Will Islamo-fascism follow anarchism’s path?
The analogy has been made before and made by many: Islamo-fascism is to Islam what the Ku Klux Klan is to Christinanity.
Hezbollah bullies unarmed opponents in Lebanon. The Klan did the same. Both organizations rely on fear and murder — in other words, they are terrorists.
Where they differ: Islamo-fascism is transnational phenomenon while the Klan was/is a domestic organization, though one assuming a nationalist agenda of sorts (ie, that of the Confederate States of America).
Muslim friends of mine argue that Bin Ladenism and Hezbollahism pervert Islam to personal and political ends. I agree. Three years ago an Iraqi Muslim told me he understood why many Westerners used the term “Islamism” to differentiate between Islam and “political uses of the Muslim faith” but he wished there was another term. I told him I understood his gripe but to take it up with The Economist. As I recollect The Economist began using the term “Islamist” in 1995 or 1996. We didn’t discuss the term Islamo-fascist. It may well be offensive to many, which is regrettable at one level, but Isalmo-fascism is offensive, and the linkage of Bin Laden and Tehran’s mullahs to 20th century Fascist ideology and movements legitimate. Bin Laden’s and Hezbollah’s apologists don’t want them called terrorists, either. The KKK objected to the “terrorist” label. In their own minds KKK grand dragons and kleagles were knights fighting for the values of the Old South. (Fascists organizations often have an imperial restorationist rhetorical pitch and political platform. Mussolini certainly did and Bin Laden does.)
At the moment Islamo-fascism also shares many similarities with the transnational anarchist movement of the late 19th and early 20th centuries.
I consider those similarities in this week’s Creators Syndicate column (via StrategyPage).
Key excerpt:
The Islamo-fascists aren’t the first international mass murder movement to deserve the moniker of “death cult.” In the late 19th and early 20th centuries, trans-national anarchists touted “politics of the bomb” and “propaganda by deed.”
The anarchists spilled blood — over a seven-year period (1894-1901) they killed a French president, a Spanish prime minister, an Italian king and a U.S. president (William McKinley). However, they failed to ignite a global revolution that they claimed would produce an earthly paradise of justice once the ancien regimes disappeared in flames. The anarchists believed their own propaganda, and by doing so misjudged the enormous strengths of liberal capitalist democracies. They totally underestimated the United States.
Unfortunately, the anarchists’ agitprop techniques inform contemporary terrorists, and the dregs of its half-baked philosophies continue to deform a few lost corners of human culture. A romantic notion of anarchist violence energizes much of the radical-chic rhetoric emanating from American college campuses, providing pseudo-intellectual tropes for anti-Americanism and “anti-globalization.”
These are the rear-guard actions of a dead-end ideology posing as the avant-garde.
And there’s more.
This is what often leaves me uneasy when reading Ann Coulter and Michelle Malkin when they discuss Islam. They have judged the entire religion by a very small number of fanatics (when compared to the total number of adherents to that religion). It led to a gross injustice to one of our most important allies in the war on terror, and that is not a good thing. I think the President had been right about the type of war - and in his approach to it. Second-guessing and grousing from various sources aside.
Comment by Harold C. Hutchison — 7/26/2006 @ 7:09 am
[…] Courtesy of Austin Bay: […]
Pingback by NoisyRoom.net » Blog Archive » Will Islamo-fascism follow anarchism’s path? — 7/26/2006 @ 12:39 pm
I hope that it is just a small minority who are supportive of Islamo-fascist (or anarchic) actions. After the London Bombings there was polling data that seemed to indicate it is something to worry about. It showed a large minority in the 30% range (can’t remember exactly) who are silently supportive of such actions. Is the minority of Muslims who are willing to take part in such actions larger than the minority of Muslims who work to combat the extremists in their community? Seems like yes. In any event, what is the responsibility of Muslims to police their own? I have a hard time believing that the small minority of terrorists has been as successful as they are without at least a shameful acquiescence to their goals by the general Muslim population
Comment by AGrad — 7/26/2006 @ 4:08 pm
We almost have this war won…. Syria and Iran remain. We need to smack them now and change their governments before Iran gets the bomb. There is little doubt that the Islamic-facists are doing what the Koran tells them. Fortunately, most Muslims ignore those parts. We just need to make sure that the people who follow the icky parts of the Koran aren’t in charge of any nation. -NeoKen
Comment by NeoKen — 7/26/2006 @ 4:09 pm
I don’t mean to be snide but what leaves me uneasy is the endless terrorism by every stripe of Muslim from Indonesia to Morocco.The vast swarms of non-terrorist Muslims never seem to do much except complain endlessly that Islam is being defamed by the continued existance of Isreal.The total number of Waffen-SS was pretty small compared to the number of Germans too,wasn’t it? However,In that war our primary consideration wasn’t the health and safety of the wives and children of the Wermacht.Remember Dresden? We will begin to win this war when we are willing to treat enemy civilians the way they want treat ours.
Comment by Xennady — 7/26/2006 @ 4:15 pm
There is a good argument that the Russian students who killed the tsar(Alexander II) in 1881 were anarchists, and that the anarchists (e.g. Emma Goldman) were essentially allied with communists. One could, of course, argue that later their communist allies killed them (in both Russia and Barcelona) but that’s beside the point… So the comparison is not exactly comforting… ED NOTE: Excellent comment. Thanks for making it. By the way, the comments function on this site does have a number of problems. The spam filter won’t stay “set.” Our webmaster tried a fix over the weekend. I see that a number of excellent comments still got rejected as spam. Sorry about that but the spam tsunami is simply too large to turn off the “hard filter.”
Comment by boinkie — 7/26/2006 @ 4:17 pm
What is disturbing about Islamism/fascism and the larger Islamic culture is the degree to which the latter apparently tolerates the former. You couldn’t say the same about the KKK and much of Christianity at the time - indeed, it was the ‘liberal Christians of the day who drove the abolitionist movement and the subsequent civil rights movement that was the antithesis of the KKK. Where is the comparable Islamic opposition to the Islamofascists?
Comment by R C Dean — 7/26/2006 @ 4:19 pm
Nicely put, but the students who attend said colleges don’t represent “a few lost corners of human culture.” Their addresses are on cultural main street. And only time will tell how effectively this frowsty rearguard has been in its efforts at inculcation. I hate that.
Comment by denny flood — 7/26/2006 @ 4:24 pm
The term ‘Jihadism’ doesn’t have the same issue as ‘Islamism’. Especially if you make it ‘militant Jihadism’. There’s no reference to the Religion Of Peace, and the purely intellectual ‘I fight internally to better myself’ form of Jihad is weeded out by the additional adjective. Even threatening force against ‘Jihadists’ is by definition self-defense. ‘I am willing to use force against someone who desires militant conquest’. What a shocking statement.
Comment by Al — 7/26/2006 @ 4:26 pm
Other, more well read, commentators may know, but didn’t Dostoevsky write a fictionalize account of 19th century anarchists called The Devils? There does indeed seem to be an uncanny resemblance to Islamist extremists and 19th century anarchists. And I agree: there’s not much new in Islamist ideology or in the correctly identified radical chic of the college campus. ED NOTE: Yes, Dostoevsky did. Conrad’s Secret Agent is another novelistic treatment of the anarcho-terrorist. FWIW, Walter Laqueur (sp?) in his presicent 1996 Foreign Affairs article on post-modern terrorism began that article with a treatment of the anarchist “terror triumphs.” The Economist covered the anarchist/Islamo-fascist similarities in a short essay last year. I don’t have a link handy (a lot of Economist material is behind a subscriber wall) but the Economist essay discusses Dostoevsky and Conrad. I attended a counter-terror conference last year where the anarchist comparison was made several times. Jim Dunnigan has also made it at StrategyPage.com. Â
Comment by Maud Gale — 7/26/2006 @ 4:31 pm
Harold, You are wrong. They correctly identify this as a true element of Islam, even though just a fraction actually resort to violence. Just hear Neal Boortz’s assessment here. http://www.msunderestimated.com/2006/07/20/where-is-the-muslim-outrage-by-neal-boortz-video/ So called ‘moderate’ Muslims merely make excuses and blame the West for their own self-inflictied failings, condoning the actions of terrorists.
