Talk:Neofascism and religion/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents

Bravo Cberlet

Bravo Cberlet, is all I have to say. —Charles P. (Mirv) 21:26, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

Hear, hear! El_C 01:10, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
Excellent article, Cberlet. Thanks for writing it. It will hopefully solve a few longstanding problems. SlimVirgin (talk) 15:38, May 26, 2005 (UTC)

Genealogy of Antisemitic White Supremacy, Theocracy, and Fascism

This has no place on an encyclopedia. Sam Spade 13:24, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
That is your POV, it is not shared by others.--Cberlet 16:27, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
Read Wikipedia:Vandalism, and Fascism#Fascism_and_socialism. Sam Spade 21:36, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
I believe, Cberlet, that you will find the user above has a tendency to present his POV as if it is NPOV, with little explantion to go along with his position, but I would not place much significance on it so long as it remains in such a limited form. His unexplained exclamations, then, as well as his "vandalism" (and edit summaries which I find pronouncedly uninformative) aside, I want to ask your opinion about the suitability of the chart. Do you feel it's too Judeo-Christian for this topic (neglecting to address Islam, Hinduism, etc.). Also, what are you thoughts of adding Buddhism to the article (ala Singhalese nationalism in Sri Lanka, etc.) ? El_C 21:19, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
Perhaps it fits better on Neo-Nazism and maybe it could be linked from this page. If it goes on this page, it probably should be moved down lower to the general discussion. If there are substantial cites to claims of neofascism regarding Singhalese nationalism in Sri Lanka, then this should be mentioned on this page out of fairness. Do you have such cites? Jump write in (pun).--Cberlet 22:22, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
Point taken, feel free to insert it as you see fit, I leave this decision at your discretion and will likely support whatever formula you follow on that front. Sure, I will look into it, though I am not really that familliar with the phenomenon of Singhalese nationalism (I'm better set to help expand the Israeli/Jewish areas). El_C 22:38, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

Sam Spade

Sam Spade has a long history of abusive activity on other pages. He is now following me around Wiki abusively editing my edits. I think it may be time to seek formal sanctions against him for bullying and abusive activity. What do others think? --Cberlet 21:57, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

Please review Wikipedia:Spam, your talk page, and Talk:Fascism#Sanctions_against_Sam_Spade.3F. Sam Spade 22:02, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
Indeed, I know him to possess such a (long) history, both as Sam Spade and as Jack Lynch, and that his abuse remains ongoing. As for formal sanctions, I should probably reserve my answer pending consultations with my advocate. See: User talk:Wally/El_C advocacy. But Cberlet, could you please share your thoughts on the question of the chart's suitability and on the inclusion of Singhalese nationalism? El_C 22:11, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
See above for response.--Cberlet 22:22, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
Please note I have now filed for formal mediation.--Cberlet 22:22, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
Heh! My Mediation with Sam Spade has been in limbo for many months now (of course, Sam Spade blamed myself and my advocate for this delay, which remains ongoing). The Mediation process is, at the moment, in serious need of an overhaul (i.e. it's pretty much broken). A few months ago, Anegla had forwarded a proposal which entailed having both parties (forced to) adhere to any mediation resolution, but it has yet to be implemented. Thus, its voluntary basis, esp. with users whom one finds untrustworthy (to keep their promises) renders it relatively valueless. Good luck though! El_C 22:31, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

U.S. and Israel

Is the following a tiny-minority position of the type that should have no place here under NPOV, or is it a significant-minority position? If the latter, we should include scholarly references showing who says it, and who is part of the debate. SlimVirgin (talk) 15:30, May 26, 2005 (UTC)

A small number of academics (and some left-wing political activists) argue that the United States and Israel are quasi-fascist or fascist states, although this view is a minority position that is hotly debated and disputed.

Actually, I need to expand both the Judaism and Christianity sections with more cites to both sides of the arguments.--Cberlet 16:27, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
Do you mind if I delete it until a good source is found, so we can determine whether it's a significant-minority position? SlimVirgin (talk) 22:14, May 26, 2005 (UTC)
Please don't delete, I am trying to build a consensus for redirecting three pages. I plan to expand both Judaism and Christianity with balanced material for and against. It all exists and the cites will go to material from sourcs with scholarly credentials. It is a fragile negotiation. I would not have created the sections if I didn't know I could find substantial arguments from both sides.--Cberlet 02:33, 27 May 2005 (UTC)
I am also familliar with that argument (which ties the two currents together through common interests). I'm sure I can come up with something, too. I echo Cberlet's request. El_C 02:48, 27 May 2005 (UTC)
It's just that I can't imagine anyone in their right mind calling the U.S. a fascist state. It kind of jumps off the page. Israel too. Also, we can't equate the U.S. with Christianity. Or did I misunderstand? SlimVirgin (talk) 05:05, May 27, 2005 (UTC)
Who got a right mind nowadays, SlimVirging? It's a jungle! However, we cannot accuse whoever accuses the US government of being wrong minded! and Israeli government with the infamous Anti-semitic. IMHO, Islamists, right wing Christians and ultra nationalists Israelis fall all in the same category. They are fascists and everyone got his own way and package of fascism.
I think when someone refers to a state as fascist, she/he'd mean that the governing body is fascist or have fascist tendencies and practices. In this article, this point is explained in the section about the US Christian right wing. America's never been accused of being fascist but the accusation is heard nowadays and of course it doesn't refer to any other former US government.
Regarding Israel, many leftists and academics in Israel or Jewish abroad refer to Sharon's government as being fascist. [1]. Some go further and accuse it being fascist since 1948 [2]. Zionist Yeshayahu Leibowitz defined Israel the occupier as "Judeao-Nazi". He called the IDF (Israeli Defence Force) undercover units the "Hamas of Israel" and Gush Emunim was for Leibowitz a "fascist movement". Many people around the world think the same as well. 57% of Europeans consider it as a major threat to world peace due to the abuse of force and some call its government as a fascist one. [3]. Everyone else, knows about the Islamists hate speech, so nothing new about it. However, the following may seem something new to some!
  • "Everybody has to move, run and grab as many hilltops as they can to enlarge the settlements because everything we take now will stay ours... Everything we don't grab will go to them." Ariel Sharon, Israeli Foreign Minister, addressing a meeting of militants from the extreme right-wing Tsomet Party, Agence France Presse, November 15, 1998.
  • "One million Arabs are not worth a Jewish fingernail." Rabbi Yaacov Perrin, Feb. 27, 1994 [Source: N.Y. Times, Feb. 28, 1994, p. 1]
  • "The Palestinians" would be crushed like grasshoppers ... heads smashed against the boulders and walls." Isreali Prime Minister (at the time) in a speech to Jewish settlers New York Times April 1, 1988
  • "When we have settled the land, all the Arabs will be able to do about it will be to scurry around like drugged cockroaches in a bottle." Raphael Eitan, Chief of Staff of the Israeli Defence Forces, New York Times, 14 April 1983.
  • "We have to kill all the Palestinians unless they are resigned to live here as slaves." Chairman Heilbrun of the Committee for the Re-election of General Shlomo Lahat, the mayor of Tel Aviv, October 1983.
  • "We must use terror, assassination, intimidation, land confiscation, and the cutting of all social services to rid the Galilee of its Arab population." Israel Koenig, "The Koenig Memorandum"
  • "Jewish villages were built in the place of Arab villages. You do not even know the names of these Arab villages, and I do not blame you because geography books no longer exist. Not only do the books not exist, the Arab villages are not there either. Nahlal arose in the place of Mahlul; Kibbutz Gvat in the place of Jibta; Kibbutz Sarid in the place of Huneifis; and Kefar Yehushua in the place of Tal al-Shuman. There is not a single place built in this country that did not have a former Arab population." Moshe Dayan, address to the Technion, Haifa, reported in Haaretz, April 4, 1969.
  • "We will have a world government whether you like it or not. The only question is whether that government will be achieved by conquest or consent." (Jewish Banker Paul Warburg, February 17, 1950, as he testified before the U.S. Senate). Cheers and respect -- Svest 01:13, May 28, 2005 (UTC) Wiki me up™
When you spout out-of-context hate like that, I get the feeling your "cheers and respect" is meaningless. Enviroknot 01:25, 28 May 2005 (UTC)
Thank you. I think I have reported hate speech and said cheers and respect. It's not a crime or like killing Calligula. I am defending anybody except this article. I am a reporter and reporting from planet earth and not from Vega. What out-of-context you refer to? We are talking about Neofascism and religion. Islamists are religious, as well as right wing Christians and of course the Promised land is a religious matter! Indeed, Cheers and respect means that I respect everyone's idea and open for discussions and not for accusations. Thanks to my little god, I always avoid clashing with whoever. Cheers and respect -- Svest 01:40, May 28, 2005 (UTC) Wiki me up™

