The Path to the Dark Reformation Part E: Formalism, Islam and the Need for a New Congress of Vienna.

 

Image result for the Caliph on horseback

Moldbug’s system has three key elements: formalism, neo-cameralism and neo-royalism.

The central goal of Moldbug’s formalism is to reduce violence. 

The central goal of neo-cameralism is to provide good governance. 

The central goal of neo-royalism is to put a competent king/executive in charge who is experienced, competent and secure in their power so that they can create, change, clarify and abolish rules in order to bring about good governance.

One of the main reasons I began this blog is because I think the war between Islam and the West is one of the most, if not the most, serious problem we have.

How many people agree with that claim I wonder?

How many people even agree that such a war exists?

Samuel Huntington wrote a “notorious” book over twenty years ago that discussed the problem in a serious, rigorous way and it was derided by all the Brahmins in the Cathedral; that was before 9/11, but even long after it, academics and journalists venomously deny it his framework.

There is a global war fought on numerous continents, involving a countless number of countries, institutions and non-state actors.

Yet, despite the almost daily examples of terrorism, and the rise of “populism” which the Brahmins constantly sneer over, they still don’t appear to take it seriously.

See, for example, the attitudes on display here.

Over the last number of years, I admit to have become more increasingly nauseated and admiring of the cynical, psychopathic, dissimulating character of the white Anglo-American ex-protestant ruling elite.

In this lecture, by Edward Luttwak, he claims that grand strategy requires discipline. He provides, as an example, the grand strategy of the English ruling elite of the late 19th and early 20th century.

England’s elite had concluded two things.

Firstly, that the rising Germany was a threat and that the solution, to quote Luttwak, was that Germany “had to be destroyed.” Secondly, the English concluded that the rise of America was unstoppable and that, rather than oppose the Americans, the English should ally with them., that they should “never separate from them.”

So, the English made deals with the French – in which they gave considerable concessions; they made deals with Russians and the Japanese – this was all to deprive Germany of allies.

With the Americans, however, the English disciplined themselves to the insults, humiliations and abuses of the Americans – including the loss of their Empire.

The result?

We all know the result.

Whether or not it was worth it, or that it was the correct choice, the English acted with consummate discipline and amoral ruthlessness.

Luttwak says that to do strategy you must not only think in a “paradoxical way” but in a way that defies moral common sense – only cold logic of conflict must be used.

For instance, Caesar in Gaul was absolutely brutal with the Gauls. At one point, towards the end of the Gallic War, when the proconsular time limit for Caesar was running out, Caesar gave the order to chop of the hands of the Gauls who had broke their promise not to fight him again.

After Caesar, Gaul did not rise again.

Yet, during the Civil War, Caesar pardoned the Republicans who, after being defeated, submitted to him so that they could go home. Indeed, even those who took up arms twice, thus breaking their promise, to Caesar – he forgave them again.

So, the Anglo-American elite are a cold blooded, duplicitous, cynical people who pretend to be moral fanatics, but who are cunning foxes underneath the mask.

Everything that has happened to bring us to this point appears to have been planned with care and attention.

Of course, if it was your child lying dead in the streets of Nice, or your wife lying dead in the streets of Berlin, you’re likely to feel quite different. If it is Muslims moving into your street and hooking your daughter on heroin and then pimping her out, you’re likely to feel different, but that is because you are a poor, stupid serf who means nothing to the elites.

This scene, for instance, captures the attitude of the Anglo elite rather well.

(Though the quote that “you can always buy one half of the poor to kill the other half” was spoken by “Boss” Tweed who was Scots-Irish.)

Gangs of New York was a movie based on real history.

But here is yet another example of Anglo cunning which explains the reason behind this. 

And, of course, who could forget something like this. 

So, the Anglo-Americans sponsor third-world immigration to beat down the proles and the middle-classes in order to secure their power on the one hand, while the resulting terrorism justifies their military adventures abroad on the other –  Steve Sailer’s “invade the world, invite the world.”

Terrorism does not really matter, so say our liberal elites.

Elsewhere, I took Nicholas Kristof and Sam Altman to task for their moral imbecility, so I will try to be brief this time.

Terrorism matters because no one has any idea what the consequences will be of it. Secondly, and as time, technology and the war continues, the possibility of a nuclear dirty-bomb attack, a chemical weapons attack or a destabilising cyber-attack mount.

19 hijackers killed nearly three thousand Americans in a single morning. The Global Structure – my name for the international version of Moldbug’s Modern Structure – directly and indirectly killed over one million Muslims over a fifteen year period.

So, terrorism matters, for both the serfs living in the Global Structure’s open prison and for Muslim serfs in Allah’s prison.

No one really has any idea of how to stop the escalation of violence at this point. In the West, I sense a kind of world weariness: that a long war with massive violence and huge repression will be needed; mixed however, with a frantic panic that someone is an Islamophobe.

No one talks about peace: not the Brahmins at Harvard, or the Brahmins at the Times; the people who do talk about war, however, have no vision of peace, order and stability.

Today, I’m going to talk about both war and peace, and I am going to talk about the only possible solution to the problem posed in the three conjectures.  

Today, we are going to undertake an exercise both in grand strategy and in formalist political theorising for Global Peace and Civilisation. I doubt that I will ever win this however.

Moldbug:

Formalism is the idea that conflicts can be eliminated by specifying their results in advance. The idea is that people seem to fight a lot less when both sides know what the outcome will be. As long as the obvious answer and the right answer to this question are both obviously the same, no one has any temptation to test the system, and therefore it is stable.

For example, you are in a state of precise internal formalism if, whenever anyone fights the law, the law always wins. Precise internal formalism is always desirable. It is the same thing sometimes known informally as “rule of law.”

Fernandez:

Conjecture 1: Terrorism has lowered the nuclear threshold

These obstacles to terrorist capability are the sole reason that the War on Terror has not yet crossed the nuclear theshold, the point at which enemies fight each other with weapons of mass destruction. The terrorist intent to destroy the United States, at whatever cost to themselves, has been a given since September 11. Only their capability is in doubt. ( Emphasis Mine DR.) This is an inversion of the Cold War situation when the capability of the Soviet Union to destroy America was given but their intent to do so, in the face of certain retaliation, was doubtful.  (DREarly warning systems, from the DEW Line of the 1950s to the Defense Support Satellites were merely elaborate mechanisms to ascertain Soviet intent. That put the Cold War nuclear threshold rather high. Even the launch of a few multimegaton warheads at US targets or a nuclear exchange between forces at sea would not necessarily precipitate Central Nuclear War if American national command authority was convinced that the Soviet strike was accidental or could be met with a proportional response; in other words, without the intent to initiate an all out nuclear exchange, there would be none.

Nuclear holocaust was prevented because the players understood the pay-offs and each player’s intent.

Conjecture 2: Attaining WMDs will destroy Islam

Fernandez:

This fixity of malice was recognized in President Bush’s West Point address in the summer of 2002, when he concluded that “deterrence — the promise of massive retaliation against nations — means nothing against shadowy terrorist networks with no nation or citizens to defend.”  (DR) The enemy was equally indifferent to inducement or threat. Neither making nice — Jimmy Carter’s withdrawal from Iran, Reagan’s abandonment of Lebanon, Bush’s defense of Saudi Arabia, Clinton’s rescue of Albanian Muslims from Serbian genocide, the payment of billions in aid to Egypt and Pakistan — nor the gravest of threats would alter the enemy’s intent to utterly destroy and enslave America. Allah had condemned America. The Faithful only had to find the means to carry out the execution.

Because capability is the sole variable of interest in the war against terrorism, the greater the Islamic strike capability becomes, the stronger the response will be. (DR) An unrepeatable attack with a stolen WMD weapon would elicit a different response from one arising from a capability to strike on a sustained and repetitive basis. The riposte to an unrepeatable attack would be limited. However, suppose Pakistan or North Korea engineered a reliable plutonium weapon that could be built to one-point safety in any machine shop with a minimum of skill, giving Islamic terrorists the means to repeatedly attack America indefinitely. Under these circumstances, there would no incentive to retaliate proportionately. The WMD exchange would escalate uncontrollably until Islam was destroyed. (DR).

