Subscribe To No Dhimmitude
Saturday, June 04, 2005
Thou leddest thy people like a flock by the hand of Moses and Aaron.
Shoulders of rhinosaurus. Hands like hammers. Legs to break legs. A day of work, an evening fishing, No noise to wrinkle the calm face of the lake as we rowed across the sloe-black night back to shore. Hard men for hard toil, for building in the wilderness vast mansions for the future of mankind, our plots in deep forests, and calm evenings afloat on water. The old German would fish off the side of the boat, cursing the tangles in his line, the lack of fish, the dog sounds of German not his own. "You speak like a Pole, a Slav, a Gypsy. You do not say "Bach' that way. It is Bach, like this." And so, over the weeks the conversations dimmed into darkness. In the night on the water he'd pick up and recall those days when he was young, "Ach, that was the time." In time he began to talk in the night while the rhythms of the oars beat the cadence of his conversation. The scent of fish and pine. Ah, Bavaria, when we were young and strong. To be Masters of a million fates, or maybe merely a hundred or two. Heart to crush stone. Soul like swords. Eyes of Atropos.
I cried unto God with my voice, even unto God with my voice; and He gave ear unto me.
In the day of my troubles I sought the Lord: my sore ran in the night, and ceased not: my soul refused to be comforted.
I remembered God, and was troubled: I complained, and my spirit was overwhelmed. Selah.
Thou holdest my eyes waking: I am so troubled that I cannot speak.
I have considered the days of old, the years of ancient times.
I call to rememberance my song in the night: I commune with mine own heart: and my spirit made diligent search.
Will the Lord cast off for ever? and will He be favourable no more?
Is His mercy clean gone forever? doth His promise fail for evermore?
Hath God forgotten to be gracious? hath He in anger shut up his tender mercies? Selah.
And I said, This is my infirmity: but I will remember the years of the right hand of the most High.
I will remember the worlds of the Lord: surely I will remember thy wonders of old.
I will meditate also of all thy work, and talk of thy doings.
Thy way, O God, is in the sanctuary: who is so graet a God as our God?
Thou art the God that dost wonders: thou hast declared thy strength among the people.
Thou hast with thine arm redeemed thy people, the sons of Jacob and Joseph. Selah.
The waters saw thee, O God, the waters saw thee; they were afraid: the depths also were troubled.
The clouds poured out water: the skies sent out a sound: thine arrows also went abroad.
The voice of thy thunder was in the heavens: the lightnings lightened the world: the earth trembled and shook.
Thy way is in the sea, and thy path in the great waters, and thy footsteps are not known.
Every day till Judgement there is a weight, there is a wonder. There is the sinking into the sea of the past and the washing onto the beach. And 30 years can span the deeds that one thinks another will not know, will never know, will not know what this dhimmi did, what that dhimmi didn't. Who went away. Who took them? "We took them away," the voice in the darkness claimed, night after night in the boat.
There comes a time when those who took must take. There comes a time when those who gave what they had to give must come to take what they must take; storms pass away leaving a time for those who row to rest, to watch the emergence of the stars, to drift in solitude to safe shores.
Ecce: The Sun emerges from the darkest night, and Man arises too to greet the day.
Esse: Man will come in the light to flood the sand sea in blood.
Erexere: The chains are wind that Man will blow across the desert with his breath.
Our Moslem cousins labour at the mill in vain with the blind. The slave, long ago shorn of his strength, turns, and the Moslems do not see.
The worms of the Earth
Slowly gnawed away
At the prop, and
The Moslems saw
Plainly that if they had
Known the unseen, they
Would not have tarried
In the humiliating Penalty
Of their task.
We row alone in the darkness to the shore, leaving the crimes of the past to the ways of the unknown, to await our judgement.
Our Moslem cousins, you have read Psalm 77 above, from the King James Bible. Selah.
Friday, June 03, 2005
St. Augustine, in brief summary: http://www.monksofadoration.org/justwar.html
Thoams Aquinus, in detail: http://ethics.acusd.edu/Books/Texts/aquinas/justwar.html
and particularly Hugo Grotius, here a bit of biography and introduction to the Prolegomena: http://oregonstate.edu/instruct/phl302/philosophers/grotius.html
The question of "Just War" arises in the debate whether any war at all is justified under any circumstance, and though most rational people would say it is just and necessary under many conditions to wage war, still there are points to be made against war under even conditions of self-defence. To know the arguments is to have ammunition in the arsenal of debate against those who would counsel dhimmitude. And it is especially important for us to know the difference between what just war is so we may combat the arguments from the likes of bin Laden when he accuses the West of waging crusade against Islam, as in the Micheal Jacksoneque rambling in his diatribe against "Crusaders and Jews."
1. Crusade treats war as an unconditional effort of good against evil, whereas just war treats war as a morally restrained effort to restore a just peace.
2. Crusade treats war as a matter of religion and is led by some religious authority (or ideological authority that functions in the place of religion.) In just war, war is treated as a responsibility of civil government and is fought under the conscience of the one who heads the civil order.
3. Because crusade is fought for the sake of that which defines good and evil, (God, the ideal,) there is for crusade little place for moral restraint in war. Anything that serves God (or the ideal) is right by definition, so wars of crusde are "total" wars. By contrast, just war places moral limits on what can be done in war--force must be limited only to what is necessary and used only on military targets.
