A blogger at the Huffington Post, R.J. Eskow, writes radical Islam is not fascism, an argument we’ve had here a time or two and indeed it is a form of facism more related to nazism. Eskow does what so many people do when it comes to fascism; they cherry-pick parts of fascism for their own use without taking the ideology as a whole for comparitive purposes.

What always strikes me as odd coming from the likes of Eskow is that they define fascism as a totalitarian government catering to corporate interests with high levels of nationalism, though Eskow says “collaboration” with huge corporations. Catering to corporate interests. That’s a rather liberal definition considering under fascism corporations are not controlled by the government but the way they do business is mandated by the government. Collaboration usually means to benefit both, not one and no one can rationally argue government mandates and restrictions help a large corporation out.

Is it possible for a government to be controlled by corporations when the government places unhealthy restrictions upon those very corporations? Isn’t that control, in essense, the other way around? Of course it is, but that just ruins the entire fascism talk some on the American Left are so fond of having.

The Nazi Regime invested heavily in a socialist state, and last I checked, socialism was not a right-wing ideology. Socialism was the key to Nazism and they truly believed they could and would create a giant nanny state over all of Europe. Wait a minute. Socialism. Is that a bit like how Hezbollah distributed likely forged U.S. currency to the victims of their war, building an insane amount of social infrastruction over military bunkers, trying to create an income redistribution system, etc.?  It should also be noted Al Qaida grew in Sudan partially due to civic projects and a socialist program.

Someone who has no basis of understanding of what fascism is cannot launch an argument for or against what may or may not be Islamofascism, but Eskow tries to.  Eskow writes:

IF [ed. Islamofacism] 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.

Yes, there is no Islamofascism nor any Islamist threat. It’s all propoganda . . . for what purpose? And that’s where all good conspiracy theories die; there’s no actual rationale for the beliefs in the first place.

Fascism conspirators always sink into the line of nationalism like that’s somehow the one difference between a fascist nation and a free nation, but they fail to actually define nationalism in the first place. Nationalism, at its core, is a deep sense of pride for an idea, not a nation. Isn’t Islamism an idea? Why yes it is, and you cannot convince me radical Islamists do not have a deep passion for the ideology of Islamism. Their words and actions contradict that very thought. Further, isn’t a global Islamic state a nation?
And on the idea Islamists reject large corporations, that’s just insane. The leader of Al Qaida made his money from his father’s rather large corporation. He didn’t walk away from it, rather he was disowned by the family and kicked out of Saudi Arabia. They only object to non-Islamic corporations.  Are not some ‘charities’ coporations as well?  Some do fund the Islamist movement, but that’s just silly talk because Islamists reject corporations according to Eskow.

Eskow doesn’t even show up at the station, indeed, but he’s not even trying to board a train in the first place as evidenced by the following paragraph of Eskow’s:

You can assassinate as many leaders as your military capability allows, and you’ll still never end the threat. (Ask Israel.) Hang Ahmadinejad from a lamp pole Mussolini-style, if you like. There’ll be another, more extreme leader in his place tomorrow.

Uh, yeah, and that’s what makes this entire deal an ideology rather than a small set of individuals trying to create chaos. That’s why it’s better described as a movement instead of just a singular Hitler or Mussolini, and coincidentally, that’s the very strategy that was unfurled in Nazi Germany and fascist Italy (Grand Mufti of Jerusalem also falls into this line, but I assume all ITB readers know that); a movement that surpassed an individual. But “anyone with a grasp of history knows” better, therefore I must presume Eskow used his history books as coasters rather than actually cracking them open to look at the contents inside. And you want to be my latex salesman?

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