Ehhh.....it was late....or something.....Kharn said:Eheheheeh. Sander, fer God's sake, take a close look at that sentence.
Well, methinks CCR would disagree.Wrong, Sander.
Jihadists did not "already have one". Jihadism, an odd term, pretty much equates Islamism AKA "Fundamentalist Islam" AKA "Political Islam". Islamism was not an existing religious structure, rather Said Al Qutb took the Islam and twisted it to his own design. Political Islam has about as much to do with Islam as the KKK did with Christianity. It *is*, in fact, an invented sect
Right, so?John said:I know one or two anarchists (oddly enough, one is in my Poli-Sci class). Both douches. And I've read more about Anarchism then they have I am willing to bet.
Uh, kind of. He has a point, though, see above.Well, methinks CCR would disagree.
Cause it ain't modern, unless one considers gunpowder, the printing press and a constitutional monarchy to be dangerous new contraptions and silly new ideas.But is Jihadism really that modern? I thought it had existed as a very minor current within Islam before. Although I couldn't actually name any real reason to think that....heh.
You are right. There are a lot of diffirent kinds of anarchists. But to be honest the only ones I really respect are those who do not call themselves anarchists (Tolstoy, Kierkegaard mebbe). As far as I am concerned Bakunin was, well, evil, worse then any criminal.Look, anarchism is a number of things, you have the dumb-ass punk-kids who think they're cool when they want society to go down. You have the aggressive, violent anarchists, they're the ones you're talking about.
We say that the most dangerous criminal now is the entirely lawless modern philosopher. Compared to him, burglars and bigamists are essentially moral men; my heart goes out to them. They accept the essential ideal of man; they merely seek it wrongly. Thieves respect property. They merely wish the property to become their property that they may more perfectly respect it. But philosophers dislike property as property; they wish to destroy the very idea of personal possession. Bigamists respect marriage, or they would not go through the highly ceremonial and even ritualistic formality of bigamy. But philosophers despise marriage as marriage. Murderers respect human life; they merely wish to attain a greater fulness of human life in themselves by the sacrifice of what seems to them to be lesser lives. But philosophers hate life itself, their own as much as other people's.
No offence, but I don't have much respect for them either.But you also have the peaceful anarchists, who by and large smoke weed, protest peacefully (at times violently against the police who try to stop them) and grow rasta-hair.
History is not made by passive majorities but by violent minorities.Stuffing every single anarchist and anarchism itself into one corner, because the people in the violent corner are the ones you see most and focus on.
John Uskglass said:I'd say Islamofascism; that is, the mix of political Islam with equal parts Soviet and Nazi/Fascist with Anarchist-style terrorism is new. Political Islam is as old as the Caliphate.
Sander said:But is Jihadism really that modern? I thought it had existed as a very minor current within Islam before. Although I couldn't actually name any real reason to think that....heh.
Sander said:Oh, and this would make the one difference between sectists and Jihadists....none?
CC said:Tolstoy
CC said:Bakunin
I'd say they have quite a bit in common; both are more about 'stlye' then any meaningful economic or even social policy, both violent, both reactionary, but anti-capitalist and anti-communist, not a member of the Right or the Left. Also, read Bernard Lewis, the impact Fascism had on Islamofascism is considerable.Islamofascism is an inherently wrong term because its connotations are incorrect, even if fascism and "Jihadism" share a lot of common factors.
Islamism does have roots in the 1,300 hundred year old history of Political Islam, but Right Wing Islamism (Islamofascism) is new.And that depends on your definition of Political Islam. If you mean it to means "Islam as a political movement" it stems back far, if you mean it to be yet another name of Islamism, then it doesn't. Many call Islamism Political Islam because one of the core tenets of Islamism is that Islam is not only a religion but also a political system.
Yar.It all comes back to Maududi, Qutb and the fall of the Ottoman Empire anyway. The methods, terrorism, may be new, but that only barely influences the core philosophy, which is the same
You are entirely right, and I generally refrain from calling people Christan Anarchism, as Christian anti-government, pacifistic movements where 1,800 years old when Anarchism came along.I sometimes think Tolstoy has been somewhat unfairly drawn into the clutches of anarachism. I don't think he would have subscribed to the final philosophy of anarchism as it finally developed and even if he did he was a failure as a practical anarchist. I think his own experiences in life were good enough proof of how anarchism doesn't work, really...
Yar.Plus he was a pacifist, which kind of sets him apart from the ilk we've been criticising so far.
Better world is relative. Pol Pot believed he was creating a better world.I always have a hard time calling philosophers "evil", just like scientists are rarely "evil", unless the core of the philosophy is that you should kill people. Bakunin's philosophies were "evil" in a sense, but I wouldn't call him worse than any criminal, considering that he believed his thoughts would lead to a better world, not slaughter.
The guy was a Philosopher, and a better one then most of his contemporaries, in addition to being a better poet, journalist and theologian then basically anyone within 50 years before or after his death. Also funny.Hell, that bit you posted is just wry and stupid, looks like it was written by a guy that once got kicked in the nuts by a philosopher, or something.
I try not to hate anyone, but I fail in the case of Bakunin. I think he proves one of the main points in the book I quoted more then anyone who ever lived.You really hate Bakunin, though, ey?
John Uskglass said:I'd say they have quite a bit in common
John Uskglass said:Besides, I dislike Islamic Fundementalism just like I dislike Christian Fundementalism as terms, because in certain senses I am more of a Fundementalist Christian then any of the bible belt fundies.
John Uskglass said:Islamism does have roots in the 1,300 hundred year old history of Political Islam, but Right Wing Islamism (Islamofascism) is new.
John Uskglass said:Better world is relative. Pol Pot believed he was creating a better world.
John Uskglass said:I think if anybody could be considered 'evil', it would probably be Bakunin (along with some of the upper Nazis, Stalin and upper level Maoists).
John Uskglass said:The guy was a Philosopher, and a better one then most of his contemporaries, in addition to being a better poet, journalist and theologian then basically anyone within 50 years before or after his death. Also funny.
I'd be surprised if you did'nt know who he was by the quote.
welsh said:@ Ratty & Malkavian- stop picking on Aegis. This is not the Order where you may use your power to torment those you do not like for personal reasons. Keep the flaming off the board.
Malkavian said:Yeah, that's what I figured you'd say. God forbid you reprimand me or anyone else without using the phrase "This is not The Order..."
You are right.What they have in common is irrelevant. You don't call them anarchists because they share elements of anarchism either. If they're not actually tied together, there's no reason to use the same term for both.
Wow, we agree on two things in a row. Been a while.Fundamentalist as in "going back to the fundaments" never applied as a term to either bible belters or islamists. I don't generally use the term much either.
Post 1453 for religion. For instance, I'd call the Mormons and the Ba'hai 'new' faiths.Heh, I'd be curious as to how you define "new"
What I should have said is that it is not Left Wing, as Left Wing Islamism was pretty popular for a while and was basically religious Communism. But Fascism is, of course, neither a member of the left or the right, even if I did make the mistake of people I consider to be fascsitic 'right wing'.And I thought you just said Islamofascism isn't left or right?
Islamist=Suleiman the MagnificentAnd I'm curious as to how you split Islamism and "islamofascism"
Yes, but he was not personally responsible for them. Both Bakunin and Pol Pot called upon entire sections of society to be 'done away with', Pol Pot was merley more into the details and had actual power.Yes, but Pol Pot was directly in command of a regime that brought death unto millions, that's a bit different from philosophizing about an ideal world.
Marx, for all of his failured, for all of his oversights and for all the deaths that may be attributed to his philosophy, was not a violent man, and at his core his Communist world was inherintly nonviolent. Bakunin's goal was to literally outlaw God and every form of Morality I consider moral.Apart from being an anti-Semite, I fail to see how Bakunin was "evil" as such. His philosophy was not an innocent one, but even though he was a lot more prone to violence than his communist counterpart Marx, the latter's philosophy caused a lot more deaths than Bakunin's. So whu'?
Shit man, I live in a community of annoying, narcisistic rich people that would make Bret Easton Ellis vomit with rage. I'm not going to argue with him on that.Counter-quote: "The rich are the scum of the earth in every country."
But I dislike apologists of any ilk, Christian apologists no less than others.
John Uskglass said:Post 1453 for religion. For instance, I'd call the Mormons and the Ba'hai 'new' faiths.
John Uskglass said:What I should have said is that it is not Left Wing, as Left Wing Islamism was pretty popular for a while and was basically religious Communism. But Fascism is, of course, neither a member of the left or the right, even if I did make the mistake of people I consider to be fascsitic 'right wing'.
John Uskglass said:Islamist=Suleiman the Magnificent
Islamofascist=Abdul Hamid II
John Uskglass said:Yes, but he was not personally responsible for them.
John Uskglass said:Both Bakunin and Pol Pot called upon entire sections of society to be 'done away with', Pol Pot was merley more into the details and had actual power.
If Bakunin somehow gained control of, say, Imperial Russia, it's kind of hard to not imagine a place entering a dark age I don't really want to think about.
John Uskglass said:Marx, for all of his failured, for all of his oversights and for all the deaths that may be attributed to his philosophy, was not a violent man, and at his core his Communist world was inherintly nonviolent. Bakunin's goal was to literally outlaw God and every form of Morality I consider moral.
