I don't know why people persist in believing the Guardian to be a left-wing newspaper. It generally oscillates between the "beaten-wife" prose of a fawning Polly Toynbee (I love Tony but he hurts me so!) and guest leaders that wouldn't look out of place in an 'incitement to racial hatred' court case. Take today's piece by the FT's John Lloyd) (quoted approvingly at 'Harry's Place', revealingly):

'There are many reasons why liberals, as many of the readers of the Guardian are, should support the measures proposed by Tony Blair last Friday to limit the freedom of those who speak up for terrorism. Fundamentally, it is because they - like the recently departed Omar Bakri Mohammed - are the cheerleaders for one or other brand of Islamo-fascism which, were it to come with a swastika armband or a Ku Klux Klan hood, we would have no hesitation in condemning.'

As adam kotsko coincidentally points out admirably well in his latest post, the comparison is facile, unhelpful and wildly inaccurate. The most redundant thing about this soundbite merge of Islamism and fascism (destined to appeal to all those who like the simple equation 'history = bad men + thinking too much = death and destruction') is perhaps the way it papers over the eminently secular (if occultist) nature of fascism and the (erm, somewhat by definition) religious nature of Islamism. A global Caliphate, e.g., and racist nationalism are in no way comparable, even judging by the loose historical standards of British columnists. It's not even clear whether expansionism is a crucial part of (sigh) Islamic extremism, or whether the more local aim of getting US and allied troops out of Muslim countries is what's at stake. But this is the most minor of objections...

Adam's list of questions is great: 'Are the terrorists winning the sympathy of the common folk by promising to get the trains running on time? Is contemporary Islamic terrorism characterized by a militaristic aesthetic? Are there rumblings of a return to paganism? Is there an industrial-style operation currently attempting to exterminate one or more races of people? Is this supposed Islamic version of fascism an attempt to ward off the danger of communism in the face of the injustices brought about by rapid industrialization? Is it focused in on a messianic leader who speaks publicly to crowds of thousands? Are the terrorists of a nationalistic and expansionistic bent? Do they actually hold power in a legitimate nation-state at all?'

k-punk recently asked 'why should we have to endure such a low level of intellectual discussion in British newspapers?'. Why indeed? I'd much rather read, e.g., Lenin, Bat, and the new collective over at Lenin's Tomb (and the other blogz too of course). The drink-soaked Oxbridge guard-dogs of journalistic unreason (whose last 'difficult' book was probably slammed shut on the final day of University) that purport to guide us have little future. One can but hope.

UPDATE: Indeed, Meaders at Lenin's Tomb responds in detail to the Lloyd piece.