Sentences (#10)

From an unusually realistic essay on the Islamic State, by Graeme Wood in The Atlantic:

The reality is that the Islamic State is Islamic. Very Islamic.

ADDED: ISIS Camelpunk.

ADDED: Also excellent.

February 18, 2015admin 28 Comments »

TAGGED WITH : , , , ,

28 Responses to this entry

  • Sentences (#10) | Neoreactive Says:

    […] Sentences (#10) […]

    Posted on February 18th, 2015 at 1:00 pm Reply | Quote
  • Erebus Says:

    Realistic, yes. Also, bloody obvious.

    I’m reminded of this poetic quote, from here (of all places), which you posted as part of “The Islamic Vortex (note-3)”

    “However many of them are killed, the ones who survive will keep pushing on into Kobani and on toward the Baghdad airport feeling as alive as if they had just plunged into the river of history itself. And they will keep telling themselves that this river flows with the blood of the non-believers.”

    …And are they wrong, I wonder? It’ll flow with a great deal more blood, in any case, before this ISIS story draws to a conclusion.


    Posted on February 18th, 2015 at 5:15 pm Reply | Quote
  • Alex Says:



    Posted on February 18th, 2015 at 5:25 pm Reply | Quote
  • peter connor Says:

    Yes, it is dim-witted to call ISIS terrorists–they are the majority in the region. I think that makes the US and its allies, if there are any left, the terrorists….


    Posted on February 18th, 2015 at 5:55 pm Reply | Quote
  • Lesser Bull Says:

    ISIS is outsignaling Al Qaeda. The next contender to take the crown is going to have to use WMDs.


    Posted on February 18th, 2015 at 8:16 pm Reply | Quote
  • Barry O'Bamaugh Says:

    Just random folks in a trendless fluctuation. Nothing to notice or learn about.


    Posted on February 18th, 2015 at 10:42 pm Reply | Quote
  • Contaminated NEET Says:

    “Unusually realistic” is right. Notice how NPR scrupulously refers to the, “So-Called Islamic State,” every time they mention it. If that’s the standard they’re going to apply, I’d like to hear, the “So-Called Democratic Republic of Korea,” the “So-Called Saudi Arabia,” and the “So-Called United States.”


    Posted on February 19th, 2015 at 9:33 am Reply | Quote
  • Chris B Says:

    This might be controversial, but I am unable to make any genuine major criticism, or build any dislike towards ISIS. It feels like it would be buying into either prog Human rights tolerance bullsh*t or conservativekin “we must protect our gays/jew/ minorities/ freedoms” b8ll*cks.

    They have rejected western liberal modernity. Good for them.


    Hurlock Reply:

    ISIS’ radical islamism and world jihad is basically inverted progressivism.

    Also it seems mildly problematic that they want to kill me, or enslave me. For me, that’s a pretty big problem.


    Scharlach Reply:

    Actually, that’s a good point. Shouldn’t we be trolling the trads about this? ISIS has a lot of virtues: patriarchy, strict legal code, religious order . . .

    Honestly, I’d be happy to let them have their piece of the Arabian desert and live out their Caliphate fantasy—what an exit from modernity!—if they didn’t also want to take the rest of the world down with them.

    Also, I think LoTB is right to call this a “prole” movement. ISIS is jihad populism. That’s why they use social media. Osama Bin Laden never had a Twitter account. He was too elite. ISIS is some kind of populist Singularity. Whether it’s a Right Singularity, a Left Singularity, or some other breed of Singularity, I’ll leave to others to hash out.


    Mark Yuray Reply:

    I am not convinced ISIS qualifies deeply for the label of “traditional” or “reactionary” in any substantive sense that would warrant some kind of NRx adulation, seeing as their current trajectory seems to be straight into the graveyard, assisted by the militaries of the US and neighboring states. The populism, unhinged footsoldiers and fairly rampant hypocrisy also undermine the thought. They strike me more as the Nazis of Islam than the Caroleans of Islam.


    admin Reply:

    Isn’t the problem here universalism, which fails when applied to ‘traditional’ or ‘reactionary’ just as much as when it is applied to anything else?

    Contemplationist Reply:

    The problem is that Islam itself is Universalist Revolution codified (Razib Khan’s caveats apply here obviously). It is not just of the next world but this one – permanent war, permanent revolution to bring Allah’s reign over the whole world.


    scientism Reply:

    It’s always been possible to reject Western liberal modernity as a barbarian. When they can produce their own trucks and weapons, I’ll be impressed.


    admin Reply:

    Perhaps parasitism works. (Viruses don’t need to produce their own proteins — they have hosts to do that.)


    scientism Reply:

    It’s working now because the host doesn’t like the taste of medicine. That can change.

    Posted on February 19th, 2015 at 1:02 pm Reply | Quote
  • The Oriental Neoreactionary Says:

    While I admit that the ISIS is more Islamic (at least in appearance) than Al-Qaeda and some others, I am not convinced that ISIS is an Islamic organization.

    True, ISIS has patriarchy, strict legal code (and this code is fairer than the Imitated Continental Law in Muslim countries like Turkey.), and religious code. And ISIS has extensively used Islamic symbols. These are good things for all Muslims (including myself).

