DebateGate
General Category => 3DHS => Topic started by: sirs on September 25, 2006, 03:39:03 PM
-
As much as it might pain Js and others as to how inaccurate such a term is supposed to be, I'm going to keep calling a duck a duck, in this case. And this op-ed helps that POV along
Islamic Fascism 101
On all they’ve done to earn the name.
By Victor Davis Hanson
Make no apologies for the use of “Islamic fascism.†It is the perfect nomenclature for the agenda of radical Islam, for a variety of historical and scholarly reasons. That such usage also causes extreme embarrassment to both the Islamists themselves and their leftist “anti-fascist†appeasers in the West is just too bad.
First, the general idea of “fascism†— the creation of a centralized authoritarian state to enforce blanket obedience to a reactionary, all-encompassing ideology — fits well the aims of contemporary Islamism that openly demands implementation of sharia law and the return to a Pan-Islamic and theocratic caliphate.
In addition, Islamists, as is true of all fascists, privilege their own particular creed of true believers by harkening back to a lost, pristine past, in which the devout were once uncorrupted by modernism.
True, bin Laden’s mythical Volk doesn’t bath in the clear icy waters of the Rhine untouched by the filth of the Tiber; but rather they ride horses and slice the wind with their scimitars in service of a soon to be reborn majestic world of caliphs and mullahs. Osama bin Laden sashaying in his flowing robes is not all that different from the obese Herman Goering in reindeer horns plodding around his Karinhall castle with suspenders and alpine shorts.
Because fascism is born out of insecurity and the sense of failure, hatred for Jews is de rigueur. To read al Qaeda’s texts is to reenter the world of Mein Kampf (naturally now known as jihadi in the Arab world). The crackpot minister of its ideology, Dr. Zawahiri, is simply a Dr. Alfred Rosenberg come alive — a similar quarter-educated buffoon, who has just enough of a vocabulary to dress up fascist venom in a potpourri of historical misreadings and pseudo-learning.
Envy and false grievance, as in the past with Italian, German, or Japanese whining, are always imprinted deeply within the fascist mind. After all, it can never quite figure out why the morally pure, the politically zealous, the ever more obedient are losing out to corrupt and decadent democracies — where “mixing,†either in the racial or religious sense, should instead have enervated the people.
The “will†of the German people, like the “Banzai†spirit of the Japanese, should always trump the cowardly and debased material superiority of decadent Western democracies. So al Qaeda boasts that in Somalia and Afghanistan the unshakeable creed of Islam overcame the richer and better equipped Americans and Russians. To read bin Laden’s communiqués is to be reminded of old Admiral Yamamato assuring his creepy peers that his years in the United States in the 1920s taught him that Roaring Twenties America, despite its fancy cars and skyscrapers, simply could not match the courage of the chosen Japanese.
Second, fascism thrives best in a once proud, recently humbled, but now ascendant, people. They are ripe to be deluded into thinking contemporary setbacks were caused by others and are soon to be erased through ever more zealotry. What Versailles and reparations were to Hitler’s new Germany, what Western colonialism and patronizing in the Pacific were to the rising sun of the Japanese, what the embarrassing image of the perennial sick man of Europe was to Mussolini’s new Rome, so too Israel, modernism, and America’s ubiquitous pop culture are to the Islamists, confident of a renaissance via vast petro-weatlh.
Such reactionary fascism is complex because it marries the present’s unhappiness with moping about a regal past — with glimpses of an even more regal future. Fascism is not quite the narcotic of the hopeless, but rather the opiate of the recently failed now on the supposed rebound who welcome the cheap fix of blaming others and bragging about their own iron will.
Third, while there is generic fascism, its variants naturally weave preexisting threads familiar to a culture at large. Hitler’s brand cribbed together notions of German will, Aryanism, and the cult of the Ubermensch from Hegel, Nietzsche, and Spengler, with ample Nordic folk romance found from Wagner to Tacitus’s Germania. Japanese militarism’s racist creed, fanaticism, and sense of historical destiny were a motley synthesis of Bushido, Zen and Shinto Buddhism, emperor worship, and past samurai legends. Mussolini’s fasces, and the idea of an indomitable Caesarian Duce (or Roman Dux), were a pathetic attempt to resurrect imperial Rome. So too Islamic fascism draws on the Koran, the career of Saladin, and the tracts of Nasserites, Baathists, and Muslim Brotherhood pamphleteers.
Fourth, just as it was idle in the middle of World War II to speculate how many Germans, Japanese, or Italians really accepted the silly hatred of Hitler, Mussolini, or Tojo, so too it is a vain enterprise to worry over how many Muslims follow or support al Qaeda, or, in contrast, how many in the Middle East actively resist Islamists.
Most people have no ideology, but simply accommodate themselves to the prevailing sense of an agenda’s success or failure. Just as there weren’t more than a dozen vocal critics of Hitler after the Wehrmacht finished off France in six weeks in June of 1940, so too there wasn’t a Nazi to be found in June 1945 when Berlin lay in rubble.
