The Republicans’ deployment of the term “Islamofascism” to define the enemy in the Bush administration’s war on terror is clearly an attempt to improve their prospects in the midterm elections. By conflating contemporary terrorist threats with fearsome historical enemies, the GOP seeks to divert attention from the increasingly unpopular occupation of Iraq. But the adoption of this term also reveals the… return to article
-
subscribe to print magazine
-
email this article to a friend
-
Reader Comments (256)hmmm, let’s see. The 9/11 terrorists were Islamic, fighting in the name of Islam. Ditto for the Madrid and London bombers.
Fascism - A system of government marked by centralization of authority under a dictator, stringent socioeconomic controls, suppression of the opposition through terror and censorship, and typically a policy of belligerent nationalism and racism.
hmmm, Islamofascism - A system of government marked by centralization of authority under an Islamic dictator, stringent socioeconomic controls, suppression of the opposition through terror and censorship, and typically a policy of belligerent nationalism and racism.
That the Bush Adminstration would use such a term to describe a war on terror that is self-described as furthering the goals of Islamic fundamentatlism, well, that is just an outrage!
Posted by Jay Cline on Sep 22, 2006 at 5:08 PM Al Qaeda is a non-state entity. Thus, according to Jay’s definition, it would not count as Islamofascist, since this requires a “system of government.”
The problem with the term is not only that it is based on a misleading historical analogy (since fascism was a historical phenomenon of the early to mid-twentieth century), but also that it obscures the complexity of the Middle East. If the US has done anything in Iraq, it has likely sparked a lengthy and bloody conflict between Sunnis and Shiites for regional dominance. But by dividing the world into Manichean categories, the discourse of Islamofascism prevents actual understanding of the region.
Posted by Howie_Marshall on Sep 22, 2006 at 5:40 PM Well, maybe according to Howie’s interpretation of Jay’s definition. Yet even a Board of Governors of a non-profit organization is a “system of government”, so the point is moot.
Also, I was unaware that anywhere in a definition of fascism (or in any other -ism) there exists an implicit understanding that the term is temporally dependent.
What Constant of the Universe has changed that makes fascism impossible in today’s world?
Posted by Jay Cline on Sep 22, 2006 at 5:49 PM I would suggest to Jay that he perhaps peruse Robert Paxton’s recent book on Fascism, Stanley Payne’s History of Fascism, and Ian Kershaw’s work on Fascism to see that there is NO generally accepted definition of classical systems of fascism. Indeed, there are scholarly debates concerning whether such a general and universal definition of fascism is possible or whether there can only be a nominal definition based upon family resemblances between regimes. Furthermore, due to the wide diversity of positions and ideologies (not to mention attitudes towards the acquition of state-power and the modern nation-state) within what is here, in the US, called “political Islamism” (the Muslim Brotherhood, al-Qaeda, Hamas, Hezbollah, Khomenism,Wahabism, etc.), it might be thought that the use of the term “Islamofascism” is really a very slippery, nearly useless, concept. Useful in rhetorical terms, perhaps, but for analytic purposes, entirely useless.
After reading these books, I would then suggest reading Orwell’s essay “Politics and the English Language”.
It was bad analysis on the part of radicals in the 60’s to indiscriminately call every institution or individual “fascist”, it is equally bad on the part of neoconservatives now. And really, it is time to start seeing that all political action cannot be reduced to analogy with Munich 1938. Neoconservatives really need to read more history.
Posted by Orwell on Sep 22, 2006 at 7:35 PM I would suggest to Orwell that he attempt to explain, in his own words, why the aforementioned definition is not valid.
I hate quotations. Tell me what you know. Ralph Waldo Emerson
Posted by Jay Cline on Sep 22, 2006 at 7:48 PM Is fascism,
? A system of government,
marked by
?centralization of authority under a dictator,
?stringent socioeconomic controls,
?suppression of the opposition through terror and censorship,
?and typically a policy of belligerent nationalism and racism.To which do you disagree with? to which is not an accurate reflection of both the Axis Powers of WWII and the current regimes of terror under the auspices of Islam?
Posted by Jay Cline on Sep 22, 2006 at 7:55 PM First off, I assume Jay is being ironic when he uses a quotation to criticize the use of quotations.
It would require a long essay, if not a book, to go into the complexities of the differences between fascist regimes (Indeed, this is why I suggested looking at Stanley Payne’s book, considered the best general and comparative history). To take an example, the Nazi party in Germany set up dual-power structures, mimicing the structure of the state (ministries, etc.) basically conflating the Nazi party with the state upon assuming power (a process that began electorally, but was then consummated with Hitler’s assumption of emergency powers following the burning of the Reichstag). Mussolini and the fascist party in Italy, on the other hand, did not establish such dual-power structures and their was a greater autonomy of the apparatuses of the state from the party. This is of course a schematic and incomplete comparison. Paxton also delves into these issues, if I recall correctly.
My general point, however, is that delving and exploring the details of history makes the automatic application of historical analogy more difficult and exacting (although not impossible). The casual use of the term “Islamofascist” is neither.
Indeed, I believe that the use of the term and “analysis” provided by “Islamofascism” by the right is similar (but of course not exactly, history, as I stated above, not being simple) to the Third International’s analysis of German Social Democracy as itself being (if I recall correctly), “Social Fascism”. The lack of nuance by the Third International led the KPD to a disastrous strategy whereby they continued to attack the Social Democrats while leaving the NSDAP relatively unopposed.
The term “Islamofascist” performs a similar function by conflating all Islamist into a single (unthought) category.
Posted by Orwell on Sep 22, 2006 at 8:08 PM Your assumption would, of course, be correct.
With regard to the differences between examples of fascism, that is not the point. It is not, what kind of fascism is Islamofascism, but whether it is a form of fascism.
If there is any conflating ALL Islamists as fascists, it is Orwell’s doing. There is nothing intrinsic in the use of Islamofascists that categorizes the current regimes of terror under the auspices of Islam as a superset of all Islamists; rather the term refers only to those Islamists that are currently employing regimes of terror as fascists.
Orwell’s argument is akin to claiming that calling David Duke a white supremacist conflates all whites as supremacists.
Again,
Is fascism,
? A system of government,
marked by
?centralization of authority under a dictator,
?stringent socioeconomic controls,
?suppression of the opposition through terror and censorship,
?and typically a policy of belligerent nationalism and racism.To which do you disagree with? to which is not an accurate reflection of both the Axis Powers of WWII and the current regimes of terror under the auspices of Islam?
Posted by Jay Cline on Sep 22, 2006 at 8:27 PM Maybe its just the the banal semantic quibbling, the presentation of extreme moronism in logical form, and the apparent obfuscatory defence of a repulsive political position, but does anyone smell anything funny here?
Posted by staedlerjr on Sep 23, 2006 at 8:06 AM staedlerjr,
You’d have to be more specific.
Which quibbling, Salim Muwakkil’s or Orwell’s?
Posted by Jay Cline on Sep 23, 2006 at 11:22 AM I think an important point is being missed here. And that is the problem of continuing to allow delusional republicans to define the world as they see it - or more importantly how they want others to see it.
“Islamic fundamentalists are fascists (not us)”
“Those who question our wars and wasteful spending are unpatriotic (not us)”
“Bill Clinton let Osama Bin Laden go (not us)”
and so on and so on..This definition of “fascism” pretty closely describes the Neo-con republican plan for “governing”:
“a governmental system led by a dictator having complete power, forcibly suppressing opposition and criticism, regimenting all industry, commerce, etc., and emphasizing an aggressive nationalism and often racism.”That should be obvious.
Posted by drphonic on Sep 23, 2006 at 2:32 PM drphonic,
It is good to see you have done your homework. I shall be sure to let the people at www.dictionary.com that you believe them to be “delusional Neo-con Republicans.”
I would ask you the same unanswered question I have asked Orwell, what specifically to you object to with the definition? Beyond the “obvious”, of course.
oh, here is the URL for this “deluded” definition.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/fascism
Maybe the real issue is that some people are in denial? If the sky is blue but you hate the color blue, then anyone claiming the sky to be blue must be delusional.
I must see if I can locate an appropriate reference describing the notion, theory before facts.
Posted by Jay Cline on Sep 23, 2006 at 3:12 PM drphonic,
Ah, I see the point you so laboriously belabor: you indeed accept the definition and take it one step further and apply it to American politics. Well, I would certainly agree that any fundamentalist point of view has elements of fascism embedded within.
So, would it be fair to say that it is not a terrible strain of your obvious credulity to understand that you accept the phrase Islamofascism as an accurate portrayal of what is going on within Islamic fundamentalism?
Welcome the right side of American politics.
Posted by Jay Cline on Sep 23, 2006 at 3:30 PM OK.
First, what system of government? Name me one system in which an “Islamofascist” is currently in power? One could argue that there are authoritarian populist in power in many mideastern countries, but this does not make them fascist. Indeed, according to your definition, Chile, Brazil, Guatemala during the civil war period, and many other post-war regimes would qualify as “fascist”. Your definition places cases that are not fascist regimes under itself.
Two, what “Islamofascist” is advocating stringent economic controls? Did you find this in the writings of Qutb? Khomeni? Who? What types of Islamic thought qualify as Islamofascism? Your definition does not specify and therefore is a useless definition. A definition aims for clearness and distinctness.
I hate to quote for you from the Dictionary.com definition of definition:
def‧i‧ni‧tion /ˌdɛfəˈnɪʃən/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[def-uh-nish-uhn] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun
1.the act of defining or making definite, distinct, or clear.
2.the formal statement of the meaning or significance of a word, phrase, etc.
3.the condition of being definite, distinct, or clearly outlined.Indeed, your definition of fascism makes no reference to Islam at all. What indeed is the use of appending “Islamo-” to the word. Why not just call them fascist.
Third, fascist regimes tended to be anti-clerical and secular. While Mussolini and Hitler made concessions to the church while in power, they tended both in rhetoric and policy to be athiestic or pagan. Clearly, political Islam is not secular in orientation, although they oppose many of the established, religious Islamic authorities.
Fourth, fascist regimes were Nationalist and directly tied to the development of the nation-state, the vehicle off of which they built their imperial ambitions. Most currents of political Islam oppose the modern, western nation-state, the political form adopted by post-colonial regimes during the era of national liberation. Qutb and bin Laden, for instance, talk about the establishment of the new caliphate and the Umma, transnational entities if there ever were any. The rhetoric of al-Qaeda (a decentralized, non-state entity, with no clear command and control structure, I add) is explicitly anti-national. Furthermore, while clearly partial to Islam (and their specific type of Islam in particular), they are not using a “scientific”, social darwinistic, concept of race which was the basis of Nazi eugenics and genocide.
Furthermore, many movements of political Islam in the mideast ARE the opposition in many countries in the mideast. and are being persucuted by secular, nationalist regimes. It is no accidnet that Qutb wrote his famous book while in prison under a secular and nationalist regime in Eygpt and due to political repression of the Muslim Brotherhood. Or for that matter, that Saddam Hussein’s secular regime (probably the closest example to a fascist dictatorship in the mideast) persecuted advocates of political Islam.
May I suggest that the term “authoritarian populist” or “theocratic” might be bettern terms to use, depending upon the case?
Posted by Orwell on Sep 23, 2006 at 3:46 PM Orwell,
Fair questions. I will attempt to respond.
what system of government? Name me one system in which an “Islamofascist” is currently in power? One could argue that there are authoritarian populist in power in many mideastern countries, but this does not make them fascist.
I have no issues with using an appropriate dictionary to seek accord on definitions.
system: a coordinated body of methods or a scheme or plan of procedure; organizational scheme: a system of government.
government: the political direction and control exercised over the actions of the members, citizens, or inhabitants of communities, societies, and states; direction of the affairs of a state, community, etc.; political administration
In a word, al Qaeda, among others. It is a coordinated body with an organizational scheme to offer (among other goals) political direction and control to exercise over the actions of the members of their community, society, and any state that they can influence and/or control.
I agree that the definition of fascism is not perfect, or even complete. If we wait for perfection of definitions, we will be waiting until the Second Coming of Christ, regardless of one’s religious beliefs. The lack of guidance to differentiate between authoritarian regimes, such as Syria, Saudi Arabia and Iraq under Saddam, and fascist regimes (Iran?) is stark. Yet the definition is certainly sufficient to start an examination.
Fascist regimes are not only characterized by a supremacy of singular order, but of a single belief structure that gives the characteristics listed in the original definition. Autocratic regimes would be merely “king-of-the-hill” regimes. Populist regimes would likewise not be necessarily fascist. Majority rule, whether the minority is tolerated or persecuted, would not be a basis for fascism. The organizing belief structure in a fascist society could be based on a fervent, if not religious, belief of mythical racial superiority or, in this case, actual perceptions of religious or moral superiority.
what “Islamofascist” is advocating stringent economic controls?
Let’s try to be clear with definitions, if we are going to go that route. Socioeconomic controls, not strictly economic controls. Islam itself advocates near total state control over peoples lives, their social standing, their everyday activities. How many women are oppressed from fully participating in their society in Iran? How many sanctioned stonings of women, of gays, of infidels? Speaking strictly of economics, ask Salman Rushdie for examples of stringent Islamic economic control. And what of the Islamic head tax, that is required by those members of society who will not convert to Islam, and the consequence of not paying that head tax (you lose your head, literally)?
Now, differing belief structures and values by itself may not connote a fascist regime, everyone has beliefs that are conflicting with other beliefs; but the issue is the excessive and stringent practice and extent of control, economic, social, political, whatever, and an strongly enforced intolerance towards “deviant” behavior.
Posted by Jay Cline on Sep 23, 2006 at 6:12 PM your definition of fascism makes no reference to Islam at all. What indeed is the use of appending “Islamo-” to the word. Why not just call them fascist.
Of course it doesn’t. That is the rationale for prefixing “Islamo-” to the word; as an adjective of what fascism we are talking about. The topic of discussion is not a Nationalistic fascism, such as Nazism, it is about those Islamists who have adopted a fascist “organizational scheme” in their governance to enforce their world belief.
In the definition of Islamofascism, I do make explicit reference to Islam - centralization of authority under an Islamic dictator.
Third, fascist regimes tended to be anti-clerical and secular.
I fail to see how holding an extreme and intolerant religious worldview, as opposed to a secular one, abrogates a discussion on the clearly fascist characteristics thus described. If two men are convicted of murder, and they both come from the same city, does that mean only men from that city are capable of murder? What is the logical basis you use, other than anecdotal references, that restricts fascist regimes to non-religious societies?
Fourth, fascist regimes were Nationalist and directly tied to the development of the nation-state, the vehicle off of which they built their imperial ambitions. Most currents of political Islam oppose the modern, western nation-state, the political form adopted by post-colonial regimes during the era of national liberation. Qutb and bin Laden, for instance, talk about the establishment of the new caliphate and the Umma, transnational entities if there ever were any.
Please reread that. Absolutely, a centralized authority is a necessary requirement of fascist societies. The nation-state is certainly the modern exemplar of centralized authority. And a new caliphate is NOT?? That they have not yet fully attained the political and military power to finalize their imperially religious ambitions does not mean they are not fascist. In the Spanish Civil War, were not the opponents of Franco democrats? Yet, they did not, at that or any subsequent point, enjoy the fruits of a democratic society. The envisioned Caliphate is an archtypical example of fascism. That the Umma is transnational is reflective only of a Caliphate that has yet to come into existence. Yet you yourself admit, that is their goal.
Furthermore, many movements of political Islam in the mideast ARE the opposition in many countries in the mideast. and are being persucuted by secular, nationalist regimes.
I don’t recall requiring that fascist regimes of differing worldviews would be at peace with each other. In fact, having a singular worldview, while is comforting to the holder in that he does not have to acknowledge the validity of other worldviews, it almost necessitates exactly that kind of opposition that you describe. Are not the Democrats, democrats? Yet they are in opposition to the controlling party, another group of democrats.
I hope that helps to make the meaning of Islamofascism definite, distinct, and clear.
Posted by Jay Cline on Sep 23, 2006 at 6:13 PM May I suggest that the term authoritarian populist or theocratic might be bettern terms to use, depending upon the case?
Perhaps, but without some definitive “definition” to differentiate them from fascism, to what end?
