November 09, 2004

Submission, by Theo Van Gogh

Theo Van Gogh (who was related to the artist of the same name) was brutally murdered on the streets of Amsterdam by an Islamic fascist for daring to make an eleven-minute film about the oppression of women in Muslim society.

Click here to see that film. It is called Submission.

It begins in Arabic, but most of it is in English. It is eleven minutes long.

(Hat tip: Harry's Place.)

Posted by Michael J. Totten at November 9, 2004 05:20 PM

If they don't westernize, if they don't assimilate, if they think they're here to turn us into a muslim outpost, round them up and kick them out. If not, the citizens will begin to take matters into their own hands. If the government doesn't do it's job of protecting our borders, the people will.

Posted by: David in Jesusland at November 9, 2004 06:05 PM

Perhaps it would be instructive for those who believe the USA is turning into a theocracy to view this film and then contemplate the assassination of Theo van Gogh. I would also commend this film to every feminist who is opposed to our actions in Afghanistan and Iraq.

Posted by: Ben at November 9, 2004 06:20 PM

No wonder some theocratic misogynists murdered him.

I assume that the stories form the woman in the film are either true or based on true events. It makes the Patriarchical Western Oppressor in me want to get my parents to adopt the characters the actress portrays so I can do my duties as the loving [albiet the loathe-to-admit-it-around-her] big brother and move some noses to the otherside of some b*st*rds faces.

Posted by: Bill at November 9, 2004 06:23 PM

Michael -- I've been wanting to berate Andrew Sullivan for his use of the ugly elision, "Islamofascist." Instead, let me thank you for joining these terms more precisely. Only if we keep saying "Islamic fascist" do we leave open the possibility of the "Islamic democrat," not to mention the fascists professing other prophets.

If Andrew and others on the center-right read mail from you, do pass this on.



Posted by: Jarrett at November 9, 2004 07:08 PM


As far as I'm concerned "Islamofascist" and "Islamic fascist" mean the same thing. I do see your point, however.

Posted by: Michael J. Totten at November 9, 2004 07:17 PM


People get hung up on the dumbest things.

Posted by: gibs. at November 9, 2004 07:28 PM

"What's in a name? That which we call a facist
By any other name would kill as easily..."

Posted by: FH at November 9, 2004 10:27 PM

Islamofascist seems like a prime example of newspeak, which is funny, since it was apparently invented by an Orwell fan.

Posted by: Daniel at November 10, 2004 12:51 AM

In 1989 there was a fatwa issued calling for the murder of Salman Rushdie because he had allegedly been disrespectful of Islamic in his latest novel. He has been given government bodyguards ever since, but his Japanese translator was killed.

Within the two years authors Michel Houellebecq (a bestseller in France, his novels somewhat analogous to those of Philip Roth) and Orianna Fallacci (world-renowned journalist now dying of cancer) were prosecuted for "hate speech" because of remarks deemed irreverent to Muslims. (I contributed to Hoellebecq's defense fund and highly recommend his novel "The Elementary Particles".)

Others have been threatened, and there's no question that these prosecutions have had a notable chilling effect. If you dare say anything about Mohammed or his religion while residing in Europe, you are quite brave.

Now in Holland, the descendent of Vincent Van Gogh has been murdered for his short film about Muslim abuse of women. The killing of Theo Van Gogh may well mark a turning point in how the Dutch deal with Islamic fascists. (See the blog Peaktalk -- which is in English -- for the latest and for more links.)

I'm not a policymaker, and I certainly don't claim to have all the answers readymade. I will say though that those who seek to inhibit discourse through calling any critique of Islam "racist" have pretty much worn out their welcome as far as I'm concerned.

This sort of political correctness is becoming suicidal if not insane.

Posted by: miklos rosza at November 10, 2004 02:05 AM

“As far as I'm concerned "Islamofascist" and "Islamic fascist" mean the same thing. I do see your point, however.”

Islamic nihilist seems much more accurate. Fascists such as Franco and Mussolini still essentially desired for their citizens to live an ordinary life of child raising, going to work, and enjoying a comfortable existence. A certain degree of religious freedom was even granted. Not so, for the Osama bin Ladins and other terrorist leaders. They are the True Believers who can be existentially satisfied only by death and destruction.

Posted by: David Thomson at November 10, 2004 05:14 AM

One more point: fascists only demand that one does not rock the boat of the political establishment. The average citizen is granted a large number of personal freedoms. A totalitarian society, however, refuses to allow you to separate any aspect of your life whatsoever from the political.

