I don't agree. Socialist is a term (that in US parlance) is synonymous with communism. From this country, "socialist" is largely associated with left-leaning statist loons.
I don't agree. Socialist is a term (that in US parlance) is synonymous with communism. From this country, "socialist" is largely associated with left-leaning statist loons.
France has never been a communist countrie, ask the difference to people who used to live in real commies countries.
France has never been a communist countrie, ask the difference to people who used to live in real commies countries.
You're correct, but it feels like one. Whenever anyone goes on strike; it's supported. Unilaterraly.
Except that strikes are/were illegal in actual communist countries.
Many in the U.S. feel that Western Europe is ?socialist? while many in Wesatern Europe feel that the U.S. adheres to laissez-faire. Both are wrong of course. Both the U.S. and Western European countries are Western democracies with a regulated market economy and some form of welfare state. The variation is only in degree, and the common outweighs the different.
Still, now that most communist countries are gone (save for odd the Cuba or North Korea) one tends to focus on some small points of difference.
As for support for strikes, it is far from unanimous, and finds opposition by many in France.
You're correct, but it feels like one. Whenever anyone goes on strike; it's supported. Unilaterraly.
I agree with the answer of Immanuel Goldstein. I will emphasis that the support of strikes are far from wide. Like many of my friends i am really upset of global strikes.
There is problems in France, that's clear, but it did not make it a commie countrie.
bears no relation to this and is more in line with Zounic's original. Full details here.
So? You're only familiar with one part of the issue.
Interstingly this article (bottom paragraph) contains quotes that make it completely clear that he is against right-wing, xenophobic racism.
As opposed to left-wing xenophobic racism which would be fine?
So, he finds a right-wing president of a democratic country to be ?racist, xenophobic and facist? (sic) but finds that a charismatic leader of a totalitarian fundamnetalist far-right terror movement ?inspires respect?.
So mediocre and un-original, like so many in the nineteen-fifties, sixties, all the way to the eighties, who had more criticism for the then U.S. presidents than for a Stalin, a Mao, or a Pol Pot.
Apparently you've never lived in (or visited ?) Spain or Italy.
Laugh out loud if you like. Massive ownership of state assets and control of same; lack of freedom to run a bus up the main street, or a train into Milan. F'*^ off with your query; go and annoy another G6 summit. If you get the time from your studies and your dad can pay for it.
That this ?only quote? is rather limited? Reasonably so.
Quote:
Quote:
As opposed to left-wing xenophobic racism which would be fine?
Well the original thrust of this thread is about Jewish and 'old time' racists forgetting their traditional roles and respective right/left positions in support of a common cause no ?
Of which the proportion was shown in the proper context of rapprochement between the far-right and far-left, notably when it came to antisemite activities.
Quote:
But back to Dieudonné, obvously he doesn't see himself as a racist (which is what you suggest - i.e. that he admits it)?
Obvious only if you choose to dismiss the declaration he made last February in a conference, in front of a crowd of witnesses in the Palais de Justice.
Quote:
?or he wouldn't make the comment I drew your attention to. He'd say something like 'I don't like Bush but at least he's a racist' not 'I don't like Bush because he's a racist'.
Why couldn't he talk of his racist antisemite programme and say he doesn't like Bush's racism as well?
One can find one's shortcoming acceptable while loudly condemning the same thing one attributes to others; hardly an novelty.
Quote:
It's a bit disengenous to suggest that his definition hinges on left/right distinctions. I suspect you know as well as I do that Dieudonné's political stance considers racism to be a predominantly right-wing phenomena. A theory which has much evidence to support it.
Do you mean that Stalin, Brezhnev, and the like were right-wingers? Theory indeed.
Racism is a prediminantly human phenomenon. You'll find it left and right, more commonly on the extremes of both.
Quote:
Btw - I can't let you get away with the 'Bin Laden' spin either. In case you didn't read the article, what he said was "he is alone against the biggest power in the world, so naturally he inspires respect.".
He didn't say that he himself respected OBL, nor did he stipulate exactly who the respect was inspired in, nor did he make a moral judgement on it: he merely stated a fact that is applicable to some people in the world as it most certainly is - check out downtown Damascus, Teheran, San'a, Ramallah, Kabul, Baghdad and on. You'll find people who respect OBL - that's all he said.
I see I'll have to quote myself here:
Quote:
«So, he finds a right-wing president of a democratic country to be ?racist, xenophobic and facist? (sic) but finds that a charismatic leader of a totalitarian fundamnetalist far-right terror movement ?inspires respect?.»
He obviously has a more nuanced opinion about Osama Bin Ladin than about George W. Bush, who gets the summary, unmitigated ?racist/xenophobic/fascist? verdict.
Quote:
You don't have to agree with him but that doesn't make it 'hate speech'. Those are the reasons he 'got away with it' as you might say.
His condemnation of Bush or his more ambiguous opinion of Bin Ladin were not what I was referring to, but rather to the way he himself described his programme a few months ago: as one of racism, including antisemitism, and of support to a fundamentalist far-right terrorist.
