Tory leadership frontrunner attacks multiculturalism

[Cort Haus]

Originally posted by Sandman

As for the Islamic-Nazi 'link', you'll also find plenty of cooperation between the Nazis and the Soviets. And the Islamists and the Americans. And other unlikely combinations.

No doubt when the USSR was fighting in Afghanistan, they portrayed their enemy as 'Islamocapitalists'.

'Islamocapitalists'? The fact that the US have been supporting and using Jihad for decades should make anti-imperialist opposition to Islamism more important, not less.

The relationship betwen the Nazis and the Palestinian movement is not just a case of the classic old "My enemy's enemy is my friend". This is a case of an ideological overlap between two systems of reactionary autocracy.

Another important factor is the translating of European style anti-semitism to the Arab & Islamic world during the Nazi era, in contrast to the traditional position of Jews (and Christians) living under Sharia law - that of 'dhimmitude'. Anyone not familiar with the concept should Google it.

Whereas dhimmitude portrayed Jews as weak, European anti-semitism portrayed them as strong, powerful conspirators, ruling the world through Great Power proxies. The roots of this conspiracy theory are usually attributed to a faked and plagiarised propaganda document called 'The Protocols of the Elders of Zion' - exposed by the London Times as a hoax in 1921. It had been produced by the 19C Russian aristocracy in an attempt to keep the masses away from 'Jewish' concepts like Socialism and Democracy. Despite crude forgery in places, much of the document was cribbed from a French satire against Napoleon III (and nothing to do with Jews), giving it a populist and anti-machivellian edge.

The Nazis didn't invent anti-Jewish prejudice, as the attitudes were widely held in Europe anyway, largely thanks to 'The Protocols'. The Nazis took something that had long been there, and made it the centrepiece of their program. Now the Islamists are attempting to do the same thing.

In the last few years, a serialised TV version of 'The Protocols' has been screened in the Arab world, and ex-Malaysian PM Mohammed Mahathir has openly expounded the idea of a Jewish conspiracy. The idea has also taken residence in amongst sections of both left and right in Europe and the US. That might be expected from the far right but the left ought to know better.

Marx once described anti-Semitism as "The socialism of fools". Today we might add that support for Islamism is the anti-imperialsm of fools.

[Cort Haus]

Good heavens, I didn't mind when Cort Haus sarcastically linked me with support for 'Islamofascism'.

Sorry for the sarcasm there, Molly

In trying to determine your position (I don't know your posting history on this forum) I was looking to see if you could agree with the notion that the West, despite all its failings, does have something going for it that's worth defending. I assume you do, but are slightly reticent about proclaiming this.

Many progressive-minded people feel that because of a sordid imperial history, we must do ourselves down all the time as if this will absolve the guilt. All it really does is pile another ton of bile on the grievance ledger of those who might otherwise not hate us.

In The Price of Multiculturalism , the author Michael Fitzpatrick, a veteran anti-racist campaigner and as far away from the Daily Mail / Telegraph as you can get, argues how multiculturalism can fuel division, not integration.

[Az]

The sordid imperial history is nothing unique to the west, either. It's direct agression wasn't anything new introduced to the places it occupied, either. Now, if they were invading peaceful paradises, maybe it would really be a huge stain. but now? nothing, really.

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Cort Haus

I assume you do, but are slightly reticent about proclaiming this.

Yes, because I've obviously voted with my feet and moved to Riyadh or Jeddah.


What concerns me is that 'the West' has replaced religion with nationalism- and that the excesses of one have been repeated in the other, despite the supposed benefits of the Enlightenment.

The 'Enlightened' David Hume and Thomas Jefferson:

David Hume:

(On African societies)

"No ingenious manufacture amongst them, no arts, no sciences."


Thomas Jefferson:

" Misery is often the parent of the most affecting touches in poetry. Among the blacks is the misery enough, God knows, but no poetry. Love is the peculiar oestrum of the poet. Their love is ardent, but it kindles the senses only, not the imagination. Religion, indeed, has a Phyllis Wheatley, but it could not produce a poet. The compositions published under name are below the dignity of criticism. "

The 'certainties' of religion were replaced with 'certainties' of pseudo-science and justification for economic exploitation therein.

I'm not a Westerner who likes to masochistically lament the bad old West and the Slave Trade, or the Bengal Famine, or the Irish Potato Famine or the miseries of Leopold's Belgian Congo and cheer on the likes of Osama Bin Laden or Aum Shinrikyo.

