The Free Talk Live BBS
Free Talk Live => The Show => Topic started by: mothyspace on July 18, 2010, 03:21:22 AM
-
Hey Guys :D
Found an interesting pamphlet authored by a British Islamic group called Hizb ut-Tahrir.
It essentially reviews the failures of Democracy, particularly focusing on the former British Labor Government's expenses scandals. IT then goes onto articulate what could be described as an academically cogent argument in favour of a Global Islamic Political System, that it argues would ensure 'Good Governance' but under an Islamic system.
Though I'm not what could be considered a straight up and down neo-con nor indeed leftist, my Liberty oriented proclivities were sorely tested when considering the thrust of this article.
As Libertarians and others who are active in pushing for a freer society, what are your thoughts on this?
If we are moving to an anarchic future, regarding the structure of governance or lack of it [see volyantarism] I cannot see how Islamic Jurisprudence as it applies to Governmental structures in the Global sense would be appropriate.
See Article here ->
http://www.scribd.com/doc/34483982/Democracy-in-Crisis-May2010
or
www.hizb.org.uk
Discuss...
-
Is there another copy available somewhere. I don't use or want to sign up for facebook or scribe. Might even be better if you select some of the main areas of disagreement or agreement.
How is Islamic law compare to English Common or Napoleonic Law traditions? In English Common Law if a law concerning a behavior is not expressly written to prohibit it is considered legal. In Napoleonic Law tradition of if a law about a behavior is not expressly written to be legally allowed it is considered prohibited.
-
direct link here -> http://www.hizb.org.uk/hizb/resources/htb-publications.html
-
The primary concern for me would be the nature of Islamic Jurisprudence and political structures and its apparent coalescence with the state.
-
It might make a couple good points but Good God FUCK Islamofascism. I'd rather live under an oppressive democracy than that shit.
-
direct link here -> http://www.hizb.org.uk/hizb/resources/htb-publications.html
Let me be direct break it down. I am not going to read a 33 page booklet. How does it compare to other legal traditions? Is it similar to Vatican law or other theocratic legal structures? Can you summarize what you have read?
On another note; I am sick of the propaganda crap using the label Islamic fascist, it is nothing more than a baseless pejorative. Even the USA legal system is often justice denied due to the people involved manipulating the system. Examples of that tend to be when cops kill or break the law all they get is a slap on the wrist. While poor defendants get harsh sentences. Also in America kids of the rich and politically connected never seem to get mandatory minimums for breaking drug laws. The judicial system in Israel could be considered racist in the furtherance of an Apartheid system. A recent example, three IDF soldiers found guilty of murdering an innocent Palestinian only get 10 days. While a Palestinian that spits on checkpoint guard gets 5 months. Or how about even with evidence, witnesses and pictures all charges are dropped for Israeli defendant in an attempted murder case. Of course the victims of the shooting are Palestinians. http://imemc.org/article/59107 (http://imemc.org/article/59107) You can have a wonderfully written judicial system anywhere but if the people in charge use it as a political tool it doesn't mean a damn thing.
-
Will do a break down on my blog mothypress over the next few days to synthesize the key points.
-
http://mothypress.wordpress.com/2010/07/19/regarding-democracy-in-crisis/
-
As Libertarians and others who are active in pushing for a freer society, what are your thoughts on this?
I'm not familiar with Hizb ut-Tahrir, but generally I don't agree with any of these "Islamic" political parties.
In classic models of Islamic governance authority was derived from "bayah" which literally means "to sell." It's a pledge of allegiance or social contract. Your basic security for loyalty trade. So Islamic thought has all the same baggage as Western thought around "consent of the governed." The foundations are all there, property rights, self ownership, non aggression principle, all of it. The problem is that the governments in the Muslim world haven't even been paying lip service to these ideas for 200 years. It's all buried in history.
The Muslim world is addicted to this mad fantasy there their political weakness is because of the lack uniformity of religious opinion, so if they can't achieve uniformity they enforce it, ignoring the problem of no consent.
The West "resolved" this problem by removing monopoly privilege from the Church. My feeling is that this can be resolved in the Muslim world by removing monopoly privilege from the State. This means giving the requirement of consent precedence over the desire for uniformity. "Bayah" would become an act of explicit consent, as it was in Muhammad's lifetime, and not tacit consent, as it is all over the world today. My feeling is that this would nearly identical to the DRO model, perhaps with a flavor of the tribalism in those cultures. This is not radically foreign to Islamic thinking. Private judiciaries were common in the Muslim world just a few hundred years ago. The atrophied remnants of these ideas still exist in some far eastern Islamic countries, like Malaysia.
So, what about the extremists? For some reviving old laws like lashing people for drinking alcohol is important. I don't drink alcohol, so if a DRO conformed with some other Islamic norms that appeal to me, like the gold standard, and removing the gender apartheid wall in the mosque, I might sign up. But if they started lashing people who didn't consent to the law I'd drop them in a hot minute. This is wildly hypothetical. In reality I understand that funding alcohol prohibition would make the DRO fees excessive, and not economically ideal. But ALOT of Arabs drink. So there would be demand for DROs that pay lip service to this rule, but don't enforce it.
So, what about the uniformity fantasy? Getting all Muslims in one tent is not impossible in this model, it just has to happen organically. In fact, I'd argue that it is easier to do this way, than by force. So, the One World Ummah crowd would need to start a DRO, or an umbrella DRO, that began soliciting everyone's consent. What they will quickly realize is that the more people they try to include, the less they are able to do, because they will lack agreement. There is very little that all Muslims agree on.
In the old model (or I guess the current model in the Muslim world) those of divergent opinion are forced to obey the opinion of the group with superior force. This has never produced uniformity or agreement in history. In the new model, an umbrella DRO would either have to broaden their definition to include them, or allow them to form their own DRO.
I don't know all the details. I'm just saying that is as viable a model there as it is here. If an Islamic DRO was threatening neighbors that did not explicitly consent to it, the market would produce DROs to protect from that threat. My strong feeling is that the vast majority of Muslims would not join a coercive group.
