Skip to comments.'Fascism' cry seems desperate (Barf Alert)
Posted on 09/08/2006 5:36:12 AM PDT by Nextrush
There is a hue and cry coursing through the more ardent supporters of President Bush's Iraq policy and its mostly a matter of disturbed semantics.
It seems those supporters, including Bush himself, Rumsfeld (naturally) and U.S. Sen. Rick Santorum (more naturally) have pounced on the term "fascism" to be the easiest way to popularly press their suit for "staying the course" in Iraq.
Their sense of history is most disappointing. From Rumsfeld most of all, who is the only one of this transformed trio to have lived during an era when democracy actually faced a do-or-die challenge from fascism.
George W. was born almost a year after the end of World War II, and Mr. Santorum, well, was born in 1958, when the "fascist" threat of the day was receding even in Argentina.
Now, the president wants to see Republicans re-elected in November, natually. Rumsfeld wants to keep his job and Mr. Santorum has anything but a free ride back to the Senate.
But "Islamic fascism as the president, his secretary of state and our junior senator point out as the bogeyman of the hour is more than over the top--it's disingenuous.
Fascism was born in the poorly constructed Treaty of Versailles in 1919 and the depression that swept the civilized world in the late 1920's and early 1930's. It was a violent reaction to the failure of democratic government to meet nations' needs.
Jihadism is violence for violence's sake against the very success of democracy and capitalism, and the attempt to impose purely religious law on secular society.
But the term "fascism" as used by a desperate Republican administration also has a more draconian side. That message: To disagree with the White House policy in Iraq borders on treason in this nation's war against terror.
That's nonsense. To disagree openly and freely with national policy is the very essence of democracy. It's what separates us from the Jihadists, and if you like, from "fasicsts" wherever they may be lurking these days.
Somewhere in the bowels of the White House, someone has sold the president, his key advisors and Mr. Santorum a bill of goods that says taking these tracks is the key to victory in November.
But the message is tainted with falsehoods and desperation. The terrorist threat is serious and deadly--but disagreement with how the government should meet that threat is not alalogous with Prime Minister Neville Chamberlin's acquiescence to Nazi Germany's claims in Czechoslovakia in 1938.
That comparison sells the American voters short. And they're tired of that.
In World War II Hollywood and the media marched in lockstep with FDR to fight the enemy. Now its "Bush's war" in their mind and not America's war.
But for a Republican president there is no such support from the liberals.
Who cares about the politics?
The threat is real enough. What part of fascist aren't the terrorists and their backers in Iran?
Death to the infidels. Mass murder, etc.
And we get a politically motivated blabbering editorial that has the twisted logic of something you would have read in "Pravda" in its heyday.
When it alludes to imposing religious law on secular society, the editorial gives away the prespective of its author or authors. "Ayatollah Falwell" is a more serious threat in their minds than the Islamofascists.
It goes on to say it isn't treasonous to disagree with the war and implies that President Bush is a "fascist."
What's the difference?
As this threat continues, and the West continues to wallow in moral weakness and lack of will, the destruction and mass death that Islamofascism will wreak upon the countries of the West will increase to a point where even radical Islam's "useful idiot" apologists will be dealt with in a very severe and final fashion.
It's a fate they most decidely deserve.
The echos between Hitler's Mein Kampf and what Ahmedinejad is saying are eerie. Just like the Western European elites in the 1930s, the Leftist elites are blinded to moral evil in others because they hate our society so much.
"Fascism was born in the poorly constructed Treaty of Versailles in 1919 and the depression that swept the civilized world in the late 1920's and early 1930's. It was a violent reaction to the failure of democratic government to meet nations' needs. "
Isn't this the Democrat party's platform?
In reality, "Fascism" (named after the Roman "fasces" that was the symbol of power in the Roman Reublic that even once graced the reverse of the U.S. dime) was born in Italy ( one of the victorious Allies in World War One) and was a separate entity from the National Socialism of Hitler's Germany.
Thus, you have a historically ignorant author arguing that you should reserve the term "fascism" for its strict meaning when he himself uses the term "fascism" in a very generic way.
In reality, the radical Islamists do not deserve the term "fascist"; not because of the reasons that the author states but because the radical Islamists and the National Socialist had more hatred and blood lust that Benito Mussolini and the Fascists ever had and they make Mussolini and his Fascists look like Boy Scouts in comparison.
Media scribblers desperately want to kill the word "fascist" before people make the connection between fascism, liberal and left wing.
Fascists promote such matters as the collective good over individual rights.
Control of private property by government for the good of the state, as defined by the state.
Removing law making power from elected legislators and giving that power to unelected bureaucrats and judges.
Demanding the individual carry out the mandates of the state before seeking out self-interest.
Liberals do not the word fascism brought up in the public consciousness. It will destroy them.
I agree. It isn't Italian or German Fascism. It is an OLDER evil, Islamic Imperialism. A supremacist political ideology.
Islam doesn't promote the "collective good", it promotes adherance to the words of Mohammed without question.
You will see Imam on Ask the Imam saying that "we are not to question his wisdom".
Odd though, never heard them say that all the cries of McCarthyism by the DUmmies seems a bit desperate.
NO ONE on the left ever raised a voice to denounce those critics who called Bush and Republicans "fascists".
McCarthy was right about Communist infiltration into the government and institutions of higher learning.
And "McCarthyism" didn't start with Senator McCarthy. The House Committee on Un-American Activities goes back to the late 1930s.
That is my favorite part. He was right. There were communists in the State Depart.
I am trying to find out if there are any threads on Freeper or if any have read the book by Trainer, called Cobra II.
My neighbor was telling me about how it slammed the invasion of Iraq and Rumsfeld and I really couldn't respond as I had not read the book or seen any critiques of it.
Exactly. They believe that American Christians are the real fascists, and they're ticked off because they're not winning that argument politically.
"The White House never said that, but we've imagined that they said it, and now want to explain to you why it was so absolutely terrible for them to have said that, even though they didn't really ever say that."
I don't know if any of the people killed on 9-11-2001 were crying "Islamofascist!" but they were crying because of them and yes, as far as their earthly lives were concerned, it was all desparate.
Memo to author:
No, your criticism of the use (appropriate) of the term "fascism" seems desperate.
As for "literature" that "slams the invasion of the Iraq", well, that's just one propaganda peice of many. Bear in mind that the many of the very agitators who are so against the current U.S. presence in Iraw were all for the war when it started, and now that it has proven as difficult as any other previous conflict, they have now changed their position 180 degrees. Which makes one question their reasoning (for lack of a better term), as well as their loyalties.
The vast majority is America-hating agitprop, plain and simple. Treat it as such.