786. Introduction to Anarcho-Islamic Philosophy

2007-06-26T22:59:21Z

One of the major problems with the anarchist movement today is the failure of the intellectuals to articulate their ideas in a manner that can be understood by the masses. The movement, like any, needs artists and dreamers, but it also needs good, down to earth men and women. Hakim Bey has made some very important contributions to anarchist philosophy, but nine out of ten people can't understand half of what he's written. Anarchism is not a philosophy to be discussed by students in wine bars, it is a philosophy to be lived. It is a philosophy to be practiced, day by day and by ordinary people.

Anarchism is represented by popular media as little more than a joke, an alternative fashion statement at best. Few people outside of the movement understand what anarchists really believe and even less realise how powerful a movement it is globally. This is, in part, due to the fact that anarchists oppose authority fundamentally and thus, organise horizontally, with nobody holding power over anybody else. This means that, unlike other groups with their popes or presidents or prime ministers, anarchists have no ruling class, no Bush to read statements, no Bin Laden to hate on. Whilst this lack of leadership makes the movement look weak, it is, in fact, it's very greatest strength.

The horizontal organisation of the movement allows for the use of guerilla tactics. Pyramid control structures like countries, armies or corporations organise vertically. They can not use guerilla tactics, they are too big and too slow to change. Guerrillas can spot an opportunity and exploit it instantly, targeting the enemy whenever and wherever it is exposed. A soldier in a national army must wait for the orders of those at the top to filter down the ranks. If every soldier acted on his or her own initiative the army would collapse. Discipline, that is doing what you are told without question, is fundamental to any pyramid control structure, without subordination to higher ranks all pyramid control structures disintegrate.

Governments and banks are there to control people, to make people do things they don't want to do and to prevent them from doing the things they'd like to do. Many people would argue that this point is obvious, that's what governments and banks should do, if they didn't there would be "absolute fucking carnage". It is here that we anarchists disagree with the popular opinion.

Let's look at the people referred to as 'Australian aborigines'. Aborigines are anarchists in their own way. Aborigines have no prime minister, police, cash, human rights laws, national curriculum, no social services, no courts, no prisons and no class system, yet they have lived according to their anarchistic traditions for millions of years without wars, poverty or child porn on the internet. They don't kill or rape each other, they don't steal, well rather they can't steal as they have no concept of private property and they're generally quite eco-friendly. They do laugh though, they do tell stories and sing songs and smoke bongs and get creative on the old didgeridoo, they have community and purposes in life. They have sex, they have dreams and they fall in love. In short, they have everything they feel they need to be happy and happiness is the only true measure of the quality of life.

To believe that you must live under another persons authority in order to be happy is, frankly, the most vulgar and disgustingly weak minded philosophy ever accepted.

Communism, Capitalism, Roman Catholicism, Nationalism, Fascism or Free Love? All flawed. No universal ideology is even worth thinking up. People are way too diverse to have a single system for all. Not everybody wants to have their lives defined by some abstract concept of 'cash' held in 'their account' nor do they all wish to seek redemption through some Herculean deity called The Lord Jesus Christ. Not everybody wants to accept God. Not everybody want to deny all divinity.

Anarchism is not a religion nor is it a political ideology. It does not promote or oppose religion. Anarchists have no central ideology, this is fundamental. Anarchism is based on a principle of freedom.

However, anarchists consider all human beings to be ideological by nature, all people have a set of ideals which they consider to be 'right'. When a person says "in an ideal world..." they talk of the world as it would be if it were 'put right' so to speak.

What one man might consider right, another may object to. For example, many Catholics drink wine at Mass whilst many Muslims would be horrified by wine based religious practices. This perpetual diversity of mankind creates a multitude of ideological conflicts between us. It is these conflicts that anarchism addresses.

There is, within the anarchist movement, an element which claims anarchism to be atheistic. This element and it's members are not true anarchists. Their religious intolerance runs contrary to anarchist philosophy and this element should be rooted out and destroyed.

Not all atheist anarchists are guilty of this betrayal of the anarchist movement, many are quite happy to allow others to practice religion so long as it is not forced upon anyone against their will.

Whilst the Zionists, the Vatican and many other religious control structures are the natural enemies of all anarchists, God and religion are not. Many well respected anarchists believe in God and there are anarcho-Christian and anarcho-Islamic movements with huge followings. In fact, in the US, Christians have established hundreds of self sufficient, anarchist communities in defiance of the state, government, police, laws or any other abstract concept based on authority not granted by God. Muslims have always maintained certain anarchistic qualities within their small communities. It is worth mentioning here that the concept of the 'Islamic state' is a contradiction in terms.

Those that believe in God may think that all atheists, anarchist or otherwise, should be tarred with the same brush and that they should act against them all regardless. This runs contrary to God's command that there is no compulsion in religion. All worship must be voluntary, an exercise of free will, or it is not worship at all.

Atheism is a sin, but it is an act against God, not the community, and so only God can judge them for it. It is only when a person acts against another person or people that reaction may become justifiable.

Again, it is not atheist anarchists that should be made a target of. The problem is atheists that falsely claim to be anarchists then try to corrupt the movement towards their own brand of ideologically intolerant atheism. Their arguments rarely constitute more than baseless claims and their literature (see Crimethink's babbling for examples) only emphasises this weakness. However, it is not their claims, but the influence these claims have on others, which is cause for concern.

This is a matter of concern for all true anarchists, regardless of religious beliefs, as it is a corruption of their philosophical creed. Followers of God's prophets, regardless of philosophy or denomination, should also be opposed to any attempt to corrupt a movement which fights oppression, accepts diversity and promotes the establishment of small autonomous communities each defining it's own social system.

Islam, in my opinion, can only be successful in practice if it adopts an anarchist philosophy to global and local social interactions. Further, Christianity will only come out from under the tyranny of the Church if it's followers adopt anarchism as there philosophy to life. This would in turn lead many to question obvious contradictions within Christianity, the logical progression is Islam.

Anarchism is the correct philosophy to life as it is the only natural philosophy to life, but again, it is not a religion and it is not a political ideology.

There are many anarchists who believe the human race can basically live forever and build for a utopian dream future where we will all live in harmony. It's a nice dream, but fantasy also. The human race, like the planet, the Sun, the Milky Way and all the other Galaxies that make up this entire Universe, will die. Nothing lasts forever in this Universe, not even the Universe itself. It is not built to last, that is not His plan. We know this because it has been revealed to us and because, enlightened, we see it in Nature.

Our job then is not to build utopian, fantastical super futures, but Islamic communities based on anarchist principles. Much anarchist writings are, as a result, inadequate for our purposes and so we must create our own body of anarcho-Islamic literature.

In many parts of the Muslim world natural anarchy still exists as those people that live there were never corrupted by the concept of the 'nation' or the 'state'. It is only when these people are forced to interact with states and nations that their lives and cultures are torn to shreds.

Natural anarchy is being eradicated by the ideological imperialism of believers in nations and states. What's left of it now will be destroyed soon enough. Anarchy is weak, anarchism is strong.

It is now more important than ever that our Islamic scholars and philosophers embrace anarchism and make it our own. The rulings of scholars from old times do not apply in modern times when modern scholars rulings are more valid. Anarchism as an Islamic philosophy offers the only natural way to bridge the gap between the world we wish to live in and the world we currently live in.

I also believe that, within the anarchist movement, there are many potential reverts and sympathisers with which we could establish deep, strong roots in Western soil. Anarchists believe that all people have the absolute right to live however they please so long as they don't prevent anybody else enjoying that same privilege. Because people naturally bond with 'their own', a trait known as ethnocentricity, and because humans are naturally social creatures, anarchists believe that the only natural social system is essentially tribal.

An extension of the anarchist's pro-tribalism is the concept of Temporary Autonomous Zones as a means to freedom now and anarcho-syndicalism as a program for the future. These two concepts are very important to any anarcho-Islamic philosophy.

Please remember, this is not a call to arms. This is a call to the scholars. This battleground is built on abstractions and mass psychology and it is for our scholars to understand such things.

You see, when it comes down to it, the system is not actually real. You can not throw bricks at it. You can not blow it up nor smash it down. It exists only in the minds of people. It is an abstract concept, a systematic formula for the manipulation of perception.

Perception is everything. Reality is, from the human perspective, unknowable. The human mind does not deal with reality. People are taught that we see with our eyes, but this is not true. Our eyes are just physical organs that simply respond to photons bouncing against them, this causes nerves to move, sending electrical signals to trillions of different points in the brain. These signals are then used by the brain to imagine what you see. There is no screen in your brain onto which the image is displayed, the image is not an image in any normal sense of the word, the image exists as a visible thing only in your imagination.

You'd be surprised by how little of what you think you see actually comes from sight and how much of it actually comes from memory. It's what you expect to be there that enables your imagination to fill in the gaps so the blur in the corner of your eye is mentally registered as 'a wall' or 'the sky'.

People have two working eyes in two different locations so you actually receive two different, slightly offset, two-dimensional images that are then superimposed into one three-dimensional image by your brain.

When we look around, what is actually there, before our eyes, is never seen. When you turn on a tap, do you see hydrogen and oxygen atoms bonded as molecules or do you see water? Water doesn't actually exist except as a concept, we experience water only in our imagination. Einstein knew that, but he could still enjoy a cold glass of it.

Water is essentially a concept. It isn't a real thing, but an imaginary thing that exists only as a concept. In fact, molecules don't exist, they're only a superficial way of seeing a collection of atoms and forces, these atoms and forces do not end at the 'edge' of the molecule. Molecule is a word that humans invented and use to describe a number of different, but exclusive things in a simple way. Atoms do not exist either, they are only collections of smaller particles which in turn, are only collections of other smaller things.

It is this lack of 'awareness' regarding the true reality of things that forces all humans to create simplifications of reality. To break the real world down into a collection of imaginary things that are sensible, that is, to enable our senses, sight, sound, taste, touch and scent to provide useful information.

It is worth mentioning here that, were you born deprived of all five senses, you would not even know that you existed.

Our sensory input often leads us to imagine things to be true that we find out are not. Think of how many times you've seen a person go to answer the phone, when the ringing noise was actually on the telly. The phone did not ring, but they thought it did, not because their ears heard the sound wrong, but because their imagination was fooled by the signals sent. To them, from their perspective, the phone really was ringing, right up until other signals lead them to imagine that it wasn't true. All five of the senses can lead a person to believe in things that are not true like when our eyes 'play tricks' on us.

We rely on a set of abstract concepts, water, glass, atoms etc. which condition our imaginations to respond to signals in certain ways. The world you live in day to day, in your mind, is not reality, it is only your perception of reality based on the tiniest of information.

A lot of people may think that this means that we are all crazy. That depends on your definition of crazy. I would suggest that the only people who are crazy are the ones that are genuinely delusional, that is, the people that believe they live in 'the real world'. Those people who accept that the world as they perceive it is imaginary and that reality is unknowable are not deluded by any fantastical materialism and thus, can be considered sane.

Einstein's perception allowed him to see beyond the concepts of glass or water and onwards to the concepts of energy and matter, but his theory of relativity is no less an abstraction. It's a very useful abstraction to some people, but not so great when your thirsty and just want a cold glass of water.

The point of an abstract concept is to be as useful as possible to whoever is using it, it is like a mental tool. Humans have the capacity to create abstractions for a reason, if they didn't they'd have died out ages ago. To catch himself a fish for supper, man did not need to know how the universe worked at an atomic level, he simply needed a superficial understanding adequate for his survival.

In the same way that you do not need to know about atomic structure and the elements to catch a fish, you do not need to know how an engine works to drive a car. Pushing the accelerator down does not, in reality, 'make the car go', it only seems that way to a superficial observer.

Being superficial is natural to all human beings. We don't have the time to analyse planetary motion every time we look at a watch or calendar. So long as our understanding is adequate for our continued, comfortable survival, we're generally quite content to think in abstract, superficial ways.

We are not designed to understand everything. The complexity of even one microscopic human cell is beyond any human's comprehension. We can only hope, through our senses, to catch the most tiny glimpse of Nature. We have no real capacity to do anything, but imagine our 'own little world' based on what we perceive of the Universe.

The major problem here lies in the fact that so many people think that our 'own little worlds' are real. You see, once a person becomes so deluded by fantastical, materialistic thinking that they cease to be aware that it's a fantasy at all, they open themselves up to the control of the what where once known as the magicians. For want of a better word and because I quiet like the ring to it, I will continue to refer to them by that name here.

Magic is not the ability to pull a rabbit from a hat, but only the ability to create the perception that you have done so. Perception is everything. Perception, at least in the minds of the materialists, is reality itself. They have no ability to create any definition between the two. They are, to borrow a popular metaphor, stuck in the Matrix.