So, the longer this war continues, the faster technology improves, the more people die then the probability that hundreds of millions of Muslims will have to be systematically eliminated using weapons of mass destruction rises.

What Fernandez says next is of critical importance:

In a war between nations, the conflict might stop at this point. But since there is no one with whom to negotiate a peace and no inclination to stop anyhow, the Islamic terrorists will continue while they have the capability and the cycle of destruction continues.

At this point, a United States choked with corpses could still not negotiate an end to hostilities or deter further attacks. There would be no one to call on the Red Telephone, even to surrender to. In fact, there exists no competent Islamic authority, no supreme imam who could stop a jihad on behalf of the whole Muslim world. Even if the terror chiefs could somehow be contacted in this apocalyptic scenario and persuaded to bury the hatchet, the lack of command and control imposed by the cell structure would prevent them from reining in their minions. Due to the fixity of intent, attacks would continue for as long as capability remained. Under these circumstances, any American government would eventually be compelled by public desperation to finish the exchange by entering -1 x 10^9 in the final right hand column: total retaliatory extermination. 

(Emphasis mine.)

Public desperation, or because one of my Dark preachers have come to power.

The critical thing, however, is that there is no “competent Islamic authority, no supreme imam who could stop a jihad on behalf of the whole Muslim world.”

 

Here, at Dark Reformation, we believe that competent, secure, authority is one third of the solution to all our problems: Western, Islamic and Global.

How to do it?

Moldbug:

The idea is to eliminate uncertainty in nuclear conflicts, which is the most plausible cause of an actual outbreak of actual nuclear war. Gun nuts say that you shouldn’t point a gun at someone unless you’re ready to use it. They are trying to protect others from their own stupidity, but they are also trying to protect themselves: the less plausible it is to criminals that their victims won’t shoot if they lunge, the less likely they are to test the proposition.

 The system:

….here is one simple system of nuclear law that relies on performance inspections. This design is conflict-free and nonproliferative. However, it is not politically correct.

First, there are two types of sovorgs, nuclear sovorgs and nonnuclear sovorgs.

Second, delivery is assumed, and inspection is as simple as possible: anyone who can test a working bomb is a nuclear sovorg. Inspectors define “working” by their own judgment.

Third, every nonnuclear sovorg must maintain an official affiliation with one, and only one, nuclear sovorg. The nonnuclear sovorg is the client of the nuclear sovorg, which is the protector. A nuclear protector and its affiliates are a nuclear bloc. Either the client or the protector may sever this relationship, for any reason, at any time.

Fourth, an unaffiliated nonnuclear sovorg, or total defector, has no protection. Anyone may conquer and retain it. If multiple forces make the attempt, they should try and agree on a partition beforehand.

Fifth, in all suits between nuclear and nonnuclear sovorgs, whether or not the latter is affiliated with the former, the nuclear power prevails in all disputes except those solely affecting the territory of the nonnuclear sovorgs, in which case the nonnuclear sovorg prevails. Essentially, a nonnuclear sovorg controls its borders, everything inside them, and nothing else.

Sixth, all suits between nonnuclear sovorgs within a single nuclear bloc are judged by the protector. All suits between nonnuclear sovorgs in different blocs are judged by arbitrators appointed by agreement of both protectors. The same is the case for suits between nuclear sovorg, which hopefully will be rare.

Seventh, no nuclear sovorg allows its territory or the territory of its affiliates to be used for the planning or preparation of military attacks against any other sovorg, noting only that this rule cannot be invoked to demand any restriction on free expression.

Eighth, missile defense systems are prohibited, until they can be made as reliable as missiles. If this technical assessment changes, this rule should be revisited, but any missile defense system should be a joint effort between all nuclear sovorgs, designed only for total defectors.

It should be clear that anyone who feels the need to break these rules is a major psycho, and needs to be suppressed or at least contained by any means necessary. The idea of asymmetric war – a war in which different sides play by different rules – is one of the sickest jokes of the twentieth century. If you could explain this concept to Emerich de Vattel, he’d be retching for hours with awful, agonizing laughter. Washcorp can stop playing this game any time it decides it’s done.

