 |
 |
 August 31, 2006
ISLAMOFASCISM....David Weigel quotes Jack Reed on George Bush's newfound infatuation with the ridiculous neologism "Islamofascism":
Preach it, brother. The modern Republican Party has mastered the art of winning elections by beating culture war campaign tropes to death in 30-second ad spots, and they seem to think that you can solve actual real-world problems the same way. Sadly, it isn't true. With any luck, the American public will finally figure that out this year. —Kevin Drum 12:23 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (153)Comments
I don't know why this is so hard for you, Kevin, but Al will set you straight: If we don't spend hundreds of billions in Iraq and put thousands of US citizens through the meat-grinder of the "civil war," then the US won't be safe! Posted by: Freedom Phukher on August 31, 2006 at 12:26 PM | PERMALINKDavid Weigel quotes Jack Reed on George Bush's newfound infatuation with the ridiculous neologism "Islamofascism": And again, I think it goes to the point of that their first response is, you know, come up with a catchy slogan, and then they forget to do the hard work of digging into the facts and coming up with a strategy and resources that will counter the actual threats we face. Uh, no Kevin. The reason why Bush is using the word "Islamofascism" is because that's the best way to describe the enemy. The enemies are Islamic people who want to kill infidels and become dictators who control the world with their new Islamic form of fascism and Sharia law. Why do you have such a problem with conservatives telling it like it is? In any long struggle, it is important to dispell any moral or intellectual confusion about the nature of the enemy and why we're killing them. Liberals are as usual morally and intellectually confused about Islamofascism and the enemy and that's what Bush and Rumsfeld are fighting against. Posted by: Al on August 31, 2006 at 12:33 PM | PERMALINKI thought it was good marketing. Aim the diatribe at the Islamics, connect them with Jew hating Germans, make the conection, indirectly to Vichy France and the appeasers. It defines an enemy we can shoot at, and an enemy vile enough that few of us, even the liberals, give a damn about if we shoot them. It as the other advantage of putting a warning shot toward the so called Muslim moderates, if any exist, that they should straighten out that absurd religion or risk getting shot in self defense. And finally, the implication of the term is that no Democrat would be foolish enough to include crazed muslims in their circle.
Where is the evidence that they actually want to solve real world problems? I'm not kidding. Anyone? Posted by: craigie on August 31, 2006 at 12:59 PM | PERMALINKKevin, I'm not sure why you object to the term "Islamofacists," since it pithily describes the folks who have declared themselves to be our enemies, but if you don't like that, I suppose you could use "jihadists." Or is there some other word or term you prefer? Maybe you think we should stick with "terrorists?" I really can't tell what you want. Posted by: DBL on August 31, 2006 at 1:02 PM | PERMALINKAl, It's remarkable how well you proved the point of the post. Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, and their followers can't tell the difference between an actual radical Islamist and a plain old everyday Muslim because to you guys, any old raghead is an "Islamofascist". Hence the inability to understand that Iraq was a SECULAR state. Hence the inability to understand that Khatami was a REFORMER. And any number of other ACTUAL FACTS about the real world that don't fit into your prepackaged notion of "Islamofascist". It's a damn stupid way to form foreign policy. Posted by: Phil on August 31, 2006 at 1:06 PM | PERMALINKThe problem with the term Islamofascism is that it doesn't go far enough. We should be talking about the wider problem of Religiofascism. Christianity, Islam, and Judaism are all being distorted, perverted, and abused to support the political goals of a few fanatics. Posted by: George Dorn on August 31, 2006 at 1:08 PM | PERMALINKIronically, Weigel slams the term "Islamfascism" on the blog belonging to Andrew Sullivan, who has been one of the most enthusiastic users of the phrase. Physician, heal thyself! Posted by: Fred App on August 31, 2006 at 1:11 PM | PERMALINKPhil Bzzzt! That is not Al's point. No one (except you) is suggesting Islamofascist be blanket applied to all Muslims. Posted by: Red State Mike on August 31, 2006 at 1:15 PM | PERMALINKThe closest thing to real Islamic fascists are the guys running Saudi Arabia. But they're our buddies! Posted by: Virginia Dutch on August 31, 2006 at 1:18 PM | PERMALINKI think these fuckers have finally jumped the shark. 1.You have Olbermann spanking Bush's bare emperor's bottom last night, turning their foolish arguments back against them. "Fascists," indeed. 2.Paul Begala stating that he basically would love to see Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld out campaigning this fall because they are like a rotting albatross around the neck of the Republican party. 3.The continuing weakness in the polls indicating that the Chimperor's remaining support is the blind and insane "base" plus or minus (on any given day) a few wavering special cases. 4.Chris Shays in Connecticut (a formerly staunch war supporter) now says a staged withdrawal may be desirable...What next? Joe-mentum calling for a new policy as well?