If you take a group of materialists and you have the ability to alter their perceptions, you have the ability, at least from their perspective, to change reality. Events that are imposable can appear to take place before their very eyes. Watch these fools and see their pitiful amazement, never any less impressed with each new rabbit.

Many people think magic is relatively harmless and, if it had stuck to pulling rabbits from hats, they might have been right. The problem here is that magicians have moved on to far more powerful manipulations, some of global scope, while the general public have become ever more deluded by materialism.

Behind the delusion of the materialist's 'real world', is a world of manipulation and deception. This is the world of the magicians. Magicians have no real power, their power is directly dependant on the delusional beliefs of materialists. They can alter perceptions and they can do it very well, but this only affects the fantasy land materialists live in.

In the West, children are raised by parents, boy bands, TV presenters etc. to be materialistic, but never is materialism questioned, no alternative view is ever once even hinted at, thus materialism becomes unquestionable reality from the child's perspective. The child knows of no alternative perspective.

A person must be capable of materialistic, superficial thinking in order to survive such an incomprehensible existence, but they must also be capable of some degree of idealism if they are to rise above a lowly survivalism which is essentially animalistic.

The word 'materialistic' has been deliberately misused by the mass media so much that it has now become common slang meaning 'obsesses over expensive things'. Now days, so many people have come to understand only this meaning of the word that any mention of materialism in general public will be understood in the slang sense only. This reworking of the English language is widespread and with more and more young people writing in text and instant message style shorthand, Orwell's Newspeak may not be so far off.

Today in schools, a puppet tyrant known as 'the Teacher' follows, without discretion, the National Curriculum. Their livelihood is entirely dependent on teaching it and teaching it well. Examinations of pupils are performed at regular intervals during their childhood to ensure their proper conditioning. Those children that are home schooled are tested to ensure their education hasn't 'suffered' as a result of home tutoring, a classic case of Catch 22.

The teachers often have the very best of intentions having suffered a similar miseducation themselves. The system attempts to condition the mind of every single child to think only in a uniform and materialistic way. Never, under any circumstances, can this false doctrine be questioned. Children are punished for being late to class, conditioning them to believe that time is a real thing which it is not. They ask why they must attend school and are told it is to help them get a good job, no mention of wisdom nor enlightenment nor liberation, just economic concerns. Local children are taught that they are British, despite countries being an abstract concept. They are conditioned to believe in all sorts of concepts from money to laws to governments, there is even now a subject taught called citizenship.

It's not that I oppose knowledge of these abstractions, knowledge of them is a good thing and many abstractions are very useful. I object absolutely to them being taught as reality. It is not a reality that you are British or any other nationality, but it is taught to you as if it were beyond question. You are further conditioned to perceive yourself as belonging to this non-existent entity, 'your country', and so your very identity is now also based on a delusion. The concept of 'British' becomes something you think you 'are'. In fact, you should only ever 'be British' when it is useful to you or other people you wish to assist. When it ceases to be useful, forget it and move on, you're not really from any country, they don't really exist.

Money is not real, it is a scam, black magic to use older terminology. Rationalists see money for what it is, a trick, but materialists can not see how the trick is pulled and don't know it's a trick at all, so they think money is real. Here the scam lies in the false perception that money represents material things and that it can be exchanged for material things which it can't. The magicians using this trick have three things going for them, the trick will continue to work and grow more powerful so long as the magician is one step ahead of the targets, not all the targets have to fall for it for it to work and it's a numbers game.

Money is based on maths, maths is based on numbers and numbers are the oldest abstraction going. If I have 6 apples and wish to share them evenly between my 3 friends then I should, according to maths at least, give each one 2 apples. This is said to be correct because 6 divided by 3 equals 2 and if each friend has 2 apples then they all have the same. This is not true. In actual fact, no two apples are identical, one friend might get two small apples, another, two sour apples and so on. Numbers and maths are very, very useful sets of abstract concepts, but they are not real.

Because the abstraction known as economics is never an easy thing to explain, I will instead here offer a short history of the abstraction of 'fractional reserve banking' for you to ponder over. It is the system upon which the British economy, like most others, is based. If you understand the fundamental con here you will see the problem with usury in general.

Once upon a time, people produced goods which they traded for other goods with other people. As the economy grew more diverse and larger ranges of goods and greater bulks of goods were produced, this system of exchange became inadequate for a number of obvious reasons.