It should also be clear that this design is antiproliferative. A nuclear protector has absolutely no incentive to allow its clients to go nuclear. It would lose a customer and gain a competitor.

Therefore, it will require that any client which does not have a nuclear program be prepared to prove it. And it will sever its ties with any client which does not comply. Presumably the latter will happen in time for the client to be devoured, like a shark in the shark tank, by its local competitors. Perhaps with some military aid from the protector if absolutely needed. If the rogue sovorg is to find another protector, it will face exactly the same ban.

Nuclear powers will also place golden handcuffs on their nuclear scientists, paying them like rock stars and placing restrictions on their movements and communication. There is no reason to do otherwise. Not all scientists will accept this bargain, but enough will.

Now, with the set up complete, how do we solve the problem of Islam?

There are two problems with Islam.

The first is internal, the second external.

The internal problem is that the Islamic religion is anarchic. The theology and the authority which adjudicates theological questions is not formalised; nor does formal authority match real authority in many cases. An imam can argue all he wants, but if men with guns and beards show up to kill him, the imam is toast unless he can bring his own men with guns and beards.

Anarchy condemns Muslims to a constant and never-ending war of all against all.

The external problem is with Islam and its relationship to non-Islamic civilisations, in particular Western civilisation.

Muslims can rape, rob and kill with near impunity because there is no mechanism of effective deterrence.

The Islamic world has no competent, secure authority which can negotiate with the West and constrain or eliminate the radicals. This means that the West must either accept being slowly bled and beaten or order brutal acts of collective punishment on the entire Muslim community; finally, as Richard Fernandez argues with the case of nuclear or chemical weapons, total extermination is the only option.

Let’s imagine the answer to the the direst of dire question: what-would-Hitler-do?

I think we know what Hitler would do. It would be the same as Stalin or Mao or Sherman or numerous other men of war.

When the British arranged for Reinhard Heydrich to be assassinated (certainly a folly and arguably a crime, not against Heydrich, but against the people of the town of Lidice who were virtually all killed on the orders of Hitler; all the men were shot, and the women and children were sent to death camps and gassed to death.)

What is the formalist answer, however?

Here is the system.

1: There are four categories of actors: regular Muslims, Imams, Emirs and the Caliph.

2: All Muslims, or anyone who wishes to be a Muslim, or who considers themselves Muslim, must register formally with a Mosque and an Imam. All Muslims who are registered with the Mosque, under the guidance and protection of the Imam, constitute a collective security pact.

3: For our purposes we can say that an attack on one is an attack on all members of the pact; however, the corollary of this is that if one member commits a crime and or an act of terror, then all members, including the Imam, are deemed collectively responsible for the crime.

4: All Imams must register with Emirs, and all Emirs must register with the Caliph.

5: The Emirs and the Caliph are the protectors of Imams and Emirs, who are clients. Disputes between Muslims can be solved by an Imam; disputes between Imams can be solved by Emirs and disputes between Emirs can be solved by the Caliph who is the final and absolute judge.

6: Any and all Muslims, Imams and Emirs who are not part of any formal pact and protector-client relationship are to be judged infidels; thus, it is the duty of all Muslims to use any and all means necessary to bring them into a pact, or eliminate them entirely. In addition, it is perfectly permissible for non-Muslims to use any actions they deem fit and proper against these lone-wolfs, rogues or infidels.

7: If disputes arise between Muslims and non-Muslims, then the protectors of each participant can try to resolve the situation. If this fails at the local level, then it works its way up to the top, where the Caliph and (Ha! Ha!) the King, Tzar or Emperor resolve the situation together.

8: If a Muslim commits an act of terror against a non-Muslim that has not been sanctioned by the Imam, Emir and or Caliph, then it is the duty of any and all Muslims to bring them to justice – which is death. Furthermore, if their friends or family members, who have been registered at the same Mosque with the same Imam, had knowledge of the attack but said and did nothing, then they to must face justice. Also, the entire Mosque will be taxed, including the Imam. Subsequent attacks will result in greater and greater fines and not only for the Imam but for the Emir. If Imams are unhappy with the lack of piety (pacifism) among their members, they may have them punished and the same goes for the Emirs and the Caliph with his Emirs.

