the conservative political machine: manufacturing islamophobia

Sometimes.

 

They are a huge bulwark against the craziness being codified, not against reinforcing deeply held beliefs (those 50+% of the public in the gallup poll I posted that have negative opinions of Islam) or actions by those who feel threatened by a perceived enemy to their way of life.

 

I understand your desire to stay in the 'middle of the road,' Borla. Although, it seems like a place where one stands a high chance of running over.

But I believe when the idea behind it is that 'there are crazies on both sides and I want to stay out of it,' it's a cop-out. There is no radical left dialogue in this country. There isn't, I don't care how many democrats you parade around for me, I will tell you exactly why you are dead wrong about every one of them. Because I am on the radical left and there is no one out there in the political arena that represents me. But there is a massive tidal wave of crazy conservative action and dialogue sweeping through this country powered by more insane republican candidates and 'experts' than you can shake a stick at. That idea that there is an equally radical left side is a lie. It's a myth, perpetrated by the same people who say things like, 'the liberal media' in order to make extreme conservatism seem more reasonable and necessary.

 

Is your position here that checks and balances exist which make it impossible for fear and antipathy to be whipped up to an extent that actual people suffer as a result? Because that's clearly not the case in reality.

 

I am not a big fan of Sharia Law. I have seen it in action in Malaysia and it's not pretty. The main issue I have with it, as far as the US is concerned is that the US, as a nation of laws (rather than people), does not need a competing set of laws. The laws of the land are relatively progressive and should suffice.

That said, if you choose to live in a community that wishes to adhere to a different set of edicts, that is, or should be, your choice. Just know, that the Law, will ultimately supersede your community edicts.

 

The only application of Sharia law in the U.S. that I am aware of, is that of a mediator if both sides agree.I'm not sure why I'd care if 2 consenting adults choose to have an Imam broker a deal.

If anyone can present a case where Sharia law was used in a court process against someones consent in the U.S., I'd love to see it.

This has a Chicken Little feel to it. You gotta wonder if the folks worried about this have finished up their Y2K supplies, yet.

 

as a matter of fact, the report doesn't do more than spell out who the sources for the strain of conservative islamophobia are, who funds them, who legitimates and echoes them. this includes both media networks and social networks. what it doesn't do, borla, is what you accuse it of doing--which is painting all conservatives as nut cases. and the fact of the matter is that, at the most fundamental levels, the infotainment that is the islamophobic strain of contemporary conservatism is empirically false and politically pernicious--one the the elements that most exactly mirrors western european neo-fascism. there's no getting around this, factually. and it doesn't matter if you like it or not. it's simply the case. so if you want to talk about facts of the matter, perhaps it'd be a good start if you stuck to them.

second, as for what i posted about aceventura's mode of interacting with this thread--read the way he conducted himself. he refused to read the report. he had imaginary "premises" that he expected--without bothering to read it--that he'd object to. he then proceeded to repeat some of the claims that the report debunks and/or exposes--the conservative canard about sharia for example---and tried to defend not only the claims but their basis in ignorance. if you read the thread, you'll also see that i was not the only person exasperated by this obtuseness--which i take to be a form of trolling. i merely decided to be blunt about it.

third, as for this ridiculous idea that only people in some amorphous middle politically know what's going on--nonsense. unless you really imagine that the facts of the matter are themselves "extremist"---which is pretty sad position to adopt in a democratic context. democratic debate takes work. it's not the spoon-fed infotainment rich nonsense you glean from tv. democratic debate presupposes information. it presupposes a capacity to treat information critically. this is pretty basic.

and when i talk to conservative-leaning folk in meat space, it's usually possible to have a discussion that actually gets to the central philosophical problems. which requires that both parties in the discussion be willing and able to lay out not just that they think x but why they think it and open that up to basic critique. it is also possible to have conversations about matters like this report about conservative use of what amounts to a form of racism directed against islam. but most of the conservative-leaning people i know in meat space have contempt for the tea party types, for the ultra-right evangelicals, for the right libertarians. they see them as a Problem for the kind of conservatism they identify with. there's no defending that type of conservative ideology. and there's none of this refusal to take in information they don't like. with the ultra-right, there's no dialog--it's not designed for that. it's designed as a neo-fascist identity politics. and for entirely cynical reasons. and this is not an extremist position--this is simply the way things are.

