Posted by Amalek on Fri, 02 Dec 2005 01:31 | #

Sorry to see Guessedworker mouthing a lazy, feeble, meaningless term of abuse such as ‘Islamofascism’.

If tedious invocations of pre-war politics must be employed, it is the occupying powers who are behaving in Iraq as the only genuine fascists did in Abyssinia: violating international law, bombing and gassing from the air, and protesting that it’s all for the ultimate good of the uncivilised natives.

Real fascists were the oppsite of religious fundamentalists. Led by a socialist atheist, they were very big on separating Church and State. They never brandished their Roman Catholicism as they went into battle. Mussolini’s concordat wth the Vatican was one of the most secularising strokes in Italian history.

Do get a grip and adopt terms which do not parrot dishonest Jewish neoconnerie—in this case a word coined by that arch-turncoat and hypocrite, Christopher Hitchens.

Posted by friedrich braun on Fri, 02 Dec 2005 01:49 | #

GW,

I’m a bit stunned that you would use LaRouche as a source for anything.

Posted by Svigor on Fri, 02 Dec 2005 02:58 | #

Islamofascism is indeed a ridiculous term.  Islamism serves just fine (though perhaps Islam serves even better), unless one is a South Park conservative trying to sloganeer one’s way to victory.

Posted by Svigor on Fri, 02 Dec 2005 03:00 | #

It’s often said that people can’t help who they fall in love with.

That’s such a bunch of tripe.  Having values precludes falling in love with all sorts of people.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Fri, 02 Dec 2005 06:28 | #

“At best she is, I suppose, a warning that the West simply should not harbour unassimilable alien populations.  But, then, if it takes ten years for the British legal system to process the extradition of a single significant actor ...”  (—from the log entry)

Right, that’s where outfits like MR.com come in—to light a fire under these guys and speed things up ... Without us it might take them, who knows ... forever, to figure out the truth of the above quote’s first sentence!  We’re here in order to ... let’s say ... shorten that time-frame considerably ...

By the way, this Arab didn’t care about his wife—if you like your wife you don’t tell her to blow herself up, obviously.  He probably viewed her as dirt, she probably knew it, and the poor confused thing may have viewed killing herself for “the Cause” as the one way to finally win her husband’s “respect.”  The whole thing is just unspeakable.  And of course, what in the goddamn son-of-a-bitch fricking hell are these Arabs doing here in our midst in such numbers?  GET THEM OUT!  YOU HEAR THAT, TONY BLAIR?  O!-U!-T!  OUT!

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Fri, 02 Dec 2005 06:40 | #

And there’s no such thing as “a Belgian of Moroccan descent.”  There are Flemings, Walloons, and Germans in Belgium.  That’s it.  And there’s no such thing as a Fleming, Walloon, or Belgian German of Moroccan descent either.  Doesn’t exist, any more than square circles do.  It’s a contradiction in terms.  Are we going to have “German Chinamen” now?  “Italian Koreans”?
______
Moratorium-plus-Repatriation!

Posted by tbt on Fri, 02 Dec 2005 07:51 | #

Perhaps Arabs have a somewhat unsophisticated understanding of the potential behavior of Europeans? Invasion is a risky gamble.

Posted by dghjgh on Fri, 02 Dec 2005 08:34 | #

???
???
??????
????

Posted by Guessedworker on Fri, 02 Dec 2005 08:37 | #

I baulked at the “fascism” bit of Islamofascism - I am well aware that Fascism is a political movement in modern Italy.  But there is a connectivity between the all-encompassing Islam of these violent extremists and the all encompassing nature of Mussolini’s state.  The term is not without all merit.

Anyway, one has to distinguish the adherent of throat-slitting and bomb-belts from the mass of Muslims somehow or one loses the argument straight away.  “Fundamentalist” is too broad, “terrorist” too narrow.  An accurate term does not currently exist, which perhaps reflects on the diverse and not entirely open motives of those in the West who wrestle with this phenomenon.

Posted by Johan Van Vlaams on Fri, 02 Dec 2005 09:48 | #

Meanwhile another Belgian lady of Rwandan descent has been arrested in Riemst (Flanders), who was incited by the network to go to Iraq too, together with her “friend”.  The same for another couple of Moroccan descent from Antwerp. The same for the Belgian Maureen R. from Maaseik (she even told about other women who were prepared to do the same… see (in Dutch) http://www.standaard.be/Artikel/Detail.aspx?artikelId=GAVL3G3A and http://www.standaard.be/Artikel/Detail.aspx?artikelId=GAVL3G3C

Posted by Amalek on Fri, 02 Dec 2005 17:45 | #

“But there is a connectivity between the all-encompassing Islam of these violent extremists and the all encompassing nature of Mussolini’s state.  The term is not without all merit.”

Wrong again, in oak leaves, diamonds and brilliants.

Mussolini repeatedly averred that fascism was ‘not an export article’; it was an improvised Italian solution to the problem of the collapse of bourgeois liberal Garibaldian democracy amid war and the rise of industrial militancy. Fascism was also a consciously secular philosophy, espoused by anti-Catholic agnostics and atheists such as D’Annunzio and Marinetti. It exalted modernity, including female emancipation, and was rendered compatible with Italy’s hereditary monarchy, the House of Savoy.

‘Islamism’ is a pan-Muslim, multiracial, internationalist, theocratic, republican creed. Just because it professes itself to be ‘all encompassing’ in the lives of individuals—which is no more than a strident version of the demand laid on all believers by Mohammed’s faith—does not mean it has anything in common with the Corporative State of Mussolini, which was a particular model of economic organisation and ideological control by a centralised elite. Islamism does not specify an economic model for its future multinational entity, is not anti-capitalist as a matter of dogma, and does not advocate a single secular authority; its proposed Caliphate is an equivalent of the Papacy.

Now stop parroting the vapid insults of our enemies and study history.

Posted by Guessedworker on Fri, 02 Dec 2005 18:36 | #

Amalek,

You need to re-adjust that hair trigger.  It is too sensitive and causes you to bristle with pointless indignation.  That’s bad politics, btw, if you want to persuade anybody that Fascism has ideological merit.

For the record, the worlds of the throat-slitters and the Fascisti are different.  Obviously.  Doesn’t need explaining.  However, the bare absolutism - “Everything for the state, nothing outside the state, nothing above the state” - is not, and that is the only basis on which the term “Islamofascism” has any resonance for me.

I understand that the loose-lipped, bastard-politic usage of “Fascist” by the left is an aggravation, and something we all have to deal with.  But I don’t see such usage here.  What I see is an attempt to define this form of Islam as violent, political absolutism.

The plain, unavoidable fact, anyway, is that the term is common currency and will remain so until something better comes along.  Got any suggestions?

Posted by friedrich braun on Fri, 02 Dec 2005 19:06 | #

Actually, Mussolini’s motto went like this: “everything in the state, nothing against the state, nothing outside the state.”

The neo-con (“I didn’t know I was Jewish”) Hitchens obviously came up with Islamofascism for its propagandistic effects; and not because there are any actual ideological similarities between Sunni theocrats and atheistic or agnostic (Mussolini favourite philosopher was Nietzsche) Italian proponents in the 1920’s of the corporate state.

Calling militant Wahhabis Islofascists only serves the neo-can/Israel agenda and is said to inflame the excitable public against them Ayrabs.

Posted by Guessedworker on Fri, 02 Dec 2005 22:23 | #

Friedrich,

Ultimately, the only agenda I care to oppose is the liberal one.  I want to see the West survive.  Now, you will certainly analyse our overall difficulties differently to me.  But from both POV’s, a conflict between neocons and Islamics tends to a highly useful end.  By contrast, a peaceful multiculturalism that slowly and painlessly deracinates and dispossesses Western Man is the worst of all worlds.

Since Fascism has no part to play in the wider effort to turn things around I see no reason to care whether its name is taken in vain or not, Friedrich.

That said, I have looked around the net and found some dissatisfaction with the term - but no useful alternatives (one bright spark suggested replacing the name with “Islamic Jihadism”, apparently never having heard a grammatical tautology).

Posted by Mark Richardson on Fri, 02 Dec 2005 22:28 | #

Amalek, it’s a pity your posts are so bellicose.

Posted by Martin Hutchinson on Fri, 02 Dec 2005 22:58 | #

GW, I think you’re wrong; “Islamofacism” is a term invented by neocons to pretend that the Iraq war has the same legitimacy as WWII and used by the left to aid them in describing every policy they don’t like as “Fascist”.

Unlike Nazism, I have considerable sympathy with Mussolini’s fascism, which had a number of positive achievements to its credit before he got sucked into WWII. Also leftist economists don’t realize when the moan about inqeuality that their favorite meaure thereof, the Gini cofficient, was invented by Corrado Gini, who in 1927 served as President of the Union of Fascist Economists! I don’t often agree with Friedrich, whose blood is too red for my taste, but I do this time.

Posted by friedrich braun on Fri, 02 Dec 2005 23:54 | #

Since Fascism has no part to play in the wider effort to turn things around I see no reason to care whether its name is taken in vain or not, Friedrich.