9: If violence becomes sustained, widespread and serious, then the relevant authority orders that female members of the infidels are to be enslaved and sold as sex slaves or slaves to anyone who wishes to buy them.

10: If the Caliph fails in his contractual obligations to enforce discipline on his clients, then non-Muslims can take various actions against the Caliph personally. This may involve money, property and apologies. It may also involve sanctions. If disputes cannot be resolved, it may involve assassinating his key or important Emirs and their families. The penultimate action, however, will result in the assassination or elimination of the Caliph and his family. Ultimately, if disputes cannot be resolved to the satisfaction of all parties, then the only recourse is war, and in war, the law is silent.

11: Nevertheless, the contractual relationships are symmetrical. Should a non-Muslim kill a Muslim, then the Muslim community can demand justice over the killing. If the killer is part of pact, such as having a contractual relationship with an insurance company, a private security company, who provide law and order for a neo-cameralist Western state, then they have contractual obligations to punish him.

12: Overall, by having a formal system of promises and relationships with known and certain responses understood in advance of any crime or act of aggression, then violence can be minimised because the parties involved understand the consequences of having collective security.

Thus, Muslims will not want to be part of Mosques that have a poor history of terrorism or failing to honour their obligations and the other side of the coin is that Imams will not want to allow potential terrorists to be part of their pact. The same logic applies between the Emir and the Imam and between the Caliph and the Emirs.

So, if for example, a group were trying to create weapons of mass destruction in order to use them against non-Muslims without the proper sanction, then the structure of incentives all points to Muslims attempting to either constrain or eliminate them.

In conclusion, the system depends on all parties having the means and the will to carry out their contractual obligations to engage in whatever acts of violence is necessary to deter, constrain or eliminate rogues.

I believe the Muslim world has no problem with this aspect of the system; however, it is creating the system itself that would pose the most problems.

The means of creating a Caliph could be done via a direct democratic election. All it requires is a phone and an internet connection. An indirect democratic way, however, would be to directly elect Imams who elect the Caliph.

The Caliph, however, must have some means of enforcing his judgement – the same with Emirs over Imams.

The Caliph needs men, money and materials.

One solution would be, after his election, to form a joint-stock corporation and advertise for investors and donations from all over the world.

With sufficient start-up money, the Caliph and his staff, can buy communication equipment and broadcast to the entire Muslim world.

His first communication would consist of communicating, in his own way, the system I have just explained.

He would offer peace and justice to all, but his authority would extend only to people who have pledged allegiance with him.

His communications consist of legal and theological judgements based upon the cases he hears from Emirs who have pledged their allegiance to him.

Money, either from taxes, payments or fines, can be dealt with using crypto-currency technology.

The next step, is to create a private security company along with an insurance company.

The private security company will provide personal protection for the Caliph, and protection for all those who are his clients; secondly, in order to achieve this, they will threaten no governments – Islamic or non-Islamic. They will request, and try to influence, using non-violent persuasion, any government to allow them to undertake duties of law, order and justice, as it pertains to their members.

If this proves successful, then more investors will invest, and more clients will contract (pledges of allegiance).

The next stage is to both resolve some small, local disputes and one major dispute between Islamic governments his clients and non-western governments respectively. Secondly, it is either to negotiate with and persuade Islamic terrorist groups to desist; if that cannot be done, then deploy the private security company (its private military wing) to defeat and or destroy them. (Boko Haram in Africa would be a good test case.)

Subsequently, the goal would be to have villages, towns, cities and countries pledge their allegiance to him – using the direct democratic methods outlined earlier. It would be wise to work with a small, manageable numbers at first; then expand..

Finally, the entire Muslim world pledges allegiance to him, and the non-Muslim world recognise him as the legitimate ruler of the Islamic world.

There can be little doubt, however, that significant opposition would exist from the start and throughout his rise to power. The only option would be to use the methods I described earlier.

Eventually, the Caliph takes up residence in Mecca, where he will rule. His primary duty, if he were wise, would be to just adjudicate disputes and to appoint Emirs who would govern the various Islamic Patchworks according to their needs and circumstances.