How is Islamic law compare to English Common or Napoleonic Law traditions?
Traditionally things are considered permissible until they are prohibited not the other way around. But the Wahabi/Salafi crowd reverses this to avoid grappling with modernity.
It might make a couple good points but Good God FUCK Islamofascism. I'd rather live under an oppressive democracy than that shit.
Ditto
On another note; I am sick of the propaganda crap using the label Islamic fascist, it is nothing more than a baseless pejorative.
"Islamofascism" has nothing to do with actual National Socialism, expect perhaps they abandon their own Islamic principles to achieve some crazy interpretation of a general welfare clause. I prefer the term "extremists."
-
Interesting thread. A few months ago I was made aware at my university (I am a staff governor) of the Islamic society inviting someone who had been previously described as an "extremist" to speak. Out of curiosity, and because I had been talking about the event before that with a work colleague who is a convert to Islam and was helping organise it, I went along.
My family background is of Scottish non-conformist protestantism. To be honest we have had people in the UK parliament who are more "extreme" than this guy was. He had good arguments, if presented a little too loudly for my tastes, and none of the usual accusations levelled against "extremists" were evident. Anyway, I did feel that one of the main reasons for some people calling such people "extremists" is that they, as he explained, oppose "liberal democracy". And my ears pricked up, because I thought, well hey, *I* oppose "liberal democracy", what does that make me!
And then a few weeks ago, my university was also holding an international academic conference on Islamic Jurisprudence in the modern globalised world. I'm neither an academic nor a lawyer, so I wasn't going, but it prompted me to write the following blogpost - I'll put it all here as I appreciate that some people don't want to bother "clicking through"...
"Sharia and Anarchist Private Law (http://jockcoats.me/sharia_and_anarchist_private_law)"
Next week here at Oxford Brookes University, they're hosting a conference entitled "Sharia and Legal Globalisation (http://www.brookes.ac.uk/about/events/e-items/29042010162054)". I should stress that from what I can gather from the program this is not a conference about how to implement Sharia alongside say English Common Law within Britain but about how Sharia as a legal system in use in many countries in the world can co-exist with other legal systems in a globalised world. My interest, however, is how different ideas of justice and the legal systems used to implement them can co-exist at any scale.
At an international scale law is, by nature, polycentric - there is, thankfully, not one global law code, despite no doubt more or less serious attempts to impose one. Citizens of one state when in dispute with citizens of another state have to agree to settle their difference in a mutually agreeable jurisdiction, often one of the ones from which one of the parties to the dispute comes, but it could instead be international arbiters mutually agreed upon either by their respective countries or their professional or trade bodies or such like.
And of course, even in this context at an international level, there is a debate to be had about how any two or more different viewpoints on law and justice can co-exist, and such is, I expect, the main point of the conference.
But suggest anything along the lines of that Sharia ought to be allowed to be practiced alongside English Law, say, here in Britain and there is usually much outrage and gnashing of teeth. Here, however, quite unlike the international, anarchic, polycentric system outlined above, we are of course subject to a monopoly of law - one state, one legislature, one system of courts and one system of punishment. We are not used to choosing which jurisdiction to go to to settle our disputes. Or at least not on the face of it.
But in practice, we choose different sets of rules all the time. I know, because one of my jobs is enforcing one set - the university's "Student Conduct Regulations" in which ultimately the penalty for certain misdemeanours might be far more than the police and courts could inflict on you and may be life changing - such as being booted off your course for bringing the university into disrepute by your non-criminal behaviour offsite.
And of course, in my preferred anarchist system (http://jockcoats.me/justice_and_defence_anarchist_way) of market produced law (http://jockcoats.me/let_markets_decide_law), we would get to choose which "system" of law we wanted to deal with our disputes with different counterparties. If we were both Mulsims we might both be members of a Sharia based insurance agency which would patronise Sharia based adjudicators for such cases. But it might be prohibitively expensive to get a non-Sharia insurance company to agree to using such adjudicators when their clients did not wish to be judged by Sharia standards.
And this market would also, of course, allow for a "cross pollination" of jurisprudence to take place - so particularly with Sharia's economic and financial rules, we might find that non-Sharia people and their insurance agencies might actually want to incorporate some of that into the adjudication system they preferred.
People will often counter "what about people being forced to be members of Sharia insurance companies against their will because of family custom and coercion?" Well, just as today we have public spirited people trying to ensure that people do not get trapped in situations not of their making or choosing, so we would likely have in an anarchist system (we do believe that such people are actually behaving that way out of the good of their hearts rather than because there is some state created reward for them don't we?). Such people would offer services to, for example, a Muslim woman who did not want to live under Sharia but could find no easy way out, which would protect her and help extricate her, and even prosecute the Sharia insurance company of her family or community for coercing her.
Overall, as in the anarchic system of international law that exists even today in cross border disputes, the jurisdiction in which both parties will agree to co-operate will be the one that can make the most persuasive case for producing a most likely just outcome for both parties at a reasonable cost. It's just that you don't need to be in different countries to live under different sets of rules. In fact it seems likely to me that the market process would end up picking the best from each type and ending up in a mutually agreed hybrid system, but always based on the most fundamental underpinning that the "natural law" that would emerge would be based on the "non-aggression principle" as the only universal ethic.
This is an important issue. When we spread around the world in imperial colonisation, we imposed our legal systems on other parts of the world. Our legal systems had already by this time largely separated from our religious law in many important respects, although still based upon it. Now in a globalised world we have communities and peoples in all parts of the world whose faith rather than country gives them a code by which to live, and such an anarchist polycentric legal system offers a way of incorporating that, whilst still allowing for people within that system some defence from the worst of such a system where it breaches the universal ethic.
In practice, because in a market anarchist system things such as one's ability to migrate will be largely controlled by the wishes of the property owners at your proposed destination - in the absence of state provided housing, welfare and income support you are going to need to find someone to employ and accommodate you before it's feasible to move there and those people would be likely, if they wanted to be able to continue to do business with their own existing neighbours, be willing to impose conditions designed to maintain some kind of cultural hegemony - the spectre of big cultural change being foisted upon indigenous communities who don't want it, is much more unlikely in a society where there is no central state to impose the will of a few on the many, whilst at the same time allowing those inward migrants a way of keeping some of their own cultural norms insofar as they relate to each other and don't impose on anyone else.