It doesn’t matter whether Middle Easterners actually accept the tenets of bin Laden’s worldview — not if they think he is on the ascendancy, can bring them a sense of restored pride, and humiliate the Jews and the West on the cheap. Bin Laden is no more eccentric or impotent than Hitler was in the late 1920s.Yet if he can claim that his martyrs forced the United States out of Afghanistan and Iraq, toppled a petrol sheikdom or two, and acquired its wealth and influence — or if he got his hands on nuclear weapons and lorded it over appeasing Westerners — then he too, like the Fuhrer in the 1930s, will become untouchable. The same is true of Iran’s president Ahmadinejad.
Fifth, fascism springs from untruth and embraces lying. Hitler had contempt for those who believed him after Czechoslovakia. He broke every agreement from Munich to the Soviet non-aggression pact. So did the Japanese, who were sending their fleet to Pearl Harbor even as they talked of a new diplomatic breakthrough.
Al-Zawahiri in his writings spends an inordinate amount of effort excusing al Qaeda’s lies by referring to the Koranic notions of tactical dissimulation. We remember Arafat saying one thing in English and another in Arabic, and bin Laden denying responsibility for September 11 and then later boasting of it. Nothing a fascist says can be trusted, since all means are relegated to the ends of seeing their ideology reified. So too Islamic fascists, by any means necessary, will fib, and hedge for the cause of Islamism. Keep that in mind when considering Iran’s protestations about its “peaceful†nuclear aims.
We can argue whether the present-day Islamic fascists have the military means comparable to what was had in the past by Nazis, Fascists, and militarists — I think a dirty bomb is worth the entire Luftwaffe, one nuclear missile all the striking power of the Japanese imperial Navy — but there should be no argument over who they are and what they want. They are fascists of an Islamic sort, pure and simple.
And the least we can do is to call them that: after all, they earned it.
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=OGEyNjcyNzBjYTQ2MDM0ZGIzZjY5YjhhMzViYjdjNTA=
-
there should be no argument over who they are and what they want. They are fascists of an Islamic sort, pure and simple
Interesting...
-
Interesting...
I thought so. And I appreciate you not simply discarding the piece, based solely on its subject
-
<<That such usage also causes extreme embarrassment to both the Islamists themselves and their leftist “anti-fascist†appeasers in the West is just too bad. >>
LMFAO. The term is an embarrassment only to its inventors and users. But dream on, Zionists and Zionist apologists.
This article is just too long and too stupid to waste any time on. Essentially it begins with a hand-crafted definition of fascism different from any other definition of fascism that ever existed until the Zionist bullshit machine came up with "Islamofascism" as a term of art, which is specially edited to apply to . . . you guessed it! to the current anti-Zionist, anti-American Islamic fundamentalist guerrilla movements originally sponsored by Americans and Saudis to fight the Russians in Afghanistan.
Once you accept this new definition of "fascism," it is a foregone conclusion that it will apply to al Qaeda and similar movements. Thus, Al Qaeda is an Islamofascist. Q.E.D.
-
But I wanna play the "create your own definition" game too! Why should conservatives and Zionists have all the fun?
Is Bush a Nazi? Well, that depends on your definition of Nazi, doesn't it? How about this:
Nazi (nah'-tzee) (a) a member of the NSDAP (National Sozialistische Deutsche Arbeiters Partei) or (b) one of the living descendants of George Herbert Walker Bush and Barbara Bush.
You see, when you consider carefully the true definition of "Nazi," then it is beyond doubt that George W. Bush is a Nazi, no matter how much embarassment this may cause to the Bush family or their apologists. Too bad for them.
-
The term is an embarrassment only to its inventors and users. But dream on, Zionists and Zionist apologists. This article is just too long and too stupid to waste any time on
Now that's the Tee, we all know in love, at his dosconnected best ;D And here's a perfect toon for the occasion
(http://cagle.msnbc.com/working/060923/asay.gif)
-
And I appreciate you not simply discarding the piece, based solely on its subject
Sirs, I could write a good reply and discuss why the National Review's piece is using a completely incoherent and trite definition of fascism, but why?
You'd refuse to actually read it with any objectivity. I have no evidence to show that anyone else actually reads that stuff either. I don't think you or others like you actually bother to understand the history and political philosophy of Fascism or even Arab fascism enough to care. So, I'm not sure why you are complaining to me about discarding the piece when I put enough effort to write a long, original piece that will simply be discarded or ignored anyway.
-
I could write a good reply and discuss why the National Review's piece is using a completely incoherent and trite definition of fascism, but why? You'd refuse to actually read it with any objectivity.
