The importance of “Islamism” to Loafing Oaf (cut/paste)

[Codreanu]

"The significance and danger of the liberals’ and neoconservatives’ use of “Islamism” instead of “Islam” is apparent: as long as we tell ourselves that only a small ideological faction of “Islamists” is our problem, rather than Islam itself, we will fail to see who our real adversary is, and we will fail to defend ourselves from him.

Many of us understand that point. What we don’t yet fully appreciate is how important the “Islamist” construction—or its ridiculous variant, “Islamofascist”—is to the neoconservatives themselves. The essence of neoconservatism is the view that our nation and civilization are nothing but a universalist democratic ideology, equally accessible to every person on the planet. To the neocons, all the substantive realities that constitute our shared existence—religion, history, tradition, culture, constitutionalism, nationhood, peoplehood, our way of life, our way of being—are as nothing. To the neocons, the only real thing is the universalist ideology, plus money (the latter being the theme of Norman Podhoretz’s incredibly vulgar book My Love Affair with America). Since the neocons see our nation as only an ideology, they can only conceive of a threat to our country in ideological terms, that is, as a false ideology that is opposing our true ideology. They cannot conceive that a people or a culture or a religion could be a threat to us, because people, culture, religion and other such substantive realities are not real to the neocons; only ideology is real. And this is why they call our enemy “Islamism” (which is an ideology) instead of Islam (which a religion and, according to the teachings of Islam itself, a nation).

The neocons’ ideological view of reality served America well during the Cold War, when our adversary was indeed an ideology. But it does not serve America, indeed it puts us at mortal risk, in the civilizational and demographic war of Islam against the West.

And this is why our argument that the neocons should say “Islam” instead of “Islamism” falls on deaf ears. For the neocons to hear what we are saying, they would have to let go of their most fundamental philosophical orientation toward the world and admit the possibility that the world consists of peoples and religions and civilizations that are profoundly, often irreconcilably, different from each other; they would have to admit that the universalist idea is false. Thus the neocons’ use of the word “Islamism” is not simply an intellectual mistake on their part; it is, at present, the linchpin of their political being, their life-jacket in the stormy seas of reality."

--Lawrence Auster

[Wally the Baboon]

So you've found your partner for life, only thing is - he's an animal. Not just that he leaves hair in the bath and has abominable table manners, but that really he's an animal, i.e. with feathers, scales or whatnot.

But forget his facial hair. So what if he has an overabundance of legs, or must hibernate each winter? All that matters is that you adore him.

So go on, if you really love him and you're in this for life, isn't it time you married your pet?

http://marryyourpet.com/

[Mr. So & So (Or The Silent Woman)]

So, where's the point in that article? You're going to have to do better than say "You're wrong," or your ideology is "bad," etc., etc.

There were no points that were factually backed up.

Islam DOES have a problem. Muslim countries DO have some of the worst human rights abuses, and will not allow minority voices to speak up. If you believe in civil rights, then they're not relative. You believe in the minority voice. You oppose irrational, mob rule. You support the idea of democratic elections. Again, there is no relativism to it.

If %1 of the Muslim population wants things to be different, and they base their desire on reasoned facts, then the rest of the world has an obligation to endorse that right.

These are not asbtract ideas, or mere opinions, these are facts. So, until you, or whoever you decide to cut and paste, can factually refute why one should not feel that Islam has a problem with its practices, then it's nothing more than handwaving.

I would love to come live with you on the planet where every thing is so utterly simplisitic.

It's astonishing to me that America is constantly asked to reflect on its cultural status, and influence in the world, yet whenever there is any discussion about the deficiencies of an opressive religion, then suddenly it's nothing more than paranoid ideology.

There is nothing intellectual, or respectable about that mindset. It's a wishful response that is not based on any kind of intelligent argument.

[Benton]

I think you may be missing the point of this article. It's criticising the neocons for being too hopeful that a moderate Islam can emerge. I suspect the writer and the poster are actually a lot more anti-Islam than you or Oaf.

[Codreanu]

> There were no points that were factually backed up.

Uh, the piece was a discursion on political dogma and systematics, all "factual backing" is generated internally through the terms themselves (one need only define Neo-Con, Liberal, Libertarian etc. to enable speculation). The point being how the erroneous, and socially nihilistic, belief in America as propositional nation -- a nation founded upon an IDEA, namely "Liberty" and/or "Equality" -- hamstrings all effort to deal with Islam rationally.

> Islam DOES have a problem.

Yes, which is why we should drop the "Islamism"/"Islamofascism"/"Fundamentalism" flapdoodle; the nation/faith of Islam is the problem. Only in so far as the West drops its Liberalism and canting "openness toward 'The Other'" will She recognize that violent jihad, far from being a deviant scourge of "The Religion of Peace", is integral to the faith, if not its very essence. I have long advocated complete disengagement from the Muslim world: a bare minimum of economic and diplomatic relations, selective immigration policies (including conditionalized citizenship), deportation of Muslim clerics etc.

> You believe in the
> minority voice. You oppose irrational, mob rule. You support the idea of
> democratic elections.

Lol! reread this statement carefully.

Actually, in a way, you are absolutly right. In today's Liberal Democracy all basic issues are resolved in advance, and the solutions enforced by coercive bureaucratic machinery defiling all significant social relations.

> If %1 of the Muslim population wants things to be different, and they base
> their desire on reasoned facts, then the rest of the world has an
> obligation to endorse that right.

Sorry, I'm not about to spill American blood and endorse a policy of religio-cultural genocide to make the Mid-East safe for Cosmo-Capitalists, the boyz-in-leather, militant secularists, and over-educated young ladies with masters' degrees in Womanology.

[Reality Check 101]

> ... I have long advocated complete
> disengagement from the Muslim world: a bare minimum of economic and
> diplomatic relations, selective immigration policies (including
> conditionalized citizenship), deportation of Muslim clerics etc.

it is impossible, with internet connecting both commoners and business brokers, world trade, common concerns of humanity such as environtalism, avian flu pandemic... sounds to me like isolationism, which is idiotic...

> Sorry, I'm not about to spill American blood and endorse a policy of
> religio-cultural genocide to make the Mid-East safe for Cosmo-Capitalists,
> the boyz-in-leather, militant secularists, and over-educated young ladies
> with masters' degrees in Womanology.

sickening condesention and snobbery. and, btw, not all gays wear leather, and not all feminists are possessing "Masters' degrees in Womanology." stereotyping... your english lit professor or insurance salesman could be gay as well, and your cousin with hi-school diploma and 3 kids could be a feminist... did you listen too much rush (limbo) limbaugh?

[Reality Check 101]

[Mr. So & So (Or The Silent Woman)]

[sorrow will come]

> Uh, the piece was a discursion on political dogma and systematics, all
> "factual backing" is generated internally through the terms
> themselves (one need only define Neo-Con, Liberal, Libertarian etc. to
> enable speculation). The point being how the erroneous, and socially
> nihilistic, belief in America as propositional nation -- a nation founded
> upon an IDEA, namely "Liberty" and/or "Equality" --
> hamstrings all effort to deal with Islam rationally.

> Yes, which is why we should drop the
> "Islamism"/"Islamofascism"/"Fundamentalism"
> flapdoodle; the nation/faith of Islam is the problem. Only in so far as
> the West drops its Liberalism and canting "openness toward 'The
> Other'" will She recognize that violent jihad, far from being a
> deviant scourge of "The Religion of Peace", is integral to the
> faith, if not its very essence. I have long advocated complete
> disengagement from the Muslim world: a bare minimum of economic and
> diplomatic relations, selective immigration policies (including
> conditionalized citizenship), deportation of Muslim clerics etc.

> Lol! reread this statement carefully.

> Actually, in a way, you are absolutly right. In today's Liberal Democracy
> all basic issues are resolved in advance, and the solutions enforced by
> coercive bureaucratic machinery defiling all significant social relations.

> Sorry, I'm not about to spill American blood and endorse a policy of
> religio-cultural genocide to make the Mid-East safe for Cosmo-Capitalists,
> the boyz-in-leather, militant secularists, and over-educated young ladies
> with masters' degrees in Womanology.

When one cuts through all the rhetoric and the inflated words of this clearly uneducated man living in his parent's basement, what we see is a religionist, a racist, a conservative, someone bordering on fascist. People like Cod don't have the guts to come out in plain English and say what they really feel which is that they believe they are superior to other races, religions, peoples, and ways of life. They hide their hate in words. They don't have the moxy to say what they mean.

[all night chemist]

Lovely Kitty Couple

[Codreanu]

First it was the copy of "Cat Fancy" under his bed... and now I catch him red-pawed with a Mardi Gras floozy (whence the beads?)!

[all night chemist]

[Codreanu]

[all night chemist]

Except we don't pee on the tile. Or do we?

[Ratzinger - still a Nazi]