Friday, August 18, 2006

"Fascist" probably ain't right

If you're looking for lightheartedness and fun, don't look here.

National Review Online (NRO) published a symposium yesterday in which a number of folks discussed the President's use of the term "Fascists" as a descriptive reference for our current enemy. I think the term may be somewhat appropriate here although Andrew McCarthy makes the point that wrt Islam itself, the term may actually be redundant. He's probably right (go ahead and read the article, you know you should). But that's not the point here.

What I've always had trouble with is the the way that many (particularly those on the "left") have used the term "fascist" to describe almost anyone who disagreed with them. On almost any subject. They've kindof reduced the word to be something along the lines of "poo-poo head."

Well, here's the deal. In point of fact, actual *real* Fascism, as an implemented philosophy of government, was given to us by that clownlike dictator Benito Mussolini, a dyed-in-the-wool socialist with yet a better idea to put into practice that most odious ideology. Hitler ran with his idea, adding some charming pieces of his own and took the philosophy to a whole 'nother level, giving us Nazis (whoo-boy and that really worked out for everyone). Interestingly though, the Nazis and the Fascists hated the Communists (yet another implementation of socialism). Do you know why? Because they were going about it all wrong. They were impure (and from the Nazi standpoint, there was that race thing as well) and therefore as dangerous to their line of thinking, if not moreso, than the liberal (classical) democratic worldview that came to be their ultimate undoing. Ah, well - water under the bridge and all that.

But the bottom line is this: Nazis, Fascists, and Communists are all just branches of the same damn collectivist bush, and the only differences between them manifest in minor degrees of implementation (and genocidal efficiencies). I know that people (particularly those on the left) use the term "rightwing" to describe Nazis, Fascists, et. al. but I don't think that really works, and never has. It was a convenient categorization for them though. Try fitting Libertarianism into that left-right continuum and see where it leaves you. [editors note - I am not a Libertarian, but the philosophy has its uses]. I use "left" here with the same caviats, but you know what I mean and you know who you are. [ed. See, it is convenient].

Think about this the next time someone calls you a fascist (or Nazi - think bushhitler) when you disagree with them on topics like social security, welfare, border walls, or stupid Dixie Chicks. And consider the source - statist, overreaching, and uber-controlling socialism. God, I hate socialists. So much damage and so little appreciation for it.

Now about the "Islamo-Fascists". Is this terminology correct? Possibly, but understand that the underlying philosophy we're up against here is not constrained to any single state. Perhaps more correctly identified as Islamism, the philosophy is fundamentally fed from an oppressive and doctrinaire religious belief system (NOT a "Religion of Peace" by the way. "Islam" means "Submission" - go look for yourself here, here, or here). This is much, much worse. Maybe "Fascist" is not the appropriate modifier. Maybe there isn't one. We, with our roots in the classical liberal foundations of western civ, may just have a much bigger problem on our hands than we really care to admit. But don't call me a Nazi for pointing this out. That just doesn't work semantically, or as they say 'round here: "That dog won't hunt."


Post a Comment

<< Home