    On the other hand, ISIS needs to understand that (at least) some of its members are violating (some) Islamic rules. Also, the brutality of ISIS has alienated many Muslims (at least in Turkey) and turned them to Progs. Paradoxically ISIS is creating more modernity to a certain extent.


    Contemplationist Reply:

    Jihads have always been brutal.
    The ‘alienating’ action does not make it un-Islamic.


    The Oriental Neoreactionary Reply:

    Okay, Jihad includes military action. But the Jihad is not only about killing of the non-Muslims and/or apostles.

    Jihad means struggle. Combatting against the devil’s seduction is also a Jihad. Struggle for a better society is also Jihad. Those who think that the Jihad IS only about killing and pillaging is terribly wrong.


    Erebus Reply:

    If they’re not an “Islamic” organization, what is? And what makes you think that they’re not a wholly Islamic organization? To my mind, they’re the Ikhwan reborn… And if they alienate lukewarm “believers” who are only nominally Muslim, or who take as allegory what ISIS takes quite literally, so what? As Contemplationist rightly noted, that in itself does not make ISIS un-Islamic — and I don’t think that it’s a valid criticism of them at all.

    You mention that “struggle for a better society is also Jihad.” Isn’t that exactly what they claim to be doing?


    Posted on February 19th, 2015 at 6:54 pm Reply | Quote
  • The Oriental Neoreactionary Says:

    “If they’re not an “Islamic” organization, what is?”

    An organization which is using Islam for their goals and managing sincere believers to their cause.

    “And what makes you think that they’re not a wholly Islamic organization?”

    Exploiting a hadith (if there are two caliphs who get bay’ah, kill the latter one who gets bay’ah) to kill anyone who rejects their caliph, rejecting another hadith (the punishment of burning can only be given by the Creator of Fires himself) to burn the people alive, using children as sex slaves, rape competitions (I am not sure if it is true, but i heard this shit from one of my most trusted friends who had joined the ISIS in Syria) etc.

    “To my mind, they’re the Ikhwan reborn”

    I am not sure which Ikhwan you are mentioning, the Muslim Brotherhood, or the Saudi militia? If you are referring to the Muslim Brotherhood, they were corrupted by the corrosive effect of modernization and numerous movements including the Salafi al-Noor movement has split up from them. If ISIS is following their way, they have to be careful.

    “And if they alienate lukewarm “believers” who are only nominally Muslim, or who take as allegory what ISIS takes quite literally, so what?”

    Firstly, not all of the these people are nominally Muslims. Secondly, there are only two big groups in the Middle East: So-called Islamic organizations and progs. Which means that, any alienated Muslim (whether nominal or sincere) eventually become Progs. So, ISIS is converting many people to Progressivism. ISIS became a cog in the plans of the Cathedral. I am a Muslim and I don’t want to see nominal Muslims, but at the same time, I also don’t want to see more fanatical secularists who were alienated from the Islam and became anti-Islamic shitheads, because of ISIS’ mistakes. The last thing we need is more secularists. The right thing is show the true nature of the Cathedral and its corruption on the so-called Islamic organizations like ISIS.

    Let me admit this: ISIS is much better than secularists and progs. And they are better than Al Qaeda. But, they are making mistakes, and I am not sure that if they will learn from their mistakes and correct them.

    “You mention that “struggle for a better society is also Jihad.” Isn’t that exactly what they claim to be doing?”

    I am not a modernist nominal Muslim, so i am not rejecting the armed Jihad thing. But, killing Muslims who rejected their so-called Caliphate, singing nasheeds about the beautiful echoes of sound suppressors (Nasheed of Saleel Sawarim), making Bollywood videos with the execution scenes and publishing a journal (Dabiq) with the photos of dead “Safavid” soldiers are not struggles for a better society. Jihad is military struggle against anyone who is attacking Muslims, that’s true. But, fighting oppression of Muslims is also a Jihad, calling people to Islam is a Jihad too, escaping from the Satan’s persuasion is a Jihad. Do you see anyone of these Jihads at ISIS, except the military thing?


    Erebus Reply:

    Thank you for the detailed reply.

    When I mentioned the Ikhwan, I meant the Wahabi militia — the kingmakers of the house of Saud, who, being unfit for power, were later betrayed for their efforts. A similar flag, similar zeal, a similar mission, the same fighting spirit… And now the Saudis, who seem to have long memories, must doubtless be concerned. Saudi Arabia has a large and devout Sunni population — and don’t you suppose that ISIS is, at any rate, a great deal more “Islamic”, traditionally Islamic, than the modern state of Saudi Arabia? (Who are, it must be noted, tacit allies of the USA and Israel both.)

    With respect to the rest, it seems like binary thinking to me. Either/or. You’re either devout, or at least nominally devout, or you’re a prog. Alienating — or, perhaps more to the point, frightening — those who claim to be devout, is, from your point of view, a bad thing — but given the emphasis they place on “true belief” and real faith, I think that ISIS would disagree. After all, what have they done that is so extreme it would cause the devout to question their faith?