Posted by Jay Cline on Sep 23, 2006 at 6:45 PM Hey….this is just another attempt by the Bush christological-fascist regime too point the finger at someone else….The term applies to the Bush administration more readily than it does to any general application too Islam….This is a reactionary move on the part of a stupid Mr.Bush…in hopes of stemming the tide of disillusionment among a growing number of his faithful…..To paint this rhetoric as less than disingenuous is being blind to the facts as they exist….It appears that our Mr. Jay Cline is infected with this reactionary germ…and is vainly attempting to spread this contagious misrepresentation of rhetorical nonsense to others on this web-site…
Mr.Cline the definition of fascism ; contexturally with a religious concept such as christianity , judaism or islam is only workable if it is also applied to a recognizable state Gov’t…..Excellent examples are the present administration under the very extremely questionable ” leadership ” of this guy Buckfush , more commonly referred to ass ; President Bush , the Isreali Gov’t also practices this form of fascist rhetoric….in principle and from a reactionary perspective pertaining to their often mentioned…..“right too self defense “............
The Bush regime has failed to identify the nation…Iraq may have been fascist in the way Saddam ran the place…but Iraq was not run as a non-secular or rather Islamic state…The Taliban , al Quada . Hezbullah or Hamas do not fit the bill…...
Posted by Redhorse on Sep 24, 2006 at 12:07 PM because they are not yet recognized state Gov’ts….To have a war on “Terror” or “Islamofascism ” is such a vague definition that the military doesn’t know who is the enemy….
This is exactly what the neo-con Bush war machine wants…a perpetual military engagement…the conflict of which will be continuous for many generations….One would hope Mr.Cline , that you do not have children…for more than likely they are the ones who will pay the lions share of the egregious monetary and human costs for this whole egotistically driven maniacal manipulation ; based on the ideology of a christian nationalist manifesto…..All done under the dim-witted supersitions of a former drunk and cociane head with a below C average at Yale…
Now how did he get into law school with those grades..? Daddy…...and the east coast fortune that Ol’ Prescott built…........what a cowboy…....
We still don’t know where he was during the Vietnam war….so now 35 years later he and his other little evil-minded neo-con back-door draft buddies want to get their collective ” dicks ” wet….............................true
Posted by Redhorse on Sep 24, 2006 at 12:36 PM Wow! Talk about a lexicon :
Certainly, there are troubling tendencies among the radical Muslims who increasingly see the United States as the enemy.
“Troubling Tendencies”? Have you ever considered how often the articles on this site excuse the violent reactions of these religious radicals to innocuous situations? Somebody please tell those guys about sticks and stones.”
” Troubling tendencies”, hmmm nice alliteration and a workable sound bite, but it hardly brings images of suicide bombers, nun shooters or cartoon-crazies does it? But then, that is something we should simply avoid by catering to there particular insult categories. Maybe the pope should have gone with “Troubling Tendencies”. Would people still be calling for apologies?His Holiness cordially invites you to a discussion of the Troubling Tendencies which have several people concerned.
How many countries will have to suffer with these Troubling Tendencies rioting, burning, beheading, kidnapping, bombing before a unifed global resistance is mounted to put an end to it?
Posted by whattheheck on Sep 24, 2006 at 5:10 PM Orwell -
First, what system of government? Name me one system in which an “Islamofascist” is currently in power?
Iran, of course.
... fascist regimes tended to be anti-clerical and secular. While Mussolini and Hitler made concessions to the church while in power, they tended both in rhetoric and policy to be athiestic (sic) or pagan. Clearly, political Islam is not secular in orientation, although they oppose many of the established, religious Islamic authorities.
Bullshit. Both the Mullahs in Iran and al-Qa’eda are anti-clerical, secular, and pagan. Practitioners of headhunting and human sacrifice are not adherents of one of the great monotheistic religions, but of primitive and atavistic superstitions. Al-Sistani is a cleric, Khamenei is not.
“Orwell” does not suit you. Why don’t you call yourself “Fewtile Fergots”?
Posted by scorp on Sep 24, 2006 at 6:17 PM Both you guys are picking a fight with yourselves….pull the boulder out of your own eye, first….then you can see the trouble you cause your neighbors….....
This…”.I’m the good guy…everybody else is bad , bad , bad…..“sounds like a bunch of 4th graders…
Talk about Bullshit….look in the mirror…..........Scorp ,WTH….....
Now , concerning “Paganism”....no religion in the western perspective , as defined by someone like yourselves…Scorp or WTH ; is without the root base of the Pagan cosmology….Take away the pagan influence….you will take away the basic tenants of your respective religions….The pagan superstructure is the foundation of all the so-called major faiths…especially christianity…...................period….
.......Seen in the light of Evolution , the existence of evil is no longer a mythological mystery to be made the most of by pious ignoramuses for preaching purposes , but a necessary concomitant of development ; one of the conditions by means of which we grow into consious human beings to attain the higher life….........Gerald Massey…
My question to you two scholars of Amerikan Nationalism…...Why do you guys insist on pissing on the natural process and conditions set forth by the physics of nature…...?
Posted by Redhorse on Sep 24, 2006 at 7:41 PM Haven’t had much time to respond. A quick note:
Scorp:
Simply stating “Iran” is not an argument. Please go into the power structure of Iran, the contending parties, the relationship between the supreme leader and Ahmadinejad (one of whom..ahem…happens to be a cleric), the ideologies of the contending parties, etc. Then demonstrate how they are similar or different to other groups of “Islamofascists”. If you want a place to start, may I recommend Nikkie Keddie’s book “Modern Iran: The Roots and Results of the Revolution”?
If al-Q is secular, what then is the use of appending “Islamo-” to the designation?
WHile I find the means of Al-Q to be barbaric, I nonetheless have yet to hear about Al-Q practicing human sacrifice or headhunting.
The burden of proof is upon those who would use and apply the term “Islamofascism”. My overall point is that fascism is a complex political phenomenon. It is not necessarily unitary and the use of the designation requires both specific empirical evidence and careful analysis. Is the term “Fascism” totally useless? No. But one should not substitute Platonic definition for careful construction of a usable concept and close empirical work to determine it’s applicability to specific societies and movements (and with careful historical specificity). The terms general deployment today more often serves as insult than as careful analysis. It’s use is to deceive the US public through recourse to a politiical theology of good and evil that the use of the term “Islamofascism” facilitates. Rather then enlightening the public, it obscures the fact that there are other options then brute militarism to confront the authoritarian societies and governments of the Middle East (and given the empirical evidence of the use of force in Iraq to bring democracy, we would be wise to consider other options).
I’ll leave this discussion with some links to some articles that I think do a better job than I at explaining the problems with “Islamofascism” (besides Salim’s here):
http://www.thenation.com/doc/20060911/pollitt
http://www.thenation.com/doc/20060925/pollitt
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5743773
Finally: I do not claim to be the final arbiter of all things Orwell, but nonetheless, find him to be quite instructive concerning the use of language in politics. I do not claim his mantle nor do I always agree with him. Yet, the term “Islamofascism” as it is used in contemporary US politics seems to be an instance of the type of language that Orwell criticized in “Politics and the English Language”. I’ll leave you with a quote from it:“The word Fascism has now no meaning except in so far as it signifies “something not desirable.” The words democracy, socialism, freedom, patriotic, realistic, justice have each of them several different meanings which cannot be reconciled with one another. In the case of a word like democracy, not only is there no agreed definition, but the attempt to make one is resisted from all sides. It is almost universally felt that when we call a country democratic we are praising it: consequently the defenders of every kind of regime claim that it is a democracy, and fear that they might have to stop using that word if it were tied down to any one meaning. Words of this kind are often used in a consciously dishonest way. That is, the person who uses them has his own private definition, but allows his hearer to think he means something quite different.”
Good day.
Posted by Orwell on Sep 24, 2006 at 8:00 PM Islam at its very core is based on conquest, racism, tyranny and ignorance. There are no parallels from history to use as a basis for definition. It simply is. The issue is attempting to define a theocracy using political terms. The two are not compatible. Facism does not properly describe the threat Islam presents. I feel it is only a universally understood term that provides the level of caution needed to deal with the Middle East.
Posted by texasindependent on Sep 24, 2006 at 9:55 PM What the hell are you talking about texasindependent…no parallels…like the history of this nation…slavery , the use of christianity to controll and also enrage the citizenry…....please…
Islam was create as a religion , in response to the corruption in the christian church…priests trying to screw little boys and shit….is not new to the history of the christian church….
Such an honorable faith , led by such filthy men…
Read a little history..before you start kicking yourself in the ass….....No…major religion Christianity…Islam…or Judaism is immune from this craziness…You , like your nuckle-headed president are wholeheartedly misinformed…..
Again…look yourself in the mirror…first , before you TI ” CAN BEGIN TOO POINT THE FINGER AT OTHER FAITHS “....
One would guess being a redneck from Texas excuses you from your profuse stupidity…............
By the way…..
Did your son or daughter go to church today ?
Is your son an alter-boy…?
Pastor or priest ask them to stay late…help out after services…?
Child walking kind of funny…lately….?
Dump suckers like yourself are a bigger danger to their own children , then Islam or some muslim guy…minding his own business…....
Child molesting priests and clergy are rampant in the christian faith…wake the fuck up…fool…..
Posted by Redhorse on Sep 24, 2006 at 10:30 PM First. Learn to spell
Second. Islam was “created” in 622. In response to idol worship in Saudi Arabia.
Third. Pedophilia is allowed by the Koran.
Fourth. “Minding your own business” and strapping on a bomb are two completely different concepts.
Finally where are the Methodist Suicide Bombers?
Posted by texasindependent on Sep 24, 2006 at 11:34 PM ghost, er, rabbit, er horse (damn, I get so confused by all the incarnations),
damn, now I forgot what I was going to say.
Posted by Jay Cline on Sep 25, 2006 at 12:52 AM Try your christian abortionist…dump ass…Tim McViegh…...
TI , Redhorse doubts that a cud chemi’n hick like yourself has ever read the Koran…what Pastor Brimestone and a bubble ass tell you that lie on Sunday after screwi’n your wife and daughter….Show me the Sura that states that fact on pedophilia….......
Those pervert christian preachers don’t need the bible to tell them about your son….they just pull up on it…..ya know…Just like that Dateline sting…all those good christian boys…showing up too screw that imaginary little girl…the pastor that came over the bait house to see a little boy for sex…..
And you…such a good christian that you lie about others…based off of your little ostentatious recidivistic supersitions…....dumb ass…
p.s….spell ? what ...two ll in controll…...TI , You need too learn how to think for your-self…......dumb ass…See , I understand…from your limited perspective , all muslims are now suicide bombers , based off of what dumbfush ( that’s George Bush for the redneck challenged ) has told you fools….....Redhorse was incorrect…you are not a dumb ass…I do apologize….you are a xenophobic…dumb ass…...again , my apologizes….............Texas ’ toon…
Posted by Redhorse on Sep 25, 2006 at 1:21 AM Jay…my guess is that your confusion is a natural byproduct of early senility…based on the lack of any real factual information in your vertebrate cranium….in other words…you got an empty head…..........fact…
.
Posted by Redhorse on Sep 25, 2006 at 1:50 AM It was hard to decipher your rambling jibberish and speaking of yourself in the third person is confusing but…..
The law ordering pedophilia is in chapter 65, entitled The Divorce and qualified by Islamic law, which is based on the sunnah, the perfect example of Muhammad recorded in the hadiths, traditions. The context deals with the issue of the waiting period for divorce, and remarriage. The Quran orders Muslim men to wait a period of three months for sex in the case of women who either are no longer menstruating or havent yet started their menstrual cycles.
وَاللَّائِي يَئِسْنَ مِنَ الْمَحِيضِ مِن نِّسَائِكُم 1618; إِنِ ارْتَبْتُمْ فَعِدَّتُهُ 1606;َّ ثَلَاثَةُ أَشْهُرٍ وَاللَّائِي لَمْ يَحِضْنَ وَأُوْلَاتُ الْأَحْمَال 1616; أَجَلُهُنَّ أَن يَضَعْنَ حَمْلَهُنَّ وَمَن يَتَّقِ اللَّهَ يَجْعَل لَّهُ مِنْ أَمْرِهِ يُسْرًا
(4. Those in menopause among your women, for them the `Iddah, if you have doubt, is three months; AND FOR THOSE WHO HAVE NO MENSTRUATION. And for those who are pregnant, their `Iddah is until they lay down their burden; and whosoever has Taqwa of Allah, He will make his matter easy for him.)
(5. That is the command of Allah, which He has sent down to you; and whosoever has Taqwa [fear] of Allah, He will expiate from him his sins, and will increase his reward.) Quran chapter 65:4
Posted by texasindependent on Sep 25, 2006 at 1:54 AM Fewtile Orwell -
Simply stating Iran is not an argument.
Umm, you did not ask for an argument.
Name me one system in which an Islamofascist is currently in power?
Iran is the correct answer.
The richest people in Iran are Mullahs associated with the Council of Guardians, the Expediency Council, and the Assembly of Experts. The controlling devices for these riches are the charities (bonyads) that these people dominate. These charities control great blocks of the Iranian economy. Beneficiaries of these charities, besides the Mullahs, include Hizb’allah and the Mahdi Army in Iraq, and the benefits of these charities include rockets, weapons, and subversion of Lebanon and Iraq. The socialist and militarist aspects of National Socialism (in Germany) are administered by the bonyads in Iran. Corruption and war making are secular values, not religious values.
As always in such matters, the people are not beneficiaries. Iran is very rich in natural resources, but unemployment, inflation, and corruption are rampant, leading to unrest and suppression by the Mullahs’ goons.
WHile I find the means of Al-Q to be barbaric, I nonetheless have yet to hear about Al-Q practicing human sacrifice or headhunting.
That is the most profoundly ignorant statement in recent memory. Danny Pearl. The snuff films of al-Zarqawi. Look them up.
My overall point is that fascism is a complex political phenomenon.
Your overall point is hopelessly more confused and complicated than necessary. The Islamofascists (NOT including most Muslims) will continue to try to kill us and our culture. At some point, perhaps after another major attack on the scale of 09/11, WE WILL wipe them out, as we wiped out the nazis and the Japanese militarists.
You will note that we went through a thirteen-year diplomatic process with Iraq and the UN, to zero effect. We are now several years into a similar effort with Iran, to negative effect. Either the USA or Israel will take out the Irani nukes. It is better (fewer dead people) if we do it, and the sooner the better.
Posted by scorp on Sep 25, 2006 at 2:15 AM Tex I -
Don’t mind Horse. No one acknowledges him anymore, much less tries to reason with him. It’s like arguing with a turnip.
Posted by scorp on Sep 25, 2006 at 2:22 AM Again….you are xenophobically misinformed….you are the one that added the word….” yet “....too misrepresent the verse…furthermore the whole context of the verse is too vague to make that specific assumption….that’s all your supposition….Again , that filthy christian mind….
Fact is we know for sure that all of those christian clergymen are trying too screw your kids…that’s your problem…not mine…..it’s all over the news…cowboy..or is that blue-boy….
Further….all…and I mean all religious doctrines are based in mythology…unless you can unravel the myth…none of this stuff is historically factual…..so why get your panties all bunched up…you don’t know what your talking about anyway…...........
Posted by Redhorse on Sep 25, 2006 at 2:28 AM Scorpy…yeah…that’s why you responded…...because your not paying attention…ok
Posted by Redhorse on Sep 25, 2006 at 2:33 AM A turnip with pedophelia on the brain. Anyway the point was islam and facism. I agree with several posts who pointed out the disimilarities between the two. The only counterpoint I would make is despite the fact that Al-Queda, Hezbollah, and Hamas are not true nation states they draw support from their various tribes, sects, and countries of origin. They also carry considerable weight with the Muslim street. The one common denominator between facism and Islam is the drive for world domination. A well written dissection of Islam I have found is….....
http://www.islamundressed.com
Posted by texasindependent on Sep 25, 2006 at 2:59 AM So…all insults aside….Does not Amerika represent the same problem ?......Hell..the US DOES DOMINATE THE WORLD ;...so who’s the real fascist…using religion…any religion…as a cover , for their nationalist propaganda ?......Care to comment TI ?.............Is not this the same difference…..........?
Are not you poking your finger in your own eye…..?
Ever hear the story about two , one-legged men in a mutual butt-kicking contest…..?
One was a christian the other a muslim….Question…who wins…..?Vernon Richards appears to be nothing but a propagandizing provocateur…no critical study of Islam can be accurate without the mythological context…additionally there should be a comparative analysis of other religions on a parallel basis…so that the perspective is not misleading…..
Posted by Redhorse on Sep 25, 2006 at 3:20 AM Er Scorp,
How will we ‘wipe them out’ and how will we know when they are ‘wiped out’? Waiting to hear from the ‘gwot is the cold war redux ‘crowd’ for some on this one. Just this once, could we havve some rational basis for determining the truth claims of the ratbag right.
Posted by Jane Doe on Sep 25, 2006 at 4:19 AM Why is it important to define this activity or decide on an universally acceptable label?
