The forces the developed world has come to see arrayed against it after 9/11 have been yoked together by many on the right as “Religious Fascism”. In this “Fascism” is wielded like a bludgeon. Mere application of the label is taken to require the surrender of any opposition to courses proposed for dealing with it. At very the least, it is intended to paralyze any further thought beyond reflexive aggression by us. I have recently posted a piece to the site (Say What?!?) in which I reveal my surprise (hence the title) at discovering an “American Fascism” up and running in my country today, courtesy of that same American right. For the right, in particular, to employ the term against others offers more than a little in the way of irony. From time immemorial, the left has thrown “Fascism” at the right, in a kind of knee jerk reflex which anticipates nothing more than a similar knee jerk in response. For that reason, and others, I took particular pains to state exactly what I meant by use of the term, and what I did not mean; why I felt application of the term was justified, and from there to outline how this new evolution came to be in post WWII America. I think it meet, therefore, to take up this “Religious Fascism” with an eye to considering the extent to which the term might apply, and, above all, how we should understand what is asked of us by such provenance as may be discovered. The 9/11 report offers a useful distinction with which to begin. The report identifies a strain within the Muslim world as “Islamist”. This is in contradistinction to “Islam” which is taken to mean the whole of the religion, and to embrace all of the Muslim world, now and throughout its history. Islamism is a relatively recent configuration, dating back to the mid 19th century, and seems best understood as a reaction to the modern world, and the course Islam has traced in relation to modernity. . [Addenda: After reading a long posting by Zubair in the Faith area I find this needs to be adjusted. Wahhabism has its roots in the 18th, not the 19th, century, where it was born with a particular individual for whom it is named. That individual, in turn, drew on a tradition older still – by some four to five hundred years – and the movement bears no little resemblance to Protestantism in relationship to Roman Catholic Christianity. There is more a whiff of Puritanism about its ideas. In any event, its Puritanical rejections have come to relate strongly to modernity, and Islam in relation to that. And, as Zubair makes clear, it has been used as a vehicle to power by Islamic political configurations, who have subsequently used it along the lines described below, beginning in the paragraph starting with “Money and politics . . . .”] Islamism contains many of the classic elements identified with Fascism. It centers explicitly on religion, and Fascism itself can be understood as a variant on religion. Although “classically” Fascism makes its appeal to ethnic identity, both religion and ethnicity relate to the deepest elements in human life and society. They involve the beliefs, values and practices by which we define ourselves, and come to understand our place in the world. They are of “ancient” lineage and/or reflect “eternal” verities. The particular “take” at the heart of Fascism is an emphasis on the “sacred tradition” under attack. Merely waiting for mounting perils to overwhelm is rejected, and targets for violent actions are identified, sought out, and engaged. That certainly is as true for today’s Islamism as for the ethnic identifications of 20th century Fascism. Money and politics play a role in religious fascism as well, although the configuration and history of that are very, very different. In the secular “ethnic” fascisms we have experienced, the money is that of an entrepreneurial elite who exploit populist appeal to gain political influence, which then circles back to further the economic interests of the funders. The original source of funding for Islamist movements came from governing elites who saw two things in it. One, a salve for their consciences in regard to a faith they believed in, but found increasingly distanced from a modern world surrounding and coming to dominate their own; and two, a way of funneling the energies of popular discontent away from themselves and, the manifest failures of their rule. In the 20th century this accelerated dramatically, and the associated available funds mushroomed when modern science and technology turned worthless goo under Arab soil into a resource that powers a world. [A singular curiosity to reflect on in this regard is why the developed world didn’t just come and take the oil. What would the Romans have done, or a dynastic Chinese Imperium?] In the Arab/Muslim world of today, the jig appears to be up. The governing elites have discovered they are riding the back of a tiger. So the similarities between this current religious Fascism, and the historical fascisms of the 1930’s and 40’s (as well as the lamentable current American model), are there, but before we allow that to shape a response, we must take note of the differences as well. To begin with, the other fascisms referred to came to engage the world with all the resources of a modern industrial nation state. Here instead we have a fanatical minority, without political sovereignty anywhere, whose greatest single hope is that they can spark a human tsunami throughout their world. As it stands, they find themselves all to easily isolatable. They are lethal in their own world, and to their own people. They offer nothing better than a dead end, with their only inducement a pyrotechnic nihilism whose appeal is as much a matter of the frenzy of the mob, and of participation in an emotional firestorm, as of anything truly enduring. Beyond that, like American exceptionalism as a source for popular fervor, Islamism partakes of a larger reality which should significantly to hinder its advance. No great religious tradition can embrace a virulent nihilism widely for very long. We need to consider how to employ this, both to our and to the Arab-Muslim world’s advantage. If this religious fascism does not have nearly the resources which characterize the other fascism’s considered, a truly novel element remains open to it – Weapons of Mass Destruction. In particular, Weapons of Mass Destruction whose ease of employment becomes ever greater and greater as time passes. A nuclear tipped missile is one thing, a vial of contagion is quite another. These things are products of our unprecedented intelligence, and it seems we will need to summon the best of that intelligence to deal with them. Our targets, be they the weapons or those who would wield them, tend, of their very nature, to be dispersed in a wide world amidst large and diverse populations. Thus, it is difficult to see how an emphasis on military force as a primary strategy offers anything very promising. An analogy to cancer treatment might be in order. A surgeon with a scalpel is one approach, and “applying” the scalpel with the requisite care and precision is often critical, but, as we well know, that is usually only one part of what is eventually brought to bear. Chemotherapy, changes in life-style, and various homeopathic approaches are all known to contribute to successful outcomes. War itself, as an option, is too much like a fool with meat cleaver, rather than like a surgeon with a scalpel, and war’s ability to set the table for what needs to follow is limited. We are often told by the right that these religious fascists are beyond reason; we cannot talk to them or reason with them. So what? We neither want nor need to reason with those few who have gone beyond reason. What we want to do, what we need to do, is to defeat them. As the 9/11 commission puts it: Islamism . . . “can only be destroyed or utterly isolated.” To this it should be added that utterly isolating them effectively destroys them, and that is clearly the strategy of choice. By accepting Religious Fascism as a legitimate label to apply to those arrayed against us, we must also understand such acceptance does not define a response. Above all it does not compel blind knee-jerk military aggression. If we are to arrive at something truly useful, a broader and more serious consideration is necessary, and I hope the above discussion contributes. Message was edited by: ronr327