Right wing

In case this helps, I've pasted part of the Encyclopaedia Britannica article on fascism here User:SlimVirgin/fascism, so as not to clutter up this page. It does indicate that there's scholarly disagreement regarding whether it can be said to come from the left or the right. We're not allowed to use Wikipedia articles as sources, so whatever it says at Fascism is irrelevant; we have to find external, reputable sources for something like this, preferably scholarly. The problem with the EB is that it doesn't name any of the scholars whose conflicting views it summarizes. SlimVirgin (talk) 22:11, May 26, 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for your focus on editorial integrity, it is appreciated. Sam Spade 22:16, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
I read that excerpt but I found no indication that Fascism, whether the emphasis is placed its radicalized or conservative tendencies, is accounted as not being a right-wing phenomenon by the respective EB editors. Unless I overlooked something, I believe you are taking too much liberty in juxtaposing their aforementioned depiction of the debate and its application to it not being considered right-wing, in either case. What do you think, Cberlet? El_C 22:24, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
The list of topics on my page underneath the section is the list of EB articles on fascism. I haven't gone through them all yet, but I'm skimming them to see whether they refer to it as right wing anywhere, and they don't. I think what they're saying in the section I provided is basically that right-wing scholars will tend to emphasize its left-wing aspects, and left-wing scholars its right-wing ones. That's why it would be good to find (if such work exists) a neutral academic who has written about why there's such a difficulty with the definition: a metaview, if you like, about the appropriateness of the labels. SlimVirgin (talk) 22:36, May 26, 2005 (UTC)
[Inserted after the comments bellow] I have gone through them, and I see no such indication that these curents in the debate change this designation. Certainly, there is nothing explicit in the EB excerpt to suggest that, so I'm afraid that, at the moment, it (not being considered right-wing) remains limited to your own interpertation. El_C 22:50, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
The order of comments seems to have changed, so I can't tell whose interpretation you mean, or what you've gone through. SlimVirgin (talk) 23:44, May 26, 2005 (UTC)
I have gone through the EB excerpt you cited, which at the time of issuing your statements above you noted that you "haven't gone through them all yet, but [were] skimming them." That is why I said that I have gone through them. El_C 23:48, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
I haven't gone through all 24 of the articles yet, no, but I read the excerpt. Have you read them all, or are we misunderstanding each other? Anyway, I haven't found that term yet, and I suspect they avoided it deliberately. What do you see as the point of including the label i.e. what extra information do you feel it gives? I'm wondering if this is case where it might be clearer if the facts speak for themselves. SlimVirgin (talk) 00:08, May 27, 2005 (UTC)
Oh, 24 articles (I knew it was too strange to be true). Yes we are, I was only refering to the excerpt, my apologies. I, of course, am interested in your review of these articles, but I doubt you will run acorss a passage which explicitly states that it isn't right-wing (and you are likely to run into many that claim it is). I think the reason Cberlet included it —I argue, correctly— (though he can correct me if I'm misinterperting), is because it adds definitional clarity, rather than confusion (or an epithet-like function) as you seem to be suggesting. El_C 01:09, 27 May 2005 (UTC)
I'm not sure it does add definitional clarity, and arguably confuses the issue. The sentence is: "Fascism" refers to the right-wing authoritarian political movement which ruled Italy from 1922 to 1943." What does the term "right wing" tell me here; what is it shorthand for? And further, if the sentence is meant to imply that fascism is by definition right wing, then we have to be explicit about that (or say clearly that we're not implying it); and, if the former, say whose definition we're using. Then, as editors, we'll have to check that we've picked a non-partisan source for our definition, which will involve quite a bit of work, because editors will differ in what they regard as non-partisan. It seems to me that we're striking up a position in the first few sentences (which we're not allowed to do anyway) that will arguably lead to disputes further down the road. I'd say leave it out. Avoid labels; just describe in factual terms who has said what about neofascism and religion, stick to authoritative sources, name them, and attribute arguments, positions, and definitions to them, not to WP. SlimVirgin (talk) 02:23, May 27, 2005 (UTC)
I do consider it to be a factual term, I do not consider it to be a label in this case, but I don't think that can be accounted as original theory on my part (though I remain open to well-referenced persuasion). I provided a source for it, Chip has provided many — not to be uncritical, but I would like to encourage non-original research; I would like see a source which actually challenges this, which actually argues that, with respect to fascism, right-wing is a label, should be avoided, etc. As for the passage you cite, as noted bellow, I changed it back from the refers to the right-wing authoritarian political movement which ruled Italy from 1922 to 1943 into first adopted in Italy during the 1930s, which, I think, makes more sense for the intro. After all, it isn't meant to nor should it strive to become comparably comprehnsive as the intro in Fascism. Which isn't to say that it cannot be improved. El_C 04:41, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

Right wing, pt. 2

Until it can be cited / sourced, the link to "right wing" should obviously be removed. Sam Spade 22:38, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
Random example: Facism is a Right Wing, Authoritarian ideology... From The Right Wing: Ultra-conservatives, Fascists and Nazis (Wright State University). El_C 22:43, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
This has been invalidated by the subsequent redefinition of fascism, as mere totalitarianism, something state communism easily qualifies for. You should be careful with regard to what definition of fascism is actually being assumed.--Silverback 08:58, August 27, 2005 (UTC)
Thanks, El C. It would be good to find a source that we know for sure isn't partisan, and isn't quoting partisan sources: a scholarly work about the scholarly work on fascism, if such a thing exists. SlimVirgin (talk) 22:51, May 26, 2005 (UTC)
I hope Cberlet would be willing to offer his opinion on this issue. As a 20th Century historian, I consider anything less than a source which explictly claims Facism isn't right-wing, to be a tautology. El_C 23:08, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

Modern Leftism As Recycled Fascism

By: John J. Ray (M.A.; Ph.D.)

[4]

Sam Spade 22:55, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

That title lacks any pertinent citation to go with it which claim explictly that Facism should not be considered right-wing. And I'm not certain the source which hosts this is a scholarly one (there are many cranks with PhDs out there). El_C 23:08, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

"Fascist program was a mixture of left-and right-wing"

Dr. C. Jazwinski

[5]

Sam Spade 23:13, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

Full quote reads: The early Fascist program was a mixture of left-and right-wing ideas that emphasized intense NATIONALISM, productivism, antisocialism, elitism, and the need for a strong leader. El_C 06:17, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

"Italian fascism began with a programme which owed much to the left, but by the turn of the 1930s it was more clearly on the right and had signed a Concordat with the Catholic church, yet aspects of the Salò Republic during 1943-5 can be seen as an attempt to return to Fascism's radical roots."

