Dear Mark,
Why do you keep making yourself miserable with this blog thing?
Turn it off.
Have a nice website to advertise
your books and speaking business.
Start a moderated group if you want
more interaction,
with less whacko factor.
You will be happier.
The clouds will part
and God will shine on you.
I think women make better bloggers.
Men always seem to get into fights;
I think it is just something about
different communication modes.
(Yeah, technicall fascist is the wrong word. But nobody is listening.)
I understand your point, but do you have another term in mind? Somehow "decentralized-murderous-islamic-ideologues-
determined-to -kill-or-convert-and-destroy-civilization" doesn't quite work.
Let's face it--no analogy perfectly fits, thus it is easy to sit back and find the holes where it doesn't fit. Where it does fit perfectly is that "German fascism," or "Italian fascism" immediately calls to mind a society where rights are non-existent, freedom does not exist, violence is a way of life, the state is headed by Fuehrers- Ayatollahs- Mahdis-sheiks who encompass both religious and political control, unapproved religions are persecuted or discriminated against. These are some of the same things Islamic extremists and terrorists want and is their ultimate goal making them very much Islamo-fascists by analogy (Webster's: "similarity in some respects between things otherwise unlike; partial resemblance. 2. the likening of one thing to another on the basis of SOME similarity between the two)
And the list of similarities I gave could easily be added to--thus the President was very much on the mark analogy-wise.
Might that term apply to Iran, though?
Whatever you call them,
today's little demonstration in Thailand,
of 22 simultaneous bomb detonations
by cell phone
around the southern part of the country
was an impressive demonstration of "many made one."
I'm sure this is just practice
for more serious targets.
Well put.
C.S. Lewis has a good discussion of this type of thing -- using words as mere insults without paying attention to their actual meaning -- in the last chapter of his book Studies in Words. In part, he says:
"We have all heard bolshevist, fascist, Jew, and capitalist, used not to describe but merely to insult. Rose Macaulay noticed a tendency to prefix 'so called' to almost any adjective when it was used of those the speaker hated; the final absurdity being reached when people referred to the Germans as 'these so-called Germans'. Bourgeois and middle class often suffer the same fate...
"The best protection against this is to remind ourselves again and again what the proper function of pejorative words is. The ultimate, simplest and most abstract, is bad itself. The only good purpose for ever departing from that monosyllable when we condemn anything is to be more specific, to answer the question 'Bad in what way?' Pejorative words are rightly used only when they do this...
"If we find words like these ... indispensable to our criticism, if we find ourselves applying them to more and more different kinds of things, there is grave reason to suspect that--whether we know it or not--we are really using them not to diagnose but to hurt. If so, we are assisting in verbicide. For this is the downward path which leads to the graveyard of murdered words. First they are purely descriptive; adolescent tells us a man's age, villain, his status. Then they are specifically pejorative; adolescent tells us that a man's work displays 'mawkishness and all the thousand bitters' confessed by Keats, and villain tells that a man has a churl's mind and manners. Then they become mere pejoratives, useless synonyms for bad, as villain did and as adolescent may do if we aren't careful. Finally they become terms of abuse and cease to be language in the full sense at all."
A whole page of Iranian military parade photos that are eerily reminiscent of 20th century fascism.
All military parades are eerily reminiscent of fascism because fascism dreams of a whole society organized like the military.
Moving from there to an Iranian military takeover of the world is kind of a stretch.
Catherine:
I think Larison nails it. What's wrong with "jihadi"? It's what they are. And it allows us the freedom to distinguish one kind of jihadi from another (for they are not a monolith).
Zhou:
I don't know if you are aware of it, but you always counsel despair, surrender and defeat. Could you please take that elsewhere?
Thanks!
I think the mullahocracy in Iran is an example of what those who do wish to establish a worldwide caliphate hope to emulate.
Not saying it's going to happen. But if it did, it's not a stretch to say that a mullahocracy hoping to impose its Islamic view on the world would indeed be Islamofascist.
I agree with Mark that fascism is not the correct term. The Islamic terrorists are dictatorial, theocratic, and one need not have a membership card to help the cause--so it's a guerilla movement as well. We are going to need a new term like "Islamicism," I think and describe it as it is.
Fascism is characterized by nationalism and socialism. These thugs do not have pride in a particular nation, but in a religion. They do not have an agenda to control the economy and means of production etc. So, I don't see fascism. It's just an insulting word that irks them. The only common element is the hatred of the Jews which characterized German fascism and Islamicism.
(pedantry break: The fasces are a symbol used by the Knights of Columbus and the state of Colorado, among many others)
Before we started beating the drums for Iraq and, now, Iran, "bin Ladenite" or "bin Ladenism" could have worked quite well. We used to call Nazism "Hitlerism," so I suggest this as a better option for people stuck on repeating WWII analogies.
The pity for us is, now there are probably too many factions who hate us and each other to simply attack bin Ladenism and its cronies. You know, the ones who have actually succeeded in attacking us on our own soil.
Niall Ferguson prefers the term 'Islamo-Bolshevism' to islamofascist. In Slate and a few other places (most cogently in "Colossus: The Rise and Fall of the American Empire" (London: Penguin , 2004) he makes the case for this terminology.
quote (p.121)
Al Qu'eda is better understood as the extremist wing of a specifically Arab political religion, a term recently and illuminatingly used by the historian Michael Burleigh to capture the essential characteristics of nazism: its messianic leadership, its need to indoctrinate, its appetite for persecution.
This is not, it should be noted, the same as saying that Al Qu'eda is the product of "Islamo-fascism," though the two certainly have violence and anti-Semitism in common. The Fascist movements of the 20s and 30s were never especially adept at terrorism, preferring to seize control of existing nation-states and to make war using traditional military forces. "Islamo-nihilism" would be nearer the mark, or perhaps "Islamo-bolshevism," for we should not forget that in their early years Lenin and Stalin were also terrorists. Indeed, there is more than a passing resemblance between "Hereditary Nobleman Ulyanov," as the young Lenin liked to style himself, hatching his plans for the overthrow of tsarism from dingy Swiss hotels, and the renegade Saudi millionaire, orchestrating the downfall of America from a secluded Afgan cave.
end quote--
The argument continues using Nechaev's 'Revolutionary Catechism'.
