After Fascism by swasb

VIEWS: 410 PAGES: 269

									   After Fascism
                




After Fascism
   After Fascism
                                                       




       After Fascism
Muslims and the Struggle for Self-determination




              ABID ULLAH JAN




                P r a g m a t i c P ub l i s h i n g
                           Ottawa
                                   After Fascism




                      Copyright © 2006 by Pragmatic Publishing, Canada

                       Trade paperback/bound edition March 2006

         All rights reserved. The use of any part of this publication reproduced, stored
      in any retrieval system, or transmitted in any forms or by any means, electronic
        or otherwise, without prior written consent of the publisher — or, in case of
    photocopying or other reprographic copying, a license from the Canadian Copyright
                Licensing Agency — is an infringement of the copyright law.


                  Library and Archives Canada Cataloguing in Publication
                                    Jan, Abid Ullah, 1965-
                       After fascism : Muslims and the struggle for
                           self-determination / Abid Ullah Jan.

                                    ISBN 0-9733687-5-6

                    1. Islamic countries--Foreign relations. 2. Islam and
                 world politics. 3. Democracy--Islamic countries. I. Title.

                 DS35.77.J35 2006        327.0917’67       C2006-903026-X


      All sources have been referenced and acknowledged. The author and publisher
     welcome any information enabling them to rectify any error or omission in future
                                         editions.



                             PRAGMATIC PUBLISHING
                       Web: http://www.pragmaticpublishings.com/
                                                                




                   Contents
Preface                                                   9


PART ONE
Fascism in Context                                        16
     Fascism Goes Mainstream                              55
     Fascism: In Advanced Phase                           58
        The Root Problem                                  61
        Winning through Ideas                             64
     Fascism and the Corporate Media                      68
     The “Death Cult” or Super Fascism                    72
     The Fascist Way of Life                              76


PART TWO
Reconsolidating Colonialism with Democratic Fascism       82
    The Colonial Roots of the Issue                       86
    Islamophobia and Democracy in Contact                 97
    The Myth of Islamic Democracy                         111
    Islam, the West, and the Question of Dominance        123
    Hiding Behind Democracy                               133
    Impossibility of Mini-Islamic States                  149
    A Democratic Revolution in the Muslim World?          156


PART THREE
The Fruits of Fascism                                     163
     The Coming Collapse of the System of Nation-States   163
     Approaching the End of Democratic Fascism            170
     Twenty-first Century Jews                            175
                         After Fascism


      The Coming Exodus                                187
      Muslim Self-Rule Has Became Inevitable           192
      The United States is Helpless                    200
      On The Way to Greater Israel                     206
      The Greater Israel: An Inevitable Fate           213
          The way the UK lost it                       216
          The way the US is losing it                  217
      The U.S. Financial Meltdown to Come              219
      The U.S. Dominance is Doomed                     223
          On the Question of Power                     227
          On the Future                                229


  After Fascism                                        233
       What to Do                                      241

Notes	 	      	       	       	       	        	   	   246
                                                                    




 This book is dedicated to all those who are suffering under
modern day fascism, and believe that both Muslims and non-
Muslims are equal human being with equal rights to freedom,
liberty and self-rule. It is for those who reject any way of life
                  imposed upon them by force.
                  After Fascism




    ‘Time’s glory is to calm contending kings,
    To unmask falsehood, and bring truth to light,
    To stamp the seal of time in aged things,
    To wake the morn, and sentinel the night,
    To wrong the wronger till he render right.

                                        William Shakespeare
                                         The Rape of Lucrece
                                                                      




                           Preface



T       HE twenty-first century dawned with the most horrible crime,
         the 9/11 attacks in the United States, followed by horrible
         wars launched by the U.S. government. America’s rulers put
forward an incredible and unusual conspiracy theory to tell the world
how the 9/11 attacks took place. There was a lack of investigation to
confirm the official theory about 9/11 followed by a very quick war
and the occupation of Afghanistan. An equally illegitimate war and the
occupation of Iraq followed the war of aggression on Afghanistan.
   The main lie used to justify the war on Iraq is now universally
known. It is also well known that the war on Afghanistan was planned
long before the 9/11 attacks. The war crimes committed by the U.S.
forces in the occupied countries, as well as in the various prisons they
have set-up within and outside the occupied countries, are also before
the world. The use of banned weapons and ammunition, such as de-
pleted uranium and white phosphorus, is also a matter of public record
now. The consequences of using the banned weapons are also unfold-
ing before our eyes in the form of an increasing number of deformed
babies born in occupied Afghanistan and Iraq. Similarly, a number of
Americans who were sent to war and used these weapons are suffering
from related illnesses. Yet the people behind the wars are now showing
their determination to nuke Iran into submission, if necessary, for its

                                    
0                           After Fascism


alleged intention to have nuclear weapons.
   Many analysts believe that we are well into the age of fascism.1 Oth-
ers argue that we are about to enter an era of fascism in the name of
freedom and democracy. Yet those in the opposing camp believe that
the preemptive wars are needed to check the greatest evils and besti-
alities of Islam, which are set to change the Western way of life. The
approaching denouement is presaged precisely by the extraordinary
tension between the Muslim and Western worlds, led by the United
States. In international relations, this denouement means a greater war.
   In the Muslim world, a rising number of Muslims believe that it
would be far better if a greater war were forestalled by Muslims achiev-
ing true independence and their right to self-determination. But
Muslim independence has not yet not occurred, and—we must say
flatly—the chance of it is small until the modern day fascists exhaust
themselves in their plans to annihilate Muslims, and Muslims, in turn,
learn a lesson at a great cost. The fact is that Muslims alone are not the
victims.
   Besides looking into the question of whether we are living in a new
age of fascism, we need to seriously assess if a greater and wider war
is approaching far more speedily than the rate at which new cadres of
anti-war movements in the West and pro-independence and pro-self-
determination activists in the Muslim world are coming to the fore.
What is common between these two emerging forces in the East and
the West? How can they compliment each other’s efforts? Members of
these movements of true liberty need to look into the determination of
those who want to control their own people and dominate the Muslim
world at any cost. Together, they need to see where they are heading in
a world led by a few powerful people. Never before has historical deter-
minism assumed so fatalistic a form as it does nowadays. The wars in
Iraq and Afghanistan will soon become small wars of the recent past.
Will anything stop the warlords of our age? Will they succeed in what
they have planned, or will war sweep them away?
   The much-vaunted liberal democracy and the civil and human rights
leaders are gradually caving in to the extremism of our age. This re-
sponse is due to the nature of fascism. Those individuals who are for
peace and the equal treatment of Muslims have started using terminol-
ogy that even the fascists of the past did not use to belittle and demon-
ize their enemies. Many self-proclaimed liberals are coming out of their
                                Preface                              


closets and expressing views that are hardly different from the views on
the extreme right. For example, articles of Thomas Friedman, published
in the New York Times soon after the July 7, 2005, bombing in Lon-
don, openly threatened Muslims and cursed Islam without pausing for
the dust to settle and to see if his conclusions were correct.
   Similarly, others, even those like George Galloway—the British MP
who speaks strongly against the illegal wars—agreed that the staged ter-
ror attacks of 9/11 were the work of raging Muslims. Together, most
of the pro-war and anti-war activists and analysts are making a majority
in the world believe in the “enemy” created by the extremists of our
age.
   Looking from the perspective of Muslims, suffering one kind of
tyranny or another since the so-called independence from Western
colonialism, one clearly sees that starving 1.8 million Iraqis to death
through genocidal sanctions by the United Nations has inescapably re-
treated before the greater evil of this age. Islamophobia and capital-
ism, with the aid of World Bank and the International Monetary Fund
(IMF) and coupled by corporate terrorism, have flourished for the last
many years.
   In the West, the search for truth, real representative democracy, and
freedom from police states is intensifying. Peace activists are busy ex-
posing the real culprits behind 9/11 and saving humanity from going
into a greater war. On the other hand, the hunger for self-determina-
tion and self-rule is growing throughout the Muslim world. One sees
evidence in the increasing number of Muslims who call for the over-
throw of puppet regimes from dictators such as Pervez Musharraf and
Islam Karimov to Kings in Jordan and Saudi Arabia to the autocrat in
Egypt and puppets installed by occupation forces in places such as Af-
ghanistan and Iraq. One sees it in the learned disquisitions about the
roots of continued inequality, desperation, under-development, and ex-
ploitation of the Muslim world. Moreover, one sees it in the general
trend away from staying in the rut of systems left behind by the colo-
nialists, without seeing any light at the end of the tunnel. Muslims did
not see freedom and independence, which they acquired from colonial-
ism at a great cost. Thus, Muslims have begun making changes because
they do not believe they would achieve true freedom and independence
living under the existing systems.
   The mounting resistance movements warrant the questions: Are
                           After Fascism


Muslim countries facing a new form of colonialism—fascist-colonial-
ism? If so, what comes after fascism? What is the next step for Muslims
and non-Muslims who are not interested in wars and domination, and
who are helpless before the might of the oppressors, but want change
nevertheless? The truth-tellers’ strategy of exposing the facts rightly be-
gan by focusing on the atrocities of the United States and its allies over
the last century. Now a longer-term approach is needed, one that will
serve human interests and human values, and one that will ensure equal
opportunity for all to freely live their own way of life.
   The ongoing uncertainty forces the truth-seekers to think about the
future. It is not difficult to see that continuing military adventures can
achieve no more than putting temporary puppets in position in places
like Baghdad and Kabul. At the same time, they strengthen resentment
and resistance, upon which the mass sensitization and a movement to-
wards a just order rest. A serious analysis of the events is necessary to
see how after the fall of communism, an upgraded extremism has be-
come necessary, with legislation like that harking back to the time of
Herod and the slaughter of innocent babies, so as to maintain the sta-
tus quo of colonialism. How shall we interpret the open threats in the
corporate newspapers? Is it a sign of fascism and an impending disaster
to read in the New York Times write-ups that declare all Muslims as
suspect?2 Were Jews told in the corporate newspapers in Germany to
mend their ways, otherwise, “the West [was] going to do it for them?
And the West will do it in a rough, crude way—by simply shutting
them out, denying them visas and making every Muslim [read Jew] in
its midst guilty until proven innocent?” What kind of mindset are such
messages helping to develop? What is the future of Muslims when the
present mindset of the Western elite and people in power can be com-
pared to the mindset that was developed in Europe with less threaten-
ing messages than these? One can remember horrors and atrocities of
the past and imagine consequences of the present trends.
   We cannot sit idle without trying to analyze the current events and
attempting to avert impending disaster. To do that, we need to look
back at the history of fascism and colonialism. It does not seem as if
colonial adventures will end any time soon. Puppet regimes have re-
placed direct occupations in the former colonies. These regimes are
serving their former masters more effectively than before through re-
mote control colonialism. There are no limits to state control, manipu-
                                 Preface                              


lation of economic interactions, coercing individuals to serve the state,
and usurping individual rights and civil liberties, and global expansion-
ism within capitalism and associated corporatism. This is likewise true
of the modern day crusaders and Zionists thriving in the shadows of
corporatism. The myopic opportunists among Muslims are confidently
treading the path into which the present masters of the situation are
shoving mankind. Unfortunately, others are playing into the hands of
occupation forces and have pitted themselves against each other rather
than against the aggressors, whose “intellectual” supporters claim the
civil war is in their favor.
   The proceeding sections look into how the world is heading toward a
greater war. We need to look into questions such as: Are we really fac-
ing modern day fascism, or it is an exaggerated position taken by some
analysts? Where are the Muslim and non-Muslim majority worlds
heading? Does the ultimate tragedy of human history await us, or is
there some light at the end of the tunnel? If we are passing through an
age of super-fascism, what is coming after it? This book answers these
and similar questions. Part One of the books puts fascism into context.
So far, researchers have considered colonialism, fascism, and American
adventures over the last century in total isolation from each other. This
book provides a comparative analysis in order to show the true horrors
facing humanity today.
   Part Two of this book looks at the Islamic world, which is reeling
under continued colonialism. Even the most sympathetic Western ana-
lysts have failed to look at the broader picture. They make the serious
mistake of presenting “Islamic democracy” as a panacea for all ills fac-
ing the Muslim world. This section discusses how “Islamic democracy”
is no more than a myth perpetuated to maintain the status quo, and
shows how the establishment of mini-Islamic states is impossible under
the present circumstances.
   The last section looks into the consequences of what the world is fac-
ing today. These predictions might appear to be long-term forecasts.
However, in the face of the determination of warlords in the West, it
might be a matter of only years, not decades, before we see the com-
ing exodus and a Muslim holocaust unraveling before our eyes. The last
section also looks into the seemingly impossible but, in fact, inevitable
replacement of the United States by a Greater Israel as a ruling state.
   This book highlights wars, occupations, and colonial adventures,
                           After Fascism


which are still with us and will be so long as the world is unable to
counter the strategy of violence and naked fascism effectively. The good
news is that besides those individuals waging wars to impose a convo-
luted form of democracy on the Muslim world, there are people—most-
ly non-Muslims—who are struggling as a counter force. They expose
the truth that would provide a viable collective solution for bringing
the values of liberty and freedom into the structure of the state. This
struggle on the part of reformers in the United States and elsewhere is
the way of a future, pregnant with the possibility of Muslim success in
their struggle for self-determination and self-rule.
   The Muslim resistance is indirectly helping the truth-seekers and re-
formers to identify fascists in their societies and to work to regain their
right to making real democratic choices for themselves. This book ex-
plains why the struggle must go on despite the fact that there are ab-
solutely no signs of the fascists giving up their totalitarian dreams in
the near future. Their adventures are bound to lead to more death and
destruction. The mindset they have created is bound to lead to a Mus-
lim holocaust. The good news is that the consistent support extended
to racism and aggression against Israelis is bound to result in the to-
talitarians in the United States losing their empire. Muslims and non-
Muslims struggling for liberty and freedom, nevertheless, can reduce
the impact of these totalitarians’ actions by struggling for synthesis
rather than giving up or joining the totalitarians’ struggle for global su-
premacy.
   This vision to counter modern-day fascism is not utopian. Its realis-
tic beginnings exist in the struggle for self-determination in the Muslim
world and the struggle to expose the real face of modern day fascists in
the Western world. The key to success lies in persistence and consis-
tency. Besides, both Muslims and non-Muslims struggling against the
fascism of our age need to demystify the myths, which have not only
pitted Muslims and non-Muslims against each other, but also Muslims
against Muslims and vice versa. This book attempts to demystify some
of the myths about the Muslim world and the burgeoning movements
for Muslim self-rule. Contrary to the reality, modern day fascists pres-
ent this struggle as Muslims’ attempt to destroy the West. Without a
greater public understanding of the reality, reformers in the West and
the East will not be able to counter the fascism we are facing today.
   This book provides a perspective for peace activists in the West and
                                Preface                              


advocates of the Islamic movements for self-determination in the East
to ponder anew over the following points:
• Can their collective way of struggle bring political and social revo-
    lution to society?
• Is Muslims’ way of struggle consistent with the method of the
    Prophet (pbuh)?
• Do they see in their countries and in the international arena the
    possibility of Muslims exercising their right to self-determination,
    achieving a real freedom? Can the Islamic movement deliver on
    this matter in the prevailing circumstances? How can the internal
    obstacles and external challenges be successfully tackled?
• Muslims have been living a life of servitude and misery for sev-
    eral centuries, deprived of freedom and political and financial in-
    dependence. Living under never-ending colonialism, their sense of
    freedom and self-respect has dramatically suffered. Can one expect
    these oppressed nations to get ready for great sacrifices and to de-
    liver the world of the worst form of fascist oppression?
                             After Fascism




                                  PART ONE




          Fascism in Context
When people understand the term, “fascist empire,” and when they fully grasp
that they are living in one, they will no longer waste precious physical, mental,
or spiritual energy applying the Band-Aids of defunct democracy to the cancer
of world domination and domestic destruction.3
                                             Carolyn Baker, Professor of History
                                                  New Mexico State University.

As early as 2004 I regarded the United States to be on a par with Nazi Germany
as regards its activities in the Gulf.4
                     British Air Force Flight Lieutenant Malcolm Kendall-Smith.




T
          HE most restrictive definitions of fascism include only one
          government, that of Mussolini in Italy. However, this defini-
          tion leaves too many regimes, including those with character-
istics even worse than Mussolini’s rule, off the hook. Benign titles can
hardly make fascist regimes look normal. This is why historians and
analysts frequently applied the term “fascism” to Nazi Germany under
Adolf Hitler and used it to refer to similar regimes and movements
across Europe in the same period, such as Hungary’s Arrow Cross
Party, Romania’s Iron Guard, Spain’s Falange, and the French political
movements led by Marcel Déat and Jacques Doriot.
   More broadly, the term fascism is sometimes applied to other au-
thoritarian regimes of the period, such as those of Imperial Japan under
Hideki Tojo, Austria under Engelbert Dollfuss, and Greece under Io-
annis Metaxas. Its use for similar but longer-lived regimes such as Spain
                                       
                           Fascism in Context                           


under Francisco Franco and the Estado Novo of António de Oliveira
Salazar in Portugal is also widespread among opponents of those re-
gimes.
   Fascism is considered a government structure. The most notable
characteristic of a fascist country is the separation and persecution or
denial of equality to a specific segment of the population based upon
superficial qualities or belief systems. The available definitions of fas-
cism suggest that a fascist government always has one class of citizens
that is considered superior (good) to another (bad) based upon race,
creed, or origin. It is possible for a state to be both a republic and fas-
cist. The preferred class lives in a republic, while the oppressed class
lives in a fascist state. Mussolini insisted, “Fascism should more appro-
priately be called corporatism because it is a merger of state and corpo-
rate power.”5
   Keeping the present state of affairs in the United States and the com-
plicity of “mainstream” media and academia in mind, it is not surpris-
ing that ordinary people have shouldered the responsibility of analyz-
ing the main characteristics of fascist regimes. Lawrence Britt, a retired
capitalist and novelist,6 wrote an article about fascism, which first ap-
peared in Free Inquiry magazine, a journal of humanist thought.7 This
article spread all over the Internet. Britt studied the fascist regimes of
Hitler (Germany), Mussolini (Italy), Franco (Spain), Suharto (Indo-
nesia), and Pinochet (Chile). He found that all these regimes had 14
things in common. Britt calls these the identifying characteristics of
fascism.
   One political website—Project for the Old American Century—
fleshes out Britt’s 14 points with examples of how America is slouching
toward fascism.8 The 14 characteristics are:
    • powerful and continuing nationalism
    • disdain for the recognition of human rights
    • identification of enemies/scapegoats as a unifying cause
    • supremacy of the military
    • rampant sexism
    • controlled mass media
    • obsession with national security
    • religion and government are intertwined
    • corporate power is protected
    • labor power is suppressed
                           After Fascism


    • disdain for intellectuals and the arts
    • obsession with crime and punishment
    • rampant cronyism and corruption
    • fraudulent elections
   Other analysts, such as W. David Jenkins and Sara DeHart, are busy
drawing parallels between the present day United States and the Ger-
many of the 1930s.9 On the other hand, Roderick T. Long, Associate
Professor of Philosophy at Auburn University, recommends revisiting
three books written in 1944—The Road to Serfdom, Omnipotent Gov-
ernment, and As We Go Marching —with the present political climate
in mind, because he believes “the U.S. government is making ever-bold-
er strides toward fascism while mouthing slogans of freedom.”10
   In short, whether America is becoming fascist is the question up-
permost in many minds in the United States. Anis Shivani, author of
The Age of Critics and Memoirs of a Terrorist, believes, “The similarities
between American fascism and particularly the National Socialist prec-
edent, both historical and theoretical, are remarkable. Fascism is home,
it is here to stay, and it better be countered with all the intellectual re-
sources at our disposal.”11
   In spite of some fuzziness regarding the difference between vari-
ous historical forms of fascism, it is not difficult to see that the defin-
ing characteristics proposed by the analysts make perfect sense. These
features cannot be organized into just one type of governing system.
Some of these features are also typical of other kinds of despotism and
fanaticism. But it is enough to see one or more of them present in the
world’s so-called leading democracies, allowing fascism to coagulate
around them. The definition of fascism that limits it to one state and
its apparatus makes sense only when looked at from a narrow perspec-
tive.
   Of course, there are mountains of evidence available about the
crimes of Hitler and Mussolini. However, much has been documented
about colonialists’ crimes against humanity and the United States em-
ploying police state tactics at home and waging many wars abroad. In
fact, the point which most of the historians and analysts have missed is
that colonialism is a crime in progress. They have even drawn parallels
to show similarities between fascist regimes of the past and the present
day United States, but have stopped short of concluding that the old
colonialism has been replaced by a fascist colonialism in our age. Keep-
                           Fascism in Context                          


ing continuation of the crime of colonialism in mind makes us see the
fact that the real fascists are the colonialists who continue to commit
the worst crimes against humanity and who have the potential to un-
dermine the future of humanity.
   If fascism is despicable because of its crimes against humanity, the
point that remains missing from the intellectual discourse is that the
curse of colonialism is far worse than fascism. Colonial fascism spreads
over many centuries with many millions of victims and endless devasta-
tion. It continues and thrives in new forms even today. Understand-
ing this point is possible only if all the available evidence about crimes
against humanity is objectively analyzed and compared, irrespective of
the titles used for each kind of crime and the system behind it. As a
result of this exercise, what will come before the world is the fact that
World War II in particular was a clash of fascists. Every fascist regime
had colonies abroad. Every fascist state was busy in its own genocid-
al campaign: some had been for centuries and others had only begun
their colonial adventures. Some used gas chambers to commit genocide,
while others used less visible or unreported means. What remains un-
disputed is that all these fascists committed genocides at different times
to different extents. But all of them committed countless crimes against
humanity. It is only the victors in this clash of fascists who had the op-
portunity to minimize their crimes and exaggerate the crimes of their
opponents.
   What Mussolini and Hitler did in a limited time and geographical
area pales by comparison to the damage Western colonialism has done,
and continues to do, to humanity. In fact, the adventures of Hitler
and Mussolini are just a fraction of the broader, never ending Church-
sanctioned Western colonialism. Even during the clash of fascists, the
so-called democracies showed no compunction in waging warfare on
a mass scale against both German and Japanese civilians. In addition,
once the war was won, they swiftly incorporated the Nazi apparatus
into the U.S. military, the U.S. space program, and the national state
security apparatus, especially the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA).
   Previous colonial adventures allowed explorers to gradually insti-
tutionalize their global dominance in Africa, Asia, North and South
America, and East Asia. It’s the academic sympathizers of these fascists
who exaggerated and promoted the crimes of Hitler and Mussolini
only, partly with the intention of covering the crimes of their own
0                          After Fascism


colonialist ancestors and partly due to the frame of reference and the
kind of mindset they had developed of hating their enemies. We see
Hitler presented as an example whenever there is a discussion about
crimes against humanity. However, there is hardly any talk about Co-
lumbus, who launched his genocidal campaign under the auspices of
the Church. For his second voyage to the Americas, he “took the title
Admiral of the Ocean Sea and proceeded to unleash a reign of terror
unlike anything seen before or since. When he was finished, eight mil-
lion Arawaks—virtually the entire native population of Hispaniola—
had been exterminated by torture, murder, forced labor, starvation, dis-
ease and despair.”12
   Later, European Christian invaders systematically murdered addi-
tional tens of millions of aboriginal people from the Canadian Arctic to
South America. The exact number is unknown. Natives were murdered
by warfare, forced death marches, forced relocation to barren lands, the
intentional and accidental spread of disease, poisoning, the promotion
of suicide through the destruction of their cultural and religious heri-
tage, etc. Even today, Canadian natives have the highest suicide of any
population group in the world. The genocide against American aborigi-
nals is one of the most massive and longest lasting genocidal programs
of colonialists in human history.13
   The European invasion of Australia started in 1788. The population
of Aborigines in the country was approximately 750,000. By 1911, the
number had been reduced to 31,000. Most were decimated by diseases
introduced by the invaders against which the Aborigines had no de-
fense. Some 20,000 were murdered. In those days, “The Sydney Her-
ald claimed that blacks had ‘bestowed no labor upon the land—their
ownership, their right, was nothing more than that of the Emu or the
Kangaroo.’ Courts rejected Aborigine evidence, because non-Chris-
tians could not swear oaths, and white killers used ‘the defense that
Aborigine morality did not exist.’”14 The extermination of Aborigines
in Tasmania was particularly brutal; many white settlers would shoot
them on sight. In 1830, the remaining 300 Aborigines were ethni-
cally cleansed from Tasmania. They were captured and transferred to
Flinders Island. They signed a treaty that guaranteed their later return.
It was never honored. By 1843, only 50 remained alive.15
   The atrocities in Australia continued into the twentieth century.
Between 1910 and 1970, “between one in three and one in ten indig-
                             Fascism in Context                                


enous children were forcibly removed from their families.” They were
placed with white families in order that they could be absorbed into
the general population. Aborigines were finally granted citizenship in
1967. They still await an apology from the Government of Australia.
Under colonial rule, the population of the Congo declined from about
20 to 30 million to under nine million during this time of atrocity. The
Congress of Berlin gave King Leopold II administrative powers over
the Congo Free State. The colonialists used the native population as
forced labor to exploit local resources. The human toll under Leopold’s
administration was staggering. People who resisted were beaten, tor-
tured, mutilated, or killed. Writer Algis Valiunas described the situa-
tion as “wickedness triumphant.”16
   The most despicable aspect of colonial fascism lies not only in the
mutilations and genocides, but also in the systematic approach adapt-
ed to psychologically control and dominate the native populations for
generations to come. The best description of these colonial crimes is
the story told by the colonial fascists themselves. The recently declassi-
fied six volumes of Frontier and Overseas Expeditions from India, com-
piled in the British Intelligence Branch Division of the Chief of the
Staff Army Head Quarters between 1884 and 1987, give us details of
the methods and tactics adopted by the colonialists. These details from
the mouth of the colonialists show how their approach encompasses all
the characteristics of fascism described above.
   The human rights of the ruling class were important, but the rul-
ing class did not value the human rights of their subjects. They studied
the characteristics of each individual tribe and identified enemies and
scapegoats as a way to unify those natives who supported colonialism.
The colonialists had trust in their military supremacy and used it indis-
criminately against local populations. They totally dominated the few
newspapers and sources of communication, and transferred their edu-
cational systems. Various tribes were systematically pitted against each
other under the divide and rule strategy. In describing the characteris-
tics of people from different ethnic backgrounds, the colonialists went
to the extent of writing comments, such as:
   His women wear a loose shift, wide, wrinkled drawers down to their
   ankles, and a wrap over the head. Both sexes are filthy in their persons.
   Such is the Pathan in his home among the fastnesses of the frontier
   ranges. But the Pathans of our territory have been much softened by
                                After Fascism


     our rule, and by the agricultural life of the plains, so that they look
     down upon the Pathans of the hills, and their proverbs have it—“A hill
     man is no man”; and again, “Don’t class burrs as grass, or a hill man as
     a human being… The Pathan mother often prays that her son may be
     a successful robber. They are utterly faithless to public engagements, it
     would never even occur to their minds that an oath on the Koran was
     binding, if against their interests.17
  The focus of the colonialists remained on cultivating faithfulness to
their rule. The same trend of loyal subjects looking to “our territory”
and “our markets” continues even today. Typical colonial mindset is on
display in the following comments from the British colonialists of late
nineteenth century:
     …they have intrigued with the disaffected everywhere, and tempted
     our loyal subjects to rebel; and they have for ages regarded the plain
     as their preserve, and its inhabitants their game. When inclined for
     cruel sport, they sally forth to rob and murder, and occasionally to
     take prisoners into captivity for ransom. They have fired upon our own
     troops, and even killed our officers in our own territories. They have
     given an asylum to every malcontent or proclaimed criminal who can
     escape from British justice. They traverse at will our territories, enter our
     villages, trade in our markets; but few British subjects, and no servant
     of the British Government, would dare to enter their country on any
     account whatever.18
   The burning and total destruction of village upon village, was simi-
lar to the destruction witnessed later in Vietnam and now in occupied
Iraq and Afghanistan. One colonial fascist proudly penned:
     Seven Kashmir sepoys were wounded in this skirmish. Surgeon-Major
     Robertson now assumed the offensive, and crossing the river burnt the
     village of Chilas and occupied the fort on the 30th November 1892.19
   Collective punishments, as we witness under the Israeli and Ameri-
can occupations today, were also used by former colonial fascists. Pres-
ent day fascists have learned from the methods of their predecessors. In
“Frontier and Overseas Expeditions from India,” the colonialists report
“[Darel and Tangir] community [were] fined because they had made
no efforts to arrest the raiders during their subsequent passage through
their limits. As neither Darel nor Tangir made any effort to pay the
fine, a blockade was established, and all Tangiris and Darelis found
within the Agency limits were arrested and deported to Kashmir. The
                           Fascism in Context                          


fines were paid by 1904, in which year the blockade was raised.”20
   Such horrible details are spread over hundreds of pages in each of
the five volumes of Frontier and Overseas Expeditions from India pro-
duced by the colonial fascists themselves. The work is a kind of confes-
sion of guilt on their part, though their fascist mindset did not allow
them to see their actions as something to be guilty about. Dr. J. W.
Smith writes in Economic Democracy: the Political Struggle for the 21st
Century that even after the end of direct colonialism, the West “vio-
lently” killed “12 to 15 million people since WW II” alone and caused
“the death of 100s of millions more as their economies were destroyed
or those countries were denied the right to restructure to care for their
people.”21 He adds, “Unknown as it is, and recognizing that this has
been standard practice throughout colonialism, that is the record of
the Western imperial centers of capital from 1945 to 1990….One hun-
dred and fifty thousand to 300,000 of these were tortured and killed
by death squads set up by Western intelligence agencies, primarily the
CIA.”22 These figures simply show that colonialism is not dead and that
the fascism of Hitler and others was no worse than the crimes of other
colonialists. Although most (but not all) direct colonialism has been
ended, colonialism persists in neo-colonialism and in settler colonial so-
cieties. What is more, the imperial societies are re-colonizing the globe
under the doctrine of neo-liberalism, direct corporate rule via forms
such as the World Trade Organization (WTO), and, increasingly, the
direct application of military might. Colonial fascism thus continues
under new labels and new justifications.
   Despite apparent decolonization after four centuries, the Western
powers have managed to maintain global dominance and influence on
the affairs of non-Western nations. The colonial legacy in the Muslim
world in particular goes on. In the past, the colonialists were ruling the
Islamic world using direct force, but once they were forced to withdraw
their troops from the Muslim lands, they made sure to leave behind
puppets that would safeguard their interests. To achieve this objective,
in most cases the colonialists constituted armed forces of the colonies
they were leaving behind. These armies resembled the colonialist armies
in many ways and acted as their eternal defender, fighting against any
national uprising.
   The educational system in Indian sub-continent, for example, are
classic examples where the curriculum were designed in a way to guar-
                           After Fascism


antee indoctrinating the youth and eradicating any sense of indepen-
dence and self-respect from their minds, instead infusing in them a
sense of servitude that would make them proud of mimicking their for-
eign masters. In Pakistan, the provincial and federal civil service officers
are still getting the same kind of training which the colonial officers
used to go through with a specific objective of dominating and control-
ling the occupied masses. The geographical maps of these countries were
altered in a way to ensure permanent border disputes among neighbors.
Obedient minorities were installed in the government that could cling to
power only with the support of their foreign benefactors.
   The scale of genocides in this new age of colonialism has been re-
duced to some extent. But genocide, such as starving 1.8 million Iraqis
to death through 12-year long economic sanctions with legitimacy
from the United Nations, is still an effective tool in the hands of co-
lonial fascists. In any event, exploitation of their wealth and resources
continues until this day. Many analysts in the later half of twentieth
century were of the opinion that a difference existed between capital-
ism and imperialism in general and between capitalism and fascism in
particular. To them, fascism was a form of imperialism in extremis,
moved to taking desperate measures for its survival. The beginning of
the twenty-first century brought them out of this denial. The extreme
and desperate measures taken by the United States and its allies have
crossed all limits that previously defined fascism. The renewed fascism
involves the focusing of its perpetrators’ energies on interference in the
internal affairs and domination of Muslim states in particular, because
of the perceived ideological threat. This interference is being done in
the name of survival and defense of What Bush, Blair and their allies
call “our way of life”.
   Today’s international politico-economic structures, continued tur-
moil, wars, and regional conflicts are the logical culmination of colonial
fascism, fully legitimized by an undemocratic United Nations and fully
consolidated by undemocratic organizations, particularly the WTO
and IMF. These organizations present a very real threat to democracy
and to the so-called sovereignty of member states, particularly former
colonies.
   In response to criticism, the WTO claims that it does not dictate to
member states. However, in almost its next breath, it says that member
states are required to abide by WTO regulations since they previously
                               Fascism in Context                                    



agreed to follow them. They also claim that membership is voluntary,
but the very nature of the WTO would make it hard for non-member
states to compete economically if they did not join. The Western aca-
demic world generally disregards exploitation by these organizations.
Similarly, they hardly refer to genocides, plunder of resources, intro-
duction of class systems, and other legacies of their colonial past, which
have been consolidated in new ways in the modern age. It would be
total disregard of the facts to say that colonial fascism did not provide
foundations for the building of the contemporary inequalities and an
unjust world order.
   It is naive to expect that someone will order the reopening of Aus-
chwitz or make their supporters parade in black shirts in the Italian
squares. History does not repeat itself in such simple terms. Modern
day fascism is far worse, and it has made its comeback under the most
innocent of disguises. Lewis H. Lapham lists some of the ways in which
fascism has made a comeback in the United States in the following
words:
   I don’t say that over the last thirty years we haven’t made brave strides
   forward. By matching Eco’s list of fascist commandments against our record
   of achievement, we can see how well we’ve begun the new project for the
   next millennium -- the notion of absolute and eternal truth embraced by
   the evangelical Christians and embodied in the strict constructions of the
   Constitution; our national identity provided by anonymous Arabs; Darwin’s
   theory of evolution rescinded by the fiat of “intelligent design”; a state of
   perpetual war and a government administering, in generous and daily doses,
   the drug of fear; two presidential elections stolen with little or no objection
   on the part of a complacent populace; the nation’s congressional districts
   gerrymandered to defend the White House for the next fifty years against
   the intrusion of a liberal-minded president; the news media devoted to the
   arts of iconography, busily minting images of corporate executives like those
   of the emperor heroes on the coins of ancient Rome.23
   From the January 17, 1991 U.S. war on Iraq, called “Desert Storm,”
to the Mary 2003 U.S. invasion of Iraq, called “Shock and Awe,” and
from the genocidal United Nations’ sanctions on Iraq (from 1991 to
2003) to the planned destruction of Iran under the pretext of its refus-
al to stop enriching Uranium, we are witnessing a gathering storm of
tyranny that every age has had to witness before experiencing a period
of relative calm. In every age, tyranny touches its peak with full legiti-
macy and popular acceptance before facing its destiny.
                            After Fascism


   We need not spend hours comparing the gathering storm of present
tyranny with the fascist tyrannies of the distant past or understand-
ing how Nazis rallied almost every German behind Hitler’s extrem-
ist approach. The question is: Does it make any difference if George
Bush, Tony Blair, and their allies in the war of terrorism do not dis-
play pictures of earlier fascists in their offices? The offices of Hitler and
Mussolini were also devoid of any portraits of the enemies of human-
ity before them. Does it make any difference that Nazis are not around
today to gleefully celebrate Bush, Blair, and company’s horrific terror-
ist wars and crimes against humanity? We see people jumping on the
bandwagon of democracy and celebrating Bush and Blair’s “successes”
in the so-called war on terrorism. The blind belief in the war-monger-
ing leaders is one of the signs of a fascist movement. In the early twen-
tieth century, fascism had its roots in the European nationalist and
socialist movements, and a grotesque biologically-determinant view of
so-called “Aryan” supremacy developed. Today, we see fascism’s roots
in the feelings of Western supremacy that exist on global scale.
   In identifying “goodness” and “superiority” with “us,” there was a
fascist tendency in the past to identify “evil” with “them.” The same
process of dehumanization is underway before our eyes, today. In fas-
cist Italy and Germany, for example, it was an easy step to blame all
societal problems on “them” and presuppose a conspiracy of these evil-
doers that had emasculated and humiliated the idealized core group of
the nation. To solve society’s problems, one needed only to unmask
the conspirators and eliminate them. Today, this phenomenon is being
played out on a global scale with Islam and Muslim in the spotlight.
The modern day fascists are presenting Islam as “Islamism,” portraying
it as evil incarnate. In comparison to the inflated “Islamism,” the fas-
cists’ exploitation, oppression, militarism, and repressive measures are
presented as benign or justified. Here we need to elaborate the associa-
tion of fascism and “Islamism” for further clarity.
                                   ~*~*~*~

   The fear of “Islamic fundamentalism” was blown out of proportion
after the withdrawal of the Soviet Union from Afghanistan. By late
1990s, this term was turning into a cliché without enough force to gen-
erate the desired level of fear and hatred of Islam. Islamophobes, thus,
invented the term “Islamism” to add new dimensions to presenting Is-
                           Fascism in Context                           


lam as a threatening menace.
   Eight years down the road, the one-line definitions of “Islamism”
and “Islamists” have flooded the corporate media. Most reporters and
analysts are frequently using these terms without realizing that they are
promoting a myth. In most cases they are not aware of the sinister ob-
jectives behind promoting the myth of Islamism.
   Irrespective of the deceptive definitions, “Islamism” is used to keep
the image of an enemy alive. It is used as a glue to hold the crum-
bling American empire and associated alliance together. “Islamism”
scares non-Muslims and keeps the European Union and others at bay
from thinking outside the box for initiatives such as, coming up with
an alternative to the present monetary system or taking an indepen-
dent course to economic development. The never-ending repetition of
“Islamism,” however, cannot fool a majority of Muslims.
   Muslims know that Islamism, as defined by Islamophobes, is noth-
ing but Islam. This is the best way in which the Islamophobes can de-
monize Islam, present its core teachings as a threat to civilization and,
at the same time, maintain the façade of being neutral. Promotion of
the myth of Islamism goes hand in hand with the invention of alter-
native Islams. Many opportunist Muslims justify these un-Islamic ver-
sions of Islam with different justifications. However, most debates and
usage of these terms is taking place without the broader realization that
the myth of Islamism is used to support the crumbling empire’s futile
struggle for survival.
   In the struggle for protecting and expanding the American empire,
both religious and secular forces are complementing each other. If it
were just the totalitarian, corporate forces—determined to sustain the
dollar dominance in the global market—they would not have consid-
ered invasion and occupation of Afghanistan as a productive step for-
ward. But the secular totalitarians were obliged to listen to the religious
zealots. They overthrew the Taliban because the religiously motivated
figures in the U.S. military, media, politics and academia could see in
the Taliban movement a challenge to the status quo.
   For sustaining the global dominance of petro-dollar, political status
quo in the Muslim world is as much important as taking measures to
restrict others from trading in euros for oil. Not allowing Muslims to
exercise their right to self-determination and to free themselves from
de facto colonization is part of the broader strategy aimed at sustain-
                              After Fascism


ing the present global monetary and economic order. A Muslim world,
free from the remaining clutches of colonialism and puppet regimes, is
a far greater threat than the Iranian or Iraqi oil bourse for trading oil
in euros. Establishing an interest-free monetary system and economic
order will be one of the first priorities of an Islamic states or a single
Islamic entity. This will be a direct challenge to the hegemony, which
the United States is desperately trying to sustain with the myth of
Islamism. It helps the United States keep everyone on edge, wage the
twenty-first century wars and occupy other countries.
   That is why the secular totalitarians had no option but to proceed
and dislodge the Taliban, who were becoming an inspiration for great-
er movements for self-determination and self-rule in the Muslim world.
At the same time, the corporate-extremists had to send a message to
the Muslim world that the only acceptable way for it to exist was to
submit to the de facto colonization.
   Intentions of the forces struggling to sustain the U.S. economic
power through protecting petro-dollar are understandable. Many of us,
however, do not realize that keeping petro-dollar afloat was not possible
without creating the myth of a common enemy. The history of the U.S.
economic dominance and its efforts to sustain it are as clear as ABC
to most of us. To further simplify the issue, Steve Masterson presented
an impressive analysis at Indymedia UK to show how the secular, cor-
porate powers have allied to save the crumbling U.S. Empire through
protecting petro-dollar.24 The only leftover aspect to add to this analysis
is the way “Islamism” is used to save modern-day fascism.
   It is necessary to understand the links between the present day mon-
etary system, American dominance and fascism. Many of us do not re-
alize the way “Islamism” is used to avoid the global depression on the
pattern of the Wall Street crash in 1929. Actually, the impending de-
pression is directly linked to the supremacy of the United States.
   Looking at the financial aspect of modern-day fascism, many re-
searchers are coming to the conclusion that capitalism itself is an ad-
vanced form of fascism. Others declare the United States as a fascist
state. To get to the roots of the reality, Nelson Hultberg, founder and
executive director of Americans for a Free Republic, puts the terms fas-
cism and capitalism in perspective in the following words. His clarify-
ing remarks are in parentheses:
     Fascism -- a political philosophy, movement or regime that exalts nation
                               Fascism in Context                                   


   and often race above the individual, and that stands for a centralized
   autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic
   and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition. [The
   state has power over every aspect of the economy to plan and regulate its
   workings. The factors of production are owned privately, but controlled
   by the governing authorities as to what and how they are to produce, and
   what level of profits they are to retain.]
   Capitalism -- an economic system characterized by private or corporate
   ownership of capital goods, by investments that are determined by private
   decision rather than by state control, and by prices, production, and the
   distribution of goods that are determined mainly by competition in a free
   market. [The state is neither to own nor operate the factors of production,
   nor to interfere in the peaceful decisions of their operation, leaving them to
   be controlled by the natural laws such as supply and demand that operate
   within the marketplace.]25
   Hultberg explains that theoretically, the two systems are different in
the fact that fascism advocates state control over the factors of produc-
tion and their profits, while capitalism advocates private control over
those factors.
   Thus, capitalism is a system of economic organization without gov-
ernment involvement. Theoretically, the government’s job is basically
to preserve the peace and perform those few limited functions granted
by the constitution. Otherwise, private enterprise is free enterprise and
owners make the decisions of hiring, pricing, wage determination, pro-
duction levels, policy planning, profit disposal, etc.
   Under fascism, the government’s job is to intervene into the mar-
ketplace to control all the various economic interactions of its partici-
pants. Its role is to manipulate the economic interactions through reg-
ulations and the conveyance of special privileges. Government assumes
this power because it is felt that this is the only way stability and order
can be maintained in society. The government confiscates much of the
businesses’ profit and uses them as the government sees fit. The term
“private” is still used within the context of government-business “co-
operation.” However, government simply tells businesses what it wants
done and legally mandates that it be done. There is no choice in the
matter. Those who do not do as the government says are imprisoned or
fined egregiously.
   Hultberg concludes that fascism is thus a command economy where
0                               After Fascism


massive centralized government is developed to regulate its citizens’
lives. The major power centers of society—government, corporations,
and banks—form a triad to monopolize and manipulate the economy
according to their liking, their aggrandizement, and their profit at the
expense of the individual and his rights.26 This is what we witness under
capitalism.
   After equating capitalism to fascism, analysts turn around and look
at the United States. They conclude that the United States is a “classic
example” of modern day fascism. Thomas J. DiLorenzo of Loyola Col-
lege, for example, writes:
     The essence of fascism is that government should be the master, not the
     servant, of the people. Think about this. Does anyone in America really
     believe that this is not what we have now? Are Internal Revenue Service
     agents really our ‘servants’? Is compulsory ‘national service’ for young
     people...not a classic example of coercing individuals to serve the state?
     Isn’t the whole idea behind the massive regulation and regimentation
     of American industry and society the notion that individuals should be
     forced to behave in ways defined by a small governmental elite?27
DiLorenzo goes on to add:
     Virtually all of the specific economic policies advocated by the Italian and
     German fascists of the 1930’s have also been adopted in the United States
     in some form, and continue to be adopted to this day. Sixty years ago,
     those who adopted these interventionist policies in Italy and Germany
     did so because they wanted to destroy economic liberty, free enterprise,
     and individualism. Only if these institutions were abolished could they
     hope to achieve the kind of totalitarian state they had in mind.28
   A recent film by Aaron Russo, “America: From Freedom to Fas-
cism,” explains how over a period of time, America has become a fascist
state indeed. Using interviews with U.S. Congressmen, the former IRS
Commissioner, former IRS and FBI agents, tax attorneys and authors,
Russo proves conclusively that Americans are living in a fascist state. In
fact, Russo is exposing just the tip of the iceberg.
   To understand how the American fascism overshadowed the global
capitalist order, one has to review the history of Federal Reserve Bank
(FED), a private company, playing the central role in keeping the U.S.
alive as a paper tiger. Article 1, Section 8 of the United States Consti-
tution states that Congress shall have the power to coin (create) money
and regulate the value thereof. Today however, the FED controls and
                             Fascism in Context                                


profits by printing money through the Treasury, and regulating its val-
ue not only for the Americans but also the rest of the world.
   The FED began with approximately 300 people and a few banks that
became owners in the Federal Reserve Banking System. They make up
an international banking cartel of wealth beyond comparison.29 The
FED banking system collects billions of dollars in interest annually and
distributes the profits to its shareholders.30 The Congress gave the FED
the right to print money (through the Treasury) at no interest to the
FED. The FED creates money from nothing, and loans it back to peo-
ple through banks, and charges interest on people’s currency. The FED
also buys Government debt with money printed on a printing press
and charges U.S. taxpayers’ interest.
   One of the reasons for the Anglo-American alliance for terror-
izing the world, as we will see below, is that bankers of the 12 Cen-
tral banks31 of the Federal Reserve are connected to London Banking
Houses which ultimately control the FED. When England lost the
Revolutionary War with America, it planned to control the U.S. by
controlling its banking system, the printing of dollar, and its debt.32
The same bankers who own the FED control the media. They also give
huge political contributions to sympathetic members of Congress.33 Eu-
stace Mullins shows in his book, The Secrets of the Federal Reserve, how
England, through the Bankers, controls the U.S. Congress.34
   The Federal Reserve came to being when a group of bankers fund-
ed and staffed Woodrow Wilson’s campaign for President, who had
committed to sign the act. President Wilson, who reportedly received
$85,000 in bribe from bankers,35 pushed the Federal Reserve Act
through Congress just before Christmas when much of the Congress
was on vacation. Later, Wilson remorsefully admitted while referring
to the FED:
   I am a most unhappy man. I have unwittingly ruined my country. A
   great industrial nation is controlled by its system of credit. Our system
   of credit is concentrated. The growth of the nation, therefore, and all
   our activities are in the hands of a few men. We have come to be one of
   the worst ruled, one of the most completely controlled and dominated
   Governments in the civilized world - no longer a Government by free
   opinion, no longer a Government by conviction and the vote of the
   majority, but a Government by the opinion and duress of a small group
   of dominant men.36
                               After Fascism


    If the government runs a deficit, the FED prints dollars through the
U.S. Treasury, buys the debt, and the dollars are circulated into the
economy. In 1992, taxpayers paid the FED banking system $286 bil-
lion in interest on debt the FED purchased by printing money virtually
cost free.37 Recent statistics would be far more shocking. Forty percent
of personal federal income taxes of Americans go to pay this interest.
The FED’s books are not open to the public. Congress has yet to audit
it.
    Referring to the Federal Reserve banks, Congressman Louis T. Mc-
Fadden said in 1932:
     We have, in this country, one of the most corrupt institutions the world
     has ever known. I refer to the Federal Reserve Board. This evil institution
     has impoverished the people of the United States and has practically
     bankrupted our government. It has done this through the corrupt
     practices of the moneyed vultures who control it.38
   The corporate media, which has shouldered the responsibility of pro-
moting the myth of Islamism, hardly discusses FED in detail. The rea-
son is that the bankers behind the scene own the corporate media. In
July 1968, the House Banking Subcommittee reported that Rockefell-
er, through Chase Manhattan Bank, controlled 5.9 percent of the stock
in CBS. The bank had gained interlocking directorates with ABC as
well. In 1974, Congress issued a report stating that the Chase Manhat-
tan Bank’s stake in CBS rose to 14.1 percent and NBC to 4.5 percent
(through RCA, the parent company of NBC). The same report said
that the Chase Manhattan Bank held stock in 28 broadcasting firms.
After this report, the Chase Manhattan Bank obtained 6.7 percent of
ABC, and today the percentage could be much greater. It only requires
5 percent ownership to significantly influence the media.39 This is only
one of 300 wealthy shareholders of the FED. Other FED owners have
similar holdings in the corporate media. Pat Robertson writes in his
book, The New World Order, that to control the media, FED bankers
call in their loans if the media disagrees with them.40 He also suggests
the United States must abolish the FED.41
   In 1983, fifty corporations controlled the vast majority of all news
media in the U.S. At the time, Ben Bagdikian was called “alarmist” for
pointing this out in his book, The Media Monopoly.42 In his 4th edi-
tion, published in 1992, he wrote “in the U.S., fewer than two dozen
of these extraordinary creatures own and operate 90% of the mass me-
                          Fascism in Context                         


dia”— controlling almost all of America’s newspapers, magazines, TV
and radio stations, books, records, movies, videos, wire services and
photo agencies. He predicted then that eventually this number would
fall to about half a dozen companies. This was greeted with skepticism
at the time. When the 6th edition of The Media Monopoly was pub-
lished in 2000, the number had fallen to six. Since then, there have
been more mergers and the scope has expanded to include new media
like the Internet market. More than 1 in 4 Internet users in the U.S.
now log in with AOL Time-Warner, the world’s largest media corpora-
tion.
   In 2004, Bagdikian’s revised and expanded book shows that only 5
huge corporations—Time Warner, Disney, Murdoch’s News Corpo-
ration, Bertelsmann of Germany, and Viacom (formerly CBS)—now
control most of the media industry in the United States. General Elec-
tric’s NBC is a close sixth.
   These media giants have very high stakes involved in global business.
That’s why they have to look at the international developments from
the perspective of corporate interest. The global commercial system is
a very recent development. Until the 1980s, media systems were gener-
ally national in scope. While there have been imports of books, films,
music and TV shows for decades, the basic broadcasting systems and
newspaper industries were domestically owned and regulated. Begin-
ning in the 1980s, pressure from the IMF, World Bank and U.S. gov-
ernment to deregulate and privatize media and communication systems
coincided with new satellite and digital technologies, resulting in the
rise of transnational media giants. The two largest media firms in the
world, Time Warner and Disney, generated around 15 percent of their
income outside of the United States in 1990. By 1997, that figure was
in the 30 percent to 35 percent range.43
   Rockefeller also controls the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR),
the sole purpose of which is to aid in stimulating greater interest in
foreign affairs. Nearly every major newscaster belongs to the Council
on Foreign Relations. The Council on Foreign Relations controls many
major newspapers and magazines. Additionally, major corporations
owned by FED shareholders are the source of huge advertising rev-
enues, which surely would influence the media.44
   With Congress allowing the constitutionally illegal FED to contin-
ue, much of taxes go to the shareholders of the FED and their bankers.
                           After Fascism


The people, who enacted the FED, started the IRS, within months of
the FED’s inception. The FED buys U.S. debt with money they printed
from nothing, then charges the U.S. taxpayers interest. The government
had to create income tax to pay the interest expense to the FED’s share-
holders, but the income tax was never legally passed. In his book, The
Law That Never Was, Bill Benson gives details, state-by-state, showing
why it was not legally passed.45
   The above-mentioned description describes only the ways to system-
atic looting of the middle class and the trend towards corporatism as
being one of the aspects of the present day fascism. Of course, there are
other trends of fascism today. Besides continuing colonialism abroad in
many ways, the most disturbing trend is controlling citizens and mili-
tarization of the society at home. With the advent of the war on drugs
and now the “war on terrorism,” the world witnesses a very disturbing
trend towards increased intrusion into privacy of individuals, violence
by law enforcement officials, human rights abuses and usurpation of
civil liberties. International laws and standards of human rights have
become meaningless. Americans have witnessed the illegal introduction
of the military into civil law enforcement in the war on drugs in Texas.
For example, Americans must not have forgotten murder of a teenage
sheepherder or the film clips of the Humboldt County’s squad apply-
ing pepper spray directly into the eyes of peaceful protestors. We have
reports of FBI involvement in the bombing of Earth First activist Judy
Bari and the Earth First office in Arizona. James Bovard book, Lost
Rights, is full of such examples. With the introduction of Patriot Act,
the “war on terrorism,” racial profiling, and electronic surveillance the
situation has gone from bad to worse in the United States.
   “People are more afraid of terror than having their privacy violated,”
says Tomasso, chair of the New Hampshire Liberty Alliance. “For so
long the rhetoric has been about fear, not hope and more traditional
American values.”46 Actually, when a live frog is boiled slowly, it doesn’t
know it’s in deep trouble until it is too late. The American public has
been so collectively ‘slowly boiled’ with fear mongering rhetoric that
the vast majority cannot even articulate the civil liberties which have
been hacked away by this administration.
   At international level, there is already an undemocratic world gov-
ernment in place. One set of people can change the future of others
who are not involved in decision-making both in the West and those
                           Fascism in Context                           


who are still reeling under de facto colonization in the Muslim world.
Its objective is to put all human activity in the market, including ed-
ucation, culture, and health, and to maintain the status quo at home
and abroad. Global fascism—a combination of capitalism and pseudo
democracy—is responsible for pushing wealth upward both between
countries and within countries. Since 1980, every country has experi-
enced increasing inequalities. Eighty-five percent of people live in coun-
tries where inequalities are increasing and this includes China, Russia,
E. Europe and West Europe and the United States, and at the same
time inequalities are increasing between North and South.
   The top 20 percent of humanity is capturing 82 percent of the
wealth, while the bottom 80 percent of the graph must get along with
1.3 percent of the world’s wealth. These inequalities are becoming
more extreme. There are now about 485 billionaires in the world, who
control the equivalent of the wealth of half the world. Only three of
those billionaires control wealth equalling the national production of
48 countries.47 All these people have a great stake in sustaining the sta-
tus quo. That is why the world’s military spending has surged back up
to $1 trillion (U.S.) a year, the old Cold War level, thanks chiefly to
the fear of “Islamism” and the “war on terrorism” That is $200 billion
more than in 2000, before the 9/11 attacks. It is money the United
States and its allies could have put to far better use helping the world’s
poorest by meeting the United Nations target of spending 0.7 per cent
of their wealth on aid.48 The league of fascists is not even halfway there.
Since 2000, military spending per person in the G-7 has jumped by
$168. Aid spending has risen by $11.49
   A quick review is necessary to see how the situation came to this
point; what role did the United States play into it and how the wars
and occupations are directly related to the same phenomenon. This will
also give us a clear idea as to how “Islamism” is being used to consoli-
date the worst form of fascism human beings have ever seen.
   We know that World War II followed the global depression. Eustace
Mullins gives evidence in his book to prove that the FED knowingly
created the Great Depression for their gain.50 During that war, the
United States supplied provisions and munitions to all its allies, refus-
ing currency and demanding gold payments in exchange.51
   Masterson explains that by 1945, 80 percent of the world’s gold was
sitting in U.S. vaults. The dollar became the one undisputed global re-
                          After Fascism


serve currency—it was treated worldwide as ‘safer than gold’. The Bret-
ton Woods agreement was established. The chief features of the Bretton
Woods system were an obligation for each country to adopt a monetary
policy that maintained the exchange rate of its currency within a fixed
value—plus or minus one percent—in terms of gold; and the ability of
the IMF to bridge temporary imbalances of payments. In the face of
increasing strain, the system collapsed in 1971, following the United
States’ suspension of convertibility from dollars to gold.
   On August 15, 1971, without prior warning to the leaders of the
other major capitalist powers, U.S. president Nixon announced in a
Sunday evening televised address to the nation that the United States
was removing the gold backing from the dollar. The commitment by
the United States to redeem international dollar holdings at the rate of
$35 per ounce had formed the central foundation of the post-war in-
ternational financial system set in place at the Bretton Woods confer-
ence of 1944. Nixon’s unilateral announcement dealt it a fatal blow.52
   The United States took full advantage of the period between 1944
and 1971, printed huge amount of dollars, exported and paid for ever-
increasing amounts of commodities, tax cuts for the rich, many wars,
mercenaries, spies and politicians the world over.
   In 1971, several countries simultaneously tried to sell a small por-
tion of their dollars to the United States for gold. Finally, the United
States refused to exchange dollars for gold. Masterson quotes Krassimir
Petrov, Ph. D. in Economics at Ohio University, who recently wrote,
“The U.S. Government defaulted on its payment on August 15, 1971.
While popular spin told the story of ‘severing the link between the dol-
lar and gold’, in reality the denial to pay back in gold was an act of
bankruptcy by the U.S. Government.”53
   The dollar and U.S. economy were on a precipice resembling Ger-
many in 1929. The United States now had to find a way for the rest
of the world to believe and have faith in the paper dollar. The solution
was in oil, in the petrodollar. The United States viciously bullied first
Saudi Arabia and then OPEC to sell oil for dollars only—it worked,
the dollar was saved. Now countries had to keep dollars to buy much
needed oil. And the United States could buy oil all over the world, free
of charge. What a Houdini for the United States! Oil replaced gold as
the new foundation to stop the paper dollar sinking.
   Since 1971, the United States printed even more dollars to spend
                           Fascism in Context                          


abroad. The trade deficit grew and the United States cheaply sucked-in
much of the world’s products. Meanwhile, more vaults were built.
   Masterson shows the reason for the U.S. paranoia when it comes to
protecting the dollar. He cites expert, Cóilínn Nunan, from his 2003
work. According to Nunan, “The dollar is the de facto world reserve
currency: the U.S. currency accounts for approximately two thirds of
all official exchange reserves. More than four-fifths of all foreign ex-
change transactions and half of all world exports are denominated in
dollars. In addition, all IMF loans are denominated in dollars.”54
   Dr Bulent Gukay of Keele University recently wrote, “This sys-
tem of the U.S. dollar acting as global reserve currency in oil trade
keeps the demand for the dollar ‘artificially’ high. This enables
the U.S. to carry out printing dollars at the price of next to noth-
ing to fund increased military spending and consumer spending
on imports. There is no theoretical limit to the amount of dol-
lars that can be printed. As long as the U.S. has no serious chal-
lengers, and the other states have confidence in the U.S. dollar, the
system functions.”55
   This analysis shows that until 1990s, the U.S.-dollar was safe. This is
when the Soviet demise became a reality. This is the time, when propa-
ganda about Islamic fundamentalism began to unite the ranks against a
common enemy. The ranks began to split around the same time. Since
1990, Western Europe has been busy growing, swallowing up central
and Eastern Europe. French and German bosses were jealous of the
U.S. ability to buy goods and people the world over for nothing. They
wanted a slice of the free cake too.
   Propaganda about “Islamic fundamentalism” intensified and the
mantra of “Islamism” and “Islamists” was introduced around the time
when the totalitarians in the United States noticed that French and
Germans had the power and established the euro in late 1999 against
massive U.S.-inspired opposition across Europe, especially from Britain.
But the euro succeeded.
   Only months after the euro-launch in January 2002, Saddam’s Iraq
announced it was switching from selling oil in dollars only, to euros
only—breaking the OPEC agreement. Iran, Russia, Venezuela, Libya,
all began talking openly of switching too—were the floodgates about
to be opened? Saddam Hussein had started insisting in 2000 that Iraq’s
oil be sold for euros.56
                               After Fascism


  William R. Clark, the author of Petrodollar Warfare: Oil, Iraq and
the Future of the Dollar, wrote in January 2003:
     Well, I’m going to give their game away—the core driver for toppling
     Saddam is actually the euro currency. Although completely suppressed
     in the U.S. media, the answer to the Iraq enigma is simple yet shocking.
     The upcoming war in Iraq war is mostly about how the ruling class at
     Langley and the Bush oligarchy view hydrocarbons at the geo-strategic
     level, and the overarching macroeconomic threats to the U.S. dollar from
     the euro. The Real Reason for this upcoming war is this administration’s
     goal of preventing further OPEC momentum towards the euro as an oil
     transaction currency standard. However, in order to pre-empt OPEC,
     they need to gain geo-strategic control of Iraq along with its 2nd largest
     proven oil reserves.57
   In 2000, Iraq began selling oil in euros. In 2002, Iraq changed all
their petro-dollars in their vaults into euros. A few months later, the
United States began their invasion of Iraq. This makes perfect sense.
However, the question is: Was 9/11 another Houdini chance to save
the United States petro-dollar and the biggest financial/economic crash
in history? Were Taliban also changing to selling petrol in euros? This
is the point where the alliance between Islamophobes and the corpo-
rate extremists (colonialists) is exposed. They are dependable on each
other.
   The June 16, 2006 vote in the U.S. House of Representatives and
the resolution that wrapped the Iraq conflict into the “war on terror-
ism” and rejected a deadline for U.S. troop withdrawal is yet another
evidence that without the bogeyman of Islamism (terrorism), the to-
talitarians cannot take a single step forward. They could never start this
war on the pretext of terrorism. So how can they justify it in the name
of addressing the problem of terrorism? The reason is that the propa-
ganda has now substantially made up public mind, the whole House
of Representatives are hiding behind the pretext of ‘terrorism.” Bush,
Rumsfeld and their British counterparts already declared that the war
in Iraq is to avoid an “Islamic empire” from coming into being.
   In 2003, the whole world was watching: very few were aware that
the United States was engaging in the first oil currency or petrodollar
war, fuelled by religious motivation and fully supported by religious ex-
tremists. Religious motivation behind the war is a proven case. One of
the sings is that after occupying Iraq and Afghanistan, the focus was
                            Fascism in Context                           


on constitutions and debates about Islam and democracy and Islamic
Shari’ah. Simultaneously, after the invasion of Iraq in March 2003, the
United States secured oil areas first.
   Their first oil sales in August were, of course, in dollars, again. The
only government building in Baghdad not bombed was the Oil Min-
istry! It does not matter how many people are murdered—for the cor-
porate fascists, the petrodollar and U.S. Federal Reserve must be saved
as the only way to save dollar and the economic meltdown—otherwise
the U.S. economy will crash, and much more besides. At the same time,
the religious terrorists have fully ensured to wrap the war in religious
colors. Bush, Rumsfeld and others have been calling since a while that
the war is to save an Islamic empire from coming into being. One June
16, 2006, the House passed a resolution, which equated and justified
the war of aggression for sustaining the empire with war on terrorism.
   The fascists in the United States know that they cannot fight this
war all alone. Furthermore, the challenger to the U.S. economic domi-
nance is not rial, dinar or dirham. The challenger is euro. If the glue
of “Islamism” is not there, what will keep the Western alliance scared,
bonded and tied to the U.S. dollar?
   So the religious fanatics and colonial-corporatists are working hand
in glove to sustain the myth of Islamism to save the crumbling empire.
In early 2003, Hugo Chavez, President of Venezuela talked openly of
selling half of its oil in euros (the other half is bought by the United
States). On April 12, 2003, the U.S.-supported business leaders and
some generals in Venezuela kidnapped Chavez and attempted a coup.
The masses rose against this and the Army followed suit. The coup
failed and the real face of the totalitarian fascists was exposed. Still the
mass awareness has a long way to go, because most people are simply
convinced that something in the name of “Islamism” exists. At the
most, many only reach the stage of realization that the war is for oil.
This, however, is not as simple as this.
   A one-dimensional analysis tells us that in November 2000, the
euro/dollar was at $0.82 dollars, its lowest ever, and still diving, but
when Iraq started selling oil in euros, the euro dive was halted. In April
2002, senior OPEC reps talked about trading in euros and the euro
shot up. In June 2003, the U.S. occupiers of Iraq switched trading back
to dollars and the euro fell against the dollar again. It is a good analysis
from the economic perspective; however, one has to see the other side
0                           After Fascism


of the coin as well.
   The other side of the issue shows that the fascists in the United States
are not scared of the mythical “Islamism.” That is their creation. They
are scared of losing ground to Europeans who are also closely monitor-
ing the situation in which the crumbling empire strives to maintain its
monopoly. According to Masterson, in August 2003, Iran started to sell
oil in euros to some European countries and the euro rose sharply. In
the winter of 2003, Russian and OPEC politicians talked seriously of
switching oil/gas sales to the euro and the euro rose. In February 2004,
OPEC met and made no decision to turn to the euro—and yes, the
euro fell against the dollar.
   In June 2004, Iran announced it would build an oil bourse to rival
London and New York, and again, the euro rose. The euro stands at
$1.27 and has been climbing of late.58 So the need is to engage Europe
in other matters so that an alternative to dollar dominance does not
take root. The only thing that can force Europeans to follow the totali-
tarians in the United States blindly are terrorist attacks, such as those
in Madrid and London, and planting blasphemous cartoons in the press
with the help of neo-cons in the United States,59 so that public lose pa-
tience with the rise of “Islamism”—a perfect distraction for erecting an
alternative to the crumbling American empire.
   The empire, nevertheless, faces a serious dilemma. Although most
of the non-Muslims have yet to see and recognize that “Islamism” is
an invention to distract the public from the real war for sustaining de
facto colonization of the Muslim world and, at the same time, keep-
ing Europe at bay for gaining economic dominance. Nevertheless, the
empire’s dilemma is not hidden from anyone. On May 5, 2006, Iran
registered its own Oil Bourse, the IOB. Not only are they now selling
oil in euros from abroad—they have established an actual Oil Bourse, a
global trading center for all countries to buy and sell their oil!
   In his recent visit to London, Chavez talked openly about support-
ing the Iranian Oil Bourse, and selling oil in euros. When asked in
London about the new arms embargo imposed by the United States
against Venezuela, Chavez prophetically dismissed the United States as
“a paper tiger”.
   According to Masterson’s analysis, almost the entire world’s oil is
presently sold on either the NYMEX, New York Mercantile Exchange,
or the IPE, London’s International Petroleum Exchange. Both are
                        Fascism Goes Mainstream                         


owned by U.S. citizens and both sell and buy only in U.S. dollars. The
success of the Iran Oil Bourse makes sense to Europe, which buys 70
percent of Iran’s oil. It makes sense for Russia, which sells 66 percent of
its oil to Europe. But the U.S. faces a dilemma which further execrates
when China and India stated that they are very interested in the new
Iranian Oil Bourse. And worse still for the totalitarian fascists in the
United States, it makes sense for Europe, China, India and Japan—as
well as all the other countries mentioned above—to buy and sell oil in
euros. They will certainly have to stock-up on euros now, and they will
sell dollars to do so. The euro is far more stable than the debt-ridden
dollar. The IMF has recently highlighted U.S. economic difficulties and
the trade deficit strangling the United States—there is no way out. The
U.S. House of Representatives’ recent decision to present the Iraq war
in the wrapper of a “war on terrorism” is the sign of desperation and
depression already settling in the hearts and minds in Washington.
   The reason Britain is the staunchest ally of the United States in the
“war on terrorism” and promotion of the myth of Islamism is that it
faces the same fate with the collapse of present monetary system, as we
discussed earlier. Of course, the problem for so many countries now is,
how to get rid of their vaults full of dollars before it crashes? Further-
more, the United States has bullied so many countries for so many de-
cades around the world, that many will see a chance to kick the bully
back. Britain remains in a precarious position because the United States
cannot accept even 5 percent of the world’s dollars. If it happened, it
would not only crash the U.S. economy, but also drag Britain with it
in particular and much of the world in General. Therefore, it must not
sound strange when Blair talks about “poisonous misinterpretation” of
Islam in his fear mongering speeches. It is not surprising that Britain
was the first to issue a dossier of evidence on 9/11 to hold Osama and
company responsible. Interestingly, the FBI says after five years, it has
“no hard evidence connecting Bin Laden to 9/11.”60 In 2001, however,
British government was quicker than the U.S. officials, who were still
not sure how to present 9/11 as a terrorist attack by Muslim fanatics,
inspired by “Islamism.”
   Promoting the myth of a powerful enemy, bent on challenging the
status quo—”our way of life”—is necessary. Without these myths, the
empire has no option to check the economic depression in case the rest
of the world has time to relax from the worries of “Islamism” and fo-
                           After Fascism


cus on the right economic approaches to get rid of the United States’
monopoly. In that case, the United States will have to general trade
surplus to survive. Masterson quotes the Scottish Socialist Voice article,
which states, “the U.S., needs to generate a trade surplus to get out of
this one. Problem is it can’t.” To do that they must force U.S. workers
into near slavery, to get paid less than Chinese or Indian workers. We
all know that this will not happen.
   In the post 9/11 period in which most of the official lies are exposed
on public, it would invite chaos for sure. Maybe a workers’ revolution.
The protests in the wake of recent, controversial immigration bill in
the United States are an eye opener. But looking at the situation as it is
now, it is more likely to be a re-run of Germany post-1929, and some
form of extreme-right mass movement will emerge.
   The Muslim world is paying the price for the dilemma faced by the
United States, Europe and China alike. Unfortunately, the new enemy
of choice is Islam and most of the oil resources are also in the Middle
East. Europe, China and the rest of Asia still have no economic inde-
pendence and strength to stop the whole world’s economies collapsing
with the United States. Presently, their vaults are full to the brim with
dollars.
   The United States is at the end of the tether. It has to find a way to
pay for its dollar-imperialist exploitation of the world since 1945. It can
never sustain the shaky alliances with the morbid dread of “Islamism”
and Islamists taking over the world. Somehow, eventually, it has to ac-
count for every dollar in every vault in the world. “Islamism” cannot
save the United States. “Islamism” is a myth, created to conceal real
motives of the religious and secular totalitarians in the West in general
and the United States in particular. Promoting this myth was not pos-
sible without a collaborative approach on the part of those who want-
ed to sustain the United States’ economic dominance and those who
wanted to Christianize the whole world and establish the “dominion
of God.”
   The extremist neo-cons and their corporate colonialist buddies have
no option than declaring a war on the world like Hitler. They know
that bombing Iran could backfire tremendously. It would bring Iran
openly into the war in Iraq, behind the Shiite majority. The United
States cannot cope even now with the much smaller Iraqi insurgency.
Perhaps the United States will follow the present course of feeding
                            Fascism in Context                           


into the Sunni vs Shiite conflict and turn it into a wider Middle-East
civil-war. However, this is so dangerous for global oil supplies and asso-
ciated petro-dollar. Further, they know that this would be temporary,
as Masterson suggests, “some country somewhere else, will establish a
euro-oil-exchange. Perhaps in Brussels.”
   The United States cannot scrap the dollar and print a whole new
currency. This will destroy 66 percent of the rest of the world’s savings
and reserves in one swoop. Imagine the implications? The fanatical ap-
proach to resolve every issue through military force is because of such
desperation in the White House, Wall Street and Pentagon. Otherwise
who could expect the nonsense of equating the war in Iraq with the
“war on terrorism” from the U.S. House of Representatives three years
after invasion and occupation of Iraq.
   The United States has already done the way Germany did. It staged
9/11 attacks. The U.S. president and other top officials lied through
their teeth to invade and occupy Iraq. The Nazis also put Reichstag on
fire and filmed a mock Polish Army attack on Germany to win hearts
and minds at home just before invading Poland in 1938. But these
measures are short lived as well. So, how is the United States going to
escape this time? The only global arena of total superiority left is mili-
tary. The only solution to the inflated fear of “Islamism” is a twenty-
first century Final Solution at home and abroad. Who knows what
horrors lie ahead. A greater world war is the only tool by which the
United States could discipline its ‘allies’ into keeping the dollar in their
vaults and maintaining the status-quo of “our way of life.”
   We need to understand that the looming Greater War is not because
of “Islamism” or “Islamist terrorism.” The coming crisis belongs purely
to capitalism, (dollar) imperialism and the colonial fascists’ zeal to con-
tinue de facto colonization.
                                  ~*~*~*~

   After the above mentioned introduction to “Islamism” as a tool of
modern-day fascism, we are in a position to see that this tool is devel-
oping a dangerous mindset in Europe and America. In Europe, Jews
were the handy group to scapegoat as “them.” Anti-Jewish conspiracy
theories and discrimination against Jews were not new phenomenons,
but most academic studies of the period note an increased anti-Jewish
fervor in Europe, especially in the late 1800s. In France, this anti-Jew-
                           After Fascism


ish bias was most publicly expressed in the case of Alfred Dreyfus, a
French military officer of Jewish background, who in 1894 was falsely
accused of treason, convicted (through the use of forged papers as evi-
dence), and imprisoned on Devil’s Island. Zola led a noble struggle that
freed Dreyfus and exposed the role of anti-Jewish bigotry in shaping
French society and betraying the principles on which France was build-
ing its democracy.
   Today, Islam is paraded as a threat to democracy in a world where we
do not witness any real democracy in practice. Democracy has no place
in the present day fascist world order, which is run for the Western
colonialists and the benefit of the large multinational corporations they
own. These corporations dictate to individual governments, including
that of the United States. The establishments of these Western govern-
ments run the present day world order. These establishments have be-
come a vast and cryptic cult of fascists that aggressively infiltrates and
consolidates positions of social influence and control at home, with the
totalitarian ambitions to encompass the entire world. It is a function-
alistic hierarchy. There is hardly any difference between Hitler, whom
the present Western establishments decry, and the way they govern
themselves.
   A member of the establishment in modern “democracies” who defies
its commandments in an obvious and visible fashion is ejected when-
ever it is feasible without causing net injury to the interests of the es-
tablishments (most vitally, to their covertness). Ejection is by social os-
tracism; denial of insider privileges and immunities; and sometimes by
various forms of deliberate and punitive economic, legal, and political
measures that constitute harassment, oppression, and deprivation; and,
on rare occasions, by assassination.61
   Over a period, the “democratic” establishments have become collec-
tions of people and ideas that scrupulously preclude the possibility of
conscious awareness of establishment methods, goals, and consequenc-
es. The fascist cults have become ever more cryptic, ever more effective
at defying investigation and exposure, ever more thorough in evading
accountability. In short, the secrecy of broad establishment programs
is secured, and totalitarian alliances and adventures abroad are made
acceptable by depriving the whole of the establishment of conscious
awareness thereof. The so-called politicians and members of the estab-
lishment have lost the ability to discern what is and is not permissible
                            Fascism in Context                                


and advisable to openly articulate. There have been only a couple of
members of the U.S. Congress, for example, who could dare say that
the war on Iraq was illegal, illegitimate, and totally unnecessary.
   Because decision-makers in the fascist establishments can never bring
unfettered conscious examination to bear on the matters before them,
their decisions exhibit the dream-like semi-logic of the subconscious.
Irrationality is fundamental to the process, and the “democratic” estab-
lishments can never withstand even a cursory examination by reason.
What is happening with the investigations about 9/11 in the United
States provides an example. Despite the obvious contradictions, ambi-
guities, impossibilities, and big holes in the official conspiracy theory,
the Senators, the Congressmen, and others in the Administration are
unable to speak or stand up for the truth; they do not even try to find
answers to pertinent unanswered questions.
   Democracy did not turn to fascism all of a sudden. As described ear-
lier, its very roots lie in colonial fascism. Some colonial fascists lost and
others succeeded in World War II. President Woodrow Wilson wrote
of the western establishment in 1913:
   Since I entered politics, I have chiefly had men’s views confided to me
   privately. Some of the biggest men in the United States, in the field of
   commerce and manufacture, are afraid of something. They know that
   there is a power somewhere so organized, so subtle, so watchful, so
   interlocked, so complete, so pervasive, that they had better not speak
   above their breath when they speak in condemnation of it.62
   Colonial fascism is touching its peak in the twenty-first century. Be-
cause of the actions of a few powerful people at the helms of affairs, the
western world is in a downward spiral of demoralization and irratio-
nality that will quite possibly end in the spastic, catastrophic collapse
of western civilization, into a new dark age akin to what followed the
disintegration of the Roman Empire. If the domineering habits of the
corporate United States and the authoritarian and collectivistic trends
throughout the western world do not abate, such a collapse will cer-
tainly transpire. Unfortunately, we do not see any sign of the fascists
backing down.
   The fascists of our age now seek only to make their control at home
and domination abroad more precise and complete. They seek to make
the exercise of their global control less unwieldy and risk-laden, and its
instruments and infrastructure more permanent and unchallengeable.
                           After Fascism


The fascist establishments protect their interests by cultivating public
indifference and incredulity, as well as by outright endorsement of an
operational facet (manufacturing consent through the co-opted media),
as regularly as through lies and deceit. Feeling insulted and often sens-
ing impending humiliation, the indoctrinated public rejects the revela-
tions of wise dissenters, researchers, and truth-tellers.
   The mass media machine—referred to as the “mainstream” media—
is commissioned (in the case of broadcast media, under state license)
to deceive and pacify the public at home and pave the way for wars
and occupations abroad. The mass media commands the attention of
the public for many reasons, but the definitional constant is that each
person knows many other people will pay attention, so that by paying
attention, information can be gathered that is useful as a common cul-
tural language. The mass media can thus be used to force-feed propa-
ganda at a level of which former fascists could not even dream and still
pays for itself through advertising.
   The media and education apparatuses have been effectively used to
manipulate popular perception in a manner that discourages resistance
to fascism and encourages servitude. Laws and corporate policies are
subtly—or sometimes, blatantly—formed to alter the relative profitabil-
ities of behaviors. Media campaigns leverage off the tendency of people
to be concerned with others’ unreasoned opinions; this tendency is,
of course, encouraged. Over time, a majority of the population comes
to abandon the “undesired”—truth-exposing and resistance-encourag-
ing—behaviors and exhibits slave mentality and servitude, without hav-
ing been forced to.
   Laws, policies, and systems are emplaced both at home and in former
colonies in ways that are sufficiently flexible that they can be made to
imitate just and robust systems, or at a moment’s notice, be wielded as
vehicles of tyranny at the discretion of the establishment. Society is ar-
ranged so that the behaviors desired by the establishment are, in the
short to medium term, more convenient, more profitable, or simply
more likely to meet with success than the alternatives.
   Very few people realize that so-called democracy and fascism have
a long, over 80-year history of collaboration based on shared ideas,
practices, and perceived common enemies under the pretext of self-de-
fense.63 They abhor every way of life other than their own, fight “just
wars”—if need be, suicidal and genocidal ones—by indiscriminate
                           Fascism in Context                           


means, and fanatically go for the destruction of the perceived enemies,
whether Jews in the early twentieth century, communists until the fall
of Soviet Union, or Muslims since then.
   The views of Islamophobes ring some familiar tones. Daniel Pipes
states that even legal activities of “the Islamists are a challenge.”64 Sam
Harris goes to the extent of persuading others in Washington Times
not to call it a war on terrorism, but to openly call it a war on Islam.65
Diana West suggests in the same newspaper a need exists to “discredit
Mohammed” to win the “war on terror.”66 Above all, the U.S. govern-
ment plans to “change the very face of Islam.”67
   In modern history, such a convergence of views, methods, and goals
goes back to the 1920s when both burgeoning secular democracy
and fascism, ideologically pre-shaped in the late nineteenth century,
emerged as organized political movements with the ultimate aim of
consolidating their global outreach and imposing their ideological and
social policy precepts. Fascism succeeded in its aims in the early ‘20s
and ‘30s in Italy and Germany, respectively. In the guise of democracy,
fascism succeeded after the Second World War. After the fall of Soviet
Union, fascism is reaching its zenith in the most exploited form of de-
mocracy.
   Both the earlier fascists and the present day democratic fascists claim
to be the true representatives of some of the most civilized, techno-
logically advanced, and superior nations. In the case of Nazism, Aryan
“Volksgemeinschaft” was paraded before our eyes. In the case of demo-
cratic fascism, we are given even more obscure and confused reasons for
the crimes against humanity. Interestingly, religious fanatics are impos-
ing secularism as a panacea on the Muslim world. They are leading this
war with claims of being sanctioned by God. Bush’s statements with
regard to defending “our way of life” and doing “God’s job,” and him
even claiming that God told him to invade and occupy Iraq are worse
than anything associated with the fascists of the past.
   The Nazi (“national socialist”) movement was formed on the fear
that the whole world was against the superior Germans. It led to its ra-
cialist, corporatist ideology laid out in Hitler’s Mein Kampf. The hypo-
critical (secular for others, religiously committed by itself) approach of
the democratic fascists was formed after World War II based on the
fear of “evil” communism. The fear of an “evil empire” of communism
was instantly replaced with the fear of an “axis of evil” to continue and
                          After Fascism


consolidate the post World War II fascist approach.
   The history of fascism of the past needs not be dwelt on further
here. It led to the horrors and destruction of World War II and the
Holocaust. Democratic fascism, nevertheless, remains a terrorist threat
and—as the U.S. policies have demonstrated since 1990—it retains a
larger measure of political clout than Nazis and others had in their age.
Like its ideological twin of the past, it is not a boxed-in niche force
with little capability for breakout. It is set to cause escalating havoc
worldwide like the havoc it has already wreaked, based on its disregard
of the United Nations, international law, norms of decency, and, above
all, the will of the people at home and abroad.
   Immediately following September 11, 2001, U.S. President George
Bush declared a war of “liberation” for “freedom and democracy.”
What the world witnessed as a result was: re-emergence of concentra-
tion camps; the killing of at least 100,000 innocent civilians; the impo-
sition of puppet regimes; and a never ending cycle of violence, abuse,
and naked aggression. Hypocrisy of the modern day fascists touched its
peak when Bush and company threatened Iran with nuclear weapons
for its alleged intention to have nuclear bombs.68
   The democratic fascists of our age have unprecedented military pow-
er at their disposal. They have the will to abuse as well as to ditch the
United Nations when needed. They have more effective police states in
operation than did Hitler or Mussolini. Imagine a United States where
one in every 138 Americans was in prison.69 The fascists of our age can
confer the air of wisdom and profundity even on white lies and let
what’s unfathomable appear deep in the eyes of a brainwashed public.
   But Bush, Blair, and their fellow democratic fascists are not intel-
lectuals. The extremist brains in many thinks tanks and the chief ideo-
logues in the corporate media are at their service. The New York Times,
for example, will keep on beating the fear drums and exhort the war-
lords to continue their totalitarian adventures to prevent Islam from
taking over the world.
   Pages of the New York Times and other similar publications are clear
evidence of how history is repeating itself—this time with more sophis-
ticated tools at the disposal of fascists who are no longer covert. “The
Calm before the Storm,” by Thomas Friedman is a classic example of
how the promoters of fascism are equating the gathering storm of tyr-
anny with calm.70 A quick analysis of this piece alone is enough to show
                           Fascism in Context                           


how all the recognized, credible, corporate newspapers are acting in the
service of the fascists of our age.
   Thomas Friedman’s article is just eight hundred and forty-one words
in length. However, it is replete with repetition of the derogatory term
“Jihadists,” which appears no less than eight times in the last six para-
graphs. Similarly, the word “terrorist” appears three times, “Ba’athists”
three times, and “Al Qaeda” two times. Imagine the image of the en-
emy that the article is trying to create. This is a classic piece that rep-
resents the way corporate media is serving the modern day fascists in
creating and sustaining fear in public mind.
   The theme in this little piece swings between arousing feelings of in-
security; the fear of the coming storm; complaints about “unprotected
ports and borders”; and appreciation of the U.S. invasions and hard-
er visa policies, and of further suggestions for staying the illegitimate
“course in Iraq” and staying tyrannically “extra-vigilant at home.”
   Do not forget that all these themes are finding a space in just 841
words because they do not need any elaboration due to many such piec-
es appearing in many other sources over a long period. These short op-
eds, as well as quick commentaries made in cable television programs,
exist just to hammer the same point. It shows that fascism has already
become mainstream in the Western countries, particularly in the Unit-
ed States and among its staunch allies. A mindset has already been de-
veloped, and all the corporate media has to do is to keep it fresh.
   Those who oppose and resist the wars launched with lies and decep-
tion in Afghanistan and Iraq are demonized by two pejorative terms:
Jihadists and Ba’athists. The sum and substance of the majority of op-
ed pieces in the leading dailies is: The United States is safe because of
its invasions abroad and draconian measures at home.
   In a United States turned upside down, where even well known pub-
lic representatives cannot pass through airport checks without facing
the harassing tactics of security agencies, the analysts in favor of twen-
ty-first century fascism want to make us believe that security at the
“private terminals is still so lax that if you showed up in a Saudi head-
dress with a West Virginia driver’s license under the name of “Billy Bob
bin Laden” and asked for flight directions for your chartered Learjet to
Lower Manhattan, there’s a good chance no one would stop you.”71
   These statements are in total contradiction to the widely known
facts. Despite the 12-year-long genocidal sanctions on Iraq, and despite
0                              After Fascism


the loss of 1.8 million lives, not a single Ba’athist or “Jihadist” came to
attack the United States. It is a universally recognized fact that Iraq
had nothing to do with what happened on September 11, 2001. Irre-
spective of these realities, the pro-fascism analysts still struggle to make
their public believe that by invading Iraq, “the Bush administration has
taken the fight to the enemy.”
   Without the corporate media and corporate support, present-day
democratic fascism as a noxious amalgam of fascist totalitarianism and
extremely twisted form of democracy would not exist. Corporations
own the media and are the real power in the shadows. The media’s
principal accomplishment has been to articulate the social and politi-
cal practices of the neoconservatives since the mid-1940s—including
support of illegitimate, unrepresentative, fascist regimes and organiza-
tions, and involvement in anti-communist, anti-Islam, and pro-Israeli
actions. Apparently, the corporate media is not religiously fundamen-
talist, but a Goebbels-style propagandist for a new totalitarianism to
stand side-by-side with democratic and corporate fascism. Hitler’s early
1933 accession to power in Germany was widely cheered by the pres-
ent day fascist regimes. (Bush’s family links to the Nazis has resurfaced
recently.) When the Third Reich spook and horrors were over, 12 years
later, many refused to allow Jews to land in their own countries and
simply bemoaned the fact that the Nazis’ final solution to the Jewish
problem had not proved final enough. In 1914, with the Balfour Dec-
laration, and in 1948, through the establishment of Israel, the British
got rid of the Jewish problem in Europe forever. Jews were run out of
every country in Europe for 1700 years.72 Muslim countries never expe-
rienced a Jewish problem, nor have the Jews ever been thrown out of
any Muslim country, not even in Afghanistan under the Taliban. A.S.
(Steve) Adler writes in his upcoming book, As thou Goest by the Way:
     It would have been an easy matter for the Taliban to, God forbid, throw
     the Jews out on the street (or worse), and use the sturdy synagogue
     building and courtyard for their own purposes—to house Moslems, for
     example. That they did not do such a thing suggested that they might
     not only be lawful, traditional Moslems, who would recognize that the
     synagogue belonged to the Jews, but that they also did not look for a
     loophole in Moslem law that might still allow them to take the Jews’
     property under an assumption of some special circumstances. This
     suggested that they were trying to be genuinely and visibly just and
                            Fascism in Context                               


   kind and that they recognized that traditional Jews are not a threat to
   traditional Moslems.
   Substitute national (corporate) interest for racial purity, the ideal-
ized democracy of the rule of the Bush and his minions for the mythi-
cal Aryan “Volksgemeinschaft”, and most ideological and organizational
precepts of Nazism laid out by chief theoretician Alfred Rosenberg in
his work The Myth of the 20th Century and by Adolf Hitler in Mein
Kampf, and later put into practice, are in all essential respects identical
to the precepts of the fascist, corporate democracy after its initial phase
of forced implementation in occupied Iraq and Afghanistan.
   Modern day fascism ranges from the radical rejection of any other
way of life—particularly Islamic—or any other form of governance
to endorsement of the use of terror and assassinations for seizing and
controlling as many Muslim states as possible. Concocting fantastical
anti-Islam conspiracy theories and linking the message of the Qur’an
to instigating violence living by Islam to radicalism, and “Islamism” to
all-encompassing Muslim world control are the hallmarks of this type
of fascism.
   Not surprisingly, then, as Zionist fascism sought greater stakes in the
Middle East, close collaboration between Zionists and democratic fas-
cists ensued. During the establishment of the Israeli state through na-
ked terrorism, Britain and the United States fully supported the Zion-
ist terrorists.73
   The present day secular, corporate democracy—to be precise, fascism
with a humane face—was born of the urge to dominate the world dur-
ing the Cold War period. It proved (and improved) its fascist core con-
victions and practices through collaboration with the corporate world’s
interest, the neoconservatives, and the warlords, making use of corpo-
rate media.
   This multi-stakeholder fascist collaboration did not cease with the
Cold War. Rather, it focused its energies on eliminating any presumed
and real hurdles in the way of realizing the dreams of global domina-
tion. The modern day fascists have intellectually failed to prove how
Muslims living by Islam in their own countries could be a threat so
large to the future of humanity that annihilating any number of Mus-
lims associated with this cause is fully justified. They would never admit
that it is not the issue of Islam and democracy that has brought Mus-
lim masses to the edge of desperation; that it is actually the continued
                          After Fascism


colonialism and repression of the despotic regimes these fascists have
put in place that has made some people prefer death to life.
   The April 2005 report of violent attacks in Egypt confirmed this
fact. First, a bomb killed three people on April 7, 2005. The bombing
was followed by two incidents on April 30, in which a person by the
name of Yasin was killed by security forces. During the pursuit, a bomb
went off. A few hours later, two fully veiled young women opened fire
on a tourist bus, injuring 10 people. Witnesses in the report claim that
the incident took place because the women simply wanted to avoid the
Egyptian regime’s torturing them to death.74 Muhammad Sayid Said,
political expert at the Ahram Center for Strategic and Political Studies,
believes government torture of suspects might have been the motive
for the revenge attack by two desperate female relatives of a suspected
bomber. “If the Interior Ministry’s account is true, then these women
were harmed some way or another very severely, and this bombing
and shooting came as revenge. The family for sure suffered torture be-
sides the disrespect that occurs in such circumstances [through deten-
tion].”75
   Hisham Qasim, a leading member of the Kifaya (Enough) opposi-
tion movement, believes fear of detainment and torture might have
pushed the relatives of Ashraf Said to acts of desperation. “If what was
said about the bomber’s act being a sort of revenge for his cousin who
died in detention, then most probably those who were involved in this
bombing and shootings were acting desperately to evade imprison-
ment. They know that if they got caught by security forces, they will be
tortured to death. Killing themselves this way was their only way out
to evade this,” Qasim said, in reference to media reports that the two
women fired on one another rather than risk being captured by po-
lice.76
   A simultaneous report, however, reads: “Egypt forces arrest 200 after
attacks.”77 This arrest happened despite the fact that General Fuad Al-
lam, former head of Egyptian security, said the aforementioned attacks
were poorly coordinated and executed and not the work of a terror or-
ganization. His words were, “I believe that this is an individual act.”78
   A security apparatus, far worse than what the world witnessed under
Saddam Hussein, has already had over 50,000 Iraqis imprisoned since
the invasion. Only 1.5 percent of them have been convicted of any
crime. Currently, U.S. forces hold 15,000 to 18,000 Iraqi prisoners,
                           Fascism in Context                           


more than were imprisoned under Saddam Hussein.79 The level of vio-
lent deaths is far higher than in the last years of Saddam Hussein’s rule.
At least 100,000 Iraqi civilians have died, most of them at the hands
of U.S. forces, but also increasingly from terrorist groups and Iraqi
government death squads. Although it seems Sunni and Shi’ias are in
conflict with each other, this conflict would not have arisen if Iraq had
not been invaded and Iraqis had not been divided into those who sup-
ported the occupation forces and the puppet regimes they installed and
those who rejected every move of the occupiers.
   Thousands of Iraqi soldiers and police have also been killed. Amnes-
ty International and other human rights groups have cited U.S. forces
with widespread violations of international humanitarian law, includ-
ing torture and other abuses of prisoners. As much as half of the la-
bor force is unemployed, and the cost of living has skyrocketed. Oil
production, the country’s chief source of revenue, is less than half of
what it was before the invasion. All political powers have been circum-
scribed. The security forces have done everything possible to break the
back of resistance to the U.S. occupation. The American and European
fascists will, however, never utter a single word as long as the undemo-
cratic, fascist regimes serve the interest of the United States and indi-
rectly of the state of Israel. Islam is a scapegoat. Years after occupying
Iraq, the new justification given by Bush, Rumsfeld, and their British
counterparts is that they want to contain the rise of an “Islamic em-
pire” with the war in Iraq. Islamism is the title these fascists have given
to the scapegoated Islam.
   The hatred spread by these fascists against Islam has acquired wide
acceptance in the Western world, especially after the despicable crime
of 9/11 that was instantly blamed on Muslims, taken as proof of the
depth of depravity to which Muslims standing against the despots in
their respective countries had sunk. For instance, the Saudi regime
is not labeled as fundamentalist, despite the fact that it applies all
Shari’ah laws, including chopping off hands and heads on regular basis.
However, those who stand against them are instantly labeled as Mus-
lim fundamentalists and Islamists. It shows that the fear is not of Islam
or application of Shari’ah as such, but of those who can say no to the
corporate and neoconservatives’ exploitation of the Muslim world.
   Looked from this perspective, It is not difficult to conclude that liv-
ing by Islam has nothing to do with undermining anyone’s interest as
                          After Fascism


such. However, if the financial system of the corporate world collapses
due to 1.5 billion Muslims’ coming up with an alternative economic
system, whereby they refusal to deal in Riba (interest) according to the
basic injunctions of the Qur’an. That shock to the existing monetary
system and economic order would be collateral not intended. On the
other hand, the corporate democratic fascism of our age is a form of
fascist madness—the same type of madness which one of Hitler’s clos-
est confidants, convicted war criminal Albert Speer, saw during the
Fuehrer’s final days. In his Spandau prison diary entry for November
18, 1947, Speer recollects: “I recall how [Hitler] would have films
shown in the Reich Chancellery about London burning, about the sea
of fire over Warsaw, about exploding convoys, and the kind of raven-
ous joy that would then seize him every time.”
   Compare these words and feelings with the footage aired by the
BBC of President Bush preening before his live speech that announced
war on Iraq that would kill more than 100,000 people and begin the
cycle of never ending violence. The video shows Bush smiling and over-
whelmed with joy while having his hair primped and readied by a fe-
male stylist.80 The way Bush conceals his joy when the broadcast or re-
cording begins is obvious. As reported by Knight Ridder Newspapers,
“Minutes before the speech, an internal television monitor showed the
president pumping his fist. “Feels good,” he said.”
   The march toward the present day fascism gained momentum during
the last decade of the twentieth century. The charade from Bush and
company about democracy is not new. On January 18, 1999, the San
Francisco Chronicle carried a story, originally published in the Los An-
geles Times, detailing the plans of U.S. Secretary of State Madeleine Al-
bright to establish “a new international order, one that would revamp
existing global institutions and spawn entirely new ones.” According to
the Los Angeles Times, Albright was referring to “the new order” as a
kind of “international democracy club” where the United States would
be the “organizing principle.” “The 21st century ... ought to be the cen-
tury of democracy,” Albright told the Los Angeles Times.
   The language we hear from the Bush administration is that we heard
from Clinton years before. Albright said, “We [the U.S. foreign policy
establishment] are the organizing principle.” Other nations will “ei-
ther organize with us or against us,” she declared, meaning that those
nations that refuse to play ball will be branded as pariahs and ostra-
                           Fascism in Context                          


cized by the so-called international community. From Albright to
Condoleezza Rice, democracy means living by the U.S. administration’s
way of life.
   Theoretically, democracy is synonymous with government of, by and
for the people. It means self-determination, rule of law, and an open
society. In reality, this type of democracy is a mere illusion in current
systems of government. Actually, democracy is misused to refer to a sys-
tem of governance in which elite elements based in the business com-
munity control the state and its resources by virtue of their dominance,
while the population observes quietly. So, understood democracy is a
system of elite decision-making and public ratification. Corresponding-
ly, popular involvement in the formation of public policy is considered
a serious threat. It is not a step towards democracy; rather it consti-
tutes a crisis of democracy that must be overcome.
   Hitler also solidified his political power by joining an alliance with
the industrialists of Germany. In turn, he protected the large corpora-
tions and extended them favorable treatment. Hitler reigned in Nazi
radicals who sought to topple big business in what was called “the sec-
ond revolution.” On July 1, 1933, Hitler told his S.A. and S.S. leaders,
“I will suppress every attempt to disturb the existing order as ruthlessly
as I will deal with the so-called second revolution, which would lead
only to chaos.”81
   The marriage of money and demagoguery was as consummated in
Hitler’s Third Reich and Mussolini’s Italy as it is now in the Western
world. While wealth and political power have always colluded to some
degree, there comes a point where religious motivation, apathy, pseu-
do-tolerance, and ignorance bind the will of the masses to a fanatical
idea that brings their destruction. Is anybody observing the re-election
of Bush and Blair? The silence of a majority over the bloodbath in oc-
cupied Afghanistan and Iraq and the concentration camps all over the
world is a sign of a brain-dead mental state like happened to the Ger-
mans and which made them embrace the Nazi regime.
                                   ~*~*~*~

Fascism Goes Mainstream

It does no good to ask the weakling’s pointless question, “Is America a
fascist state?” We must ask instead, in a major rather than a minor key,
                           After Fascism


“Can we make America the best damned fascist state the world has ever
seen,” an authoritarian paradise deserving the admiration of the interna-
tional capital markets, worthy of “a decent respect to the opinions of man-
kind”? I wish to be the first to say we can. We’re Americans; we have the
money and the know-how to succeed where Hitler failed, and history has
favored us with advantages not given to the early pioneers.
                                     Lewis H. Lapham, Harper’s Magazine
                                                 October 2005, pages 7-9.


C      olonialism is the worst kind of fascism, and it continues to date.
       The only difference is that besides controlling its own popu-
lations, the main target of fascism in our age is Islam. To be precise,
the populations within each fascist state are withstanding the worst
of modern day fascist’s adventures abroad. The first target of the U.S.
government is subjugation of the American people and preparing their
mindset. Having an external enemy is a tool for achieving these objec-
tives. Anyone having doubts about the clear signs of Islamophobic fas-
cism gone mainstream must watch BBC’s documentary showing mem-
bers of the British National Party expressing anti-Islamic feelings. If
that is not good enough, one should read statements from Norwegian
politicians demanding a ban on Islam; or read the 9/11 Commission’s
report, confirming an ideological war with Islam. Reviews of the 9/11
Commission’s Report by some Islamophobes are more fascist in their
tone than the report itself. For example, David Brooks endorses the
pre-conceived recommendations of the panel.82 Daniel Pipes launches
his own war of words on Islam in the Montreal Gazette.83 Similarly,
Professor Earl H. Tilford’s commentary, “A Crusade we must win,”
goes one step further in enjoying an environment conducive to fascism
going mainstream.84
   Daniel Pipes is all praises for the 9/11 Commission publicly taking
the war one step closer to the real target and well into the next phase—
from a war on plain terrorism to “Islamist” terrorism, “some generic
evil,” which is likely to lead very soon to demands similar to those
made by the Norwegian politicians. This is how Islamophobic fascism
goes mainstream.
   Unfortunately, many Muslims and non-Muslims still do not quite
understand all these measures that generate hatred against Muslims
and Islam. Majority of Muslims were consoling themselves with the
                        Fascism Goes Mainstream                        


idea that Pipes was a lone figure. That was not the case. Finding space
in the 9/11 Commission report, his ideas are now in a way officially
endorsed. There is also something about Muslims’ own discourse as a
result of some opportunist Muslims’ borrowing ideas from the same
fascist’s rhetoric.
   It suggests a majority of Muslims and non-Muslims do not really
have a clear understanding of the problem. It may be a factor that they
are so carried away by “mainstream” fascism that they are never able to
clear away the debris to see what the angry and scared twenty-first cen-
tury fascists represent.
   It is not just an intellectual movement—a non-violent front against
Islam. It is a cultural phenomenon evolving in a way similar to the way
Nazism took over German society in the 1930s. We must not take de-
mands such as those by Halvor Hulaas, Chairperson of the Norwegian
Kristiansand Progress party (Frp), for granted. Carin Pattersson writes
in a 2004 report of the Human Rights Without Frontiers International
report (July 20, 2004) that Halvor Hulaas says, there is a need for ban
on Islam because, in his view, it is “a religion that is practiced in the
same way it was practiced when it was established in year 600”—which
is “an opinion that is well established in Scandinavian countries.”85
   Interestingly, no one asks how a party (BNP), whose leaders call Is-
lam a “wicked, vicious faith,” goes on to secure around 800,000 or so
votes. Jeremy Seabrook of the Guardian believes their hatred for Islam
is because “many of those unable to escape poor white communities
have seen their status decline from working class to underclass in one
generation.”86 “Status decline” from working class to underclass and
moving from poor white man to the status of “white trash” are not the
reasons for spreading Islamophobic fascism, as Jeremy Seabrook would
attempt to make us believe. The reason is very clear. There are the fas-
cist underpinnings, bolstered by the Western societies’ cult of person-
alities, the glorification of violence, and ability to tap into the “crowd
phenomenon” or social groupthink that seems to have some deep psy-
chological roots in the human brain. Muslims have to face the curse of
a mindset shaped very carefully by persons such as Samuel Huntington
and Bernard Lewis, and then skillfully ignited by an army of Pipeses,
Perles and Friedmans.
   Like many commentators on the 9/11 Commission’s report, David
Brooks joins the cause of the now officially accepted version of fascism
                           After Fascism


in the New York Times.87 Let us analyze his write-up as an example of
how the modern day fascists are making the case for a war on Islam.
Brooks writes: “The commissioners step back in their report and rede-
fine the nature of our predicament.”88 In fact, it is not that the U.S. ad-
ministration and the 9/11 Commission have come to their senses and
reached the “right” conclusion only after finding no Weapons of Mass
Destruction in Iraq. It is that the conclusion they made public today
is the real reason behind the United States occupying Afghanistan and
Iraq.
   If it were just the intelligence failure, perhaps the committee should
have investigated it before proceeding with wars and occupations. It is
not that the United States now realizes that it is “not in the middle
of a war on terror. Instead, [it is] in the midst of an ideological con-
flict.”89 This is a stunningly accurate confession, which Brooks and
company should have told George W. Bush to declare publicly be-
fore the first two invasions of the twenty-first century. They did not
do so because after exposing that they were out for an ideological
war, they would not have been able to deceive the Western public or
maintain an alliance with opportunist Muslim autocrats, such as Gen-
eral Musharraf. For that simple reason, Bush and Blair had to go to
mosques to tell the gullible Muslims that this is not an ideological con-
flict. Never mind if Bush occasionally refers to this war as a crusade.
                                  ~*~*~*~

Fascism: In Advanced Phase


N     ow that the initial stages are complete, Iraq and Afghanistan
      are under total control; Kuwait, Pakistan, Egypt and others are
under indirect occupation; Iran and Sudan are the immediate targets
and, most importantly, Islamophobic fascism has gone mainstream.
Brooks and his company argue that it is a war on ideology “because if
you don’t define your problem correctly, you can’t contemplate a strat-
egy for victory.” Are Bush, Blair, and their allies ready yet to declare it
so, or is it still just for democracy and liberation that everything has
been put at stake? The lies for initiating a war were about Iraq’s still-
to-be-found Weapons of Mass Destruction and how they represented
an immediate threat. In the beginning, the lies to sustain the war were
non-stop, high sounding rhetoric about establishing democracy and lib-
                        Fascism in Advance Phase                         


erating Iraqis. The hidden motivation, however, comes from the still
unfolding fascism: to stop Muslims from demanding self-rule, exercis-
ing their right to self-determination, and considering Islam able enough
to govern all aspects of its followers’ lives. The recent statements from
Bush, Rumsfeld, and others about the Muslims dream to establish a
“Caliphate” in Iraq confirm that the war was launched only to capture
the heart of Islam and kill the possibility of an Islamic entity taking
its roots in the region. Saddam Hussain had no intentions to establish
an Islamic empire or Caliphate. It is that Iraq had outlived its utility
and the United States needed a permanent base in the heart of Middle
East. Saudi Arabia and others are protected by the United States, but
Iraq was a different case altogether.
   In language evoking the Cold War, Bush has cast the conflict in
Iraq as the pivotal battleground in a larger contest between advocates
of freedom and those who seek to establish “a totalitarian Islamic em-
pire reaching from Spain to Indonesia.”90 The mindset has to be further
shaped by analysts, such as David Brooks in the New York Times, incul-
cating ideas such as: “the bigger fight is with a hostile belief system that
can’t be reasoned with but can only be ‘destroyed or utterly isolated.’
”91 How does one destroy or isolate a belief system with genocidal sanc-
tions, “shock and awe” bombing campaigns, and bloody occupations
instead of ideas?
   The above-stated ideas show that the modern day fascists seem to
think that physical submission of Muslims is necessary to eliminate any
chance of retaliation, which might otherwise occur if direct mention
of a conflict with Islam’s ideology hurts Muslim sensibilities. The stage
for the second phase of fascism is now set and the warlords are talking
more confidently about their real agenda. It is time for those to wake
up who are still living in denial.
   Brooks suggests, “The commissioners don’t say it, but the implica-
tion is clear. We’ve had an investigation into our intelligence failures;
we now need a commission to analyze our intellectual failures.”92 Com-
monsense would ask: should not the cart have been before the horse?
The reality, however, is that there have been no intelligence or intel-
lectual failures. These successes go hand in hand with the military plans
for total domination of the Muslim world at all costs. Commonsense
fails to realize the scope of the project due to misleading statements
about its real objectives. The seeming failures are part of the overall
0                          After Fascism


game of deception. How would the United States have sold the idea of
wars and occupations without engineering 9/11 or allowing the attacks
to happen in the first place? Both intelligence and intellectual failures
were deliberate. The intelligence failure theory is put forward to show
that only after the occupation of two countries on spurious grounds,
the United States has realized that real enemy of Americans is Islamic
ideology.
   Now that the stage for mainstreaming modern fascism is set, Brooks
suggests, “We also need to mount our own ideological counteroffen-
sive” as if Bush’s support of literalist, fundamentalist Christianity had
been merely a defensive strategy so far. As if what is preached in the
U.S. Sunday schools—Reconstructionism, Theonomy, return to Mosaic
Law—and the rush from Christian missions to Iraq and Afghanistan
after occupations are merely preventive measures. It means that Nich-
olas Kristof’s “Jesus and Jihad”93 does not tell the truth about the of-
fensive agenda of the extremist Christians. Evidence suggests that ideo-
logical assault is part and parcel of the wars for maintaining economic
dominance. It is only that the extremists, such as David Brooks, are not
satisfied with the onslaught and offensive war.
   Fascism goes one notch more horrible when mixed with religious
frenzy. The use of language such as launching an “ideological counter
offensive” shows the religious fervor behind the agenda of modern day
fascists. The presidential candidate General Wesley Clark (in his new
book, The Clark Critique) says that he met with a senior Pentagon of-
ficer in November 2001, who informed him that the Bush administra-
tion had plans to attack seven Muslim nations—Iraq, then Iran, Syria,
Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, and the Sudan. It is not merely a coincidence
that the countries mentioned are exactly those Biblical lands that Zion-
ist Christians believe to encompass areas that will be part of the final
conflict.
   The Bible talks of the lands such as Persia, Cush, Phut and Lubim;
these areas now encompass all the countries mentioned by General
Wesley Clark. Zionist Christians also talk of Biblical Lands that would
oppose the invasion of Israel—Sheba, Dedon, and Tarshish. Sheba and
Dedon constitute what are now Saudi Arabia and the Arabian Penin-
sula; Tarshish refers to countries in the West (Europe). Fascism based
on such foundations is far deadly more than Nazism. Before joining
mainstream fascism in the West, the western public needs to do some
                        Fascism in Advance Phase                          


homework and try to avoid serving the twenty-first century fascists.
   The U.S. and UK administrations have lied about the real objectives
for the wars of aggression. This lie is a demonstration of fascism. The
world sees a demonstration of the fascist values in Abu Ghraib and its
imposition of CIA puppets on occupied Muslim lands. That is how the
modern day fascists exposed their ideology. Occupied Afghanistan and
Iraq are living models for the world to see that show the fascists are
lying about the values they claim to promote: freedom, human rights,
democracy, tolerance, and civility.
   The 9/11 Commission’s report is now a living example of how its
authors praise dictator Musharraf as representing “the best hope,” be-
cause he is their dictator. Public in general might have a short memory,
but we do not forget the U.S. insistence after General Musharraf’s coup
in 1999 that Washington “cannot do business as usual” with a military
regime. This noble principle went up in smoke the moment the tyrant
started serving the modern day fascists.
   Since it is difficult to hide the truth behind the lies for a war on Iraq,
the fascists of our age have conceded the reality about their fascist ten-
dencies bit by bit: “We’ve got a long struggle ahead, but at least we’re
beginning to understand it,” confesses Brooks.94 This is not something
new. It had to come in order to sustain the present and justify future
occupations. Sages of the present age have been predicting this conflict
for decades. But do Muslims and non-Muslims duped by Bush’s not-
a-war-on-Islam mantra begin to understand Bush and company’s long
struggle ahead?
  Factors such as a lack of understanding on the part of non-Muslims
and the extreme benighted opportunism on the part of some Mus-
lims—proudly accepting labels of “liberal,” “progressive,” and “mod-
erate” Muslims—are exacerbating the fascism of our age. People are
always attracted to fascism because of some fear they have. Brooks’
expression of this fear is encapsulated in his statement, “Now we are
faced with a belief system that is inimical to the state system, and aims
at theological rule and the restoration of the caliphate. We’ll need a
new set of institutions to grapple with this reality.”95

   The root problem: The deceptive description of a “war on terrorism”
is yet another piece of evidence of Islamophobes concealing the root
cause of their centuries-old phobia: the rise of Islam as an alternative
                            After Fascism


to their fascist world order. The countless statements from the modern
day colonial fascists about fighting the war in Iraq to restrict Muslims
from establishing an Islamic empire show that the root cause of their
fear is Islam and the core objective of their brutal military adventures is
containing Islam.
   Ignoring the unprecedented level of terrorist adventures by the mod-
ern day fascists, they claim that Islamic ideology is the root cause of
terrorism. The barbarians of our age will remain terrified even if they
occupy every single square inch on this earth and crush to death every
potential resistor to their fascist rule. The reason is simple: terror lies
deep in their hearts, not in the objects they perceive as enemies. This
has been the problem with the Pharaohs of every age.
   Those who think it is a war for controlling natural resources and
mere domination need to wake up and understand what the modern
day fascists in Washington consider as their enemy. It is nothing but
Islam and a way of life it prescribes. They are not scared because they
will run out of oil supplies or that Islam allegedly teaches its followers
to attack the United States and its allies. The fascists simply see Islam’s
core principles as a challenge to the status quo they want to maintain
at any cost.96
   They do not see any ideology other than Islam that has the unify-
ing force necessary for striking at the core pillars of the social, political,
and economic order of the U.S. led global tyranny. They do not see any
other source of real inspiration for human beings to stand against in-
justice, other than Islam.
   The 9/11 Commission and Islamophobes in the United States, such
as David Brooks characterize their creation “Islamism” as “a hostile be-
lief system that can’t be reasoned with but can only be ‘destroyed or
utterly isolated’.”97 Interestingly, it is the U.S. administration that in-
sisted on every occasion—from the first Gulf War in 1991, to the at-
tack on Afghanistan in 2001 and the invasion of Iraq in 2003—that
it does not want to negotiate at all. The same fascists were saying the
same about communists, but even the anti-communist Richard Nixon
learned that communists could be reasoned with. He made his reputa-
tion by fighting the Stalinist dictatorship at the bargaining table.
   The Islamophobic fascists hardly care about a majority of Muslims
living under barbarous dictatorship, almost all installed or fully sup-
ported by the United States after the strategic withdrawal of the for-
                       Fascism in Advance Phase                        


mer colonialists. During the Cold War, the same thing was being done
in Catholic Latin America, pagan or Christian Africa, and the Far East.
However, since the fall of the Soviet Union, the situation has changed.
The Islamophobes do not want to see that the United States supports
more dictators than it fights. Billions of dollars can flow to support the
dictators, sustaining the status quo of colonial fascism. Death of a few
thousand Pakistani or Uzbek villagers at the hands of these autocrats is
immaterial to the twenty-first century fascists. These villagers were sim-
ply considered outside the “civilized” world just for being “Islamists.”
   “Islamism” is a sinister label used for those who want to be free from
the clutches of U.S. direct and indirect occupations, regardless of their
devotion and commitment to religious practice. Their crime is that they
struggle to find a solution to the never ending colonial occupation. This
struggle is in direct proportion to their realization about who is behind
their continued suffering. It is not that they will choose Islam because
they have nothing else to follow. It is that they will choose the com-
plete opposite to what actually made several generations of their prede-
cessors suffer occupation and repression.
   If the burgeoning Islamophobic fascists try to “destroy or utterly iso-
late” Muslims who want relief from injustice and are willing to struggle
for self-determination, they put themselves and the whole world in
terrible danger. The only reason the Western warlords do not want to
grant Muslims an opportunity to self-rule without any outside inter-
ference is that ultimately it will expose the real face of Islamophobes’
much-vaunted superior “way of life.” The façade of the secular empire
will crack like an egg and the not-so-hidden religious agenda will be ex-
posed before the world. Think of how quickly the whole machinery of
Islamophobic fascists came into action when they realized that an Is-
lamic state in Afghanistan had just started gaining ground. It is still an
open challenge for anyone to prove that the Taliban’s criminal record
was worse than Israel’s.
   Fascists are fascists, regardless of the age and place. Whether sitting
on Capitol Hill, living in the White House, or living in caves in Af-
ghanistan is irrelevant. Access to media and military power can hardly
legitimize one’s terrorism. All attempts to exonerate the “civilized” ter-
rorists through pre-conceived reports and inquiries will only deepen
Islamophobic fascism, which will rebound to haunt their native societ-
ies like Nazi Germany.
                           After Fascism


   Winning through ideas: The modern day fascists have pitted them-
selves against Islam. They have given different names to their war on
Islam, including a “war of ideas.” They could possibly win a struggle of
ideas, but first they have to admit that they and Israel are alone. They
are alone at the United Nations against the rest of the world, not just
the Muslim world. Rejecting the will of the majority with veto power
doesn’t mean winning hearts and minds of a majority in the world. An-
other example is what happened at the International Court of Justice
(ICJ). When it came to making a decision about Israel’s apartheid wall,
it was just one judge with his ultra-superior morality against 14 at the
ICJ. The twenty-first century fascists will have to be able to explain to
themselves their loneliness before they are able to separate Muslims
from Islam.
   Make no mistake: Muslims will not lose in the International Court
of Justice or in a fair debate at the United Nations about their right to
freedom from the direct and indirect U.S. occupations (no matter how
finely these wars of aggression and brutal occupation may be labeled).
It is the aggressors who will be unable to defend themselves outside
their think tanks, corporate newspapers, and the select cable channels
that they use to project their vision of the world.
   Whether it is the 9/11 Commission or the warlords in the United
States, they will keep on changing targets from terrorism to Weapons
of Mass Destruction (WMD) and from WMD to ideas, to avoid tell-
ing the truth that the target is Islam. They will never admit that the
root objective is their continued colonial adventures, particularly in the
Muslim world, which continue in the form of unjust U.S. foreign poli-
cies. The 9/11 Commission’s conclusion is simply part of the problem,
given that it ignores the real causes that lead to resentment and hatred
of the U.S. government.
   To understand the underlying causes for Islamic resurgence in
the near future, it is not necessary that modern day fascists listen to
“Islamists” or “terrorists.” They have their own truth tellers. They need
to listen to them for a change. For instance, a 23-year veteran of the
CIA, identified in the Boston Phoenix as Michael Scheuer, maintains
in his book, Imperial Hubris: Why the West is Losing the War on Ter-
ror, that “Iraq was a gift of epic proportions to Osama bin Laden and
those who think like him.”98
   The former CIA agent advocates a genuine debate within the Unit-
                       Fascism in Advance Phase                        


ed States about its policies in the Middle East, including its relation-
ship with Saudi Arabia and America’s unqualified support for Israel. “I
think before you draft a policy to defeat bin Laden,” says Sheuer, “you
have to understand that our policies are what drives him and those
who follow him.”
   Similarly, Senator Ernest F. Hollings (D-S.C.) wrote in the Charles-
ton Post and Courier: “Osama bin Laden hit us because of our presence
in Saudi Arabia and policy in Israel/Palestine.” Hollings wrote: “Imag-
ine 37 years’ occupation of Palestine. Palestine is left with the hopeless
and embittered.” The senator urges the building of a Palestinian state.
“It can’t be built,” however, “while homes are bulldozed, settlements
extended and walls are constructed.” Challenging Bush’s claim that the
terrorists hate us because of our values, Hollings retorts: “It’s not our
values or people, but our Mideast policy they oppose.”99
   Two surveys, carried out by Zogby International in Egypt, Jor-
dan, Lebanon, Morocco, Saudi Arabia, and the United Arab Emirates
(UAE) found that “Anti-American sentiment—based primarily on
U.S. policies, rather than on its values—has risen to new heights in the
Arab world.”100 Interestingly, all these governments have been closely
allied with Washington for several decades.
   The enemy of the modern day fascists is not Islamic ideology. It is
the reality of the deaths of 1.8 million innocent Iraqis as a result of
genocidal sanctions. It is the reality of the tens of thousands of Iraqi
civilians killed by Bush’s coalition in Iraq. It is the reality, which the
world sees in the photographs and hears in the accounts of torture and
humiliation emerging from the modern day fascist camps in Iraq, Af-
ghanistan and Guantanamo Bay. It is the lies and deliberate deceptions
from the Madrid Conference to Oslo and from Camp David to Bush’s
roadmap, which translated into an apartheid wall and no hope for an
independent Palestinian state.
   Instead, the lies propagated by the twenty-first century fascists go
somewhat like this: Even assuming that the majority of educated Mus-
lims opted for western values, the fundamentalists of Islam believe that
the Islamic State must be imposed by force over those who choose not
to believe the way that fundamentalists believe. Achieving power in-
cludes total elimination of outside news, education, etc.
   Compare such attempts at deepening the misconceptions with the
facts on the ground, where the United States is imposing its will and
                           After Fascism


way of life by force. Who is afraid of news, let alone ideology, can be
judged from the Democrats removing Al-Jazeera’s logo-type banner
from the Democratic convention in Boston101 and by Canada’s virtual
ban on Al-Jazeera providing news based on real life, which did not fol-
low the CNN pattern to cook news and tailor reports to fit the govern-
ment’s policy.
   The purpose of presenting an anti-Islam campaign as an “ideological
war” is to divert attention from the fact that colonialism never ended
in the Muslim world. The Muslim world reels under puppet dictators,
kings, and other types of autocrats fully supported by the modern day
fascists. It also hides the fact that Al-Qaeda is not an organization. It
is a movement fueled by an equal and opposite reaction to the United
States’ one-sided policy that supports Israeli aggression, oppression, oc-
cupation, and ethnic cleansing on the one hand and props up despotic
leaders in the Muslim world to continue remote control colonialism
on the other. By casting it in Cold War terms, such as an “ideologi-
cal struggle” that “threatens our freedom”, these fascists can success-
fully continue the disinformation campaign that started centuries ago
and gained momentum under the previous Bush administration. The
campaign continues under the present Bush administration. The main
slogan remains: Islamic fundamentalists—now Islamists—are attacking
the United States because they “hate our freedom.”
   The they-hate-our-freedom mantra continues despite the fact that in
almost every public statement the “terrorists” have mentioned U.S. pol-
icy in the Middle East as one of the major causes of their concern and
frustration. None of them has ever mentioned freedom or democracy
as their enemy. It is the U.S. policies, not the way the Americans live,
that they despise. The way Western women dress, speak, and behave;
sexual freedoms; etc.; are personal choices, and it is irrational to assume
that Muslims will target the United States for a war of aggression or
terrorism based on these matters. These choices have not kept Mus-
lims under colonial chains for centuries. These choices are not sustain-
ing tyrannical regimes in the Muslim world. Unlike the Islamophobes’
double speak, the stated goals of the “terrorists” are their real goals, and
fighting freedom and democracy is not one of them. Removal of the
negative American influence and undue interference in their countries’
internal affairs and in the region definitely is.
   In the face of the spreading fascism in the Western societies, the
                        Fascism in Advance Phase                        


public has to make important distinctions. Presently, there are two
kinds of movements in the Muslim world: one against undue U.S. in-
fluence, injustice and interference in the Muslims’ internal affairs; and
the other for establishing self-rule based on the noble principles of the
Qur’an and the Sunnah (example of the Prophet pbuh).
   The first movement is a reaction to the injustice perpetrated through
direct occupations such as the Israeli occupation of Palestine and the
U.S. occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan. The second is a reaction to
the indirect U.S. occupation through both the apparently religiously
devout House of Saud and self-declared “moderate” Muslim dictators
like General Musharraf. Muslims rightly feel that the answer to their
social, political, economic, and cultural problems lies in following the
basic principle of Islam for governance—not in living under one or an-
other kind of U.S.-sponsored authoritarian regime.
   Equating the first reaction with terrorism is as much inanity as it is
irrelevant, because, in fact, it is a reaction to injustice and the occupa-
tions. These occupations would not have been possible without lying on
mass scale, without using terror tactics, and without committing crimes
against humanity. This reaction is not going to end regardless of any
amount of condemnation or the use of force unless the root causes—
the injustice and the occupations—are removed. Therefore, a violent
reaction is a natural consequence and should not be treated as an un-
expected surprise that can be addressed in isolation or with more occu-
pations. Gandhi and Mandela have successfully used another approach.
Someone must break the cycle of violence and counter-violence.
   Equating the second reaction—the movements to establish Islamic
rule—to a war on freedom and democracy is either naivety or a delib-
erate attempt to mislead the world. Unlike the Islamophobic fascists,
Muslim activists who consider their work as an ideological struggle
do not dream of carpet bombing American cities or nuking its allies
into submission to the ideology of Islam. The reason is that a successful
movement to establish a model Islamic state does not need “shock and
awe” kind of terrorism, overthrowing regimes in the West, establishing
Abu Ghraib- and Guantanamo-like concentration camps, and imposing
paid slaves like Iyad Allawi or Hamid Karzai.
   Establishing a successful model of governance in the Muslim world
is in itself sufficient to prove the twenty-first century fascists wrong in
their words and deeds. It will most likely draw the western masses to
                           After Fascism


rush to liberate themselves from their respective tyrannies. That is why
the focus of the Islamophobic fascist campaigns is not to allow Mus-
lims to establish an alternative model in the first place. The more Mus-
lims realize their need to live by Islam, the more the paranoia of the
Islamophobic fascists will increase, making the world more dangerous
than ever in human history.
                                 ~*~*~*~

Fascism and the Corporate Media


T     he die-hard Islamophobes in the corporate media are the real fas-
      cists of our age. They not only promote fascism on the political,
academic, and military fronts, but also paint evil into goodness and
lies into reality. A quick comparison of their acts with those who were
charged and punished as fascists earlier might expose the real face of
the media-fascists of the modern age.
   The Nuremberg Tribunal convicted Julius Streicher of “crimes
against humanity”. He was later hanged. Interestingly, the prosecutors
did not argue that Streicher killed anyone. In fact, Streicher did not
commit any violent act personally. Above all, Streicher was not even a
prominent official in the German government during the period when
the Jews and others were persecuted and killed.
   The sole offense for which Julius Streicher was put to death was hav-
ing served as publisher and editor of Der Sturmer in the early 1930s,
years before the Nazis actually carried out the genocide. In this capac-
ity, he was accused of penning a long series of virulently anti-Jewish ed-
itorials and “news” stories, usually accompanied by cartoons and other
images graphically depicting Jews in an extraordinarily derogatory fash-
ion.
   These write ups, the prosecution asserted, had done much to dehu-
manize the Jews in the minds of the German public. In turn, such de-
humanization made it possible—or at least easier—for average Germans
to later indulge in the outright liquidation of the Jews. The Tribunal
agreed, holding that Streicher was therefore complicit in genocide and
deserving of death by hanging.
   Let us fast forward to 2006. We see two major types of Julius St-
reichers around: one, those who are trying to be politically correct;
and two, those who are so honest and sincere in their commitment to
                    Fascism and the Corporate Media                           


dehumanize Muslims that they hardly care about mincing words. The
sum and substance of the work of these Julius Streichers is the same:
discredit Islam and dehumanize Muslims.
  Those who blame every terrorist act on Muslims within minutes
of every attack, without even waiting for any investigation, blame the
“poisonous interpretation” of Islam for all wrongs in their politically
correct statements. On the other hand, the overt Julius Streichers of
our age do not hesitate in saying in the pages of the Washington Times
that this is a war on Islam and its basic sources:
   It is time we admitted that we are not at war with “terrorism.” We are
   at war with Islam…we are absolutely at war with the vision of life that
   is prescribed to all Muslims in the Koran. The only reason Muslim
   fundamentalism is a threat to us is because the fundamentals of Islam
   are a threat to us. Every American should read the Koran and discover
   the relentlessness with which non-Muslims are vilified in its pages.
   The idea that Islam is a ‘peaceful religion hijacked by extremists’ is a
   dangerous fantasy—and it is now a particularly dangerous fantasy for
   Muslims to indulge.102
   For the politically correct Julius Streichers, more than 75 years is
enough time to consummate their skills at dehumanizing a people
and discrediting their faith. They think they know how to win future
Nuremberg trials. Despite their perfection, they are so naïve to take
the world for fools, thinking that no one will understand their gradual
shift to high gear from a “war on terrorism” to war within Islam, and a
“war of ideas” to the open threats of holding all Muslims guilty for any
future terrorist attacks.
   The New York Times editorial pages are an open invitation to the ex-
tremist elements, holding grudges against Muslims and Islam, to terror-
ize their readers and blame Muslims for the rising level of fear. Imagine
the New York Times,103 a source considered most credible and authen-
tic in the corporate media, telling its readers that 1.2 billion Muslims
are raised with the supremacist concept of God: “Muslims are raised
with the view that Islam is God 3.0, Christianity is God 2.0, Judaism
is God 1.0, and Hinduism is God 0.0.”104 With this statement, Thomas
Friedman gives the impression that Muslims are supremacists. In fact,
Islam is the only religion that exhort its followers to believe and respect
all prophets, beginning from Adam (including David and Jesus) and all
the revealed books (Bible, Torah, and the Qur’an).
0                                After Fascism


  To the contrary, evidence of racial supremacy and promotion of the
concept of treating Muslims as sub-humans can be seen in the New
York Times op-ed piece by Paul Sperry, a Hoover Institute media fel-
low. His article is titled: “It’s the Age of Terror: What Would You
Do?” While justifying racial profiling, he argues:
     …profiling passengers based on proven security risk is just smart law
     enforcement...Truth be told, commuters need to be most aware of young
     men praying to Allah and smelling like flower water. Law enforcement
     knows this, and so should you… Once an Islamist suicide bomber is
     sitting next to you on the train, your chances of escape are slim. The
     only solution is for the police to stop him well before he boards your
     car. But with the system as it stands, that terrorist could easily slip in
     through the numerical window of random security screening.105
    Another article by Charles Krauthammer, in the Washington Post,
also endorsed the practice of using ethnicity, national origin, and reli-
gion as primary factors in deciding whom police should regard as pos-
sible terrorists. Such open promotion of racism is justified as racial pro-
filing in this new age of fascism. He writes:
     “The fact is that jihadist terrorism has been carried out from Bali to
     Casablanca to Madrid to London to New York to Washington by young
     Muslim men of North African, Middle Eastern and South Asian origin.
     This is not a stereotype. It is a simple statistical fact. Yes, you have your
     shoe-bomber, a mixed-race Muslim convert, who would not fit the
     profile. But the overwhelming odds are that the guy bent on blowing up
     your train traces his origins to the Islamic belt stretching from Mauritania
     to Indonesia.”106
   In another article, “When You Have to Shoot First,” in the New
York Times, Haim Watzman argues that the London police officer that
chased down and put seven bullets into the head of a Brazilian electri-
cian without asking him any questions or giving him any warning “did
the right thing.”107
   Now imagine the precariousness of the situation in an environment
where the public is constantly subjected to the concept that Muslims
have a supremacist concept of God and they deserve to be dehuman-
ized. Imagine the impact of open threats to all Muslims in the same
pages108 that it is a Muslim problem, all Muslims are suspect, and they
should mend their ways, otherwise “the West is going to do it for them.
And the West will do it in a rough, crude way—by simply shutting
                    Fascism and the Corporate Media                    


them out, denying them visas and making every Muslim in its midst
guilty until proven innocent.”109
   Is this any degree less than what Julius Streicher did in early 1930s,
keeping in mind that the situation is already volatile, and in little more
than a week’s time after the London bombing, there were already more
than 1200 attacks on Muslims. Such concepts and threats in the New
York Times and other such credible sources are sufficient to further en-
rage the extremists who are already sending threatening and hate-filled
e-mail messages to Muslims in the West, calling them “towel heads,”
“rag heads,” and “little pigs,” and directing them to “go back” to their
“sands.”
   The efficiency and ruthlessness with which ideological war is being
waged against Islam is mind-boggling. The above mentioned examples
show that those involved in this campaign believe that the U.S.-led di-
rect and indirect occupations and the puppet Muslim regimes will only
succeed in eliminating the threat of Muslims’ exercising their right to
self-determination and securing self-rule for living by Islam by using
any means necessary, including torture and violence. They believe that
helping eradicate any resistance to their totalitarian designs will occur
by way of propaganda warfare similar to the efficient methods Goebbels
employed during the Nazi era (which rallied the German people so sur-
prisingly behind the concept of Aryan supremacy). Thomas Friedman
of the New York Times finished his July 22, 2005 column with two
word “Words matter.”110 Christian Science Monitor titled John Hughes
article “Winning the war of words in the campaign against terrorism,”
(May 17, 2006). Moreover, “winning the war of ideas” is one of the
main themes of Islamophobes. Christian Science Monitor (June 16,
2006) reported that out of 117 American foreign policy experts, both
conservative and liberal, 84 percent believe that the US is not winning
the war of ideas.111
   Islam can certainly withstand such attacks. However, the situation
is definitely set to get worse because Muslims are divided and must
employ counter media and lobbying tactics. Whoever committed the
9/11 and the July 7, 2005 bombing in London are common enemies
of Muslims and non-Muslims, and they certainly do not reside in the
resourceless madrassas in Pakistan. Rounding up hundreds of people in
Pakistan after the London Bombing, compared to not even a dozen in
the UK, is a clear example of the misdirected approach that only sup-
                              After Fascism


ports the propaganda of modern day Julius Streichers.
   Muslims extending apologies and statements of denunciation simply
confirm the preconceived conclusions that Muslims are guilty for these
crimes. Instead of issuing fatwas for what is so-obviously transparent in
the message of Islam anyway, Muslims need to launch a vigorous cam-
paign against the media’s use of virulent qualifiers, and against directly
and indirectly discrediting the Islamic concept of God (as in the case
of New York Times), the Qur’an (as in the case of Washington Times),
and the direct threats to all Muslims in the editorial pages of leading
American dailies.
   Silence due to fear of being blacklisted by Blair is expediting the
process that will lead to Muslims facing the same horror that the Jews
faced at the hands of Nazis. Ignoring the process and denials will never
stop their march toward a Muslim holocaust. Silence of the majority of
Muslims is far worse than cooperation of a few Muslims in this war on
Islam.
                                 ~*~*~*~

The “Death Cult” Or Super Fascism

What we are witnessing is the rebirth of fascism in 21st century America, a
movement motivated by the three principles of classical fascist ideology: 1) The
idealization of the State as the embodiment of an all-powerful national will or
spirit; 2) The leader principle, which personifies the national will in the holder
of a political office (whether democratically elected or otherwise is largely a
matter of style), and 3) The doctrine of militarism, which bases an entire legal
and economic system on war and preparations for war.
                           Justin Raimondo, “A Fascist America: How close are we?”
                                                    Anti-war.com, March 04, 2005.



