|
|
Post by The Sonar Chicken on Apr 12, 2009 18:10:40 GMT
Errrr... "'The Morning of the Magicians'" btw... seems to have been published in 1960 by Jacques Bergier (born Yakov Mikhailovich Berger) and Louis Pauwels. I'm very curious as to what the biblography of that book consists of and who their actual resources are, apart from all the "theorists" like Nietzsche and all those philosophers. Btw, I'm not very sold on the fact that Nazism was that into occultism. There're a lot of conspiracy theories about, that connect all the world famous and <demons/aliens/religions/secret orders/etc.>. Yeah, I'd really love to believe the Pentagon is conspiring with "alien green men" to take over the world.  But I just can't take heed of every rumour that pops up in books and on the net. |
|
|
|
Post by kitty on Apr 12, 2009 19:53:21 GMT
Sonar Chicken
Hitler wanted to get the whole old nordic religion back, he admired the "fighting" nature of celts etc, but of course the nice parts didn't go well wioth him so he erased what he disliked.
My grandma had a christmas ornament with runes on it, that was sold under Hitler because he wanted to get rid of the christian christmas and make it a "nordic" one.
The Swatika was liked by him because it looks like the sun but without soft edges, it is a "hard" symbol.
I don't think it is intolerant for countries to forbid such symbolism (at least from public generalisaion) because as nice as it is that some few people know that it is indian and such, the majority doesn't and will now always associate it with Nazis. It is impossible to teach in school "Nazis used the swatika so it is a symbol of hatred" and at the same time say "oh btw the swatika is also an indian symbol and therefore totally cool"
Just doesn't work.
I'm usually really pissed of most laws in Germany but I seriously appriciate this one.
|
|
|
|
Post by The Sonar Chicken on Apr 12, 2009 22:44:05 GMT
a) Heh... yep I recall reading about that. So it just means he cherry picked and twisted the ideals and parts of a religion to suit his own purposes. Just like many cult or sect leaders.
b) Yep, heard about stuff like that too. Pretty crazy stuff though yep, in line of his "utterly crazy logic", I can see why he replaced Christian symbols with <something else from Germany's culture>.
c) Geez, another "cherry-picking" thing. Really makes me want to go over to hell and give him baskets of dirty, pus-filled socks.
d) Hmmm... , I see it as: majority are idiots. Secondly, I'm not saying whether <said symbol> is totally cool or evil 'cos it was used for peace or hatred. I'm just wishing people were educated that it isn't just the symbols but the thoughts behind them which actually matter. And that extremism, fanatism, etc.(whether right or left) is never healthy.
After all, associating ideas with certain symbols is never good. It teaches you to ignore the fact that idealogies/fanatism/etc. can move from name to name, symbol to symbol, religion to religion,(under a new group/sect, etc.). Or that they can attempt to masquerade as groups which on the front/at the beginning, are entities with no religion but which attempt to manipulate their followers to slowly accept a set of ideals/beliefs that eventually form into a religion.
To me, these are all reasons why modern police and governments often have such difficulty recognising and isolating radical groups, cults and sects, many of which influence one another even though they may share little to nothing in common(in terms of beliefs and religions) and have never contacted each other before. They're all too set on the old school ideas that "religion, faith and belief are often/always defined by the symbols they're represented by". I don't think it's like that anymore.
|
|
|
|
Post by kitty on Apr 13, 2009 7:55:39 GMT
Well apart from the fact that I think every religion is a sect/cult anyway and therefore dangerous....
do I agree with the rest.
|
|
|
|
Post by Dark Phoenix Rising on Apr 13, 2009 9:32:21 GMT
Fascinating stuff, ss. I knew some of that, but by no means all... Some of it is clearly in error - like the Swastika being 'exclusively' an Aryan symbol when the article itself proves this is not the case - but even so... The symbol may not be exclusivly an aryan symbol but the swastika (red flag, white circle, black crooked cross) probably is. I knew a lot of that already, but good article. |
|
|
|
Post by Glance A'Lot on Apr 13, 2009 11:30:53 GMT
On the question of similar 'visions of society' - what I insinuated was that the modern countries' right wing ideologies will all claim to be 'different' to the Nazi ideology, but their goals are nonetheless often similar if disguised in other names (for example 'Kill the Jews' <-> 'preserve national identity' - factually not very different, just less specific).
And for the purpose of precluding misunderstandings: Germany's culture and Germanic culture shoulde be differentiated!
And before I spill out redundant nerdiness, are you aware, or interested to know, why Nazi Germany was the 3rd Reich, and why it was called the 1,000 year Reich?
|
|
|
|
Post by Dark Phoenix Rising on Apr 13, 2009 11:48:41 GMT
I'd like to know  |
|
|
|
Post by The Sonar Chicken on Apr 13, 2009 12:02:58 GMT
Kit: Hmmm... every religion is a cult/sect? Really? And why're they all dangerous?  DPR: Ooh you mean the Nazi swastika, eh? I dunno... here in Singapore, we also call the Buddhist version a "swastika" too. Erm... not very sure how that came about, yeah. Glance: Thanks a lot. Yeah, that sums up a lot of right wings' ideologies. Actually, isn't extreme left wing somewhat the same too? As in: allowing you to hurt someone, as part of political correctness. I don't know or remember about the 3rd Reich thingy. I might have studied that eons ago but... meh, some of this is too heavy for my head. Something about there being two other <reichs>(empires) before him, according to his thinking... nope don't remember the rest. I think the 1000 year thingy was 'cos Hitler wanted to create some "ever-lasting" empire that'd dominate above all other races/nations and one which would be about purity of race and Nazi ideologies. It's a good thing it didn't last, eh. |
|
|
|
Post by Elliot Kane on Apr 13, 2009 12:44:59 GMT
In practise, there's not a lot of difference between extreme Right & extreme Left, Luci, no. Both seek to impose their own ideologies and destroy or eliminate those who disagree with them. To me, debating which is better is a bit like asking which type of equally virulent plague you'd like to infect your village... ;D
|
|
|
|
Post by Glance A'Lot on Apr 13, 2009 15:10:46 GMT
The first Reich (= Empire) was the Holy Roman Empire of German Nation which was disbanded by Napoleon in 1806.
The second was the German Empire formed (or forged*) by Bismarck from 1871 to 1918.
So with the 3rd, Hitler saw himself in that tradition.
The Holy Roman Empire is often commonly (but historically erroneously) seen to be the period from Charlemagne's coronation (in 800) to 1806 - 1,000 years.
So Hitler's propaganda used this term as synonymous for the re-creation of passed 'grandeur'.
That of course being a falsification, or mystification, of history, as the 1st Reich for the majority of its existence was NOT a homogenuous empire with a central sovereign, but rather a sort of federation of sovereigns (electing their 'president').
{* in line with his famous paliament speech on the Prussia military budget: "The great decisions of this world are not decided by speeches, but by blood and iron:"}
|
|
|
|
Post by kitty on Apr 18, 2009 7:39:48 GMT
Kit: Hmmm... every religion is a cult/sect? Really? And why're they all dangerous? I may have answered this question in the religion & secular thinking thread - ss got most of it  it's pretty in the end if I recall correctly, I'll check soon. |
|
|
|
Post by ss on Apr 21, 2009 22:01:45 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by ss on Apr 24, 2009 23:53:11 GMT
Studying the Islamic Way of War
To know an enemy, one must first acknowledge his existence.
By Raymond Ibrahim
At the inaugural conference for the Association for the Study of the Middle East and Africa (ASMEA) back in April, presenter LTC Joseph Myers made an interesting point that deserves further elaboration. Though military studies have traditionally valued and absorbed the texts of classical war doctrine — such as Clausewitz’s On War, Sun Tsu’s The Art of War, even the exploits of Alexander the Great as recorded in Arrian and Plutarch — Islamic war doctrine, which is just as if not more textually grounded, is totally ignored.
As recently as 2006, former top Pentagon official William Gawthrop lamented that “the senior Service colleges of the Department of Defense had not incorporated into their curriculum a systematic study of Muhammad as a military or political leader. As a consequence, we still do not have an in-depth understanding of the war-fighting doctrine laid down by Muhammad, how it might be applied today by an increasing number of Islamic groups, or how it might be countered [emphasis added].” Today, seven full years after September 11, our understanding of the Islamic way of war is little better.
This is more ironic when one considers that, while classical military theories (Clausewitz, Sun Tzu, Machiavelli, et. al.) continue to be included on war-college syllabi, the argument can be made that they have little practical value for today’s far different landscape of warfare and diplomacy. Contrast this with Islam’s doctrines of war: their “theological” quality — grounded as they are in a religion whose “divine” precepts transcend time and space, and are believed to be immutable — make Islam’s war doctrines unlikely ever to go out of style. While one can argue that learning how Alexander maneuvered his cavalry at the Battle of Guagamela in 331 BC is both academic and anachronistic, the exploits and stratagems of the prophet Muhammad — his “war sunna” — still serve as an example to modern-day jihadists.
