roachboy

i dunno--the source of this "islamofascism can be connected to hitler" move seems pretty obvious: you name a phenomena "islamofascism" and you group it with other forms of fascism. hitler is also grouped with the set "fascism" and so there you have it.

well almost: the other set that crosses with the set "fascism" is "empty designator of entities we do not like to be used in wartime to sell the war".

so:

we do not like islamofascism
we do not like hitler
therefore islamofascism=hitler.
qed.

there really is nothing else going on with this.

well except that if you try to seriously think about radical conservatism within islam (1) you can link its emergences to particular contexts--mostly social and economic---(2) mobilizing around relgious texts always provides you the possibility of a type of "return to the original" as a way of articulating dissent--this option is continually available (think about how protestantism happened from inside what became catholicism if the abstract version doesnt work for you)--these two features alone mean that you should be able to at least situate contemporary forms of radical conservatism within islam in contemporary contexts---and that the recourse to earlier tradition more about symbolic tactics than anything else.

that would mean that attempts to link the content of these movements back to some "essence" of islam are at best unnecessary and are in any event simply wrong.

so what does this move do?

by removing the importance of the present from thinking and connecting these movements back to some unchanging "essence" you indicate that "they are just like that" (racism) and that there is nothing to be done, so exterminate the brutes.

o that and "we dont like them."

__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite