I notice that people generally use “fascism” to mean some political development they don’t like.<\/p>\n
After 9-11, the West could have treated the threat of Al Qaeda and other Islamic terrorists as primarily a law enforcement problem. Instead, the Bush administration decided to launch a war on terror, and claimed, without evidence, that the country was hit on 9-11 because people like Osama Bin Laden hated our freedom. Then we got all sorts of right-wing rhetoric about Islamo-fascism<\/a>. <\/p>\n So instead of looking at Islamic terror as primarily a matter for law enforcement to deal with, it became widely seen as a civilizational war where the forces of freedom were doing battle with the forces of darkness.<\/p>\n At the time, there were people such as Mickey Kaus who said we should regard Islamic terror as primarily a law enforcement issue rather than civilization issue. In retrospect, they were right.<\/p>\n Now we have the Democrats, the MSM and our elites engaged in a civilizational war against white nationalism and the new threat of fascism to our democratic institutions. Given that the overwhelming majority of white nationalists are law abiding, that might be a mistake. Why not look at the extreme right and the extreme left as primarily a law enforcement issue when those extremes break the law? <\/p>\n Social psychologist Jonathan Haidt says that when you make something sacred, you can’t see it clearly and you can’t compromise effectively. For the left, the battle against fascism is a sacred fight just as the fight against Islamo-fascism was a sacred fight for the right. <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" I notice that people generally use “fascism” to mean some political development they don’t like. After 9-11, the West could have treated the threat of Al Qaeda and other Islamic terrorists as primarily a law enforcement problem. Instead, the Bush … Continue reading