Why They Hate Us. The Specter of Islam. (616 hits)
Category: PoliticsRating: 0.27 on 17 reviews (Rate this item) (V)
Submitted by <romiustexis.at.yahoo.com> (View user info) at 2005-07-22 16:13:31 EDT
The president says it's because of our "freedoms", the left says it's because of poverty or American Imperialism. Has anyone stopped to ask "them" why?
In this essay I will attempt to answer 3 questions.
What freedom does Islam hate?
Has Islam become the new Marxism?
Is the analogy of Marxism = Violence wrong?
According to the Stray Reflection Weblog "Islam emphatically rejects the metaphysical conception of the individual as a self determining being (the conception of man as God.) Islam insists that human fulfillment lies in a voluntary surrender (the word Islam means surrender) of the capacity of self determination."
What the Muslim world rejects then is the Western conception of man's primacy or place in the authentication of ends. What is now generally accepted among the Western elite [Most certainly among the Marxists] is Feuerbach's assertion that the true object of infinite value is Man and what he worships in God or Pure Reason is his species own essential powers. [my emphasis] For Islam, Reason can identify the means for achieving given ends "but it cannot provide a basis for valuing ends" only God can do that.
The religious motivation for this "hatred of our Freedoms" can be found just as easily in the Christian right-wing. Their deep suspicion of Reason goes well beyond the Ancient Islamics who could at least nurture a profound respect for science and reason.
So the right must find allies in the secular community, they prey upon the fears of the non-religious by instigating Islam as the new "enemy of the West" ala Marxism which cannot be placated because they are bent on our absolute destruction.
The New York Times is on board with this agenda announcing "like [Marxism], it [ Islam ] represents for many of its born-again adherents a transnational ideology tilting toward an eventual utopian vision, "Islam has replaced Marxism as the ideology of contestation," says Olivier Roy, a French scholar of European Islam. "When the left collapsed, the Islamists stepped in."
Now for the fun part. I will attempt to show that the analogy that Islam is the new Marxism is false by defending Marxism from claims that it is violent by nature. For those who are still folowing along and have a bit of a philosophy background you are quite aware that an arguement by analogy is falacious and my deconstruction of said analogy does not present itself as showing of truth or ultimate victory.
In other words it provides no answer to the main point, is Islam dangerous? Do they hate our freedoms? But this strawman does provide me the oppurtunity to do what I love, and that is defend Karl Marx.
For that see the Http://thekarlmarxblog.blogspot.com
I figured by now you have gotten bored of this. Oh hell here it is!
Ben Franklin Would Be Proud of the Violence in Marxism
It's said and believed by a vast populace that Marxism is a violent revolutionary dogma hell bent on the overthrow of the ruling class by whatever means possible. Is this a truly unbiased approach?
Or is this the a technique of it's enemies, defenders of the constitution, casting a potential adversary out from the realm of mainstream thought?
It should be noted by the defenders of American Liberty, that Marx was no more pro-violence than our founding fathers. "The Founding Fathers?" You ask your mouth agape.
It's not like one couldn't think of a counter example to America's Independence that does not require the use of terror. Perhaps another vast wilderness that was exploited by Royalty. Taxation with no representation. A land that used a constructive dialog, consisting of a piecemeal democratic reform, and were still able to obtain thier ends.--Oh yea, Canada.
We too often forget the historical nature of the claims Marx makes. In the days of the founding fathers and Karl Marx there were kings. And I am not talking Prince Charles, but real kings who had the power to raise armies, start wars, and have your head chopped off at a whim.
Democracy was in short supply in the early part of the 19th century, most of the masses could not vote: women, minorities, the poor and landless were pretty much on their own. This is also well before the time of Gandhi or Martin Luther King. Non-violence as an agent of change had never truly been seen on any vast scale like that. Marx was and has always been seen as a pragmatist, but did he insist that violence was the answer?
We know that in the case of England, Sweden and USA where he specifically addressed it, he thought Socialism could be won without a violent hand. (He thought Russia would likely turn violent because of the Tsars.) Marx also thought it was more likely that the ruling classes would be driven to start the fight if they felt provoked "and if we are not so crazy as to ourselves be driven to street fighting in order to please them, then in the end there is nothing left for them to do, but themselves break through this fatal legality."
The Right likes to paint Lenin as the rightful, standard bearer "the heir" to Marxism due to Lenin's insistence that his brand of state controlled command economies were based on Marx's principles.
But a case could be made that Kautsky is the true heir if self-proclamation is the standard. (The German and European Model of Reformists, New Dealers-Keynsians, the Welfare State proponents also shout their love of Marx.) Few among us would give up Social Security, Medicare, Unemployment benefits which sprang from the democratic impulses of these Marxists.
