Islamofascist vs Kosher fascist

Discussion in 'Linguistics' started by S.A.M., Apr 20, 2007.

  1. S.A.M. uniquely dreadful Valued Senior Member

    Islamofascist: Islamic militants

    Kosher fascist: a term directed at Sir Oswald Mosley for his inadequate fascism (it did not include antisemitism at the time apparently)

    What do you make of these uses of the words fascist?
    Last edited: Apr 20, 2007
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  3. fadeaway humper that way lies madness Registered Senior Member

    Shut up, fascist.

    Also, I will now proceed to give the most accurate definition of the fascist mindset I've ever come across. Wait for it. Here it comes:

    "I prefer injustice to disorder."
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  5. S.A.M. uniquely dreadful Valued Senior Member

    fade away, humper.:bugeye:
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  7. fadeaway humper that way lies madness Registered Senior Member

    Holy shit, did you really take it seriously?

    You big fat fascist, you!
  8. S.A.M. uniquely dreadful Valued Senior Member

    Well how was I to know you were a shit worshipper?

    Now if your signature was rara anus...
  9. spidergoat pubic diorama Valued Senior Member

    Rara anus, huh...

    Anyway, I think the term is overused. Doesn't it refer to the merging of government and corporate interests, characterized by propaganda, media control, fervent nationalism and patriotism, erosion of personal liberties? It seems to me that Islamic militants are seeking theocracy.
  10. S.A.M. uniquely dreadful Valued Senior Member

    I always thought fascism was anti-communism? Is that why its associated with religion and right-wingers?

    edit: the etymology

    Etymology: 1920s: from Italian fascismo, from Italian Fasci groups of men organized politically, from Latin fascis bundle or group.
  11. Fraggle Rocker Staff Member

    Fascism was best defined by a mid-20th Century German philospher (his name is in one of my posts last year) as "resistance to transcendence." That is the one principle held in common by the original fascisti of Italy, the National Socialists of the Third Reich, and the current extremist faction of the larger community of Islamists. Fascists are apprehensive about what they perceive as the trend of individual communities such as nations being transcended by their assimilation into larger communities such as what at the time was merely an economically interdependent Western Europe, but now includes the EU and the UN, and can be predicted as a fully integrated Global Civilization.

    I'm not familiar with the politics of Italy between the World Wars, but the Germans felt that their dismal fate during the Great Depression was the result of machinations by a larger cabal of foreign communities, banks and governments. And in particular the Jews, who in spite of or perhaps as a defense against centuries of discrimination can arguably be held up as the Poster Children for Transcendence.

    Today's Islamic fundamentalists have the same outlook. From their perspective, everywhere they turn they see the influence of Global Civilization pushing back against the qualities that define their own society and make them who they are.

    Yes of course, in the even more extreme fringe of fundamentalism we see one of those qualities being the duty to convert the entire human race to Islam, by deadly force if necessary. So that's not something about which we can say, "Well let's just leave these poor folks to themselves with their quaint beliefs, decorate our homes with their charming folk crafts, and go on building our nifty Global Civilization around their borders as we do with the Eskimos and the people in New Guinea."

    But those are the high-profile Muslims who get our attention and seem to define the movement. The less militant people are the ones who want to practice their own beliefs inside their own countries and don't spend a lot of time worrying about what foreigners do inside their own countries. Their concerns have been elevated by conditions and events such as coexistence with Israel, the manipulations of the Soviets and Americans during the Cold War, and the recent military activities, which make them feel like the West is not leaving them in peace to live the way they want to.

    (Whether those feelings or the events that trigger them are legitimate is a discussion for another forum so let's resist the temptation to get into it here, ok?)

    The point is, their perception of the pressure of transcendence is real. Their kids want to date and dance, their women want jobs and drivers' licenses, their minorities want respect, and their poor want a minimal standard of living. And they all feel that these things are within their grasp because Global Civilization sends unblockable images of them into their homes.

    Some of the connotations of the word "fascism" don't apply here. As it's been practiced in Europe and, arguably and recently, in the USA, fascism includes wholesale submission to the authority of the state. Islam by its nature is a tribal religion that discourages even the first baby step of transcendence, from tribes into nations. (Read up on the tribulations involved in the creation of Saudi Arabia, the first true Muslim nation, for more on this issue.) Islam means "submission," to the will of God and God alone, not political leaders.