That this ?only quote? is rather limited? Reasonably so.
Oops,silly me ! Was intending to convey 'only quote of this nature'
I am getting dotty in my old age...
So let me rephrase that: that you are familiar with one aspect of the issue doesn't mean the rest of it doesn't exist.
Quote:
Quote:
Obvious only if you choose to dismiss the declaration he made last February in a conference, in front of a crowd of witnesses in the Palais de Justice.
As I say, I have heard no such quote. Produce it and I will dismiss or accept on the basis of the literal quotation/translation.
I've provided the actual quote, in French, along with the time and the place of the declaration. That is specific enough.
Quote:
Quote:
Do you mean that Stalin, Brezhnev, and the like were right-wingers?
Do you mean that Stalin, Brezhnev and the like were primarily following a racist agenda ?
Throughout its existence, the Soviet Union implemented racist policies against ethnic and other minorities both within its borders as well as in ?brotherly countries?; sure their stated noble causes were ?peace?, ?equality?, ?freedom?, ?friendship among peoples? and the such, rather than in-your-face-racism, so bloody what?
Quote:
Quote:
Racism is a prediminantly human phenomenon. You'll find it left and right, more commonly on the extremes of both.
I would disagree with this. Imo racism is a sub human phenomenon.
Who are you calling ?sub-human?, human?
Quote:
But then I suppose I would put extremists of all dyes into this category in the main so maybe you're right. However, I am at a loss to think of too many left-wing racists. Sure, Stalin killed many more people in the purges than Hitler did but I don't think it's too easy to argue a racist motivation for it.
Stalin's policy of forced deportation and starvation of targetted minorities within the U.S.S.R., along with its policy of Russification (although he was a Georgian himself), was most definitely racist. While racism didn't hold a place as central and as blatant in the Soviet Empire as it did in the Nazi one, it was definitely there.
The same holds for many other regimes cherishing the class struggle and the dictatorship of the proletariat.
Quote:
Your description of Bin Laden as a far-right terrorist is also a bit wide of the mark I think. Unless of course he isn't an Islamic fundamentalist at all which sometimes strikes me as possible if not likely. As you probably know, Islam does not stem from a political left/right dialectic, feeling little need for one as (in their view) God has 'laid down the law' for all time. A fundie such as OBL is portrayed to be would presumably feel this all the more so. Hence the desire for a return Caliphate.
The Khilafa dreamed by Bin Ladin and glimpsed by the Taleban has little in common with that of Al Mansour, Haroun al-Rashid or even Süleyman the Magnificent (and feudal monarchies themselves are by convention ranged right-of-centre, usually).
Moreover, exacerbated clericalism along with the rejection of modern social and political developments in favour of an idealised past (which never existed), when combined with a non-compromising totalitarian conception of the state, that's quite the far-right.
Quote:
Btw, have you noticed that the gentleman in question is himself of ethnic origin ?
And who isn't?
Quote:
This opens an interesting line of inquiry if you're up for it. I mean we can safely assume that he isn't including himself in his purported racism so if he is selective in this regard (again IF) then to what degree is he to be considered a racist ?
To the degree shown by his words (freely and publically expressed) and/or deeds.
Quote:
To my mind, a racist is someone who believes in the inate superiority of a given racial grouping (Jewish, Aryan etc) over all others on this basis alone and consequently views people not falling into this criteria as 'lesser'. Someone who dislikes (or even hates) a specific race is not necessarily a racist imo. My grandfather always hated the Germans because of certain war experiences he had. I don't say it's good but I don't say he was a racist either.
If he hated all Germans for the simple fact of being Germans, he certainly was.
To collectively attribute inherent traits (notably negative ones) to any group of people, to harbour determined sentiments (notably negative ones) for individuals for the simple reason of being part of a certain group (ethnic, religious, linguistic, one sharing some physical features) is racist, it follows that one having such views would considers as ?inferiors? some or all of those groups he sees as not his own.
It is normal though, to find hostility between groups involved in a violent conflict with each other, sometimes leading to racist feelings, which usually recede after the conflict is gone.
That in no way constitutes a justification for such feelings.
Quote:
Actually, I don't think the words racist, facist, Nazi etc are to be used lightly, it devalues them and in a way validates the reality behind them. This is a mistake Dieudonné often makes.
Segovious, I can't associate you with your country because that wouldn't be right. I can however do so with you politics. France, along with Germany and Russia had the most to lose with the US intervention.
Segovious, I can't associate you with your country because that wouldn't be right. I can however do so with you politics. France, along with Germany and Russia had the most to lose with the US intervention.
That old story
IF they thought with their wallet the best thing to do was to back the war. It was evident for everybody in late 2002 that US would attack no matter what. So to get into the game all they had to do was to go along with it.
So let me rephrase that: that you are familiar with one aspect of the issue doesn't mean the rest of it doesn't exist.
No, but it does mean I don't comment on things I don't know about. On...
Quote:
I've provided the actual quote, in French , along with the time and the place of the declaration. That is specific enough.
Not for me I'm afraid...
