FRARY COLUMN: ISLAMOFASCISM AND ISLAMOPHOBIA AT UMF

I can't agree with all that Hitchens says on the subject.

“a cult of murderous violence that exalts death and destruction and despises the life of the mind”
----Fascism explicitly exalted the will over the intellect, but Mussolini’s exaltation of death and destruction was relatively mild compared to other totalitarians. The number of assassinations of political opponents were about on a par with those in Boss Prendergast’s Kansas City Mo Machine. About 20,000 malcontents sent to confino (i.e., sent to Wytopitlock) in twenty years. Even then most victims were given early release. His foreign policy was not so drastically different from the “Liberal” imperialists who governed Italy before him—just stupider.

...Both are hostile to modernity...
—A yes, but, when it comes to Nazism and Italian Fascism..

“nostalgic for past empires and lost glories”
---fair enough.

“Both are obsessed with real and imagined "humiliations" and thirsty for revenge.”
----No doubt about it.

“ infected with the toxin of anti-Jewish paranoia”
----Absolutely true of Nazism and Islamism and most other fascist groups, but there are some ambiguities. Several Italians Jews were among the signers of the original Fascist manifesto, Mussolini’s first, and most effective, finance minister was Jewish. Il Duce denounced racism in the ‘twenties, but began to ape Hitler with his 1938 anti-semitic legislation. Apart from Farinacci, Pavolini and a few other fanatics, it seemed to have little appeal to most Italian fascists.

“ inclined to leader worship”
—fair enough, but this was equally true of the Maoists, Stalinists, etc.

“the exclusive stress on the power of one great book”
—Fascists have no such book. An article appeared in the Enciclopedia Italiana ten years after the March on Rome, signed by Mussolini but written by the philosopher Giovanni Gentile, supposedly set out the doctrine, but this did not have the authority of the Koran. Mein Kampf was a jumbled personal memoir incorporating a mish-mash of pre-existing ideas. Alfred Rosenberg attempted to the role of official theorist of Nazism but his Myth of the Twentieth Century was completely reader-proof.

Easton Avenue in New Brunswick....my turf from Sept 59 to June 63, and fond memories I have of it.

And 95 College Ave as well. And the QT, and others.

I do?

Yes, you do. At least that is my interpretation of your statements in this thread.

For example, you didn't object to Hitchens' argument about islamofacism; you rejected it on the basis of an ideological affiliation you imputed to him. You didn't address, i.e. object to, Hitchens' argument at all.

See the difference?

MELVIN, the Queens Tavern! Many's the time I visited that place to distribute temperance literature. I wonder if it's still in operation.

VERITAS, better to simmer down. It's up to you to provide "the parts I left out" if you are interested in a seriouc exchange of views.

Neither Hitchens nor Horowitz can be reasonably accused of "group-think." They are a couple of groups unto themselves. Hitchens remains a leftist in all essential principles. He despises the Islamists above all for their persecution and murder of his fellow leftists. This feeling appears to have begun with the fatwa against his personal friend, Salman Rushdie.

I doubt that Horowitz cares a fig for Salman Rushdie. He is more libertarian than neocon and has completely rejected his Marxist roots.

Some neocons, like Francis Fukuyama, have turned against the Iraq adventure. Others have become very critical of its execution.

The neocons are hardly collectivist, although many still believe that government's intrinsic problems can be solved if only they are in charge of it.

Perhaps statists would be a better word. Every solution they seem to offer intensifies the width and depth of the state over the lives of the people.

Statist is better. The godfather, Irving Kristol, proposed a "conservative welfare state." The No Child Left Behind Act and the Pharmaceutical entitlement may be taken as exemplars.

So far, however, there hasn't been much in the way of statist economic direction.

Bear in mind, however, the ambitious politicians yearn always to DO something, quite apart from any philosophical principles. Republicans could get behind limited government when they didn't control government, but power corrupts.

I THINK WE KNOW WHAT ISLAMOFACISM IS. What we don’t know much about is how to stimulate and encourage the appeal of Muslim moderates who understand that Islam’s future is up for grabs and want desperately to get a public voice before it is too late. Resolving the Arab/Israeli conflict and the creation of a Palestinian state would help create a climate more conducive to the emergence of such a voice. It would also help if national and foreign policy discussions in our own nation shifted to what it means to govern justly instead of what is necessary to destroy an enemy or position ourselves to consume more resources. The former (governing justly) encompasses the reality of force and economic development but asks questions that broaden and deepen the meaning of government’s task in strengthening the ability of a nation’s social institutions to promote the common good of all. This raises questions about the way a government relates to social institutions and what these are informed by in their development.

Life is structurally multi-dimensional (many social institutions). If that is true then holistic approaches are needed in nation building, not just military ones. This is where a debate about just governance begins to make sense. It’s not a debate leaders in our nation are eager or even know how to embrace because the only pragmatism we have ever known in America has been organized around the assumed ideals of national self-interest, economic expansionism and individual rights. None of that has been filtered through a prior norm of justice (different from rights talk) so we don’t know what national policies would look like if it had. In fact public life is structured in a way that works against that ever happening.

Public is understood to mean secularity and the only public social institutions that exist are ones that work from that outlook. So alternative ways of thinking about how a nation should be governed, especially ways informed by the norms and values of religious faith, are not really part of everyday discussion. Thus pragmatism continues to be informed primarily by secular values and monotheistic secularism maintains its hold on our culture by unjustly privatizing all other faiths. The reconciling, relational and comprehensive nature of the Christian faith, for example, does not get developed or if it does its public outlets for further development and expression are far more limited. The same could be said for other faiths.

If we want fresh approaches to the future, including how we deal with the rise of radical Islam and some relative hope for these being heard, then the public playing field is going to have to be leveled. I don’t see how that can happen without a coalition of thoughtful people of faith and sensitive humanists who see what happens when a culture ends up being organized in ways that privatize religious faith and thus marginalize its positive influence. Some have called this a polite form of totalitarianism.

There is no such thing as Muslim moderates. There are more secular Muslims but Islam does not really have any scope for "moderates". It is in fact a religion with encompases the political, religious and personal.

Islam in fact means submission.

Agreed. Islamofascism is the reactionary side in the civil war currently raging in the Muslim sphere. Its means of reaction - sharia with its misogyny, intolerance, and homophobia - exist to intimidate Muslims who disagree with its aims.

This would depend entirely on how the resolution occurred. If it appeared to be a Western concession to Islamic reaction, it would certainly have the opposite effect.

This is, at best, a skewed view of our national and foreign policy discussions. Governing justly has been a dominant theme in our public discourse for at least sixty years, in part a legacy of Winston Churchill's resonant concept of the Free World - a rhetorical means of defining the West and attracting outlying nation-states into the civilized fold. The legacy of Churchill's "Free World" is so pervasive in our world-view, it seems we have become unaware of its underlying influence.

Our biggest problem and that of the west is that we never bothered to take the time to truly understand Islam. We look at in through the prism of our values and attitudes. It does not work that way.

For a bit of understanding of what I mean. I would recommend the DVD Farewell Israel.

Interesting argument, Alan. But I gotta admit I keep stumbling over this:

I'm pretty sure that everyone wishes that would happen. Not saying that Israel hasn't done some pretty provocative stuff during all this - they most certainly have - but at least from where I sit it sure looks like the ones most interested in keeping the Arab/Israeli conflict are the Arabs.

Islam in fact means submission.

Christianity also encompasses the political, religious and personal (and more) and expects submission to Christ as well. I would dare say that is the nature of any religious outlook including various secular ones. They are total in outlook. Christians who operate with a private faith and a secular one for public life are every bit as secular as the secular Muslims you speak of. But, unlike the way you are describing moderate Muslims as really secular Muslims I would hardly call them moderates. Many are fundamentalists in their privatized faith and secular fundamentalists in their public faith. It has a lot to do with what is focused on in what each camp describes as scripture.

My guess is the moderate Muslims like some of the freedoms of the West and can find support for this in the writings of Islam. I like some of the freedoms of the West too but it is still operating out of a secular fundamentalism that is suppressive toward other faiths. I don’t know how any of this can be overcome but if given the chance I will be supportive of Muslim moderates regardless of how they got that way. I will also be supportive of confessional pluralism in my own country. As a concept it is far more tolerant and openly principled than anything the liberal tradition has to offer.

A wonderful discussion among some folks with great passion and understanding of issues.

Allow me to pose a few simple questions, in response to what I saw on CSPAN over the past couple hours (the Q & A period following the delivery of this report to the Congressional Budget committee).

Can this country afford to continue fighting the "war on terror" as we are now?

When Dr. Orszag, Director of the CBO, repeatedly tells Congress that America is on an "unsustainable" financial path, why doesn't anybody listen? (Google search: dr. orszag + october 24, 2007 + unsustainable)

How long will the Chinese and others continue to lend us the money to wage this war?

What happens when they stop?

What happens if the strike on Iran that Cheney is working towards leads to another tripling of the price of oil (as we've seen oil go from $25 to $90 since 2001)?

Sure, we can talk about the past actions of people on all sides of the struggle, and perhaps even agree on a few key points. But this seems to be one nobody is willing to discuss.

How long can our government keep spending money it does not have, and is not willing to tax the people to get, to the tune of $1,000,000,000,000 per year on "defense forces" that consist of military personnel in 130+ countries stationed at over 700 bases?