T    he super-fascism of our age surfaces when events like the July 2005
     bombing in London occur. What made the young Muslims raised
in the Western society do this? That is the question that the corporate
media starts thrusting on the public mind after such events. The mod-
ern day fascists have a preconceived answer to this question: Muslims
are “in the grip of a dangerous cult” of the “poisonous misinterpreta-
tion of Islam.”112
   Let us put aside all relevant information and necessary questions and
play the warlords’ game. Let us pick on Islam, Muslims, and their sui-
                    The Death Cult of Super-fascism                    


cidal tendencies before it is confirmed that Muslims are responsible for
all terrorism around the world. Let us assume the conclusion and dis-
cuss why Muslims commit such acts.
   The western public is told that Muslims commit terrorist acts in the
name of religion. When asked if it is the Qur’an or Hadith that tells
them to engage in terrorism, Bush, Blair and their followers tell Mus-
lims, “No, Islam is a great religion. They act like this because of a cult
of misinterpretation.” So what exactly are Muslims misinterpreting? Is
it that blowing themselves up irrationally, and killing women, children,
and innocent people for no reason at all is dear to Allah and He will
reward Muslims with 70 virgins in heaven after they successfully blow
themselves up from limb to limb? None of the modern day fascists can
show the public any such a misinterpreted message of Islam anywhere
in the alleged “Jihadi” literature, let alone in the Qur’an and Hadith. It
means the source of inspiration and motivation for violence against the
United States, the UK, and Israel must lie somewhere else.
   Islamophobes tell the Western public that Muslims are victim of a
death cult, which forces them to commit suicide bombings. Friedman,
for example asks in the New York Times: “If the primary terrorism
problem we face today can effectively be addressed only by a war of
ideas within Islam - a war between life-affirming Muslims against those
who want to turn one of the world’s great religions into a death cult
- what can the rest of us do?”113 An impartial analysis, however, reveals
that it is not inspiration due to misinterpretation of Islam, but depres-
sion and desperation as a result of the lies, injustice, double standards,
and repression carried out by those who have exploited freedom and
democracy to the extent of turning these concepts into something
worse than a death cult. Cult leaders die with the rest of cult members.
They do not kill those who are not part of the cult. But the super-fas-
cists of our age live peacefully while putting the future of humanity at
stake.
   Unlike the cult phenomenon, the super-fascists prefer to live and rule
the world. For realizing their totalitarian designs, they do not mind ly-
ing, cheating, and killing their own people at home, as well as by send-
ing them abroad for invasions and occupation. Killing hundreds of
thousands of people in other countries who do not share their religious
faith and culture is not even as much as a pinprick for their dead con-
science. These fascists live happily with the consequences of their wars
                           After Fascism


of aggression, which cause their own people to suffer just as soldiers in
the Vietnam War did, some of who are permanently affected by Agent
Orange. Veterans of the two Iraqi wars have suffered radiation poison-
ing from depleted uranium weapons.
   Since Islam does not approve the killing of innocent civilians, and no
sane person can ever leave all his own loved ones behind and go on a
mission to kill innocent loved ones of others, it must be something far
more serious than the myth that these individuals are suffering from “a
poverty of dignity and wealth of rage.”114 Even if it is because of rage
and loss of dignity, the question should be, what made them furious
and dispossessed of dignity in the first place? Of course, it is not Islam.
   The perpetrators of terrorist acts could, of course, be Muslims. How-
ever, religion or its misinterpretation is definitely not their source of
inspiration. They are the product of a reaction to the super-fascism of
their age. The unique kind of self-identity of this fascism is that it is
the most civilized, advanced, and superior culture. Accordingly, the su-
per fascists consider starving 1.8 million innocent people to death in
Iraq, half of them children, as a price worth realizing their totalitarian
designs of transforming the Muslim world into their image.
   The leaders of this most insidious form of fascism have repeatedly
lied to the whole world and then went on to kill 128,000 people and
committed the worst ever crimes against humanity without feeling the
slightest shame or remorse—shame that normal human beings would
feel even for making minor mistakes. They boast of their determination
and resolve to stay the course in Iraq.
   The super-fascism sees only part of the reality. For example, it is easy
for the leading supporters of modern day fascists to publish an opinion
piece in the New York Times, after the death of 50 people in London,
to blame 1.2 billion Muslims for being raised with a supremacist con-
cept of God.115 However, these supporters of fascism do not have any
explanation for the curse of misinterpreted freedom and democracy of
Bush and Blair, which has resulted in new records for crimes against
humanity.
   The problem of the super fascists is that they are proud of their mili-
tary might, economic power, and technological advancement, yet they
feel enraged when others point to their feet of clay. Socially dead and
morally bankrupt, they are not accepted as moral leaders of the world.
   Technology, the economy, and the military industrial complex are
                    The Death Cult of Super-fascism                     


not alternatives to peaceful and contended human societies. Further-
more, they see an impending collapse of their capitalist order and feel
scared of the rise of Islam because their long lasting infrastructure,
technology, and superior weaponry are not signs of a superior civiliza-
tion and have not ever served to a people without a superior ideology
and benevolent deeds on top. All powerful empires of the distant past
and Soviet Union of the recent past are good examples. The fear of los-
ing totalitarian grip at home and abroad leads them into waging ideo-
logical wars. No matter how inferior Muslims may feel today, the decay
and decline in the Muslim world is not because of Islam. It is because
Muslims are running away from living by the basic principles of Islam
and because the super fascists are turning democracy into super-fascism.
The super fascists know that living by Islam means, for example, saying
no to interest-based dealings. Imagine if Muslims collectively boycotted
the Riba-based global financial system today and withdrew their invest-
ment. The capitalist bubble might not last until the next day. This ex-
ample describes how just one aspect of how living by Islam could pull
the rug out from under the feet of super-fascism.
   If no one lives by Islam, it can never be established as an alternative
to super-fascism. That is why the main objective of the super fascists is
to degrade and belittle Islam. The loss of dignity among Muslims is not
enough to enrage Muslims to the extent of blowing up innocent peo-
ple. The fear of losing global superiority and the determination to fur-
ther consolidate the fascist world order is good enough to turn many in
the West into joining super-fascism: from killing their own people at
home to justifying wars of aggression abroad
   The oppressive measures of fascists to silence the voices of dissent at
home are understandable. Similarly protecting the Saudi and other gulf
autocrats for ensuring a cheap supply of oil is understandable. The con-
tinued support of the oppressive regime of Israel for acting like a cop
in the Middle East also makes sense to some extent when considered
in terms of the strategic priorities of the United States and its allies.
However, when leaders of the United States and the UK, who never
get tired of boasting about their civilization and values, just indiscrimi-
nately kill more than 150,000 people and occupy two countries on the
basis of lies, every sane mind must realize that these leaders are in the
grip of a dangerous super-fascism—dangerous to their countries and to
the world.
                          After Fascism


   How do rational minds slip into the cult of fascism? MSNBC’s re-
porter Alex Johnson writes how Bush underwent conversion to evan-
gelicalism, which is called the “‘born-again’ experience described in
John 3:3, when a sinner experiences an intense conversion during a
personal interaction with the Holy Spirit, often Jesus Himself.”116 Bush
“has often said he was pointed on the path to God after a discussion
with evangelist Billy Graham in 1985.”117 In his autobiography, Bush
says: “Over the course of that weekend, Reverend Graham planted a
mustard seed in my soul, a seed that grew over the next year. He led
me to the path, and I began walking. It was the beginning of a change
in my life. I had always been a ‘religious’ person, had regularly attend-
ed church, even taught Sunday School and served as an altar boy. But
that weekend my faith took on a new meaning. It was the beginning
of a new walk where I would commit my heart to Jesus Christ.”118 In
his book, A charge to keep my journey to the White House, George W.
Bush tells in quite some detail about a visit with Rev. Billy Graham in
Maine where he says “Reverend Graham planted a mustard seed in my
soul.”119
   The story shows how extremist Christianity is part of the crisis in
the United States. The Zionists and Neo-cons complete other parts of
super-fascism along with the ideas that brought about these conver-
sions. If not stopped by fellow Americans, super-fascism will end up
converting every person to the amalgamation of racial and civilizational
supremacism, religious extremism, and hegemonic totalitarianism. It
would convert the world’s greatest country into a real cult of death.
                                ~*~*~*~

The Fascist Way of Life


A    s we hear from Bush, Blair, and an unlimited number of “media
     GIs” and “presstitutes,” we are now in the midst of a conflict that
involves the deepest and dearest interest of every individual of the hu-
man race: our way of life. Upon its result depends the misery or happi-
ness of present and future generations.
  It is a contest between the few in power in the United States, Israel,
the UK, and a few other allied countries whose leaders believe that it is
for their individual and corporate interests that man should continue
to be kept in ignorance and be governed, as heretofore, by lies, force,
                         The Fascist Way of Life                         


and fraud; and those who are convinced that for real happiness and sat-
isfaction, human beings should be henceforward governed by truth and
justice only.
   A new global revolution is in the making. This is a revolution of
knowledge and information. Lies have been uncovered, and there is
now a need for a fundamental shift in the way society is organized and
countries treat each other. Are these totalitarians ready for the change?
Their statements suggest that they are not.
   Modern means of communication have rendered the main organ for
the promotion of lies and deception—the corporate media—ineffective.
This development also calls into being a revolution of the masses so ir-
resistible that no earthly power can prevent, or even retard its course.
Irrespective of the coming oppression to silence all critics, the impend-
ing revolution will be driven either by reason or by force.
   None of those, who are considered enemies of the West, has claimed
that he is against Bush or Blair’s way of life. Bush and company, how-
ever, have repeatedly said that there is a war on their way or life. The
way of life that Bush and Blair refer to is derived solely from imperial
instincts, a sense of absolutism, and prejudices for or against religious
beliefs, parties, and countries. This way of life is destined by the com-
mon consent of all to die its natural death.
   Twentieth century manifestations of such a way of life were called
fascism. In the twenty-first century, it is the same thing, but the fascists
present it in the deceptive wrappers of freedom and democracy. The
original fasces were bundles of thin rods bound together with an axe
among them; they were carried before the highest magistrates of impe-
rial Rome as a symbol of authority and of the strength that comes from
tight unity. Recent fascism is distinguished not by the novelty of its el-
ements or the profundity of its thought, but by the flair and efficiency
with which these elements have been interwoven and presented as the
most humane ideology and civilized way of life.
   Although not especially complex intrinsically, twenty-first century
fascism as a political philosophy is difficult to define or explicate be-
cause of its eclectic and irrational character. Fascist thinkers in media,
academia, and politics have borrowed freely from both ancients and
moderns, and emerged with a potpourri of ways and means to impose
their will on the world in the name of promoting freedom and democ-
racy. The result can hardly be called a doctrine or be presented as a
                           After Fascism


coherent system.
   Within this mixture of past and present, and of principles, dogmas,
and expedients, three dominant streams of thought may be distin-
guished. Modern day fascism may perhaps be best understood as a con-
temporary blend of these three religio-philosophical traditions.
   The first is the absolutist tradition. Since the total focus of twenty-
first century fascism is domination of the Muslim world, for which
control at home is also a necessary element, the powers of government
in the Muslim world must lie entirely in the hands of one powerful
person—the prince, or a general, or a sheikh, mini-Il Duce or mini-Der
Fuhrer. To hell with democracy in places such as Saudi Arabia, Paki-
stan, Uzbekistan, Egypt, etc. And at home, winning through the Su-
preme Court or election rigging is of little concern as long as the tyrant
in chief comes to power.
   Such absolutism has many ramifications. It largely determines the
principles of organization within the state, which are authoritarian and
generally patterned on military lines. Irrespective of the title, democra-
cy or otherwise, all authority exercised by or in behalf of the state stems
from the person at the top, and rights enjoyed in every sphere are owed
to him; while on every subordinate echelon the principal duties are
those of obedience and responsibility to superiors. In the U.S. system,
the President and Congress are all bought. There is a farce of democ-
racy. The presidential election is between two candidates who stand for
the same thing. If Bush Senior imposes genocidal sanctions on Iraq, his
democratic rival, Bill Clinton will never consider lifting these sanctions
in the next 10 years. Other than minor differences on some local issues,
the foreign policies remain almost the same under both republicans and
democrats. One of the evidence for this trend is the pattern of voting
in the Congress and the U.S. Senate where votes on international is-
sues are in favor or against are almost always unanimous.
   The president is above the law. It hardly matters if he lied through
his teeth and killed more than 100,000 people abroad along with more
than 2000 of his own. The standards of conduct that apply to him,
therefore, are not those that apply to the private citizen; he may be
judged as leader only by his success in maintaining and extending his
power and the power of his state. The result is rightly called Machia-
vellianism, for fascist dictators have generally acted under Machiavelli’s
principle that “if the act accuses him (prince), the result will excuse
                         The Fascist Way of Life                        


him.”120 In order words, if the results of a cruel action are for the sake
of the ruler then his blame becomes dissolved. Machiavelli explains his
ideas about cruelty in the Chapter Fifteen of The Prince in a detailed
way. He is proposing that anything that benefits the state is considered
as good; even it is immoral or cruel.121
   The second leading element in twenty-first century fascism is organi-
cism. According to this theory, not only a nation, but also the whole
West, is properly understood to be an organic unity, like a human be-
ing, with a larger interest or general will that is necessarily superior to
the interest or will of others, particularly Muslims. Carried to its ex-
tremes, organicism has lead to the conclusion that the Western States
have not only an organic reality, but also a super-reality, so awesome
that their apparent will is the true will of subordinate citizens, whether
they think so or not. Nothing may then obstruct this super-organism
from liquidating all elements within and outside it that interfere with
the achievement of its totalitarian objectives. In other words, ongoing
collections of people like religions, cultures, countries, businesses etc.
have a life of their own. A new life form emerged on this planet some
250 years ago. It is the corporation.
   The word “corporation” derives from the Latin Corpus (body), rep-
resenting a “body of people”; that is, a group of people authorized to
act as an individual (Oxford English Dictionary). Corporations have
been present in some forms as far back as Ancient Rome. They none-
theless were enterprises, sanctioned by the state, with a form of share-
holders who invested money for a specific purpose.
   With the collapse of the Roman Empire, the rise of Christianity and
the influx of Germanic tribes, the Roman conception of the corpora-
tion merged with other views. Germanic tribes, for example, main-
tained that a group entity in and of itself could have a separate identity
from that of its members.
   Early corporations of the commercial sort were formed under frame-
works set up by governments of states to undertake tasks which ap-
peared too risky or too expensive for individuals or governments to
embark upon. The alleged oldest commercial corporation in the world,
the Stora Kopparberg mining community in Falun, Sweden, obtained a
charter from King Magnus Eriksson in 1347. Many European nations
chartered corporations to lead colonial ventures, such as the Dutch
East India Company, and these corporations came to play a large part
0                           After Fascism


in the history of corporate colonialism.
   In the United States, government chartering began to fall out of
vogue in the mid-1800s. Corporate law at the time was focused on
protection of the public interest, and not on the interests of corporate
shareholders. Corporate charters were closely regulated by the states.
Forming a corporation usually required an act of legislature. Investors
generally had to be given an equal say in corporate governance, and
corporations were required to comply with the purposes expressed in
their charters.
   The twentieth century saw a proliferation of enabling law across the
world, which some argue helped to drive economic booms in many
countries before and after World War I. Starting in the 1980s, many
countries with large state-owned corporations moved toward privatiza-
tion, the selling of publicly-owned services and enterprises to private,
normally corporate, ownership. Deregulation—reducing the public-in-
terest regulation of corporate activity—often accompanied privatiza-
tion as part of an ideologically laissez-faire policy. It has now domes-
ticated humankind. We are their food, their beasts of burden, and for
the lucky few, their pets. This subjugation is how the element which
Mussolini appreciated—corporatism—remains the core of modern day
fascism.
   Some have gone so far as to elevate the xenophobic state approach to
an object of worship or a way of life, having supernatural or divine at-
tributes. One serious problem for this approach is that of determining
what this way of life really is and how it is to be known, because a con-
stant rant of human rights and democracy and freedom means nothing
compared to their barbarism on open display.
   This problem is resolved, sometimes painfully, when the theories of
organicism and absolutism are combined. The general way of life and
will of the people is identified with the will of its leader, whose charac-
ter and physical person is taken to represent the essence of the nation.
This identification was one of the distinguishing marks of twentieth-
century fascism, especially as manifested in Italy and Germany.
   Serving as a catalyst in combining the two aforementioned elements
is a third, but no less important, element: deliberate irrationalism.
Sometimes an attitude, sometimes a manipulative device, and some-
times a seriously proposed methodology, the express denial of the com-
petence of reason to guide human life opens the door to acts, claims,
                         The Fascist Way of Life                        


and outright lies immune to effective criticism. From now onwards,
any word of criticism of Bush’s and Blair’s policies will be considered
extremism, and all those critics will be blacklisted because their criti-
cism could indirectly lead to terrorism.
   Many varieties of philosophic irrationalism have achieved great pop-
ularity, from that of the early Christians (said Tertullian: “Credo, quia
impossibile”—“I believe it because it is impossible”) through to its more
sophisticated versions in Schopenhauer and Bergson and some contem-
porary existentialists. But the full-blooded application of irrationalism
to politics develops only in the twenty-first century with the deliberate
manufactured myths of racial, religious, and social superiority embed-
ded in deep nationalistic sentiments. Pages of the so-called liberal New
York Times are littered with such manufactured myths, not to speak of
the overtly neo-conservative analysts who have turned outright lies into
facts for consolidating these myths.
   It is perhaps overly simple, but not incorrect, to describe twenty-first
century fascism as the commingling of these traditions of absolutism,
organicism, and irrationalism taken to an extreme by an invisible alli-
ance of neoconservatives, Zionists, and leading Christian extremists. Its
roots go very deep, but its classical statement was not given until this
century, when the hardest realities of its practice have become clear af-
ter the staged terrorist attacks, occupation of more Muslim countries,
and the ongoing crimes against humanity.
   The good news is that the days of occupying other countries for long
periods are over, and no one can keep any country under occupation
by the dint of sheer force for a long time. The status quo in the Muslim
world is in the interest of the neo-imperialists and modern day fascists,
and any change in this situation would be detrimental to their interests
and beneficial for the Muslim and non-Muslim masses that are current-
ly suffering in different ways. As Muslim masses still trust the religious
parties—despite these parties blind following of the colonial ways and
systems—these parties can derive maximum benefit from any change,
provided they realize the context and make course corrections in the
light of analysis given in the next section.
                          After Fascism




                             PART TWO




 Reconsolidating Colonial-
   ism with Democratic
         Fascism


T
          HE colonialists never gave true independence to former colo-
          nies. The so-called independence was a strategic withdrawal
          particularly from the Muslim parts of the world in the wake
of colonialists’ waning power. After the fall of the Soviet Union, the
strategic withdrawal has once more turned into strategic advance un-
der the banner of spreading democracy and fighting terrorism. Can the
centuries-old, never-ending colonialism be re-consolidated in the Mus-
lim world in the name of democracy? Today this might be the single
most pressing question for the warlords in Washington, London and
other colonial capitals of the modern age, and this book sets out to an-
swer it.
   Close to two decades ago, before crusade in the name of democracy
became a household word—before fascism became mainstream—new
totalitarian tendencies re-emerged in the Western discourse and poli-
cies. It was one of the results of the demise of Soviet Union. The to-
talitarians’ love for democracy was exposed soon after its trial run in
an Arab state outside the international spotlight. What happened there
shows the course for the Western policies that are now being re-forged

                                  
                       Reconsolidating Colonialism                       


in the crucible of the so-called war on terror. It is there that the story
of the final encounter between the West, led by the United States of
America and the Muslim world’s unfinished struggle for self-determi-
nation begins.
   In 1989, that year of revolutions, unglamorous Algeria was an unlike-
ly candidate for democratic change. Perched on the rim of North Af-
rica, far from the upheavals of Eastern Europe, Algeria had been home
to a romantic liberation movement that had evicted the French after a
hard-fought guerrilla war. Yet the liberation movement had morphed,
by way of a 1965 coup, into an autocratic, quasi-military, socialist re-
gime. The sole political party, the Front de Liberation National, had
not permitted real elections since shortly after independence.
   Starting in late 1988, young Algerians began a series of protests that
led to a new constitution promising fundamental rights and political
parties other than the FLN. The spirit of 1989 was abroad. In June
1990, in the first local elections under the new constitution, a newly
formed Islamic party, the Front Islamique du Salut (FIS), came more
or less from nowhere to win 62 percent of the votes cast. The FLN,
which could boast that it had liberated Algeria from the French, came
in at 28 percent.
   One could almost hear the whispered soul-searching starting in for-
eign ministries of the former colonialists, who were exercising their
remote control colonialism through puppet regimes and tyrants estab-
lished in the former colonies. If elections were going to replace these
dictators in the Muslim world, as they seemed to be doing in the East-
ern bloc and beyond, would Islamic parties do this well everywhere?
Would democratically elected governments be good or bad for West-
ern interests particularly if they proceed to establish Islam? Although
democracy seemed like the desirable result of victory in the Cold War,
the Algerian election suggested otherwise: Could democracy be an un-
alloyed good if Muslim states chose leaders with Islamic orientation
who would say good-bye to secularism and governing mechanism which
continue to indirectly serve interests of the former colonial masters?
The fear of an end to the de facto colonization of the Muslim world led
various initiatives on intellectual, political, media and military fronts in
the West. The objective of these initiatives has been to restrict any Is-
lamic state from coming into existence.
   The conceptualization of Islam as a threat was to reconsolidate colo-
                           After Fascism


nization, which brought under European rule many areas of the Muslim
world. The de facto colonization after the so-called independence had
created European and American dominance in the political and mili-
tary spheres of the Muslim world. It also had reconstituted its image of
the Muslim world in scholarship. The exigencies of the establishment
of colonial states within Muslim space effectively meant the disconnec-
tion of civil and religious society. The nature and effects of this discon-
nection in the specific context of Algeria and the Western reaction to
its democratic exercise is the subject of this introduction to see how ef-
forts were redoubled to consolidate the direct and indirect occupation
of the Muslim world after the Soviet demise. Long before the open war
on Islam, colonization was engaged in the separation of civil and reli-
gious society, as a result of developments in the economic sphere—spe-
cifically the exploitation of oil. New connections were being made and
new Muslim societies and patterns of dominance were being created. It
is this struggle against Islam and the post-independence states, which
needs to be understood if there is to be a more genuine understanding
of both the nature of fascism we are facing in the twenty-first century
and the future of the Muslim world.
   Of course, the Algerian elections were still just local elections. Per-
haps those who were later labeled as “Islamists of the FIS” had succeed-
ed because no one else had time to organize effective political parties
in the short period between the ratification of the new constitution
and the local elections. Unlike political parties, Islam itself had never
been illegal, so the religious political party could perhaps use mosques
for propagation of their message. Other parties were also comprised
of Muslims, but due to their secular orientation, they preferred not to
take advantage of the built-in infrastructure of a Muslim society. They
did not lack these opportunities. They simply chose not to utilize these.
Or perhaps Algerians voted against the old guard FLN as a protest
against dictatorship without realizing that the people and parties they
are voting will be demonized as Islamic fundamentalists. Even impartial
analysts in the West argued that in the national elections, with more at
stake, people might have vote more moderately, ignoring the fact that
the issue of moderation and fundamentalism is irrelevant for a people
who are subjugated to repression through kings, generals and other
“democratic” puppets since strategic withdrawal of the former colonial-
ists, which has been labeled as independence.
                      Reconsolidating Colonialism                      


   Unlike the colonial minds, the leadership of the FIS was almost as
surprised as everyone else at the party’s success in the local elections.
The FIS was suddenly a major political force, and needed to explain
to the newly minted electorate what its policies would actually be. A
government or a state does not become Islamic merely by the success
of a party in the name of Islam. So far there is no Islamic government
in the world in its true sense. Similarly, the FIS leaders were not con-
cerned with relationship between Islam and democracy. Leadership of
FIS would have no option but to sustain the corrupt system like many
other confused leadership of religious parties, such as that in Pakistan.
The reason is that it becomes impossible for a winners to reject a sys-
tem altogether which puts them in the position of power in the first
place. With the backing of former colonialists, the ruling FLN effec-
tively decided election strategy for them. In the run-up to the Decem-
ber 1991 national elections, it put the two most prominent FIS leaders
in jail. This deterrent failed, and the FIS went on to win more seats
than any other party: 188 out of a total of 429. The FLN got just 15
seats. The constitution called for a second round of elections; if the
votes remained steady, the FIS was headed for a national victory.
   Now the success of the religious party became the stuff of high-level
policy-making in the colonial capitals. In Washington, the experts were
divided on how to react. Some Islamophobes, who were sincerely wor-
ried about Muslims’ exercising their right to self-determination, prop-
agated the fear that if the FIS took office, it might abolish elections.
Others tried to establish a link to the strategic interests of the United
States. Ignoring the role of the United States in the Iranian history,
Islamophobes touted Iran and argued that states run by Islamist par-
ties could be terribly anti-American, and might export terror. Still oth-
ers, either optimistic or pragmatic, pointed out that the United States
could form a friendship with an Islamic state. They also ignored the
fact that Islamic state does not come to being just by winning elections
in an un-Islamic system. These analysts argued that after all, America’s
close ally Saudi Arabia was a traditional monarchy in which Islamic law
prevailed. The mistake again lies in the fact that mere imposition of Is-
lamic law (Shari’ah) does not make a state Islamic. It is just one part of
the socio-political and economic order that is required for establishing
Islam as a Deen—way of life.
   In a remarkable development, the FLN cancelled the second round
                           After Fascism


of elections at the insistence of the Algerian generals. It retroactively
called off the first round, and in effect the municipal elections, too. It
banned the FIS and jailed the rest of its leaders. Its party banned, its
leaders jailed, and many of its activists arrested; the general thought
that it is the end of challenge to the status quo.
   The French, scared by the media about he rising specter of “Islamic
fundamentalism,” acquiesced in what was essentially a pre-emptive coup
d’etat against the almost-elected FIS. The United States decided to go
along with the policy of former colonial masters of Algeria: the French.
In a speech, that has cast long shadows over subsequent American pol-
icy, then-Assistant Secretary of State Edward Djerejian explained that
while the United States favored democracy, it opposed elections that
would provide for “one person, one vote, one time.” By implication,
elections won by religious political parties were elections that would
lead not to more democracy but to less.
   Algeria was plunged into a bloody civil war that has since killed at
least 100,000 people. The experiment with representative democracy in
the Muslim world was over before it could get started. American policy
was now firmly on the side of the autocrats against the will of the peo-
ple.
                                 ~*~*~*~

The Colonial Roots of the Issue


U      nderstanding the potential for the development of Islamic move-
       ment for self-determination and self-rule, and the implications of
such a development by using the Algerian experience as the first case
study, requires an examination of the interrelationship between the fol-
lowing sets of factors: a) Western policy-making with respect to Mus-
lim countries; b) internal developments within the Muslim world in
the context of their effect on the emergence of Islamic movements for
real independence from Western, colonial clutches; and, c) the interac-
tion between communities of Muslim origin in Europe and America;
relations between the West and Muslim states and the effects on them
of those internal developments within the Muslim world.
   The historical relationship between former colonial states and their
former colonies have an impact not only on European Union and
American policy-making with regard to the Muslim world but also on
                        Colonial Roots of the Issue                           


internal policy making, specifically immigration and the treatment of
Muslim minorities. There is a need to understand the context within
which Islamic movements are evolving and the impact which local/na-
tional interpretation of their reality can have. These concern not only
the way an individual member country perceives and conducts rela-
tions with such movements and its Muslim minorities, but also how
the West in general perceives Islam and conducts its relations with its
Muslim minorities.
   The misery of colonialism lingers on in the Muslim world. The post-
colonial struggle in the former colonies between local nationalists pro-
moting true independence with its concomitant political and economic
development, and former colonial masters trying to reassert control
over the area through compliant governments, economic relations and
military means, seems to have come to an end. The external agents have
won the contested struggle. But they have won nothing. Their victory
is metamorphosing into a tragic human nightmare.
   The British and French colonial legacy of concretized sectarian/
ethnic divisiveness, client political regimes, and state boundaries that
served the colonizers’ interest is well known and described in Part 1 of
this book. The present problems are compounded by the seeds of de-
struction and animosity the colonial powers have sown long time ago
in the name of bringing civilization to the colonies never stop germi-
nating and producing deadly consequences for the former colonies.
Take the example of India and Pakistan. Responsibility of the unstable
government within Pakistan and the resolve of India and Pakistan to
mutually destroy each other go to the British imperialists.
   Prof B. N. Pande’s speech in the Indian Upper House of Parliament,
the Rajya Sabha, made on July 29, 1977 clarifying the fog of British in-
nocence surrounding this issue. He says:
   Indian history and its distortion by the British historians, while India
   was under British rule, portraying the Hindus and the Muslims as being
   divided into two warring camps with little in common between them,
   and that this distortion paved the way for the emergence of the two-
   nation theory....the histories of India which have been taught in our
   schools and colleges for generations past were originally compiled by
   European writers....A glimpse into official British records will show
   how this policy of Divide-et-Impera was taking shape. The Secretary of
   State Wood in a letter to Lord Elgin [Governor General Canada (1847-
                               After Fascism


     54) and India (1862-63)] said: ‘We have maintained our power in India
     by playing off one part against the other and we must continue to do
     so. Do all you can, therefore to prevent all having a common feeling.’
     George Francis Hamilton, Secretary of State of India wrote to Curzon,
     ‘I think the real danger to our rule in India not now, but say 50 years
     hence is the gradual adoption and extension of Western ideas of agitation
     organization and if we could break educated Indians into two sections
     holding widely different views, we should, by such a division, strengthen
     our position against the subtle and continuous attack which the spread
     of education must make upon our system of government. We should
     so plan educational textbooks that the differences between community
     and community are further strengthened (Hamilton to Curzon, 26th
     March 1886). .... Cross informed the Governor-General, Dufferin, that
     ‘This division of religious feeling is greatly to our advantage and I look
     for some good as a result of your Committee of Inquiry on Indian
     Education and on teaching material’ (Cross to Dufferin, January 14,
     1887).122
   India and Pakistan are still reaping fruits of the British strategy to di-
vide religious feelings. So are the modern day fascists carrying anti-Islam
mindset of the former colonialists. Islamophobia is as older as the roots
of colonialism. Raising Babri mosque in India to the ground is nothing
compared to the crimes of the colonialists. The Indian government did
not order destruction of the Babri mosque. In contrast, the Colonial-
ists officially issued clear orders such as: “Every civil building connected
with Mahommedan tradition should be leveled to the ground without
regard to antiquarian veneration or artistic predilection.”123 Compare
these orders with the Taliban’s destruction of the Bamiyan statues. At
least, the Taliban did not order leveling every church and temple in Af-
ghanistan.
   The present generations in India and Pakistan are facing conse-
quences of what the British colonialists have done to their countries,
resources and forefathers long ago. All this might be expurgated from
British official memory but those who decide to leave their miserable
status in India and Pakistan and opt to live in England, for instance,
have two things on the back of their slavish mentality: a) England is a
better place to live and b) British are far better than us.
   The same approach was adopted in Asia, Middle East and Africa. The
new borders ignored old ethnic and cultural lines, and both the colo-
nial and post-colonial regimes pitted ethnic groups against each other
                       Colonial Roots of the Issue                     


as a Machiavellian strategy. Since African nations were mostly created
by colonial powers that loathed and detested democracy, during a pe-
riod when almost all the world’s intellectuals hated democracy with
passionate fury, it’s hardly surprising that no functioning democracies
emerged from strategic withdrawal of the colonialists that was given
the name of independence.
   The colonial powers installed carefully selected gangsters, landlords,
thugs and mass-murderers, usually trained at Sand Hurst or French
military academies, or at hotbeds of pro-slavery teachings, like the Sor-
bonne or the London School of Economics—they were then financed
for decades from outside. The World Bank continues to finance them.
This is not something unknown. As long as these un-elected gangsters,
military juntas, kings, and sheikhs are recognized as “legitimate govern-
ments” by the Western world, these conditions will continue to per-
sist. As far as the wave of new colonization by the modern day fascists
is concerned, Robert Fisk’s rightly points out: “For the people on the
streets [in Iraq], this is not liberation but a new colonial oppression.
America’s war of ‘liberation’ may be over. But Iraq’s war of liberation
from the Americans is just about to begin.”124 Furthermore, the new
wave of colonization is not limited to the Muslim world alone. Ac-
cording to Reuters (March 9, 2006), U.S. government is placing spe-
cial operations troops in a growing number of American embassies in
unstable parts of the world to gather intelligence. The fear of “Islamic
terrorism,” of course, is a handy pretext.
   The same exaggerated fear of Islam forced the modern day fascists
to engineer 9/11, kill their own people, create fear at home and then
launch a new wave of physical occupations abroad. This fear of Islam
resurfaced in early 1990s with the democratic experience in Algeria.
Algeria illustrates the profound ambiguities, which are present in the
discourses on Islam both within the European Union itself, within its
individual member states, the United States and Canada. It illustrates
how a favored partner of the 1970s, a state with deep historic ties with
the former colonial state can find those relationships and ties subjected
to profound scrutiny when they become subjected to the exaggerated
fear of Islam. It is then not simply a question of the relationship with
the individual member state of the league of former colonialists, which
is scrutinized but also the position of that state in the wider deposition
of relations.
0                           After Fascism


   Although the starting point is an examination of the impact which
contemporary events in Algeria have on the construction of identity of
Algerians in general, it introduces a discussion of the effects that these
processes have had on the communities of Algerian origin in France. It
also examines the increasingly important role which it has been suggest-
ed is being played by Islam in the construction of identities.125 More
particularly, it leads us into looking at the broader picture in which de-
mocracy is used as a tool to promote the colonial interests in the rest of
the Muslim world.
   It is argued that there has been a shift in primary identification of Al-
gerians from one which was dictated by national origin, that is being an
Algerian to a new identity which is no longer dependent upon the re-
strictive category of nationality but is embodied in a universal category
which being a Muslim provides. However, to understand why this has
been happening, it is necessary to explore the issue beyond the events,
which have occurred since the abrupt termination of the December
1991 elections. In other words, these changes did not begin with the
1991 elections but have their origins embedded in the very construc-
tion of the post-colonial state. This is not in any way to deny the im-
portance of these elections, but merely to emphasize that the problems
which the Algerian face today are the result of processes which be-
gan during the period of colonization. In other words, they are about
finding new ways to express the old unity of religious and secular life,
which was shattered so dramatically under the impact of colonization.
At the same time, as colonization not only affected the basic structures
of everyday life and governance within the Muslim political communi-
ty in the colony, it also created the conditions for the development of
a largely new phenomenon: the migration of Muslims to non-Muslim
countries in which they would not only constitute minorities but also
minorities whose social status would be considered inferior.
   The ways in which the institution of patterns of migration for work
resulted in an inferior social status for Muslims can be seen as difficult
to reconcile with a historical position as one of the three monotheis-
tic religions of Judaism, Christianity and Islam. This position provides
a sense of religious superiority and, by implication, superiority in the
civil field. This creates at the ideological level the need to reconcile
the realities of inferior social status with a rather different view of re-
ligious positioning. Writers preoccupied with the construction of the
                       Colonial Roots of the Issue                       


ideal civil and economic community always use as their starting point
the religious community in which, in theory, principles of equality are
viewed as central.
   Algeria is an example where the 132 years French colonization end-
ed in semi-independence in 1962. Since then there has been a series of
struggles for the constitution of a new society in which the commu-
nity of Muslims reasserts its primacy. Colonization affected the Mus-
lims’ perception of Islam in many ways. Central to this is the organized
way in which civil and religious societies are disconnected, the unity of
which is central to the concept of community, or Ummah, which is the
guiding principle of societies constructed within the parameters of Is-
lam. Nationalism was inculcated. Patriotism to their respective states
was made the core popular belief system. This disconnection of civil
and religious society and division among more than 50 Muslim states
both opened up, and then left open, the whole question of what it
meant and now means to be an Algerian, Pakistani or Iraqi Muslim.
   In Algeria, the apparent direction taken by the 1991 elections, if
seen in this context, becomes less surprising and more comprehensible.
It needs to be seen as part of the processes, which are helping to define
what it is to be a Muslim; and in what kind of society and state Mus-
lims actually need to live. To be an Algerian Muslim, wishing to live in
Islamic Algeria was just an intermediary level realization among Mus-
lims of a specific Muslim state. In other words, the struggle for iden-
tity and meaning always brings with it new conflicts but, in the case
of Algeria, one of the conflicts reflects the desire by political leaders
for Islam to play a defining role. In this case, Algeria is not alone. Else-
where, the struggle is on as well. The only difference is in the level of
realization which gradually makes Muslim understand that 57 Muslim
states—even if they are Islamic—and 57 different identities are not the
solution to the problems of the Muslim world.
   This process of realization and redefinition is not unique to Algeria
and in practice can be seen to be taking place throughout the Muslim
world from Palestine to Turkey, Pakistan and Malaysia. As with the
FIS success in 1991, the actual margins of victory have been narrowed
everywhere. However, the reaction outside the Muslim world has been
extremely shocking. In other words, what provoked concern is not mas-
sive shift in popular support for religious parties but democratic pro-
cedures, which result in narrow victories for such parties. The reason
                           After Fascism


is obvious. These religious parties are still confused and don’t exactly
know how to effectively come out of the mire in which the colonialists-
established systems have sucked them in. However, their win paves the
way towards more open discussion and taking little steps at a time to-
wards achieving real independence from the de facto colonization that
is in place since the so-called independence of Muslim states.
   Thus the fear of losing the remaining grip on the former colonies and
control over their destiny explains why such victories of Islamic parties
provoke in the non-Muslim world the fear that they do. Some analysts
believe that part of the answer may be found by drawing a comparison
with the series of recent victories by communist parties in the former
communist countries following democratic elections. Some writers (of
whom Ernest Gellner is one example) would argue that such victories
reflect the recent, and as yet incomplete, development in such societies
of civil society126—incomplete in the sense that the range of civil insti-
tutions is not extensive and hence there is no balance between compet-
ing institutions to offset potentially non-democratic victories. It means
that victories by Islamic parties are considered non-democratic due to
lack of civil society institutions. Of course, this interpretation immedi-
ately poses questions about the nature of democracy, which the West-
ern world is promoting in the Muslim world. What is meant by using
the word democracy if will of the people is not respected when it paves
the way for liberation from continued colonialism?
   The primary effect of colonization was a general climate of instabil-
ity, which had a specific impact on the direction and formation of
a Muslim society within the colonial complex. Algeria, like many re-
gions of the Muslim world, prior to colonization, displayed a variety
of practices and associative communities, of which those attributable to
Islam were only one part. Within the Islamic experience a broad divi-
sion can be made between urban and rural practices. In urban society,
legal processes and therefore the teachers (ulama) and the jurists (qadi)
played key roles. In rural areas, popular practice focused on local lead-
ers (marabout) who would be located in organized communities. The
process of colonization effectively destroyed the organized religion of
the urban communities and in so doing created further space for the
development of a popularist rural-based Islamic practice, primarily be-
cause rural practice did not depend in quite the same way on institu-
tional reference points and could not become a threat to the kind of
                        Colonial Roots of the Issue                       


governing mechanisms which the colonialists wanted to establish in the
Muslim world.
   The colonial period witnessed a dramatic decline in the number of
mosques in Algiers. In 1830, there had been 13 large mosques and over
200 small mosques; by 1862, there remained only 4 large mosques and
fewer than 10 small mosques.127 Concomitant with this development,
both symbolic and actual, the colonial power countered what Muslim
influence there was by imposing images of its own religion: Christi-
anity. These included the construction of places of worship, and the
provision of education through the medium of Christian religious or-
ders, particularly the White Fathers founded in 1866 by the influential
Archbishop of Algiers from 1866 to 1892, Cardinal Lavigerie.
   It also involved the construction of symbolic representations of Is-
lam, particularly around gender. Consequently, certain aspects of wom-
en’s position in Islam were identified as being anti-progressive and then
given a symbolic meaning. Most particularly, these were the harem
and the veil (hijab). The harem, however, is not a generalized feature
of Muslim societies, and in the Ottoman Turkish context, it referred
to the institutions and practices, which incorporated both seclusion
and enclosure of women who were members of the Sultan’s household.
That the practice was then extended to include the households of the
principal servants and high officials of the empire does not mean that
ordinary Muslims maintained a harem. Yet popular depiction of social
practices in Muslim societies, including that of Algeria, gives the im-
pression that all households were constructed on this basis. How this
was contrived has received much attention since the publication by
Edward Said in 1978 of his influential study Orientalism; and on the
specificities of the harem, useful discussion is found in historian Billie
Melman and Leila Ahmed’s work.128
   Whilst the depiction of the harem has played a general role in con-
structing a negative image of the position of women in Islam, the de-
piction and discussion of the veil (hijab) plays an equally important
role today as it has done historically. This is particularly clear in Algeria
when, during the resistance struggle, the veil and whether or not wom-
en wore it, became an associative part of the struggle itself. Women
resistance fighters used the veil as a means to hide identity and to es-
cape notice; this capacity to escape notice being a function of women’s
broader invisibility.129 Whilst Algerian women used the veil in multiple
                          After Fascism


ways, French colonial authorities attempted to assert their power over
Algerian society through women. The ultimate manifestation of this
use of colonial power was a public ceremony held on May 16, 1958 at
which some women were persuaded to declare their allegiance to the
French project by removing their veils. The complexities of meaning
which this ceremony involved are discussed by both Leila Ahmed130
and Marnia Lazreg in detail.131 Lazreg, in particular, argues that this
ceremony had an actively negative effect on the constituting of wom-
en’s position in the post-independence Algerian state. Both argue that
it is through situations such as these that wider images and discourses
are constructed and it is, perhaps, no accident that the veil seems still
to be part of the struggle around women’s identity in Islam both within
Algeria and within Algerian communities in France and between these
communities and the French state. The roots of recent ban on hijab in
France lie in this historical context.
   This shows that the roots of Islamic movements which are gaining
momentum since 1990s in Algeria and elsewhere in the Muslim world
are longer and deeper than the political and military conflicts of the
1980s. These roots are to be found in the dynamic of the colonial con-
frontation, which took place within the Muslim world. Consequently,
the emergence and growth of these movements represent an essential
part of the attempt to reconstitute Muslim societies in the post direct-
colonial period and to redefine independence and its Muslim character.
However, the precise definition of what constituted that Muslim char-
acter proved illusive in practice because of the centuries of systematic
attempts to undermine Islam and its values.
   Besides changing school curriculums and imposing secular legal and
economic systems, the effect of colonial practices had been to shift the
locus of Muslim practice away from the towns/urban centers and to-
wards the popular Islam of the rural areas. Like other Muslim states, in
the years after independence, each Algerian regime sought to reconsti-
tute the Islamic specificity of the new state. One of the methods which
was used was to invite Muslim scholars and teachers from other parts
of the Muslim world (particularly Egypt, Iraq and Pakistan) to come
and teach in its educational institutions. Furthermore, the preoccupa-
tion, in particular of Algeria’s second President, Houari Boumediene,
with economic matters led him to cede control of the Ministries of Ed-
ucation, Justice and Religious Affairs; and, consequently, the cultural
                       Colonial Roots of the Issue                       


field in general, to those seeking to reconstitute its Islamic character.132
   The consequences of ceding the fields of culture and ideology may be
clearly seen in the protracted debate over family law, where these bod-
ies sought to make family law reflect what they considered to be a Mus-
lim character. Once again, women were at the center of the debate over
what Islam meant. Reflecting, perhaps, a more general aspect of such
movements, discussed by Floya Anthias and Nira Yuval-Davis133 in
which “women are the symbol of the nation, men its agents, regardless
of the role actually played in the movement.” This debate over family
law also mobilized women onto the streets for the first time since the
independence struggle. However, despite their opposition, the power of
cultural and ideological forces was such that the Islamic version of fam-
ily law was finally accepted in 1984.134
   Algeria illustrates that the end of direct colonization meant that the
strategic withdrawal—called independence—and the instituting of po-
litical control did not automatically reinstate the pre-colonial union of
state and religious identity. In other words, it was not sufficient that
the state, after the direct colonial control, declared itself to be Mus-
lim; what that Muslim state was had then to be constructed and given
a true meaning by making it Islamic. Muslim state with a majority of
Muslims does not become Islamic by default. It is no different from a
secular, un-Islamic state. In constructing a new Islamic state in Algeria,
whilst it was necessary for the Algerian state to reinsert itself within
the global Muslim world, it could also draw upon that global Muslim
world for the intellectual and moral support for establishing an Islamic
state. Unfortunately, the rest of the Muslim world was also devoid of
a true model of Islamic state. This also meant that the development of
local practice could not be immune to global developments within the
divided Muslim world, suffering from de facto colonization.
   Thus, although what was left of Islam in Algeria had been primar-
ily rural, it is not only the rural areas, which are the focus of today’s
Islamic movements. Mostly, these movements’ strength is to be found
in the expanding urban areas with people having more education and
more awareness. Such movements are a reflection of local conditions
but their overall character owes as much to the wider Muslim world
as it does to the specific conditions of the national state. They reflect
a new and emerging realization across the Muslim world, which makes
things clearer to Muslims all the while. For a long time, many think-
                           After Fascism


ers from Syed Qutb to Moududi and Dr. Israr Ahmed, tried to pres-
ent an idea and structure of an Islamic state within the divided Muslim
world and within the left-over colonial structures proved to be utterly
futile. These three had different reasons for their apparent failure. Their
search for Islamic in the un-Islamic system and all attempts to establish
an Islamic model on or within the un-Islamic system proved to be ut-
terly futile. This leads to the reality that it is absolutely impossible for
Muslim to establish 57 Islamic states each with a different or the same
approach to social, economic, legal and political approach. Therefore,
to fulfill the obligation of living by Islam, Muslims have no option but
to struggle for a single entity with a just socio-political and economic
order. The way the situation is unfolding on international level is ad-
dressing the how aspect of the establishment of a single Islamic entity.
   If we look into the basics of Islam, the basic criteria is that there
should be no deviation from the Qur’an and the Sunnah. Islam does
not belong to any people, place, or land. Muslims are obliged to work
for establishing and living by Islam, starting with oneself, family and
then society at large. Of course, no one can work for Islam in all the
countries, but the never ending colonial adventures are paving the way
for Muslims’ collective reaction and the collapse of the nation-states
system. As we will see in the coming sections, mass awareness in the
Muslim world is raising with each new round of the on going war on
Islam. Individually Muslims cannot work everywhere, but everywhere
there are Muslims with the same basic responsibility to establish Islam
as a Deen—a Way of life.
   That is why Islamophobes are scared of what they consider “global-
ization of Islam.” They see it happening everywhere and supported by
every Muslim country. Islamophobes even consider Saudi Arabia play-
ing a role in the globalization of Islam. Of course, Saudi Arabia and the
Gulf in general have the capacity to provide financial support not only
to governments but also to particular types of institutions, but those
institutions have nothing, at least directly, to do with Muslims’ right
to self-determination and real independence from the continued colo-
nization in the Muslim world. Saudi Arabia has the worst type of pup-
pet regime that oppresses its people and serves the new lead colonial-
ists in the United States and Europe. Whilst Saudi Arabia can supply
economic aid both for industrial development and for the development
of religious institutions; it does not itself have any idea to pursue spe-
                Islamophobia and Democracy in Contact                  


cific goals, which may lead to self-determination of the Muslim world.
Consequently, other players are rising to the occasion and shouldering
responsibility for leading the struggle for Muslim self-determination.
   Islamic movements at the grassroots level are emerging because states
and leading institutions are failing. One of the other significant but
useless institution is the al-Azhar university in Cairo, which is able to
provide both a sense of continuity and permanence and thus a certain
independent authority but it could never lead the Ummah toward a
clear goal. The war in Afghanistan (1980-90) provided Muslims with
some sense of encouragement that they can physically defeat a super
power, yet they failed to come up with ways to end the modern day
colonialists’ indirect influences and direct interference in Muslims’ in-
ternal affairs. The Afghan Jihad was supported by financial and military
aid from both Muslim and Western states to the Muslim groups en-
gaged in the fight against the Soviet-backed regime. The war also drew
in as combatants, young Muslims from the wider Muslim world, and
some of these were Algerian.
   The Afghan Jihad thus provided an opportunity for young men from
many parts of the Muslim world to taste the sweetness of struggle for
freedom and independence. They realized the extent to which their
own governments were entangled in the colonialist web. They were
hardly any free than the Afghans, suffering from Soviet installed regime
in Kabul against which they fought for years.
                                 ~*~*~*~

Islamophobia and Democracy in Contact


T     he drama of the Western fear of Muslim masses expressing their
      will in free elections highlighted a new fascist tendency emerging
in the West. It foreshadowed a new, democratic direction for Muslims,
a harsh response from most Muslim monarchs and dictators, and ac-
quiescence in repression on the part of the United States and Europe.
In the decade since undermining the Algerian experiment, a handful of
desperate Muslims have grabbed headlines by perpetrating violent act.
The United States has clearly taken a lead into political and military
engagement with the Muslim world. But during the same decade, out-
side the headlines, many more committed Muslims have sought to par-
ticipate in the electoral politics of the countries where they live with a
                           After Fascism


false hope that one day they might be able to bring the changes they
want to the descript, corrupt and un-Islamic order left behind by the
colonialists. Falling much short of the revolutionary changes that are
needed to do away with the exploitative order that sustains de facto
colonization, these Muslim individuals and religious parties tried per-
suasion and pragmatism to no avail. The colonial order remains intact,
whether religious political parties win a few seats or a clear majority—
as we see in the case of Pakistan—every attempt at establishing Islam
within the same systems remained fruitless when looked from the per-
spective of independence from the colonial rule.
   So, contrary to what is believed in the United States, Muslims are
not inherently committed to the throwing out everything Western. To
the contrary, many, though by no means all, Muslims are struggling
to release their respective “nations” from the grip of continued colo-
nialism. Many scholars find the combination of Islamic principles and
democratic values appealing. Yet, they hardly achieve anything from
their attempts at establishing Islam within the left over secular systems
from the colonial period. Looking at the double standards and increas-
ingly fascist approach of the so-called leaders of the Western democ-
racy, an increasing number of Muslims around the world embrace the
elegance, logic, and depth of Islam perhaps more warmly than at any
time in a century. In Islam’s language of justice, morality, hope, and
commitment, they find not only religion, but also a vital force in the
realms of politics, society, and the spirit. At the same time, as their re-
liance on Islam grows, Muslims are also embracing the ideals of self-
government and freedom associated with democracy. However, they
have been constantly denied of every opportunity where they could ap-
ply Islamic principles to modern form of governance. To an increasing
number of Muslims, these democratic values resonate with Islam and
can develop in tandem with it. Wherever advocates have been free to
speak out or run for office in the name of “Islamic democracy,” they
have found an eager audience. Yet there is a big difference in running
for office in the name of Islam and practical implementation of Islam-
ic principles after coming to power. Experience shows that it has be-
come absolutely impossible for Muslims to make governance and living
by Islam possible within the same system irrespective of the margin of
their victory. The rhetoric of “Islamic democracy” can hardly stand the
harsh reality of life in the still thriving colonial order. Islamophobes’
                 Islamophobia and Democracy in Context                    


anti-Islam campaign has turned Islam into a monster and any attempt
at incorporating Islamic principles in social, political and economic life
becomes extremism and terrorism, leaving Muslims with no option but
to get labeled as “Islamists” and terrorists. Most give up trying to estab-
lish Islam and limit themselves to living by Islam in personal lives in a
very limited and narrow sense.
   Even the little freedom of going to elections and contesting against
the sitting puppets have certainly not been enjoyed everywhere. The
quality of elections varies dramatically across the Muslim world. There
are mock democracies like Turkey under the thumb of the military
forces, faltering quasi-democracies like Pakistan, and de facto presiden-
tial dictatorships like Egypt; there are constitutional monarchies like
Jordan and Morocco; and the monarchy of Saudi Arabia, where the
king’s word is law, there are no elections at all. Several of the Central
Asian republics are run like the Soviet provincial satellites they once
were. In most parts of the Muslim world, autocrats, such as General
Musharraf, remain the darling of Islamophobes in the West.
   Under the new, de facto colonization, most of the Muslim states are
American allies in one sense or the other. They all dance to the tunes
from former and new colonial masters and differ greatly in political
system, degree of freedom, wealth, language, and culture. In nearly ev-
ery Muslim country, however, there are voices today calling for greater
freedom within and independence from outside powers. Remarkably,
Muslims have started realizing in the last few years that as long as their
countries remain virtual colonies of the Western world, mere democra-
cy is not the solution either. Western analysts confuse this emerging re-
alization in the Muslim world with the argument that a growing num-
ber of “Islamists” believe that “Islam is the solution” to all problems in
politics and private life alike. Muslims never claim that Islam is a magic
wand that will immediately solve their problems. The growing realiza-
tion is of their responsibility and obligation to live by Islam and apply-
ing its principle in every filed of life from politics to economic activities
and social life. This is their obligation as Muslims and to live free from
the colonial clutches is their basic human right. Muslims’ right to self-
determination and self-rule must not be denied under the pretext that
“Islamists” want to create an Islamic empire.
   Some naïve assumptions still prevail among the less Islamophobic
analysts in the West. They believe that assassination of President Sadat,
00                         After Fascism


violence between the secular Algerian autocratic regime and FIS and
the non-existent Al-Qaeda network is the result of “Islamists” dream to
emulate the Iranian model by Islamizing their own countries through
the revolutionary transformation of violent jihad. Promoting the offi-
cial story of 9/11, Noah Feldman and others, make the world believe
that 9/11 was part of the “Islamists” jihad for transforming their world
at a time when they ran out of options. Noah Feldman writes in After
Jihad that Al-Qaeda members may have “believed that Muslims would
rally to their cause and fight both the U.S. and their own governments,
but that never happened. The notion that an Islamic state should be
created through holy war is an idea whose time has passed among most
in the Muslim world.”135
    This is actually a distraction from the actual subject, which is the
continuation of colonialism under new slogans and labels and the Mus-
lims’ growing struggle to break lose the grip of modern day fascists on
their every day life. In support of his theory, Noah Feldman lists the
struggle in Kashmir, Palestine and Lebanon against physical occupation
to undermine the global ideological awakening of Muslims and con-
clude that there is a declining popularity of “Islamists” who “of all the
countries in the Muslim world,” could manage “to take over just Su-
dan and Afghanistan. Today neither of those Islamist regimes remains
in power. Violent jihad has popular support only where it has not yet
failed: among Shi’as in southern Lebanon, where Hezbollah bombings
helped drive Israel out; among those Palestinians who believe similar
tactics might work for them; and among Pakistanis and Kashmiris who
are fighting against India.”136
    This is no less than an attempt to further confuse the confused and
ill-informed western public. In the Muslim world, two types of strug-
gles are on: one against the direct military occupations, such as those
in Afghanistan, Iraq, Palestine, and Chechnya, and the other is against
the puppet regimes such as those of Musharraf, Mubarak, and the kings
sitting in the House of Saud etc., who are sustaining de facto coloniza-
tion of the Muslim world. Understanding and ways and means to liber-
ate the Muslim world from the clutches of democratic fascism of the
West are not yet clearly defined. But the more the double standards of
the Western approach towards Iraq, Afghanistan, Palestine and dicta-
tors such as Musharraf get exposed, the more Muslims will come up
with ways to marshal resources for liberating the Ummah as a whole,
                Islamophobia and Democracy in Context                 0


rather than engaging in futile, isolated attempts without any clear idea
of the next step.
   Despite the religious parties’ not spelling out how would they es-
tablish Islam after coming to power in an un-Islamic system, many a
people voted them to power. As time passes, people in the Muslim
world realize that embracing the so-called democracy to achieve their
goals within their own countries was an important development in the
realm of ideas, but on practical level, they yield nothing. For many of
the world’s Muslims, with a wide range of ideological standpoints, Is-
lam and democracy are compatible. Yet that is not the point that needs
further discussion and promotion. The reality is that the increasing fas-
cist tendency in the West is not compatible with democracy and that
needs to be discussed, debated and countered. It is the democratic fas-
cism that uses elections as a mean to justify puppet regimes in occupied
lands, such as Afghanistan and Iraq, but when it comes to Palestine or
Pakistan, democratic results and will of the people carries no weight.
   That was not the case for much of the last century when the Soviet
Union was standing opposed to the Western world. It is a new circum-
stance that results from the global rise of the worst kind of fascism un-
der the label of democracy and freedom. On the other hand, Islam’s
appeal and prestige is still growing and people are realizing that other
than what has been clearly forbidden in the Qur’an and Sunnah, Islam
has the capacity to incorporate a broad range of non-traditional politi-
cal ideas. On the other hand, Western democracies have proved them-
selves to be extremist in their approach. Their fascist face behind the
double standards of freedom and democracy is exposed the moment re-
sults of a democratic exercise go against their totalitarian designs.
   Western governments and their allied Muslim autocrats are terribly
threatened by even the possibility of democracy in the former colonies,
where they see the results could lead to challenging the status quo of
de facto colonization and they have mostly stood firm against such an
exercise of freedom and democracy. The Pakistani dictatorship, which
faced serious trouble after the initial pressure from outside world, has
shown no sign of democratization since the U.S. changed policy. The
existing system does not allow the elected majority to take meaningful
steps towards establishing Islam. Religious parties’ alliance has major-
ity governments in two provinces in Pakistan, yet they are as helpless
in making any progress towards transforming the system or society as
0                          After Fascism


any of the previous assemblies where secularists were in majority. This
shows that religious parties are not allowed to come to power, as in the
case of Algeria, but even if they manage to come to power, the former
colonial systems are so entrenched that these parties can hardly make
a difference in fulfilling their stated objective of establishing living by
Islam.
   The secular Syrian dictatorship, which faced serious trouble after the
flow of money and weapons from the Soviets slowed to a trickle, has
shown no signs of democratization since. Maybe Syrians remember
what happened in the town of Hama in 1982, when a mini Islamic re-
bellion against long time dictator Hafez al-Asad led to the indiscrimi-
nate killing of between 5,000 and 30,000 civilians. When President
Asad died in June 2000, his son Bashar immediately became dictator by
descent—no election, no public discussion, just a seamless transition.
All this was acceptable until recently to the United States and its al-
lies. Similarly, Iraq was another totalitarian regime that might have felt
the democratic aftershocks of 1989, but Saddam Hussein sidestepped
the issue by invading Kuwait in August of 1990. In other, slightly less
autocratic Muslim states, like Jordan and Egypt, the governments have
allowed some religiously motivated individuals to run for parliament,
while keeping the movement towards establishing Islam under tight
control and surveillance.
   Meanwhile, in the United States, the idea that imposing the neo-
conservative version of democracy abroad serves American values and
interests was almost never considered applicable to the Muslim world
until recent events began to suggest that many Muslims are unhappy
with the Western-sponsored dictatorial regimes and sooner or later
they are going to get toppled, leaving the Muslim world wide open to
self-rule. The idea of imposing the twisted form of democracy in select
places in ultra-fascist manner, as we witness in occupied Iraq and Af-
ghanistan, has led to the age of democratic fascism.
   During the 1990s, some influential American thinkers argued that
Islam had inherited communism’s mantle as the implacable opponent
that democracy would have to confront in the future. It may be diffi-
cult for young people today to believe, but the lies fed to the American
people and the world about the Cold War, the Soviet Union, and com-
munism were much more routine and flagrant than the lies of the past
few years concerning Iraq and terrorism, the most flagrant and basic lie
                Islamophobia and Democracy in Context                 0


being the existence of something called the International Communist
Conspiracy, seeking to take over the world and subvert everything de-
cent and holy. In actuality, there were people all over the Third World
fighting for economic and political changes that didn’t coincide with
the needs of the American power elite, and so the United States moved
to crush those governments and those movements, even though the So-
viet Union or China was playing hardly any role at all in the great ma-
jority of those scenarios.
   A generation of thinkers reared on the incompatibility of commu-
nism and capitalist democracy tended to see Islam as a fighting faith
that could not coexist without strife. The internally planned and con-
ducted attacks of 9/11 and subsequent mainstreaming of Islamophobia
have fed the popular perception that Muslims who want to live by Is-
lam are “Islamists” and perhaps even all Muslims, are the sort of fanat-
ics whom one would not dare trust to govern themselves by democratic
means, which are not approved by Washington. This perception will
not easily be displaced so long as the most radical Islamophobes con-
tinue to propagate the myth that Islam and democracy as such are at
odds. If some Muslims argue in these terms, their objective is to point
out that democratic vote cannot overrule the basic tents of Islam. For
example, even a 100 percent vote in favor of something declared im-
permissible in the Qur’an and Hadith cannot make it permissible. This
has nothing to do with incompatibility of democracy with Islam or the
rancid notion of “Islamism.” This is Islam.
   As far real democracy is concerned—where people’s voice can be
heard and they are the one putting and removing rulers from power—
totalitarian designs of the present day colonialists stand in its way and
discourage real democratization in the Muslim world. The so-called war
on terror for physically re-colonizing the Muslim world has pushed the
United States to rely on its existing Muslim puppet autocrats, dictators
and kings for intelligence and cooperation. Therefore, the democratic
fascists hardly have time to look at their self-contradictory words and
deeds. For example, George W. Bush called for an overhaul of the cor-
rupt Palestinian Authority, but when Hamas won the elections, the
U.S.-led the crusade to undermine its democratic exercise. Similarly,
Bush administration officials and some Democrats never get tired of
speaking of the need to create democracy in Iraq, but American policy
has thus far done little to discourage Musharraf from continuing his
0                          After Fascism


dictatorial rule. They are perfectly happy with the House of Saud and
all other pro-Washington kings and sheikhs in the Middle East.
   So while the United States has made some fake gestures in the direc-
tion of supporting democracy in the Muslim world, the overwhelming
fear that democracy might lead to Muslims’ self-determination has be-
come the root cause of fascist approach and deliberate preference for
repressive autocracy and the steady flow of cheap oil. Since 9/11, it has
also become easier for the repressive regimes themselves to label every
opposition group working in the name of religion a terrorist threat.
   It hardly makes sense when apologists for democratic fascism in the
United States argue that it seems unwise in the current American po-
litical climate to stick up for any religious group that might turn out to
be less democratic than it appears on the surface. They can hardly ex-
plain what “less democratic” actually mean? What are the standards for
more and less democracy? Will the “less democratic” not hold any elec-
tions, or will they, in fact, not listen to the dictates from outside? Even
if the present opposition to the repressive regimes is less democratic as
assumed, does it justify supporting autocrats and their tyrannical rule?
   The Islamophobic thinking that insists on arraying the undefined
democracy against Islam in inevitable conflict has led the West badly
astray. Shared by the duped Westerners and some opportunist Muslim
“moderates,” it has led to fascist reasoning, and hence to fascist poli-
cies. Specifically, it has led the United States and Europe to ignore the
possibility that Muslims want freedom as much as anybody else. It
has led Western governments that pride themselves on their so-called
democratic character to embrace opportunist dictators for reasons of
short-term self-interest, forgetting that in the long run, the support of
continuing tyranny in the Muslims world undermines their own stated
values and makes enemies of the people who are being oppressed with
Western complicity. Former European colonial masters have criticized
America’s heavy-handedness in the Muslim world, but they themselves
have done almost nothing to advance the cause of real freedom and in-
dependence there, proving just as satisfied to deal with autocrats and
continuation of de facto colonization as the U.S. has been.
   The entrenched American policy of preferring autocrats to true rep-
resentative of the people in the Muslim world is leading to what the
colonial powers have been scared of for so long: the unity of Muslims
and emergence of a single Muslim entity, which the Islamophobes con-
                Islamophobia and Democracy in Context                  0


sider as a first step towards “globalization of Islam.” In the last two
decades, the Muslim world has undergone extraordinary ferment and
change. Serious polarization is underway. If the Western so-called cor-
porate media avoids to understand and report this change, it does not
mean the Muslim world remains what it was when the colonialists left
it divided in 57 states. On the one end of the increasing polarization
are Muslim opportunists and those who are directly or indirectly bene-
fiting from the oppressive regimes and the status quo. We may consider
this as the elite end of the spectrum of polarization. On the other end,
the aware end, are those who are physically, economically and socially
suffering from continued colonialism in different forms. People at this
end of the spectrum used to know about the outside world through
an occasional newspaper read aloud to neighbors. There are now satel-
lite dishes carrying not one, but a dozen channels in local languages.
Satellite TV and internet are now available into even relatively mod-
est homes. People, who live in the reality, find news and view of the
corporate media very different from a Western mind, which relies on
the corporate media for its information, knowledge, wisdom and deci-
sion. The aware Muslims clearly see the twisted facts and misinforma-
tion spread by the corporate media and the double standards promoted
by the Western governments. They see one thing on the ground and
find another reported and misrepresented in the media. Nowhere the
duplicity and double standards of the West are as exposed as in the
Muslim world. The elite end of the spectrum also understands the real-
ity, but their survival lies in maintaining the status quo. As a result of
the undemocratic, oppressive and unjust social, political and economic
order, the gap between the rich and poor widens every day. This makes
the ground fertile for an Islamic revolution.
   Muslims know through their experience that both Islam and de-
mocracy are not the way these are presented in the Western media and
discourse. Islam is not against democracy at all as long as democracy
does not attempt to make permissible what is impermissible in Islam
and force Muslims to stray away from the “Straight Path” as referred
to repeatedly in the Qur’an. Secularism has no place in Islam but so
is secularism of the Western variety not a necessary pre-condition for
democracy. These and all associated facts lead Muslims to question if
the Western powers are really interested in democracy in the Muslim
world or it is something else that they want to achieve through auto-
0                          After Fascism


