Centerfield

"But there is a basic ideological difficulty - they [Islamofascists] are extreme rightists - they're a mixed bag of fascists and theocrats."

No, they are left fascists, an old and venerable branch of the left that has had more success than social democrats. They have a different flavor of dogma, but their basic approach to social organization is compatible. They are not liberals (in the original European sense). It is dead common for left fascists to lead naive social democrats to ruin. It isn't the least bit surprising that large swaths of the left support fascist dictatorships of several sorts. They always have done.

It should be noted that Iraqi communists oppose the Islamofascists as do large numbers of Marxians all over the world, though the majority of Marxians do support fascism. This division in leftist thought and politics has existed since the beginning and won't soon disappear.

Does it get any more pointless than debating whether fascists are of the far left or of the far right? Even the semi-reasonable members of both the liberal and conservative wings disown autocracy. It's the idiotarians among both the left and the right who try to use instances of the opposition's devolving into autocracy as a way to show that the opposition view has no credence.

That said, I think it's a hard sell that Islamofascists are of the left given that religious fundamentalism is commonly associated with the right. But the distinction between right and left is a construct, it's not real, and often it's not even coherent.

And if anything, it reflects MORE poorly on the hard left that they'd be so stupid as to associate themselves with right religious fundamentalists for whom equality is of such little concern. It just shows the hard left's lack of coherence as far as what they stand FOR. Isn't the left's problem that they only know what they are AGAINST?

**Q: Is anti-Semitism on the increase?

A: In the West, fortunately, it scarcely exists now, though it did in the past. **

Chomsky needs to pay a visit to France. Not that anything will ever get Chomsky to admit he might have "mis-spoken."

"I think it's a hard sell that Islamofascists are of the left given that religious fundamentalism is commonly associated with the right."

It is a false association but more importantly it conceals the superstitious adherence to authoritarian dogma, received opinion and the elevation of belief over empirical evidence that is central to the left-fascist position. It isn't far wrong to say that Islamofascists and other left-fascists worship different gods rather than that one is religious and the other isn't. They are all believers in unverifiable dogma voiced by charismatic prophets. It's an equal opportunity human mental disease that can fell members of all political creeds.

I agree with much of what you say. But I can't help but note that you persist in identifying Islamofascists as being of the left, but you don't say what it is about them that makes you think of them as of the left and not of the right.

Aspects of islamofascism like subjugation of women and demonization of nonmuslims as infidels seem particularly un-egalitarian. Aspects like strict adherence to a specific moral code seem particularly oppressive. To the extent that one can generalize from left rhetoric, egalitarianism and fighting oppression are pretty much the left's bread and butter.

I you want to say islamofascists are not of the right, and explain why you think that's so, I'm interested to hear what you have to say. But until you can explain what it is about islamofascism that is common to the left (and not just to the "fascist left"), I find your continued associating of islamofascism with the left to be unsupportable.

I think you are most on target in identifying dogmatic belief as an equal opportunity disease. I know many pro-Bushies who would rartionalize whatever he did, and if I could push a button and have him do the exact oppposite of what he's doing now, they'd rationalize supporting that.

"But I can't help but note that you persist in identifying Islamofascists as being of the left but you don't say what it is about them that makes you think of them as of the left and not of the right."

In the first comment I said: "They have a different flavor of dogma, but their basic approach to social organization is compatible. They are not liberals (in the original European sense)."

It is the lack of liberal or neo-liberal beliefs that make them closer kin to the left than the right. Dogmatic, religious like beliefs exists in all parties. The cultural views of Islamofascists are rigid, something they share with parts of both the left and the right, but are based on older traditions, which maps more closely to the right than the newer rigidities of the left.

On balance they are more palatble to the left than the right so it isn't surprising that the left is willing to bend over.

"Aspects of islamofascism like subjugation of women and demonization of nonmuslims as infidels seem particularly un-egalitarian."

Oddly, the left is as rigid about women's roles as the right though the rules differ. Neither tolerate deviance. Nothing is more leftist than demonization of infidels. They are currently drumming one another out of the movement for various heresies. This isn't new, it is a defining characteristic of the left. There are factions withing fractions withing sects and gleefully attack one another. A heretic or apostate is worse than an obdurate enemy in their view. Just like the Islamofascists.

"I know many pro-Bushies who would rartionalize whatever he did, and if I could push a button and have him do the exact oppposite of what he's doing now, they'd rationalize supporting that."

Precisely. Critical thinking is inappropriate for political parties. It's easier to get people marching about with their fists in the air than it is to get them to do something besides kill people and break things.