Who are the Fascists? [About them, its not a question]

Made to fight the new world elite that has already begun the killing of 80-90% of the World Population

Moderator: The Forum Group

Post Reply

Who are the Fascists? [About them, its not a question]

Post by cssdude82 » Sun Jan 07, 2007 1:50 am

Who Are The Fascists?

When President George W. Bush recently referred to radical Muslims as ?Islamic
fascists,? he shed more light on the nature of the ideology driving the neoconservative
junta, than he did on the ideology driving militant Islamic groups in various parts of the
world. This assertion, and similar ones, in some aspects, conform to a pattern of
propaganda innovated by Nazi Germany, one of the major fascists states of the 20th
If we examine the assertion, we can see that the ideology driving President Bush?s
agenda shares far more with the fascist movements of the 20th century than the ideology
of any Islamic group or state he seeks to condemn. To begin, one of the principal
propaganda innovations of the fascist movement, introduced by Hitler in Mein Kampf,
and perfected by his principal propagandist, Joseph Goebbels, was the ?big lie,? premised
on the idea that if one tells a big enough lie often enough and with adequate conviction,
most people will hold it to be true. The average person does not believe that anyone
would have the audacity to lie so brazenly. What is being alleged, therefore, must be true.
The allegation that so-called Islamofascists threaten Western civilization should be
considered a 21st century big lie. The extent of this lie is most pointedly revealed by the
inability of al-Qaeda?s chiefs, Ayman Zawahari, Usama Bin Laden, and the movements
they led to pose a significant threat to Egypt and Saudi Arabia, respectively. Zawahari?s
jihad group was ruthlessly crushed by the Egyptian government during the mid-1990s,
while Bin Laden?s challenge to the Saudi state in the aftermath of the 1991 Gulf War was
similarly thwarted. Both men eventually ended up in a cave in Afghanistan. The terrorist
acts they orchestrated in Egypt and Saudi Arabia, rather than constituting an existentialist
threat to either state, proved to be only a nuisance.
Analogously, any terrorist acts perpetrated by what has come to be known as al-Qaeda
could never pose a significant political, social, or economic threat to the integrity of
Western civilization. By way of illustration, consider that it took less than two months for
the stock markets to rebound to pre-September 11, 2001, levels after the attacks of that
fateful day. Five years later, American exports are higher; global trade levels, led by the
United States, are higher; world tourism is up; domestic air travel, the sector hardest hit
in the attacks, has surpassed pre-9/11 levels; and legal immigration to the United States is
as high as it has ever been.
How could groups that were incapable of destabilizing two middling Third World states
pose an existentialist threat to the United States, the world?s sole ?superpower??
Moreover, how could such groups ever pose an existentialist challenge to the whole of
Western civilization? The very allegation is so preposterous that we can only describe it a
fascistic big lie.
A related big lie is that Bin Laden is comparable to Hitler and Stalin. Such an allegation
is also without foundation. Both Hitler and Stalin presided over modern industrial states
with strategic resources that rivaled, and in many sectors surpassed, those of Western

Europe and even America. Hitler?s Germany was the most advanced state on earth in
terms of military technology. It was the first nation to employ militarily-viable ballistic
missiles, the V-2 rocket; a jet-powered tactical fighter aircraft, the Messerschmitt Me
262, and was months away from developing an atomic bomb. Stalin?s Soviet Union
possessed the largest collection of conventional armed forces on earth and would
eventually preside over a nuclear arsenal of more than 15,000 warheads, most of them
aimed at the major industrial, military, and population centers of the United States. These
warheads were situated on sophisticated land, sea, and air-based delivery systems that
posed a significant threat to the survival of the United States and Western Europe.
Compared to the resources possessed by those states, militant Islamic groups have
nothing. Only one Muslim country, Pakistan, possesses a handful of nuclear weapons,
which are neutralized by neighboring India?s larger and more sophisticated nuclear
arsenal, as well as Israel?s estimated 200 nuclear bombs. By all reasonable estimates, Iran
is at least five years away from developing a nuclear bomb, and possesses no delivery
system capable of reaching Western Europe, to say nothing of America. As for non-state
radical Islamic groups, they possess neither a nuclear weapon nor any delivery systems.
To justify our current level of fear, we are left only with the oft-mentioned threat of a
militant group or state acquiring a small nuclear device and detonating it in the United
States. Such an eventuality itself is no more or less probable than any random act of
terrorism carried out by an unimaginable array of actors. Defense against such an act can
only be done with good intelligence, smart police work, and policies that defuse the anger
that breeds individuals with a propensity to undertake terrorist actions. Brutal
occupations, a destructive militarism, and rapacious economic policies will only
exacerbate the violence we claim we can control with greater violence.
Another pertinent aspect of fascism is its glorification of the nation, which necessitates
that fascistic governments vehemently oppose all forces that counter the ability of the
nation to consolidate its control, both over the territory under its sway, and over the lives
of individual citizens. The following slogan uttered by Mussolini reminds us of this
imperative and demonstrates that, since its inception, fascism has been one of the greatest
threats to individual liberties in the Western world : ?The Italian nation is an organism
having ends, life, and means of action superior to those of the separate individuals or
groups of individuals which compose it.? In this formulation, the individual must be
ready at any moment to sacrifice his life and liberty for the good of the nation. Whether
such sacrifices are justified is not a question to be countenanced.
Does this description of a nation-state centric ideology conform more closely to the
neoconservative advocates of the Bush agenda, or to the agendas of militant Muslim
groups? The answer should be quite clear. As John Gray argues in Al Qaeda and What It
Means to Be Modern, ?Al-Qaeda?s closest precursors are the revolutionary anarchists of
late nineteenth-century Europe.?1 Most radical Islamic groups subscribe to a transnational
ideology that sees the nation-state as a western innovation imposed on the
Muslim people via European colonization of Muslim lands. Like many of the early
1 John Gray, Al Qaeda and What It Means to Be Modern (New York, London: The New Press, 2003), p. 2.