Fascism? Religious or Secular Radicals? Historical comparisons?What some other group of nuts did or whose religious feelings are trampled on be damned!
The UN is a gold mine for late night comics as are most politicians of any party or country.
The only thing that matters is that enough international cooperation is mustered to stop this nonsense. Soft pedaling it as Troubling Tendencies is just plain bull shit! There is no excuse for this behavior by anyone. Next they will be blaming early toilet training.
When ITT downplays this it only serves to justify it for those participating.
Posted by whattheheck on Sep 25, 2006 at 1:36 PM Unfortunately, those wacky leftists (you can’t call ‘em liberals) already dumbed down the identification of all of society’s problems long ago on early toilet training and other meaningless childhood “traumas”.
Posted by Jay Cline on Sep 25, 2006 at 7:42 PM Boy….ol’ Bushy really has done a number on you WTH…try meditation…go play with the grandkids….
Now Jay Cline….what are you talking about…Did you say…you’ve never been toilet trained….? Soo….either you one nasty smelli’n dude or you wear diapers…..Dude…you need too keep that info too yourself…...
Posted by Redhorse on Sep 25, 2006 at 8:06 PM I don’t understand the apologists for Islam. Is it a desire to be different? Like the Drama club in high school? Is pointing the finger at every other issue somehow providing us with security? Don’t we all have a vital interest in protecting ourselves? I am a political independent. I vote for issues not party line. Since 9-11 it seems the center is being forced into one extreme or another. I dislike both extremes. I would like to have a meaningful dialoge without rethoric. We all have to live together long after Iraq is another forgotten war. Islam has been attacking us for over thirty years. Despite all the assurances that Islam is peace actions speak louder than words. So a simple question…...What action would you find acceptable? Appeasement and ignoring the issue have brought us to this point. I am willing to listen to any suggestions.
Posted by texasindependent on Sep 26, 2006 at 2:32 AM Lagomorph -
Why are you posting as “Jane Doe”? Still having identity crisis issues, are you? Feeling schizo again, or still? Get your personality and psyche settled down, and then we can talk. Or not.
Posted by scorp on Sep 26, 2006 at 2:53 AM scorp,
you haven’t a clue have you. Just answer the question. How will we do what you want, and how will we know when we have succeeded. If you are finding it hard to concentrate, I understand they are prescribing Ritalin these days.
Posted by Jane Doe on Sep 26, 2006 at 6:38 AM TI…..Nobody is apologizing for anything…Reading your posts so far ; it appears that, even though you say you are an independent….you are very much still under the spell of the christian nationalist industrial military complex….As stated in the past….YOU NEED TO LEARN HOW TOO THINK FOR YOURSELF…....
Stop analysising from the 9/11 perspective…look at the big picture….
Islam is not the enemy….ignorance , based in misinformation , a collective immaturity as a nation , and good ol’ amerikan greed is a place too start .......
Stop looking at the situation as a cowboy….
Look at all the underhanded economic activity that this nation has been involved in…....
Put that shoe on your foot ....then ask yourself….” Would you and yours quietly put up with that kind of disingenuous activity….
Look…amerika is a extremely racist , xenophobically challenged society…These issues not only have never been dealt with…they are and have been exported to other regions of the world….If amerika is too be the world leader ...ya can’t piss on others parade…people as a general rule don’t appreciate that kind of interference…By the way TI….Redhorse is a registered independent….
The ideological freedom represented by that fact…requires ” independent thought and action “....with a strong preference toward fair and peaceful activities in your personal and community ( world ) dealings…..
Posted by Redhorse on Sep 26, 2006 at 9:52 AM In an interview with The American Interest, former Senator John Danforth (an ordained Episcopal priest) suggested an ecumenical conference as a first step to this “clash of religions”. Get the leaders of all three major branches of the Abrahamic tradition to agree that the deliberate targeting and killing of innocents is simply and flat out wrong,, sort of a fatwa against recent fatwas condoning it.
By itself, it won’t solve anything, but it would take the wind out of the moral legitimacy such groups as al-Qaeda have been literally using as shields.
Posted by Jay Cline on Sep 26, 2006 at 12:13 PM Tex, Scorp & Redhorse,
Ive been reading On the Home Front (Alistair Cooke 1941), an editorial by Tony Blankley (Washington Times now) and a small booklet, Britain (1943) picked up at an antique store.
Both Cooke and Blankley pointed out how long it took for people to realize to fully accept they were at war. Blankley is English and a naturalized US citizen and compares England during the Phony War period with us now.
In Britain there is an article which mentions the image of Americans was based on movies and novels of the time, so we were thought to be either cowboys or gangsters. With the speed and scope of satellite news I believe we are all getting sound bite imaging and a lot of distortion.
Ty aye yippee aye A, Youse guys!—————————-
Also, I recently read, The Life And Times of Andrew Jackson. We may think politicians are brutal today, but some of the dirty tricks a rumors started back then are hard to top. There were advantages to slow-flow info.Redhorse,
Maybe its just that I cant possibly identify with racial discrimination, but certainly not everything is based on it.
Lets assume the rioters and suicide bombers feel discriminated against. Lets also agree they are pissed off at the U.S. for being in their face. Why should their attitude and behavior therefore be acceptable as Troublesome Tendencies as some people allow their kids to be totally obnoxious and just going through a Phase ?
I guess you see my concerns about shooting a nun, burning churches (the most recent over reactions) and all the past attacks on so many countries (not just the U.S.) as being gullible to the Bush claim that we are at war. Well, I have been aware of this as a war far longer than W has been president and puzzled as to why we didnt just erase all those training camps a decade or more ago.
Posted by whattheheck on Sep 26, 2006 at 1:47 PM J.C.
Referring to the current state of govt in the US as fascist is not “taking it one step further.” It’s here - albeit somewhat updated to include the abuse of the democracy we once had.
Which leads me to your quote:
“Maybe the real issue is that some people are in denial? If the sky is blue but you hate the color blue, then anyone claiming the sky to be blue must be delusional.”
Yes, this is the case, but that quote perfectly describes retardlicans insisting that the green apple turd known as Bush is a shiny new red apple. The pathology couldn’t be more profound. The facts proving Bush and the rest of his crew to be criminals couldn’t be more abundant. But still the denial.
“Islamofascisim”? Egh, it’s just some made up word. There’s obviously no doubt that Islamic fundamentalism has no place in an actual democracy and that there are so many negative aspects to it. But it’s just the blatant hypocrisy of the retardlicans that make me (and most Americans at this point) sick. Republicans clearly don’t understand their own system of govt….or the bill or rights or the constitution. You expect me to believe that you actually know anything about Islam?
Posted by drphonic on Sep 26, 2006 at 2:22 PM WTH….Man…I feel where you’re coming from….
This morning , before work , I was checking out the FRONTLINE web-site….one of the programs that could be viewed on-line was called ” a class divided “...originally filmed in the small farming community of Riceville, Iowa back in ‘68….Redhorse highly recommends that you view the program…..maybe the woman school teacher ; in the film , can explain the basic effects of xenophobia and racism better than the Horse….....This film was very interesting…please view it as soon as possible…it’s only about 1 hour long….Looking forward too a discussion about the film…...just google frontline and look for the link…” a class divided “........................true…
Posted by Redhorse on Sep 26, 2006 at 9:46 PM A fact that tells the difference between apologists and concerned citizens…..................
The first Muslim attack on American citizens took place in 1972. The PLO { Of course} Since that time 7002 American Citizens have been killed and another 19368 have been wounded by Islamic “troubling tendencies” Thats not including 498 killed and 5023 wounded by the various embassy bombings. When is the right time to put an end to their “troubling tendancies” for good?
Posted by texasindependent on Sep 26, 2006 at 11:49 PM You are right..TI…THIS IS MY SOLUTION ! ! !
Go too your kitchen , turn the oven on , and put your head in the oven….now breath deeply….your ” troubling tendencies “...will be solved momentarily….Body Countin’ Moron…............................................
You been swallowin’ that chewin tobacco again ; that must hurt…REAL BAD…comin out….....
Posted by Redhorse on Sep 27, 2006 at 12:11 AM Redhorse,
Thanks for the reference, but I cant view videos. I have enough trouble just getting back into this site. I have been waiting to get high speed connection before upgrading my computer.
I got a notice on my doorknob that DSL (AT&T) is available in my neighborhood. My phone company (McLeodUSA) could not tell me if true or not. (I talked to Linda in India and finally her supervisor both told me they had no way of knowing and they were,Sorry, but we cannot connect you with someone in the U.S.Great! USA is part of the name and I cant reach anyone here to find out anything. This never happened when Ike was president.
So I called AT&T to switch my account (DSL is NOT available by the way, but they have better music while you wait…and wait… and wait.)
That was August 1. It was supposed to be transferred to them Aug 18. I called again on 8-21, 8-28, 8-31 still nothing has happened. I know my business is important to them because they have told me countless times.
I used to wonder what I would do when I retired now I know.Sorry, I know this is not directly related to the topic, but in a way it is. I am constantly bombarded with phone ads on TV, in the mail, the internet, hanging on my door all kinds of information…BUT…
Getting a truthful answer to a question is next to impossible. Everyone was polite, they all said they were happy to be able to serve me, and each one assured me that I would have my request fulfilled. I even got a letter from AT&T welcoming me.
I think the same is true with the news. Everyone is good at talking short on accuracy and truth.
——————————-P.S. If AT&T sends me a bill for service you will see ME on the evening news I may have Troubling Tendencies the world has not yet seen.
Posted by whattheheck on Sep 27, 2006 at 12:59 PM Sounds like you need the ” Peoples Court ” or ” Judge Judy.”.....Redhorse thinks it’s a Al Queda plot…they know WTH is on their tail so ” no high speed internet for you ” those internet Nazi bastards…..Hang in there WTH , don’t do anything rash…the way ol’ Bush & Co. operate ; you could end up in jail , with no habeus corpus writ…..Get arrest tonight….go before the judge for bail 2016…..that is definitely not cool….....
I think ol’ Redhorse would definitely fight too the death in that situation…the way they rendition folks…NO WAY…I’m standin’ my ground hook or crook…either that or a hunger strike….I’m not playin’ their game…
So chill…I wouldn’t what to have to use your arrest as bait for my homegrown terrorists theories…............
Now if Homeland Security agents come to Redhorse and ask about WTH….Redhorse doesn’t know you , never talked too you on the .net…....WT..who…..?Just teazzin’ WTH…good luck with the upgrade…and please…do not forget the video…Frontline…” A Class Divided “................
Posted by Redhorse on Sep 27, 2006 at 11:15 PM Hello Jay Decline, good to see the worlds dumbest arsehole is still pretending to be a human.
Rabbit just recieved notice from a friend that the Scorpy is seeing rabbit’s everywhere. Is there rabbit’s in your nightmares little sCorpse?
It will no doubt be just another thing for you to refuse to believe my poor fact challenged little troll, but Rabbit posts as Rabbit. He has on occasion been Ghostrabbit and also Rabbitvoz, but in all the years on the net, only these three handles have I known.
It so happens that I have not read this article, and nor am I going to. I have become dis-enamoured with ITT, considering them to be a left gatekeeping site. Besides which I also find that pompous hubristic twits like yourself and Jay Jay the moron, not to mention feeble shills like Nat the Bat, are just too revolting and far too prevalent on a site which rarely supports more than a handfull of intelligent posters like Redhorse, Frog and others who know who they are. (As opposed to those who merely think they are, eh Scorpy?)
I can see Jane Doe is an Aussie girl in which case I’m sure she will be able to bounce your foolish head all over the thread, and I wish her well. As for Rabbit he will stick with the ICH crowd, who by the way include dozens of Aussies.
So while it amuses me no end that you are seeing rabbits under your bed, I am only dropping by to point out that you have once again showed thyself to be a fuckwit. That makes twice now you have assumed an Aussie flag denotes rabbits. Do you think that I have this great big country all to myself litle Scorpy? Perhaps you think I like to dress up in womens clothes too? Being an eminently masculine hopper, with very big balls, if only a medium sized donger, I would no sooner parade myself as a female than I would kiss your well lubricated arsehole as it happens.
Bye Bye Scorpling. You and Jay have a good time now.
Hello WTH, Rabbit does miss you, a bit, for while you are a drongo, you are at least only a semi-moron, and from time to time even resemble a thoughtful person. However since your own case of cognitive disonance is crippling your progress, it seems pointless trying to educate you. Best you just stick with your slogans and delusions anyway, they obviously make you feel good.
Keep on punishing these creeps Redhorse, they surely need it.
Posted by Rabbit on Sep 28, 2006 at 8:35 AM By the way, just glancing down the page. That Texas Idiot needs to be called on those phony figures for Americans killed by Muslim extremists.
They are totally wrong, and most of the incidents of so called Islamic extremism have eventually proven to have been Israeli false flag attacks, like 9/11.
Your real enemies are and have always been the zionists. They are the only country which has attacked the USA in the last sixty years. Cowards. Cringing morons who fear a few extremist Muslims who act against the dictates of Islam which is a much more peaceful religion than Christianity and both are vastly more peaceful than the Jewish religion of revenge and hatred and genocidal tendencies. Gutless crawling torturing, kidnapping, thieving hubristic hypocrits. I guess you do make a good pair with Israel. How must it be to be owned by a terror state? Do you enjoy working to pay taxes to prop up a war criminal and apartheid regime of baby killers and genocidal well poisoners? Sure you do, that’s why you’d sell a US Naval ships crew and their captain to the devil rather than admit they are just telling the truth. DIRTY DOGS!
Support the troops is just a hollow slogan like so many others which cowardly morons rely on instead of ideas. When the choice is between admitting something might be wrong with the USA, and supporting your own service people, you’d sell them for a bit of false peace of mind. Cowards are so predictable.
I won’t be sticking around here to see the spluttering excuses and ranting rhetoric from the morons, but I do wonder what it would take to get such gutless wonders to admit an unpleasant truth.
By the way, Islamofascist is an OXYMORON. Morons. Islam which means peace, is anathema to corporate controlled government and all other aspects of fascism. Which is exactly why your moron emperor sees them as a threat.
Posted by Rabbit on Sep 28, 2006 at 8:38 AM Rabbit!
You figured out how to IP spoof ITT’s little flag!
Posted by Jay Cline on Sep 28, 2006 at 11:09 AM Redhorse,
It is amazing how you sound like Rabbit of old, and Rabbit is now, finally, able to construct complete sentences.
Ah, the miracles of modern medicine.
We are not fooled.
Posted by Jay Cline on Sep 28, 2006 at 11:12 AM Rabbit…much appreciation for all the links…Elias Vlanton of ICH war cost counter…is literally right up the road from the Redhorse barn…Takoma Park , Md is qiute an EZ gallup from my home…..
Do visit often…as the rabbit wit is much needed and often lacking in many of the neanthropic neo-con pustulates who troll on this site…................
Natalie , Scorp , Jay Ku Klux Klan Cline…and TexasIdiot are all supercilious pusillanimously driven ass mounters…who find their glory in a sort-of collective humping motion , resemblance of the mating ritual of the genus rattus…...funny thing though…. ..none of them can find the hole…..silly little trolls…that can’t find the hole….Natalie screams out…“stop it Scorp…that’s my ear..not my rear…..”, then she says…“Jay do be a dear..and put it here . in Scorps rear “...TexasIdiot and Natalie look on as Jay Klan mounts Scorp and together , sing Scorps favorite song…” push it back..push it bach..waaay back…...............................genus perpetualis-rattus…......
Posted by Redhorse on Sep 28, 2006 at 11:39 AM SUCH A COMPLIMENT…from the likes of you Jay ku klux klan…thank you….but hey…don’t what to interrupt your fun with your friends….One bit of ad-vice though…if you want too breed…put it in the womb…not the tomb…..........................true dumb ass…......
Posted by Redhorse on Sep 28, 2006 at 12:01 PM Rabbit/Redhorse,
Amazing how Redhorse not only has the same hare-brained syntax, but shares the same nomenclature when dissing his superiors.
Rabbit,
So, your “vacation” just happened to coincide with ITT’s attempt, with the little IP-sourced flags, to minimize the abuse of split personalities from the same IP address?
Miracle of miracles. Or, do we have the foundation for another hare-brained conspiracy theory??
Posted by Jay Cline on Sep 28, 2006 at 12:08 PM Hmmmm,
So it is just a coincidenece that a doe is a female rabbit?
Uh-huh.
Posted by whattheheck on Sep 28, 2006 at 12:40 PM Good Grief charlie Brown, just think if they start breeding on the internet!
Posted by whattheheck on Sep 28, 2006 at 12:42 PM Actually, given the previous history of gender-bending on this site, I have wondered if a doe was more of an illumination source. Been pretty dark round here, about as long as Rabbit’s vacation.