Roger Eatwell

[6]

Sam Spade 23:16, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

That source does not explictly state it wasn't right-wing (as in right-wing radicalism). El_C 23:28, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

In spite of the theories of conservation and renovation, of tradition and progress expounded by the right and the left, we do not cling desperately to the past as to a last board of salvation: yet we do not dash headlong into the seductive mists of the future. (Breve preludio, in Diuturna, Milano, Alpes, 1930, p. 14). `negation, eternal immobility, mean damnation. I am all for motion. I am, one who marches on (E. Ludwig, Talks with Mussolini, Lot Jon, Allen and Unwin, 1932, p. 203).

See also International third position, third way, strasserism. Sam Spade 23:20, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

What about them, do they explicitly state that Fascism wasn't right-wing? Because I provided a scholarly source which explictly claims it is. Citations rather than see also links would probably be more productive to move this discussion forward. El_C 23:28, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
Also, if one listens to any politician, none of them are on the left or the right, they are all just doing the correct and proper thing. --Habap 20:14, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

Reality check

This entire discussion has already taken place repeatedly on the Fascism page as Sam Spade is well aware because he challenged the consensus there and lost the debate. He is venue shopping. Among serious academic scholars of fascism there is a clear view that Fascism is ultimately a right-wing ideology. It sprang from socialism, but when it added nationalism and trans-class populism it morphed into a right-wing movement. I cite Griffin, Eatwell, and Laqueuer as my sources. They are among the leading scholars of fascism today. Laqueuer is the most likely to see elements of left and right in fascism (as do all serious scholars) but he concludes: "But historical fascism was always a coalition between radical, populist ('fascist') elements and others gravitating toward the extreme Right."--Cberlet 23:19, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

Your POV is well known, and summarised rather well in your wiki article: Chip Berlet. Anyone who wants to verify your inaccurate and misleading personal attacks above can do so @ Talk:Fascism. Sam Spade 23:21, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
That can scarcely be considered a personal attack. Now, Sam Spade refering to myself as a "bastard," for example, that is a personal attack (and far from being his first, nor doubtfully his last). Lot's of unecessary drama, however, to go along with these exchanges. El_C 23:32, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

Sam, how is saying you "lost the debate" a personal attack?AndyL 02:29, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

Who is citing reliable scholarly sources?

Some credentials for this discussion: Chip Berlet. (2004). "Christian Identity: the Apocalyptic Style, Political Religion, Palingenesis and Neo-fascism." Totalitarian Movements and Political Religions, Vol. 5, No. 3, (Winter), pp. 469-506, special issue on Fascism as a Totalitarian Movement. _______. (2004). "Hate, Oppression, Repression, and the Apocalyptic Style: Facing Complex Questions and Challenges." Journal of Hate Studies, Vol. 3, No. 1, Institute for Action against Hate, Gonzaga University Law School. _______. (2003). "Terminology: Use with Caution." Fascism. Vol. 5, Critical Concepts in Political Science, Roger Griffin and Matthew Feldman, eds. New York, NY: Routledge. _______. (2001). "Hate Groups, Racial Tension and Ethnoviolence in an Integrating Chicago Neighborhood 1976-1988." In Betty A. Dobratz, Lisa K. Walder, and Timothy Buzzell, eds., Research in Political Sociology, Volume 9: The Politics of Social Inequality, pp. 117–163. (study of neofascism and neonazi groups). _______. (1998). "Mad as Hell: Right–wing Populism, Fascism, and Apocalyptic Millennialism." Paper presented at the 14th World Congress of Sociology (XIVe Congrès Mondial de Sociologie), International Sociological Association, Montreal, Quebec, Canada, 1998. _______. (1998). "The Ideological Weaponry of the American Right: 'Dangerous Classes' and 'Welfare Queens' (L’arsenal idéologique de la droite américaine: «classes dangereuses» et «welfare queens»). Paper presented at the international symposium, The "American Model:" an Hegemonic Perspective for the End of the Millennium?, (Le «modèle américain»: une perspective hégémonique pour la fin du millénaire?), Group Regards Critiques, University of Lausanne, Switzerland, May 12. _______. (1997). "Fascism’s Franchises: Stating the Differences from Movement to Totalitarian Government." Paper presented at the Annual Meeting, American Sociological Association, Toronto, Canada, August.

Print Encyclopedia Entries _______. 2003. "Apocalypticism," "Report from Iron Mountain," "Scaife, Richard Mellon," "Secular Humanism." Conspiracy Theories in American History: An Encyclopedia. Peter Knight, ed. Santa Barbara, CA: ABC-CLIO _______. 2003. "Ku Klux Klan." Encyclopedia of Religion and War. Gabriel Palner Fernandez, ed. (Berkshire Reference Works; Routledge encyclopedias of religion and society). New York: Routledge. _______. 2002. "Surveillance Abuse." Encyclopedia of Crime and Punishment. David Levinson, ed., (Berkshire Reference Works). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. _______. 2001. "Apocalypse," "Nativism," "Devil and Satan," and "The Illuminati." Encyclopedia of Fundamentalism. Brenda Brasher, ed., (Berkshire Reference Works; Routledge encyclopedias of religion and society). New York: Routledge _______ (associate editor). 2000. "Apocalypse," "Conspiracism," "Demagogues," "Demonization," "Militia Movements," "Populism," "Survivalism," "Totalitarianism," and "Year 2000." Encyclopedia of Millennialism and Millennial Movements. Richard A. Landes, ed., (Berkshire Reference Works; Routledge encyclopedias of religion and society). New York: Routledge.

Sam Spade is the one that challenged me on this issue. I would argue that I am in a better position to cite the leading scholars in the field. Sam Spade, on the other hand, surfs the Internet and plunks in material from unreliable right-wing POV websites.--Cberlet 01:16, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

That is an exceptionally comprehensive, scholarly, and authoritative list. Thank you, Chip. El_C 01:22, 27 May 2005 (UTC)
Then Chip, can you cite a source for the disputed sentence (assuming this is the only one currently disputed): " "Fascism" refers to the right-wing authoritarian political movement which ruled Italy from 1922 to 1943." I think all that's needed is perhaps a bit more nuance and some names of sources, so that this view is attributed to someone, and not to WP. SlimVirgin (talk) 02:55, May 27, 2005 (UTC)
I fail to see how Chip's original sentence (or my slight rewording of it) was problematic in any way. I provided a source for it, Chip provided many sources. No sources were provided by the opposition to explicitly refute what was excplicitly cited. At any rate, I restored it, and I (and I'm sure Chip as well) welcome any (hopefuly, well-referenced) input on it. El_C 03:40, 27 May 2005 (UTC)
Well, it's problematic because it has been disputed, and the way to end the dispute is to provide a good, non-partisan source. I'm confused as to why there's any resistance to this. If we're saying fascism is rightwing necessarily i.e. by definition, I'd like to know whose definition we're using; if we're not saying that, we should make that clear. That's all. You seem to be seeing this as an attack on the whole page or idea. It isn't. SlimVirgin (talk) 05:12, May 27, 2005 (UTC)
1. Not everything that is disputed is problematic. 2. I am not seeing it as an attack on the whole page or idea. 3. As I keep reiterating, once it was disputed, I provided a scholarly source and citation for it; Chip provided many sources. 4. I'm uncertain what you are asking for from Chip and myself, esp. in relation to the opposition which disputes that word, but whose references either do not seem to be up to par with non-partisan, scholarly sources, or are distorted and quoted out of context with a specific purpose in mind. Also, see my response to your comment two (I think it's two) sections up. El_C 06:05, 27 May 2005 (UTC)


I'll be using the reference to system at the library at UC Berkeley to validate Cberlet's cites and reporting my findings here tonight, but for the two I'm familiar with already (and have reread online), they support his content and are credible, scholarly positions. FeloniousMonk 15:34, 27 May 2005 (UTC)


Recent scholarship

The first sentence in the Wiki article on Fascism has been debated in painful detail. The lead sentence on this page is taken from that page, where this discussion really belongs and where the consensus is that Fascism is right wing.