Somebody else suggested--but I am happy to propogate: Opportunofascism Posted by: Buce on August 31, 2006 at 1:19 PM | PERMALINKRed State Mike, Here's Senator Conrad Burns's nuanced appreciation of the Islamofascist threat: 'Burns talked about the war on terrorism, saying a "faceless enemy" of terrorists "drive taxi cabs in the daytime and kill at night."' (link) Posted by: Phil on August 31, 2006 at 1:22 PM | PERMALINKRepublicans know that, if people are worried about terrorism, Democrats have given absolutely no reason to vote for them. It may be playing politics to focus on that angle, but maybe the Democrats should start worry about the preception of them being pansies on the world stage... the same preception that's been out there for decades. Posted by: Frank J. on August 31, 2006 at 1:24 PM | PERMALINKThe Six Ages of Man: The Golden Age ...maybe the Democrats should start worry about the preception of them being pansies on the world stage... the same preception that's been out there for decades. Maybe warmongering Rethugs like yourself should stop worrying about a "perception"--however old--that has nothing whatsoever to do with reality. Posted by: Baldrick on August 31, 2006 at 1:29 PM | PERMALINKI thought that quote was from Harry Reid. Posted by: Jackm on August 31, 2006 at 1:37 PM | PERMALINKThis all reminds me of a song during my time in Nam (or right after). Some of which resonates till this day. Go ahead and hate your neighbor Won't be any trumpets blowing Islamofascism...Right DBL: The proper term is "Islamist extremist." The analogy with Fascism is extremely poorly-drawn for a whole number of reasons that were detailed ad infinitum in the last thread on this subject. I just haven't had enough coffee yet to begin the tiresome process of reiteration. Bob Posted by: rmck1 on August 31, 2006 at 1:45 PM | PERMALINKI'm with Al (or is that AI?). "The enemies are Islamic people who want to kill infidels and become dictators who control the world with their new Islamic form of fascism and Sharia law." Really indistinguishable from Mussolini, if only he'd grown a beard. What's "infidel" in Italian? Posted by: Jonathan Lundell on August 31, 2006 at 1:51 PM | PERMALINKVirginia Dutch makes an excellent point. The Arab and Muslim regimes that are our closest allies: Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Jordan -- are heavy-handed authoritarian states with strongly repressive internal security apparatuses. That's precisely how they, umm, control their homegrown Islamist extremists. And to the extent that they are authoritarian and repressive, is the extent to which they can be fairly labeled fascistic. Freakin' Orwell is rolling in his grave. Bob Posted by: rmck1 on August 31, 2006 at 1:52 PM | PERMALINKFrank J: but maybe the Democrats should start worry about the preception of them being pansies on the world stage... We think you should start worrying about being perceived as a candyass on the stage of reality. You were, I recall, the 20-something who couldn't fight this war you love because you have "a job, a girlfriend and dreams." Unfuckingbelievable. MLuther: Good god! Billy Jack. Surely the end is nigh. Posted by: shortstop on August 31, 2006 at 1:52 PM | PERMALINKThe modern Republican Party has mastered the art of winning elections by beating culture war campaign tropes to death in 30-second ad spots, and they seem to think that you can solve actual real-world problems the same way. Aw, horse manure. Show me how the Republicans in the White House and Congress seem at all interested in solving "actual real-world problems." They know their radical rhetoric can win actual real-world elections -- with a little help from Diebold, of course -- and that's all they care about. Posted by: Gregory on August 31, 2006 at 1:52 PM | PERMALINKUm, how about just plain "gangs"? Isn't that what they are? Posted by: Poéthique on August 31, 2006 at 1:54 PM | PERMALINK...and, of course, craigie beat me to it. Hats off to you, sir. DBL: I suppose you could use "jihadists." ... Maybe you think we should stick with "terrorists?" And what would be wrong with those, save that they don't throw red meat to the Little Green Footballs crowd? Speaking of which... RSM: No one (except you) is suggesting Islamofascist be blanket applied to all Muslims. ...now, "ragheads," on the other hand, is a term RSM can get behind! Franj J: but maybe the Democrats should start worry about the preception of them being pansies on the world stage... the same preception that's been out there for decades. Yeha, thanks mostly to the relentless branding efforts of the Republicans. Why should the Democrats worry? The Republican would portray them as weak on defense no matter what their position...it's what they do. Fortunately for the Democrats, the Republicans' conspicuious incompetence is ruining their carefully wrought marketing appeal. No one will trust the GOP with national security for a generation. Posted by: Gregory on August 31, 2006 at 2:00 PM | PERMALINKHey Al-bot, et al: Riddle me this: If, indeed we are engulfed in an epic struggle against the modern equivalent of Nazis, Fascists, etc. , then can you explain why there are no GOP calls for a draft, war bonds, or any REAL sacrifice at all? If the very existence of our way of life is at stake, then why is one of the main domestic priorities of this admin. the repeal of the estate tax? Something doesn't compute; so please help me out here... Posted by: southend on August 31, 2006 at 2:07 PM | PERMALINKThe problem with the term Islamofascism is that it doesn't go far enough. We should be talking about the wider problem of Religiofascism. I think we should be more concerned with just-plain-fascism: the combination of militant exclusionary nationalism supported with appeals to cultural tradition, authoritarianism justified by exaggerated domestic and foreign threats trumpetted by the leadership and framed in the context of broader global struggle between races or civilizations, close ties between government leadership and favored major business owners in a mutual backscratching circle, with the regulators serving to protect major firms against smaller competitors by raising barriers to entry and sheltering, authorizing, or forgiving anti-competitive actions, with superficial praise for meritocracy covering the strong preference in government policy for the interests of the rich. And to the extent that they are authoritarian and repressive, is the extent to which they can be fairly labeled fascistic. Bob, Bob, Bob, Bob, BOB! Authoritarian and repressive does not equal fascist. North Korea is not fascist, for example. Posted by: Red State Mike on August 31, 2006 at 2:20 PM | PERMALINKIf memory serves me right, when Huey Long was asked whether we'd ever have fascism in America. he replied, "Of course we will. but we'll call it 'anti- fascism.'" Posted by: Gregory on August 31, 2006 at 2:23 PM | PERMALINKwhat you said, cmdicely. And, I thought that the basic root of fascism requires the presence of an actual state. In this state, all power is relegated to the state, usually represented by a leader uniquely chosen by detiny to lead his homeland against a uniquely evil threat. Where is that state in the middle east? I would guess that if we left the middle east, those groups that are loosely allied aginst us would break up into infighting within weeks. Would the Wahabis accept the Shiites and the Sunnis? Would they form a united caliphate with a military force able to conquer the world and force conversion? Only silly idiots think so. Posted by: Neal on August 31, 2006 at 2:28 PM | PERMALINKWho would that be cmdicely? This whole round of war mongering is completely daft. That this is even a discussion is surreal. Posted by: ChrisS on August 31, 2006 at 2:31 PM | PERMALINKNorth Korea is not fascist, for example. Why not? Posted by: ckelly on August 31, 2006 at 2:32 PM | PERMALINKWhe fascism comes to America, it will come wrapped in a flag and carrying a cross... Posted by: Neal on August 31, 2006 at 2:32 PM | PERMALINKcmdicely, as usual, has the proper perspective on "fascism". Posted by: Baldrick on August 31, 2006 at 2:33 