ESR's Anti-Idiotarian Manifesto

[hermit22]

Originally posted by MaggieL

I didn't ask you what term you don't like...so far you don't like *any* term for it. The question is what term you *do* find acceptable to refer to this movement?

Are you simply hoping that if it's never given a name that you won't have to deal with the issue? Or are you in such denial as to claim it doen't even exist?

Hey, why don't you actually read my post? I said in two separate posts that the term extremism is the most appropriate. I think that without an at least vaguely accurate definition of what you're talking about, a valid debate is hopeless.

Then again, I'm also starting to think that you like this manifesto so much because you don't realize you're an idiotarian yourself.

[jaguar]

russ i meant without tips, that was my point, my bad on the typing.

[MaggieL]

Originally posted by hermit22

Hey, why don't you actually read my post? I said in two separate posts that the term extremism is the most appropriate.

I did read it, including the place where you said callling it "Islamic extremism" "has it's own problems", which gives you an out to blow it off later, when it too becomes inconvenient.

In fact, it would probably be much safer for you to not name it at all, and instead to handwave in the direction of the Palestinian red herring, and not have anyone point out the stated objective of the "extremists": to impose their religion on everyone, by force, while offering that religion as the justification for what they do. Personally, I think "extremist" fails to capture how vile that is.

Of course that's not how all--even <i>most</i>--Islamic scholars interpret the Quran. But that's not the point....there's a lot of Christians who'd like to divorce themselves from other folks who style themselves Christian, too.

[hermit22]

I think it's unfair to associate any social movement specifically with religion. There are a lot of things that make people turn to religion or some other philosophy - from economics, nationalism, social conditions, etc. In addition, every major philosophical movement goes through cycles - every few decades, its adherants want to go back and clear the barnacles of liberal interpretation off of the ship of their movement. We're seeing a lot of that in the resurgence of Christianity in America in the past two decades. Modern day Marxists claim that Communism failed because it didn't stick to Marx's initial ideas, and that future implementations need to reflect them more clearly.

So you see, my problem is with using the qualifier "Islamic." When you remove that, you're left with extremist, fascist, fundamentalist, etc. All of these terms have problems, but the last two are worse than the first because they pigeon hole the targets into an ideology they don't necessarily agree with. Extremism, however, is quite broad. And that breadth, unfortunately, is its problem. I think, however, in lack of anything resoundingly better, that its acceptable.

And what do you mean by the Palestinean red herring?

[MaggieL]

Originally posted by hermit22
I think it's unfair to associate any social movement specifically with religion.

Unfair? It's the people involved themselves that justify their fascism (n : a political theory advocating an authoritarian hierarchical government) on the basis of their religion. So if you object to that linkage you'd better address <b>them</b> directly, since they are the ones establishing it.

Look I've got no problem with Islam; there is much beauty and wisdom in it. But anybody who says "My religion says it should run all govenments and enforce my rules on pain of death; my religon also justifies armed jihad to establish our rule everywhere" is just not someone I can get along with. I think "islamo-fascism" identifies this group pretty well; "extremist" is too weak; there's lots of extreme positions that fall short of this in terms of being evil. And leaving out the islamic connection fails to identify this particular movement as distinct from other fascist power grabs.

By "Palestinian red herring" I mean the attempt to cast this terrorism as the struggle of the oppressed Palestinians. That's totally bogus; bin Laden didn't give a hoot about the Palestinians until he saw how universally negative the reaction to 9/11 was. See Premise 3 in the Manifesto.

[hermit22]

Wow. That's all I can say. Wow.

Bin Laden has long said (going back to his original fatwah in 1996) that there are 3 things he wants fixed:

- US out of Saudi Arabia
- Sanctions lifted from Iraq
- Home for the Palestinian people

He didn't just "come up" with that because the world reacted violently to 9/11. Not only that, but you sound like you believe that there was no terrorism before that tragedy, or that bin Laden did absolutely nothing before it.

Also, it doesn't necessarily matter what the people involved say. Religion doesn't exist in a vacuum - it is one of thousands of various social forces that influence people's opinions and actions. And no matter what someone claims as their ideals - or what cover they use to sell those ideals - you have to look at the content of their message to see where they really stand. And of the three agenda items, only the first one has anything to do with religion. The rest are social.

Finally, to constantly frame it as "Islamic" whatever is irresponsible. It casts a negative light on the religion that 20% of the world's population calls their own. Since it is not representative of the religion, the stigma that gets attached is inappropriate.

Think about it this way: how often did the media call Timothy McVeigh a Christian terrorist? How about Bray or Hill (first advocated and the second killed abortion doctors)?

And that Manifesto was obviously written by someone whose entire familiarity with terrorism is based on mass media. I can't take stock in anything like that, sorry. Referencing a part of the manifesto, then, as proof does not actually prove anything, nor does it represent a valid course of action (which, in my mind, it doesn't). I don't mean to sound like a white tower snob here, but how can you argue for such a drastic course of action when you don't have all the facts?

