Gotta go with Ross on this one (Charles Black clearly doesn't understand terrorism, but he does know propaganda). While there are some similarities, fascism is all about the state. The nation comes before all, even God, but with radical Islamists the state is secondary, if that, to religious ideals.

Fascism heavily relies on corporatism as well, something missing from Islamic fundamentalism. Plus race goes hand in hand with fascism as well, and radical Islamists don't care much about race, but religion (and often sect).

If we stretch fascism to mean any group that uses violence to get others to bend to its will, the term loses all meaning.

Can the ACLU discrimination lawsuit be far behind?

The angry editorials by the New Yack Times and the Post?

The sputtering denuciations from John Dean, Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, Teddy Kennedy, Chollie Rangle, Hillary Clinton, John Kerry, Al Gore...ad nauseum?

Gotta go...CNN says the sky is falling. Again. Man, somebody should give those guys some Prozac. No wonder they sound so depressed -- they have to read their own stuff.

O woe is us.

If they do not like the term islamo-fascist, how about uncivilized madmen, or butchering pigs? We should bathe all of our projectiles, warheads and anything we throw at them is pig lard. Let them know we are doing this and that if they are killed by such action, they will go to hell as they will become unclean. We should spray Iran with pig lard, vaporized. See how anxious they are to die if they know they will go to hell, not get their 72 well used virgins.

Mantis, what the hell do you know about radical islam and what they rely on to support them? You say the term used the way Bush uses it would lose its meaning, yet there are those of your ilk who call Bush a fascist. I am willing to bet you, if you have anything, that there are more similarities between the Mad President of Iran and Hitler then there are between G.W. Bush and Hitler. Want to bet?

It seems that the entire world is mad at Bush and America after this latest Israel/American act on Lebanon. so it should be the new war on The Rest Of The World-Fascism

Mantis, what the hell do you know about radical islam and what they rely on to support them?

Quite a bit, you?

You say the term used the way Bush uses it would lose its meaning, yet there are those of your ilk who call Bush a fascist.

What "ilk" is that, exactly? I don't call Bush a fascist. Nice try at guilt by association though, though even the association is imagined on your part.

"Fascism is a religious conception in which man is seen in his immanent relationship with a superior law and with an objective Will that transcends the particular individual and raises him to conscious membership of a spiritual society. Whoever has seen in the religious politics of the Fascist regime nothing but mere opportunism has not understood that Fascism besides being a system of government is also, and above all, a system of thought." --Benito Mussolini, The Doctrine of Fascism

The keystone of the Fascist doctrine is its conception of the State, of its essence, its functions, and its aims. For Fascism the State is absolute, individuals and groups relative. Individuals and groups are admissible in so far as they come within the State. Instead of directing the game and guiding the material and moral progress of the community, the liberal State restricts its activities to recording results. The Fascist State is wide awake and has a will of its own. For this reason it can be described as " ethical ". --Benito Mussolini, The Doctrine of Fascism

I would have liked to have had Greta ask those two what these Islamic gang-bangers should be called. Fascism=Nazism, so I think the new term is perfect. If it strikes the wrong cord, let them try to prove that they are not fascists with calm reason and logic.

I can live with "Fascist McIslamHitler Mosque-boys" or some such. We do need input from the Demolibs since they are so good at using these types of labels.

Mantis? Lee? Hugh? Hermie? Watcha got? This is the one time we can actually use your input.

Replace "State" with "Islamic State", or simply "Islam"--it is Islamic Fascism, after all--and the parallels stand out quite clearly.

My pop always joked that a benevolent dictatorship would be a perfect form of government. As we all now know from the rise and fall of fascism in europe in the last century and/or working for an autonomous boss, no one person can rule with benevolence. It's that simple. The Freud's silent id in all of us simply won't allow it. Just review the vindictive political rhetoric on this blog from a bunch of impuissant and mostly anonymous posters.

Heck, Lee already admitted that if he were our fearless leader, he'd 'a nuked Islam and asked questions about Osama later. Sheeesh.

We need a Wizbang lefty buzzword contest for this.

'Mean spirited' and 'scary' are old, but they're the only ones I can remember right now. Maybe an old - new lefty idiot buzzword competition?

C'mon lefties, hit us right between the eyes with how 'mean spirited' and 'scary' we are. Call President Bush 'shrub' or some new and offensive name.

C'mon righties, post predictions of upcoming lefty asshattery. You know it's coming. Let's beat them to the punch.

ALL:

Stephen Schwartz, a frequent contributor to the Weekly Standard, took a very intellectual and histroical look at fascism and the similarties between it and Islam and whether or not the term "Islamofascism" is appropriate. It's definitely worth a read if you have a few minutes.

NRO also had a recent symposium on the term that was very interesting.

I think mantis brings up a couple of very valid points. People disagreeing with him really should read his posts again, he is not siding with some PC term for these terrorists. And you definitely shouldn't lump him in with the leftist lunatics that post here. I may disagree with him most, if not, all the time, but his posts are certainly on topic, coherent, and intelligible.

Islamic Fascists may not be the best label for these murderers. And after all, it's just a label. I don't mind using the term in the incorrect context if it really gets to them.

I would disagree with him and say that the term fascist has already lost its meaning because it is already thrown about (more of the fringe left these days) by people trying to make political charges seem more volatile.

Thanks for asking Mitch. I'd call them what they are ....terrorists. Why more? Well, my guess is it's getting close to election time and time to stir up the nutcases like you. The rest of the labels fit with the xenophobic racism folks like you adhere to.

Call them terrorists. Call yourselves angry racists. Yes, that'll do.

Wiig: "Don't say things like Islamic fascists. That had obviously struck a chord, there."

Centanni: "Yeah, they were very angry about that."

I guess the truth hurts the poor widdle baby Islamofascists.

Someone call the photoshopped waaaahbulance for them.

Replace "State" with "Islamic State", or simply "Islam"--it is Islamic Fascism, after all--and the parallels stand out quite clearly.

There are some parallels, to be sure, but those are common to all authoritarian and violent philosophies or movements. Fascism is something specific.

First of all, fascism was defined by Mussolini as the next step of political philosophy after liberal democracy. He saw enlightenment thinking and revolutions in the US and France as leading towards fascism. Islamists do not care about modern political thought, the enlightenment, the Magna Carta, or the rest of it; they want to turn things back to the 7th century.

Second, fascism relies heavily on corporatism, or an economic system in which all interests are incorporated and controlled by the state. Islamism focuses on moral behavior, and when it meddles with economics it is more interested in adhering to scripture (e.g. no interest on loans, etc). Islamism certainly does not contend that economic interests be controlled by the state in the way fascism does.

If you think the two are remotely compatable, consider this passage from Mussolini's Doctrine:

The Fascist conception of the State is all embracing; outside of it no human or spiritual values can exist, much less have value. Thus understood, Fascism, is totalitarian, and the Fascist State - a synthesis and a unit inclusive of all values - interprets, develops, and potentates the whole life of a people

No spiritual values can exist without the State. Do you think Islamists would ever agree with this?

Maybe instead of looking up Mussolini's writings and doing a word search for "religion" you should go ahead and read them and think about it a little.

In any case, we already call these people terrorists, evildoers, criminals, scum, etc, all of which are accurate. Why do we need another, inaccurate, name?

Mantis,

Then what would you call the caliphate that these dudes want to impose on the world?

Then what would you call the caliphate that these dudes want to impose on the world?

An authoritarian religious theocracy.

And until they ever organize themselves to a point where they can take over any state other than Afghanistan, I'll be far more concerned with the destruction they cause through terrorism than their dreams of Caliphate (which at it's historical zenith, which some wish to restore, was not the whole world, by the way, but this).

What's in a name? Radical Islam, Islamic fundamentalism, Islamic fascism; the main word here is Islam, as in, a branch of Islam.

We don't put labels on common articles because we know what the articles are for. The value in a label is that it teaches us something about the article; or, the label is meant to project a pejorative aura about the article.

If the goal is to place a distasteful connotation on the Islamic movement with which we are clashing with then why not Islamic pigs, or Islamic darkagers?

In my opinion the label that we use should help us understand what and who we are up against. There are some, mostly Democrats, that hate any label as they don't see this as a struggle with a cohesive group but with lawless individuals. They see any label that can be construed as pejorative as uselessly stirring up hatred, and they may be right.

Radical Islam implies that the jihadists are an extreme form of Islam; that you can find a path of logic from any other form of Islam to hateful jihadism. This, in my opinion is far more pejorative than "Islamic fascists." An Islamic fascist is, possibly, a totalitaranist that has adopted Islam as his religion; without, necessarily finding his way from the roots of Islam.

The point I am trying to make is not to soften our rhetoric but, rather, to direct the rhetoric away from hateful name calling toward a truthful understanding of our enemy. An enemy that has declared his state of war against us, and not us against him.

"Islamic Fascism" has no meaning. And comparing our current fight with WW II is equally meaningless.

I hear a lot of name calling and fear mongering, but no plans. If we spent as much time figuring out how to stop terrorism as we did talking about the terrorist, they would be gone already.

Since I can't say it better. Again, Stephen Schwartz, who has often been cited as one of the first to use the term:

But the fascist organizations of Mussolini and Hitler, in their conquests of power, showed no reluctance to rupture peace and repudiate parliamentary and other institutions; the fascists employed terror against both the existing political structure and society at large. It is a common misconception of political science to believe, in the manner of amateur Marxists, that Italian fascists and Nazis sought maintenance of order, to protect the ruling classes. Both Mussolini and Hitler agitated against "the system" governing their countries. Their willingness to resort to street violence, assassinations, and coups set the Italian and German fascists apart from ordinary defenders of ruling elites, which they sought to replace. This is an important point that should never be forgotten. Fascism is not merely a harsh dictatorship or oppression by privilege.

Islamofascism similarly pursues its aims through the willful, arbitrary, and gratuitous disruption of global society, either by terrorist conspiracies or by violation of peace between states. Al Qaeda has recourse to the former weapon; Hezbollah, in assaulting northern Israel, used the latter. These are not acts of protest, but calculated strategies for political advantage through undiluted violence.

Fascism was totalitarian; i.e. it fostered a totalistic world view--a distinct social reality that separated its followers from normal society. Islamofascism parallels fascism by imposing a strict division between Muslims and alleged unbelievers. For Sunni radicals, the practice of takfir--declaring all Muslims who do not adhere to the doctrines of the Wahhabis, Pakistani Jama'atis, and the Muslim Brotherhood to be outside the Islamic global community or ummah--is one expression of Islamofascism..

Fascism was paramilitary; indeed, the Italian and German military elites were reluctant to accept the fascist parties' ideological monopoly. Al Qaeda and Hezbollah are both paramilitary.

Does the term 'fascist' fit perfectly from an intellectual standpoint? Not quite, but it's damn close enough to help us better define our enemy.

I've never paid attention to anything Mantis has to say. I figure him for some educated idiot (fancy piece of paper with no useful education) that couldn't raise enough food to feed himself much less a family, nor do an honest hour of manual labor without screwing everything he touched up. People like him will be beggars on the street if, no when, hard times hit the country. That's about six months after the left wing takes over the country. Maybe he knows the phrase 'do you want fries with that' well enough to earn minimum wage. Retired and LMAO at the nuts destroying the most productive country in the world to satisfy their wounded ego's. I doubt if the country can stand another round of the criminal 90's (created a recession)which was only slightly less damaging to the country than the roaring 20's (created a depression. We're lucky to have had someone with brains follow both of the destructive administrations to get the country back on track.

I've never paid attention to anything Mantis has to say.

Then we're even.

Scrapiron, as Rumsfeld said, correctly:

"They are intellectually and morally confused."

That's all you need to know. Shit in your own cage, hate American success and principles, secretly wish against the war, so you can spite Bush.

I think American success is the best thing to have happened to the world, short of the coming of Christ. But you'd not get that type of opinion from our little wobbly liberal "friends."

Mantis,

So should people sit by until such a caliphate occurs? Only then can people address it for what it is? If Afghanistan is example enough of whatever the nomenclature of radicalizing Islam is called, shouldn't folks be concerned that there are people out there who in the name of their religion want others to convert, be subservient, or die? It seems you're dancing around the name for what is happening, and you hinted that you wouldn't worry about a bullying religious movement until it reached a to-be-determined critical mass. I'm trying to get where you are on all this.

mantis is morally and intellectually confused, so good luck getting where he's at on all of this.

I love Rummy. And Halliburton.

Mantis, so you reject any application of 'fascism' beyond Mussolini's Italy (or, I presume, Hitler's Germany)? Is it so narrowly drawn that the basic ideas behind it could only apply to that particular period of Europe, marked as it was by economic and social disintegration, hatred of foreigners, rejection of individualism and embrace of political absolutism? And yet 'terrorist', which describes nothing of its ideological basis, is a better term?

Sorry, I disagree. 'Islamic Fascism' describes not only the tactics, but also the rationale and the goals. It's not 'Italian Fascism', and doesn't need to look exactly like it any more than a democracy needs to look exactly like 'American democracy'.