Posted by Jay Cline on Sep 28, 2006 at 3:51 PM WTH…Then we would have a bunch of nano-nazis runnin’ around this web-site…..bombing links and pointing the finger at Redhorse…..
Posted by Redhorse on Sep 28, 2006 at 7:31 PM Well, I found this argument so stultifyingly uninteresting I didn’t check back on it until I stumbled on it again today, and now what can I say: my oh my!
I’m tickled by the assumption by Jay Cline that the ridicule was not directed at him or herself.
>>Maybe its just the the banal semantic quibbling, the presentation of
>>extreme moronism in logical form, and the apparent obfuscatory defence
>>of a repulsive political position, but does anyone smell anything funny
>>here?>>Posted by Jay Cline on Sep 23, 2006 at 5:22 AM
>staedlerjr,
>You’d have to be more specific.
>Which quibbling, Salim Muwakkil’s or Orwell’s?
>United States Posted by Jay Cline on Sep 23, 2006 at 5:22 AM
Posted by staedlerjr on Oct 9, 2006 at 10:55 AM Few people have any clue as to what neocons are….and what they believe…and how much power and control they exert in this administration..
I think the truth will horrify most. These warmongers are neither conservative or new…....
Must read:
http://tvnewslies.org/html/the_truth_about_george_w__bush.html
Posted by skipper7 on Oct 9, 2006 at 9:30 PM Skip -
Well, I read your site, and I checked out Jesse’s data. What a crock.
The line-up is pretty impressive: John Poindexter, Elliot Abrams, Otto Reich, John Negroponte, and Rogelio Pardo-Maurer. These men were all rewarded with powerful jobs in the Bush government for their felonious and murderous backgrounds.
None of these fine public servants have a standing felony conviction, except that Pardo-Maurer seems not to have a comprehensive bio on the web, so I can’t tell about him. But as a high public official, I doubt Pardo-Maurer has a criminal conviction. Poindexter is the only one of the group who actually had a felony conviction, but it was overturned for prosecutorial misconduct. Abrams had two misdemeanor convictions for lying to Congress, which might be reprehensible, but might equally be commendable.
The actions of these dedicated and talented individuals that you and Jesse object to were the result of fighting leftists during the Cold War, and, more recently, in Chavez’s Venezuela. And you think I have a problem with that? Fuck no, I don’t have a problem with that.
You dumb-ass leftists are all BOO-HOO-HOO when Americans defend themselves, but are quite sanguine about the tens of millions of innocent victims of socialism and communism.
Neo-Cons are all Democrats who objected to leftists trying to take over the USA. Having been Democrats, they might well be a little sloppy with the truth (Bill Clinton is a convicted perjurer) or might engage in deceptive practices (Rathergate). We will house-train the Neo-Cons, and assure their exemplary behavior. But when are you lying leftists going to straighten up?
Posted by scorp on Oct 10, 2006 at 2:42 AM staedlerjr
If you cannot understand irony, then continue to play with yourself.
Posted by Jay Cline on Oct 10, 2006 at 2:52 PM Damn…JC….first you tell folks you’re not toilet trained…now you want to masturbate on the ITT web-site….
Are you ok…...?
Internet porn is big time…maybe you should try that…it seems like a more appropriate location..”.don’t you think.”..or I should ask…” do you think.”..no what , I got it..”.you don’t know how to think.”......?
Posted by Redhorse on Oct 10, 2006 at 8:09 PM So, Rabbit/Redhorse - care to share your voluminous bookmarks on the subject?
Posted by Jay Cline on Oct 11, 2006 at 11:48 AM Well…let me see…by fanning the flames of xenophobic religious bigotry…Bush is playing the same ugly , misinformation game that has been played for about 1800 years…..
The byproduct of this xrb’s rhetorical bullshit is the same all thoughout history…which is more…ignorance..war..hate…and suffering…
But JC…WHY WOULD YOU CARE…?
Being a scared , immature white anglo-saxon bigot from the US OF A-ssholes…you’re immune from critics or blame…
It’s everybody else that’s at fault…...
Is this not the view the rest of the world gets these days…one of a bores little snot…that got pulled into this mess by his over-educated university of chicago moronic neo-con buddies…....
Posted by Redhorse on Oct 12, 2006 at 9:27 AM R&R,
You need to work harder on keeping your personas separate.
Rabbit is the one from Australia.
Redhorse is the one from the US OF A-ssholes.
Posted by Jay Cline on Oct 12, 2006 at 4:04 PM Nice try JC…but ya still shootin’ bricks….
Redhorse may have been born in the oven…but that don’t make me a biscuit…
I have been extremely blessed ; not to be infected with the ” ostentious cripple “...that is the ” Hobgoblin ” of little minds and overblown egos…here in the US of A-ssholes…
Buckfush is still a moron and a little snot….
And you JC are an anal-retentive Anglo-Saxon bigot…....
Posted by Redhorse on Oct 12, 2006 at 8:01 PM R&R,
Not at all. You misunderstand. I think using multiple personas is an excellent vehicle in debate. I merely offer my humble assistance in helping you to get it right.
And you can lay off the provocative racist slurs. They are sloppily executed and quite ineffective.
I am neither Anglo nor Saxon.
But we are all bigots, in one sense or another.
Posted by Jay Cline on Oct 12, 2006 at 8:28 PM Well ol’ boy…whoever you are…really is no concern for the Redhorse…
It’s the obesquious follower mentality that all you flag waving zealots feed into…
Now as far as the alleged racist slurs…I contend that no such slurs was rendered…The term anglo-saxon is not a slur…although not the ethnicity of the JC…
Further your bigotry is evidenced by your stated posts….shall we go back and review all the half-witted illogical attempts that the JC has lettered…...
Finally…JC believes that…yes we are all bigots…well, son…let me tell yu…you wear it well; like a glove…
But please…don’t make the assumption that your disability is the downfall of us all…
Posted by Redhorse on Oct 12, 2006 at 9:11 PM And I, kind rabbit, contend you are a horse.
Ipso Facto. You are.
You really must pen an article on hare-brained logic, so the rest of us mortals can follow you.
Posted by Jay Cline on Oct 13, 2006 at 3:56 PM I am glad to see the usual trolls are stalking us once again. Let’s start with this:
Fascism as a political typology doesn’t fit anywhere in the Islamic world because it is a self-consciously modern ideology and system which applies only to modern nation-states and modern mass society. These fascist states use modern institutions, technology, and forms of organization to consolidate and centralize their political power. They tend to have highly developed, industrialized economies which are capable of autarchy and not easily subject to foreign domination. They are deeply nationalist and use myths of historic national glories to mobilize the support and compliance of the masses. They also impart a sense of national destiny to the people who they believe are unified by an organic connection to the nation and its destiny. They mobilize all sectors of society, labor, women, youth, various middle class occupations, farmers, soldiers, and civil servants in ways that serve and glorify the state. There is no opposition to the state allowed. The leader and party embody the nation and its mission all of which are deemed “above politics.”
These political sensibilities are distinctly European although they have also been seen in other societies like Japan between 1868 and 1945. Islamic theocracies have nothing in common with modern European-style fascist states. In the first place fascism is highly irreligious as it glorifies race, nation, the military, and all human centered achievements. It is also highly arrogant and celebrates the unlimited potential of human destiny and of the ubermench (superhuman individual). In this sense, European fascism is highly Nietzchean and extolls the greatness of the individual Will. Most European fascists view Christianity as a Jewish myth contrived to suppress the greatness of the barbarian races. I cannot think of anything more opposite Islam and its belief and value systems which respects both Judaism and Christianity as integral to the story and deveopment of Islam.
There are many authoritarian and illiberal ideas and social and political systems in human history. They vary greatly in terms of their structure, practices, cultural orientation, and underlying belief systems. Simply being authoritarian doesn’t make them fascist. Fascism is a very specific historic phenomenon with specific features. The reason many of our trolls don’t get it is that they like things nice and simple and in false dichotomies like they receive it on right-wing AM talk radio. The world is not that simple, however. One must understand the complexity of the various typologies of human society, political systems, and ideas. But what right-winger doesn’t like things nice ‘n simple?
Posted by cabdriverinchicago on Oct 16, 2006 at 4:29 AM cabdriverinchicago,
I admire your perserverane in the face of the most amazing idiocy, however it is clear there is absolutely no point. I suspect now that blogs like this are used by right wing spin meisters as a means of ‘running up’ talking points for the great unwashed, as a means of seeing who salutes the ‘flag’. It is irrelevant that the term islamofascist applied to a movement like Al-Quaeda is nonesensical.The IF term has been designed to link in people’s minds, the ‘good war’ 1939-1945, with the current gwot. The fact that this project is both conceptually as well as politically doomed, is neither here nor there. You can tell by the posts here that real world analysis is entirely beside the point on these issues, because if it was the point, the republican party would be absolutely flattened at the next polls, which I don’t believe it will be (although they will lose seats), and the Dems would be running an anti war strategy, which they are not. Face it, patriotism of the ‘my country can’t do any wrong’ type always trumps any attempt to ground opposition in reasoned analysis, and that is why trolls here try out ‘talking points’ that are on the face of it, absolutely stark staring mad..
Posted by Jane Doe on Oct 16, 2006 at 5:33 AM cabdriver,
Fascism ... applies only to modern nation-states and modern mass society.
Why?
These fascist states use modern institutions, technology, and forms of organization to consolidate and centralize their political power. They tend to have highly developed, industrialized economies which are capable of autarchy and not easily subject to foreign domination
Circular logic. Fascism only applies to modern states because they are modern? Industrialization and the use of technology does not define fascism. That they are effectively wielded by fascists does not make the tools themselves indicative and necessary for fascism.
They are deeply nationalist and use myths of historic national glories to mobilize the support and compliance of the masses. They also impart a sense of national destiny to the people who they believe are unified by an organic connection to the nation and its destiny. They mobilize all sectors of society, labor, women, youth, various middle class occupations, farmers, soldiers, and civil servants in ways that serve and glorify the state. There is no opposition to the state allowed. The leader and party embody the nation and its mission all of which are deemed “above politics.”
And how do Islamofascists differ? This is precisely the starting point of the use of the label “Islamofascist”.
These political sensibilities are distinctly European although they have also been seen in other societies like Japan between 1868 and 1945
Only Europeans, and only modern Europeans are even capable of fascism? uhm, does the phrase “racist tendencies” mean anything to you? It should. You are clearly demostrating them right now.
In the first place fascism is highly irreligious ... and Simply being authoritarian doesn’t make them fascist.
Points already addressed. Page up a few comments.
Posted by Jay Cline on Oct 16, 2006 at 6:12 AM Starboy, er LB, er Joh.., er Jane Doe,
cabdriverinchicago,
I admire your perserverane in the face of the most amazing idiocy, however it is clear there is absolutely no point.If you really must insist on following Rabbit/Redhorse’s lunacy into hiding your schizophenia, try at least to change the cadence and intonation of your comments.
I really expect one of these days your counterpostings will start with your ‘ol standby, “Not at all.”
Posted by Jay Cline on Oct 16, 2006 at 6:17 AM Jay,
You haven’t a clue. Go back to the thinktank and try and be a bit more plausable. You are a bit too transparent for anybody who is neither certifiably insane or ohas completd at least five years formal schooling.
If you think the gwot is like WW2, when will we know we have won, and perhaps more importantly, what are the goals of this exciting enterprise? The elimination of all those who profess Islam?1.2 billion poeple will take some firepower to wipe out old son, but the rhetorical principle is masterful-until the rest of the world just decides that the US really has to give up running a political mobilisation gechnique that has all the hallmarks of actually exisitng fascism. Go somewhere where they think the Rapture books are both history and prophecy!
Posted by Jane Doe on Oct 16, 2006 at 8:00 AM Oh JC…If only Redhorse had more time for your nonsense…but alas it is Monday morning and one must go to work…but look JC , real qiuck….
Fascism is a system of Gov’t that promotes corporate control over Gov’t agencies…
The trend developed in western europe…but without hesitation this dis-ease has been spreading throughout the so-called amerikas and in time..with the help of nuckle-heads like Bush/ Cheney and Rumsfeld…and possibly yourself ; will find a seat in the old world of what is now referred to as the middle east….
This is why folks in this region fight so hard against the US invader…They don’t want your fascist dis-ease…
Folks in this region of the world have enough problems…without US intervention…....
Posted by Redhorse on Oct 16, 2006 at 12:08 PM JD,
Already gave you my answer, dude.
Waiting for intelligent life to respond.
Posted by Jay Cline on Oct 16, 2006 at 7:08 PM Go somewhere where they think the Rapture books are both history and prophecy!
Got no desire to live in Iran.
Posted by Jay Cline on Oct 16, 2006 at 7:09 PM Redhorse,
you knucklehead. You even spell like Rabbit.
amerika??
Posted by Jay Cline on Oct 16, 2006 at 7:11 PM Yes JC, I always spell ” Amerika ” with a ” K “...
Redhorse also spells ” Afrika ” with a” K” .
You just notice that…you slower than I previously believed you to be…......
Some would spell your name as Jay Kline….......true…
So in all three examples , what do we find…that phonetically the ” C ” is pronounced as a ; come on now JK…SAY IT WITH ME…like you’re a 3 year old…....” K “.......
Now JK….Redhorse would explain the cultural significance of that spelling…that the letter “K” is preextant to the letter ” C “....rendering the letter K as pre-eminent to the softer C….but it would be lost on you…..............
Posted by Redhorse on Oct 16, 2006 at 10:38 PM Rabbit,
Your feigned irrational logic and deliberate jester-like stupidity doesn’t fool me. The only reason your provocative talents are wasted here is that you actually believe no one else is clever enough to get it.
Posted by Jay Cline on Oct 17, 2006 at 2:49 AM I thought that a lexicon might need an atlas to go with it.
Posted by David in Canada on Oct 17, 2006 at 3:02 AM Well JK…Sense you get ” IT “...Whatever you mean by “IT”....Why so clueless….?
Posted by Redhorse on Oct 17, 2006 at 3:31 AM You need to work harder on keeping your personas separate.
Jay, do you really believe that Rabbit and Redhorse are the same person?
Do you see rabbits under your bed too?Starboy, er LB, er Joh.., er Jane Doe,
And that Jane Doe is Luminous Beauty or someone else?
If so I think that you need to take a break from all of this as it has possibly begun to have a detrimental effect on your mind.
You may be experiencing paranoid delusions.
Please seek help. I offer my humble assistance :)
Posted by David in Canada on Oct 17, 2006 at 4:29 AM Jay Cline
You obviously never read a scholarly book on Fascism. You also don’t understand the political nature of propaganda. To say that I am a racist for limiting fascism to modern European and other highly advanced societies is ignorant!! Fascism is not just authoritarian rule. One of the reasons that it is limited to Europe and Japan under the Emperor is that the concept of a nation-state is absolutely instrumental. The historic specificities of European political development between the 1880s and the start of WWII, nationalist and racial ideology, the creation of nation-states out of Continental Empires, the abolition of political competition vesting all authority in a vanguard Fascist Party which sees itself as the ebodiment of the nation’s destiny, the use of scientific and bureacratic methods of organization to control the populace through regimentation of daily routines and mass inculcation through a highly controlled mass media, and the glorification of the state through mass organizations which indoctrinate the masses is a typology of rule which is highly modern, urban, and sophisticated.
Jane Doe is correct that Islamo-Fascism is a figment of the Neo-conservative imagination and is only used to pander to uneducated people as a hot button issue or buzz word to elicit mindless agreement and support. This is itself a fascist tactic. The reason you troll these sites is to be disruptive and try to confuse those novices who want to explore the left’s views. You don’t have a lot to say which is substantial.
Islamic theocracies have nothing in common with modern urban based fascist dictatorships of the mid-twentieth century. Islamic society doesn’t use bureacratized organizations or political parties to structure, manage, and control society. They don’t preside over highly industrialized societies with technology that allows profound social control. They are highly fragmented societies not unified ones. The key institutions are the Madrass and the Mosque not a modern political party or the military. The state is far more powerful under fascism. Islamic societies are based on a loose network of patron-client ties not disciplined modern institutions. Centralized rule is nearly impossible. These are weak states not strong ones. Fascist Italy, and to a greater extent, Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan all had strong, technologically advanced, modern autarchic economies that necessarily had the ability to (a) function without external aid or normal levels or foreign trade and investment, and (b) could sustain high levels of heavy industrial production enabling the state to wage protracted convential wars. Contrast this with the utter dependency of Afghanistan which relies on the international heroin trade and massive amounts of foreign aid, or Iran which would get nowhere without its oil revenues The only reason Iran is as modern and centralized as it is is because of over 25 years of rule by a pro-Western monarch whose entire bureacracy and military was foreign trained and educated. The Shah came close in 1975 to modern fascism with his secular Rastiquiz (Renaissance) Party. He attempted to imbue a sense of European-style nationalism by declaring Iran a unified Persian nation-state with a single Persian destiny. The rise of a new Theocracy banished all such European ideas in favor of Islam and its rejection of nationalism and racial ideas.
