A lazy, simplistic editorial

The lead editorial in the Boston Sunday Globe (Nov. 4) condemning the “intellectually lazy analogy of Islamism to fascism” was difficult to take seriously after reading this whopper of a paragraph –

“Al Qaeda and company cannot be compared with the fascist powers ruled by Hitler, Mussolini and Franco – neither for their ideas nor for their military power. The Nazis scorned religion, wanting to make the state the sole object of worship. Bin Laden and Hitler might share a proclivity for cruelty and killing, but for little else. Hitler cherished the operas of Wagner; bin Laden and his Taliban allies have been known to put musicians to the lash for playing music at a wedding. And bin Laden has no panzer divisions.”

“… Bin Laden and Hitler might share a proclivity for cruelty and killing, but for little else …”

Amazing. Where to begin?

Bin Laden and Hitler share far more than that, unbeknownst to the intellectually lazy editorial writers at the Globe. For example, the main thing they share in common, an elephant-in-the-room parallel that all but the most oblivious can ignore, is in their visceral loathing and wanton pathological cruelty toward Jews. And there’s no “might” about it.

How about these for other parallels – Hitler and bin Laden’s absolute intolerance of dissent, an unwavering belief in the alleged messianic quality of their respective crusades (yes, crusades) and the utter lack of anything resembling irony, self-deprecation or introspection.

Agreed, “bin Laden has no panzer divisions.” Nor did he need them to destroy the World Trade Center, inflict grievous damage to the Pentagon and slaughter 3,000 innocent people in less than two hours.

Most importantly, Hitler and bin Laden share something else in common – a wolf-like grasp of appeasement disguised as well-reasoned argument from their foes.

About Jack Coleman

  • Ken Pittman

    Both planned a new world order. Hitler planned a world of caucasian specimens only living under a watchful and intolerant state eye. Bin Laden wants a world under brutal Sharia laws and a complete conversion to a specific brand of Islam or death as the option for the inhabitants of the world.
      Both valued racism as an important part of their plans, Hitler having Germanic people as the preferred and bin Laden, the Arabic.

    Both threaten/ed Israel, America, Africa and Europe.

    While Hitler enjoyed a more powerful conventional army, bin Laden enjoys a better understanding of how to use the relatively lax laws of the nations he is targeting for better success in terrorizing the citizens within. Not once did the Axis strike the mainland of the USA, let alone the military HQ at the Pentagon in Washington or the heart of the nation’s greatest city at the WTC, which al Qa’eda struck twice (1993′ & 2001)

    Bin Laden’s army and proxies have already in fact proven to be a tougher enemy to defeat even though we suffer a fraction of the losses of World war II. We disposed of the nazis in little over three years and confronted them in over 20 nations but the enemy was identifiable. Al Qa’eda can ebb and wane into the populations of the world with no conventional uniform or established identity. In fact al Qa’eda operates with no rules of engagement and seeks to horrify and murder non-combatants equally to the forces of their opponents.

    So in some respects the Boston Globe is technically right. There are some differences. For most patriots and straight thinkers though, the biggest difference is that one is defeated and gone and the other is seeking ways to murder tens  of millions of us even as I type this.

  • “comparable” as “similar”.

    The ideology driving the movement is different, the method of cramming it down the throats of those that don’t want it or dare to speak out about it or just want to be “different”…..the same.

    That’s why it’s not just called “fascism”….it’s called “islamo-fascism”…..fascism with a religious bent. Don’t follow the strict religious tenets….you get a bullet to the brain.

    Not the same exact form of fascism as Hitler…but fascism nonetheless.  Anyone that’s spent time “over there” would know what fascism is.

    This is just another person that has no clue what it’s like to live under fascistic rule…..or probably what fasism actually is.

  • http://amconmag.com/

    The key problem with the label is its stunning ignorance of both fascism and jihadism. Fascism was a specific, secular, modernizing ideology-what historian Stanley Payne has called “revolutionary hyper-nationalism”-that emerged out of Europe’s ruins in WWI. It was focused above all on exalting the nation. Search in vain for any resemblance to a transnational, religious movement that claims to seek the restoration of a theocratic state. In art and architecture, fascists were champions of modernism; jihadists clearly have no such interests. The valorization of war and death that Hitchens cites in his defense as proof of the similarity between the two is common to all armed revolutionary movements.

    In addition to its rhetorical and historical errors, the designation reveals interventionists’ monomania about the lessons of WWII. Every threat must be likened to Nazism as much as possible, and every crisis must be another Munich 1938. Historical myopia of this sort leads to strategic blindness, as the endless use of WWII analogies to rationalize the Iraq War has abundantly shown.

    Like the pejorative term from which it derives, Islamofascism means whatever the person deploying it wants it to mean. It is ultimately not an attempt at description or explanation but a demon word designed to generate visceral, irrational reaction. This is precisely the opposite of the careful, deliberate, and informed responses we need to cultivate. And since it obscures the actual nature of jihadism, it is not simply a crime against the English language but a dangerous source of misunderstanding.