For instance, based on the words and deeds of Muhammad, most schools of Islamic jurisprudence agree that the following are all legitimate during war against the infidel: the indiscriminate use of missile weaponry, even if women and children are present (catapults in Muhammad’s seventh century context; hijacked planes or WMD today); the need to always deceive the enemy and even break formal treaties whenever possible (see Sahih Muslim 15: 4057); and that the only function of the peace treaty, or “hudna,” is to give the Islamic armies time to regroup for a renewed offensive, and should, in theory, last no more than ten years.
Quranic verses 3:28 and 16:106, as well as Muhammad’s famous assertion, “War is deceit,” have all led to the formulation of a number of doctrines of dissimulation — the most notorious among them being the doctrine of “Taqiyya,” which permits Muslims to lie and dissemble whenever they are under the authority of the infidel. Deception has such a prominent role that renowned Muslim scholar Ibn al-Arabi declares: “n the Hadith, practicing deceit in war is well demonstrated. Indeed, its need is more stressed than [the need for] courage.”
In addition to ignoring these well documented Islamist strategies, more troubling still is the Defense Department’s continuing failure to appreciate the pertinent “eternal” doctrines of Islam — such as the Abode of War versus the Abode of Islam dichotomy, which maintains that Islam must always be in a state of animosity vis-à-vis the infidel world and, whenever possible, must wage wars until all infidel territory has been brought under Islamic rule. In fact, this dichotomy of hostility is unambiguously codified under Islam’s worldview and is deemed a fard kifaya — that is, an obligation on the entire Muslim body that can only be fulfilled as long as some Muslims, say, “jihadists,” actively uphold it.
Despite these problematic — but revealing — doctrines, despite the fact that a quick perusal of Islamist websites and books demonstrate time and again that current and would-be jihadists constantly quote, and thus take seriously, these doctrinal aspects of war, senior U.S. government officials charged with defending America do not.
Why? Because the “Whisperers” — Walid Phares’s apt epithet for the majority of Middle East/Islamic scholars and their willing apologists in the press — have made anathema anyone who dares to point out a connection between Islamic doctrine and modern-day Islamist terrorism — as witness, the Steven Coughlin debacle. This is an all too familiar tale for those in the field (see Martin Kramer’s Ivory Towers on Sand: the Failure of Middle Eastern Studies in America).
While there exists today many Middle East studies departments, one would be sorely pressed (especially in the more “prestigious” universities) to find any courses dealing with the most pivotal and relevant topics of today — such as Islamic jurisprudence and what it says about jihad or the concept of the Abode of Islam versus the Abode of War. These topics, we are assured, have troubling international implications and are best buried. Instead, the would-be student is inundated with courses dealing with the evils of “Orientalism” and colonialism, gender studies, and civil society.
The greater irony — when one talks about Islam and the West, ironies often abound — is that, on the very same day of the ASMEA conference, which also contained a forthright address by premiere Islamic scholar Bernard Lewis (“It seems to me a dangerous situation in which any kind of scholarly discussion of Islam is, to say the least, dangerous”), the State Department announced that it would not call al-Qaeda type radicals “jihadis,” “mujahadin,” nor incorporate any other Arabic word of Islamic connotation (“caliphate,” “Islamo-fascism,” “Salafi,” “Wahhabi,” and “Ummah” are also out).
Alas, far from taking the most basic and simple advice regarding warfare — Sun Tzu’s ancient dictum, “Know thy enemy” — the U.S. government is having difficulties even acknowledging its enemy.
— Raymond Ibrahim is editor of The Al Qaeda Reader.
|
|
|
|
Post by Elliot Kane on Apr 25, 2009 0:29:35 GMT
Anyone who would seriously try to argue that needs to read The Art Of War. Making that kind of pronouncement just makes him sound like an utter fool, IMO. Sun Tzu's book is completely unparalleled because it breaks the entirety of warfare down to its utter basics, which is why it is still in use several thousand years after it was written.
In fact, this whole article can be boiled down to one complaint: the military are ignoring Sun Tzu. "He who knows himself but not his enemy will win only half his battles." And perhaps as pertinently: "He who knows neither himself nor his enemy will lose every battle."
Having actually read The Art Of War (And even, I like to think, understood it), I can assure you that all that is left for any other military thinker is to expand upon it.
And the full quote he wants at the end of the article there is: "He who knows both himself and his enemy will win all his battles."
Ironically, I somewhat agree with the main thrust of what he is saying, but really!
|
|
|
|
Post by Elliot Kane on Apr 30, 2009 12:22:49 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by ss on May 14, 2009 0:47:18 GMT
Interesting article from the Washington Times Today.