    Nonetheless the crisis that excuses that surrender of rights in the minds of fascists is the threat of transcendence. Americans feel the pressure of the Global Civilization too, as other countries begin to dominate industries we thought were our own, foreigners live among us and practice their own customs, and we can no longer command the obsequience of Europe by rescuing them from the Germans. Many Americans want to close our minds and our borders and hang onto our 20th-Century American dream of baseball, pizza, 4000-pound cars, and assembly-line jobs paying middle-class wages. That's fascism.

    If we can see a whole lot of Muslims feeling the same way about analogous conditions--although perhaps an 8th-Century Islamic Dream--we can understand the term "Islamofascism."

    It's not about terrorism, it's about resistance to transcendence.
  12. S.A.M. uniquely dreadful Valued Senior Member

    When you say transcendence do you mean universal applicability?

    If both Americans and Islamic militants are resisting transcendence, what exactly is supporting it?
  13. Fraggle Rocker Staff Member

    Transcendence by definition implies universality. Applied to mankind it means the transcending of our many cultures into an ever smaller number of ever larger ones, mixing both the motifs and the people.
    This is a perfect illustration of civilization as an organism unto itself, which transcends the individual people and the individual cultures that create and sustain it. Civilization has proven to be an incredibly robust creation that has survived countless threats and endured long periods without being nurtured.

    Of the six independent "civilizations" whose discrete creation we know of, three (Egypt, Aztec and Inca) were actually destroyed by one of the others (Mesopotamian, at least its Arab and Greco-Roman offshoots). These determined assaults continued, as Mongol barbarians tried to take down the former and Germanic barbarians made an earlier attempt to "Vandal-ize" the latter, and they all ended up not just assimilated but becoming important contributors: The Mongols became the Ottomans and took over the Arab empire; and the Germans need no introduction, except to point out their own ill-conceived attempt to conquer Greco-Roman civilization which resulted in the destruction of much of it, which was quickly rebuilt stronger than ever.

    A whimsical economic system starved much of civilization for the surplus wealth that feeds its growth for decades, and the discovery of nuclear energy held it hostage for almost as long, yet still it runs along with barely a hiccup.

    It's obvious that civilization transcends us. The greatest phenomenon of our period of residence on this planet is the creation of something that we have not just proven unable to destroy, but that we can't even slow down.

    The answer to your question is that civilization itself supports transcendence. We seem to have built it that way so that's the way it works.

    There's a ratchet effect at work here. Our unconscious efforts to promote transcendence are more effective than our conscious attempts to restrain it. Some Americans (and for the record it's just a loud minority of us) may think that they're holding off the assimilation of our melting-pot nation (what irony) into the Global Civilization, yet it's we who provided that civilization with some of its most incredibly powerful tools of transcendence, such as the internet, and before that rock and roll, which united the youth of many nations. The irony is just as rich in Islam: the largest Muslim country is Indonesia, where the influence of the Greco-Roman, Chinese and Indian civilizations is rampant.
  14. S.A.M. uniquely dreadful Valued Senior Member

    Thats very interesting. I'd always thought of transcendental as an abstract concept, something bigger than the known, what the Buddhists term as perfect knowledge or beyond desire.
  15. Fraggle Rocker Staff Member

    The word "transcend" is used many ways in many disciplines, e.g. transcendental meditation. But it also has a perfectly ordinary meaning, "to exceed usual limits."

    What I'm referring to is the reiterative achievement of higher levels of civilization, by unplanned, unconscious and often unrecognized means, especially the achievement of increasingly larger communities. I appreciated the use of the word "transcendence" for this, since it has a touch of the spiritual about it, in the uniquely reversed sense of man creating something greater than himself rather than being created by it.

    But it's the phenomenon I'm talking about. The choice of word is not the issue.
  16. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    I have a problem with identifying a political system and the common attitudes or mindsets of many of those attracted to it. The scale is wrong, and leads to confusions.

    For one thing, people with that mindset could be attracted to different systems - we don't want to call the Amish "fascists".

    For another, personal attitudes are going to vary by role in a large system, and are apt to be similar in similarly scaled systems: I want a definition for this or that kind of larger system.

    For a third, I think that definition fails to account for the complete lack of resistance to transcendance by incorporation that we see in traditional fascism - joining a large corporation, say, or in an almost identical sense a large army.

    I don't think the jihadists are fascist at all. In the church, corporation, state triangle, they are church over state rather than corporation over state, for example.
  17. Fraggle Rocker Staff Member

    That's fine. So pick a better word.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!


Share This Page