Well, you'd be wrong. And I could add to that precisely the same proclaimation, so probably best that you didn't. But again, I appreciate that you actually took the time to read the piece
-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamofascism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Definitions_of_fascism
Umberto Eco
In a 1995 essay "Eternal Fascism" [4], the Italian writer and academic Umberto Eco attempts to list general properties of fascist ideolgy. He claims that it is not possible to organise these into a coherent system, but that " it is enough that one of them be present to allow fascism to coagulate around it". He uses the term "Ur-fascism" as a generic description of different historical forms of fascism.
The features of fascism he lists are as follows:
"The Cult of Tradition", combining cultural syncretism with a rejection of modernism (often disguised as a rejection of capitalism).
"The Cult of Action for Action's Sake", which dicatates that action is of value in itself, and should be taken without intellectual reflection. This, says Eco, is connected with anti-intellectualism and irrationalism, and often manifests in attacks on modern culture and science.
"Disagreement is Treason" - fascism devalues intellectual discourse and critical reasoning as barriers to action.
"Fear of Difference", which fascism seeks to exploit and exacerbate, often in the form of racism or an appeal against foreigners and immigrants.
"Appeal to a Frustrated Middle Class", fearing economic pressure from the demands and aspirations of lower social groups.
"Obsession With a Plot" and the hyping-up of an enemy threat. This often involves an appeal to xenophobia or the identification of an internal security threat. He cites Pat Robertson's book The New World Order as a prominent example of a plot obsession.
"Pacifism is Trafficking With the Enemy" because "Life is Permanent Warfare" - there must always be an enemy to fight.
"Contempt for the Weak" - although a fascist society is elitist, everybody in the society is educated to become a hero.
"Selective Populism" - the People have a common will, which is not delegated but interpreted by a leader. This may involve doubt being cast upon a democratic institution, because "it no longer represents the Voice of the People".
"Newspeak" - fascism employs and promotes an impoverished vocabulary in order to limit critical reasoning.
Some simularity ... is evident.
What is the particular dissimularity that makes "islamofascism" na inappropriate term?
-
Some simularity ... is evident. What is the particular dissimularity that makes "islamofascism" na inappropriate term?
I think its because it's not politically correct, Plane
-
I think its because it's not politically correct
You see? That right there is why I don't bother with a decent reply.
Plane takes the time to at least find an article that references an academic article and makes an argument for similarity from that. The response? "It's not politically correct."
I commend you Plane, for trying to make a decent debate out of this. Part of me really wants to engage in the debate with an academic look at the political philosophy and history of fascism. Yet, another part is fairly certain that there is no point because of inane and quite honestly puerile comments such as this one by Sirs.
-
You see? That right there is why I don't bother with a decent reply. Plane takes the time to at least find an article that references an academic article and makes an argument for similarity from that. The response? "It's not politically correct."
Last time I used official accepted difinitions and such, I was similarly denounced Js. I find both reference pieces and well articulated op-eds to reinforce both the term & application of Islamofascism, but all you can do is ridicule it, & claim how that doesn't warrant a "decent reply". Interesting double standard we have here.
I will concede Plane is much better at remaining civil and non-condescending than I, with his posts. He probably also has more patience in dealing with folks who just want to bury their heads in the sand, as it relates to militant Islam malignancy
-
OK.
I'll start with Eco's essay. First, I'd advise reading the entire essay to understand completely what he's talking about.
"The Cult of Tradition", combining cultural syncretism with a rejection of modernism (often disguised as a rejection of capitalism).
"The Cult of Action for Action's Sake", which dicatates that action is of value in itself, and should be taken without intellectual reflection. This, says Eco, is connected with anti-intellectualism and irrationalism, and often manifests in attacks on modern culture and science.
"Disagreement is Treason" - fascism devalues intellectual discourse and critical reasoning as barriers to action.
"Fear of Difference", which fascism seeks to exploit and exacerbate, often in the form of racism or an appeal against foreigners and immigrants.
"Appeal to a Frustrated Middle Class", fearing economic pressure from the demands and aspirations of lower social groups.
"Obsession With a Plot" and the hyping-up of an enemy threat. This often involves an appeal to xenophobia or the identification of an internal security threat. He cites Pat Robertson's book The New World Order as a prominent example of a plot obsession.
"Pacifism is Trafficking With the Enemy" because "Life is Permanent Warfare" - there must always be an enemy to fight.
"Contempt for the Weak" - although a fascist society is elitist, everybody in the society is educated to become a hero.
"Selective Populism" - the People have a common will, which is not delegated but interpreted by a leader. This may involve doubt being cast upon a democratic institution, because "it no longer represents the Voice of the People".
"Newspeak" - fascism employs and promotes an impoverished vocabulary in order to limit critical reasoning.
Cult of Tradition? Maybe. Clearly this wasn't the case for the 9/11 attackers, some of whom enjoyed alcohol, women, and modern conveniences. This might apply to the Taleban, but certainly not to other terrorist organisations such as Hezbollah or Hamas.