Posted by cabdriverinchicago on Oct 17, 2006 at 6:39 AM David,
Your absence has been sorely missed.
If you could clarify the dichotomies fostered by the usual suspects, I would welcome it. It is certainly possible after such close and prolonged contact with diseased carriers that the conspiratorial bug has afflicted me as well.
After all, I have mere circumstantial, er, circumstances to base my hypothesis on.
1) ITT institutes a “flag-waving” icon to give virtual denizens a geography lesson.
2) Many of these demons subsequently went ‘poof’.
3) These same denizens, who have self-identified their own past schizophrenia, had made virtual claims of specific national origin.
4) When the pudding was cooked, they disappeared (hmm, about the same time our calm Canuck vanished from these pages, too….was there a summer camp that I wasn’t invited to?)
That, of course, is mere and idle speculation.
Yet, any good profiler (or any reasonably semi-literate person) would notice the striking parallels in Rabbit/Redhorse’s diatribe, er, dialogue. And while Starboy was a tad more erudite, his diction uncannily resembles JD. And let us not forget Starboy’s gleeful gender-bending ruse, whether it was intentional or a just a nice inadvertent benie to exploring his other side.
Jane Doe?? C’mon! If gender-bending Starboy needed a new nomenclature in the anonymous virtual world of blogging, what better handle?!
((but seriously, CD, given the dearth of comments on my own website, it is rather interesting that you and your old friend Timmy should happen to run into each other on my web, so shortly after you and I encountered each other.))
But now, after a few weeks of their coordinated return, now that I have accused Rabbit of pretending to be silly to just play the provocateur (which is also a role Starboy, and JD, likes to play with a pseudo-Socratic flair), you show up.
Curiouser and curiouser ...
Yeah, maybe a little paranoid delusion is seeping in.
But, regardless, it makes for entertaining copy.
Posted by Jay Cline on Oct 17, 2006 at 2:19 PM cabbie,
1) Nation-states are not a modern invention. They descended from a long line of political organizations, not to mention the city -states of Greece 2500 years ago.
2) To accuse you of racism follows naturally from your own statements.
3) To accuse me of fascist tactics contradicts your logic that fascism exists only in the context of centralized nation-states, unless I am a nation-state of my own making.
4) To accuse the neo-con movement, or any political movement in America, of fascism whilst protesting that fascism violently forbids dissent, is at best disingenuous. It also contradicts your own “scholarly” logic.
5) To rely on the refutation of Islmofascists as fascists because they are not a modern society just reiterates the circular logic in your argument that I have already pointed out. You have yet to provide any abstract rationale, other than cherry-picking historic examples, that underlies the argument that fascism requires modern technology.
Oh, point of order. The Clovis Points of 18,000 years ago is merely one example of technology that has existed for, well, thousands of years. What quality of “technology” makes a particular technology characteristically fascist?
And please, don’t get temporal. That falls into the same circular logic trap.
6) But this is the killer;
Islamic society doesn’t use bureacratized organizations or political parties to structure, manage, and control society
Haven’t read many Iranian press releases, have we?
Posted by Jay Cline on Oct 17, 2006 at 2:28 PM Since it appears to be polemic upon the opposition that the only historical examples of fascism they accept are those of the singular fascist movements of a hundred years ago, let us take a moment to analyze those societies by the “criteria” laid out here.
Franco and il Duce - since autocratic regimes are not “necessarily” fascist, neither Spain nor Italy of the first half of the last century can be called fascist, despite repeated historical references to them as fascist. There was no ideology, at least no more than that of Saddam’s reign. And it has been pointed out here several times that Saddam was not a fascist, merely a brutal autocrat.
Japan. It was not a child of European politics, so how could it be fascist? And since theology has no part in fascism, since religion is antithetical to fascism, since the Divine Emperor was called divine for very religious reasons, Japan was not a fascist state.
Germany. The Nazi party did not reject religion. It rejected Judaism, it rejected the Catholic Church, but it was about the purity of the Aryan nation, both in terms of Christianity and more paganistic rituals. So, no fascism there either.
The low-brows of this site have a point.
Islamofascism cannot exist; because fascism does not exist.
Posted by Jay Cline on Oct 17, 2006 at 3:30 PM Jay,
Thank you for your kind words. I have missed being here too, but only a little.
Dichotomies aside I think you hit the nail on the head when you said of yourself the conspiratorial bug has afflicted me as well.
Yes, I am aware of the circumstantial evidence but it is weak. Your time would be better spent with nobler aspirations than idle specualtion.
... was there a summer camp that I wasn’t invited to?
Yes, but for conspiracy theorists only. However, now it appears we could have invited you as you have succumbed to the same affliction.
One of us! One of us! One of us!
I have noticed the parallels between Redhorse and Rabbit but I think it is mostly imitation being the sincerest form of flattery. Rabbit was much more provocative and more entertaining by far.
I’m sorry to have missed Starboy while I was wandering. And I am not too familiar with Jane Doe either but I do like what she has to say. She’s doing a good job of keeping you on your toes and although it is a tiresome job with few rewards, somebody has to do it.
I was thinking about dropping by your blog to say hello but decided to wait. Christmas is just around the corner after all. Actually, I met Timmy on your site. I didn’t know him previously. But I do keep up with Timmy’s blog. The guy is a genius and I still think you should include a link to his blog on your blogroll.
Anyways, don’t worry too much about your paranoid delusions.
A healthy thing I think. Expands your mind.
And as you say, entertaining as well.
Posted by David in Canada on Oct 17, 2006 at 5:14 PM LOL!
You have a delicately exquisite way of turning the fork!
Apologies. I really meant to say that your presence has been sorely missed.
Posted by Jay Cline on Oct 17, 2006 at 5:39 PM Jay Cline,
If you were to approach this subject at most universities like you do here you would flunk out immediately. You have NO powers of refined reasoning whatsoever. Let me examine the points that are even worth considering one at a time.
You say nation-states are not a modern invention. They are utterly modern. Before the late 19th Century the main forms of political organization were either multi-cultural/lingual empires such as the Ottoman, the Imperial German, the Austro-Hungarian, and the Russian Tzarist. On the other hand was the extremely local level such as the village. These formed political identity and loyalties and was the basis of politics and cultural life. This is the reason that nationalism is a NEW phenomenon and doesn’t go back very far.
I made NO racist statements.
Fascist tactics don’t always require a fascist state. Most people understand this.
The neo-conservatives are well known morons and are increasingly alienating more and more people including many of their supporters. One of the tactics of the right which you epitomise is anti-intellectualism with your charges of “elitism”, etc.One thing the Conservative mind (an oxymoron?) can’t comprehend is the epochal specificity of much historic phenomenon. This dovetails with their mindset that “nothing really changes” and that everything important has always existed in one way or another. They also don’t appreciate the revolutionary nature of historic change. They also don’t grasp dialectics. Many fascist regimes replaced failed democracies and used violence to expunge vestigial democratic tendencies and forces.
One of the reasons Fascist systems need to be modern is that perpetual war and conquest requires a modern, self-sustaining heavy industrial base. Technology is also required for social control in mass societies. Islamic societies don’t have such control and even in Iran there exists strong regionalist tendencies rather than national unification. Patramonialism is the opposite of rule by a modern state with modern class boundaries supplanting a caste system and modern institutions that rule bureacratically rather than personally. This is basic Weberian sociology. Although fascist states vest much power in the leader and his personality cult, he rules not through traditional patronage but the offices of a modern state. Iran’s modernity comes not from Islam but over 25 years of the Shah’s modern rule. By the way, his father Reza Pahlavi was a great admirer of Hitler and Mussolini and these influences could have permeated the Iranian state inherited by the Islamic Revolution. They did not, however, come from Islam.
This is a point of debate but I don’t really believe there is such a thing as fascist ideology.
Japan was a modern industrial power and nation-state. It was highly nationalist, warlike, and racist. It conquered its neighbors. It had the capacity for centralized control. The Fascist typology could apply.
The Nazis oppressed Jews as an ethnic group. They did not, however, express any disdain for Judaism. Many of them reputedly admired powerful Old Testiment figures such as Samson and Moses as Nietschean ubermenschen. They contrasted starkly with the gentle figure of Jesus. The Nazis abhored Christianity and suppressed it to whatever degree feasible. Germany, however, remained Christian.
Posted by cabdriverinchicago on Oct 17, 2006 at 5:53 PM Dude,
You really need to reread your history books.
This is the reason that nationalism is a NEW phenomenon and doesn’t go back very far.
Explain that to the Athenians and the Spartans. In defining a nation, the following is important: common culture, common origins, common language, a sense of exclusivity, a sense of identity.
Stalin defined a nation thusly,
A nation is a historically constituted, stable community of people, formed on the basis of a common language, territory, economic life, and psychological make-up manifested in a common culture.
Cicero contrasts the external, inferior nationes (“races of people”) with the Roman civitas (“community”) thusly,
“Omnes nationes servitutem ferre possunt: nostra civitas non potest.”
(“All races are able to bear enslavement, but our community cannot.”)An early example of the use of the word “nation” in conjunction with language and territory is provided in 968 by Liutprand, bishop of Cremona, who, while confronting Nicephorus II, the Byzantine emperor on behalf of his patron Otto I, Holy Roman Emperor, declared:
“The land…which you say belongs to your empire belongs, as the nationality and language of the people proves, to the kingdom of Italy.’
The concept of nation goes back only to 1800 for only those people who believe nothing of consequence happened before that.
One of the reasons Fascist systems need to be modern is that perpetual war and conquest requires a modern, self-sustaining heavy industrial base.
And the longest war in modern history was?? It wasn’t the 30 Year War; nor could it be the Hundred Years War; or the centuries spanned by the Holy Crusades; or the decades long conflict of the Peloponnesian Wars; or the 80-some years of the Punic Wars.
So, what was the longest war of modern times?
I made NO racist statements.
... These political sensibilities (fascism) are distinctly European.
Islamic societies don’t have such control (social control in mass societies)
You’re right. All they have is the “head tax” (extortion - if you don’t convert to Islam, then you must pay a head tax or you will lose your head, literally), stoning (not much technology needed for that), fatwas, vetting of all candidates and legislation in Iran by the mullahs (pretty sophisticated state controls for a primitive tribal society).
Before you start handing out grades, try to earn a few yourself first.
Oh, and lay off the desultory and deprecating comments, especially when protesting against elitism. It really makes you sound like a hypocrite.
Posted by Jay Cline on Oct 17, 2006 at 8:28 PM Jay Cline,
The Spartans and Athenians were just that, regional identities that became part of the ancient Greek Empire. They wouldn’t become Greek nationalists until they fought British control of the peninsula in the 1830s and concieved of themselves as Greeks with a desire to create a unified, territorially defined nation-state. Nation by the way is English for the Greek word Ethnikos. The nation-state is newer than the concept of ethnic culture or the nation. This concept wasn’t actively politicized until the 19th century so it didn’t become politically relevant until then! Most nation-states were established immediately after WWI. They are clearly a structural feature of modernity.
Posted by cabdriverinchicago on Oct 17, 2006 at 8:44 PM You have a delicately exquisite way of turning the fork!
Considering the fragile state of your mind I thought it best to go easy on you, Jay.
And ... No apologies necessary, but graciously accepted.
Posted by David in Canada on Oct 17, 2006 at 8:46 PM cabbie,
Deprecating Athenian and Spartan loyalties to their polities as mere superfluous “regional identities” ignores the notion that national boundaries, even in modern times, change. The self-identification of Athenians and Spartans was clearly nationalistic. There was a strong sense of identity within themselves, and exclusivity between the groups. That national borders were much closer than, when the horse and chariot were the fastest mode of land transportation, is not relevant. And quite frankly, it exposes a mean streak of cultural arrogance in your argument.
That Herodotus was not allowed to become a citizen, a member of the polities, of Athens, despite his obvious popularity among Athenians, is clearly indicative that the idea of identity and exclusivity inherent in nationalism existed long before you would ascribe it.
The roots of nationalism go very deep within our psyche, arguably even to biological factors in genetics.
The Tyrants of the 19th and 20th century didn’t invent anything new under the sun.
Posted by Jay Cline on Oct 17, 2006 at 9:28 PM Hey Jay,
Spoken like a true reactionary!! And wrong, wrong, wrong!!! First of all not all cultural identities are nationalist in charactor. Nationalism is learned as is all political culture and not inherited genetically. The roots of nationalism are quite shallow. I’ll resist comparisons! Citizenship is also an historic concept in great flux. The ancient Greek concept is far different than the notion of citizenship to emerge from the French Revolution and the 18th century European Enlightenment. We are looking at two very different societies with different socio-economic structures and different levels of development. There is also two millenia of history separating the two. The idea of inalienable rights by birth is modern. So is universality of rights. Rights in ancient times were limited to certain groups and conditional. Citizenship was restricted to a few. By the time of the French Revolution it was deemed to be an inalienable human right since statelessness became anathema to post-enlightenment politics. Such was not true of ancient times when the state had much less comprehensive authority. Modern states needed more comprehensive authority in order to develop, protect, and ensure national markets and secure the needs of industrial capitalism. This could hardly be said of ancient societies which were far less intensely integrated by modern standards.
Jay, I now see your problem. Your into socio-biology. To bad!! You’ve been quite misled!!
Posted by cabdriverinchicago on Oct 18, 2006 at 12:21 AM cabbie,
Your gleeful leap into presumptive assumptions makes it obvious you are incapable of critical analysis, so let me dumb this up.
I said, The roots of nationalism go very deep within our psyche, arguably even to biological factors in genetics.. I did not say nationalism is genetic.
Ask yourself a simple question; what is the root of nationalism, in the context of individual pyschology?
Careful. This is not a trick question.
Why do people gravitate towards other people, particularly with those who they have some common connection with?
I warn you. This is not a trick question.
Think about it. Why do we associate with those we are comfortable with, and keep strangers at a distance?
This is not a trick question.
Ever hear of the “us” vs “them” phenomena and its psychological basis? A phenomena that is readily observable in dumb animals? Where some species are characteristic loners, and others quite social?
Dude. In your childish gleeful delight you lost control of your frontal lobe. We socialize with others that we are most familiar with. That socialization is the foundation of nationalistic tendencies.
Read the scientific literature. THAT is what has an arguably genetic basis. This has nothing to do with deterministic socio-biology.
When you graduate from junior high school, drop me a line.
Posted by Jay Cline on Oct 18, 2006 at 3:19 AM Cabbie and Jay,
Just a quick note to comment on the back and forth between you guys. I don’t want to distract too much from the discussion as it it is very interesting and I am enjoying it.
Aside from the occasional slip you manage to communicate like civilized people. I see friendly banter, mostly, and constructive criticism, mostly, even if you disagree and that’s good.
Thanks. Seriously.
It gives me hope that maybe different people really can get along because in the end we are all the same.
Sorry for possibly bringing more sociobiology into the mix but if you don’t like it you can always put it in your lexicon and smoke it =)
Posted by David in Canada on Oct 18, 2006 at 3:36 AM cabdriver,
You are doing masterful work in trying to cram about a decade worth of modern and ancient history together with a modicum of sociology into that idiot’s head. But while you are claerly very good at what you do, I restate my earlier point. Why bother? jay Cline and the rest imho are nothing more than ‘stalking horses’ for spin meisters’ and the rest.They know what you say is ‘true’, but in a trivial sense, since ‘the truth ’ as such is not the point. As always, the ‘truth’ concerning the term ‘islamofascisim’ has nothing to do with history as such, and everything to do with present political imperatives.
And jay, listen up you creep, you betray much about yourself with your idiotic musings concenring ‘gneder bendering’ whatever the f**k that is. Get a life, and better still, get an deducation or stop trying to pretend you are an even greater fool than you are a knave. You fool no-one, except perhaps yourself. Idiot!
Posted by Jane Doe on Oct 18, 2006 at 4:10 AM Jane, you are your own woman.
....... And what a woman!You pounded that nail good,
And spoke up like you should.Jay, old friend, you have slipped a gear,
Gone around the bend, I sorely fear.She is she and you are he.
....... Really, seriously!
Posted by David in Canada on Oct 18, 2006 at 5:31 AM Better onanism than waste one’s time screwing with the likes of you, Jay Cline. Have your irony- but do you think none of the ridicule sticks?
I’m not interested in pursuing this kind of trivial ‘flamewar’. I mistakenly thought that a small dose of ridicule would be sufficient on this occasion, given the character of your arguments. Now the image that springs to mind is that of an imbecile child trying repeatedly to push a square brick into a round hole.
Good luck to those attempting to raise this beyond the level of trolls vs sophists- I couldn’t see the use in trying. Now I draw a line under it here.
>staedlerjr
>If you cannot understand irony, then continue to play with yourself.
Posted by staedlerjr on Oct 18, 2006 at 6:23 AM I quite understood your claims regarding the nature of nationalism. The nation is not rooted in human psychology. It is not kinship writ large. It is not the political manifestation of natural human tendencies to be gregarious. It is not evolutionary territorialism or the seeking of protection from intruders by sticking with the familiarity of the pack.
Nationalism is a modern ideology that is inculcated by authority for political purposes. These purposes involve securing support for the nation-state as a mode of social organization by creating an new historic identity for mass society called nationality. The nation-state is the organizational form of industrial capitalism as it grew from the workshop stage to the large scale factory stage of commodity production. The first stage involved predominantly use-value oriented production while the second was exclusively for exchange value. The nation-state becomes instrumental because it protects the national market and sees to the infrastructural and labor supply needs of this stage of capitalism. Citizenship becomes universal and everyone is liable to state control. The state encloses common areas such as land and resources and subjects everything to unambiguous legal liability denying access to independant subsistance and creating a dependance on the emerging capitalist system by bringing all within its sphere of productive relations. It further grants land, resources, and limited legal liabilities to corporations to enable them to operate with lower risk. Capitalism begins to concentrate wealth, income, and the accumulation process (investment) at this point in its development. The nation-state is the political expression of the bourgeousie, the class basis of modern nationalism. The current crisis of the nation-state is globalization’s breakdown of national society as the accumulation process consolidates and concentrates world-wide.
Posted by cabdriverinchicago on Oct 18, 2006 at 7:28 AM cabdriver,
I think now you have entered that terriroty known as ‘pearls before swine’. Leave it be man. jc and the rest of the wingnuts aren’t interested in a debate on history, they are too busy fighting history wars!BTW, globalisation also threatens the basis of the link drawn between soverignty and democracy, since if sovereignty is not confined to the bounded politiclalcommunity called ‘the nation state’ and floats somewhere between the iMF/WTO and individual corporate boears, to whom shal lwe address our gievances?
Posted by Jane Doe on Oct 19, 2006 at 3:43 AM Jane Doe,
Your comment on the broken link between sovereignty and democracy under conditions of globalization leaving citizens of the nation-state with no representation or grievance procedure is quite apt. The logic of transnational capital, and the new division of labor it commands according to the imperatives of the rate of profit, has broken down the old social formation. The old Keynesian model, along with its progressive reforms, capital/labor accord, and democratic process, is being replaced by the dictatorship of capital. The conflicts and chaos we see is the consequence of the collapse of the liberal state which for over two centuries guided capitalism’s development to the point of the current crisis. The denationalization of society is fast becoming the hallmark of the current historic epoch. Regionalization and tribalism is replacing nationalism. Labor struggles will have to transnationalize in order to defeat the race to the bottom. This means the rejection of nativism and a new labor movement strategy to create solidarity with the “illegal” migrant workers in the US and everywhere.
Widespread cross-border labor migration is a structural feature of late capitalism. In Western Europe all during the 1960s and 1970s, immigrant labor played an enormous role in the larger economies like France and Germany regardless of short term fluctuations in their unemployment and GNP growth rates. In the UK and Germany in the early 1970s, an average of 12% of the unskilled work force was foreign while in France, Belgium, and Switzerland over 25% of the industrial labor force were immigrants. The sectors with the highest concentrations of foreign workers also tended to have the highest productivity.
In Europe, at the beginnings of the crisis of the Keynsean model, labor migration was not a response to market conditions but a result of the combined and unequal development of the global economy created by transnational capital. Labor migration from Mexico to the US has the same basic logic today. Labor shortages in the areas of the US economy and substantial labor immigration coexist with modest levels of unemployment just as they did in Europe three decades ago. The restructuring of capital and of labor markets according to the rate of profit serves to concentrate the accumulation process and wealth. This has meant the collapse of formerly recognized political boundaries which no longer serve capital’s drive to develop the forces of production. The laws of motion of capital have coupled the increased global concentration of investment, wealth, and economic activity with the increased atomization of people and their communities. The ability to meet human needs that was vested in the public sphere during capitalism’s nation-building phase is now privatized as more of society is being marginalized for profit.
The Nation-State is dying. Transnational capital is killing it and replacing it with a transnational state. One of the reasons for the violence in the world today is the dislocating nature of this transition. Capitalism’s imperative is to sustain and boost the rate of profit. The nation-state has given way in that endeavor. Class struggles will now shift to a different terrain in response.
Posted by cabdriverinchicago on Oct 19, 2006 at 8:26 AM jd, stjr, david,
ROTF, LMAO!
And you call me trollish ....
What a riot.
Though I disagree with cabbie quite strongly, and will continue to do so, at least he is making an effort to actually engage in an honest debate.
Something Starboy, er JD (whose feigned outrage is noted, and long expected), never thought worthy.
Posted by Jay Cline on Oct 19, 2006 at 8:47 PM cabbie,
I would only dispute the notion that the roots of nationalism is embedded in the development of capitalism, as I would dispute that fascism’s roots require modern Western technology.
The Roman empire fostered similar notions of “new identities” and common citizenship across ethnic lines, as did the Islamic empire. As well as the example from China, where the notion of “Chinese nationalism” rests above the various ethnicities across the Middle Kingdom to the point of having a single “national” language, on top of the myriad of other languages, that unifies China even to this day
And to respond to the obvious retort, no, I do not think “empire” and “nation-state” are necessarily exclusionary.
Posted by Jay Cline on Oct 19, 2006 at 9:03 PM Jay,
I have never called you a troll and have, in the past, told people who have called you a troll that it is not so. Do I have to go back and search the archives to find the examples of where this topic of trolls was discussed?
Back a day or so ago I was reading a post of Cabbie’s and his opening was a tirade about what a troll you are. I came back a couple hours later prepared to call him on it and saw that he had edited the offensive remarks from his post. Good for him!
I have always defended your right, and others’, to discuss here and not be called a troll for doing so.
To everyone :
Remember that we are guests of In These Times and they have specifically asked us to please be respectful in our comments.
I have reminded others of this numerous times here in these discussions and say it again now.
Play nice!
Back to the discussion please ... I am enjoying it and was not being sarcastic when I said so.
Posted by David in Canada on Oct 19, 2006 at 9:17 PM Jay Cline,
On the close relationship between capitalism and nationalism and the nation-state we will certainly have to agree to disagree.
On the issue of fascism and modern technology I must stress that complete centralized control of mass society is enabled by modern technology. So is conquest and modern warfare. Fascism is a truely modern typology. It is also related to capitalist crisis and certainly was in the 1930s in Europe when economic and working class political pressures on the system would have caused capitalism’s sure demise without the intervention of the fascist state to shore up its weaknesses in the face of insurmountable crisis. Fascism’s forced inclusion of social groups into mass organizations that carry out the agenda of the state and glorify the state through rallies and the like is a modern feature of authoritarian rule not deemed necessary in earlier times. Not everyone was deemed worthy of inclusion in ancient empires. Universality is a feature of modernity. So are the equal obligations of citizenship in modern mass societies.
Posted by cabdriverinchicago on Oct 20, 2006 at 4:05 AM cabbie,
Fascism is certainly enpowered to a far greater extent by modern technology and communications, but so is every other political philosophy. I don’t accept the notion that it is a necessary precondition for social control.
But I can certainly agree to disagree.
Posted by Jay Cline on Oct 20, 2006 at 7:21 AM Jay Cline,
I never said that Fascism was uniquely advantaged by technology but only that it was a necessary but not sufficient condition for its emergence as a form of rule. Obviously other types of rule are empowered by technology including democracy which by the way doesn’t require such a thing to be Democratic.
The main part of the argument was that fascism is self-consciously and by definition modern and constitutes a decisive break with previous modes of traditional authoritarian rule. Fascism is necessarily urban (Mussolini thought of it as “futuristic” and part of the general 1930s futurism movement of which “Art Deco” was an artistic and architectural genre within Futurism). It is based chiefly on urban social groups. The old agrarian oligarchs are not a vital part of Fascist political culture. The Urban middle classes and industrial bourgeousie comprise the core of the social basis of fascism. Traditional rural based forms of authority are based on patron-client ties at the level of the village. Traditional customs and beliefs form the basis of ones identity not nationalism. The Patrone’ rules as a personal figure. The fascist dictator, despite a personality cult, rules through modern bureacracy and the military. The State, not the village, the Patrone’ or his family or the Church, is the core source of authority and to which all devotion is given by the masses. Fascism is generally irreligious unlike traditional patrimonial authority. Fascism has a distinctly modern culture as previously suggested with my comments on futurism.
This all goes to exclude Islamo-fascism as a legitemate political concept.
Jay, it may interest you to note that the entire political science profession clear across the ideological spectrum supports my assessment of fascism which is hardly an original one. The exception would be my comments on capitalist crisis which only the left would recognize as a plausible explaination for fascism’s rise in the first place.
Posted by cabdriverinchicago on Oct 20, 2006 at 8:25 PM cabdriver etc,
iran under the Shah certainly exhibited all the hallmarks of a facist state, but how would you characterise it under the mullahs? Personally I am inclined oto think it now exhibits the hall marks of an authoritarian confessional state, a la Spain under Franco, with about as much a shelf life, although the nationalism being promulgated by the mullahs and their populist spokesperson adhminajad seems both ‘authentic’ as well as being the traditional ‘bait and switch’ employed by regimes under pressure.As for China, in my opinion it ow exhibits the characteristics of a regime under extreme pressure, and the attempt to ‘meld’ market and command froms of economic and polical development seems unlikely to produce either ‘New York on the Yangzte’, or Brussels any time soon. Seems more like criminal gangsterism to me, of a very traditional kind.
Posted by Jane Doe on Oct 21, 2006 at 6:50 AM I won’t venture to classify China. Even state capitalism is a stretch because of the degree of private control of industry and other sectors of the economy. However, State Capitalism is the very best way to charactorize the current type of regime in China.
Iran under the Shah was fairly close to a modern Fascist state. Persia is certainly a nation-state and the Shah was a great admirer of both Hitler and Mussolini whose regimes and modes of mass organization served as models for the Shah. His regime was highly modern and nationalist in its conflicts with Arab states like Iraq and to a lesser extent Saudi Arabia. He believed Persians to be superior to Arabs and the “marsh Arabs of Khuzistan in the South, were there is much oil and sources of fresh water for irrigated agriculture, are a persecuted minority. He also repressed the Kurds and the Azerbijanis in a bloody reoccupation of Gilan, a large northwestern salient of the country, after the Soviet Army withdrew in 1946. He employed sophisticated technology in order to modernize the country, developed a modern military and internal security service known as SAVAK, andemployed iron-fisted rule ultimately disallowing any kind of political opposition in the Iranian Majlis or elsewhere. He used his office to enrich himself and his ultra-wealthy Pahlavi Foundation which syphoned off as much oil wealth as possible. Finally, he increasingly repressed the Mullah’s as a threat to his secular rule and mobilized nationalism over religion to channel popular support for the regime. It was an obvious failure.
The Mullah’s religious message resonated with many Iranians in the late 1970s because of the extreme repression of the Shah. It seemed at first a form of liberation theology not only because of the extremely brutal repression of the Shah but because his modernization program benefited only a small rich urban elite, the Shah himself, and a number of large foreign multinational corporations. Since religion alone escaped the Shah’s repression it was able to take the place of politics in the popular sector and became the very basis of the 1979 Revolution which dramatically overthrew the Shah’s Regime.
But the Mullahs didn’t institute a fascist regime. It was a clerico-populist, authoritarianism which revived the pre-eminance of the Mosque in political life, while gradually establishing a traditional theocracy. It also employed measures to redistribute wealth and redress the grievances of the urban and rural poor. Over time Iran became active in spreading Islamic Fundamentalist movements and funding terrorism in nearby Muslim countries in order to undermine pro-Western regimes in those places. In the mid to late 1990s a thaw in relations with the US took place where there looked like a chance to normalize relations between the two countries. Most of the Iranian people seemed ready for a change and wanted to shift to a modern form of secular rule. Reforms were scotched after 1997, a year of negotiations and hope during the Clinton Administration, when the US presence in the Gulf Region strengthened the hand of hardliners over moderate reformers. US aggression against Iraq provoked the Iranian hardliners as did stepped up Israeli targeted assassinations in the occupied Palestinian territories with tacit US approval. By Bush’s rise to the Oval Office in 2001 relations between the US and Iran became irreparable. I do believe that US sabre rattling is driving the hardliners in Iran. They are quite afraid of a US invasion! They are quite repressive to be sure! But they are not fascists. The eight years of the Khatami reforms and the loosening of Iranian society is uncharactoristic of fascist regimes. The succession of Khatami by Ahmadinijad in 2005 could be seen as a response to threats by the US Bush Regime to invade and destroy the country as it had been doing in Iraq for the previous two years.
Posted by cabdriverinchicago on Oct 21, 2006 at 7:33 AM I understand the history of Iran cabdriver, but i think your typology concerning current Iran awry. The mullahs are both corrupt and have a large say/control in the economy and in my view the current hysterical nationalism promulgated by the leadership in Iran is a ‘distraction’ from the fact that they can’t deliver what people want . Which is not to say of course, that the Iranians want a bar of the ‘shock and awe’ freedom fighting claptrap tirelessly beamed at them by an equally demented regime in the US.
I just think we need to be caeful about deploying neat categories in which to ‘fit’ nations and social formations, because we often miss signifacnt aspect s of reality that tend to bite the unwary on the arse.
Posted by Jane Doe on Oct 21, 2006 at 8:06 AM cabbie,
Jay, it may interest you to note that the entire political science profession clear across the ideological spectrum supports my assessment of fascism which is hardly an original one
Actually, there is no clear consensus on what fascism is, and I have never considered an appeal to authority as the sole logic in an argument to have much merit.
I have asked, repeatedly, why is modern technology so absolutely necessary for fascism to exist, but all I get are descriptive analysis and dogmatic declarative tautologies that essentially say, it is because it is. Nothing has been said about what truly defines fascism.
It is true that fascism, as a defined word, as a defined concept, did not exist until the time of Mussolini. But like racism, which did not exist as a word until the mid 1800s, that does not mean fascism did not exist before. Defining, abusing, modern racism required the discovery of genetics, but that does not necessitate modern science as a precondition of racism. Racism did not spring into the minds of modern man unbidden. It has always been there. To make arguments otherwise requires a belief that perception is reality.
With regard to religion, you have likewise not address my comments, except to say fascism is irreligious because it is (forgive me - you appeal to authority on this as well.) Nazi Fascism was not a movement against religion; it was, in part, a movement against the direction organized religion was taking. In fact, religion was embraced. It was against clerics, but only to the extent that clerics tried to maintain a separate identity to the State. The Reich embraced its own religion. Ludwig Mueller was appointed Reich Bishop.
Mussolini, perhaps, best defined fascism as, the State is everything; everything exists within the State; nothing exists outside of the State. He proclaimed himself to be a reactionary as well as a revolutionary. In short, a radical conservative.
It is in this context that the elements of fascism can be embraced. Nationalism, dictatorial leadership, corporatism, the repression of all identities except the overarching one of nationalism. Ultimately, fascism is the subordination of all identities to a national identity. You do not need modern technology (or urbanization) to incorporate this notion.
And this is the rationale behind calling radical conservative movements of Islam, fascist. This is why the calls by al Qaeda for a New Caliphate, why the state control exercised by the Iranian mullahs are considered acts of a fascist state. The State of Islam is everything; everything exists with the State of Islam; nothing exists outside of the State of Islam. It is a movement of singular national identity, one that controls the economic power of the State, one that aligns the individual to the State.
Even the leadership is not exempt from State control, as the true leadership is Allah.
In fact, one could argue that as the leadership of revolutionary Iran or the leadership of the fantasized Caliphate is ultimately accountable to the identity of the State, much more than Franco or Mussolini or Hitler were in their “fascist” states, that Islamofascism is the purist form of fascism.
Posted by Jay Cline on Oct 22, 2006 at 2:06 PM Jay -
Extremely well put.
CDiC is educated beyond his intelligence; that is why he is a cab driver.
