Thursday, October 25, 2007 10:10:27 AM
Hitchens' Weak Defense of "Islamo-Fascism"
RJ Eskow
Posted October 23, 2007 | 01:46 PM (EST)
Christopher Hitchens attempts to defend the term "Islamo-Fascism" [ http://www.slate.com/id/2176389/nav/tap2/ ] in Slate today and falls far short of his goal. The term is, in fact, incorrect and counter-productive. Fascism, by commonly accepted definition, incorporates extreme statism, nationalism, and corporatism.
Fascism is a state-based phenomenon. Those who talk of "Islamo-Fascism" are encouraging a climate that fosters state-to-state warfare, although police and intelligence work will counter terrorism more effectively. But then, that's probably the point. Iraq II, anyone?
What's more, words matter - both for their inherent meaning and for their intended impact. Misusing a word for propaganda purposes should be antithetical to a society that values free and honest debate.
Let's conduct a quick analysis of the Hitchens argument. He makes the following points:
1. That the conflation of "fascism" with religion began on the Left with its critiques of the Catholic Church's political role in countries like Spain, Croatia, and Slovakia.
True, but irrelevant. The political activities of some Catholic leaders in these countries more accurately reflected the accepted definition of fascism. The movements they supported were strongly nationalistic, emphasized centralized state control (as opposed to clerical control), and were strongly allied with corporate interests.
Hitchens also throws in the red herring that Muslims are not being treated differently from other religions in that those other faiths are also sometimes labelled "Fascist. " That may or may not be true, but it doesn't help answer the question at hand.
2. That Fascist movements and Islamic extremism both involve a "cult of murderous violence that exalts death and destruction and despises the life of the mind."
Probably true, and hateful, but still irrelevant. Birds, meteors, and F-16s all fly. Viruses, cluster bombs, and fatty foods are all bad for your health. That does not make them the same thing.
3. That both fascism and Islamic extremism are "hostile to modernity."
This generality is demonstrably false. Fascism has, in fact, been very pro-modernity at various times. Certainly the erudite Mr. Hitchens is familiar with Futurism, the Italian art movement that was closely allied with the Italian Fascist movement. Consider the following quote, from the 1910 Manifesto of Futurist Painters:
"We will fight with all our might the fanatical, senseless and snobbish religion of the past ... against everything which is filthy and worm-ridden and corroded by time. We consider the habitual contempt for everything which is young, new and burning with life to be unjust and even criminal."
Islamic radicals are clearly "hostile to modernity" in some ways. Fascists? Not necessarily.
4. "Both (movements) are chronically infected with the toxin of anti-Jewish paranoia ... leader worship ... the power of one great book ... sexual repression ... art and literature as symptoms of degeneracy and decadence."
True, and interesting. But see "birds, meteors, and F-16s" above. Both movements are clearly authoritarian, and their followers probably share many psychological characteristics. But words have specific meanings, and Hitchens knows that better than most. "Authoritarian Islamist" is a defensible phrase. But these qualities are not the defining characteristics of fascism. That word is being conjoined with "Islam" not to educate, or enlighten, but to inflame.
5. "Both (movements) burn books and destroy museums and treasures."
Often incorrect. Both Italian and German fascism built museums and protected (or stole) great works of art. Both movements share with Islamic extremism a great contempt for what they considered "decadent" art. But, again, while that tendency is totalitarian, it is not specifically statist or corporatist - both defining elements of fascism.
Hitchens goes on to gloss over the fact that Islamic extremism fails to meet the definition of fascism with this phrase: "There isn't a perfect congruence." That's putting it mildly. He offers no foundation for moving from this imperfect "congruence" to suggesting that it's "permissible ... to mention the two phenomena in the same breath and suggest they constitute comparable threats to civilization ..."