Perhaps we are playing right into the hands of the "islamists" who are willing to fight a guerilla style war for as long as necessary, knowing full well that our nation simply cannot and will not be able to sustain the needed funding to do so?

Will we find a better way out of this mess if we deal with the problem sooner or later?

Is there a worse solution than ignoring the problem and pretending that somebody else is taking care to ensure that nothing bad happens to our dollar and our economy?

Are we past the point of no return already?

The way I read the CBO report it finds a total of c. $801,000,000,000 of funding for the war on terror during 2001-2008. The OMB's estimates a $2,796,000,000,000 expansion of the nation's GDP during 2004-2008. The total GDP for 2008 is projected to be $14,349,000,000,000.

An average of a $100,000,000,000 per year does not appear to be ruinous.

If you're thinking in terms of fiscal budget, the answer is "yes." Our total defense cost is currently 4% to 5% (my estimate) of GDP. Historically, that's not a whole lot for a country at war.

For the U. S. both the Civil War and WWII were far more expensive. Looking for crushing but ultimately successful expense? Try Britain's Napoleonic War or Rome's Second Punic War.

I should add that I'm not advocating such a continuing expense.

Are the quoted figures total defense spending, or just spending on Iraq and Afghanistan? If just Afghanistan and Iraq, is that total spending or have they deducted the amount they would have paid those same troops to train, be at the ready, etc.? What I'm wondering is, if we have 250,000 troops at the ready, we still have to operate tanks, planes, choppers, buy ammo, move ships around etc. Are the quoted figures the amount in excess of those expenses?

Well the expression "war on terror" is just daft. Its the war on Islamism.

An average of a $100,000,000,000 per year does not appear to be ruinous.

What does GDP have to do with this discussion?

If we are so prosperous in actuality, why are we having to borrow so much from China, Japan and others?

Why did the Fed have to cut both the Fed Funds and the discount rates, even as they continue to insist that inflation is the chief concern?

Our "economy" is a fraudulent shell game, and I'm rather surprised that someone of your obvious intellect would be fooled as you appear to be.

Do you understand the difference between fiat currency and money?

If we are so well off, why are we borrowing to fund the war?

You're the one who asked if the war expense was sustainable. GDP is the income from which the expense is paid.

Can you explain why do you think we have to borrow money?

Because the Fed often makes errors and doesn't have perfect information. For instance, it uses CPI for its inflation targeting. This tends toward roller-coaster policy.

Presumably, your nest egg is a pile of gold Maple Leafs buried in the back yard. But why do all those crafty Chinese and Japanese, not to mention millions of smart people with green eyeshades, disagree with your assessment? Doesn't that tell you something?

This is, at best, a skewed view of our national and foreign policy discussions. Governing justly has been a dominant theme in our public discourse for at least sixty years, in part a legacy of Winston Churchill's resonant concept of the Free World - a rhetorical means of defining the West and attracting outlying nation-states into the civilized fold. The legacy of Churchill's "Free World" is so pervasive in our world-view, it seems we have become unaware of its underlying influence.

Economike

I don’t see this as skewed in terms of national policy. I am not aware of any felt need on either the right or the left for the kind of national debate I believe is needed. The left is more embracing of government involvement in problem solving and the right in the solutions of free enterprise.. Within these one can find noble desires as both seem geared to helping people in different ways. Such help can be destructive if it robs people of their freedom to act according to their convictions (social engineering) or if it views freedom as a right with little need of restraint (social libertarianism). The freedom ideal can be a blunt instrument when it is viewed as a thing unto itself with transformative powers over the worst in human nature (democracy as a way of life instead of just a form of government) and when it is sought for others without any felt need for understanding their social history (Iraq).

The notion of rights attached to freedom talk in the founding has morphed into entitlements of all kinds, to the view that human personality and corporate cultures have accountability primarily in terms of their own designs and not to God. This has led to human identity formation that is dysfunctional and the weakening of our physical infrastructure due to overdeveloping economic life at the expense of other human responsibilities. The former (dysfunctional identity formation) has resulted in an epidemic of emotional brokenness. The latter (over-weaning preoccupation with economic development) has resulted in the gradual destruction of the environment while weakening political resolve to confront energy issues related to long-term economic stability. In an age of progress where science is expected to make up for lacks in human character development we have learned to live for the moment.

Economike, please don’t get me wrong. I agree if you are saying we could use a good dose of Churchill’s offer of “nothing but blood, sweat and tears.” But, so far I have seen no one offering that antidote. Mostly people seem to take comfort in the ideology of revolution if they are in underdeveloped regions or in the ideologies of nation, prosperity, national defense and whatever the science of a dying age of progress can do prop up any or all these latter gods if they live in one of the many developed nations. The more any of these gods are threatened the more desperately people seem to cling to them as their one last hope and this renders them incapable of moving enough out of their grip to be able to address enemies as fellow human beings.