4. Because there can be no compromise between good and evil and because war is "total," crusade has little place for surrender, enemies because they personify evil deserve on mercy, those who give up need not be spared. By contrast, just war spares those who surrender and protects the rights of those taken as prsioners of war.
5. In crusade the objective of war is to impose an ideal, whereas just war seeks limited good--the restoration of recognized borders or a balance between conflicting rights.
6. Crusade seeks to conquer or punish, whereas just war seek only to recitify the injustice that warranted entering into the conflict.
7. Crusade opposes the whole social order and value system of an enemy, so there is no distinction between combatants and non-combatants.
8. In crusade, soldiers go to war with zeal--war is a vocation for saints and soldiers who fight a war of religious vision (or ideology) as well as a war of flesh and blood. In just war, soldiers regard uthe use of force as a tragic necessity and a last resort, and are not agents for religious or ideological transformation as such.
9. Crusade requires no declaration of war, whereas just war must be declared by those responsible for the civil order.
10. In crusade, the state of war tends to become permanent (because the ideal can never be perfectly realized,) whereas in just war hostilities cease when the specific infraction of justice that led to war has been recified.
We can't personally lay claim to strict adherence to the tenets of just war. However, in contrast to bin Laden and the Moslem-world-at-large, most Westerners are moderate and reluctant warriors, are in fact soldiers if at all. There are few in the West who long for the fillibustering antics of William Walker, who would gladly go to Saudi Arabia in search of the task of an imposed just peace and benevolent colonialism thereafter. Most Westerners follow fairly closely the ideas of just war as outlined above. Bin Laden--and Islam itself-- reflect the crusader more closely than does Richard Coeur d'Leon.
In bin Laden's Declaration of "War against the Americans Occupying the Land of the Two Holy Places," Aug. 1, 1996, we find the idiot complaint that "the people of Islam had suffered from aggression, iniquity, and injustice imposed on them by the Zionist-Crusaders alliance and their collaborators," which bin Laden writes is the presence in Saudi Arabia of U.S. military personnel. "Clearly, after belief (Imaan,) there is no more important duty than pushing the American enemy out of the holy land. No other priority, except belief, could be considered before it." Quoting ibn Tamayya, we find that for the Moslem "to fight in defense of religion and belief is a collective duty; there is no other duty after belief than fighting the enemy who is corrupting the life and religion. There are no preconditions for this duty, and the enemey should be fought with ones best abilities."
Islam, regardless of how one might liken it to other religions, is not a religion of peace. "The ultimate aim of pleasing Allah, raising his word, instituting his religion, and obeying his messenger, is to fight the enemy in every aspect and in a complete manner...." After pages of blood-thirsty bluster, bin Laden continues: "Death is truth and ultimate destiny, and life will end any way. If I do not fight you, then my mother must be insane." And so it goes for 18 pages. On each page bin Laden shows himself to be a full-blown fascist, and Islam itself to be in depth a crusade by the above definitions.
At the risk of belabouring a point we all know all too well, Islam is a primitive tribal code turned into a vast political fascism over the past 1,400 years. It is a war-monger's dream ideology. It is also a delight for those who live in a phantasy world of romantic machismo and misogyny, for those far too stupid to live successfully in the modern world, for those who are primitive to the core, those so twisted by fascist Islam that they are mentally barely human. We, who live in a world of struggle toward justice, find ourselves in confrontation with those who wage crusde against us. Bin Laden, in another of his political routines that ventures to the intellectual heights of Micheal Jackson, writes in "Jihad Against Crusaders and Jews" Feb. 23, 1998: "The ruling to kill the Americans and their allies --civilian and military-- is an individual duty for every Muslim who can do it in any counrty in which it is possible to do it.... We--with God's help--call on every Muslim who believes in God and wishes to be rewarded to comply with God's order to kill the Americans and plunder their money wherever and whenever they find it. We also call on the Muslim ulema, leaders, youth, and soldiers to launch raids on Satan's U.S. troops and the devil's supporters allying with them, and to displace those who are behind them...."
The point being made, and bin Laden's missives being available textually in lengthy and likely on-going installments for our foreseeable future, we will rest the case for this time that it is Islam that is a crusade, not the just war effort it claims to be. It is the West that labours under the burdens of morality in war, just war, and a war that should be expanded to include fronts against all of Islam itself-- anywhere and everywhere Islam is to be found.
Thursday, June 02, 2005
(This picture, smuggled out of Iran, was taken in 1992 in the town of Arak)
There will follow a dialogue from a Moslem website in which people write to an Islmaic religious advisor asking him about the morlality of stoning women to death in this day and age. The imam replies that of course it's the right thing to do because Western women are sluts, and that if Moslem men don't treat their own women properly, i.e., by stoning them to death or otherwise murdering them when the desire arises, Moslem women will become sluts too.