Comment by Twok — 7/26/2006 @ 4:45 pm
Out of respect for moderate muslims, I use “Jihadism” to describe what others call “Islamism”. I think it’s more neutral and descriptive.
Comment by Joe K. — 7/26/2006 @ 4:56 pm
I grow increasingly suspicious when I hear it said of Islam nutters that they are but a small minority…what have American muslims said thus far about Hezbollah? In Israel, there has been at least one anti-war protest. I read of Muslims in Indonesia cheering on Hezbollah, and I see on tv arabs shooting guns in the air and handing out candies when they learn an Israeli has been killed. In sum: there arethose who oppose things (azs Eli Wiesel said) and those who support things. And worst of all: those who do and say nothing. I seem to find only those who say nothing or those who support what is going on worldwide.
Comment by fred lapides — 7/26/2006 @ 5:23 pm
Your column says the anarchists “failed to ignite a global revolution”, but what about Gavrilo Princip? He assasinated Archduke Ferdinand, which was the spark that started World War I, though I wouldn’t call it the “cause”. I think modern day Islamo-Fascists are trying to provoke a similar conflagration–the “clash of civilizations”–by driving wedges between countries like Saudi Arabia, Iran, Iraq on the one hand, and the West on the other. On their own, the Islamo-fascists don’t have the power to wage a world war. But they might goad others into it. And give them an atomic bomb and all bets are off. What would Gavrilo Princip or Leon Czolgosz do with an atom bomb? ED NOTE: You classify Princip as an anarchist. Others call him a Serb nationalist. I’ll buy anarchist. In fact, in my first draft I included Princip but decided the 1894-1901 run made the point. Thanks for the fine comment, by the way. Do the I-Fs want global conflagration or global domination? Does conflagration lead to Islamo-fascist domination? As you suggest, in twisted minds it may. The anarchists thought conflagration would produce their revolution.
Comment by Jeff Bennion — 7/26/2006 @ 5:38 pm
Oh, when will this “you can’t judge by a minority etc etc.” shibboleth go away? If Islam can’t be held responsible for the actions of a few “extremists”, then it, by extension can’t be credited with the civility of its “moderates” either. You can’t just pick and choose which of a given creed’s professed adherents are “genuine” just to suit some preconception about that creed. Taken to its ultimate conclusion, this sort of thing means that Islam is of no consequence in the behaviours of its adherents. (What, then, does it mean for someone to call himself Muslim?) Ideas are like roads; each person following that road has control over how quickly they travel, when and where to stop, and whether to switch roads entirely. But they do not control where the road goes; that is determined by the internal logic of those ideas. So, if you want to know where that road goes, you look at the road, not the traffic. The “don’t judge the religion by its fanatics” crowd never seems to do that.  ED NOTE: I know many Muslims (lots of Muslims) and have spent a lot of time in Muslim countries. I’ve also worn the uniform and fought terrorists. There’s no way a fair mind can call me soft on terrorists. By the way, I like you line “If Islam can’t be held responsible for the actions of a few “extremists”, then it, by extension can’t be credited with the civility of its “moderates” either.” There’s a lot of truth in that. But the vast majority of Muslims I know personally (in fact every Muslim I know personally) sees Hezbollahism and Bin Ladenism as violent apostasies. I’ve been “the lone Christian in a Muslim room” and I was among good friends. I’ve written about “second day conversations in the third world.” A number of Muslims who spouted the anti-American line came back to me, after they got to know me, and told me that they appreciated my honesty and the way I disputed them, even on the tough subject of Israel. In fact they wanted to talk to an American about how their own world might change.