In my view that's what you call the "best of both worlds".
-
That was an excellent post. I generally like "dispute resolution organization" over "insurance company" because insurance company puts a bad taste in the mouth all the San Francisco liberals I'm surrounded by.
It is funny when they say that I'm an extremist if I appose liberal democracy, because them I'm stuck trying to explain that I don't appose it on religious grounds, but on good old fashioned political grounds.
This got me thinking, I already see this stuff happening.
Pulling no punches, there is absolutely a problem with domestic violence in the Muslim world, and immigrants often bring their problems here with them. There are organizations here now, run by American Muslims, that provide shelter to battered women, marriage counseling and medical attention. My Sister in Law works for the UMMA Community Clinic in LA, and in the bay area we have the NISA Islamic Women's Shelter. Those would likely be full blown DROs in an anarchist society.
But there's also an umbrella org in San Francisco. They already don't actually do anything. Basically they are a committee of representatives from other Islamic orgs that sit around and make sure people don't schedule events on the same day. Well recently an Ahmedi group tried to join. Ahmedis are a persecuted minority sect in the Muslim world that most governments don't recognize as Muslim. They are similar to the Bahais, except that they call themselves Muslim. Well, in the debate over whether to let them in, one of the executive board members outed himself as an Ahmedi, causing a bigger upset. Now the organization has to decide whether it's going to broaden it's definition and allow them a seat at the table, or stop claiming to represent all American Muslims.
It's almost like liberal democracy has created this cage where people pretend to be living in an anarchist society, but every once in a while they bump into the bars of the cage and have to pretend they didn't see it. But as an experiment I think the cage has absolutely proven that society is most peaceful and productive where it is more free.
-
I agree about "DRO" vs "insurance company". A later post about prisons/restorative justice drew some comments about "you're really just wanting us to choose whether our slave-masters are the shareholders of Prudential or Aviva" type stuff.
One thing that got me thinking from my work colleague who is a British woman convert to Islam was the idea that Sharia is, in its purist sense, really rather non-judgmental. Of course we all remember (perhaps) the fuss about "Death of a Princess" and we see weekly stories of women in Iran or Muslim Nigeria being sentences to be stoned for adultery or something, but is this truly Islamic? Is it not the case that we are told that judgment may really only rest with the creator, much the same message as Jesus's reaction to the same situation about the stoning of the adulteress in the Bible.
She was also explaining to me about how "-isms" are un-Islamic because in a way they are always a group people seeking some kind of power or dominance for their group and its ideology, usurping that personal relationship between creator and created through power structures (the suggestion was that they are really quite "blasphemous" in so seeking to impose one view, necessarily human and fallible, as the "true voice of the Creator", or the Prophet).
And it struck me that as a person both of faith and an advocate of anarchism/voluntarism/anti-state I could readily identify with this and see the parallels with the way through both the Old Testament and now throughout the Christian "era" has been a story of disunity and "-isms" claiming to be the "one true way." I have, despite being a card carrying Catholic, always seen the NAP and non-judgmental side of the Christian message as indicating that Christ was essentially a Libertarian - that the message, essentially of the "golden rule" is a universal thread that runs through the major faith philosophies, then corrupted by factionalism.
Whilst it won't have me converting any time soon (it's difficult enough to be a gay Catholic!) I will be returning to this topic of commonality between anarchism and both Christianity and Islam I am sure, and trying to see if I can get to the bottom of these accusations of "extremism". As I say, if the guy who gave the lecture is described by some as an "extremist" I do think they need to get out a bit more and check out some firebrand protestants we treat as simply "devout" or whatever!
-
Yeah, MA, I never really understood how people have smeared the Medieval muslim states considering that they even allowed some forms of banking in their later years (although a bit too late if you understand the economic shift that occurred during the Crusades). Many were fairly friendly to foreigners and were keen on trading in goods and knowledge. I won't go so far as to say it was optimal as there were problems, but it was as close to a fairly free society (save for other periods in human history like in Iceland) any part of the human species ever experienced.
-
Yeah, MA, I never really understood how people have smeared the Medieval muslim states considering that they even allowed some forms of banking in their later years (although a bit too late if you understand the economic shift that occurred during the Crusades). Many were fairly friendly to foreigners and were keen on trading in goods and knowledge. I won't go so far as to say it was optimal as there were problems, but it was as close to a fairly free society (save for other periods in human history like in Iceland) any part of the human species ever experienced.
Things have changed for the worse.
-
Yeah, MA, I never really understood how people have smeared the Medieval muslim states considering that they even allowed some forms of banking in their later years (although a bit too late if you understand the economic shift that occurred during the Crusades). Many were fairly friendly to foreigners and were keen on trading in goods and knowledge. I won't go so far as to say it was optimal as there were problems, but it was as close to a fairly free society (save for other periods in human history like in Iceland) any part of the human species ever experienced.
Things have changed for the worse.
Only if you take the short term view. I tend to agree with Jeff Rigenbach that things have gotten better in the long term.
-
Yeah, MA, I never really understood how people have smeared the Medieval muslim states considering that they even allowed some forms of banking in their later years (although a bit too late if you understand the economic shift that occurred during the Crusades). Many were fairly friendly to foreigners and were keen on trading in goods and knowledge. I won't go so far as to say it was optimal as there were problems, but it was as close to a fairly free society (save for other periods in human history like in Iceland) any part of the human species ever experienced.
Things have changed for the worse.
Only if you take the short term view. I tend to agree with Jeff Rigenbach that things have gotten better in the long term.
Not necessarily in the Islamic countries as far as personal freedom is concerned. There was a time period when there was a lot more of it in certain countries. And during that time period is when all of those good scientific advancements came out of the Islamic world. Today, there are no scientific advancements coming out of the Islamic world and many of the Islamic countries are run by religious fanatics who have no interest in personal liberties or science.
-
As Libertarians and others who are active in pushing for a freer society, what are your thoughts on this?
I'm not familiar with Hizb ut-Tahrir, but generally I don't agree with any of these "Islamic" political parties.
In classic models of Islamic governance authority was derived from "bayah" which literally means "to sell." It's a pledge of allegiance or social contract. Your basic security for loyalty trade. So Islamic thought has all the same baggage as Western thought around "consent of the governed." The foundations are all there, property rights, self ownership, non aggression principle, all of it. The problem is that the governments in the Muslim world haven't even been paying lip service to these ideas for 200 years. It's all buried in history.
........................... ect ....................
Thank-you very informative.
How is Islamic law compare to English Common or Napoleonic Law traditions?
Traditionally things are considered permissible until they are prohibited not the other way around. But the Wahabi/Salafi crowd reverses this to avoid grappling with modernity.
Again very informative. And I can believe that your observation is correct. It is typical of any group that feels their power is being threatened to manipulate legal systems in a desperate attempt to maintain power.
It might make a couple good points but Good God FUCK Islamofascism. I'd rather live under an oppressive democracy than that shit.
Ditto
Islamofascism is a made up word of the propagandist in order to slander an entire faith and has no basis in fact.
"Islamofascism" has nothing to do with actual National Socialism, expect perhaps they abandon their own Islamic principles to achieve some crazy interpretation of a general welfare clause. I prefer the term "extremists."
What is the difference really? You like your authoritarianism from a mob vs from a theological oligarchy. It is like saying I prefer a knife to the throat vs a gun to the head. Really completely meaningless choice because you are just as likely to be dead in either situation. Authoritarianism is authoritarianism and neither is desirable.
Muslim authoritarian regimes are not a place I would be interested becoming a resident either. Simple solution is to not live there. This is a reason to support a freer movement of people across borders. Give them the freedom to choose with their feet. But I am not happy with oppressive democracies either because they are just as likely to violate my minority rights.
-
What is the difference really? You like your authoritarianism from a mob vs from a theological oligarchy. It is like saying I prefer a knife to the throat vs a gun to the head. Really completely meaningless choice because you are just as likely to be dead in either situation. Authoritarianism is authoritarianism and neither is desirable.
Muslim authoritarian regimes are not a place I would be interested becoming a resident either. Simple solution is to not live there. This is a reason to support a freer movement of people across borders. Give them the freedom to choose with their feet. But I am not happy with oppressive democracies either because they are just as likely to violate my minority rights.
Good point. I'm just searching for accurate language. Maybe "Islamic Authoritarianism" is as accurate as it gets.
-
Or rather it should be reduced to Tyranny by the priesthood or Theological Authoritarianism. It seems that if one studies history closely it's the codification of religious traditions that precede the codification of other traditions as law. Prior to this periods, there's either little or no significant political institutions existent.
-
What is the difference really? You like your authoritarianism from a mob vs from a theological oligarchy. It is like saying I prefer a knife to the throat vs a gun to the head. Really completely meaningless choice because you are just as likely to be dead in either situation. Authoritarianism is authoritarianism and neither is desirable.
Muslim authoritarian regimes are not a place I would be interested becoming a resident either. Simple solution is to not live there. This is a reason to support a freer movement of people across borders. Give them the freedom to choose with their feet. But I am not happy with oppressive democracies either because they are just as likely to violate my minority rights.
Good point. I'm just searching for accurate language. Maybe "Islamic Authoritarianism" is as accurate as it gets.
I suppose that is somewhat better. It is similar to saying Islamic extremest in that it is identifying a subgroup and not all Islamic people. The litmus test for any new term is how would it be if the group I identified with were morphed into new word by adding ofascism. How would people take terms like Judiaofacism, Christianofacism, Blackofacism or Yankeeofacism, being used to try and cast the entire group as being bunch fascist? It reminds me of the word Rush Limpballoxyhead coined a few years back calling feminist, femin-nazis, The obvious use of an incendiary word to illicit a negative reaction concerning a targeted group.
-
What is the difference really? You like your authoritarianism from a mob vs from a theological oligarchy. It is like saying I prefer a knife to the throat vs a gun to the head. Really completely meaningless choice because you are just as likely to be dead in either situation. Authoritarianism is authoritarianism and neither is desirable.
Muslim authoritarian regimes are not a place I would be interested becoming a resident either. Simple solution is to not live there. This is a reason to support a freer movement of people across borders. Give them the freedom to choose with their feet. But I am not happy with oppressive democracies either because they are just as likely to violate my minority rights.
Good point. I'm just searching for accurate language. Maybe "Islamic Authoritarianism" is as accurate as it gets.
I suppose that is somewhat better. It is similar to saying Islamic extremest in that it is identifying a subgroup and not all Islamic people. The litmus test for any new term is how would it be if the group I identified with were morphed into new word by adding ofascism. How would people take terms like Judiaofacism, Christianofacism, Blackofacism or Yankeeofacism, being used to try and cast the entire group as being bunch fascist? It reminds me of the word Rush Limpballoxyhead coined a few years back calling feminist, femin-nazis, The obvious use of an incendiary word to illicit a negative reaction concerning a targeted group.
I think it should be pretty obvious and clear that "Islamofascism" does not describe all Muslims, only muslims who support fascist governmental strategies to enforce Islamic law in a country. Obvious examples of Islamofascism are Saudi Arabia and in many ways Iran. Clearly our friend Davi is not an Islamofascist.
-
What is the difference really? You like your authoritarianism from a mob vs from a theological oligarchy. It is like saying I prefer a knife to the throat vs a gun to the head. Really completely meaningless choice because you are just as likely to be dead in either situation. Authoritarianism is authoritarianism and neither is desirable.
Muslim authoritarian regimes are not a place I would be interested becoming a resident either. Simple solution is to not live there. This is a reason to support a freer movement of people across borders. Give them the freedom to choose with their feet. But I am not happy with oppressive democracies either because they are just as likely to violate my minority rights.