I provided it for everyone, on this thread, with the location, the date, and the actual quote en français dans le texte.
Quote:
?not that I think you'd spin it or anything, I just prefer to see these things for myself. As I say so far I haven't. You seem to know the subject intimately though so why not produce it 'from the horses mouth' as it were.
I gather you have all necessary specifics and are adequately equipped to find out and see for yourself.
Or, to quote an honourable participant in these fora: ?Google is your friend?.
Quote:
Quote:
Throughout its existence, the Soviet Union implemented racist policies against ethnic and other minorities both within its borders as well as in ?brotherly countries?; sure their stated noble causes were ?peace?, ?equality?, ?freedom?, ?friendship among peoples? and the such, rather than in-your-face-racism, so bloody what?
You say tomato....
Nb: check out my definition of racism in post you are replying to. In that sense they were not racists, they were persecuting 'enemies of the state'. If you really think 'so bloody what' why bother anyway, I could just bring in Ted Bundy, Son of Sam and Jack the Ripper. Let me know if you want to go there - I'm always good for a laugh !
When entire minority groups are collectively labeled ?enemies of the state? and targetted as such, as was the case in the former U.S.S.R. and similar regimes, it definitely is racism. That the officially pretext was more like ?peace and liberty for the working people? rather than ?the good of the race?, is irrelevent.
Quote:
Quote:
Who are you calling ?sub-human?, human?
err...racists ?
Please don't tell me it's the 'normal human condition'. I'll only say 'what's your problem with it then ?'
I'm afraid I'll have to: there are many negative traits to the human condition, racism being one of them. We also tend to like violence and to find amusement in our fellow human being's pain. Acknowledging the non-flattering sides of our nature doesn't mean we have to submissively accept them as our society's norms; knowing it, is necessary for us to face it and overcome it as is humanly possible.
Quote:
Quote:
The Khilafa dreamed by Bin Ladin and glimpsed by the Taleban has little in common with that of Al Mansour, Haroun al-Rashid or even Süleyman the Magnificent (and feudal monarchies themselves are by convention ranged right-of-centre, usually).
Here I think we can agree. Although I would hesitate to put those 3 in the same subset. Al Mansour was a bit of a cut above the norm in many ways, Haroun certainly wasn't the same character you doubtless have read about in the 'Nights' and Suleyman, well...I don't think the Ottomans really count as part of the Caliphate. Up there on the Tyrants Leaderboard though. Not sure that feudal monarchy is really the right term here either but no matter.
I did not present them as ?3 in the same subset? but as forms of what was and is referred to as Khilafa by practicing Muslims (for many the proverbial straw breaking the the camel's back was the dismemberment of the Ottoman Empire by the WW1 Allies and it dissolution by Atatürk). As for the term ?feudal?, it usually rrefers to a sitation in which you have elements such as serfs working the land, a hereditary aristocracy, and the such.
Quote:
The fact is that OBL and the Taleban wouldn't approve of any period of Islamic history as being 'appropriate'. For the simple reason that Clerics have never wielded power until recent times. The Caliph was in no way a religious figure as any study of characters such as Walid or Yazid 2 will show.
OBL and crew want something new, something that they have devised as a solution to what they see as contemporary problems.
Like all religious revolutionaries (which is what fundamentalists are), Islamists claim to restore the ?old time religion? just like so many Western reformers or ?revivalists? of the last five centuries, is not quite accurate. Obvioulsy many of their followers as well as detractors buy into their spurious claims.
Quote:
As long as the West refuses to see this and continues to reference their actions to traditional Islam (to demonise it imo but that's another story) then they can't defeat them. All the time they're only hitting the shadow....
Islamism is certainly a symptom to problems experienced by the Islamic religion and culture, as the Reformation and the religious wars were symptoms of then Christianity's as well as Christendom's problems. To claim such excesses are somewhat inherent to Islam would be Islamophobia, which is a form of racism.
If the West overcame it sown ?adolsecence pains? (which make current Islamism look benign), others can as well.
However, should mainstream Muslims wish to be dissociated from extremist Islamism, it's up to them to make it manifest. Alas, it seems more fashionable to blame all ills on occult plots by evil imperialists.
Quote:
Re my old grandpappy: looks like we have different definitions of what it is to be a racist. That's ok though - we can play by your definition to make it easier.
Nothing to be ashamed of, there are racists in my extended family as well.
Prejudices and hatred of people for being part of a group had always existed, however the advent of racist theories nearly two centuries ago had transformed these prejudices and made them more virulent. So the term usually referring to all such prejudices is ?racism? even in the absence of a complete race theory.
I gather you have all necessary specifics and are adequately equipped to find out and see for yourself.
Or, to quote an honourable participant in these fora: ?Google is your friend?.
What I was hoping for was all the info in the same place from a reliable source. No matter. Google wasn't particularly friendly in this regard but I DID find quite a few noxious extreme right-wing sites. Maybe you meant them ? Another thread, another time on that one maybe.
