Re: Corporatism + Socialism + Nationalism = Fascism
El Cid's post on what Fascism is has reminded me of a recent FrontPageMag article which attempts to one-up the notion of "Islamofascism" by going so far as to imply that Al Qaeda is also Leninist. The author, a "counterterrorism strategist" named Jim Guirard, bases this theory on the facts that Fascism is similar to Communism, and that the religion of Osama Bin Laden promises divine rewards for participation. I will not beat a dead horse by explaining why Al Qaeda is not Fascist, but allow me to comment on this new addition to the Big Lie.
First of all, it's ironic to note that it was in the mountains of Afghanistan, fighting Communists, where Osama Bin Laden cut his teeth. Although Guirard clearly didn't stew over his analogy nearly as hard as he should've, such consideration isn't necessary when playing this written sleight-of-hand.
In fact, the less the reader knows about any of the subject matter, the better. Not only can Guirard insist that Osama Bin Laden is Hitler (and that Bush = Roosevelt, Blair = Churchill, the War on Terrorism = World War Two, etc), he can now invoke Lenin's name in order to place imagery into the mind of the reader which would suggest that winning the "War on Terrorism" is as crucial as winning the Cold War (and that President Bush embodies all the virtue of our Cold War presidents, Bin Laden represents the evil of Lenin/Stalin, etc).
This is, of course, absurd.
As I noted previously, Al Qaeda was formed in order to aide an organic resistance movement in Afghanistan. They have since gone on to support other organic resistance movements throughout the world, the extent of which is largely unknown. In fact, nowadays you will rarely hear news of a terrorist attack (outside of Israel) without the talking heads automatically suspecting that it was Al Qaeda. Most insurgencies -- Sri Lanka and Chechnya, for example -- have "possible links" with the group. The underlying theme of it all is that Al Queda embodies resistance. Resistance to foreign rule and foreign ways of life.
That the mujahideen of Afghanistan were fighting Communist expansion isn't nearly as important as what Communist expansion represented - Western Imperialism. The locals simply had no use for it. Like Communism, Fascism and Nazism are both products of Western Civilization; ideas with which the "terrorists" whom the US fight have expressed no fascination. They have stated their goals. They are opposed to foreign rule, brutal puppet regimes imposed on them by the West, and the presence of Western military in their lands. To label them Communist, Nazi, or Fascist is to entirely miss the point. And as long as we keep ignoring the problem, and telling each other that the "terrorists" have suddenly come out of nowhere and simply want to kill us all, we'll never be able to fix the situation. The Soviets failed in Afghanistan. The Brits failed in Iraq. We're failing in Afghanistan and Iraq.
As with World War Two and the Cold War, the moral disease spreading across the Earth today is a Western "ism" - but it's not Nazism, Fascism or Communism. Like Stalin's "People's Paradise" and Hitler's "Thousand-Year Reich", this one also promises Heaven-on-Earth in return for devotion to its cause. And years from now, when the dust has settled and the names have been all but forgotten, the world will reflect on the Neoconservatism of the Bush Administration, and remember its agents as pitiful hangdogs who tried to change the world, and failed.
(End Notes: I realize that the Liberal-Internationalism of previous years is more at fault for stirring up hatred of the US than the relatively newer Neoconservatism. But unlike Liberal-Internationalism -- which holds that although the world must unite to solve "problems", the US is still its leader -- Neoconservatism comes right out and declares that if the world does not conform, it will be destroyed...and Neoconservatism is the ideology of the day. I have been told that I sound as though I support Al Qaeda, which is hard to imagine for a whiskey-guzzling Southern boy such as myself. I think I simply understand them [don't make me quote Sun Tzu]. If one merely puts themselves in the shoes of another, it's easier to grasp their angle on life. If a "coalition of the willing" arbitrarily decided that the US required "regime change", is it plausible that the citizens of the US would accept it? Yes "the terrorists" do bad, evil things to innocent civilians. But so do we. The moral of the story is that until we stop trying to conquer and control, they will not stop murdering us where they find us.