Editorially, our point is that to aid and abet Moslems in the West we aid and abet those in Moslem nations who commit the atrocities we see in the picture above. The Karen Armstrongs of the world, educated Westerners who pimp for the savages of Islam, are complicit in murder. The are guilty of crimes against the girl being murdered, for example, and of the countless other murders , and the daily tragedy of life for people living under Moslem slavery. Karen Armstrong is a criminal, as is John Espositio and the monsters of CAIR, Ibrihim Hooper, for example, who act in support of Islam and its criminality. But that is not illegal. To see what Isalm is and does, and to know that we can also be complicit by supporting reactionary theses unwittingly, is to cast ourselves in the role of dhimmis. We must have a clear ideological programme and a party of professional revolutionaries leading the vanguard of this struggle against the forces of fascist Islam. Who knows what's right and wrong? We have to analyse our positions in deciding whether Karen Armstrong is a criminal or if she's simply a psychopath on the take. maybe Armstrong is just a middle-aged fat lady with a supreme lack of human decency, unfortunate but not criminal at all. Maybe she's just a very intelligent woman who has no capabilities as an emotional human being. Or maybe she is a criminal, and maybe we must work to change the laws to outlaw collusion with the forces of Islam, even to the point at which Islam is seen as a crime against humanity that must be destroyed by armed intervention from Western nations in defence of the people of Islam.
Wednesday, June 01, 2005
Paul Berman, from a 2004 lecture in Toronto, Canada , writes of Islam that it is a totalitariansim and that "Totalitarian movements have always featured the same myth: There is a people of God, and they have been afflicted by pollutants from within their society as well as cosmic forces from abroad. Then good people rise up in an act of rebellion and wipe out the evil inflluences." 1.
He continues: "After the apocalyptic war to purge these elements, a perfect ssociety was predicted, be it a proletarian utopia, or a new Roman Empire, or a Reich to last a thound years. These movements were based on the impossible goal of creating a perfect society." The perfect 'in the future' is a recurring theme in all fascist ideologies. And so it the myth of the lost and once perfect glorious past of the chosen few now so badly cheated of it by THEM. The future perfect justifies the means by which those struggling for it employ. Mass murder for the perfect society is a small price to pay for perfection eternal. Short term pain for long term gain, and for a return to the perfect past, the time when we were nearly gods, and the age was golden. The current decadent state of affairs isn't due to anything the People have or have not done but to the conspiracy of the Others. The fascist believes his past can be reclaimed once the present is destroyed and with it the influences that are alien to him and his own. It must be a romantic past to which he turns, not to a practiacal future. The practical is not perfect, and the romantic fascist longs only for perfection. If the imperfect must die in the process, too bad for them. Except that by dying for the Cause they share in some of the 'to come' greatness, they become like martyrs. The banality of practicality is crushed under the weight of grandness, of High Romance, in Death.
"A key feature of each of these totalitarian movements was a cult of death-- epitomized by the Spanish fascist slogan viva la muerte," [Long live death..] All fascisms are a denial of the petty, the mundane, the bourgeios pursuits of middle-class living in the modern world. All fascisms revert to irrationality and Romance for sustainence and validation. Nothing in the here and now is good or glorious; but the Grand Gesture, dying as public drama, takes the average loser out of the mire of his own existence and propells him into thoughts of his life as a hero in a Romanitic tragedy, one in which he is in control. And in a death worship culture, dying en mass is as good as dying alone. Dying within a wave of ones fellows is as grand a gesture as the public display of suicide in the arena. In a death worship culture, death is the greatest posible acheivement of ones life, an ennobling act for the worthless. The culture that promotes such suicide is also ennobled by the suicides of its populace, feeling a rush of exaltation in mass slaughter and mass heroic ritual death.
Suicide culture, death worship culture, is only possible in a phantasy culture, one that lives for a time other than today and the foreseeable future. Rome, though it had its gladiatorial suicides, was a practical society, and the death worship it practiced applied to the worship of death to the others, not to Rome. Those who volunteered to die as drama did so from a psychotic machismo rather than for some idealistic sense of their own future in the afterlife. In the phantasy culture of islam, death is phantasy, the fulfillment of fascist Romance myrthology. In the phantasy culture of Islam, there is no conception of change or progress. There is in this life only this existence in this manner and more of the same for others to come forever--unless there is the violent return to the perfect past, after which, again, there will be no change. There is no change other than the cycles of the seasons, the endless recurrence of the same. And to transcend the banality of such, one has the chance to die grandly for the grand cause of returning all to the perfection of the lost past. There is no freedom from the present, there is only an escape into a future paradise elsewhere. There is a deep longing in many for the mythical mystical past of heroes and fair damsels living meaningful lives without the burdens of broken bank-machines and clocks and traffic jambs. "For those whom life has cheated, those without the electric paradise" of cinema, (2) for those who have nothing but their own stupidity and boredom and inarticulate frustration with personal failure in the modern world, there is the grandness of death. For failed societies and societies that retain a peasant population with an attachment to land as value and tradition as authority, there is only death as redemption in reaction to modernity, violence in the futile attempt to make things in conformity to the nostalgic lunacies of phantastic pasts. Their is suicide.
Berman compares anti-modernity, fascism, to modernity where "people who have human rights, who are free to think for themsleves, will make rational descisions about the kind of society they want. But the whole spirit of totalitarian movements goes against this. It stands against the liberal ideal of tolerance and rationality, and instead promotes a mythology devoted to death."
Berman writes that it is typical of the West that we do not grasp the nature of fascism in our midst until we find ourselves attacked by it. We see ourselves attacked on a daily basis by the forces of Islam, by Islamic demands for the imposition of sharia laws in our nations, by assaults on our freedoms to speak in public, by the imposition of Islamic education on our school systems, by the occassional murder of those who dare speak out against fascist Islam. We are, the point being, ignoring Islam as a fascist threat. It is a threat dedicated to death, not to middle-class progress. Dedicated to total control of the lives of all rather than to the pursuit of free enquiry. Isklam is fascism. Islam is evil. It is a peril. We must annihilate Islam.
In 1922, Mussolini came to power seeking to refound the Roman Empire. In 1928, a few hundred miles away in Egypt, the Muslim Brotherhood was formed and called itself a fundamentalist Islamic organization. But it was a political organization as well. Its goal: refounding the great Muslim empire created ty Mohammed in the 7th century. One of the branches that emerged from the Moslem Brotherhood came to power in Iran in 1979.
The Western world stood back in a state of apathy and nervousness when the mullahs took control of Iran. There, total Islamic fascism triumphed.
The success of totalitarian movements rested on the blindlness of liberal-minded people. After 9/11, George W. Bush attacked [Afganistan and Iraq.] He failed to articulate an appreciation of how bloody and deeply rooted the underlying movements truly were.... Bush wasn't able to situate them in the larger narrative of fanatical movements devoted to totalitarian ideals, a narrative that shold have been recognizable from the history of the previous century.
After discussing the world's largest ever peace rally in Feb., 2003 in protest agianst the invasion and deposing of Iraq's fascist Baath governemnt, Berman concludes his lecture thus:
The United States and its allies are facing the confusion that, history shows, has traditionally plauged liberal-minded people in the face of totalitarian movements. As much as terrorism itself, this confusion remains one of the great problems of our time. And dispelling it remains one of our great challenges.
Perhaps many people who consider themselves leftists, and certainly most of those who think of themselves as libeal are not supportive of fascism, per se. However, if we do not have a clear idea of what fascism is, we stand in line of being hit by fascist propaganda and not knowing what it is. We must fully understand the ground of our ideological differences with fascist Islam so as to know where we cross the line from being liberal people with concerns for the rights of others into the wasteland of dhimmi collaboration with fascist Islam. Once we can clearly identify the landmarks of our intellectual landscapes, then we can formulate a clear programme to combat Islam; we can form a party of professional revolutionaries; present our enemies with a Melian Dialogue; and take them over in a sustained burst of fillibustering colonialism in the pursuit of Modern Triumph. We must know clearly though what our dhimmi neighbours and statesmen are doing, and so must they. thus we will continue to analyse fascism in future posts. We will see that Haj Amin is the uncle of Yasser Arafat, and that Islam is the uncle of Nazism. We will see clearly the face of our enemies.
Tuesday, May 31, 2005
ISLAMABAD, Pakistan -- A bomb kills worshippers at a Shiite Muslim shrine, and some mourners shout "Down with America!" Days later, a suicide bomber strikes a Shiite mosque and an angry crowd torches a nearby KFC restaurant.
"People went mad, they had no idea what they were doing," said Turabi. "People hate America. For many people in Pakistan, KFC is a symbol of America."
"We hate America because Americans are responsible for the miseries of all Muslims in the world," said Nisar Haider, a spokesman for the Immamia Student Organization.1.
Islam is a rejection of all revolutions in human history. Islam is a rejection of the agricultural revolution of 5,000 years ago. Islam is a poligion dedicated to nomadic pillage, rape, enslavement, extortion, and idleness outside times of war. Islam is an orthopraxy for the obsessive-compulsive irrationalist. The mind of Islam is an endless cycle of wandering in search of loot, of dumpster-diving in the desert of the world, ceremonialized by rituals of fear and hatred and death-worship. Islam is a rejection of all revolutions, agriculture, urbanity, literacy, commerce, and most importantly, of rationality. The human revolutions of 1776 and 1789 put the final end to Islam, and the results of those revolutions are now too obvious for Islam to ignore, the stench of death too powerful to pretend it comes from the enviornment rather than from the corruption of Islam itself. And so Islam blames the world. The world is America. It is the revolutions of Modernity. It is what the nomads of Islam reject.
The closing of the gates of interpretation, al Bab al-ijtihad, wasn't the end of history for Islam. There is no history in Islam. Islam is a cyclical pattern of thought that moves in an endless, pointless circle from life through to death--continuously. To announce the perfect understanding of Islam and to deny any furhter thought on the matter isn't the end of Moslem intellectual enquiry. There was none to begin with. Islam began and ended as a tribal code of nomads who live by scavenging. They are pre-historic, ahistorical. In Islam there is only the continuous historical present, today the same as then, the same as anytime at all. Islam is a codified ritual of savages. It is stuck intellectually in the mists of prehistory, and it lives a physical life in the modern world. Islam is dying, and so is its adherents. Islam is a rejection of modern rationalism in favor of the primitive past of hunters and gatherers. Islam is a violence. Islam is a fascism.
The umma, the great Islamic community, is the national substitute, the extention of the tribe. It is the herd writ large, writ grand. If we look at Islam as a fascism we will see in scholars of fascism the clear evidence that Islam is nothing more than a primitive fascism. One of the main tenets of fascism is irrationality andf the rejection the possiblity of human progress. George Mosse writes well on this topic. The following is a brief synopsis from a book review that might shed some light on the conflict we face with Islam today.
