The Official Blog Of Edward Cline

Western Fascism vs. Islamofascism?

“The
fascists of the future will call themselves anti-fascists.”
Differently
worded, it is attributed to

First, let’s clarify the meaning of fascism, as it has become a word that’s tossed reflexively like a
grenade at Donald Trump or at anyone who supports him or who challenges,
Progressivism, or the morality of the welfare state. It sounds scary and
package-deals so many political and social realms that have little or nothing
to do with fascism. Brendan O’Neill of Spiked wrote in a much needed analysis “What
Fascism Is, and What It Isn’t
”:

The f-word has been
destroyed through overuse, its original sense and power diluted by a million
op-eds branding unpleasant politicians ‘fascists’ and by radical marchers
hollering ‘fascist scum’ at anyone who irritates them: President Donald Trump,
UKIP leader Nigel Farage, the cops. On the right, too, the accusation of
fascism has become a Tourette’s-style cry. It’s the left who are the real
fascists, they say. Ugly alt-right barbs like ‘feminazi’ and ‘eco-fascist’
confirm that right-wingers are now as likely to scream ‘fascist’ as they are to
have it screamed at them.
O’Neill is a tad off-track concerning how and why “right-wingers” use
the term fascism. They are a bit more perceptive of the Left’s assertions,
ends, and methods (whereas leftists are blind to the consequences of their
beliefs), and there’s no reason why they should refrain from calling
face-masked goons fascists. Rampaging leftists walk like ducks, and so are
ducks. They’re just as not nattily garbed as Nazi Brown Shirts or Fascist Black Shirts.
However, I
left this comment on O’Neill’s column:
Ask a true
contemporary “fascist” – i.e., one of the Berkeley rioters and window
smashers, or one of the Women’s March pussy hat wearers – what fascism is, and
all you’ll get for an answer is a rapid blinking of the eyes, a careening,
stuttering search for words, or some hackneyed warbling about Hitler; it would
do you no good to remind the person that “Fascism” was not the same
as Hitler’s Nazism, and that the only true or original Fascist was Benito
Mussolini, and that the term is derived from the Roman fasces, a bundle of elm or birch rods with an ax head protruding
from them, carried by servants of the Roman Senate. Today’s
“activists” – violent or otherwise – are woefully ignorant of the
meaning of the words they use or throw at their enemies, and don’t care.
Let’s look at some definitions of fascism.
The Merriam-Webster
definition:
….a
political philosophy, movement, or regime (as that of the Fascisti) that exalts
nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic
government headed by a dictatorial
leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of
opposition [e.g., censorship or punishment; my addition]

Adolf Hitler
addressing a rally in Germany, c.
1933.
(Holton Archive/Getty Images)
Political ideology that imposes strict social
and economical measures as a method of empowering the government and stripping
citizens of rights. This authoritative system of government is usually headed
by an absolute dictator who keeps citizens suppressed via acts of violence and
strict laws that govern the people. The most noted form of Fascism was
implemented under Benito Mussolini and Adolf Hitler, who both stripped citizens
of their rights and maintained strict regimes that resulted in the deaths of
thousands of humans. Some of the defining characteristics of fascism are: (1)
racism, (2) militarism, (3) dictatorship, and (4) destructive nationalistic
policies.
Auburn University definition:
A class of
political ideologies
(and historical political regimes) that takes its name from the movement led by
Benito Mussolini that took power in Italy in 1922. Mussolini’s ideas and
practices directly and indirectly influenced political movements in Germany
(especially the Nazi Party), Spain (Franco’s Falange Party), France, Argentina,
and many other European and non-European countries right up to the present day.
The
different “fascist” movements and regimes have varied considerably in
their specific goals and practices, but they are usually said to be
characterized by several common features:
1.      
Militant nationalism,
proclaiming the racial and cultural superiority of the dominant ethnic group
and asserting that group’s inherent right to a special dominant position over
other peoples in both the domestic and the international order
2.      
The
adulation of a single charismatic national leader said to possess near
superhuman abilities and to be the truest representation of the ideals of the
national culture, whose will should therefore literally be law
3.      
Emphasis on
the absolute necessity of complete national unity, which is said to require a
very powerful and disciplined state organization
(especially an extensive secret police and censorship apparatus), unlimited by
constitutional restrictions or legal requirements and under the absolute
domination of the leader and his political movement or party
4.      
Militant
anti-Communism
coupled with the belief in an extreme and imminent threat to national security
from powerful and determined Communist forces
both inside and outside the country
5.      
Contempt for
democratic socialism,
democratic capitalism, liberalism, and
all forms of individualism as weak, degenerate, divisive and ineffective
ideologies leading only to mediocrity or national suicide
6.      
Glorification
of physical strength, fanatical personal loyalty to the leader, and general
combat-readiness as the ultimate personal virtues
7.      
A
sophisticated apparatus for systematically propagandizing the
population into accepting these values and ideas through skilled manipulation
of the mass media, which are totally monopolized by the regime once the
movement comes to power
8.      
A propensity
toward pursuing a militaristic and aggressive foreign policy
9.      
Strict
regulation and control of the economy by the regime through some form of
corporatist economic planning in which the legal forms of private ownership of
industry are nominally preserved but in which both workers and capitalists are
obliged to submit their plans and objectives to the most detailed state
regulation and extensive wage and price controls, which are designed to insure
the priority of the political leadership’s objectives over the private economic
interests of the citizenry. Therefore under fascism most of the more important
markets are allowed to operate only in a non-competitive, cartelized, and
governmentally “rigged” fashion.

