| By Jesse Singal - Oct 24th, 2007 at 11:07 am EDT |
| Also listed in: Campus Progress Blog |
Islamo-fascism-awareness-raiser and noted liberal-lister David Horowitz, in an interview on National Review Online:
But the larger agenda is create a national movement to stand up to the coalition between Islamo-fascists and American liberals at home who are running interference for the terrorists. [*] The coalition attacking Islamo-fascism Awareness Week extends from the Iranians and CAIR through the Revolutionary Communist Party to Campus Progress (an offshoot of the Hillary-Soros-Podesta operation) and College Democrats.
That is too cute. You see what he's doing here?
Campus Progress happens to hold the same position on Islamo-Fascism Awareness Week -- that it's stupid, since Islamo-fascism is a made-up, incoherent term -- as CAIR, the Revolutionary Communist Party, and -- gasp! -- "the Iranians"! Therefore we are, you know, evil.
This game is fun. Let's give it a shot.
David Horowitz is part of a long-term movement to purge liberals from government and academia. Also part of that movement are Adolph Hitler, Benito Mussolini, and David Duke.
I was right -- that was fun.
*Oh, and for the record, not everyone at Campus Progress is rooting for the terrorists to win, destroying America and killing all our families in the process. I'd say the breakdown is about 50/50.
!
Comments are closed for this post.
Not that I find it particularly insulting to have been compared to Iranians and communists anyways. Oh ouch.
Example: "blog" is a made up term.
Islamo-fascist happens to be a made up term that was used in the early 1990s to describe hard-line Muslim Algerians in power who murdered some 150,000 less ideologically pure Muslims, their offense being that they sought the freedom to live in a manner not conforming to Sharia law.
The term was coined by a writer from Scotland who was referring to the way Arab dictators hang on to political and military power by upholding religion as the true law.
But, Janeg, the question is what does any of this have to do with "facism?" Even though the term has almost lost it's meaning from overuse, why degrade it even further? Wouldn't the word "Islamo-Extremist" or "Islamo-Terrorist" serve just as well?
Link
My concern is not that Islamic terrorists are being bad-mouthed or defamed, but that language loses its power and articulateness when words are used loosely and important distinctions are ignored. This is a practice that is becoming epidemic in our time, especially in political discussion. People talk a lot about leaving a better world for those who come after them. Probably the most profound thing you could leave to anyone is an articulate language for them to be able to express themselves in and literally to think in. This would far outweigh leaving them a universal health care system, a perfectly "green" envioronment, a "peaceful" world or just about anything else you would care to name.
Back to the discussion at hand (and this can serve as a reply to Janeg's reply also: Hasn't one of the most defining features of fascism always been that it is extremely centralized, with power and control emanating from one central source, usually from one man? I won't even go in to the close relations with private capital, and the many other profound dis-similarities between fascism and the Islamic terrorists.
I ask again, why muddy the meaning of the word when it's totally unnecessary to do so?
You need a word that conveys extreme authoritarianism that seeps into every aspect of life.
China is authoritarian. Singapore is authoritarian. Turkey is authoritarian.
But none of them are fascist states. They carve out a certain limited sphere that they seek to explicitly control for their pragmatic aims, and then they leave it at that.
This is explicitly different than what you see under the Taliban or any other group seeking to establish a 'new Caliphate' -- there, you see an attempt to subsume free will entirely, to dominate every sphere of life with their dictates.
Your choices for how to describe that are basically "fascism" or "totalitarianism". Of the two, 'fascism' is a better fit -- totalitarianism has the flavor of a government that's already in power and enforcing its will along those lines, a la North Korea.
And wow, China "carve[s] out a certain limited sphere that they seek to explicitly control for their pragmatic aims, and then they leave it at that"?? Um, except for the paid snitches in every community, and the local paramilitaries, and the restrictions on movement, education, marriage, speech, religion, and the marketplace, and the remains of the hukou system. That's a pretty big friggin' sphere, Joe.
Wow – this game IS fun.
ORLY?