It seems there was little professional coverage of it aside of a few offline newsletters and some web-based publication specialised in Middle-Eastern and related affairs. So here's a full atricle which requires paying subscription (it was freely accessible a few months ago), an introduction can be read here.
I suppose that more info could be found in Realspace (notably in the Paris area).
Quote:
Quote:
When entire minority groups are collectively labeled ?enemies of the state? and targetted as such, as was the case in the former U.S.S.R. and similar regimes, it definitely is racism. That the officially pretext was more like ?peace and liberty for the working people? rather than ?the good of the race?, is irrelevent.
Not to me. Again read my personal understanding of what racism is. You don't have to accept it - but to make it clearer:
Racism is the product of a racist mentality not a condition assigned by the arbitrary judgement of someone on the recieving end or some other party.
Stalin was a paranoid psychopath and justified his actions by lying in the manner you describe. Just because he killed large numbers of members of ethnic groupings it does not follow that his agenda was a racist one.
If those killed (or deported or left to starve, or otherwise discriminated against) were because they happened to belong to such and such grouping, which was indeed the case, it means the policy in question was racist.
Quote:
Ok, wait for it:
If Racism is just human nature what's your problem with it ?
The same I have with the likes of aggressivness, greed, hubris, etc.
Quote:
Imo it is a psychological abberation that is a kind of mental equivalence of a cancer and NOT an evolutionary development. Certainly it is learnt behaviour rather than inate. In what way is that 'human nature' ? You're selling us all short - we're better than that. Or maybe you are amalgamating it with violence which may well be 'human nature' as you say.
Like the eagerness we have to kill and maim each other, we also have the tendency to exclude from those we deem ?others? the human dignity we grant to those we deem ?kin?. However, that is not an inescapable fatality, and it can be overcome, if acknowledged and faced.
I think the fact that we live in societies which are far more tolerant and far less violent than those which preceded us, shows the extent of our abilities, notably our ability for freedom. I woudn't call such perspective ?selling humanity short?.
Quote:
Quote:
I did not present them as ?3 in the same subset? but as forms of what was and is referred to as Khilafa by practicing Muslims (for many the proverbial straw breaking the the camel's back was the dismemberment of the Ottoman Empire by the WW1 Allies and it dissolution by Atatürk).
You have to seperate the idea of the Caliphate from the idea of what modern Islamists?
I wrote ?practicing Muslims? (implying: of the traditional kind) and not ?modern Islamists?.
Quote:
Quote:
As for the term ?feudal?, it usually rrefers to a sitation in which you have elements such as serfs working the land, a hereditary aristocracy, and the such.
Which is why it is inapplicable in the Islamic context.
There were serfs as well as aristocrats in numerous historic Islamic states including caliphates.
Quote:
Quote:
Like all religious revolutionaries (which is what fundamentalists are), Islamists claim to restore the ?old time religion? just like so many Western reformers or ?revivalists? of the last five centuries, is not quite accurate. Obvioulsy many of their followers as well as detractors buy into their spurious claims.
This is an easy one to resolve:
1) Make a list of the Islamists wishes and actions.
2) Make a list of the description of what a muslim must do and believe as derived from the Qu'ran
3) Compare lists. Without bending it to any personal agenda or spinningit in any way.
4) Note where they differ and divide into two camps if necessary.
5) Choose which you want top accept as the accurate picture of what Islam actually is: the Qur'an or some 21st century individual's personal opinion.
The differences between traditional forms of Islam and contemporary Islamist variants can be gauged at reasonable effort, it remains tht many among both sympathisers and opponents buy the Islamists' ?old time religion? schtick.
As for what Islam actually is or what it will actually be, that's ultimately up to the Muslims themselves.
Quote:
Quote:
Islamism is certainly a symptom to problems experienced by the Islamic religion and culture, as the Reformation and the religious wars were symptoms of then Christianity's as well as Christendom's problems.
A response to some problems yes. I'm more interested in who's causing the problems...
Like most problems those are caused by multiple factors. Without getting into the minutiae I suggest that Islamism is not among the solutions.
Quote:
Islamophobia is not a form of racism (religionism ?) but we've done that one...
As said earlier: hatred, hostility, or discrimination toward a group (whether ethnic, cultural, religious, or one defined along the fictitious concept of ?race?, among others) is termed ?racism?. Along this line, antisemitism as well as Islamophobia are forms of racism.
Quote:
Adolescent pains: yes of course. Agree absolutely. The soil and microclimate are less conducive to 'growth' nowadays but it's still a possibility.
Well, I'm never ashamed about someone else's actions or beliefs. Doesn't make sense somehow. Actually there are some Hall of Fame Gold Medal winning racists in my family. Just my grandfather wan't one of them.
According to your understanding of the issue; I gather my own understanding on the same issue was clearly expressed.
Comments
Originally posted by banana
I don't agree. Socialist is a term (that in US parlance) is synonymous with communism. From this country, "socialist" is largely associated with left-leaning statist loons.
France has never been a communist countrie, ask the difference to people who used to live in real commies countries.
Originally posted by Powerdoc
France has never been a communist countrie, ask the difference to people who used to live in real commies countries.