 

I'm about three quarters through that well written report.
I'd urge and encourage others to take the time to read it.
It's a very chilling, sobering experience. I hope this report gains wider attention it deserves.
Not sure if that can happen in the current us media mire. One can hope.

 

Don't some Orthodox Jewish communities already practice some form of this? What happens in their communities when their subset of community laws come up against State/Provincial and Federal Law?

 

I didn't chime into this thread to voice my concern solely about potential laws. There are many other ways in which widespread islamophobia can have adverse effects on people. Ignoring the efforts of the folks in the OP only invites more islamophobia.

Perhaps I misread your position, though. Are you only apathetic about legislative activities, or are you apathetic about the entire set of implications raised in the OP?

 

No offense, but that sounds more like self-serving rationalization than anything else. Research can be correct and salient independent of the political inclinations of its producers. The difference between fringe partisan groups and mainstream partisan groups is occasionally only a few good PR stunts (or the backing of wealthy people who see them as useful idiots, *ahem* tea party).

I think that it's becoming more clear to me that a significant threat to this country's political process comes from the large group of people who choose to remain politically aloof and ignorant out of some misguided notion that the most reasonable position is always somewhere in between wherever the folks on the wings are. The democratizing power of reason and truth are significantly attenuated if all of the "reasonable" people have rationalized themselves out of the political process via some lame "they're all nuts" fallacy. Yes, a lot of "them" are nuts. But by removing yourself from the process, you're really just ensuring that only crazy people will ever get political power. Look at the Republican field right now. Do you think any of these assholes would have half a chance of getting the nomination if politically moderate folks were involved in the process?

 

i would think a conservative-leaning person would be disturbed by the nature of contemporary populist conservatism and would be interested in trying to figure out how it works, what it is doing and why it is happening, because its the institutional expression of conservative-leaning views that's effectively being hijacked by a neo-fascist core. the problems the right faces are quite profound--the choices appear to have been (a) face them and take the short-term hit for it or (b) retreat into this bizarre-o metaphysics that makes of the reality that conservatism has played a fundamental role in fucking up into an option. (a) would likely have been the more functional approach--but the right appears, as a mass movement structured around an ideological apparatus, to have chosen (b). so it's not real surprising to find folk whose capacities to take on information that might generate dissonance to be hedged round with what amount to facile defense mechanisms. but it is a shame.

 

It's painful to argue a moderate position these days. We have organizations on both extremes of the political spectrum churning out a huge volume of propaganda and talking points. If you prefer a moderate position, you need to do your own homework. In a forum such as this one, arguing a moderate position comes with the expectation that you will get slammed by both sides with pre-digested sound bites.

Yes, I believe they are all nuts. I'll save my research and arguments until the field narrows considerably. I'm not sure there is really a point in comparing Bachman crazy with Perry crazy with Obama ineffectiveness quite yet.

 

stan--what on earth makes you assume that what you read from *all* sides consists of sound bytes? that's a fairly insulting position to take, particularly given that it's based on nothing. it's typically pretty straightforward a matter to distinguish posts based on memes from those which aren't. for example, your post is almost entirely fashioned from memes when you lurch into the assumption that only moderates know things from within a shower of propaganda. the meme content is particularly obvious in your tacit assumption that there's some equivalence between the right's ideological apparatus and the largely-imaginary left.

typically, it's best if you are going to head down the path of saying that everyone except you does nothing but repeat memes to not do it in the form of memes that you are repeating. just saying.

 

I think we have a different definition of moderate. MSNBC has a distinct liberal bias (as do I). CNN is harder to figure. I prefer BBC & CBC, going to a news source outside the country seems less biased to me.

The insult is intentional. I didn't state that all sides regurgitated sound bites, only the extremes. Between Soros and Koch funded propaganda, the middle is hard to find and seriously under represented in the media.