PM | PERMALINK"Opportunofascism" Funny. Est. 2000! Also funny how the insane rural christofascist base is suddenly dependent on a turncoat Connecticut Jew for its salvation. Even Alanis Morisette could see that irony. Posted by: Kenji on August 31, 2006 at 2:33 PM | PERMALINKrmck1 >"...The analogy with Fascism is extremely poorly-drawn for a whole number of reasons..." Jonathan Lundell >"...Really indistinguishable from Mussolini, if only he'd grown a beard..." "From The Collaborative International Dictionary of English v.0.48: fascism \fasc"ism\ (f[a^]sh"[i^]z'm) n. 2. an authoritarian system of government under absolute control of a single dictator, allowing no political opposition, forcibly suppressing dissent, and rigidly controlling most industrial and economic activities. Such regimes usually try to achieve popularity by a strongly nationalistic appeal, often mixed with racism..." I hadn`t heard that them Islamo-whatevers had been "...rigidly controlling most industrial and economic activities..." Who knew ? Musta missed it what with our librual media and all Does kinda remind me of some folk I hear a lot of ranting & screaming from on that there tvee thingee tho "Fascism should more properly be called corporatism, since it is the merger of state and corporate power." - Giovanni Gentile Posted by: daCascadian on August 31, 2006 at 2:35 PM | PERMALINKRed State Mike: North Korea is also kind of a unique regime -- the last remaining explicitly Stalinist cult-of-personality state. Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Jordan, not so much. And notice I called their repressive mechanisms fascistic, not the regimes themselves Fascist per se. Also, you said in the earlier thread that Saddam's Iraq was not an "Islamofascist" state. Ironically enough, I'd argue with that and call Saddam's pan-Arab racism and penchant for genocide -- lumped in with the dreaded, terrorizing Mutabarak -- enough to make it count as a genuinely capital-F Fascist state. And Saddam used Islam just as cynically as Hitler used Bavarian Catholicism. Bob Posted by: rmck1 on August 31, 2006 at 2:37 PM | PERMALINKNeal >"Whe fascism comes to America, it will come wrapped in a flag and carrying a cross..." Been usin that one meself a fair amount lately I have; must be something in the air I suppose... "When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying the cross." - Sinclair Lewis Posted by: daCascadian on August 31, 2006 at 2:42 PM | PERMALINKWell, of course in America we don't get Fascism -- we get Fascism Lite. 20% less knocks on the door in the middle of the night -- the same great paranoia-inducing fear! Bob Posted by: rmck1 on August 31, 2006 at 2:44 PM | PERMALINK"Fascism should more properly be called corporatism, since it is the merger of state and corporate power." - Giovanni Gentile Be careful in your conclusions. What Gentile meant by "corporate" is not the same as the modern day corporations. Corporate was meant in the sense of "corpus". Posted by: Red State Mike on August 31, 2006 at 2:54 PM | PERMALINKI really don't see the "fascism" in "Islamofascism." It's just another attempt to tie them to Hitler and the Greatest War. "Islamototalitarians" is accurate, I suppose, but a mouthful. The truth that they're Islamic fundamentalists hits a little too close to the Republican home of Christian fundamentalists. Nothing wrong with fundamentalism as long as it's OUR fundamentalism, the Republican't Party would say. Do these guys even have enough savvy to have a economic preference? Capitalism? Socialism? Communism? Facism? I think they are still too focused on political power to look at economic systems. So, for my money, and just because there's nothing I like better, from now on it's "Islamopublicans." Posted by: Cal Gal on August 31, 2006 at 3:02 PM | PERMALINKRS Mike, Al, anyone: Again: Why does the actual domestic legislative agenda of the GOP (estate tax repeal, gay marriage ban, cutting vets benefits, etc.) not come even close to matching up with their foreign policy rhetoric? It couldn't possibly be that their "Long War" BS is just that? Posted by: southend on August 31, 2006 at 3:09 PM | PERMALINKhey southend ! turn over a few more spades full of that the odor drifted way up here. Posted by: BIG STATE on August 31, 2006 at 3:17 PM | PERMALINKFASCIST IN A TURBAN They say Osama's weird and mean Oooh ... Oh Sama! Osama drama They try to inflltrate the West Oh ... Oh Sama! Osama drama Bush claims it's a global war Oh ... Oh Sama! Osama drama The bases shriek Apocalypse Oh ... Oh Sama! Osama drama Bush will win on both accounts Oh ... Oh Sama! Osama drama He needn't have an Iraq plan Oh ... Oh Sama! Osama drama Hating Muslims all in love Oh ... Oh Sama! Osama drama This just flew out. Hehe, I'll expect I'll have chords and a melody line by the weekend :) Bob Posted by: rmck1 on August 31, 2006 at 3:58 PM | PERMALINKPresident Bush is trying to cast dispersion of the label of ‘fascism’ upon others to avoid the same being applied to his own Neoconservative movement? Considering the following attributes of past Fascist regimes: (1) A loathing of international institutions and alliances; Certainly many of these attributes apply to the terrorist, but even more apply to the Neocon movement. Given this list, maybe Mr. Bush is starting to worry about his administration going down in history as being labeled euphemistically as “the 4th Reich.” After reading this list, anyone anywhere who has voted for or advocated for Bush should feel the intense need to take a shower as an act of cleansing oneself. Including the troll Al. In the past, Neocons have ‘Orwellingly’ labeled others to avoid being labeled as such themselves: Despite the Neocon control of most of this country’s wealth and every branch of government they label Democrats as elites; Despite Neocon ownership of most mainstream media, they label the press as liberal; Despite overwhelming evidence suggesting desertion from the National Guard, Mr. Bush’s campaign in 2004 succeeded in labeling John Kerry’s decorated service in Vietnam as unpatriotic; Despite their political philosophy being founded upon atheism (religion is seen simply as a utility for controlling the masses) Neocons have labeled the Democrats as ‘Godless’; Despite being decidedly authoritarian they label Democrats as authoritarian regulators; and so… Could it be then, that the Neocons are trying to do a similar dodge with the word ‘Fascism’ by casting it upon others as well? No doubt, being labeled ‘Fascist’ constitutes a danger to the Neoconservative movement. However, their avoidance at being so labeled constitutes an even greater danger to America and the world at large. My guess is that the labeling of others as ‘fascist’ has only just begun. Through all of this, I would remind you that if it looks like a fascist, and squalks like a fascist and it walks like a fascist, then chances are the Neocon Republicans are all Fascist, All the Time. Amongst such fascist, I include troll Al. Al, why deny it, why not be proud of who and what you and your kind are. Why be cowardly? You act like a facist, and sound like a fascist because you ARE a fascist. Why be ashamed of what you are? Why not revel in who and what you are? Chuck the freedom diatribe, you are all for authoritarian institutions that exist to support hierarchy, which is the very anti-thesis of democracy and freedome. You no more want equality, democracy, decency and freedom than you want to be dry dicked up the ass with a Johnny holmes dildo. But you are all for doing that to the people at the bottom end of society and that requires authoritarianism. Let them eat cake and be anal raped. If that's how you feel, don't avoid it, don't try to paint a macaque into something noble go to the highest mountain and scream it out at the top of your lungs. And just hope that you don't ever lose your job, your health insurance, get sick and lose your savings to doctor bills, or you'll be out on the street where some neocon will be hunting you down with his Johnny Holmes dildo. Posted by: Bubbles on August 31, 2006 at 4:23 PM | PERMALINKI really don't see the "fascism" in "Islamofascism."