Mussolini had hypnotic “charisma”
The
Encyclopedia Britannica
begins its definition with:
There has been considerable
disagreement among historians and political scientists about the nature of
fascism. Some scholars, for example, regard it as a socially radical movement
with ideological ties to the Jacobins of the French Revolution,
whereas others see it as an extreme form of conservatism inspired
by a 19th-century backlash against the ideals of the Enlightenment.
Some find fascism deeply irrational, whereas others are impressed with the
rationality with which it served the material interests of its supporters.
Similarly, some attempt to explain fascist demonologies as the expression of
irrationally misdirected anger and frustration, whereas others emphasize the
rational ways in which these demonologies were used to perpetuate professional
or class advantages. Finally, whereas some consider fascism to be motivated
primarily by its aspirations—by a desire for cultural “regeneration” and the
creation of a “new man”—others place greater weight on fascism’s “anxieties”—on
its fear of communist revolution and
even of left-centrist electoral victories.
One reason for these
disagreements is that the two historical regimes that are today regarded as
paradigmatically fascist—Mussolini’s Italy and Nazi Germany—were different in
important respects. In Italy, for example, anti-Semitism was
officially rejected before 1934, and it was not until 1938 that Mussolini
enacted a series of anti-Semitic measures in order to solidify his new military
alliance with Hitler.
Another reason is the fascists’ well-known opportunism—i.e., their willingness
to make changes in official party positions in order to win elections or
consolidate power. Finally, scholars of fascism themselves bring to their
studies different political and cultural attitudes, which often have a bearing
on the importance they assign to one or another aspect of fascist ideology or
practice. Secular
liberals, for example, have stressed fascism’s religious roots; Roman Catholic
and Protestant scholars have emphasized its secular origins; social
conservatives have pointed to its “socialist” and “populist” aspects; and
social radicals have noted its defense of “capitalism” and “elitism.”
For these and other reasons,
there is no universally accepted definition of fascism. Nevertheless, it is
possible to identify a number of general characteristics that fascist movements
between 1922 and 1945 tended to have in common.

Bosnian (Muslim) Nazi soldiers boning up on Islam


Hezbollah’s Nazi salute evokes memories of
Hitler’s support for Arab
agitators
Mein Kampf is popular in the Mideast
Britannica expands its discussion
of fascism:
Neofascism, political
philosophy and movement that arose in Europe in the decades
following World War II.
Like earlier fascist movements, neofascism advocated extreme nationalism, opposed
liberal individualism,
attacked Marxist and other left-wing ideologies,
indulged in racist and xenophobic scapegoating, and promoted populist
right-wing economic programs. Unlike the fascists, however, neofascists placed
more blame for their countries’ problems on non-European immigrants than on
leftists and Jews, displayed little interest in taking lebensraum (German:
“living space”) through the military conquest of other states, and made
concerted efforts to portray themselves as democratic and “mainstream.” The National
Front
in France, led by Jean-Marie Le Pen,
and the Liberal-Democratic
Party in Russia
, led by Vladimir
Zhirinovsky
, are often cited as neofascist.
In the broadest sense,
totalitarianism is characterized by strong central rule that attempts to
control and direct all aspects of individual life through coercion and
repression. Examples of such centralized totalitarian rule include the Maurya dynasty of India
(c. 321–c. 185 bc), the Ch’in dynasty of China (221–206
bc), and the reign of Zulu chief Shaka (c. 1816–28). The totalitarian
states of Nazi Germany under Adolf Hitler
(1933–45) and the Soviet
Union
under Joseph
Stalin
(1924–53) were the first examples of decentralized or popular
totalitarianism, in which the state achieved overwhelming popular support for
its leadership. This support was not spontaneous; its genesis depended on a charismatic
leader; and it was made possible only by modern developments in communication
and transportation.
Totalitarianism is often
distinguished from dictatorship,
despotism, or tyranny
by its supplanting of all political institutions with new ones and its sweeping
away of all legal, social, and political traditions. The totalitarian state
pursues some special goal, such as industrialization or conquest, to the
exclusion of all others. All resources are directed toward its attainment
regardless of the cost. Whatever might further the goal is supported; whatever
might foil the goal is rejected. This obsession
spawns an ideology
that explains everything in terms of the goal, rationalizing all obstacles that
may arise and all forces that may contend with the state. The resulting popular
support permits the state the widest latitude of action of any form of
government. Any dissent is branded evil, and internal political differences are
not permitted. Because pursuit of the goal is the only ideological foundation
for the totalitarian state, achievement of the goal can never be acknowledged.
Under totalitarian rule, traditional social institutions and
organizations are discouraged and suppressed; thus the social fabric is
weakened and people become more amenable to
absorption into a single, unified movement. Participation in approved public
organizations is at first encouraged and then required. Old religious and
social ties are supplanted by artificial ties to the state and its ideology. As pluralism and individualism
diminish, most of the people embrace the totalitarian state’s ideology. The infinite diversity among
individuals blurs, replaced by a mass conformity (or at least acquiescence) to
the beliefs and behavior

Italian Fascist Symbol


sanctioned by the state.

Large-scale, organized violence becomes
permissible and sometimes necessary under totalitarian rule, justified by the
overriding commitment to the state ideology and pursuit of the state’s goal. In
Nazi Germany and Stalin’s Soviet Union, whole classes of people, such as the
Jews and the kulaks (wealthy peasant farmers) respectively, were singled out
for persecution and extinction. In each case the persecuted were linked with
some external enemy and blamed for the state’s troubles, and thereby public opinion was
aroused against them and their fate at the hands of the military and the police
was condoned.
Police operations within a
totalitarian state often appear similar to those within a police state, but one
important difference distinguishes them. In a police state the police operate
according to known, consistent procedures. In a totalitarian state the police operate
without the constraints of laws and regulations. Their actions are
unpredictable and directed by the whim of their rulers. Under Hitler and Stalin
uncertainty was interwoven into the affairs of the state.
The German constitution of the Weimar Republic was
never abrogated
under Hitler, but an enabling act passed by the Reichstag in 1933 permitted him
to amend the
constitution at will, in effect nullifying it. The role of lawmaker became
vested in one man. Similarly, Stalin provided a constitution for the Soviet
Union in 1936 but never permitted it to become the framework of Soviet law. Instead, he
was the final arbiter in the interpretation of Marxism–Leninism–Stalinism and
changed his interpretations at will. Neither Hitler nor Stalin permitted change
to become predictable, thus increasing the sense of terror among the people and
repressing any dissent.
It is the “total” in totalitarianism that gives the best
clue to its meaning. The term refers to the type of government that attempts to
assert total control over the lives of its citizens. This form of tyranny was a
20th-century development that was instituted to serve the goal of transforming
society according to socialist principles. Totalitarian governments first
appeared shortly after World War I.

The ever-present
swastika – a Hindu good luck symbol –
beneath the
German eagle
The core, essential attributes of fascism are an unreserved,
manipulated, mass personality-cult of the movement’s “leader”, substituting the
group for the individual, the suppression of dissent in any form (in word and
action), and fiat force, or its threat, to compel unreserved obedience.
Now, about Islamofascism:
I must have said it two dozen or more times in my columns
over the years: Islam can’t be “reformed” without destroying it as an
ideology or even as a “religion,” it can’t be tamed without killing
it. Which part of Islam would need to be made “moderate,” or amenable
with Western values, to render it tolerable? The misogynist element? Kill the
Jews? Attack and enslave the infidel? Not one aspect of it can undergo a
“make-over” without robbing Islam of its essential identity and
purpose, and if that could be done, what, then, would be the attraction to
Islam? You’d need to turn its “ideal man,” Mohammad,
into Santa Claus. All the evil — that is, the anti-human — aspects of Islam,
that is, the most blatantly evil ones, are linked together. Remove one link and
the chain of totalitarianism in Islam falls apart. There are no weak links in
Islam, if that is what a “reformer” is looking for. In that sense,
Islam can be said to reflect a paraphrase of Mussolini’s dictum about Fascism:
“Everything inside Islam, nothing outside it, nothing against the
caliphate.” For example, I wrote about the futility of “reforming” Islam, “The
Muslim’s Conundrum
” in January 2015:
….Except that Islam can’t be reformed without
killing it. The violent
verses
in the Koran are the principal sources of any power it might have.
Remove them, or concoct pretzel-like explanations of what they do or don’t
mean, and what you’d have left is an unstructured mishmash of banal homilies
and exhortations to be a “good” Muslim, whatever that might mean. “Kill
the Jew hiding behind a tree
” doesn’t mean “make him die laughing with
Seinfeld jokes,” and “by
your right hand possess
” doesn’t mean embracing a woman’s waist during a
ballroom dance….
The violent verses in Islam’s sacred texts,
whether they’re read in Arabic or in English or any other translation, are
quite clear and unambiguous.  Because
they are supposedly Allah’s own words, one must take those verses literally,
and not attempt to “interpret” them or quote them out of the context, as
Allah’s words as supposedly whispered into Mohammad’s ear are unalterable and
exempt from correction, emendation, and line-editing. They mean what they mean.
Period. For example, in the Shi’ite view of the rape of women captured by jihadists, goes, Koran 4.24 says:

An Al Qaeda-ISIS
flag
Given the base nature of Islam, how could it not be
fascist, as well? Its core essentials mesh perfectly with Western style fascism:
The core, essential attributes of fascism are an unreserved, manipulated, mass personality
worship of the movement’s “leader”, substituting the group for the individual, the
suppression of dissent in any form (in word and action), and fiat force. The chief
attributes of Western fascism and Islamofascism The chief ingredients of
fascism are enforced collectivism of an entire population and arbitrary, fiat
force, or its threat, to compel unquestioning obedience.
A note: The term “Radical Islam” is an oxymoron,
just as the term “free inquiry” is a redundant term. It implies that there is
just plain, ordinary Islam which wouldn’t hurt a fly and wants to coexist in
peace, while “Radical Islam” suggests that it’s the flyswatter designed to
exterminate all flies. “Radical Islam” is just as ludicrous and confusing a
term as is “Radical Nazism” or “Radical Communism.”  Islam is already “radical” in its
fundamentals, and is “extremist” in that it commands a literal acceptance of
its Koranic diktats. Instead of a living “leader” the object of a personality
cult, Islam furnishes dual icons:  Allah
as an omnipotent/omniscient deity, and Mohammad as his “Prophet.” 
By the same token, the term “Radical Islamic Terrorism” is a conceptual mare’s nest and a straw man.

Western fascism and Islamofascism are copasetic,
and share commonalities too obvious to dispute or to ignore. Islam is as totalitarian as were Nazism and Communism.

Previous

Lights Dim on Reality in the Cinema: Part II

Next

The Wages of Altruistic “Virtue”

3 Comments

  1. Edward Cline

    I might add, and I ought to have incorporated this observation in the text of the column. Just because Islam has no machinery of state to introduce or enforce its political agenda on the West, doesn't mean it doesn't use one or more: the various governments of the West. It uses all of them, with the exception of a few in Eastern Europe. But look at Great Britain, France, Sweden, Denmark, Norway, Belgium, and Spain.

  2. Edward Cline

    Re the link to the article about Winston Churchill’s alleged quotation that the “fascists of the future will claim to be anti-fascists.” On that site was the partial image of an unidentified newspaper article quoting Luccock. I did a search for him and found a New York Times obituary. Luccock was born in 1895 and would’ve been old enough to make such a statement.

    REV. H.E. LUCCOCK, PROFESSOR AT YALE
    Special to The New York Times. ();
    November 06, 1960,
    , Section , Page 88, Column , words
    NEW HAVEN, Nov. 5 — The Rev. Halford E. Luccock, professor emeritus of preaching at Yale Divinity School, died tonight in Grace-New Haven Community Hospital after a short illness. Professor Luccock, who lived at 176 Carmalt Road, Hamden, was 75 years old.

  3. deschutesmaple

    "The Center for the Advancement of Crapitalism!?" Wow, what a shitty little blog full of lies and distortions you've got going. Oh yes, capitalism has indeed worked wonders for centuries. Especially the last 40 years of austerity neo-liberal reaganomics. Giant tent cities in LA, SF, San Diego, NYC, Detroit a 3rd world wasteland, wars without end lasting 18 years of war in Afghanistan. Capitalism, as Einstein pointed out in his 'socialism is the only way forward' article is inherently predatory and parasitic. He was spot on, and today 70 years since he penned that article we have a very fucked up neo-liberal capitalist world where 1% own 70% of everything. What a sick, fucked up system capitalism is. Good luck with your private, for profit American "healthcare" system dealing with coronavirus. Ain't gonna happen: Spain has nationalized its healthcare system and hospitals due to coronavirus. Ooops! Guess for profit medical botiques didn't cut it homey. Sorry to shit on your capitalism is the way bullshit-fest. Especially amusing: Churchill saying 'the fascists of the future will call themselves anti-fascists'. Ooooohhhhh-aaaaahhhhhhh I'm shaking in my booties: to portary Antifa as fascist is a sure sign of a right wing racist fascist shithead. Think Unz.com contribs 😀

Leave a Reply

Powered by WordPress & Theme by Anders Norén