anarchist movements, they seek an eradication of the prevailing nation-state system and
the destruction of the institutions that support it. Hence, the ideological similarities
between militant Islamic movements and European anarchism are arguably far greater
than the similarities between those movements and European fascism. Why then are
those Islamic movements being associated with fascism instead of anarchism?
The answer may lie in the media strategy of the neoconservative project. If today?s
Islamic movements were associated with anarchism, the antithesis of totalitarianism, it
would be impossible to then draw a comparison between the leaders of those
movements?primarily Bin Laden?and the leaders of the totalitarian regimes?Hitler
and Stalin. Those European movements once posed a viable threat to the integrity of the
West. Because anarchism has no Hitler or Stalin to serve as an identifiable symbol that
gives evil a tangible and recognizable ?face,? comparisons to it would not evoke
memories of the totalitarian menace that once threatened the West.
This leads us to another salient feature of fascism, that it is an ideology that elevates the
national leader to a symbolic representation of the nation itself. The nature of the leader
in a fascist society is captured brilliantly in a leading social science text:
At the head of the fascist elite is the leader?Il Duce in Italy or Der Fuehrer in
Germany?in whose name everything is done, who is said to be ?responsible? for
all, but whose acts can nowhere be called into question. The leader is neither a
scholar nor a theorist, but a charismatic man of action.2
If we consider the expanding role of the presidency in the United States, and the nature
and scope of presidential powers in this country, it is clear to gauge what direction the
country is moving in.
Here a critical question is in order: ?If fascism is an inaccurate description of today?s
Islamic movements, why is the association being pushed so vehemently?? I would look to
the history of fascism for the answer. One of the most venal programs birthed by fascism
is what the Nazis referred to as the final solution, the endl?sung, which advocated the
extermination of the Jewish population of Germany. Many of those who so loudly
trumpet the term ?Islamofascists? harbor their own endl?sung for the Muslims. For
example, on July 21, 2006, the commentator Warner Todd Huston writes, on the website
of Alan Keyes, a prominent African American conservative and candidate for the United
States Senate:
So, we feel the only true solution is that millions of Muslims must be killed and
the sooner the better it will be for the whole world. Not because Jews are
somehow perfect or that Muslims just plain "need killing," but because Islam is so
patently evil and needs to be defeated!3
2 Thomas R. Dye, Power and Society: An Introduction to the Social Sciences (Belmont, California: 1993),
pp. 233-234.
3 See, http://www.renewamerica.us/columns/huston/060721.

Such calls are beginning to surface in even mainstream print and electronic media here in
the United States.
Perhaps the most insightful aspect of Huston?s comment is his belief that by murdering
?millions of Muslims? the world will be improved, cleansed of the stain of Islamic
terrorism. This delusional belief that genocidal violence is somehow cathartic is an
intrinsic feature of fascist thought. It also masks the fact that there are myriad sources of
violence in the global system that have absolutely nothing to do with Islam. During the
last century, Europeans found the justification to kill over one hundred million people.
Islam had absolutely nothing to do with that slaughter. During the past ten years, the civil
war in the Congo has claimed far more lives than the combined number of those killed in
the various conflicts involving Muslim actors.
Finally, the three most powerful fascist regimes of the 20th century?Mussolini?s Italy,
Hitler?s Germany, and Hirohito?s Japan?pursued irrational, militaristic, and imperialistic
policies that led to their ruin. When we examine the irrational, militaristic, imperialistic
policies advocated by the regime in Washington D.C. we must ask: ?Who are the
fascists?? Our answer to this question and our ensuing action will go a long way towards
determining the future of our world.
Imam Zaid Shakir

User avatar
Posts: 5458
Joined: Tue Jun 06, 2006 3:51 pm
Location: www.pacman.pt.vu

Post by PaCmAn » Sun Jan 07, 2007 4:20 am

thank you very much, looks interesting :-D
"None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free." -Goethe
-- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - > > > LISTEN TO ALEX JONES RIGHT NOW - CLICK HERE < < < - - - - - - - - - - - - - - --

Post Reply
watch RING OF POWER here - banned in USA by youtube: