Quote note (#148)

One dream, one revolution:

Radical Islam promises the emancipation of a revolutionary collective, united only by a universal ideology. Jihad wants to liberate a group that is marginalized both on a global scale and in its Diasporas in the West. And it is ready to accept everybody. Speak the Shahada and you can join in on the struggle against oppression and decadence. Fueled by dreams of a world revolution, Islam strives for a blissful global commune of equals under the banner of the Prophet. The idea of a solidary community made up of pure revolutionaries who want to end an oppressive system appeals to disenfranchised young males. Hence, Islamobolshevism.

(One nightmare. “The Umma shall be the human race.”)

February 5, 2015admin 30 Comments »
FILED UNDER :Ideology

TAGGED WITH : , , ,

30 Responses to this entry

  • Quote note (#148) | Neoreactive Says:

    […] Quote note (#148) […]

    Posted on February 5th, 2015 at 3:50 pm Reply | Quote
  • Amon Khan Says:

    Yes, and to continue the analogy, Sayid Qutb is the Islamist Marx, who posited that most modern Muslims are living in a state of “Jahiliyyah” (ignorance of divine guidance) — i.e. the Muslim version of false consciousness. Only the implementation of sharia (Islamic version of dictatorship of the proletariat) by force on a global scale can bring about universal justice and equality. Qutb’s “Milestones” could play the role in this century that the Communist Manifesto played in the 20th century.

    Conquering Judaism, Christianity, Marxism, Progressivism, Islamism — what is it about the Abrahamic tradition that unleashes this kind of messianic lunacy upon the world, and how can we bury it forever?

    [Reply]

    anti-hermetic Reply:

    You sound like one of those pro-immigration atheists blaming Hebdo on “religion.”

    [Reply]

    Posted on February 5th, 2015 at 4:19 pm Reply | Quote
  • Alex Says:

    how can we bury it forever?

    Any attempt to do that will find it hard to escape being sucked into the same forms of thought. “We won’t be free until we finally expunge this oppressive Abrahamic false consciousness from the face of the Earth.” The corpse rises from its grave.

    [Reply]

    Szechuan Reply:

    Manuscripts don’t burn.

    [Reply]

    Posted on February 5th, 2015 at 5:43 pm Reply | Quote
  • Contemplationist Says:

    @Alex

    How can we bury it forever?
    How about we start by not SUBSIDIZING it?
    Military and civilian aid to Gulf countries and
    especially to Pakistan. Talking about the ‘religion of peace’
    at every opportunity. Funding ‘moderate rebels’ in Syria and Libya.
    Supporting Chechen ‘rebels’ against Russia.

    All I ask, akin to the reactionary plea in the ‘Reactionary Philosophy in a Nutshell’
    essay by Scott Alexander, that let’s try not promoting lunacy first.

    [Reply]

    Posted on February 5th, 2015 at 6:12 pm Reply | Quote
  • RorschachRomanov Says:

    I need to post over at ‘Platonic Noir,’ but here’s a video I’ve uploaded, “Gnon Apocalypse: Islam and Neoreaction.”

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8A_h4wpJmj4&feature=youtu.be

    [Reply]

    Posted on February 5th, 2015 at 7:32 pm Reply | Quote
  • RorschachRomanov Says:

    I reversed the title.

    [Reply]

    Mark Warburton Reply:

    Great stuff. Shame you’re not blogging more often”

    [Reply]

    neovictorian23 Reply:

    I enjoyed the video very much. You might want to go with a different shirt to strengthen the presentation, however. 🙂

    [Reply]

    Posted on February 5th, 2015 at 7:33 pm Reply | Quote
  • an inanimate aluminum tube Says:

    It was a good article, but too clever by half. Since we are disposed to hate communism, calling something communism is liable to confuse the analysis, not aid it. This is why the idea of “no enemies to the right” is never going to work. If one is sufficiently motivated one can always convince oneself that ones enemies are leftists.