[MaggieL]

Originally posted by hermit22

He didn't just "come up" with that because the world reacted violently to 9/11...

In the first fatwah the Palestinians are a distant concern next to banishing secular control of Saudi Arabia and imposing sharia law everywhere, and he explicitly invokes Ibn Taymiyyah and Al'iz Ibn Abdes-Salaam in calling for that. His main motivation seemed to be getting out of his Afghani exile and back into "the land of two holy places"...code for Saudi Arabia.

...you sound like you believe that there was no terrorism before that tragedy, or that bin Laden did absolutely nothing before it.

You mean like tryng to get blessed as the defender of the Saudis against Iraq? Of course, *that* was back in the early 1990's. He wasn't particularly gunning for the Yankees until they got in the way of his triumphant return to rescue his homeland (who had banished him) from those awful Iraqis....who suddenly became his bestest Muslim brothers only a few years later, after they lost the war he tried to sign up to fight against them.

He engaged in a fair amount of terrorism against US targets before 9/11, but only after the US spoiled his reentry to Saudi Arabia to fight what became Desert Storm <i>against</i> his "Iraqui brothers".

And no matter what someone claims as their ideals - or what cover they use to sell those ideals - you have to look at the content of their message to see where they really stand. And of the three agenda items, only the first one has anything to do with religion. The rest are social.

You'd better read the first fatwah again, then come back and tell me it's a social document whose central theme isn't the call for imposition of religion in the place of secular law.

I think "islamo-fascism" fits because it distinguishes this movement from other forms of fascism. Would you be happier with "Wahabist fascism"? Unfortunately few people in our culture know what Wahabism is.

Think about it this way: how often did the media call Timothy McVeigh a Christian terrorist? How about Bray or Hill (first advocated and the second killed abortion doctors)?

I've got no problem with identifying as a "Fundamentalist Christian terrorist" someone who assasinates doctors and then cites the Bible as justification.

As for McVeigh, he never articulated what he was trying to do clearly enough for me to try to label it. What the media does I have no control over.

McVeigh wasn't about Christianity so much as he was about sticking it to the government. I think he was very... right in his ideals. But went about getting the message across in a totally unappropriate manner.

John Allen Muhammad follows Islam; no one is calling him an "Islamic terrorist". Just a terrorist. I think that's important.

[hermit22]

Originally posted by dave
McVeigh wasn't about Christianity so much as he was about sticking it to the government. I think he was very... right in his ideals. But went about getting the message across in a totally unappropriate manner.

John Allen Muhammad follows Islam; no one is calling him an "Islamic terrorist". Just a terrorist. I think that's important.

I think it's a good thing they aren't labelling Muhammad as a Muslim, but that's probably because he's from <crap, the name of the sect escapes me>, which is considered by many Muslims to be pretty tin-foil hat extreme.

McVeigh mimicked The Turner Diaries, which was rooted strongly in the Christian Identity movement.

Maggie....

I'll address the fascism thing first, because it's quick, and easier. Look up fascism. One of the first requirements is nationalism - and bin laden isn't looking for that on any level.

You'd better read the first fatwah again, then come back and tell me it's a social document whose central theme isn't the call for imposition of religion in the place of secular law.

Ok, just read the fatwah again, and I still got the same message: it is a social commentary in the vein of Qutb and Al-Bana. The basic message (of the first part; the second part is his call to battle) is that Islam has been corrupted by the West, and the result is social oppression. The two most poignant situations of this, according to bin laden, are Israel/Palestine and Saudi Arabia. He speaks of the social inequities that have arisen because of the influence of the West on the ruling class. In this way, he sounds like a less intelligent Qutb or al-Banna. So yeah, it calls for an overthrow of secular law, but it is because that secular law has created a corrupt social system.

One of the requirements <b>isn't</b> "nationalism". Go look.

The Turner Diaries was rooted strongly in the fucking nutjob movement. I'm no big fan of Christianity, but I still don't believe a labeling of McVeigh as a "Christian Terrorist" is accurate (whereas I do believe a labeling of Mohammed Atta as an "Islamic Terrorist" <b>is</b> accurate) - his act was not induced by religion, but instead a pretty strong dissatisfaction with the United States government.

I'm sure we could all come up with a better person or group to label "Christian Terrorist(s)" - I just think McVeigh is an awful example. And that's all I was pointing out.

[MaggieL]

Originally posted by hermit22
Ok, just read the fatwah again, and I still got the same message: it is a social commentary in the vein of Qutb and Al-Bana.

Well, that's a fundamental disagreement we probably can't resolve.

Qutb doesn't represent "social commentary"; the basis of his crusade--oops, excuse me: "jihad"--was religious orthodoxy. His call to overthrow Nasser was built on the theory that since Nasser didn't hew to the dogma of Ibn Taymiya and Ibn Wahhab, he was not a true Muslim and therefore should be deposed, and replaced with a government enforcing sharia law.