This just flew out. Hehe, I'll expect I'll have chords and a melody line by the weekend :) The chorus made me think of Jolly Mon Sing by Jimmy Buffet. I know it really shouldn't but there you go. Regardless, great lyrics. let us know when we can download a mp3. Posted by: Edo on August 31, 2006 at 4:28 PM | PERMALINKWhat Gentile meant by "corporate" is not the same as the modern day corporations. Corporate was meant in the sense of "corpus". This is true to an extent, though the distinction is nowhere near as significant as you seem to be trying to suggest; the use is very close to the modern denotative use of "corporations", that is, "corporate power" refers to the power of collective institutions with legal recognition (its not limited to businesses, which is a frequent limiting connotation in the modern use of "corporation", but encompassed the entire broad denotation of the modern "corporation", including things like labor unions, etc.) Both the modern use and the use Gentile was making derive, of course, from that of the Latin corpus. As in the modern, say, American usage, this collective groups (whether industrial, labor, or otherwise) are, in the corporatist model, granted sanction, and official prerogatives that are backed by the coercive power of the state. But, statements of fascists aside, while corporatism is an element of fascism, it is not the same thing as fascism as that term is usually used. Fascism usually refers to regimes that feature corporatism along with authoritarian militaristic nationalism (there are other common features as well, but those two are the key ones.) The PRI regime in Mexico, for one example, had many corporatist features, but while certainly embracing a strong nationalist stance, didn't embrace the kind of aggressive militarism or clash of civilizations rhetoric that would lead it to be generally labelled fascist. Posted by: cmdicely on August 31, 2006 at 4:37 PM | PERMALINKNorth Korea is not fascist, for example. Only rhetoric divides DPRK "communism" from "fascism"; the two certainly are not equivalent, but the North Korean version of the latter (and aggressively expansionistic Communism in general) has little to distinguish it from Fascism in substance; both feature authoritarian militaristic nationalism, and both feature totalitarianism in economic and social matters; now, the aggressive "Communist" regime justifies its totalitarianism as a way of defending the working class from the predations of capitalist class, and the original "fascist" regimes defend justify theirs largely as a way to protect against the evils of the Communists, but other than that even the rhetoric is largely the same. Posted by: cmdicely on August 31, 2006 at 4:53 PM | PERMALINKIf you call someone a fascist, by inference, you're not a fascist-perhaps they are preparing us for the new regime. Why not revel in who and what you are? The "freedom diatribe" is in the finest fascist tradition, though; fascists, while establishing repressive police states, talked about enhancing and protecting freedom, presented their regimes as the antithesis of the "police-ridden state", and waved around the specter of the repressive nature of competing ideologies (particular Communism) as a reason to adopt fascism.
It speaks volumes that all the paid wingnut trolls on here claim to be ex-Dems in order to give themselves credibility. mhr wrote: "The truth is that we ex-Democrats are not buying the snake oil that modern Democrats are hawking." The truth is that you are not an "ex-Democrat". What you are is a liar. The truth is that we ex-Democrats are not buying the snake oil that modern Democrats are hawking. In the meantime you liberal intellectuals keep on telling us how utterly backward we are. It's code ... when bush says "islamofascism," he's essentially affirming his redneck bases' racism and bigotry, since it's so clearly interchangeable with "raghead" or any equivalent slur. similarly, when a little bitch like mhr talks about how dems began to lose influence in the 60s, it's simply code for his disapproval of dem support for women and minority rights. The same racist tendancies that resulted in the southern strategy (itself a blatant pander to redneck america) are evident in the use of "islamofascism" as acceptable lingo. Posted by: Nads on August 31, 2006 at 6:20 PM | PERMALINKdaCascadian quoted Giovanni Gentile's definition of "fascism" which is commonly attributed to Benito Mussolini: "Fascism should more properly be called corporatism, since it is the merger of state and corporate power." Red State Mike replied: Be careful in your conclusions. What Gentile meant by "corporate" is not the same as the modern day corporations. Corporate was meant in the sense of "corpus". No.
