Tj Templeton, POAC editor
You know, it takes a lot for me to get riled. But when I see the Bush administration adopting a freeper buzzword and trying to insert it into the common vernacular in an attempt to justify their failed foreign policy, I have to say something about it. When the term “islamofascist” was test marketed in the right wing blogosphere places like Free Republic and Little Green Footballs, the educated among us just snickered. Now to see actual government officials using it, it is disturbing and embarrassing, to say the least.
|First off, let’s rattle a couple of definitions of fascism: Wikipedia: Fascism is a radical totalitarian political philosophy that combines elements of corporatism, authoritarianism, extreme nationalism, militarism, anti-anarchism, anti-communism and anti-liberalism. Dictionary.com: A governmental system led by a dictator having complete power, forcibly suppressing opposition and criticism, regimenting all industry, commerce, etc., and emphasizing an aggressive nationalism and often racism.
And of course, there’s the very popular 14 defining characteristics of Fascism penned by Laurence Britt, where he compared the regimes of Hitler, Mussolini, Franco, Suharto, and Pinochet and identified 14 characteristics common to those fascist regimes.
It’s a common tactic for the Bush/Rovian republicans to accuse their critics of doing exactly what they plan to do, or become, shortly before they do it. Anyone with any sense of what this administration has been doing since they took office (literally) knows full well that it is the republican leadership that more likely fits the definition of fascism rather than radical Islamic fundamentalists. A more accurate representation would be radical right wing Christian fascist theocrats warring against radical right wing Islamic theocrats. Simply put, we have a war of Christian theocrats vs. Islamic theocrats. It isn’t fascism that we have put our armies against, but rather our leadership has employed fascist tactics to take our nation into a war of choice from which the beneficiaries of the merger of state and corporate power are profiteering. That, dear readers, is classic modern fascism.
Equating dissent with appeasers of fascism
Dissent is the highest form of patriotism.
|How peculiar that Rumsfeld would equate those who criticize his failed policies as appeasers of fascism. Who, historically have been the victims of fascism and who have been the appeasers? Historically it has always been the industrialists, the corporatists, and dare I say, the conservatives who have appeased and profited from fascism. Previous to our entry into WWII, it was industrialists like Henry Ford and the president’s own grandfather, Prescott Bush who kept our nation from going to war against Germany until they declared war on us. It is indicative of fascism to suppress or eliminate the liberals as a whole in society. It was the liberals, the trade union organizers, and the communists that were rounded up in Nazi Germany before they went after the gays, gypsies, and Jews. I use that term liberal not loosely. The Nazi regime called them out by name. That’s always something to think about as you hear the right wing media machine blaming all of their failures on the marginalized and under-represented liberals of this nation. So who are the true appeasers of fascism in our midst? Those who would support a regime that was based upon a program to merge state and corporate power. They are the cheerleaders who support an administration that appoints industry representatives to sensitive government positions that were intended to police and regulate the very industries from which they hail. The fascist appeasers are those among us who still support party over country and a war based on lies from which the companies that profit from the war are directly connected to the men who lied us into it. The appeasers are the cowardly fools who willingly shed their civil liberties for a false sense of security. That’s what the appeasers of every other fascist regime have done, and that’s what the remaining few supporters of this regime are doing here at home.|
|The President pledged to uphold and protect the constitution, not the safety of American people. A leader who is sworn to protect his subjects at the expense of their liberty is a benevolent dictator, not the leader of a democratic republic. It is our duty as patriots to shed our blood, if needed, to preserve the sanctity of our Constitution. If we are safe, but not free, then the ideals of our Constitution and all that has made us a beacon of hope for all oppressed peoples in the world has become a farce.