It's "permissible" to say anything in a democratic society. But ignoring the established definition of a word in order to coin an inflammatory neologism? Permissible, perhaps, but hardly defensible. Misusing terms for propaganda purposes does violence to reason and to informed debate -- precisely the qualities that should distinguish us from fascists and religious extremists, even if those two groups are not one and the same.
Copyright © 2007 HuffingtonPost.com, Inc. (emphasis in original)
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rj-eskow/hitchens-weak-defense-of_b_69553.html [with comments]
[F6 note -- in addition to the post to which this post is a reply, see also in particular (items linked in) http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.asp?message_id=22911751 and preceding (and following) -- and some background on Robert Spencer, author of the piece in the post to which this post is a reply, together with a further note, next]
==========
Shabbos Goy Awareness Week, Day 5
Robert Spencer
posted by DrMaxtor @ 9:46 PM
Friday, October 19, 2007
Robert Spencer is an extremist catholic non-authority on Islam, and a very useful shabbos goy. Here he is with judeofascist Daniel "dark-skinned peoples cooking strange foods and maintaining different standards of hygiene" Pipes. Think cloned midget. The little Islamophobe that just couldn't.
Spencer has written a book every year since 9/11 slandering Islam and Muslims. His central thesis is that the Al-Queda types represent the "true" Islam whereas the rest of us are the "bad" Muslims who don't really practice anything. Such towering scholarship. Not really. For one, Spencer has no background in Islamic theology whatsoever. Nothing, nada, zilch, but he does have a burning desire to make money, and he's made lots of it peddling his hatred and incitement against all things Muslim.
Setting up a LGF [F6 note -- 'little green footballs', http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/ (see also 'little green fascists', http://www.littlegreenfascists.blogspot.com/ )] clone site "jihad watch [ http://jihadwatch.org/ ]," with close ties with judeofascists, Spencer promotes ahistorical nonsense and propaganda 24/7. Did you know that the Crusades were "a purely defensive measure against Muslims in the Holy Land"? No? Spencer wants you to think so because he invented this lie. Much like "Holocaust revisionism," nobody in their right mind believes this, not even the Vatican. So why did these heroic Crusaders massacre local Christians and Jews then? Spencer doesn't bother to answer that one, just as he omits the fact that the Crusades were really about the expansion of the Roman Catholic Church, and its challenge to the Eastern Church (which had relatively peaceful relations with Muslims). But hey, you'd have to read a history book [ http://www.amazon.com/History-Crusades-Vol-Foundations-Jerusalem/dp/052134770X/ref=pd_sim_b_shvl_img_1/105-1859408-3022819 ] to know that, something the vermin at jihadwatch just don't do.
That being said, Spencer is very easy to refute, which may explain why he avoids debate like the plague. Apparently he was listening very carefully when Jalal Abualrub destroyed [ http://www.invitation2truth.com/mp3/debate-myth-prophet-of-doom.mp3 ] Craig Winn (a messianic zionist lunatic) on a right wing radio show. That was the end of Winn's career, and Spencer's been running [ http://hatewatchhallofshame.blogspot.com/2007/10/too-chicken-to-debate.html ] ever since.