Good point. I'm just searching for accurate language. Maybe "Islamic Authoritarianism" is as accurate as it gets.
I suppose that is somewhat better. It is similar to saying Islamic extremest in that it is identifying a subgroup and not all Islamic people. The litmus test for any new term is how would it be if the group I identified with were morphed into new word by adding ofascism. How would people take terms like Judiaofacism, Christianofacism, Blackofacism or Yankeeofacism, being used to try and cast the entire group as being bunch fascist? It reminds me of the word Rush Limpballoxyhead coined a few years back calling feminist, femin-nazis, The obvious use of an incendiary word to illicit a negative reaction concerning a targeted group.
I think it should be pretty obvious and clear that "Islamofascism" does not describe all Muslims, only muslims who support fascist governmental strategies to enforce Islamic law in a country. Obvious examples of Islamofascism are Saudi Arabia and in many ways Iran. Clearly our friend Davi is not an Islamofascist.
It is classic propaganda technique of appeal to prejudice and demonizing the enemy. Islamofacism is a term of hatred and prejudice which is pretty obvious. Simply because of how it is typically used. The term isn't used to describe Saudi Arabia or those who support Saudi Arabia. If that were true then America is an Islamofacist country because we support Saudi Arabia.
Israel could be considered a fascist country. The Lukid party is seen by many as a right-wing authoritarian political movement marked by strong nationalism. In fact the United States has all the warning signs of becoming a fascist state if isn't one already. Yet neither country is called out on it or has a pejorative term attached.
The 7 conditions (Warning signs)
that foster & fuel fascism are:
1. Instability of capitalist relationships or markets
2. The existence of considerable declassed social elements
3. The stripping of rights and wealth focused upon a specific segment of the population, specifically the middle class
and intellectuals within urban areas as this the group with the means, intelligence and ability to stop fascism if
given the opportunity.
4. Discontent among the rural lower middle class (clerks, secretaries, white collar labor). Consistent discontent among
the general middle and lower middle classes against the oppressing upper-classes (haves vs have-nots).
5. Hate: Pronounced, perpetuated and accepted public disdain of a specific group defined by race, origin, theology
or association.
6. Greed: The motivator of fascism, which is generally associated with land, space or scarce resources in the
possession of those being oppressed.
7. Organized Propaganda:
a) The creation of social mythology that venerates (creates saints of) one element of society while concurrently vilifying (dehumanizing) another element of the population through misinformation, misdirection and the obscuring of factual matter through removal, destruction or social humiliation, (name-calling, false accusations, belittling and threats).
b) The squelching of public debate not agreeing with the popular agenda via slander, libel, threats, theft, destruction, historical revisionism and social humiliation. Journalists in particular are terrorized if they attempt to publish stories contrary to the agenda.
The 14 Defining
Characteristics Of Fascism
by Dr. Lawrence Britt
Dr. Lawrence Britt has examined the fascist regimes of Hitler (Germany), Mussolini (Italy), Franco (Spain), Suharto (Indonesia) and several Latin American regimes. Britt found 14-defining characteristics common to each:
1. Powerful and Continuing Nationalism -
Fascist regimes tend to make constant use of patriotic mottos, slogans, symbols, songs, and other paraphernalia. Flags are seen everywhere, as are flag symbols on clothing and in public displays.
2. Disdain for
the Recognition of Human Rights -
Because of fear of enemies and the need for security, the people in fascist regimes are persuaded that human rights can be ignored in certain cases because of "need." The people tend to look the other way or even approve of torture, summary executions, assassinations, long incarcerations of prisoners, etc.
3. Identification of Enemies/Scapegoats
as a Unifying Cause -
The people are rallied into a unifying patriotic frenzy over the need to eliminate a perceived common threat or foe: racial , ethnic or religious minorities; liberals; communists; socialists, terrorists, etc.
4. Supremacy of the Military -
Even when there are widespread domestic problems, the military is given a disproportionate amount of government funding, and the domestic agenda is neglected. Soldiers and military service are glamorized.
5. Rampant Sexism -
The governments of fascist nations tend to be almost exclusively male-dominated. Under fascist regimes, traditional gender roles are made more rigid. Divorce, abortion and homosexuality are suppressed and the state is represented as the ultimate guardian of the family institution.
6. Controlled Mass Media -
Sometimes to media is directly controlled by the government, but in other cases, the media is indirectly controlled by government regulation, or sympathetic media spokespeople and executives. Censorship, especially in war time, is very common.
7. Obsession with National Security -
Fear is used as a motivational tool by the government over the masses.
8. Religion and Government are Intertwined -
Governments in fascist nations tend to use the most common religion in the nation as a tool to manipulate public opinion. Religious rhetoric and terminology is common from government leaders, even when the major tenets of the religion are diametrically opposed to the government's policies or actions.
9. Corporate Power is Protected -
The industrial and business aristocracy of a fascist nation often are the ones who put the government leaders into power, creating a mutually beneficial business/government relationship and power elite.
10. Labor Power is Suppressed -
Because the organizing power of labor is the only real threat to a fascist government, labor unions are either eliminated entirely, or are severely suppressed.
11. Disdain for Intellectuals and the Arts -
Fascist nations tend to promote and tolerate open hostility to higher education, and academia. It is not uncommon for professors and other academics to be censored or even arrested. Free expression in the arts and letters is openly attacked.
12. Obsession with Crime and Punishment -
Under fascist regimes, the police are given almost limitless power to enforce laws. The people are often willing to overlook police abuses and even forego civil liberties in the name of patriotism. There is often a national police force with virtually unlimited power in fascist nations.
13. Rampant Cronyism and Corruption -
Fascist regimes almost always are governed by groups of friends and associates who appoint each other to government positions and use governmental power and authority to protect their friends from accountability. It is not uncommon in fascist regimes for national resources and even treasures to be appropriated or even outright stolen by government leaders.
14. Fraudulent Elections -
Sometimes elections in fascist nations are a complete sham. Other times elections are manipulated by smear campaigns against or even assassination of opposition candidates, use of legislation to control voting numbers or political district boundaries, and manipulation of the media. Fascist nations also typically use their judiciaries to manipulate or control elections.
________________________________
Commentary:
An interesting note to end this article: As of January 2004, the United States fulfills all fourteen points of fascism and all seven warning signs are present. But we're not alone. Israel also fulfills all fourteen points and all seven warning signs as well. Welcome to the new republic, redefined, revised and spun. It is not too late to reverse this in either country, but it will be soon. The first step is realizing it. The second step is getting involved. As the propaganda slogan disguising our current war goes, "Freedom isn't free." But our war for freedom isn't abroad; it's here at home.
http://www.couplescompany.com/features/politics/structure3.htm (http://www.couplescompany.com/features/politics/structure3.htm)
Are there Islamic majority countries where this list fits them to a tee, certainly. And I fervently hope the population of those countries works toward change. But where I draw the line is with the the United States getting involved. Trade with them exchange ideas even express disappointment. However, never engage in military interventionism or foreign aid. Free trade has done far more in terms of real progress of human rights around the world than any other strategy. Ironically building up of the USA military industrial complex tends to make the USA more fascist.
-
Sorry, but since you obviously are extremely ignorant about Israel you clearly do not realize that Israel does not epitomize even half of your list. The fact that you have an extreme hatred for Jewish people clouds your cognitive reasoning abilities to such a high degree that you cannot even objectively analyze the situation. And the fact that you have some twisted love for Hamas shows that you are an idiot too (see other thread where you are saying it was okay for Hamas to murder Fatah party members because they are more interested in peace with Israel).
-
Sorry, but since you obviously are extremely ignorant about Israel you clearly do not realize that Israel does not epitomize even half of your list. The fact that you have an extreme hatred for Jewish people clouds your cognitive reasoning abilities to such a high degree that you cannot even objectively analyze the situation. And the fact that you have some twisted love for Hamas shows that you are an idiot too (see other thread where you are saying it was okay for Hamas to murder Fatah party members because they are more interested in peace with Israel).
Yep play the race card. You obviously are extremely ignorant about Israel. Israel does epitomize most if not all the list, hell the United States epitomizes most of the list. I would have a difficult time actually thinking the US hasn't already slipped into fascism. So what now I am racist against Americans as well?
You are the one who has an extreme hatred for Muslims which clouds your cognitive reasoning abilities. I do not have any love for any of the players but that doesn't mean I am going to buy your bullshit. I said and I posted an article which implicated that Fatah was armed by pro-Israeli forces, specifically NeoCons within the Bush administration. When Fatah attempted a military takeover after they lost the election to Hamas in 07. That is when a civil war broke out between the two factions. Hamas was able to defend themselves. Being able to defend themselves is not murder in a civil war.
And let me clear this up, I never said that murder was ok. Nor did I say that either of the Palestinian groups were more for peace than the other. What your twisted Anti-Palestinian bigoted mind can't comprehend is that just because Israel calls something murder doesn't make it murder. Even in the United States the penalty for treason is death. So what is Hamas suppose to do with individuals who take money from Israel or pro Israeli groups to kill their leaders or to act as spies? "A person who, with intent to impair the sovereignty of the State, commits an act calculated to impair such sovereignty is liable to the death penalty." Should sound familiar it is the exact wording of the Israeli law. Treason is one of two crimes in Israel that carries the death penalty. So when the Israeli Mossad hit squad catches up to the guy that spilled the beans about Israel having nuclear weapons and they kill him. Will you call that murder? I highly doubt it.
Certainly collateral damage and false accusations have happened. However, it simply isn't as black and white as you want to present it. Not every Fatah member was completely innocent of treason or attacking even if some were innocent.
Just like the supposed rocket attacks give Israel and excuse to attack Gaza. Hamas is using the Fatah initiated civil war to stay in power. So it was a major blunder to give Fatah arms and send them out to attempt to kill the Hamas leaders. The plan backfired in a horrible way and made Hamas stronger than ever.
My point which you obviously missed was that Israel had 30 years to work with Fatah on a two state solution and achieve peace. Israel politically refused to do this and Fatah appeared unable to negotiate. There was also the appearance that Fatah leaders were taking bribes from pro-expansionist Israeli factions to hamper the process or to give away most of Palestinian's best resources. Even you Zionist zealots in your attempt to demonize Palestinians made claims that Arafat was corrupt. (Which I am willing to believe.) Yet you can't fathom how a apparently corrupt Fatah party lost an election? Given the set of circumstances, Hama's win should have been no surprise to anyone with half a brain.
-
"The Supposed Rocket Attacks"
That is retarded. The alleged rocket attacks. You are a complete idiot. And your whole post is full of excuses for Hamas murdering in cold blood their political opposition. You are a sicko and you disgust me. And your screen name is antithetical to your disgusting beliefs that Islamofascist governments should have the right to murder its own citizens.
-
"The Supposed Rocket Attacks"
That is retarded. The alleged rocket attacks. You are a complete idiot. And your whole post is full of excuses for Hamas murdering in cold blood their political opposition. You are a sicko and you disgust me. And your screen name is antithetical to your disgusting beliefs that Islamofascist governments should have the right to murder its own citizens.
Yes, I'm growing tired of it too. I respect other peoples opinions that dffer from my own, but she (?) obviously writes with not even basic accountability to reality. Perhaps the best course of action is to just let her type away, blow off steam. Relate only if she makes some actual grown-up assertions. That way perhaps she might learn about accountability.
-
"The Supposed Rocket Attacks"
That is retarded. The alleged rocket attacks. You are a complete idiot. And your whole post is full of excuses for Hamas murdering in cold blood their political opposition. You are a sicko and you disgust me. And your screen name is antithetical to your disgusting beliefs that Islamofascist governments should have the right to murder its own citizens.
How do you think Americans would respond if Republicans won an election and Democrats took office instead?
-
"The Supposed Rocket Attacks"
That is retarded. The alleged rocket attacks. You are a complete idiot. And your whole post is full of excuses for Hamas murdering in cold blood their political opposition. You are a sicko and you disgust me. And your screen name is antithetical to your disgusting beliefs that Islamofascist governments should have the right to murder its own citizens.
Yes, I'm growing tired of it too. I respect other peoples opinions that dffer from my own, but she (?) obviously writes with not even basic accountability to reality. Perhaps the best course of action is to just let her type away, blow off steam. Relate only if she makes some actual grown-up assertions. That way perhaps she might learn about accountability.
Great... a Zionist circle jerk
-
"The Supposed Rocket Attacks"
That is retarded. The alleged rocket attacks. You are a complete idiot. And your whole post is full of excuses for Hamas murdering in cold blood their political opposition. You are a sicko and you disgust me. And your screen name is antithetical to your disgusting beliefs that Islamofascist governments should have the right to murder its own citizens.
How do you think Americans would respond if Republicans won an election and Democrats took office instead?
Or if the Republicans won an election and then killed off all of the Democrats. Kinda reminds me of what happened when the Nazis seized power in Germany.
-
A "theocracy" can be based on any religion.
-
Thanks for the responses guys. :) I think I'm going to use the The 7 conditions (Warning signs) in an essay Thanks for that!
Cheers,
mothyspace
-
Yes, I'm growing tired of it too. I respect other peoples opinions that dffer from my own, but she (?) obviously writes with not even basic accountability to reality. Perhaps the best course of action is to just let her type away, blow off steam. Relate only if she makes some actual grown-up assertions. That way perhaps she might learn about accountability.
Great... a Zionist circle jerk
I'm sorry to ruin your reading experience, but every other sentence "libertylover" writes is a gross immediately detectable outrageous falsity. Such statements are counter-productive even for Palestinian supporters. "The alleged rocket attacks" is just too much.
-
every other sentence "libertylover" writes
Yeah, name one
is a gross immediately detectable outrageous falsity.
Sounds more like you... projecting much?
Such statements are counter-productive even for Palestinian supporters.
Than don't you support it?
"The alleged rocket attacks" is just too much.
And it was the least important turn of phrase in the automatic fire of salient points. "Alleged" can never be false, unless in fact you claim someone has alleged and they have not. Everything is "alleged" until one sees evidence, and even after one sees evidence it is still "alleged." You're just avoiding addressed the other points.
Truth is non simultaneously apprehended.
-
Israel has just been caught in so many false flag operations that it is believable that some of the rocket attacks have been fabricated to increase the perceived threat level. Because why would a hopelessly out armed group bother to fire a rocket with no ability to harm? It is just much more logical to think empty rocket shaped tube's with zero damage is only beneficial as a propaganda prop. And just because Israel has only been caught in a handful of false flag plots doesn't mean there aren't more going on in which they were never caught.
The most notable of these was the USS Liberty attack which turned out to be an Israeli false flag attempting to blame Palestinians. Then there is a book written by a former Mossad leader that Israel attempted to keep from publication.
"On Sept. 12, 1990, the New York State Supreme Court issued a restraining order at the request of the Israeli government to prevent publication of Ostrovsky's book, By Way of Deception: The Making and Unmaking of a Mossad Officer. The New York State Appeals Court lifted the ban the next day."
This review helped to answer some of the critics of Ostrovsky's book: By Jonathan Schaper (London, Ontario Canada)
One thing you should know about this book is that in the sequel, The Other Side of Deception, Ostrovsky admits that some of the info in By Way of Deception was deliberately inaccurate and meant to serve as a message to the Mossad that they want to leave him alone or he will reveal the real info. The Other Side of Deception also reveals his true reasons for writing an expose, not so much idealism as it was self-preservation (if he weren't Machiavellian, do you think they would have made him a case worker?).
To address another reviewer's doubts: he was given protection by the Canadian government. And he acted quickly to make sure he had a lot of publicity so any sudden death would be carefully investigated with the Mossad being the obvious suspect.
Naeim Giladi:
http://www.bintjbeil.com/E/occupation/ameu_iraqjews.html (http://www.bintjbeil.com/E/occupation/ameu_iraqjews.html)
Ben Gurion's Scandals: How the Haganah & the Mossad Eliminated Jews, Giladi discusses the crimes committed by Zionists in their frenzy to import raw Jewish labor. Newly-vacated farmlands had to be plowed to provide food for the immigrants and the military ranks had to be filled with conscripts to defend the stolen lands. Mr. Giladi couldn't get his book published in Israel, and even in the U.S. he discovered he could do so only if he used his own money.
The Giladis, now U.S. citizens, live in New York City. By choice, they no longer hold Israeli citizenship. "I am Iraqi," he told us, "born in Iraq, my culture still Iraqi Arabic, my religion Jewish, my citizenship American."
Another worthwhile read which makes some interesting points. Even if I don't agree with the objective of a unified state solution which the website advocates.
http://www.israelshamir.net/shamirImages/Shamir/FalseFlag.htm (http://www.israelshamir.net/shamirImages/Shamir/FalseFlag.htm)
Zionist Provocation under False Flag
By George Pumphrey
-
Israel has just been caught in so many false flag operations [...]
False.
[...] that it is believable that some of the rocket attacks have been fabricated to increase the perceived threat level.
Ludicrous, and of course false.
Because why would a hopelessly out armed group bother to fire a rocket [..]
Because they are Arab terrorists.
[Hamas rockets have] no ability to harm
False.
the USS Liberty attack which turned out to be an Israeli false flag attempting to blame Palestinians.
False.
-
Israel has just been caught in so many false flag operations [...]
False.
Again you are wrong and the evidence is listed in the reference materials of the articles I have linked.
[...] that it is believable that some of the rocket attacks have been fabricated to increase the perceived threat level.
Ludicrous, and of course false.
There are photos of many of these supposed rockets which look more like the rocket projects from some 6th grade science fair and not a deadly weapon. Many with no signs of any shrapnel which would kind of be the point if they were actually weapons.
Because why would a hopelessly out armed group bother to fire a rocket [..]
Because they are Arab terrorists.