Marx believed he was creating a better world for the people he considered to be good and not inherintly parasitic, the Proletariant. Bakunin yearned for a world devoid of ethics, and that their only right was to 'obey the rights of nature', which in Bakunin's perverse little mind probably meant death.
John Uskglass said:Shit man, I live in a community of annoying, narcisistic rich people that would make Bret Easton Ellis vomit with rage. I'm not going to argue with him on that.
John Uskglass said:So you mean you've never engadged in
We have diffirent defenitions of Islamism. By Islamism I mean Islam in politics; Muhammed was an Islamist, so was Alp Arslan, etc...basically most Islamic rulers before Attaturk.Then Islamism is new, even if it has "old roots"
Wait...so Sikhism is new too?
Islamism has been around before either of our great, great, great, great, great grandfathers where alive, Kharn. Expansion of Dar al Islam, unification of the world leading to the apocalpsye and Islam being the bedfellow of politics is as old as Sunni Islam.Calling Suleiman an Islamist is incorrect and a heavy anachronism. Islamism is an actual philosophy and while you could say Suleiman displays Islamist tendencies you can not call him an Islamist anymore than you could call Charlemange a communist. Islamism did *not* exist before the 20th century, referring to anything pre-20th century as Islamist is incorrect usage of the term.
I'd say what I call 'Islamofascism'- that is, the beggining of the merging of Western notions of Nationalism, Socialism, Expansionism and even racial theroies start to pool into the formerly nice and playful Islamism.In fact, it's funny because Abdul Hamid II's reign saw the beginning of the birthing of Islamism.
Ordering != Death.Yes he was.
What I am saying is that on some level I can understand where Marx was coming from. I don't like Communism, and I don't think it's existance really benefitted anyone in the long run, but I can still vaugley understand how Marx thought he could create a better world. Bakunin was diffirent.And you don't see the problem in condemning the philosophy that caused less deaths over condemning the philosophy that caused more deaths? Just because one philosophy just intended more good? I thought you yourself argued just a bit before that good intent can be meaningless, so what is it that makes Bakunin's anarchism more evil than Marx' communism, when both intended the same final result but one actually caused more deaths in its failure to achieve such a result?
What was the point of this post? Do you expect me to claim that I'm actually talking to his spirit on a Owiji board or that he's actually a vampire I know very well?You'd have a hard time arguing with him, as he's dead
Defending a personal belief and ethical system that seems to work and defending a region that is FUBAR as a civilization with 'OMFG IT WAS THE WHITIES!' is diffirent, Kharn. Don't be asinine.Don't be asinine. When I say "apologists" I'm obviously not referring to everyone who ever defended anything, I'm referring to the string of theology, philosophy and, more recently, social science that defends and "apologizes for" a religion or belief-structure. I dislike Christian apologists as much as I dislike the Muslim apologism that is currently so popular in anthropology.
John Uskglass said:We have diffirent defenitions of Islamism.
John Uskglass said:Pol Pot ordered the death of millions of people, but he did not kill them. Bakunin also ordered the deaths of millions; the diffirence is that one order had people on the receiving end.
John Uskglass said:What I am saying is that on some level I can understand where Marx was coming from. I don't like Communism, and I don't think it's existance really benefitted anyone in the long run, but I can still vaugley understand how Marx thought he could create a better world. Bakunin was diffirent.
John Uskglass said:What was the point of this post? Do you expect me to claim that I'm actually talking to his spirit on a Owiji board or that he's actually a vampire I know very well?
John Uskglass said:Defending a personal belief and ethical system that seems to work and defending a region that is FUBAR as a civilization with 'OMFG IT WAS THE WHITIES!' is diffirent, Kharn. Don't be asinine.
It is not.
Pol Pot ordered the deaths of millions knowing full-well this order would be executed.
Bakunin philosophised loosely about the death of millions in a possible future world. He did not know if this would come true and might not even have expected it to.
The difference is pretty essential
Because it was not a nessicarily terrible idea in the beggining. There's a diffirence between defending Communism after 100,000,000 deaths and defending Communism in Marx's day.That leaves the point of why one is more evil than the other unadressed, if in your view good intent does not good make.
What, exactly, is your problem with them? Does'nt everything need it's Apologists? Where would Liberal Democracy be without people who are able to defend current institutions against new ideas and attacks?I did not say it wasn't different, me having problems with both doesn't mean I have the same problems with both
Colloquial usage
Today the term "apologist" is colloquially applied to groups and individuals systematically promoting causes, justifying orthodoxies or denying certain events, even of crimes. Apologists are often characterized as being deceptive, or "whitewashing" their cause, primarily through omission of negative facts (selective perception) and exaggeration of positive ones, techniques of classical rhetoric. When used in this context, the term often has a pejorative meaning. The neutralized substitution of "spokesperson" for "apologist" in conversation conveys much the same sense of "partisan presenter with a weighted agenda," with less rhetorical freight.
[edit]
Technical usages
The term apologetics etymologically derives from the Classical Greek word "apologia". In Classical Greek legal system two key technical terms were employed: the prosecution delivered the "kategoria", and the defendant replied with an "apologia". To deliver an "apologia" then meant making a formal speech to reply and rebut the charges. Plato's book The Apology was an account of Socrates' defence in court against his accusers.
This Classical Greek term appears in the Koine (i.e. common) Greek of the New Testament. The Apostle Paul employs the term "apologia" in his trial speech to Festus and Agrippa when he says "I make my defence" (Acts 26:2). A cognate term appears in Paul's letter to the Philippians as he is "defending the gospel" (1:7 & 17), and in 1 Peter 3:15 believers must be ready to give an "answer" for their faith.
The legal nuance of apologetics was reframed in a more specific sense to refer to the study of the defence of a doctrine or belief. In this context it most commonly refers to philosophical reconciliation. Religious apologetics is the effort to show that the preferred faith is not irrational, that believing in it is not against human reason, and that in fact the religion contains values and promotes ways of life more in accord with human nature than other faiths or beliefs.
In the English language the word apology, derived from the Greek word "apologia", but often has been used to refer to a defensive plea for forgiveness for an action that is open to blame. It is occasionally used to refer to a speech or writing that defends the author's position.
John Uskglass said:You are right about Islamism then. I generally use it as just Politics+Islam, but I was wrong.
So what's the diffirence between Islamism and what I call Islamofascism in your mind?
John Uskglass said:I'd say the only diffirence here is power, if we assume (as I assume both of us assume) that Bakunin belived what he preached.
John Uskglass said:Because it was not a nessicarily terrible idea in the beggining. There's a diffirence between defending Communism after 100,000,000 deaths and defending Communism in Marx's day.
John Uskglass said:What, exactly, is your problem with them? Does'nt everything need it's Apologists? Where would Liberal Democracy be without people who are able to defend current institutions against new ideas and attacks?
(...)
Anyway, Kharn, you don't understand what Apologetics really are.
Actually, I just learned Christopher Hitchens coined the term, thus I will never, ever use it again. And you are right.I'm not sure as to what you call Islamofascism, it's confusing because fascism is areligious and Islamism is not, which means that Islamism does not only dominate the political scene but also dictates how you should live your personal life, which seperates it from fascism clearly.
Actually, it makes a lot of sense. People who live good Muslim lives would probably not feel the need to go through such extreme measures to ensure their 70something cherries to pop are up in heaven. A lazy, middle class jackass who never worked a day in his life and rarley went to prayer would.Which is interesting, because a number of modern-day terrorists aren't actually islamists or at least fail to live proper islamist lives. The terrorists who bombed Madrid, noticeably.
Meh. We are entitled to our hunches and our dislikes in this world.Yes, if and when, no way to tell, is there?
Bakuinin's intent was never good IMO Kharn, he wanted an inherintly violent world where all things where bare before the 'natural order' and nothing else. Marx's philosophy was somewhat pacificistic in the end when compared to Bakunin's.Again, you argued yourself before that merit can not necessarily be found in good intent but in good actions. If Bakunin's good intent in his philosophy is void by the violent nature of his philosophy in practice, why is this not true for Marx? And why, again, is Marx the lesser evil? Better intent?
Jesus, you still don't really get it."Religious apologetics is the effort to show that the preferred faith is not irrational, that believing in it is not against human reason, and that in fact the religion contains values and promotes ways of life more in accord with human nature than other faiths or beliefs."
WTF? Seriously, WTF? Not ALL fucking Anthropologists are like that. WTF? Anthropology is the field I dream of getting my Bachelor's in at the UofC.Refers to anthropologists
John Uskglass said:Bakuinin's intent was never good IMO Kharn, he wanted an inherintly violent world where all things where bare before the 'natural order' and nothing else. Marx's philosophy was somewhat pacificistic in the end when compared to Bakunin's.
John Uskglass said:Apologetics as practiced by G.K. Chesterton is defence. For instance, Russell's classic (if dangerously moronic) Why I Am Not A Chirstian is an example of Secular Humanist Apologetics. It is ideological defense.
You are confusing the colloquially applied and the real defenition of the word.
John Uskglass said:WTF? Seriously, WTF? Not ALL fucking Anthropologists are like that. WTF? Anthropology is the field I dream of getting my Bachelor's in at the UofC.
Wooz said:Well, obviously Anarchism and Islam and Fascism are the same.
That's why one should be a Bokononist.