Here are two sets of refutations of his nonsense, the first one by a Muslim, and the second one by a non-Muslim theology student :
[two embedded videos by the Muslim; view via source link third last below]
Colin, the non-Muslim theology student's thorough refutation:
[two embedded videos by Colin; view via source link third last below]
Check out parts 3 [ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hLQXaByQtZI&mode=related&search= ], 4 [ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rHYQHAX8wDU&mode=related&search= ], and 5 [ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y0KbPlt33mM ], 6 [ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GolxubSfpyA ], 7 [ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zOoWjGA1tHk ], 8 [ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rHYQHAX8wDU ], 9 [ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sGASTj5DrBs ], 10 [ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tapcuhzL1Bs ]
Watch 'em and weep, haters. Trust me reptiles, I'm just getting started, we're done with the sycophantic shabbos goys and now onto the main event. See you at Judeofascist Awareness week. [F6 note -- currently unfolding at http://drmaxtor.blogspot.com/ , including to this point(through yesterday's postings):
Pre-Judeofascist Awareness Week primer
All in the Neocon Family
http://drmaxtor.blogspot.com/2007/10/preijudeofascist-week-primer.html
Introduction to Judeofascist Awareness Week
http://drmaxtor.blogspot.com/2007/10/introduction-to-judeofascist-awareness.html
Judeofascist Awareness Week, day 1
http://drmaxtor.blogspot.com/2007/10/judeofascist-awareness-week-day-1.html
Judeofascist Awareness Week, day 2
http://drmaxtor.blogspot.com/2007/10/judeofascist-awareness-week-day-2.html
Judeofascist Awareness Week, day 3
http://drmaxtor.blogspot.com/2007/10/judeofascist-awareness-week-day-3.html ]
Further reading:
Spencer's spin
[ http://hatewatchhallofshame.blogspot.com/2007/06/spencers-spin.html ]
Spencer won't debate Umar Lee
[ http://umarlee.com/2007/04/11/punks-find-courage-online/ ]
Spencer won't debate Sameer Parker
[ http://muslimmethod.wordpress.com/2007/10/10/will-the-bigot-robert-spencer-accept-a-challenge-to-debate/#comment-132 ]
Spencer won't debate Jalal Abualrub
[ http://www.islamlife.com/news.php?readmore=187 ]
Too chicken to debate?
[ http://hatewatchhallofshame.blogspot.com/2007/10/too-chicken-to-debate.html ]
Copyright 2007 DrMaxtor
http://drmaxtor.blogspot.com/2007/10/shabbos-goy-awareness-week-day-5.html
[F6 note -- see also in particular "The threat of Robert Spencer and the danger he poses to American Muslims" ( http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=110x5913 ), and, more broadly, (items linked in) http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.asp?message_id=23015078 ]
RJ Eskow
Posted October 23, 2007 | 01:46 PM (EST)
Christopher Hitchens attempts to defend the term "Islamo-Fascism" [ http://www.slate.com/id/2176389/nav/tap2/ ] in Slate today and falls far short of his goal. The term is, in fact, incorrect and counter-productive. Fascism, by commonly accepted definition, incorporates extreme statism, nationalism, and corporatism.
Fascism is a state-based phenomenon. Those who talk of "Islamo-Fascism" are encouraging a climate that fosters state-to-state warfare, although police and intelligence work will counter terrorism more effectively. But then, that's probably the point. Iraq II, anyone?
What's more, words matter - both for their inherent meaning and for their intended impact. Misusing a word for propaganda purposes should be antithetical to a society that values free and honest debate.
Let's conduct a quick analysis of the Hitchens argument. He makes the following points:
1. That the conflation of "fascism" with religion began on the Left with its critiques of the Catholic Church's political role in countries like Spain, Croatia, and Slovakia.
True, but irrelevant. The political activities of some Catholic leaders in these countries more accurately reflected the accepted definition of fascism. The movements they supported were strongly nationalistic, emphasized centralized state control (as opposed to clerical control), and were strongly allied with corporate interests.
Hitchens also throws in the red herring that Muslims are not being treated differently from other religions in that those other faiths are also sometimes labelled "Fascist. " That may or may not be true, but it doesn't help answer the question at hand.
2. That Fascist movements and Islamic extremism both involve a "cult of murderous violence that exalts death and destruction and despises the life of the mind."
Probably true, and hateful, but still irrelevant. Birds, meteors, and F-16s all fly. Viruses, cluster bombs, and fatty foods are all bad for your health. That does not make them the same thing.