Nationalism and the love of violence and war—these are familiar themes in the copious literature on fascism’s attributes. Where Mosse is most interesting is on Fascist irrationalism and on fascism and revolution. In a fascinating chapter, originally published nearly four decades ago, Mosse explores the roots of National Socialism in nineteenth–century mysticism. Recreating the feverish world of such forgotten late–nineteenth century writers as Julias Langbehn, Alfred Schuler, and Paul de Lagarde, Mosse paints a disquieting portrait.
These irrationalists despised the cosmopolitan—and in their view largely Jewish—bourgeois universe of calculation, contract, and money. Instead, they surrendered themselves to "a belief in nature’s cosmic life force, a dark force whose mysteries could be understood, not through science but through the occult." In some of the most vivid pages in The Fascist Revolution, Mosse describes Schuler trying to cure Friedrich Nietzsche of his madness with an ancient Roman spring rite, bizarre seances, theosophical preachments, and much other anti–Christian and anti–Enlightenment nonsense—seemingly harmless until one realizes the culture of irrational barbarism it did its part in conjuring. But the Nazis weren’t alone in their irrationalism; Mussolini, too, drank from its well, in his case from the thought of Nietzsche and the theorist of violence George Sorel, though Mosse unfortunately neglects to discuss these intellectual sources of Italian fascism.2
Islam, though it has millions of adherents, is a large political movement of small tribes living in a premodern geographical space in the mind. In the Dionysian world of blood and soil of the Islamic primitive mind longing for the pre-lapserian lost paradise of the Rightly Guided Caliphate, the encroachments of Modernity and the obvious benefits of progress and rationality heighten their individual and collective cognative dissonance to the point that the only reasonable escape from the terror of the final end is an enraged drama of ritual suicide. They cannot reason why, they can only do and die. The Islamic world is at war with its own reaction to modernity, and they are obviously losing badly, so badly and so obviously that they revert to the savagery of a cornered animal fighting mindlessly against the inevitable. But Moslems are higher animals, acutely aware of their impending death as individuals, as communities, and as a movement of humanity. The superimposition of ritual on irrationality requires them to flee into further orthopraxy in combat against modernity, a cycle of defeat they cannot but continue till they cease to exist. They are mad, and they have no idea why, but they know it has something to do with chickens.
Irrationality is a political ideology. Irrationality is a counter-force against modernity, against the revolutions of America and France, against the revolutions of literacy, of commerce, of cities, of thinking logically and determining a plausible outcome based on reason rather than on the primitive assumption that the gods are in control and the lords will govern rightly. Irrationality is the ritualization of Nature, the endless cycle of seasons, weather, birth, life, and death, with a chimera of sense from the feeling that something larger is in charge of it all. Irrationality is a political force in Islam, the way Islam is organized, how things are ruled, the way it is. There is only submission. And now that Islam must submit to Modernity, Islam, returning obviously to its base nature, turns to violence and rage against power it cannot understand. In a pre-modern world that kind of animal reaction to Nature was fine, the victory going to the strongest, the cleverest, the best armed. Irrationality does not work in battle against reason. More irrationality, more intense irrationality is of no help. More suicide is not going to beat Modernity. The irrationality of Allah-worship will not stop tanks. The Melian Dialogue will likely replay itself as it played in Thucydides' time. We cannot reason with Islam. They will not allow it.
Below, a young graduate student writes a bit more on fascism. Over the coming period we'll return in depth to the question of what Islam is and what fascism is, and how they are the same. In this post our point is to show that irrationality is a politcal stance, part of the ideology of Islam and of fascism both. It is not simply stupidity, but it is a moral and social approach to reality manifest in politics.
From the Internet, more on ideology as Irrationality:
[F]ascism is a 20thcentury ideology, a revolt against the ideas and values that have dominated Western politics since the French Revolution, 1789. Fascism is against every major idea behind liberalism, socialism, and anything that arose out of the Enlightenment. For fascists, freedom is defined as complete submission to the state. Progress is only possible through struggle and war. Fascism rejects the basic ideas of the Enlightenment, is not a rational philosophy, but favors action instead.George Sorel , Reflections on Violence focussd on the significance of political myths. According to Sorel, these myths are not objective reflections of political reality, but simply expressions of the will. They are emotionally based. Even if an idea does not make rational sense, said Sorel, if enough people believe it, then it can work. Fascism used this as a basis to promote itself. According to fascism, the important truths of life defy rational thought. The fascist source of higher truth is instinct, rather than rationality, an Enlightenment conception of the pursuit of Truth. A good fascist leader simply knows instinctively what is right, and makes his or her decisions thus, as opposed to reasoning. 3.
If fascism were completely wrong, there would be only a few mental patients clinging to it. It must have some deep-seated place in the human experience to keep it alive for so long in the lives of so many. Soon we'll look at the good that fascism offers its believers. If fascist irrationalism motivates nearly a billion people to suicide it must have something to offer over and above a gruesome death and the end of an entire civiilization. And if America were good altogether, how could it be the cause of all the miseries of Islam? Maybe its something in the chicken recipes.
Monday, May 30, 2005
Sept. 19, 2001.