Posted by: David Thomson at November 10, 2004 05:20 AM


I recommend Houellebecq as well. But I would warn any Phillip Roth fans that I personally don't see a lot of similarities between the two. To me Houellebecq is a more literate and more engaged Chuck Palahniuk. By the way, Houellebecq's study of H.P. Lovecraft is truly excellent, I'm not sure if it's ever been translated.

Posted by: Vanya at November 10, 2004 07:22 AM
One more point: fascists only demand that one does not rock the boat of the political establishment. The average citizen is granted a large number of personal freedoms.

You might want to tell that to the Jews who kept their heads down in Nazi [Fascist] Germany. Or anyone else who the boat of the political establishment "rocked."

Posted by: Bill at November 10, 2004 08:15 AM


I assume David is making a distinction between fascist, i.e. Mussolini & Franco, vs. National Socialist, i.e. Hitler's Germany. Nazi Germany was certainly a totalitarian society. (Read Victor Klemperer's diaries of his life under Nazi rule in Dresden from 1933 - 1945, chilling). Islamic Totalitarians is probably more accurate than Islamic Fascists, but it doesn't have the same ring. Islamic Nazis would be the best description, and would reflect the roots in Nazi thought of a lot of what passes for "Islamic Fundamentalism" but unfortunately stupid coinages like "feminazis" have debased the word.

Posted by: Vanya at November 10, 2004 09:29 AM


Fascism is often confused with Nazism, but they aren't the same by a long shot.

Nazism is a political platform that combines a millitary dictatorship with socialism and fascism.

Fascism, on the other hand is a governmental structure (as opposed to a political platform).

I found the above link in a quick search (it wasn't the one I was looking for, but it's not a bad discussion of Fascism).

Nazism and Fascism are not the same, though Hitler combined the two in his particular government, it was atypical of most fascist govenrments.

1. A key part of fascism is the economic system where corporations/wealthy elite are the government and the government is corporations and the wealthy elite.

2. Fascism places the State above all else, Nationalism is a requirement for Fascism.

3. Fascism takes the form of a Republican government (the generic political term, not the American political party), including elections (usually fraudlent).

The Islamic Fundamentalists (much more of a correct term than Islamofascist) fail these requirements for a Fascist government.

Also, fascism makes the Leader=The State. Germany was Hitler, Italy was Mussolini, etc.

Islamic Fundamentalism is particularly interesting because there isn't a single leading figure. Bin Laden isn't the representative or leader of the movement, neither is Al Sadr, nor the Iranian religious leaders.

This decentralized method of organization is incompatible with understood fascism.

While I consider the Islamoic fundamentalists to be just as dangerous as the Nazis under Hitler, that doesn't make them fascist.

Making up words has become a regular habit on the blogsphere, while even I use the term 'Islamofascist' on occasion, it is not really a correct term.

But, its all words anyway....


Posted by: Ratatosk at November 10, 2004 09:32 AM

David Thompson,

Bill's point withstanding, I think you are on to something. There is some percentage of Islam's Ummah that is Islamist - political, activist, expansionist, and likely totalitarian. A subset of these are the Jihadi's - openly waging a terror campaign. The vast bulk of the remainder are harder to read, they may be cowed, silently assenting, or just not involved. The word facist is probably superfluous in describing the group that we are challenged by and carries a lot baggage that doesn't really fit, such as racism, super-nationalism and butch clothing styles.

I intend to cease and desist with usage of fascist in any conjunction with Islam. Its a distinction I don't need.

Posted by: jdwill at November 10, 2004 09:39 AM

Simpler model: Islamism, Fascism, National Socialism, Communism are all subclasses of totalitarianism, which is a subclass of political ideology, and not a form of government.

Posted by: KR at November 10, 2004 09:43 AM

“You might want to tell that to the Jews who kept their heads down in Nazi [Fascist] Germany.”

The Spanish and Italian fascists, while not exactly kind to Jews, were never as anti-Semitic as Nazi Germany. The same also holds true for Oswald Mosely in Great Britain. I contend that Hitler’s government evolved from authoritarianism to totalitarianism. Still, I prefer the term, nihilism. Only the Islamic militants advocate suicide (The Japanese during WW II are a little bit different). Their world view is entirely focussed on death and destruction. I sense no desire whatsoever in living the so-called ordinary life. They have become rabid dogs who have passed the point of no return. We must kill them, or they will kill us. John Kerry doesn’t seem to quite get the extent of this nihilistic menace.

Posted by: David Thomson at November 10, 2004 09:51 AM


A simpler model indeed and an incorrect one. To quote from Wikipedia (because its stated so nicely):

"Fascist regimes, such as Franco's Spain, and Mussolini's Italy before World War II, and some communist regimes, such as Yugoslavia under Tito, the People's Republic of China under Deng Xiaoping and Cuba under Fidel Castro, have authoritarian rather than totalitarian characteristics.

But, you go ahead with your simple models... we wouldn't want facts to get in the way of you simplifications.


Posted by: Ratatosk at November 10, 2004 10:07 AM

Rat: The quote you stole has a fatal flaw -- It confuses the form of government (dictatorships) with ideology. Karl Marx was a totalitarian, but he had no political power. Stalin, Hitler and Mussolini were totalitarians, but the degree of implementing this ideology was based on their political power.

But keep quoting the facts according to some guy in Wikipeida. It is better than quoting RAW over and over.

Posted by: KR at November 10, 2004 10:39 AM

there is an eerie silence by the Islamic world about this murder and others. There doesn't seem to be a difference between Islamofascists or the moderates when it comes down to murder. I would deem this Islamototalitarianism, don't advocate the behavior but keep everybody guessing what you truly believe.

Posted by: Barney at November 10, 2004 10:57 AM

You know, for all of your posts, I've yet to see any substance.

Authoritarian is a FORM of Government wherein the government controls the actions of its people.

Totalitarian is a FORM of Government that not only tries to control the actions of its people, but their thoughts as well. Compltete indoctrination, bordering on brainwashing is a key part of Totalitarian regiems and seperates it from Authoritarian regiems.

I think you would have been more correct to say:

Islamism (what are you defining as Islamism BTW?), Fascism, National Socialism, Communism are all subclasses of authoritarianism.

(Your supposition that authoritarian and totalitarian are not government systems, but are ideologies is simply wrong. Go find any Pol Sci professor and ask them.)


Posted by: Ratatosk at November 10, 2004 10:59 AM

I certainly recognize all your points (save one addressed below), but like Berman, I also recognize the differnce between Nazism and Italian/Spanish Fascism as being the difference in where you pull the scale of any one given shark. It will still eat you alive if you let it.

But I do take issue with the idea that Fascism is the tool of the wealthiest classes. It is often used by the DoublePlusGood folk to slam businesses in otherwise democratic regimes, and it's not quite right. Franco, Mussilini and Peron were hardly Fortune 500 types nor were they tools of them. Given that abuse, "capital-F" Fascism is loosing its integrity as a discrete concept and its degraded into non-socialist totalitarianism. And even there there are those who argue that Socialism and Fascism are just differences in the shirt worn by the thugs in control. I'm more interested in avoiding either system. They're too much alike and they'd rather see me dead or under their thumb.

As far as the current thead goes, you may argue that Fascism and so-called "Islamofascism" are different animals, and I am not sure of Berman's T&L arguments on the pedigree of "Wahabist Binladinism" and it's link to the ignoble line European Boots-on-the-Face. But Islamofascism is sticking with the broader conversation at hand just by meme and marketing alone. "Islamic Totalitariamism" and "Militant Islam" (which I prefer) just too long to be "catchy." And the terms "Islamism" or "Islamicism" is too close to "Islam" thus allowing the PC and accomadationalists to smear those who oppose Bin Ladin or militant Wahabism as religious bigots.

As long as the message is quickly conveyed that the mindsets involved in Militant Islam are yet another pair of boots on the human face, the term "islamofascism" is effective. I normally am a stickler for definitions but the applied use of the term 'fascism' is sufficiently broad due to its long-term abuse (which is by now uncorrectable) to include it.

Posted by: Bill at November 10, 2004 11:14 AM


All governments control actions of people. Are all goverments authoritarian?

Karl Marx was a totalitarian, but he wasn't a form of government. How is that possible under your definition?

As per your Pol Sci profs, please look up "Argument From Authority" in Wikipedia.

(Islamism - individiduals ought to be subserviant to the will of Allah as expressed by His human servents the caliphs. It would seem the actual form of government then would be a Theocracy or rule by religious authorities.)

Posted by: KR at November 10, 2004 11:23 AM

(And I might also add that the women protrayed in the film on which this thread addresses probably doesn't care if the nightmare she's trapped in is called Fascist, Islamicist, or an Anarcho-Narcoloeptic Communitarian Constitutional Republic. I'm not saying this to nix the ongoing debate but rather to give some freakin' perspective here.)

Posted by: Bill at November 10, 2004 11:24 AM

Totalitarian is a FORM of Government that not only tries to control the actions of its people, but their thoughts as well. Compltete indoctrination, bordering on brainwashing is a key part of Totalitarian regiems and seperates it from Authoritarian regiems.

Islamism, or Wahhabism is a form of religious indoctrination. They’re currently teaching young men around the world that God requires that they murder and commit suicide for the good of all Muslims. I’d call that thought control…

"Wahhabi theology and jurisprudence is based respectively on the teachings of Ibn Taymiyah and on the legal school of Ahmad ibn Hanbal; they stress literal belief in the Quran and Hadith and the establishment of a Muslim state based solely on Islamic law. The contemporary Wahhabi movement is flourishing in every Muslim country. In Lebanon alone, the movement is estimated by officials to have about 4,000 members; it is far larger in Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and Pakistan. ..Wahhabis receive financial support at the highest levels of the Saudi Arabian government. Wahhabi religious schools, known as madrassas , are part of a worldwide network of Muslim extremists. Beginning at ages 7-15, Wahhabi schools indoctrinate young men into the fundamentals of strict Islam, religious obligations, and radical militancy. Between the ages of 15-25, the young men are prepared for jihad and are trained to fight for the conquest of Wahhabi Islam."

These young men are also fighting for the establishment of an Islamic state under Islamic law. It’s a form of government that’s already being practiced in Saudi Arabia, Nigeria, and in the Sudan. It was practiced in Afghanistan under the Taliban. It’s totalitarianism.

Posted by: mary at November 10, 2004 11:40 AM

Wahhabism is better than Islamism.

But to most people it sounds like a type of Sushi.

Posted by: KR at November 10, 2004 11:52 AM
  • I mean as a defintion.
Posted by: KR at November 10, 2004 11:56 AM

Bill you'd be hard pressed to find perspective amongst a good part of this group. Worried more about dictionary references than national threats be it facist or otherwise.

Posted by: gibs. at November 10, 2004 12:00 PM
Bill you'd be hard pressed to find perspective amongst a good part of this group. Worried more about dictionary references than national threats be it facist or otherwise.

Much of the hateful and vicious misogyny addressed in the movie was culturally established (with convinient Koranic footnotes to make it blastphemy to disagree) well before Karl, Vlad, Franc, Dolphie and Bennie started picking the designated shirt color for their -isms.

Posted by: Bill at November 10, 2004 12:12 PM

Wahhabism is better than Islamism.

But to most people it sounds like a type of Sushi.

Kerry once criticized Saudi 'Wasabis.'

Posted by: mary at November 10, 2004 12:23 PM

One remark: this link is to part 1 of Theo's movie 'Submission'. This is only half of it. Don't know where part II is though.

Posted by: G.J. Wolfswinkel at November 10, 2004 12:56 PM


I hope the line "Worried more about dictionary references than national threats be it facist or otherwise" wasn't directed at me. I very much think that the current threat from people like Bin Laden and Zarqai are serious and deadly. I fully supported the invasion of Afgansitan and the overthrow of the Taliban in an effort to finally end Bin Laden's reign.

However, using made-up words and incorrect terminology is unhelpful in any discussion, especially one as charged as this.

We are not fighting the War here. We are discussing the War. When one fights the enemy, he need not care if he is totalitarian, authoritarian or Discordian (hi KR). They are simply the enemy.

When on discusses the enemy, in a non-combat situation, then it is much better to make sure that we communicate as effectively and correctly as possible.


Posted by: Ratatosk at November 10, 2004 01:04 PM

My assertion, as redneck simpleton as it may be, is this. You've now spent this entire thread, among others, arguing the nuanced approach we should take to properly identify our enemy by way of a free online dictionary. We all realize who that enemy is, well some of the left seem to think we are the root of all the problems in the world, but whether the insurgent/terrorist is a misguided poor criminal or middle aged saudi dentist means nothing to me. They all have chosen, unwisely, to get there asses and lives handed to them in Iraq and the sooner we wipe them out, however many there may be, the sooner we can get Iraq on its feet and the sooner we can get our troops home.

As I said previously to Jarrett, people get hung up on the dumbest things. We know a wing of Islam is militant in nature and they along with a silent minority of well wishers would like to see nothing more than the West done burkas and herd goats, if not be nuked back to the 3rd century. Whether these people are characterized by one ism or another is fruitless and should be saved for when this entire mess is over with.

Posted by: gibs. at November 10, 2004 01:19 PM

What about using flawed logic (i.e. Karl Marx = form of government)?

Posted by: KR at November 10, 2004 01:21 PM


The political term Totalitarianism is defined as follows:

totalitarianism - a sytem of government where the ruling authority extends its power over all aspects of society, and regulates every aspect of life. Totalitarian states maintain their existence by a combination of methods, including secret police, the banning of opposition, and control of the media. Everything in society is shaped to serve the ends of the totalitarian state. Education, for example is rigidly controlled, so as to socialize youth into the desired political attitudes. Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union were the classic examples of totalitarian states.

totalitarianism: A modern form of despotic rule in which the state undertakes to remake society according to an ideological design.

If you would care to examine the next entry, I think you'll find the source of your misunderstanding. Marx fits the noun, forms of government fit the adjective .


adj. Of, relating to, being, or imposing a form of government in which the political authority exercises absolute and centralized control over all aspects of life, the individual is subordinated to the state, and opposing political and cultural expression is suppressed: “A totalitarian regime crushes all autonomous institutions in its drive to seize the human soul” (Arthur M. Schlesinger, Jr.).

n. A practitioner or supporter of such a government.

If we contrast these (all of which state that it IS a form of government, not simply an ideology) with authoritarianism:

Definition:[n] a form of government in which the ruler is an absolute dictator (not restricted by a constitution or laws or opposition etc.)

And especially note:

which contrasts 'Authoritarian' and 'Totalitarian' quite nicely.

If you have something to support your claim that totalitarianism and authoritarianism are not forms of government but are simply ideologies used by dictatorships... then by all means, lay it on me, man.

If however, you have nothing to support your spurious claims, I recommend that you think about it before posting on the subject again. For it is not flawed logic, but lazy linguistics that plague you. Dictionaries can be worth their weight in flax.

I may post discordian silliness, I may quote from Dr. Leary and RA Wilson (and Jung, Crowley, Jefferson, Hassan I Sabbah, and a host of other people I find interesting)... but it's better than posting "No it tisn't" (reference Monty Python 'Argument Clinic').

I'm not sure why you took umbrage with my comments, but I recommend you research something you're unfamiliar with before posting your thoughts.

May Eris truly Bless You,

Ratatosk, Squirrel of Discord
Muncher of The ChaoAcorn
Chatterer of The Words of Eris

POEE of The Great Googlie Mooglie Cabal

Posted by: Ratatosk at November 10, 2004 02:04 PM

Did you look up "Argument from Authority" yet?

Meanwhile...turn....on...your...brain: A dictatorship is a dictatorship. A one-party state is a one-party state. A republic is a republic. A monarchy is a monarchy. A junta is a junta. These are all forms of government. Goverment refers to who rules, the source of authority for use of legitimate violence.

What these rulers believe is their idealogy. Spain was a one-party state - but Franco was not a totalitarian. Karl Marx was an unemployed bum - but he was also a totalitarian. The Soviet Union was a one-party state, but the level of oppression varied based on whoever was in charge (and what they believed). In Rome some emperors were totalitarians, yet the Empire was still basically a monarchy. OBL is not a president or dictator, yet he is a totalitarian. In contrast, the rulers of the US can be conservative or liberal, but we still have a constitutional republic.

I am sure I can barf up a bunch of links to "back" my claim too. But I prefer reason in support of may arguments - so I won't waste the bandwidth. I am sure I will get a dose from you of pretentious sophism in return, which is a shame because sometimes you are interesting.

Posted by: KR at November 10, 2004 02:35 PM

where is the outrage from the motion picture industry peoples... the Music industry peoples...

where are the eddie vedders's and the Tim robbins's's outrage over Theo Van Gogh's murder???

where is the condemnation from the Bruce Springsteens, the Barbara Striesands and the Dixie Chicks's and Jon Bon Jovi's, the Michael Moore$'s, the Cher's and Ben Afflecks's...

where is the outrage indeed???

pathetic is the silence from the hollywood elitists...

