ze's blog :: zefrank.com
Ads Via The Deck

Via BuzzFeed

« wow | Main | mmmmm »

September 6, 2006


Sobran Column --- Words in Wartime

Bookmark and Share
Comments (15)

Semi-related quote:

"The national government will preserve and defend those basic principles on which our nation has been built up. It regards Christianity as the foundation of our national morality and the family as the basis of national life."

Who said this?
Adolf Hitler.


Posted by: Glass at September 6, 2006 12:08 PM

Is this term brought to us by the same people who gave us 'the Democrat Party'?

Sorry, we feminazis get out of hand sometime...

Posted by: girlie_sportsracer at September 6, 2006 12:47 PM

So, Glass, does this mean that all Christians are Nazis? I didn't get the memo...

Posted by: illc0mm at September 6, 2006 4:40 PM

illc0mm: It doesn't, but it illustrates the way that religions (which are, on the whole, a good thing) turn bad when they get melded with governments.

One of the reasons why Christianity is accused of evils in the world is because of the times when Christianity was "in charge" of most of Europe. When you mix church and state too much, the church gets accused of all sorts of evil things normally perpetrated by states.

Posted by: Pseudonym at September 6, 2006 8:51 PM

Ze, it appears that the last actual blog entry you wrote was dated 03/19/06. I think you should drop the charade and stick to The Show. (We may not think, but we can surf the Internet ourselves.)

Posted by: Joey B [TypeKey Profile Page] at September 6, 2006 9:52 PM

Nope illc0mm. Not my intention. But I thought it was interesting how perception of religion, when coupled with politics, created tension. It seemed worth exploring.

Posted by: Chris at September 7, 2006 2:20 AM

The point I take from the first comment is that anyone who wants to do something really dubious will first assert they are representing a moral high ground that is broadly under threat. Seems like a common enough ploy that works for both Muslims and Americans.

The term Islamofascist offends any Muslim who opposes the likes of bin Laden, but encapsulates a truth being that Islam tends to fanatical supremacism and that many Muslims present Islam as an enemy of the west and recruit Muslims everywhere for factional wars in numerous places. The word could even be taken as graciously distinguishing the anti-West mujahideen from other Muslims, although I wouldn't really stand by that. What I would stand by is that anyone who thinks Islamic terrorists are an invented enemy or that they represent the freedom of the oppressed is lying or stupid.

Posted by: Dom at September 7, 2006 8:25 AM

I love your work on your site, but this article is just silly. Islamofascists? How is it not possible to understand who and who is not an Islamofascists?

An Islamofascists would be someone who aspires to merge Islamic religious leadership and the political leadership of their company into either same, or a parallel power structure. Al-Qaeda does not strictly want to kick the US out of the Middle East, it wants to create Islamic states wherever possible. When Houssein was kicked out of Iraq by the US, it left a "power vacuum," one that Al-Qaeda saw and has decided that they are going to attempt to fill by causing chaos in Iraq. The hope is to bring about a civil war, scare the Americans away and then prop up an Islamic regime that merges Islam and government together.

As one of my political theory professors once said, the difference between Communism and Fascism is this: Communism ideally uses the "government," or "the party" to serve the people, while Fascism ideally uses the "government" to serve the glory of the State.

Islamofascists want to built up an Islamic state. Go look at the Taliban in Afghanistan, they are Islamofascists who succeeded until the world community marched into Afghanistan, bumped some heads, busted some knee-caps and got them out of ruling power. They are still there and aren't quite willing to just go away.

All in all, the article you posted, it contributes little to the discussion or debate about Islamofascists and only serves to "muddy the waters" of the debate.

Posted by: Joel B at September 7, 2006 12:30 PM

However, your humourous piece on the "War On Sting-Rays" as an unstated analogous comment on the "War on Terror" was amusing.

Posted by: Joel B at September 7, 2006 12:38 PM

Sorry, hard to buy that anyone still thinks Hitler was a Christian.

Were Christians the majority in Germany at the time? Yes.

Was it politically expedient to appeal to them, the masses, in order to gain power? Yes.

