Islamic Fascism

The North Carolina Conservative ^ | 8/26/2006 | Joel Raupe

[Prospero]

Finally, the President of the United States has validated the name of our nation’s intractable enemy. On the morning Britain (hopefully) busted at least one plot to blow up American passenger jets over the Atlantic, in a first, brief response to the round up of suspects in the U.K., I wasn’t the only one who noticed him say Americans must understand “we are at war” with “Islamic Fascists.”

Interestingly, the reaction from the self-anointed voices of Islam in America was predictably quick and loud, but short-lived. The sky did not fall, mosques were not torched nor Muslims lynched, even as polls showed increasing fear of Islam in general and of Muslims in particular.

After a long, terrible, costly struggle, America remains stubbornly tolerant, blessed with an arguably fragile but, far and away, the freest and, simultaneously, the most integrated culture and social order in world history. American Liberty should never be taken for granted.

Bob Woodward, no genuine friend of any Republican administration, in his book Bush at War, wrote that the very first thing President Bush expressed concern about upon returning to the Oval Office September 11, 2001 was how to engage in war against a largely invisible enemy, without compromising civil liberty in the United States.

This is, of course, a remarkable contrast with the ridiculous characterature painted of him by his domestic political enemies five years later. As a kid growing up in Washington decades ago, “everyone knew” the NSA, or “the Puzzle Palace,” or as “No Such Agency” was then known, had been monitoring all international telephone calls probably since the Truman administration.

But “Fascists?” I chafe at Kurt Vonnegut’s insistence that Nazi Germany was a “Christian nation,” and I suppose if someone insists our victories in the European battlefields of World War II were triumphs over “Christian Fascists,” it might easily start a heated argument. Nevertheless, and amazingly, there were and are self-described “Christian” Fascists in our world, in Latin America, Lebanon and elsewhere, and throughout history. It is, of course, a ridiculous and political stylization. The obvious conclusion to be drawn is that anyone can call himself or herself a “Christian” and anyone can call himself or herself a follower of “The Prophet.”

What is refreshing about the president’s use of the word “fascists” comes from the historic context, the false assumption that the strain of virulent Mass Movement most Americans during World War II called “fascism” died with Germany’s surrender in May 1945. For most of my life it has been one of those words used so often and improperly that it has almost lost all historic meaning.

As a Mass Movement, among its followers, genuinely terrified of Liberty, anxious to escape responsibility for “knowing Good and Evil,” and equally anxious for self-annihilation by surrender to almost any group promising “inevitable victory” and release; for a certain type of individual, well-prepared already with a sense of being a hopelessly flawed person living in a hopelessly flawed present, the nationalistic strain we once called “fascism” is very much alive and well.

So is it’s twin, the international strain we still call Communism. And all Mass Movements compete for and recruit followers from the same pool of remarkably intelligent, often relatively affluent and educated people who, in their heart of hearts, are no different than Adam and Eve “fleeing for the tall grass” fearing the nakedness of their responsibility before God because of their knowledge of Good and Evil.

In each case the abstract cover provided can range from an extended “family” to nationalism and internationalism or self-annihilation by a total loss of self by merging with the Infinite. And nearly all Mass Movements are unified by hatred of those “outside.”

Before Islam (the nation and religion) began its return to historic roots, becoming little different from the other modern Mass Movements with which American Liberty could not “co-exist,” during World War II, before the Cold War and Israel’s declaration of independence, European Fascism sank deep roots in Islamic and Arab nationalism.

Even The History Channel recently devoted two hours tracing the roots of Arab Nationalism directly to Nazi Germany. It has long been noted by historians this present “new war” has battlefronts amounting to long-neglected mopping up operations aimed at remnants of European Fascism.

Saddam Hussein’s Ba’athist regime in Iraq, and that same Party’s equally nasty regime in Syria trace their ideological lineage and methods directly to Adolph Hitler, most visibly through a little remembered fellow named Mohammad Amin-al-Husayni, the “Grand Mufti of Jerusalem,” who had a wonderful garden party with the Fuhrer in 1941, together hoping to prepare for a front in the Middle East, but succeeding in developing a strain of fascism that survived the fall of Berlin and inflamed a mostly dormant anti-Semitism. Eventually, what appears to the West now to be an almost “stateless” terrorism grew from the root a more broadly planted fascist nationalism than Hitler could have dreamed.

Islam is a nation, with undetermined borders; a concept rooted in its Holy book and ancient ideology, stretching from the Eastern Pacific, interrupted only by China and India, all the way to West Africa, with colonies holding to and enforcing their own national law everywhere in the world. Taking an interesting opposite course from that of its European stepfathers, this rising strain of fascism, this true Islamic nationalism, appears to be undergoing its internal conflicts after consolidating its conquests, working out internal strife similar to the murderous gang wars among German fascists from which Hitler eventually emerged to become the unquestioned ruler of the German nation and who only afterward proceeded with his territorial conquests.

[American in Israel]

If Pakistan's government is toppled or falls into Islamic hands, they won't use 7th Century warfare and weaponry.

Pak is muslim, so they all have nukes. What is being built for them by the Russians is the ability to mass manufacture them. While they may have nukes, they will still prefer to use terrorism instead of frontal assault, using 7th century warfare in a modern world. The age or size of the toys does not make the tactics change much at all. They still are 7th century Barbarians, and are using fear to govern and conquer in the exact same pattern that they have been using for 1400 years.

[backtothestreets]

I can't help but wonder if someone connected with the White House saw your post referencing totalitarianism as President Bush spoke of this, not fascism in his speech tonight.