Truth In Labeling: Calling Fascists What They Are
Dean
A left-wing friend recently forwarded this Pepe Escobar article to me and dared me to try to answer this set of assertions from it:
It's virtually impossible for US President George W Bush's Iraq to be "on its way to democracy" when real unemployment reaches a staggering 50% (a scarier prospect for most people than car bombs or snipers), 25% of children under five years old are malnourished, 78% of the households in the country (and 92% in Baghdad) have electricity only a few hours a day, only 37% of urban households (and a mere 4% in the countryside) have sewage-disposal systems, only 61% have access to drinking water, 5% of households have been destroyed by bombing or search-and-destroy missions, only one in 10 households in rural areas can be reached by a paved road, and more youngsters than in any previous generation are illiterate. This is the appalling legacy of the occupation - and the US and UN-imposed regime of sanctions in the 1990s.
Look on at this in disbelief: according to this vile idiot Escobar, every bad thing in Iraq is the fault of everybody except the fascist thug Saddam Hussein or the fascist "insurgents" who wish to restore fascist rule.
Never mind that Escobar's statistics lack any meaningful context and completely ignore all the data in the last two years on improved standards of living and improved economic growth and opportunity. Never mind the free elections, free speech, free press rights, rights for women and minorities, and so on that no Iraqi had under Saddam. Ignore the disastrous things Saddam did to ruin his own country and its economy. Ignore all that, and look at what Escobar's really saying: everything bad is there is the fault of the U.S.A. (and throw in the U.N. as an afterthought).
Worst of all is the sly reference to households "destroyed by bombing or search-and-destroy missions"--with the clear implication that any house that hid fascist "insurgents"--or even houses bombed by the insurgents--are also the fault of the U.S.A.
In short: Fascists can do no wrong. Indeed, if they do wrong, it's only because the devil Bush made them do it.
There's no mention of the gassing of the Kurds or the genocide of the marsh Arabs. No mention of the war between Iraq and Iran, or the massive use of WMDs by the regime. No mention of Saddam's brutal mass murders, his torture chambers and rape rooms, his children's prisons, or the endless oppression of his own people. No mention of the disastrous rule he brought the country, or the horrific policies that did so much to destroy its economy.
Nope! In Escobar's world, every bad thing in Iraq is America's fault. Indeed, if we took Escobar seriously, we'd have to assume that if we'd just left Saddam completely alone for the last 20 years, the lives of ordinary Iraqis would be better.
I can think of no better way to describe this pig Escobar than to call him what he is: a FASCIST APOLOGIST
This is why I no longer refer to many people on the left as "liberals." People who consider liberal democracies more of a threat than oppressive thug regimes, who are no longer even reliably anti-fascist, simply don't deserve to be considered "liberal" in any sense of the word.
Here's what this fact brings me to realize: the truth is that for years we've struggled with knowing exactly what to call the enemy in the global war on terror. "Terrorist" isn't always the right word; it invokes cheap moral equivalencies, and makes it too easy to lump people together. "Islamo-fascism" or "Islamist" gets you accused of having a vendetta against all muslims, and just doesn't roll well off the tongue. It's too long, and people often ask what you mean.
But here, just look at this:
FASCISM:1. 1. A system of government marked by centralization of authority under a dictator, stringent socioeconomic controls, suppression of the opposition through terror and censorship, and typically a policy of belligerent nationalism and racism.
2. A political philosophy or movement based on or advocating such a system of government.
2. Oppressive, dictatorial control.
Does this not describe perfectly what Osama Bin Laden wishes to impose on the world? It would be a theocratic fascism, but it would obviously be fascism. This definition also perfectly describes the Taliban, Saddam Hussein's Iraq, Assad's Syria, and the ruling desires of the likes of Abu Abbas, Al-Zarqawi, and most other international terrorist organizations.
Saddam Hussein's regime was classic fascist--it was modeled directly after Mussolini's Italy and Franco's Spain. Most of the "insurgents" in Iraq are fascists who benefitted from Saddam's regime. The rest are made up of religious fanatics who would impose a brutal theocratic rule instead.
In other words, the "insurgency" in Iraq is primarily made up of secular fascists and religious fascists.
So why do we keep pussyfooting around by calling them "Ba'athist" (which is just Arabic for "fascist"), islamic extremists, "insurgents," etc.? Let's call them all what they really are: fascists.
Isn't it time we stop calling it a "war on terrorism" and call it what it really is: a war against global fascism?
Furthermore, isn't it time we call the people who defend these fascists, who draw cheap moral equivalences between them and America, what they really are? They are fascist apologists and fascist sympathizers. It's all they really are, or ever have been.
To be clear, I'm not talking about everyday liberals or others who have issues with the Iraq liberation. I'm talking about the folks who put the blame for everything on America's shoulders. Who look at every bad thing America does as proof of America's evil, and every good thing America does as proof of America's evil, and even things the US cannot control as proof of America's evil. I'm talking about pigs like Noam Chomsky, Juan Cole, Pepe Escobar, Robert Fisk, Michael Moore, the creepazoids at Democratic Underground and Indymedia, and others like them. People cringe when you call these people "anti-American" or "pro-terrorist," because those labels aren't always a perfect fit. But the following labels are a perfect fit:
Fascist sympathizers, fascist apologists, and, in some cases, outright fascists themselves.
As a benefit, this would also allow us to--quite properly--include the people on the right who are also fascist apologists and fascist sympathizers, the Llew Rockwellians and the Pat Buchanans. We don't need to call them "the far left" or "the far right" anymore. Fascist apologist, fascist sympathizers, or just plain "fascist" will do.
And please--please please please--STOP CALLING THEM LIBERALS. There are countless good and decent liberals--myself included--who do not deserve to be slandered by being lumped in with these fascist apologists, these fascist sympathizers.
Related Posts (on one page):
- Embracing The Meme: Calling Fascists What They Are
- Playing Into the Fascists' Hands
- Truth In Labeling: Calling Fascists What They Are
It's not only Zimbabwe. Noam Chomsky thinks North Korea is a paradise, yet he doesn't forgo his 7(+) figure income by moving there. Ward "Chutch" Churchill recently opens his pie-hole and offers sympathy for the real Adolf Eichmann. Michael Moore embraces al-Zarqawi...
I could go on and on - and usually do. Suffice it to say, "Fascist apologist" has quite a bite to it. I like it.
This has been commented on here, at Dean's World and in other blogs (mostly center to center-right) and now probably the best pundit out there is remarking on the subject.
Dean, you should keep track of this fascist post and see if any of the talking heads out there pick up on this.
"Dean's World - Scooping the Pundits for Donkey's Years."
And another problem I see is that some of the people I formerly disagreed with -- and even some I formerly agreed with -- are revealing themselves as crazy people.
Since word meanings aren't fixed, and since a given word can have multiple simultaneous meanings, I have to ask: at what point does "liberal" stop meaning what you say it means and start meaning what those people stand for?
I agree completely. There are also a lot of people I'd like to stop calling "conservatives". A lot of Republicans (President Bush included) for starters. When you're broadly interpreting the interstate commerce clause, spending us into oblivion, and doing your level best to knock the knees out of the first amendment (i.e. flag burning), you shouldn't really be calling yourself a conservative.
It would be helpful, of course, if the fascist apologists would stop calling themselves liberals, and if the big government Republicans would stop calling themselves conservatives. It would also be helpful if someone gave me a million dollars. I don't see any of those things happening any time soon.
Of course, that doesn't mean we can't insist on the currently correct meanings, as Dean is doing; but like the French, sometimes we'll find that the language moves despite our best efforts.
Usage defines meaning, in the long run. And by current usage, Senators Kennedy and Biden and Levin and Durbin and Reid are all considered "liberal", even though I've heard every one of them make statements that fit right in with what the fascist apologists are saying. If people see those Senators as "liberal", then the meaning of the word starts to shift.
HOWEVER, some words are worth fighting for, and some are worth intentionally defending.
Indeed, it has been noted by many that one of the ways the totalitarians manage to keep their moral standing is because they often appropriate words (like "imperialist" and "racist" and "sexist" and so on) in order to control the language and thus control the terms of the debate. This is something George Orwell observed over a half-century ago, and it's as true today as it was then.
What to do about the phoney-baloney fascist apologists who call themselves "liberals?" Simple: call them liars and name them for what they really are. Then, confront these fascists' friends with the reality, and challenge decent people to stop associating with these fascist-loving pigs.
Some words are worth fighting for. Stop letting the fascists control the words. Fight for truth in labeling.
I applaud your fighting for the meaning of "liberal". I'm just not sure whether the battle isn't lost already. I would agree that Kennedy, Biden, Levin, Durbin, and Reid aren't liberal as that term was defined in the bulk of the twentieth century; but if I asked most people to list liberals in the Senate, those names would be on the list. I fear that Lieberman wouldn't. I'm not even sure that Clinton would; and her party's doing a great job of making her look centrist as they run to the left. (Note to conspiracy theorists: no, I don't believe they're doing that deliberately. They haven't demonstrated enough brains for that sort of conspiracy.)
And I understand why this concerns you: it offends you that all liberals are tarred by the actions of illiberal liberals. It offends me for a different reason: people who see themselves as liberals but who don't really study the issues will reflexively support the self-proclaimed "liberals", even though those faux liberals are actually working against what those folks really believe.
But I think you have to realize that when some people criticize liberals, both they and those they criticize aren't including you in that group.
Steven,
"Language isn't static" only means that language isn't static. It's a historical fact. Study linguistics. No language stands still. Meaning follows usage.
That doesn't mean that we should acquiesce when words are deliberately twisted into Newspeak. And it doesn't mean that we shouldn't try to preserve the proper meanings of words when we can. Language should change only very slowly and organically, or we lose the ability to communicate, and we grant some folks the power to corrupt communication. But sometimes, the meaning changes; and more often, one meaning remains, and new meanings get layered on. It's not conservative to deny that, it's just unrealistic.
"Defending the liberal tradition in history, science, and philosophy."
This is a pretty essential battle for you. But right now, it looks like an uphill battle.
By all classical definitions (and most recent ones) I am certainly a liberal for believing that the power of the state can be employed to defend and broaden the dignity and freedom of the individual (as I think you are as well, Dean).
Unfortunately, by the standards of the modern left I am a 'neo-conservative,' 'right wing extremist,' or even a 'fascist' for simply asserting the primacy of the individual and a respect for autonomous spaces in our culture in which business and private affairs can flourish. What madness!
"Being realistic" just means acquiescing in whatever degeneration happens to be taking place at any given moment. Despair may be a tiny bit better than complacency, since it does at least recognize the bad for what it is instead of calling it "Progress", but it's still a killer. I refuse to give in. I stand my ground. I stick to my guns. If that means being an impractical idealist, well, I've been called worse things. Yes, I am a dogmatist, a reactionary, and an elitist -- proudly.
I agree with Dean. I refuse to call Communists and Nazis and their appeasers "liberals", no matter what the media call them. I refuse to go along with the media. I agree with H. L. "Bill" Richardson that we must recapture our words, which is what Dean has done a splendid job doing. Dean, e.g., continues to believe in democracy even if Communists call their totalitarian dictatorships "People's Democracies".
Also, as indicated in the last sentence of my previous paragraph here, wear their insults as a badge of honor. I am a Politically Incorrect Western imperialist Zionist warmonger -- proudly. I am also a McCarthyite (since I dare to call Communists Communists), a racist (since I oppose racial quotas), a sexist (since I love sex), and even, according to some, a homophobe (since I believe that monogamy is preferable to promiscuity, for homosexuals as well as for heterosexuals).
As for my "uphill battle" -- I only note that more and more people are seeing it my way, and that by surrendering control of the language to the fascists, fascist apologists, and reactionaries, you're giving them an upper hand. You're also allying yourself with partisan hack dipshits like Ann Coulter and Sean Hannity.
This is the fault of the US? Water reticulation systems were obsolete and polluted. All water had to be boiled. If you had water. Probably 20% of the inhabitants of Baghdad depend have running water in the late 80s.
As far as mal nutruition goes. My staff used to rewared with a banana or orange, a single one, for the outstanding achievement each month because we could obtain such items from Kuwait. My staff would not eat these items but give them to their children who had never seen them. So much for nutrition under Saddam. By the way there was no pork, beef, lamb, only chicken. And yes pork was alowed as was liquor since Saddam maintained a secular state. The Yugoslavs served pork every night at their club.
People who substutite dogma for knowledge should be shown for what they are.
Even Thompson was a wannabe Thompson at the end.
Escobar's "argument" is just plain stupid on the face of it. If Iraq had 100% employment, it would still be a democracy. Democracy, like monarchy, aristocracy, republic, etc., refers to the form of government, not to the rate of employment, the percentage of houses having indoor plumbing, or any other such irrelevancy. Leave it to a Marxist to define everything in economic terms.
Under the definition of fascism Dean showed us, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Kim Jong Il, Castro, and the rest of that ilk would also be fascists. Indeed, Communists have often been accurately called "Red Fascists".
Speaking of which, I just thought up another name for these Saddamites or fascist sympathizers, fascist apologists, and fascist propagandists like Lord Pork Pork, Ward Eichmann, and the rest of that ilk, an old term from the 1930s for a certain breed of domestic fascists/Nazis: "Silver Shirters"
But in any case: I'm proposing the name. I suggest adopting it. They're fascists, fascist sympathizers, and fascist apologists. Nothing describes them better--nothing.
Excellent statement. I, too, am an old-fashioned liberal in that historic sense, and an ultra-conservative, a Right-Wing Extremist, and a "fascist" because I believe in the primacy, centrality, and eternal finality of the individual. That is my holy dogma.
Crack open any history book and you will find that the central premise of fascism and of Nazism, as of Communism, was the primacy of the collective (state, race, party, etc.) and the total subordination of the individual to that collective.
Hitler said:
"To the Christian doctrine of infinite significance of the individual human soul, I oppose with icy clarity the saving doctrine of the nothingness and insignificance of the human being."
(And he meant it. See, e.g., Auschwitz.)
If, therefore, Michael Moore is a "liberal" and Dean Esmay is a "fascist", then, as I said, words have no meaning and we might as well be speaking Swahili or barking like dogs. I, for one, refuse to go along with such "Progress".
I don't have any problem with calling people and things what they actually are rather than the euphemism du jour. But we should also be certain of our targets before letting fly.
A socialist judge in black robes intent on destroying private property rights and other such
liberty denying activities, especially by members of SCOTUS.
The thing to do is to remind people of why you do what you do. Let the chips fall where they may from then. If you take a stand someone's going to be mad at you regardless.