No spiritual values can exist without the State. Do you think Islamists would ever agree with this?

Again, replace "the State" with "Islam" and it fits nicely.

Maybe instead of looking up Mussolini's writings and doing a word search for "religion" you should go ahead and read them and think about it a little.

Heh. Is that what you did? Good for you. And here I had to rely on actually recalling the passage from study.

Mantis, so you reject any application of 'fascism' beyond Mussolini's Italy (or, I presume, Hitler's Germany)? Is it so narrowly drawn that the basic ideas behind it could only apply to that particular period of Europe, marked as it was by economic and social disintegration, hatred of foreigners, rejection of individualism and embrace of political absolutism?

Well, not beyond Mussolini's Italy or Nazi Germany, no, but I do reject any application that of the term that does not reflect what fascism is and what political ideology those regimes were based upon. If everything is fascism then nothing is. I also reject calling an ideology communist if it isn't obsessed with social class and capitalism or calling an ideology anarcho-syndicalist if it espouses state rule over labor.

And yet 'terrorist', which describes nothing of its ideological basis, is a better term?

I don't claim that the word terrorist describes their ideology, but as a pejorative, which is clearly what people are going for with the fascism appellation, it is more than adequate.

Sorry, I disagree. 'Islamic Fascism' describes not only the tactics, but also the rationale and the goals.

Not really, no. The tactics, the rationale, and the goal are all different. In any case we're talking about ideology, which is philosophy, not tactics.

It's not 'Italian Fascism', and doesn't need to look exactly like it any more than a democracy needs to look exactly like 'American democracy'.

No, but a democracy must at the very least be ruled in some way by the people. What people want to call "Islamic Fascism" does not have most of the major components of fascism. In any case, democracy is not a political ideology, but a form of government.

Again, replace "the State" with "Islam" and it fits nicely.

Fine, replace "the state" with Islam and everything fits nicely. Except for the fact that the state is absolutely central to fascism! That's like saying oh, replace "proletariat" with "Islam" and it's just like communism. Replace "individual liberty" with "Islam" and it's just like libertarianism! Nonsense. You can't replace the defining concept and claim the two are the same.

Heh. Is that what you did? Good for you.

Eh, no, I've studied political philosophy for years. It's pretty clear that's what you did though.

And here I had to rely on actually recalling the passage from study.

Wow, you recalled it verbatim yet you completely forgot the meaning. Amazing. Maybe it's time for a refresher, or more likely, an initial reading.

Ok Mantis, you claimed in your post at the top of this that you have knowledge regarding the support network necessary for radical islam (islamo-fascists) funding. Stating distictions between the support Fascism received in Germany and Italy and what the radicals receive from their supporters. Please explain the difference between support by the Krupps and support by Saudi Princes and other wealthy Middle Eastern entities.

If everything is fascism then nothing is.

Islamist does not equal 'everything'. That aside, I see that the Islamist ideology does reflect fascism. The key elements are there: antiliberal, anti-individual, totalitarian, exultation of war, struggle, and organic identity (under the banner of Islam rather than nation or race).

The tactics, the rationale, and the goal are all different. In any case we're talking about ideology, which is philosophy, not tactics.

Terrorism is a tactic. Fascism is a political ideology. 'Islamic' qualifies the term further as a particular flavor of fascism.

What people want to call "Islamic Fascism" does not have most of the major components of fascism.

You've said that, but you haven't given any element you believe it must have other than corporatism, which is not a key element.

Except for the fact that the state is absolutely central to fascism! That's like saying oh, replace "proletariat" with "Islam" and it's just like communism. Replace "individual liberty" with "Islam" and it's just like libertarianism! Nonsense.

Not quite. Their idealized 'State' is Islam, albeit their version of Islam.

Eh, no, I've studied political philosophy for years.

You've studied for years, yet know so little. A pity.

The term Islamo-Fascism, the GOP neocon neonoun is a lazy definition that lacks the insight and knowledge of what true facism or Islam is.

The GOP does not really want us to associate with fascism, but extrapolate the term to Nazism with its scary and disdainful images. And of course, pairing the word with Islam aligns our USA born Christian extremists too full stance.

It is a perfectly misused and ambiguous neonoun to appeal to bigots and political science idiots. It has little accurate meaning other than to appeal to our deepest fears and resentments, instead of our best moral principles.

I hope that journalist call their bluff and request and EXACT definition of the term they have chosen. It will be interesting to see them sputter in confusion.