Unjustified Claims Regarding “Islamism” and “Fascism”

islamo-fascism_is_an_invalid_conceptEquivocation on ‘fascism’ has been exploited by both “left” and “right”: On the left, what is called “corporate fascism” is taken to represent fascism in general, and on the right, every stripe of undesirables is fused with fascism: “feminazis,” “ecofascists,” and “Islamofascists,” to name a few. The Islamofascist trope has been exploited for years, and since the end of the Cold War has increased in use. All of these reflect warped historical views. (ILLUSTRATION: A flag that doesn’t exist — and a concept that doesn’t reflect reality)

by Organon tou Ontos

TROTSKY was among the first to exploit equivocation on ‘fascism’: A fascist regime emerges in a society, he argued, when its capitalist class succeeds in insulating itself from revolutionary ferment in the working class. The idea of “corporate fascism,” as a marriage of big business, police, and military interests, persists on the left. Recently, for example, Jewish media pundit Rachel Maddow argued on one of her shows that fascism is autocratic capitalism, claiming that Sir Mosley’s British Union sought to protect business interests above all.

The “right” has been more amorphous in its use of “fascism”: “ecofascists,” “feminazis,” and “Islamofascists” represent fusions of lifestyles or political and social beliefs with “fascism.” The Neoconservative right has reserved its greatest animus for “Islamofascism” or “Islamic fascism.” Rooted in admixtures of the “Good War” myth and US Middle East foreign policy, it increased in use as the Cold War was ending and the only remaining resistance to Zionist policies in the Middle East was in secular Muslim nations, like Saddam Hussein’s.

Neoconservatism is as Jewish in its origin as it is in its aims. Its godfather, Irving Kristol, is a Jew. The Wolfowitz Doctrine that it spawned was also parented by a Jew, Paul Wolfowitz. It led to the historical completion of the Jewification of Anglo-American world policy.

The Bush Doctrine grew directly out of the Wolfowitz Doctrine. At the core of both is the idea of preemptive military intervention, nominally to prevent terrorism. Its real aim is to secure and expand Jewish interests in the Middle East and to sustain the economic enrichment of an international Jewish and banking elite. As the Cold War ended, Jews like Charles Krauthammer attacked US white “nativism,” “isolationism,” and “anti-Semitism”. Meanwhile, Jewish-themed films, like Schindler’s List, subtly encouraged Zionist interests.

Both the Gulf War of 1990-91 and the 2003 Iraq war were partly justified by analogies of Saddam Hussein with Adolf Hitler. The invasion of Iraq was a war for Israel. After 2003, the Bush Administration increasingly tried justifying this indefensible and costly invasion. From 2006, the “Islamofascist” trope was frequently used. Donald Rumsfeld accused critics of the Iraq war with appeasement of a “new type of fascism.” Those who opposed this war, he had argued, were like Neville Chamberlain, who had tried to appease Adolf Hitler.

The idea of an “Islamofascist” threat was part of a context of promoting “democracy” and justifying Middle East “regime changes.” In fact, it was part of a plan to reorder the Middle East to serve the local interests of Israel and open up limitless resources for a Jewish economic elite.

The conflation of “fascism” with “Islam,” however either are crudely conceived, also serves the rhetorical and ideological aims of certain European nationalist leaders. French National Front leader Marine Le Pen went on trial in 2015 for comparing Muslims praying in French cities with German occupiers. The analogy was historical and its intended effect rhetorical, but it rests on a more substantive view of alignments of interests. Like US Neoconservatism, this sibling tendency in Europe is also motivated by a desire to appease Jews.

In an interview with Jewish News One, for example, Marine Le Pen remarked:

I think a lot of our Jewish compatriots realize that we are the only ones capable of defending them passionately against the rise of Islamic fundamentalism. No one in French politics dares to do that. Maybe because they are afraid to be treated as Islamophobes. We say things as they are. We are known for that. We have the courage to tell the truth and to propose the necessary solutions.

It is unlikely that all of Marine Le Pen’s supporters agree with her that “anti-Semitism” in Europe results solely from Islamification, and that the presence of Muslims in Europe is not correlated with the influence of Jews. Liberalized immigration policies, in the US and in Europe, the historical fundamental reshaping of immigration policy in order to undermine the racial homogeneity of white countries, and the Islamification of Europe and legitimizing of multiracialism are partly the outcome of Jewish influence and pandering to Jews.