Notice your selective edits never attempt to address the linked evidence provided.
[Hamas rockets have] no ability to harm
False.
Again another selective edit with the intention of misleading the reader as to my entire argument. I said that some, again that is some, of the rockets being presented as evidence against Hamas seem to be harmless props for propaganda purposes. By using that qualifier I am also at the same time acknowledging that there have been real rockets. And many of those attacks follow a logical lead up of events. It is when there is no logical lead up and questionable construction that the rockets being presented become suspect. Especially when they are benefiting the objective of Zionist in maintaining hostilities.
the USS Liberty attack which turned out to be an Israeli false flag attempting to blame Palestinians.
False.
Sorry, here again you are wrong and evidence surfaced in 2003. Evidence which implicated Israel in conjunction with the LBJ White House in plotting to destroy the USS Liberty and place the blame on Egypt the Palestinian ally as well as the USSR. LBJ has already been implicated in The Gulf of Tonkin Inciden to drag America into Vietnam. So it is very believable that his white house would have done something similar in the Middle East. The problem is the Liberty did not sink so they were left to do a massive cover up. LBJ, Israel & the USS Liberty Massacre (http://usa.mediamonitors.net/Headlines/LBJ-Israel-the-USS-Liberty-Massacre) According to Hounam’s research, the White House knew within minutes of the Liberty attack, that the perpetrator was really Israel (p. 94). On two separate occasions, the White House recalled aircraft rescue missions for the Liberty. On the last attempt, LBJ told Rear-Admiral Lawrence Geis of the Sixth Fleet, “I WILL NOT EMBARRASS OUR ALLY.” The Liberty was then left “dead in the water,” without any assistance for over 16 hours. (See also, an excellent documentary of the same title by the BBC and affidavits and statements found at USSLiberty.org.)
At pp. 267-268, Hounam said, “Sinking the Liberty and blaming Egypt and the Soviets would have freed Johnson’s hand to do almost anything - even to drop an atomic bomb on Cairo. Trouble only arose when the Israel operation failed - and the damned ship stayed afloat.”
Hounam revealed that within LBJ’s hawkish administration, there was shadowy clique that met under the rubric of the “303 Committee.” Richard Helms, the late CIA Director, said that entity was, “A device for examining covert operations of any kind and making a judgment on behalf of the President, so he wouldn’t be nailed with the thing, if it failed.”
Out of the “303 Committee,” came a project labeled, “Frontlet 615,” which was furthered defined as, “A secret political agreement in 1966 by which Israel and the U.S. had vowed to destroy (Egypt’s Gamal Abdel) Nasser.” The military name for the operation was, “Operation Cyanide.” The U.S. also had a draconian plan, entitled, “Condition November,” a strategy for a pre-emptive nuclear strike against the Soviet Union. All of the above ended up being interwoven into the tragic saga of the Liberty.
The point is Israel is not unique in pushing forward their own agenda through the use of false flag operations. The Israeli agenda is clearly to push the people off the Gaza Strip and out of the West Bank to expand the state of Israel. The evidence of this is overwhelming. Everything from the illegal settlements in the occupied territories, the illegal forced evictions of Palestinians from their homes in East Jerusalem, to the illegal blockade which is continuing economic war. There just happen to be several cases where Israel blundered and got caught in false flag operations .
What is not clear is why the American leadership in complete disregard for American national interest continue to entangle the United States with Israel. Israel is not important to the United States security. To be blunt Israel could fold tomorrow and it wouldn't make any difference in the US, so could Jordan, Syria, Egypt, Libya, Turkey plus some 130 other nations around the globe.
-
Sorry but linking stories to holocaustdenial dot com about Israel is not legitimate.
-
Sorry but linking stories to holocaustdenial dot com about Israel is not legitimate.
WTF so the BBC, the British Broadcasting Company is a holocaustdenial website? The documentary "Dead in the Water" is available on Google videos for anyone who wants to view it. http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3319663041501647311# (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3319663041501647311#) Are the Jewish authors of the books and articles also holocaust deniers. And are you going to say that the Goldstone report is also from a holocaust denier? It seems every time anyone is critical of Israel or their obvious illegal policies are always accused of Antisemitism. Or they are accused of being holocaust deniers and the issues they raise are not addressed. Carter wasn't attacked until he wrote his objective book about the situation in Israel. I suppose the UK Guardian is just another one of those holocaust denial sites because they published, "Apartheid in the Holy Land," by Desmond Tutu. http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2002/apr/29/comment (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2002/apr/29/comment) No other country on the planet plays the victim card in the face of overwhelming evidence of wrong doing as well as Israel.
And predictable the next strategy will be to point to other countries who are oppressing people and have horrible human rights violations. The problem with that sort of deflection isn't a lack of truth about other countries. Cause there are horribly oppressive places all over the world guilty of crimes against humanity. But that the situations are different in that the USA taxpayer isn't subsidizing the activity of those countries. And even in the cases in which US foreign aid is present it is in no way as great as the insane amounts sent to Israel. Just because other countries are guilty and some with far worse crimes against humanity doesn't mean that Israel is innocent or justified.
The USA should stop sending Israel aid. Israel has the 4th largest army on the planet and the largest army on the planet per capita. Companies selling military weapons should sell at the going rate never subsidized by American taxpayers. If socialism is such a fantastic form of government it should not need our foreign or military aid. If Israel was cut off financially from US aid I would not consider Israel a huge liability. Then I would view Israel's activities in the same way as I view India and Pakistan or USSR and Chechnya or Venezuela and Colombia. It would be sad, deplorable but I wouldn't be an unwilling accomplice with the security of my nation in jeopardy physically and economically.
-
lol.
This thread is about Islamic Political systems like what we find in Saudi Arabia, Iran, and Syria. And all you are talking about are Jews.
You are an anti-Jewish whore as evidenced by your obsession with showing how evil Jewish people are in every post. Even ones that are specifically NOT about Jewish people at all. The fact that you use a screen name "libertylover" that is completely antithetical to your continued support for authoritarian religious theocracies is highly ironic.