This is a redherring. No one has advocated fascism as a solution to anything in this thread - I’m sure that small “c” conservatists will save the West in short order…first, however, they have to discover that race exists and that immigration is a problem. As long as conservatives and their rich friends view immigrants as a source of cheap labour to be exploited, I wouldn’t hold my friend.

The issue here is the mindless paroting of lying neo-khan propaganda. Fundamentally, I don’t regard Arabs and Muslims as my natural enemies. They’re only a problem because the West has been meddling in their internal affairs - at least since the 19th Century.

Posted by friedrich braun on Sat, 03 Dec 2005 00:02 | #

I wouldn’t hold my friend.

That should read: “I wouldn’t hold by breath”, of course.

(I must’ve been in a particularly friendly mood when I wrote it.)

Posted by Mark Richardson on Sat, 03 Dec 2005 00:08 | #

Islam was a significant threat for a thousand years, though, Friedrich. The period of peace from the mid 1800s to the mid 1900s was the exception rather than the rule.

Don’t forget the Islamic invasions of Spain, France, Sicily, Constantinople, Austria, Greece and much of south-eastern Europe.

Don’t forget the enslavement of a million Europeans in north Africa, which was only ended by British naval power in the early 1800s.

Posted by Guessedworker on Sat, 03 Dec 2005 00:14 | #

Careful, Martin ... you’ll have JJR dropping posts about Benito on the blog and then how will you save us from the costume factor?

I have met a real live Italian Fascist.  I cannot claim to have understood where his politics fit.  But he was an intelligent guy and what he had to say was not uninteresting.  However, it wouldn’t matter to me if the world forgot Fascism tomorrow.  In fact, it might be rather helpful.

As for the antecedents of the “Islamofascist” term, you should all read this Guardian piece from February of this year.  It attributes the term to an Islamic scholar named Khalid Duran.  The article is not very long but there are a number of interesting snippets, among them this:-

Long before September 11 2001, Duran was commissioned by the American Jewish Committee to produce one side of an interfaith project. Duran responded to attacks on his book, Children of Abraham, by deriding those who sought “to impose religious orthodoxy on the state and the citizenry”. In that sense, he said, extreme islamism is “islamofascism.”

Posted by friedrich braun on Sat, 03 Dec 2005 01:20 | #

GW, how will you solve the current crisis without resorting to, at least initially, some authoritarian methods and tactics (fascist are not)? For e.g., how will you deport undesirable aliens without leaving the UE or rescind the European Convention on Human Rights from domestic law?

You simly cannot save the West and do what is necessary within the bounds or parametres of today’s pluralist, multicultural, (il)liberal democracy.

Posted by friedrich braun on Sat, 03 Dec 2005 01:26 | #

Don’t forget the Islamic invasions of Spain, France, Sicily, Constantinople, Austria, Greece and much of south-eastern Europe.

I’m referring to modern times obviously. Mongols and Huns were a problem at one time as well. Vikings used to rampage all over Europe at some point and sell captured Slavs to Arab merchants as slaves. All that is irrelevant to the current mess - a direct result of European and American interference in the domestic affairs of Arab states.

Posted by friedrich braun on Sat, 03 Dec 2005 01:27 | #

...and the West’s support of that Zionist entity.

Posted by Steve Edwards on Sat, 03 Dec 2005 02:47 | #

Muslims have their good side and their bad side, like most peoples. The good side is the very reason Islam has survived for a millenium or more - Islam is not contrary to human nature as it encourages “normalcy” over “degeneracy”. That is to say, Mecca will be around for as long as humanity survives, but there is no similar guarantee for Amsterdam.

However, the bad side is a byproduct of the good side - they tend to be so convinced that their way of life is correct, that they are often extremely intolerant of dissent and disagreement. You only have to observe the behaviour of Islamic immigrants in Western countries, where they demand statutory protection for their belief systems, the “right” to bring in waves of family members, and so on.

And of course, there is the fact that you will be lucky to find a single Islamic majority country where freedom of speech and conscience is extended to minorities or Islamic apostates.

I think Muslims should just be left alone…just as I would recommend Europeans be left alone, and not have their nations overthrown for the heck of it. But of course, the New World Order is not in the business of leaving people alone, now, is it?

Posted by Andrew on Sat, 03 Dec 2005 08:46 | #

On a softer note, reminds me a of a joke a friend told me after he walked into a sex shop and asked for a sex doll: the attendant replied: There are two sorts, an Anglo and a Moslem doll, the obvious reply was, well what does the Moslem doll do that is different? It blows it self up. hmmmm

Posted by Guessedworker on Sat, 03 Dec 2005 09:18 | #

Friedrich,

Like all armchair revolutionaries I have a cunning plan.  I post on it pretty regularly, but will put something on the blog again in the next day or two.  Just to annoy everybody.