Interesting reading.
FWIW, Mark's original entry seems cogent, and one backed up by Eugen Weber's 'Varieties of Fascism' (c. 1964).
It's just funny how these Bush supporters seem to haev no mind on their own.
Three years ago, we were told Saddam was the biggest threat in the history of civilization, and could wipe us all out within minutes. And the usual suspects parroted this. Except it was wrong.
Now we are told that Iran is the biggest baddest nastiest kid on the block, with a maniac for a leader, and it could wipe us all out too. Oh, and in case it didn't sink in, Ahmadinejad is Hitler too, you see.
Monkey see, monkey do. Now every Bush supporter is running around crying apocalypse, and they are also telling us all that Ahmadinejad is Hitler. Hitler! Let me say it again: Hitler!
So..... where was Iran and Ahmadahitler three years ago when Saddam was the problem? Was he Hitler then? Or did he only become Hitler in the last few years?
So..... where was Iran and Ahmadahitler three years ago when Saddam was the problem?
Umm, "Admadahitler" was settling in as Mayor of Tehran three years ago.
Who are these Bush supporters you're talking about, Tony A? Certainly not me.
Whose beating the drum for war with Iran? Again, not me.
In response to Mark's post, I merely used Iran's increasingly militaristic Islamist state as an example of what might be termed "Islamofascism", as opposed to the loosely organized terrorist groups that Mark addresses.
You're picking a fight for your own political purposes, as usual, that nobody else is trying to fight.
A problem with labelling everything you dislike "fascist" is that it has the effect of propagating the notion that "fascism" is the worst thing there ever was, thereby obscuring the larger crimes of Communism. Which is precisely why "fascist" has long been the favored term of abuse on the left, including the Communist left.
MM, you are making a fool of yourself.
"you always counsel despair, surrender and defeat. Could you please take that elsewhere?"
Hey Mark,
Of the hundreds of bloggers with whom I have intereacted over the last severla years, there have only been two to whom I advised to stop blogging.
The other was Katie Sills (you remember, the girl in Sacramento who got expelled from school over her blog?)
The "despair" is the vibe I get from your blog.
When you are wasting your resources (time, energy, emotions), "surrender" or "tactical retreat," is a good idea. You don't need to win every fight, or argument. Experience and wisdom show that you don't even need to engage most of the time.
But, hey, it's your life.
I leave you to it.
Remember 1 Kings 22.
Have a good life!
I always thought "islamofascist" was coined by pundits and TV commentators to avoid being called racists for always talking about Muslims in a terrorist context. Which only goes to show, yet again, how shallow and feckless pundits and TV commentators are.
What's wrong with "jihadi"?
I prefer to just call them Muslims, if you don't mind. No, that does NOT mean I wish to kill each and every one of them. But I'd certainly be in favor of forcing all of them to memorize Chesterton's poem "Lepanto" and recite it every day during Ramadan. 
Rhetoric flourish is generally inversely related to the liklihood of an event occuring. Those that make prognastications about what the world will be 20 or 50 years from now have prophesized successfully a ridiculously low percentage of the time. Yet those willing to make projections this far out are seen as wise in the world, and we are told to heed them. These doomsayers always claim that time is short, and we must be decesive today. History has shown that time is on our side. Very few problems in life, let alone those amongst nations, require immediacy.
And Mark, if you want to pick a fight over historical correctness of an inflammatory term like "islamofascist," what about one of your favorites: "gay brownshirts."
Last time I looked, I did not see any marching assemblies of homosexuals anywhere.
Kettle. Pot. Black.
And Mark, if you want to pick a fight over historical correctness of an inflammatory term like "islamofascist," what about one of your favorites: "gay brownshirts."
Last time I looked, I did not see any marching assemblies of homosexuals anywhere.
Kettle. Pot. Black.
I can't believe no one (myself included) thought of that earlier.
Daaaayum. That one stings.
Note to self: don't get into a rhetorical tussle with Old Zhou.
"A problem with labelling everything you dislike "fascist" is that it has the effect of propagating the notion that "fascism" is the worst thing there ever was, thereby obscuring the larger crimes of Communism."
Hey, fascism is the only thing worth fighting. You must be a fascist apologist.
(Anybody note Bush left out Communism in his post-9/11 speech's list of ideologies defeated by America?)
(Anybody note Bush left out Communism in his post-9/11 speech's list of ideologies defeated by America?)
Considering that China is still officially Communist (even though their economics are no longer truly so), that really isn't all that surprising.
Don't forget our "friends" on the northern half of the Korean Peninsula.
(Oh, I forgot that I'm not supposed to mention them lest I be accused of beating the drums of war against them).
You know, since Tony A (aka Morning Minion) can see right through my seemingly casual reference to the communism of North Korea as nothing more than the warmongering of a "Bush supporter [who] seems to have no mind on [my] own".
"what about one of your favorites: "gay brownshirts."
You know, the old guy has a point there.
I prefer "Muslim terrorist." I see no need to create a new word for a thing we're trying to describe when "Muslim terrorist" works easily enough. Short form as "jihadi" might work too.
Zhou:
I'm not asking you to leave my blog. I'm asking you to stop telling me to give up and quit.
As to the imagery of gay (or pro-abort) brownshirts: You'd have a point if I was seriously proposing a public policy and military strategy based on the theory the bullies who try to shut down public discourses opposed to their pet subjects were, in fact, a species of ideology called "fascism".
I'm not. I'm saying "These people are bullies much as brownshirts were."
However, the people driving public discourse on the right and in the White House really *are* formulating policy based on the word "Islamofascism" (a term coined by Christopher Hitchens, who thinks in Western political and antitheistic categories, not in categories used by Islamists).
Old Zhou:
You posted in part: “what about one of your favorites: ‘gay brownshirts.’ Last time I looked, I did not see any marching assemblies of homosexuals anywhere”.
May I disagree with you?
Every year in every major city in the West we have gay pride parades. Very often said parades contain contingents from NAMBLA (North American Man Boy Love Association). Right before the recent fighting between the IDF and Hezbollah the Israeli government had approved a Gay Pride parade in Jerusalem.
