A suggestion:

[ironphoenix]

Read peristaltor's excellently researched and expressed post on "Islamofascism".

Comments

Re: Eh.

[ironphoenix.livejournal.com]

The key aspect which people are concerned about in the US, I think, is the manufacturing of fear of an implacable enemy in order to advance a totalitarian agenda. Complacent people demand more and more; fearful ones are all too willing to accept whatever purports to offer safety. The marginal popular support was nevertheless adequate: a few electoral shenanigans were sufficient to get GWB back into the White House for a second term.

So far, a critical element of a totalitarian state is lacking in the US: an effective, tacitly sanctioned, "thug caste". I'm not seeing Kristallnacht in the immediate future, fortunately.

There is a spectrum in these things. Totalitarianism, whether fascist or communist, are an extreme; what I am worried about isn't that the US has reached that extreme, but that the direction of movement along the spectrum tends that way from a starting point based on liberty and respect for individuals, and that that movement is motivated by gain in wealth and power for a particular group.

The problem with this kind of discussion is that the Nazis in particular have been so vilified that any comparison is read as hyperbole and ad hominem argument, even when it's sincere and valid.

Quite a few of the (admittedly few) people who read my LJ have pursued graduate-level studies, are considering doing so in the future, or have undertaken sufficient independent reading and thinking that they can operate in that frame. It's a public forum, but because the audience is somewhat select (generally self-selected), I don't feel a need to avoid academic usage; I tried to indicate that peristaltor's post was not to be taken with the keyword "well-researched," but perhaps a more explicit statement would have been helpful.

Islamofascism is a lousy term, partly because of its intended use in political dialogue, and partly because of the incorrect understanding of fascism it implies. Radical (political) Islam doesn't see to remove power from governments, so much as it seeks to Islamize the governments and give them totalitarian power to enforce whatever version of Shari'a law they deem appropriate; the Taliban regime was an excellent example of this. Saudi Arabia is an interesting case: the government is definitely Isalmist, but is not as totalitarian as others. (They are, of course, also rather materialistic, which may have something to do with their sometimes sketchy practices.) The radicals, however, generally support the rule of law, and not arbitrary dictatorial rule by a charismatic leader.