The above two paragraphs are excerpted from Thom Hartmann's excellent article:
Hartmann also quotes Vice President of the United States Henry Wallace, who wrote an article published by The New York Times in 1944 on fascism in America -- an article that is more important today than it was even then:
"Deliberate poisoners of public information" who "put money and power ahead of human beings" and "who in their search for money and power are ruthless and deceitful" perfectly describes the Republian Fascist Party of Dick Cheney and George W. Bush today. A frighteningly prophetic article. We have far, far more reason to be concerned about the threat of Republomonarchism than about anything characterizable as "Islamofascism," an ideology with no real world adherents. "There are no hereditary Kings in America and no powers not created by the Constitution."--Anna Diggs Taylor "Caesar had his Brutus; Charles the First his Cromwell; and George the Second—" [Cries of "Treason! Treason!"] "George the Second may profit by their example. If this be treason, make the most of it."--Patrick Henry [with slight modification by rea; I doubt Mr. Henry would object]. Posted by: rea on August 31, 2006 at 6:38 PM | PERMALINK"The Democrat War on Poverty spent trillions of dollars and the result was crime in the streets . . ." Try a Google search on the phrase "post hoc ergo propter hoc," dude . . . Posted by: rea on August 31, 2006 at 6:41 PM | PERMALINKWe have far, far more reason to be concerned about the threat of Republomonarchism than about anything characterizable as "Islamofascism," an ideology with no real world adherents. Sounds like your platform for the 2008 elections. Good luck with it. Posted by: Red State Mike on August 31, 2006 at 6:43 PM | PERMALINKPresident Bush on Thursday predicted victory in the war on terror at a time of increasing public anxiety at home, likening the struggle against Islamic fundamentalism with the fight against Nazis and communists. The Hitler Nazi power was first and foremost a fascist movement which means that it was highly nationalistic, secular and extremely connected to corporatism. Most Islamic terrorists do not swear loyalty to a certain state and they are not secular by any stretch. Their loyalty is to the religion of Islam. Yes, Islamic terrorists are anti-semitic as was Nazism, however, Hitler would have hated Muslims as much as the Jews as they would not fit the Aryan definition. You would never see Hitler hanging out with an Osama bin Laden. Islamic terrorists are not looking to place the corporate state above all else as fascism does but rather to place Allah, the clerics and sharia law above all else. The "fight against communists" argument is even more problematic. Communists despise religion and as stated before, Islamic terrorists adore and revere their religion above all else. Karl Marx, (the father of communism) famously said that religion was the "opiate of the masses." The closest ideology that we can pin on the Islamic terrorists is totalitarianism. There is fascist totalitarianism, communist totalitarianism, and Islamic Extremist totalitarianism. Unfortunately for the Bushies these definitions do not fit on a bumper sticker. They assume that people are stupid and will believe anything they say rather then research the political science, history and geography behind their claims for themselves. Posted by: James on August 31, 2006 at 7:20 PM | PERMALINKI love how liberals always love to throw around the "fascist" label at anyone they disagree with (ie, Coulter, Limbaugh, the neighborhood police man) but call an evil, America-hating terrorist a fascist -- WHOA!! You can't call them that! You guys are pathetic America haters. That's why you keep losing elecitions. Posted by: egbert on August 31, 2006 at 7:23 PM | PERMALINKThe Democrat War on Poverty spent trillions of dollars and the result was crime in the streets of every urban center in the country. Three points: The adjective is "Democratic". The "War on Poverty" didn't spend trillions of dollars, since it was largely abandoned in its infancy in favor of the rather less metaphorical War in Vietnam. You present no reason to believe that any increase in crime was related to the "War on Poverty". Posted by: cmdicely on August 31, 2006 at 7:26 PM | PERMALINKSecularAnimist >"...A frighteningly prophetic article." True & thanks for posting that; I see a couple of real juicy quotes to save out of it "When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying the cross." - Sinclair Lewis Posted by: daCascadian on August 31, 2006 at 7:34 PM | PERMALINKegbert="I love how liberal's get so mad when they get tazered in the taint for expressing their opinion.I myself love it,but I can only come up with an obedient party line. Posted by: vbrans on August 31, 2006 at 7:40 PM | PERMALINK"You guys are pathetic America haters. That's why you keep losing elecitions." Well, who wants 'elecitions' anyway? Thanks, Egbert, for bringing such a high level of argument to the discussion. Too bad they didn't have you at the Algonquin Round Table. Dorothy Parker had nothing on you. Posted by: Kenji on August 31, 2006 at 7:50 PM | PERMALINK...but call an evil, America-hating terrorist a fascist -- WHOA!! You can't call them that! egbert, I'm sure you're a troll, but what the hell, I'm feeling generous tonight. Yes, we reserve the word "fascist" to people to whom it applies. Look up the definition. I think you'll find it significantly different from the definition for "terrorist," which should be a clue to you. Heck, even you used the word "terrorist" in your comment... Posted by: Adam on August 31, 2006 at 7:51 PM | PERMALINKThat's why you keep losing elecitions." I keep losing my keys. Posted by: Disputo on August 31, 2006 at 7:52 PM | PERMALINKcmdicely The inner city is a liberal disaster. It's hard to imagine that a political party starting with the goal of destroying the inner city, especially the african-american community, could have done more destruction than liberal policies have managed to accomplish. Further, I am certain you are well aware of the tradegy. Liberals of your generation will be assigned blame for this debacle and it's well earned. It's far, far worse than Monyihan predicted so long ago. A couple years ago I looked up the public HS stats for two schools in West Philadephia where I grew up. More than 60% of entering Freshman drop out of school BEFORE Senior year. I could not find out how many graduate but I'm certain it's less than 30%. of that 30% I'd be shocked of more than 20% were capable of 12th grade math and reading. That works out to 6%. Within that population the female to male ratio is probably 5 to 1. This is educational genocide. Just as bad as the educational system is the justice system. The only places in America where there is still a call for gun control is in the big cities in blue states now in their 5th decade of one party control and they're pure liberals. These are also the only places in America where the crime rate is rising. West and SouthWest Philly used to be safe for big cities. They're shooting galleries today. African-Americans born in big cities run by liberals are absolutely screwed. Especially males. At no time since the end of slavery 140 years ago has any group been in such dire straights. This is a liberal tradegy due entirely to liberal policies. Posted by: rdw on August 31, 2006 at 7:57 PM | PERMALINKWhen fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying the cross." - Sinclair Lewis Please, please, please keep these quotes coming. Religious voters love to be insulted by sanctimonious lib. This is the stuff that ensures they get to the polls. Posted by: rdw on August 31, 2006 at 8:00 PM | PERMALINKThe rdw troll-bot needs a new spell checker. Adam >"...Look up the definition..." Here ya go : From The Collaborative International Dictionary of English v.0.48: fascism \fasc"ism\ (f[a^]sh"[i^]z'm) n. 2. an authoritarian system of government under absolute control of a single dictator, allowing no political opposition, forcibly suppressing dissent, and rigidly controlling most industrial and economic activities. Such regimes usually try to achieve popularity by a strongly nationalistic appeal, often mixed with racism. 