The leadership of the original Brown Shirts, the SA, was openly and aggressively homosexual. The head of the Brown Shirts, Captain Rohm, was captured by the SS in bed (The night of the long knives) with his young male sex partner.
I think the term “gay brown shirt” is historically accurate. Our sodomite brothers and sisters are indeed on the march. While the gay brown shirts march the post – Christian West declines in numbers, spirit and strength in relation to Islam
God bless
Richard W. Comerford
The problem with sloppy terminology...
...is that ideas matter. So when we use terms like "gay brownshirt" they lead us to think in certain ways. And if those modes of thought don't reflect reality, we wind up doing stupid stuff.
I stand by my claim that you engage in the very sort of "sloppy terminology," with resulting thinking "in certain ways" among you and your readers, that are are wringing your hands over.
You claim, on the one hand, to be a voice of Catholic teaching and orthodoxy, an author of good Catholic books, your words are published in several Catholic media outlets. You print letters from those whose lives you have changed (see your posting "Wow" from earlier today).
But then you say, I'd have a point if you were seriously proposing something in the realm of public policy.
Mark, is not almost everything you write here, and in your books, intended to propose something in the realm of public policy, intended to work for changes in American society?
Or, when the light is turned in your direction, do you claim to be insignificant and of no effect? Just a babbler?
Zhou:
This blog is a mixture of personal reflection, front porch commentary, and highly personal, highly colloquial chit chat. It astonishes me that after four years, people still don't seem to get that. The notion that I am typically writing here with anything like the precision of a public policy proposal simply amazes me. Can you really mean it, Zhou? Or are you just clinging to that insistence because you thought you scored a rhetorical "zing" and don't like the thought that it misfired?
Now and then, particularly when I am trying to set out a complicated and new idea, I will take care to write with precision. When I write my books and articles, I am generally aiming for this (though not always, depending on whether I'm being silly). Most of the time, though, on this blog, I'm the equivalent of a guy channel surfing and remarking to himself on the stuff the fleets by. I'm not writing for the ages here.
As to the question of whether this blog is insignificant, I'm doubly amazed. Of *course* it's insignificant. I haven't bothered to look in many moons but I think I'm something like a tree lemur in that blog ecosystem thingie. I'm glad of my readership, but I don't kid myself that it's ginormous in the overall scheme of things. I'm amazed that anybody does. If you want "significant" you need to look at Sullivan or Instapundit or the Corner.
Ah, did Hitchens invent the term?
You might want to have a look at the Stephen Schwartz article that I linked in my comment above.
(And he is a Muslim, by the way.)
"Three years ago, we were told Saddam was the biggest threat in the history of civilization, and could wipe us all out within minutes. And the usual suspects parroted this. Except it was wrong."
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought you folk on the left all had the vapors b/c of Bush's pre-emptive war strategy? I thought the administration was war mongering precisely b/c they would not wait for Iraq to have these WMDs. As I understood the Bush Administration's argument, it was essentially this:
Sadaam Hussein is a murderous thug dictator who is working on acquiring nuclear weapons. This is unacceptable. We know he already had some WMDs in the form of chemical weapons and we told him to get rid of them. He refused. Also unacceptable. Before this guy gets his wish of having nuclear weapons, we are going to war in order to overthrow him and allow the Iraqi people to elect their own leadership, one which (presumably) will not include any murderous thugs. That's what I remember from three years ago.
"So..... where was Iran and Ahmadahitler three years ago when Saddam was the problem? Was he Hitler then? Or did he only become Hitler in the last few years?"
I assume you were out of the country or something for the President's "Axis of Evil" speech shortly after 9/11? Now, he didn't say Hitler, but did allude to the Axis powers. Will that do for you?
What's wrong with "jihadi"?
One thing that is wrong with the term is that it is a pseudo-Arabism. One who wages jihad is a mujahideen.
That term won't do because it calls to mind our allies in Afghanistan who fought agaisnt the Soviets.
PS: Mr. Shea, please do not give up your blog!
Dear Mr. Shea,
I hope I speak for the majority of your readers who enjoy your "mixture of personal reflection, front porch commentary, and highly personal, highly colloquial chit chat" and who get the humor ? Bush, et. al. ain't jokin' ? behind the "gay brownshirt" reference as much as we undertsand that there are not exactly 6531972259 Reasons to Homeschool.
Keep up the great work on your blog!
Sincerely,
Joshua Snyder
Pohang, S. Korea
"Of the hundreds of bloggers with whom I have intereacted over the last severla years, there have only been two to whom I advised to stop blogging."
Only two? You don't read too many blogs, do you? Egads.
Mark Shea is exactly right in this debate. The defining characteristic of fascism was extreme nationalism, often coupled with white racism. The Islamists are neither extreme nationalists nor racists. In fact, they are globalists, hoping to revive the caliphate. Those calling them "fascists" are doing so to obscure reason and ignite hysteria, and because many of them are basically leftists who are accustomed to using "fascist" as a term of abuse.
Mark Shea also has an excellent blog, which has put the demands of faith and reason ahead of the demands of the Bush White House for endless war against "fascism."
I do not know if Christopher Hitchens coined the term "Islamofascism" or not, though I rather thought he had. In any event, he uses it constantly, because he is an unrepentant Bolshevik who has long termed those he dislikes as "fascists," a word he often applied, for example, to America's allies against Communism during the Cold War.
It is a mark of the derangement of the American right that those following the Bush line on "fascism" find themselves discovering wisdom in the writings of Hitchens, a man whose politics are motivated by a hatred of religion and who despises the Catholic Church and Catholics with a special ferocity: http://www.amconmag.com/2005/200...0/
article3.html
I prefer mufsidoon to jihadi or mujahedin precisely because (pausing to take a deep breath)
Among the enemy's coreligionists, a mujahed is a good thing to be, mufsidoon are viewed as being BAD
It would be as if the British government of 1777 referred to the Continental Army as "patriots" instead of traitors.
Tom Piatak,
Hitchens is an unrepentant Trotskyist, btw. You know that if you weren't a tool of the right deviationist front. 
Islamofascism may not be the best or most accurate term, but isn't it a whole lot better than "militants" and "extremists"? Hell, our servicemen and women are "militants," and most political liberals think Christians are "extremeists." I still think it's a step in the right direction.