    This is a form of Bolshevism that embraces hierarchy, inequality*, patriarchy, traditional gender roles, militant heterosexuality*, monarchy (Caliph), aristocracy (emirs), harnesses religious faith to revive the expansionist spirit of early Islam and opposes a creeping Western imposed world system of degeneracy that more moderate structures have proved totally incapable of dealing with.

    The one thing it doesn’t fully embrace is capitalism, but there is a reason for that. As admin has made abundantly clear, capitalism has winners and losers. With an 81 average IQ, the Islamic world is liable to have a lot of natural losers. Admin has made a convincing case that technology will create more losers going forward, especially among the 81 IQ types and that, in the end, the losers are headed for a bad end. Seems reasonably uncontroversial.

    So, instead of playing a game they’re bound to lose, they defect from the game and choose 4GW, which is a game where it is less clear that high IQ is decisive.

    All this is not intend to deny that they are our enemies. They clearly are, although they’d be rather easy to defeat without the progressives. I’m just saying, that maybe this is the best they can do. After all, none of the other 85 IQ groups really managed to leave their mark on the world the way the Arabs did. And they do have a shot, even if it is only through demographic warfare. And if admin’s take on the future is correct, maybe they should hate the “old white men who control everything”. Because those people control their future. And it’s not so bright.

    * the promise of equality mentioned in the article is for the future. The Islamic state has a Caliph and Emirs, that’s not equality.
    ** mixed results on implementing this, but they’re trying (image of homos thrown to their death goes here), and I’m told that the surrounding society is even gayer

    [Reply]

    Amon Khan Reply:

    These are excellent points. Maybe the truly neoreactonary position is to hope that these guys win, just to discredit the whole progressive narrative and prove that Gnon doesn’t care about any form of progress, even of the eugenicist/tech/capitalist variety. In fact, I’ve found that if I substitute “Azathoth akbar” for “Allahu akbar” and start to think of these guys as a Chaos or Cthulhu Cult, Islamism starts to become rather appealing in a nihilistic, hyper-gnostic way. Azathoth akbar!

    [Reply]

    neovictorian23 Reply:

    Negative on that, buddy. They way you’re going to know these guys “won” is when your head is cut off. And since they’re not even good at that it’ll hurt a hell of a lot more than if a Jap with skills did the job. Hoping these boys win is like hoping there’s a rattlesnake infestation in your town because it’s too boring.

    [Reply]

    Amon Khan Reply:

    No, I would join the head-choppers and cut your head off first. Rattlesnakes represent Gnon and reality, and aren’t about progress. What’s wrong with being on the side of the rattlesnakes?

    nydwracu Reply:

    They’re more alive than us, but they’re not us, and they can’t do shit. Think Centralia, not Discordia.

    If they beat us, none of our principles matter anymore. If the punchline comes, no one will hear the joke.

    [Reply]

    Lesser Bull Reply:

    Sound.

    Izak Reply:

    Yes, I think I’ve seen you make similar points on here in the past about Arabs and IQ, and all of this strikes me as basically right.

    As a minor addendum, I think a key difference between tech-comm and eth-nat ideas lies in the definition of leftism. The tech-comms say: all leftism is rooted in demotic impulses. The eth-nats say: all leftism is rooted in the goal of equality, with increasingly extreme definitions tailored to whichever dialectical position that the left is in. The latter position is the better one. Islam will always have rigid distinctions between categories and subgroups, like e.g. men and women.

    Also, Islam really can’t be all that communistic if the zakat only expects you to pay 2.5% of your income. The very concept of zakat means that there’s a recognition that there will always be inequality and difference on some level.