The project of Islamic restoration, however, would prove an attractive draw for Muslims who are both materially and spiritually poor. There would be an Imperial Guard an Imperial Science, an Imperial University and Imperial Administrators. Competition would be fierce, yet open to all Muslims; the training would be gruelling, yet the rewards would be not only financially tremendous but it would confer the highest of high status on those men who made it into the various Imperial Orders.

For Westerners, however, the pay-offs are Win Win Win.

Firstly, if this memebomb spread among the Muslim world it would, more than anything, divide it into even more anarchy and division than what it currently is – and the result would have no moral taint whatsoever. Islam would fight itself, not because the West is trying to bring democracy, but because the West is trying to bring Islam to Islam.    

Secondly, if the plan did prove successful, then the West benefits because it would have a clear, competent, secure authority with which to negotiate (Kissinger once said: “If I need to call Europe who do I call?) and resolve disputes.

Thirdly, if the plan was successful, but this new united Islamic world began to renege on its formal obligations and become aggressive. Then, the West has a clear, defined and easily attacked structure and target set. Thus, if the West uses violence, the violence is much, much more likely to be effective.

If not, if the situation remained hopeless and the use of weapons of mass destruction were used or about to be used, then the West, or China or Russia would have no choice.

However, contra what Fernandez says below, they would not lose their soul over it:

 James Lileks and the Pew respondents would not lose America; but like the boogeyman in Seven, Islam would take it’s soul. The most startling result of this analysis is that a catastrophic outcome for Islam is guaranteed whether America retaliates or not. Even if the President decided to let all Americans die to expiate their historical guilt, why would Islamic terrorists stop after that? They would move on to Europe and Asia until finally China, Russia, Japan, India or Israel, none of them squeamish, wrote -1 x 10^9 in the final right hand column.  (Emphasis mine.) They too would be prisoners of the same dynamic, and they too have weapons of mass destruction.

A guaranteed catastrophic outcome for Islam either way:

Conjecture 3: The War on Terror is the ‘Golden Hour’ — the final chance

It is supremely ironic that the survival of the Islamic world should hinge on an American victory in the War on Terror, the last chance to prevent that terrible day in which all the decisions will have already been made for us. That effort really consists of two separate aspects: a campaign to destroy the locus of militant Islam and prevent their acquisition of WMDs; and an attempt to awaken the world to the urgency of the threat. While American arms have proven irresistible, much of Europe, as well as moderates in the Islamic world, remain blind to the danger and indeed increase it. Prime Minister Mahathir Mohammad recently “told an international conference of young Muslim leaders … (that) … Muslims must acquire skills and technology so they can create modern weapons and strike fear into the hearts of our enemies”. Fecklessness and gunpowder are a lethal combination. The terrible ifs accumulate. (Bold mine.)

The claim that Americans and Europeans are increasing the danger, should not be read in a formal but in a real way – if only for the inner elite among the oligarchy of the Modern Structure.

What is the possibility that such a system could be implemented?

A considerable number of Muslims do want the Caliphate, and I would assume many, if not most, would be happy to live in the system – with some adjustments, of course, and presented in an Islamic language.

Nevertheless, for the system to work, it requires two parties – it requires the West. But as Putin said of the American regime under the Obama administration, USG is not “agreement capable.” Who would the Caliph call in Washington never-mind Brussels?

We need a new congress of Vienna, but for that we need real rulers.

We needs Kings.

We need an American Emperor for an American Empire.

 

 

 

 

 

Advertisements
Standard

5 thoughts on “The Path to the Dark Reformation Part E: Formalism, Islam and the Need for a New Congress of Vienna.

  1. Pingback: The Path to the Dark Reformation Part E: Formalism, Islam and the Need for a New Congress of Vienna. | Reaction Times

  2. Pingback: This Week In Reaction (2017/04/23) - Social Matter

  3. Pingback: The Path to the Dark Reformation G: The Neoreactionary Philosophical Formula. (Or A Response to W.M Briggs on the Subject of Science and Morality.) | "The Horror! The Horror!"

  4. Pingback: The Path to the Dark Reformation X: The Restoration of England. | "The Horror! The Horror!"

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s