Fighting Extremism Over There, So It Can Flourish Over Here?
By George Aleman III – Axis of Logic Exclusive
Jul 7, 2007, 16:34
A Surge Of Hypocrisy
The United States entered World War II in 1941 to block the extension of a utopian, extremist worldview called Nazism. Despite the fact that Imperial Japan attacked the United States at Pearl Harbor, Hawaii, it perceived Nazi Germany as the greater threat to world peace and waged war against the racial state. Hitler’s extension of “totalitarianism, racism, militarism, and overt aggressive warfare” had to be stopped at all costs.  The fate of humanity was in the balance. As America entered the war against Hitler’s utopian, racial fanaticism, many felt a surge of hypocrisy in the action. Why was the United States going off to fight a state that was committed to segregation supported by law and racial hierarchy when things looked almost no different at home? How could the United States claim to be fighting injustice and racism abroad when it was allowing injustice, segregation, and overall racism to flourish within its borders? This double-standard was never addressed in this time, has yet to be reconciled in America’s history, and most surely never will.
An Artificial Parallel
Over sixty years after World War II has ended, the United States has once again undertaken a global endeavor. This time, to eradicate fanatical Islamic-terrorists who are bent on destroying freedom and democracy. Apparently, our new enemies embody goose-stepping fascists with a religious twist. Hence the phrase, ‘Islamo-Fascists,’ created and perpetuated by the media. The great purpose of this broadcasted phrase—among many others—is to imbed the idea that the United States is somehow taking on an endeavor comparable to that of World War II (The Good War). By creating an artificial parallel between the enemies of World War II and those of today, the public relations industry and those within governmental institutions, wish to mislead the American population into feeling that a foreign policy of preventive global aggression is just and right. Tactics are of no concern, as the fate of humanity hangs in the balance. What is done must be done to ensure humankind’s freedom. After all, the enemy is of Second Great War proportions.
No doubt, there are religious-extremists in the world who would like to see a global utopia manifest, and who will even go as far as trying to implement it. There is no denying this. Historical and current examples are abundant. However, the propagandistic tendency of the media to portray most, if not all, Muslims as fanatics who want to create, and export, a Caliphate (the Islamic form of government representing the political unity and leadership of the Muslim world) that will be “as Fascist as Nazi Germany was,” in a convert or die approach, as well as the overall comparison to the 20th century European fascist movements, to foster fear and xenophobia in the American population to keep them in their hermetic, insular condition is wholly misleading. 
First, fascism is a system based on the fusion of government and corporations. Also known as Corporatism, the two institutions work in concert to bring profit to a tiny minority and discipline to the rest of the population, which acts as the workforce. Second, it is a post-democratic occurrence. In other words, “[i]t is a phenomenon of failed democracies…”  Third, fascist movements are limited to state territories where the people’s passions are channeled “into the construction of an obligatory domestic unity around projects of internal cleansing and external expansion.”  Hence, it is a state-centered utopian project that expands itself by way of force from the inside out. Fourth, fascists use the state of confinement’s institutions (political, economic, and military), usually those of a democratic society, to seize control and implement their utopian visions. Fifth, it is a state-centered “political religion” that mobilizes “believers around sacred rites and words, excite[s] them to self-denying fervor, and preache[s] a revealed truth that admit[s] no dissidence.”  In essence, the state is extremely insular and seen as the most important entity of all. As Robert O. Paxton describes in The Anatomy of Fascism:
The [state] community comes before humankind in fascist values, and respecting individual rights or due process gave way to serving the destiny of the volk or razza. Therefore each individual national fascist movement gives full expression to its own cultural particularism. Fascism, unlike the other “isms,” is not for export[, it does not seek to convert the outside world]: each movement jealously guards its own recipe for national revival, and fascist leaders seem to feel little or no kinship with their foreign cousins. 
The so-called illusive, global network of Islamic terrorists who are apparently committed to destroying freedom and democracy worldwide and, most of all, America, for its having been born—of course not because of its policies in the Middle-East—have no such political, military, and/or economic institutions through which to wage combat on the scales presented to the American public. On the contrary, most of these groups are sparse, disconnected factions comprised of Third World populations in a deep political and economic crisis that most often “eclipse religion.”  Most foreign extremists ” are not driven by religion as much as they are by a clear strategic objective: to compel modern [imperial] democracies to withdraw military forces from the territory that [they] view as their homeland.”  Moreover, “[f]undamentalist Muslims offer little loyalty” to any given state, as “Islam is their nation.”  Many Muslims also feel a kinship with those outside their religious world, especially in times of crisis. Was it an anomaly that the Muslim world rallied to denounce the attacks of 9/11 and support the United States during its time of grievance?  And finally, as Paxton asserts:
The principal objection to succumbing to the temptation to call Islamic fundamentalist movements like al-Qaeda and the Taliban fascist is that they are not reactions against a malfunctioning democracy. Arising in traditional hierarchical societies, their unity is, in terms of Émile Durkheim’s famous distinction, more mechanical than organic. Above all, they have not “given up free institutions,” since they never had any. 
In February of this year, a global poll of twenty-seven countries, some Muslim majority countries included, was taken by the BBC World Service. A majority agreed with the sentiment that most radical groups are sparse, disconnected factions comprised of Third World populations in a deep political and economic crisis that most often “eclipse religion.”  A majority also believed that common ground can be found in what has been ludicrously labeled, “the clash of civilizations.”  So, what the media portrays as ‘Islamo-Fascism,’ in order create an artificial parallel between the enemies of World War II and those of today to dupe the population into supporting a policy of preventive global aggression to fend off a ‘global enemy’ of Word War II proportions by any means necessary is not only misleading, it is also ignorant, dangerous, and “intellectually dishonest.”  At base, it is just a “way to cut short any discussion of neo-imperialism.” 
All this is not to say that there are not deranged, ultra-orthodox, fanatical perverts of Islam, or any other religion for that matter, who are bent on creating a utopia of their own through wanton violence and destruction. This is also not to say that some radical groups cannot conjure the ability to attack the United States. 9/11 proved that they can. It is, however, to say that the American public has been misled, for some time now, about the magnitude and true reality of happenings outside, even inside, their country. It is to say that what they have been led to believe—that there are ‘fascist’ Muslim killers on the prowl everywhere waiting to strike at their throats because they are free—is certainly not the case. It is also to say that a policy of “full-spectrum dominance” to achieve hegemony is surely not the path to security. 
A Resurgence Of Hypocrisy
What is a concrete analogy of World War II proportions, however, is the fact that once again a surge of hypocrisy is felt as America undertakes this global endeavor to eradicate religious extremist-terrorists while there are such problems of the same type flourishing at home. Accordingly, the question becomes: “Why has the United States committed itself to fighting religious extremism abroad while it is allowing such fanaticism to thrive at home?” “How can it claim to be fighting overt religious fundamentalism abroad when it is allowing overt religious fundamentalism to prosper within its borders?” This is a double-standard that needs to be addressed and reconciled in this time.
Read the rest here.