Action for Action's Sake: Interesting. I'd argue that this is more apparent in the American extreme right. Attacks on modern culture and science? Certainly we see that here everyday with attacks on scientific findings on the environment, attacks on evolution, or disbelief in scientific knowledge in general. Attacks on modern culture is a mainstay of the Evangelical movement.
Attacking intellectualism and seeing it as a weakness is also commonplace here in the United States. Demonising academics and professors is common practice. This may occur in the Middle East as well, but is certainly a check mark for our own right wing.
Disagreement is Treason: For this one I think the essay helps expound some (if I recall correctly).
Fear of Difference: Common here, though I'm sure it is in Islamic groups as well.
Appeal to a Frustrated Middle Class: OK, I see how this applied to the political philosophy of Fascism. This is a good point really. Hitler was an expert with this, and this is one reason Fascism found popularity in areas were Communism did not. How does radical Islam appeal to a frustrated middle class?
Pacifism is Trafficking With the Enemy: You hear that here. Sirs has posted cartoons that imply the very same.
Newspeak: Yep.
To be honest, I see as much or more that could be applied to the right wing here (and occasionally the left for that matter) as to radical Islam. Also, Eco was discussing what he called Ur-fascism not Fascism.
I'll get to the op-ed piece next...
-
OK.
I'll start with Eco's essay. First, I'd advise reading the entire essay to understand completely what he's talking about.
Pacifism is Trafficking With the Enemy: You hear that here. Sirs has posted cartoons that imply the very same.
Newspeak: Yep.
To be honest, I see as much or more that could be applied to the right wing here (and occasionally the left for that matter) as to radical Islam. Also, Eco was discussing what he called Ur-fascism not Fascism.
I'll get to the op-ed piece next...
Hess was more purely Fascist than Goreing but it would be rediculous to say that Goreing was less than Fascist just because he was not Fascist in every possible respect.
Fascisism that merely makes the trains run on time would be sort of tolerable , if it were lacking some of its aspects that caused harm.
If Islamists are becomeing like Fascists in a few important respects , then they deserve the appilation even if they fail to fit in less important aspects.
Do I take it as given that you are in agreement with Umberto Echo in these catagorical definitions?
If you agree with the essay by Echo , what part or what Features of Fascism would you consider the important ones?
ON the side,
Go on and respond to Sirs , but be an example in your response of what you would like his posts to be like.
-
Hess was more purely Fascist than Goreing but it would be rediculous to say that Goreing was less than Fascist just because he was not Fascist in every possible respect.
True, but both were proud to call themselves Fascists. This is an interesting missing point from Sirs analogy. The right wing in the United States is ver keen on calling the radical elements of Islam fascists. Yet, the true historical fascists wore the title proudly, but we don't see that with the so called "Islamo-fascists" do we?
If Islamists are becomeing like Fascists in a few important respects , then they deserve the appilation even if they fail to fit in less important aspects.
Yet, are you willing to apply that same logic to this country? The list is broad and remember Eco's point that this is Ur-fascism not Fascism. He makes the distinction clear, why?
-
That such usage also causes extreme embarrassment to both the Islamists themselves and their leftist “anti-fascist†appeasers in the West is just too bad.
"Appeasers" is a clear reference to Conservative Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain's policy of trying to contain Adolf Hitler by allowing him to take the Sudetenland from Czechoslovakia. This sentence itself does two things, it places leftists on the side of Islamists (interestingly not calling them Islamofascists here) and it makes a World War II like hyperbole.
Chamberlain is one of those special people who is maligned by revisionist would-be historians, but was well-respected in his times. The truth was that Britain nor France could have ever saved the Sudetenland (anymore than they were able to save Poland). Many on today's right (and even left wing) like to think that pacifism was somehow involved in appeasement, it was not. There were many variables involved, including massive British debt, diplomatic strategies to keep Hitler as an anti-Communist, etc that were considered beforehand.
First, the general idea of “fascism†— the creation of a centralized authoritarian state to enforce blanket obedience to a reactionary, all-encompassing ideology — fits well the aims of contemporary Islamism that openly demands implementation of sharia law and the return to a Pan-Islamic and theocratic caliphate.
Though fascism is not a democratic political philosophy, that does not make it the only non-democratic political ideology. You like calling a duck a duck? Call this what it is: theocracy. Is that not what these individuals really want? The Caliphates, after the initial four, were basically royal dynasties which is far removed from fascist ideology. They were also rather unsuccesful and never ruled a united ummah.
By the way, sharia law (since we are getting our terms straight) does not refer to a single set of laws. It can mean many different things to different Muslims and shouldn't be given such a nasty connotation. It isn't much different than Halakha amongst the Jews. There is flexibility within sharia. Also keep in mind that like Judaism, Islam is a religion of law. It is not like Christianity. The law is extremely important and governs day-to-day activities and practices.
In addition, Islamists, as is true of all fascists, privilege their own particular creed of true believers by harkening back to a lost, pristine past, in which the devout were once uncorrupted by modernism.
That's generally a trait of the right-wing, which was all fascism really was. It was an alliance of major right wing groups in Europe behind a political philosophy. Look at those who harken back to the education of the three R's. Those who believe that the United States was a better nation in the 1950's when chewing gum was the "only" major problem in school. Those who believe that when prayer was in schools, the pledge was recited every morning, and gays were shut up in the closet, and women had more rigidly defined roles was the better time in American life. That isn't a fascist trait, that is a conservative trait (I mean conservative in the traditional sense). The fascists were simply more outlandish with it. It makes sense that the Islamists use it as well, but it has little to do with Fascism.
Because fascism is born out of insecurity and the sense of failure, hatred for Jews is de rigueur.
False. Mussolini was a zionist at one point. He also had Jews in high positions. This is theNational Review's attempt to force a square peg into a smaller round hole and make this about Israel and America. The Nazis used the Jews as a scapegoat because anti-semitism was extremely popular. If the Jews hadn't been there then it would have been somone else (and was - look at the Roma). It isn't about Jews specifically. Look at the Croatian death camps. They gassed and murdered primarily Serbians. It is about a minority that people can agree to hate.
To read al Qaeda’s texts is to reenter the world of Mein Kampf
One ought to read Mein Kampf and some of Hitler's speeches. If you really believe in the spirit of "Never Again!" then I highly suggest it. You might be amazed the way in which Hitler is able to talk with the middle classes. It might change your perspective.
Fascism is not quite the narcotic of the hopeless, but rather the opiate of the recently failed now on the supposed rebound who welcome the cheap fix of blaming others and bragging about their own iron will.
What? No offense, but I'm not even sure this deserves a decent response. Fascism is a nationalist political philosophy that denies class struggle and directly appeals to populism. The above is subjective and unsubstantiated. Also, past sentences discussed Imperial Japan and I want to point out that Japan was never a Fascist state.
Japanese militarism’s racist creed, fanaticism, and sense of historical destiny were a motley synthesis of Bushido, Zen and Shinto Buddhism, emperor worship, and past samurai legends.
See above. Japan was a military dictatorship, and very few historians of which I am aware consider it a Fascist state. Very bizarre line of thought by the author to include them. From a journalist's perspective I can understand that they are trying to once again make this a comparison of World War II, but if that is the goal why not make the editorial strictly about that? Why make it about Fascism? Very odd.
Just as there weren’t more than a dozen vocal critics of Hitler after the Wehrmacht finished off France in six weeks in June of 1940
There were of course many more than that, but many of them were Communists and sent into exile or the first concentration camps.
Yet if he can claim that his martyrs forced the United States out of Afghanistan and Iraq, toppled a petrol sheikdom or two, and acquired its wealth and influence — or if he got his hands on nuclear weapons and lorded it over appeasing Westerners — then he too, like the Fuhrer in the 1930s, will become untouchable. The same is true of Iran’s president Ahmadinejad.
Extreme hypotheticals. If bin Laden was elected leader of Iraq, what then? If he cut off his beard invested all his assets in Microsoft and became chairman...
We have to deal with reasonable scenarios, not play speculative hypotheticals. Besides, none of those situations would place bin Laden beyond being a thug criminal. He'd still never be what Hitler was. Remember that Hitler in the 1930's had the respect and admiration of many leaders in the west. He was not abjectly despised or a wanted criminal throughout the world.
As for Iran's president, well, I heard the same hyperbole about Saddam. Every tinpot dictator is the "new Hitler." The truth is that none of them are. I know enough about history that I'm fairly certain I don't need the National Review to point out the "new Hitler" to me if one ever does exist.
Fifth, fascism springs from untruth and embraces lying. Hitler had contempt for those who believed him after Czechoslovakia. He broke every agreement from Munich to the Soviet non-aggression pact. So did the Japanese, who were sending their fleet to Pearl Harbor even as they talked of a new diplomatic breakthrough.
Fascism no more embraces lying than any other political philosophy. Both Stalin and Hitler knew that neither could be trusted. The non-aggression pact was going to be broken, Hitler was just more prepared to deliver a near knockout than Stalin was to defend against it. Stalin was far too busy purging most of his competent officer corps. In other words, it was signed with the intention of it never lasting. Japan was not a fascist state, but also had little choice in the matter. It was a surprise attack sure, but so what if they lied?
So lying is one of the criteria? Are they serious? Does that make Henry Kissenger and Richard Nixon Fascists and by extension the United States? No offense again Sirs, but that is a rather bizarre assertion. Diplomacy is an arena where the truth gets displaced, especially if one follows realpolitik. I know that the Republicans have moved on to a more supposedly idealistic foreign policy, but you cannot say "war is hell, isn't it" out of one corner of your mouth and then whinge when someone lies in a war setting out of the other corner. It is logically inconsistent.
