More Islamofascism

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
121

[quote]lixy wrote:
dhickey wrote:
lixy wrote:
dhickey wrote:
An Islamic state would be a theocracy if islam were only a religion and the church ran the state.

Do you even know what theocracy means?

I thought i did. I am not sure where you think I am incorrect. I guess the church doesn’t have to run the state but generally in the theocracy those that govern also hold similar positions in the church.

“Theocracy is a form of government in which a ‘god’ or ‘deity’ is recognized as the supreme civil ruler. For believers, theocracy is a form of government in which divine power governs an earthly human state, either in a personal incarnation or, more often, via religious institutional representatives (i.e., a church), replacing or dominating civil government.”

Do you see how wrong your statement was or do you need it broken down?

Anyway, there is no equivalent to the Church in Islam. Central authority is frowned upon, and shura (i.e: democratic consultation) is praised. It’s a pity that those who claim to be the guardians of the religion, disregard one of its core teachings. But hey, power corrupt absolutely, right?

What I meant by church is an authority structure with in the religion.

I know what you meant. But in Islam, there is no such thing. The only authority is that of God. Now, seeing how the prophet Mohammed was divinely inspired when he recited the Quran, he gets authority points as well.

Nothing close to that of the Almighty, but enough to get some Muslims to do as he says. The caveat is that with the death of the prophet, Muslims were left with nobody to turn to (natures hates void). And that’s where the unscrupulous and charlatans came in to claim a piece of the cake.

It ranged from claims of blood relations (100% of Arab monarchies claim they descend from Mohammed - bollocks!), to Ali’s next of kin (read: Shi’a), saints, divinely inspired poets and the whole lot.

But even a casual reader of the Quran can see God warning of following anyone but Himself. Of course, once you realize that even in this day and age, most Muslims don’t know Arabic, much less read and write, you may start to understand what it is that those charlatans used for their scheme.

I am not familiar with shura.

Literally, it’s the act of consulting one another before making decisions. In Islam (and more generally in the Arab culture), it’s a synonym of political consultation.

There’s a whole chapter in the Quran that was named after it.

“Those who hearken to their Lord, and establish regular Prayer; who (conduct) their affairs by mutual consultation; who spend out of what We bestow on them for Sustenance” [are praised] – Quran 42:38

It is much more than a religion.

I’d say that Islam is an attitude, a mindset, a way of life, etc. But at the end of the day, and as long as you define religion as a set of beliefs and practices (that’s the consensus in reference books anyhow), then it’s hard to pick anything related to Islam that doesn’t fit that picture.

I didn’t say it wasn’t a religion. I said it is more than a religion.

I can read, you know.

My point was that you can’t say that it’s more than a religion, when religions are defined as “a set of beliefs and practices”. Everything in Islam (or Judaism, Buddhism and even scientology) falls in that description.

If you disagree, please illustrate what is it that, in you mind, makes Islam different from other religions and that prompted you to write that it is “more than a religion”.

You’re a smart fellow. We would all benefit if you would please put more thought into your posts. What you wrote in the previous post seems like a regurgitation of something you heard/read.

I am not sure what you mean. If I didn’t pick things up from reading, what would be the point?

My point is that you seem to have good logical aptitudes. Because of that, I expect you not only to parse everything you read, see or hear through your brain, but also to keep critical eye for stinking BS. Something you clearly failed to do here. You picked up a couple of one-liners and it shows.[/quote]

For too many, it’s more than a religion, rather its a basis for their hatred, bigotry, violence and the suppression of others. Submit or else.

Like the guy who beats his wife because she retroussé her Islamic veil because of the heat, or worse, the ever growing list of honor killings.

http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atlas_shrugs/honor_killings_islam_misogyny/

Not sure why its worth quibbling over the word Islamofacism. If Muslims want to bring their religion into the 21st century, curbing the violence might be a good place to start.

122

[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:
orion wrote:
…

You simply must learn the difference between sophistry and sophistication.

Not only were FDR measures fascist measures, and that was openly admitted by his followers and opponenst, I also did not post the American children doing the Roman salute for fun.

If you think you can simply dismiss this with a snippy post, good luck.

Do you aspire to be the Mick28 with brains?

Something must not be true therefore it cannot be true?

Want me to post about the American eugenics program next?

America flirted heavily with fascism, get over it.

So predictable, and as predicted, from Our “Sophisticate” more crap and twaddle, impugn my intelligence, and tries to compare the US unfavorably to defend his bizarre notions.

SO our great Sophisticate, who has never set foot in the US, who derives “99,9” of his knowledge from the internet, who does not earn his money through work–well, he sites unnamed sources and “fascist measures,” not to advance a line of reasoning, but just as a display of US-bashing. Epithets. Empty.

(The American eugenics "program? " This has exactly what to to with FDR? The Democratic Party of the 1930s? A federal law? The subject of this of this thread? Was it a social movement of the same masticators who thought graham crackers were a cure for libido? That is fascism?)

You need to read a book, “Sophistiate” Orion. Any book, really. Try one on Lincoln, your erstwhile specialty. You have no clue about US history. Get over it.

[/quote]

OK, so you are Mick28 intellectual stepbrother.

If you care to make an argument beyond “it is so, because I say so” I will reply.

If not, I won´t.

To be constantly insulted because I threaten someone else’s point of view is kind of amusing but that wears of pretty quickly.

I am not responsible for someones lack of education, his degree of indoctrination or his level of emotional maturity.

123


At a signal from the Principal the pupils, in ordered ranks, hands to the side, face the Flag. Another signal is given; every pupil gives the flag the military salute – right hand lifted, palm downward, to a line with the forehead and close to it. Standing thus, all repeat together, slowly, “I pledge allegiance to my Flag and the Republic for which it stands; one Nation indivisible, with Liberty and Justice for all.” At the words, “to my Flag,” the right hand is extended gracefully, palm upward, toward the Flag, and remains in this gesture till the end of the affirmation; whereupon all hands immediately drop to the side. Then, still standing, as the instruments strike a chord, all will sing AMERICA- “My Country, tis of Thee.”

Source: The Youth’s Companion, 65 (1892): 446-447

After reciting the Pledge students were often instructed to say:

“One Country! One Language! One Flag!”

124

386×865 71.3 KB

…

125

401×599 59 KB

…

126

…

127

420×618 50.2 KB

A publication, warning against the eternal threat of the Jew, funded by Henry Ford…

128

Looks familiar?

129

[quote]orion wrote:

…[/quote]

As you continue to demonstrate unchartered ignorance on all things American, your picture of the Klan rally outside the Capitol building isn’t evidence of “totalitarianism” at all - such a demonstration was a private matter done under th auspices of the First Amendment, not a government event.

The day after could have hosted an NAACP or an Anti-Defamation League march all the same - and it would be as much evidence of “fascism”.

Oh, and quick fact-in-point on your “evidence”, since you’re too dim to know the difference - the KKK wanted a smaller federal government and were states’ rights advocates. They weren’t interested in taking over DC to introduce a totalitarian state so much as they wanted to trim the sails of the federal state to return state power with a primary goal of engineering white power through state and local governments.

In either words, they were fellow travelers in the “libertarian” mold, not overarching “fascists” who wanted a centralized state.

That’s why all the idiot anti-government white power types were Ron Paul backers.

Can you remember when you got something right? Me neither.

130 
* Previous
* Index
* Next

* Print
* Share
* Add to MyMises
* Subscribe

Three New Deals: Why the Nazis and Fascists Loved FDR

Daily Article by David Gordon | Posted on 9/22/2006

Three New Deals: Reflections on Roosevelt's America, Mussolini's Italy, and Hitler's Germany, 1933-1939. By Wolfgang Schivelbusch. Metropolitan Books, 2006. 242 pgs.

Critics of Roosevelt’s New Deal often liken it to fascism. Roosevelt’s numerous defenders dismiss this charge as reactionary propaganda; but as Wolfgang Schivelbusch makes clear, it is perfectly true. Moreover, it was recognized to be true during the 1930s, by the New Deal’s supporters as well as its opponents.

When Roosevelt took office in March 1933, he received from Congress an extraordinary delegation of powers to cope with the Depression.

The broad-ranging powers granted to Roosevelt by Congress, before that body went into recess, were unprecedented in times of peace. Through this "delegation of powers," Congress had, in effect, temporarily done away with itself as the legislative branch of government. The only remaining check on the executive was the Supreme Court. In Germany, a similar process allowed Hitler to assume legislative power after the Reichstag burned down in a suspected case of arson on February 28, 1933. (p. 18).

The Nazi press enthusiastically hailed the early New Deal measures: America, like the Reich, had decisively broken with the “uninhibited frenzy of market speculation.” The Nazi Party newspaper, the Völkischer Beobachter, “stressed ‘Roosevelt’s adoption of National Socialist strains of thought in his economic and social policies,’ praising the president’s style of leadership as being compatible with Hitler’s own dictatorial Führerprinzip” (p. 190).

Nor was Hitler himself lacking in praise for his American counterpart. He “told American ambassador William Dodd that he was ‘in accord with the President in the view that the virtue of duty, readiness for sacrifice, and discipline should dominate the entire people. These moral demands which the President places before every individual citizen of the United States are also the quintessence of the German state philosophy, which finds its expression in the slogan “The Public Weal Transcends the Interest of the Individual”’” (pp. 19-20). A New Order in both countries had replaced an antiquated emphasis on rights.

Mussolini, who did not allow his work as dictator to interrupt his prolific journalism, wrote a glowing review of Roosevelt’s Looking Forward. He found “reminiscent of fascism �?� the principle that the state no longer leaves the economy to its own devices”; and, in another review, this time of Henry Wallace’s New Frontiers, Il Duce found the Secretary of Agriculture’s program similar to his own corporativism (pp. 23-24).

Roosevelt never had much use for Hitler, but Mussolini was another matter. “‘I don’t mind telling you in confidence,’ FDR remarked to a White House correspondent, ‘that I am keeping in fairly close touch with that admirable Italian gentleman’” (p. 31). Rexford Tugwell, a leading adviser to the president, had difficulty containing his enthusiasm for Mussolini’s program to modernize Italy: “It’s the cleanest �?� most efficiently operating piece of social machinery I’ve ever seen. It makes me envious” (p. 32, quoting Tugwell).

Why did these contemporaries sees an affinity between Roosevelt and the two leading European dictators, while most people today view them as polar opposites? People read history backwards: they project the fierce antagonisms of World War II, when America battled the Axis, to an earlier period. At the time, what impressed many observers, including as we have seen the principal actors themselves, was a new style of leadership common to America, Germany, and Italy.

Once more we must avoid a common misconception. Because of the ruthless crimes of Hitler and his Italian ally, it is mistakenly assumed that the dictators were for the most part hated and feared by the people they ruled. Quite the contrary, they were in those pre-war years the objects of considerable adulation. A leader who embodied the spirit of the people had superseded the old bureaucratic apparatus of government.

When the Supreme Court Stopped
Economic Fascism in America

http://64.233.161.104/search?q=cache:fHF_o54pFCEJ:www.fee.org/pdf/the-freeman/1005RME

When Franklin Roosevelt ran for
president in the autumn of 1932 he did
so on a Democratic Party platform that
many a classical liberal might have glad-
ly supported and even voted for. The
platform said that the federal govern-
ment was far too big,taxed and spent far
too much, and intruded in the affairs of
the states to too great an extent. It said government
spending had to be cut, taxes reduced, and the federal
budget balanced.It called for free trade and a solid gold-
backed currency.
But as soon as Roosevelt took office in March 1933
he instituted a series of programs and policies that
turned all those promises upside down. In the first four
years of FDR�??s New Deal, taxes were increased, govern-
ment spending reached heights never seen before in U.S.
history,and the federal budget bled red with deficits.The
bureaucracy ballooned; public-works projects increas-
ingly dotted the land; and the heavy hand of govern-
ment was all over industry and agriculture.The United
States was taken off the gold standard, with the Ameri-
can people compelled to turn in their gold coin and bul-
lion to the government for paper money under the
threat of confiscation and imprisonment.
In June 1933 Congress passed the National Industri-
al Recovery Act (NIRA), after which FDR created the
National Recovery Administration (NRA).Modeled on
Mussolini�??s fascist economic system,it forced virtually all
American industry, manufacturing, and retail business
into cartels possessing the power to set prices and wages,
and to dictate the levels of produc-
tion.Within a few months over 200
separate pricing and production
codes were imposed on the various
branches of American business.
The symbol of the NRA was a
Blue Eagle that had lightning bolts in
one claw and an industrial gear in
the other. Every business in the
country was asked to have a Blue
Eagle sign in its window that
declared, �??We Do Our Part,�?? mean-
ing it followed the pricing and pro-
duction codes. Citizen committees
were formed to spy on local mer-
chants and report if they dared to sell at lower prices.
Propaganda rallies in support of the NRA were held
across the country. During halftime at football games
cheerleaders would form the shape of the Blue Eagle.
Government-sponsored parades featured Hollywood
stars supporting the NRA. At one of these parades the
famous singer Al Jolson was filmed being asked what he
thought of the NRA; he replied, �??NRA? NRA? Why
it�??s better than my wedding night!�??Film shorts produced
by Hollywood in support of the NRA were shown in
theaters around the country; in one of them child star
Shirley Temple danced and sang the praises of big-gov-
ernment regulation of the American economy