Griffin, Eatwell, Laqueuer, and Weber are among the top scholars of fascism in the world. The long list of credential I posted was to justify my claim that I am in a position to identify the leading scholars of fascism in the world today. I picked them also because they are among the scholars most reluctant to call fascism simply a right-wing ideology, yet in their lengthy discussions they observe that generally fascism and neofascism ends up allying itself with right-wing or conservative forces on the basis of racial nationalism or hatred of the political left, or simple expediency.

Laqueuer: "But historical fascism was always a coalition between radical, populist ('fascist') elements and others gravitating toward the extreme Right." Walter Laqueur, Fascism: Past, Present, Future (New York: Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1996), p. 223.

Eatwell talks about the need of fascism for "syncretic legitimation" which sometimes led it to forge alliances with "existing mainstream elites, who often sought to turn fascism to their own more conservative purposes." Eatwell also observes that "in most countries it tended to gather force in countries where the right was weak." Roger Eatwell, Fascism: A History (New York: Allen Lane, 1996) p. 39.

Griffin also does not include right ideology in his "fascist minimum," but he has described Fascism as “Revolution from the Right.” Roger Griffin, “Revolution from the Right: Fascism, chapter published in David Parker (ed.) Revolutions and the Revolutionary Tradition in the West 1560-1991 (Routledge, London, 2000), pp. 185-201.

Weber: "...their most common allies lay on the right, particularly on the radical authoritarian right, and Italian Fascism as a semi-coherent entity was partly defined by its merger with one of the most radical of all right authoritarian movements in Europe, the Italian Nationalist Association (ANI)." Weber, Eugen. [1964] 1982. Varieties of Fascism: Doctrines of Revolution in the Twentieth Century, New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold Company, p. 8.

So even these scholars, who see both left and right influences on fascism, and studiously avoid stating that right-wing ideology is part of the "fascist miniomum," end up admitting that in practice, fascism gravitates to the political right.

Now, having mentioned Laqueur, Griffin, Eatwell, and Weber, I would point out that there are many, many scholars of fascism that are quite willing to call Fascism a right-wing ideology.--Cberlet 19:29, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

Zionism and Nazism

A major goal of this page is to ensure that criticisms are raised in a manner that is respectful of religious belief; and NPOV. Slamming a few Google searches into a sentence is not research. If the term "Zionazi" is actually used by a serious publication, it needs to be cited, quoted, and then there needs to be a thoughtful comment about how comparing Jews, Zionists, or Israelis to Nazis is controversial and generall considered offensive by many people. --Cberlet 18:38, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

Done so. Feel free to expand/edit as needed. // Liftarn

It should be clear that "Zionazi" is an antisemitic term. The user who consistently wishes to insert this irrelevent information into this page has his own problems, along with a problem to read directions on how to edit articles. User Liftern or whatever his name is should be checked to make sure he is not a sockpuppet of User:Alberuni Guy Montag 00:26, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

For somebody who have joined Wikipedia with the expressly stated purpose of inserting POV you have quite some chutzpah to blame me for being a sock upuppet (just check my edit history). I have edited to reflect that it probably is an antisemitic term. // Liftarn¨

It is still irrelevent to the article. We have an article on political pejoratives and it belongs in that article. Guy Montag 15:36, 12 July 2005 (UTC)


Ok, then I guess you will have no problem with the removal of the section on "Islamofascism". We can't have double standards, can we? // Liftarn
Everyone involved in this spat please chill out. It took a lot of work to try to balance this page, and POV warriors on all sides will not be tolerated. Produce good research and calm text, and it stays. But no arbitrary deletions and no insertions of sloppy research and bad writing. Do your homework or go elsewhere. Strive for NPOV or go elsewhere. Remain courteous or go elsewhere. Serious discussion is always welcome. --Cberlet 03:04, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

Was ther a reason for editing that Guy, or are you just on another one of you newspeak crusades? Just because you don't like something, and honestly I dont eaither; doesnt mean it doesnt exsist and doesn't bear mentioning. --LouieS 01:53, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

On something so common sense you should figure out yourself why I oppose having this irrelevent antisemitic information mentioned in this article. It serves no purpose other than to inflame. This article neither about Bush bashing nor Zionism. These things are self explanatory. Guy Montag 02:30, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

I think that if the preivous poster was indeed correct that those anti-semetic terms where being used in refrence to facism they bear mention here; I agree with you on deleting the bush bashing however. Again, there is a big diffrence beween not LIKING somethign, and something not EXSISTING. --LouieS 03:02, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

Still, this article is not about Zionism. Guy Montag 04:56, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

Real discussion please

Note to Guy Montag. Your views are highly POV. Please stop making deletions without actual substantive discussion here on the talk page or I will ask that the page be locked pending a full discussion. There are plenty of sources for the claim that Bush in alliance with the Christian Right invokes at least some echoes of fascism. I find most such claims hyperbolic, but Wiki is not here to judge thos cliams, but to report them fairly, accurately, and in an NPOV way. Same for Zionism. Same for Christian Identity. We need to walk carefully through this minefield, but we cannot simply delete material with which we disagree.--Cberlet 11:55, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

My views have nothing to do with this article. Deleting Richard Lang or whatever he calls himself's quote takes away nothing from the article. You can always find some loonie to scream fascism even when there is no substance to the claim. This is an article about a general connection with fascism and religion, not specific individuals who don't even walk in the same territory as fascism. And save your sermons on npov for someone new. Guy Montag 15:44, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

Please discuss before deleting material.--Cberlet 02:48, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

I have nothing more to discuss. Bring in a third opinion if you like. The information you keep sticking in the article has no relevence to it period. Guy Montag 02:52, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

There has to be something to discuss, or we'll just be reverting, which is unrpoductive. El_C 03:24, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

First of all, the term Zionazi has been defined by one person who knows nothing of its connotation or uses. In fact, it is original research to use this term as it has been described. Zionazi is never used on individuals who Israel bashers call "fascist or totalitarian" but against all Jews and all Zionists, not Kach members, but anyone who supports or is affiliated with Israel[7] or just Jews in particular[8]. Hence, this antisemitic term has nothing to do with this article. Because there is no reference to religion, but a political nationalist movement known as Zionism or another slur against Jews of all persuasions. It was originally inserted into this page by Liftarn, whose only contribution was "sometimes the term zionazi is used." How Cberlet expanded it to this arbitrary definition is beyond me. It needs to be removed. Guy Montag 17:47, 16 July 2005 (UTC)


Christian Identity

I know that all major Christian groups have denounced Christian Identity, but on the Christian Identity page it is clear that the movement is based on a premillennialist reading of the Christian Bible. I think the reference should stay.--Cberlet 13:19, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

If all major groups have denounced them, then they are not Christian. You do not use what people call themselves to have them defined, you use objective catagories despite how they define themselves. Their ideas are inspired by Neo Nazi thought. Most "churches" have a bust of Hitler's head in the front. Guy Montag 17:47, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
This simply makes no sense. All the major scholarly studies of Christian Identity regard it as a form of Christianity. Your comments about how Wiki editors should describe a group are not Wiki policy at all. You are taking your distaste for Christian identity and creating an argument that is not logical or accurate.--Cberlet 23:10, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

And you are making a circular argument. Christian Identity is infused with Nazi ideology, it is a heretical form of Christianity at the very best and a totally alien movement in the very least. Finally, show me a source for your major scholarly studies before making far reaching claims. Here are some general catagories that Christians have in common:

  • God is a Trinity, a single eternal being existing as three persons: Father, Son (Divine Logos, incarnated as Jesus Christ), and Holy Spirit.
  • Jesus is both fully God and fully human, two "natures" in one person.
  • Mary, the mother of Jesus, bore in her womb and gave birth to the Son of God, who although eternally existent as God was humanly formed in her womb by the Spirit of God. From her humanity he received in his person a human intellect and will, and all else that a child would naturally receive from its mother.
  • Jesus is the Messiah hoped for by the Jews, the heir to the throne of David. He reigns at the right hand of the Father with all authority and power forevermore. He is the hope of all mankind, their advocate and judge. Until he returns at the end of the world, the Church has the authority and obligation to preach the Gospel and to gather new disciples.
  • Jesus was innocent of any sin. Through the death and resurrection of Jesus, believers are forgiven of sins and reconciled to God. Although virtually all Christians agree on this, there are a variety of views on the significance of Jesus' resurrection. Christians are baptized into the death, resurrection and new life of Christ. Through faith, they live by the promise of resurrection from death to everlasting life through Christ. The Holy Spirit is sent to them by Christ, to bring hope and lead mankind into true knowledge of God and His purposes, and help them grow in holiness.
  • Jesus will return personally, and bodily, to judge all mankind and receive the faithful to himself, so they will live forever in the intimate presence of God.
  • Christians see Scripture as an authoritative book, inspired by God but written by men. Some, particularly in the West, refer to the Bible as the "word of God." Other Christians, particularly in the East, reserve to Jesus alone the title, Word of God. As a result of these differing views, Christians disagree in various ways about how to explain the authority of the Bible, and how it is best interpreted.

Which one of these general theories does Christian Identity proclaim? Guy Montag 02:08, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

None of your own views nor your original research on Christianity matters. Please cite a scholarly source for the claim the CI is not a form of Christianity. I cite Barkun and Kaplan for the claim that it is a form of Christianity--Cberlet 02:13, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

I took my research directly from the Christianity article. Give me an actual internet source that I can read. If what you say is common knowledge, let me read it. Guy Montag 02:33, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

Christian Identity is actual an extreme offshoot of British Israelism.[9]. Guy Montag 03:07, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

Actual published scholarly books such as those written by professors Barkun and Kaplan trump an Internet search. Your have a highly superficial fact base from which you are making sweeping POV assertions. British Israelism is a form of Christianity. All of this is explained on the Christian Identity page. Here are the cites from that page:
Michael Barkun Religion and the Racist Right: The Origins of the Christian Identity Movement, University of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill NC (1994), ISBN 0807844519
W.L. Ingram, God and Race: British-Israelism and Christian Identity, P. 119 - 126 in T. Miller, Ed., America's Alternative Religions, SUNY Press, Albany NY, 1995
Jeffrey Kaplan, Radical Religion in America, Syracuse, N.Y.: Syracuse University Press, 1997, p. 47-48)
For an NPOV description of CI on the internet, see: this page You need to do more thorough research--Cberlet 19:38, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

Fine, I still think Christian Identity is as alien to Christianity as Mormonism is, but there are bigger fish to fry with the "judeofascism" and Richard Lange diatribe which I originally cared about. Classify it under Christianity, now lets get to the other issues.Guy Montag 22:09, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

Excuse me, are you actually saying that you do not think that Mormonism is a version of Christianity?--Cberlet 00:30, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

Yes, that is what I am saying. I am sure it is based on certain biblical sources, but it is not different than the unification church. Similiar does not correlate to the actual thing. Just because a religion bases something on a common source, such as the bible, does not make it a "version." Guy Montag 01:40, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

Your bias is so profound that I do not see how you can be involved in editing this page in an NPOV way. --Cberlet 02:06, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

I have no idea what you are talking about. Get back to the other issues and keep away from personalizing this. Guy Montag 02:20, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

You need to demonstrate that you are willing to do actual research--not just surfing the web. This page covers a sensitive and complicated issue. This page is currently locked because you kept making deletions without having a discussion--a discussion that now requires that you cite some source for your views other than a website. You say that Mormonism is not a form of Christianity. This is a highly POV claim. You now want to move on to edit a section on the Christian Right? You must first demonstrate that you can cite a substantial source--a scholarly book, a journal article, a major newspaper article--about any of your claims. Not another website. If you cannot do this, then you have no business editing this page, and this discussion is a waste of time.--Cberlet 02:54, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

Look here, I do not need to justify my research techniques as long as the sources I provide are accurate. If you look at my user page, you will see major contributions on articles I have created and substantially contributed to with heavy scholarly research. In some places, especially for obscure and generally hard to find information, I have used hard sources like books. This subject is not on the scholarly level you make it out to be, especially since we sidelined more important discussion (Richard Lang and Judeofascism) to a minor change in catogarization of some racist whackos from Christianity to general links. Guy Montag 03:41, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

Alas, on a controversial page such as this one, you actually need to demonstrate that you have something to back up your views other than an opinion formed at your keyboard while surfing the web. Let's talk about Richard Lang, assuming that you have agreed to let alone the section on Christian Identity.--Cberlet 13:40, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

Alright. I will leave alone the Christian Identity debate. Guy Montag 18:36, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

I'm thinking of unlocking this today, so hopefully a compromise can be worked out before then. Cheers, SlimVirgin (talk) 18:02, July 19, 2005 (UTC)

Bush & Christian Right

This article uses the Lang material to set up the extended Kurtz criticism of the leftists who claim Bush & the Christian Right are fascistic. Without an actual quote like Lang's, the rebut by Kurtz is too long. But it needs to be long to make sense. Thus the Lang quote is the balance. Incidently, I don't agree with either quote.--Cberlet 18:50, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

The problem I have with this quote is that I do not believe that it is on subject. We are discussing a general connection in history of religious movements and fascism, but in this case it is a hyperbolic, bombastic quote by a none notable individual, which I believe gives very little to the article. Guy Montag 19:00, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

I just do not understand the claim that the Lang quote is not on point, the quote mentions "Christian Fascism" directly in an obvious reference to the U.S. Christian Right. It directly speaks to the use of such rhetoric on the left. You cannot engage in Orwellian sanitation of quotes simply because you find them "hyperbolic." I agree it is hyperbolic, and yet it is a perfect example of the type of rhetoric criticized by Kurtz in the paragraphs that follow. --Cberlet 21:18, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

Alright, I read the whole thing in context. Point taken, now lets get to the judeofascism, which is what I originally cared about. Guy Montag 22:06, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

Judaism and neofascism

Here is the entire section:

Some scholars have found fascistic elements in the Kach party and Kahane Chai party in Israel; and in certain Israeili settler movements and their supporters in the U.S.
The terms "Judeofascism" and "Zionazism" are controversial political epithets. Those who use the terms argue that they refer only to certain groups or individuals alleged to have fascist or totalitarian tendencies. Its critics argue that it is merely used to smear Jews or Zionists with the negative connotations of the terms fascist or Nazi. In addition, these terms are ofen used in a way that invokes historic anti-Semitism.

This section bends over backwards to be fair. What is the problem? It makes it clear that "Judeofascism" and "Zionazism" are controversial epithets often used as a smear and often echoing antisemitism. Anything more cautious and fairminded and it would be absurd.--Cberlet 00:54, 20 July 2005 (UTC)


My original complaint:
"First of all, the term Zionazi has been defined by one person who knows nothing of its connotation or uses. In fact, it is original research to use this term as it has been described. Zionazi is never used on individuals who Israel bashers call "fascist or totalitarian" but against all Jews and all Zionists, not Kach members, but anyone who supports or is affiliated with Israel[7] or just Jews in particular[8]. Hence, this antisemitic term has nothing to do with this article. Because there is no reference to religion, but a political nationalist movement known as Zionism or another slur against Jews of all persuasions. It was originally inserted into this page by Liftarn, whose only contribution was "sometimes the term zionazi is used." How Cberlet expanded it to this arbitrary definition is beyond me. It needs to be removed. Guy Montag 17:47, 16 July 2005 (UTC)" Guy Montag 03:06, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
Once again you fail to conduct even the most rudimentay research and make claims that can be falsified in a matter of seconds simply by using Google, which reveals over 6,500 page hits for the term "Zionazi." You have conflated two paragraphs making different points in order to make the claims above. The paragraph that mentions the term "Zionazi" bears no resemblance to your argument. It is as if you are just typing what you think you read without bothering to actually read the text. Nor do you appear to conduct the simplest research to back up your claims. This is not up to Wiki standards; and this entire discussion has been a waste of time created by your glib refusal to take seriously the need to do research before entering into a discussion that resulted from the page being locked down due to your repeated POV reverts. You should apologize to everyone involved and move on.--Cberlet 03:37, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

You have shown knowledge on other subjects we discussed, but here you are sorely lacking. When I said one person has defined it, I was speaking that you were the person who defined what Zionazi meant, but you have no qualification to do so because your definition is innacurate.

This is the version written.

The terms "Judeofascism" and Zionazism" are political epithets. Many who use the terms say they are referring only to certain groups or individuals alleged to have fascist or totalitarian tendencies. Critics of the terms argue that it is merely used to smear Jews or Zionists with the negative connotations of the terms fascist or Nazi. In addition, these terms are often used in a stereotypic way that invokes historic anti-Semitism and often wrongly conflates Judaism, the religion; Zionism, the nationalist political tendency; Israel, the state; Israeli government policies; Jews around the world; and U.S. foreign policy.

Here is an example of how the term is used in a way that precisely fits on this page:
"Pat Robertson is in Israel and rallying both his anti-Jewish right-wing followers along with Likud followers who seem to like him solely for his religious hatred towards Mulsims. Netanyahu even appeared on the 700 club and they both engaged in a pretty sickening few minutes of mutual ass kissing. Religious Zionists and Evangelical bible thumpers seem to have more in common than anti-anti-Zionists admit; perhaps the use of the term ZioNazi is not far off mark when it comes to religious Zionists."
[10]
Reprehensible? Yes. Typical? Yes. Appropriate for this page? Yes.--Cberlet 03:43, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
I have edited the text in question to try to respond to some of the concerns raised in this discussion. I hope it is seen as a constructive compromise.--Cberlet 13:07, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
This is patently innacurate. In fact, it is original research to use this term as you described it. Zionazi is never solely used on individuals who Israel bashers call "fascist or totalitarian" but against all Jews and all Zionists, not Kach members, but anyone who supports or is affiliated with Israel[11] or just Jews in particular[12].
You have failed to respond to this information the day it was posted when the page was locked and instead bent the discussion to less important points. Your definition was the origin of the dispute, and you have not answered it adequetly. I do not consider this discussion over.Guy Montag 18:27, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
Try reading more accurately. The text says that "many" people who use the term "say" they are doing one thing, while critics of the term point to bigotry. This is an NPOV and accurate summary of the usage.--Cberlet 18:38, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
The problem is that I have shown that this is not solely used on Religious Zionists, but all Zionists and even Jews. Hence, I do not believe that it warrants being in this page, because Zionism is a nationalistic ideology, while this is a discussion about religion and fascism. Guy Montag 18:49, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
You have produced a handful of anecdotes and then declared that you have proven a claim that is easy to disprove. I ask you once again to produce some actual research or cites to back up your personal opinions. Please attempt to engage in a constructive edit of actual text. Making the same assetions over and over again without actual research or editing is a waste of everyone's time.--Cberlet 19:30, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
I have given you two sources already and I do not know why you keep insisting on research, when I have. Read them. You are proving very hard to work with. One is from indymedia calling Israeli officials and soldiers zionazis the other is about a racist whacko calling all Jews Zionazis. I am not editing the page specifically because my edit will be to erase the paragraph on the term.Guy Montag 19:35, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
Providing two sources does not document the claims that you are making. We agree that sometimes--perhaps even often--people who use the term "ZioNazi" are not just referring to "Religious Zionists, but all Zionists and even Jews." But I have already shown that this is not always the case, thus disproving your claim. I am not difficualt to work with, I just insist on using logic without the fallacies of logic, and basic standards of research, both of which are entry level skills for Wikipedia editors. Your claims have been refuted, please make an editing suggestion. I have already edited the text to take some of your concerns into considertion.--Cberlet 19:46, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
Deleting the term is not a constructive edit.--Cberlet 19:46, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
Note to Guy Montag: I added the cites you included to the end of the next paragraph, but I cut the sentence you added because it totally duplicated text already in the article.--Cberlet 12:46, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

Wistrich

Dear folks, the problem with these kind of references is that you would end up with hundreds of statements arguing about something not that objective that it should be. Please, have a look at most of these statements; most of them talk about Islam and the West. If really there's a trait of fascism in Islam, we'd be having statements from the East as well. Does any Chinese talk about that? Why do we have to make references always, to the West, when there's an East?! Do Jews make allegiance to the West or to the East? Is Mr. Wistrich a Westerner or an Easterner? Maybe it's suitable to say "Middle East" in order to avoid any kind of confusion!!!

Fascism never made a difference between East and West!!! With all my respect for Mr. Wistrich, his arguement is based on his Judeo-Christian background and not on any any other background, being eastern or western!.

For this same reason, his statement or theory is not accurate. Mr. Wistrish is a Professor at the Hebrew University! I got nothing else to argue about. Cheers from Svest 23:14, August 23, 2005 (UTC) Wiki me up™

We still don't have a source for the quote. But yes, when we do get a source, we'll have to mention that he's a Professor at Hebrew University as he is not well-known enough to mention without a qualifier.Heraclius 23:18, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
We do need a cite, but Wistrich is very well known in some academic circles. To Jew-bait him is really not appropriate, and undermines any claims here.--Cberlet 02:09, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
It doesn't matter *where* Wistrich is a Professor, but he holds a chair in Modern European History and his research interests are around anti-semitism (the implication being he's most expert in modern European anti-semitism. See this profile for some publications http://www.acpr.org.il/people/rwistrich.html. You may think this makes his view more or less important. However, the quote in the text is not from any kind of academic publication but from an article he wrote that appeared in the Jerusalem Post on 16 November 2001 [13]. Can't we do better? The quote given isn't in the report he did for the American Jewish Committee [14] --Dannyno 12:31, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
That sounds like a reasonable suggestion. Anyone have a Wistrich quote from a more scholarly source?--Cberlet 12:37, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

NPOV v. Bigotry

This page walks a tightrope balancing many factors. Attempts to insert bigotry and POV attacks into this page are not appropriate. Inserting text where the religion Islam is not capitalized (by typing "islam"), I interpret as bigotry toward Islam. --Cberlet

  • I interpret this as making the text more readable. Anyhow, I checked the Webster spelling guide, you seem to be right. A more general remark: sign your comments as we all do here at Wikipedia. --Germen (Talk | Contribs ) 14:11, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

I take the same position regarding all religions. Terms that are widely considered offensive by any religion should not be used in a section until that issue is discussed. Thus "Islamofascism" should not be inserted at the top of the discussion of Islam. If these type of action continue, I will ask for page protection until these matters are discussed in detail. --Cberlet

  • Not agreed. Offensive or not offensive is not a valid criterion for inclusion or exclusion. Religious bigots consider everything that contradicts or diminuishes their religion as offensive. So in the Netherlands, we have lost our patience with the chronic state of offense those religious bigots seem to enjoy. This page has been merged with the islamofascism page and the word has more than 100,000 Google hits, so it is notable. Marking the word is thus appropriate (the alternative being reinstating the islamofascism page), although its accuracy can be questioned. --Germen (Talk | Contribs ) 14:11, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
Actually, seeking to avoid religious bigotry in entries is a goal of this page. The Islamofascism page was a magnet for revert wars and repeatedly filled with naked bigotry against Islam. That is what we are trying to avoid here on this page. Nothing is being avoided. Harsh criticisms appear, but they are balanced and NPOV.--Cberlet 14:31, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
I agree. The word "Islamofascism" doesn't have quite the same meaning or intent as "Islamic Fascism". The latter is a description of what is alleged to be a kind of fascism. The former is *sometimes* though not invariably used quite differently - to characterise all of Islam. They are not synonymous, and I think the article tries to explain why. It isn't about avoiding being offensive, it's about being clear about how the meaning of words differs. --Dannyno 15:25, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

Major revisions without discussion

Note to Silverback. If you are going to continue to go from page to page deleting my arguments and text, at least have the common courtesy to engage in a discussion before making major revisions that delete ideas you disagree with and add obscure and marginal views that represent your POV.--Cberlet 17:19, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

Sorry I did not know those were yours. However, when I have tried to engage you, you seem to think details I requested are already documented on these pages, and that further discussion is unnecessary. It should not take a lot of discussion to when glaring errors are found, such as the labeling of Gary North as a Neo- or was it proto- fascist when he is a libertarian opposed to the very concept of a messianic state. It appears that if someone has arms and legs and isn't a progressive, then he has three things in common fascists, and if he lived after WWII, then he is a neo-fascist, and if he doesn't have legs then he is only a proto-fascist.--Silverback 17:31, August 25, 2005 (UTC)
North claims to be a libertarian, but as a leading figure in Christian Reconstructionism, it is entirely appropriate to point out that several published authors consider Christian Reconstructionism to be at best theocratic, and at worst, neofascist. If you and Sam Spade use outdated or minority view definitions of fascism, it will seem contradictory. We are talking about Clerical Fascism, not Italian Corporatist Fascism. Sam Spade, who is busy starting a revert war on this page, has repeatedly lost his attempts to impose his minority view of fascism as socialism on the main Fascism page. Neofascists and protofascists rooted in a doctrinaire form of theocratic Calvinism have no problem endorsing libertarian capitalism in the economic sphere, while denouncing pluralism in the political, social, and cultural spheres. And it really would help if you reviewed some of the previous talk page discussions before jumping in and declaring text to be dubious or simply deleting material.--Cberlet 18:13, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
I did search the talk page for North and got no hits. From what you say, I assume the other reconstructionists endorse libertarian capitalism as well. If so, then they can't be totalitarians, unless someone has changed that definition too. Denouncing pluralism in those other spheres should not be very threatening, if they beleive in a limited civil government as North writes, because that would mean they are not going to do anything about it by force. I doubt Gary North would be citing the other libertarians that he does and calling himself a libertarian, if he supported the drug war for instance. --Silverback 18:28, August 25, 2005 (UTC)
The point here is that if Karen Armstrong, a world famous author on religion, has published a book that makes certain claims, then you cannot refute them with your own original research. And she is not alone in that assessment. And on this page we have actually tried to balance the claims. --Cberlet 18:39, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
I searched the talk page for "freedom" and found no explanation for what Armstrong meant by "no individual freedom", it must not be the standard meaning if she applies it to someone who believes in markets and private property and limited government. Why do you persist in quoting opinion out of context and not the evidence which allows the opinion to be understood?--Silverback 18:55, August 25, 2005 (UTC)


I went and read the full North essay. You miss his point entirely. He is against the secular state, but when he puts in the essay:
"Now, for all to see, here is my answer. I have written approximately 8,000 pages of Bible commentaries on 11 books of the Bible: Genesis, Exodus (3 volumes), Leviticus (4 volumes), Numbers, Deuteronomy (3 volumes), Matthew, Luke, Acts, Romans, First Corinthians, and First Timothy. These commentaries deal exclusively with economics. "
In his theological writings, North denounces the powerful federal secular state in favor of a theocratic Christian nation ruled by Old Testament law. This is an important point you have simply missed.--Cberlet 18:52, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
He derived libertarian economics from the old and new testaments, so maybe he derived the constitution from them as well. Is his theocratic nation different from a limited civil government? Is he advocating the use of force now, or is he just talking about what he thinks the future millenium will be like? A much better case could be made against him, if details were presented instead of just labels.--Silverback 19:00, August 25, 2005 (UTC)
It would really help if you actually did some serious research before propounding your original research as taking priority over the work of Karen Armstrong--one of the world's most respected authorities on modern religious movements.--Cberlet 21:15, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
This is intended to be an encyclopedia article, you should NOT use quotes from Armstrong that you have to go read Armstrong to find out what she means. You should use quotes that can stand on their own. That probably means that you have to use quotes that avoid hyperbole, or avoid terms that have been especially defined a certain way for the purposes of her argument as is often done in peer reviewed papers. What does she mean by "totalitarianism" and "no individual freedom"? If she means the traditional, unqualified meanings of those terms, how does she reconcile them with North;s Austrian economics? Does she have evidence that he is lying? Does she make more reasonable quotes elsewhere, such as North supports the Patriot Act and that is why she calls him, and presumably a lot of Republicans and Democrats, "neofascists"? Wikipedia does not require us to check our brains at the door or to worship everyone that has ever written a book. (Or has Armstrong calling North a neofascist been published in a peer reviewed journal?)--Silverback 03:48, August 26, 2005 (UTC)

Cberlet, I don't know whether you agree that the Reconstructionists claim to be ultimately hostile to the modern State as such. They aren't just opposed to non-Christians running the show; they believe that the whole circus will gradually be replaced by non-revolutionary means with something that cannot be foreseen from an anti-Christian perspective, as yet imperfectly envisioned in their writings, for which they believe the Bible is intended to serve as a blueprint. They write against nationalism and racial theories. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** \

One Gary North essay I recall - but have yet to find - was written strongly in favor of inter-racial Christian marriage as a direct strategy for destroying racist forms of Christian religion and political ideology. Rushdoony commented more than once that race-oriented and nationalistic agendas are perverse, and hostile to the Gospel. Isn't it plain that, although Reconstructionism is not Fascism, it is hated by its critics for the same reasons that they criticize Fascism? Speaking honestly for yourself, if this is called fascism or neofascism, doesn't it seem to you as though the definition is being adjusted to fit an agenda? — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 21:10, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

Christian Reconstructionsim - another round

Let's start by observing that the title of this page is NOT neonazism and Religion. This is a discussion of neofascism and modern forms of clerical fascism. The definition of fasciusm I use is based on the work of Roger Griffin, and appears on this page:

"Scholar Roger Griffin, argues that "fascism is best defined as a revolutionary form of nationalism, one that sets out to be a political, social and ethical revolution, welding the 'people' into a dynamic national community under new elites infused with heroic values. The core myth that inspires this project is that only a populist, trans-class movement of purifying, cathartic national rebirth (palingenesis) can stem the tide of decadence" (Griffin, Nature of Fascism, p. xi)."
"This concept of fascism as "palingenesis" is complementary with the idea of James Rhodes that fascism is a form of apocalyptic millenarianism; and with the work of Emilio Gentile where fascism is seen as a form of 'political religion.'"

