Wednesday, February 07, 2007

Islamocommunists

Today's column:

One of the quickest ways to discredit someone is to brand them as a Nazi. The charge is rarely ever based in something vaguely resembling fact. After all, the Thousand Year Reich fell some nine-hundred years short of Hitler's expectations, and there have been, as yet, no attempts to revive Nazism's cold corpse.

My favorite flagrant use of the Nazi epithet is in its application to Muslim “extremists”. Feeling that the term “Islamofascist”is insufficient to convince those of us who keep forgetting that we are fighting for the very existence of western civilization—or something—one of the conservatives came up with the term “Islamonazi”. For if Fascists are bad, Nazis are worse. Of course, few know what Fascism is, and though many are just as ignorant of the character of Nazism, Islamonazi is more digestible for the cretins to whom the conservatives are so busy preaching.

Until recently, it was liberals who flung “Fascist” and “Nazi” around gratuitously. Whether out of eagerness to divorce themselves from their ideological bedmates or simply to slander political opponents, those deemed too conservative could fall, headlong, into Fascism or Nazism. Or so the theory went. The conservatives are now taking the words back. But as long time conservative Rush Limbaugh once titled a chapter in a book, words mean things. What then does the term Fascist mean?

Benito Mussolini, himself a fascist, should know best. His program demanded five political, six societal, three military, and three financial reforms. I will concentrate only on those which seem to be strangely at odds with Islam. (My thanks to Vox Day for his translation from the original Italian.)

Fascism calls for universal suffrage. It should be eye-opening to feminists that Mussolini believed that giving women the right to vote would help him bring fascism about. Assuming the “Islamofascists” cared for democracy, I highly doubt they would be so stupid as to give women the right to vote. But then again, they are not really fascists.

Mussolini also hoped for “The seizure of all the possessions of the religious congregations and the abolition of all the bishoprics, which constitute an enormous liability on the Nation and on the privileges of the poor.” It is preposterous to believe that Islamofascists would directly attack religion, that which they rely upon, not only for philosophy, but for their very name. Fascism is merely yet another blend of left-wing totalitarianism, for, in the words of Mussolini the system entails: “Everything in the State, nothing outside the State, nothing against the State.” Fascism has as much in common with Islam as it does with the zone blitz. But what of Nazism?

Also believed to be a case of conservatism gone awry, Nazism is, in fact, blood brother to the most infamous and monstrous of left-wing ideologies: Communism. But don't take my word for it, the Fuhrer himself explains: “I have learned a great deal from Marxism, as I do not hesitate to admit... The whole of National Socialism is based on it. Look at the workers' sports clubs, the industrial cells, the mass demonstrations, the propaganda leaflets written especially for the comprehension of the masses; all these new methods of political struggle are essentially Marxist in origin. All I had to do is take over these methods and adapt them to our purpose.”

Warren Carroll, the author of The Rise and Fall of the Communist Revolution explains further. “In July 1933 [Hitler] decreed that the Nazi Party would be the only legal party in Russia. The Nazis taught that all morality was subjective and determined by political considerations, just as Lenin did...” Islamonazis do not believe that morality is subjective; they believe all melts before the all-powerful will of Allah. Nazism and Communism, in their revolution against authority, are antithetical to all religions based on objective truth. I seem to recall Afghani Muslims fighting, and winning, against the Soviet Union. Unlike Eastern Europe, Asia, South America, and the Balkans, Islamic nations were impervious to Communism's dark march.

It may be pointed out that Nazis and Islamowhatevers both hate Jews. But we already have a term for Jew haters; anti-Semite works nicely. What sets a Nazi apart from an ordinary anti-Semite, and also from an Islamowhatever, is his adherence to National Socialism, the tenants of which are completely incompatible with the principles laid out in the Koran.

But why should we let facts get in the way? The Nazis killed more than the Fascists, but the Communists killed more than both combined. If we really want the Americans to hate the terrorists, we ought to call them “Islamocommunists”. It is no less accurate than any other term given them thus far. Since Islam has nothing in common with either Fascism or Nazism, comparing Islam to Communism is nothing more than a logical extension of illogic.

We have examined Fascism, Nazism, and Communism. But the commentariat will not ask, and thus they cannot answer, the most important question of all: What is this thing called Islam?

7 comments:

Anonymous said...