Of course few people have any constrain knowledge of Marx . If they are at all familiar with him it is through reading the Communist Manifesto. The Manifesto though was a political programme that was commissioned by the Communist League and was not a theoretical text of Marx's. It should also be noted that nowhere in the Manifesto does Marx suggest that workers use terror, quite to the contrary, Marx proclaims that "the time for surprise attacks by small minorities is past."
It is difficult to conclude that Marx was hell bent on Violence and Terror, but was rather a man who lived in a time of crushing despotism. Marx himself was a victim countless times to this and championed democracy and the rights of the working people well before it was fashionable to the elites of his era.
User Reviews
Submitted by thorpe (user info) at 2005-07-23 08:55:43 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
From a quick skim, this looks good. Remind me to come back and read this when I have the mental capacity to concentrate on a large block of text.
Submitted by Natsukau (user info) at 2005-07-23 08:33:33 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
Holy shit all this time I thought it was because we're blowing up their houses and stealing their oil.
Submitted by MrSparkle847 (user info) at 2005-07-23 06:19:11 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
What the Muslim world rejects then is the Western conception of man's primacy or place in the authentication of ends.
___________________
What the Muslim world rejects is the West.
Submitted by Nefarious (user info) at 2005-07-23 05:26:46 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Why they hate us: The sphincter of Islam
Submitted by Quartermain (user info) at 2005-07-22 21:04:49 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
My favourtie part in Marx's comedy of errors was his belief in the 'inevitability' of Marxism. That must be why you see so many flourishing and prosperous Marxist states while capitalism withers on the vine.
I also fail to see what the picture you included in the post had to do with your topic. Of course, I also fail to see what the words you included in your post have to do with your topic, so maybe the picture is not as out of place as it seems.
Submitted by Ferretnose (user info) at 2005-07-22 19:58:57 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Thanks, Jeannee, you're a doll- I don't post anymore, but I do come around sometimes to read my favorite authors (like dervel and donkey) and if something gets me riled up I just have to comment.
Submitted by Jeanneee (user info) at 2005-07-22 19:16:34 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
OH MY GOD it's Ferretnose! The author of my favorite Uber post of all time! She's back! YAAAAAAAAAYYYYYYY!
Submitted by Ferretnose (user info) at 2005-07-22 18:55:57 EDT (#)
Ranking: 1
This was good...
but the reason why these people hate us is moot. The fact is, that, given a choice between either ignoring me altogether, or raping me before they cut my head off and go zaghareeting down the street, they'd do the latter regardless of what my particular morals and religion are. I could be over there doing charity work for their own people, helping feed their own children, and they'd still opt for the latter if they caught me.
So I don't give a rat's patoot what their reasoning is, or how they feel. Evil is evil, no matter whether it's done under the flag of the Christian Right or the Muslim Fundamentalist.
Submitted by Genko (user info) at 2005-07-22 18:51:26 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
This started off good, but rambled on as a series of disjointed points that didn't really have anything to do with the title.
As far as the reason Islam hates the west...it's because they believe they've been given a mandate to wage war on unbelievers. Plain and simple.
Submitted by mbwun (user info) at 2005-07-22 17:03:05 EDT (#)
Ranking: 1
Intelligently written, but disjointed as hell. Organization, man!
Submitted by disAbled (user info) at 2005-07-22 16:56:50 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Radical Muslims do not hate us because of our "freedoms" or because of our "imperialism." They hate us because of our loose moral ideology. One of the greatest sins to a radical muslim is extra-marital sex. Extra-Marital sex is celebrated in America, and because of our international prominence, we become the icon for immorality in the eyes of the radical Muslim. Furthermore, we have a history of aiding Israel, which establishes us as the arm of Satan.
Your essay really didn't explore much of why radical Muslims hate us or how Islam replaced Marxism. Looked to me like it was more of an opportunity to legitimize Marxism.
Submitted by cuberat (user info) at 2005-07-22 16:54:12 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
No Comment
Submitted by Jeanneee (user info) at 2005-07-22 16:39:19 EDT (#)
Ranking: 1
This is good, but it seems like I read this same post (with only minute variations) on Uber about once a week.
Submitted by ellsmall (user info) at 2005-07-22 16:35:19 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
enjoy your stay in the dustbin of history
Submitted by freebie (user info) at 2005-07-22 16:28:55 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
That's all well and good, but where do the 76 virgins come in?
Submitted by The_Yellow_Dart (user info) at 2005-07-22 16:23:14 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
You're going to get drilled by idiots who can't read and just see the picture.
"durrrr"
Some questionable points you hold to be truths, but +2 to help out.
Submitted by Vulva (user info) at 2005-07-22 16:16:22 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Yabba Dabba Dooo! Someone pull the birds tail. It's time for me to slide down the back of the dinosaur and get the fuck outta here...
Bye bitches!