Wow! Definitions are important. They then lead us to proper conclusions and not rhetoric. Who would've thunk.
Mark,
You're channeling George Orwell:
http://orwell.ru/library/article...e/english/
efasc
Islamofascism is as good as it's going to get. We need a word that degrades the cohesion of non-FBAF Muslims with their FBAF co-religionists, and is short enough to be used.
And if you look at their end goals, fascism is apt. There will be a very strict dress code (uniform regulations), and the Caliph was the Commander of the Fatihful, after all.
Mark's point seems pretty obvious to me. Ths fact is now that we have become unmoored from our Christianity the only word we still have for "really bad guy" we all agree on seems to be "Fascist". Every actions badness seems to be held up to the absolute standard that Nazism is bad.
In the past it might have been sufficient to call our enemies Mohamedan fanatics because everyone understood these words. But after a few generations of being told that all religions are the same and that in fact Islam is much more peace loving and civilized than Christianity we cannot comprehend the simple truth.
Mark:
Larson is incorrect; a person who fights in a jihad is a mujahadin. The problem is that this word in America conjures up the Afghan allies during the Soviet invasion.
Personally, we should revert mujahahdin to its original usage of jihad fighter.
Second, we need to be aware that the jihad is essential to Islam. Without jihad, Islam falls apart because it's not a religion but a cult of the mafia as well as being unreasonable.
Curiously, English struggles with finding the right term. The Romance languages use intégrisme. Which while imperfect, strikes me as a bit more precise with respect to an integral/rigourous practice or application of a religion.
Jihad is the rigourous application of Islam
xavier
And the Fasces was originally just a symbol of the State's authority to punish, either by beating (sticks) or death (the axe).
Whatever term we use for the enemy, it should signify a foe that is inspired by Islamist beliefs, but is not representative of all or (hopefully!) most Muslims.
"Jihadi" doesn't work, imo. Most Muslims may be open to spiritualizing the concept of jihad, or restricting how it is waged, but they won't renounce it. Jihadi itself is a term of praise, not opprobation.
"Islamist" by itself doesn't really work either...unless we are set on declaring enemies all Muslims who nourish even a vague hope that one day the whole world will freely embrace Islam and freely live by what is seen as God's law — Shariah.
"Militant" is neutral. "Terrorist" is better, but has no reference to Islam, and is too limiting. Our enemies use other tactics besides terror (eg, propaganda, lawsuits, bribery, pr campaigns) to advance their aims.
What we want is a term that conveys that our enemies, inspired by their Islamic beliefs, absolutely reject fundamental human rights.
Freedom of religion. Freedom of speech. Equality of women and minorities. Freedom from cruel and unusual punishment. Intellectual freedom, freedom to learn and question and inquire. Freedom from slavery. Freedom to choose one's own spouse.
For these purposes, I think Islamic fascist works fine, with fascist signifying an ideology that recognizes no inalienable human rights.
Fortunatley neither Shea or Sills has stopped blogging.
I don't know what fascism is. I leave it to the experts to define it. I do know that Mark denying Islamofascism is an attempt to justify it. He is merely making an apology for it. Mark has become an Islamofascist apologist.
"The defining characteristic of fascism was extreme nationalism, often coupled with white racism. The Islamists are neither extreme nationalists nor racists."
One thing that needs to be borne in mind here, though,when considering this:
Islam does not define nationalism in the same way Western philosophy does, and never has. The ultimate vision of Islam is as Caliphate, religion and nation both, what might be called a transnation -- one way of life, one culture, one identical form of law, and ideally even one language (specifically Arabic) with the names of "nations" as the West knows them referring only to geographical regions and whatever purely local, irrelevant customs are allowed to continue existing as not incompatible with shari'a. Individual rights, significant individual politics, and meaningful differences in value cannot exist within the Transnation -- and that's one of the definitions of Islam.
Similarly, while racism in the Aryan sense of the word (i.e. the pseudo-biological rationalizations of the twentieth-century post-Darwin writers who inspired Hitler) is not formally articulated in Islam, the primacy of the Arabic people in Islam is certainly visible in their cultural history, their patterns of development, and the choice of language to enshrine as "God's own" (specifically of course, Mohammed's own Arabic). Any linguist will tell you that language is inextricably connected to culture, and while biological race is a meaningless concept in practice, cultural grouping -- and the signs, both physignomical and sociological, by which such groupings are defined (albeit often arbitrarily) is not. And both Islamofascism and Naziism share one overwhelmingly racist platform, which is the condemnation of the Jewish people and culture. Anyone who negatively differentiates an entire populace solely or primarily on the basis of their cultural heritage is racist; that's the definition of the term -- and the existence of this phenomenon can clearly be seen in how the Kurds, among others, have been treated.
Mark's point, and Lewis's before it, is an excellent one -- broadening the definition of a word to the point where it is merely a useless expressor of positive or negative opinion is pointless. But I do not believe that "Islamofascism" is such a useless broadening. The essential characteristic of a fascistic philosophy is that it insists on the subsumation of individuals within a greater political entity, operating ultimately in response to a single greater Will -- and this is the definition of Islam, which means, by definition, "Submission". The only difference in Islamofascism is that it defines that Will not as a king on earth, but a lord in Heaven -- though in practice, the speaker for God may as well be God for those purposes.
Now one point needs to be made that does back up Mark's point: while it is useful to observe that Islamofascism has many characteristics in common with World War II fascism, it is not the same in practice. Islamofascism seeks to establish a fascist polity; it has not yet succeeded in creating one. It is profoundly useful to look at the similarities when we are considering the psychological aspect of this struggle; it is fairly irrelevant to the practical aspects. We cannot fight al-Qaeda the way we fought the German army, or even struggled with the Soviet bloc. But there are profound similarities in their way of thinking -- and while we shouldn't let the similarities blind us to the differences, we also shouldn't let the differences cause us to forget the similarities.
Whatever term we use for the enemy, it should signify a foe that is inspired by Islamist beliefs, ...
Speaking of terms I despise for their intrinsic political correctness, in addition to "Islamofascism" I despise the term "Islamist". "Islamic" will do just fine, say thankya. The term "islamist" attempts to assert a connection to Islam while simultaneously disavowing a connection to Islam, because we just aren't man enough to accept what we really mean ourselves let alone say it out loud.