cratic regimes and the neoconservative version of democracy. Further
analysis lead them to the realization that even if there are 57 perfectly
functioning democracies in the Muslim world, Muslims will not be
able to live by Islam as they are obliged to live by the Qur’an and the
Sunnah as Muslims. For example, we have reached a state in the nev-
er-ending colonial exploitation that it has become impossible for any
of the Muslim states to take an initiative and establish an interest-free
economy and economic systems. No matter how democratic it might
be, a Muslim state cannot establish Islam and Islamic system without
instantly getting demonized, sanctioned and overthrown. This leads
to more questions in the Muslim mind, such as: If individual Muslim
states cannot make internal changes to the leftover colonial systems like
truly independent entities, will they be able to do so as a single Islamic
entity? Are Muslims obliged to live in and die for 57 different states
with 57 different forms of Islam, serving and defending each state and
its policies?
   The apologists’ promotion of “Islamic democracy” ignores all these
questions and suggests that each possible Muslim state would be a type
of Islamic democracy: a state recognizably Islamic, populated by Mus-
lims, and committed to the political principles of democracy. To this
they add: “There are many ways for Muslims to embrace Islam with-
out believing that Islam alone provides the answer to every question
of life and politics.”137 Such assumptions about what Muslims believe
and what Islamic government means need to be revised. Islamic means
something consistent with the Islamic principle. A state recognizably
Islamic does not mean to be Islamic in its title alone, but to abide by
Islamic principles in all concerned departments and policies. Similar-
ly, no Muslim believes that Islam alone provides the answer to every
question of life and politics. What Muslims believe is that the Qur’an
and Hadith have laid down broad and basic principles, following which
they can make right decisions without straying away from the “Right
Path.”
   The world is fast changing. The theories about incompatibility of
Islam and democracy in the books and reports can shape and support
policies of the United States and its allies, but these cannot sustain the
aging autocrats, or translate power to their sons and fellow generals.
Growing awareness about the official conspiracy theory of 9/11 and
the subsequent aggression in Afghanistan and Iraq exposes the true face
                Islamophobia and Democracy in Context                   0


of modern day fascists. An increasing number of Muslims come to be-
lieve that democracy is not the objective but a mean which the modern
day fascists are using to physically re-occupy the Muslim world. They
also realize that repression of the puppet regimes in the Muslim world
is reaching its limits. Further repression has the potential to trigger the
much feared revolution and transformation of the Muslim world into a
single, independent entity.
   If the hard questions that result from the renewed zeal to domi-
nate and control the Muslim world are not addressed, the marriage of
Islamophobia and self-interest that drives much U.S. and European
policy on questions of self-determination to Muslims will persist, un-
acknowledged and unchallenged. Failure to engage the possibilities of
ending the colonial adventures will have serious consequences for the
United States as a super power, to say nothing of the freedom and true
independence that Muslim will enjoy after suffering the grave conse-
quence of colonial stubbornness displayed by the European and Ameri-
can leadership.
   The stakes of America’s decision either to maintain or to abandon
the policy of denying Muslims their right to self-determination through
embracing Muslim dictators are therefore extraordinarily high. This is
all the more true as the U.S. thinks about what governments should
be created in the aftermath of its fascist approach to regime change as
we witness in Iraq and Afghanistan. Continuing to support Muslim
autocrats is justified in the name of maintaining “stability,” fighting
“extremism,” and avoiding a rising tide of “Islamist” politics that might
harm the U.S. hegemony and security of Israel.
   Time is fast approaching for colonial fascism to come to an end.
Continuing the European colonialism in an indirect but effective way
for a long time has arrayed the United States and the West against the
interests of ordinary Muslims, who cannot ignore what they see as a be-
trayal of the values of freedom and self-government that the U.S. and
the West represent to them. It has sent a strong message to Muslims
that democracy is less an animating aspiration at the core of American
values than a tool to be deployed cynically and selectively to further
interest of corporate terrorist and religious zealots behind its foreign
policies. Existing Muslim dreams of democracy and establishing Islam-
ic states within the existing nation states have soured. The illegitimate
autocratic governments of the Muslim world have become that symbol
0                          After Fascism


of the U.S. frustrated dreams of Muslim self-determination. Ordinary
Muslims have no option but to attach themselves to any Muslim leader
who stands up to the U.S.-supported tyranny.
   It is already too late for the fascists in Washington where Bush re-
cently stated that the U.S. forces will stay in Iraq even after his depar-
ture and it will be the future governments who will decide about troop
withdrawals.138 The Muslim world is not blind to see the bloody drama
in Iraq is continuing despite the fact that the U.S. government lied to
make the invasion possible and it still has no idea or will to help a rep-
resentative government take roots. It is only interested in establishing
a puppet regime. This may never be possible in the foreseeable future.
Thus the butchery for “democracy” will continue.
   It would be naïve to expect any change of heart in Washington or
allied capitals. It would also be naive and mistaken to expect the trans-
formation of either Western policy or direction the Muslim politics
is taking as a result of what is unfolding in the Muslim world. But it
would be equally mistaken and far more harmful on the part of the
colonialists to accept the status quo as inevitable. Long-term Western
policy toward the Muslim world is in need of serious reconsideration;
and the politics of the Muslim world cry out for self-transformation
into new patterns, faithful both to the principles of Islam as explained
in the Qur’an and Sunnah and to democratic values.
   Unfortunately, the U.S. leadership and media are deranged, discon-
nected, and dangerous. In his March 20, 2006 Cleveland speech, Bush
proved this point. He gave a delusional speech that shows he and his
administration is detached from reality. “We’re going to help the Iraqis
build a strong democracy that will be an inspiration throughout the
Middle East, a democracy that’ll be a partner in the global war against
the terrorists.” The so-called mainstream media in the United States is
mum. Despite the raging war between different ethnic groups and on
those who are collaborating with the occupiers, the repeated headlines
even by the Associated Press and Reuters say, there is a “risk” of civil
war; there is a “possibility” of civil war or Iraq “may slide into” civil
war.
   Whereas, in fact, the day before Bush’s delusional Cleveland speech,
Iyad Allawi, the former puppet prime minister of one of the U.S. make-
believe Iraqi democracy, said that in Iraq the casualty rate from the sec-
tarian strife is so high that “if this is not civil war, then God knows
                  Islamophobia and Democracy in Context                            0


what civil war is.”
  The day of Bush’s delusional speech, Patrick Cockburn, present on
the scene in Irbil, Iraq, gave a much more truthful account of the de-
mocracy the United States is putting in place for the last three years.
Writing for CounterPunch, he reported:
   Iraq is a country convulsed by fear. It is at its worst in Baghdad. Sectarian
   killings are commonplace. . . . The scale of the violence is such that most
   of it is unreported. . . . Unseen by the outside world, silent populations
   are on the move, frightened people fleeing neighborhoods where their
   community is in a minority for safer districts. There is also a growing
   reliance on militias because of fears that police patrols or checkpoints
   are in reality death squads hunting for victims.139
   The delusional U.S. president, his administration and the corporate
media do not utter a single word about the real situation in Iraq. The
fascist tendency of this approach lies in the repeated statements from
Bush that liberty, security and continuity of the American “way of life”
is directly linked to Iraq and Afghanistan. Bush told his audience in
Cleveland that “the security of our country is directly linked to the lib-
erty of the Iraqi people, and we will settle for nothing less than vic-
tory.” The security of Americans has nothing whatsoever to do with
Iraq. Iraq cannot overthrow the U.S. Constitution as Bush and his
administration did. Iraq cannot overthrow the Bill of Rights, the sepa-
ration of powers, and American civil liberties. Iraq cannot illegally spy
on American citizens, declare them to be “suspects” and detain them
forever without warrant or charges. Iraq cannot put American critics
of the Bush regime on “no-fly” lists. The problems in the Muslim world
are just the result of the extension of American fascism to that part of
the world.
   The fascists cannot lead the Muslim world to democracy by tearing
democratic values and principles down at home. Not since Abraham
Lincoln have American civil liberties been as much threatened as the
Americans witnessed during the last decade. America even has an At-
torney General, a Vice President, and a Secretary of Defense who be-
lieve in torture and concentration camps. How do they differ from of-
ficials in the Third Reich or Stalin’s KGB?
   In these circumstances, it is not surprising that the struggle for self-
determination and self-rule among Muslims is growing. Other than the
few opportunist dictators and the so-called “moderate” Muslims, one
0                          After Fascism


sees this hunger for real freedom and independence in the increasing
number of Muslims. The “war within Islam,” which the American war-
lords on the media front wanted to promote for undermining Islam,140
will actually be between the collaborators who have been sustaining the
de facto-colonization and the oppressed who have been deprived of all
kinds of opportunities and rights in life as human being.
   One sees a wave of Muslim awareness and revival in the learned dis-
quisitions of Muslims who are tired of their dictatorial regimes, secu-
lar political parties and the religious leaders running various religious
parties within the same corrupt and un-Islamic systems with no hope
whatsoever of providing Muslim a clear opportunity to self-ruling and
establishing Islam. The more the United States and its allies wage wars
for imposing their version of democracy in some countries and con-
tinue to support dictators in the other, the more Muslim realize that
they were just fooled with the concept of independence or the end of
colonialism in the 20th century. The way Muslims are treated both in
the Muslim and non-Muslim countries and the way their religion is de-
monized show that fascism in the name of democracy is on the loose.
These developments warrant the question: What comes after democrat-
ic fascism? What is the next step for fascist movements in the name of
freedom and democracy that could not generate the desired, pro-West
political transformation without violence and are now determined in
pursuing change by pre-emptive wars and absolute lies and deceptions?
What is the next step for Westerners who are not interested in bring-
ing about change with bloody revolutions and changes in the Muslim
world through genocidal sanctions, wars and tortures but want change
nonetheless?
   It is not too soon to ask what comes after democratic fascism, par-
ticularly when a new experiment of imposing the neoconservative ver-
sion of way of life and governance in Iraq and Afghanistan, and when it
seems a change might occur with the departure of present administra-
tion in the United States. The rubble of 9/11 has been cleared but the
lies about how it happened are still fresh and standing tall. Neverthe-
less, more and more people express their belief that it was an inside job.
Those who can commit this kind of savage act against its own people
on their own soil can never be expected to follow norms of human de-
cency when it comes to imposing their will on people with different re-
ligious belief and culture in the far away lands. This is enough to show
                     The Myth of Islamic Democracy                       


their fascist instincts. This reality alone is enough to call for construct-
ing a plan for the future rather than being defensive and reactive to the
fascist onslaught.
   Enough research has been conducted by independent scholars and
truth seekers to make one believe that 9/11 did not happen as the
Bush administration and corporate media want the world to believe.
Those who reject the findings will never get convinced with even the
same amount of further research and presentation of facts. Now a lon-
ger-term strategy must be developed, one that will serve humanity and
human values as a whole, and one that will build on peaceful co-exis-
tence and on Muslims’ capacities for shaping their own future in a free
and independent way.
       In the following sections, we will address these questions by ex-
ploring the idea of true independence of the Muslim world and the
pressing need for it.
                                   ~*~*~*~

The Myth of Islamic Democracy


I  n the period after the strategic withdrawal of the colonialists, Mus-
   lim autocrats were supported by the Soviets, by the United States,
and occasionally (if they were very shrewd) by both. In the post Cold
War period, America’s willingness to give tacit approval to the suppres-
sion of democracy, when presented as a defense against fundamental-
ism, emboldened dictators in the Muslim world. Worried about their
own survival, the dictators jailed and executed democracy activists. This
well-proven tactic had the desired effect of encouraging other potential
activists to keep a low profile or to emigrate.
   However, a great number of potential pro-freedom and pro-democ-
racy activists in the Muslim world turned toward Islam—not because
they wanted to hide behind Islam but to seek implementation of Islam
and look for guidance in it. Islamophobes, to the contrary, spread the
idea that “Islamists” enjoy a structural advantage over the secularists
because they can use mosque as a place for meeting and dissemination
of information. In fact, the Western analysts have observed very clearly
that the future for the secularists and the few opportunist “moderates”
is as bleak as that of the dictators propped up by the United States
and its allies. The Islamophobes have also realized that no matter how
                          After Fascism


much they may demonize Islam and present Muslims living by Islam as
evil, their influence is limited to the gullible public in the West. In the
Muslim world, dictatorial regimes cannot fully suppress Islam and the
mosque, which are too deeply a part of everyday culture and society.
Islam, in its various forms, plays a central role in the lives of many peo-
ple. Furthermore, a large and growing number of Muslims, poor and
rich, educated and illiterate, not only respect Islam as a source of per-
sonal faith but consider it relevant to government. Keeping these facts
in mind, Islamophobes came with the idea of selling their dream of
secular transformation of the Muslim world under the title of “Islamic
democracy” for the sake of acceptability among Muslim.
   Earlier, secular nationalism was used for a long time in the Arab
world, in Iran, and even in Indonesia to keep Muslims away from Is-
lam as a source of their unity and social organization. The result is that
it failed. Not only secularism’s association with dictatorial national-
ism has discredited secularists, but also its rejection of living by Islam
in public life alienated many Muslims from its philosophy. Practically
it is impossible to compartmentalize life into secular and religious be-
cause most of the religious principles demand public action, and most
of the individual acts need support of the public institutions in the so-
ciety. Muslims are gradually realizing this fact. They know that they are
strictly advised not to use any other standards for living their individ-
ual and collective lives other than what is commanded in the Qur’an
and practiced by Prophet Mohammed (pbuh). Unlike secularism, Islam
has not been discredited in the realm of politics, despite many attempts
by opportunists, such as General Zia ul Haq and numerous religious
parties to exploit it for their personal and political gains.
   Part of the continuing appeal of Islam is not the result of religious
leaders and other individuals having relatively few opportunities in gov-
ernment; in an environment of corrupt politics, which has made it easy
for them to remain untried and seem untainted. Those who exploited
Islam had many opportunities to rule at different levels for long peri-
ods. Their hypocrisy has also been exposed at different times. Yet this
does not mean that people should stop believing in Islam and stop de-
riving guidance and inspiration from the Qur’an.
   Islamophobes admit that the enduring appeal of Islam in the politi-
cal context cannot be dismissed as mere idealism because “Islamists”
everywhere enjoy a reputation for sincerity and for opposing unjust
                     The Myth of Islamic Democracy                      


governments. Furthermore, they argue that the so-labelled Islamists
have repeatedly proven their capacity to mobilize to help the unfortu-
nate—not just earthquake victims or others in crisis, but those suffer-
ing under the quiet, constant pressures of poverty. The point to note
is that there are many Muslims who oppose injustice, oppression and
dictatorship. They are all sincere as well. Just because they happen to be
Muslims does not mean they become “Islamists” by the Islamophobic
standards. Similarly, these factors are not sustaining the appeal of Islam
at all. In addition, Islam will not lose its appeal in case “Islamists” are
somehow integrated in the present governing mechanisms and the over
all mechanism is called “Islamic democracy” without being Islamic in
true sense.
   The Islamophobes further confuse the term Islamic. In their view,
when people in the Muslim world criticize their governments as being
“un-Islamic,” they are often simply calling those governments unjust,
corrupt, and repressive. This is but just part of the reality. An un-Is-
lamic government means a government, which follows and judges by
standards other than those revealed in the Qur’an and demonstrated in
the words and deeds of Prophet Mohammed (pbuh). If a government’s
legal and economic system, for instance, are secular and is run on the
principles which are contradictory to the principles of Islam, it is an
un-Islamic government indeed.
   As far the lies about Islamic empire and the myth of un-accountable,
repressive theocracy coming to power—if Muslims are given a chance
to self-rule—are concerned, Islam provides serious principles for criti-
cizing rulers and making government accountable from the standpoint
of morality and justice. Unlike Bush administrations’ violation of the
U.S. Constitution and Bush’s calling it, “just a goddamned piece of
paper,”141 Muslim scholars, judges, and philosophers have something
higher to appeal and refer to. They have long called for justice and righ-
teousness in the name of Islam. One of the great strengths of Islam in
the political realm lies in the clarity of its moral vision, which holds
rulers accountable to justice and the rule of law. Muslim rulers, in an
Islamic entity, cannot come up with new law overnight, such as Bush’s
Detainee Treatment Act, which wiped out hundreds of pending court
cases by detainees in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, who are challenging their
confinement.142 The word Islam, conventionally translated as “submis-
sion,” implies no subjugation of one person to any other. The word im-
                          After Fascism


plies rather a recognition of God’s ultimate sovereignty—a sovereignty
that places all people on equal footing before the divine Majesty, not a
cable of extremists at the top with totalitarian designs to dominate the
world. To mistreat other human beings not only violates their rights
but also offends God.
   Therefore, accountability of rulers and the government in Islamic
terms possesses greater depth and authority than accountability framed
in the contemporary constitutions and other forms of almost non-exis-
tent check and balances. Islam captures the universal aspiration to just
society and government better than the failed ideologies of socialism,
nationalism and now democracy. Ask the pundits and proponents of
democracy and they would hardly be able to provide solid principles
for making the rulers accountable and ensuring equal rights and oppor-
tunities for all. Unlike communism and secularism, Islam is not simply
another ideology but a vibrant faith. It can motivate people to act po-
litically while simultaneously transcending politics. A truly Islamic pol-
icy is, by implication, not only advantageous but inherently good with
compelling incentives of rewards in the hereafter. Similarly, un-Islamic
behavior is not merely illegal but sin in the eyes of God with a strong
element of accountability attached to it.
   In a world where hundreds and thousands have been mercilessly
murdered under the banner of establishing secularism and democracy,
Islamic form of governance remains the solution—provided Muslims
are ready to struggle for it—that is not allowed even to be tried as a
model in any Muslim state. The Taliban government was not recog-
nized. It was demonized, hounded and blackmailed until it was over-
thrown only to save the world from seeing an Islamic model estab-
lished in real sense. Undoubtedly, the Taliban had many shortcomings
but their intentions made it possible for the rest of the Muslim world
to participate in establishing Islam as per its requirements. Of course, if
free and fair democratic elections were held all over the Muslim world,
many countries would see sizable turnouts of voters favoring religious
groups with solid program for establishing Islam. But that would just
be the beginning. The resultant democracy would not be Islamic, nor
would a government become Islamic merely by electing religious par-
ties to power. The leftover colonial systems need to be fully scrapped to
begin establishing an Islamic model in all spheres of life.
   The problem is that centuries of organized efforts under continued
                     The Myth of Islamic Democracy                       


colonialism have taken Muslims away from Islam to an extent that
Muslims themselves do not all agree about the extent to which Islam
should determine how they live. However, this problem is not insur-
mountable provided Islam is allowed to become mainstream and open
discussions and debates are carried out for seriously establishing an al-
ternative to living under the oppressive tyrannies of different types of
autocrats, serving their masters abroad. The basic principles, values and
beliefs of Islam are neither complex not contested. While its core prin-
ciples dictate the right way to act in every sphere of human activity,
in practice, it leaves great swaths of individual and communal choice
free. However, in no way, Islam is limited to the sphere of individual
faith alone. It is part of the Islamophobes efforts to undermine Islam
to speak of “Islams,” plural, rather than “Islam,” singular.
   The diversity of views on minor issues which do not make a Mus-
lim commit shirk and take one out of the fold of Islam does not ren-
der Islam unfit for playing a role in governance. The real face of the
Islamophobes’ promoted “Islamic democracy” is exposed when its pro-
ponents, such as Noah Feldman, argue that Islam “might be the offi-
cial religion of a state that governed in a basically secular fashion. Islam
might provide the basis for family or personal law without infringing
on other legal domains. Islam might provide a symbolic basis for gen-
eral legislation without dictating particular policies.” There is no place
for mere symbolism in Islam. Muslims have to practice what they claim
to believe. The afore-mentioned views of having multiple legal domains,
for example, are signs of expecting Muslims to believe only in parts of
the Qur’an, against which God has strongly warned those who come
to the fold of Islam.143 This partial submission to the standards of Al-
lah leads to what the Qur’an calls, Fisq (wickedness and enormous sin),
Zulm (injustice and oppression) and Kufr (disbelief).144 From the Is-
lamic point of view, such a system could be anything but Islamic de-
mocracy. Those who insist that the Qur’an and Sunnah are the only
sources and standards for legislation and decision-making are not
“Islamists” as the Islamophobes are telling the world. They are Mus-
lims, believing in the clear injunctions of the Qur’an, not in the rancid
notions of “Islamism” and “moderate Islam.”
   How compatible the basic requirement of living by Islam is with de-
mocracy will depend in part on the definition of democracy one adopts.
Here we must reiterate that democracy is simply used as a fig leaf to
                          After Fascism


conceal the nefarious designs for ruling the Muslim world through de
facto colonization. Democracy in itself has nothing to do with compat-
ibility and incompatibility with Islam. When simply put, democracy
means that the people rule, whether by referendum or by choosing rep-
resentatives. This structural definition of democracy fits the democracy
of Athens and is still serviceable today. A more modern definition re-
quires a range of basic rights to go along with the right to vote and
be elected in free elections: broad freedom of speech and association,
practice of religion, equality before the law, due process, and more. The
liberal democracy includes the panoply of rights that people in West-
ern democracies enjoy. So everything boils down to the people. The
irony is that if they want to go topless, it is perfectly OK. If they want
to have same sex relationships, it is considered their basic right. But if
they want to wear hijab, it is off bounds in a secular democracy. If they
want religious based arbitration, they cannot have it because they have
to stick to the same secular standards for all.
   When the people proclaim to be Muslims, their faith comes before
everything else. Their faith is not merely a statement. They have to ac-
cept Islam as a Deen—a way of life. They have to practice it. Islam actu-
ally binds Muslims to live their lives according to what they proclaim
to believe: the Qur’an and the Sunnah. They have certain responsibili-
ties and obligations. Similarly, their submitting to the Will of Allah
requires them to accept living in a particular way which may or may
not synchronize with the panoply of rights that people in the secular
democracy enjoy. It does not mean that if Muslims choose to accept
those parts of the democratic process and structure, which do not con-
flict with their Deen, and reject those parts which negate the Qur’an
and Sunnah, they become evil and the West has every right to sanc-
tion them, bomb them, and occupy their lands until they submit to ev-
erything that is acceptable and a norm in the West. Muslims are also
the people and they have certain obligations as Muslims. If they fulfill
their religious obligations with the acceptable process and structure of
democracy, they have every right to do so as human being. No power
in the world has absolute right to keep Muslims away from living by
Islam. This is where self-rule and exercising their right to self-determi-
nation becomes important.
   The proponents of “Islamic democracy” also argue that there is a
range of options between a true Islamic governance model and secular
                     The Myth of Islamic Democracy                       


autocracies. It is not that the so-labeled “Islamists” and the U.S. backed
dictators have heavily invested in arguing that the only options are
autocracy or an Islamic governance model. This is the result of the ex-
perience of more than five decades of the post-“independence” period
in which many options were tried and tested. Various isms and mix-
tures of ideologies were put before Muslims to deviate their attention
from following the right course. We have now reached a stage, where
the Islamophobes and neo-colonialists have no hybrid model to deceive
Muslim masses for keeping them away from Islam. That is why they are
now coming up with the concept of “Islamic democracy.”
   The autocrats are not lying when they argue that “Islamists” are the
only alternative to autocratic rule. Of course, initially they depict this
reality to generate sympathies for themselves in the West. However,
the more the time passes, the more the true face of the West and asso-
ciated concepts is exposed on them. The autocrats now realize that the
time for depending on brute force for maintaining political strength is
over. They cannot continue to rule forever by coercion, supported by
elites. Troubles for those Arab rulers are clearly surfacing who have so
far used oil resources for maintaining good relations with the champi-
ons of so-called democracies in the West. General Musharraf of Pak-
istan and others, poorer in resources, have to rely on convincing the
modern day fascists that they are necessary for containing the tides of
Islam and maintaining regional stability.
   Either way, autocratic Muslim governments need friends abroad,
especially in the West. However, because these governments re-
press dissent, their best strategy is to take advantage of the potential
Islamophobic Western allies. The autocrats are doing everything they
can to prove they are better than the alternatives. Thus, opportunism
of autocrats and fear of Islamophobes join hands. For the autocrats the
Islamophobes’ propaganda about “Islamism” and “Islamists” is a gift
from heaven. The West is suspicious of persons working in the name
of Islam, because any expression of independence and real freedom be-
comes anti-Western by default because liberation from the sitting dic-
tators is indirectly liberation from the grip of continued colonialism of
the West. It is not that political ideals of religious parties are expressed
in anti-Western terms. It is that the world order is set in a way that it
cannot survive without the Western domination over former colonies.
   The modern day fascists might be proud to have so many sellouts in
                          After Fascism


the Muslim world who are ready to sacrifice interest of their own peo-
ple for maintaining de facto colonization of the Muslim world. They,
however, hardly realize that opportunist Muslim autocrats are keeping
the myth of “Islamism” alive to justify their rule, repression and us-
ing all means possible to preserve the status quo. The clever autocrats
know that they cannot completely eliminate what the fascists have la-
beled as “Islamist” opposition. There will forever be some opposition
to their rule and, of course, there would be calls against the un-Islamic
acts, system, provisions of law and other aspects and life. That will for-
ever remain part and parcel of Muslim societies. This, in turn, makes
rule of Muslim autocrats eternal, at least, as long as super-fascism rules
the world. These opportunist autocrats have confused even the staunch
supporters of democracy in the West. In the face of the fear of Islam,
promoted by the alliance of Islamophobes in the West and autocrats in
the Muslim world, the pro-democracy activists will never feel confident
enough in the possibility of secular democracy in the Muslim world to
demand or to encourage real democratization.
   The optimal strategy for the autocrats is therefore before our eyes.
Pakistan is a good case study in sight. General Musharraf is eliminating
secular democratic dissent in the form of Benazir Bhutto of Pakistan
Peoples’ party and Nawaz Sharif of Pakistan Muslim League. Musharraf
backed candidates from the religious parties’ alliance through military
intelligence (ISI) in the 2002 elections through various means so as to
have them in the government in substantial numbers for ringing alarm
bells in the Islamophobic circles abroad. The shrewd military dictator in
Islamabad also benefits by telling his own people that there is no alter-
native but the “Islamists,” because secular-minded Muslims—of whom
there are no small number, especially among elites, corrupt government
officials, newly riches and former communists—might prefer autocracy
to an Islamic state that would rule by Islamic principles. Some indoc-
trinated Muslim feminists might prefer an oppressive secular autocracy
to a relatively democratic Islamic state. Thanks to Islamophobes’ domi-
nated Western media, which have given the impression that women are
repressed under an Islamic rule. For instance, democratically enacted
religious regulations, such as wearing a head covering and Islamic dress
for women outside their homes, might be an unpardonable crime com-
pared to the rulings in France and elsewhere, where women were forced
to remove Hijab. Islamophobes have, after all, often made women into
                     The Myth of Islamic Democracy                       


a central symbolic focus of their anti-Islam efforts, simultaneously de-
manding amalgamation of the sexes while insisting that a shoulder-to-
shoulder, mandatory participation of women in all walks of life will fa-
cilitate development of the Muslim world.
   Beyond the Islamophobes and the autocrats, some ordinary Muslims
cannot yet quite imagine comparatively the mantra of secular democ-
racy in the Muslim world. This is not a short-term problem, which
will eventually be resolved. It is naïve to believe that even if “Islamists”
come to power, after a few cycles of “Islamist” government many people
in the Muslim world would start to look for something more secular.
It is wrong to compare the Muslim world with the Iranian experience
alone to tell the world that twenty years of government by mullahs has
produced some positive changes in the country but also many negative
consequences.
   Neither is Iranian government a model of Islamic governance, nor is
there anything in this world that is without any negative consequence.
Pick up any aspect of life in Iran and compare it with the growing tyr-
anny in the United States and you will find that Iran is far better than
the United States in many aspects of governance. The U.S. government
has grossly violated human rights both at home and abroad. The bloom
is off the rose of American democracy, and Americans have, not sur-
prisingly, been thinking about alternatives to the two party dictatorship
and a mixture of theocracy and corporatism in the name of democracy.
Some would like to see more moderate and accountable government,
while others, perhaps a majority, are starting to think that their govern-
ment has gone beyond the police state phase and a Nazi government is
in place, which does not hesitate in killing its own people in 9/11 kind
of operations.
   “Democracy” in the United States has gone to the extent that under
the terms of the new Patriot Act, prosecutors will be able to seek the
death penalty in cases where “defendants gave financial support to um-
brella organizations without realizing that some of its adherents might
eventually commit violence”?145 So, if someone unknowingly gave mon-
ey to a charity that was considered to be connected to a so-declared ter-
rorist group, he could be executed.
   Under the “democratic” set up in the United States, the Senate In-
telligence Committee is fine-tuning the details of a bill that will allow
the FBI to secretly procure any personal records of any citizen without
0                          After Fascism


“probable cause” or a court order giving them “unchecked authority to
pry into personal and business matters”?146 On June 29, 2005, Presi-
dent Bush put “a broad swath of the FBI” under his direct control by
creating the National Security Service (also known as; the “New SS”)?
This is the first time we have had a “secret police” in 200 year history.
It will be run exclusively by the president and beyond the range of con-
gressional oversight.
   On October 27, 2005, President Bush created the National Clandes-
tine Service, which is headed by CIA Director and “expand reporting
of information and intelligence value from state, local and tribal law
enforcement entities and private sector stakeholders”? This executive
order gives the CIA the power to carry out covert operations, spying,
propaganda, and “dirty tricks” within the United States and on the
American public.147 Another sign of democratic fascism is that Pen-
tagon intelligence operatives are now permitted to collect informa-
tion from U.S. citizens without revealing their status as government
spies?148
   The tall claims of freedom and liberty under “democracy” can be as-
sessed from the fact that within 2 years, every American license and
passport will be made according to federal uniform standards including
microchips (with biometric information) that will allow the govern-
ment to trace every movement of its citizens?
   According to a recent rulings, the DC District Court unanimously
decided in two different cases that foreign prisoners have no rights
under international law to challenge their indefinite imprisonment by
the United States and, (in Rumsfeld vs. Padilla) that the president can
lock up an American citizen “without charges” if he believes he may be
an “enemy combatant”? Both verdicts overturn the fundamental prin-
ciples of “inalienable rights”, habeas corpus, and the presumption of in-
nocence; replacing them with the arbitrary authority of the executive.
So much for “democracy” and “freedom.”
   The American people have no idea of the amount of energy that has
been devoted to stripping them of their constitutional protections and
how stealthily that plan has been carried out. It has required the con-
certed efforts of the political establishment, the corporate elite, and the
embedded media to consummate this kind of fascism through a “boil-
ing the frog” approach. For all practical purposes, the “democratic”
government is no longer constrained in its conduct towards its citizens;
                     The Myth of Islamic Democracy                      


it can do as it pleases like earlier fascist regimes.
   The campaign to dismantle the Bill of Rights has focused primarily
on the key 1st, 4th, 5th, 6th, 8th and 14th amendments. These are the cor-
nerstones of American liberty and they encompass everything from due
process to equal protection to free speech to a ban on the “cruel and
unusual” treatment of prisoners. Freedom has little tangible meaning
apart from the safety provided by these amendments.
   At present, there is no reason for the U.S. administration to assert
its new powers. That would only dispel the widely held illusion of per-
sonal freedom. But, the existing climate of “well being” will not last
forever. The poisonous effects of war, tax cuts, burgeoning budget defi-
cits, and inflation indicate that darker days lie ahead. The middle class
is stretched paper-thin and disaster could be as close as a hike in inter-
est rates. The new repressive legislations anticipate the massive political
unrest that naturally follows a tenuous and volatile economic situation.
   The members of America’s ruling elite carefully follow the shifting of
policy in Washington. They have the power to access the “mainstream”
media and dispute the changes in the law that they oppose. Regrettably,
there has been no sign of protest from the bastions of the corporate, fi-
nancial and political oligarchy; just an ominous silence. Does this mean
that American elite have abandoned their support for personal liberty
and the rights of ordinary people, or they are the one’s helping consoli-
date the creeping fascism.
   Americans still seem blissfully unaware of the fundamental changes
to the political system. The cloak of disinformation and diversion has
successfully obscured the perils of our present course. Freedom is no
longer guaranteed in Bush’s America nor is liberty everyman’s birth-
right. The rickety scaffolding that supports the rule of law has been re-
placed with the unbridled authority of the royal presidency. The coun-
try is slipping inexorably towards the Orwellian nightmare; a fascist
state that history has never seen.
   Externally, there is no problem of government in the Muslim world.
The problem lies in the continued American and its allies’ interference
in the Muslim world. Keeping the American or any other Western ex-
perience of democracy in mind, one can easily conclude that every few
years changing faces of dictators at the top does not mean democracy
and freedom for people. Almost certainly, democratizing the Muslim
world in that sense would never produce real gains for the oppressed
                          After Fascism


masses; neither in the short, nor in medium term. Islamic movements
are gradually taking shape. Its leaders, untainted by hypocrisy and cor-
ruption, and steadfast in challenging autocracy and continued colonial-
ism, speak the language of the people. They are not perceived as elitist,
and they draw on powerful ideals of justice and authenticity. In a truly
democratic system, there is no way that they would not get a chance to
govern particularly if they set the priorities right and clarify their mis-
sion to include Muslim self-determination and self-rule as the primary
objectives. However, that is the point where the Western democracy’s
feet of clay are exposed, just as we witnessed in the case of Hamas win
in the occupied Palestine. Democracy in occupied Palestine would have
been accepted to the Western allies, if candidate of the U.S. choice had
won the elections. However, they hardly care about people’s will in the
case of their electing a party that calls a spade a spade and refused to
bow down to the Western supported, 58 years old tyranny and oppres-
sion under Israeli occupation.
   Most Palestinians today are asking simple questions, if the past gov-
ernment was, and it was, corrupt—financially, politically and admin-
istratively—and the Palestinians voted them out of power, why can’t
the U.S. see this as a positive development? Why does the U.S. want
to bring back a proven corrupt government that made a mockery of in-
ternational aid, including U.S. funds? Also, if Israel has blocked every
attempt for Palestinians to solve their issues at the negotiating table,
can the United States not understand that voting Hamas in office was
a simple non-violent way to tell the world, end this occupation or take
some of your own medicine?
   In the occupied Palestine, we clearly see that none of the elements
of Islamophobes’ propaganda about Islam at stake. No one argues that
Hamas government might be undemocratic, oppressive, and anti-West-
ern. No one argues that Hamas governments might call off democratic
elections, or leave elections in place but pass laws that oppress women
or non-Muslims or political opponents. None of these “dangerous pos-
sibilities” is presented as we witnessed in the case of Algeria, yet Hamas
win is not acceptable irrespective of the democratic way in which it has
come to power.
   To the contrary, the alternative to real democracy in the Muslim
world is acceptable to the United States and its allies in many places
in the form of autocracy. If there is to be any way out of the impasse,
            Islam, the West, and the Question of Dominance               


it will have to come from imagining giving Muslims their right to self-
determination and self-governance rather than deceiving them in the
name of “Islamic democracy.” Strong proponents of “Islamic democ-
racy” make a fool of their own selves when they argue that it is a de-
mocracy of Muslims with Islamic content but not governed exclusively
by Islamic law. How can anything be called Islamic when Islamic stan-
dards for living life are declared out of law?
                                  ~*~*~*~

Islam, the West, and the Question of Dominance


T     he discussion about the coexistence of Islam and democracy is use-
      less. The hair-splitting exercises to find out if there is a fundamen-
tal opposition of values between Islam and the West, or alternatively
between Islam and modernity is counter-productive. Debating Islam
and democracy is of no use without understanding the historical con-
text of present day Muslim society.
   Democracy and modernity are just some of the new tools in the ar-
senal of present day totalitarians to use to justify their continued domi-
nation of the Muslim world. Writers, such as Samuel Huntington,
who predict and promote a clash of civilization, are called “scholars of
democratic development.” Then, there are political and media crusaders
who saved the Clash of Civilizations theory with their defense of the
official conspiracy theory of 9/11.
   There have been two types of forces at work for a total domination
of the Muslim world: one which carried out the 9/11 operation and
the second which tells the world that the worst attack on American soil
had come from an “Islamic source”— again misusing the word “Islam-
ic” as if Islam approves such indiscriminate attacks on civilian targets.
Western public is told that the attack had not come from a state in
the Muslim world but from non-state terrorists, apparently motivated
by religious-political beliefs to make it look like Islamic teachings and
civilization as the source of the attack on America, rather than Muslim
governments or individuals.
   The historian Bernard Lewis, author of many books like The Arabs in
History and the Cambridge History of Islam, and a member of the same
Cold War generation as Huntington, has been a source of inspiration
for the neoconservative forces aligned against Islam. In his book, titled
                          After Fascism


What Went Wrong?, Lewis has emphasized the failure of the Muslim
world to make its way forward successfully into modernity. The book
provides a tour of the later Ottoman Empire to speculate about how
the Muslim world failed to embrace Western ideas as apparently un-
connected as classical music and political and economic freedom. The
work pre-supposes that Western values are superior and Muslims have
to adopt these values without questioning. Lewis does not subscribe to
the inherent incompatibility of Islam and secularism, or else he would
not be able to prescribe that the Muslim world still has the option of
embracing Western values for its survival. He also hint that at present
the Muslim and Western worlds have gone so far down different tracks
as to make them profoundly alien to one another. This theory makes
the use of force, as Bush is doing in Iraq and Afghanistan, perfectly le-
gitimate.
   Is Islam at odds with the West, as Huntington and Lewis would
both claim? Is the issue only limited to the “failure” of Muslim world
in its “encounter with modernity”? These questions are not difficult be-
cause some Muslims agree that the values of Islam and the values of the
West are incompatible and that the Muslim world has fallen behind
the West. The reason these questions are difficult is that those who
pose these questions have pre-determined answers and pre-conceived
conclusions. Discussion about the incompatibility of some values is
not something new. Similarly, Muslims have been talking about having
“fallen behind” Europe by the late nineteenth century. An increasing
number of Muslims realize that the Muslim world has fallen behind
because it initially neglected the wellspring of its own true value sys-
tem, namely Islam, and, later on, after the colonial adventures, Muslims
were deliberately systematically kept away from Islam. Muslims thus
futilely mimicked the West instead of fulfilling their basic obligation to
establish Islam as a Deen and then living by it. Fulfilling this obligation
was the main reason for their achieving unimaginable successes in the
Golden Age—the period between 900-1200. This period represents the
approximate apogee of Muslim science, which flourished in Baghdad,
Damascus, Cairo, and Cordoba, among other cities. Significant prog-
ress was made in such areas as medicine, agronomy, botany, mathemat-
ics, chemistry, and optics. As Muslims vied with Chinese for intellectu-
al and scientific leadership, Christian Europe lagged far behind both.149
   This golden age was definitely Muslim in that it took place in pre-
            Islam, the West, and the Question of Dominance            


dominantly Muslim societies. States were officially Islamic, and intel-
lectual life took place within a self-consciously Islamic environment.
Ahmad al-Hassan and Donald R. Hill, two historians of technology,
see Islam as “the driving force behind the Muslim scientific revolu-
tion when the Muslim state reached its peak.”150 Things started to go
awry in the early thirteenth century, when the Muslim world began to
stagnate, alienate itself from the true message of Islam and Europeans
surged ahead. Even revisionist historians, who challenge this date as the
time that decline set in, do accept that decline eventually took place.
Thus, Marshall Hodgson—who argues that the eastern Muslim world
flourished until the sixteenth century, when “the Muslim people, taken
collectively, were at the peak of their power”—acknowledges that by
the end of the eighteenth century, Muslims “were prostrate.”151
   Whatever its timing, this decline never meant that Muslims failed
to learn from Europe. In Bernard Lewis’s phrasing, “The Renaissance,
Reformation, even the Scientific Revolution and the Enlightenment,
passed unnoticed in the Muslim World.”152 Not learning from the West
would surely have been the reason for Muslim decline if their earlier
success were due to learning from the West. However, that is not the
case. Muslims achieved their greatness because of following Islam, not
the West, which was passing through its dark age at the time.
   Islamic movements today rightly call Muslims to look within them-
selves and to their own traditions rather following the West which is
on the verge of demise with the abuse of the concept of democracy,
freedom and human rights on the one hand and the exploitative eco-
nomic systems on the other. Put the West to the test of fascism on the
basic characteristics of fascism described in Part One of this book and
you will see the West is having the worst kind of police and tyranni-
cal states in place today. Some Muslim apologists and self-proclaimed
moderates are seeking to co-opt un-Islamic Western ideas and attempt
to transform, practices and values, as extreme as homosexuality, into
Islamic ideas. This revision and incorporation of non-Islam can never
work alongside the clear rejection of these practices according the basic
sources of Islam—the Qur’an and the Sunnah. A shrewd Muslim op-
portunist can always claim that he has not really incorporated a West-
ern idea but rather identified a value already implicit within Islam and
only coincidentally adopted by the West. The tendencies to reject and
to assimilate are leading to increased polarization in the Muslim world.
                          After Fascism


The more the Western double standards and the tyranny behind the
slogans of freedom and democracy are exposed, the more their allies in
the Muslim world lose ground and the more Islamic movements con-
solidate their ground against their respective autocratic regimes and
their supporters.
   It is not the so-labeled “Islamists” who believe that the Western
domination and never ending colonial adventures are the root cause of
the problem. The nature of relationship between Islam and the West
is also understood by secularists such as Edward Said. In Orientalism,
Said argued that Westerners who have engaged with the Muslim world
have tended to see the East as fundamentally different from the West;
as a kind of blank slate on which to inscribe their own beliefs, ideas,
and interpretations. According to this view, much of what the West
says about or sees in the Eastern other is more a projection of West-
ern fantasy than a reflection of how Muslims or people of the East see
themselves. To make matters worse, the political relationship of West
to East for most of the last two hundred years has been one of Western
domination, through a combination of colonization, indirect rule, gun-
boat diplomacy, and simple influence. If one connects Western ideas
about the East to this political relationship, it is possible to conclude
that the West is often trying to make sense of the East in order to con-
trol it. Other American analysts, such as Noam Chomsky, also identi-
fied the deadly combination of fantasy and control as the root cause of
the problem between the West and the Muslim world.
   These must not be considered as generalizing about Western atti-
tudes toward Islam. Western philologists, historians, novelists, painters,
adventurers, colonial administrators, diplomats, and politicians have
engaged with Islam and Muslims, each with different approaches, strat-
egies, and ideals but with the same perspective to dominate and hu-
manize them. Most of the public remains ignorant of the reality about
Islam. They rely on what the media has been telling them since centu-
ries. In addition, media has always played a vital role in legitimizing the
crusading adventures of Islamophobes in the Muslim world. The media
and intellectuals have succeeded in reducing Muslims and their beliefs
to one essential type: anti West, anti-civilization and anti-modernity.
   Islamophobic totalitarians in the West are presenting this kind of
dirty and horrible face of Islam to continue the policy of intervention
and dominance. Islam is not, however, the key problem facing scientific
            Islam, the West, and the Question of Dominance            


and political achievement in the Muslim world. Rather, the low level
of achievement results from the cumulative effect of multiple factors,
all of which are directly linked to a single dominant cause: continued
Western colonialism. Here are some of these factors and their relation-
ship to the never-ending Western urge for domination.
   Demographics: The number of research scientists and engineers re-
mains well below that of Europe and America as well as Latin America
and South and East Asia. In the over all environment of deprivation
and backwardness, the mindset of kids is shaped in terms of thinking
about making more money. Becoming doctors and engineers remained
a craze only for the reason that they make good money. There are fewer
opportunities for going into higher education. Science and engineering
students are drawn primarily from urban middle-income backgrounds;
few of the much larger number of poor students can pursue research ca-
reers, which are not highly rewarding in monetary terms. Participation
by women in science remains low, as the formal and informal disincen-
tives for women to study science or engineering are formidable. Only
a handful of mostly urban, middle-class male students have sufficient
exposure to science to even consider making it a career. The poverty of
opportunities in this regard is the direct result of global exploitation
of the former colonial powers and the global system that continues to
make the richer rich and poor more poor with each passing day. For
the masses, it is a matter of survival in the Muslim world. They do not
have the luxury to put their mind to doing research and progress.
   Language: Former colonies were deliberately forced to adopt lan-
guages of their colonial masters. From the media to school curricu-
lum, everything was presented in the language of the occupiers. The
same trend continued even after the so-called independence. Students
have to struggle with foreign language from almost grade one to the
master degree level. They have to go through double struggle of deal-
ing with the rigors of second language as well as the content of their
course. With an estimated 80 percent of the world’s scientific litera-
ture appearing first in English, the literature in Arabic, Persian, Urdu,
and other languages is inadequate for teaching students as well as re-
searchers. Scientific work, therefore, requires a competence in reading,
writing, and comprehending the second language: English—an area in
which Muslims overall lag behind for natural reasons that one needs
not have to always learn and work in foreign language. Even though
                          After Fascism


the Arab League has systematically promoted scientific translations and
an updated Arab vocabulary, where English or French are the language
of instruction (the former in the Arabic-speaking countries of the Per-
sian Gulf, the latter in North Africa), hostility often develops between
students in science, who study in a foreign language, and those in other
disciplines, who work in Arabic.153 There are still public and private,
and English medium and local language school systems in place in most
of the Muslim world, which creates an internal division among society.
At the same time, more than 70 percent of the students stay deprived
of the opportunity to learn English and take courses in English from
grade one. The more than 70 percent students in the Muslim world
have local language as the medium of instruction and curriculum. They
start reading English as a subject in grade 6. All their courses remain
in local language up to grade 10 at least. It is naïve to expect this vast
majority of students to not only started taking courses in English after
grade 10, but also to become researchers in their respective fields and
make new scientific discoveries in, at least, equal ratio as by the stu-
dents in the non-Muslim world, or those countries where the language
of instruction and course work remains native from grade 1.
   Education: Effective science education at primary and secondary
levels is available in many countries only at a handful of urban pri-
vate schools—thanks to the global disparity and one of the many con-
sequences of colonialism. There are hardly enough and quality teach-
ers’ training institutes. If the focus remains on rote learning, it is not
a legacy of Qur’anic schools. This is the best a person can do without
any formal and adequate teaching training. Most of the teachers just
come out of their own studies and start teaching. There is far too little
support for science education at all levels. Universities and technical
schools emphasize teaching for passing examinations rather than re-
search. Few strong doctoral programs or research centers of academic
excellence exist. Overcrowded, under funded and turbulent univer-
sities have been unable to protect space and resources for research in
the Muslim world in which most states are either living at the mercy
of IMF or whose wealth ends up in the pockets of the kings, his min-
ions and their Western backers. The focus of the autocrats is on their
own survival at any cost, not education of the masses. This fact can be
understood from the budget allocations. In the case of Pakistan, for ex-
ample, most of the budget ends up in debt servicing and taking care
            Islam, the West, and the Question of Dominance             


of the military expenses. Military has occupied the country from the
inception. Around one of two percent of the fund is allocated to edu-
cation of the millions of students.
   Research: In an environment where everyone struggles for survival,
it is not surprising to find the Muslim world suffering from an acute
scarcity of career researchers. While several countries boast outstand-
ing individual researchers and projects, there is little mentorship or in-
house ability to train young researchers. And many of the few science
and engineering graduates being trained in research are then employed
in bureaucratic posts. Inadequate equipment and access to data also re-
duces scientific output per researcher, as do the few incentives to pub-
lish and the absence of quality doctoral programs within the Muslim
world. Attempts to develop research capabilities—whether in universi-
ties, research institutes, government ministries, non-profit foundations,
multinational corporations, or local corporations—have rarely succeed-
ed. This shows the misdirected priorities of the governments as well as
public in general.
   State-owned corporations: In the autocratic regimes, the lack of ac-
countability at the top leads to trickling down effect in other institu-
tions, including education system and associated organizations. Given
the increasing links between science and technology, state-owned cor-
porations have a potentially important role, especially in Algeria and
Syria, but they have woefully neglected science. Research by parastat-
als such as Sonatrach, the state petroleum firm in Algeria, has been
plagued by poor management, erratic funding, political instability, and
personnel problems. Lack of accountability and inability to diffuse re-
search—even within the firm— are persistent problems. Unwilling to
build linkages to university researchers or to collaborate with admitted-
ly weak government ministries, the parastatals have wasted resources.
   Industrial import substitution often continues to rely on turnkey
projects and foreign maintenance. There are signs, especially in Paki-
stan, Turkey, and Lebanon, of local firms’ developing adaptive research
capabilities. Multinational firms active in the region prefer to conduct
research at European or North American sites. Some adaptive research
in the petroleum and petrochemical industries, mostly small-scale qual-
ity control, provides few incentives for joint ventures in research with
state-owned companies. Except for Algeria, Iran, and pre-occupation
Iraq, state oil companies are more managers of concessions than opera-
0                          After Fascism


tors with strong technical capabilities.
   Resources: A lack of financial resources and incentives has been a
major barrier to research except in some oil-rich states. Whereas Japan,
the United States, Germany and other Western countries spend 2 per-
cent or more of their gross domestic product (GDP) annually on re-
search, no Muslim country spends more than .50 percent of its (much
lower) GDP on research.154 Not only is money scarce but what little
is available comes sporadically, further bedeviling long-term research
(which requires equally long-term financial commitments). Even where
funds are available, research-management capabilities are in short sup-
ply. The prospects for stable research funding and effective institution
building are both poor.
   Autocracy: Authoritarian regimes, which are supported by the West
to serve interests of the former and modern-day colonialists, deny free-
dom of inquiry or dissent, cripple professional societies, intimidate
universities, and limit contacts with the outside world. A horrific de-
tailed account by the U.S. National Academy of Sciences documents
the long-term destruction of the scientific community in Syria155 by a
nationalist regime, not an “Islamic fundamentalist” one. Authoritarian
regimes also reinforce the prevailing pattern of relying on technology
transfer. Distrustful of their own elites and institutions, the rulers pre-
fer to buy rather than generate technology. The oil-exporting countries
especially see science and technology as commodities to be purchased,
an outlook that has a pernicious effect on the development of indig-
enous research capabilities. The autocrats fake slogans for development
and prosperity can never surpass the deliberate hurdles erected in the
way of Muslim progress by the multi-national corporations and other
vested interests, which continue to use the Muslim world as a market
for their technology and other services. The autocrats, on the other
hand, hardly have time to think about something other than self-per-
petuation at any cost.
   Incompetent autocracies: Applied-research units in government
ministries, such as agriculture or construction, have often become sine-
cures for political appointees with little or no interest or capabilities
for research. Lastly, science and technology research is not adequately
institutionalized: continuity of funding and personnel, long-term goals,
and management autonomy are all lacking.
   What relative importance do the above-mentioned factors have in
            Islam, the West, and the Question of Dominance               


terms of impeding progress and scientific education in the Muslim
world? The matter of reconciling faith and reason seem nowhere in site
among major reasons. The history of colonial experiments for control-
ling hearts and minds and prevalence of authoritarian regimes to con-
tinue that legacy count more. Also, while a few obscurantists may reject
science, popular ignorance and indifference to scientific research are far
more problematic than much exaggerated “fundamentalist hostility” to
progress and modernity.
   The problem is that Islamophobes in the West come up with some
theory of associating Islam and Muslim with something negative and
then not only reject to look into the reality but suggest that the only
solution is to dominate the Muslim world or impose their values upon
Muslims everywhere. Much Western scholarship about Muslims has
undeniably come in connection with various projects of colonial, impe-
rial, or, nowadays, super-fascist influence of the lone super-power. Al-
most every book and article in the corporate media about the Western
policy in the Muslim world carries a certain tone, suggesting economic
and military dominance to keep the Muslim world under control.
   The West does need to do more, based on its knowledge of the real-
ity to avoid the next global war because dodging the reality can never
changes consequences of the wrong actions it is taking today. In the
aftermath of 9/11, enrollment in courses in Arabic and Persian rose,
and academics began to seek the government funding that is sure to be
forthcoming for Middle Eastern and Islamic studies. The general public
feels that it needs to understand Muslims and Islam. Hopefully they
will understand the reality soon. The governments in the West are al-
ready becoming authoritarian, ignoring public views and protests and
preferring their totalitarian designs to be fulfilled regardless of the pub-
lic opinion. However, that is going to backfire with a positive conse-
quence for the Muslim world. At the governments’ level, the West feels
that it needs to understand the Muslim world better in order to main-
tain its dominance. The unspoken belief that Muslims do not act for
themselves but are acted upon by the West is the product of centuries
of colonial thinking. Muslims, obviously, think through their realistic
options, reflect on their values and interests, and make the best deci-
sions they can make under the circumstances. They are hampered by
the United States and its allies, protected kings, dictators and sheiks,
but in the wake of growing mass awareness, this is something, which
                          After Fascism


is becoming unsustainable for the modern day fascists. For how long
can they directly occupy some parts of the Muslim world and indirectly
occupy the others? To speak about Muslims in a tone that implies that
Western policy can make decisions for Muslims has already lead the oc-
cupiers to ignore that Muslims are human as well. They have their right
to self-determination and self-rule. They can and will take decisions of
their own, independent of Western policy.
   Finally, the Islamophobic thinking promotes the view that the status
quo is inevitable, when, in fact, the West is able to change its centuries
old approach to dominance and interference. Discussions on the com-
patibility of Islam and democracy are irrelevant at a time when the so-
called Western democracies are fast sliding into police states. Of course,
Islam has a far greater capacity for flexibility and accommodation than
the so-called democracy whose definition and explanation never fits the
reality before our eyes. As a result of Islamophobes’ never ending fear
mongering, Westerners tend to believe on the basis of incomplete infor-
mation and nervous projections. If there were real democracies in the
Western world, they would have realized that real democracy provides
more possibilities than continuation of colonialism carried on through
different means in other names. Democracy is not imposing American
or Western European institutions and viewpoints on the Muslim world
without any attention to the ideal of human equality.
   Growing legions of fascist Islamophobes believe that there can be no
democracy in the Muslim world as long as Muslims have references to
Islam and the Qur’an in their constitutions and legislation. They rightly
reject the calls of Muslim apologists for “Islamic democracy”—a hybrid
of Islam and non-Islam (disbelief, Kufr)—as impossible because they
cannot see secularism and Islam go hand in hand. However, it would be
naïve to argue that they reject “Islamic Democracy” because they can-
not think of ways in which Islamic thought could accommodate their
ideal theories of true democracy. In practice, those same Islamophobes
might admit that even Western democracies do not match their ide-
als either. Instead of finding grounds for proving compatibility of Is-
lam and democracy, one has to realize that a governance model has to
be constructed in the real world irrespective of what the West is doing
or has been doing. The Islamic governance model definitely has more
room and flexibility to adjust according to the needs of the Muslim
world. Any governance system for the Muslim world needs not try to
                        Hiding Behind Democracy                          


find out room for play in the joints of moribund Western democracy.
The positive aspects of democracy are parts of the comprehensive and
flexible Islamic principles for governance anyway. The only require-
ment is to let Muslims establish a governance model without outside
interference. Muslims need a break from the continued colonialism so
that they could breath, discuss and deliberate and come up with ways
and means to go about governing their lives according to the principles
of Islam. It will take some time, but the result will be far better than
imposing autocracies and hybrid systems of governance in the name of
democracy in select places.
                                ~*~*~*~

Hiding behind Democracy


T     he twenty-first century fascism is interesting in the sense that it
      is hiding behind democracy. It is using the banner of democracy
to stand against Islam and fight against Muslims until they complete-
ly relinquish the idea of living by Islam. Islam is devalued in an at-
tempt to present Islam and democracy as mere ideas. Thus, the war is
called “a war of ideas.”156 To bring the clash of civilizations theory to
the grassroots level and engage almost every individual in it, the clash
is presented as a war of ideas. It is hard to sell the clash of civilization
and get everyone engaged in it. To an unaware mind, the term idea
carries fewer implications than civilization, culture and worldview.
There cannot be anything more unjust intellectually than reducing
Islam to the state of idea and then comparing it with democracy.
   Of course, democracy is an idea because it does not bind up beliefs
and values with identity. However, Islam is not just an idea because
two people can agree that an idea is important to both of them and
still disagree about the details of the idea or its consequences. Islam,
nevertheless, has a set of beliefs, principles, values and standards, which
its believers have to accept without asking a question. Islam calls for a
belief in the unseen and demands total acceptance of the Qur’an and
submission to the will of Allah. Ideas can be held deeply or casually,
dogmatically or experimentally. To reduce Islam to mere an idea—not a
way of life—moderate, liberal, progressive, conservative and other types
of Islam are introduced. But in fact, there is no room for believing in
Islam casually or dogmatically. It is not as simple as to say that one is a
                          After Fascism


Muslim or a democrat means that one believes in certain ideas—ideas
whose content can still be debated.
   Islam is a faith and democracy simply an idea put into political prac-
tice in countless forms. Faith includes commitment to ideas, values,
principles and standards for living ones life. Politics, however, involves
putting ideas into practice according to the will and wishes of the peo-
ple, ideally, or the whims of autocrats and powerful in the society as we
witness in the modern world. To speak about Islam as merely an idea,
takes away from its aspiration to truth, its depth, or its effect on hu-
man conduct and way of life.
   An ever-increasing number of people around the world are con-
stantly and uninterruptedly embracing Islam since 1,400 years. Roots
of democracy are traced to Athens without enough details. It is then
widely accepted that this idea went into a long latency and did not be-
gin to spread around the world in earnest until the nineteenth century.
Its practice varied everywhere. The result in the twenty-first century is
that other than providing people an opportunity to go to polls, it has
simply become a tool to change faces of autocrats every few years. It
has become the kind of a system, which Pharaohs would have loved to
have.
   The Islamophobes are fond of making speeches and writing articles
to convey the false idea that democracy (the sort represented by uni-
versal suffrage—the counting of heads regardless of contents, if any) is
synonymous with freedom. Actually, democracy works out as the dic-
tatorship of organized corporate terrorists and the many hidden forces
behind them, including neoconservatives and Islamophobes in the garb
of liberals and secularists.
   The Democracy which was established in parts of the British Empire
and in France, Belgium and the United States, is that represented by
the counting of heads. The majority is then able to put what are called
its “representatives” in power. This is supposed to result in a govern-
ment of the people, by the people, and for the people. However, there
is no such thing. The people lose all control over their “representatives”
as soon as the latter come into office, for then they do what they like
with the people in order to serve their masters behind the scene, most-
ly in London and Washington. The “democratic representatives” of the
people can send them to war and death and they can ally them with
modern day fascists. They can imprison their people for years without
                         Hiding Behind Democracy                               


charge or trial.
  Some influential men predicted fate of the so-called democracy long
ago. Lord Macauley’s May 23, 1857 letter to the Hon. H. S. Randall,
New York City, for instance, expresses his ideas about the future of the
United States under the democratic system:
   I am certain that I never in Parliament, in conversation, or even on
   the hustings—a place where it is the fashion to court the populace .
   . . uttered a word indicating the opinion that the supreme authority
   in the state ought to be instructed to (by) the majority of citizens
   told by the head; in other words, by the poorest and most ignorant of
   society. I have long been convinced that institutions purely democratic
   must sooner or later, destroy liberty or civilization, or both.” (After a
   considerable discourse on how a hungry and propertyless people will
   succeed in plundering the United States by legislative means.157
   There will be, I fear spoliation . . . when society has entered on this
   downward progress, either civilization or liberty perish. Either some
   Caesar or Napoleon will seize the reins of Government with a strong
   hand or your Republic will be fearfully plundered and laid waste
   by barbarians in the twentieth century as the Roman Empire was
   in the fifth; with this difference: that the Huns and Vandals who
   ravaged the Roman Empire came from without and your Huns and
   Vandals will have been engendered within your country by your own
   institutions.158
   Similarly, Goethe noted: “There is nothing more odious than a ma-
jority. It consists of a few powerful leaders, a certain number of accom-
modating scoundrels and subservient weaklings, and a mass of men
who trudge after them without in the least knowing their own minds.”
What an apt description of the present state of the British and Ameri-
can governments today. In its worst form, democracy is now being used
as a shield to wage wars through lies and deceptions.
   After the fall of communism, it was not easy for Islamophobes to
stand up to Islam as such or mobilize another, wider crusade, in the
name of religion. They had to come up with different ideas. That is
why besides a wider campaign to demonize Islam and Muslims, they
resorted to reducing Islam to mere an idea and making people discuss
validity of this idea. Democracy is presented as a more valid idea for
which Islam has to give way. The real intentions behind the façade of
democracy are exposed the moment Muslims freely elect those into
                              After Fascism


power who have expressed their will to making living by Islam possible.
Today, many people in the Muslim world, ordinary and elite, would
like to run their countries democratically. However, no democratically
elected government is acceptable to the modern-day fascists who have
launched their crusades in the name of democracy but refuse to accept
the results if puppets of their choice do not come to power.
   Historically speaking, democracy did not make inroads into the
Muslim world for the sake of democracy. A century ago, an impartial
observer might have thought that Islam’s influence within its sphere
was fading as fast as organized Christianity’s in Europe. After almost
five hundred years of glory and accomplishment, the Ottoman Empire
was on its last legs not because the Islamic principles became less valid
but actually these principles were either totally ignored or inappropri-
ately practiced. Islam does not propose Empire building. Truly Islamic
or not but the empire formed the institutional center of Islam; its sul-
tan was not only the ruler of the empire but also the caliph: deputy of
the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh), part of a chain stretching back to the
beginning of Islam.
   Starting in the 1860s, those who started looking at the empire from
the material perspective—that is how one looks at an empire and hence
there is no scope for such empires in Islam—sought to “reform” the it
from within. They tended to believe that Islam was part of the empire’s
decline rather than understanding that their materialistic thinking had
turned Islamic Khilafah into an empire. They associated Islam with an
old-world, old-fashioned, and failing way of life. For them the future
lied to the West.
   What is described as the first flowering of democracy and secular-
ism in the Muslim world was clearly a Zionists’ sponsored adventure
to abolish the institution of Khilafah to deny Muslims a chance to get
united and reform the institution in the light of true Islamic teachings.
The people and forces behind Ataturk’s secular, anti-Islamic revolutions
are not hidden at all:
      The Prime Minister, Lloyd George “feared Jews”, and in his memoirs he
      explained his momentous decision to support Zionists by urgent need
      to form an alliance, “a contract with Jewry”, “a highly influential power
      whose goodwill was worth paying for”, in order to win the war. “The Jews
      had every intention of determining the outcome of the WWI. They could
      influence the U.S. to intensify their involvement in the war, and as the
                          Hiding Behind Democracy                               


   real movers behind the Russian revolution, they also controlled Russia’s
   attitude towards Germany. The Jews offered themselves to the highest
   bidder, and unless Britain would clinch the deal first, the Germans would
   have bought them”. The astute Lloyd George based his opinion on the
   reports of British ambassadors, who were unequivocal. “The influence
   of the Jews is very great, - noted his man in Washington. - They are
   well-organized and especially in press, in finance, and in politics their
   influence is considerable”. The ambassador in Turkey reported that an
   international connection of Jews was the real power behind Ataturk’s
   revolution. The Foreign Office undersecretary Lord Cecil summed it
   up, “I do not think it is easy to exaggerate the international power of
   the Jews”. The Royal Institute of International Affairs asserted that “the
   sympathy of Jews was vital to winning the war”.159
   Even before Ataturk, other “reformers” wanted to transform the em-
pire into a constitutional monarchy, leaving the sultan as a figurehead
and running the empire through a basically secular parliament.
   Besides secularism, the colonialists introduced seeds of nationalism
among Muslims at the same time. Shortsighted Arabs embraced the
concept of nationalism and started to imagine an Arab nation free from
Ottoman control. Arab nationalism sought to locate an identity in Ara-
bic language, culture, and civilization rather than in Islam. Islam bound
many people, from Ottoman Turks, to Balkan Muslims, Persians, Indi-
ans and Afghans, it its fold as an Ummah. On the other hand, the na-
tionalists’ preferred category—“Arab” included Christian Arabs, some
of whom were theorists of Arab nationalism, and even Arabic-speaking
Jews. It very pointedly did not include non-Arab Muslims, like Otto-
man Turks. So although Arab nationalists wanted the empire to break
apart, while secular Ottoman reformers wanted to preserve it through
rejuvenation, both of the two colonialists inspired movements in the
dying empire saw Islam as a relic of the past, not an important basis for
political ideology or organization. The Islamophobic colonialists were
happy to imagine Islam going the way that Christianity did in twenti-
eth century Western Europe—from a once-powerful organizing system
to a mild, private form of worship, taken seriously by only a few. That
did not happen to Islam. Instead, Islam, as a basis for political thought
and organization, took a curious alternate route.
   Around the time that Ottoman secular-reformers and Arab national-
ists were beginning to marginalize Islam, a group of thinkers emerged
who argued that it was too soon to consign Islam to the dustbin. Mus-
                         After Fascism


lim revivalists, most famously Allama Iqbal, Jamal ud-Din Afghani, his
student Muhammad Abduh, and his follower Rashid Rida, agreed that
Islam as understood and practiced in the Ottoman Empire was failing
the Muslims. Instead of blaming Islam, the secularists and nationalists
blamed traditional Muslim scholars for having allowed the once-vibrant
Islamic tradition to ossify. In the middle Ages, Islamic civilization led
the world in science, technology, and philosophy, so Islam could hardly
be faulted for the scientific and technological backwardness of Muslim
societies. Muslim Cordoba had running water and streetlights when
Paris was a sewer. Navigation, mathematics, optics, philosophy, and
chemistry had all flourished in the Muslim world and made their way
slowly into medieval Europe.
   The secularists wrongly concluded that Islam needed to be updated
to take account of advances in modern science, technology, and phi-
losophy. They took as precedent the medieval successes of Islamic civili-
zation, which had come in part because Muslims translated and studied
Greek science and philosophy, then innovated beyond what they found
there. The glories of Muslims’ success during the medieval period, in
other words, required serious engagement with the best ideas that the
rest of the world had to offer. The answer to the problems of the Mus-
lim world was to have another go at such an engagement. That was ab-
solutely not a problem. The problem was their tossing out Islam at the
same time.
   During this time, the Muslim revivalists wanted to “reform Islam”
rather than reviving Muslims. So they argued that many ideas in the
West were in fact to be found within Islamic tradition. If one went
back to the Prophet himself and to his companions, one would dis-
cover truths that, coincidentally or not, resembled the ideas of mod-
ern Western thinkers. The political implications of this revivalist move
were uncertain.
   Some revivalists, envisioning a pan-Islamic politics that would draw
on Muslim governmental tradition, called for revival of the Khilafah,
which Ataturk and his companions had abolished in a fit of post-World
War I secularization under the auspices of former colonialists.
   Some secularists moved in the direction of Western liberalism and
sought to separate religion and state. One such modernist, ‘Ali ‘Abd
al-Raziq, published a controversial Arabic book arguing that Islam
concerned only private life and therefore had nothing whatever to say
                        Hiding Behind Democracy                        


about politics. This “liberal” view was roundly condemned by Mus-
lim scholars as un-Islamic. It did not catch on in the Muslim world,
although the Islamophobes in the West, equating modernity with lib-
eralism, have never given up arguing that Islam must be privatized to
bring the Muslim world into modernity.
   The Muslim revivalists had limited success. Secularists in Turkey and
Arab nationalists had little need to dress up Western ideas in Islamic
garb. They were willing to embrace many Western ideas on their own
terms, without attributing Islamic origins to them. One frequently
hears Islamic revivalism described as a failed intellectual movement
without looking at the successful creation of Pakistan in the name of
Islam. Pakistan was created despite all odds. Allama Iqbal was one of
the main intellectual forces behind the movement for creation of an Is-
lamic State in South Asia. It is for sure, that creation of Pakistan was
absolutely impossible in the name of secularism, or nationalism or any
other justification other than Islam.
   At the same time, the revivalist movement provided the material for
a different movement within modern Islamic history for Muslims self-
determination and self-rule. Islamophobes in the Western world could
never come to terms with this movement. They labeled it as funda-
mentalism in the initial period. Then they resorted to condemning this
movement as political Islam towards the later part of the 20th century.
Lately they invented a new degrading terms, Islamism and Islamists, for
this movement and those who are part of it. This movement continues
to attract followers today, despite rumors of its death or failure, and it
still matters centrally in the Muslim world. Many know the story of
demonizing the Islamic movement towards self-rule through the twen-
tieth century, but it is relevant enough to deserve a brief description as
to how it reached a stage where its followers are associated with terror-
ism and the non-existent “Al-Qaeda network.” There is no denying the
fact that the movement for Muslims’ right to self-determination and
real independence is there. However, the modern day fascists just keep
changing its title to make it more and more degrading and unaccept-
able.
   The most influential student of the Muslim revivalists was Hasan al-
Banna, an Egyptian born in 1906 and trained in the most modern edu-
cational institution in Cairo, then picturesquely known as the House
of Sciences. Al-Banna had memorized the Qur’an as a boy but had not
0                          After Fascism


attended a religious high school or the seminary mosque of al-Azhar,
which was and remains the most important center of higher Islamic
learning. Al-Banna was impressed by the revivalists’ idea of going back
to the Prophet (pbuh) and his companions to find the sources of Islam
and the real meaning of living by Islam. Convinced that Islam could
provide the answers that were necessary to go forward in the modern
world, he did not think those answers were necessarily similar to an-
swers found in the modern West.
   Looking back to the Prophet (pbuh) and his companions con-
vinced al-Banna that Islam was not merely a faith but a comprehen-
sive worldview that covered the whole field of human existence. Islam
was “religion and state, book and sword, and a way of life.” It provided
a blueprint for a just society, organized along Islamic principles. Like
the Muslim revivalists, al-Banna thought that the traditional Muslim
scholars had failed to preserve the essence of Muhammad’s (pbuh) mes-
sage and had been too willing to go along with whoever held political
power. They had allowed Islam to be cabined into the area of religion,
without realizing its full potential to express itself politically, legally,
socially, and intellectually. Similarly, the medieval books favored by the
scholars could for the most part be put aside as digressions from the
true Islamic path.
   Islamophobes have made al-Banna the focus of attention for the sake
of demonizing the movement for self-determination to which al-Banna
was providing new inspiration. Islamophobes argue that the word Islam
was not there as an adjective in Arabic and it is al-Banna who popular-
ized this word only to promote “Islamism”—a worldview with its own
distinctive message and way of life. They argue that the adjectival form
reflected a new way of thinking, in which Islamism supplanted Islam.
   Accordingly, the twenty-first century fascists believe, “Islamists” are
not just Muslims but people who see Islam as a comprehensive politi-
cal, spiritual, and personal worldview defined in opposition to all that
is non-Islamic. Contrary to the undeniable reality, the Islamophobes
try to make the world believe that this is not Islam, or Islam does not
cover these spheres of life. In fact, Al-Banna did not invent these ideas.
One needs to pick up the Qur’an and study the life of Prophet Mo-
hammed (pbuh) to understand that this philosophy is part and parcel
of Islam. Putting a label of “Islamism” will never make these ideas un-
Islamic.
                        Hiding Behind Democracy                        