They are fascists of an Islamic sort, pure and simple.
They aren't even close to fascists and this was perhaps one of the most ill-defined and poorly written definitions of Fascism I have ever read.
Honestly, there were people who were proud to call themselves "Fascists" who wrote books and essays on the philosophy. Why not read some of that and compare the two? This is just not a very quality academic comparison. This is justifying after the fact. For example, it centers around World War II, but compares the Islamists ( a decent enough descriptor) to pre-war fascism. Yet, it never discusses the rise of Italian Fascism. Doesn't it seem odd not to compare apples to apples? It certainly does to me. It mentions Mein Kampf but quotes no passages. It makes numerous assertions of fascist qualities, but provides scant examples. When it does provide examples, I've shown how they have erred.
Hopefully I've presented a good argument.
-
Appeal to a Frustrated Middle Class: OK, I see how this applied to the political philosophy of Fascism. This is a good point really. Hitler was an expert with this, and this is one reason Fascism found popularity in areas were Communism did not. How does radical Islam appeal to a frustrated middle class?
This may be the least simular of the potential simularitys , Islamofascism has a greater appeal to the poor and poorly educated the middle class being relitively small in comparison to the western countrys it is less important to appeal to it.
There is some element of appeal tho , and it is by means of contributions from welthy and middle class Muslims that Al Quieda gets the majority of its funding , with criminal enterprises accounting for the remainder.
-
Hopefully I've presented a good argument.
Oh yes, you are doing quite well inspite of being wrong.
Ur- fascism would seem to be a widening of the root definition of Fascism so that groups with simularity but without common history or total simularity can be described as Fascist because of a short list of commonalitys .
Mr Echo has given us a list of what he considered to be the objectionable features of facism and it doesn't include much of what Mousoulini defined Fascism as,it doesn't include the political philosophy much , it is rather a listing of the effects and causes that exist in human nature that allowed the specific historical Fascist and the general ur-fascist to grow .
In Italy the Fascists grew on a nourishment of nostalga for former greatness and in Germany they were sure that everything ought to be done the German way in Japan they didn't consider themselves Fascists , more like monarcist empire builders , but they were still compatible enough with Fascists to exchange information , and inspireation.
It would be rediculous to call Joseph Stalin a Fascist , vet he had enough in common with them to assist in the building of their Armed forces , even in the USA there were people who were not Fascist really but who were ready to do business with them.
Islamo fascists are very arguably not genuine fascists because their aims of domination do not spring from the fascist movement , but can they qualify as Ur - fascists anyhow? They are overcomeing an inferiority that they feel by asserting the superiority of their way and their will , they are attempting to build an order for the whole world that they will assert by force , and they are not even limiting their hoped for Reich to a thousand years once the World is enveloped it shall be permanant as this is odviously Gods will.
Perhaps the most important simularity is within us rather than them?
Only a few Americans ever coould have defined Fascism with certainty abnd accuracy , to most of us the term was not a precice descriptor of political philosophy , but was the appelation of a type of threat , if the Islamo fascists are the same type of threat why not recall the term from the last time we were simularly threatened?
-
"Islamofascism" as a term of art, which is specially edited to apply to . . . you guessed it! to the current anti-Zionist, anti-American Islamic fundamentalist guerrilla movements originally sponsored by Americans and Saudis to fight the Russians in Afghanistan.
"The current anti-Zionist, anti-American Islamic fundamentalist guerrilla Movements formerly sponsored by the Americans and Saudis to fight the Russians in Afganistan" has the advantages of specificity and accuracy.
But in a world in which air time is a valuable comoddity, it has the killing disadvantage of length.This term for them will never catch on.
Have you a short name that could be comfortably applied?
-
even in the USA there were people who were not Fascist really but who were ready to do business with them
Henry Ford being a prime example. Ford was a true hero of Hitler's to the extent that Hitler kept a picture of Ford on his desk. Ford admired the ability of corporatism to work in Fascist states such as Italy and Germany. Yet, it has nothing to do with what you dub "Islamo-Fascism."
Islamo fascists are very arguably not genuine fascists because their aims of domination do not spring from the fascist movement , but can they qualify as Ur - fascists anyhow?
Not really. Their philosophy doesn't spring from a fascist movement as you indicate. Let's repeat that: Islamists' philosophy does not spring from Fascism. They meet very few of the Ur-Fascist characteristics, certainly no more than those on the American right wing. So why label them fascists?
Why not characterize them as theocrats, since they clearly wish to instill their version of God's law onto the world? Theocracy is much closer to their stated goals than fascism. I'd say that Islamic Fundamentalist Theocrats is far closer to their actual belief system than fascism, which is more reminiscent of the Baathist Party, a group these Islamists attacked.
to most of us the term was not a precice descriptor of political philosophy , but was the appelation of a type of threat
That doesn't make the misuse of the term acceptable. It is newspeak, plain and simple. DId you notice that in Eco's list?
