« On Labeling The Enemy For What It Is | Main | The Contents of the IAEA Report on Iran's Nuclear Program »

August 31, 2006

R.J. Escow Not Only Misses The Train - He Doesn't Even Show Up At The Station

Dan Riehl points to R.J. Escow's piece at HuffPo yesterday with much disfavor - and rightfully so. Escow, like others on the Left, creates his own version of fascism and chooses to identify specific old trees in a burning forest begining to rage out of control - and he just can't see the fire. Put another way, he's not only missed the train he thought he was showing up for, he isn't even at the right station. He's stuck in a liberal Disney World of political agenda and fantasy that prevents him from recognizing that, as Dan points out, once a fascist ideology seizes control of something, it dominates it in whole, not in part. Currently, Islamic fascists are struggling for control of not only Islam in its broader context, but are also fighting different types of wars for control within states, including Iraq, Lebanon, Indonesia, the Philipines, and virtually every country around the globe - and yes, even the U.S. However, Escow seems to let typical Liberal distrust of nationalism and big business get in the way of common sense and historical perspectives.

As we've addressed today in our two previous posts (here and here), Islamic fascism continues to raise it's ugly head in every aspect of life and government around the globe.

Regardless of whether or not we choose to recognize this fact makes little difference - like busy beavers chewing away at our civilization and freedoms, like a runaway train racing down a track unimpeded - the Islamic fascists and their jihadist ambitions of establishing an Islamic caliphate continue by not only violent means, but also through misinformation, coercion, the use of our freedoms to beat us, and even various forms of economic Jihad. With the assistance of various informal and formal alliances of Leftists, Marxists, and Islamists, which includes people like Escow who do much of their work for them. Take for example Escow's piece at the HuffPo, ""Islamic Fascism" - The Buzzword That Makes Us Weaker":

IF (Eskow's quaint abbreviation for the Islamic Fascism he argues doesn't exist) is a propaganda creation in the classic sense of the term. Anyone with a grasp of history knows that "fascism" entails intense nationalism and collaboration with large corporations, both of which Islamists reject. They do practice intense control of individual behavior, which is hateful but not limited to fascist movements.</blockquote>

Dan notes that In a way, the difference is whether you want to see fascism only as a noun, or also understand it as an adverb. "There are states that are fascist and there are acts that are fascist. Fascist states cannot maintain themselves without fascist acts. But fascist acts can certainly be separated from the concept of a state. We use the latter form of the word all the time." (More here).

Escow and friends need to get over their anger at everyone that disagree with their liberal agenda, and recognize that all of us stand to loose everything we believe in - even our right to disagree. Instead of trying to bicker over one definition of fascism or another, let's recognize that if it looks like fascism, walks like fascism, acts like fascism, and wants to take over and control every element of our lives - that's close enough to fascism so as to call it that, just for the sake of helping us all to get on the same page.

As The Washington Times said in an editorial - "It's Fascism."

Fascism is a chauvinistic political philosophy that exalts a group over the individual--usually a race or nation, but in this case the adherents of a religion. Fascism also espouses centralized autocratic rule by that group in suppression of others. It usually advocates severe economic and social regimentation and the total or near-total subordination of the individual to the political leadership. This accurately describes the philosophies of Hitler, Mussolini, the leaders of Imperial Japan and other fascistic regimes through history. It also describes Thursday's terrorists. It very accurately describes the philosophy of al Qaeda, Hezbollah, Hamas and many other stripes of Islamism around the world.

If Escow and friends have so much trouble grasping the connection between the Islamists' desire to conquer the world and the world fascism, perhaps they can at the very least take a small step in the direction of labeling the threat by adopting the position that a commenter takes at Frontpage - ""At War With Islamic Fascists":

(8) The use of Islamic fascists should be seen as part of a decades-long search for the right term to name a form of Islam that is recognizably political, extreme, and often violent. I have already confessed in that I am on my fifth term (having previously used neo-orthodox, fundamentalist, and militant, and now using radical and Islamist). While Islamic fascists beats terrorists, let's hope that a better consensus term soon emerges. My vote is for Islamists.