   In 1928, al-Banna founded the Muslim Brotherhood, a religious,
social, and educational organization that became explicitly political in
1939. It emerged as a sort of organic catchall for personal development,
social life, and the promotion of religious and political ideas and ac-
tion. In particular, the Brotherhood assumed the character of a cohe-
sive, intensely loyal political movement opposed to the British-backed
monarchy. This is how the colonialists saw a challenge to their colonial
adventures in the face of Islam. It was in the interest of colonialists to
limit Islam to households to save their rule and puppets they had put
in place in the Muslim world.
   The Brotherhood was not the most important political force in
Egypt, but it gave voice to a powerful argument against the existing co-
lonial order. Reliant on the British, the Egyptian government failed to
express the ideals of Islamic government and Islamic law. The Brother-
hood soon became a thorn in the side of the monarchy and its sup-
porters in London. Al-Banna directly addressed the king, demanding
establishment of Islam in Egypt. When King Farouk’s refused to take
steps towards establishing Islam, al-Banna compared him to Pharaoh,
who also refused to submit to the laws and standards of God. In 1949,
as Farouk clung to power, al-Banna was assassinated by Egyptian secret
police: one of the initial assassinations of the leaders of Islamic move-
ment for maintaining the remotely controlled colonial order.
   Al-Banna’s death devastated the Brotherhood; his successor lacked
his charisma and clear intellectual vision. But the Brotherhood did
have the last laugh on the monarchy when Brotherhood members
joined army officers in the coup that deposed Farouk in 1952. The
Brotherhood remained affiliated with the new government until 1954,
when Gamal Abdul Nasser took power in a coup of his own. Nasser
understood that the Brotherhood’s message conflicted with his vision
of a socialist Egypt. Establishing a pattern that was to be followed by a
generation of military dictators, Nasser identified the Brotherhood as a
potent threat and banned the organization.
   Meanwhile the message and movement of Brotherhood began to
spread outside Egypt, and new chapters sprang up in the Muslim world.
This process was the single most important institutional element in the
spread of Islamic movement. In most places, the movement stayed small
and kept a low profile. The death of al-Banna was fresh in the mem-
ory of both members of the brotherhood and the rulers of the coun-
                           After Fascism


tries where they lived. Islamic movement for self-determination and
self-rule, in fact, had such a low profile that most people outside the
Muslim world had never came to know about its true nature and basic
ideas. All they know is the crux of Islamophobic propaganda—funda-
mentalism, radicalism, political Islam and Islamism: all the rancid no-
tions to restrict people from even trying to understand the real nature,
motives and philosophy of the Islamic movement. In Egypt, where the
Brotherhood had started, the reality of puppet regimes’ oppression and
atrocities never made it to the headlines of Western media. Neverthe-
less, whenever there is a little reaction from the oppressed it is widely
publicized as the “radical turn” of the Brotherhood.
   Sayyid Qutb, a distinguished literary critic and theorist of education,
also joined the Brotherhood in Egypt. A talented writer, he embarked
on a second career as the most important theorist of the Islamic move-
ment. Qutb went further than al-Banna in his rejection of govern-
ments that failed to follow Islamic principles. In a series of influential
books and pamphlets, he argued that the world could be divided into
two kinds of societies: a) A society that embodied Islamic values in the
realms of law, economics, and politics counted as truly Islamic; b) A so-
ciety that fell short in any of these areas belonged to the realm of igno-
rance. To communicate this latter idea, Qutb described the un-Islamic
society with the word that the Qur’an uses to describe Arabia before
the arrival of Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) on the scene: jahiliyya.
   Qutb was of the view that the idea of ignorance not only applies to
non-Muslims who had never heard Muhammad’s (pbuh) call, but also
to states populated by Muslims who had neglected to live their public
and private lives by Islam. The revolutionary aspect came in here. An
imperfect Muslim state might be in need of reform and repair, as al-
Banna had suggested. But a state mired in ignorance, serving its colo-
nial masters’ bidding, needed to be replaced completely. Its leaders and
perhaps its citizens, too, bore the responsibility for neglecting, slighting,
and ultimately ignoring the teachings of Islam. Qutb, therefore, coun-
seled forceful, even violent resistance to un-Islamic, repressive regimes.
   Qutb did not hide the fact that he thought his analysis applied to
Nasser’s socialist regime. Not surprisingly, Nasser was no different than
other oppressors in the Muslim world, and Qutb was jailed for a de-
cade, released briefly, then jailed again, and executed in 1966: The sec-
ond deliberate murder of prominent leader of Islamic movement. These
                       Hiding Behind Democracy                        


actions on the part of Egyptian regimes only proved the point that
al-Banna and Sayyid Qutb were making all along. But he was allowed
to write during much of his time in prison, and there he continued to
produce the books that have kept his views alive among Muslims.
   During the decade and a half between Qutb’s execution and the
Iranian revolution of 1979, Islamic movement hit its low point in the
Arab world. Chapters of the Brotherhood existed in various places,
but they remained relatively quiet. In Egypt the Brotherhood was sup-
pressed. Nationalism, often with a socialist twist and Soviet support,
continued to dominate the Arab political scene, and indeed much of
the Muslim world. Anwar Sadat, who, succeeding Nasser, began his
presidency by briefly showing more sympathy than Nasser had for the
Brotherhood, soon reverted to an anti-Islamic movement position, es-
pecially when Sadat made a deal with Israel at the cost of the future of
the millions of Palestinians.
   During this period from 1966 to 1979, there was still little reason
for Islamophobes to exploit and exaggerate the threat of “political Is-
lam.” Islamic movement, nevertheless, never ceased to exist. Despite the
hegemony of nationalism and secularism, Islamic movement never en-
tirely disappeared, even if, after the execution of Qutb, its momentum
was reduced to some extent due to increased government repression.
The fodder for Islamophobes spreading the fear of Islam came from the
Iranian revolution.
   Iran was and still is in no position to rekindle a broader Islamic
movement. Yet the revolution was a surprise for the Islamophobes be-
cause Iranian nationalism was at least as secular as Arab nationalism.
In fact, the shahs of Iran had pressed secularism even further than had
their Arab counterparts. In the 1930s, Reza Shah Pahlavi actually man-
dated Western attire for women, prohibiting them from leaving their
homes while wearing traditional Islamic garb. Young women responded
positively, but some older women felt deeply uncomfortable and even
refused to leave their homes for fear of appearing in public dressed in a
way that made them feel uncomfortable and insecure.
   Iranians were also Shi’ia Muslims, whose thinking of establishing
Khilafah never coincided with the concept of Khilafah in the rest of
the Muslim world. It was highly unlikely that Muslims elsewhere would
listen to Iranian scholars about how to run a society. Nevertheless, the
Islamophobes started propaganda that Iran is exporting “Islamic funda-
                          After Fascism


mentalism.”
   Instead, the Shi’ia movement was indirectly influenced by al-Banna,
Qutb, and Abul Ala Moududi, a contemporary who had written about
the importance of Muslims’ living by Islam in all walks of life. Shi’ia
clerics began, in the 1960s, to develop their own Islamic movement.
The most famous ideologue remains Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini,
but there were others of comparable importance in those years, includ-
ing Ayatollah Muhammad Baqir al-Sadr, an Iraqi Shi’ia executed by
Saddam Hussein in 1980, and the Iranian intellectual ‘Ali Shariati.
   Due to many factors, including limited geographic scope, in 1979
the Shi’ia Islamic movement entered the world stage to show in its own
way the role of Islam in politics. The Iranian Revolution that toppled
the Shah did not start as a purely Islamic revolution nor culminated
in the formation of a truly Islamic governance model. The movement,
nevertheless, gave momentum to other Islamic movements for Mus-
lims’ right to self-determination and self-rule. Communists, social-
ists, ordinary leftists, and bourgeois Iranians alike were frustrated with
Mohammad Reza Shah Pahlavi’s corrupt and oppressive rule and with
American support for it. All these and more took to the streets in the
revolution’s first stages. But before long it became clear that the Shi’ia
Islamic movement had the edge at the grass roots and in the revolu-
tionary structure. Soon the revolution was an Islamic revolution, with
the chance to set up an Islamic government from the scratch. Because
of its Shi’ia character, the state would look very different from the
Sunni Muslim state envisioned by al-Banna and Qutb. In particular,
the clergy would play a much greater role, corresponding to the much
greater centrality of the imam in Shi’ia religious thought.
   The much-repressed Islamic movements in the rest of the Muslim
world received inspiration from observing the fact that oppressive re-
gimes can be overthrown with the help of a mass movement and that
establishing a society on the principles of Islam is not something im-
possible. However, the main factor that has been making their task
harder is the split of the Islamic world into more than 50 states, under
different types of oppressive and un-representative regimes and with Is-
lamic movements at different stages of evolution, struggling to realize
the dream of establishing a single Islamic entity or, at least, a model in
any Muslim state.
   Around the same time, people in the Arab world started realizing
                        Hiding Behind Democracy                        


the failures of Arab nationalism. It did not lead to total independence
from the former colonial masters, nor could it help them counter the
hegemonic designs of Israel backed by the United States and its allies.
Adding insult to injury, Sadat had broken ranks with the other Arab
countries in 1978 and signed a humiliating deal with Israel, which to-
tally ignored the plight of the Palestinians suffering under Israeli occu-
pation or in refugee camps outside the occupied Arab lands. Egypt got
back the Sinai Peninsula, which the Israelis had occupied in 1967 with
the American backing; but making peace with Israel hardly resonated
with the principles of justice, morality, fairness or Islam.
   Subsequently Sadat was assassinated. Although, as usual, the repres-
sive machinery survived and stayed in power, the Western Islamophobes
concluded that political Islam in the Arab world began to emerge as
a serious force. One prominent success was Afghanistan, where non-
Afghan Muslims, attracted by the message of Islam, and supported by
the United States, went to fight beside Afghans to liberate Muslim ter-
ritory from the Soviet occupation. After the war, they went back to
their home countries and promoted the ideas they had lived in struggle
against oppression and occupation. This led to a realization that if a
puppet regime, physically backed by one super power can be defeated,
why cannot others in the Muslim world, which are not directly occu-
pied by former colonialists.
   Although the Islamophobes associated Saudi Arabia with Islam-
ic movement as well, but the Kingdom has not contributed at all to
the Islamic movement because the ultimate result of this movement
would not see the House of Saud in power. The Islamophobes try to
link the religious interpretations of the founder of Wahabi movement
with those of the Islamic movement. Saudi never funded groups and
parties associated with Islamic movement. They funded construction of
mosques and religious school that propagate messages counter to the
Islamic movement, such as never challenge the rulers and the decision
to wage Jihad lay with the ruler, etc.
   In Afghanistan, various factions and their respective leaders were
propped up against the Soviet Union, but there was no organized, ide-
ological struggle or a blue print to establish Islamic rule after the oc-
cupation. The Saudis were funding Jihad against communism, more
in the cause of the United States than the cause of Allah. Otherwise,
one does not see Saudis funding Palestinians or Kashmiris or Chechens
                          After Fascism


fighting against oppression and occupations. Did Allah prescribed Ji-
had only in Afghanistan? Was Afghanistan the only occupied country
in the world?
   When there was a need for misusing Islamic philosophy, the Saudi
dollars and Muslim blood to fight the enemy of the United States, Is-
lamic movement was relatively ignored by the Islamophobes for a de-
cade in the eighties. We did not hear about Islamic fundamentalism,
extremism and terrorism during that period. However, when the nine-
ties dawned with the fall of Soviet Union, Islamophobes again started
presenting Islamic movements as a threat to civilization and human
existence. If measured by political success, their propaganda has made
little headway other than Muslims’ understanding Western hypocrisy
and double standards.
   Nevertheless, the apparent failure of an Islamic revolution does not
capture the full extent to which Islamic movement has spread to every
nook and corner of the Muslim world. The need for Muslim self-de-
termination and living by Islam has come to fore more as a result of
Western attitude and the United States policies dominated by the neo-
conservative thought than by any practical steps taken by the still dis-
jointed and un-organized Islamic movement in the Muslim world.
   As a result of the intensifying war on Islam under different pretexts,
one can clearly see that a century ago, it was arguably justified to com-
plain, as the Muslim revivalists did, that Islam had fallen into a rut of
unthinkingly imitation of past forms. Today no informed critic, inter-
nal or external, could say any such thing. To the contrary, Islam today
possesses an intellectual vibrancy of which most other great religious
traditions can only dream. Although the ferment in Islam is not con-
sidered always forward-looking, but the struggle to get rid of the con-
tinued colonialism and the oppressive regimes is by no means backward
looking.
   Of course, one often hears about Muslims’ going to the core message
and roots of Islam, but it absolutely does not mean to go back and phys-
ically live in the 7th century. The objective is only to live in the present
day world with application of the true essence of Islam. But ironically
or not, it is the very creativity embodied in a century of the simmering
Islamic movements that are now gradually becoming the only alterna-
tive to the existing order in the Muslim world. In its engagement with
foreign ideas, even when rejecting them, Islamic movements have devel-
                        Hiding Behind Democracy                        


oped a remarkable flexibility. The only hurdle is the lack of realization
on the part of modern day fascists that these movements are going to
amalgamate and give rise to a wider Islamic movement which will not
help them prolong their colonial adventures in the Muslims world.
   It must not be surprising that where democracy has been tentatively
tried, religious parties and candidates have attracted support even if
they had no clear mission and vision as in the case of Pakistan, where
the vote bank is divided among many parties with absolutely no idea of
turning Pakistan into a real Islamic state. Jordan in the early 1990s is
another example. King Hussein ran into economic problems after the
Gulf War, as trade with embargoed Iraq slowed. To let off some steam,
the king experimented by staging the drama of elections for parliament.
The local chapter of the Muslim Brotherhood spun off a political party
and became a mainstream political force against the candidates, all of
whom were put forward by the regime for fake elections.
   Eventually Jordan had to draw back from this show of democracy,
and the Islamic party sat out one set of elections; but the point is that
Islamic parties did well when they were given the chance. Even the
Egyptian parliament, with hardly a sign of pluralist democracy, has
some members who belong privately to the Brotherhood. Throughout
the Arab world, Islamic movements exist, and if they have retreated
from a strategy of overthrowing of governments, they are still trying
a greater role through the conventional political ways. The time is not
far away that leaders of these movements will realize that even if they
come to power within the left-over colonial systems, they can hardly es-
tablish Islamic state. This realization will take the Islamic movement to
the next state of pan-Islamic brotherhood and struggle for establishing
a single Islamic entity
   Meanwhile, throughout the Muslim world, Islamic movement has
continued to catch on. Several northern Nigerian states have rather
haphazardly adopted some elements of Shari’ah. The motivation was
democratic in the sense that Muslim politicians proposed the adop-
tion of Shari’ah to consolidate popular support. In other places, such
as under the secularist Pervez Musharraf, religious political parties were
supported by the government to help them win more seats in elections
than they had in years. The objective was to show sympathizers of the
regime in the West that “Islamist threat” exists. This idea will backfire,
because it will help the religious parties realize that they cannot make
                          After Fascism


even a fraction of the progress required for establishing an Islamic
state.
   In Indonesia, the Islamic movement played an important role in the
overthrow of the Suharto dictatorship and the subsequent process of
democratization. In Afghanistan, the Taliban, which embodied the
true, yet disorganized, unplanned and crude type of Islamic state, took
over in the early nineties. They were also helped to come to power. Yet
their refusal to toe the U.S. line and their sincere devotion to living
by Islam exposed the sinister objectives of modern day fascists. The
Taliban did not collapse until the enemies of humanity in the United
States staged the 9/11 terror attacks and the U.S. government invaded
Afghanistan without any evidence of the Taliban’s involvement in 9/11
at all. If it had not been for the pretext of harboring Osama bin Laden,
the Taliban would, no doubt, be in power still. With all the exagger-
ated tales of their oppression of women and non-Pashtun Afghans, the
Taliban period remains one of the most peaceful period in the recent
Afghan history.
   This brief history of the Islamic movement suggests that it is always
a mistake to count Islam out. Islam looked weak as a political force a
hundred years ago and again fifty years ago, yet in each case it stayed
alive. Now that the movement has gained momentum as a result of
the United States lying to justify invasion or Iraq and Afghanistan
and then using all possible ways to keep them away from following the
Qur’an and the Sunnah in governing their lives, it is not likely to go
into hibernation until other countries, especially Arab countries, have
had a chance to try it, in one form or another, and realize that the only
solution is a concerted effort of the Muslim world to get rid of the cen-
turies old colonialism and regain their right to self-determination.
   Islamic movements were born in protest against Western-colonialism.
These movements resurfaced in protest against U.S.-backed Muslim op-
pressive regimes. In most places, these remain oppositional movements.
That means that people who hate their governments for being unjust
and oppressive, and who see the U.S. adventures in the Muslim world
a clear sign of its war on Islam, will be at least loosely sympathetic to
the Islamic movements. The primary reason for the resilience of Islamic
movements is that these always aspire to justice and real freedom. The
reality of their standing against oppression and injustice will prove tre-
mendously effective in capturing hearts and minds, especially in situa-
                The Impossibility of Mini-Islamic States                


tion where the U.S. and its allies have tossed all norms of human de-
cency and violate international law with impunity to impose their way
of life on the Muslim world.
                               ~*~*~*~

The Impossibility of Mini-Islamic States


F    rom al-Banna and Qutb to Moududi and Dr. Israr Ahmad, great
     Muslim scholars proposed the formation of Islamic States in their
respective countries. Some Muslim scholars still insist that Muslims
should come up with at least one Islamic model of governance some-
where in the world, so that the rest of the Muslim countries follow the
suite and the West understands that Islamic State is not a threat to its
survival. Many of the comparatively moderate Islamophobes are now
suggesting “Islamic democracy.” After the systematic effort to demon-
ize and subsequently dislodge the Taliban (and still trying to annihilate
them) one is compelled to ask: Will Muslims ever succeed in having a
truly Islamic states in their existing nation-states? How long will it take
to have 57 Islamic mini-States? Will Islamic States with “Islamic de-
mocracy” satisfy both the basic principles of Islam and please the cham-
pions of democracy at the same time? We must not forget that these
are the champions, who used the pretext of democracy to hide the lies
they have used to invade Afghanistan and Iraq.
   Unfortunately, the sine qua non of democracy is no more collective
self-government through popular elections. It is the acceptability of the
winning party and individuals to the modern day fascists. Election of
Hamas to power and the Western reaction is a clear evidence in this
regard. Elections and results in occupied Afghanistan and Iraq are ac-
ceptable. But elections in Iran are considered meaningless.
   Using mere elections as a standard for ensuring people’s rule is ab-
surd. According to a massive Gallup Voice of the People survey that
gauged attitudes in 68 countries on issues ranging from poverty to the
environment, just 37 percent Americans, 36 percent of Canadians, 30
percent British, 26 percent French, and 18 percent German said their
countries were governed by the will of the people.160 The results are
published in a book called Voice of the People 2006: What the World
Thinks of Today’s Global Issues.
   In the context of “Islamic democracy” and making the nation-states
0                          After Fascism


concept acceptable to Muslims, one can see the roots of Muslim delu-
sion in Muslim history. From the beginning, Muslims thought that the
concept of democracy is similar to the medieval classics of Islamic po-
litical theory and therefore it would be possible for them to establish
Islamic states in their respective countries. This effectively divided the
Ummah into more than fifty states, but they have yet to see the emer-
gence of a single Islamic model of governance in which the medieval
classic of Islamic political theory is put into practice. There is no doubt
that the kind of meaningless elections we witness today do not figure
in the early Islamic political theory. Nor have governments in Islamic
history, from the earliest period until today, relied on popular elections
when choosing their leaders. However, it does not mean a lack of ac-
countability, consultation and consent of the governed. Yet after the
strategic withdrawal of the colonialists from the Muslim world and ef-
fectively dividing it into many states, various proposals for Islamic de-
mocracy built on political pluralism emerged, ignoring the undermining
of the concept of Ummah as a result. Islamic democrats—from auto-
crats, such as General Musharraf to opportunist political leaders and
religious figures, to ordinary Muslim voters—all have subtly different
views about the nature of democracy in Muslim majority states. Then
there is the concept of “Islamic democracy” put forward by moderate
Islamophobes to make their fascist colleagues’ crusade in the name of
democracy acceptable to the Muslim world.
   The central element of none of the proposals in favor of establishing
Islam in the individual Muslim states, is a rich conception of the Mus-
lim community, or Ummah. The result of following any of the scholar
arguing for Islamic state in an individual Muslim country is division of
Muslims in more than fifty states with the status quo of Western domi-
nance fully maintained. In contrast, if we look back, we find that the
first Muslim community was organized out of tribes whose pre-Islamic
identities derived from intense, complicated structures of tribal solidar-
ity. Tribes had their own poets who sang the tribes’ history and glo-
ries. They had their own holy men and gods, and their own tribal war
cries handed down for generations. The Prophet (pbuh) persuaded the
members of these divided tribes to see themselves as united by a belief
in God, in Muhammad’s (pbuh) prophecy and the Qur’an. Adopting
Islam meant transcending tribal solidarity and all other false allegiances
to put one’s identity as a Muslim and a member of the community of
                The Impossibility of Mini-Islamic States               


Muslims first. That the Prophet’s revolutionary message of community
formation succeeded in such an inhospitable environment is testament
to its appeal, and to the early Muslims’ capacity to imagine themselves
in new ways. The coalescence of the Arab tribes under the banner of
the Muslim Ummah was as remarkable as it was formidable.
   As Islam spread through the Near and Middle East, the idea of the
community became ever more capacious, expanding across ethnic, lin-
guistic, and geographical boundaries. The community of the Muslims
did not eliminate these other forms of identity nor seek to make them
disappear, but presented itself as a point of unification beyond and
above other kinds of identity and modes of division. The community of
the Muslims was a community of faith but also a political community,
governed during Prophet Mohammad’s (pbuh) life on the basis of leg-
islative direction provided by God. After Muhammad’s death, however,
prophecy ceased, leaving questions of who would rule and on what le-
gal basis. In the voluminous literature about the early years of Islam,
there is a general consensus that the first rulers of the community ad-
opted the title “Caliph” (Arabic khalifah), which means a delegate or
a viceroy or a replacement: someone who stands in for someone else.
From the beginning of Muslim history, the caliphs were understood to
be selected by people, not God; they were subject to God’s law as de-
scribed in the Qur’an and the sayings of the Prophet; and they were
expected to engage in consultation with the community they governed.
These features of early Islamic political theory provide the basis for all
the flawed modern theories put forward with the assumption that es-
tablishment of Islamic State and Islamic democracy is possible in the
structure and framework that the colonialists have left behind, or with
the pre-conditions which the modern day fascists have laid out for
Muslims to follow if they want to be considered “democratic.”
   It is tempting to prove democracy compatible with Islamic tradi-
tions and teachings. However, one must note that successive Muslim
generations have distorted the classical theories of governance in Islam
in order to rationalize new forms of governance. Historically valuable
as such all intellectual exercises from al-Banna to Dr. Israr Ahmad have
been, they have profoundly missed the point that many modern Mus-
lims see in their tradition the seeds of democratic structure but the
question arises: Is establishing an Islamic state possible within any of
the 57 Muslim states today? History of the intellectual and political ex-
                              After Fascism


ercises in the Muslim world over the last century or so shows it is not
possible as long as all traces of the former colonial structure and pres-
ent fascist dominance prevail. These are two sides of the same coin. The
concept of nation states, division of Muslim into 57 different nations,
allegiance to 57 different constitutions and patriotically giving life for
57 pieces of land in itself is against the basic teachings of Islam.
   Islam binds the Ummah. Nationalism and nation-states divides it.
The question is not whether some sort of democratic structure is re-
ally there in early Muslim history or classical Islamic political theory;
that is an interpretive question for Muslims to address in a different
context. Of course, potential democratic readings of Islamic tradition
are possible, and that Muslims today are reading their tradition that
way. However, what matters is living by Islam. Is that possible in any
of these countries in the present circumstances at national and interna-
tional levels? If a thorough analysis of the present day fascism concludes
that it is not possible, the next question will be: what is the future of
Islamic movement and what will follow the democratic fascism?
   The inanity of moderate Islamophobes crosses all bounds when they
describe Islamic State as one, which simply declares that Islam is the
state’s official religion. They believe that even if these states ignore the
basic Islamic law, still they will be Islamic democracy by virtue of de-
claring themselves Islamic. Noah Feldman, for example writes in his
book After Jihad:
      One possible Islamic state would guarantee equal rights and freedom of
      religion to all its citizens, Muslims and non-Muslims alike. What would
      make such a state Islamic might be simply a declaration that Islam is
      the state’s official religion, and perhaps some commitment to this ideal
      in the symbolism of flags, oaths of office, prayers of invocation, and
      state support of mosques. Assume that all these activities were decided
      by a large majority vote, and that Islamic law did not form the basis for
      the state’s laws. This state would be Islamic in much the same way that
      Britain is Anglican Christian. (Page 54).
  Such a state could surely be counted as a democracy by the present
day Western standards and by virtue of having meaningless elections
for changing faces of the autocrats at the top. Nevertheless, such a state
can never be counted as Islamic. The existence of an official religion
does not necessarily infringe on any basic right. Yet mere declarations
of official religion do not make any state Islamic. Before discussing
                The Impossibility of Mini-Islamic States                


the exaggerated myth of harm to non-Muslims in an Islamic state, one
needs to find out what makes a state Islamic in real sense.
   Experience shows that even adopting a provision in constitution,
announcing that classical Islamic law shall be a source of law for the
nation, is not good enough to make a state Islamic. The constitution
of Pakistan clearly states that no legislation shall be repugnant to the
Qur’an and the Sunnah. But that has hardly made any difference. The
secular laws and standards prevail. Pakistan’s legal system is primarily
based on the same common law of the colonial masters. Apart from
the cosmetic inclusion of the legal code of Shari’ah, English case law
remains a primary source of authority in commercial law matters. The
military dictator goes to the Supreme Court to make Riba (interest)
permissible and throw away any democratically adopted bill merely be-
cause it will lead to practicing Islam.
   It is not only ridiculous but also amounting to pure kufr from the
Islamic perspective to suggest that an Islamic state would acknowledge
classical Islamic law as just one source of law among several and that it
would not embrace Islamic law in its totality. This flies in the face of
the Qur’anic injunction that tell Muslims to not believe in some parts
of the Qur’an and reject others (Al-Qur’an 2:85) and the Qur’an un-
equivocally condemns and accuses them of Kufr (disbelief), Zulm (in-
justice and oppression) and Fisq (wickedness and enormous sin) who
fail to establish law and authority on the basis of the revealed Divine
Law. (Al-Qur’an 5:44-47). At the moment, it seems that compatibility
of Islamic Democracy and state with the man made laws and pre-con-
ditions of the modern day fascists is more serious a concern than living
by the revealed standards and way of life for Muslims.
   Again the question is not about the possibility of an Islamic state’s
adopting Islamic law as its exclusive legal system and then enacting, law
by law, a code of rules that correspond to Islamic law. This is what Dr.
Israr Ahmad and many others before him have been suggesting. The
question is about the possibility of reaching that stage. In occupied
Iraq, the senior figure of the occupation authorities clearly declared that
he will veto Shari’ah if it came for inclusion in the constitution. There
seems no possibility under present circumstances that any Muslim state
will declare and really mean that no law and value will be imposed on
the nation that is repugnant to the Qur’an and Sunnah. It has become
impossible to live by Islam and at the same time please the modern day
                          After Fascism


fascists. More importantly, it is not just the matter of law. Saudi Arabia
uses this full-blown system of classical Islamic law except where the law
has been supplemented by royal decrees and statutes that govern corpo-
rate and tax law as well as oil matters. Yet the way the kingdom is run
cannot be considered as an Islamic State.
   What actually makes a state Islamic is not hard to conceive. Democ-
racy literally means the rule of the people. The twenty-first century,
however, clearly proved that democracy means rule of the few elites in
power who decide what is good for the people. Public opposition to
the Iraq war and the states’ decision to the contrary is a glaring exam-
ple. To the contrary, the essence of Islam lies in its basic meaning: sub-
mission to God, or more felicitously, recognition of God’s sovereignty.
Submission to other standards and false gods could be anything but Is-
lam. Either the people or God could be sovereign. Either man’s law of
God’s law will prevail, but not both.
   The problem is that misconceptions about Islam have been spread to
the extent that the subjects of anti-Islam propaganda cease to use com-
monsense. When people are told that sovereignty belongs to God, ac-
cording to the Islamic belief, they immediately assume that God has left
no room for people to rule themselves and that a sovereign God must
leave nothing to chance or choice. They ignore that none of the demo-
cratic schemes acknowledge that the people are sovereign in the sense
of having the last word on every question. Similarly, constitutions, bills
of rights and charters of rights all over the “democratic” world suggest
that all men are created equal and endowed by their Creator with cer-
tain unalienable rights. An unalienable right cannot be eliminated even
if the people vote to abrogate it.
   The theory of unalienable rights in itself places a limit on the sover-
eignty of the people in the much-vaunted democracies. If some rights
come from God, and the people cannot alienate or override those
rights, then isn’t God sovereign and not the people? And if that sover-
eign God can send rights, can’t he assign men some responsibilities as
well. Despite recognizing the sovereignty of God in a different way, no
one argues that the U.S. Declaration of Independence, for example, is
undemocratic because it makes God sovereign and places a limit on the
sovereignty of the people.
   To restrict Muslim from exercising their right to self-determination
and self-rule according to Islam, all discussions about compatibility of
                The Impossibility of Mini-Islamic States                


Islam and democracy have been launched to present democracy supe-
rior to Islam. The idea put forward is that if Muslims could not prove
Islam compatible to democracy, they better leave Islam aside and accept
living by the Western standards and values presented as democracy.
The discussion over the issue of God’s sovereignty is part of the debate
for the sake of keeping everyone confused and restricting them from
reaching the conclusion that acknowledging God’s sovereignty does
not require believing that God has absolutely left no room for people
to rule themselves. A Muslim can believe that God allows humans to
rule themselves so long as they adhere to the basic rules and principles
on which He has spoken. It is un-Islamic on the part of Muslims to
believe that God is sovereign only in the sphere of the personal, not the
collective.
   Islamophobes object vociferously to any suggestion of referring to Is-
lam in the state system and constitution. They argue that democracy is
not possible without separation of church and state. They argue that to
be just to everyone, democracy cannot impose one vision of the good
life. Therefore, democracy requires government to remain neutral about
what values matter most, and to leave that decision up to the individu-
al. If religion and the state do not remain separate, the state will inevi-
tably impose or at least encourage the version of the good life preferred
by the official religion.
   These Islamophobes ignore that Britain has no separation of church
and state. The queen is Defender of the Faith— one of the subsidiary
titles of the English (and later British) Monarchs since it was granted
on October 17, 1521 by Pope Leo X to Tudor King Henry VIII of
England (some other major Catholic Kingdoms have obtained simi-
lar pious titles, such as Apostolic King). The Queen is also head of the
Church of England. Anglican bishops sit in the House of Lords, and
anyone who wants to change the Book of Common Prayer must go
through Parliament to do it. The Book of Common Prayers is founda-
tional prayer book of the Church of England first produced in 1549.
Yet Britain is the cradle of modern democracy.
   As the national churches of Finland, the Evangelical Lutheran
Church of Finland and the Finnish Orthodox Church have a status
protected by law. The special legal position of the Evangelical Lutheran
Church of Finland is also codified in the constitution of Finland. Both
churches have the right to levy an income tax on their members and
                          After Fascism


every Finnish company as a part of Corporation Tax. The tax is col-
lected by the state.
   To take another Western European example, in the German state of
Bavaria the schools are religious, mostly Catholic, ones, and almost ev-
ery classroom displays a crucifix. No one seems to think that this makes
modern Germany into something other than a democracy.
   Similarly, all “democratic” governments support and impose one
particular view of the good life. They have faith-based initiatives and
give money to Churches. They give medals to heroes who die for values
these governments admire. These governments proclaim religious holi-
days and celebrate things they care about. Public schools teach students
what the governments mean to be acceptable and honest. The schools
even teach homosexuality because the governments claim this amounts
to teaching civility despite the fact that this kind of values differ from
place to place and even family-to-family. These governments sponsor
some art and not other art, and they use their resources to put some
books in their public libraries but not others.
   The proponents of liberal democracy and Islamophobes do not say
that this kind of segregation is wrong because it causes some people to
feel excluded. All these government activities in the West are neutral.
However, an Islamic government must not come to power because it
will presumably impose its values on people. If it is argued that the
Western democracies do not force anyone to adopt religious beliefs
that he or she rejects, or perform religious actions that are anathema,
so is this the basic rule of Islam that there should be no compulsion
in Deen. Unlike the modern-day fascists, reshaping the Muslim world
in their image by force, Islam has no record of forced conversions or
imposing its way of life on others. It has not violated the basic right to
religious liberty. Almost every act on the part of Western governments
imposes one or another kind of value upon their citizens.
                                 ~*~*~*~

A Democratic Revolution in the Muslim World?


P   ropagators of the U.S. lies for invading Iraq have come to claim
    that the time since the Iraqi elections on January 30, 2005 has been
the most dramatic moment the Middle East has known in 30 years and
more. They call it a magical transformation.
             A Democratic Revolution in the Muslim World?               


   Other sham elections in occupied Afghanistan and Palestine are
presented to have inspired one of those magical transformations in
consciousness like those that happened in 1776 or 1848 or 1989. The
promoters of war, whose justification of destroying Weapons of Mass
Destruction in Iraq has been quickly switched to installing democ-
racy, could hardly wait to understand that history carries no guaran-
tees. Weaknesses in the democratic and liberating spirit of the Ameri-
can Revolution of 1776 took more than 200 years to turn the United
States into the most tyrannical regime in human history. Elsewhere
it might not take even this long to reveal the intrinsic weaknesses of
the governing system being imposed on others. Remember, the French
Revolution? It did not take much longer to sour into the guillotine, the
terror and the military dictatorship of Napoleon.
   The fall of the Berlin wall in 1989 is also presented as one of the
greatest and most inspiring moments of the cruel 20th century. That
was, in fact, the result of internal resistance and a system that collapsed
from within. It was not the result of a revolution imposed from out-
side. The wall came down as a bye product of the total failure of a sys-
tem based on human rationality alone. It is naive to compare that with
the sham elections imposed on the occupied world in order to give the
impression as if a Muslim revolution for democracy is in the making.
   It is no more than a joke to compare conditions and feelings of Mus-
lim masses under occupation to the 1848 Europe and call it the “spirit
of national and political liberation.” Situation in Europe in 1848 was
completely different. The so-called revolutions fell apart in quarrels be-
tween the cities and the peasantry, between the emergent new working
class and the bourgeoisie—and between ethnic groups.
   If there is any similarity that is what happened after 1848 in Europe.
The old regimes rallied, recovered their nerve and by 1849, the armies
of Russia, Prussia and the Habsburg Empire had crushed the hopes
of the previous year. The United States is protecting regimes like the
House of Saud, Hosnie Mubarak, Islam Karimov, Musharraf and hope
the tyrants could crush the current anti-tyranny mood in the Muslim
world, at least until the United States come up with alternative tyrants
like Hamid Karzai in occupied Afghanistan and Iyad Allawi in occu-
pied Iraq.
   Unlike the revolutions of 1848 which could never quite decide
whether they were about liberalism or nationalism, the current turmoil
                         After Fascism


in the Muslim world is really about at least four separate phenomena.
   The first phenomenon, to be sure, is the fluttering hope of Muslims’
exercising their right to self-determination in an age in which the big
powers have resolved to deny them this opportunity. At long last, there
is the prospect of throwing down the externally imposed regimes and
systems. The movement against colonialism in the last century was lo-
cal and country specific. Now the desire is for real liberation Muslim-
world-wide.
   The United States and its allies are caught between the much-vaunt-
ed democracy on the one hand and the exposed hypocrisy of allowing
only those to be part of elections and power who suite their interest on
the other. The objective is clear to everyone in the Muslim world: the
United States and its allies want to install new strongmen for serving
their interest, but this time under the label of democracy.
   This dilemma has made Muslims realize the true nature of their be-
ing constantly under the attack and perpetual colonialism. Elections
are meaningless as long as they are held under the auspices and rules of
the occupiers. A government serving interest of the United States, re-
placed by voters with another one that also serves the United States is
not democracy at all. This form of governance is hardly different from
the regimes where faces do not change without death of a ruler or a
military coup.
   The second associated phenomenon is of the Islamic movements
which most of the Islamophobes try to associate with poverty and Is-
lamic welfare systems. They even try to make people believe that Hamas
and Hizbollah, for example, are the result of poverty, not oppression,
occupation and failed state systems.
   Whatever the earlier situation was, Islamic movements have now be-
come popular across the Muslim world solely because Muslims are now
witnessing a steady collapse of democracy and capitalism on the pattern
of socialism and communism in their lifetime.
   The more defenders of an ideology realize that they do not have logic
on their side to defend it, the more they resort to violence. A mixture
of their totalitarian zeal and associated disregard of human norms of
decency lead them to engage in wholesale fascism. Every action and
word on their part lead to mainstreaming fascism in the society at
large. The corporate media becomes an active partners in the crimes of
the totalitarians and masses become helpless before the ever increasing
             A Democratic Revolution in the Muslim World?               


police state actions. The state of affairs in the United States today has
reached a stage where the so-called mainstream media cannot fool the
victims of democracy any longer and the tyrants cannot isolate people
from the rest of the world. These factors directly lead to the religious
awakening and importance of living by Islam in the Muslim world.
   Most of the European and American analysts have now admitted to
a war against Islam. It matters little if some Americans call for a break
in the cycle of hatred against Muslims and Islam, like James Carrol of
Boston Globe (June 07, 2005) or if others like Thomas Friedman and
Sam Harris call for defeating Muslim in the heart of the world of Is-
lam. The bottom line for Muslims is the same: The war on Islam is on
and they need to put their acts together to ensure an end to the seem-
ingly never-ending colonial fascism.
   The third is the so visible signs of underdevelopment in the Muslim
world in all fields of life as a direct result of the United States and its
allies using the Middle East as merely a gas station. And to keep these
countries as such, the United States had to support the tyrants in the
position of authority so that no one could challenge the unjust eco-
nomic order within these states and abusive exploitation of the natural
resources by the protectors of these regimes from out side.
   The intervention in the internal affairs of Muslim states is directly
proportional to bankruptcy of state systems in Muslim countries. Japan
and Germany were raised to the ground, yet the pattern of relationship
with these countries was very different from the way Muslim countries
have been treated since the strategic withdrawal of the colonialists.
   Supporting tyrannies at the top have left Muslims’ social, political
and economic lives shattered. Muslims have been watching the Japa-
nese, then the Taiwanese and South Korean and now the Chinese
and the Indian people becoming technologically advanced, industrially
powerful—and ever more prosperous without as much huge reservoirs
of natural resources as most of the Muslim countries have.
   It is abundantly clear to everyone that the socio-economic system of
the Muslim world has simply failed because of the continued colonial
fascism—not because Islam is implemented in its true sense in any of
the existing Muslim countries.
   The fourth crucial theme of the current wave of yearning among
Islamophobes is to widen the gulf between the already divided Mus-
lims. One of the major un-Islamic divisions is the Shi’ia and Sunni Is-
0                          After Fascism


lam, for which there is no place in Islam. Nowhere the Qur’an or the
Hadiths mentions that Muslim have to be either Shi’ia or Sunni.
   Initially the United States used Saddam Hussein against Iran. Now
it is being propagated that the Ayatollahs of Iran are determined not to
have anything to do with the new wave of democracy-related hope in
the Middle East; except to take advantage of the new Shi’ia dominance
of Iraq and of the Shi’ias’ demographic clout in Lebanon.
   Iran’s Ayatollahs are blamed for stopping “the Arab spring” dead in
its tracks. The pro-Israel analysts in the United States argue that Iran
can probably unleash upon Israel a new assault by suicide bombers that
could derail any prospect of a settlement with the Palestinians.
   And yet, the credentials of the crusaders for “democracy” are piti-
fully few. They have failed to live up to the standards of real democra-
cy. Meanwhile, they have squandered enormous wealth on home front
on a deterrent that seems useless. They are still willing to take lives of
millions to satisfy their obsession with security and dominance. Police
states are being consummated in the name of security, leaving them-
selves with hardly anything that shows, they have something decent as
a model for others to follow.
   But like the old Russian, Prussian and Hapsburg empires of 1848,
the twenty-first century warlords certainly have the ruthlessness, and
a final opportunity to decide if they would let Muslims exercise their
right to self-determination at this historical turning point in a peace-
ful way, or they would prefer to keep sowing the seeds of hatred and
destruction until they make life miserable beyond imagination for ev-
eryone at home and abroad.
   As a result, the world is in a state of total chaos. Democracy is no-
where in sight. The tide of false democratization is fast ebbing not only
in the Muslim but also non-Muslim world. In the Philippines President
Arroyo has declared a state of emergency following an alleged military
coup. Most observers believe the coup attempt to be a fiction, suggest-
ing that Arroyo has taken advantage of unrest in order to replace Ma-
jor-General Renato Miranda as chief of the marines. The president of
the Philippines, who used corruption in the army as a tool to secure
her grip over the country, is now moving to make an accommodation
with the army in order to remain in power. The Manila crisis under-
scores the extent to which the democratic experience in the Philippines
failed to separate the military from politics and to offset the demagogic
             A Democratic Revolution in the Muslim World?                 


powers of the church and big business, the two forces that triggered the
popular unrest that led to the overthrow of the countries two previous
presidents.
   This, then, is the Philippines that Bush has so frequently lauded
as a model of democracy. That Nigeria, Uganda and other countries
have won similar praise only makes one wonder what Bush means by
democracy. Nigeria, apparently, is democratic because it has a govern-
ment that came to power through elections. But Nigeria is riddled with
sectarian strife that subsides for days then flares up for months. It has
a separatist movement pushing for independence for the oil-rich Niger
Delta. It could well be the most corrupt and crime-ridden country in
Africa. Uganda, too, recently held elections, though they were hardly
free and fair. They took place against a nightmarish backdrop in which
the insurgent Rabb Army reigns by night while the government reas-
serts itself by day.
   In Thailand, that new bastion of democracy and free-market econo-
my, thousands of demonstrators took to the streets to protest against
the prime minister’s abuse of constitutional powers and his encourage-
ment of corruption, especially the nepotism of which his own family is
the primary beneficiary. Nor is Thailand alone in confusing the worship
of money and the sanctity of the free market over true democratization
and constitutional reform.
   Elections were held in Haiti in 2006. Once the results were an-
nounced the bloodshed resumed, to the extent that the United States
was forced to intervene to halt the chaos. Washington brought in legal
experts who reread Haiti’s electoral laws in such a way as allow Rene
Perval to claim victory. Everyone—the Americans included—know
that Haiti under Perval was a haven for drug smuggling and organized
crime, in which government officials and the police are involved up
to their necks. But what was important in that corrupt and poverty-
stricken nation was that it emerged from the elections unchanged—i.e.
dependent upon the United States and the United Nations for its secu-
rity, for which read the safety of its ruling elite and of foreign interests.
Yet Bush administration officials appeared on cue to announce Haiti
was experiencing an unprecedented period of “democratic stability”.
   The Congo has a democratically elected government. Apparently, it
does not count that two-thirds of the country is under the control of
rebel forces and that foreign companies and fortune hunters are sap-
                          After Fascism


ping the wealth of a country that must count as the most plundered in
history.
   In Kosovo elections brought a new government to power. Not that
it does that much. NATO forces still run the country. Washington,
though, could not be happier about democracy in Kosovo, which is still
deprived of its right to be recognized as a fully independent sovereign
state.
   King Gyanendra of Nepal has just held fraudulent municipal elec-
tions. He then called a halt to democratization on the grounds that
elections would bring terrorists and extremists to power. Washington
says nothing against government corruption in Nepal, agreeing, instead,
with New Delhi, its up and coming southern Asia ally, that Nepal is
India’s concern. New Delhi takes a similar position towards Burma. In-
dia has learned a great deal from watching the United States protect
dictatorial regimes while somehow keeping its democratic reputation
intact. It has seen the United States at work in occupied Iraq, Afghani-
stan and the Middle East in general, and learned much.
   In Kabul, a balloting process was held that the world had never seen
before. It brought to power an equally unique legislature. Afghanistan
outside of Kabul is another story. It exists beyond electoral processes,
party plurality and democracy. In the rest of Afghanistan, life goes on,
just as it did before the Taliban.
   Across the border Pakistani propaganda and American support of
General Musharraf have failed to convince the rest of the world that
Pakistan is a democracy simply because it holds elections. Yet while the
Bush administration absolves Pakistan for its military order it heaps
scorn on the democracy in Iran, though Iranian elections are freer and
fairer than any held in Pakistan. It is Palestine, however, that holds the
record for the fairest and most transparent election in the history of
this region. But Palestine, along with Iran, has no place on the Bush
list of democracies.
                                                                         




                              PART THREE



       The Fruits of Fascism


The Coming Collapse of the System of Nation-States



A         LONG with the moribund democracy, the 350-year reign of
          the nation-state system is coming to an end. The 1648 Treaty
          of Westphalia, which ended the Thirty-Years War, also ended
the millennial domination of the ideal of universal empire and creed,
personified in the priest-king, god-king, or divine emperor. In the
West, the ideal was embodied for a millennium and a half in the Ro-
man Empire in all its transformations over time, and since the fourth
century AD in the Christian religion, embodied by the Papacy.
   In the sixteenth century, the religious domination of the Papacy in
the West was challenged by a group of religious reformers. The two
sides fought wars and signed truces, until in 1618 all Western Europe
erupted in war, centered in the territory of the Holy Roman Empire,
now German, and adjacent regions. In 1648, the negotiators of the
Treaty of Westphalia adopted the principle of cuius regio, eius religio,
“the religion of the ruler is the religion of the state.” Thus, the ideal of
one empire was replaced by what came to be known as the nation-state.
Many nation-states emerged toward the end of direct colonialism. Ter-
ritories were divided and boundaries were drawn according to the wis-
dom and strategic priorities of the colonialists.
   The chaos confronting us today derives from the fact that, given an

                                     
                         After Fascism


American administration dominated by neo-cons and the morbid dread
of Islam, a critical number of U.S. adventures in the Muslim world are
of a scale and scope such that they transcend national borders within
whose confines sovereign states exercise their sway.
   Unfortunately, the effects are not limited to the Muslim world
alone. The United States demands from Canada all information about
passengers, even those on domestic flights, and other similar demands
are made on governments across the Atlantic that equally transcend
national borders.
   The phenomenon has been dubbed “a war on terrorism,” a term
that conceals more than it reveals. As the scope of the activities of the
United States and its allies occurring outside the writ of nation-states
increases, the legal and regulatory reach of the latter shrinks. Other
players—multinational corporations, global financial markets, non-gov-
ernmental organizations, organized criminal enterprises, etc.—were al-
ready there, challenging their monopoly on governance.
   Most of the activities of these players were already outside interna-
tional law, which was based on formal agreements among nation-states,
because nation-states had thus far been unable to find enough common
ground for agreements to address problems of globalization. Now the
“war on terrorism” has dwarfed globalization by many degrees. The rub-
ber stamp United Nations is a joke, and international law and treaties
and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights have become worse
than a joke before the fanatical pursuit of the warlords in Washington
to prevent any alternative to capitalism and democratic fascism.
   The seeds for undermining the Westphalian nation-state system were
already sown in the emergence of the United States, a country that was
launched as a political experiment dedicated at birth to establishing a
new nation and the subversion of pre-established order, both impe-
rial and Westphalian. The most interesting thing to note is that seeds
for undermining Westphalia were already there, but now the United
States has also undermined the very basis on which its democracy was
established.
   According to the constitution adopted by the new country in 1776,
legitimacy was derived from the people, and not from the sovereign.
North America had been populated by groups of men and women,
some of whom were specifically driven to emigrate by their rejection of
the Westphalian cuius regio, eius religio doctrine.
           The Coming Collapse of the Nation States System               


   From their rebellion against the British, a unique legal arrangement
was produced—the U.S. Constitution—which outlined for the first
time how legitimate state power might be exercised. Legitimacy gave
birth to American sovereignty, and theoretically, in the American sys-
tem, sovereignty answers to legitimacy. The legal definition of sover-
eignty is: “The supreme, absolute, and uncontrollable power by which
any independent state is governed; supreme political authority; the su-
preme will; paramount control of the constitution and frame of gov-
ernment and its administration; the self-sufficient source of political
power, from which all specific political powers are derived; the interna-
tional independence of a state, combined with the right and power of
regulating its internal affairs without foreign dictation; also a political
society, or state, which is sovereign and independent.”161 If sovereignty
is the supreme power against which there is no possible appeal, then
in the case of the United States, that supreme power was supposed to
be legitimacy itself, i.e., constitutional law expressing the consent of the
governed. The consent of the governed has become as meaningless as it
is irrelevant today. What happened over the years brought to the fore
hidden forces of exploitation and some actors who marginalized the
consent of the governed and undermined the very principle on which
the foundation of democracy was based. There are two major political
parties. Both basically serve the same interests. Pursuing election re-
quires access to a large amount of money, so public office is open only
to millionaires or those bought by them. In addition, public opinion is
shaped by the mass media—which is owned by the same millionaires.
   With its much-vaunted constitutional tradition, the United States
stands as a model for facilitating the enforcers of oppressive religious,
political, and class systems. From a broader standpoint, the United
States is the most dangerously successful tyrannical regime in history.
In view of the exploited guiding principles of the U.S. Constitution
and resultant mess in the United States, tyrannies of the long gone Ital-
ian and German fascists and Soviet Communists dwarf by comparison.
   In the struggle over ideology with Islam, the United States is losing
because it has failed to stay its course according to the true principles of
democracy. The basic principles of Islam have not failed. Actually, the
opportunist Muslim dictators and other activists and academics who
want self-promotion and thus jumped on the fascist system bandwagon
have failed because they have been used for promoting the fear of Is-
                         After Fascism


lam and the maintaining status quo of present day fascism. The simple
statement “government of the people, by the people, for the people”
has failed. In fact, its leading practitioner, the United States, has be-
come truly imperialistic by adopting the ancient millennial paradigm in
the name of democracy. With its unilateralist adventures, it also under-
mined the Westphalian system.
   The obsolescence of the system of nation-states becomes obvious
when one considers that transnationals account for more that 35 per-
cent of the world’s Gross Domestic Product (GDP)—more than 75
percent of world trade and almost the entire world Foreign Direct In-
vestment (FDI). Together with the rise of self-regulated global finan-
cial markets, as a result, transnationals command the worldwide flow of
investment capital and dictate the fiscal and monetary policies of gov-
ernments that wish to attract such investment capital.
   Economically, the Westphalian era favored the large and ever grow-
ing role of the “public sector” within the nation-state—economic stat-
ism. The emergence of private-sector economic superpowers beyond the
reach of nation-states has now made this scheme untenable. Of all the
economically major countries today, it is primarily the United States,
the epicenter of globalization that has the smallest-sized public sec-
tor, at 20 percent of its GDP, and is riding on a political movement of
smaller government. Nations like France, Germany, and other members
of the Eurozone have public sectors at 50-60 percent of their stagnat-
ing GDPs.
   Early in the 1990s, the marginalized power elites of various countries
proposed a broad program, usually associated with France and the Eu-
ropean Union, for recapturing their lost power and influence. This pro-
posal involved the construction of a system of global governance based
on a series of treaties by means of which sovereign nation-states would
transfer growing chunks of their sovereignty to global bureaucracies ad-
ministering those treaties.
   Even this proposal was not acceptable to the totalitarians in Wash-
ington with their super-imperialist zeal. The globalists want to rule the
world. The totalitarian religious zealots in Washington want to exploit
the ambitions of the globalists. The globalists undermine nation-states
for capitalistic gains. The totalitarian Islamophobes undermine every-
thing in their way in their effort to achieve total global dominance.
   The ultimate object of global governance is to reassert big govern-
           The Coming Collapse of the Nation States System              


ment in an age of free market globalization. The idea is to promote the
supremacy of international law (treaties signed by sovereign states) over
and above sovereignty of states. In contrast, the United States wants its
law to overrule international institutions and law.
   The fascists in Washington are sensitive to the extent that they con-
sidered even the Kyoto Treaty as a scheme that would somehow un-
dermine their dream of total global domination. The International
Criminal Court, proposals to agree to universal tax rates to prevent tax
competition, and other proposals to enforce a global transaction tax on
global financial flows are beyond imagination for U.S. global adventur-
ists.
   As discussed in Section One of this book, the struggle is not only
against the Islamic ideology, but also against those who are on the
same wavelength with Washington but happen to be seen as a threat
to its hegemony in different fields. It is not strange to hear calls from
Friedman of the New York Times to declare a war on France or the dif-
ferent actions on the part of the United States to restrict oil-producing
countries from trading in euros.
   Not surprisingly, the United States has vigorously opposed every sug-
gestion that called for international control independent of the United
States. According to the U.S. Constitution, international treaties have
the force of the law of the land, i.e., they are subject to judicial review
and tests of constitutionality. Now that the totalitarians have succeed-
ed in hijacking the legislature, the consent of the governed has become
meaningless; the so-called systems of checks and balances, and the sepa-
ration of powers among executive, legislative, and judiciary are used to
further the totalitarian adventures.
   The 2002-2003 United Nations debate over the war in Iraq had as
its true subject not Iraq, but the future of the post-Westphalian world.
The totalitarian Americans considered reservations by France and her
allies as attempts to subordinate the United States to a vacuous notion
of UN-conferred legitimacy on behalf of a treaty-based global gover-
nance vision of the post-Westphalian world. From the American to-
talitarians, the message is simple: our way or no way at all. They are as
much scared of their own allies as they are of the Muslims who want
to exercise their right to self-determination and of people like those in
Columbia and Nigeria, who are not Muslims, but threaten multina-
tionals.
                               After Fascism


   Democratization of the Greater Middle East (“Greater” because it
includes Afghanistan and Pakistan) is the name of the new game aimed
at total domination. It is now a national, bipartisan U.S. policy with-
out any attempts at soliciting the consent of the governed. The millions
of Americans marching in the streets against the “war for domination”
are irrelevant.
   The totalitarians forced this policy on the United States in the name
of national security concerns, and it evolved gradually between Sep-
tember 11, 2001, and November 6, 2003. The staged 9/11 attacks led
to the predetermined decision to “take the fight to the enemy.”162 Al-
most immediately, it became apparent that “taking the fight to the en-
emy” meant, in the phrase of Paul Wolfowitz, “draining the swamp of
the Middle East,” (CNN. Sept. 19, 2002) i.e., destroying the political
culture that aids and abets the rise of terrorist organizations. In plain
words: the goal is to eliminate every possibility that might lead to Mus-
lims exercising their right to self-determination and living by Islam; to
eliminate the possibility of any alternative model of governance coming
into being.
   On November 6, 2003, President Bush announced in a speech at the
National Endowment for Democracy that this global drive for freedom
and democracy would have the Middle East as its most important fo-
cus. Accordingly, the United State proclaimed its long-term policy of
Middle East democratization. In his words:
      Sixty years of Western nations excusing and accommodating the lack of
      freedom in the Middle East did nothing to make us safe—because in the
      long run, stability cannot be purchased at the expense of liberty. As long
      as the Middle East remains a place where freedom does not flourish, it will
      remain a place of stagnation, resentment, and violence ready for export.
      And with the spread of weapons that can bring catastrophic harm to our
      country and to our friends, it would be reckless to accept the status quo.
      Therefore, the United States has adopted a new policy, a forward strategy
      of freedom in the Middle East.163
   At the same time, the Democratic Leadership Council, the premier
policy-shaping think-tank of the Democratic party, presented its na-
tional security blueprint, Progressive Internationalism: A Democratic
National Security Strategy (October 2003). In a chapter titled “Ad-
vance Democracy Abroad–Including in the Islamic World,” the docu-
ment proposes:
           The Coming Collapse of the Nation States System                     


   For Democrats, the transformation of the greater Middle East—the vast
   arc of turmoil stretching from Northern Africa to Afghanistan—is a
   central challenge of our times. Nowhere is a fundamental shift in Western
   strategy more necessary if we are to confront the forces that create the
   dangerous nexus between terrorism, failed states, rogue regimes, and
   mass destruction weapons.164
   The mainstream leaders of the Democratic Party fully endorse Presi-
dent Bush’s Middle East democratization policy. In a May/June 2004
issue of Foreign Affairs, former National Security Advisor Samuel R.
Berger, a Democrat, put it: “Most Democrats agree with President
Bush [in his support for] more open and democratic societies in the
Middle East.”
   Given, therefore, that Middle East democratization is the bipartisan
national policy of the United States, the question is whether this pol-
icy is realistically feasible. The answer is no, for the simple reason that
democratization is a façade as we discussed in Part Two of this book.
The calls for democratization do not parallel proposals to contain So-
viet communism in the 1940s. It would be outright stupid to study the
feasibility of the present totalitarian project from Washington in the
light of feasibility of Nazi Germany or Imperial Japan. It is instead the
other way round.
   Those who claim that the United States is inching toward its fall
along with the total collapse of capitalism might sound ridiculous. But
so was the thought of the complete annihilation of four great empires
(Habsburg, Hohenzollern, Romanoff, and Ottoman), none of which
was realistically feasible at the beginning of World War I in 1917.
   The apparent absurdity of predicting the fall of the United States and
the end of nation-states system equals the absurdity of those who be-
lieved in an American experience in popular self-government in 1776.
   The democratization of the Middle East or the Muslim world as a
whole is a façade of similar historic import as the colonialists’ adven-
tures in the name of helping little brown brother. Interestingly, the
seemingly allied nations in the essentially American project of Middle
East democratization are torn between their strategic security needs to
see the project succeed in containing Islam and their fear of losing their
own sovereignty to U.S. hegemonic designs in the process.
   Europe finds itself more threatened even than the United States
by the rise of an Islamic model of governance. The European Union,
0                          After Fascism


which suffers from economic stagnation and long-term demographic
decline, has for some time now considered Muslim populations as a
threat. Ban on wearing the headscarf in France is just one example of
the height of hysteria in this regard. Despite lack of trust in U.S. inten-
tions, the shortsighted political class in Europe will continue to favor
Middle East democratization because an Islamic model is considered
more of a threat than anything else in the world.
   As the twenty-first century proceeds, the United States has become
truly imperialistic, ignoring the tradition of the nation-state that start-
ed with Westphalia and promoting a new form of Westphalianism that
overrules the United Nations and other international rules, norms, and
laws to impose an American totalitarian vision of a new world order.
   The continuity of the present chaos is inevitable, as is a reactionary
return to the international paradigms of the remote or recent past. The
systems and ideologies based on petty human rationality have reached
their penultimate stage after failing all tests of success along the road.
To move beyond the chaos requires the emergence of an alternative ide-
ology and the establishment of a viable model for human governance.
                                 ~*~*~*~