People began to use small, valuable items as 'tokens of exchange'. Many different things were used, but pieces of metal, then much less commonplace than today, became the most popular exchange media. Gold, silver, copper, bronze and even iron was used. Pieces of metal had a direct value in their own right and so people felt secure accepting payment in metals as they could be sold to smiths and jewellers as materials. Metal can also be cut into smaller pieces of less value creating 'change'. Unlike other valuables like food, metal does not rot and lose value. It is also small, easy to carry and conceal.

This ease of trade produced merchants who did nothing else. Travelling from place to place, they would buy cheap where demand was low and supply high and then trade in places where supply was low and demand high. They became very wealthy and built up large stocks of gold and silver. This left them with a problem. They only needed to take a small percentage of their wealth with them at any time, just enough to trade with, so what to do with the rest?

The merchants had a few choices, each of rather limited appeal. They could carry ever larger hoards of wealth around until they got robbed, they could bury it or they could trust somebody else to look after it.

The goldsmiths, oddly all Jewish, proposed a solution to the merchant's problem. They offered to hold the wealth of the merchants in their vaults. Goldsmiths, not travelling around to do business, had long since established secure means of storing gold. It was their business to use gold, to have gold and they obviously couldn't leave it lying around at night etc. Merchants would deposit their gold and silver and would be issued with a receipt. Silver would be accepted, but the receipt was for the silver's value in gold, this later led to the Gold Standard. Everything in the economy from this point could be priced by it's value in gold.

These receipts were exchangeable for gold by the bearer upon demand. It wouldn't be your old gold back, you may of deposited silver, but you would by given the amount of gold the receipt declared you entitled to. You would pay a fee when you made the deposit so you would get the full sum on the receipt. Goldsmiths, now bankers, made their money from the fees charged for deposits.

No con so far. All seems well.

Over time people began to trade the receipts themselves, hence the saying "as good as gold". Merchants would accept a receipt happy in the knowledge it was payable to the bearer upon demand. Bankers began issuing a range of receipts of different values. You could deposit ten pounds of gold, minus fees, and receive a receipt for five pounds and five for one pound. This encouraged the trading of receipts. As this became common practice the bankers began to get very rich, not rich with paper money, that was useless to them, but with hoards of gold.

Receipts were often destroyed by water or fire and many people never returned from trips to far away places, different things happened, but the end result was that these pieces of paper, the value of which was nothing, were often never reverted back into gold, something people actually valued.

Because there was, at any given time, tons and tons of this 'good as gold', paper money in the economy, the bankers not only had their ever growing fortunes, but also held untold wealth in the form of deposits. This was not theirs, but they had control of it until it was claimed back.

Here comes the scam.

The bankers then began money lending. They offered loans and people borrowed money. They issued paper money, but, if you wished, you could demand gold with the paper money you were given. Most people didn't bother as they thought the money was as good as gold, meaning that all that actually happened most of the time was people borrowed pieces of paper and owed gold.

Because the huge bulk of the gold was always in the vaults and it never went below a certain amount, it was safe for the bankers to issue more money, there was gold in the vaults to cover it. They issued tons of money. They had already issued receipts for the gold upon deposit, but had now reissued more 'receipts' without actually holding the relevant gold. The value of all the receipts in circulation was now many times the value of the gold in the vaults, which was no small sum.

The bankers were now printing gold. This would of course go very badly wrong if even a significant percentage of people tried to convert their paper back to gold as the gold didn't exist for the most part. The bankers now needed to ensure this never happened, easier said than done, but done it they have.

The money we all spend is not real and is exchangeable for material things as long as we only spend a small amount of it. People and companies always have money, not all of them, but enough of them, enough to make it work. Once this system starts to work it is self supportive, people just have to make sure that most of them don't want most of their wealth in actual things of value. These days most people have been conned into accepting a figure on a pc screen as wealth and often do a weeks solid labour for an entry in their account.

These bankers, ever so oddly, still all Jewish, obviously don't want loads of their own paper money, or a bunch of absolutely worthless numbers in their utterly abstract accounts, so what do they want?

They want power over other people, they're just modern black magicians. They've developed a wide range of tricks from credit to insurance to inflation, but fractional reserve banking is the fundamental con that established the dark school of usury based economics.

This isn't about the fact your money isn't actually real, it's about the fact that you still allow it to dictate your behaviour.