Posted by: great Satan at November 10, 2004 02:36 PM


So you're telling me that instead of using multiple dictionaries to find the meaning of words, we should just decide for ourselves what the words mean?

I understand what you're saying, that we can use a colloquial term and simply shove everything under it. Its a common thing for people to do, and one I have always abhorred. It is not difficult to use the right word, it merely takes a few moments with a dictionary.

If you'd like to disagree with Mr. Webster and every online dictionary I could find, then feel free. I certianly can't stop you from having a reality different than the one defined in dictionaries.

Since that's the case, there isn't apparently much more we can discuss on this topic. But, in conclusion, I'd like to quote from my favorite author of all time, Samuel Clemens. In a scathing review of the popular Deerstalker series by JF Cooper, he listed 18 rules that writers should follow, 12 and 13 were:

12. Say what he is proposing to say, not merely come near it.

13. Use the right word, not its second cousin.

I first read those rules when I was 10 and I have tried (not always sucessfully) to follow them.


Posted by: Ratatosk at November 10, 2004 03:46 PM

I found this letter (link in Arabic) of congratulations from Iraqis to president Bush and the American people on an Iraqi website and I wanted to share it with you.
It’s open for any Iraqi to sign it. The letter was posted online yesterday and till now, more than 1060 Iraqis have signed it.
Here it goes:

In the name of God,
Sir, President George W Bush, President of the United States of America.
On behalf of the families of the victims of the mass graves, on behalf of the martyrs of “Halabja” and “Anfal” and on behalf of all the Iraqis that you liberated from dictatorship and oppression; we have prayed for you and now we want to send you our congratulations on being reelected as a president of the United States.

Mr. President, we’d love to congratulate you and the people of the United States on the beginning of a new phase of democracy, freedom and prosperity and we wish you and the American people the best, as they have led the liberation of Iraq and sacrificed their sons and daughters for the freedom of the Iraqis; the historical achievement that the United States has accomplished together with the other liberating countries.
The united States and the coalition, among all other nations were the ones who recognized the suffering of the Iraqi people and saved them from a regime that was more lethal and more destructive than any weapons of mass destruction. A regime that murdered, slaughtered and enslaved Iraqis for long, dark decades, denied them their freedom and their right to live a decent life until God inspired you and helped you to rescue us, liberate our country and put us on the road of freedom and democracy.

Mr. President, we-the Iraqis-are on your side and we’ll keep supporting and blessing your efforts in eradicating terrorism inside and outside Iraq and all those who carried weapons against the liberating coalition forces and the new Iraqi police, hunting down the criminals who murder innocent civilians, whether Iraqi or American civilians.

We-the Iraqis- are determined to establish democracy and freedom in our country starting with general elections that exclude no one whether inside or outside Iraq. These elections would lead us to a democratic Iraq and we wish that you could help focusing on the role of the Iraqis outside Iraq and make use of their qualifications in the reconstruction process.
We also want to emphasize the necessity of establishing an international legislation that incriminates the Ba’athists, terrorists, fanatic salafis and all the parties, and governments that support them, not forgetting the media that promote the ideology of killing and terrorism.
These parties ought to be confronted and fought to achieve peace and stability in Iraq, America and the rest of the world.
We’re also determined to establish a strategic, permanent relationship with our friends; the government and people of the United States to whom we hold the utmost feelings of gratitude, love and friendship for what they have given us and what they’re still offering.
We will be united on the road of freedom and peace and we will always be supportive to all the efforts of America in bringing peace to the region.
In the end, we ask God to guide you and bless all your efforts to do the best for humanity as a whole.

All the glory to the American and Iraqi martyrs
long live America. Long live Iraq, free and allied nations.

Your brothers in the “Iraqi Parliament” voice chat room and in “Sawt Al Iraq” website.

Posted by: barney at November 10, 2004 05:49 PM

Isn't quoting from a dictionary inherently dogmatic? Is that really thinking on new levels of consciousness?

Eris hates you now. She sheds a tear.

Posted by: KR at November 11, 2004 05:38 AM


No, using the dictionary is the best way to communicate with people. Discordianism is not simply the wanton destruction of order into chaos, though thats a common misconception among the inhabitants of the Land of Thud.

Inside all order is chaos and in all chaos, order. If you cut the Golden Apple of Eris open (or any apple really) you will find the seeds hidden in a pentagon in the center. The Apple is the symbol of chaos, the pentagon a symbol of order, together they form a balance. If you look closely at the order of any corporate or government bureaucracy, you know that under it all is chaos.

The balance of the sacred chao (pronounced kaow) is not static or stagnant, but it ever bounces from order to chaos and back, so that one never completely 'tips the chao'.

Now, my dear KR, if you're into chao tipping, its certtianly none of my business. However, I hear it's best done at night when the farmer is asleep.

Eris doesn't hate me. She gave me yummy buttery cookies last night.

Ratatosk, Squirrel of Discord
Chatterer of the Words of Eris
Muncher of The ChaoAcorn
POEE of The Great Googlie-Mooglie Cabal

Posted by: Ratatosk at November 11, 2004 06:23 AM

The map is not the territory, words are not reality. Have you questioned your premises lately? Delved into the concepts which I presented?

Nope, you just regurgatated some internet dictionary listings as the "truth." No better than trotting out stories from the newspaper as "The Truth." It adds nothing to our understanding and devolves thinking.

You really are a pee-brain. Your life will get even worse should you continue your pee-brain status. You will end up like Mr. R.A. Wilson, a senile, confused old man whose "higher consciousness" functions as well as a drunken wino sleeping in the street. At least RAW had the wisdom to publish his moronic nonsense and make a couple of bucks.

Posted by: KR at November 11, 2004 09:01 AM

Fair Enough.

Posted by: Ratatosk at November 11, 2004 10:46 AM

KR RAW's fiction was fun to read, and some of it was thought provoking. So he's a sick old man now, that fate awaits the best of us.

Perhaps you're right that Ratatosk would to well to forget Leary's self aggrandizing LSD inspired delusions - but you can only hope to aspire to writing as interesting as RAW's. As it is I skipped half of your posts out of boredom.

Posted by: Joshua Scholar at November 11, 2004 06:13 PM

Those with additional interest in this topic of how women are treated, even in a freed Afghanistan, would do well to read The Bookseller of Kabul, by Asne Seierstad.

Asne is a Norwegian journalist who lived with an Afghani family for three months. Very powerful.

Posted by: crionna at November 12, 2004 10:36 AM

What's gone and what's past help Should be past grief. altace buy altace And many strokes, though with a little axe, Hew down and fell the hardest-timbered oak.

Posted by: altace at November 14, 2004 10:22 AM

I hate ingratitude more in a man than lying, vainness, babbling, drunkenness, or any taint of vice whose strong corruption inhabits our frail blood. clomid buy clomid I pray you bear me henceforth from the noise and rumour of the field, where I may think the remnant of my thoughts in peace, and part of this body and my soul with contemplation and devout desires.

Posted by: clomid at November 14, 2004 10:26 AM

The wine urges me on, the bewitching wine, which sets even a wise man to singing and to laughing gently and rouses him up to dance and brings forth words wh

Posted by: apply online credit card application at November 22, 2004 04:09 AM

You would think the film making community (a.k.a. Hollwyood) would be the first to condemn such a brutal murder and a sabotage of free speech. But I hear nothing? Not even Michael Moore has made a statement. Perhaps he's too busy making another film describing America as the world's most horrible culture while Europe and the Middle East burn under Marxist Islamic tyranny.

Posted by: Mario at November 29, 2004 09:30 PM

Reminds me of my safari in Africa. Somebody forgot the corkscrew and for several days we had to live on nothing but food and water. W. C. Fields (1880 - 194

Posted by: michigan roofers at December 14, 2004 06:20 AM

There are people so addicted to exaggeration that they can't tell the
truth without lying.

Posted by: Loan at December 16, 2004 04:57 AM

Serving coffee on aircraft causes turbulence.
Payday Loan

Posted by: Payday Loan at December 16, 2004 12:00 PM

As the poet said, Only God can make a tree -- probably because it's
so hard to figure out how to get the bark on.
-- Woody Allen
Payday Loans

Posted by: Payday Loans at December 17, 2004 07:03 AM


Posted by: ali at January 24, 2005 02:18 PM

Thank you so much for the information!

Posted by: songtext at January 28, 2005 10:34 AM

Hi,your homepage looks really good and gives great information!
Thank you very much!
Greetings from me!!

Posted by: Kamery cyfrowe at March 6, 2005 01:32 AM

praca za granicą
biuro podróży

Posted by: at June 20, 2005 06:02 AM
cool blog - thanks for the service

online casino

Posted by: casino at June 28, 2005 02:55 AM

Greetings From NY !

Posted by: casinos at July 7, 2005 12:52 AM

sklep internetowy kamery cyfrowe sony panasonic minidv Kamery cyfrowe

Posted by: Kamery cyfrowe at August 15, 2005 10:44 AM

usługi hydrauliczne

Posted by: at August 22, 2005 11:57 AM

I agree with you the way you view the issue. I remember Jack London once said everything positive has a negative side; everything negative has positive side. It is also interesting to see different viewpoints & learn useful things in the discussion.

Posted by: penis at October 4, 2005 04:26 PM


Posted by: online casinos at October 7, 2005 08:32 AM

Three phrases should be among the most common in our daily usage. They are: Thank you, I am grateful and I appreciate.

Posted by: average penis size at November 18, 2005 04:48 PM

Three phrases should be among the most common in our daily usage. They are: Thank you, I am grateful and I appreciate.

Posted by: average penis size at November 19, 2005 04:55 PM

kosmetyki naturalne
mieszkania w Warszawie
agencja reklamowa

Posted by: ap at December 1, 2005 09:14 AM


Posted by: artse at December 23, 2005 02:41 AM

Jocky Tours offers exciting African Safaris,Kenya Safaris,Tanzania Safaris,tours kenya,Wildlife safaris kenya,Masai mara lodge safaris,Uganda Safaris,Car Hire,Mombasa Beach Safaris,Bird Watching Safaris and Mount Kenya Climbing Safaris

Posted by: Minneh at April 14, 2007 04:08 AM

leather jackets The essential one-step product for Il migliore Casino Online complete leather care. URAD NEUTRAL buy cigarettes |brings back and revives the original color and is remarkable buy cigarettes online |in restoring damaged or dried-up leathers to casino bonus |mint condition. Also, it offers efficient protection against water, salt, Casino en línea calcium and mold problems. Whether used as a simple shoe polish, as a cleaner for golf shoes or as a Best Online Casino Review online casino news das beste internet casino internet casinos ,best casino best online casinos casino spielen blog for all | conditioner for Best Online Casino an expensive leather sofa or blog for all |car interior, URAD will surpass Das beste casino | any other product as to ease of use, best online casinos | dry time and quality of results. Preferably use URAD NEUTRAL on leather furniture and saddles, and URAD COLOR to bring a Das beste casino | better shine and hide scuff marks better on boots and shoes. online Casino bonus | Livonia transmission repair shop Michigan | best online casino bonus usa casino links and much much more to go on we also have online casino links and more like cigarette links exchange | tamiflu, viagra, cialis and aslo can buy medications at buy tamiflu, viagra, buy cialis | pharmacy links | link directory, free link exchange | casinos accepting US players | Il migliore Casino Online

Posted by: casino en línea at August 19, 2007 02:13 AM
Post a comment

Remember personal info?

Winner, The 2007 Weblog Awards, Best Middle East or Africa Blog

Pajamas Media BlogRoll Member


"I'm flattered such an excellent writer links to my stuff"
Johann Hari
Author of God Save the Queen?

Andrew Sullivan
Author of Virtually Normal

"Brisk, bracing, sharp and thoughtful"
James Lileks
Author of The Gallery of Regrettable Food

"A hard-headed liberal who thinks and writes superbly"
Roger L. Simon
Author of Director's Cut

"Lively, vivid, and smart"
James Howard Kunstler
Author of The Geography of Nowhere

Contact Me

Send email to michaeltotten001 at gmail dot com

News Feeds


Link to Michael J. Totten with the logo button


Tip Jar


Terror and Liberalism
Paul Berman, The American Prospect

The Men Who Would Be Orwell
Ron Rosenbaum, The New York Observer

Looking the World in the Eye
Robert D. Kaplan, The Atlantic Monthly

In the Eigth Circle of Thieves
E.L. Doctorow, The Nation

Against Rationalization
Christopher Hitchens, The Nation

The Wall
Yossi Klein Halevi, The New Republic

Jihad Versus McWorld
Benjamin Barber, The Atlantic Monthly

The Sunshine Warrior
Bill Keller, The New York Times Magazine

Power and Weakness
Robert Kagan, Policy Review

The Coming Anarchy
Robert D. Kaplan, The Atlantic Monthly

England Your England
George Orwell, The Lion and the Unicorn