3. Specifically, the Fascist movement led by Benito Mussolini in Italy from 1922 to 1943. 4. broadly, a tendency toward or support of a strongly authoritarian or dictatorial control of government or other organizations; -- often used pejoratively in this sense. and... Terrorism \Ter"ror*ism\, n. [Cf. F. terrorisme.] 2. The practise of coercing governments to accede to political demands by committing violence on civilian targets; any similar use of violence to achieve goals. ----------------- From WordNet (r) 2.0: terrorism (OK OK, so I used "ism" instead of "ist", blah, blah, blah; do your own search then... : >) "...With a fascist the problem is never how best to present the truth to the public but how best to use the news to deceive the public into giving the fascist and his group more money or more power..." - Henry Wallace Posted by: daCascadian on August 31, 2006 at 8:06 PM | PERMALINKThey assume that people are stupid and will believe anything they say rather then research the political science, history and geography behind their claims for themselves. Now James I am certain you are a bright guy, quite possible brillaint. So how many voters do you think will research the political science, history and geography behind 'fascism'. If we leave out all dorks the number will be less than 3. Fascism is a great term which is why libs use it so often. Islamo-fascism is brillaint PR. The immediate image is Adolph Hitler in Muslim robes. The reason why Karl Rove is the most accomplished political advisor in the world is because he understands images and ignores politicla science dictionaries. One of the more interesting ironies of this 'debate' is that liberals, in showing they're anger, made the term far more likely to catch on. The bottom line is it's effective communications. If it also drives liberals up a wall so much the better. Posted by: rdw on August 31, 2006 at 8:09 PM | PERMALINKegbert: > You guys are pathetic America haters. Yeah, but at least we're not named "egbert." My sister had a kitten named egbert once. It was brain damaged. It used to walk into walls. Bob Posted by: rmck1 on August 31, 2006 at 8:12 PM | PERMALINKOf course I am a small minded twit and couldn`t spell my way out of a shredded paper bag but I get paid well by Unka Rove. At least enough for my Astroglide supply down here in this dark basement with the sticky floors. Posted by: rdw on August 31, 2006 at 8:14 PM | PERMALINKI am a shameless propagandist working out of the Josef Goebbels playbook. Truth matter naught -- only effective agitprop. Posted by: rdw on August 31, 2006 at 8:15 PM | PERMALINKSometimes, after an evening of watching Fox and Sean and Bill just nail it *so hard* (ooooh), I take a newspaper into the bathroom for an hour or two. My wife thinks I have a digestive disorder. Posted by: rdw on August 31, 2006 at 8:21 PM | PERMALINKActually, there's already a perfectly good descriptive label for our terrorist foes: Radical Islamic Theocrats. This has the advantage of only describing what they are, with no questionable allusions to historical political movements. Posted by: Phil on August 31, 2006 at 8:42 PM | PERMALINK" In the meantime you liberal intellectuals keep on telling us how utterly backward we are." That would just be stating the obvious. Posted by: Ex - Republican Yankee on August 31, 2006 at 9:19 PM | PERMALINKPhil: I think Islamist extremist is a better term than radical Islamic theocrat. First, because it's two words instead of three. Secondly, because "Islamic" merely means "pertaining to Islam." IslamISM is the specific ideology of political Islam, and is dead-precise. "Theocrat" is not a term I'd use, because we wouldn't necessarily have an objection to conservative (theocratic) Islamic states. For instance, we give Saudi Arabia no grief for practicing Shariah law, nor should we; it's their culture and their business. Furthermore Muslims understand the term Islamism to encompass the kind of threatening offshoots of Islam that give the West genuine concern. They wouldn't be offended by it the way "Islamic terrorism" is offensive, because it implies that there's something intrinsic to Islam itself which links the entire religion it to terrorism. "Islamic terrorism" strictly speaking doesn't parse, because suicide is haram (forbidden) in Islam. It's radical offshoots of Islam, basing docrine on Hadiths (sayings of the Prophet, some of which are thought to be apocryphal) that have revived that crap from the period after Muhammad where Islam was bent on world conquest. The quasi-theocracy of Saudi Arabia, however, totally rejects it. So the problem isn't Islamic theocracy -- it's Islamism. Bob Posted by: rmck1 on August 31, 2006 at 10:06 PM | PERMALINKand ignores politicla science dictionaries. What nonsense. Rove amasses comprehensive data on the cultural and political preferences of every single person in an electoral district, finds out what sports team they follow, what late-night TV they watch, what they eat for breakfast and where they go to church, how likely they are to vote and for whom. This is not "political science"? The problem is that there is a fundamental and irremediable divide between the kind of political science one does to win an election, and the kind of political science one does to build effective policies - in any sphere of endeavor. Which is why the GOP keeps winning, and the country keeps augering into the shitpile. Posted by: brooksfoe on August 31, 2006 at 10:25 PM | PERMALINKbrooksfoe: "auguring into the shitpile." Nicely put. Mazel Tov :) Bob Posted by: rmck1 on August 31, 2006 at 10:35 PM | PERMALINKI know. Given that some of the Islamist want to impose a global caliphate I cannot understand how that would be fascist. Now, George W. Bush wanting to tap foreign terrorists' phone calls to the U.S..... that is fascist. Damn that crazy GWB and Allah praise those fantabulist Moslems. Posted by: Birkel on August 31, 2006 at 10:37 PM | PERMALINKCorporate was meant in the sense of "corpus". Red State Mike at 2:54 PMIn Mussolini's regime, it was corporation. …From 1922 to 1925, Mussolini's regime pursued a laissez-faire economic policy under the liberal finance minister Alberto De Stefani. De Stefani reduced taxes, regulations, and trade restrictions and allowed businesses to compete with one another. But