Governments and laws, just like money, are abstract concepts and their point is to be useful to you and me, not 'citizens' or the 'public', 'society' or any other collective noun. As soon as any concept becomes less than useful, a rational man will simply forget it and make up a better one. Only a materialist, completely blind to anything beyond their isolated senses, fails to grasp this point.

Don't blame the materialists, pity them. It is hardly their fault that they were raised that way, besides, blame is generally such a useless concept anyway. Where there is any fault, it isn't the fault of the victims, but the magicians that tricked them.

Avoid TV for it's the most powerful prop in the magician's set, a superficial dream machine. Avoid formal education, Walt Disney propaganda, popular music, mass produced drugs like McDonald's, the news, fashions, in particular 'alternative fashions', avoid money, wage slavery, banks, governments and governors, scientific experts, supermarkets, youth cultures and sub-cultures, employment agencies, nationalism, brand identity and social conformity. They are all tricks, blags, scams, magic.

You can't destroy a system by attacking it materially, please put down your Molotov cocktails. You only need understand how the system works and you become a master of it. You can only know how the system works by seeing through the trick. You can not see through the trick if you're dumbly sat watching what the magician wants you to look at.

The fundamental weakness to the system is that is doesn't actually exist at all. Not everyone has to think it's real for it to work, only enough to keep the others in line. The police can not protect an elite from ordinary people, the police are ordinary people. It is only because people think police are real, including the people who think they are one of the police, that the system is able to police the people. We police ourselves, but under the orders of an elite.

The elite is not in Downing Street, the White House or in Brussels, it is not the politicians or media monopoly holders either. They are only materialistic psychotics like the majority of people from 'developed countries'.

The elite is behind the scenes, pulling the strings of puppet governments, devising ever more mind destroying propaganda and, of course, plans for how to turn it into 'pop culture'. The elite is not part of the spectacle, they create the spectacle to keep your eyes away from their slight of hand.

The elite, oddly all Jewish, are not easily found and there's little point to trying anyway. They have no power once people see how their tricks work, so they do not need to be found to be stopped. As for us punishing them, how would that help?

If you raise a baby to a child to an adult, all the while conditioning them to do things that are evil, but conditioning them to think of these evils as duties or responsibilities, you can hardly be surprised if the child grows up knowing no different.

Blaming the Zionist Jews is pretty pointless, why not blame their parents? The fact is that we are all to blame if any of us, but it's not about blame, it's not about 'putting things right' or about punishments. It is about accepting who you are and who you are not and how you're going to live from now on.

God's Will or The Word, the Universal Laws of Physics, Mother Nature, Gaia Theory or whatever abstract concept you wish to know it as, is absolute. You can not change it, beat it, avoid it nor alter it. You can try, you can live your whole life trying, but you can never succeed even once, even partially. You may create the perception that you control Nature or physics, essentially the Will of God, but that is only a perception. Science will never 'triumph over Nature' as is the Western attitude towards it, but science may, with enlightenment, allow us to glimpse the glory of God and the Oneness of everything that exists.

We can only know God through his creation. Reality is unknowable. God's Will is the law upon which existence is based. All other laws, from gravity to ethnocentricity, are only human simplifications of His Will, One and Perpetual. As Muslims, we submit to it, but we can not force other people to submit to it or else they simply end up submitting to us, a state sinful for us and for them.

There is no compulsion in Islam, it is wilful submission to God and wilful defiance of all oppressive authority. How many times does the Quran remind us that God loves not the oppressor?

Anarcho-Islamic philosophy is nothing more than another abstract concept, but it may be a very useful one, it may be even more so with each passing moon. This world, from the perspectives of modern people, is one very different from that of our ancestors.

Anarchism and Islam may seem at odds, many would assume so without question, but don't be so quick yourself. We have no desire to rule the world, only to rule our own lives within our own communities.

In the UK, their has been a number of slightly over-dramatic riots between what can be described, for the sake of simplicity, as 'Whites' and 'Pakis'. These riots express precisely the kind of problems anarchism addresses so well.

The far-right in the UK is a powerful movement which has a membership that can generally be broken into two separate camps, one fascist and the other culturist. Both have been corrupted by nationalism, as have many Muslims, but this aside, we can find significant distinction between them. The fascists are racial supremacists and have an ideology that can not be tollerated by Muslims or anarchists and so are our natural enemies. The culturists on the other hand, and they constitute the huge majority of ordinary right-wing men and women, are not racist, only ethnocentric.

Let us look into the values that define the culturists ideological outlook. They believe very strongly in community, tight communities based on extended families and kinship, bonded by blood and marriage. They support direct action in the protection of their communities from outside aggressors. They wish to be able to practice their own religions and have their own traditions respected in their schools which they wish to have control over. They demand respect for their elders and protection for their children. They demand a land to live on and that it is recognised as theirs and theirs alone. All said, are there any communities in the UK today more right-wing than the Pakistani ones? Possibly the Gypsies. They trade amongst themselves, albeit with cash too often, but they also exchange things of value directly much more than conformists do. They store their wealth in things of value, avoiding too much currency, investing in each other's ventures instead of one community member saving while another one borrows from outside the community. They avoid government regulation in business whenever possible and prefer to employ their kin. They marry into their own communities and live close to one another, they consider their elders to be as uncles and aunties and everybody else as cousins. They have federal ties to other communities of the same background.

It is of the utmost importance to have in our minds a very clear definition between those people that wish to protect their own and those people who wish to attack and oppress others. The labels that have been applied by the mass media do nothing, but confuse the issue, dividing like-minded people and polarising complex issues into right and left or Whites and Pakis. These pathetically narrow-minded labels make no sense at all when these issues are looked into from an anarchist perspective.

Communities can not look to any government for support, governments serve the elite who care nothing for our communities.

It is absolutely fundamental that communities take direct action as communities and continue to do so or they cease to even exist as communities and become 'areas'. A community is an concept shared by it's people, it exists only in the minds of those people that believe in it. It can not exist outside of peoples minds. It exists in the minds of it's members, but it also exists in the minds of the members of other communities it is syndicated with.

Again, this is not a call to arms. The point is not to attack the system, but to rise above it and move on, slowly, calmly and without too much fuss. Take away the power of the delusion of nationalism by simply living quite happily without it. Yes, there is justification for vigilantes, but any community that can put forward vigilantes and can't clean it's own litter up is a very lowly community. Better are those that have clean streets and no need for vigilantes. Chase the scum from your neighbourhoods, but then paint the walls and fences, maybe have a whip round for materials, maybe paint the community in your local colours.

Again, I am not putting forward any suggestion that we might work towards some stateless, universally liberated, utopian dream. I am not really even offering solutions to problems. Instead I'm offering a philosophy to life that might help people understand the problems properly so they can create their own solutions. The philosophy is anarchism and anarcho-Islam should be our contribution to it.

There is one more issue I wish to address here, and it is perhaps the most important in terms of it's potential negative effect. I have noticed a disgusting propaganda against Islam that is corrupting the minds of many Muslims as well as non-Muslims. There seems to be a pessimism, certainly amongst Western Muslims, regarding the international Islamic family, a feeling that it is at some sort of low point, that it is currently weak, that it has had it's Golden Age and that age has become ancient history. Many Muslims seem to wish to return to better times. I find this attitude disgusting.

Islam is the fastest growing religion in the world and it does not grow all by itself, millions upon millions of reverts do not pull Islamic literature from thin air, it is the community expanding itself as it has continued to do since it's establishment. The widespread notion that the international Islamic family has 'seen better days' is, apart from being utterly wrong, very damaging to Muslims everywhere.

The Islamic state is a contradiction in terms, all states are, by definition, both anti-Islamic and un-Islamic. Judging Muslims in terms of Islamic states is always going to be misleading. We must instead look at two things, firstly the success of the international community of all Muslims which is doing very well, despite a relentless and merciless assault from it's enemies' minions. Secondly we must look at the status of the small Islamic communities that make up the whole. These seem to be doing very well, again despite all the opposition.

The idea that the Muslims are fighting a losing battle is the result of mass media propaganda designed to produce exactly that belief. Muslims are not losing anything, we are stronger than ever. I don't look for this strength in Islamic authorities or states or leaders, but in the hearts of it's communities.

God knows best.

God Bless.

posted in *Radical Clarity Training* - 0 replies

Radical Clarity Training's topics - tribe.net

786. Introduction to Anarcho-Islamic Philosophy

Fear of Success?

Bruce's New Hangout

I closing down my Tribes.......

*Radical Clarity Training*'s topics - tribe.net

786. Introduction to Anarcho-Islamic Philosophy

Fear of Success?

Bruce's New Hangout

I closing down my Tribes.......

Radical Clarity Training's topics - tribe.net