Comment by Seerak — 7/26/2006 @ 6:12 pm
THE SIMILARITIES BETWEEN TODAYS TERRORISTS AND THE ANARCHISTS OF 1900 ARE JUST TOO REAL TO BE IGNORED BY ANYONE OTHER THAN THE INTELLECTUAL ELITES AND ACADEMICS. I EXPLORED THIS TOPIC AT UNCOMMON SENSE (TCMINC.BLOGSPOT.COM) ON JULY 26,2006. THE TERRORIST DENIERS OF THE WORLD ARE UNITED IN THEIR BLINDNESS.
Comment by CAROLYN MCLAUGHLIN — 7/26/2006 @ 6:28 pm
I’ve read that Baathism was directly founded upon the principles of German National Socialism. Doesn’t that make them Arab Nazis? Sounds fascist to me. ED NOTE: Baathism was decidedly influenced by Italian Fascism. But in my opinion that’s close enough to a Nazi to validate your point.
Comment by Darrell — 7/26/2006 @ 6:31 pm
I live in a very racially and religiously homogeneous part of the country. The few Middle Easterners I have met are highly educated naturalized Americans, and not practicing Muslims. What I would like to know is- Have you ever directly asked your Muslim friends WHY there is no visible condemnation of the terrorists in their midsts, if (in private) there are so many that seem to be moderate? I have three theories: 1. As many commentators here insinuate, they tacitly support the terrorists. I don’t know enough to say whether this is accurate or not. 2. They are afraid to speak out. I think this scenario is pretty likely. 3. There is no one high-profile “voice” to be heard, i.e. no Pope or national evangelist. ED NOTE: I think all three theories are in play. My “second day conversations in the third world” usually get to your theory two. I’ve had this story told me to twice, in almost the same words, once in 1981 by a Syrian, a second time by a Jordanian in 1997: “The radicals hold a gun to the moderates’ heads.” Scenario: You live in a place where your brother disappeared for three months, then the secret police showed up to hassle your parents, so you shut up and stay shut up. You live in a place where your cousin got killed because “someone in the regime didn’t like him”– so you shut up. You live in a neighborhood where the terrorists have the guns and the police are totally corrupt (and/or cowards)– so you shut up. You may finally open up to an American friend because you’ve always wanted an American friend. Though this American (he calls himself a Texan)  says with pride he’s a reserve US Army armor officer, though he says he will shoot you if he ever meets you in combat, and though he says in a rather charming manner you are full of hateful, frightened, feudalistic crap (yes, I told one fellow that– and we are friends) –you decide he’s an okay guy because he promises he will never mention by you by your name. And he also says he believes in God. So you spill it. Yes, you are frightened. And you Texan smart guy, I tell you I have good reasons to be frightened. You don’t know what it is like. You live where you can shoot your mouth. And I say, no, thank God, thank Allah, I don’t know what that is like. But if you ever get the chance to change it trust I will do my best to help you.
Comment by angst — 7/26/2006 @ 6:50 pm
I think that you underestimate the influence of the anachists. An anarchist assassinated Archduke Ferdinand, an action which lead sparked WWI. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assassination_in_Sarajevo I hope that Islamists will not ignite a conflagration that kills as many millions as WWI. Interestingly enough WWI lead to the collapse of the Ottoman empire Which lead to the British Mandate in Palestine and the current partitions of the Middle East and the Balfour declaration Further, WWI is recognized as creating the conditions which lead to WWII, Which empowered Hitler and lead to the Shoah The Balfour Declaration and the Shoah, lead to the formation of the modern State of Israel. The formation of the modern State of Israel combined with the post-Ottoman shape of the Middle East and historic Islamic Jew-hatred are major factors in the shape of Islamism today. Connections within connections. The results of the actions of the anarchists of a century ago are still being felt today.
Comment by DocBrown — 7/26/2006 @ 7:02 pm
The similarity most of those violent examples contain is the lack of a central figure to interprete a central dogma or Bible. This allows all in the “religion” to make up their own personal opinion, in the case of Islamofascism personal opinions are called fatwas. It seems to be a fact that all non-centralized movements become violent very quickly and this violence is justified. You mention the KKK which took more than a century to subdue within this country. We have to face the fact that the Muslim “religion” has been repeatedly “hijacked” ever since Muhammad died. The movement itself is violent. Period.
Comment by Howard Veit — 7/26/2006 @ 7:15 pm
I’m reminded of the joke about lawyers- it’s that small 90% who give the rest a bad name. The world is full of Moslems cheering on the actions of bin Laden et al. Even in America, where are the organized protests from American Muslims against terror in the name of Islam? Either the terrorists have cowered the moderate 90%, or- as is more likely- the bulk of the “moderates” are quietly taking pleasure in seeing the US stymied by the terrorists. Here in the Detroit area, home to the largest Arab and Moslem community in the US, we’ve heard a lot of noise about Israel’s attacks on Hezballah in the last week. But there’s been precious little about al-Queda over the last few years. Reading the local English language Arab newspapers one can find pollenty of criticism of the US and Israel, but nothing from the mythical moderates. One wonders what the Arabic language papers have to say.
Comment by Michael Edelman — 7/26/2006 @ 7:26 pm
Only a small number of Muslims are terrorists and the rest go on about their lives, trying to do the best they can with what they have and a lot of help from their families. Replace ‘Muslims’ with ‘Southern plantation/slave owners’. Then,go read the statement in public and see how far that argument takes you.
Comment by middleagedhousewife — 7/26/2006 @ 7:48 pm
Theodore Dalrymple talks about terrorist motivations in parallel with the motivations of the anarchists in Conrad’s The Secret Agent and in John Updike’s Terrorist novel in this insightful essay: http://www.city-journal.org/html/16_3_urbanities-terrorists.html I heartily recommend it as a more detailed exploration of this entry. It is interesting to note that the things that motivate jihadists in the Mideast are quite different from the things that motivate western-born jihadists in France, England and the United States.
Comment by Philip Cassini — 7/26/2006 @ 7:49 pm
Ever since Islamist conquered Christian Lebanon and Christian Palestine in 635AD the movement has shown itself to be nothing but violent.
Comment by syn — 7/26/2006 @ 7:54 pm
The irony of the anarchist violence (and perhaps this applies to the terrorists as well, but it’s too soon to say for certain) is that they completely failed to anticipate the consequences of their actions. For instance, when they killed McKinley, he was replaced by Teddy Roosevelt. As an American, I’d take that trade-off any day of the week. Flash forward to 2001: the terrorists knock down a couple of towers in New York, and we overthrow a couple of tyrannical regimes in their neck of the woods. Why did they fail to anticipate our reaction? This can’t be what they wanted to happen, just like the anarchists never wanted America to have a stronger president.  ED NOTE: Smash– your post answers a subsequent commenter. And by the way, thanks for your service.
Comment by SMASH — 7/26/2006 @ 8:25 pm
“They have judged the entire religion by a very small number of fanatics (when compared to the total number of adherents to that religion).” Harry — That may be… but can you name one corner of the world where Muslims are not raising their hand in terrorist violence against the non-Muslims around them? I’ll spot you Greenland and Antarctica.
Comment by richard mcenroe — 7/26/2006 @ 8:30 pm
In other forums, I’ve said that a better moniker than Islamofascism is “Islamic supremacism.” I say “supremacism” because of articles I’ve read that mention that many Muslims have the attitude that Islam is indeed superior, as a religion and a culture, and they can be a bit arrogant about it. “Supremacism” also covers the fact that Islam is militantly evangelistic. They are keen on converts, but they don’t let anyone out.