131

[quote]lixy wrote:

“Theocracy is a form of government in which a ‘god’ or ‘deity’ is recognized as the supreme civil ruler. For believers, theocracy is a form of government in which divine power governs an earthly human state, either in a personal incarnation or, more often, via religious institutional representatives (i.e., a church), replacing or dominating civil government.”

Do you see how wrong your statement was or do you need it broken down?
[/quote]

Thanks for the link.

A theocracy may be monist in form, where the administrative hierarchy of the government is identical with the administrative hierarchy of the religion, or it may have two ‘arms,’ but with the state administrative hierarchy subordinate to the religious hierarchy.

I am interested in the teachings of quran and read as much as I can, but am even more interested in how it is practiced.

[quote
Literally, it’s the act of consulting one another before making decisions. In Islam (and more generally in the Arab culture), it’s a synonym of political consultation.

There’s a whole chapter in the Quran that was named after it.

“Those who hearken to their Lord, and establish regular Prayer; who (conduct) their affairs by mutual consultation; who spend out of what We bestow on them for Sustenance” [are praised] – Quran 42:38
[/quote]
I have actually read that sura. Don’t think I got it the first time so thank you.

[quote]

I can read, you know.

My point was that you can’t say that it’s more than a religion, when religions are defined as “a set of beliefs and practices”. Everything in Islam (or Judaism, Buddhism and even scientology) falls in that description.

If you disagree, please illustrate what is it that, in you mind, makes Islam different from other religions and that prompted you to write that it is “more than a religion”.
[/qutoe]
I am not really interested in going down this path. How about this. If you define religion by the standard of Christianity, Judism, hinduism, or any other religion on the planet, Islam is more than a religion. If you deny that the others don’t measure up as religion then fine…Islam is a religion according to wikipedia.

[quote]
My point is that you seem to have good logical aptitudes. Because of that, I expect you not only to parse everything you read, see or hear through your brain, but also to keep critical eye for stinking BS. Something you clearly failed to do here. You picked up a couple of one-liners and it shows.[/quote]
I don’t think I presented any stinking bs or picked up any one-liners. I read from many sources and form my own opinion. Just opinion. Some posts I may put a lot of thought into, some I may not. Just like yourself and every other person on here.

132

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
orion wrote:

…

As you continue to demonstrate unchartered ignorance on all things American, your picture of the Klan rally outside the Capitol building isn’t evidence of “totalitarianism” at all - such a demonstration was a private matter done under th auspices of the First Amendment, not a government event.

The day after could have hosted an NAACP or an Anti-Defamation League march all the same - and it would be as much evidence of “fascism”.

Oh, and quick fact-in-point on your “evidence”, since you’re too dim to know the difference - the KKK wanted a smaller federal government and were states’ rights advocates. They weren’t interested in taking over DC to introduce a totalitarian state so much as they wanted to trim the sails of the federal state to return state power with a primary goal of engineering white power through state and local governments.

In either words, they were fellow travelers in the “libertarian” mold, not overarching “fascists” who wanted a centralized state.

That’s why all the idiot anti-government white power types were Ron Paul backers.