Attendant described hijacking of Flight 11By Eric Lichtblau, Los Angeles Times
WASHINGTON -- A chilling telephone call from a flight attendant aboard American Airlines Flight 11 details for the first time the frantic, violent path of the doomed airliner as hijackers slit the throat of a passenger and stormed the cockpit.
"I see water and buildings. Oh my God! Oh my God!" Madeline Amy Sweeney told a ground manager in Boston after the hijacked plane took a sudden and unexpected detour, according to an investigative document compiled by the FBI and reviewed by the Los Angeles Times.
The water she saw in those agonizing final moments was the Hudson River. The buildings were the famed New York City skyline, its trademark towers still upright. And the detour was Flight 11's calamitous descent into the World Trade Center's north tower at about 8:45 a.m. on Sept. 11.
In recent days, snippets of cell phone calls that originated from the four hijacked flights have revealed tearful goodbyes and valiant pledges of resistance.
But Sweeney's phone call, with details that coincide with the hijackers' takeover of the cockpit, could provide investigators with one of their most valuable pieces of evidence in reconstructing the hijackings.
FBI officials in Dallas, where American Airlines is based, were able, on the day of the terrorist attacks, to piece together a partial transcript and an account of the phone call. American Airlines officials said such calls are not typically recorded, suggesting that the FBI may have reconstructed the conversation from interviews.
Sweeney, a 35-year-old mother of two young children, had worked for American Airlines for 12 years, usually taking weekend duty so she could spend more time during the week with her family in Acton, Mass. She was one of nine flight attendants working Flight 11, which left Boston's Logan International Airport with a light load of 81 passengers just before 8 a.m.
The plane lifted off uneventfully, but investigators think it was commandeered within about 15 minutes.
Sweeney then called American flight services manager Michael Woodward on the ground at Logan. She displayed remarkable calm as she related numerous details about the unfolding events.
"This plane has been hijacked," Sweeney said, according to the FBI report.
Two flight attendants, whom she identified by their crew numbers, had already been stabbed, she said. "A hijacker also cut the throat of a business-class passenger, and he appears to be dead," she said.
Investigators have identified five suspected hijackers on the flight -- Satam Al Suqami, 25; Waleed M. Alshehri, 25; Wail Alshehri, 28; Mohamed Atta, 33; and Abdulaziz Alomari, 22. They are believed to be part of a well-orchestrated network of 19 hijackers who used box cutters, razors and even small knives concealed in cigarette lighters to take control of the four planes.
But Sweeney apparently only saw four of the five men.
All four were Middle Eastern, Sweeney told Woodward. Three of them, she said, were sitting in business class, and "one spoke English very well."
Investigators noted that Sweeney even had the presence of mind to relay the exact seat numbers of the four suspects in the ninth and 10th rows, although a few of those seats do not match up with the seats assigned to the hijackers on the tickets they purchased.
It is unclear from the phone account where Sweeney was located when she was talking to the ground manager. But even as she was relating details about the hijackers, the men were storming the front of the plane and "had just gained access to the cockpit."
Then, she told Woodward, the plane suddenly changed direction and began to descend rapidly.
"At that very point, Sweeney tried to contact the cockpit but did not get a response," according to the investigative report.
Woodward then asked Sweeney whether she knew her location.
The chilling reply: "I see water and buildings. Oh my God! Oh my God!"
At that point, according to the report, the conversation ended.
We could do the same as above every day for nearly 3,000 days just to cover the names and faces of those who were murdered on 9/11/01.
Islam is a fascist ideology that motivates Moslems to murder at random. It is Islam that demands we who refuse to accept conversion to Islam must be dhimmis--if we're allowed to live at all. Madeline Sweeny didn't have the choice.
No compromise. No dhimmitude. Death to Islam.
The priesthood of computers is arising. This is their time. The internet is the universe of the priesthood, and the terminal is their star. At the keyboard, every man is a priest, and together, one priest linked to the other, their energy becomes the energy of the ether that expands and creates more, deeper, and denser ether in an eternal revolutionary condensation and solidification of the energy of thought.
Humanity has reached a clear point of bifurcation: there are those who have no productive place in the ether, i.e. the toilers and the tillers; and there are those others who cannot be bound any longer to the rock of the Earth, i.e. the priests of the ether. The great chains of being that bound men to the world of other men are burst. Free men are free to rise up and look around them to see by new and finer lights a world they could not see before. Acting without fore-knowledge and with no influence on or abilities to petition the cruel gods, there is only uncertainty regarding The Good; and thus, one relies hopelessly upon the senses unused, upon the experience of the past for which there is no experience now, and upon the guidance of those who have failed so concretely in the past. With increasing speeds and imploding memories, the realm of the unknown is upon us, and it’s indecipherable. This is the time: The out-flow of free minds is an accumulation in the ether inside the realm of the collective consciousness of the world of minds. The free minded--free to think--act, and in so acting, act upon each other; and the combinations of thought in complement and in conflict create counter minds, which in turn and time create a Mind of Man in itself. Not one single thought in every mind at all times but the single man’s mind in contact with the thinking mind of the general mind of humanity, an unfolding mind of an unfolding and self-creating universe that is the mind of the collective of individual minds. The Body of Man, the peasantry, is about to shrink.
The ether is itself a germinating thesis, ready soon for the birth as the collective consciousness of the nature of mankind. In the ether there is no more place for a peasant’s toil. As the ether solidifies, it becomes the ground of thought from which thought grows. The dialectic of the ethereal mind sets itself in motion, moved by the unmoving accumulation of thought, created by the sheer force of people sitting at terminals typing.
The world is divided between the unequal groups of the modern, progressive, and dynamic terminal users, and the peasants of history. The divide grew in the 20th Century in the West with the internet, and today it continues to grow throughout the world: in Arabia, the Orient, in Africa, to the dismay, fury, and murderous frenzy of many who see their primitivism going the way of all flesh. Those vestigial states of feudal slavery as still shamefully exist stand in the dust beating their chests in frustration seeing the inevitable end of their era of control; and yet, with the snap of their fingers the Stone Age primitivism could all disappear and be completely meaningless to them and to the rest. They could choose to not believe in the primitive past of tradition and culture. The world of men is split, and the two paths must veer into each other. The star-gazers and somnambulant have no truck. The time has come to move away from the shadows of the primitive past and to consider the light before us, the light of the mind afloat in the ether.
The star-gazing priesthood of the ether is poised to control the future, and without the need for toiling masses to feed the priesthood, the peasants have no longer any viable role; and since there is no place for them, they must die and be ploughed under like last year’s stubble. Having existed to supply the priesthood with the means of life, and having succeeded in doing so too well, the peasant has become obsolete, parasitic, and violent. This is the twilight of the peasant. Night falls. This is the time: It is the time of the star-gazing priest.
Terminal users are creating a new multiplicity of worlds and dimensions. Each terminal user’s world is a world of refracted multiplicities of realities within the context of the ether; within each group’s world of the mind is each individual’s mind; and within the mansion of the mind there are many rooms. There is a new infinity, and within this infinity there is no room for the peasants’ existence. Soon the peasant will have no world at all other than the Earth that enfolds him. The techno-world of the mind has no need for billions of diggers who can’t dig quickly enough to bury themselves. The priests of technology are burying the masses of superfluous peasants under the very crop of the peasants’ own redundancy.
For those lucky few who are freed from “the idiocy of rural living,” as Marx put it; for those who aren’t bound to the barren plots of over-tilled earth that demands the hoe in return for a crop that might sustain the body till the next harvest is in; the soil that demands the bodies of the new to be laid on the bodies of the old to await the bodies of their children for aeons to come; for those born to the age of technology, born to free bodies and free minds, the ether calls, and the vacuum demands filling, filling and ever increase for the minds of the next round to roam the eternal unknown.
For travelers in the realms of the mind, for those who make their ways through the ether of the internet via computers, for those who sit alone in relative comfort, the journey is far different from the life of those who physically move through the world as it is. The terminal user’s results are so spectacular and immediate that whole new worlds spring into existence where before there was nothing but the void, the endless empty skies. We become as gods.
We face a mystery and a caution. The exploration is already over for those who read about it, for those who can look back at those who look blindly forward with little to look forward to; for those who can grin and shake their heads and say it was all so obvious that any fool should have seen it long before from the comfort of his couch, the road still beckons: toward resistance, rebellion, and death; and the price one pays, the hardship, the bullshit, the shipwrecks of daily living, it’s all worth it for the occasions of elation and exultation that come from discovering that which is hidden from our time. For the traveler, it’s the difference, as Descartes says, between knowledge and history, and we are interested in making history by not knowing. The future of the typist is the historical present of the reader. According to Kierkegaard, the hero goes on not ever knowing the result of his quest. Clarity comes, if ever, after the fact. Do not believe.
Some things we can know: The demise of the peasantry clears the field for the battle between the priests of Cain and the priests of Abel. Those who move and those who stay still: they will war. Those who think and those who rule by rite will clash. The great masses of men will perish and be buried because there is no need for such a vast population of people to feed the elite. Today the peasants struggle to feed each other, and the result is redundant in the world of the elite. This is the time of the caesura of mankind. When mankind crosses that gap there is a fight for control of the minds of those left living. The battles will be fought over the control of the mind of every man as surely as were the battles of the politics of Orthodoxy in the Middle Ages and the Inquisition.
The mind-middens of the world are being buried daily, and soon there won’t be enough visible to the naked eye to know they ever existed. Billions of peasants are going to starve to death because of the inherent stupidity of their cultures and their need to conform for conformity’s sake. Those locked in the mind-traps of tradition in the world of exploding populations will simply starve to death on the streets of megalopolises or they might be slaughtered at the gates of prosperity and intellectual freedom. Regardless, they are finished as a human experience. But life goes on, and there are those who will seek to retain control of the masses even if the masses are few and living in the ether.
As the old dictatorship of the mind dies with the barbarian hoards, a new dictatorship looms darkly: the dictatorship of the conformist bureaucrats. Antithetical to the illimitable ether, the office bubble emerges to surround the minds and lives of the living. We can’t know the outcome of our lives but we can strive to ensure the conformists don’t replace the savage, dying world of the peasant with a fearful new world of byte-thanatocracy, an illusion of illusion. To move is to see. To prick the bubble of the Necropoly one may simply disbelieve. To win, shrug.
There is a binding in the world: it is a universal binding, available to all, always. Unhappily, this other binding is too similar to that which has been from the time of the priest of the ziggurats of Ur to the movers and shakers of the World Trade Center towers of New York City: the priests vie for control of the ether from the pinnacles of the towers below. In the works of the world is the struggle for and against orthodoxy. Those who would control the Acropolis will control the polis. The control of the ether, history suggests, can be lost to those with a greed for power and the adept skills of the hierarchical priesthood. They deliver illusion in exchange for power. The power of the thanatocrats is in the general will to conform. The Primitives’ world is finished. Forget them. It’s coming to a war in the ether between Heaven and Hell. The prize, again, is not only the mind of humanity but the soul of humanity. It’s a war we must prepare for now to avert the next Dark Age, the next dark night of the soul, and the binding of the mind.
Sunday, May 29, 2005
Walker, origninally from Tennessee, having lost the love of his life to disease, studied medicine and law at universities in Nashville, Edinburgh, Gottengen, Heidelberg, Paris, and New Orleans. He witnessed the activities of the revolutions of 1848 and the effects of the Paris Commune. He returned to America and practiced law and medicine before finally moving to San Fransisco in 1850 where he found himself amidst the Goldrush 49ers.
Manifest Destiny was in the air at the time, 1853, and with a collection of ex-goldminers and assorted lumpen-proletarians Walker ventured into Sonora, Mexico to establish a state that would eventually become a part of the American Union.. Rebuffed, he set sail for Baja with a force of 250 men, announced the formation of the "Republic of Lower California," and, though the project was supported by the populace of America and sent Walker further recruits, he promtly lost the later announced "Republic of Sonora." He survived court proceedings against him for violating U.S. neutrality laws, and in 1855 to 1857 he tried again to fillibuster in Nicaragua. His third attempt at conquest of non-U.S. territory, again in Nicaragua in 1857, failed due to U.S. naval interference.
Walker's last foray into Central America ended near Truxillo, Honduras where he surrendered to the British navy. The captain of the British ship Walker surrendered to, having promised him and Walker's men amnesty, had Walker tied up on the beach and shot to death, Sept. 12, 1860.
It was Walker's intention to conquer and rule Central America, eventually incorporating it into the United States as a vote-bloc in support of Southern Negro slavery. As disagreeable as that position is today we should look at it in terms of what the outcome would have been had Walker's plan succeeded: today, all of Central America would have been part of the United States of America, as American as the state of Tennessee, as modern and progressive as any state in the Union, and equally as culturally diverse as any state in the nation. In the same way that the South, having lost the Civil War to the North has assimilated into the unified political entity, so too would the Central regions have become mainstream America with all its benefits and disadvantages at large. And that is so because of Walker's psychopathic personality, his disregard for the sensitivities of others, and his complete lack of empathy regarding local sensitivities, and his penchant for summary execution of those who upset him. All of the negative aspects of Walker's agenda would be easily passed over in light of the genuine advantages of the withering away of the empire of slavery in conflict with superior Northern Liberal force. If Walker had succeeded in capturing Central America as part of the greater state, we would today have a nation that included free citizens from Panama to Alaska, all American, all with the rights and duties of Americans. Compare that possiblity to the states of Central America as they are. Walker's failures are an indictment against the morality of today's America. Where Walker failed it is up to the present generations of Americans and the inheritors of the revolutions of America and France to impose modernity and Liberalism on a reactionary world at large.
How does this relate to dhimmitude and jihad? It is our position that the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, the center of fascist Islam, should be our focus for the private enterprize of modern fillibustering, the Dutch word for freebooting.i.e. land priracy. Far from being a racist or fascist agenda, ours is simple human endeavour to expand ones horizons combined with the enlightened project of bringing freedom, liberty, and democracy to the world masses who cannot, for whatever reasons, make it themselves. Those laboring under the illusions of false consciousness, of the idiocies of rural living, of the darkness of fascism, they are not essential in the project of emancipation. Saudi Arabia, its collective native population, as dedicated to the furtherence of Islam and primitivism as they might be, have only a contingent right to existence on their current lands, as Eduord Bernstein points out, which they forfeit in their attempts to prevent progress and human freedom genrally and especially in Arabia itself. The Saudi royals and their supporters and natives of the land have no legitimate right to continue their existence thereon if it means they continue to impede the telos of Humanity, i.e. progress and liberalism.
The heart of Islam must be destroyed by all freedom loving peoples, and those who would rebel against the future of Human progress must necessarily be removed from power and from the lands themselves. This is not an important legal issue to puzzle over but an issue for modern men with arms and determination to prevail in conquest. To win where Walker failed, to impose freedom through the transitional empire of slavery, that is our goal. Those who object are irrelevent, dhimmis and philobarbarist romantics who are not worth the refutation.
It is our position that the fascist Islamic hegemony must surrender in accord with our Melian Dialogue, that we must organize our political and ideological programme on sound Leninist principles of professional revolutionary organization, and that our enemies, dhimmis and Moslems, must be destroyed and enslaved for the further benefit of the future of the human race universally as per the failed attempts of William Walker which we must re-enact-- this time with success. Our enlightened despotism, essential for the survival of the primitive world's population, is a moral imperative, and it is in the hands of men with the will to use their power to acheive it. This time more successfully than Walker's attempts in our past.