Comment by Bob1 — 7/26/2006 @ 8:34 pm
[…] Comparing radical Islam with revolutionary anarchism is a dubious comparison. For one thing, radical Islam shares a degree of support or toleration in the Islamic world that anarchism did not share with the public in the countries that it was a problem in. Another major difference is that radical Islam does not seek to impose a purely theoretical system on society. Rather, there have been successful Islamic theocracies in the past, so there is an inherent seductiveness for many Muslims to the possibility that the goal of the Islamists is in fact attainable. The Islamists enjoy popular support because they are not purely wild-eye zealots like the revolutionary anarchists, but rather they provide many services that protect the poor and at-risk members of their communities. There is a charitable face, a compassionate face that exists alongside the face that is capable of unleashing a horrific violence upon others. By doing so, they have muddied the waters and have introduced a question of relatvism into the conflict with them. It is not hard to see how they have often gained an almost Robin Hoodesque reputation, albeit one that trades tights for C4-strapped jackets. It’s common for conservatives to be so self-assured about the strength of the United States and other liberal democratic states, but there are critical differences that exist between the hayday of revolutionary anarchism and today. For starters, America and its allies–except a few of our Asian allies and Israel–are crippled with self-doubt and a loathing of their roots. Another thing, millions of common people are genuinely unconvinced of not only the importance of the war against all non-liberal manifestations of Islam, but the legitimacy of placing the burden of “human rights violations” on the enemy and those who even tacitly support them. One need only look at the conflict that Israel is in right now to see what I mean. Here is a democratic state, that despite its flaws, provides a clearly liberal and tolerant atmosphere for virtually all citizens. Arabs enjoy more rights and potential for advancement in Israel than they do in any Islamic country. To be an Israeli citizen is the best hope for the good life that the vast majority of Arabs could ever achieve if they stay in the Middle East. Yet Israel is constantly condemned while brutal and backward states are defended by many of the people who should be defending Israel as a champion of modernity in the region. There is a real parallel between people who condemn Israel and those who would condemn say, Britain in World War II in its fight against Germany, because it had serious flaws such as an empire. There is a lot of disingenuous rhetoric from those who claim that Islam is “one of the great religions,” a “religion of peace” and that it is only a minority involved. Austin Bay’s comparison (linked above) between Hezbollah and the KKK does hold up in one respect: both enjoy(ed) popular support where they held/hold sway. It is an unfortunate fact that such groups cannot operate on the level that inspires the terror that they have brought without systematic support from a large minority or a majority. A few percentage of sympathetic Shia would be insufficient to hide or defend Hezbollah from the Lebanese and Israeli armies. Hezbollah would certainly not hold a meaningful chunk of the Lebanese Parliament if it were supported only by a small minority of extremists. Unlike anarchism, Islam contains inherent exhortations to violence. It is possible to be a genuinely peaceful anarchist and principly so without harboring the slightist bit of support for revolutionary and violent anarchism. I think that this is where the two fall apart. Islamism has its roots in Islam, a religion whose on scriptures contain passages that advocate persecution and violence toward non-believers. While other world religions have used violence against unbelievers, I do not know of a single world religion that contains passages in its scripture that advocate generalized violence toward non-believers. Even Judaism’s violent passages are directed at a specific place and specific time, and all excuses for Judao-Christian terrorism and persecution are overridden by very clear and rigid passages against such behavior. To be blunt about it, when other organized religions do these things, they are typically betraying scripture. When Islamists act this way, they are being observant to at least a small degree. Accepting Muslims as part of society because not all of them are violent is beside the point. No one is advocating the outlawing of Islam. However, multiculturalists in particular have been extremely dishonest about all of this. What matters is how many Muslims are willing to actually condemn these violent individuals and