And if you're truly worried about the emergence of a global Caliphate, then you seriously need to get a grip.)
Stumble It!
First of all, it's ironic to note that it was in the mountains of Afghanistan, fighting Communists, where Osama Bin Laden cut his teeth. Although Guirard clearly didn't stew over his analogy nearly as hard as he should've, such consideration isn't necessary when playing this written sleight-of-hand.
In fact, the less the reader knows about any of the subject matter, the better. Not only can Guirard insist that Osama Bin Laden is Hitler (and that Bush = Roosevelt, Blair = Churchill, the War on Terrorism = World War Two, etc), he can now invoke Lenin's name in order to place imagery into the mind of the reader which would suggest that winning the "War on Terrorism" is as crucial as winning the Cold War (and that President Bush embodies all the virtue of our Cold War presidents, Bin Laden represents the evil of Lenin/Stalin, etc).
This is, of course, absurd.
As I noted previously, Al Qaeda was formed in order to aide an organic resistance movement in Afghanistan. They have since gone on to support other organic resistance movements throughout the world, the extent of which is largely unknown. In fact, nowadays you will rarely hear news of a terrorist attack (outside of Israel) without the talking heads automatically suspecting that it was Al Qaeda. Most insurgencies -- Sri Lanka and Chechnya, for example -- have "possible links" with the group. The underlying theme of it all is that Al Queda embodies resistance. Resistance to foreign rule and foreign ways of life.
That the mujahideen of Afghanistan were fighting Communist expansion isn't nearly as important as what Communist expansion represented - Western Imperialism. The locals simply had no use for it. Like Communism, Fascism and Nazism are both products of Western Civilization; ideas with which the "terrorists" whom the US fight have expressed no fascination. They have stated their goals. They are opposed to foreign rule, brutal puppet regimes imposed on them by the West, and the presence of Western military in their lands. To label them Communist, Nazi, or Fascist is to entirely miss the point. And as long as we keep ignoring the problem, and telling each other that the "terrorists" have suddenly come out of nowhere and simply want to kill us all, we'll never be able to fix the situation. The Soviets failed in Afghanistan. The Brits failed in Iraq. We're failing in Afghanistan and Iraq.
As with World War Two and the Cold War, the moral disease spreading across the Earth today is a Western "ism" - but it's not Nazism, Fascism or Communism. Like Stalin's "People's Paradise" and Hitler's "Thousand-Year Reich", this one also promises Heaven-on-Earth in return for devotion to its cause. And years from now, when the dust has settled and the names have been all but forgotten, the world will reflect on the Neoconservatism of the Bush Administration, and remember its agents as pitiful hangdogs who tried to change the world, and failed.
(End Notes: I realize that the Liberal-Internationalism of previous years is more at fault for stirring up hatred of the US than the relatively newer Neoconservatism. But unlike Liberal-Internationalism -- which holds that although the world must unite to solve "problems", the US is still its leader -- Neoconservatism comes right out and declares that if the world does not conform, it will be destroyed...and Neoconservatism is the ideology of the day. I have been told that I sound as though I support Al Qaeda, which is hard to imagine for a whiskey-guzzling Southern boy such as myself. I think I simply understand them [don't make me quote Sun Tzu]. If one merely puts themselves in the shoes of another, it's easier to grasp their angle on life. If a "coalition of the willing" arbitrarily decided that the US required "regime change", is it plausible that the citizens of the US would accept it? Yes "the terrorists" do bad, evil things to innocent civilians. But so do we. The moral of the story is that until we stop trying to conquer and control, they will not stop murdering us where they find us.
And if you're truly worried about the emergence of a global Caliphate, then you seriously need to get a grip.)
Labels: bad ideology, Johnny Anonymus, Neoconservatism
Stumble It!
posted by Johnny Anonymus at 4:33 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home