Approaching the End of Democratic Fascism


A     fter the fall of communism, Francis Fukuyama prematurely de-
      clared that liberal democracy constituted the “end point of man-
kind’s ideological evolution” and the “final form of human govern-
ment.” He hastily called it “the end of history.”165
   Fukuyama could see the present at that time. However, he could
hardly foresee that the world was still a couple of decades shy of the
actual end of history: the time when both communism and its adver-
sary capitalism—along with the ideology of convoluted democracy that
subserves and sustains it—would lie in ruins. He could hardly foresee
that in the very beginning of the twenty-first century, the champions
of democracy would be acting in no less horrible ways than the most
despicable fascists of human history.
   The approach of modern day fascists has ideologically divided the
world into two: the relevant and the not-so-relevant world. The relevant
world is further divided into the Muslim majority countries and the
United States and its allies, which are pitted against Islam. The not-so-
               Approaching the End of Democratic Fascism                  


relevant world consists of the countries like Japan, Nepal, Korea and
others that have contributed token forces to join the United States’ un-
lawful and illegal adventures—the final crusade—in Muslim countries.
   Despite being at its worst, the Muslim world is still relevant because
of its potential to re-emerge, lead, and go for the best. The Muslim
world is at its worst, not because of the ideology it follows, but because
of the other ideologies it has embraced as a result of opportunist auto-
crats, myopic moderate and liberal Muslims, and other corrupt elites in
their league.
   On the contrary, the United States and its allies are relevant only be-
cause of their present potential to dominate and destroy by virtue of
their superior military strength. They are heading for the worst because
of the core weaknesses and they way they hide their crimes against hu-
manity behind freedom and democracy. These terms have been exploit-
ed to the maximum by corporate terrorists and Islamophobes alike. As
a result, this part of the relevant world is losing its credibility. Military
strength cannot help them win hearts and minds. The strength of pet-
ro-dollars that sustains the U.S. economic hegemony is dependent on
many factors. The U.S. cannot afford to occupy country after country
and sustain puppet regimes to maintain strength of petro-dollar. The
fear of Islam with the myth of Islamism is disappearing with the ex-
posure of lies and deceptions on the part of U.S. administration and
its allies in corporate media. All these factors and more show that the
presently relevant world is on its way to becoming really irrelevant in
the near future.
   Some countries of the not-so-relevant world are technologically ad-
vanced and have strong economies as well. But in the ultimate and
real struggle of life, that doesn’t count. When the bubble of the much-
vaunted democracy and capitalism bursts, everyone will be equally dev-
astated financially and physically. Only those who have an alternative
model to resort to for governing their individual and collective lives
will be able to recover.
   The Muslim world has suffered different forms of colonialist adven-
tures, direct and indirect occupations, and outright economic exploi-
tation at the hands of the capitalist institutions, particularly over the
past two hundred years. The present turmoil is awakening the Muslim
world’s potential to rise and lead.
   The more the Muslim world is pushed against the wall and the more
                          After Fascism


the twenty-first century fascists promote the war within Islam, the
more the Muslim world brings out its best against the worst and moves
toward what it has to be. Otherwise, Iraqis could never think of the
sacrifices that they are making today. Despite suffering under the tu-
telage of Saddam for many years, they could not think of giving their
lives to work toward the future they deserve. Although it seems that
many of them are fighting each other instead of the invaders, in fact
this conflict is part of the overall struggle in which resistance to invad-
ers and reaction against their local collaborators matters equally.
   Saddam has been overthrown by the Iraqis’ worst enemy, and it is
confirmed beyond any reasonable doubt that the United States cannot
stay in Iraq forever. The United States cannot stay in any other country
forever either. This is true despite the fact that the most favored mini-
fascists would grant bases to the United States. But that strategy has
hardly paid off in the past, and it is highly unlikely that Muslims can
be denied their right to self-determination for long.
   Ideologically, once Muslims drifted from the core message of Islam,
they tried many ideologies and ways of governing their individual and
collective lives over the last 1300 years. Initially, they switched to em-
pire building and later reduced themselves to sustaining kingdoms.
Lately, they have been entertaining everything from sheikdoms to dic-
tatorships and democratic tyrannies.
   Muslims embraced communists and their ideology. Now most of the
former communist-Muslims have jumped on the bandwagon of the
modern-day fascists to become “moderate” and “progressive” Muslims.
However, it will not be too long before they are seen switching their
present ideology, just as they did after the fall of communism.
   With the exposed objective of keeping Muslims away from the
Qur’an and the Sunnah, the bankruptcy of the U.S.-promoted “moder-
ate” Islam is already fully known. It has left Muslims without an alien
ideology or a watered-down version of Islam to try. The fear-mongers
and warlords have already reached the real end of history. It is the
same for the other parts of the relevant world, but the United States
still believes that it has the obligation to impose a way of life upon the
Muslim world at any cost.
   The United States and its allies do not consider the presently not-so-
irrelevant world as a challenge or a grave threat, because these countries
do not have alternative ideologies, different ways of life, or core princi-
              Approaching the End of Democratic Fascism                


ples that challenge the status-quo of continued colonial order and lead
them toward a perfect model of governance for humanity. The Muslim
world has this in the form of Islam; hence, the Muslim world is the
most dreaded enemy.
   The signs of the Muslim world’s improvement and the United States
and company’s deterioration are before our eyes. According to the law
of equal and opposite reaction, for every action, the consequences of
the American war on Islam have started the United States and its allies
toward the beginning of the worst.
   Apparently, there have been successes for the warlords since the
staged 9/11: the Taliban have been removed along with their dream
to establish an Islamic model; their supporters are either in hiding or
paying the price in U.S. concentration camps; Iraq has been occupied;
Syria, Iran, Saudi Arabia, and Pakistan are threatened and scared to the
core.
   The United States freely operates within Pakistan and other Mus-
lim countries. This occupation signifies a far greater success than was
achieved in Iraq and Afghanistan. In places like Pakistan, Saudi Arabia,
and Uzbekistan, the United States did not shed even a single drop of
blood, yet was able to gain effective control of these countries unlike
the partial rule it acquired in Iraq and Afghanistan.
   These apparent successes are, in fact, the cornerstones for future
failures. To keep the war machine in action abroad, the modern day
fascists have to whip up a hysterical fear of Islamic terrorism at home.
They have to keep the mythical monsters alive. They have to consum-
mate a police state at home. The need for such measures has led them
to a kind of degeneration that even the warlords are now realizing with
shock. In a June 1, 2005, column, Thomas Friedman expressed his
shock at the consequences of the kind of policies he and his colleague
were promoting.
   Friedman, expressing his fear, said, “While no single change is deci-
sive, could it all add up in a way so that 20 years from now we will dis-
cover that some of America’s cultural and legal essence—our DNA as a
nation—has become badly deformed or mutated.”166 Too sad that the
same warlords on the media front could not foresee these consequences
before they enthusiastically promoted defeating Muslims at the “heart
of the Muslim world.”167 The warlords on the political front (Bush,
Blair, et al.) did foresee this possibility, and it was one of their major
                          After Fascism


aims. Subjugating the American people is as high on their agenda as the
external wars for subjugating others abroad.
   The media warlords still do not get it right. They believe America’s
DNA might be deformed in 20 years, ignoring the deformities that rest
of world is so transparently witnessing today. I wish they could realize
that going to war on Islam required a physical engagement somewhere.
That, in turn, required terrorist acts to be staged and lies to be told;
dissenting voices to be silenced; and democracy to be ignored while ig-
noring millions of peoples’ demands for a real inquiry into the staged
terrorist acts and the lies for going to war.
   Declaring a war on the Muslim way of life also required the
Islamophobes to spread widespread hatred to demonize and declare
them as evil. It is not strange that no mosque displays signboards call-
ing their followers to flush Bibles down the toilets and to consider
Christianity as the enemy. But we see signs like this against Islam in
the tolerant, civilized world. These signs mark the United States going
from a state of relevance to a state of total irrelevance.
   On the other hand, mini-fascists are on the verge of collapse. For ex-
ample, Musharraf, who claimed 95 percent of people were with him af-
ter a referendum in 2001, has now confessed to newspaper editors that
it is only a small minority that shares his beliefs.168 The majority has,
however, realized that they are being exploited by the opportunistic
minority that really deserves to be permanently removed.
   The proposed and currently developed U.S. military bases will not
save U.S. puppets forever. Their days are numbered. At the same time,
not only are religious parties realizing that they can never transform a
society by working through corrupt and decrepit systems, but also the
general public has realized that there is something wrong with their
calling themselves Muslims but living by un-Islamic standards. So, the
environment is getting ready for a major transformation.
   Mass realization is the key. The realization that Islam is the only so-
lution: that there is no Shi’ia or Sunni in the basics of the Qur’an; that
there is no subservience to the laws and standards, other than the laws
and limits set by Allah; and that they cannot simply call themselves
Muslims while living by secular standards and laws. It is enough for
Muslims to fill the vacuum at the moment the present capitalist order
collapses.
   That is how the seemingly impossible will become possible, and the
                       Twenty-First Century Jews                           


United States may become so irrelevant that it will be confined to the
landmass between the Pacific and the Atlantic Oceans. Later on, the
disarrayed, economically bankrupt, and internally collapsed former em-
pire may not even be able to respond to anything across the Atlantic or
Pacific, let alone safeguarding what it presently considers its national
security assets. This is the approaching juncture of history that we may
call the actual end of history.
                                 ~*~*~*~

Twenty-First Century Jews

   Al-Jazeera.net: Do you fear a Holocaust against Muslims similar to
   what happened to the Jews?
    Aziz Duwaik, professor of urban planning at the Najah University of
   Nablus: Why not? The Holocaust was committed by human beings, not
   by citizens of another planet, and Germany, where Nazism thrived, was
   probably the most culturally advanced European country in the 1930s
   and 1940s.
   Al-Jazeera.net: But Europe is now democratic, unlike Nazi Germany?
    Aziz Duwaik: Yes, but who told you those democracies don’t commit
   genocide? America is a democracy, but we saw recently how this
   democracy invaded and destroyed two small and weak countries based
   on lies, while most Americans were duped into believing that Bush
   was doing the right thing.169



 T     he problem with the United States becoming irrelevant is that
       before that can actually happen, Muslims will go through the
same fate, may be in different ways, that Jews have faced before them.
Muslims have become the Jews of the twenty-first century in terms of
the treatment they are receiving. The difference is that Jews were dis-
criminated against and treated in horrible ways locally, whereas Mus-
lims are facing the same treatment on a global scale. The Muslim holo-
caust is in the making, and it will occur before the United States loses
its position as the world’s ruling state.
   There was a time when Muslims from the northern part of Paki-
stan used to introduce themselves as Afghan in the West simply to be
adored with comments like, “Oh, you are a mujahid? Wow! Strong
                          After Fascism


people!!” Today, most Americans and other Westerners avoid having
a second look at Muslims in their midst with their traditional beards,
dress, or head scarves. The reason is that the media has turned the
“strong” people to the most scorned people on the Earth.
   Keeping the role of corporate media during this transition in mind,
one can assess that it would not take long for people to turn these
small gestures of avoiding and ignoring Muslims into more extreme ac-
tions, such as the decision by many shops and restaurants to stop serv-
ing Muslims, and by airline companies to deny them the right to travel
by air.
   Placards saying, “Jews not admitted” and “Jews enter this place at
their own risk” began to appear all over civilized Germany in less than
five years from their wholesale persecution. In some parts of the coun-
try, Jews were banned from public parks, swimming pools, and public
transportation. Evidence suggests that history is on the way to repeat-
ing itself—this time for Muslims.
   In the other extreme, there are some Muslims, who do not hesitate
to swearing on the Holy Qur’an only to support their lies for secur-
ing their stay in the West as refugees. Fifty per cent of the top twenty
refugee-producing countries for Canada, for example, are Muslim or
Muslim majority. These statistics are but just a single sign of the deep
malady and misdirection forcing Muslims to sacrifice almost anything
for living in the West.
   Unfortunately, many Muslims still do not realize that time has con-
siderably changed for those who dream of living as equal citizens of the
West, where they can now be locked up without any charge, without
any trial, and without having seen the evidence against them. The five
Muslim men held in Canada under security certificates without any
charges against them for the past four years are evidence of what is
coming next. There is no plan to charge them and take them through
a fair, due process of law. Instead, a special cell has been constructed at
Kingston penitentiary. It matters little to those who choose to accept
all insults so that they may live as second class citizens. They will defi-
nitely earn a few thousand dollars more in the West than they would at
home, but they will not get the respect they deserve as human beings.
   Non-Muslim immigrants may still have the opportunity for equal
treatment. For Muslims, however, the time is up. Even citizenship can-
not guarantee their equality, safety, and security any more. Racial pro-
                        Twenty-First Century Jews                       


filing has become a norm. The different treatment of Muslim travelers,
even if they have American or Canadian passports, shows that all that
matters is Islam, the color of one’s skin, or one’s prominent features.
The case of U.S. authorities detaining and deporting the Syrian born
Canadian Mahr Arar to Syria is an example of indiscriminate treat-
ment, one of many occurring in different forms, and should be an
eye-opener. The coming horrors are writing on the wall. Most West-
ern countries have a previous record of treating “others” inhumanly.
Canada and the United States treated citizens of Japanese origin inhu-
manely during the Second World War. It matters little if we argue that
the government and police have protected Muslims in the December
2005 anti-Muslim, race riots in Australia. The reason is that even West-
ern analysts, such as Terry Cook and Tania Kent are blaming Liberal
Party federal backbencher Dana Vale, a former minister for veteran af-
fairs in the Howard government, and Prime Minister Howard himself
launched an anti-Moslem diatribe reminiscent of the cries of “populate
or perish” that underpinned the White Australia policy last century.170
Damage due to perception is as much serious as damage due to reality.
Elected leaders and media pundits play an equal role in developing a
perception that presents Muslims as uncivilized barbarians. When the
horror spread, the governments will take anti-Muslim actions based on
public perception.
    Canadian officials were fully aware of Arar’s illegal arrest and depor-
tation. When he returned after spending 10 months in some penuri-
ous prison in Syria, the Canadian government denied its involvement
in the crime. When Juliet O’Neill, a Canadian journalist, exposed the
reality, Canadian police raided her house and offices to find out any
clue about the source that leaked information about collusion between
Canadian and U.S. authorities.
    There are numerous cases of U.S. authorities detaining and returning
well-respected Canadian citizens back to Canada. Their crime is their
religion and their religious get-up. Muslims who keep a beard in the
traditional Islamic way are considered fundamentalists, unfit for in-
tegration into Western society. Young, clean-shaven Muslims, on the
other hand, could be potential terrorists, trying to deceive the authori-
ties.
    Muslim organizations are advising Muslims to avoid traveling to the
United States. They are advised not even to take Hajj flights via the
                          After Fascism


United States. There are cases of Muslims being taken off the planes
for interrogation in New York, even if they were only on the way to
Canada. The precautionary calls are understandable, but for how long?
The conditions are changing for the worse on both sides of the border
in North America and throughout Europe.
   In the near future, the U.S. Supreme Court’s approval for detention
on mere suspicion and new mandatory ID Cards may become tools
for putting into effect “the final solution” just as were the Nuremberg
Laws of 1935, which identified Jews according to the religion practiced
by an individual’s grandparents. Consequently, the Nazis classified as
Jews thousands of people who had converted from Judaism to another
religion, among them even Roman Catholic priests and nuns and Prot-
estant ministers whose grandparents were Jewish.
   In another development, Canada customs officers have joined their
U.S. counterparts in the coding of international passengers arriving at
airports for security checks. Customs agents will soon be assigning pas-
sengers numbers from one to 10 based on the security threat they pose.
There is no doubt as to who will end up at number 10. An indoctrinat-
ed mind may think that because there are Muslim people who intend
to carry out acts of terrorism, this practice is reasonable. It would argue
that there is no question people exist who have a lot of sympathy for
the people of Iraq, people who are angry and could easily be persuaded
to strike back. Such views became further ingrained when the horrible
crime of 9/11 was not properly investigated and accusations were made
that angry Muslims carried out this attack without any inside support
and without the motivation of any other actor at all.
   That is why from now on, Islam is both an identity and a crime. It
makes a person’s citizenship and his rights totally irrelevant. Eighty
percent of the Jews in Germany held German citizenship. The so-called
racial profiling in the United States is nothing but a refined term for
pure racism. The U.S. Supreme Court has legalized the detention of
thousands of Muslims based on mere suspicion.
   Similarly, in Canada, the draconian Security Certificate means that
just one minister can authorize locking up someone indefinitely with-
out any evidence of his involvement in any crime. So far, Muslims are
the main victims of security certificates. Besides Canada, small coun-
tries such as Denmark, Belgium, the Netherlands, Austria, and Norway
are leading the pack in the war on Muslims at home, and may be on
                       Twenty-First Century Jews                      


the road to encouraging a new holocaust against humanity. The re-
lease of anti-Islam cartoons, movies, and books, and the governments’
backing of these campaigns of hatred are exposing the myth that the
Netherlands, Denmark, and Belgium are among the most tolerant and
egalitarian countries. Even the New York Times asked: “There seems
to be some surprise that the Danish people and their government are
standing behind the Jyllands-Posten newspaper and its decision to pub-
lish drawings of the Prophet Muhammad last fall. Aren’t Danes sup-
posed to be unusually tolerant and respectful of others?”171 In other
developments, an Italian minister put Mohammad (pbuh) cartoon
on T-shirts.172 The Vatican warned against marrying Muslims.173 Ger-
many told Muslims that they “must take homophobia test in the Ger-
man state of Baden-Wurttemberg when applying for citizenship. This
test seeks an applicant’s views on homosexuality, bigamy and women’s
rights. Holland is considering a similar test for Muslim immigrants. A
proposal was put before parliament there almost a year ago, but no law
has yet been passed. Other German states have also indicated their in-
terest in implementing a similar test.174
   While these countries are part of the U.S.-led coalition that is re-
sponsible for the mass murder of Iraqis, they have also introduced
discriminating and draconian immigration laws and standards for as-
similation that are specifically directed against Muslims fleeing war and
economic hardship. The pretexts are always the phantom of the “War
on Terror.” According to an INN World Report (March 13, 2006), in
Amsterdam, Holland, two men kissing in a park and a topless female
bather are featured in a film that will be shown to would-be immigrants
to the Netherlands. The reactions of applicants will be examined to see
whether they are able to accept the country’s “liberal attitudes.” Else-
where, the negative image of Muslims and Islam in the media results
in news reports such as “Bias Against Muslims Up by 70%,”175 “U.S.
Muslims’ Harassment Complaints Up,”176 “Anti-Muslim Incidents
Rise, Study Finds,”177 and “75% of Muslims fear terrorist label: survey
(June 21, 2004).”178 How about reports elsewhere like “Muslims report
increased abuse in Australia after September 11,”179 “Italian Muslims
Lament Marginalization, Oppression,”180 and “Muslim names harm job
chances”181?
   Following the 9/11 attacks, Western Europe joined the United
States in its anti-Muslim crusade: “We are all Americans now,”182 unit-
0                          After Fascism


ed against Muslims. Although 9/11 is still a mystery, it is used to legiti-
mize a new form of Western-Christian fascism. Media pundits such as
Christopher Hitchens and Daniel Pipes, who support the anti-Muslim
ideology, are springing up like mushrooms all over the Western world.
Using the cliché of free speech, they fuel a vicious and violent war
against Muslims around the world. The recent blasphemous images of
Prophet Mohammed are nothing more than a campaign that promotes
racism and violence.
   The more than 3000 Pakistanis seeking refuge status in Canada each
year has forced Steve Gallagher, Professor at Concordia University, to
conclude in a message to this author: “If these people are in reality ref-
ugees, then the world is absolutely full of persecution. Logically this
would grant western countries the right to take over such countries to
deal with the persecution.”
   Interestingly, Steve Gallagher is not alone in holding such views, nor
is such feeling limited toward people seeking refugee status in Western
countries. People from other parts of the world do not wear distinctive
marks to differentiate refugees from legal immigrants. To most West-
erners holding such views, everyone with a different skin tone and fea-
tures is an unwelcome visitor. Being Muslim allows the bonus of gath-
ering extra hate.
   Muslims are on the chopping block. It is not only in the United
States and Canada. If we scan the horizon, we find that the Danish Far
Right Party (Dansk Folkeparti) is the country’s third biggest party and
underpins a hard-line center-right coalition government claiming that
Muslims are secretly planning to takeover Denmark. Although Muslims
make up about 2 per cent of the Danish population, one in four Danes
have been brainwashed by their opportunist monarchs, politicians, and
the media to seriously believe that there will one day be more Muslims
in Denmark than non-Muslims.
   The 2005 report of the International Helsinki Federation for Hu-
man Rights (IHF) on “Intolerance and Discrimination against Muslims
in the EU” found that attacks on Muslims have markedly increased
recently. Muslims in Sweden, Denmark, and Austria are encounter-
ing difficult barriers. In Sweden, Muslims are advised to change their
names to Swedish-sounding ones to increase their chance of employ-
ment. According to the report, 64 percent of Muslims interviewed in
Britain said that they were “unfairly targeted by counter-terrorism poli-
                       Twenty-First Century Jews                       


cies.”183 The report reveals that in Denmark and Austria, Muslim wom-
en wearing headscarves are less likely to find work or pursue education.
In Sweden, right wing parties warn of a Muslim invasion. Other Euro-
pean countries, such as Belgium, Holland, France, Italy, and Spain, are
also contaminated with far right groups and anti-Muslims parties. Of
course, they have opponents as well. That is the way of government in
these countries. However, this fact does not undermine the fact that
Islamophobia is getting mainstream and this phenomenon exacerbates
with each passing day.
   In the “liberal-minded” Netherlands, famous for its brutal and vio-
lent colonial history, racism is becoming part of Dutch values. Mus-
lims have become targets of religiously motivated attacks. The Nether-
lands erupted in anti-Muslim racism after a Dutch Muslim of African
origin allegedly killed Theo van Gogh, who had made an obscene film
about Islam. The death of a Muslim-hater is used to justify much ug-
lier crimes. Islamic schools and Mosques were bombed and set on fire.
Muslim women were attacked throughout Holland. The right-wing
Dutch government is embarking on anti-Muslim legislation to crack
down on immigration and close down mosques suspected for “terrorist”
activities, as well as to give police the power to arrest people of Muslim
faith. Although Muslims make up about one million (6 percent) of the
Dutch population, former EU Commissioner Frits Bolkestein said re-
cently, “The most common first name registered at birth these days in
Amsterdam is Mohammed. This, they say, is the Europe-to-be.”
   In France, the situation is not much different. The French can be
proud of their well-known anti-Muslim and anti-Arab hatred. Presi-
dent Jacques Chirac has adopted Jean Marie Le Pen’s extremist and
anti-Muslim policy, which has increased violence against Muslims and
denied Muslim women the right to education and employment. Ac-
cording to the International Helsinki Federation (IHF) report, the
French Front National (an offshoot of fascism) stated publicly that
France’s Muslims “share an allegiance to a wider community of believ-
ers that threatens national sovereignty.” Even French-born Muslims
have no standing in spite of the ideals of “Liberte, Egalite, Fraternite,”
and the plague is spreading to neighboring countries.
   The new German Chancellor Angela Merkel compared Islam with
the rise of fascism. The on-line Dhimi Watch posted an article, titled:
Why Europe is starting to lose faith in Islam” (December 4, 2004). This
                          After Fascism


article quotes Angela Merkel as saying: “The notion of multiculturalism
has fallen apart. Anyone coming here must respect our constitution and
tolerate our Western and Christian roots.” Italy’s traditional tolerance
towards immigrants has been eroded by fear of Islamism. An Ipsos poll
in September showed that 48 per cent of Italians believed that a “clash
of civilizations” between Islam and the West was under way and that
Islam was “a religion more fanatical than any other”. The East German
politician who was selected to solve Germany’s unemployment and
other social ills seems to find the war on Muslims a much easier issue.
   Thousands of Muslims have been arrested and screened by German
police only because “their profiles have matched basic criteria, includ-
ing an affiliation with Islam,” reveals the IHF report. The German state
of Baden-Wurttemberg has enacted what is called the “Muslim test”, in
which Muslim applicants for citizenship are asked about their views on
9/11, gay relationships, and whether their teenage daughters should be
allowed to attend swimming classes. Can you imagine all Germans (in
Baden-Wurttemberg) having exactly the same opinion on all three?
   Ziauddin Sardar reports for New Statesman magazine from Ger-
many, the Netherlands, Belgium and France. In December 5, 2005 is-
sues of the magazine he wrote an informative article, titled: “The Next
holocaust.” According to Ziauddin, Islamophobia is not a uniquely
British disease: across Europe, liberals openly express prejudice against
Muslims. He poses the question: Do new pogroms beckon? Ziauddin
quotes Wolfram Richter, professor of economics at the University of
Dortmund of saying: “I am afraid we have not learned from our his-
tory. My main fear is that what we did to Jews we may now do to Mus-
lims. The next holocaust would be against Muslims.”184
   Finally, in Australia, the draconian “anti-terror” laws have been de-
signed specifically to victimize Muslims. They also become an attack
against the ordinary citizen, because they affect other people as well. In-
deed, young Muslim men have been thrown in Guantanamo-like pris-
ons not because they committed crimes, but because they were Mus-
lims. Some companies have refused employment to Muslim Australians
and migrants from Muslim backgrounds.185 In addition, the army of
commentators in the Australian media—one of the most controlled in
the world186—is accusing the police of treating Australians of the Mid-
dle Eastern background too softly. Based on two recent studies, Aus-
tralian authors Peter Manning and Iain Lygo argue that views of Arab
                       Twenty-First Century Jews                      


and Muslim people in Australia have been significantly distorted in re-
cent coverage. The media has—by both what is reported and by what is
not—portrayed them as different and a danger to the rest of the com-
munity.187 There are also some cases in which the Commonwealth gov-
ernment acts in a fascist manner and the media comes to expose the
harsh treatment of refugees. This deliberate falsehood is designed not
only to discredit the Police, but also to increase injustice and violence
against Muslims with negative portrayal.
   The IHF report’s director Aaron Rhodes warned, “These develop-
ments [of equal significance in Europe, Australia, and elsewhere] threat-
en to undermine positive efforts at integration and further increase the
vulnerability of Muslims to human rights violations and marginaliza-
tion.”188 Hence, the IHF report recommends that all EU governments
“enhance efforts to prosecute and punish discriminatory and violent
acts.”189 However, the warning may fall on deaf ears. As Sardar writes:
“Even among individuals with more relaxed attitudes to interracial re-
lationships, racism is unashamed and upfront.”190 The governments may
be pouring fuel on the fire.
   Muslims have become the Jews of the twenty-first century. A look
at Musharraf and Mubarak at the top, Manji and other kufr-justifying
moderates in the middle, and the money-maniacs lying and swearing on
the Holy Qur’an at the bottom is enough to conclude that Muslims are
not just victims. They are responsible for what they are facing today.
   Jews were lucky to face the Holocaust mainly in Germany and out-
side at the hands of Nazis. Imagine Muslims for whom the whole West
turns into a Nazi bloc. There are complaints that Muslim immigrants
are more inclined to hold onto the culture they left behind than to
adopt and adapt to the one they find in the West.
   Anti-Semitic propaganda redolent of the Nazi era has taken a nasty
anti-Muslim turn and has become ubiquitous in the Western world.
David Pryce-Jones concludes that Muslims bring a culture and identity
with them; however, instead of assimilation, their “self-proclaimed lo-
cal leaders …proclaim that assimilation is a threat to Islam…If allowed
to pass unchallenged, these rival extremisms have the capacity to un-
dermine democracy in host countries.”191
   Gradually hate speech or act against Muslims and Islam is becoming
a norm. An editorial in the Washington Times (May 15, 2004) in re-
sponse to Council of American-Islamic Relations (CAIR)’s report on
                          After Fascism


hate crimes against Muslims, claims the report is “unashamedly” exag-
gerated. The report mentioned that there was a 70 percent increase in
anti-Muslim incidents and a 121 percent increase in hate crimes during
2003. According to the Washington Times, the following are not hate
crimes:
     •	 Contrary to the teachings of Islam, college students spreading
         the concept in “a campus publication that ‘a true Muslim is
         taught to slay infidels.’”
     •	 “A man flung a Mr. Potato Head at a Muslim woman shop-
         ping in Brooklyn.”
     •	 “Reports of anti-Muslim rhetoric that claims Islam promotes
         killing,” etc.192
   Expressing concern about the failure of Muslims to integrate, Suzanne
Fields writes in the Washington Times (January 29, 2004) that Muslim
“assimilation may be the longer running dilemma” in the United States.
Comparing the United States with Europe, she writes: “Muslim minori-
ties similarly threaten swift assimilation in Europe. ‘While the French
government is publicly supportive of Arab causes, it and other Euro-
pean governments are privately worried about future trends,’ writes
Francis Fukuyama in the Wall Street Journal. ‘September 11 revealed
that assimilation is working very poorly in much of Europe: terrorist
ringleaders like Mohammed Atta were radicalized not in Saudi Arabia
or Afghanistan, but in Western Europe.’”193
   Suzanne Fields further shows how Europeans are concerned with the
15 million strong population of Muslims with a birth-rate three times
that of Christians, Jews, and others. The solution and certificate for
Muslims to live in the West is becoming secularized.
   The Muslim problem in Europe has led Europeans to “heavy-handed
attempts to secularize immigrants who often don’t want to be secular-
ized, such as Jacques Chirac’s decree to ban the traditional head scarves
for Muslim schoolgirls and skullcaps for orthodox Jewish schoolboys
while allowing crosses of reasonable size, ‘reasonable’ left undefined.”194
   What if the Muslim resistance to watering down their identity
continues? What if a Chirac-like resolve for assimilation strengthens
among other secular Allies? The situation will get worse, for there is no
dearth of Manjis and Rushdies among Muslims who do not hesitate to
make fun of the Prophet of Islam and the teachings of the Quran. They
are not exceptions. Suzanne Fields, like others, quote persons, such as
                       Twenty-First Century Jews                      


founding members of the American Islamic Congress, to support her
argument. But this is no different from what some leading rabbis were
doing in Germany.
   Six months after Hitler seized power in 1933, several leading Berlin
rabbis wrote to him pledging loyalty to Germany. The rabbis argued
that they, the orthodox, shared the Nazis’ moral values and were op-
posed to decadent Bolshevism and libertinism, as well as to the left-
wing Jews who made up much of the avant garde. The rabbis promised
Hitler that they would do their best to persuade Jews around the world
to end a boycott on German products. In retrospect that seems like it
was a terrible mistake.195 When the going gets tough, the tide does not
differentiate between the pro-tyrant moderates and the resisters.
   The majority of the so-called scholars of Islam in the West have ad-
opted the same kind of attitude that was typical of Yekkim [folkloristic
nickname for Jews originating in Germany] who excessively denied the
reality with slogans like “Yihye Tov” [all will be well] and made asser-
tions without any basis that things would work out.
   For Muslims the situation is going from bad to worse. The Jewish
Holocaust is a clear example of “civilized” Europe’s previous and unex-
pected brutality. Differences between Jews and other European citizens
were manufactured and used as pretexts to justify crimes against Jews.
Jews were accused of “taking over” the world, just as Muslims are ac-
cused of planning to take over America and erecting an Islamic empire.
   It was not only Hitler who engineered the Holocaust. Anti-Semi-
tism (anti-Jewish and anti-Arabic hatred) was widespread in Christian
Europe for centuries prior to Nazi Germany. However, modern anti-
Semitism was initiated in 1879 by William Marr, the German who
founded the “League for Anti-Semitism.” Marr’s racist views (Europe’s
biological racism) were that Jews constituted a distinct racial group
that was both physically and morally inferior, and therefore, must be
exterminated. The justifications for possible internment of Muslims in
the United States today are similar to Marr’s racist views in that they
serve to develop a mindset in favor of a holocaust. With the rise of Eu-
ropean racism against minorities in the nineteenth century, European
Jews were targeted as Muslims are targeted today.
   Adolf Hitler’s election on January 30, 1930, was based on his ideolo-
gy of “one people [‘master race’ or Ubermenschen], one empire, and one
leader.” Hitler’s election paved the way for one of the greatest criminal
                          After Fascism


acts in human history, for which the groundwork was laid over a long
period of time. The theories of a “war within Islam” and the “war of
ideas” are making exactly the same impact that Marr’s European bio-
logical racism continued to make during the rule of Nazism and which
became the vehicle for genocide. Jews, Gypsies, Czechs, Poles, the men-
tally and physically handicapped, homosexuals, and others not belong-
ing to the “master race” were targeted for extermination. Jews were spe-
cifically targeted. Bombings of synagogues, blasphemous cartoons and
anti-Jewish posters were widespread all over Europe.
   The publication of Prophet Mohammed’s (pbuh) caricatures and
their reproduction in many Western countries is a sign that an anti-
Muslim mindset has already taken root among the masses. This mindset
is going to play a vital role in the coming holocaust of Muslims in the
twenty-first century. As the past shows, this type of mindset is not
something new. During the occupation of Europe by the Wehrmacht
(German forces) in France, Italy, the Netherlands, Belgium, Norway
etc., the locals were rounding up Jews, Gypsies, and other folk much
faster than the Nazis could handle them. And if this wasn’t enough,
the so-called neutral countries, such as Switzerland, were sending flee-
ing refugees back to the Nazis—as they do now with Muslims—and
looking after Third Reich money in their own banks like they looked
after communist money during the Cold War and criminal money as
usual.
   Muslims are openly told to apostatize or leave.196 Australia is a prom-
inent example. Calling on Muslims to embrace western values or, in
this case, Australian values is merely coded speech calling on Muslims
to leave their faith. If one looks deeply into the sickness of what passes
for the values and way of life being imposed, one can see why Muslims
choose Allah over human made systems of morality and conduct.197
   On the other hand, Peter Costello, a senior government minister in
Australia, told Muslims, in February 2006, who wanted to live under
Islamic law that they had no place in Australia and insisted all immi-
grants must embrace Australian values.198 Friday Times reported on
February 24, 2006 that the Treasurer’s comments came just days after
Prime Minister John Howard said some segments of the Islamic com-
munity were antagonistic to Australian society and expressed concern
about Muslim attitudes towards women.199
                                  ~*~*~*~
                           The Coming Exodus                           


The Coming Exodus


T     he hardest thing in analyzing current affairs is making any kind of
      a prediction. However, even harder is keeping silent and ignoring
instincts as well as all the facts that one observes. The unfolding events
and evolving environment in the United States and its allies forces one
to see three major historic events in the making: the holocaust of Mus-
lims, the subsequent mass exodus of the survivors toward Muslim ma-
jority areas, and the end of the nation-state system as we know it.
   Until recently, Khilafah—a governing mechanism in which legis-
lation is not done against the basic limitation of the Qur’an and the
Sunnah and Muslims are facilitated in living according to Islam in all
walks of life—was considered no more than merely a dream of a few
crazy Muslims. In a short span of less than four years, however, both
Muslim and non-Muslim countries have reversed this view to make
Muslims realize that turning the “crazy” Muslims’ dream into reality is
now just a matter of time. On the other hand, the world of the United
States and its allies has turned upside down only to unknowingly pave
the way for realization of the same dream.
   The process has already cost the United States and its allies a lot
in material and non-material terms.200 Results of their recent policies,
which are making the lives of Muslims miserable, will ultimately pale
the crimes of Hitler against the Jews. In an environment that goes
from bad to worse for Muslims, it seems as if it were not the alleged 19
hijackers (some of whom are still alive), but 1.4 billion Muslims who
attacked the United States on September 11, 2001.
   Muslims are under the microscope,201 as well as the main subject in
discussion and debate on international issues. Although not officially
admitted, Muslims remain the center of proposed changes to immigra-
tion, education, employment, refugee policies, customs, and security
policies in the United States and in its allied states. Whether perma-
nent residents, citizens, students, refugees, or visitors, all Muslims are
treated alike: as unwelcome visitants and guilty until proven innocent.
The fascist mindset of the warlords as revealed through the media, reli-
gion, politics, administration, and academia is gradually trickling down
to the street level, where churches are displaying signs, reading: “Ko-
ran needs to be flushed,”202 and “You must remember Islam is the en-
emy.”203
                          After Fascism


   There are absolutely no signs of improvement. Muslims are holding
their breath and hoping for a break in the cycle of hatred that is being
generated at all levels against them, their religion, and their way of life.
Even government officials in the allied states proudly claim that they
and the United States are one. The Muslim holocaust will become a re-
ality when the negative trends touch their climax. Already, killing Mus-
lims who want to live by Islam has become a noble act of the present
age.
   Non-Muslims, too, have started feeling the heat, particularly those
with an experience of the earlier holocaust. The first willing drop of
the rain of exodus happened to be a Jew—a holocaust survivor, who
smelled the coming holocaust in the United States and decided to leave
before it should get worse.204 As the situation worsens for Muslims in
the United States and in its allied countries, the boundaries of nation-
states will become meaningless. A holocaust and exodus of Muslims
will take place simultaneously with the disappearance of state boundar-
ies for all except Muslims. Even today, the borders and border-related
policies have been reduced to filtering and profiling Muslims and Mus-
lims alone.
   Similarly, against the tyranny unleashed in Iraq and Afghanistan,
borders have become meaningless for the resisting forces as well. The
dissolving borders phenomenon will go hand in hand with the dissolu-
tion of the nation-state system as we know it, along with the concept
of the much-vaunted democracy.
   To find the forces responsible for the end of democracy, one needs to
have a look at the most powerful pro-war and anti-Islam lobby, headed
by personalities such as Daniel Pipes, in the United States. This lobby
used to complain that terrorism was “simply a technique” and it was
inappropriate to call their war, a “war on terrorism.”205 Their determi-
nation has paid off.
   After achieving the initial milestones, the warlords in the United
States now feel no hesitation in defining their objective as it is: elimi-
nation of Islam. The allied tyrannical regimes are also taking full advan-
tage of the warlords’ fanatical pursuit to eliminate Islam, not knowing
that in the process they are digging a hole for themselves and making
the dream of Muslim self-rule closer to reality.
   The unremitting assiduity with which this lobby works is one of the
major factors that revived the status, the need, and the power of a sin-
                           The Coming Exodus                          


gle, alternative Islamic entity in the Muslim mind—a mind that had
even stopped dreaming about such a possibility.206
   All energies of the warlords are now focused on preventing Mus-
lims from living by Islam. Preventing Muslims from establishing the
Khilafah is now the best justification for invading sovereign states,
supporting dictators, running concentration camps, and butchering
hundreds and thousands of civilians, without any fear of accountabil-
ity. Reading opinion pieces in the New York Times and other U.S. cor-
porate newspapers makes one see that all these actions are being taken
under the cover of a war on “jihadists” who want to establish Khilafah.
   To justify his recent slaughter, dictator Islam Karimov of Uzbeki-
stan instantly justified the killing of people in his republic with the
allegation that “their aim [wa]s to unite the Muslims and establish a
caliphate.”207 No one dares ask: what is wrong with that? With this jus-
tification, Karimov tried to be on the same wavelength with the U.S.
General Abizaid, who earlier declared Muslims working for self-deter-
mination as “the most despicable enemy... who use twenty-first centu-
ry-technology to spread their vision of a 7th-century paradise [and of
trying] to re-create what they imagine was the pure and perfect Islamic
government of the era of the prophet Muhammad.”208
   Many of us who still claim that this is not a war on Islam must note
that initially attempts were made to blame some Muslims for commit-
ting the crime of “political Islam.” They were stigmatized as “Islamists”
and “jihadists.” Lately, all Muslims are told that the warlords’ prob-
lem is the Qur’an and Muslims who model themselves on the Prophet
Mohammed (pbuh). For example, read Lawrence Auster in Front Page
Magazine (January 28, 2005) and Sam Harris in Washington Times
(December 2, 2004) for whom the Qur’an and the Sunnah are the real
Weapons of Mass Destruction.209
   These revealing statements of objective are mobilizing Muslims and
non-Muslims alike to struggle for justice and truth. Those who have re-
alized the extent of the U.S. war on the Muslims way of life know that
living by Islam is neither a reappropriation of the past nor an invention
of tradition,—not even the instrumentalization of Islam. The life and
times of Mohammed (pbuh) is not a mythical golden age either.
   Mohammed (pbuh) actually presented a perfect model of living by
Islam. Anyone who claims to be a Muslim has to follow that model,
whereas the warlords now want Muslims to declare this basic require-
0                          After Fascism


ment of their faith redundant. As a result of the war on Islam’s way of
life, the so-called modern state system—including pure or democratic
dictatorship or kingdoms or sheikhdoms—feels threatened for the ob-
vious reason that Islam has no place for imposed dictatorships, secular
bulwarkism, or the exploitative capitalist system.
   The common Muslim person is not scared of Islam, not even con-
cerning the much-hyped specter of Shari’ah, because its most dreaded
laws do not apply until a just socio-political and economic order is in
place. Shari’ah laws are just a fraction of the encompassing way of life
of Islam. These laws, in fact, subserve the Islamic system of social jus-
tice.
   It is easy for most Islamophobes to blame Islamic religious institu-
tions (madrassas), Wahabi ideas, and Saudi petrodollars for “Islamism”
and “Islamist terrorism.” However, it is difficult for them to see that
the strong resistance to their ideological onslaught is by those who were
educated in Western institutions and have seen the horrible face of de-
mocracy that has been exploited, secularism, and capitalism.
   The restoration of dignity does not strike a sympathetic chord among
the large majority of Muslims who cannot be characterized as jihadists.
It is, in fact, the failure of man-made systems, the exposed hypocrisy
of democracy and human rights, and the hollow claims of liberation
that alienate Muslims and non-Muslims alike. All this is pushing the
Muslim world to become a single bloc and live by the long neglected
standards for justice and peace. The apparent squabbling of Muslim
countries with each other and the large amount of strife within them is
the direct result of oppressive regimes that are in place and the ongoing
struggle for ensuring justice and equality. These are the main factors be-
hind the burgeoning Islamic movements that are described in Part Two
of this book in detail.
   The idea of self-rule, free from the influence of modern days fascists
through the autocratic regimes resonates with Muslims of all social and
economic strata because of the injustices that they continue to suffer at
the hands of never ending colonialism and capitalist institutions that
are never satiated—not to speak of the surrogates imposed on them.
   While the threat from Islam has been accentuated and its antago-
nistic image reinforced by the Islamophobes after 9/11, Western per-
ceptions of this threat predate the events of 2001. Influential Western
analysts, such as Bernard Lewis and Samuel Huntington, were writing
                           The Coming Exodus                           


about the “roots of Muslim rage” and the “clash of civilizations” long
before the staged 9/11 attacks.210 After the Soviet Union’s demise, the
New York Times blared in a full-page headline on January 21, 1996:
“The Red Menace is Gone, but here’s Islam.”
   So, it is the Islamophobic fascists’ morbid dread of Islam that is
making Khilafah inevitable. American and allied governments are
reacting to Islam, just the way the Soviet Union used to react to de-
mocracy. Internal repression of dissent and the inhuman treatment of
Muslims are reaching the limits of the communists’ treatment of dis-
senting voices. Opposition to the twenty-first century wars is gradually
being criminalized. Daytime visits from secret service agents are com-
mon. Soon, Muslims will have 4 a.m. visits from secret police, as well.
Muslims in particular feel at risk of being taken to Guantanamo Bay
or similar torture centers, not just for writing a book like this one, but
also for carrying any book on international travel that is critical of the
recent Anglo-American wars or past crimes. Traveling becomes one of
the occasions when Muslims come in contact with the increasingly Ge-
stapo-like government agencies. At least the Soviets did not establish
concentration camps for people who loved democracy and capitalism
on most continents of the world out of fear of an alternative ideolo-
gy. Had the communists managed world domination, they might have
done so as well. The establishment of such camps shows the bankruptcy
of fascism, communism, and now the democratic fascism. The followers
of these totalitarian ideologies struggle for global domination, but, in
the process, exhaust themselves to death.
   That is why the emergence of a just order on the basis of Islam has
become inevitable. The more the lies of the corporate terrorists and
modern day fascists are exposed and the more the world sees their real
face, the more Muslims will win their argument in the war of ideas.
   The time for the monopoly of the nation-state system and the de-
cline of democracy is fast approaching. Future generations will find it
quite interesting to read about the euphoric but ephemeral tall claims
of “the end of history” followed by the end of democracy within less
than three decades of the end of communism.
                                 ~*~*~*~
                          After Fascism


Muslim Self-Rule Has Become Inevitable


I  slam-bashers used to complain that terrorism was “simply a tech-
   nique” and, therefore, could not be a “war on terrorism.” Well, they
do not have to worry any more. After crossing the initial milestones,
the warlords in the United States are now clearly defining their goal,
and the allied tyrannical regimes are taking full advantage of their de-
termination.
   Preventing Muslims from establishing the Khilafah is now the best
justification for invading sovereign states, supporting dictators, running
concentration camps, and butchering hundreds and thousands of civil-
ians without any fear of accountability.
   Islam Karimov justified his killings with the reasoning that his vic-
tims were aiming “to unite the Muslims and establish a caliphate.”211
The U.S. General Abizaid declared that the U.S. forces are after “the
most despicable enemy… [who wants to establish] the pure and perfect
Islamic government of the era of the prophet Muhammad.”212 Gener-
al Musharraf told BBC, “There’s no chance of going back to Khilafat
really…[it] is totally a Utopian idea.”213
   Dictators with Muslim backgrounds like General Musharraf of Paki-
stan find it convenient to dismiss the Khilafah as a utopian idea. Like
Stalin, their opportunistic response to their political ambitions is mur-
der, torture, and claiming that their struggle is part of the U.S. efforts
against Khilafah under the cover of a war on terrorism. They feel very
comfortable with this cover because it grants them the protection of
their masters in Washington. Many in the East and West are fooled by
their half-truths that justify every possible inhuman action and crime
against humanity when it comes to the most misunderstood issue of
Khilafah or Islamic State. Some day the humanity will pay a price for
our ignorance and present lassitude.
   The community of dictators works hand in hand with the democrat-
ic fascists who claim to be on a mission to promote democracy while
giving a pass to the dictatorships to commit crimes against humanity.
These crimes are justified under the pretext of safeguarding against the
imaginary crimes that an Islamic State might commit if it were to come
to power. The basic and often unstated assumption is that living by
Islam in the private as well as public sphere is inherently violent and
against human rights. Initially, keeping Muslims away from living by
                            The Coming Exodus                            


Islam was attempted through the less offensive term “political Islam”.
This term was later upgraded to “Islamism.” Lately, Muslims are told
in their face, without any sugar-coating, that the problem actually lies
with them following the Qur’an and Prophet Mohammed (pbuh) as a
model.214
   Thus, the smokescreen has been lifted, and the motives behind de-
monizing Muslims and Islam in the name of “political Islam” and
“Islamism” have been fully exposed. It is naïve to continue believing
that only a very small part of the activity is referred to as “political Is-
lam.” It is a broad brush to discredit everything that is associated with
Islam.
   That’s why it is imperative to point out that the lies about Weapons
of Mass Destruction in Iraq are nothing compared to the lies and de-
ceptions that the Islamophobic fascists have been disseminating. Many
impartial and learned analysts like Graham Fuller also become victims
of such misconceptions. However, the days are gone when political Is-
lam was defined as the belief of some Muslims that “Islam as a body
of faith has something important to say about how politics and society
should be ordered in the contemporary Muslim world and implement-
ed in some fashion.”215 According to the new standards, anyone who
believes in the totality of the Qur’an is an Islamist… period.
   Living by Islam is a prerequisite for being Muslim and requires one
to live by Islam in all spheres of life without any compartmentalization.
Thus, it makes sense that the simplest of definitions of Political Islam
will eventually apply to all Muslims. Once the Islamophobes succeeded
in demonizing political Islam with the most benign of definitions, they
actually succeeded in demonizing the roots of Islam. The Qur’an clearly
tells human beings not to judge with any other standard in life than
the standards of Allah (Al-Qur’an 5:44-47).
   A little-detailed definition by political scientist Guilian Denoeux
clearly leads to lumping all Muslims together as Islamists—regardless of
their political ambitions—and to the conclusion that Lawrence Auster
and Sam Harris have reached, today. That is, the problem lies with the
Qur’an and Muslims’ following the Prophet of Islam.
   To Guilian Denoeux, Islamism is “a form of instrumentalization of
Islam by individuals, groups and organizations that pursue political ob-
jectives. It provides political responses to today’s societal challenges by
imagining a future, the foundations for which rest on reappropriated,
                          After Fascism


reinvented concepts borrowed from the Islamic tradition.”216 Although
it seems that this is a 2002 definition, in fact, the term “invention of
tradition” is borrowed from the earlier Islamophobic work by Eric
Hobsbawm and Terence Ranger.217
   Living by Islam and the standards of Allah, as given in the Qur’an, is
complicated by the Islamophobes with terms like “Islamism” and “Po-
litical Islam” to confuse both Muslims and non-Muslims. The Qur’an
was not revealed for the Arabs of the 7th century alone, nor was Mo-
hammed (pbuh) sent for a particular period of time.218 The message of
Islam was sent for humanity, for all times to come.219
   Living by Islam is neither a reappropriation of the past nor an inven-
tion of tradition. The life and times of Mohammed (pbuh) are not a
mythical golden age for Islamists to dream about. Mohammed (pbuh)
presented a perfect demonstration of the application of Islam. He left
behind his life as a guide for humanity to follow.
   It is sad that the application of Islamic principles and teachings has
been belittled as the instrumentalization of Islam. If one likes to call it
the instrumentalization of Islam, it is still what Islam requires: to live
by the standards and within the limits set by Allah. There is nothing
political or Islamist about it.
   It is not mentioned at any place in the Qur’an or quoted anywhere in
the Hadith to keep the Qur’an and the Sunnah aside and start living by
innovations in Islam with the passage of time. Living by the core guid-
ance of the Qur’an and Sunnah is not de-historicizing Islam. Living by
the basic sources of Islam—the Qur’an and the Sunnah—is separating
Islam from all innovation and the needless sectarian divisions that have
occurred in the past fourteen hundred years. For instance, nowhere
does the Qur’an or Hadith tell the believers to call themselves Sunnis
or Shi’ias and to pit themselves against each other. Labeling Muslims
as Islamists if they attempt to decontextualize such innovations is pure
injustice perpetrated to maintain the status quo.
   If almost all the present Muslim societies live by secular standards
in social, economic and political life, returning them to the basic re-
quirements of Islam would not be the decontextualizing of Islam by
Islamists. It would actually be the contextualizing of Muslim life in the
sense of providing it with the right and required context and perspec-
tive for realization.
   Islam is not an abstract theory that will create problems if attempts
                            The Coming Exodus                             


are made to put it into practice. A model of Islamic theory in full prac-
tice was presented to the world after the most unique revolution of
human history 1400 years ago. Of course, time has changed. Means of
communication have improved and breathtaking technological advanc-
es have been made.
   Nevertheless, basic human nature remains the same and the basic
principles of Islam for living life have nothing to do with rocket sci-
ence, except that the latest discoveries further confirm the truth re-
vealed 1400 years ago. The guidance of Islam allows for human excel-
lence through governance in all fields of life, whether it be in stem-cell
research or attempts to conquer Mars and Venus.
   To spread confusion and thwart the establishment of a single Islam-
ic entity, some Islamophobes argue that no two “Islamisms” are alike.
Consequently, what works in Egypt will not work in Indonesia. What
works in Saudi Arabia will not work in Turkey. This argument makes
it evident that, in fact, Islamism is a contrived rancid , and there is no
such thing present in reality. Islam is one with one Allah, with one
book, and with only the teachings of the last Prophet to follow.
   Olivier Roy argues in The Failure of Political Islam that it “is intellec-
tually imprudent and historically misguided to discuss the relationships
between Islam and politics as if there were one Islam, timeless and eter-
nal.”220
   Of course, over a period of time, Muslims have tended to make in-
novations and have even kept shying away from Islam. The diversity
of the Muslim world is because of the historical process these societies
went through. The fact that in today’s world, we don’t see Islam in real
practice anywhere doesn’t mean that we should accept this state of af-
fairs as Islam and start building something new on this foundation to
be labeled one or another kind of Islam.
   Similarly, it is wrong to assume that Islam has to take many differ-
ent shapes to accommodate to all the different forms of societies in
existence. Instead, it is all these societies that have to live by the same
basic principles of Islam. For example, if it is the Bank of Malaysia or
the Bank of Oman, they have to follow the same basic principle of “no
interest” regardless of the language they use and the kind of dress they
put on. Similarly, there is no harm in cultural and political diversity.
However, none of the law and standard of living and judgment should
be repugnant to the Qur’an and the Sunnah.
                         After Fascism


   The Islamophobes hide behind the argument of Seyyed Vali Reza
Nasr, whose Shiite conceptual background forces him to be against the
concept of Khilafah anyway. Accordingly, they try to make others be-
lieve that it is the “modern Islamist political thinkers” who have de-
vised the term “Islamic state” in order to reconcile their romanticized
vision of the Islamic polity with the existence of sovereign states based
on the European model, which were products of the twin processes of
colonization and decolonization.221
   Calling the Islamic entity a State or Khilafah is as irrelevant as the
introduction of romanticism and feasibility in this debate. Basic prin-
ciples are the issue. After submitting themselves to the Will of Allah,
Muslims are bound to live their individual as well as collective lives by
His guidance. If the resultant polity becomes a State or Khilafah, there
is nothing of romance or obsession about it. Those who struggle to
make the conditions favorable for living by Islam know that there is no
place for “Islamo” or any other kind of nationalism in Islam. Romanti-
cism is out of question, because the objective is not the state, but the
establishment of Islam as a way of life. The state is the by-product, not
the primary objective.
   So it is the so-called modern state system—whether pure dictator-
ship, secular democracy, or a U.S. supported kingdom—that feels
threatened for the obvious reason that Islam does not recognize dic-
tatorships and regimes working as secular bulwarks for Islamophobes.
With the thought of an Islamic entity, an indoctrinated mind starts
thinking about Shari’ah without realizing that its laws are only a frac-
tion of an encompassing and just socio-political and economic order.
   The transformation required in Muslim societies must occur in so-
cial, political, moral, and cultural spheres of life. Islam has been the
core for reference in Muslim societies for the past 1400 years. Interest-
ingly, Islam applied even to the secular republic of Turkey, despite the
attempt on the part of the Kemalist elite to denigrate Islam. During
the Turkish War of Independence, Islamic identity was the primary ve-
hicle for popular mobilization, and it became the principal defining ele-
ment of the territorial contours of the Turkish Republic.
   The acceptance of Islam as integral to identity formation did not oc-
cur just overnight in reaction to colonialism, nor did the movement
against colonialism open the gates of “Islamist intrusion” into the post-
colonial political process as some Islamophobes suggest. In fact, the
                            The Coming Exodus                            


more Muslims experimented with the models based on human ratio-
nality alone, the more they realized that they had gone astray from the
real objective and the right way to live.
   There is no use expecting Islamic revival and the establishment of a
just socio-political order from the major Muslim political formations,
such as the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, Jamaat-i-Islami and Jamiat-
ul-Ulema-i-Islam in Pakistan, Nahdat al-Ulama in Indonesia, the Parti
Islam se-Malaysia, and Turkey’s Muslim parties. These parties, in their
various forms, have all by and large played according to the rules estab-
lished by secular regimes normally unsympathetic to the Islamic cause.
   Several of them have performed credibly in elections despite the fact
that the dice are usually loaded against them. This success, however, in
no way guarantees the much-needed Islamic revolution, transforma-
tion, or the establishment of an Islamic State. Many of these political
groups have submitted to the secular systems and have been content
to function within the parameters set by authoritarian regimes. They
lie low when suppressed and bounce back organizationally and politi-
cally when autocracies need them for political purposes. One example
is when Musharraf needed them to fill the vacuum created by a ban on
two major parties; they were needed to consolidate the dictatorship. In
all cases, these political groups are hardly different from other secular
parties in their ability to bring any fundamental change to the secular
system.
   It will be the masses, led by the followers of these religious parties in
the Muslim world, who will bring about the change after realizing the
fruitlessness of struggle to establish Islam through playing by the rules
of non-Islamic systems. The struggle toward the establishment of a sin-
gle Islamic entity has far less to do with the restoration of dignity and
with virulent anti-American feelings than with Muslims’ obligation to
live by Islam in all aspects of life.
   Anger against domestic oppression and external subjugation is pres-
ent, but its role is limited to realization among Muslim masses about
the need for freedom and independence. Defeating the United States
or transforming their relationship with the West into one of equal-
ity rather than subordination is not the prime objective of the Islamic
movement. They could be by-products. The objective is to create an en-
vironment conducive to people living by Islam in their individual and
collective lives.
                          After Fascism


   It is not the restoration of dignity that strikes a sympathetic chord
even among the large majority of Muslims who cannot be characterized
as Islamic activists; it is, in fact, the failure of manmade systems and the
exposed hypocrisy and double standards of democracy, human rights,
and the hollow claims of liberation. It resonates with Muslims of all so-
cial and economic strata because of the injustices that they continue to
suffer at the hands of the former and new colonialists and their capital-
ist institutions and systems—not to speak of the surrogates imposed on
Muslim societies to serve their masters abroad.
   Due to years of suffering under colonial rule and continued inter-
ference in their internal affairs from outside, the masses in the Mus-
lim world are politically more conscious than the public in Europe
or America. They have come to realize that all Muslims are potential
Palestinians and Iraqis who can be dispossessed and dishonored with
impunity, and the justice of whose cause will always be dismissed as ir-
rational fanaticism.
   The occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan, and the continued support
to Musharraf, Karimov, and Hosnie Mubarak further confirm that the
only way Muslims can live successful lives is to live by the guidance of
the Qur’an. Subservient and blind following of corrupt and decrepit
ideologies such as socialism, communism, and now democracy is mis-
guided, as these ideologies are incapable of governing humankind and
taking it toward human excellence.
   Democracy, which was recently considered to be the most viable
governance mechanism, stands naked after the recent U.S. and U.K.
adventures at home and abroad. Just because those countries claim to
have democracy does not mean that all democratic concepts are wrong.
However, what we learn from these experiences, as well as the Soviet
Experience—as the USSR was never communist, but used communist
language to justify a dictatorship—is the lesson that these concepts are
prone to exploitation and lead to fascism. The behavior of modern de-
mocracies is far worse than any of the tyrannies in recorded history.
The truth is ever more evident as a result of the way abuse and torture
and police-state tactics are presented as part of the most civilized way
of life.
   By promoting terrorism and undermining Islam under a perverted
label of “a war on terrorism,” extremists succeed only in making Mus-
lims realize that living by the guidance of Islam is now the only course
                            The Coming Exodus                            


left for them and the humanity to follow. However, this decision is a
matter of self-realization and self-actualization. There is no compulsion
in religion [Deen], and there is no command to impose Islam on peo-
ple. After the failure of fascism, communism, and now democracy, it is
up to the human beings to realize what is the best model for governing
their individual and collective lives.
   The United States and its allies are not scared of Islam because it
will transform and lead Muslim societies toward human excellence. Is-
lam is seen as uniquely threatening because its alternative model would
undermine the capitalist system that has become the lifeblood of the
so-called democracy. Without capitalism and corporate backing, the
bubble of the convoluted form of democracy that we witness today will
burst sooner than many can even imagine. Capitalism cannot thrive
without expansion and what the United States has become cannot sur-
vive with a major portion of the globe rejecting the unjust order. It is
this dimension of Islam that makes it appear threatening to the domi-
nant powers.
   Those who call for a unified Muslim world, a single Islamic state
or Khilafah, are considered more dangerous, because so far the
Islamophobes console themselves with the misconception that “politi-
cal Islam” is a multifaceted phenomenon and is, in almost all instances,
context specific, circumscribed by the borders of individual states. They
believe Muslims cannot muster enough courage and generate enough
momentum to realize the dream of establishing a single entity and Is-
lam’s way of life. The truth is that the reaction in these individual states
must be context specific. However, when it comes to the solution, it is
one: Islam as brought forward to the humanity by the Qur’an and the
Sunnah.
   Irrespective of its beginning in individual states, the emergence of
Khilafah has become inevitable. The United States and its allies only
hasten it with further actions like the one they took to eliminate the
Taliban. The years of propaganda before the invasion and occupation
of Afghanistan took place out of fear of the emergence of a true Islamic
State.
   The overwhelming majority of Muslim political activity is conducted
through peaceful means, even where governments are unsympathetic to
the Islamic cause. The more the lies of the corporate terrorists are ex-
posed and the more the world sees the real face of democratic-fascists,
00                          After Fascism


the more Muslims win their argument in the war of ideas, which is fast
becoming America’s Waterloo.
   The staged, alleged and real transnational extremist activities on the
part of Muslims are the exception, not the rule, when it comes to the
action undertaken in the name of Islam. More importantly, it is mostly
the words and deeds of the twenty-first century fascists that pave the
way for a single Islamic entity. Titles such as Islamic State, Islamic bloc,
Union, or Khilafah do not count much.
   Islamic movements would not have done in 50 years what the Unit-
ed States has done since 9/11 to expose the real face of democracy and
the façade of freedom and human rights. The more it goes with all guns
blazing to demonize Islam and kill all prospects of the re-emergence of
a single Islamic entity, the more Muslims and non-Muslims will get the
opportunity to see the truth behind the intellectual and physical bar-
barity of this age.
   Keeping the zeal of warlords in Washington in mind, one can safe-
ly predict that the re-emergence of an Islamic entity is just a matter
of time, no matter how naïve it may sound from the political analy-
sis point of view. This is the writing on the wall, no matter how many
analysts consider saying so to be against the accepted conventional wis-
dom.
                                 ~*~*~*~

The United States Is Helpless


I  n the grip of super-fascists, the United States is helpless. The U.S.
   government hardly realizes that there is something that it can never
do. Being the lone superpower, the United States has astonishing abili-
ties to do what many others cannot. No one can single handedly defeat
the United States. However, there are some limitations that will un-
questionably speed up its march towards its becoming irrelevant on the
world stage.
   Let us list what the United States can do. It can lie. Its Secretary of
State can lie to the U.N. Security Council. Its president and all his es-
tablishment and allies from Tony Blair to General Musharraf can lie
to the whole world. It can “manufacture consent” through embedded
journalists and analysts.
   It can starve 1.8 million innocent people in Iraq to death with the
                     The United States Is Helpless                     0


help of United Nations-sanctioned genocidal sanctions. It can bypass
the United Nations if it is not willing to go to war and occupation of
Iraq from the invisible genocide. It can invade and occupy sovereign
states, killing more than 100,000 people without any fear of account-
ability. It can flatten town after town, like Fallujah, and make them in-
habitable. It can establish more and more concentration camps, such as
Guantanamo Bay.
   However, there is one little thing that the United States cannot do.
It cannot stay in Muslim lands forever. It cannot deny Muslims their
right to self-determination and self-rule forever. These limitations are
what breaks the U.S. backbone, because the question arises: For how
long can the United States carry on the intensified barbarism that the
world has witnessed for the past three years? Human rights abuses,
death, and destruction have become prerequisites for its stay.
   Some analyst might argue that the United States does not intend to
stay in occupied lands forever. In response, the world has an argument
and a question. The argument is: No one can trust these words when
all that the U.S. administration and its media could parade as solid
grounds for invasion were lies. The question is: Do these analysts and
Islamophobes hope that one day the United States will succeed in put-
ting one Hamid Karzai, the puppet president of Afghanistan, in power
in each Muslim country and that the people in those countries will
submit to the will of the United States?
   The New York Times and its “intellectual” warlords like Friedman
would respond, “No way. We are doing all this for freedom and de-
mocracy, not to impose our will.” Such words, however, have lost their
credibility. If there can ever be a demonstration of extreme wishful
thinking, it is in the words that we hear from “intellectual” terrorists
on behalf of the United States.
   Benevolent intentions are often used as fig leaf for barbarism. The
most unsuccessful of such attempts were the highlighted words in the
op-ed pages of the New York Times, such as: “Iraq is a war between
people who are trying to organize an election and the virulent nihilistic
minority that wants to prevent it.”222
   The United States cannot prove that it is only a “nihilistic minor-
ity” which is opposed to the kind of governments it is imposing on the
Muslim world. This is the stage in the U.S. war for its survival as an
empire where its lies start haunting it and leading it to taking desperate
0                          After Fascism


action. These actions will lead it to its ultimate destination: the grave-
yard of empires. The deceptions and lies are hurting the United States
itself and making its occupations and future of global domination the
most vulnerable. The United States can never fool the world forever.
The disability to continuously deceive friends and foes alike is what
shows why the United States cannot stay where it was not supposed to
be in the first place.
   Looking back at the history of colonialism, most Muslim lands were
occupied in the name of teaching “little brown brother” some civility.
Even when the colonialists had to withdraw, they never stopped inter-
fering in Muslim countries, in particular to keep those in power who
could serve their former master better than others.
   The legacy of interference continues until this day, when the Unit-
ed States once more decided to start imposing its will and way of life
through the barrel of a gun. Ignoring the straightforward lesson of for-
mer colonialist adventures—that you cannot stay forever in someone
else’s home—the warlords propose more troops for more killing and
destruction. This has been a consistent demand.
   The front page of the New York Times tries to speak on behalf of
all Americans. “Fighting is the only option, Americans say.”223 It world
affair columnist, Friedman, makes the world believe that the only prob-
lem in Iraq today is that a tiny minority does not want the planned
elections, ignoring that those who want to rule in order to gain access
to oil money would never put their lives at stake.
   Besides saying what their leaders want them to say, the “intellec-
tual” war lords are keeping U.S. leaders blind to the reality with their
readily apparent arrogant conclusions. Friedman writes: “As the Johns
Hopkins foreign policy expert Michael Mandelbaum so rightly pointed
out to me, ‘These so-called insurgents in Iraq are the real fascists, the
real colonialists, the real imperialists of our age.’ They are a tiny minor-
ity who want to rule Iraq by force and rip off its oil wealth for them-
selves. It’s time we called them by their real names.” This shows, one of
the warlords on the media front “rightly pointed out” to the other and
in their little understanding it became a universal truth of high impor-
tance. Is this what the world should accept? If so, this is the height of
wishful thinking.
   Let Mr. Friedman and other warlords keep making the policy mak-
ers and planners in Washington believe that the “insurgents” are not
                     The United States Is Helpless                     0


people whose relatives have been starved to death over the last 14 years
under the auspices of the United Nations, which serves as a tool that
the modern day fascists use to legitimize genocides and wars. Let them
think that the insurgents are not those who have lost their relatives to
“shock and awe” adventures, whose homes have been flattened by the
liberators; and whose relatives have been dragged on a leash and abused
to death in Abu Ghraib. Let the “intellectual” terrorists make the es-
tablishment in Washington believe the contrary, so that they will send
more troops to fight more wars because in their view there is a minor-
ity in Iraq that wants oil money and wants to rule Iraq.
   It is very logical that that those who want money and power do not
strap bombs to their bodies in urgency to leave this world. People for
money or power are like Chalabi and Allawi or those in the Iraqi secu-
rity forces trained by the US whom even Bush complained to not stand
the heat and run away when the going gets tough. It is simple: Those
who run away are for dollars. Those who resist and die are for some-
thing else. What the United States and its nihilists in power cannot do
is fool the world forever. What they can do at best is to fool themselves
with the false belief that they can control destiny of 1.6 billion people.
   The lesson of history is pretty simple and straightforward: The Unit-
ed States has to withdraw. It has no option but to end all its direct and
indirect occupations. It also has to end sponsoring other occupations.
The rest of its allies have to end interference in the affairs of the Mus-
lim world. They have to leave Muslims alone.
   Giving Muslims an opportunity to self-rule, without outside inter-
ference, is the answer. It is for Muslims to decide among themselves as
to how they want to live their lives without U.S.-supported dictators,
Kings, Sheikhs, and a new breed of democratic puppets like Karzai.
   The more the United States plans and acts to deny Muslims living
by Islam, the more it sows the seeds for its inevitable demise. Appar-
ently, it seems that even if the United States left, people in Muslim
countries would not choose to live by Islam. Many doubt that more
than a minority would. When taken on the face value, the prevailing
circumstances give the same impression. Nevertheless, the explanation
given in Part Two of this book shows that the Islamic movements are
looking forward not only to deliver Muslim masses from continued co-
lonialism, but also to erase the impact of centuries’ old misconceptions
and confusion ingrained in their minds. The apparently helpless situa-
0                          After Fascism


tion is not something new. Islam did not come to this world 1400 years
ago. It has been the religion of all prophets, including Adam, Abraham,
Moses, and Jesus. Many powers before the United States considered
their demise no more than a joke. It is not so strange to find the Unit-
ed States blind to what it can and what it can never do. It can wage
wars and annihilate the whole world. However it cannot deny a people
their right to live their lives the way they like.
   Trying to do what it can never do is pushing America into a quag-
mire where it will become irrelevant very soon. Michael Vlahos a senior
staff member of the National Security Assessment team of the National
Security Analysis Department (NSAD) at the Johns Hopkins Univer-
sity, concludes that in this war “the United States’ ideas—and the U.S.
story of this war—have no authority…Indeed in the past year Muslim
support that was fairly widespread in the wake of 9/11 has evaporated.
Attitudes toward the United States across the world of Islam are highly
negative and continue to harden. Furthermore, the various ‘ideas’ and
stories from the other side—the enemy—are sympathetically transmit-
ted and disseminated, not merely by enemy ‘public affairs,’ but by the
mainstream Muslim media itself.”224
   Unlike the technological superiority in the military war, the Ameri-
can fascists are miserably failing in the “war of ideas”, because every-
thing they present as an “idea” becomes evidence of their malicious
intentions. In the wake of widely exposed lies, double standards of de-
mocracy, human rights, freedom, and liberation, the U.S. message, con-
taining the much-vaunted “ideas,” is left with no authority at all. With-
out winning hearts, the United States can never sustain its domination.
This dilemma is, of course, precisely what happened in Vietnam.
   See how the fascists in Washington lead the United States into ex-
actly the opposite of what they propose.
    •	 The world has witnessed worldwide attitudes turning sharply
        against the United States since 9/11. It is particularly true about
        the Muslim world where the United States intensified it domi-
        nation under the slogan of wining Muslim hearts and minds.
        These attitudes have gelled into an Ummah-wide worldview
        whose stand against American hypocrisy and injustice is now a
        symbol of Muslim identity and the Muslim future. The reason
        is that the masses see how new dictators are elevated in the pro-
        cess and how innocent Muslims have been victimized one way
                     The United States Is Helpless                    0


        or the other. A shared vision of the United States and the UK
        as the symbols of tyranny and injustice have become a passion-
        ate rallying point for the collective Muslim purpose.
    •	 Hate crimes against Muslims—a result of the corporate media’s
        mission to stonify the Western mind to understanding Mus-
        lims and Islam—and government’s excesses (such as under those
        committed in the garb of anti-terror laws and racial profiling)
        have become yet another call to struggle for survival and to pre-
        serve Islamic identity.
    •	 The United States is doing its best to support the most hat-
        ed dictators in the Muslim world, but fails to invest in the
        emerging center of gravity within Islam. Musharraf, Mubarak,
        Karimov, Karzai, etc. are almost history—the old-line U.S. es-
        tablishments and discredited neo-conservatives inspire no one,
        not even if their articles are prominently published in the U.S.
        corporate newspapers. The dynamic center is among those re-
        jected as Islamists, who represent a growing movement across
        the Muslim world. Their vision is not distinctly understood by
        the U.S. warlords’ misinformation campaign, which tends to
        lump all Muslims with a different worldview together as radi-
        cals. By not seriously understanding Islam, and by understand-
        ing benighted opportunism on the part of some of the self-pro-
        claimed moderates it supports, the United States is losing any
        chance of good relations the Muslim lands in the future. It is
        merely establishing an ever-stronger vision of the United States
        as the enemy of Islam.
   In the process, the Islamophobes are hardening the local mindset
against Islam to the extent that it becomes hard for younger genera-
tions to deconstruct the mental architecture. This mindset immediately
turns the message of Islam and every act of Muslims into yet another
daily motivational element in the narrative of American struggle against
Islamic terrorism.
   On the other hand, the Islamic movement is gaining momentum
without any grand communication and information strategy—thanks
to the “war of ideas” and “war on terror.” The U.S. warlords’ feet of
clay are now fully exposed, and their words and deeds testify against
them.
                                 ~*~*~*~
0                           After Fascism