    In any case, I understand your perspective. And I’m infinitely more sympathetic to your cause than I am to ISIS’s!

    With respect to this: “killing Muslims who rejected their so-called Caliphate, singing nasheeds about the beautiful echoes of sound suppressors (Nasheed of Saleel Sawarim), making Bollywood videos with the execution scenes and publishing a journal (Dabiq) with the photos of dead “Safavid” soldiers are not struggles for a better society.”

    …I think that those are all simply tactical decisions. The slick songs and videos (which even Jim admires) are beacons for recruits. Killing Muslims who reject the Caliphate will obviously make for far swifter acceptance of the Caliphate. The Journal, with its essays on Islamic Law, serves to justify ISIS’s actions to believers, is excellent propaganda, and is yet another recruitment beacon.
    ISIS has an imperfect grasp of overall strategy (fighting the Kurds is, at this point, an utterly retarded diversion,) but they are excellent tacticians and propagandists.


    The Oriental Neoreactionary Reply:

    “fighting the Kurds is, at this point, an utterly retarded diversion”

    Actually, fighting the Kurds is a great move for ISIS. It is a terrible blow for Kurdish nationalist movement, which is a progressive movement. Also because of that, almost all of Turkish and Iraqi nationalists (they are against Kurds naturally) begun to develop some sympathy to ISIS. Maybe ISIS would have less Kurdish members, but they have certainly more Turkish and Iraqi members.


    Peter A. Taylor Reply:

    This is at least a 4-way war: ISIS, establishment Sunni (i.e. Saudi), Shia, and the West. The West has a cold civil war going on. Various Sunni factions are at each other’s throats (Turks and Kurds). The West would like Shia and Sunni to wipe each other out. ISIS wants the US to fight Iran.

    Fighting the Kurds makes the US look evil and stupid, gains support from Turkey, and encourages Iran to make trouble for the US rather than cooperating with the US.

    Whether Kurdistan is a friend of the Red Empire or the Blue Empire, either way, it is a target for ISIS. At best, it occupies land that ISIS wants.

    This raises an interesting question: From ISIS’ standpoint, who is the greater enemy, the US or Iran?


    Erebus Reply:

    @The Oriental Neoreactionary, Peter A. Taylor

    I see your points, but I still can’t help but think it’s a blunder. If the past 60 years of war have taught us anything, it is that it’s a bad idea to fight an offensive war against irregulars on their own turf. (As thousands of Ukrainian Government troops just learned the other day in Debaltsevo, where they were encircled and badly beaten by Novorussian militias!)

    The Kurdish militias are cohesive, motivated, have a long martial tradition, and, perhaps most importantly of all, they are prepared to fight to the death as they know that they cannot surrender. They will surely give no quarter, and expect none in return. To fight them on their own ancestral land, without overwhelming superiority in arms, is foolish. I know that there are ideological and tribal reasons which completely explain why ISIS is so eager to conquer Kurdish territory… but I’m convinced that they would be much better off with another string of well-publicized victories against weak, demoralized, and easy-to-rout/quick-to-defect Sunni Iraqi “soldiers” and ragtag, barely-cohesive Shiite militiamen. It would also be pretty damn clever to take the fight to the similarly weak Saudis and Jordanians. (It must be so confusing to be a Sunni Muslim these days!) The Kurds are a tough nut to crack, and ISIS hasn’t finished plucking the low-hanging fruit just yet.

    As to who they hate more, US vs. Iran… That’s a good question. I wouldn’t even want to venture a guess.

    Aeroguy Reply:

    ISIS does indeed have a cutting-edge grasp of propaganda. What’s interesting is how the advertising tactics of the general Arab market place can be described as quaint from a western perspective. It’s evidence of outside help from experts in psyops.


    Posted on February 21st, 2015 at 12:33 am Reply | Quote
  • VXXC Says:

    Killing people over smoking or queering then smoking and buggering themselves in Camp.

    Yes that’s AQIZ, ISI, ISIS aka D’aesh. Murder and Atrocity the Tribute their endless catalog of Vices pays to Virtue.

    Are they back into the Drug Trade yet? Or did they ever get out?

    @The Oriental Neoreactionary

    Go and See your Brave Warriors. Go and See. Go and Fight.

    I did.


    Posted on February 21st, 2015 at 7:11 pm Reply | Quote
  • The Oriental Neoreactionary Says:

    @The Oriental Neoreactionary, Peter A. Taylor

    “As to who they hate more, US vs. Iran… That’s a good question. I wouldn’t even want to venture a guess.”

    This is a very hard question. For an ordinary Sunni, US is an invader, but Iran is the center of heresy (i.e. Shia Islam).

    “The Kurds are a tough nut to crack, and ISIS hasn’t finished plucking the low-hanging fruit just yet. ”

    True, Kurds have managed to hold on against the Turkish Armed Forces, which is a highly adaptive, experienced against guerilla fight and more powerful army than the Syrian and Iraqi armies. Also, After US Armed Forces, one of the most powerful armies in the NATO and the Middle East.


    Posted on February 22nd, 2015 at 12:45 am Reply | Quote

Leave a comment