Surely a just public policy with long term concerns calls for something wise and bold to be embodied in some creative ways. From my point of view the lack of this as even worthy of consideration means we are gradually headed for a tragedy in the making on a scale never before imagined. I am not saying there is no hope for the future. I am simply saying there is no hope without a wide scale departure from the idolatries of our age. Sadly, much of the church has gotten caught up in the seductions of many of these idols so we who call ourselves Christians have as much of a challenge on our hands as anyone else.

No. GDP is the measure of all output produced. It does not equal the sum of all earned income.

Because it makes no sense to incur interest obligations if there is no such need. (Talking public policy here, so don't tell me about getting a car loan so you can invest somewhere else with a higher rate. Apples and pencils.)

As do all economic central planners who attempt to thwart the free market.

Well, a number of reasons come to mind - but surely you've seen the stories coming out of late from Beijing and elsewhere talking about falling confidence in the dollar, no? They seem to be saying the same things I'm trying to say here.

Here is one.

Typing: china + us dollar into google will garner you a host of others.

The GDP is the conventional measure of a nation's economic power. As such, it has its defects (e.g., it includes expenditures on education, an enormously inefficient and wasteful enterprise in the US), but I don't see why income totals are more useful (i.e., salaries and benefits paid to our servicemen are included in the total incomes).

The OMB's calculations for discretionary DOD spending totals are
2001: 303 billion 2002: 328 billion 2003 365 billion 2004 376 billion 2005: 400 billion 2006: 419 billion

Total Federal Outlays: 2004 2,292 billion 2005: 2.479 billion 2006: 2,568 billion

Deficits, Actual and Projected:

2004: $412 billion 2005: $427 billion 2006: $390 2007: $312 2008: $251 2009: $233 2010: $207 billion

Public profligacy remains a problem, but I don't see where it is curable by concluding that we can't afford to defend ourselves.

The problem, after all, comes back to the question of how much we have to spend on national security; not how much we want to spend.

MIKE TRAVERS is right to question whether flight from Iraq and Afghanistan means the summary deduction of all the expenses incurred by those operations.

The problems of militant Islamism will remain our paramount national security concern for the foreseeable future. If just one precent of Moslems are jihad-prone, then we are counting 10,000,000 rabid dogs loose in the world---not a minor nuisance. WMD's grow cheaper, more accessible and more common. The stated objective of the ultras---a universal caliphate---is actually loonier than the Nazi or communist fantasies. Their variety of terrorism is aimed at the infidel masses, not at infidel governments and officials.

So how do we calculate the costs of a purely defensive posture?

Back to the topic (I guess)

They may lack influence, but here are some moderate Muslims against Sharia.
Interesting: they do not reject the term, Islamofascism.
Note they get death threats .
see here

Give me a break, veritas77. The net value of production is equal to income.

I asked - Can you explain why do you think we have to borrow money?

It seems you didn't understand my question. Why do you think it necessary that we must borrow money from foreigners?

Let's say that I disagree with your apocalyptic anti-market bias and leave it at that.

Yes, I can distinguish the two.

Yes, MAINEMOM, Islamofascism was our starting point---or more narrowly the politicorrectidunarians' inability even to consider the problem. I'm no opponent of free-ranging discussion, but it's useful to remember the point of origin.

The Yoruba artist I harbored for several years as a houseguest might be considered moderate Muslim. He was ambitious to go on the pilgrimage to Mecca some day, but he seemed to have no problem in dealing with women as equals, drank a lot of beer and wanted to get a dog.

Last year one of my best former students visited me with his new Pakistani wife. Jordan, a church-going Christian, and his wife both observed the Ramadan fasting rules out of mutual respect. I learned that she and her sister had seceded from the family household while quite young to avoid its strictures. She was VP in a public relations firm (surely, a very American profession), not a thing you would expect from a subordinate and subservient woman.

The son of the Pakistani family who had me for dinner one time was an ardent admirer of Kemal Mustafa Ataturk and gloatingly related the story of how he set a bunch of rebellious mullahs on a boat and sank it.

In short there are an unknown number of what you might call cultural Muslims who hate pork but like whiskey.

Then you should know EXACTLY why we "have to" borrow money to fight the war. And everything else.

Our currency unit is a debt instrument. Our nation is bankrupt.

How else could a bankrupt entity afford to do anything without borrowing or perhaps receiving gifts?

Flammen,

Do you mean to tell me that 700+ bases in 130+ countries around the globe = "defense"?

Sounds more like "empire" to me.