You're correct, but it feels like one. Whenever anyone goes on strike; it's supported. Unilaterraly.
Originally posted by banana
Originally posted by Powerdoc
France has never been a communist countrie, ask the difference to people who used to live in real commies countries.
You're correct, but it feels like one. Whenever anyone goes on strike; it's supported. Unilaterraly.
Except that strikes are/were illegal in actual communist countries.
Many in the U.S. feel that Western Europe is ?socialist? while many in Wesatern Europe feel that the U.S. adheres to laissez-faire. Both are wrong of course. Both the U.S. and Western European countries are Western democracies with a regulated market economy and some form of welfare state. The variation is only in degree, and the common outweighs the different.
Still, now that most communist countries are gone (save for odd the Cuba or North Korea) one tends to focus on some small points of difference.
As for support for strikes, it is far from unanimous, and finds opposition by many in France.
Originally posted by banana
You're correct, but it feels like one. Whenever anyone goes on strike; it's supported. Unilaterraly.
I agree with the answer of Immanuel Goldstein. I will emphasis that the support of strikes are far from wide. Like many of my friends i am really upset of global strikes.
There is problems in France, that's clear, but it did not make it a commie countrie.
Originally posted by banana
I don't believe I ever said commie. I think it is fundamentally a socialist state. Most of the European union is aswell.
Here what you wrote some posts before :
Socialist is a term (that in US parlance) is synonymous with communism
Originally posted by segovius
The only quote I'm familiar with of his?
Which you'll agree is a fairly limited spectrum.
bears no relation to this and is more in line with Zounic's original. Full details here.
So? You're only familiar with one part of the issue.
Interstingly this article (bottom paragraph) contains quotes that make it completely clear that he is against right-wing, xenophobic racism.
As opposed to left-wing xenophobic racism which would be fine?
So, he finds a right-wing president of a democratic country to be ?racist, xenophobic and facist? (sic) but finds that a charismatic leader of a totalitarian fundamnetalist far-right terror movement ?inspires respect?.
So mediocre and un-original, like so many in the nineteen-fifties, sixties, all the way to the eighties, who had more criticism for the then U.S. presidents than for a Stalin, a Mao, or a Pol Pot.
And an antisemite to boot.
Originally posted by segovius
Spain and Italy Socialist ?????????
Apparently you've never lived in (or visited ?) Spain or Italy.
Laugh out loud if you like. Massive ownership of state assets and control of same; lack of freedom to run a bus up the main street, or a train into Milan. F'*^ off with your query; go and annoy another G6 summit. If you get the time from your studies and your dad can pay for it.
Originally posted by segovius
Originally posted by Immanuel Goldstein
Originally posted by segovius
The only quote I'm familiar with of his?
Which you'll agree is a fairly limited spectrum.
Would I agree ? Are you sure ?
That this ?only quote? is rather limited? Reasonably so.
As opposed to left-wing xenophobic racism which would be fine?
Well the original thrust of this thread is about Jewish and 'old time' racists forgetting their traditional roles and respective right/left positions in support of a common cause no ?
Of which the proportion was shown in the proper context of rapprochement between the far-right and far-left, notably when it came to antisemite activities.
But back to Dieudonné, obvously he doesn't see himself as a racist (which is what you suggest - i.e. that he admits it)?
Obvious only if you choose to dismiss the declaration he made last February in a conference, in front of a crowd of witnesses in the Palais de Justice.
?or he wouldn't make the comment I drew your attention to. He'd say something like 'I don't like Bush but at least he's a racist' not 'I don't like Bush because he's a racist'.
Why couldn't he talk of his racist antisemite programme and say he doesn't like Bush's racism as well?
One can find one's shortcoming acceptable while loudly condemning the same thing one attributes to others; hardly an novelty.
It's a bit disengenous to suggest that his definition hinges on left/right distinctions. I suspect you know as well as I do that Dieudonné's political stance considers racism to be a predominantly right-wing phenomena. A theory which has much evidence to support it.
Do you mean that Stalin, Brezhnev, and the like were right-wingers? Theory indeed.
Racism is a prediminantly human phenomenon. You'll find it left and right, more commonly on the extremes of both.
Btw - I can't let you get away with the 'Bin Laden' spin either. In case you didn't read the article, what he said was "he is alone against the biggest power in the world, so naturally he inspires respect.".
He didn't say that he himself respected OBL, nor did he stipulate exactly who the respect was inspired in, nor did he make a moral judgement on it: he merely stated a fact that is applicable to some people in the world as it most certainly is - check out downtown Damascus, Teheran, San'a, Ramallah, Kabul, Baghdad and on. You'll find people who respect OBL - that's all he said.
I see I'll have to quote myself here:
«So, he finds a right-wing president of a democratic country to be ?racist, xenophobic and facist? (sic) but finds that a charismatic leader of a totalitarian fundamnetalist far-right terror movement ?inspires respect?.»
He obviously has a more nuanced opinion about Osama Bin Ladin than about George W. Bush, who gets the summary, unmitigated ?racist/xenophobic/fascist? verdict.
You don't have to agree with him but that doesn't make it 'hate speech'. Those are the reasons he 'got away with it' as you might say.
His condemnation of Bush or his more ambiguous opinion of Bin Ladin were not what I was referring to, but rather to the way he himself described his programme a few months ago: as one of racism, including antisemitism, and of support to a fundamentalist far-right terrorist.
Originally posted by segovius
Originally posted by Immanuel Goldstein
That this ?only quote? is rather limited? Reasonably so.
Oops,silly me ! Was intending to convey 'only quote of this nature'
I am getting dotty in my old age...
So let me rephrase that: that you are familiar with one aspect of the issue doesn't mean the rest of it doesn't exist.
Obvious only if you choose to dismiss the declaration he made last February in a conference, in front of a crowd of witnesses in the Palais de Justice.
As I say, I have heard no such quote. Produce it and I will dismiss or accept on the basis of the literal quotation/translation.
I've provided the actual quote, in French, along with the time and the place of the declaration. That is specific enough.
Do you mean that Stalin, Brezhnev, and the like were right-wingers?
Do you mean that Stalin, Brezhnev and the like were primarily following a racist agenda ?
Throughout its existence, the Soviet Union implemented racist policies against ethnic and other minorities both within its borders as well as in ?brotherly countries?; sure their stated noble causes were ?peace?, ?equality?, ?freedom?, ?friendship among peoples? and the such, rather than in-your-face-racism, so bloody what?
Racism is a prediminantly human phenomenon. You'll find it left and right, more commonly on the extremes of both.
I would disagree with this. Imo racism is a sub human phenomenon.
Who are you calling ?sub-human?, human?
But then I suppose I would put extremists of all dyes into this category in the main so maybe you're right. However, I am at a loss to think of too many left-wing racists. Sure, Stalin killed many more people in the purges than Hitler did but I don't think it's too easy to argue a racist motivation for it.
Stalin's policy of forced deportation and starvation of targetted minorities within the U.S.S.R., along with its policy of Russification (although he was a Georgian himself), was most definitely racist. While racism didn't hold a place as central and as blatant in the Soviet Empire as it did in the Nazi one, it was definitely there.
The same holds for many other regimes cherishing the class struggle and the dictatorship of the proletariat.
Your description of Bin Laden as a far-right terrorist is also a bit wide of the mark I think. Unless of course he isn't an Islamic fundamentalist at all which sometimes strikes me as possible if not likely. As you probably know, Islam does not stem from a political left/right dialectic, feeling little need for one as (in their view) God has 'laid down the law' for all time. A fundie such as OBL is portrayed to be would presumably feel this all the more so. Hence the desire for a return Caliphate.
The Khilafa dreamed by Bin Ladin and glimpsed by the Taleban has little in common with that of Al Mansour, Haroun al-Rashid or even Süleyman the Magnificent (and feudal monarchies themselves are by convention ranged right-of-centre, usually).
Moreover, exacerbated clericalism along with the rejection of modern social and political developments in favour of an idealised past (which never existed), when combined with a non-compromising totalitarian conception of the state, that's quite the far-right.
Btw, have you noticed that the gentleman in question is himself of ethnic origin ?
And who isn't?
This opens an interesting line of inquiry if you're up for it. I mean we can safely assume that he isn't including himself in his purported racism so if he is selective in this regard (again IF) then to what degree is he to be considered a racist ?
To the degree shown by his words (freely and publically expressed) and/or deeds.
To my mind, a racist is someone who believes in the inate superiority of a given racial grouping (Jewish, Aryan etc) over all others on this basis alone and consequently views people not falling into this criteria as 'lesser'. Someone who dislikes (or even hates) a specific race is not necessarily a racist imo. My grandfather always hated the Germans because of certain war experiences he had. I don't say it's good but I don't say he was a racist either.
If he hated all Germans for the simple fact of being Germans, he certainly was.
To collectively attribute inherent traits (notably negative ones) to any group of people, to harbour determined sentiments (notably negative ones) for individuals for the simple reason of being part of a certain group (ethnic, religious, linguistic, one sharing some physical features) is racist, it follows that one having such views would considers as ?inferiors? some or all of those groups he sees as not his own.
It is normal though, to find hostility between groups involved in a violent conflict with each other, sometimes leading to racist feelings, which usually recede after the conflict is gone.
That in no way constitutes a justification for such feelings.
Actually, I don't think the words racist, facist, Nazi etc are to be used lightly, it devalues them and in a way validates the reality behind them. This is a mistake Dieudonné often makes.
That's his problem.
Originally posted by segovius
Stop it, you'll get me laughing again !
Have you heard of a Mr Berlusconi (well known pinko commie agitator) or a Mr Aznar (notorious radical socialist hothead) ?
You're English aren't you ? Daily Mail ?
No sir, I'm Irish.
Originally posted by banana
Segovious, I can't associate you with your country because that wouldn't be right. I can however do so with you politics. France, along with Germany and Russia had the most to lose with the US intervention.
