I have been criticized a few times for using the popular term ‘Islamo-fascist’ to describe, well, Islamic fascists such as the Iraqi & Syrian Ba’athists as well as the theocratic Iranian regime. Well if this report is correct (Iranian sources are denying it), they are planning to adopt a measure which should dispel all doubt as to the appropriateness of the term.
|
|||||
|
We are developing the social individualist meta-context for the future. From the very serious to the extremely frivolous... lets see what is on the mind of the Samizdata people. Samizdata, derived from Samizdat /n. - a system of clandestine publication of banned literature in the USSR [Russ.,= self-publishing house] Authors
Arts, Tech & CultureCivil LibertiesCommentary
EconomicsSamizdatistas |
A note for those who claimed the term ‘Islamo-fascist’ was not appropriate…May 22nd, 2006 |
 19 comments to A note for those who claimed the term ‘Islamo-fascist’ was not appropriate… |
Who Are We?The Samizdata people are a bunch of sinister and heavily armed globalist illuminati who seek to infect the entire world with the values of personal liberty and several property. Amongst our many crimes is a sense of humour and the intermittent use of British spelling. We are also a varied group made up of social individualists, classical liberals, whigs, libertarians, extropians, futurists, ‘Porcupines’, Karl Popper fetishists, recovering neo-conservatives, crazed Ayn Rand worshipers, over-caffeinated Virginia Postrel devotees, witty Frédéric Bastiat wannabes, cypherpunks, minarchists, kritarchists and wild-eyed anarcho-capitalists from Britain, North America, Australia and Europe. CategoriesArchivesFeed This PageLink Icons   |
|||
All content on this website (including text, photographs, audio files, and any other original works), unless otherwise noted, is licensed under a Creative Commons License. |
|||||
I must admit, that story sets off my bullshit detector.
I’m not quite sure which blog made this point but even if the part about Jews and Christians wearing badges is wrong, a national dresscode is pretty fascistic by itself.
Indeed, in their denial they admit a desire to have a national dress code I see.
Taliban style.
This topic (religious Muslim nations are totalitarian) is almost becoming a non-issue, much as “the Communist system doesn’t work” and “…nor does gun control”. No more proof is needed.
OF COURSE strict Islamic governments are totalitarian.
Now, can we get on with discussing more important stuff?
Consider the source.
In any case, even if it were true it wouldn’t have anything to do with fascism: an economic system wherein private property is allowed in name, but the government controls what may be done with it. Nearly every country in the world is fascist to some degree (with one of the very few exceptions being, ironically, an Islamic country: Somalia).
I do agree that it makes good (if really heavy-handed) propaganda to back up the real meaning of “islamo-fascist,” as a prop for Hitler Of The Week Syndrome, the decades-old practice of the “christianityo-fascists” in Washington declaring whoever they have it in for that week to be just like Hitler.
This story has been called into question by numerous sources, very well may be bogus:
http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/news/story.html?id=6626a0fa-99de-4f1e-aebe-bb91af82abb3(Link)
I am not sure about the veracity of this story, although given the name of the fruitcake heading Iran, it would not surprise. Nothing surprises me about these scum any more.
Iran has had a dress-code for sometime – even unto “arresting” shop-window mannequins that fail to observe it. I suspect that this story about ID badges is nonsense though. The number of Jews and Christians in Iran is so small it’s utterly pointless.
It’s also not like the Islamic Republic at all. One of the ways they gained power was by suggesting it was OK for women to break the Shah’s curfew. Iran practises deep civil rights abuse – it doesn’t go for the obvious.
Oh I agree, which is why I also included a link to the Iranian claim it was not true.
Regime Change Iran is keeping up w/this story.
Something’s in the works, just what specifically is not known at this time.
“Fascism” is a good description for an ideology that rejects “communism” as Godless whilst still worshiping the power of the state and cannot come to terms with the success of the Western model so looks to a mythical nationalist (mid 20th century Europe) or religious (present ME) utopian past.