On the Way to a Greater Israel


E
rael.
      arlier fascists paved the way for the creation of a Zionist state. The
      modern day fascists are facilitating the emergence of a Greater Is-

   Now that the Bush administration has no plans to end the Iraqi oc-
cupation, the fear of the region heading to a greater war is fast turn-
ing into reality. Plans are under consideration for a “regime change” in
Iran under the pretext of restricting Iran from acquiring nuclear weap-
ons. Imagine the human cost if the United States bombs most of the
country in the first go and the bloodletting that would follow. There
are also rumors of an attack with nuclear weapons.
   Imagine the aftermath of bombing Iran. Surrounded and squeezed by
the United States and its Allies on all sides, frustrated Arab populations
would turn on their aging, sell-out rulers in Jordan, Egypt, Yemen, Qa-
tar, Saudi Arabia, and elsewhere. Oppressive regimes in the Muslim
world would succumb to public demand, and the United States would
expands its bloody occupation to other Arab states as it finds another
ruse—this time to halt Islamic fundamentalism from taking power in
the neighborhood.
   The Palestinian Intifada would take a violent turn after Israel’s re-
newed zest to not only re-occupy Arab land, but also to go out and
settle scores with Syria and Iran for their terrorist ties with Hezbollah
in Lebanon and Hamas and Islamic Jihad in the Palestinian territories.
The U.S. support would intensify the conflict.
   The United States’ occupation of Afghanistan and Iraq, and thus
the bombing of Iran, would give way to a widespread “Greater War” in
the Middle East in the name of paving the way for “peace” there. Ulti-
mately, peace would break out with the leftover terrorized and pacified
Arabs, and trade would blossom, with Israel occupying almost all of the
Middle East and its tourists spending millions in Baghdad, Damascus,
Tehran, and Beirut. But before this happens, millions of Arabs will
have faced death, destruction, and extermination—a fate worse than
the Jews faced at the hands of Hitler—another face of the impending
Muslim holocaust.
   Sounds absurd? No more so, perhaps, than the notion that in the
darkest hours of World War II, a post-World War II Middle East
could underpin a Jewish State on Arab land.
                       On the Way to Greater Israel                       0


   Interestingly, it may not be the sort of vision the White House has
in mind as it contemplates its next move in the Middle East. George
Bush speaks of a very different future for the region with a “democrat-
ic” Afghanistan, Palestine and Iraq “inspiring reforms throughout the
Muslim world.”225 Political and economic liberty, he doesn’t know, can
never triumph under occupations.
   It is wrong to assume that an occupied Iraqi government heavily de-
pendent on U.S. economic and military assistance would have an enor-
mous incentive to make peace with Israel as did Egypt in 1979 and Jor-
dan in 1994. What the American leaders must not ignore is that Israel
did not secretly play a key role in the U.S. preparations for a war with
Iraq for nothing. John Diamond reported in USA Today (November
04, 2002) that Israel was “quietly helping the United States prepare for
a war with Iraq.” The website, no war for Israel dot com, provides a huge
amount of information about the Israeli motivation for pushing the
United States into invading and occupying Iraq.
   Israeli activities were not designed to help shorten a U.S.-led war
with Iraq or reduce the risk of attack in Israel during the conflict. Isra-
el’s involvement was directed from the beginning toward its goal of es-
tablishing Greater Israel. Israel, by itself, however, is not able to achieve
this objective. The United States is there to facilitate realization of the
Zionist dream.
   At the moment, both the United States and Israel—self-deluded
into the most-superior-states syndrome—are set to surpass all previous
records of bloodletting in human history. They have set a stage. They
have acquired all the required resources. They have turned the United
Nations into more irrelevancy than its predecessor, the League of Na-
tions. And they have made the rest of the world more helpless before
their outlaw behavior than it was before Hitler in the late 1930s. Yet
the world lives with a hope that things will change for the better.
   Things are not going to change for the better. No one can stop the
upcoming bloodshed in the Middle East because no one is ready to act
for the better. The so-called world leaders know, the United Nations
knows, and people all over the world smell the unfolding bloody ad-
ventures in the Middle East. But the seeming helplessness on all sides is
making the upcoming bloodshed inevitable.
   There are three well-known and basic causes that will make unprec-
edented bloodshed in the Middle East inevitable.
0                          After Fascism


      1. The first cause is the incompetent United Nations, where the
         unjust distribution of power in the Security Council and the
         meaninglessness of the General Assembly have crippled this
         seemingly all-powerful organization. The world lived with this
         injustice and the monopoly of a few since its inception. How-
         ever, all consequences came home to roost at the end of the
         Cold War and the beginning of the untold dream of Ameri-
         can fascists. The world kept watching the resultant “shock and
         awe” when the United States went around the United Nations
         to invade and occupy Iraq. The whole world will helplessly
         watch as the fascists start bombing Iran or invade Syria, and
         the Israeli terrorist machine churns into top gear. What limits
         can be imposed when the Security Council is not even able to
         condemn Israel for attacking sovereign member states due to
         the fear of a U.S. veto. Realizing that the United Nations is
         not founded on the principles of justice and knowing that it is
         not in a position to dispense justice, countless suggestions are
         floating for democratizing the United Nations Security Coun-
         cil, for giving veto power to more countries, for abolishing the
         veto power altogether, for giving veto power to a representative
         country of the Muslim world, etc. However, no one seems to
         be in a position to transform the United Nations into a body
         that could provide real justice to suffering humanity anywhere
         in the world. Getting along with an unjust system and the in-
         ability to bring a meaningful change to the United Nations is
         one of the primary causes of the coming conflict.
      2. Everyone admits that Israel is not supposed to occupy Arab
         lands and continue to subjugate a people with force indefinite-
         ly. Everyone admits that the United States need not sponsor
         oppression, subjugation and terrorism by the Israeli state. But
         the world, which was quick enough to end Iraqi occupation of
         Kuwait, does not have the will or a way to relieve thousands
         upon thousands of the Palestinians from Israeli oppression.
         Instead, they are one in punishing the Palestinians for electing
         Hamas to power. The daily Israeli shelling and bombing and
         killing of Palestinians does not count. Yet it is Hamas that has
         to submit to a long list of demands before the occupiers will
         be ready to move forward. The so-obvious helplessness of the
                      On the Way to Greater Israel                      0


        whole world before the U.S.-Israeli aggression and continued
        terrorism is the second direct factor that will hasten the com-
        ing bloodshed.
    3. Muslims’ inability to change their status from divided sitting
        ducks to a united bloc for defending their rights or, at least,
        making an effective demand for real independence, justice, and
        equality. It is beyond all logic that only they are at fault in ev-
        ery case whether it is Palestine or Chechnya, Kashmir, Bosnia,
        Iraq, Afghanistan, Iran, Syria, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Sudan,
        or any other place and issue where Muslims are involved. From
        Samuel Huntington’s claim that Islam has bloody frontiers to
        Irshad Manji’s “The Trouble with Islam” there are countless ex-
        amples which show that Muslims and Islam are singled out for
        all problems and Muslims at their best are only reactive.
  Besides the above-mentioned major factors, the building blocks to
the coming Greater War in the Middle East are as follows:
   •	 The world, including the United Nations, has left the resolu-
       tion of the issue of Israeli occupation only to the aggressor (Is-
       rael) and its sponsor (the United States), who will never come
       up with a just solution. The so-called international community
       and international will become meaningless when it comes to
       the issue of Israeli aggression and occupation. Possibilities of
       conflict-escalation are wide open, whereas there is no solution
       at all after Israel’s rejection to vacate the occupied Arab lands.
       Since the first U.S. war on Iraq, the peace process over the last
       16 years has been nothing but a process of fooling the world.
       When Bush Senior could draw a line in the sand for Iraq to end
       Kuwait’s occupation, why can’t anyone draw a similar line for
       Israel? Instead, Bush tells us that Israel has the right to “defend”
       itself—even if it means conquering and occupying all of Pales-
       tine and driving the original inhabitants into Jordan. Daniel
       Pipes argues that the solution lies in making the Arabs under-
       stand that they have been effectively defeated: “Ironically, Israeli
       success in crushing the Palestinian Arab war morale would be the
       best thing that ever happened to the Palestinian Arabs. It would
       mean their finally giving up their foul dream of eliminating their
       neighbor and would offer a chance instead to focus on their own
       polity, economy, society, and culture. To become a normal people,
0                             After Fascism


         one whose parents do not encourage their children to become sui-
         cide terrorists, Palestinian Arabs need to undergo the crucible of
         defeat.”226 Thus, the conflict will definitely escalate to uncontrol-
         lable levels.
      •	 Three of Netanyahu’s advisors—Richard Perle, Douglas Feith,
         and David Wurmser—occupy top spots in the foreign policy
         councils of the Bush administration, where their fulsome sup-
         port for the Iraq war helped implement the first part of the plan
         for Greater Israel. The first part, the occupation of Iraq, is part
         of the final strategy for total Israeli occupation of the Middle
         East. This plan was chalked out in a 1996 paper prepared for
         then Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu by a working group
         consisting of several individuals who are now in top spots in the
         Bush administration. “A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Se-
         curing the Realm”227—co-authored by Richard Perle, James Col-
         bert, Charles Fairbanks, Jr., Douglas Feith, Robert Loewenberg,
         David Wurmser, and Meyrav Wurmser—portrayed Syria as the
         main enemy of Israel, but maintained that the road to Damascus
         had first to pass through Baghdad: “Israel can shape its strategic
         environment, in cooperation with Turkey and Jordan, by weaken-
         ing, containing, and even rolling back Syria. This effort can focus
         on removing Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq—an important
         Israeli strategic objective in its own right—as a means of foiling
         Syria’s regional ambitions. Jordan has challenged Syria’s regional
         ambitions recently by suggesting the restoration of the Hashemites
         in Iraq.” “A Clean Break” also proposed the plan: “Since Iraq’s
         future could affect the strategic balance in the Middle East pro-
         foundly, it would be understandable that Israel has an interest in
         supporting the Hashemites in their efforts to redefine Iraq.”228
         Let’s hand our Palestinian problem over to the Hashemites, say
         radical Likud hard-liners and their American supporters. There
         is no such people as the Palestinians.229 Anyway, as Joan Peters
         and Alan Dershowitz230 aver: They are really just Jordanians. A
         Hashemite restoration in Iraq231 is considered one of the steps
         towards paving the way for the creation of a Greater Israel.232
      •	 Israel requested the United States numerous times to attack
         Syria and Iran.233 However, the Americans were deterred from
         launching future wars due to the unpleasant political234 and
                   On the Way to Greater Israel                     


   military consequences, changing public opinion for “no wars
   in ‘04.”235 Instead, there was news of secret peace talks between
   Washington and Tehran.236 Therefore, the Israelis resorted to
   playing their trump card by attacking Syria. At the same time,
   Bush told the aggressor that it had the right to defend itself.237
•	 The world was silent as the U.S. Congress slapped economic
   sanctions on Syria for allegedly sponsoring terrorists, seeking
   Weapons of Mass Destruction and occupying Lebanon, just
   three days after the Israeli attack on Syria, clearly ignoring Is-
   raeli Weapons of Mass Destruction, endless occupation, and
   state terrorism. Just two days before the Israeli attack on Syria,
   the Bush administration gave Congress the go-ahead to approve
   new U.S. penalties against the Damascus regime.238
•	 Israel built up its military presence along its borders with Leba-
   non and Syria, and the United States continued to increase pres-
   sure against Syria since the beginning of its war on Iraq, initially
   accusing it of supporting the Iraqi army (along with Iran), and
   then, after the fall of Baghdad, of providing support to the Iraqi
   resistance. As a result, Washington has made repeated threats
   against Damascus with the aim of compelling it to respond fa-
   vorably to its demands and change its attitude. Washington is
   not sitting quietly. It has used different pretexts from the pres-
   ence in Syria of Palestinian organizations to the Syrian backing
   of the Hizbullah attacks on Israel to Syria’s sheltering of ele-
   ments supportive of Saddam Hussein to Syria’s possible acquisi-
   tion of Weapons of Mass Destruction. These reasons were given
   in order to keep all options open in case the time became ripe
   for invasion and occupation.
•	 The institutionalization of fascism is evidenced by the fact that
   a Congress starves Palestinians and showers Israel with bil-
   lions of dollars annually, having passed the Syria Accountability
   and Lebanese Sovereignty Restoration Act of 2003. It gave the
   United States president authority to impose sanctions and vari-
   ous restrictions against Syria. Washington then moved to gain
   the involvement of the EU, requesting that it postpone its part-
   nership agreement with Syria until Damascus was able to dem-
   onstrate a real commitment to political reform. This request led
   to the inclusion of the issue of Weapons of Mass Destruction
                            After Fascism


         in EU-Syrian talks and the linking of the matter to the partner-
         ship agreement deal. Washington then turned to Syria’s mili-
         tary presence in Lebanon as another means to escalate pressure,
         without ruling out the military option, just as it had done with
         Iraq. It successfully mobilized French support for the interna-
         tionalization of the issue of Syria’s presence in Lebanon. The
         result was Security Council resolution 1559 for the withdrawal
         of Syrian forces and a free and fair presidential election in Leba-
         non.
      •	 Matters were further complicated by the killing of former Leba-
         nese Prime Minister Rafiq Al-Hariri, for which Syria was held
         responsible from day one. The United Nations set up an inqui-
         ry. Under pressure from the United States, France, and Britain,
         the United Nations issued resolution No 1636, on October 31,
         2005, demanding full Syrian cooperation into the investigation,
         and charged the commission with assessing the level of coopera-
         tion. According to Chapter 7 of the Charter of the United Na-
         tions, the Security Council is authorized to impose sanctions
         against Syria should it refuse to cooperate. The commission,
         which failed to reach a conclusion by the end of its original six-
         month term in December 2005, was given an extension to June
         15, 2006, and is now headed by Serge Brammertz, the deputy
         prosecutor of the International Criminal Court in The Hague.
         So Syria is not off the hook and is as vulnerable to American
         and Israeli aggression as is Iran.
      •	 Iran is not out of trouble. Soon after the outbreak of regional
         violence, Iran will definitely become the target of U.S.-Israeli ag-
         gression. The initial report of U.S.-Israeli plans for aggression in
         2003239 have turned to reports about possible nuclear attacks on
         Iran in 2006.240
      •	 Despite Israel’s refusal to approve the Nuclear Non-Prolifera-
         tion Treaty, the United States and the Security Council do not
         consider Israel an “imminent danger” and the world has no
         means to address this problem. This is the case in spite of strong
         speculations that Israel owns up to 300 nuclear warheads and
         the Arab League asserts to the IAEA that Israel now has the ca-
         pability of producing a hydrogen bomb.
      • The United States and its president are totally helpless before
                 The Greater Israel: An Inevitable Fate                 


       the Christian extremists who put Israel’s interest first as a stra-
       tegic step towards establishing the dominion of God. Their
       torchbearers, such as Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell,241 believe
       Israeli hegemony in the Middle East represents the fulfillment
       of Biblical prophecy about the coming of Jesus. A prophecy, in
       their view, can be self-fulfilling: it is, however, their Christian
       duty to expedite it.242 These themes are the ever-increasing force
       behind conservative support for Bush’s war policy and the new
       efforts to spread the conflict to Syria, Iran, and beyond.
   Keeping these realities in mind, it is hardly logical to deny—unless
these trends and initiatives are effectively reversed—that an escalation
of conflict and unprecedented bloodshed is imminent, and realization
of the dream of a Greater Israel is now set to take place within a matter
of years, not decades. Even if it moves beyond a decade for some un-
predictable reason, Greater Israel is an inevitable fate the world has to
face due to its inability to cope with the incompetence of the United
Nations, the lack of international will to deal with the Israeli occupa-
tion even a fraction as firmly as it dealt with Saddam Hussein’s occupa-
tion or Iraq, and the lack of Muslims’ ability to unite dispel the myths
about Muslims and Islam.
                                 ~*~*~*~

Greater Israel: An Inevitable Fate


N     o one could imagine something worse than Nazism after the fall
      of Germany in the 1940s. Well, we are facing democratic fas-
cism with the United States and its allies engaged in committing worse
crimes for a longer duration than the Nazis. The absence of the gas
chambers must not deceive us from taking a hard look at U.S. forces
showering civilian populations with White Phosphorus and noting the
existence of an unknown number of concentration camps around the
world. The use of Depleted Uranium is worse than anything else previ-
ous. Many have started to wonder if there will ever be a fascist World–
Ruling State that engages in more crimes against humanity than the
United States does under the influence of Zionists and neo-cons.
   The answer is yes. It will be Greater Israel that will replace the Unit-
ed States as a Ruling State and, in the process, cross all limits of crimes
against humanity that human beings could ever imagine.
                          After Fascism


   The next question that comes to mind is: How will it happen? The
answer is not difficult, provided the global, regional, and local affairs
are considered in a holistic manner in the context of related histori-
cal facts. For example, those who were able to think outside the box
came to consider the events of 9/11 as a replica of the Reichstag Fire,
when the German Parliament Building (the Reichstag) was burnt down
on February 27, 1933. The actual fire was started by a Dutch person.
Hitler then used it as an excuse to crack down on perceived enemies
within the German state.
   9/11 was not staged solely for total internal control. Although the
administration dominated by neo-cons has taken full advantage of the
event toward this end, a deep analysis, nevertheless, reveals that the
game plan for 9/11 was far deeper and more sinister than that for the
Reichstag Fire. To understand, we will have to go a little deeper into
history.
   Like the 9/11 terrorist act and the subsequent declaration of war
and occupation of two Muslim countries, an act of terrorism in the
summer of 1914 in the city of Sarajevo led Austria-Hungary to declare
war on Russia. The terrorist act then was the assassination of the Arch
Duke Franz Ferdinand of Austria-Hungary. The perpetrator was a Serb.
However, the footprints led to Russia. Whoever planned the assassina-
tion wanted Austria-Hungary to declare war on Serbia, which was indi-
rectly no less than a war on Russia. 9/11 is a simple, classic replication
of this game plan.
   Just like the real objective of the perpetrators of 9/11, the motives
behind the assassination of Franz Ferdinand were difficult for a com-
mon man to understand. Apparently, the extreme Serb nationalists re-
garded Franz Ferdinand with fear because he advocated concessions to
the South Slav minority within Austro-Hungary.
   Like Osama’s discontent with U.S. policies and subsequent decla-
ration of military Jihad against the United States, the Black Hand (a
Serbian secret society headed by ‘Apis’, a shadowy figure who was also
chief of the Serbian military intelligence) felt that the concessions sug-
gested by Franz might detract from Serbia’s position as a rallying point
for South Slav discontent and as the nucleus of a future South Slav
state.
   Thus, just as the blame for 9/11 was pinned on Al-Qaeda within
minutes of the 9/11 attack, the Black Hand became the natural, undis-
                 The Greater Israel: An Inevitable Fate                


puted culprit. The perpetrators behind Franz’s assassination knew full
well that the crime could not go unchallenged if Austria-Hungary was
to continue as a great power. Serbia was the protégé of Russia, and no
one could rule out Russia’s coming forward in defense of Serbia. Again,
this scenario fits well with the plans of the culprits of 9/11. The U.S.
reaction was inevitable, and with the license it got, more wars and more
occupations could be justified. The U.S. occupation of Afghanistan is
still considered perfectly legitimate by a majority of people.
   So, the real objective behind 9/11 was not the destruction of the
World Trade Center and the Pentagon. The real objective of some
of the culprits was to initiate the process that would lead to the col-
lapse of the United States and the elimination of every power base and
any hope of unity in the Muslim world. The book, From BCCI to ISI:
The saga of Entrapment Continues, explains how the evidence leads to
Pakistan’s ISI, Israel’s Mossad and the United States CIA are the main
forces behind the 9/11 operation. It is not that all the three culprits,
sat and planned the operation, with everyone knowing each other’s role
and everyone working towards a specific objective. ISI, for example,
played a minor role of transferring money to the lead hijackers (pawns
in the whole operation) for framing up Arabs in Afghanistan. Mossad
and CIA had their own plans and objective and most probably worked
in total isolation. So one of the core objective from the Mossad per-
spective was to use the United States for weakening the Muslim world
through wars and occupations.
   Look at this in the light of the events of the early twentieth century.
The real target of Franz’s assassination in 1914 was not Russia, but the
ally of Russia: Great Britain—then the world’s United States in terms
of the power it held. The Ottoman Islamic State was the other target.
It had to be destroyed and Britain had to do the job during the process
of losing its status as the world’s Ruling State. The world’s leading his-
torian Eric J. Hobsbawm agrees.243 Hobsbawm believes that the differ-
ences between the American empire and the British Empire are notable
for the reason that America is an empire destined for failure and caus-
ing disorder, barbarism, and chaos rather than promoting peace and or-
der.244
   A deeper look reveals that both early twentieth and early twenty-first
century circumstances have been planned and exploited in such a way
that one leads to the creation of Israel and the other to the consolida-
                          After Fascism


tion and expansion of it. Great Britain was exploited in a way to make
it act in self-destructive manner. The same is happening with the Unit-
ed States.
   It was obvious that like with Austria-Hungary, the attack on the
United States could not go unchallenged if it was to continue as a
great power. This lead to the acts of self-destruction on the part of the
United States. As a result of its actions against Muslim countries, not
only will the Muslim power and hopes of a united approach to world
affairs diminish considerably, but the wars will also drain and alienate
the United States completely in the process. This will pave the way for
another power to replace it as a Ruling State.
   The game plan today is pretty straightforward compared to what was
planned in the early twentieth century. When Austria-Hungary de-
clared war on Russia, Britain and France promptly entered the war in
support of Russia, and Germany responded by entering the war in sup-
port of Austria-Hungary. Political leaders and the corporate media de-
clared the United States under attack on 9/11 without mentioning any
state actor, organized army or a government. The enemy was illusive.
Plans of attack were chalked out not only for invading and occupying
Afghanistan but 60 other countries (BBC, September 16, 2001). Allies
promised full support. NATO passed a resolution of support. Afghani-
stan was attacked and occupied despite the fact that five years down the
road, FBI says it has no hard evidence to link Osama to 9/11 attacks.
The U.S. administration tried to link Saddam Hussain to 9/11 and
three years after the occupation the U.S. Congress sent a message to
the world on June 16, 2006 that the U.S. forces will remain in Iraq be-
cause it is a war on terrorism. The bleeding U.S. is further being pushed
into a war with Iran. That is how the game plan gradually unfolds and
seeps the empire of its credibility and power.

   The way the UK lost it: The plan behind the assassination of Arch
Duke Franz was to weaken the British economy through war—that
Britain would eventually lose its status as the Ruling State in the world
and would be replaced by another State.
   The perpetrators of the act of terrorism were so devilishly cunning
that they were able to simultaneously attack the Ottoman not-so-Is-
lamic state. That State was not Islamic in its true sense, but it still con-
stituted a formidable obstacle to the “liberation” of the Holy Land, the
                 The Greater Israel: An Inevitable Fate              


return of the Jews to the Holy Land, and the restoration of the State of
Israel.
   The best possible way of removing that obstacle was war. And so the
Ottoman Empire was forced, by way of skillful internal intrigue, to en-
ter the war in support of Germany. Britain was then eventually used for
attacking and destroying not only the Ottoman’s not-so-Islamic State,
but also, most importantly, the hopes of reforming and establishing the
real Islamic Caliphate.
   And so 1916 changed the course of the war and eventually delivered
victory to the United States, Britain, and the Zionists. Not only was
Germany defeated, but also, more importantly, the Ottoman Empire
was effectively dismembered, and in its place emerged the secular State
of Turkey, touted as a model for the rest of the Muslim world.
   Indeed, the secular leadership of Turkey promptly negotiated an of-
fensive and defensive alliance with the same Britain that had played the
leading role in the dismemberment of the Ottoman Empire. But Brit-
ain was so devastated by the war that the United States replaced Brit-
ain as the Ruling State in the world.
   The United States taking the reins as the Ruling State was confirmed
during the period between the two world wars and then after the Sec-
ond World War. For example, during the Second World War it was
an American General, Dwight Eisenhower, who led the allied troops.
Then, in 1944, the Bretton Woods Conference on the establishment of
a new international monetary system delivered a convincing statement
on Britain’s new diminished status, when it selected the U.S. dollar as
the new international currency replacing the pound sterling.
   The International Monetary Fund and the World Bank replaced the
Bank of England as the premier financial institution in the world. And
Washington replaced London as the financial capital, and thus began
controlling the global economy. After the war, it was the United States
that had to rebuild the British and European economies through the
Marshall Plan. In the 1956 Suez crisis and again in the Cuban missile
crisis of 1961, the United States convincingly demonstrated its new
status as the Ruling State of the world.

  The way the United States is losing it: The United States is as much
obsessed with the Holy Land as Britain was as the Ruling State of the
world (e.g., the Balfour Declaration). The British people were them-
                          After Fascism


selves incapable of explaining this strange obsession. So, too, the Amer-
icans are totally incapable of explaining the administration’s strange
obsession with Israel. The United States was the first State in the world
to recognize the new State of Israel when it declared its independence
in 1948, and it is the last standing by Israel in defense of all its crimes
and its defiance of all international laws and norms of decency.
   Just like in the present American thinking, in the British strategic
thinking, the Zionists appeared as a potential ally capable of safeguard-
ing British imperial interests in the region. Furthermore, as British war
prospects dimmed throughout 1917, the War Cabinet calculated that
supporting a Jewish entity in Palestine would mobilize America’s influ-
ential Jewish community to support U.S. intervention in the war and
sway the large number of Jewish Bolsheviks who participated in the
1917 Bolshevik Revolution to keep Russia in the war.
   Presently, the situation is totally different from the times when the
United States was using Israel as a cop in the region, particularly dur-
ing the cold war era when Egypt, Syria, Iraq, and others fell into the
lap of the Soviet Union. The situation at the time of the British obses-
sion with Zionists was very different. Fears were voiced in the Foreign
Office that if Britain did not come out in favor of a Jewish entity into
Palestine, then the Germans would preempt them. Finally, both Lloyd
George and Balfour, the twentieth century British neo-cons, attached
great religious significance to the proposed reinstatement of the Jews in
their ancient homeland. According to the pro-Zionist accounts, “Lloyd
George, Smuts, and Balfour comprise but a sampling of the many
Christian Zionists in British circles who were motivated by biblical
concerns.”245 A secular historian concludes, “Biblical prophecy was the
first and most enduring of the many motives that led Britons to want
to restore the Jews to Zion.”246
   The negotiations for a Jewish entity were carried out by Chaim
Weizmann, who greatly impressed Balfour and maintained important
links with the British media. In support of the Zionist cause, his pro-
tracted and skillful negotiations with the Foreign Office climaxed on
November 2, 1917, by the letter from the foreign secretary to Lord
Rothschild that became known as the Balfour Declaration. This docu-
ment declared the British government’s “sympathy with Jewish Zionist
aspirations,” viewed with favor “the establishment in Palestine of a Na-
tional Home for the Jewish People,” and announced intent to facilitate
                 The U.S. Financial Meltdown to Come                  


the achievement of this objective.
   Since 1948, the United States has acted as the chief Patron of Israel
through thick and through thin. The United States has provided Israel
with massive financial and military aid. In fact, the total aid to Israel
almost exceeds the total U.S. aid to the rest of the world. Some of the
U.S. aid has gone to Israel through the U.S. government but a sub-
stantial amount of aid has also gone from the United States to Israel
through Jews who are resident in the United States.
   Insofar as military aid is concerned, some has gone through the front
door and some through the ‘back door’ (the case of Jonathan Pollard
who passed on to Israel U.S. nuclear secrets is the best known). Con-
sequently, Israel became a nuclear and a thermo-nuclear power on par
with other nuclear states in the world.
                                 ~*~*~*~

The U.S. Financial Meltdown to Come


C      oming to the point as to how would Israel pull the rug from un-
       der the feet of its patron in chief: the United States, we observe
that the current monetary system uses ‘paper’ to make ‘money’. That is
a manifest fraud! Artificial money is quite different from real money.
   On July 1, 1944, as part of what became known as the Bretton
Woods Agreement, the American government gave its word to the
American people and to the world that in exchange for $35 U.S. pa-
per dollars, the American government would hand over an ounce of
real gold. That was the promise that gave the American paper dollar its
value. In fact, the vast warehouse of gold stored at Fort Knox came to
be acknowledged and accepted as the tangible proof of that promise.
The world had to trust ever since, that the U.S. government would not
print any more paper money than there was real wealth to redeem the
bills. That is the understanding and the promise upon which the value
of American paper money has been based.247
   However, neither the government (the elite), nor the media (the
elite) saw fit to make it clear to the American people that the real
wealth and value (upon which the American paper money was based),
was systematically being removed!
   As long as a gold coin is made of gold, it can theoretically be taken
to any other country in the world and melted down for the value of
0                         After Fascism


the gold it contains. However, while the U.S. government has exercised
exclusive control over the minting of coins, they have slowly devalued
the currency by minting coins that looked somewhat the same, but
which contained less of the precious metal than they were supposed to.
Now the majority of coins in America have scrap metal value only. The
dimes, for example, are no longer made of silver, the quarters are now
made of sandwiched alloys. In other words, over time, the real value of
coins has been stolen. In case you are wondering, the gold and silver
that used to be in the coins has not disappeared or corroded, it’s weigh-
ing down the Swiss vaults like never before.
   During the Vietnam war, there were over 500,000 military person-
nel who had to be fed, housed, paid, hospitalized and entertained while
they weren’t busy dropping expensive bombs and chemicals on a bare-
foot peasant population. This was indeed a very costly war. But the
American elite simply spent, and spent and spent. Of course, the elite
knew that the American people would have cut off funds for the war
if they had been given an opportunity to do so. Instead, the elite used
the treasury’s printing presses to pay for the Vietnam War. The Ameri-
can government secretly printed as much paper money as it wanted or
needed to carry on the War. Eventually, foreign bankers, who suspected
this might have been going on (i.e. that paper money was being printed
without actually creating the real wealth to redeem it), called America’s
bluff by demanding to redeem their American paper dollars for actual
gold.
   Finally, the United States refused to redeem 35 American paper dol-
lars for an ounce of real gold. The deceit had at last been exposed. Real
money thus has intrinsic value, while paper money has none. Its only
value is that conferred upon it by market forces. Its market value will
last only for as long as, and to the extent that, there is public confi-
dence in it and demand for it in the market.
   Demand is itself based on confidence, and confidence is something
that can be manipulated (as Malaysia’s Prime Minister has now rec-
ognized, and as Indonesia has recognized too late). So long as govern-
ments controlled the so-called free-currency markets, they could in-
tervene to protect public confidence. But the currency market is now
controlled by the most vicious of all speculative forces, forces fuelled
by compelling greed with no loyalties. Anything that seriously disturbs
market confidence will cause the speculative stampede and deflate the
                  The U.S. Financial Meltdown to Come                   


bubbles of the so-considered great economies.
   The collapse of money, in what may best be described as a ‘money
meltdown’, will witness the final success of the Zionists to rule over the
whole world. Those who have real money will survive the meltdown,
while those speculators who successfully exploit the collapse will make
the greatest profits ever. The masses will lose their wealth and be en-
slaved. They will be caught with worthless paper parading as money.
That is the financial holocaust that is certain to occur.
   Many observers are now predicting that financial meltdown.248 Judy
Shelton, for example, uses it as the very title of her excellent book ti-
tled: Money Meltdown: Restoring Order to the Global Currency System
(New York, The Free Press, 1994). We should not forget, nor allow the
world to forget, the dramatic, ominous, and unprecedented collapse of
the U.S. dollar in January 1980 when the value of the dollar relative
to gold fell to approximately $850 for one ounce! (In 1971 it was $35
an ounce. Its present ‘managed’ value is kept within the range of $280
- $380 per once.)249
   This collapse of the dollar took place in the immediate wake of the
successful anti-Western Islamic revolution in Iran that gave control of
the vast oil resources of Iran to an anti-systemic Islamic government. A
similar collapse occurred in 1973 just after the Arab-Israeli war and the
imposition of an Arab oil embargo on the United States. The U.S. dol-
lar fell in value by a massive 400% from U.S. $40 for an ounce of gold
to U.S. $160.
   The collapse of the International Monetary System will occur when
the Zionists consider it opportune to bring down the U.S. dollar. They
can do that at any time since the U.S. dollar made of paper is mani-
festly fraudulent. When the U.S. dollar collapses, it will bring down
all other paper currencies in the world. The major beneficiary of that
collapse will be the State of Israel, since it is those who control banks
who would now control money. Although at the moment, it seems the
country with the best ability to do this is China. Similarly, logically we
can say that if the world economy collapsed, so would Israel’s and if the
United States military collapsed, Israel’s traditional opponents would
launch a mass attack against it. That’s why, Israel’s interest seems to lie
in keeping the United States strong, and involved in the Middle East.
The impending Greater War is bound to engage China in showdown
with the United States. Iraq is already out of the picture in terms of its
                          After Fascism


strength to attack and destroy Israel. Iran, Syria and others are awaiting
the same fate. The U.S. financial meltdown will happen at a time when
Israel will most need it.
   That money-meltdown will, perhaps, take place when Israel launches
its major war against the Arabs and then successfully defies the entire
world. It is not the matter of so few Zionists, it is their will and their
ability to manipulate and plan long-term that counts. History is witness
to the fact that they can successfully do so under the guise of defending
their existence from “promised genocide.” The successful display of mil-
itary and political power together with the new financial control—that
comes with the collapse of paper-money—would deliver to Israel the
status of being the Ruling State in the world. This event will take place
within the next decade or so. Already, Israel has successfully defied the
U.S. President who demanded on several occasions that Israel withdraw
her military forces from Palestinian towns she occupied after a wave of
Palestinian ‘human bombs’ took a heavy toll of Israeli lives.
   An Israel, which is armed to the teeth with an arsenal of nuclear
weapons, seems destined to exploit the Palestinian Intifada, the 9/11
attacks (which created conditions favorable for Israel) and the Iranian
nuclear threat with a war in which Israel will defy the United States,
Europe, the United Nations, and all the rest of the world, to take con-
trol of the entire region.
   That Israeli war is likely to witness the expansion of the territory of
Israel to that promised in the Torah, i.e., from the river of Egypt to
the river Euphrates. With success in that act of defiance of the entire
world, including the United States, and with the predictable collapse of
the U.S. dollar and U.S. economy, Euro-Israel would finally have gradu-
ated from dependency, first on the British and then the United States.
The Euro-Israeli State would finally replace the United States and Brit-
ain as a military and financial super-power of the world.250
   It is up to Americans to think of ways to save the United States of
America from becoming a client state to what they consider is a client
state of America: Israel. Turning a blind eye to Israel’s spying on Amer-
ica;251 selling American military secrets to America’s enemies;252 pirat-
ing America’s technology;253 illegally stockpiling Weapons of Mass De-
struction;254 attacking an American naval vessel in international waters
and standing by and letting Americans be killed255 is one thing. But re-
placing the United States as a Ruling State is totally anther. And most
                     The U.S. Dominance is Doomed                       


importantly, this time around the transition would not be as smooth as
when the United States replaced Britain as the Ruling State in the last
century.
  The replacement of the United States as a Ruling State by Israel is
happening right before the eyes of the Americans. People with vision
and no personal stake are telling the Americans the truth,256 but they
seem as helpless as the British looked during the last days of their wan-
ing fascist empire.
                                 ~*~*~*~

The U.S. Dominance Is Doomed


A     s postulated about the approaching collapse of the United States
      under the rule of fascists and the emergence of Israel as the world
Ruling State, U.S. global dominance is bound to come to an end sooner
than expected. On the question of how, let us remove the Israel factor
and see how the collapse is still inevitable and why it is better for other
nations not to tie themselves to a sinking ship.
   Indeed, the U.S. is the dominant power in the world today. This
power shows itself in the role the U.S. currency plays in the world
economy, the role it has played for over 50 years now, the role of gen-
eral reserve currency. As explained in Part One of this book, this role
of the U.S. currency is under threat. The following analysis expands on
what would result from a removal of this role for the U.S. dollar in or-
der to assess the significance of this threat.
   The U.S. military and political power is linked to the econmic pow-
er. It was at the end of World War I that the United States took over
from Great-Britain as the dominant economic power in the world. In-
terrupted perhaps by the Great Depression, at the end of World War
II the United States had turned into the central hub of the world
economy. Eustace Mullins gives evidence in his book, The Secrets of Fed-
eral Reserve, to prove that the FED knowingly created the Great Depres-
sion for their gain. Part of the reason for the U.S. economic strength-
was that they did not have their infrastructure destroyed by the war.
The bulk of industrial production took place inside the United States,
and, for the western world at least, the United States was the source of
almost all technological progress. So, when after World War II Europe
had to rebuild itself, the only country able to provide what was needed
                          After Fascism


was the United States.
   In this environment, it was only natural for the United States to play
a central role in the world economy, and it made only logical sense for
the U.S. dollar to become central in the organization of international
trade. This last point occurred, of course, because most trade involved
the United States.
   The world is told that in appreciation of this fact under the Bretton
Woods arrangement, the U.S. dollar was made the central currency of
the world. The dollar was linked to gold and all other currencies in the
world were linked to the U.S. dollar. Though justifiable in the light of
economic fundamentals, the reasons for the arrangements established
in Bretton Woods were more influenced by political and strategic con-
siderations as it was by economic factors. This can be easily understood
by looking at the benefits to the U.S. economy directly attributable to
its currency functioning as the world reserve currency:
    	
   1. The combination of this central role of the U.S. dollar arranged
       by Bretton Woods, the state of the U.S. industry versus the Eu-
       ropean economies and the U.S. Marshall-plan, enabled the U.S.
       economy to reap maximum benefit from the reconstruction ef-
       fort in Europe.
    	
   2. Under Bretton Woods, with the value of the U.S. dollar linked
       to gold and the value of the currencies of all other countries
       linked to the U.S. dollar, for a time at least, the United States
       was able to amass large quantities of gold. Under the influence of
       half a century of education to this aim (again), perhaps we have
       grown to forget the ‘value’ of gold in an economic system, but at
       least the rise in the actual value gold in the last few years should
       have served to remind us hereof. With uncertainty on the in-
       crease ever since the start of the U.S. wars of terrorism, investors
       have flocked to gold, recalling that in times of crisis at least gold
       has a actual value, instead of just a paper or generally accepted
       one. Paper money works fine in good times, but as it holds no
       actual value, it is easily brought down in times of economic cri-
       ses. The effects this can have are best demonstrated by Weimar
       Germany, or, more recently, Turkey for instance, where inflation
       resulting from a lack of confidence in a national paper currency
       through the inflation it triggered brought economic collapse. The
       possession of gold therefore can shield one from major economic
                      The U.S. Dominance is Doomed                        


      upheavals, as gold has an actual value, which in times of crises
      usually even tends to increase. So, for as long as it lasted, it’s gold
      reserve resulting from the Bretton Woods arrangement gave the
      United States a major strategic advantage over other countries.
      These days, in increasing circles it is generally accepted that actu-
      ally the OPEC’s decision to price and sell its oil in U.S. dollars
      had nothing to with these economic fundamentals of that time.
      Instead, the decision can be traced back to an agreement between
      the United States and Saudi-Arabia, under which the U.S. prom-
      ised to protect the House of Saud against all home-grown and
      foreign enemies in return for OPEC commitment to the U.S.
      dollar. This move further strengthened the position of the U.S.
      dollar in the world economy.
   	
  3. The U.S. dollar being the world’s reserve currency has facilitat-
      ed continuous significant shortages on the U.S. Trade Account
      over the last 30 years or so. The resulting indebtedness would not
      have been accepted by lending countries from any other borrow-
      er country but the United States. This willingness to lend is for
      a large part due to the fact that, of course, oil and gas, together
      with many other vital minerals, are priced and sold in the U.S.
      dollar. Almost none of the western economies is energy self-suf-
      ficient and therefore are dependent on oil and gas. Dollars are
      needed in order to buy these.
   	
  4. The United States has been able to engage in international trade
      on incredibly favorable terms due to the reserve currency status
      of its dollar. The United States has been able to import from
      abroad, not only settling in its own currency, instead of in the
      currency of the seller country as one would normally expect, but
      also at the best possible prices just because it will pay in U.S. dol-
      lars.
   These strategic concerns that led to the establishment of the system
arranged in Bretton Woods are clearly visible. Even though Bretton
Wood itself is past history by now, it has enabled the United States to
make its currency the central currency of the world, through making it
the unit of exchange for many of the vital minerals. It would be hard to
overestimate the benefit from this, points 3 and 4, and has facilitated
continuous growth of the U.S. economy.
   However, turning to the threats facing the U.S. economy, the size
                           After Fascism


of the U.S. trade deficit—though cover is ensured due to the role of
the U.S. dollar in the world—explains the actual quality of the cur-
rent U.S. economy much better then wealth acquired over years does.
Under the outsourcing trend, next to all industries of significance have
moved away from the United States to other countries. No longer is
the U.S. the ‘factory of the world’, but instead it has become depen-
dent on imports. This makes clear that judging by economic fundamen-
tals, there is no reason why the U.S. dollar should continue to function
as the world’s central currency.
   But what would occur if the U.S. dollar would lose this status is
clear. As shown in Part One of this book, if oil were to be priced and
settled in euros (or yuan?) the oil guzzling United States will have to
transfer its billion dollar a day trade deficit into a multi-billion dollar a
day trade surplus, just to be able to finance its oil imports. This would
be at a time when its favorable position in international trade would be
removed; an impossible task.
   How ironic—globalization, the most successful American export,
has removed the fundamentals behind the U.S. economic power in the
world. This explains the current American foreign policy, particularly
its promoting Islam as a threat. Partly, at least, it is aimed at ensuring
the U.S. dollar remains the currency used in the oil business. The in-
vasion of Iraq has removed the only regime in the world that traded
it’s oil in euros, and has given the United States sufficient leverage to
ensure OPEC continues to price its oil in dollars. Iran (next war?)
Publicly announced considering to trade its oil in euros, as did Russia.
Venezuela, whose president has found himself to be the target for vari-
ous underground CIA operations already, is proposing to barter its oil
in the region and with China, effectively putting aside the U.S. dollar.
Putting the pieces together leads one to think, might this have some-
thing to do with the U.S. hostility against Venezuela?
   So, it is not a question of ‘what is threatening the U.S. economy’.
The U.S. economy has been outsourced to the extent that is has be-
come fully dependent—not a sign of economic dominance, but depen-
dence. The current role of the U.S. dollar in the world economy has
come about, in part at least, to the economic power the United States
once had. It used this might and influence to attain for its own cur-
rency a position in the world carrying great strategic and economical
advantages, as described above. However, this strength is no more, and
                     The U.S. Dominance is Doomed                        


from a strictly economical perspective it would make sense for oil and
gas to be traded in euros. It is fair to say that the reserve currency posi-
tion of the U.S. dollar is what keeps the U.S. economy from collapsing.
What once resulted from her strength is now the only thing that keeps
her standing. The real question, therefore, is not if the U.S. economy
will collapse, but how much longer will the United States be able to
hold off the inevitable collapse?

     On the question of power
     A collapse of the U.S. economy, and thereby a crumbling of its
     global dominance, is only a matter of time. This is because, as
     mentioned, fundamentally the U.S. economy has nothing anymore
     that would justify a dominant position. However, answering the
     question regarding what will replace her as the dominant power
     requires a study of the factors of influence on power, in a geopo-
     litical context.
        Dominance indeed results from economic power, but, domi-
     nance also depends on political power (the ability to influence po-
     litical processes abroad) and military power.
        Take the example of Japan. With its economic power, Japan has
     some influence on the world. Through its economic power it can
     influence other countries, regions even. But, is Japan considered a
     dominant power in the world? No, it is not. It lacks real military
     power, largely due to the fact that the United States has forbidden
     it to develop the sort of military power it once held. These days
     the United States is changing this approach. In reaction to the rise
     of China, the United States is now encouraging Japan is to arm
     itself. On political power, Japan, through agents or sympathizers,
     is not able to influence political processes abroad. Once it was, in
     Indonesia for instance, in the period when most of Asia was still
     colonized preceding World War II, but it is no longer (also due to
     the United States influence over Japan for the last 60 years).
        Great-Britain was once the absolutely dominant economic, po-
     litical and military power on this earth. One can refer to the begin-
     ning of the industrial age, when the British Navy ruled the ocean,
     the sun never set in all of its colonies at once, and its industrial
     apparatus was its pride and joy and transformed the raw materi-
     als imported from its colonies into finished products unavailable
                           After Fascism


      in large quantities anywhere else. Today, through her agents and
      sympathizers in the former colonies, it has retained some of its po-
      litical influence, but it has lost most of its economic and military
      power. This explains why, in the presence of political power, it is
      no longer considered a truly dominant force on the world’s geopo-
      litical stage but more of a smaller brother to the United States.
         With the demise of the Soviet Union and the fall of commu-
      nism, most of Russia’s political weight and its economic power
      have perished. During the Cold War, Russia, through its agents,
      was of influence behind the scenes in almost every part of the
      globe, most notably of course the Warsaw Pact areas. Also, it had
      economic and military muscle, making it a force to be reckoned
      with. Indeed, the world was considered bipolar, in full apprecia-
      tion of the Soviet Union’s might.
         Today, however, we find that the Soviet Union has been dis-
      mantled, and that most of the countries that resulted from this
      have switched loyalty away from Russia toward the United States.
      Russia’s agents and/or sympathizers no longer run the show in
      Eastern Europe and the Caucasus, a show of the greatly dimin-
      ished political weight of the Russians. Economically, the transition
      to a market economy was used by the western powers to bring the
      country to its knees, damaged to an extent that will take decades
      to recover. As a result, its military has suffered too, through lack
      of funding. Russia is still of influence, it has retained some of its
      military capacity and political clout, but the dominant position it
      once held has gone.
         Measured on this basis, France falls in the category of Great-
      Britain as it holds strictly political power, and little to no military
      and/or economic power. Germany would fall in the category of
      Japan, with no significant military power nor political power, but
      with economic power (largest exporter in the world, still). China,
      India and Russia are all increasing in strength significantly on all
      three factors of power.
         What if we were to analyze the power of the United States on
      this basis? As discussed, economically today she is dependent on
      others for goods; others are no longer dependent on her for goods,
      services or the development of technology. Even science and tech-
      nology are imported from abroad, with many university personnel
                The U.S. Dominance is Doomed                      


in the U.S. coming from the Muslim and Asian countries, or the
former Soviet Union. Politically, and this was never the United
States’ strong point, her agents all face heavy and increasing oppo-
sition at home, with revolutions looming: Syria, Egypt, Saudi-Ara-
bia, Pakistan. Consider Lebanon: the United States (in the form
of Syria) is forced out by the agents of Great-Britain (the Druze)
and France (the Maronites). So clearly, any political and economi-
cal power the United States has these days is based entirely on its
military power, which is preserving the U.S. hegemony at the mo-
ment. Where once her dominance was based on economical pow-
er, political power and military power, today her military power is
the only source of power for the United States, meaning the U.S.
hegemony in 2005 is shaky.
   To further underline this point, remember Bush II was forced
to visit Europe not too long ago, in what could only be under-
stood as an admission of the fact that the global superpower is not
able to cope with two occupations at the same time. She is not
powerful enough to unilaterally run the affairs of the world.

On the future
Fundamentally, the threat facing the United States is much graver
than strictly economical, it is ideological. The collapse of Commu-
nism led some people to claim that the end of history had been
reached. They could hardly have been more wrong; the (predict-
able) end of communism led to a global dominance of Capitalism,
in a shape which Karl Marx rightly predicted that it would lead
itself to ruins.
   Currently, the U.S. economy is completely dependent on its
military for preserving its interests. At the same time, the military
is dependent on the economy for financing it. The United States
will not give up its economy without a fight. We see rough times
ahead for the world: history has shown that all empires in decline
turned to brute force to delay what had become inevitable. The re-
sort to using brute force also comes as a result of helplessness, the
signs of which are quite obvious. It is remarkable to see what the
United States cannot do today in its own backyard. It can’t fully
isolate Cuba; it can’t create a regional “coalition of the willing”
against Venezuela; it can’t simply impose its version of economics
0                          After Fascism


      on the continent; it can’t stop a number of countries in the region
      from making energy deals of one sort or another with China, Iran,
      India, and other potential energy competitors. And if, for a mo-
      ment, you were to glance north rather than south, you might no-
      tice that it was recently unable to impose its pet boondoggle, the
      Star Wars anti-missile system, on the recalcitrant northern neigh-
      bor Canada. Another small sign of America’s helplessness.
         The Bush administration has been successful in fostering the
      military-to-military relations— that are seen as crucial to its
      plans—in almost all regions around the world. In an attempt to
      prevent U.S. soldiers or officials from ever ending up in a foreign
      or international court on any kind of war crimes charges, it sent
      the American Service Members Protection Act (ASPA) winging
      through Congress. This “prohibits U.S. security assistance funds
      and most military cooperation unless a country rejects the U.N.-
      backed ICC [International Criminal Court] or signs a bilateral
      immunity agreement with the United States”. It then pursued
      such agreements with just about every nation on the planet. As it
      happens, 11 of the nations that have ratified the ICC agreement
      and refused to grant the United States bilateral immunity are in
      Latin America. This is another sign of helplessness.
         Self-assertion and the struggle for self-determination by Mus-
      lims are gradually gaining momentum in a global environment of
      change. A look at Latin America reveals that in Ecuador popular
      demonstrations drove the Bush-administration-backed President,
      Lucio Gutierrez, who had illegally dissolved the Supreme Court,
      out of the country. In April 2005, in Mexico City an estimated
      1.2 million people turned out in a “silent march” to support An-
      dres Manuel Lopez Obrador, that city’s left-wing mayor and the
      country’s leading candidate for president in next elections, after
      President Vincente Fox’s ruling party had tried to railroad him
      out of the race and into jail on a trumped-up charge. As Danna
      Harman of the Christian Science Monitor wrote of the march
      (People power rattling politics of Latin America), while discussing
      “the weakening of authoritarian regimes [in Latin America] and
      the growing self-assurance of the people —including, in the case
      in Bolivia, the indigenous”:
                      The U.S. Dominance is Doomed                        


       Chalk up another victory for Latin American people power. In
       the 1990s, what politicians feared most was apathy. But lately,
       Latin Americans from Mexico City to Quito, Ecuador—much
       like the citizens of Ukraine and Lebanon—have been taking to
       the streets in unprecedented numbers. [Danna Harman, Christian
       Science Monitor, April 29, 2004.]
   Once upon a time, an American administration would have put
down such revolts of the people using the CIA, military to military re-
lations, economic power, and aid of various sorts; but, though events
in Latin America are finally making the United States sit up and take
note, its ability to act is more limited than usual. After all, Iraq is prov-
ing a black hole for American power and something of a graveyard for
the fascists’ global ambitions and energies—giving new meaning to that
old Vietnam-era word “quagmire”.
   There can be little question that, in the superpower-funded revolt
of the Russian backyard and the unsupported revolt of the American
backyard, you find similar impulses. When imperial power anywhere
begins to crumble, it naturally creates space for local and regional ex-
periments in new kinds of power relations. The imperial power has fo-
cused its energies on the world of Islam without realizing that it has
already started to crumble all around. Unfortunately, all the U.S. co-
vert (and less than covert) help in “organizing” democracy movements
from Ukraine and Georgia to Kyrgyzstan and Belarus gives the fascists
in America the feeling that they are actually creating democracies by
manipulation in someone else’s backyard.
   What the fascists do not expect on the home front is exactly what
they enjoy abroad in places like Ukraine: the people’s power. People
power’s a fine thing for shaking up Eastern Europe and other places
where U.S.-friendly regimes come into being, but as it spreads to the
Americas, it comes uncomfortably close to home. What if people pow-
er caught on in the United States? What if accountability was being
demanded not just from governments in Kiev and Beirut but also those
in London and Washington? The bread and circuses approach to de-
mocracy has so far been an effective guarantor of political apathy across
America, but what if Americans in large numbers were to one day wake
up from their political slumber and demand that they too deserve a
truly representative government?
   After Fascism
                                                                      




                 After Fascism



A         LTHOUGH imposed in the name of the “war on terrorism”
          and establishing secular democracies, the religious motives be-
          hind the titanic struggle to eliminate Islam and dominate the
Muslim world can no longer be kept secret. The more days go by, the
more claims of a “civilized world” and the myth of its apparent per-
manence and invincibility evaporate into thin air. At the same time,
the chances of Muslims and non-Muslims realizing the truth about
the grand deceptions, their oppression and exploitation increase. This
awareness will become the main motivational force for Muslims to
struggle for real independence and for Americans and Europeans to re-
lieve themselves of the yoke of police states imposed on them in the
name of democracy.
   The Taliban and Osama happened to be no more than the prime vic-
tims in the war on Muslims’ struggle for self-determination. This is a
war that continued throughout the age of direct colonialism on the as-
sumption that it would defeat the political power of Islam and lead to
the elimination of the Islamic civilization, as well. The latest phase of
the war on Islam began after the Iranian revolution. The focus, how-
ever, was intensified after 1990. Every wrong was associated with Iran
under the label of exporting terrorism.
   After the Khobar Towers bombing in Saudi Arabia, the complicit

                                   
                          After Fascism


corporate media tried to set a stage for terrorist strikes against Iran.
Unlike linking Osama to 9/11 within minutes of the attacks, which
many believe was an inside job, Osama was nowhere in the picture even
long after the attacks in Saudi Arabia. All energies were focused on im-
plicating Iran in the affair. The year 1996 began with the New York
Times’ headline on January 21: “The Red Menace is Gone but Here is
Islam.” Behind the full-page headline, the eyes of Ayatollah Khomeini
were watermarked. To implicate Iran in the Saudi bombing, the same
newspaper reported in its front-page story on December 1, 1996: “The
Saudis have suggested Iranian and Syrian involvement in a conspiracy
behind the June bombing.” Jeffrey Smith reported in a front-page story
of the Washington Post (December 11, 1996) that the United States
could lead other nations in taking some form of military and diplomat-
ic action early the next year if the United States agreed with the Saudis
that Iran was linked to the bombing.
   The situation was actually the other way round. The U.S. officials
were busy in persuading Saudis to implicate Iran in the anti-U.S.
strikes. It was the daily Al-Hayat, a Saudi newspaper based in London,
that reported Iran’s Ambassador Mohammed Rida Nuri praising Saudi
Arabia’s objectivity in the investigations on November 21. Four days
later, on November 25, 1996, the Wall Street Journal, however, put the
blame squarely on Iran in its editorial “Iran on trial,” saying that Iran
had to take responsibility just as Afghanistan had to bear the responsi-
bility for what happened in the United States on September 11, 2001.
   In the 1990s, Iran was considered to be a pariah state that needed
to be weakened and kept off-balance. With the rise of fascism, Iran
was declared part of the “axis of evil.” Now, the stage is being prepared
to bomb it for its “nuclear ambitions” and to bring about a “regime
change.” In the process, all shades of moderate, liberal, and conservative
are gradually disappearing. The Muslim world, in particular, is faced
with two clear options: become an Islamic entity or lose everything
and live in more than 50 secular states without making any reference
to Islam and Islamic identity and way of life. The latter means the ulti-
mate success of the centuries old colonial adventures and the triumph
of modern day fascism. Reality on the ground suggests that it is highly
unlikely to happen.
   After centuries of colonial efforts to keep Muslims away from living
by Islam in order to keep the reins of power secure in the hands of co-
                              After Fascism                             


lonialists and their puppets, Muslims are reawakening to the fact that
Islam does not apply only to individual life. It is part and parcel of liv-
ing a collective life in a society. The governance of Islamic society, the
State, is an integral part of the revealed paradigm of Islam. In simple
words, Islam is incomplete without Muslims living by it collectively
as well as individually in an Islamic entity. Political power, which the
West is trying to deny Muslims all over the world, is an essential com-
ponent of the Islamic civilization. The quality and quantity of politi-
cal power exert a great influence on the Islamic civilization. During the
1,300 years from the beginning of the Umaiyyad period to the end of
the Uthman Khilafah, the political power of Islam expanded greatly.
However, during the same period the moral stature and Islamic legiti-
macy of political power declined continuously. Eventually the process
of moral decline inaugurated by Banu Umaiyyah reached a stage where
the political power exercised by Muslim rulers was little different from
the political power of non-Muslim rulers. The greatly weakened politi-
cal power of Muslim rulers was no match for the newly emerging polit-
ical power of the secular civilization that had sprung up in Europe. In a
short time, the political power of the secular civilization had overcome
the corrupt Muslim rulers and their leftover states.
   With the rise of fascism in the twenty-first century, the world is wit-
nessing a reverse tide of the above-mentioned phenomenon, where the
strength lost at the top is coming back from the grassroots. Civiliza-
tions change from below, and sometimes the higher echelons of society
seek to suppress the movement, which they do not represent anyway.
Presently, those who are in power in the Muslim world represent the
old traditional balance of power for continuing colonialism in more
effective ways. But history comes from below just like the trunk and
leaves of trees come from the roots. This growth of power is what’s
happening in the world of Islam. The attack on the Islamic Emirate of
Afghanistan was the first-ever direct military assault on an Islamic state
that acquired its political legitimacy as a result of a grassroots Islamic
movement. Occupation of Iraq followed under the grand scheme of
Christian extremists and Zionists, supported by the covert fascists in
the media who called for defeating Muslims in the “heart of Islam.”257
   The war on Afghanistan, followed by invasion and occupation of
Iraq, is the beginning of a long sequence in which, irrespective of Mus-
lims’ immediate success or failure, both the secular and religious autoc-
                          After Fascism


racies in the Muslim world serving the modern day fascists will unravel
one by one, some overthrown by fascists, like that of Saddam Hussein,
and others like Musharraf and the House of Saud overthrown by the
people’s movement. The Western fascists console themselves with the
misconception that a handful of secular bulwarks like Musharraf and
Mubarak will hold the tidal wave of Islamic resurgence or the miscon-
ception that with the replacement of the Taliban’s government, they
overcame the political power of Islam itself - that Islam in its political
manifestation will cease to exist for all time to come. The reality is very
different, despite the possibility that the ephemeral victory of fascists
might leave Muslims stranded without a center, without an entity, for a
while. They will suffer holocaust and exodus. The Zionist dream will be
realized. Greater Israel will come into being and rule the Middle East
and the world as a Ruling State. Nevertheless, the civilization of Islam
will not be destroyed. Because Islam is the state of nature; every part of
it is capable of regenerating all other parts. It will, therefore, be only a
matter of time before the residual Islamic civilization re-generates the
political power of Islam. The final showdown is set to be between Mus-
lims, struggling for self-determination and self-rule, and the new world
Ruling State: Greater Israel.
   A fragmented Islamic movement is gradually taking shape. A para-
digm of political thought is emerging that describes the present politi-
cal situation and the continued suffering of Muslims at the hands of
colonialists in the last few centuries and at the hands of fascists in the
twenty-firsts century. There are trends to the contrary: Under the in-
fluence of the remote control colonialism of the West, some Muslim
thinkers have adopted western political ideas and dressed them up as
the political thought of Islam. Many sincere Islamic scholars have tried
in vain to transform their countries into Islamic states. The British
model of parliamentary government exercised almost universal popu-
larity during the heyday of the British Empire. More recently, the U.S.
presidential model has been in vogue. The power and presence of these
systems and the division of Muslims into various states were so exten-
sive that even the best of Muslim minds could not think outside these
boxes. Like the present day blind followers of sham democracy, the
Muslim political elites of the colonial period were in any case bound
to pursue the nationalist and secularist path of their European mentors
through political organizations with roots in the European political
                                After Fascism                               


systems. Thus, the political party model of organization came to hold
such sway that even those who tried to organize an Islamic challenge to
secular orthodoxy ended up forming European-style political parties.
   The new realities will gradually open the eyes of the political parties
established in the name of Islam to the fact that they can never estab-
lish Islam through working in non-Islamic systems. Experience shows
that these religious parties could never beat the system and now they
have no right to even exist in new setups like those in Turkey, Egypt,
and Algeria. Followers of these religious political parties will gradually
understand that Muslim political thought and behavior is trapped in
a bog-like patch of history in which the only firm ground under their
feet is western in origin. The Taliban in Afghanistan partially regained
the solid political ground of Islam, which immediately exposed them to
the wrath of fascists. The regeneration of Islamic political thought and
power seemed improbable, if not impossible. With the Taliban’s effort
to establish an Islamic state, modern day fascists—with the religious
and financial centers of power behind them—took all necessary steps
from propaganda to military attacks to ensure that Muslims could nev-
er think of self-rule and self-determination again. These fascist acts are,
nevertheless, becoming building blocks for a new world order in which
the fascist order has to collapse. As we have seen in history before, every
fascist order sows the seeds of its own destruction. This process is what
we are witnessing today. The only problem is that the more entrenched
the fascists are, the greater the level of destruction that their fall entails.
Since Islam is the enemy and Muslims are the target of modern day fas-
cism, they are set to bear the brunt of impending holocausts.
   As opposed to the trends toward the rise of Islam in the Muslim
world, the situation is going from bad to worse for fascists. The more
their true nature is exposed, the more they get mad at the world and
their own people, the more doom becomes a matter of time. Since
9/11, the small army of warlords on different fronts have been thrust-
ing upon the world the idea of “our way of life” and defending it with
“a war on terrorism.” This position has been supplemented by still more
explanation of the origins and ideology of violence stemming from the
West. The Islamophobic books and articles share an underlying tone
of warning: Fascists are coming, carrying the banner of democracy
and freedom, determined to impose their “way of life” on the Muslim
world.
                          After Fascism