Can you remember when you got something right? Me neither.

[/quote]

Yeah, you are a pompous ass but at least you know how to make an argument.

Since my expectation drop by the hour, or more precisely whenever two certain gentleman post, that counts for something.

It is true that the KKK had no economic program as such, or at least no fascist one that I know of, however, since a lot of people seem to think that “fascism” requires a certain attitude towards Jews, foreigners and other races, these pictures are on topic.

Do you also agree that the US never ever had a fling with fascism?

Or that you can rightly call Islamo-Fascism Islamo-Fascism?

Or are you of the “I do not like what you say so I will insult you but not try to actually argue with you.”

In other words, has American soundbite politics turned your brain to mush?

Say it isn´t so!

133

[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:

(Comparing to FDR to fascism is errant nonsense. Lets not be childish here. A powerful central government is not the same as a Fascist state.)

[/quote]

Boy, he got us damn close. Socialism while keeping the appearance of private ownership. Maybe we could say he had facist tendancies if you prefer.

The problem is there are very distinct lines between Socialism, Facism, and Free Market Capitalism. No one today is going to fit clearly in any of these. If someone leans more towards Facism then I would call them a facist.

134

[quote]orion wrote:

It is true that the KKK had no economic program as such, or at least no fascist one that I know of, however, since a lot of people seem to think that “fascism” requires a certain attitude towards Jews, foreigners and other races, these pictures are on topic.[/quote]

So, what you are saying is:

  1. You were flatly wrong

  2. Now you are trying to scramble and dodge

Look, when you march in with such pathetic examples, your credibility is shot - whatever you had w/r/t to all things American as such.

It’s hard to take you seriously when you err this badly. The KKK are the heirs of the Confederacy and make all the same arguments you have made in defense of the Confederacy, so by your own definition, you are more of a fascist than the country you spend most of your stoned hours trying to denigrate.

These pictures aren’t on topic at all - they are examples of the systematic tolerance of dissent under the First Amendment, which isn’t fascism at all. In fact, the opposite.

The US came very close to a heavy dose of statism under FDR, but the US did not have the totalitarian ambitions of a Communism or a Fascism in a way that defines Fascism.

Yes, you can - the phrase is apt.

Well, you know better, since I have scraped you off the bottom of my shoe more times than I count, but to your point - it has nothing to do with “not liking what you say”…I don’t even respect much of what you say, let alone like it, when you waltz in with such laughable levels of ignorance on topics you smugly address.

Namely, anything related to the US. There are plenty of good conversations to have related to criticism of the US - unfortunately, you aren’t equipped to provide it.

135

[quote]dhickey wrote:
lixy wrote:

“Theocracy is a form of government in which a ‘god’ or ‘deity’ is recognized as the supreme civil ruler. For believers, theocracy is a form of government in which divine power governs an earthly human state, either in a personal incarnation or, more often, via religious institutional representatives (i.e., a church), replacing or dominating civil government.”

Do you see how wrong your statement was or do you need it broken down?

Thanks for the link.

A theocracy may be monist in form, where the administrative hierarchy of the government is identical with the administrative hierarchy of the religion, or it may have two ‘arms,’ but with the state administrative hierarchy subordinate to the religious hierarchy. [/quote]

How do you link this to your original statement that “Islamic state would be a theocracy if islam were only a religion and the church ran the state”?

You put a condition on describing states as theocracies, which you neither explained nor retracted.

That’s fair. But I beg of you to not amalgamate the two. It’s a very slippery slope.

[quote]I can read, you know.

My point was that you can’t say that it’s more than a religion, when religions are defined as “a set of beliefs and practices”. Everything in Islam (or Judaism, Buddhism and even scientology) falls in that description.

If you disagree, please illustrate what is it that, in you mind, makes Islam different from other religions and that prompted you to write that it is “more than a religion”.

I am not really interested in going down this path. How about this. If you define religion by the standard of Christianity, Judism, hinduism, or any other religion on the planet, Islam is more than a religion. If you deny that the others don’t measure up as religion then fine…Islam is a religion according to wikipedia. [/quote]

Judism[sic]? You have got to be kidding me! Judaism is way more encompassing and detailed than the Mohammedian message. Way more!