The demographics of those who supported Fascism in say Italy in the 1930s and the ME now are also similar. Disillusioned, impressionable youth from the middle classes, small businesspeople and those who want a strong leader to bring order and get rid of corruption. But not, generally, the very poor.
Tend to agree with ResidentAlien’s definition, though he neglects fascism’s obsession with modernisation. Most ME dictatorships qualify as fascist on this basis (as do many other regimes) but not the self-consciously Islamic ones, Iran and Saudi Arabia, nor all the Salafist nutters who would replace them all with a mediaeval neverland.
Calling the theocrats Islamo-fascist is misleading in both barrels. Calling Egypt or Syria Islamo-fascist is misleading in the same way as calling Blair a Christi-fascist. The duce in each case makes a show of support for the majority religion of the country – and may or may not believe themselves annointed by God – but there’s nothing in the mode of governance that is religiously distinctive, nothing in the country actually subject to the control of the religious authorities.
Material moderisation, sure, but ideological atavism… one of fascism’s main characteristics is an obsession with a mythical golden past.
Maybe someone will pin a copy of the story on Marco Polo Bridge.
I may well be very wrong but wasn’t it was socialist Modernism (Rodchenko) that first designed the concept of a universal utilitarian dresscode – the infamous boilersuit viewable here [link].
The reason that it is important to write articles pointing towards the totalitarian elements within Islam is that it is the official policy of all Western governments to deny this.
Indeed in some countries (such as Australia and Britian) it can be a criminal offence to point out the truth – if pointing it out is held to have increased “hatred” for Muslims.
There is also (in Britian) the legal duty to promote “harmony” in all public institutions (since 2000) – any claim (however true) may get someone fired from employment in a school or college (or other public institution) if it is held to have undermined “harmony”.
As for distinctive dress for nonMuslims this is old news. Under the Pact of Omar nonMuslims were allowed to live (the normal policy of “the Prophet” was to kill them) under various conditions.
Out of this developed the ideas of special taxes, not being allowed to own weapons, churches to be less impressive than Muslim holy buildings, restrictions on the ownership of horses…… – and distictive dress codes.
In Europe Christians soon took up the ideas and applied them to Jews.
The horrific crimes committed by Christians over the centuries are well known.
However, there are two important differences between Christianity and Islam.
Firstly it is rather difficult to justify the crimes of Christians by citing the New Testiment – justifying attacks on nonMuslims by citing the Koran is easy (certainly there are verses in the Koran which can be held to support peaceful coexistance – but there are a lot of kill-kill verses as well).
Secondly there is the different character of the founders of the two religions.
Some have held that Jesus did not exist – but no one has ever claimed he was a killer.
M. was a killer. He may have been a killer for very good reasons (to claim Arabia for God by defeating and taking over non Muslim towns), but he was a killer (and on a very big scale). He also enslaved, took (non Muslim) women by force and so on.
If a Christian rapes, enslaves or murders (and many have) one can say “would Jesus have done that?” – and at least the Christian can not say “yes he would – he did such things a lot”.
Ken Hagler-
I followed your link and it has all the hallmarks of a kook Left Wing blog, replete with fetishistic focus on Amir Taheri’s associates at his think tank and commentariat quackery about the evil neo-con conspirators vis-a vis Iraq war.
I am immediately suspicious of those who fein suspicion of reported evil wrought by evil goverments.
I recall that the leading newspapers in the USA have at various times; ridiculed reports of Stalinist terror famines of the 1930’s, ridiculed reports of Nazi deathcamps, ridiculed reports of the Cambodian killing fields, and to this day, use Al Qaida talking points to inform their coverage of Iraq.
I think I would believe Taheri before the various fascist simpathizers masquerading as commentators.
I think the term Islamo-fascist is perfectly appropriate, because it doesn’t treat all Muslims as one group. Moderate, secular Muslims are exempt from the category. The term is precise, descriptive, and fair.
“Kirche, Kuche, Kinder.” “Juden Tot” Perhaps the term Islamo-Nazi is more exact?