Let's face it, gay apostate atheists wouldn't last long under the Al Qaeda version of the Caliphate.

[Az]

What concerns me is that 'the West' has replaced religion with nationalism- and that the excesses of one have been repeated in the other, despite the supposed benefits of the Enlightenment.

Not a uniquely western phenomenon, either. Feelings of cultural supremacy are a natural outcome of the economic and geopolitical successes of one's own culture. (Huntington, and others)

The 'certainties' of religion were replaced with 'certainties' of pseudo-science and justification for economic exploitation therein.

Yes, but since they were replaced, and didn't mark a departure for the worse ( they didn't ), the overall result is positive. Just like the Romans' extensive slave trade and imperialism doesn't negate at all their role as a positive and constructive force in the world, since they were replacing other systems of slavery, and were invading places that would continue to suffer from wars in any case, but enabled the flourishing of trade, and long periods of peace afterwards.

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Az

The 'certainties' of religion were replaced with 'certainties' of pseudo-science and justification for economic exploitation therein.

Yes, but since they were replaced, and didn't mark a departure for the worse ( they didn't ), the overall result is positive.

Err... even ignoring the worst aspects of colonialism, how positive were World Wars One and Two ?


'My country right or wrong' still makes about as much sense to me as 'my mother drunk or sober', or discussions about whether monophysitism or monotheletism is the correct theological standpoint.

[Az]

Err... even ignoring the worst aspects of colonialism, how positive were World Wars One and Two ?

Terrible, but basically a droplet of problems in a bucket of solutions, like the fact that the amount of people that died in these wars would never been able to be alive without modernity, that was the direct result of imperialism and western culture.

[Cort Haus]

Are the unique depravities of WW1 & WW2 down to western society or humanity generally?

Who was it said something like "history is a nightmare from which we are continually reawakening"?

What concerns me is that 'the West' has replaced religion with nationalism- and that the excesses of one have been repeated in the other, despite the supposed benefits of the Enlightenment.

OK, but what the current multicultural strategy gives us is a myriad more 'micronationalisms' - as the trend in Identity Politics sets people apart from others and encourages them to see the world through a lens of grievance and unltimately anger - as Nationalism can do. So multiculturalism is an inward version of nationalism - and potentially destructive, as we are seeing.

'My country right or wrong' is not confined to the west. 'My fellow muslims right or wrong' is a familiar refrain, and shows how religion can also be like a nationalism of its own.

In fact many nationalisms have been de-legitimised over the last decade or two within the west, while others are encouraged - it depends on the nation. That probably deserves its own thread, though.

[Az]

Cort Haus

[Sandman]

Originally posted by Cort Haus
'Islamocapitalists'? The fact that the US have been supporting and using Jihad for decades should make anti-imperialist opposition to Islamism more important, not less.

The relationship betwen the Nazis and the Palestinian movement is not just a case of the classic old "My enemy's enemy is my friend". This is a case of an ideological overlap between two systems of reactionary autocracy.

Another important factor is the translating of European style anti-semitism to the Arab & Islamic world during the Nazi era, in contrast to the traditional position of Jews (and Christians) living under Sharia law - that of 'dhimmitude'. Anyone not familiar with the concept should Google it.

Whereas dhimmitude portrayed Jews as weak, European anti-semitism portrayed them as strong, powerful conspirators, ruling the world through Great Power proxies. The roots of this conspiracy theory are usually attributed to a faked and plagiarised propaganda document called 'The Protocols of the Elders of Zion' - exposed by the London Times as a hoax in 1921. It had been produced by the 19C Russian aristocracy in an attempt to keep the masses away from 'Jewish' concepts like Socialism and Democracy. Despite crude forgery in places, much of the document was cribbed from a French satire against Napoleon III (and nothing to do with Jews), giving it a populist and anti-machivellian edge.

The Nazis didn't invent anti-Jewish prejudice, as the attitudes were widely held in Europe anyway, largely thanks to 'The Protocols'. The Nazis took something that had long been there, and made it the centrepiece of their program. Now the Islamists are attempting to do the same thing.

In the last few years, a serialised TV version of 'The Protocols' has been screened in the Arab world, and ex-Malaysian PM Mohammed Mahathir has openly expounded the idea of a Jewish conspiracy. The idea has also taken residence in amongst sections of both left and right in Europe and the US. That might be expected from the far right but the left ought to know better.

Marx once described anti-Semitism as "The socialism of fools". Today we might add that support for Islamism is the anti-imperialsm of fools.

I think the ideological 'overlap' is an propaganda tool, nothing more. There similarities, sure, but there are also profound differences. For starters, fascists are motivated by nationalism, not religion. Their movements don't start in places of worship or religious schools. And then there's the distinctly internationalist streak that Islamic fundamentalists have - unthinkable to a fascist.

Your point that Islamic fundamentalists have re-packaged old anti-Semitic myths which the Nazis in turn copied from Tsarist Russia surely weakens your arguments. I mean, it's not as if anybody calls the Nazis 'Naziotsarists', despite a handful of similarities between the two (autocracy, secret police).

I'm also unconvinced that the 'Jews = powerful' aspect of anti-semitism was simply 'imported' from Europe. Israel defeated their neighbours repeatedly - how could dhimmitude survive that?

[Cort Haus]

Originally posted by Sandman

I think the ideological 'overlap' is an propaganda tool, nothing more. There similarities, sure, but there are also profound differences. For starters, fascists are motivated by nationalism, not religion. Their movements don't start in places of worship or religious schools. And then there's the distinctly internationalist streak that Islamic fundamentalists have - unthinkable to a fascist.

Yes, there are differences and similarities, hence the word 'overlap'.

Surely "I always support the nation of ABC " equates to "I always support people of the XYZ religion". Hence Islamism is like nationalism. Nazism held the German people to be the master-race to rule over inferior races. Islamists hold muslims to be the masters over the inferior infidel. Neither have any concept of freedom or equality.

When the binding is religion not race the internationalism can obviously go further, but neither systems respect borders or sovereignty, and both constantly claim 'human rights abuses' against their brethren as a justification of violent action.

To quote Obergruppenführer Gottlob Berger :
"a link is created between Islam and National-Socialism on an open, honest basis. It will be directed in terms of blood and race from the North, and in the ideological-spiritual sphere from the East."

Originally posted by Sandman
Your point that Islamic fundamentalists have re-packaged old anti-Semitic myths which the Nazis in turn copied from Tsarist Russia surely weakens your arguments. I mean, it's not as if anybody calls the Nazis 'Naziotsarists', despite a handful of similarities between the two (autocracy, secret police).

I see what you're getting at here but I'd say the Nazis and Fundies have far more in common than Nazis and Monarchists. Yes, they're all using the same tool to advance their interests in some way, but to very different political ends. The principle of a full-on assault on world Jewry is central to Nazism and Islamism, not so with Tsarism.


[q] Originally posted by Sandman
I'm also unconvinced that the 'Jews = powerful' aspect of anti-semitism was simply 'imported' from Europe. Israel defeated their neighbours repeatedly - how could dhimmitude survive that?

The article 'National Socialism and Anti-Semitism in the Arab World'
http://www.matthiaskuentzel.de/artikel.php?artikelID=86 explores this process.

The following quote is the opening paragraph from that study.

Anti-Semitism based on the notion of a Jewish world conspiracy is not rooted in Islamic tradition but, rather, in European ideological models. The decisive transfer of this ideology to the Muslim world took place between 1937 and 1945 under the impact of Nazi propaganda. Important to this process were the Arabic-language service broadcast by the German shortwave transmitter in Zeesen between 1939 and 1945, and the role of Haj Amin el-Husseini, the Mufti of Jerusalem, who was the first to translate European anti-Semitism into an Islamic context. Although Islamism is an independent, anti-Semitic, antimodern mass movement, its main early promoters - the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt and the Mufti and the Qassamites in Palestine - were supported financially and ideologically by agencies of the German National Socialist government.

[lord of the mark]

the Qutbist/jihadis (not all Islamists are necessarily Qutbists, just as, of course, not all muslims are Islamists) did more than take their antisemitism from western facism. They also took a more general glorification of violence and death, which are largely alien to traditional Islam. And their ambiguous relationship to modernity - despising its freedom, and yet using its technology. About the ONLY thing thats different is the Islamists devotion to a universal muslim Umma, as opposed to "nations". To Paul Berman, at least, thats not an essential difference - a reaction against enlightenment universalism and modernity in the West naturally takes the form of ultra-nationalism - in the very different cultural background of the Islamic world, it takes an Islamist form. Of course to those for whom the essence of fascism is NOT its death cult, its totalitarianism, or its violence, but the essence IS its connection to nationalism - to those who see fascism as the logical outcome of nationalism - this difference IS essential.