I have been following this discussion closely, if not actively participating. CDiC’s (and his ilks’) arguments are reminiscent of the endless discussions that accompanied the nit-picking debates of Marx and Engels at the time of the First International, the debates of the early pre-Soviet and Soviet eras, and the current academic debates in the USA, with which CDiC is well familiar. All these debates aimed at creating a grand theory of everything: social, economic, political. Every exception (there were LOTS of exceptions) required further debate and further nit-picking detail. The arguments were no different from the medieval debates concerning the angels dancing on the head of a pin. None of which make a shitting bit of difference.
Stalin came to Lenin’s attention because of his proficiency at robbing banks, in order to finance the nascent communist movement in Russia. Stalin came to power, not because he had mastered the theory of socialism or because of his proficiency at debating the fine points of socialist thought, but because he was a thug. Mao, same thing; “Political power grows from the barrel of a gun”.
So, the whole history of socialism has been characterized by pointless debates, pre-empted by thuggery that has lead to such political “progress” as the left has enjoyed. We see the same thing today in the United States, where elite leftists lie about President Bush, attempt to steal elections, and try to destroy confidence in American institutions.
Socialist thought has been thoroughly repudiated by its principal victims, mainly Eastern Europe. Even China makes progress only where it rejects socialist economics.
The leftists can complain all they want to (Boy, do they ever!) but democracy, free market economics, and the rule of law have created the finest social and economic system in the world today. In so far as others have followed the American and British examples, they have prospered and grown: Chile, Ireland, Estonia, Hong Kong.
There are the facts. Let CDiC and others nit-pick them as they wish.
Posted by scorp on Oct 22, 2006 at 6:09 PM First of all there is a clear enough consensus on fascism to understand that it is modern and that it uses technology to accomplish levels of control and compliance that only modern regimes can achieve. The bureaucratic State is the core of the fascist rule which is essentially secular although it does not repress organized religion.
Your point on a fascist Caliphate is ridiculous. A Caliphate is religious authority not state. It could entail theocracy. You can’t have a fascist Caliphate any more than a fascist Papacy. Both are religious and rely on religious doctrine. Nationalism is totally separate. Neither Islam or Catholicism is nationalistic but faith based and intended to be spread to all nations regardless of language or ethnicity. Catholic means universal the antithesis of national. Islam also encompasses many nations.
Fascism like racism is modern. Genetics was not a necessary precondition for racist ideas but it contributed. You seem to believe in a conservative epistomolgy called “objectivism” which is an essentialist paradigm that holds that all basic conditions are eternal and merely change form over time but have a reality outside our own thought and being. This may be true of purely physical matter but certainly not social phenomena. Racism is a modern idea which institutionalized race as a political category and used science (like genetics and anthropolgy) to support and legitimate it. Before the 16th century prejudice may have existed but not racism which began with the slave trade (read Robin Blackburn’s The Making of New World Slavery) and its justification using modern racist doctrines some of which were based in religion. It seems that New World slave traders were forced to turn to Africa for their labor supply and so the Church conveniently adopted the myth that somehow G-d had cursed and punished the offspring of Ham (the first African according to the Bible) by making them black for Ham’s transgressions. This lent political legitimacy, as far as europeans were concerned, to conduct the African slave trade. Before this race was not politically relevant. Similarly nationalism is a modern contrivance based on the emerging urban bourgeousies who wanted to build national economies on the ashes of quasi-feudal empires.
Jay and Scorp need to get a clue on historic scholarship and something called research methodolgy before they insult those who have done so. Anyone can talk stubbornly in uninformed laymen’s terms that contribute nothing to a deeper understanding of history!
Posted by cabdriverinchicago on Oct 23, 2006 at 12:30 AM If fascism is primarily about state control, then arguments about the requirement of modern technology are superfluous. There have been plenty examples in ancient history (of which I have noted a few) where absolute state control has been achieved. And the further necessity of a highly efficient (and modern) bureaucracy can easily be refuted. 19th century Europeans did not invent bureaucracy; the Ottoman Republic and ancient Chinese States come to mind.
The further tautologies of the “irreligious” nature of fascism continue to remain that. Tautologies. There is nothing being said that demonstrates the antithesis of religion and fascism, and, again, I have given plenty examples from avowed fascist states that show an historical congruence between the two. No one appears willing to refute those historical examples.
If there is any universal agreement on what fascism is, it is that fascism is all about state control and the submission of individual will to the state.
If that does not describe organized religion, I don’t know what does.
To argue that nationalism and clericalism are “totally separate” and that clericalism is “intended to be spread to all nations regardless of language or ethnicity” belies an earlier point that nationalism also transcends local ethnicities.
I have not argued that racism had no foundations prior to genetics. In fact, I argued the counterpoint to illustrate the same argument is being made with regard to fascism and technology.
I do not believe in a Fall From Grace.
Fascism has been with us for a long time, however. Modern Fascism was in counterresponse to democratic, classically liberal society. But not everyone wanted change. Many were content, even believed, in monarchies and divine rights of kings. Philosophers such as Locke and Burke destroyed that, stripping monarchism of its legitimacy. Now most took that to mean a refutation of state control. But even as in politics today, there are people who will not give up cherished notions. That is why most fascists consider themselves “revolutionary as well as reactionary”.
Fascism is monarchism, stripped of the right of kings. Legitimacy is embued in the strong, those who can take and hold power.
This is why avant guard presentations of Pericles and I, Claudius can be successfully portrayed in a modern setting, with fascist backdrops.
Technology did not “free” the fascist mind; democracy did.
Posted by Jay Cline on Oct 23, 2006 at 12:11 PM First of all I never said Fascism was only about state control or only about anything else. You absolutely delight in taking any one thing I attribute to fascism as a typology of rule and accuse me of hinging the entire argument on that one thing. You’ve this with the state, technology, modernity, industry, bureacracy, and numerous other things. Many things merge to make fascism a unique modern form of rule in the 20th century.
You have yet to learn what every incoming college freshman learns in his first history class, that is the phrase “the necessary but not sufficient condition for…” you must learn the difference between a necessary and a sufficient condition or how a number of necessary conditions create a sufficient one. Good luck!
Posted by cabdriverinchicago on Oct 23, 2006 at 6:08 PM CDiC -
Many things coalese (sic) to make fascism a unique modern form of rule in the 20th century.
Umm, no. Your distinguishment between, say, fascism and communism, is a construct. The ~ six million innocent dead under fascism and the ~ 100 million innocent dead under socialism define and establish the equivalence of these two systems, as well as all other totalitarian and oppressive systems. Such as two million dead under Pol Pot, two million dead under Saddam, etc, etc.
Such “philosophy” as went into the academic definitions of socialism and fascism is artificial, contrived, and self-serving, depending on the individual wants and needs of the “philosopher” (professor, editor, useless idiot, cab driver), who willfully subordinates himself to the strong personality (Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Chavez). The kicker is that the strong personality does not really give a shit one way or the other about the “philosophy”, which is only his means to power. Which naturally makes me wonder what your real objective is in life.
I realize you went to school and learned, or memorized, all this crap, but the object of an education is to help you learn to think. If you have not learned to appreciate critical thinking by the age of eight or so, no amount of memorization in later life will make you educated.
So, enjoy driving your cab, but don’t try to impose your philosophy on a free and successful people with Second Amendment Rights. You might even consider joining the ongoing American Revolution, with all its successes and glorious achievements.
Posted by scorp on Oct 23, 2006 at 8:03 PM cabbie,
If you want to devolve back into scurrilous educational slurs, let me assist you with course selection.
Set Theory.
To say that Set A requires Subsets B, C and D most certainly does not mean A is B and only B.
Yet, without B, you have no A.
That, my dear fellow, is what “necessary conditions” equate to.
I still await a non-tautologistic explanation on why A (fascism) requires B (modern technology) and C (strict secularism).
I am more than willing to keep this above the belt, if you are.
Posted by Jay Cline on Oct 23, 2006 at 8:15 PM For the record, I, and not cabbie, am the one asserting that fascism is primarily about state control.
I am trying to understand how technology and secularism are necessary preconditions, yet (I am really getting tired of saying this) all I get are tautologies.
cabbie, you do know what a tautology is, no?
Posted by Jay Cline on Oct 23, 2006 at 8:41 PM Wait a minute. I think I get it.
The fascism of mid 20th century Germany, Italy and Japan used technology (ie radio and television broadcasts, aircraft carriers, submarines, integrated military operations) to impose a fascist political system. Therefore, fascism requires modern technology.
Absolutely! My neighbor’s dogs are white short hair terriers and they are the only dogs my little girl has ever seen.
Ergo, the big black mastiff that was walked past our house the other day could not possibly be a dog. It was big. It was black. It was long haired.
It could not have been a dog. Just ask my little girl.
Posted by Jay Cline on Oct 23, 2006 at 8:58 PM I really have to say that you two are the most obnoxous trolls I’ve ever seen. And annoying!! My statements were not tautologies. Never has there been a technologically backward fascist regime in history. BTW, I never said technology freed people. Anyhow, technological advancement is part of fascism’s self-identification as a modern society and a society aspiring to material progress. I don’t believe my defense of this point is tautological. The term Islamo-fascism was not meant to be a scholarly assessment or Iran’s regime typology. It would never pass muster in any University under any circumstances. The pundits that coined the term and push it in the mass media use it in order to evoke a political response from a mindless public. George Orwell criticized this use of political language as a substitute for thought as dangerous and manipulative. Meaningful discussion is shut down rather than facilitated. Buzz words like “Islamo-fascism” evoke politically useful images for authority’s agenda and are accepted uncritically as is the agenda it supports. There is no redeeming value in a misleading and simplistic epithet like “Islamo-Fascism.” It is pure politics!!
Scorp’s association of fascism with Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, and Saddam (as if these dictators have a lot in common) is ridiculous. Saddam and his war against Iran was supported by the US and its allies because of animosity towards Iran. The Baathists were brought to power by the US in 1963 to overthrow a populist regime which aspired toward ultimate democratization. Stalin, Mao, and Pol Pot did kill many people and their rule is regretable to say the least. Unlike Germany, a rich and advanced society which undertook to murder countless millions of people out of sheer racist fanaticism even at the expense of its own prosperity and military success, Stalin, Pol Pot, and Mao presided over enormously impoverished countries where starvation was the norm and war and invasion had created great loss of life, bitterness, and demoralization. Mao was the product of the Japanese invasion and Pol Pot need never have occured if the US had not bombed the hell out of Cambodia. The 1970 coup led by Lon Nol in Cambodia against neutralist Norodom Sihanouk in order to bring in a government that would help the US spread war in Indo-China resulted in the genocide committed by the Khmer Rouge. All the US supported governments in Indo-China were quite unpopular. US war making resulted in needless deaths both before and after 1975. This would have never occured had the US tried to help resolve the question of Indo-China’s political future peacefully beginning in the 1950s. The US chose war not negotiations with Ho Chi Minh who would have won the elections schedualled to occur in 1956. Ho was something of an Asian Tito who wanted to develop Vietnam and relieve much of its war induced poverty. He ultimately would have allowed free market reforms. The US wouldn’t give this solution a chance. It prefered to pursue war and the support for corrupt and undemocratic governments. The US war killed between 3 and 4 million indochinese people from 1964 to 1975. The US has killed millions more people all over the world just like many of these dictators through war and the support of brutal dictatorships. We’ve actually killed more Iraqis than Saddam. The right doesn’t enjoy hearing this but its true.
Posted by cabdriverinchicago on Oct 24, 2006 at 3:30 AM cabbie,
First, let me apologize. I didn’t get much past the “troll” comment before responding. And subsequently have no intention of.
I do, however, agree with you 100% that it logically follows that Never has there been a technologically backward fascist regime in history, especially when you define modern technology as one of the prerequisites for fascism.
That, (un)kind sir, is a tautology.
When you are prepared to defend that tautology with a rationale explanation why, let me know.
(in your further pursuit of higher education, especially in the field of history, make sure you pay particular attention to arguments of correspondence. That two seemingly unrelated events happen at the same time can often mean they are, in fact, unrelated).
Or as Freud said, sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.
Posted by Jay Cline on Oct 24, 2006 at 3:14 PM Couple loose points:
1) Observations (like associating technology with fascism) are scholastically worthless if you cannot explain the relationship.
2) Throwing mud is not an argument.
Posted by Jay Cline on Oct 24, 2006 at 3:23 PM Loved your little bit of verse Dave.
Here’s some more for our little troll, Jay-Jay. He is a troll, David, in spite of your generousity and no matter how sincere he may be in his beliefs, since his method is not to illuminate or facilitate discussion, but to obscure and divert from developing understanding from the subject at hand (which I understand is how neo-cons distort and misuse language to corrupt and mislead people by manipulation of their common sense perceptions - an apt description of his method, don’t you think?) Any strawman or red herring in a storm.
Jane Doe, I have to confess, I am the cause of Jay-Jay’s obsession with gender-bending. It’s a long and funny tale. David knows it. I have only limited access these days and not on my own computer or I’d link to the history of that mess of succotash.
Cabbie, keep giving ‘em hell.
And Jay-Jay, you really are a putz. The discarded bit of flesh produced by a briss. That much detached from reality. Deal with it.
J. Cline, I must give you creditFor more than much less how you said it.
Of whence I am gleaning
The sense of the meaning
Of bullshit; the fact that you spread it.
Posted by luminous beauty on Oct 24, 2006 at 7:03 PM LOL, my notable Starboy!
Hiding in plain sight, huh?
You should try a little more illumination and a little less trollish behavior yourself.
Now, that would be novel!
Posted by Jay Cline on Oct 24, 2006 at 8:48 PM One of the most obvious connections between fascist regimes and their objectives of total state control and racial purification if the relationship between IBM and the Nazi Regime in the 1930s and beyond. A well known and exhaustive work on the subject involving a team of over 100 researchers by journalist Edwin Black tells the entire story.
The story begins with a German-American inventor named Hermann Hollerith who invented a machine using punchcards to process and register data much like a primitive form of computer technology. The first major use of his technology was the gathering and sorting of data for the 1890 US Census. By 1911, when Hollerith sold his company and patents to the Computing-Tabulating-Recording Co, he had a global monopoly on the machines which he leased. CTRC soon became IBM headed by Thomas Watson. IBM leased thousands of these punch card machines throughout Germany and the Greater Reich althroughout the war for many different functions. As early as 1922, Watson took over a German company called Dehomag which used the machines under license from IBM chiefly for business purposes, and made it wholly owned subsidiary of IBM.
In 1937, Hitler ordered a major nation-wide census using the Nuremberg laws as a basis for gathering ethnic and religious data on the Jews of the Greater reich. In May 1939, after the Austrian anschluss and the annexation of the Sudenland, the greater reich census ordered two years earlier was finally conducted. 750,000 census takers covered the greater reich’s 22 million households or 80 million residents. A “supplemental card” was included to record the “racial ancestry” ovf each household. The data distinguished between those “fully” Jewish and those who were mixed. It then was possible to break the mixed category down further into degrees of Jewish making one-quarter the minimal definition of a racially Jewish individual. About 330,530 “racial” (or mixed) Jews were identified in the greater reich by this method. The data provided by IBM technology and the machines that used it enabled not only the genocide program through the identification, location, and rounding up of Jews, but other Nazi operations such as organizing military personel and equipment and the schedualing of trains to transport personel, equipment, and concentration camp victims. At the very end of the War, IBM’s German subsidiary was valued at nearly RM 57 billion. IBM held a 90% global monopoly on punchcards and sorters. IBM had made millions in profit all during the War from its German subsidiary’s European operations.
This establishes the close connection between fascism and modern technology. I tend to associate the two because fascism concentrates much power in the state and values the forward march of the nation as an industrial and imperial power. Social control and genocide are fascist goals further assisted by technology. Islamic regimes are not nearly as ambitious nor do they hold the firm beliefs in material progress held by fascist ideologues. Further, Islamic regimes are purely concerned with religion, not race or nation. Read Jeffrey Herf’s book Reactionary Modernism which surveys the Nazi obsession with modern technology and the way its achievements are used to glorify the state and the nation as an historic racial entity according to fascist ideology.
Posted by cabdriverinchicago on Oct 25, 2006 at 5:51 AM cabdriver,
While I agree that facismis an entirely modern phenomenon, I do not agree that its modernist provenance can be sheeted just to its relationship with technology. In my view, its provenance must be understood more as a specific political response to the crisis that faced the dominant regimes in Europe during the post WW1 era.The specificities of that time won’t be repeated, although racist populist mobilisation by a ruling class in political crisis is once again ‘out there’. This time, it is immigrants (especially if they are muslim), and the phony spectre of ‘islamofacisim’, that is wielded as the aggregating principle of mass politics by a ruling regime that is far more shaky than most commentators care to either admit or acknowledge.