support efforts to eliminate them. Merely hypothetical support is worthless. You are either sympathetic on some level to the Islamist guerrillas and terrorists or you are not. It is black and white, for or against. Unfortunately, while we have made a lot of noise grandstanding about “he who is not for us, is against us,” we (especially the Bush Administration) have been conspicuously uncritical of the Wahabi Lobby and infiltration within our own borders! There is unfortunately no easy way to solve this. There is no morally satisfying method for modern elites that doesn’t amount to self-destruction. If we continue the genuflection before the altar of multiculturalism and insist that it’s a passing fad with little support a la revolutionary anarchism, we will be destroyed from within. That route will lead to a build up of supporters, emotional sympathizers and terrorists within our borders and we will be blind to that reality until it becomes painfully clear to the average citizen that terrorists cannot openly operate without popular support. By then, it’ll be too late. The other options, involve soft or hard collective responsibility that could degenerate into outright bigotry as people are deported for merely being Muslim in an area known to harbor sympathies, even if they are very slight. I don’t think that Islamism is going away. It hasn’t gone away for 1,400 years. For 1,400 years, Islam has waged a literal war against non-believers and it has shown no capacity for reform that transcends borders. And we shouldn’t expect it to. One cannot ask the Islamists to rewrite scripture to washa way the passages that preach violence. It is too old as a religion for them to be simply washed away as though they never existed. Instead, it is time to face the fact that there are no convenient comparisons between past struggles and what we face with Islamism. For all of its similarities, it has many differences that are sufficiently fundamental to invalid old tactics. The fact that Islam has carried a sword into non-Islamic lands since its beginning, and that that was nearly 1,400 years ago, should serve as sufficient proof that Islamism is not like Communism, Fascism, Anarchism or any other “ism.” It won’t be stopped through containment because it is first and foremost a religion at heart. Its utopia exists on both sides of eternity. Kill the one, and the other will still exist in the minds of many around the world. So please, enough with the triumphalist rubbish. America very well may lose this war because many other countries that were far more self-confident fell to Islamist expansion. Iran, the remains of the great and officially Zoroastrian Persian Empire, is proof of that. […]
Pingback by Blind Mind’s Eye » Islamism is not like revolutionary anarchism — 7/26/2006 @ 8:42 pm
I have a response to some of this, here.
Comment by MikeT — 7/26/2006 @ 8:43 pm
“Bomb-throwing Anarchists - with Nukes”. Can you say “CoDominium”? Pournelle’s Authoritarian world government, brought to power by the realization that one day, one Nihilist, using some successor to Nukes, will be able to destroy us all.
Comment by E D Maner — 7/26/2006 @ 8:48 pm
Look, you can’t escape the truth here. If there are truly “moderate” Muslims, it’s in spite of Islam and not because of Islam. I’ve read the Koran, I know the history of Mohammed. He wasn’t a man of peace but a warrior and a caravan raider. Just Google the word “Aisha” and its association with Mohammed. This is the kind of man we are dealing with and the religion he founded unfortunately echoes Mohammed’s own dysfunctions. Don’t kid yourself, Islam doesn’t really mean “peace” the way westerners understand the term, but rather it means “submission”, submission to Allah even if by violent means. I’d love to believe that Islamofascism is like the Ku Klux Klan, but wherever mainstream Islam collides with Buddhists, Hindus, Christians, Jews, or even atheists, eventually there will be war. The whole concept of separation of church and state is foreign to adherents of Islam, that’s why there are so many “Islamic regimes” and attempts to turn governments of countries like Iraq and Turkey to Islamic regimes. Wahhabists, Shia, Sunnis and other Islamic sects each have a fairly common concept of jihad. Nothing like that even exists in universal Christianity or even Judaism. If Islam has really been “hijacked” by only a small minority of radical jihadists, then why haven’t the vast majority of sane, 21st Century “moderate” Muslims crushed these pretenders to the “true faith”a and put Islam back on the path of respectability? When Muslim jihadists are scorned the way the Kook Klux Klan is by mainstream Christians and are rendered just as impotent, then I’ll believe that Islam has something to offer to someone searching for a true faith.