Kevin Jones has the right idea here, it seems to me. The most correct term would have been "bin Ladenist" or "Mujahedeen". But then it would have been more difficult to paint the Baathist Saddam Hussein as a bin Ladenist, and Baathism, unlike bin Ladenism, actually does have some similiarity to fascism. The reason "Islamofascism" is the term of choice is because it:
1) Is inclusive of Arab and Persian nationalists whom a great many people want to be able to target in the "war on terror," even though they are natural enemies of the bin ladenists among them unless motivated to unity by an external enemy (us);
2) It is politically correct, tarring one side as racist and religiously discriminatory while making sure our Pontius hands are clean of such things, as though religious discrimination were the most wicked thing possible;
3) It invokes the Ultimate Postmodern Evil, Naziism, and equates our enemies with that Ultimate Evil [tm].
We are Americans. We are all about inclusiveness, and "islamofascism" is a nice inclusive term which stretches beyond those from whom we needed (lasting, grave, and certain) to defend ourselves and includes all the optional noses we want to bloody. And it is sanitized of all implication that we might possibly ourselves need to discriminate based on religious faction, depending on the actual substantive content of that religious faction ("kill the infidel wherever you find him", etc.)
Islam is very much like Protestantism in the sense (and only the sense) that as a result of its logocentrism it has no coherent center. Just as Protestantism is defined by its rejection of Catholicism and the replacement of the living Church with a text, Islam is defined by its rejection of Judeo-Christianity and its replacement of the living Abramic religion (which Mohammed seemed to see as a unified whole, from the Arab perspective) with a text. As a nation still fundamentally Protestant in its character we are unable to see Islam for what it really is because of what we have in common with it; just as leftists (communists) are unable to see what Naziism really is because of what they have in common with it.
The words do matter. And we have them all wrong.
Spencer Ackerman in the New Republic had a very insightful post on the The Plank about this use of language:
"I spent the last week in Dearborn, Michigan, home of the largest and oldest Muslim community in the United States, and I have a news flash: President Bush's recent formulation of the enemy in the war on terrorism as "Islamic Fascism," or, as it's more often known, "Islamofascism," is extremely offensive here. Practically everyone I've spoken with in Dearborn, from oncologists to students to clerics, brings up the term unprompted to explain how they feel themselves under collective suspicion from the Justice Department, a tone they feel Bush has set himself by using the phrase. You never hear the terms "Christian fascism," or "European fascism," goes the rejoinder, despite fascism's historical hijacking of Christian (actually atavistic paganism, more often) or ancient European iconography.
Last week in the Weekly Standard, the apparent inventor of the phrase, Stephen Schwartz, dismissed those who'd be offended by "Islamofascism" as "primitive Muslims." That should tell you all you need to know about those who use the term. I confess to using it, if ironically, in a recent piece, and here in Dearborn I learned precisely why you and I shouldn't. The people it infuriates aren't primitive. They're the moderate, pro-American, well-integrated Muslims who form one of the greatest bulwarks against Al Qaeda that the U.S. possesses, and they see the term as draining their Americanness away."
Yes, but he forgets to mention that the 3-headed Bush-Cheney-Rumsfeld monster uses terms like this solely to stir up their base, and to beat up Demoracts (you are appeasing Hitler! Hitler!). In other words, as always, they are using national security for partisan means.
"You never hear the terms "Christian fascism," or "European fascism," goes the rejoinder...."
They just aren't sitting in on the right Democratic party meetings.
From today's WP:
"President Bush, invoking the same language that he used to describe Iraq before the March 2003 invasion, called Iran a "grave threat" and said "there must be consequences" for Tehran's actions. "It is time for Iran to make a choice," Bush said in a speech to the American Legion's national convention in Salt Lake City..... He has asserted, without offering proof, that [the nuclear energy program] it is a cover for weapons development."
Here we go again.... History repeats itself. But is this tragedy or farce?
Rick,
That is why I refer to the mufsidoon, even though it is not widely known to English speakers and needs explanation: once it's explained it gets the point across and serves to separate the enemy from his coreligionists who are not FBAF.
Z: I don't think you have to do that kind of speculating about why the term is used. Just read the Schwartz piece.
MM,
Iran has the second largest petroleum reserves in the world. Iran has frequently expressed the desire to destroy Israel and the Israelis. Iran has purchased missile technology from the DPRK. Given those data points, why is it reasonable to believe assurances that they only want to make electricity?
I don't think you have to do that kind of speculating about why the term is used. Just read the Schwartz piece.
Kevin: a person's explicit justification for using a term is one thing. A whole segment of society's reasons for adopting it so quickly and willingly is another, entirely distinct thing.
What about Islamo-supremacist?
But who really started this? As I seem to recall, Bush was called a fascist way before Islamo-fascism ever became common.
"What about Islamo-supremacist?"
Technically a redundancy. By definition if you're a Muslim you believe Islam should be supreme over all other faiths, that everyone should be Muslim, and that it's part of your religious duty to attempt to bring this state of affairs about. "Islamofascist" has become the term of distinction for those who will use anti-civilian violence to accomplish such a thing, as opposed to those who prefer to keep the jihad entirely through example and proselytization.
Plus, of course, "Islamofascist" only has five syllables and twelve letters, and "Islamosupremacist" has seven syllables and seventeen letters. The shorter word almost always trumps the longer.
Second of all, Schwartz is simply (and obviously) wrong.
He writes:
In my analysis, as originally put in print directly after the horror of September 11, 2001, Islamofascism refers to use of the faith of Islam as a cover for totalitarian ideology.
Congratulations on getting it utterly wrong right from the start. The Peasant Rebellion had nothing to do with Protestantism either, I suppose.
1) It is true that only a small number of Protestants in general participated in the Peasant Rebellion.
2) It is false that the Peasant Rebellion had nothing to do with the Protestant religion; that Luther's brand of Christianity was merely a "cover" or a "pretext," that nobody really believed in what they were fighting for, it was all a cover story layered over class struggle.