That old story
IF they thought with their wallet the best thing to do was to back the war. It was evident for everybody in late 2002 that US would attack no matter what. So to get into the game all they had to do was to go along with it.
Originally posted by segovius
Originally posted by Immanuel Goldstein
So let me rephrase that: that you are familiar with one aspect of the issue doesn't mean the rest of it doesn't exist.
No, but it does mean I don't comment on things I don't know about. On...
I've provided the actual quote, in French , along with the time and the place of the declaration. That is specific enough.
Not for me I'm afraid...
I provided it for everyone, on this thread, with the location, the date, and the actual quote en français dans le texte.
?not that I think you'd spin it or anything, I just prefer to see these things for myself. As I say so far I haven't. You seem to know the subject intimately though so why not produce it 'from the horses mouth' as it were.
I gather you have all necessary specifics and are adequately equipped to find out and see for yourself.
Or, to quote an honourable participant in these fora: ?Google is your friend?.
Throughout its existence, the Soviet Union implemented racist policies against ethnic and other minorities both within its borders as well as in ?brotherly countries?; sure their stated noble causes were ?peace?, ?equality?, ?freedom?, ?friendship among peoples? and the such, rather than in-your-face-racism, so bloody what?
You say tomato....
Nb: check out my definition of racism in post you are replying to. In that sense they were not racists, they were persecuting 'enemies of the state'. If you really think 'so bloody what' why bother anyway, I could just bring in Ted Bundy, Son of Sam and Jack the Ripper. Let me know if you want to go there - I'm always good for a laugh !
When entire minority groups are collectively labeled ?enemies of the state? and targetted as such, as was the case in the former U.S.S.R. and similar regimes, it definitely is racism. That the officially pretext was more like ?peace and liberty for the working people? rather than ?the good of the race?, is irrelevent.
Who are you calling ?sub-human?, human?
err...racists ?
Please don't tell me it's the 'normal human condition'. I'll only say 'what's your problem with it then ?'
I'm afraid I'll have to: there are many negative traits to the human condition, racism being one of them. We also tend to like violence and to find amusement in our fellow human being's pain. Acknowledging the non-flattering sides of our nature doesn't mean we have to submissively accept them as our society's norms; knowing it, is necessary for us to face it and overcome it as is humanly possible.
The Khilafa dreamed by Bin Ladin and glimpsed by the Taleban has little in common with that of Al Mansour, Haroun al-Rashid or even Süleyman the Magnificent (and feudal monarchies themselves are by convention ranged right-of-centre, usually).
Here I think we can agree. Although I would hesitate to put those 3 in the same subset. Al Mansour was a bit of a cut above the norm in many ways, Haroun certainly wasn't the same character you doubtless have read about in the 'Nights' and Suleyman, well...I don't think the Ottomans really count as part of the Caliphate. Up there on the Tyrants Leaderboard though. Not sure that feudal monarchy is really the right term here either but no matter.
I did not present them as ?3 in the same subset? but as forms of what was and is referred to as Khilafa by practicing Muslims (for many the proverbial straw breaking the the camel's back was the dismemberment of the Ottoman Empire by the WW1 Allies and it dissolution by Atatürk). As for the term ?feudal?, it usually rrefers to a sitation in which you have elements such as serfs working the land, a hereditary aristocracy, and the such.
The fact is that OBL and the Taleban wouldn't approve of any period of Islamic history as being 'appropriate'. For the simple reason that Clerics have never wielded power until recent times. The Caliph was in no way a religious figure as any study of characters such as Walid or Yazid 2 will show.
OBL and crew want something new, something that they have devised as a solution to what they see as contemporary problems.
Like all religious revolutionaries (which is what fundamentalists are), Islamists claim to restore the ?old time religion? just like so many Western reformers or ?revivalists? of the last five centuries, is not quite accurate. Obvioulsy many of their followers as well as detractors buy into their spurious claims.
As long as the West refuses to see this and continues to reference their actions to traditional Islam (to demonise it imo but that's another story) then they can't defeat them. All the time they're only hitting the shadow....
Islamism is certainly a symptom to problems experienced by the Islamic religion and culture, as the Reformation and the religious wars were symptoms of then Christianity's as well as Christendom's problems. To claim such excesses are somewhat inherent to Islam would be Islamophobia, which is a form of racism.
If the West overcame it sown ?adolsecence pains? (which make current Islamism look benign), others can as well.
However, should mainstream Muslims wish to be dissociated from extremist Islamism, it's up to them to make it manifest. Alas, it seems more fashionable to blame all ills on occult plots by evil imperialists.
Re my old grandpappy: looks like we have different definitions of what it is to be a racist. That's ok though - we can play by your definition to make it easier.
Nothing to be ashamed of, there are racists in my extended family as well.
Prejudices and hatred of people for being part of a group had always existed, however the advent of racist theories nearly two centuries ago had transformed these prejudices and made them more virulent. So the term usually referring to all such prejudices is ?racism? even in the absence of a complete race theory.
Originally posted by segovius
Immanuel:
Originally posted by Immanuel Goldstein
I gather you have all necessary specifics and are adequately equipped to find out and see for yourself.
Or, to quote an honourable participant in these fora: ?Google is your friend?.
What I was hoping for was all the info in the same place from a reliable source. No matter. Google wasn't particularly friendly in this regard but I DID find quite a few noxious extreme right-wing sites. Maybe you meant them ? Another thread, another time on that one maybe.
It seems there was little professional coverage of it aside of a few offline newsletters and some web-based publication specialised in Middle-Eastern and related affairs. So here's a full atricle which requires paying subscription (it was freely accessible a few months ago), an introduction can be read here.
I suppose that more info could be found in Realspace (notably in the Paris area).
When entire minority groups are collectively labeled ?enemies of the state? and targetted as such, as was the case in the former U.S.S.R. and similar regimes, it definitely is racism. That the officially pretext was more like ?peace and liberty for the working people? rather than ?the good of the race?, is irrelevent.
Not to me. Again read my personal understanding of what racism is. You don't have to accept it - but to make it clearer:
Racism is the product of a racist mentality not a condition assigned by the arbitrary judgement of someone on the recieving end or some other party.
Stalin was a paranoid psychopath and justified his actions by lying in the manner you describe. Just because he killed large numbers of members of ethnic groupings it does not follow that his agenda was a racist one.
If those killed (or deported or left to starve, or otherwise discriminated against) were because they happened to belong to such and such grouping, which was indeed the case, it means the policy in question was racist.
Ok, wait for it:
If Racism is just human nature what's your problem with it ?
The same I have with the likes of aggressivness, greed, hubris, etc.
Imo it is a psychological abberation that is a kind of mental equivalence of a cancer and NOT an evolutionary development. Certainly it is learnt behaviour rather than inate. In what way is that 'human nature' ? You're selling us all short - we're better than that. Or maybe you are amalgamating it with violence which may well be 'human nature' as you say.
Like the eagerness we have to kill and maim each other, we also have the tendency to exclude from those we deem ?others? the human dignity we grant to those we deem ?kin?. However, that is not an inescapable fatality, and it can be overcome, if acknowledged and faced.
I think the fact that we live in societies which are far more tolerant and far less violent than those which preceded us, shows the extent of our abilities, notably our ability for freedom. I woudn't call such perspective ?selling humanity short?.
I did not present them as ?3 in the same subset? but as forms of what was and is referred to as Khilafa by practicing Muslims (for many the proverbial straw breaking the the camel's back was the dismemberment of the Ottoman Empire by the WW1 Allies and it dissolution by Atatürk).
You have to seperate the idea of the Caliphate from the idea of what modern Islamists?
I wrote ?practicing Muslims? (implying: of the traditional kind) and not ?modern Islamists?.
As for the term ?feudal?, it usually rrefers to a sitation in which you have elements such as serfs working the land, a hereditary aristocracy, and the such.
Which is why it is inapplicable in the Islamic context.
There were serfs as well as aristocrats in numerous historic Islamic states including caliphates.
Like all religious revolutionaries (which is what fundamentalists are), Islamists claim to restore the ?old time religion? just like so many Western reformers or ?revivalists? of the last five centuries, is not quite accurate. Obvioulsy many of their followers as well as detractors buy into their spurious claims.
This is an easy one to resolve:
1) Make a list of the Islamists wishes and actions.
2) Make a list of the description of what a muslim must do and believe as derived from the Qu'ran
3) Compare lists. Without bending it to any personal agenda or spinningit in any way.
4) Note where they differ and divide into two camps if necessary.
5) Choose which you want top accept as the accurate picture of what Islam actually is: the Qur'an or some 21st century individual's personal opinion.
The differences between traditional forms of Islam and contemporary Islamist variants can be gauged at reasonable effort, it remains tht many among both sympathisers and opponents buy the Islamists' ?old time religion? schtick.
As for what Islam actually is or what it will actually be, that's ultimately up to the Muslims themselves.
Islamism is certainly a symptom to problems experienced by the Islamic religion and culture, as the Reformation and the religious wars were symptoms of then Christianity's as well as Christendom's problems.
A response to some problems yes. I'm more interested in who's causing the problems...
Like most problems those are caused by multiple factors. Without getting into the minutiae I suggest that Islamism is not among the solutions.
Islamophobia is not a form of racism (religionism ?) but we've done that one...
As said earlier: hatred, hostility, or discrimination toward a group (whether ethnic, cultural, religious, or one defined along the fictitious concept of ?race?, among others) is termed ?racism?. Along this line, antisemitism as well as Islamophobia are forms of racism.
Adolescent pains: yes of course. Agree absolutely. The soil and microclimate are less conducive to 'growth' nowadays but it's still a possibility.
Well, I'm never ashamed about someone else's actions or beliefs. Doesn't make sense somehow. Actually there are some Hall of Fame Gold Medal winning racists in my family. Just my grandfather wan't one of them.
According to your understanding of the issue; I gather my own understanding on the same issue was clearly expressed.