Imposing your own religious dogma on others through gaining control of the government just isn't "social reform" to my mind; if it is to yours we have no common ground to meet on and discuss this.

I will add that I could certianly understand someone who labelled Nasser as a "fascist" (despite his cozying up at times to the Soviet Communists), and that this is a reason to qualify the aims of Al-Queda, the Muslim Brotherhood, and the panoply of organizations with similar goals as *islamo*-fascist, just to distinguish them from the other kinds of fascism floating around the region.

[hermit22]

Again: wow. Have you ever read any Qutb? Go pick up Signposts. It's an informative look inside a way of thinking; much like Das Kapital or Mein Kampf was about their respective ideologies.

Qutb was about social commentary. Along with al-Banna, he was about the ulama being corrupt, and distorting the law of the Quran. I doubt you'll find the word "jihad" in any of Qutb's works; especially in the sense of Lesser Jihad that bin laden (erroneously, according to most Islamic scholars) uses.

When people see social injustice, they respond in different ways. Often, a certain group is villified: Qutb and bin Laden both demonize the West. Qutb, however, believed that the way to social reform was to educate the masses through Islam. His ideas were, in many ways, like the Protestant Reformation. The ulama was in charge of religious rulings, much like the Catholic church, and he believed they had spent so much time analyzing and liberalizing Islam that they had complicated what, to him, was a simple religion. He believed that the religion had to be spread, and the best way to do that was to help the masses through charity. bin Laden, on the other hand, thinks that the best way is through terror. But he still retains the "society is corrupt" ideals. No matter what his prescriptions for it may be, his social commentary remains intact as social commentary.

And back to this damn fascism argument. Have you gone and looked it up yet? Fascism is a social movement, with nationalist overtones. Nasserism could be considered fascism. But bin Laden is on the complete opposite end of the spectrum from Nasser. To put the two anywhere near each other is just ridiculous.

So not only do you use a term of a high perjorative nature; you continuously use it incorrectly. That's all I'm concerned about. Quit trying to read everything from a normative sense. Don't pass judgement on it before going in; rather, analyze the content of it. You'll find that Qutb, bin Laden, Marx, etc. make some good observations about society. It is in their prescriptions that they fail; it is the prescriptions that the media sees; and the prescriptions that temper our bias.

Originally posted by hermit22
And back to this damn fascism argument. Have you gone and looked it up yet? Fascism is a social movement, with nationalist overtones.

Again, no, it is not. Go look it up. Seriously.

Here. I've done the hard work for you.

fas·cism
n.
<ol><li>often Fascism
<ol type=a><li>A system of government marked by centralization of authority under a dictator, stringent socioeconomic controls, suppression of the opposition through terror and censorship, and typically a policy of belligerent nationalism and racism.
<li>A political philosophy or movement based on or advocating such a system of government.</ol><li>Oppressive, dictatorial control.</ol>
Doesn't really need to be nationalist, does it?

[MaggieL]

Originally posted by hermit22

So not only do you use a term of a high perjorative nature; you continuously use it incorrectly. That's all I'm concerned about.

I'd send *you* to the dictionary to read the definition of fascism again, but it's a message you don't want to hear. Of *course* it''s perjorative; and deservedly so.

Quit trying to read everything from a normative sense. Don't pass judgement on it before going in; rather, analyze the content of it. You'll find that Qutb, bin Laden, Marx, etc. make some good observations about society. It is in their prescriptions that they fail; it is the prescriptions that the media sees; and the prescriptions that temper our bias.

Actually, I don't particularly give a rat's fuzzy behind about bin Laden's philosophy, or that of any of his kindred, pe se. There's no shortage of "good observations about society" from Mencken to Orwell, Twain to Ghandi, from Jesus to Heinlein to your-favorite-pundit-here; their names are legion.

It's what you call the "prescriptions" that threaten us. It's the "prescriptions" that are indeed fascism, dress it up as you will. (Nationalism? Go ahead and try to tell me that "nation of Islam" is only metaphor and rhetoric.)

Starry Sky above us, if "fascism" an unfair perjorative for coercive establishment of sharia law as a part of a global state religion, what shall we call it when you dess up cold-blooded mass murder of innocents as a "prescription"? "Euphemism" is too weak by far, and "meiosis" doesn't cut it either.

It's the "prescriptions" that have already killed thousands of innocent people in our country, on which they have declared war multiple times. You'll just have to pardon my "normativeness" in judging it:. I judge it to be a direct threat to me personally.

For me this has absolute priority over how "good their observations about society" may be. All their "good observations" can take their proper place in the marketplace of ideas among everybody else's; when the likes of these people walk in my door with a bomb strapped to their waist, I'm simply not interested in how keen their social commentary is, nor am I inclined to grant their ideas priority simply because they're willing to kill me.

[Nic Name]

Maggie, perjorative as in lying under oath or pejorative as in this post?

I'm surprised at you!

Keep that dictionary handy.