The people who do this stuff really do believe this stuff. It isn't a pretext or a cover. The idea that it is a "pretext" or a "cover" when people blow themselves up to kill the infidel, is the postmodern belief in conspiracy writ large.
The constituency of Hezbollah is similar: the growing Lebanese Shia middle class, which believes itself to be the victim of discrimination.
What an idiot. People who see bin Ladenism and its cognates as a result of economic class struggle are complete blithering morons. There is no polite way to say it.
Iran has the second largest petroleum reserves in the world. Iran has frequently expressed the desire to destroy Israel and the Israelis. Iran has purchased missile technology from the DPRK. Given those data points, why is it reasonable to believe assurances that they only want to make electricity?
There are several reasons.
1) Iran imports refined petroleum products. So, their must abundant resource costs them money on the crack spread.
2) Iran has very little need for heating oil, one of the products produced in refining.
3) Nuclear power is relatively inexpensive and highly reliable. Amongst large, industrialized cities, there are very few who do not receive some of their power from nuclear energy. For a map, see here.
Sounds like a good situation for Pascal's Wager.
If Iran is denied nuclear technology out of a fear of war that turns out to be wrong, the Iranian populace will be somewhat inconvenienced.
If Iran is permitted nuclear technology out of a belief in peace that turns out to be wrong, the Israeli populace is likely to be... somewhat more than inconvenienced.
It's not my decision, but I have to admit, I know which way I'd bet.
Ed the Roman noted:
"Iran has the second largest petroleum reserves in the world. Iran has frequently expressed the desire to destroy Israel and the Israelis. Iran has purchased missile technology from the DPRK. Given those data points, why is it reasonable to believe assurances that they only want to make electricity?"
Again, haven't we heard all this before? Mushroom clouds? Secret deals with Bin Laden? Uranium from Africa? WMDs galore? Israel on the verge of extinction?
Yeah, that worked out well. I'm sorry, but nothing Bush-Cheney-Rumsfeld has to say on this matter comes with one iota of credibility.
"I'm sorry, but nothing Bush-Cheney-Rumsfeld has to say on this matter comes with one iota of credibility."
And the credibility of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad -- a man who thinks the Holocaust never happened, has seen miraculous halos around himself and believes in the imminent return of the 12th Imam who is considered to reside down a well in the outskirts of Teheran -- is better?
Sen. Jack Reed nails it:
"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."
Yes, its all about slogans and partisanship. Instead of any clear strategy we haver ever-evolving cound bites: "stay the course". "cut and run" "they hate us for our freedom".
Z:
1. I think that S's point regarding "cover" is that in his opinion (as a Muslim himself!), the totalitarianism stuff isn't of the essence of Islam (even though lots of Muslims go for it).
2. I don't think "discrimination" there needs to mean economic class struggle.
So, I'm sorry, but I don't think you can dismiss him as obviously wrong or stupid.
You might want to read his book. I don't think he's right about everything, historically or today. But neither do I think he can be simply dismissed.
(Nor does it strike me as at all obvious that what he has in mind in promoting the use of "Islamofascism" is radically different from what most others who use the term have in mind - that would have to be demonstrated.)
If I remember correctly, some Middle Eastern Christians prefer the term Islamic mafia to fascists.
I thought Michael Savage claimed to have coined Islamofascist?
MM,
WRT my basic points, it's not as if anyone is taking them specifically on administration authority. That Iran has the oil reserves it has, that it talks about wiping out Israel, and that it has ballistic missile technology are widely known and undisputed facts. The question is whether it is reasonable to believe their assertions of a peaceful nuclear program, particularly after inventing Hezbollah and attacking Jewish, Israeli, and Iranian dissident targets worldwide. I will not give a government like Iran's the benefit of the doubt.
Stephen J. points out that the source for Iran's pacific intent has a credibility problem of his own.
It is interesting that it has been mostly people on the left side of the Dem Party who have vigorously objected to the use of the term Islamo-fascism as a descriptive synonym for Islamic terrorists. But as one posting pointed out--and it is very true--the epithet fascist (which they suddenly dislike) was being thrown around like confetti by them at anyone slightly to their right -especially during the last election season. What kind of mentality is it that throws the word "fascist" at Evangelical Christians, traditional orthodox Catholics, conservative politicians, and fellow Americans, but goes virtually ballistic at using that term for savage terrorists bent on taking the world under total Moslem control as European fascists aspired to.
"Sounds like a good situation for Pascal's Wager."
It's called the "one percent doctrine" today. A very flimsy rationale for military action, though the chance of such outcomes might justify some diplomatic action.
How 'bout "Islamic Supremacists?" That keeps their political ambitions in view, but does not ascribe a particular political economy to their worldview.
"Islamic Mafia" is a step in the right direction, but the Mafia don't want to run governments or reorganise society, they just want to operate their rackets without outside accountability. The Mafia has no political programme other than the protection of its rackets.
PVO
Deacon,
The terms "fascist" and comparisons to Hitler are thrown around on the right and on the left. The sickest is Grover Norquist comparing the estate tax to the Holocaust. But there are plenty of options for you. How about when when Bob Novak compared Democractic tactics on judicial nominees to Nazi concentration camps? Or when Sen. Infofe calls believers in global warming as engaging in nazi tactics? Or Bill O'Reilly declaring critics as engaging in "Joseph Goebbels Nazi tactics"?
One of the great right-wing slogans (there's that word again, seems it's all they have) is that only the left violates Godwin's law. Not only it that not true, but more senior people use nazi and fascist analogies on the right than on the left. You don't see senior Democracts engaging in the kind of rhetoric you are talking about. But senior Republicans? Well, that's a different story.
"It's called the 'one percent doctrine' today. A very flimsy rationale for military action...."
It probably feels less flimsy to the people living in Tel Aviv.
The one percent doctrine says that if an event has a low probability (even one percent), but the results could be catastrophic, then you should act.
The problem is, that's just an ex-post rationalization. It's not a philosophy. If it were, you would see the Bushites fretting about global warming.
Late in the comments to be making this point (which others have made in round about ways) but...
This discussion seems to hinge on what defines fascism as opposed to what is ancillary but common in fascism. Fascism has a definition of its own and the Nazi Party for one, met that definition. Mark's argument seems to be that "Islamic Fascists" are not just like the Nazis and so therefore are not Fascists. Thus, Mark's statement "That's because fascism is all about the collective, operating ultimately in response to the will of the Fuehrer" is wrong. This may be an aspect of fascism, but it's not what it is about.