The tendency to draw historical analogies between “fascism” or fascist regimes and Islamic regimes is pervasive, and not just an American or European tendency. In late 2015, Russia began targeting Islamic State forces in Syria, and, after sustained criticism, justified its aims by comparisons with past Soviet attempts to undermine Hitler’s Germany and to turn Western nations against fascism. Comparisons between Hitler’s Germany and the Islamic State had already proliferated, including analogies with Western support for fascism.

Comparisons have also been made on internal Islamic State policies, including its policies toward youth. Inevitably, of course, comparisons were made with the Holocaust. These were so pervasive and numerous that it even began to draw skepticism on the left.

Russia’s perception of World War II is as mythologized as that of the West. It is grounded in the same unchecked lies about Hitler’s prewar aims. In reality, Hitler’s underlying, prewar foreign policy was fundamentally confined to mapping out German dominance in the East, forging an alliance with Italy and Britain, and building a land empire extending into a defunct USSR and gaining from its soil a new lease on national life through living space. Russian claims that fascism was a monstrous global threat are self-serving and ludicrous.

The comparison of Islamic State with Hitler’s Germany in particular and fascism in general is not confined to Russia. In an article titled, “Umberto Eco’s Lessons on Ur-Fascism,” John Allen Gay remarks that IS-style Islamism and “fascism” draw comparable minds:

... nobody wants to bring back the fascism of old (save for a few oddballs drawn to the taboo: becoming a fascist is the Stuff White People Like version of joining ISIS)…

For a claim that carries the sort of implications an active imagination can pursue, this claim is far too casual and confident: Not only are “radical Islam” and “fascism” comparable, he implies, but they represent parallel worlds that each ultimately attract similar psychologies.

This comparison rests on the secure notion that Adolf Hitler was bent on “dominating the world.” Wartime rhetoric aside, Hitler’s prewar goal was actually more conservative and localized than even that of the Kaiser before him. The Kaiser wanted to challenge the British domination of the seas and build an overseas empire with colonies. Hitler, by contrast, sought an alliance with Britain and his aspirations for empire were principally confined to the East of Germany, far from the interests of Britain, the US, and Western Europe.

Sir Oswald Mosley and the British Union of Fascists had equally fundamentally conservative goals. Leftist and Jewish claims to the contrary, the BUF sought above all to preserve the British Empire, use its resources to end unemployment in Britain, and make the British people secure into the foreseeable future. Benito Mussolini and the National Fascist Party of Italy sought a Mediterranean empire and colonies in Africa, but had no prewar interest in threatening the West. Mussolini, Mosley, and Hitler were all men of their own time.

In his July 2014 sermon, Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi declared a worldwide Caliphate, a vision that also encompasses the aim of bringing all people in the world under Islamic law. This is a point that people in the West only dimly grasp, and less so in doctrinal terms.

Moreover, the comparison of “fascism” in general and Hitler’s Germany in particular with that of Islamic State in particular and “radical Islam” in general is underscored by the perception that terrorism is as intertwined with “fascism” as it is with “radical Islam.” This is as equally crude as the above historical comparisons, and ironic in light of certain historical realities. Hitler, for example, detested the idea of civilian bombing and asked the British government, early in the war, to agree to avoiding such. Churchill started civilian terror bombing.

Marine Le Pen’s comparison of German occupying forces with Muslim immigrants in France is as shallow as Russia’s comparison of Hitler’s Germany with the Islamic State. It was France and Britain that had threatened Germany with war and then declared war. Moreover, it was Britain and France that rejected peace offers from Hitler after war had been declared. If someone insists on the comparison being made, then we can rightfully ask if Muslim immigrants in France offered to stay home before being allowed in, or to return home after arriving.

More fundamental analogies of “Islamism” and “fascism” have been made, and it these that represent more critical comparisons. Martin Kramer, in “Islamism and Fascism: Dare to Compare,” quotes Manfred Halpern, who defends the concept of “Islamic fascism”:

They concentrate on mobilizing passion and violence to enlarge the power of their charismatic leader and the solidarity of the movement. They view material progress primarily as a means for accumulating strength for political expansion, and entirely deny individual and social freedom. They champion the values and emotions of a heroic past, but repress all free critical analysis…

Kramer continues quoting Halpern:

… the institutionalization of struggle, tension, and violence. … the movement is forced by its own logic and dynamics to pursue its vision through nihilistic terror, cunning, and passion. An efficient state administration is seen only as an additional powerful tool for controlling the community. The locus of power and the focus of devotion rest in the movement itself…. so organized as to make neo-Islamic totalitarianism the whole life of its members.

Kramer also quotes the Jewish and Marxist historian, Maxime Rodinson, who described the Iranian Revolution as an “Islamic fascist” coup. Rodinson is quoted in saying:

But the dominant trend is a certain type of archaic fascism (type de fascisme archaïque). By this I mean a wish to establish an authoritarian and totalitarian state whose political police would brutally enforce the moral and social order. It would at the same time impose conformity to religious tradition as interpreted in the most conservative light.

Halpern and Rodinson’s claims are more substantial, because they comprise ideological comparisons that mere surface level analogies rest on to justify domestic and foreign policy. The fundamental flaw is that they mark comparisons emptied out of form and substance, concentrating solely on function and process. Fascism is not just a process of national and societal transformation. It is also a worldview that encompasses the embrace of a certain type of narrative: The nation and its people are both central to that narrative.

Therefore, to focus on tokens and emblems of process, with tropes and terms from ‘mobility’ to ‘solidarity,’ ‘expansion,’ ‘heroism,’ ‘state’ and ‘order,’ is to misconstrue the real nature of fascism. “Fascism” is not only a set of functions, but an orderly concept of form. It focuses on the narrative of concrete peoples. The history of humanity is the history of struggles between and among types of people. The history of life on Earth is the history of struggles between and among types of organisms. This is contrary to that of “Islamism.”

“Radical Islam” or “Islamism” views the history of humanity as the history of struggle among religious worldviews and between “believers” and “nonbelievers.” The “nation” enters into this drama as a deviation at best, a distraction from core faith at the very worst.

Christopher Hitchens has taken notice of the disanalogies that I observe, and he has drawn comparisons of his own between “radical Islam” and “fascism.” He observes:

Historically, fascism laid great emphasis on glorifying the nation-state and the corporate structure. There isn’t much corporate structure in the Muslim world, where the conditions often approximate more nearly to feudalism than to capitalism, but Bin Laden’s own business conglomerate is, among other things, a rogue multinational corporation with some links to finance-capital. As to the nation-state, al-Qaida’s demand is that countries like Iraq and Saudi Arabia be dissolved into one great revived caliphate, but doesn’t this have points of resemblance with the mad scheme of a “Greater Germany” or with Mussolini’s fantasy of a revived Roman empire?

Hitchens concedes that the fascist emphasis on “nation” and the Islamist rejection of it are noteworthy, but then he goes on to make an even weaker analogy between fascism and that of Islamism: The comparable megalomania in fascist love of “empire” and the Islamic idea of “Caliphate.” Aside from being desperate, a weak analogy arising in the wake of another weak analogy, it is historically disingenuous and politically negligent and simplistic.

Hitchens ignores the historical prominence of the very empires he ridicules Hitler for wanting and Mussolini for seeking to expand. By ridiculing the idea of Greater Germany or the Italian Fascist dream of empire, he ignores the crude fact of their historical reality. The territories of Hitler’s desired Greater Germany were already possessed by Germany just before the end of World War I: Poland, Ukraine, the Baltics, and other territories were held by Germany before torn from it at Versailles. Hitler wanted to regain what Germany had recently possessed.

The terms in which Hitler and Mussolini couched “empire” may have been hyperbolic or else exaggerated, but empires were commonplace in their day and their desire for one made both of them men of their times. Furthermore, what about other fascist conceptions of the idea of empire, such as Sir Mosley’s British Union? The BUF wanted to preserve an empire that already existed, not expand it. By overemphasizing the rhetorical dimension of both Hitler and Mussolini’s idea of empire, Hitchens exaggerates the idea of empire itself.

The concept of empire did not originate in fascism, anymore than the idea of race and folk was a novel conception of National-Socialism. Hitler, Mosley, Mussolini, Codreanu, and yet others seized on and emphasized well-established elements of European history.

The basis of the comparison made by Hitchens is that fascist views of empire are analogous to Islamic conceptions of a Caliphate. The Ottoman Caliphate had endured for hundreds of years, surviving but diminishing its territorial holdings and dissipating only in the wake of the First World War. The ideal of Caliphate is not some ludicrous impulse on the part of a small number of Muslims, but a historically concrete, longstanding, and recent reality. The fact that Islamic State or Al-Qaeda seek a Caliphate does not relegate it to a fringe notion.

Fascism is not an aggregation of processes and methods, alone. It is a native impulse that springs from within a unique people and its nation, arising in response to realities of decline that threaten the future of that people and its nation. It does not arise within a void, floating up as an abstraction intent on nullifying “civilized values” or “civilization.” In Germany, Italy, and other nations where it succeeded, its policies correlated to the concrete interests of the people it ruled. Fascism is not mere function, but a narrative of struggle in forms.

Hitchens goes on to conclude that the West is obliged to “oppose and destroy” fascist and all other “totalitarian movements.” These are, one and all, “threats to civilization and civilized values.” This is overreaching. Was Franco’s Spain, which survived the war through 1975, a “threat to civilization”? Was Hitler’s Germany a threat to Britain and France for having been a threat to the Soviet Union? Would a Mosleyite Britain have been a “threat to civilization,” or in fact, in his disavowal of war, a solid pillar in the very support of civilization?

“Civilized values” are irrelevant if they lack bodies and minds to perpetuate them, and the British and French decision to threaten and declare war on Germany was the death knell of a now-dying West. Europeans are being replaced by racial aliens with other values.

Fascism does not place values over the priority of the existence of a people or its nation. In extracting process, function, and method from fascist regimes or movements and comparing them to “Islamism,” what is fascistic disappears in the outcome. Fascism assumes a world of nations and peoples, who rise and fall on the basis of action. Fascism is the authoritarian recovery of life in its depths, the institutionalization of the survival instinct, and the use of the state as an organ to effect the persistence of a people and the nation housing it.

* * *

Source: Ur-Fascist Analytics

Previous post

Dylann Roof vs Black Lives Matter

Next post

Jewish US Media Executive and Propaganda Boss Jeff Shell Deported From Russia, Banned for Life

Notify of
Inline Feedback
View all comments
7 January, 2018 8:54 am

Both Stalinist Russia and Hitler’s Germany had left-wing ideologies. Both were dictatorships and communism was merely a more extreme variant of Hitler’s socialism/ the National socialist Party. Although they distrusted and fought against each other, like the two branches under the House of Islam, Sunni and Shia, the ideology of communism and Hitler’s socialism was the same. Really, at this point in history it hardly matters nitpicking over the details of whether Islam is fascist. What matters more is that both fascism and Islam are repressive, intolerant political ideologies that have to go.

Anthony Collins
Anthony Collins
Reply to  Carx
8 January, 2018 12:04 am

The idea that National Socialism and Communism are essentially the same is something that a cuckservative would say. It betrays a gross ignorance of what they stood for and why they opposed each other. “Carx” has evidently failed to understand the article above. He might find Dinesh D’Souza’s The Big Lie more to his taste — cuckservatives are easy marks for charlatans, from the Jews of the Bible down to Indian carpetbaggers today — and he should certainly take his talking points elsewhere.

Reply to  Carx
26 April, 2020 10:11 am


7 January, 2018 10:25 am

Mr. H. was repulsed at what he called “Jewish Democratic Capitalism” and “worthless democratic paper money.” He also said had their been no Christianity there would be no Islam. The latter came about as a defensive religion. Had Hitler’s New Reich promoted sterile right wing racism, it would be nothing more than a footnote in history. A portion of the 1930s Reich had leftist leanings similar to the ol’ racist democratic solid South. Dunning School: 1900 to 1920s. Columbia University. Reconstruction was a battle between two extremes: the Democrats, as the group which included the vast majority of the whites, standing for decent government and racial supremacy, versus the Republicans, the Negroes, alien carpetbaggers, and renegade scalawags, standing for dishonest government and alien ideals. These historians wrote literally in terms… Read more »