his opposition to protectionism and business subsidies alienated some industrial leaders...After Mussolini consolidated his dictatorship in 1925, Italy entered a new phase. Mussolini, like many leaders at this time, believed that economies did not operate constructively without supervision by the government. Foreshadowing events in Nazi Germany, and to some extent in New Deal America, Mussolini began a program of massive deficit spending, public works, and eventually, militarism…. There were other actions that Mussolini undertook that are different than the your current Republican orthodoxy, but there is more that is similar. The truth is that we ex-Democrats are not buying the snake oil that modern Democrats are hawking… mhr at 5:15 PM One certainly can't argue with revisionist history on this level because it is so absurd. Two points, it is a majority of the country that is not buying this Republican's Iraq spin, and the War on Poverty reduced America's poverty rate rapidly from 19 percent in 1964 to 12.6 percent in 1970. Throughout the seventies, the average poverty rate was about 11.8 percent. That is lower than the current 12.6% under Bush II. Sounds like your platform for the 2008 elections. Good luck with it. Red State Mike at 6:43 PM Thanks for your tender concern. Advise from authoritarians is always welcome. Here is Margaret Chase Smith (R-ME) again. Before the 1948 election she declared that she did not want to see the Republican Party "ride to victory on the four horsemen of calumny ---- fear, ignorance, bigotry, and smear." Today, calumnies are the entire Republican agenda. African-Americans born in big cities run by liberals are absolutely screwed…. rdw at 7:57 PMHere is a Republican showing tender concern for African-Americans. How believable is that? Fascism is a great term which is why libs use it so often…. rdw 8:09 PMLiberals like Rumsfeld, Cheney and Bush. Dang those smear&lie liberals. It is clear that like in past elections, it will be the threat of mushroom clouds from Iran that will be the driving fear-mongering from the Republicans in 2006. Posted by: Mike on August 31, 2006 at 10:37 PM | PERMALINK I have a big hemhorroid (I had to look the word up to spell it correctly). It's very sore. Sometimes it leaves bloody stains on my underwear. Pus-y, too -- but you could hardly tell that from all the barely dried jizz stains, even if it's on the back instead of the front, if you know what I mean :) Posted by: Birkel on August 31, 2006 at 10:43 PM | PERMALINKJason: It *is* kind of interesting that you quoted that entire post, you know, being so offended by it and all :) Bob Posted by: rmck1 on August 31, 2006 at 11:00 PM | PERMALINKShorter rdw: Them librels dun made tha eddycayshun sistem so badz tha nigra peopel caint spel right. Not like meeee Posted by: brooksfoe on August 31, 2006 at 11:08 PM | PERMALINKJason: In all seriousness for a second, did you see Birkel when he was on the Irate Moderates thread? Shortstop called him a Tourette's Syndrome dingo on crack -- and he was. He was reduced to blithering schoolyard insults in a this really unhinged and persistent manner. So, as immature or non-witty as it might be (and I'm not one to endorse spoofing as people know), you can't really blame anybody who just wants to run the guy off the thread on a rail. We had all this serious discussion deconstructing "Islamofascism" and the guy immediately pops in here with "Some Muslims want to establish a global Caliphate." You'd figure the guy'd at least read the thread first. Bob Posted by: rmck1 on August 31, 2006 at 11:10 PM | PERMALINKrdw: I don't get it, why are you so ashamed of who you are? You are anti-liberal, you are anti-democrat, you are anti-UN, you are anti-science, you are anti-rationalism.... you are a fascist. Be proud of who you are, not ashamed. Look, either you believe your beliefs, or your a liberal democrat. So climb to the mountain top and yell it out loud "I'm a fascist, and I'm proud of it!" Nothing to be ashamed of, rdw. Look Fascism failed in Germany and Italy, but it succeeded in Spain for many years. Fascism didn't succeed in Spain by being ashamed of who they were. It's kind of like saying you like men, you like to perform fellatio, but yet you don't think your homosexual. Be proud baby. And pass the Guckert. Posted by: Bubbles on August 31, 2006 at 11:12 PM | PERMALINKBubbles: And the Sean Hannity pics! ROTFLMAO ! Bob Posted by: rmck1 on August 31, 2006 at 11:14 PM | PERMALINKBob, Here's a Republican war vet who agrees with you: Published: Thursday August 31, 2006Posted by: Windhorse on August 31, 2006 at 11:44 PM | PERMALINK Windhorse: And he calls it by the correct name: radical Islamism. I've been suggesting Islamist extremism, but that's truly a six-of-one, half-dozen-of-the-other kinda pointless debate. Either one works. Bob Posted by: rmck1 on September 1, 2006 at 12:07 AM | PERMALINKJack Reed eventually got around to putting it perfectly. It is ironic that he and you maintain your just proper and honorable disdain for sloganating in spite of the fact that each of you is a master sloganator. Many have understood this fundamental fault of the Bush administration but Reed is the first to put it perfectly. On the other hand, he seems to have been caught off balance by the question, to have been backfooted, to have stalled for time. The words "And again, I think it goes to the point of that" are hideous and were clearly uttered because he needed to stall a few seconds (I bet my butt that Reed was speaking to someone not writing or giving a speach). The words "you know" happen to be absolutely accurate and to the point, since many people know about this aspect of the utter incompetence of the Bush administration. However they are a pause to catch breath. The thing I don't get is why you quoted him so ruthlessly. Why didn't you quote "their first response is, you know, come up with a catchy slogan, and then they forget to do the hard work of digging into the facts and coming up with a strategy and resources that will counter the actual threats we face." or even "their first response is ... come up with a catchy slogan, and then they forget to do the hard work of digging into the facts and coming up with a strategy and resources that will counter the actual threats we face." ? Why did you include the first stumbling words when praising Reed's eloquence ? Does your sense of honesty require you to quote whole sentences when praising the last 2 clauses ? Actually while I'm nitpicking brilliant prose why did you use the aweful word "tropes" when the correct word is "slogans". Were you unwilling to quote a word used by Reed when parapraising him ? (Effort at wit not typo call it a halfwitto.) I hate hate hate the rule of style that priveledges gack aweful words if necessary to avoid repetition. God damn all thyrants ! God damn Thesaurus Rexxon ! Also why do you say "culture war." That would have something to do with the pelvic issues. Sad to say the Republicans have "campaign tropes" for issues which have nothing to do with genetalia such as War and Peace, Crime and Punishment, PAGO, and various other long Russian novels (ahh to be Russian so I could write a thousand page novel entitled PAGO -- Not). Posted by: Robert Waldmann on September 1, 2006 at 12:17 AM | PERMALINKThis administration still has no grasp of the reality with which they are actually dealing. Hence the lack of any relevant strategy to Iraq or any of the myriad problems facing the US overseas (or at home). Their choice to simplify to sound bites is not only convenient in terms of propaganda promulgation, but also to their unrealistic and simplified approach to complex problems; presumably all as a sop to GW's attention span and mental capabilities. My vote is "religio-terrorists". Here's why. Muslim people resent the attachment of of "islamo-" to groups of people who do not truly represent their Islamic belief; rather like calling the KKK "Christian terrorists" -- accurate but not helpful. There have been, recently, Christian terrorists (abortion clinic shootings, bombings, arsons). There are Hindi terrorists, and there might some day be a Buddhist-based resistance in Tibet!! "Radical" doesn't work as historically that is also associated with respectable political participation. Some radical but peaceful politics might actually go down a treat in the Middle East right now . . . or the US! "Religio-terrorists" covers the main motivation and their main action. They may or may not be fundamentalist; they might be cultist, etc. cmdicely (August 31, 2006 at 2:15 PM) fleshed out an extended dictionary definition of Fascism. Clearly these diverse terrorist groups fail as Fascists on multiple levels. Follow the right-wing arguments above and they totally fail to grasp the diversity of these groups and their aspirations. They are all against the US and fighting for its destruction. Ego-centric and wrong, but perfectly reflects the administrations lack of discernment. World terrorism is a serious problem requiring more deftness and intelligence than fighting conventional war. But that is exactly what this administration is trying to fight. This time around, both the US and the UK have failed to throw up a suitably equipped leader with vision. Unfortunately neither leader has a realistic grasp of their own shortcomings, which are many and severe. notthere: I'd have to disagree with your definition of "religio-terrorist," simply because the West is menaced by Islamists in a qualitatively different way than by extremists of other religions. There's no getting around the fact that there's a much looser boundary between religion and state in Islam than there is in nearly all other religions. Sure, we have mad cultist hate-group types who wrap themselves up in quasi-religious doctrine, like Aryan Nations and Christian Identity groups, and yes, they've done terroristic things like bomb abortion clinics and the Atlanta Olympics (though not the Murrah Building; McVeigh wasn't religiously motivated) -- but it's a manifestly different sort of threat. I agree though, with the general idea implicit in your label that these groups should be more judged by their actions than their ideologies. And I'm certainly not attempting to ignore or minimize the danger that we face from homegrown hate groups, whatever their ideologies. I just do agree that targeting extremists of the Islamic faith is not merely demonizing a convenient out-group. Radical flavors of Islam do sanction violence against innocents in a vastly more categorical way than do extremists of other faiths. Bob Posted by: rmck1 on September 1, 2006 at 2:34 AM | PERMALINKI think one of Merriam-Webster's definitons for "neologism" is apt here: "a meaningless word coined by a psychotic." Posted by: tome_tart on September 1, 2006 at 2:37 AM | PERMALINKBob, rmck1 -- I guess I would answer that I don't see this general Islamic threat, particularly if I back-track to immediately post 11th September, 2001. Hamas and Hizbullah have concerns that do not include the US as the primary target. Taliban was concerned with maintaining its own powerbase in Afghanistan. al-Qaeda was a relatively limited group that has gained recognition not only by their "success" of 11th Sept, '01 but by the US's signal failure to decapitate it even when given a clear chance; maybe Clinton but definitely GW. Explain that catastrophic mis-decision to me. If we are going to have a "war-on-terror" we had better define the targets and our objectives. I haven't heard that yet! I don't see singling out Islamic terrorists as helpful. If you want a war specifically against Islamic-type terrorists only, I guess you just came out and said so. No? notthere: Well, first of all, you should have read enough of my posts by now to know that you and I agree fundamentally on the so-called GWoT. I think it's as overblown as you do, so I needn't you know, be prodded into trying to defend GWB's failure in capturing Osama when he had the chance, etc. None of the policy or tactical stuff's an issue. It's just that I don't know of any other extremist group that uses religion as part of its fundamental motivation other than Islamist extremists. Hindu partisans fighting with Pakistan over Kashmir? As far as I know, other militant movements around the world have primarily secular causes. And while I'd call a lot of Israeli settlers religious fanatics who embrace a lot of the same odious righteous malice that I'd condem in Muslim extremists, they don't represent Israel as a whole. There are no splinter groups of fanatic Israelis who are doing the incursions into Lebanon and Gaza, but rather the IDF. I'm all for being even-handed, and I'm dead-set against demonizing Muslims as an entire group, as if Islam inevitably leads to support for terrorism. But I do think there's something about Islamic doctrine that lends itself to forms of resistance that push beyond what Western resistance groups have pursused, like the IRA or the ETA. Is the cause primarily doctrinal, is it cultural, a mixture of both -- I can't say. But it is qualitatively different. Communist guerrillas never practiced mass-scale suicide tactics. Bob Posted by: rmck1 on September 1, 2006 at 3:34 AM | PERMALINKBob, rmck1 -- I agree that mostly I have little disagreement with what you say. This time I do. The cause is cultural, doctrinal, religious and racist on both sides. We've seen Turkey-Armenia, Soviet and any number of racial and political classes, Japan in Mongolia (or China generally), German-Jew (or gay), Romanian-Romany, Pol Pot, Serb-Croat-Christian-Muslim, Rwanda, Turkey and Iran and Iraq vs. Kurd, Shia-Sunni, Jew-Arab, all killing that shows little restraint and not based on nation versus nation. Japan showed a major ability for suicidal warfare and all countries have had soldiers willing to perform the "suicide mission" for the "right" cause. I really think that singling out Islam serves no purpose except to harden, ally and combine the resistance/terrorism and their justification for doing so. If in Iraq we do not yet have a civil war, we surely have terrorism. Under our watch. Justice has to be fair and seen to be served. Understand your enemy. "Sounds like your platform for the 2008 elections. Good luck with it." Red State Mike, are you aware that when there is no substance to your arguments (as in, most of the time), you and Roving buddies always, and I mean always, retreat into the "How come you guys are losers?" posture. Ever think your guys are "winners" because they are lying, cheating sons of bitches. | |