Mollywobbles - Jefferson was famously reluctant to build a large US Navy, fearing it would lead to wars. He was very much a LIBERAL nationalist, one who distrusted war and militarism - that he had a blind spot about blacks and slavery was, I think, a part of his peculiar local circumstances, not a natural fruit of his ideology.
Cant speak to Hume, whom ive read only for technical phil, not politics.

[Dr Strangelove]

Originally posted by molly bloom
The 'Enlightened' David Hume and Thomas Jefferson:




The 'certainties' of religion were replaced with 'certainties' of pseudo-science and justification for economic exploitation therein.

No, I think that Jefferson's attitude exemplifies the observation that we are all prisoners of our past. Even the greatest of minds can transcend his upbringing to only a certain extent, for it is the very nature of our minds that our past experiences and habits determines how we percieve our present and what we expect from the future.

[Sandman]

Originally posted by Cort Haus
Yes, there are differences and similarities, hence the word 'overlap'.

Surely "I always support the nation of ABC " equates to "I always support people of the XYZ religion". Hence Islamism is like nationalism. Nazism held the German people to be the master-race to rule over inferior races. Islamists hold muslims to be the masters over the inferior infidel. Neither have any concept of freedom or equality.

When the binding is religion not race the internationalism can obviously go further, but neither systems respect borders or sovereignty, and both constantly claim 'human rights abuses' against their brethren as a justification of violent action.

To quote Obergruppenführer Gottlob Berger :
"a link is created between Islam and National-Socialism on an open, honest basis. It will be directed in terms of blood and race from the North, and in the ideological-spiritual sphere from the East."

Their violent, aggressive beliefs are common to any number of bloodthirsty governments throughout history. I see no reason to make a specific link between Islamic Fundamentalism and Fascism.

In any case, you're mixing your terms a bit here. Fascism and Nazism are not exactly the same thing. Islamic Fundamentalism and 'the Palestinian movement' are emphatically not the same thing. The PLO was secular to begin with, for example.

The Nazis tried to make common cause with any number of convenient groups on the fringes of their empire: The Welsh, Bretons, Gaels, the Flemish, Croats, Scandanavians, the Baltics, Croats. It's hardly surprising they'd try to stir up unrest in the largely British-controlled Arab world.

I'm sceptical about that quote. It appears exclusively on right-wing websites, all apparently quoting the same book, and I seriously doubt its authenticity. The book is: "The Sword of the Prophet: The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam".

As for Matthias Kuentzel, he ignores the many other influences on Islamic Fundamentalism. The rise of Wahhabism, the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, the alliance between America and Saudi Arabia and the failure of Arab Nationalism (an ideology which is much closer to fascism than Islamic fundamentalism).

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by lord of the mark



Mollywobbles - Jefferson was famously reluctant to build a large US Navy, fearing it would lead to wars. He was very much a LIBERAL nationalist, one who distrusted war and militarism - that he had a blind spot about blacks and slavery was, I think, a part of his peculiar local circumstances, not a natural fruit of his ideology.
Cant speak to Hume, whom ive read only for technical phil, not politics.

Ladylordy (!) - he also considered cooperating with Napoleon on the suppression of the free slave republic of Haiti- because free black sailors were an obvious example to enslaved blacks in the new United States, and how could you keep them down on the farm when they've burned Port au Prince down ?


I'm not saying Jefferson or Hume were bad men- I don't think they were- but given their intelligence and depth of learning and experience, see what absurd assumptions they leap to, based on economic rationales and pseudo-science- products of the Enlightenment.


We topple the old gods and replace them with others.

Are the unique depravities of WW1 & WW2 down to western society or humanity generally?

Cort Haus


Nazi anti-semitism is ultimately the bastard child of nationalism and long centuries of Western Christian anti-semitism. The nationalism is founded upon certain distorted ideals of the Enlightenment and the resulting pseudo-scientifc rationalizations and an unpleasant agglomeration of Romantic myths.

Even in WWI Hindenburg and Ludendorff were entertaining bizarre notions of Prussian and German cultural 'superiority' as I mentioned in another thread, noting Ludendorff's comments on capturing Kaunas and noting a Teutonic Knights' castle nearby.

The wedding of aggressive nationalism with proselytizing religion seems to me a post Thirty Years' War European and Christian characteristic- taking up 'The White Man's Burden', bringing 'light' to the Dark Continent, Manifest Destiny, the pervasive portrayals of 'Oriental' races as effete, corrupt, lethargic or especially cunning and cruel, and the blind assumption of racial or genetic inferiority of non-white, non-European 'races'.