    [Reply]

    First Bayes Reply:

    Pretty much agree with you on the iq bit. Considering the vector of Islamism, it’s marketed as a way for r-selected types to be forced to maintain a k-selected lifestyle. Which is why it does well in areas with highly r-selected demographics like south Asia or Africa, but not as well in places with similar population densities but a more k-selected societal ideal like east Asia. Of course, the inherent problem of making a group of people be what they aren’t is why the only direction they can approach their ideal is War, hence that is the main occupation of all Islamic societies

    [Reply]

    Alex Reply:

    This is a form of Bolshevism that embraces hierarchy, inequality*, patriarchy, traditional gender roles, militant heterosexuality*, monarchy (Caliph), aristocracy (emirs), harnesses religious faith to revive the expansionist spirit of early Islam and opposes a creeping Western imposed world system of degeneracy that more moderate structures have proved totally incapable of dealing with. …

    * the promise of equality mentioned in the article is for the future. The Islamic state has a Caliph and Emirs, that’s not equality.
    ** mixed results on implementing this, but they’re trying (image of homos thrown to their death goes here), and I’m told that the surrounding society is even gayer

    One could make the case that Soviet Communism itself exhibited many of these attributes, albeit with lip-service paid to a degree of gender equality and an immanentisation of certain religious modes of thought.

    Perhaps the lesson of ‘Islamobolshevism’ is that if Islam is of the right, it is a right to which Western leftists can in good conscience submit, insofar as it is a manifestation of the non-white, non-Christian Other — in much the same way as Western leftists had no problem with nationalism in the context of Third World “wars of national liberation”. (Or indeed with white European nationalism a century or two ago, when it was deemed a thoroughly progressive cause insofar as it was opposed to the old supra-national Christian order.)

    [Reply]

    Lesser Bull Reply:

    Sound.

    [Reply]

    Chuck Reply:

    @ An Inanimate Aluminum Tube Says:

    “This is why the idea of “no enemies to the right” is never going to work. If one is sufficiently motivated one can always convince oneself that ones enemies are leftists. This is a form of Bolshevism that embraces hierarchy, inequality*, patriarchy, traditional gender roles, militant heterosexuality*, monarchy (Caliph), aristocracy (emirs), harnesses religious faith to revive….”

    The instinct is correct. If NRx is anything it’s a rejection of equality, which takes on different forms, including degeneracies of techno capitalism (e.g., consumerism and atomism), traditional patriarchy (e.g., universalism, dogma of spiritual equality, and neoluddism), and ethnno nationalism (e.g., populism and local communism). Admin focuses on the latter and someone like Jim Kalb — who would have an inquisition after us if his side came to power — focuses on the former. But the leftist manifestations of traditional patriarchy in the form of traditional religion deserve some criticisms too . These would be roughly the desire to coercively universalize their Truths, the horror expressed at the idea of human inequality in being, and opposition to transformation of the human form e..g, transhumanism. Such a critiques requires a mephistoesque level of heresy, of course.

    [Reply]

    Posted on February 5th, 2015 at 9:55 pm Reply | Quote
  • Matt Says:

    The “anything I don’t like or am afraid of is communist” is a really dumb and sloppy line of argument.

    [Reply]

    Posted on February 5th, 2015 at 10:10 pm Reply | Quote
  • Matt Says:

    Radical Islam is a declaration of war. It declares war not only on the modern West, its way of life and its values. Islam also declares war on the remains of classical bourgeois society

    “Classical bourgeois society” is liberal. Islam is illiberal and opposes liberalism.

    Bolshevism is a species of materialist liberalism. It’s just sloppy to say that Islam is the same as Bolshevism.

    Metaphysically, classical bourgeois society and Bolshevism are the same. Islam and Bolshevism aren’t. Islam and Bolshevism can only be equated in the most superficial sense that also equates Islam and fascism.

    [Reply]

    Izak Reply:

    I’ve noticed in a lot of NRx blog posts a disappointing propensity to compare everything bad or unwanted to communism.

    [Reply]

    neovictorian23 Reply:

    Fair enough–but considering the 100 millions of dead people starved, beaten, tortured and shot in the back of the neck by self-styled Communists is pursuit of the Big Idea, Communism is sorta the worst thing ever, so it gets a lot of comparisons. Rather like people compare big things to whales or mountains, and small things to grains of sand, or gnats.

    So I don’t find it that disappointing.

    [Reply]

    Posted on February 5th, 2015 at 11:32 pm Reply | Quote
  • vxxc2014 Says:

    @Matt

    None hate communism like former communists.

    [Reply]

    Exfernal Reply:

    Like those who experienced communism. Are you implying that all of them were volunteers?

    [Reply]

    Posted on February 5th, 2015 at 11:34 pm Reply | Quote
  • forkinhell Says:

    Didn’t we have the Houellebecq stuff the other week (maybe on ufblog?) – talking about Islam being an unnatural ally of the left, essentially an alien right-wing political position? The obvious conclusion, much like with National Socialism, is that it’s capable of recruiting from both wings and all classes… or not?

    [Reply]

    nydwracu Reply:

    Sure. Did you see their propaganda video with that Abu Muslim guy? Came out of Canada or some shit, looked like a nerd, talked like a nerd, used to work as a janitor, probably killed some people, got blown up on camera. 4chan’s wet dream, maybe minus that last part. So they can get nerds. Hell, I’ve seen some IS people talking about anime on Twitter.

    Gets nerds, gets rich guys, gets chicks. And the rich guys tend to be engineers. If you’ve got the right phyletic alignment (or you just don’t care) and you either can’t get chicks any other way or just want to raise hell… why not?

    I know some people who’d sign up in a heartbeat if they were Arabs.

    [Reply]

    Posted on February 6th, 2015 at 2:05 am Reply | Quote
  • Mark Warburton Says:

    Bruckner on this topic in his ‘The Tyranny Of Guilt’

    Islamo-Leftism or Mutual Deception

    “today, confronted by the threat to civilization, there is a response: revolutionary islam! only men and women armed with a total faith in the founding values of truth, justice, and fraternity will be prepared to lead the combat and deliver humanity from the empire of mendacity.”25 These remarks by the terrorist carlos illustrate one of the most astonishing phenomena of recent years: the fusion between the atheist far left and religious radicalism. in 1982 the iranian philosopher daryus shayegan provided the best theoretical account of the collision between historical reason and atemporal revolution, “the ideologization of tradition,” the overlapping of two incompatible orders such as we find it incarnated in the twentiethcentury shiite thinker ali shariati, who imposes Marxist categories on a prophetic cycle, working in spite of himself toward a secularization of islam.26 islamo-leftism was conceived chiefly by the British trotskyites of the socialist Workers’ Party: noting that the religion of the Prophet, although reactionary, is a factor of upheaval and not of passivity at the heart of our societies, they promote a reasonable entrisme, tactical, temporary alliances with islam.27 a certain revolutionary fringe’s hope that islam might become the spearhead of a new insurrection in the name of the oppressed is not without ulterior motives on both sides: trotskyites, supporters of alternative forms of globalism, and adherents to Third Worldism are using the islamists as a battering ram against free-market capitalism. The hatred of the market is worth a few compromises regarding fundamental rights, and especially that of the equality between men and women. The fundamentalists, disguised as friends of tolerance, are dissimulating and using the left to advance their interests under the mask of a progressive rhetoric. There is a twofold deception here: one side supports the islamic veil or polygamy in the name of the struggle against racism and neocolonialism. The other side pretends to be attacking globalization in order to impose its version of religious faith. two currents of thought form temporary alliances against a common enemy: it is not hard to predict which one will crush the other once its objectives have been achieved. The leftist intransigence that refuses any compromise with bourgeois society and cannot castigate too severely “little white men” actively collaborates with the most reactionary elements in the Muslim religion. But if the far left courts this totalitarian theocracy so assiduously, it is perhaps less a matter of opportunism than of a real affinity. The far left has never gotten over communism and once again demonstrates that its true passion is not freedom, but slavery in the name of justice.”

    [Reply]

    Posted on February 6th, 2015 at 2:34 am Reply | Quote

Leave a comment