In his own words: "To whom should propaganda be addressed? … It must be addressed always and exclusively to the masses… The function of propaganda does not lie in the scientific training of the individual, but in calling the masses' attention to certain facts, processes, necessities, etc., whose significance is thus for the first time placed within their field of vision. The whole art consists in doing this so skillfully that everyone will be convinced that the fact is real, the process necessary, the necessity correct, etc. But since propaganda is not and cannot be the necessity in itself … its effect for the most part must be aimed at the emotions and only to a very limited degree at the so-called intellect… it's soundness is to be measured exclusively by its effective result". -Main Kampf

1941: "The reason why the ancient world was so pure, light and serene was that it knew nothing of the two great scourges: the pox and Christianity."

1942: "Our epoch in the next 200 years will certainly see the end of the disease of Christianity.... My regret will have been that I couldn't... behold ."

A search on google will accrue scores of quotes similar to these. Hitler, if anything, was pagan. This doesn’t mean that Hitler’s banter didn’t appeal to many Christians at the time, nor their roll in what occurred in Germany. But who really knew the extent of the atrocities? The US and allied powers didn’t until they broke the lines along with the Russians. And what of Stalin, an ally of the US, do we really know the extent of the atrocities he committed, even today?

Now we have Iraq and low these many years in Palestine/Israel, what do we know of the dead, tortured, and suffering there? By the hands of a government that represents us.

Posted by: history at September 7, 2006 12:38 PM

Joel -

i remember when i was just out of college.

its fun isn't it.

Posted by: dougk at September 7, 2006 1:38 PM

"Go look at the Taliban in Afghanistan, they are Islamofascists who succeeded until the world community marched into Afghanistan, bumped some heads, busted some knee-caps and got them out of ruling power."

where o where would we all be without euphemisms?

Posted by: monkey at September 10, 2006 1:55 PM

Thursday, December 4, 1997
A senior delegation from the Taleban movement in Afghanistan is in the United States for talks with an international energy company that wants to construct a gas pipeline from Turkmenistan across Afghanistan to Pakistan.

A spokesman for the company, Unocal, said the Taleban were expected to spend several days at the company's headquarters in Sugarland, Texas.

Unocal says it has agreements both with Turkmenistan to sell its gas and with Pakistan to buy it.

Much like Iran in 1951 the Taliban told BP and UNACAL to shove it we aren't going to give you the oil we will do itoutselves the responce was a coup and bom the shit out of them. - And you wonder why they hate

Afghanistan 'falling back into Taliban hands

Nato forces in southern Afghanistan are caught in a cycle of violence against the Taliban which is sparking poverty and starvation on a grand scale, a critical report has claimed.

Ongoing fighting is turning the average Afghan against British and US-led forces, leading some to claim their lives were better under Taliban rule, the report found.

It said the country was "falling back into the hands of the Taliban" with only "limited or no central government control" in the turbulent southern province of Helmand.

Posted by: pay attention at September 10, 2006 6:47 PM


How about your present a opinion, or counter point, rather than resort to cowardly character assassination?


Posted by: Joel B at September 13, 2006 4:55 PM

Joel B,
Real quick- if that's all your Political Theory Professor had to say about the difference between Communism and Fascism, then he needs to re-read Sir Thomas Hobbes' theory about the 'Sovereign State' found within the pages of "Leviathan".
But as far as the "muddy waters" comment, I feel that the lack of clarity on this issue is actually what this article is trying to rake up (no pun intended). If we as consumers are informed that as we are going to the market and purchasing our bread and butter, at the same time we are being fed this fearful propaganda through the tabloids, radio, and almost all other forms of media. Then instead of thinking within the terms and conditions that we feel most safe in, we could start to think more critically about the world around us and in effect, be more aware of the fact that we could change our immediate environment and possibly this action could ripple/branch outward and touch those who have been informed in the same way and thus a power reversal can eventually take place.
Now, if you are content with our current governmental policy being so close to Christian ethics that are portrayed and enforced by corporations which then is represented by our pitiful excuse for a capitalist economy, then by all means, disregard these comments and allow for the "bumping of heads and the busting of knee-caps" to continue (this apparently gets things done right?).
And for the record, I think I understand the term "Islamofascist" a little more thanks to the discussions.

Posted by: SometimesTheFurTurnsBrown [TypeKey Profile Page] at September 15, 2006 1:04 PM

Post a comment

Remember Me?