Comment by Hankmeister — 7/26/2006 @ 8:54 pm
The essence of the matter: there is no serious way to understand what we face now outside the context of the evolution of late 19th and then 20th-century revolutionary politics. This fact is what makes the exclusive focus on Islam extremely myopic and dangerous.
Comment by Billy Beck — 7/27/2006 @ 8:21 am
There are about one billion Muslims in the world. They rule lands stretching from Gibraltar to Indonesia. We, the West, must come to some kind of terms with them, they are to numerous to ignore. We must either cut a deal with them or we must we kill some of them (or a lot of them). Some of them are sincere religious people who are an asset to any society. Some of them want to kill people and take over the world. How many belong to each group? Is there a majority? If so, who is it? Where is the center? We have seen them on TV dancing in the streets of Gaza as the WTC burned and fell. Surely those Muslims wish us nothing but ill. How many Muslims secretly rejoiced (as opposed to dancing in the streets) at 9/11? How many abhored the slaying of the innocent? How many actually spoke out against the terrorists? Does anyone know? All we know right now is that all the 9/11 terrorists were Muslim. Other than that, we just don’t know which Muslims are trustworthy friends and allies, and which are the enemy. And which are treacherously pretending to be trustworthy friends but are actually ready to act against us as soon as the moment presents itself. We lack a means of distinguishing Muslim friends from Muslim enemies. This hurts, because sometimes we mistake friends for enemies (creating more enemies) and enemies for friends (exposing us to danger). David Starr
Comment by David Starr — 7/27/2006 @ 12:27 pm
Mr. Bay - in your editorial notes to the comments you mention fear as the primary reason moderate Muslims are not working to combat the radicals in their religion. Yet if this was true shouldn’t there be a vibrant anti-Jihadist intellectual and political community in the U.S. and the rest of the western world? I know that someone in Europe would still pay a price to speak out – but shouldn’t there be more than Ayan Hirsi Ali and a few others? Where are the Rosa Parks and Dr. Kings of this struggle? I suppose western cultures are as much to blame in a way. Rather than supporting such voices they are deported (Hirsi Ali) or otherwise disabled by those who should be there allies here in the west. Still, it seems to me that the silence of moderates here in the west feeds the isolationist inclinations of the left. How often do I hear the refrain “You can’t impose democracy on those who don’t want it for themselves.†To the extent Muslims in the west keep silent this is a valid point.
Comment by AGrad — 7/27/2006 @ 12:34 pm
I’ve always thought that these groups should be called “apostate Muslims” since they advocate and engage in suicide and murder. There should be fatwas everywhere against them, and the fact that there aren’t means either that the religion’s clerics are either intimidated or themselves apostate. The kind of regimes they would impose must be presumed to be either that of the Taliban or a new version of Saddam’s state. Either way they are totalitarian.
Comment by AST — 7/28/2006 @ 12:57 pm
Breaking: At Least Two Shot At Seattle Jewish Federation… This doesn’t sound good no matter what the motives were:SEATTLE – At least two people have been shot at the Jewish Federation at 2031 Third Ave. in downtown Seattle. One or two people have been taken into custody but itÂ’s……
Trackback by Ed Driscoll.com — 7/28/2006 @ 7:57 pm
This portrayal of anarchists is inaccurate. The majority of anarchists even back then were against violence and supported nonviolent opposition to the state. A few instances of terrorism were highlighted in yellow journalism to villify the entire movement. I’m sure in European monarchies there were instances of republican terrorism, does that mean the entire republican movement was violent? Most anarchists wanted to raise class consciousness in trade unions until they all launched a massive general strike, crippling the state and capitalism without having to fire a shot by simply refusing en masse to obey it and the workers seizing the means of production.
Anarchy also does not mean there is no organization. It means that power comes from the bottom up, not top down. The workers own the factories and they negotiate with each other through regional assemblies of recallable delegates to decide the distribution of resources. There can be very large, complex organizations created by the voluntary coming together of groups of people living and working at the bottom.
Comment by AZT — 5/19/2009 @ 2:12 am