Norman Podhoretz has written a new book. Comments concerning it have been bouncing around the blogosphere. (The title is World War IV: The Long Struggle Against Islamophobia.)
Even though Mr Podhoretz is the Godfather of the Neocons, the Geek is inclined to align himself with much in this effort. Much of the thrust of Poehoretz's effort can be accurately characterized as seeing the current struggle between the West and the ideology of Islamisim as being a Second Cold War. That has long been the Geek's view.
So, what's bothering the Geek?
The use of the term "fascism." You have to remember that the Geek is a product of the Sixties. During that decade the words "fascism" and "fascist" were used by many to disparage anyone whose social and political views were to the right of far, far left.
Fascist and fascism are still used so loosely that their meanings are blurred to the point of disappearance. That's what is rankling the Geekmo.
Let's go to the videotape.
Fascism and its derivatives is an English translation of an Italian term which came into currency during the 1920s in this country. The initiating event was the March on Rome by Mussolini and his Blackshirts.
The March ended with Mussolini in power as prime minister and the Fascist Party seen by many in Europe and the United States as having saved Italy from socialism and chaos. The Fascists with slogans extolling "obedience," "nation," "work," "sacrifice," and "progress" were widely hailed on both sides of the Atlantic.
When the Great Depression hit hard in the early Thirties, Americans saw Fascism as a possible salvation for the economic crises and the resulting socio-political turbulence. Certainly most Americans saw Mussolini's fascists as a lesser evil than the Bolsheviks of Lenin and Stalin.
The anti-materialistic rhetoric of the Italian fascists along with their tub-thumping on behalf of family values, religion, and self-sacrifice resonated with many Americans. Not even the hyper-nationalistic militarism of so many of Mussolini's speeches chilled the affection for Fascism felt by so many Americans of the discontented middle class or the fearful upper class.
A close scrutiny of both the practices of Italian fascism and the American perception of these shows several high profile features. Italian fascism was authoritarian, anti-democratic, and subordinated the individual to the needs of the state. It was anti-libertarian. Fascism was intensely nationalistic with a broad interpretation of the nature and extent of the Italian nation It was expansionistic, militaristic.
Critical observers of Italy and the American fascination with Mussolini's movement noted that fascism had much in common with Soviet communism. They correctly emphasized that both were dictatorial internal security states which relied on a mix of internally directed semi-messianic propaganda and brute force to keep the population marching in the appointed direction.
That was true. As far as it went. There were overlooked differences though. Fascism was inherently backward looking. It asked and answered a question which had high emotional appeal and factual irrelevance.
The question?
Once we were so great. Now we are so small. Why?
Fascism Italian style categorically held that by returning to the abandoned ways of stern Roman ancestors, by forswearing soft, indolent practices like democracy, individualism, and the entire sweep of Nineteenth Century European Liberalism, Italy could recapture its former greatness. By sacrifice, obedience, family values, morality, and solidarity, Italians would stand tall and proud again.
The messages both explicit and implicit had powerful appeal to people who felt themselves betrayed by "history." People robbed of their greatness by "others." The words of fascism had an almost hypnotic effect on those who needed something to believe in, to join that was larger than the individual, inherently heroic. For the person who believed himself to be meaningless, marginalised, without a substantial future, fascism had the appearance of answers.
The messages, both explicit and implied, of Islamist ideology is very close to that of Italian fascism (and its clone National Socialism.) Islamists ask the same question as did the original Fascists. Islamists answer the question in a manner virtually identical to the Blackshirts.
Islamism and its militant expression, Jihadism, appeals emotionally to those who believe themselves to have been victimized by history, robbed of their past greatness by "others," and made impotent by imported decadence. For the guy who feels himself meaningless, pushed to the far fringe of life despite education or affluence of background, for the guy in need of a cause in which to submerge himself, Islamism has the appeal today that Fascism had seventy-five years ago.
The Islamist has powerful tools in his propaganda arsenal. He has the sense of injustice felt by many young men both in the Mideast and in either Europe or the United States. The Islamist can appeal to nationalism and to victimization whether actual or simply self-perceived. The Islamist can invoke family, the warrior tradition of the Mideast, and a sense of honor impugned.
And, the Islamist can use a mechanism denied the Fascists in recruiting, motivating, organizing and using the bodies and minds of men. Religion.
Islam, in common with other creedal religions, is filled with inconsistencies and ambiguities. The Holy Writ of Islam, as with other religions, allows even demands interpretation by humans. As a result, the Islamist has an advantage denied the Fascist. He's got the old time religion to use, whether he believes what he says or not.
In a very real and basic sense, the contest between Islamism and the West is a battle of ideology, of world view, of understandings of the relations between individuals as well as individual and state. The Islamist-West contest is the same as earlier struggles--the Cold War and World War II.
A quick, cursory consideration of the original Fascism shows that it is not unfair to apply the term to the Islamists. There are sufficient points of identity between fascism and Islamism to justify the linkage of the words.
Having conceded this, the Geek still is uncomfortable with the term. Not only is it intrinsically redundant, it allows an unnecessary and counterproductive conflation of Islam with fascism.
Islam isn't the enemy in the new Cold War. That distinction belongs to Islamism. It's practitioners, both Islamist and Jihadist, are the opponent. Not Muslims.
We have to keep a firm grip on that difference. If we don't, we will make more Islamists out of the Muslim population.
If we do remember the difference, we have the chance of isolating the Islamist and Jihadist sharks from the Muslim sea.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
Geek--I like your description of fascism especially the question. I didn't know there were so many similarities between the original form and the Islamist version.
You make a cogent case for parallels between Islamism and fascism. There may be more elements of fascism in western thought than is generally recognized as well, given the common roots of fascism and postmodernism: "The fascism of the 1930s . . . was a reaction against the objectivity, rationalism, and alienation of the ‘modern world,’ a reaction structurally parallel to that of the postmodernists. Fascism, like postmodernism, had its origins in romanticism, with its primitivism and subjectivity, and existentialism, with its rejection of absolutes and its ‘triumph of the will.’" (Gene Edward Veith, Postmodern Times, p. 165). No wonder postmodern thinkers such as Heidegger and DeMan supported the fascists.
On a different matter, in passing you make a rather cryptic statement: "Islam, in common with other creedal religions, is filled with inconsistencies and ambiguities." Are you suggesting that non-creedal religions are less filled with inconsistencies? That seems unlikely, since they are much more subject to individual variation. After all, creeds are precisely attempts to systematize and rationalize religious statements into a coherent whole, showing the logical relations among various doctrines.
The Geek did not mean to imply that non-creedal religions are somehow immune to inconsistencies. What he was getting at is simply that creeds are never as systematic and internally consistent as is assumed by some people, some of the time.
The existence of inconsistencies in Islamic writings has been effectively employing these to reorient softer members of the hard core supporters of Jihadism/Islamism. In both Iraq and Saudi Arabia there are preliminary indications of success using this approach.
All it takes is a couple of clerics with a non-Islamist point of view, the corpus constituting Islamic creed including the Quran, the Sayings and the later commentaries and legal rulings. That and time.
As always in stability operations where the ultimate battleground is the human mind, time is the key component. The rest is a matter of patient technique focusing on the inherent weak points of the adversary's ideology. In this case it is the contradictions of dogma.
Post a Comment