Christianists vs. Islamists: More Fun with Words

Innocently blog-surfing today, I stumbled into an almost indecipherable brouhaha involving a debate on the use of the terms "Christianist" and "Islamist." It's hard to figure out just how this got started. But it seems as if the increasingly puerile Andrew Sullivan's habitual use of the term got to Ann Althouse and/or Glenn Reynolds (aka "Instapundit") and eventually involved web propagandist Glen Greenwald here and (indirectly) here in something called the "Middle Earth Journal." If you're interested in this kind of stuff, each of the links above have multiple links themselves. The whole terminology issue is of interest to us here at HazZzMat, of course, since many of our political discussions on this site are meant to expose the left's clever and highly manipulative use of terminology to create an intellectual environment that's overwhelmingly opposed to the American way of life.

At base, it would appear that both Sullivan and Middle Earth are viewing the political machinations of "Islamists" (loosely defined as Muslim extremists) and "Christianists" (loosely defined as fundamentalists who believe in Christ, aka Christian extremists) as one in the same. This, of course, is a nifty Gramscian twist of defining deviancy (Islamism) down in order to tar one's "Christianist" antangonists. In other words, using and accepting both these terms allows one to operate as if Islamism and Christianism were morally equivalent. They are not. But you can't deal with that, in an argumentative sense, by using these two words, as they imply an acceptance of moral equivalency.

Academics (including Glenn Reynolds and Ann Althouse to a great extent, unfortunately) have been pushing the use of "Islamist" to describe Muslim extremists, eschewing the use of the term "Islamofascist"—the more accurate term—as a tool of right-wing and presumably Christian fundamentalist "extremists." Apparently, some on the left side of this crowd have been happy to counter "Islamist" with the term "Christianist" to describe the latter, thus rendering them impotent via the tool of moral equivalency. MEJ, the Middle Earth Journal, wraps this up rather succinctly in the link cited above:

Primarily, Greenwald and Sullivan are simply pointing out that certain Right wing elements in this country have been frighteningly successful in conflating the religion of Islam, and it's [sic] billions of global Muslim practitioners, with the tiny number of extremists who espouse terrorism. There are those (the vast majority) who simply view Islam as their religion and the foundation for their personal beliefs and philosophy. (Muslims) There are others who wish to take that viewpoint and make the centerpiece of their political and governmental structure. (Islamists) And then there are the extreme whackos, who right wingers choose to call "Islamofascists" and such, rather than simply labeling them as the criminals they are. The fact is, all three of these groups have Christian counterparts right here in our country and around the world.

This is a pretty nifty summation, except that it's exactly wrong. Preliminary comment: Note the use of the word "frightening" above. Everything that is said and done by anyone even slightly to the right of doctrinaire leftists is "frightening." (One wonders what they'd call Freddie Krueger. Or Osama bin Laden. "Tragically misunderstood?")

First of all, we don't need Sullivan or Greenwald condescendingly paint those who believe that Muslim extremists, who are politically dominant right now in both the Sunni and Shi'a strains of Islam, as "Islamofascists." They are extreme adherents of one strain of Islam or another, and if you don't bow and scrape to them, you will be killed. There's no ambiguity here, as we saw in 9/11 and are currently seeing in Lebanon. No hairsplitting. No moral equivalency. It's their way or the highway. They are actually highly right-wing and paleo-conservative in the context of their own culture, and are thus the inheritors of the fascist dictatorships of the mid 20th century which they all quite openly admire. Ergo, it's no stretch at all and entirely accurate to label them "Islamofascists," for that is what they are. And we don't need Christian fundamentalists—who won't kill you if you disagree with them, BTW—to tell us this.

Second, I am constantly told, the "vast majority" of Muslims don't favor violence and extremism as a means of propagating their religion. That's really great to hear, except that, well, I never hear Muslims saying that—en masse. No demonstrations against Al Qaeda; none against the medievalist Shi'a who run Iraq and are actively seeking a global nuclear holocaust; and certainly none against Iran's clients, Hezbollah, who are perfectly happy to trash Lebanon, again, to further their murderous and Apocalyptic aims. When I see big Muslim peace demonstrations in Damascus, Baghdad, Teheran, Riyadh, and elsewhere, I might be persuaded that this "silent majority" of peaceful Muslims actually exists. Right now, for some reason, I am persuaded otherwise. So please, folks, don't give me this silent majority stuff. You'll have to prove it, and right now at least, you can't.

Which brings us right back to our original point, which addresses the final thoughts in MEJ's circular logic above. MEJ objects to the "extreme right" calling Islamofascist mass-murderers Islamofascists because they're really only criminals, and can clearly be persuaded if we arrest them and put them on trial. Shades of Bill Clinton. 6 years after 9/11 and these folks still regard religiously motivated mass murder as something that could easily play out on one or two episodes of "Law & Order."

This erroneous train of thought is either dangerously naive and simplistic. Or worse, it's simply another chapter in the left's ceaseless efforts to undermine the ability of the United States to defend itself against a clearly-defined, implacable enemy that has never made any secret of its murderous intentions. To link Islamofascist thugs, morally, with Christian fundamentalist "counterparts" in this country—who, as I pointed out, do not use mass-murder to further their beliefs—is so obviously and factually wrong that it becomes blatantly dishonest. But that's just fine in the minds of the moral equivalency crowd, since Christian fundamentalists, er, "Christianists," are obviously far more dangerous to our freedom than Islamofascists, since the "Christianists" live right here.

The conclusion: fear the "Christianists" far more than the Islamofascists, ah, "Islamists."

Note, we're not exactly Christian fundamentalists here at HazZzMat. In fact, since both writers are at least nominal Catholics, some of these fundamentalist folks probably don't consider us Christian at all, since we still do worship the occasional statue. Nonetheless, to equate Bible-thumping Christians with savages who mass-murder in the name of religion is yet another cynical attempt by the left to foment class warfare in this country, causing some of us to turn on others while the Islamofacsists continue, un-impeded, their ceaseless war of attrition against the West in general and the U.S. in particular.

Today's leftists, heirs of the Woodstock Generation and the younger ideologues who are succeeding them, hate the U.S. with such a passion that they'd prefer we be overcome by the Islamofascists rather than allowing anyone besides themselves any voice in this country's future at all. By demonizing fundamentalist Christians, as they have already successfully demonized other individuals and organizations they hate such as Catholics, Jews, Republicans, the Boy Scouts, white males (including dead white European males), and anyone who actually makes money from a businesss, the left continues its program of dividing and weakening this country via the device of a manufactured class struggle which none of us really want.

As we've said many, many times here, watch for the terminology in news stories, arguments, or discussions. Words do have meaning, which is while the left manipulates them so. Don't let the left define the argument for you, or you will lose each and every time. The arguments of the left are inferior, cynical, and dangerously wrong and really amount to nothing more than the kind of propaganda that was toppled along with the Berlin Wall. But if you inadvertently adopt the left's subtle, reality-altering terminology to describe people and events, you'll never be able to see where their dangerous propaganda offensive is leading us.