max said...

WE need to find an alternative energy source, and after that , nuke all of their oil.

Leave them with no power.