It is important that the political dimension of facism as a response to a crisis in the ruling regime, is foregrounded, rather than its particulr orientation to technology. In my opinion the latter grows out of precisely the layers that were attracted to the plitics of facisim, since as you correctly noted, its political base lies largely in the urban middle and lower middle class, for whom ‘technology’ was in part, the leitmotif of their challenge to the ‘old ruling classes’ who had so manifestly failed to impose order, both economic and social, in the face of he crisis of the 1920s and 30s across the industrialised world.
jc, you are not only a troll, you are also not what your earlier posts try to convey. You know, I can ‘pick’ professionsals from a thouand paces, and you are one, albeit, not a very good one, since you forget to keep in ‘persona’. .
Posted by Jane Doe on Oct 25, 2006 at 6:13 AM Jane Doe,
I agree with your post 100%!! I would never hold that technology is fascism’s leading feature and that there is some kind of technological determinism that predisposes regimes with great technological abilities to use them to vest all power in the state apparatus. Clearly fascism is political and is a response to the crisis of the old regimes inability to impose order, as well as reproduce the conditions of capitalist profitability.
Robert O. Paxton, a historian from Columbia U. , deemed European fascism’s early encounter with western support/compacency as both (a) indicative of Western capital’s need for a profitable outlet for investment in Germany’s war economy in the face of the world depression and, (b) a strategy to clear the decks of all workers’ parties, movements, and trade unions which obstructed capitalism’s full political control of Europe. Post-war Europe, bereft of these forces, became ready for open world markets and international capitalism under US hegemony.
The new international economic order was guided by the Bretton-Woods regime which stabilized world trade with a gold backed strong US dollar and defended the US market against resulting cheap imports with high tariffs. This worked well for about three decades until problems began to manifest. Ultimately, capitalism’s global crisis in the 1970s, entailing trade wars, the collapse and floating of the US dollar, world recession, unemployment, energy price shocks, overproduction and heavy industrial overcapacity, inflation, and balloning third world debt all called forth a global restructuring of capital and a neo-liberal strategy to restore the falling rate of profit. Enter globalization.
I believe the new Islamic militancy is a direct response to imperial pressures, both economic and military, on these countries. Imperialism destroyed all political forces internally but Islam. It is also blowback from the Afghan Wars with the Former Soviet Union. There was also a crisis of the failure of the old secular developmentalist model in the Muslim world which collapsed in the thick of the 1970s world recession and failed modernization programs (Iran).
Posted by cabdriverinchicago on Oct 25, 2006 at 5:38 PM jc, you are not only a troll, you are also not what your earlier posts try to convey. You know, I can ‘pick’ professionsals from a thouand paces, and you are one, albeit, not a very good one, since you forget to keep in ‘persona’. .
Starboy. Thought you’d try a little offensive defense, huh? I am most profoundly glad you can pick professionals from a thousand paces, but what is your point? What persona?
You really need to work on keeping your own personas separate. I thought JD was to be the one more interested in debate, whilst you retained the Starboy image to further your trollish expeditions.
Honestly, I would dearly love to hear what you believe I professionally am not very good at, as well as this persona you have visualized for me.
That is, if you are truly interested. Though I suspect you are just digressing into troll make-up once again.
Posted by Jay Cline on Oct 25, 2006 at 8:37 PM cabbie,
I am glad that you agree that the link between technology and fascism is not as strong as I had thought you were once advocating. Certainly, there are numerous examples of fascist regimes that have successfully used technology for their own ends.
I hope you can appreciate my argument doesn’t necessitate a prerequisite technological component to fascism. Again, I am heartened to hear you affirm that state control is, in fact, the objective of fascism, though that is confusing in light of your recent protestations that you were not making that argument.
But I am still perplexed on why you still insist that modern reactionary Islamic radicals cannot, should not, be called fascist. The religious fundamentalism of these radicals cries out for state control; state control that both the Iranian mullahs and al Qaeda radicals have no difficulty in pursuing.
Now, you and JD/starboy can call that trollish till the end of time, but it is a legitimate question.
Posted by Jay Cline on Oct 25, 2006 at 8:48 PM lb, starboy, jd,
Please, no persona protestations this time! I know a left-right combo when I see one, though it is a pity it was wasted.
Posted by Jay Cline on Oct 25, 2006 at 9:02 PM Luminous Beauty, good to see you here again, I enjoyed your verse too!
Posted by David in Canada on Oct 26, 2006 at 12:38 AM The term Islamo-fascism is inappropriate since Iran is an authoritarian theocracy utterly bereft of many of the key features of modern fascism. Fascist regimes are inherently secular due to their stress on the nation and race as the focal obsession. Islamo-Fascism is thus a real contradiction in terms since it is purely religious. In addition, theocracy is just as strong in Saudi Arabia which is every bit as repressive as Iran if not more so. They also have a stronger state and carry out more executions in general and of women in particular. They are also close allies of the United States! The US Dept. of State would never call the Saudis “Islamo-fascist.” It is quite obvious that the term is a political buzzword to rally opposition to Iran in the runnup to an invasion. It is also an effort to confuse people and to deepen the popular association of Islam with fascism.
Posted by cabdriverinchicago on Oct 26, 2006 at 1:11 AM The ideology of state control is the central dogma of fascism. Certainly, fascism focuses on nationalism, and race is a useful idiot in their ideology of singular identity. Yet I do not understand the details of how that focus is inherently secular. It is certainly anticlerical, if only because a separate authoritarian structure, a separate identity, is antithetical to fascism. Yet religion is the perfect vehicle for state control, even more so than technology, and Hitler was not wont to shy away from its use or embrace it.
Which raises a point I have raised before, if fascism is so secular, so “irreligious” to use your word, then how can Nazism be considered fascist? The purity of Race was a central tenent of Nazism, but so was the purity of Christianity.
As an aside, I am not sure why you are introducing diplomatic doublespeak to defend your position, but to say an apple is not an orange says nothing of the orange. By your own admission, the State Department does not call the Saudi Royal Family fascist for purely political purposes. That stain does not automatically devolve to anyone who has the audacity to disagree with you.
And, perhaps I am mistaken, but I don’t believe it was the State, or any other organ of the government, that made the intitial arguments regarding Islamofascists. That has been around long before Dubya came into office.
Of course, I forget myself. Those who made those arguments were tools and useful idiots of the once and future Bush Administration.
Those fascists!
Posted by Jay Cline on Oct 26, 2006 at 7:20 AM “...race is a useful idiot…” No. Race is a myth focused upon and glorified in fascist Narrative (not ideology) in order to draw support and legitimacy from the masses over which the state rules.
“...but so was the purity of Christianity.” No.The Church was very weak in Nazi Germany. The Nazis sent 74 noted German bishops and other high clerics to concentration camps. The Catholic Church was persecuted by the Nazis. Pope Pius XI had to sign a Concordat with Hitler to try to secure guarantees to respect the Church’s interests. In the thirties the Council of German Bishops released an Encyclical called “Mit Brendene Sorge” (With burning Anxiety) about concerns regarding the future of the Church under Nazism. The Nazis seemingly despised Christianity more than even Judaism as a religion which epitomised certain Nietschean Ubermensch figures such as Moses, Joshua, Samson, and King David (not that the Nazis would publically venerate Judaism or allow its practice).
Jay, certain countries secularized after the French Revolution (like most of Westen Europe) and certain ones didn’t. Fascism was SECULAR. Its hatred of the Jews was secular and racial not religious. The Jew was not seen purely as a Christ killer (perhaps only for propaganda purposes in Eastern Europe which was more religious) but a social corrupter, racial polluter, economic usurper, political double dealer and sell out, and overall undesirable. He was juxtaposed to the Aryan German in order to promote nationalist hysteria and fervor.
Because the Saudis are not called Islamo-fascists doesn’t necessarily mean they should be or that they are. I only point out the hypocracy of the neocons who use this epithet for Iran but not the Saudis who have a similarly strictly ruled religious based order with an authoritarian state and who also fund terror outside their own borders.
It matters little how long the term “Islamo-fascism” has been around or who exactly coined it. It is a politically misleading abuse of lexicon and should be abandoned by honest intellectuals.
Posted by cabdriverinchicago on Oct 26, 2006 at 6:03 PM I think we have established that the term ‘Islamofascist’ has no descriptive clarity and a very weak if any rational foundation and is a term of propaganda, used merely for its affective and largely unconscious powers of association. This is the prime method of neo-con propaganda and the method widely used, if only unconsciously absorbed by the entire modern Conservative Movement. The recipe has been put forward quite explicitly by the work of Sleepy Sam Hayakawa, though somewhat obscured by the ponderousness of his scholastic language, in the tome “Semantics”. By the by, Sleepy used the decades of data accrued from modern commercial advertising and the propaganda machine of the Nazi Party to develop his thesis. This is evident in how successful Conservative populist propagandists like R. Limbaugh and his legions of imitators, have been in making ‘liberal’ an appellation of scorn, rather than the noble philosophy of decent and open-minded rationality that it truly is.
As an example, I use the faulty reasoning of our dear friend, Scorpy, that follows a line as such;
Given: Josef Stalin and Mao Tse Tung were bad men.
Given: J. Stalin and Mao were Communists.
Ergo: All Communists are bad men.
Technically, it is called a post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy, a non-sequitor, or sometimes just guilt by association, but perhaps, with your professedly superior powers of reasoning, Jay-Jay, you could explain to Scorpy, in the structural rules that govern deductive logic, why it is a false syllogism. That is, if you can summon the necessary objectivity to critique someone on your own side of what I shall charitably call, the debate.
So, I am Starboy and Jane Doe. You really think a great deal of yourself to believe I would go to so much trouble to create a persona and mirror it off of some server in Australia, just to create confusion and angst in your poor beknighted brain. Believe me when I say, compadre, that is not my intent. It is evident to any with the insight to see, that you carry all the confusion and angst a human being can contain within your own mind already. I would rather see you abandon and let go of the internally conflicted, ideologically caused confusion you so desperately embrace, and join us in the real world where reason and rigorous empirical observation are tools for getting closer to truth and mutual understanding, rather than weapons in a battle to defend a singlular and mono-logical, therefore constrained and limited, therefore incomplete, and therefore unsatisfactory and false, ideological point of view.
Really, I would.
Posted by luminous beauty on Oct 26, 2006 at 6:29 PM Luminous Beauty,
You have hit the nail on the head. Don’t expect to much from some people in the way of results, however!!
Posted by cabdriverinchicago on Oct 26, 2006 at 7:03 PM Loony Booty -
You are so cute when you exhibit utter detachment from reality:
Given: Josef Stalin and Mao Tse Tung were bad men.
Given: J. Stalin and Mao were Communists.
Ergo: All Communists are bad men.
Now, here is what I actually said:
Such philosophy as went into the academic definitions of socialism and fascism is artificial, contrived, and self-serving, depending on the individual wants and needs of the philosopher (professor, editor, useless idiot, cab driver), who willfully subordinates himself to the strong personality (Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Chavez). The kicker is that the strong personality does not really give a shit one way or the other about the philosophy, which is only his means to power. Which naturally makes me wonder what your real objective is in life.
Since you have so much difficulty with simple comprehension, allow me to point out your errors, which must be considered as gross, assuming that you were not deliberately trying to distort what I said:
I did not say that Stalin and Mao were communists; I said that Hitler, Stalin, Mao, and Chavez were “strong personalities”, meaning totalitarian dictators. Their personalities were quite independent of the political systems in which they ruled supreme, and they each “did not really give a shit one way or the other about the philosophy (fascist, communist, populist-communist, and more-or-less Gramscian, respectively), which is only his means to power”. None of these characters showed more than a nominal interest in their chosen totalitarian philosophy except as a means to power and to manipulate people. In a different circumstance, Stalin might well have come to power in a fascist system, and Hitler equally might have come to power in a communist system; their sick and distorted personalities were the determining factor, not their political philosophies. But it might be noted that they each came to power in a system that lacked a functioning rule of law; this is significant.
Hitler, Stalin, Mao, and Chavez were surrounded and supported by real live believers in the state ideology (less so as time went on and cynicism became firmly established), but your conclusion is correct: “All Communists are bad men.” They are bad because of two quite disparate reasons. On the one hand, they slavishly follow strong personalities that are indifferent to their fervently-believed ideology. On the other hand, they are bad because they are useless; there has never been a functional, thriving socialist system anywhere, in spite of dozens of attempts:
*** The Soviet Union collapsed from corruption and inefficiency.
*** The European Union is undergoing social and demographic collapse.
*** China only avoided collapse by embracing free-market economic policies, but remains limited by its unfree political system.
You have a nasty habit of plugging in socialist dogma in response to any situation, whether it is appropriate or not, or whether it makes sense or not. Knock this crap off. You might at least take enough time to understand my point before going off half-cocked.
Posted by scorp on Oct 27, 2006 at 4:03 AM First of all it is the absolute height of lunacy to lump Chavez in with Hitler, Stalin, and Mao. He was twice democratically elected which is something we can’t say for another dictator, George W. Bush. Chavez also shows more compassion to his citizens.
If the EU is collapsing why is the Eurodollar stronger than the US dollar despite the fact that all global oil trade is in dollars and over 75% of foreign reserves in central banks all over the world are US Dollar denominated. Maybe W.‘s growing national debt and deficits are to blame. Everyone is worried about them but him. The war is also ruining the US economy as did the Vietnam war. Both Iraq and Vietnam leave the US economy in a shambles with no foreign policy gains in either instance. We have now succeeded in killing over 2.5% of the Iraqi population. Something Saddam couldn’t accomplish in twenty years of US supported tyranny!! And we did it in one third the time. Maybe its the Civil War that never would have happened without a US invasion!!
Speaking of war and murder I’ve been reading about our friend Stalin. It seems there was a grain shortage in the late 1920s. Stalin offered to pay the Kulaks and the upper-middle peasants near market rate for their grain. They refused because even if they accepted the offer, there was nothing for them to spend their money on since the Bolsheviks squeezed consumption in favor of production, investment, and savings. for the five year plan’s heavy industrialization in 1928. Some of the grain rot in the fields amidst starvation and low production. Stalin became incensed at the Kulaks and by 1931 forced collectivization began. It may have been dead wrong but Stalin did try to reason with them first.
Posted by cabdriverinchicago on Oct 27, 2006 at 6:45 AM c’mon starboy. stop trying to make things more confusing that they really are, though you are wont to do that.
two words.
IP spoofing.
no bouncing required. quite simple, actually, for those who lack moral scruples. a little IP programming on your own box. alter the return address.
no more complicated than putting the “wrong” return address on an actual envelope.
but. you already know that.
Posted by Jay Cline on Oct 27, 2006 at 2:15 PM cabbie,
- fascism is as much an ideology as any other political theory.
- nazism and religion. absolutely. couldn’t have said it better myself. oops. I did. the nazi movement was anticlerical, as you have aptly illustrated. they also “ordained” their own Reich Bishop, Ludwig Mueller (again, as I have already mentioned - and have yet to be refuted or challenged). the nazis in germany were not areligious, they were nationalizing all identities into one, in accordance with fascist ideology.
- “The State is everything; Everything exists within the State; Nothing exists outside the State” - Mussolini (again, already said this without refutation)
- interesting you would label Chavez a democrat. Yes, he has been elected twice. And has gone on to corrupt and abuse the democratic system to consolidate his grip on power in an effort that has no parallels since Chancellor Hitler’s own post-electoral successes.
Posted by Jay Cline on Oct 27, 2006 at 2:25 PM never in my wildest dreams would I have thought to see the day that starboy actually used the American flag for his own personal fig leaf.
Posted by Jay Cline on Oct 27, 2006 at 9:18 PM -
register a new account »Posting Security
Also by Salim Muwakkil
- The ‘Post-Racial’ President
Barack Obama navigates a world where color still matters. - Government-Assisted Terrorists
- The Irony of Obama’s Boycott
America's first black president refused to attend a U.N. conference on racism. - African-Americans Back Burris
- Will Holder Hold Cops Accountable?
- Justice for Jon Burge’s Victims?
Popular Discussions
- The 9/11 Faith Movement
Many Americans believe 9/11 was a conspiracy by the U.S. government
1979 posts since Jul 11 06 - What’s the 411 on 9/11?
891 posts since Dec 21 05 - Democrats: It’s the War
659 posts since Nov 1 05 - Was the Presidential Election Stolen?
462 posts since Jun 19 06 - A Fundamental History Lesson
The rise of National Socialism proved politics and religion don't mix
427 posts since Oct 10 05
© 2006 In These Times | Reprint Policy | Privacy Policy | Powered by Expression Engine | RSS Feeds