What Fascism is ALL ABOUT is strict control over every area of people's lives by an oppressive government. This may not have formed yet in the Islamic nations, but it is certainly what these sects of Islam would like to establish.
What Fascism is ALL ABOUT is strict control over every area of people's lives by an oppressive government.
So the Soviet Union was fascist?
"It probably feels less flimsy to the people living in Tel Aviv."
Feelings...
woh oh oh feelings...
So the Soviet Union was fascist?
No, but I think one could say the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany were related, but distinct species of generic totalitarianism.
Granted that bin Laden and his followers are not devotees of the political movement started by Benito Mussolini, but does anyone really think that is what Bush and co. mean when they call people 'Islamofascists'?
When people call someone or something 'fascist,' they generally mean little more than that it is authoritarian and/or anti-semitic. Bin Laden and his followers certainly fit that bill.
"'So the Soviet Union was fascist?'
'No, but I think one could say the Soviet Union and Nazi Gersmany were related, but distinct species of generic totalitarianism.'"
In the sociological sense, both were fascist in refusing to acknowledge the legitimacy of any activity outside of the oversight and control of the state.
In the sense of political economy, the fascist states differed from the communist ones mostly in their tendency to prefer to enroll the prior owners and managers of industry and capital into the party structure and to make them loyal party members rather than shooting them and replacing them with known party loyalists.
The integration of all economic activity under the control of the state was achieved in the end in both cases, only the means were different.
PVO
Today, on National Review Online, Victor Davis Hanson puts up a piece defining Islamic Fascism (go to and read). But, then, didn't Mark say something about him - oh well.
Roger Scruton wrote "Islamofascism" on Opinion Journal.com on Aug. 20th. Think Mark already dismissed this one. Mentioning Scruton, he recently put an interesting article on defining the 'nation-state' on brusselsjournal.com. Know he's not Catholic (may not even identify himself as a Christian) but he is worth listening to - he does Natual Law well.
On file I have 10 other worthwhile articles. The argument is convincing.
The one I appreciate the most is by Fr. James V. Schall, "On the Term 'Islamo-Fascism'", on ignatiusinsight.com (easily located). Don't know if Mark has commented on this piece - or Fr. Schall.
Related article: "Jihad and European Multiculturalism" by James McConalogue on www.brusselsjournal.com. Two quotes: "The actions of the Prophet Muhammad bein with the battle of Badr and the slaughter of the Quraysh". There is much to unfold from that.
"The bishop of Cordova, Eulogius, was killed bu an Islam caliph in 859, following his voluntary martyrdom, and earlier claims that when Musllims were waiting for angels to descend to the Prophet's dead body, no angels descended but dogs arrived and ate the corpse. An infamous missionary of medieval Europe, Raymund Lull (1235-1325) had also shouted in the streets of Tunis that Christian law was holy, whilst the Muslim law was false - he was quickly stoned to death."
Now there's some courageous churchmen.
Not to the facts get in the way of a good argument, but it would appear Al Queda's goals run closer to anarchy than totalitarianism.
Additionally, the nature of totalitarism has always been within a state. Hegemonic is used to describe parties wishing to control the affairs of other states.
No matter, let us continue blurring the glaring distinctions between Iran's goals and Al Queda's goals.
Not to ...let... the facts
Pat Buchanan weighs in on "islamofascist."
I think he is correct.
Forgot to paste the goramn link. Here:
http://buchanan.org/blog/?p=75
My suggestion for a good name to label the enemy:
Paynim.
It is accurate, it has the right nuances, it reminds of what kind of fighters they are, and it reminds us that this is not the first time Christendom has faced this threat from these particular zelots, with their particular plagarized form (may I call it a heresy?) of our religion.
The only difference is, this time, the West is like an amnesiac in a sitcom, wandering around with a bump on its head, not able to remember what it stands for, what civilization is, or why the enemy is attacking it. Hint: it all has something to do with religion.
AQ's means is anarchy. Its goal is a Caliphate. They've said so.
Regarding Fascism, Benito Mussolini, a leading authority on it, said:
"...for the Fascist, everything is in the State, and nothing human or spiritual exists, much less has value, outside the State."
Given the equivalence of the State and the Umma to AQ et al., I think we can safely say that if they aren't fascists now, they are on the waiting list.
"'So the Soviet Union was fascist?'
'No, but I think one could say the Soviet Union and Nazi Gersmany were related, but distinct species of generic totalitarianism.'"
In Germany private enterprise was legal. In the Soviet Union it was not.
But the two countries had and have very different histories and hence psychologies.
However, they were both police states, and in that they were similar indeed. They both tried to mobilize the population to serve political and ideological ends - with varying success.
The SU evolved through decades, while Nazi Germany lasted a little more than a decade.
A knowledgable, intelligent, high-ranking Soviet person once told me, on the subject of Khrushchev: " He was a bastard, but at least he didn't kill anybody."
That says volumes, does it not?
He also thought that Hitler was a better ruler, since he didn't kill his own people, as Stalin did.
What can one say? I didn't say anything.
"A knowledgable, intelligent, high-ranking Soviet person once told me, on the subject of Khrushchev: 'He was a bastard, but at least he didn't kill anybody.'"
At least not once he got to the top of the greasy pole.
Working his way up the nomenklatura, though, Khrushchev did all sorts of bloody work, from being chief zampolit at Stalingrad to building the Moscow subways with slave labour.
Anyone who thinks he didn't routinely order executions throughout his career is deluding himself.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
Ima...n_the_night.jpg
Note the huge regiments of orderly lines.
"He also thought that Hitler was a better ruler, since he didn't kill his own people, as Stalin did."
Huh? Only if German citizens who happened to be Jewish don't count.
Not to the facts get in the way of a good argument, but it would appear Al Queda's goals run closer to anarchy than totalitarianism.
Not sure what facts you're basing that statement on, M.Z. Al Queda might not have the same concept of nationhood as Westerners do, but they certainly would impose Sharia law on the world if they could. That means courts, sentences, means of enforcement. And, since there is no Islamic equivalent of the Vatican, Sharia law would have to be enforced on some sort of national and local basis. Doesn't sound like anarchy to me. Terrorism is a way of creating anarchy and weakening societies, but I don't think anarchy is their ultimate goal. They don't want a world without laws, but one governed by the rigorous laws of Islam.
"Working his way up the nomenklatura, though, Khrushchev did all sorts of bloody work, from being chief zampolit at Stalingrad to building the Moscow subways with slave labour."
Tell me about it. You didn't mention Ukraine either. I don't know anything about his actions at Stalingrad, but he was a high-ranking political officer there.
Life was maybe cheaper than bread at Stalingrad.
You're correct, obviously the man was talking about Khrushchev as leader.
"Huh? Only if German citizens who happened to be Jewish don't count."
We're describing alien minds here. This was a person capable of having Jewish friends, but...also capable of considering Jews as strangers in both Germany and Russia.
"Zhou:
I don't know if you are aware of it, but you always counsel despair, surrender and defeat. Could you please take that elsewhere?
Thanks!"
Well, that was pretty rude and good for shutting dialog down. Way to go, Mark. Old Zhou is one of the most thoughtful commenters out in the Catholic blogosphere.
Ick.
I quite agree that Zhou is thoughtful. Nonetheless, when Zhou writes me, it is unfailingly to counsel despair and to tell me to give up blogging.
1. I think that S's point regarding "cover" is that in his opinion (as a Muslim himself!), the totalitarianism stuff isn't of the essence of Islam (even though lots of Muslims go for it).
And again, I think that is like an Evangelical saying that Episcopalian sacraments have nothing to do with Christianity.
2. I don't think "discrimination" there needs to mean economic class struggle.
If that isn't what he meant, then, whatever he did mean, saying:
"The constituency of Hezbollah is similar: the growing Lebanese Shia middle class, which believes itself to be the victim of discrimination."
... was a really dumb way to say it.
I'm sure the guy has plenty of valuable things to say on plenty of topics; at least I will take your word for it. But this particular defense of using the term "Islamofascism" proves Mark's point by example: seeing the struggle with bin Ladenism through the lens of WWII categories is moronic.
Lynn,
Since your post is #102 in this thread, I'd have to say that discussion has not been effectively shut down.
Zippy,
bin Ladenism would be more useful if it covered folks like Hezbollah (and the IRGC, the whole frickin Iranian government, etc) who also:
1) Want to schwack the West qua West
2) Justify that with Islam
But it doesn't, really, so people will continue to say Islamofascist since fascist states are dictatorial and regimented, and AQ wants to set up a dictatorial and regimented system, albeit not basedon ethnicity.
Unless 'not-Jew' is an ethnicity.
Mark wrote a couple of comments up:
"when Zhou writes me, it is unfailingly to counsel despair and to tell me to give up blogging."
To my knowledge, there was only one other time when I wrote to Mark to suggest that he give up the blog.
http://markshea.blogspot.com/
200...176263071666139
After he wrote on Tues Mar 7, 2006:
---
I am a writer (and sole breadwinner) trying to keep two small and growing boys and 1 and 1/2 huge and adolescent boys fed on a steady income of $500 a month (without dental insurance), plus what I can make from donations here and freelance work. Yes. You read that right, $500 a month. My wife is the chief homeschooler and bottle washer of this here enterprise, as well as a human dynamo in a dozen other tasks. The coming months will be particularly tight (and we live *very* frugally, as readers who know us can attest). I am taking steps to alleviate this situation, but till we do, your help will really help.
So, I'm here to say that I hope you'll agree the worker is worth his wages. Yesterday, out of 3300 visits and about double that number of page views, the response to the donor drive was less than a five people coming to a little over $100 in donations and book sales. I appreciate the generosity of the folks who responded very much, but I also have to look at cold economic reality. Time spent writing this blog is time not spent writing for sources of income. As such, if the response doesn't pick up over the rest of the week, I'm gonna have to scale this back and focus my energy elsewhere.
---
I basically told Mark, in the comments:
- you are a husband and father
- take care of your family
- forget about the blog
- get a "real job."
Yesterday, before I suggested again that he spend his time, energy and emotions elsewhere, he started a post with:
"I've been trying to put my finger on why it is my comboxes depress me so often."
---
So, if he wants to characterize me the way he does becuase of these two fraternal suggestions, well, I've got a plane to catch anyway.
Ciao!
What did the Nazi's call themselves? What did Churchill call them? I think the answer to both would be Nazi's. It was the way Churchill said it that made it a term of contempt. So maybe Jihadi would work, but how do you communicate the contempt in print? The Wikipedia stub seems to think the perjorative connotation is already there.
...bin Ladenism would be more useful if it covered folks like Hezbollah ...
I suppose it would be if the US has just cause for war with Hezbollah as part of the struggle against AQ. Since the idea of having the term in question at all (whatever it is) seems to be to name the actual enemy in the WOT.
I suggest we call them little crickets and I could be their king.
Uh, who were we talking about again?
Zippy,
I think the 241 dead Marines is adequate reason.
I think the 241 dead Marines is adequate reason.
It might be interesting to try to make that case. But appealing to conflicts decades past probably won't fly if the only just war is a war of self-defense. And in any case, to stay on point, none of that justifies (meaning "makes coherent sense of") using the term "Islamofascist" to describe our enemy in our particular conflict with the 9-11 perpetrators.
For the record, I should explain that I am aware that the Arabic word for "one who struggles" is mujahid. Jihadi is not a pseudo-Arabism, because it isn't even trying to be Arabic. It is, to the best of my knowledge, a colloquial term for the mujahideen in Hindi. I chose jihadi precisely because it is used in India largely as a derogatory term for Islamic terrorists.
Dave Armstrong has dealt adequetly with the exhortations from others to get a real job in Those Weird Catholic Apologists & the "Real Jobs" They Oughtta Get!
He also had one defending his apologetic work even though he is not a big money-maker but I can't seem to find it.
Zippy,
My point is that we have been in a war of variable phoniness with Hezbollah for a long, long time, even times when we were paying no attention.
THEY'VE certainly been paying attention.
11 Visitors Online
Commenting by HaloScan