And please note, this page reflects a number of contradictory claims and views, as it should. If I were writing it alone to reflect only my point of view, it would read very differently; but it would violate Wiki guidelines. Just like it violates Wiki guidelines when people delete material by well-known published authorities and insert their own original research.--Cberlet 21:21, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

I agree with you that it's not our job to pass judgment on the credibility of sources, or the intelligibility of arguments, but merely to describe the controversies. The problem that I see is that these claims, views, and definitions are not explicitly shown to be contradictory. There is a lot of equivocation when the article is taken as a whole; and although I think that it does a fair job of balancing the charges against reconstructionism, it does so in terms of a shift in terminology which is not explicitly described. Under Griffin's definition (if it were the one being used throughout), Rich Lang's and Yurika's comments come across as grossly ignorant and abusive. But, they are not using Griffin's definition of fascism, and this is not expressly acknowledged. Ironically, the Christian Right more nearly fits Griffin's definition of "fascism" than Reconstructionism does. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 21:51, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
Actually, I agree with you, and have tried to include some political right criticism of the more marginal claims of political left critics. I have no objection whatsover to attempts to clarify this matter. Balance is not as easy as it looks.--Cberlet 22:01, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

"Karen Armstrong mentions there are some similarities worth noting"

I just put a comment in the article. The above quote, forgets to mention the similarities, that are so "worth noting".--Silverback 04:53, August 26, 2005 (UTC)

I took out that line and replaced it with her discussion of Maududi. I haven't found anything where Armstrong notes any similarities. Not in "the battle for god". Not in "a history of god". Not in "Islam: a short history". Not in any newspaper article. Maybe she does so somewhere else, but if so I think we ought to have chapter and verse. --Dannyno 09:14, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
That is the cite. Armstong "mentions" some "similarites" such as "totalitarianism" and "dictatorship." "Worth noting" does not imply that she said anything stronger. The current quote is fine. --Cberlet 12:51, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

Islamofascism

I don't understand how Germen's two sentences are any more offensive than the lead sentence in the next paragraph, which contains "Islamic fascism". The sentence that the terms are found offensive by those labelled such merely duplicates information above. I am going to modify the existing paragraph to include "Islamofascism", as the term is also used. I worry that Germen's edit had been rejected because of his opinions rather than it's usefulness. --Habap 14:28, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

Ooops. I re-read the section and Islamofascism is already discussed in it. I do agree with Germen that just because a term is offensive, that is no reason to leave it out. I don't think his wording is particularly beautiful, but I don't understand why both terms cannot be discussed in the opening paragraph of this section. --Habap 14:32, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Indeed. Two terms are generally used to discuss about islam and fascism. Those two terms are "islamofascism" and "islamic fascism". With over more than 100,000 Google hits they are notable hence fit for discussion. I already mentioned those terms are hotly debated and questioned. As 'offence' is not a Wikipedia guideline with the exception of sexually explicit material, I suggest CBerlett should discuss a change of Wikipedia policy at the Village Pump, rather than imposing private intolerant POV ideas about editing standards on other Wikipedia users.--Germen (Talk | Contribs ) 14:33, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
As one who regularly disagreed with Germen prior to this, I am surprised to find the recent versions that he has authored actually being the better ones. If you remove that initial paragraph, then the section does not flow logically at all. Normally, if you are going to discuss two terms, it would be best to first state what the terms are, then explain each. I don't understand how Germen's POV appears in the section at all. --Habap 14:38, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
The wording is fine, but why bold? This is just a stylistic problem I have with it. There is no need to bold terms while in other sections there isn't any bold.Heraclius 15:01, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
If folks would please look at all the different religion's sections, they will see a pattern. The general discussion about a particular religion and neofascism is introduced. Then, later, particular jargon that is highly offensive to some people in that religion is cautiously introduced. Then the full criticism is explored along with rebuttals. There is a reason for this. Previous pages have seen gigantic revert wars. The page on "Islamofascism" was specifically merged into this one to avoid that. This discussion may seem to be about one word, but it is a word for which there is a long history. Germen knows this, and is exploiting the situation to push his POV.--Cberlet 15:43, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
Sorry Berlet, this is outright baloney. The Islamofascism page is merged into this one, so the word warrants at least a subparagraph. I will suggest your university to reallocate your funds to a bèta department as you seem not to be sufficiently qualified for science.--Germen (Talk | Contribs
UPDATE: you seem to work at a private foundation. At least no public money is wasted. God save America. ) 10:11, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
Here is a link to that battle, and folks can see the vicious nature of some of the attacks on editors and Islam. [15]. Please help me keep this page a careful balance of views and prevent another similar battle.--Cberlet 15:55, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

Are we still arguing about the issue? Yes, it was a long battle; one of the hottest battles ever! -- Svest 19:17, August 30, 2005 (UTC) Wiki me up™

Other Issues?

What specific paragraphs remain to be discussed before we can remove the page flags?--Cberlet 12:35, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

Baathism

In the Islam and Fascism section, the article seems to go considerably too far in claiming Baathism as a Christian movement. While it was certainly formed by Christians, and always had considerable Christian support, Baathism was never a movement entirely, or even predominantly, supported by Christians. The Baathist movement as it ruled in Iraq was dominated by Tikriti Sunni Muslims, while the Baathist movement in Syria has been dominated for some time by Alawite Shi'ites (or whatever Alawites are to be considered). I think the language claiming Baathism as a Christian movement needs to be seriously moderated. john k 18:48, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

I don't think that this point is relevant. Whoever created, supported or ruled the movement is not important as it is/was a secular movement. Yes, who supported Baathism or ruled it got both Muslim and Christian backgrounds but religion never influenced Baathism. Cheers. -- Svest 19:13, August 30, 2005 (UTC) Wiki me up™
Well, yes. It is perhaps worth mentioning that religious minorities (Christians, Sunni Arabs in Iraq, Alawites in Syria) have tended to support Baathism to a greater extent than the majority groups in those countries (Shiites in Iraq, Sunnis in Syria). I'm going to try to edit the section. john k 19:27, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
Much better. Thanks folks. --Cberlet 19:46, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
I agree. Svest 20:50, August 30, 2005 (UTC) Wiki me up™

I'm glad folks approve of my changes. That said, the earlier version seemed to be arguing that Baathism, and the Kataeb Party, and so forth were Arab fascist movements, but that their secularism should not be seen as preventing a description of Islamism as fascistic, because these were essentially Arab Christian fascist movements, while Islamism is a Muslim fascist movement. Is this an idea which has been expressed by mainstream scholars or commentators? If so, it might deserve some sort of (NPOV) mention in the article. I don't feel like I'm familiar enough with this subject to judge for myself, or to determine how to write about this argument in an NPOV way. john k 23:09, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

More discussion: Sensitivity v. Appearance of Bigotry

Please, let's not turn this page back into an opinioniated a nasty revert war. Substantial criticisms are raised here, but they are made cautiously. There are numerous statements that this is a controversial set of assertions, so the POV flag is simply pointless. There are plenty of scholarlry cites relating to neofasicsm and religion to make the discussion supportable. For each of the religions, terms deemed espcially offensive by adherents are introduced after the lead paragraphs. To insist on putting these terms into the lead introduces POV bigotry. Please do not do this. If you disagree, seek outside comments or mediation/arbitration to expend the discussion here.--Cberlet 17:51, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

Note to Germen: Please refrain from edits that encourage bigotry and demonization of a religion.--Cberlet 09:42, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

I cannot understand why using the word islamofascism equals to demonizing islam. This word is notable and the word is used for islamist political movements, not for the whole religion of islam. To be fair, there are several severe problems within islam (as well as answers to those problems). Mentioning those problems is not demonisation but encyclopedic.--Germen (Talk | Contribs ) 10:20, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
The issue here is that the term and the concept "islamofascism," are already discussed. What you keep trying to do is move the term "islamofascism," considered offensive by some people, up into the lead of the section, or make it a subheading, or emphasize it in some bold way. But the format of this page--for each religion--is to introduce these types of terms cautiously, and in the context of supplying the objection. The term is not avoided, nor is the issue censored. What you insist on doing gives the appearance of relentless bigotry against Islam. I would think you would want to avoid that impression. If you disagree, seek outside comments, or mediation/arbitration, to expand the discussion here. Please do not enagage in a revert war over an issue that was settled through long and often heated debate. This page is the result of a series of compromises.--Cberlet 10:39, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
I have promoted this section to a major heading and renamed it to be more NPOV, and hope we can have a more thorough discussion here rather than a pointless revert war. Germen: please explain why it is so important to promote the term "Islamophobia." What does the reader gain from this?