You said that I was "wrong." Point out where what I have said is incorrect.
-
Theocrat?
Islamotheocrat ,
Hmmmm......
I like that, perhaps you are not wrong.
An appellation is a necessity , accuracy of hermeneutics is desireable but is not necessary , once a stinking nickname sticks it becomes a name.
Perhaps it is not too late to offer a more precisely correct name , to those who need to name the thing.
Better hurry tho , "Islamo fascist " has a lot of appeal and is gaining currency .
Did you know that the Jerusalem Artichoke has nothing to do with Jerusalem or artichokes at all but we still do call it that , what is in a name ? Would not a rose by any other name smell as sweet?
-
A name itself is nothing but an abstract notion in the human mind for the existence of something in the outside world. It is a convenience.
On the other hand, we know from history that it can be much more when it is used to frame a debate. In this case that is exactly what the term "Islamofascism" is intended to do. It is newspeak, pure and simple.
-
It is a new word , but why do you label it newspeak?
Is it an Orwellian opposite of a true label like " Mini Truth" for ministry of propaganda?
Is it misleading?
One might be leas to beleave that Al Quida is bent on world domination just as the Facisists of old were , but is this a false leading or a true one?
Is pointing out the diffrences between the theocrats of Al Quieda and the corpoiritists of Natzi Germany nit picking ?When the objectionable commonality is a goal of violent takeover of large parts of the world?
If calling them Theo crats pleases you better ,I suggest you dash off a pithy justifacation to Bill O'Reilley or a provocative one to Rush Limbaugh and don't waste any time , a better name needs to be offered where it will be often heard early enough to take its place in the lexicon.
Perhaps you could get Alan Combs to mention this?
-
I'd like to add the word "newspeak" to that list of overused & misused words thread
-
Now, I replied in a fairly lengthy mannerto the op-ed piece. I think we can have a better discussion than this.
I come here instead of writing letters to the likes of Limbaugh, O'Reilley, etc, because I have some respect for the intelligence of the people on this forum. Hannity, Combes, et al are about as intellectually stimulating as those shows about obese people losing weight.
-
Currently Js, I don't have the time to respond in any detail to your opinion on the op-ed. However, my reference to "newspeak" being overused/misused remains valid. I will endeavor to respond in greater detail to your commentary sometime this evening
-
Being "overused" is a subjective opinion. That's up to you.
Misused is not. George Orwell provides an ample description of what newspeak is in essays that are usually attached in someway to 1984. In one of those essays Orwell gives a set of rules to writers, among them is:
Never use a foreign phrase, a scientific word, or a jargon word if you can think of an everyday English equivalent.
Islamofascism clearly qualifies as a jargon word when the everyday English word (and older equivalent) would be: Islamist or Radical Islam.
I could go into more depth, but clearly newspeak, as I've used it here is not misused.
-
Being "overused" is a subjective opinion. That's up to you. Misused is not.
That would be your subjective opinion, I'm afraid Js, and appears to be clearly being misused in the effort to cast the term Islamofascism aside, and not even dwell on it.
Islamofascism clearly qualifies as a jargon word when the everyday English word (and older equivalent) would be: Islamist or Radical Islam
Still waiting then for the "everyday English equivalent", since the current term of Islamofascism is still the most appropriate, vs the much more vague "militant islam"
-
Not deal with it?
I wrote quite an extensive post on it, thank you. When I see a quality comparison of fascism and the Islamists then I'll be impressed.
-
Not deal with it? I wrote quite an extensive post on it, thank you
True, that was a tad unfair, in that you did spend some quality time providing us your opinion as to why the term Islamofascism is supposedly inappropriate. My apologies
When I see a quality comparison of fascism and the Islamists then I'll be impressed.
Been there done that, by both myself and Plane. I think you what you're looking for is a substantive rebuttal, to your rebuttals, since the posts extensively articulating the accuracy of the term has been made.
-
since the posts extensively articulating the accuracy of the term has been made
Where?
In this article for example I've seen touchy-feely attributes that fascists lie or take advantage of those who are recently fallen but now ascendant...
That isn't evidence. I've yet to see a post that really shows a comparison between the political philosophy of Fascism and the Islamists. That is what I'd like to see and I would be impressed. This past article even used the Imperial Japanese as evidence and no scholar considers them to be a fascist state.
Islamist was at least a somewhat vetted term by French scholars in the 1970's. Where's the academics behind this term Sirs? Plane? This touchy-feely thing about fascists lying and Imperial Japan wasn't nice to us is not going to cut it.
I don't mean to sound harsh Sirs, but there's no scholarship here. Plane provided some, but we haven't settled much of the problems with even labelling them as Ur-fascists, certainly no moreso than the right wing here in the United States.
-
No one's claiming that Islamo fascists have a specific critieria they must adhere to. As Plane & myself have plainly demonstrated, militant islam has a fascist-like foundation in both actions & rhetoric. If you want to demean such as "touchy feely", well, you have a right to that opinion. Is it Hitler-Nazi II?, No. It's Militant Islam I
-
As Plane & myself have plainly demonstrated, militant islam has a fascist-like foundation in both actions & rhetoric.
Plane specifically stated that the militant Islam philosophy was not sprung from fascism. That doesn't sound like a fascist foundation to me at all.
So you agree that there is no scholarly reasoning for claiming that Islamists are Fascists?
-
Plane specifically stated that the militant Islam philosophy was not sprung from fascism. That doesn't sound like a fascist foundation to me at all.
I think we're getting semantically confused. Militant Islam has a foundation of Fascism. That doesn't however mean that it "sprung from facsism". A subtle but distinct difference
So you agree that there is no scholarly reasoning for claiming that Islamists are Fascists?
No.
-
The Tasmanian Wolf was not actually a wolf , or even a canid but in appearance and habit he was similar enough to make the comparison apt.
The Tasmanian Wolf had a diffrent number of teeth , even some organs absent in the true wolf if there were any common ancestor it would have to be an ancient creature from before the development of the Mammalian characteristics common to the wolf and the mouse.
So the wolf is actually a closer relation to the rabbit than to the Tasmanian "wolf" yet the name, I would argue, is still apt.
The Tasmanian Wolf may be from an older stock and got no design tips from Europe , but it developed in convergent evolution to an similar size and shape , and a similar habit.
Not precisely the same , but close enough that it is more apt to call the creature "wolf " rather than the less apt tho more precise "carnivorous wombat".
Our main familiarity with Fascists was their aggression , their ability to harm , grow , metastasize and intimidate , the fine details of their philosophy are much less well known.
Not really many of us know a Sufi from a Shia much less do we have familiarity with the philosophy , politics and habits that differentiate the sects of Islam even than we do what differences there are between the political entity's of Europe, but when presented with a rapidly growing , furious , irrational , self righteous , ruthless , vicious , violent and widespread threat, we can be excused at ignoring trivial details and focusing on the commonality that makes the picture we are presented by Islamofascism seem so familiar and the opprobrious moniker seem so apt.
-
Not really many of us know a Sufi from a Shia much less do we have familiarity with the philosophy , politics and habits that differentiate the sects of Islam
Well said Plane. I think that is a huge problem. We shouldn't even be at the stage where we are comparing this to World War II and the Fascist political philosophy when most people have no understanding of the people, cultures, and religion involved in the first place. That is what shows through in these articles. As an example, look at the usage of "sharia law" and the negative connotation Americans and especially those on the right give it. Most have no clue at all what it means.
You use words like "aggression" and "violence" while the National Review uses "lying." That isn't fascism. That could be a myriad of many beliefs, or just the most base of the human condition - but it doesn't make it fascism, which was a political philosophy. I wonder if the right-wing is afraid of a right-wing political philosophy?
-
Not really many of us know a Sufi from a Shia much less do we have familiarity with the philosophy , politics and habits that differentiate the sects of Islam
Well said Plane. I think that is a huge problem. We shouldn't even be at the stage where we are comparing this to World War II and the Fascist political philosophy when most people have no understanding of the people, cultures, and religion involved in the first place. That is what shows through in these articles. As an example, look at the usage of "sharia law" and the negative connotation Americans and especially those on the right give it. Most have no clue at all what it means.
Was a wide spread public understanding of Facism and Communism and Imperialism necessacery to the proper conduct of WWII? It may be important that advisors to the president have an indepth understanding of Islam and the politics of the reagion , it may be very desireable for the president himself to understand these things prettyt well. But do we all need to know the details? If someone is shooting at us shooting back mostly requires that we have a good sight picture.
I recall a few years ago that the Prospective President Bush was asked by an ambush reporter if he knew the name of the leader of Packistan , well he didn't and the discussion went round and round about whether this was trivial or not. I seem to have been on the wrong side in that argument in retrospect , but how was I to know the impending importance of Musheriff and Packistan?
You use words like "aggression" and "violence" while the National Review uses "lying." That isn't fascism. That could be a myriad of many beliefs, or just the most base of the human condition - but it doesn't make it fascism, which was a political philosophy. I wonder if the right-wing is afraid of a right-wing political philosophy?
Fascism is a left wing political philosophy , want to start another thread for that?
I am not wedded to the notion that Radical violent Islamists must be tied to fascism , to me it is enough that they be tightly tied to their own violence , but their potential for repeating for us our WWII experience ought not be ignored. The corporatism , the socialism , the rediculous fondness for ceremony etc were not important objections to Fascism , the most important objection to Fascism was its being a threat , a threat of violence and repression.
If Islamofascists are a threat of violence and repression then this is an important simularity and unimportant dissimularitys can be discounted.