3. That both fascism and Islamic extremism are "hostile to modernity."
This generality is demonstrably false. Fascism has, in fact, been very pro-modernity at various times. Certainly the erudite Mr. Hitchens is familiar with Futurism, the Italian art movement that was closely allied with the Italian Fascist movement. Consider the following quote, from the 1910 Manifesto of Futurist Painters:
"We will fight with all our might the fanatical, senseless and snobbish religion of the past ... against everything which is filthy and worm-ridden and corroded by time. We consider the habitual contempt for everything which is young, new and burning with life to be unjust and even criminal."
Islamic radicals are clearly "hostile to modernity" in some ways. Fascists? Not necessarily.
4. "Both (movements) are chronically infected with the toxin of anti-Jewish paranoia ... leader worship ... the power of one great book ... sexual repression ... art and literature as symptoms of degeneracy and decadence."
True, and interesting. But see "birds, meteors, and F-16s" above. Both movements are clearly authoritarian, and their followers probably share many psychological characteristics. But words have specific meanings, and Hitchens knows that better than most. "Authoritarian Islamist" is a defensible phrase. But these qualities are not the defining characteristics of fascism. That word is being conjoined with "Islam" not to educate, or enlighten, but to inflame.
5. "Both (movements) burn books and destroy museums and treasures."
Often incorrect. Both Italian and German fascism built museums and protected (or stole) great works of art. Both movements share with Islamic extremism a great contempt for what they considered "decadent" art. But, again, while that tendency is totalitarian, it is not specifically statist or corporatist - both defining elements of fascism.
Hitchens goes on to gloss over the fact that Islamic extremism fails to meet the definition of fascism with this phrase: "There isn't a perfect congruence." That's putting it mildly. He offers no foundation for moving from this imperfect "congruence" to suggesting that it's "permissible ... to mention the two phenomena in the same breath and suggest they constitute comparable threats to civilization ..."
It's "permissible" to say anything in a democratic society. But ignoring the established definition of a word in order to coin an inflammatory neologism? Permissible, perhaps, but hardly defensible. Misusing terms for propaganda purposes does violence to reason and to informed debate -- precisely the qualities that should distinguish us from fascists and religious extremists, even if those two groups are not one and the same.
Copyright © 2007 HuffingtonPost.com, Inc. (emphasis in original)
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rj-eskow/hitchens-weak-defense-of_b_69553.html [with comments]
[F6 note -- in addition to the post to which this post is a reply, see also in particular (items linked in) http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.asp?message_id=22911751 and preceding (and following) -- and some background on Robert Spencer, author of the piece in the post to which this post is a reply, together with a further note, next]
==========
Shabbos Goy Awareness Week, Day 5
Robert Spencer
posted by DrMaxtor @ 9:46 PM
Friday, October 19, 2007
Robert Spencer is an extremist catholic non-authority on Islam, and a very useful shabbos goy. Here he is with judeofascist Daniel "dark-skinned peoples cooking strange foods and maintaining different standards of hygiene" Pipes. Think cloned midget. The little Islamophobe that just couldn't.
Spencer has written a book every year since 9/11 slandering Islam and Muslims. His central thesis is that the Al-Queda types represent the "true" Islam whereas the rest of us are the "bad" Muslims who don't really practice anything. Such towering scholarship. Not really. For one, Spencer has no background in Islamic theology whatsoever. Nothing, nada, zilch, but he does have a burning desire to make money, and he's made lots of it peddling his hatred and incitement against all things Muslim.
Setting up a LGF [F6 note -- 'little green footballs', http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/ (see also 'little green fascists', http://www.littlegreenfascists.blogspot.com/ )] clone site "jihad watch [ http://jihadwatch.org/ ]," with close ties with judeofascists, Spencer promotes ahistorical nonsense and propaganda 24/7. Did you know that the Crusades were "a purely defensive measure against Muslims in the Holy Land"? No? Spencer wants you to think so because he invented this lie. Much like "Holocaust revisionism," nobody in their right mind believes this, not even the Vatican. So why did these heroic Crusaders massacre local Christians and Jews then? Spencer doesn't bother to answer that one, just as he omits the fact that the Crusades were really about the expansion of the Roman Catholic Church, and its challenge to the Eastern Church (which had relatively peaceful relations with Muslims). But hey, you'd have to read a history book [ http://www.amazon.com/History-Crusades-Vol-Foundations-Jerusalem/dp/052134770X/ref=pd_sim_b_shvl_img_1/105-1859408-3022819 ] to know that, something the vermin at jihadwatch just don't do.
