That such usage also causes extreme embarrassment to both the Islamists themselves and their leftist “anti-fascist†appeasers in the West is just too bad.
"Appeasers" is a clear reference to Conservative Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain's policy of trying to contain Adolf Hitler by allowing him to take the Sudetenland from Czechoslovakia. This sentence itself does two things, it places leftists on the side of Islamists (interestingly not calling them Islamofascists here) and it makes a World War II like hyperbole.
Chamberlain is one of those special people who is maligned by revisionist would-be historians, but was well-respected in his times. The truth was that Britain nor France could have ever saved the Sudetenland (anymore than they were able to save Poland). Many on today's right (and even left wing) like to think that pacifism was somehow involved in appeasement, it was not. There were many variables involved, including massive British debt, diplomatic strategies to keep Hitler as an anti-Communist, etc that were considered beforehand.
First, the general idea of “fascism†— the creation of a centralized authoritarian state to enforce blanket obedience to a reactionary, all-encompassing ideology — fits well the aims of contemporary Islamism that openly demands implementation of sharia law and the return to a Pan-Islamic and theocratic caliphate.
Though fascism is not a democratic political philosophy, that does not make it the
only non-democratic political ideology. You like calling a duck a duck? Call this what it is: theocracy. Is that not what these individuals
really want? The Caliphates, after the initial four, were basically royal dynasties which is far removed from fascist ideology. They were also rather unsuccesful and never ruled a united
ummah.
By the way,
sharia law (since we are getting our terms straight) does not refer to a single set of laws. It can mean many different things to different Muslims and shouldn't be given such a nasty connotation. It isn't much different than Halakha amongst the Jews. There is flexibility within sharia. Also keep in mind that like Judaism, Islam is a religion of law. It is not like Christianity. The law is extremely important and governs day-to-day activities and practices.
In addition, Islamists, as is true of all fascists, privilege their own particular creed of true believers by harkening back to a lost, pristine past, in which the devout were once uncorrupted by modernism.
That's generally a trait of the right-wing, which was all fascism really was. It was an alliance of major right wing groups in Europe behind a political philosophy. Look at those who harken back to the education of the three R's. Those who believe that the United States was a better nation in the 1950's when chewing gum was the "only" major problem in school. Those who believe that when prayer was in schools, the pledge was recited every morning, and gays were shut up in the closet, and women had more rigidly defined roles was the better time in American life. That isn't a fascist trait, that is a conservative trait (I mean conservative in the traditional sense). The fascists were simply more outlandish with it. It makes sense that the Islamists use it as well, but it has little to do with Fascism.
Because fascism is born out of insecurity and the sense of failure, hatred for Jews is de rigueur.
False. Mussolini was a zionist at one point. He also had Jews in high positions. This is the
National Review's attempt to force a square peg into a smaller round hole and make this about Israel and America. The Nazis used the Jews as a scapegoat because anti-semitism was extremely popular. If the Jews hadn't been there then it would have been somone else (and was - look at the Roma). It isn't about Jews specifically. Look at the Croatian death camps. They gassed and murdered primarily Serbians. It is about a minority that people can agree to hate.
To read al Qaeda’s texts is to reenter the world of Mein Kampf
One ought to read
Mein Kampf and some of Hitler's speeches. If you really believe in the spirit of "Never Again!" then I highly suggest it. You might be amazed the way in which Hitler is able to talk with the middle classes. It might change your perspective.
Fascism is not quite the narcotic of the hopeless, but rather the opiate of the recently failed now on the supposed rebound who welcome the cheap fix of blaming others and bragging about their own iron will.
What? No offense, but I'm not even sure this deserves a decent response. Fascism is a nationalist political philosophy that denies class struggle and directly appeals to populism. The above is subjective and unsubstantiated. Also, past sentences discussed Imperial Japan and I want to point out that
Japan was never a Fascist state.Japanese militarism’s racist creed, fanaticism, and sense of historical destiny were a motley synthesis of Bushido, Zen and Shinto Buddhism, emperor worship, and past samurai legends.
See above. Japan was a military dictatorship, and very few historians of which I am aware consider it a Fascist state. Very bizarre line of thought by the author to include them. From a journalist's perspective I can understand that they are trying to once again make this a comparison of World War II, but if that is the goal why not make the editorial strictly about that? Why make it about Fascism? Very odd.
Just as there weren’t more than a dozen vocal critics of Hitler after the Wehrmacht finished off France in six weeks in June of 1940
There were of course many more than that, but many of them were Communists and sent into exile or the first concentration camps.
Yet if he can claim that his martyrs forced the United States out of Afghanistan and Iraq, toppled a petrol sheikdom or two, and acquired its wealth and influence — or if he got his hands on nuclear weapons and lorded it over appeasing Westerners — then he too, like the Fuhrer in the 1930s, will become untouchable. The same is true of Iran’s president Ahmadinejad.
Extreme hypotheticals. If bin Laden was elected leader of Iraq, what then? If he cut off his beard invested all his assets in Microsoft and became chairman...
We have to deal with reasonable scenarios, not play speculative hypotheticals. Besides, none of those situations would place bin Laden beyond being a thug criminal. He'd still never be what Hitler was. Remember that Hitler in the 1930's had the respect and admiration of many leaders in the west. He was not abjectly despised or a wanted criminal throughout the world.
As for Iran's president, well, I heard the same hyperbole about Saddam. Every tinpot dictator is the "new Hitler." The truth is that none of them are. I know enough about history that I'm fairly certain I don't need the
National Review to point out the "new Hitler" to me if one ever does exist.
Fifth, fascism springs from untruth and embraces lying. Hitler had contempt for those who believed him after Czechoslovakia. He broke every agreement from Munich to the Soviet non-aggression pact. So did the Japanese, who were sending their fleet to Pearl Harbor even as they talked of a new diplomatic breakthrough.
Fascism no more embraces lying than any other political philosophy. Both Stalin and Hitler knew that neither could be trusted. The non-aggression pact was going to be broken, Hitler was just more prepared to deliver a near knockout than Stalin was to defend against it. Stalin was far too busy purging most of his competent officer corps. In other words, it was signed with the intention of it never lasting. Japan was not a fascist state, but also had little choice in the matter. It was a surprise attack sure, but so what if they lied?
So lying is one of the criteria? Are they serious? Does that make Henry Kissenger and Richard Nixon Fascists and by extension the United States? No offense again Sirs, but that is a rather bizarre assertion. Diplomacy is an arena where the truth gets displaced, especially if one follows
realpolitik. I know that the Republicans have moved on to a more supposedly idealistic foreign policy, but you cannot say "war is hell, isn't it" out of one corner of your mouth and then whinge when someone lies in a war setting out of the other corner. It is logically inconsistent.
They are fascists of an Islamic sort, pure and simple.
They aren't even close to fascists and this was perhaps one of the most ill-defined and poorly written definitions of Fascism I have ever read.
Honestly, there were people who were proud to call themselves "Fascists" who wrote books and essays on the philosophy. Why not read some of that and compare the two? This is just not a very quality academic comparison. This is justifying after the fact. For example, it centers around World War II, but compares the Islamists ( a decent enough descriptor) to pre-war fascism. Yet, it never discusses the rise of Italian Fascism. Doesn't it seem odd not to compare apples to apples? It certainly does to me. It mentions
Mein Kampf but quotes no passages. It makes numerous assertions of fascist qualities, but provides scant examples. When it does provide examples, I've shown how they have erred.
Hopefully I've presented a good argument.