EDITORIAL: The Pope and Islam
Benedict XVI shouldn't apologize
By | Wednesday, May 13, 2009
Pope Benedict XVI's outreach tour of the Middle East this week failed to placate critics still smarting from his riot-inciting comments in a 2006 speech at Germany's Regensburg University. The pontiff at that time quoted 15th-century Byzantine Emperor Manuel II Paleologus who said: "Show me just what Muhammad brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached."
The pope said he regrets any hurt feelings, but some Muslims want more contrition. Sheik Yusef Abu Hussein, mufti of Karak in Jordan, said, "We wanted him to clearly apologize. What the pope said about the prophet Muhammad is untrue. Islam did not spread through the power of sword. It's a religion of tolerance and faith." A recent post on a jihadist Web site took a somewhat different tone, denouncing "this cursed Pope" and calling on its readers to "strive to kill him, strive to slaughter him." That Muslim poster must have missed the sermon on tolerance and faith.
Paleologus, the Byzantine emperor, was something of an authority on Muslim military power. He spent much of his reign defending his hard-pressed realm from the predatory Ottoman Empire. Before ascending to the throne, he spent a year in the court of Sultan Bayezid I as an honorary hostage and was forced to accompany the Ottoman army that conquered Philadelphia, the last Christian bastion in Anatolia. The city was renamed Alasehir, the city of Allah.
Those who object to the idea that Islam was spread by the sword are not at war with Pope Benedict but with history. What are now called Muslim lands used to be Christian, Jewish and Zoroastrian lands. Force was the key element in the rapid expansion of the caliphate in the century between the death of Muhammad in 632 and the Muslim defeat at the hands of the Franks in the Battle of Tours in 732 in what is now southern France. The rules of engagement were laid down in the Hadith Sahih Muslim 19:4294, which instructs Muslims to offer any unbelievers they encounter three choices: to convert, pay tribute or be forcibly subjugated.
The martial underpinnings of Muslim expansion conveniently are summarized in the flag of Saudi Arabia, which features the Shahada, the first pillar of Islam, underlined by a sword. According to the Web site of the Saudi Ministry of Foreign Affairs, the sword was added in 1906, "symbolizing the military successes of Islam" as well as those of founding King Ibn Saud.
Muslims who object stridently to the implication they are not peace-loving would have a stronger claim if Islam's most ardent proponents did not resort instantly to violence over perceived slights. The Muslim world's supposed universal culture of tolerance also is open to question. Muslims in the West enjoy freedoms that frequently are denied in the Middle East, such as repairing their ancient houses of worship or publicly discussing their faith. Islam is the only major religion in which it is settled religious law that those who convert to another religion face the death penalty.
The pope is brave to stand by his faith. Mutual respect can only come when both sides face reality and embrace history, warts and all. It is plainly farcical to assert that Islam was never spread by the sword, just as it would be historically inaccurate to say Christians and Jews never raised the sword. If apologies are in order, we are still waiting for any apology from the Muslim world for the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks.
|
|
|
|
Post by Elliot Kane on May 14, 2009 1:18:25 GMT
At war with history is exactly right... Not sure what this is doing in a thread on PROGRESSIVE Islam though, ss...  |
|
|
|
Post by Dark Phoenix Rising on May 14, 2009 8:37:48 GMT
I think the point was that you can't have progress without being aware of where you came from, and the elements in your own society.
IMO what we have at the moment is a new branch of islam coming forward that is more tolerant, and peaceful, and they don't really want anything to do with the other branch. And I think that the reason that this is happening, is that they're looking at what they have in the west, and what they left behind in the east and wondering why the east, dispite all the advances in the world, is still fairly backwards in health and society.
|
|
|
|
Post by Elliot Kane on May 14, 2009 11:34:38 GMT
I think you could be right, DPR. They're saying that they want to keep all the best parts of Islam - they don't want the Western corruption or decadence It's (Hopefully) becoming a Reformation for Islam - which is what the world desperately needs. We need to be supporting these guys (& gals).
|
|
|
|
Post by Terrordar on May 14, 2009 19:27:13 GMT
And if the Qur'an is right, they are all going to hell. In fact, the worst part of hell. The Qur'an says at one point that unless it is taken literally, those who claim to believe in Allah but do not follow the example of the Qur'an set by Mohammad, will suffer the worst fate of all in the next life. The bottom lair of hell is reserved for hypocrites to Islam.
And the Qur'an instructs Muslims to do some pretty backwards things.
|
|
But I just can't take heed of every rumour that pops up in books and on the net. 
.com
it's pretty in the end if I recall correctly, I'll check soon.