That being said, Spencer is very easy to refute, which may explain why he avoids debate like the plague. Apparently he was listening very carefully when Jalal Abualrub destroyed [ http://www.invitation2truth.com/mp3/debate-myth-prophet-of-doom.mp3 ] Craig Winn (a messianic zionist lunatic) on a right wing radio show. That was the end of Winn's career, and Spencer's been running [ http://hatewatchhallofshame.blogspot.com/2007/10/too-chicken-to-debate.html ] ever since.
Here are two sets of refutations of his nonsense, the first one by a Muslim, and the second one by a non-Muslim theology student :
[two embedded videos by the Muslim; view via source link third last below]
Colin, the non-Muslim theology student's thorough refutation:
[two embedded videos by Colin; view via source link third last below]
Check out parts 3 [ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hLQXaByQtZI&mode=related&search= ], 4 [ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rHYQHAX8wDU&mode=related&search= ], and 5 [ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y0KbPlt33mM ], 6 [ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GolxubSfpyA ], 7 [ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zOoWjGA1tHk ], 8 [ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rHYQHAX8wDU ], 9 [ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sGASTj5DrBs ], 10 [ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tapcuhzL1Bs ]
Watch 'em and weep, haters. Trust me reptiles, I'm just getting started, we're done with the sycophantic shabbos goys and now onto the main event. See you at Judeofascist Awareness week. [F6 note -- currently unfolding at http://drmaxtor.blogspot.com/ , including to this point(through yesterday's postings):
Pre-Judeofascist Awareness Week primer
All in the Neocon Family
http://drmaxtor.blogspot.com/2007/10/preijudeofascist-week-primer.html
Introduction to Judeofascist Awareness Week
http://drmaxtor.blogspot.com/2007/10/introduction-to-judeofascist-awareness.html
Judeofascist Awareness Week, day 1
http://drmaxtor.blogspot.com/2007/10/judeofascist-awareness-week-day-1.html
Judeofascist Awareness Week, day 2
http://drmaxtor.blogspot.com/2007/10/judeofascist-awareness-week-day-2.html
Judeofascist Awareness Week, day 3
http://drmaxtor.blogspot.com/2007/10/judeofascist-awareness-week-day-3.html ]
Further reading:
Spencer's spin
[ http://hatewatchhallofshame.blogspot.com/2007/06/spencers-spin.html ]
Spencer won't debate Umar Lee
[ http://umarlee.com/2007/04/11/punks-find-courage-online/ ]
Spencer won't debate Sameer Parker
[ http://muslimmethod.wordpress.com/2007/10/10/will-the-bigot-robert-spencer-accept-a-challenge-to-debate/#comment-132 ]
Spencer won't debate Jalal Abualrub
[ http://www.islamlife.com/news.php?readmore=187 ]
Too chicken to debate?
[ http://hatewatchhallofshame.blogspot.com/2007/10/too-chicken-to-debate.html ]
Copyright 2007 DrMaxtor
http://drmaxtor.blogspot.com/2007/10/shabbos-goy-awareness-week-day-5.html
[F6 note -- see also in particular "The threat of Robert Spencer and the danger he poses to American Muslims" ( http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=110x5913 ), and, more broadly, (items linked in) http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.asp?message_id=23015078 ]
Greensburg, KS - 5/4/07
"Eternal vigilance is the price of Liberty."
from John Philpot Curran, Speech
upon the Right of Election, 1790
F6
Join the InvestorsHub Community
Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