In the same FrpntPage piece, another commenter notes that some voices gamely argue for the accuracy of "Islamic fascists," and points to how Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff justified the use of the term Islamic fascists:

(7) ... bin Laden has talked about restoring the Caliphate, the empire that existed in the southern Mediterranean centuries ago. That is nothing--it's deranged, but essentially it is a vision of a totalitarian empire with him leading under some kind of perverted conception of religion. That comes very close to satisfying my definition of fascism. It might not be classic fascism that you had with Mussolini or Hitler, but it is a totalitarian intolerance--imperialism that has a vision that is totally at odds with Western society and our freedoms and rule of law.

Not a perfect definition, but as Chertoff says, that comes very close to satisfying my definition of fascism. While it might not be classic fascism that you had with Mussolini or Hitler, but it is a totalitarian intolerance--imperialism that has a vision that is totally at odds with Western society and our freedoms and rule of law. I would think that even a liberal could understand that.

All this having been said, I'm willing to meet the Left halfway and settle for Daniel Pipes' alternative term - Islamists, or Islamism. The problem, however, is that it just doesn't offer the affect of labeling the evil of the Islamists war for power and control over the world for what it really is, politically correct or not - an Islamic form of fascism that were the Christians or Jews carrying it out - would be Christian or Jewish fascism. But they aren't, and the Islamists are - so in the interest of clarity and purpose, let's name it for what it really is, quit quibbling over minutia, and get on with defeating it while we still can. Hell, we can argue about scoring political points when we're sure we're going to have a civilization left to even have a multi-party system to argue about. After all - sharia won't afford us much opportunity to argue our differences, so let's win first - and working together (that means on the same side for you that still don't quite understand) is the only way we can get there from here.

Suggested reading:"The Daniel Pipes Speech" at the campus of UC Berkeley, February 10, 2004.

[...] After 9/11, the terrorist actions that were once treated as police actions became part of a war where there would no longer be standard trials as in criminal cases. This second phase was to go after the sponsors of terrorism as was done to the to the Taliban in Afghanistan. Airline security and immigration checks became the norm as the country geared up for war. Still, nobody dealt with the ideology behind the conflict that has now become the third phase of the War on Terror: making war on Militant Islam and the fascist philosophy behind it.

Pipes pointed out that such a fascist philosophy was not only found in places like Afghanistan, but also at UC Berkeley where the ideas of Militant Islam were not being truthfully exposed to the student body. Pipes classified freedom of speech as being anathema to militant Muslims and that other ideas indicative of Militant Islam include misogyny, misanthropy, anti-Semitism, anti-Christianity, "jihadism," suicidal thinking and a death cult, as well as a lack of economic freedom.

During his main speech he discussed the earlier appeal of failed political ideas like Nazism, Marxism, Stalinism and Leninism and how they had all failed by the late 1980's. "Fascism has held an enormous attraction in the twentieth century," he said. "What we are seeing today is the ultimate failure of Militant Islam occurring," as he pointed out that the Muslim Brotherhood, the granddaddy of Militant Islamic fascism, rose to power in Egypt in 1928 just about the same time as Mussolini, Hitler and Stalin emerged to take the reigns of power in their countries. "The same people who support Militant Islam support suicide bombers and Saddam Hussein," he pointed out.

Pipes' message about fascism being the real enemy of peace defined the nature of today's conflict. "Just as the Nazis, and Marxism were eventually defeated, so too is Militant Islam to be defeated, an ideology that needs to be destroyed just as other fascist movements had been in history," Pipes argued. "An ultimate result of 9/11 is that the world is now engaged in the modernization of Islam to bring it into the 21st century."

Read it all...

Other coverage: In The Bullpen tells Escow and his ilk that they'll find no spoon - apparently, they just can't get it.

Posted by Richard at August 31, 2006 1:34 PM

Articles Related to Islamic Fascism:

• About Those U of M Footbaths - Aug 20, 2007
• Montreal Muslims Charged With Firebombing Jewish Community Center - Apr 14, 2007
• What's Being Taught In Islamic Schools? - Feb 08, 2007
• On Labeling The Enemy For What It Is - Aug 31, 2006
• 'Conversion Video' Clearly Shows That Centanni and Wiig's Kidnappers Don't Want Us To Know The Truth About Islamic Fascism: Convert To Islam Or Die - Aug 28, 2006