That was a good read. There is a lot of interesting material there, and it is finally good to read material I would have been happy to write had I thought to do so. As well, it is fun because I feel like I can stretch those thoughts, right or wrong:) That being said, I will begin.

The reason "conservatives" are using Islamofacist or Islamonazi is because they can do so without offending thirty percent (or more) of the population if they had instead used Islamocommunist. Why would that offend thirty percent plus of the US population? Becasue at least that much of it either still supports and believes in communism, or are in social circles which do. Why they do is simple, with people like Ted Turner (who lets Castro use his private suites when visiting) who run major media outlets espousing communism, refusing to show communist flaws, attacking the US and our system of government, with an education system that is very supportive of communism, and with a decreasing level of actual education through that system, you end up with a thirty percent (and growing) write off.

Now, when I indicated "conservatives", I meant it. President Bush is not a conservative. He is a businessman, but the two don't really mix. Business looks for new ways of doing things, including taxes that limit competition, government supports, and loopholes that are favorable. In other words, they are looking for new things, the old ways are suicidal for a market that wants to grow. It is even noted that certain big business practices end up being very socialistic in their implementation (though I won't quite say this president is there yet). Not that I don't agree with some of that, it is business, but as for policy issues, he seems quite willing to sell off conservative wishes, wants, and needs for other things more business oriented. He has two masters, and one is the lesser. As well, I think the president is from the "socialist generation". I'm not sure we will be done with that for a good while.

And, yes, I like President Bush. He did bring something back to the White House. I think he is a decent man. I like some things he has done and tried to do. And I do support his efforts in the Middle East. But I can't claim his as a conservative.

A Wiser Man Than I said...

I don't know that thirty percent of Americans would be offended if we dubbed the terrorists Islamocommunists, but it is certainly true that a considerable number of Americans still have sympathy to communist ideology.

I find this fascinating. Communism has left far more dead in its wake than either Nazism and Fascism. Further, Communism covered far more of the world than Nazism or Fascism ever did, and Communism was the most terrifying reign ever to haunt this earth.

If you get a chance, read Carroll's book. It's eye-opening, but also very engaging, and far less dry than many history books tend to be.

troutsky said...

doom makes some surpising statements. He seems a product of that communist education system.Try moving beyond Ayn Rand.

When wiser says he is concerned with the meaning of words,he then needs to look into the different definitions of communism, Marxism, Stalinism or Maoism. What may seem trivial to those reading only libertarian authors is actually profound and makes clear why fascism could never be termed "left wing".Reading the original socialist theorists you see they were not big fans of the state and less so of the corporation.

A Wiser Man Than I said...

Marx, Stalin, and Mao all believed in the abolition of private property. And the Dictatorship of the Proletariat is, invariably, code speak for allowing the Party to own all the land.

Stalin and Mao both derived their thought from Lenin, who took his from Marx. Lenin is one of the few communists who actually read Das Kapital.

Communism has come in different flavors, to be sure, but it is ultimately same in kind. Communism abhors freedom and abolishes all political parties save that of its own; it also abolishes that which separates mankind from the animals: private property.

Anonymous said...

My point is , variation matters.We can call both Rawls and Von Hayeck "capitalists" but miss so much distinction as to sound ridiculous. The same is true with Communism and a close reading is necessary before such criticism has merit.The lumping game just promotes the type of distortion you are so opposed to.

Troutsky (blogger is a pain)

As to property, I respectfully suggest the defense of territory is exactly what links us to the lower orders and democratic sharing the thing that could elevate us as a species.

A Wiser Man Than I said...

My apologies for lumping. Would you agree that there are elements of Marxist/Leninist thought in Hitler's program? Both believed in Hegel's dialectic, no?

I may have mentioned this before, but private property is necessary for sharing to occur. If I ever meet you, I'd like to buy you a beer. But I can't buy you a beer if we all own the beer. There is no gifting, and only a false sense of sharing when everything is held in common.

Doom said...

Ayn Rand, you do tease. I haven't actually read any of her stuff, though as a general rule, I have decided not to do so.

The public schools do more "social conditioning" than teaching, and that is a factor in communism (and fascism and socialism too, as if there is much difference in the three in action). As well, the leftism of teachers, administration, and education degree giving colleges is just a fact. What do you want, a gold star for ignoring facts?