Just out of curiosity, do you ascribe yourself to any faith?

[quote]My point is that you seem to have good logical aptitudes. Because of that, I expect you not only to parse everything you read, see or hear through your brain, but also to keep critical eye for stinking BS. Something you clearly failed to do here. You picked up a couple of one-liners and it shows.

I don’t think I presented any stinking bs or picked up any one-liners. I read from many sources and form my own opinion. Just opinion. [/quote]

When you say that “Islam is much more than a religion”, I question how much thoughts went into forming your own opinion. Actually, the fact that you refused to substantiate it demonstrates parroting rather than critical thinking.

True. I wrote a lot of crap over the 6000+ posts I have here, but when I get called on it, I don’t invoke inevitable mediocrity to excuse it. I take it like a (T-?)man and make amends if need be.

136

[quote]orion wrote:
No, they are a run of the mill, authoritarian, but not totalitarian (i.e again, not fascist) regime.[/quote]

Ok you win.

but…

Islamo-authoritarian doesn’t have the nice ring to it.

137

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
orion wrote:

…

As you continue to demonstrate unchartered ignorance on all things American, your picture of the Klan rally outside the Capitol building isn’t evidence of “totalitarianism” at all - such a demonstration was a private matter done under th auspices of the First Amendment, not a government event.

The day after could have hosted an NAACP or an Anti-Defamation League march all the same - and it would be as much evidence of “fascism”.

Oh, and quick fact-in-point on your “evidence”, since you’re too dim to know the difference - the KKK wanted a smaller federal government and were states’ rights advocates. They weren’t interested in taking over DC to introduce a totalitarian state so much as they wanted to trim the sails of the federal state to return state power with a primary goal of engineering white power through state and local governments.

In either words, they were fellow travelers in the “libertarian” mold, not overarching “fascists” who wanted a centralized state.

That’s why all the idiot anti-government white power types were Ron Paul backers.

Can you remember when you got something right? Me neither.

[/quote]

The Sophisticate–or is it Poseur?–Orion, you see, is offended that we do not rise as one and proclaim him the wisest man since the Renaissance.
He simply cannot comprehend American pluralism and he is not interested in reading beyond his ideologically polluted websites.

But, he can, as predicted, produce a slew of disconnected motes, from dubious (to say the least) sources.I choose not to address this purposeless minutiae which falsely likens the KKK or the NRA to a totalitarian state. Friend TB, disputing his silly points serves only his ego, and not the subject of the thread.

138

[quote]lixy wrote:

A theocracy may be monist in form, where the administrative hierarchy of the government is identical with the administrative hierarchy of the religion, or it may have two ‘arms,’ but with the state administrative hierarchy subordinate to the religious hierarchy.

How do you link this to your original statement that “Islamic state would be a theocracy if islam were only a religion and the church ran the state”?

You put a condition on describing states as theocracies, which you neither explained nor retracted.
[/quote]
You asked what a theocracy was, I gave you my understanding of a theocracy. You posted part of a wiki description and said it didn’t jive with my description, I posted the second paragraph in that same article that I thought came pretty close to my description. I didn’t think Isamism matched my original description of theocracy.

I’ll try.

I will take your word for it as I have not done as much research on Judaism yet.

I do not ascribe to any religion. I grew up luthern and went to a bastist school for a bit, but I find most of it to be hooey. I did just read the bible again recently. Painful but interesting to read it as an adult.

[quote]
When you say that “Islam is much more than a religion”, I question how much thoughts went into forming your own opinion. Actually, the fact that you refused to substantiate it demonstrates parroting rather than critical thinking.
[/quote] How do you figuer. Maybe critical thinking went into my abreiveated post. I guess you’ll never know.

139

[quote]Gkhan wrote:
orion wrote:
No, they are a run of the mill, authoritarian, but not totalitarian (i.e again, not fascist) regime.

Ok you win.

but…

Islamo-authoritarian doesn’t have the nice ring to it.[/quote]

Maybe I am going about this the wrong way.

I will think of something that can be used to bomb people but is not entirely wrong.

140

[quote]Gkhan wrote:
Islamo-authoritarian doesn’t have the nice ring to it.[/quote]

Islamotarian?