   This alarmist argument is not behind the curve. There is more and
more commitment on the part of the fascists never to give up their
totalitarian dreams. They are determined to “stay the course.” They
are prepared to do violence against Muslims and will doubtless make
continued attempts to terrorize the Muslim world into submission.
But many, perhaps most, Westerners are, instead, passing through an
awareness phase about the fascism that got consolidated in the name
of democracy before their eyes. This phase of shock will soon pass due
to more fascist militant adventures with their nuclear and conventional
attacks on Muslim states.
   Some Westerners have already realized that the option of a “just
war”—the fake “war on terrorism”—now seems spent, peripheral,
unrealistic, and indeed distasteful in light of the barbarism in Iraq
and Afghanistan, and in light of what the modern day fascists did in
Guantanamo Bay, Abu Ghraib, and other torture centers around the
world. They are turning toward another kind of war that is embedded
in liberal thought and tradition of liberty and true freedom—a war be-
tween two Americas: one America of a vocal and influential minority
that justifies its barbarism abroad and tyranny at home with the attrac-
tive slogan of fighting extremism in the Muslim World, and another
America of the majority, which has been virtually turned to slaves.258
One is the America that lives by the great ideals of justice. The other is
the America that has succumbed to self-interest groups.
   The minority of fascists is the product of extremism in the United
States itself. The ongoing war between the two Americas will play a
lead role during the time when the fascist onslaught on the rest of the
world is at its peak and after the fall of the United States. Fighting ex-
tremism in the Muslims world is a perfect ruse to justify and further
consolidate the fascist America. For the fascist America of self-interest
groups, there are many voices in the United States that are using any
means necessary to sacrifice the well-being of the United States for the
promotion of the State of Israel.
   In the United States, the solidarity as a result of the general shock
over the 9/11 is already waning in the wake of the ongoing state of
emergency, war, and terror-preparedness. Support for a wide range of
government measures intended to ensure security is gradually turning
into a backlash, however slow it may be in coming. This change in sen-
timent will hurt all the allies of Washington that provided their sup-
                              After Fascism                             


port in the slaughtering of thousands of innocents as a result of lies
and illegitimate wars.
   Earlier Spain and now Italy have shown how voters and intellectuals
alike are already showing a negative reaction to what they perceive as
an excessively naïve embracing of Washington’s neoconism on the part
of some Western political leaders. It used to be some fringe elements
of the European political spectrum that tended to be wary of Washing-
ton’s policies.
   Prophet Mohammed (pbuh) cartoons are deliberately planted,259 and
persons such as the apostate Abdul Rahman in Afghanistan are used
to raise the fear of Islam and keep the anti-Islam alliance together. De-
spite these nefarious schemes, worries of alliance with Washington have
already spread to wider segments of the population in Europe. Accord-
ing to a BBC report, Europe’s leaders may be divided on the Iraq crisis,
but the majority of people across the continent are united in their op-
position to war. More than 87 percent of Germans opposed the war
on Iraq.260 BBC European Affairs analyst, William Horsley reported
on February 1, 2003 that only 6 percent said they thought President
George W. Bush and company were concerned with preserving peace.
Protesters from London to Rome took to the streets to voice opposi-
tion to a war with Iraq.261 Pulling down Bush’s statue in Trafalgar
Square was not merely symbolic in nature; it showed how people will
react if given a chance and opportunity to do so.
   Other governments allied with Washington are taking the internal
complexities of the United States for granted. The allies believe that
the “terrorists” would be appeased if they quiet the alliance or opposed
Washington. They also seem to accept and honor Islam as a religion
and way of life. However, the United States is not going to remain
the way it is today. Bruce Bartlett, a domestic policy adviser to Ronald
Reagan and a treasury official for the first President Bush, said before
Bush’s re-election that “if Bush wins, there will be a civil war in the Re-
publican Party.”262 Was he wrong in his prediction? In terms of time,
may be. However, in terms of the content of the prediction we see a
much wider schism and the undoing of Washington’s tyrannical grip
over Americans.
   Interestingly, a report about a possible civil war in the Republican
Party has emerged from the main opinion-making source in the United
States the New York Times, which has been on the forefront of promot-
0                          After Fascism


ing a war within Islam. Until recently, its editorial staff did not realize
that the United States was not immune to a war within America de-
spite all that a few are doing to the vast majority of Americans and the
outside world. It is time for the world to get prepared for the upcom-
ing changes in the United States and the subsequent local backlash.
   Wars, occupations, and colonial adventures are still with us, and will
be so long as there are people who can benefit by invoking a moral jus-
tification for the strategy of violence and naked fascism. Perhaps non-
Muslims who understand themselves to be acting in self-defense or in a
struggle for liberation of the Muslim world will always fit this descrip-
tion. But the struggle to expose the truth for a viable collective solu-
tion to bringing the values of liberty and freedom into the structure
of the state is on the rise. This struggle on the part of reformers in the
United States and elsewhere is the way of a future pregnant with the
possibility of Muslims’ success in their struggle for self-determination
and self-rule.
   The Muslim resistance, struggle, and sacrifices are indirectly helping
the reformers in the United States and elsewhere to see the real face
of tyranny that the U.S. government is unleashing on the rest of the
world. It enables the Americans to identify the fascists among them
and to work for regaining their right to making real democratic choices
for themselves.
   Through the struggle in the Muslim world, Muslims are expressing
their own deepest values, and thereby clarifying what Islam stands for
to itself. A struggle waged to act justly and well does not require any
opposition between one’s own group or community and another. This
struggle may reach its fullest expression in cooperation among peoples
and ideas. After the option of violent fascist wars and occupations dis-
appears, perhaps non-Muslims will not see the Muslim world as a force
to be reckoned with, and perhaps Muslims will begin to see Americans
not as inherent adversaries, nor as enemies to be feared, but as people
who suffered modern day fascism as much as the Muslims did. This
struggle for peace and justice has to be waged by Muslims, aspiring to
achieve self-determination and self-rule, and the reformers in the West-
ern world in tandem.
   There are absolutely no signs of the fascists giving up their totalitar-
ian dreams in the near future. Their adventures are bound to lead to
more death and destruction. The mindset they have created is bound
                                What to Do                              


to make a Muslim holocaust inevitable. The consistent support extend-
ed to Israeli racism and aggression is bound to make the totalitarians
lose their empire. Muslims and non-Muslims struggling for liberty and
freedom, nevertheless, can reduce the impact of all these consequences
with their struggle for synthesis rather than giving up or joining the
fascists’ struggle for supremacy. This vision is not utopian. As described
earlier, its realistic beginnings exist in the struggle for self-determina-
tion in the Muslim world and the struggle for exposing the real face of
modern day fascists in the Western world. But the outcome of these
historical struggles in both worlds is not predetermined because of the
unprecedented power in the hands of fascists: The power of which the
earlier fascists could not even dream.
                                  ~*~*~*~

What to Do

T    he world is observing the historical process with its eyes open.
     There are analysts realistically examining each new situation. They
foresee its possible consequences, warn of its dangers, and indicate the
correct course. In everything essential, their analysis and prognosis have
been confirmed by events.
   Despite all this forewarning, if the Americans and the British, as
well as the Muslim opportunists, choose to remain silent and let the
modern day fascists lead the world into the ultimate tragedy of human
history, they will have no one to blame but themselves. Even at the
time of Hitler, no one could imagine the impending wider war. It was
a British Prime Minister who gave Hitler the benefit of the doubt, as
the majority of the Muslim and non-Muslim world today is giving the
super fascists a deal, hoping upon hope that they are treading the right
way to peace; while, in fact, they are heading towards bloodshed and
crimes against humanity that history has not seen so far.
   The problems of modern-day fascism—its manifestations, its under-
lying causes, and its propensity to meld with other social and political
conflicts—make it an extremely complex issue. There is no one correct
approach or response, and there certainly is not one identifiable “fix,”
particularly in the absence of an alternative model for human gov-
ernance and due to the determination of the fascists never to change
course. Even for the reformers, truth differs, and people struggling for
real democracy and freedom have no solid system to offer. Presently,
                          After Fascism


their force is limited to identifying problems and crimes of the empire
and to putting the guilt of the responsible individuals and organizations
into proper perspective. What is called for is a mixed approach that
rests on a firm and decisive commitment to the fundamental American
values of freedom, justice, and equality.
   This approach seeks to strengthen and foster the development of sol-
id opposition to the creeping tyranny. In the post-9/11 environment,
Americans have had the opportunity to forge alliances in the name of
public investigations, public hearings, inquiries, and other joint forums.
These processes have provided them with the opportunity for interac-
tion and the necessary flexibility to deal with different settings appro-
priately, which has reduced the danger of the unintended negative ef-
fects of their struggle to unearth roots of the parasitic, fascist system.
Those roots are the collection of immensely wealthy multinational
corporations and Islamophobic alliances of different shades and forms.
The worldwide acts of the modern day fascists can only be understood
as serving the interests of big business. The following outline describes
what such a strategy might look like:
  •	 Demystify the myths that the Muslim struggle for independence
       and self-rule is directed at destroying the West and that the non-
       Muslims struggle to expose the truth is nothing but concoction
       of conspiracy theories.
  •	 Compare crimes of colonialism with those of fascism and terror-
       ism and show the world that the colonial curse never ended. It
       has taken the lives of more people and committed more crimes
       against humanity than any other ism or ideology. The roots of
       current regional and global problems lie in continued colonial-
       ism. Without this realization and understanding, it will be hard
       to identify the right solutions.
  •	 Support the anti-war reformers first, promoting their research
       about 9/11 in particular by providing them with a broad plat-
       form to articulate and disseminate their findings. 9/11 has be-
       come the Achilles’ heel of the overt and covert fascists who have
       been ruling and maintaining the status quo for so long. These
       peace activists should be cultivated and publicly presented as the
       face of contemporary America.
  •	 Support the findings of the truth diggers, some of which are still
       under the influence of corporate media to some extent but sup-
                                What to Do                               


       port its conclusions on a case-by-case basis.
   •	 Encourage institutions and programs that promote international
       harmony and respect of others’ way of life and right to live inde-
       pendent lives without the influence of the totalitarians in Lon-
       don and Washington.
   •	 Expose the hypocrisy and double standards of the corporate me-
       dia, which has already lost its grip due to the force of Internet. It
       would keep the pictures from Abu Ghraib to itself if it had been
       confident enough that this evidence of U.S. atrocities would not
       spread like wild fire if it fell in the hands of alternative media.
   •	 Back alternative media sources, which are fast becoming the real
       mainstream. Keep them viable against the so-called mainstream
       media. The world still has time to take action before the fascist
       totalitarians slap some unprecedented kind of restrictions on the
       Internet when they see their fig leaves falling apart.
   •	 Finally, oppose the Zionist-fascist alliance energetically by strik-
       ing at vulnerabilities in their fake claims for democracy and hu-
       man rights, exposing things that neither the tyro-idealists nor
       the consummate fascists can afford to go public: their lies, their
       deception, their brutality, their ignorance, the bias and manifest
       errors in their application of foreign policy, and their inability to
       lead and govern.
   Some additional, more-direct activities will be necessary to support
this overall approach, such as the helping break the Zionists and fas-
cists’ monopoly on defining the values for which they hardly hesitate
in taking thousands of American and others’ lives; and promoting the
books, other work, and websites of reformers in the United States, and
using popular regional media, such as radio, to introduce the research
and thoughts of reformist Americans to broaden the international view
of what the world is actually facing due to totalitarian designs of the
modern day fascists.
   In the Muslim world, the pressing question is: Can the Islamic move-
ment awake the Muslims to the pressing need of doing away with the
direct and indirect colonial order and the imposed systems and modes
of divisions at a time when the Western propaganda machines are con-
sistently drumming up national hysteria and blowing lingual, regional,
and national differences out of proportion?
   Of course, the Islamic movement can do it provided they help the
                          After Fascism


non-Muslim world in demystifying the aforementioned myths and help
the Muslim masses in understanding the prerequisites for launching a
platform for the struggle against colonial fascism. In the absence of big
factories and strong unions, Muslims have three institutions that can
help them launch collective political programs in order to overthrow
the colonial yoke. These institutions are: the army, educational institu-
tions, and mosques.
   Under the prevailing circumstances, the educational institutions are
the hottest battlefields and most important strongholds for bringing a
real revolution in the Muslim world. The autocratic rulers of the Mus-
lim world are scared of educational institutions and the youth. That’s
why all energies are focused on curriculum changes to eliminate all ref-
erences to struggle against injustice and oppression. Support of youth is
necessary for guaranteeing success in the future.
   Irrespective of the ideological orientation, the majority of the intel-
ligentsia in the Muslim world abhors and despises their rulers. They
despise the prevailing regimes and hate the suffocating atmosphere of
dictatorships, corruption, and class-systems. Everyone wants to get rid
of crushing poverty and the humiliating subjugation to foreign pow-
ers. They want change and to become natural followers of the voice for
Muslim self-determination and the Islamic alternative for governing
their lives. This desire is a crucial point for the religious parties to un-
derstand. They have to reject the status quo into which they have been
sucked without looking at the broader picture. Winning elections,
whether the numbers have been good or bad, has given them no oppor-
tunity to challenge the status quo of continued colonialism.
   After decades of experience, religious parties need to learn a lesson
and come out of the misconception that winning elections will give
them a chance to transform their societies and state systems. They also
must come out of the misconception that establishing Islam in their
respective countries is the end of their responsibilities. They have to
aim for eliminating artificial divisions and establishing an Islamic en-
tity. These misconceptions are discussed in Part Two of this book in
detail. Here, it is imperative to point out that Islamic movements and
parties need to re-evaluate their goal and the means to achieve it. They
also need to focus their attention on the army and educational institu-
tions. Coups are possible in most of the countries in the Muslim world
because they have limited armies. However, mass awareness and partici-
                               What to Do                              


pation of the lower ranks and masses is very necessary to coups and to
taking steps towards large-scale transformations in society. A coup that
results in running and sustaining the same colonial systems is of no use
at all.
   It is very unfortunate that most religious parties are engaged in a fu-
tile attempt to establish Islam on the foundation of colonial systems.
Some other so-called Islamic groups have dedicated their energies and
resources to activists that bring no dividend for them or for Islam.
They waste their energies either in sectarian infighting or in the kill-
ing of common people or similar useless activities. In such activities,
sometimes, they suffer great losses that, if averted, might be sufficient
for dislodging the corrupt and autocratic regimes that are sustaining
colonial fascism.
   Living under the miserable conditions of foreign occupation and fac-
ing defeat after defeat, the Muslim nations have started suffering from
an inferiority complex and degradation. This inferiority complex can-
not be eradicated through cultural struggle or by social and economical
development. The only morale booster for these oppressed nations is a
true national uprising for true independence and their right to self-de-
termination.
   We know how the triumph of Afghan Mujahideen over the Russian
Army awakened the Ummah and rekindled in the hearts and minds of
its youth a true desire for freedom and independence from occupations
of all kinds. This revival of the Ummah’s desire to live by Islam was so
strong that it shook the entire edifice of the modern day fascists and
forced them to forget their differences and unify their ranks in subju-
gating their own people to tighter controls at home and fighting the
Islamic movement abroad.
   American defeat in Afghanistan and Iraq and elsewhere will give
such a boosting impetus to the peace movement in the Western world
and Islamic movement in the East that nothing will stand in its way in
their way to overcoming modern day fascism. Further, this victory will
definitely push the United States to the same fate experienced by the
Russians, leading it into irrelevance as described in Part Three of this
book. The Muslim nations suffering under colonialist-imposed govern-
ments and systems will be freed. Despotic regimes will be toppled like a
house of cards.
                             After Fascism




                                 Notes


1.    Gary Alan Scott: The Rise of Fascism in America, Common Dreams, April 12,
      2006. URL: .http://www.commondreams.org/views06/0412-32.htm.
      Doug Thompson: The continued madness of King George, Capitol Hill Blue,
             March 28, 2006. URL: http://www.capitolhillblue.com/artman/pub-
             lish/printer_8366.shtml.
      Geov Parrish: ‘L’etat, C’est Moi,’ Working for Change,com, April 10, 2006.
             URL: http://www.commondreams.org/views06/0410-36.htm.
      Gary G. Kohls, MD: What would you do if you saw your nation going fascist?,
             Online Journal, March 28, 2006. URL: http://onlinejournal.com/art-
             man/publish/article_638.shtml.
      Jonathan Weisman: Group sues to block budget law that never passed House,
             Seattle Times, March 22, 2006. URL: http://seattletimes.nwsource.
             com/html/nationworld/2002880819_bill22.html.
      Joyce Appleby & Gary Hart: The Founders never imagined a Bush adminis-
             tration, History News Network, March 27, 2006. URL: http://hnn.
             us/articles/23297.html.
      Chris Hedges: The Christian Right and the Rise of American Fascism, Theoc-
             racyWatch.org, November 15, 2004. URL: http://www.theocracywatch.
             org/chris_hedges_nov24_04.htm.
      Raw Story: Retired Supreme Court Justice Hits Attacks on Courts and Warns
             of Dictatorship, Raw Story, March 10, 2006. URL: http://rawstory.
             com/news/2006/Retired_Supreme_Court_Justice_hits_attacks_
             0310.%20html.
      A. John Radsan: The Secret Government, Jurist, March 13, 2006. URL: http://
             jurist.law.pitt.edu/forumy/2006/03/secret-government.php.
      Peter Dale Scott: Preparing For Martial Law?, Pacific News, February 1, 2006.

                                       
                                       Notes                                      


              URL: http://www.ocnus.net/cgi-bin/exec/view.cgi?archive=87&num=
              22660&printer=1.
      Paul Craig Roberts: Twilight of the hegemony: From superpower to tinhorn
              dictatorship? CounterPunch, February 28, 2006. URL: http://counter-
              punch.org/roberts02272006.html.
      Maureen Farrell: When Big Brother Gets Under Your Skin, BuzzFlash, February
              27, 2006. URL: http://www.buzzflash.com/farrell/06/02/far06004.
              html.
      Robert Parry: The End of ‘Unalienable Rights’, consortiumnews.com, January 24,
              2006. URL: http://www.consortiumnews.com/2006/012406.html.
      Paul Craig Roberts: Our leader über alles: Conservatives endorse the Fuhrer
              Principle, Antiwar.com, February 17, 2006. URL: http://www.antiwar.
              com/roberts/?articleid=8558.
      Cheri Delbrocco: Chipping away at our freedom, The Memphis Flyer, Feb-
              ruary 16, 2006. URL: http://www.memphisflyer.com/gyrobase/
              Content?oid=oid%3A12137.
2.    Thomas L. Friedman, “If it’s a Muslim problem, It needs a Muslim Solution,” The
      New York Times, July 8, 2005.
3.    Carolyn Baker, “Hello: You are now living in a fascist empire,” Online Journal,
      November 5, 2004 and www.globalresearch.ca November 7, 2004.
4.    Reuters: “U.S. like Nazis: British Iraq refusnik,” April 12, 2006. URL: http://
      news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060412/ts_nm/iraq_americans_nazis_dc_1.
5.    1932 Enciclopedia Italiana.
6.    See Interview of the author by Ron Netsky, “Fascism in America: A local author
      sounds a warning,” City Newspaper, Rochester, December 08, 2004. URL:
      http://rochester-citynews.com/gyrobase/Content?oid=oid%3A3136.
7.    Dr. Lawrence Britt, “Fascism Anyone?,” Free Inquiry, Spring 2003, page 20.
8.    See URL: http://www.oldamericancentury.org/14pts.htm.
9.    W. David Jenkins, “Now and then,” Project for the Old American Century, June
      6, 2002. URL: http://www.oldamericancentury.org/dave300019.htm.
10.   Roderick T. Long, “Roads to Fascism, Sixty Years Later,” Lewrockwell.com,
      March 13, 2004.
11.   Anis Shivani, “Is America Becoming Fascist?” Counterpunch, October 26, 2002.
      http://www.counterpunch.org/shivani1026.html.
12.   “#671 - Columbus Day, 1999,” at: http://www.rachel.org/bulletin/bulletin.
      cfm?Issue_ID=1591.
13.   For Peter Montague, “#671 - Columbus Day, 1999,” Rachel’s Environment &
      Health News, Environmental Research Foundation, at: http://www.rachel.
      org/; Bartolome de las Casas, “The devastation of the Indies: A brief account,”
      Johns Hopkins University Press, (1992). Read reviews or order this book safely
      from Amazon.com online bookstore. (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obi-
      dos/ISBN=0801844304/ontarioconsultanA/); Barry Lopez, “The Rediscovery
      of North America: The Thomas D. Clark lectures,” University Press of Kentucky,
      (1990); David E. Stannard, “American Holocaust: Columbus and the Conquest of
      the New World,” Oxford University Press, (1992); Hans Koning, “The conquest
      of America: How the Indian nations lost their continent,” Monthly Review Press,
                             After Fascism


      (1993); Ward Churchill, “A Little Matter of Genocide: Holocaust and Denial
      in the Americas, 1492 to the Present,” City Lights Books, (1998); Leah Trabich,
      “Native American Genocide still haunts United States,” An End to Intolerance,
      Vol. 5, 1997-JUN, at: http://www.iearn.org/ ; “Natives, North American,”
      InfoPlease.com, at: http://www.infoplease.com/; James Craven, “Docs. on Na-
      tive American Genocide,” at: http://www.chgs.umn.edu/; Anon, “The history of
      Indian and European scalping,” 2002, PageWise, Inc., at: http://ct.essortment.
      com/historyscalpin_rdrp.htm ; “Gold, Greed & Genocide: The untold impacts
      of the Gold Rush on native communities and the environment,” Project Under-
      ground, at: http://www.moles.org/; “Gold, Greed & Genocide,” Project Under-
      ground, at: http://www.1849.org/; Carmen Bernand, “The Incas: People of the
      Sun (Discoveries),” Harry N Abrams, (1994).
14.   Mass Crimes Against Humanity and Genocides: URL: http://www.religiousto-
      lerance.org/genocide2.htm.
15.   Ibid. Mass Crimes Against Humanity and Genocides.
16.   “Conan Doyle and the Belgian Congo,” at: http://www.siracd.com/. Also see:
      “King Léopold II of Belgium,” MoreOrLess, at: http://www.moreorless.au.com/.
17.   “Frontier and Overseas Expeditions from India,” compiled in the Intelligence
      Branch Division of the Chief of the Staff Army Head Quarters, Volume 1, 1907.
18.   Ibid. Frontier and Overseas Expeditions from India.” Vol. 1. Introduction.
19.    Ibid. Frontier and Overseas Expeditions from India.” Vol. 1. Page 33.
20.    Ibid. Frontier and Overseas Expeditions from India.” Vol. 1. Page 36.
21.   Smith, J. W., ‘The Grand Strategy of Western Security Councils: Suppressing the
      Former Colonial World’s Break for Economic Freedom’ in Economic Democracy:
      The Political Struggle of the 21st Century, M. E. Sharpe, New York, 2000.
22.   Ibid. Smith, J. W.
23.   Lewis H. Lapham, “We now live in a Fascist State,” Harper’s Magazine, October
      2005, pages 7-9.
24.   Steve Masterson, “Why the Dollar Bubble is about to Burst,” IndyMedia UK,
      June 14, 2006.
25.   Nelson Hultberg, “Economic Fascism and Tax Slavery,” May 27, 2003. URL:
      http://www.financialsense.com/editorials/hultberg/2003/0527.htm
26.   Ibid. Nelson Hultberg.
27.   Thomas J. DiLorenzov, “The Freeman: Ideas on Liberty,” Vol. 44 No. 6,
      June 1994. URL: http://www.fee.org/publications/the-freeman/article.
      asp?aid=2699&print_view=true.
28.   Ibid. Thomas J. Dilorenzo.
29.   See: (1) HS Kenan, The Federal Reserve Bank, The Noontide Press, 1966. (2) Col
      Roberts, The Most Secret Science, Betsy Ross Press, 1984. (3) Texe Marrs, Dark
      Secrets of the New Age, Rivercrest Publishing, February 2000. (4) Gary H. Kah,
      En Route to Global Occupation, Huntington House Publishers (Dec. 1, 1996).
30.   John Ankerberg & John Weldon “One World” Moody Printers, April 1991.
      Also see: Gary H. Kah, En Route to Global Occupation, Huntington House
      Publishers, December 1, 1996.
31.   The Central banks include: Rothschild Bank of London; Warburg Bank of
      Hamburg; Rothschild Bank of Berlin; Lehman Brothers of New York; Lazard
                                       Notes                                      


      Brothers of Paris; Kuhn Loeb Bank of New York; Israel Moses Seif Banks of
      Italy; Goldman, Sachs of New York; Warburg Bank of Amsterdam; and Chase
      Manhattan Bank of New York. See: Texe Marrs, Dark Secrets of the New Age,
      Rivercrest Publishing, February 2000, p. 155.
32.   Eustace Mullins “The Secrets of the Federal Reserve” John McLaughlin (Decem-
      ber 20, 1993).
33.   Rev. Casimir F. Gierut “Savings and Loan Unethical Bailout.” Ann T. Catala,
      Bookseller. Page 158, 159, 166. http://search.barnesandnoble.com/used/prod-
      uct.asp?z=y&EAN=2698424077838&Itm=1.
34.   Eustace Mullins, The Secrets of the Federal Reserve, John McLaughlin, December
      20, 1993. Page 47-48.
35.   Ibid. Eustace Mullins, pages 25-26.
36.   See quotes from Woodrow Wilson at URL: http://home.att.net/~jrhsc/wilson.
      html.
37.   Ibid. Rev. Casimir F. Gierut. Page 265.
38.   HS Kenan, The Federal Reserve Bank, The Noontide Press, 1966. (2) Col Roberts,
      The Most Secret Science, Betsy Ross Press,1984. The book contains an entire
      chapter on Rep. McFadden’s speech. For other quotes on FED, see URL: http://
      www.freedomdomain.com/bankquot.html.
39.   Gary H. Kah, En Route to Global Occupation, Huntington House Publishers
      (December 1, 1996). Page 56-57.
40.   Pat Robertson, The New World Order, W Publishing Group, March 17, 1992,
      page 56-59.
41.   Ibid. Pat Robertson, page. 131.
42.   See URL: http://www.benbagdikian.com/ To examine the charts breaking
      down what each of the five U.S. media giants control (as of February 2001),
      please visit this URL: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/cool/
      giants/.
43.   Robert McChesney, “Global Media Giants,” FAIR magazine, Nov/Dec 1997.
      URL: http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Media/MediaGiants_FAIR.html
44.   Ibid. Gary H. Kah, page 56-59.
45.   Bill Benson, The Law That Never Was, Vol. II (CPA Book Publishers, 1990).
46.   Tim Harper, “U.S. learns to live with less freedom,” The Toronto Star, June 19,
      2006. URL: http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=
      thestar/Layout/Article_Type1&c=Article&cid=1150672506681&call_page-
      id=968332188492.
47.   Susan George, president of the Observatory on Globalization in Paris, associate
      director of the Transnational Institute of Amsterdam, comments in Verona, Italy
      2000.
48.    Toronto Star Editorial, “Hijacking global aid,” June 19, 2006.
49.   Toronto Star, June 19, 2006.
50.   Ibid. Eustace Mullins, pages 137-170.
51.   Ibid. Steve Masterson.
52.   Nick Beams, “When the Bretton Woods system collapsed,” WSWS. August 16,
      2001.
53.   The Proposed Iranian Oil Bourse (Krassimir Petrov, Jan 2006). URL: http://
0                              After Fascism


      www.countercurrents.org/us-petrov200106.htm.
54.   Oil, Currency and the War on Iraq, Cóilínn Nunan, Scotland, December 2003.
      http://www.feasta.org/documents/papers/oil1.htm.
55.   Petrodollar Became the Essential Basis for the US Economic Hegemoney in the
      1970s. (Bulent Gokay, Keele University, May 2006).
      http://english.pravda.ru/topic/petrodollar-138/.
56.   Carol Hoyos and Kevin Morrison, “Iraq returns to the international oil market,”
      Financial Times, June 5, 2003.
57.   William clark, “The Real Reasons for the Upcoming War With Iraq,” January
      2003. URL: http://www.ratical.org/ratville/CAH/RRiraqWar.html.
58.   See the European Central Bank history of the Euro/dollar:
      http://www.ecb.int/stats/exchange/eurofxref/html/eurofxref-graph-usd.
      en.html#1999.
59.   See: “Rubbing Salt into Muslim wounds,” URL: http://icssa.org/nyt_rubbing_
      salt.htm.
60.   Ed Haas, “FBI says it has “No hard evidence connecting Bin Laden to 9/11,”
      ICH, June 18, 2006. URL: http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/ar-
      ticle13664.htm.
61.   See: “In Harper’s tightly scripted government, loose lips sink careers,” April 14,
      2006, http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/14042006/2/national-harper-s-tightly-
      scripted-government-loose-lips-sink-careers.html.
62.   Woodrow Wilson, The New Freedom: A Call For the Emancipation of the Gener-
      ous Energies of a People, Doubleday, Page and Company, N.Y. 1913.
63.   On April 19, 2006, U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said she was confi-
      dent a diplomatic solution will be found to the Iranian nuclear crisis, but warned
      that military options remain on the table and that Washington will not necessar-
      ily wait for an international consensus. ”The right to self-defense does not neces-
      sarily require a U.N. Security Council resolution,” Rice said. Similar rhetoric was
      used while preparing the invasion and occupation of Iraq. On October 1, 2002,
      Rice said: “Pre-emption is not a new concept. There has never been a moral or
      legal requirement that a country wait to be attacked before it can address exis-
      tential threats. As George Shultz recently wrote, “If there is a rattlesnake in the
      yard, you don’t wait for it to strike before you take action in self-defense.” See:
      URL: http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/10/20021001-6.html.
64.   Jim Lobe, “Anti-Islamic Crusade Gets Organized,” March 2, 2005. See URL:
      http://rightweb.irc-online.org/analysis/2005/0503pipes.php.
65.   Sam Harris, “Mired in the religious war,” Washington Times, December 02,
      2004. http://www.washtimes.com/op-ed/20041201-090801-2582r.htm.
66.   “Ignoring facts about Mohammed and Islam, given their [“jihadists”] role in
      animating terrorism, would be like ignoring facts about Marx and communism
      in that earlier ideological struggle National Review championed -- worse, even,
      considering the inspiration Muslims draw from the personal life of Moham-
      med.” Diana West, “Reviewing the National Review,” Washington Times, April
      11, 2005.
67.   David E. Kaplan with Aamir Latif, Kevin Whitelaw and Julian E. Barnes,
      “Hearts, Minds, and Dollars,” U.S. News and World Report April 15, 2005.
                                        Notes                                      


68.   Seymour M. Hersh, “Would President Bush go to war to stop Tehran from get-
      ting the bomb?” the New Yorker, Issue of April 17, 2006.
69.   AFP Report, “”1 in every 138 Americans is behind bars,” The Times of India,
      April 30, 2005.
70.   Thomas L. Friedman, “The Calm before the Storm,” The New York Times, April
      13, 2005.
71.   Thomas Friedman, “Calm before the storm,” the New York Times, April 13,
      2005.
72.   In the year 250, Jews were run out of Carthage; in 415 of Alexandria; in 554 of
      Diocese of Clement (France); in 561 of Diocese of Uzzes (France); in 612 of
      Visigoth Spain; in 642 of Visigoth Empire; in 855 of Italy; in 876 of Sens; in
      1012 of Mayence; in 1181 of France; in 1290 of England; in 1306 of France; in
      1348 of Switzerland; in 1349 of Hielbronn (Germany); in 1349 of Hungary; in
      1388 of Strasbourg; in 1394 of Germany; in 1394 of France; 1422 of Austria;
      1424 of Fribourg & Zurich; 1426 of Cologne; in 1432 of Savory; in 1438 of
      Mainz; in 1439 of Augsburg; in 1446 of Bavaria; in. 1453 of Franconis; in
      1453 of Breslau; in 1454 of Wurzburg; in 1485 of Vincenza (Italy); in 1492 of
      Spain; in 1495 of Lithuania; in 1497 of Portugal; in 1499 of Germany; in 1514
      of Strasbourg; in 1519 of Regensburg; in 1540 of Naples; in 1542 of Bohemia;
      in 1550 of Genoa; in 1551 of Bavaria; in 1555 of Pesaro; in 1559 of Austria;
      in 1561 of Prague; in 1567 of Wurzburg; in 1569 of Papal States; in 1571 of
      Brandenburg; in 1582 of Netherlands; in 1593 of Brandenburg, Austria; in
      1597 of Cremona, Pavia & Lodi; in 1614 of Frankfort; in 1615 of Worms51.
      1619 of Kiev; in 1649 of Ukraine; in 1654 of LittleRussia; in 1656 of Lithu-
      ania; in 1669 of Oran (North Africa); in 1670 of Vienna; in 1712 of Sandomir;
      in 1727 of Russia; in 1738 of Wurtemburg; in 1740 of Little Russia; in 1744 of
      Bohemia; in 1744 of Livonia; in 1745 of Moravia; in 1753 of Kovad (Lithu-
      ania); in 1761 of Bordeaux; in 1772 Jews deported to the Pale of Settlement
      (Russia); in 1775 of Warsaw; in 1789 of Alace; in 1804 of Villages in Russia;
      in 1808 of Villages & Countrysides (Russia); in 1815 of Lubeck & Bremen; in
      1815 of Franconia, Swabia & Bavaria; in 1820 of Bremes; in 1843 of Russian
      Border Austria & Prussia; in 1862 of Area in the U.S. under Grant’s Jurisdic-
      tion; in 1866 of Galatz, Romania; in 1919 of Bavaria (foreign born Jews); and in
      1938-45 of Nazi Controlled Areas. See: http://www.adlusa.com/adl/kickout.
      htm .
73.   “As the Arabs see the Jews” His Majesty King Abdullah, The American Maga-
      zine, November 1947. URL: http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/atastj.html.
74.   Doha Al Zohairy, “Egypt: Attacks prompted by revenge,” Al-Jazeera Cairo,
      Egypt, May 1, 2005, 5:31 GMT. URL: http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/
      B1EB2B43-F5C1-49BE-93FD-EE553DFBC0E2.htm.
75.   Ibid. Doha Al Zohairy.
76.   Ibid. Doha Al Zohairy.
77.   See Report at URL: http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/7CAE4FE2-
      0D29-4EE3-9868-E83B2CE3548F.htm.
78.   Ibid. Doha Al Zohairy.
79.   The above statistics are taken from Iraq Three Years After “Liberation” by
                              After Fascism


       Stephen Zunes. See link to the full article on the new STATISTICS page on the
       Stop the War website: http://www.stopwar.org.uk/Statistics.htm.
80.    “Just seconds before he went on TV to tell the world war had started, he vigor-
       ously pumped his fist and declared: “I feel good.” The extraordinary gesture was
       in stark contrast to the furrowed brow and look of concern he adopted for the
       subsequent broadcast.” Richard Wallace, “Bush: I Feel Good,” The Mirror, US
       Editor In Washington, 21 March 2003. URL: http://www.buzzflash.com/
       analysis/03/03/21_groom.html, http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/groom/
       BushGroomed.mpg and http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/groom/BushG-
       roomed2.mpg.
81.    William L. Shirer, The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich, 1950.
82.    New York Times, July 24, 2004.
83.    Daniel Pipes, “The enemy is Islamism,” The Montreal Gazette, July 27, 2004.
84.    Earl H. Tilford, Ä Crusade we must win,” The Jewish Press, July 28, 2004. URL:
       http://www.jewishpress.com/page.do/3398/A_Crusade_We_Must_Win.html.
85.    Carin Pettersson, “Right-wing politicians want to ban Islam,” Public TV2, July
       19, 2004. Denne artikkelen er skrevet ut fra: http://pub.tv2.no/nettavisen/eng-
       lish/article254421.ece.
86.    Jeremy Seabrook, “Religion as a fig leaf for racism: The BNP is now riding a
       broader wave of respectable Islamophobia,” The Guardian, July 23, 2004.
87.    David Brooks, “War of Ideology,” The New York Times, July 24, 2004.
88.    Ibid. David Brooks.
89.    Ibid. David Brooks.
90.    Karl Vick, “Reunified Islam: Unlikely but Not Entirely Radical: Restoration of
       Caliphate, Attacked by Bush, Resonates With Mainstream Muslims,” the Wash-
       ington Post, January 14, 2006.
91.    Ibid. David Brooks.
92.    Ibid. David Brooks.
93.    Nicholas D. Kristof ’s “Jesus and Jihad,” The New York Times, July 17, 2004.
94.    Ibid. David Brooks.
95.    The New York Times, July 24, 2004.
96.    For details see Abid Ullah Jan, Afghanistan: The Genesis of the final Crusade,
       Pragmatic Publishing, 2006.
97.    Ibid. David Brooks.
98.    Michael Scheuer, Imperial Hubris: Why the West is Losing the War on Terror,
       Potomac Books, July 15, 2004.
99.    Quoted by Marjorie Cohn, professor at Thomas Jefferson School of Law,
       executive vice president of the National Lawyers Guild, and the U.S. representa-
       tive to the executive committee of the American Association of Jurists, in her
       article “The 9/11 Report Misses the Point,” published at http://www.truthout.
       org/docs_04/072404A.shtml.
100.    Jim Lobe, “Iraq War Deepens Hostility to U.S. Policies in Arab World,
       Surveys Find,” OneWorld US July 26, 2004. http://us.oneworld.net/article/
       view/90625/1/.
101.   URL: http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/9FD55FF1-CD66-40BC-8453-
       C65D9CE709BE.htm.
                                        Notes                                       


102.   The Washington Times, December 02, 2004.
103.   The New York Times, July 15, 2005.
104.   Thomas L. Friedman, “A Poverty of Dignity and a Wealth of Rage,” The New
       York Time, July 15, 2005.
105.   Paul Sperry, “It’s the Age of Terror: What Would You Do?” The New York Times,
       July 28, 2005.
106.   Charles Krauthammer, “Give Grandma a Pass: Politically Correct Screening
       Won’t Catch Jihadists,” The Washington Post, July 29, 2005, page A23.
107.   The New York Times, July 28, 2005.
108.   The New York Times, July 8, 2005.
109.   Thomas L. Friedman, “If it’s a Muslim problem, it needs a Muslim solution,” The
       New York Times, July 08, 2005.
110.   Thomas L. Friedman, “Giving the Hatemongers No Place to Hide,” The New
       York Times, July 22, 2005.
111.   Tom Regan, “Experts: US must win ‘war of ideas’: Survey of foreign policy
       experts shows majority want US to use ‘non-military tools’ to win war on terror,”
       Christian Science Monitor, June 16, 2006.
112.   In the wake of the July 2005 London bombings, Tony Blair claimed that the
       perpetrators were motivated by “a perverted and poisonous interpretation of
       Islam.” See: BBC report: “The Theology of Terrorism,” Thursday, 14 July 2005,
       18:00 GMT 19:00 UK. URL: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/analy-
       sis/4684183.stm.
113.   Ibid. Thomas L. Friedman, July 22, 2005.
114.   Thomas L. Friedman, “A Poverty of Dignity and a Wealth of Rage,” The New
       York Times, July 15, 2005.
115.   Ibid. Thomas L. Friedman, July 15, 2005.
116.   Alex Johnson, “Bush—born again, or not?” MSNBC, Sept. 28, 2004.
117.   Ibid. Alex Johnson.
118.   Ibid. Alex Johnson.
119.   George W. Bush, A charge to keep my journey to the White House, Harper Paper-
       backs ( January 23, 2001), pages 136-139.
120.   “It is well that, when the act accuses him, the result should excuse him; and
       when the result is good, as in the case of Romulus, it will always absolve him
       from blame. For he is to be reprehended who commits violence for the purpose
       of destroying, and not he who employs it for beneficent purposes.” Medieval
       Sourcebook: Niccolò Machiavelli (1469-1527): Founding a Republic, Excerpt
       from Discourses I, 9. See URL: http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/source/ma-
       chiavelli-disc1-9.html.
121.   Nicolo Machiavelli, The Prince, Translated by W. K. Marriott, complete transla-
       tion available at URL: http://historymedren.about.com/library/text/bltxt-
       princemain.htm.
122.   History in the Service of Imperialism, by Dr. B. N. Pande Source: http://cyberi-
       stan.org/islamic/pande.htm.
123.   Letter No. 9 dated 9 October 1857, from Prime Minister Palmerston (1784-
       1865) to Lord Canning Viceroy of India, Canning Papers.
124.   Robert Fisk, “Anti-colonial war,” Znet, April 17, 2003. URL: http://www.zmag.
                               After Fascism


       org/content/showarticle.cfm?SectionID=15&ItemID=3474.
125.   CARF, December 1995/January 1996; Le Monde, December 30, 1995.
126.   Ernest André Gellner, Conditions of Liberty: Civil Society and its Rivals (Hamish
       Hamilton, London, 1994.
127.   Bontems, C. (1976), Manuel des institutions algeiennes de la domination turque a
       l’independance, Paris, Editions Ceyas.
128.   Melman, B. (1992), Women’s Orient, English Women and the Middle East, 1718-
       1918, London, Macmillan. Ahmed, L. (1992), Women and Gender in Islam,
       New Haven and London, Yale University Press.
129.   Amrane, D. (1992), Algerian Women at War, Channel 4 (UK).
130.   Ahmed, L. (1992), Women and Gender in Islam, New Haven and London, Yale
       University Press.
131.   Marnia Lazreg (1994), The Eloquence of Silence; Algerian Women in Question,
       Routledge; 1 edition.
132.   Lamchichi, 1992; Reporters sans Frontieres, 1994.
133.   Anthias, Floya; Yuval-Davis, Nira, (1990), Contextualizing Feminism - Gender,
       Ethnic and Class Divisions, Oxford.
134.   Lazreg, M. (1994), The Eloquence of Silence: Algerian Women in Question, Lon-
       don, Routledge.
135.   Noah Feldman, After Jihad: America and the Struggle for Islamic Democracy, Far-
       rar, Straus and Giroux, 2003. Page 8.
136.   Ibid. Noah Feldman, Page 8.
137.   Ibid, Noah Feldman.
138.   Bush has adamantly refused to set a deadline for the withdrawal of U.S. forces
       from Iraq. Asked if there would come a day when there would be no more
       U.S. forces in Iraq, Bush said, “That, of course, is an objective. And that will be
       decided by future presidents and future governments of Iraq.” March 22, 2006.
139.   Patrick Cockburn, “If This Is Not Civil War, Then God Knows What Civil War
       Is, Death Squads on the Prowl; Iraq Convulsed by Fear,” Counterpunch, March
       20, 2006.
140.   For example, see Thomas Friedman of the New York Times, December 12, 2001.
141.   Dough Thompson, “Bush on the Constitution: ‘It’s just a goddamned piece of
       paper’,” Capital Hill Blue, December 09, 2005.
142.   Capital Hill Blue report: “Bush claims he can violate detainee rights at Gitmo,”
       May 17, 2006.
143.   “Do you believe in part of the book and reject part of it? And what is the reward
       of those who do so save ignominy in the life of the world, and on the Day of
       Resurrection they will be consigned to the most grievous doom” (Qur’an, 2:85).
144.   “ …. And whoever fails to judge on the basis of that which Allah revealed has
       committed Kufr (disbelief ).” “ …. And whoever fails to judge on the basis of
       that which Allah revealed has committed Dhulm (injustice and oppression).” “
       …. And whoever fails to judge on the basis of that which Allah has revealed, has
       committed Fisq (wickedness and enormous sin).” (Qur’an, 5:44 - 47).
145.   The New York Times, editorial, October 30, 2005.
146.   The New York Times, “Republicans seek to widen FBI Powers”, October 19,
       2005.
                                          Notes                                         


147.   See: “The new National Intelligence Strategy of the United States” by Larry
       Chin, GlobalResearch.
148.   Greg Miller, Times Staff writer, “Bill would give Cover to Pentagon Spies”, The
       Nation.
149.   Marshall G.S. Hodgson, The Expansion of Islam in the Middle Periods, vol. 2 of
       The Venture of Islam (Chicago, Ill.: University of Chicago Press, 1974), pp. 329-
       30.
150.   Ahmad Y. al-Hassan and Donald Hill, Islamic Technology: An Illustrated History
       (Cambridge University Press, 1986), p. 282.
151.   Marshall G.S. Hodgson, Rethinking World History: Essays on Europe, Islam, and
       World History (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1993), pp. 103-04.
152.   Bernard Lewis, Islam and the West (New York: Oxford University Press, 1993),
       p. 183.
153.   On this general problem, see James Coffman, “Does the Arabic Language En-
       courage Radical Islam?” Middle East Quarterly, December 1995, pp. 51-57.
154.   E. Jeffrey Stann, foreword of Science and Technology in the Americas: Perspec-
       tives on Pan-American Collaboration (Washington, D.C.: American Associa-
       tion for the Advancement of Science, 1993). Ranked globally by regions, the
       Middle East is ahead of sub-Saharan Africa, slightly behind Latin America, and
       increasingly behind East Asia in terms of scientific expenditures and output.
155.   National Academy of Sciences, Scientists and Human Rights in Syria (Washing-
       ton, D.C.: National Academy Press, 1993).
156.   Thomas L. Friedman, “A war of ideas,” The New York Times, January 8, 2004.
157.   See Marxism and Judaism, by Salluste.
158.   See The Revolution Was, by Garet Garrett.
159.   Israel Shamir, “Prince, Charming,” based on talks given in Stanford University,
       California and American University, Cairo. URL: http://www.israelshamir.
       net/English/Prince_Charming.htm.
160.   Jill Mahoney, “Only one-third of Canadians feel will of the people rules, poll
       finds,” Globe and Mail, April 3, 2006.
161.   Black’s Law Dictionary, 6th edition.
162.   “This nation will not wait to be attacked again. We will take the fight to the enemy.
       We will defend our freedom.” – President George W. Bush, June 28, 2005.
163.   President Bush Discusses Freedom in Iraq and Middle East. Remarks by the
       President at the 20th Anniversary of the National Endowment for Democracy,
       United States Chamber of Commerce, Washington, D.C. November 6, 2003.
       URL: http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/11/20031106-2.html.
164.   Progressive Internationalism: A Democratic National Security Strategy (Octo-
       ber 2003), page 12. Complete report is available at URL: http://www.ppion-
       line.org/documents/Progressive_Internationalism_1003.pdf.
165.   Francis Fukuyama, “The End of History and the Last Man” (1992), Penguin. See
       introduction at URL http://www.marxists.org/reference/subject/philosophy/
       works/us/fukuyama.htm.
166.   Thomas L. Friedman, “America’s DNA,” The New York Times, June 01, 2005.
167.   Thomas L. Friedman, “Because we could,” The New York Times, June 4, 2003.
168.   See Irshad Haqqani’s article in daily Jang, May 24, 2005. For dictator Mush-
                              After Fascism


       arraf ’s confession see: http://icssa.org/confession.html.
169.   Khalid Amayreh, “Cartoons reflect Europe’s Islamophobia,” Al-Jazeera, Feb-
       ruary 05, 2006, 7:34 GMT. URL: http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/
       C727FDC4-85F8-4EBB-AA75-8BB2DF29C09A.htm.
170.   Terry Cook and Tania Kent, “Australia: former minister fans anti-Muslim
       prejudice and racism,” WSWS, February 22, 2006. URL: http://www.wsws.
       org/articles/2006/feb2006/vale-f22.shtml.
171.   Martin Burcharth, “Denmark’s problem with Muslims,” The New York Times,
       February 12, 2006.
172.   Crispian Balmer, “Italian minister puts Mohammad cartoon on T-shirts,”
       Reuters, February 14, 2006. URL: http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060214/
       wl_nm/religion_cartoons_italy_dc_1.
173.   UPI Report, December 26, 2005. URL: http://www.sciencedaily.com/upi/
       ?feed=TopNews&article=UPI-1-20051226-23004600-bc-italy-mixedmarriage.
       xml.
174.   “Muslims Must Take Homophobia Test,” GayNZ.com, January 5, 2006. URL:
       http://www.gaynz.com/news/default.asp?dismode=article&artid=3082.
175.   Mary Beth Sheridan, “Bias Against Muslims Up 70%,” The Washington Post, May
       3, 2004. http://pewforum.org/news/display.php?NewsID=3316.
176.   CBC Report: Report: Muslim Harassment Up. http://www.cbsnews.com/sto-
       ries/2004/05/03/national/main615196.shtml and http://www.adn.com/
       24hour/nation/story/1335662p-8518415c.html.
177.   Anti-Muslim Incidents Rise, Study Finds, 2003. http://www.paklinks.com/gs/
       showthread.php?t=144917 and http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-
       muslims3may03,1,1762658.story.
178.   CBC News report, “75% of Muslims fear terrorist label: survey,” Jun 18 2004
       11:35 AM EDT. http://www.cbc.ca/ottawa/story/ot_muslim20040618.html.
179.   Muslims report increased abuse in Australia after September 11. URL: http://
       www.channelnewsasia.com/stories/afp_asiapacific/view/90227/1/.html.
180.   Italian Muslims Lament Marginalization, Oppression http://www.islam-online.
       net/English/News/2004-06/22/article02.shtml.
181.   Hugh Muir, “Muslim names harm job chances,” Guardian, July 12, 2004. URL:
       http://www.guardian.co.uk/race/story/0,11374,1259075,00.html.
182.   Jean-Marie Colombani, Le Monde (liberal), Paris, France, Sept. 12, 2001. Also
       see: Europe stands by America,” The Economist, September 13, 2001.
183.   The IHF report, Intolerance and Discrimination against Muslims in the EU – De-
       velopments since September 11 can be found at the IHF website: http://www.ihf-
       hr.org/documents/doc_summary.php?sec_id=3&d_id=4029. The report was
       presented at a press conference in Vienna, in the presence of Ambassador Ömür
       Orhun, Personal Representative of the Chairman in Office of the Organization
       for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) on Combating Intolerance
       and Discrimination against Muslims.
184.   Ziauddin Sardar, “The next holocaust,” New Statesman, December 5, 2005.
       URL: http://www.newstatesman.com/200512050006.
185.   See Islamic Human Rights Commission’s “Briefing: Landmark Religious
       Vilification Case in Australia,” December 22, 2003. URL: http://www.ihrc.
                                         Notes                                        


       org.uk/show.php?id=862. Also see Nahid Afrose Kabir (Brisbane Institute), “
       Muslims in Australia: the new disadvantaged? November 11, 2003.
186.   Martin Lehmann, “Australian media a threat to democracy,” Australian News
       Commentary, February 1, 2001. URL: http://www.australian-news.com.
       au/mediathreat.htm. Also see: Peter Boyle, “Stranglehold on the print media,”
       Green Left Weekly. URL: http://www.greenleft.org.au/back/1992/51/51p5.
       htm.
187.   Martin Lehmann, “Australian media a threat to democracy,” Australian News
       Commentary, February 1, 2001. Also see: Peter Boyle, “Stranglehold on the
       print media,” Green Left Weekly. URL: http://www.greenleft.org.au/back/
       1992/51/51p5.htm.
188.   Ibid. The IHF report, Intolerance and Discrimination against Muslims in the EU
       – Developments since September 11. also see URL: http://www.hrea.org/lists/hr-
       headlines/markup/msg02208.html.
189.   Ibid. The IHF report.
190.   Ibid. Ziauddin Sardar.
191.   David Pryce-Jones, “The Strategic Threat of Islam,” chapter “Muslim Immigration
       and the West,” Ariel Center for Policy Research – ACPR, 2002.
192.   Editorial, “CAIR Defends Itself,” The Washington Times, March 31, 2006.
193.   Suzanne Fields, “Multiculturalism fear and loathing,” The Washington Times,
       January 29, 2004.
194.   Suzanne Fields, “Multicultural fear and loathing,” the Washington Times, Janu-
       ary 29, 2003.
195.   Spengler, “When rabbis liked Hitler: A tale for the Mideast,” Asia Times, De-
       cember 09, 2003.
196.   Friday Times, “Muslims who want to live under Islamic law have no place in
       Australia,” February 24, 2006. URL: URL: http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/de-
       fault.asp?page=2006%5C02%5C24%5Cstory_24-2-2006_pg4_11.
197.   According to the Holy Qur’an: “O you who believe, obey Allah and obey His
       Messenger, and the people in authority among you. And if you dispute over any-
       thing, refer it to Allah and His Messenger if you really believe in Allah and the
       Last Day, that is best in terms of consequences” (4:59). “And he who does not
       rule by what Allah sent down, it is they who are the disbelievers” (5:44). “And
       he who does not rule by what Allah sent down, it is they who are the wrongdo-
       ers” (5:45). “And he who does not rule by what Allah sent down, it is they who
       are the rebellious” (5:47).
198.   Ibid. Friday Times report.
199.   Ibid. Friday Times report.
200.   In material terms the war on Afghanistan and Iraq cost the U.S. $ 439 billion till
       May 2006. See: Pamela Hess, “Iraq Afghan Wars Cost 439 Billion So Far,” UPI
       Pentagon Correspondent Report, May 5, 2006. URL: http://www.spacewar.
       com/reports/Iraq_Afghan_Wars_Cost_439_Billion_So_Far.html.
201.   Justin, Gallegher, “Muslims under microscope: Study finds nearly half of respon-
       dents favor restrictions,” Northern Star, January 26, 2005. URL: http://www.
       star.niu.edu/articles/?id=4373.
202.   A sign outside a Danieltown Baptist Church sparked debate in Ruther-
                              After Fascism


       ford County about religious tolerance. See: URL: http://www.icssa.org/
       themeswaronislam.htm.
203.   A Westmoreland County church put up a controversial sign, blaming the Islam
       religion for the events of Sept. 11, 2001. “To really remember 9/11, you must
       remember Islam is the enemy,” says a sign outside the non-denominational
       Living Hope Church in Whitney, PA, USA. See URL: http://www.icssa.
       org/themeswaronislam.htm. or http://www.thepittsburghchannel.com/
       news/3739274/detail.html.
204.   Joey Picador, “Holocaust Survivor Leaving U.S.—Sees What’s Coming,” Justice
       For None.com, May 27, 2005. URL: http://rense.com/general65/surviv.htm.
205.   Daniel Pipes, “President bush and Naming the Enemy,” The New York Sun,
       august 17, 2004.
206.   Read General Musharraf ’s statement about the Khilafah in the question-answer
       session with the BBC. “Islam and the West: Musharraf answers your questions,”
       Thursday, 11 September, 2003, 13:23 GMT 14:23 UK URL: http://news.bbc.
       co.uk/2/hi/talking_point/3091490.stm.
207.   Al-Jazeera report, “Doctor: Uzbek protest toll about 500,” May 15, 2005.
208.   David Ignatius, “Achieving Real Victory Could Take Decades,” the Washington
       Post, December 26, 2004, page B01.
209.   Sam Harris, “Mired in the religious war,” the Washington Times, December 02,
       2004 . http://www.washtimes.com/op-ed/20041201-090801-2582r.htm.
210.   See Bernard Lewis, “Roots of Muslim Rage,” Atlantic Monthly, September 1990,
       pp. 47–60; and Samuel P. Huntington, “The Clash of Civilizations?” Foreign
       Affairs, vol. 72 (summer 1993), pp. 22–49.
211.   Ibid. Al-Jazeera report, “Doctor: Uzbek protest toll about 500.”
212.   David Ignatius, “Achieving Real Victory Could Take Decades,” the Washington
       Post, December 26, 2004, page B01.
213.   BBC Islam and the West Thursday, 11 September, 2003 , 13:23 GMT. UK.
214.   For example, read Lawrence Auster in Front Page Magazine, January 28, 2005
       and Sam Harris in Washington Times, December 2, 2004.
215.   Graham Fuller, The Future of Political Islam, New York: Palgrave, 2003, p. xi.
216.   Guilain Denoeux, “The Forgotten Swamp: Navigating Political Islam,” Middle
       East Policy, vol. 9 ( June 2002), p. 61.
217.   Eric Hobsbawm and Terence Ranger, eds., The Invention of Tradition (New
       York: Cambridge University Press, 1983).
218.   “And We have not sent you but as a mercy (guidance) to the worlds.” Al-Qur’an
       21:107.
219.   Maulana Wahiduddin Khan, Mohammed a Prophet for all humanity, Goodword
       Books (India) http://onlineislamicstore.com/b5684.html. The Qur’an is not
       an utterance of a banished devil, but it is a Message to all the Worlds from the
       Almighty, for those who wish to go straight. (81:25-29) (38:87).
220.   Olivier Roy, The Failure of Political Islam, trans. Carol Volk, Cambridge, MA:
       Harvard University Press, 1996, p. vii.
221.   Seyyed Vali Reza Nasr, Mawdudi and the Making of Islamic Revivalism, New
       York: Oxford University Press, 1996.
222.   Thomas L. Friedman, “Worth a Thousand Words,” The New York Times, Decem-
                                          Notes                                         


       ber 23, 2004.
223.   Kirk Johnson, “Fighting is the only option, Americans say,” The New York Times,
       December 22, 2004.
224.   Michael Vlahos, “Outside View: The war of Ideas—Part 1,” A UPI Outside
       View commentary, Published July 19, 2004 12:45 AM.
225.   President’s Remarks at the United Nations General Assembly Remarks by the
       President in Address to the United Nations General Assembly New York, Sep-
       tember 12, 2002.
226.   Daniel Pipes, “How Israel can Win,” The New Yorker, April 04, 2006.
227.   The study is available at URL: http://www.israeleconomy.org/strat1.htm. URL
       Accessed April 11, 2006.
228.   John M. Levine, “As Iraq Awaits Saddam’s Downfall, King Hussein Revives
       Hashemite Claim,” Washington Report on Middle Eastern Affairs, Janu-
       ary 1996, pgs. 25, 112. URL: http://www.washington-report.org/backis-
       sues/0196/9601025.html.
229.   Hal Lindsey, “Who are the Palestinians?, WorldNetDaily, July 10, 2003. URL:
       http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=33506.
230.   Alexander Cockburn, “Will Lawrence Summers Take Action? Alan Dershowitz,
       Plagiarist?” Counter Punch, September 26, 2003.
231.   The Economist report: “A king for Iraq?,” July 18, 2002.
232.   See William A. Cook, “Sharon Recruits U.S. Mercenaries Against Syria: Of
       Pariahs and Pre-emptive Strikes,” Counter Punch, April 26, 2003.
233.   Aluf Benn, “Israel to U.S.: Now deal with Syria and Iran,” Ha’aretz, October 7,
       2003. See also “Israel Wants U.S. To Attack Syria,” Pravda, April 17, 2003. “U.S.
       Assures Israel That Syria and Iran Are Next,” News Report, Baluchistan Post,
       http://www.balochistanpost.com/item.asp?ID=3297. David Wurmser, chief
       aide to the then Undersecretary of Defense John Bolton, was already promising
       Sharon that Syria would be next before even a single shot was fired against Iraq.
       As Ha’aretz reported at the time: “U.S. Undersecretary of State John Bolton
       said in meetings with Israeli officials on Monday that he has no doubt America
       will attack Iraq, and that it will be necessary to deal with threats from Syria, Iran
       and North Korea afterwards.” In February, 2003, Prime Minister Ariel Sharon
       already demanded action against Syria. At a meeting with a delegation of U.S.
       congressmen, Sharon handed the Americans their marching orders: “Prime Min-
       ister Ariel Sharon said yesterday that Iran, Libya and Syria should be stripped
       of weapons of mass destruction after Iraq. ‘These are irresponsible states, which
       must be disarmed of weapons mass destruction, and a successful American move
       in Iraq as a model will make that easier to achieve,’ Sharon said to a visiting
       delegation of American congressmen. Sharon told the congressmen that Israel
       was not involved in the war with Iraq ‘but the American action is of vital impor-
       tance.’”
234.   Maureen Dowd, “Iraq Fallout Unnerves Bush Re-Election Team,” International
       Herald Tribune, September 1, 2003.
235.   Frank J. Gaffney Jr., No Wars In ‘04?”, Insight Magazine, September 16, 2003.
236.   Jason Burke and Dan de Luce, “U.S. and Iran in secret peace talks,” The Observer,
       October 5, 2003.
0                               After Fascism


237.   Richard W. Stevenson and Carl Hulse, “Bush Tells Israel It Has the Right to
       Defend Itself,” The New York Times, October 7, 2003.
238.   Barbara Slavin, “White House stops blocking Syria bill,” USA Today, October 7,
       2003.
239.   “Israel And U.S. Prepare To Attack Iran” … “Goal is forcing capitulation or risk-
       ing regional war… ‘There could be very, very serious ramifications in the wake
       of what’s happened with this air strike by the Israelis in Syrian territory.’ Brent
       Sadler, CNN. ‘It could be a race who presses the button first (to strike Iran) – us
       or the Americans’. Israeli Mossad Official” MID-EAST REALITIES – www.
       MiddleEast.Org – Washington, October 6, 2003. “Israel Weighs Strike To Stop
       Iran’s Nuclear Weapons Program,” World Tribune, September 25, 2003.
240.   Seymour M. Hersh, “The coming wars: What the Pentagon can now do in se-
       cret,” The New Yorker, January 24-31, 2005. Seymour M. Hersh, “The Iran Plans:
       Would President Bush go to war to stop Tehran from getting the bomb?,” The
       New Yorker, April 8-17, 2006.
241.   See: Donald Wagner, “Evangelicals and Israel: Theological Roots of a Political
       Alliance,” The Christian Century, November 4, 1998, pp. 1020-1026. Also:
       Donald Wagner, “Christian Zionists, Israel and the ‘second coming’,” Informa-
       tion Clearing House, October 09, 2003: URL: http://www.informationclear-
       inghouse.info/article4959.htm.
242.   See URL: http://www.jeremiahproject.com/prophecy/rapture5.html.
243.   Lev Minand, “Leading Historian Says U.S. ‘Empire’ To Fail,” The Harvard Crim-
       son, October 20, 2005.
244.   Ibid. Lev Minand.
245.   William C. Varner, “Behind the Balfour Declaration,” The Friends of Israel Gos-
       pel Ministry. Inc.
246.   David Fromkin, A Peace to End All Peace, p. 298.
247.   “A brief history of funny money The Economist ( Jan 6 1990 ): p21.
248.   See “All Work and No Pay,” by Paul A. Hein, M.D. at URL: http://www.fame.
       org/PDF/Hein_All_Work.PDF.
249.   Also see: “Paper Money and Tyranny“ (Congressman Ron Paul Addresses the
       U.S. House of Representatives, September 5, 2003. ) for the signs of helplessness
       despite a growing realization.
250.   For a complete perspective consult Imran N. Hossein’s book, Jerusalem in the
       Qur’an, Masjid Darul Quran, N.Y., November 2002.
251.   A New Pollard Affair?, by Jeffrey Steinberg: URL: http://www.larouchepub.
       com/other/2002/2910too_big_bury.html.
       Allies and Espionage, by Jane’s Intelligence Digest URL: http://real-
                info.1accesshost.com/janes1.html.
       An Enigma: Vast Israeli Spy Network Dismantled in the U.S., by Sylvain Cypel.
                URL: http://www.antiwar.com/rep/lemonde1.html.
       Art Students or Intelligence Agents?, by Paul Rodriguez: URL: http://www.
                insightmag.com/main.cfm/include/detail/storyid/207226.html.
       Art, Espionage and Cover Ups, by Alan Simpson URL: http://www.comlinks.
                com/mag/120spies.htm.
       Damage Caused by ‘Friendly’ Spies, by Stephen Green. URL: http://www.
                                 Notes                                        


         mideastfacts.com/green_spies.html.
Despite Coverup, Israel Caught Spying in Washington Again, by Rich-
         ard H. Curtiss. http://www.washington-report.org/backis-
         sues/062000/0006006.html.
FBI Probes Espionage at Clinton White House, by J. Michael Waller and Paul
         M. Rodriguez. URL: http://www.insightmag.com/main.cfm?include
         =detail&storyid=160595.
Is Israel Spying on the U.S.?, by Carl Cameron, Fox News. URL: http://www.
         mideastfacts.com/fox_4part_onisrl_911.html.
Israel’s 40-Year History of Espionage Against the United States, by Stephen
         Green. URL: http://www.mideastfacts.com/green_spies.html.
Israeli Outlaws in America, by Kurt Nimmo. URL: http://www.counter-
         punch.org/nimmo08252003.html.
Israeli Spy-Ring Uncovered in U.S., by Iason Athanasiadis. URL: http://www.
         ahram.org.eg/weekly/2002/576/in00.htm.
Mossad using forged New Zealand passports, by New Zealand Herald. URL:
         http://www.nzherald.co.nz/storydisplay.cfm?storyID=3580546&the
         section=news&thesubsection=general&thesecondsubsection=&repo
         rtid=1162641.
NZ deports Israeli spies, by the BBC. URL: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-
         pacific/3699252.stm.
Nine Israelis face deportation: Spy agency suspects they may be foreign agents,
         by John Steinbachs and Andrew Seymour. URL: http://cryptome.
         org/ca-il-spies.htm.
Report of Israeli Eavesdropping on White House Telephones Gets Varying
         Media Treatment, by Richard H. Curtiss. URL: http://www.washing-
         ton-report.org/backissues/072000/0007043.html.
Revelation that Shamir Bartered U.S. Secrets Is Part of a Lifetime Pattern, by
         Leon T. Hadar URL: http://www.mideastfacts.com/hadar_shamir_
         hersh.html.Spies, Or Students?, by Nathan Guttman. URL: http://
         news.haaretz.co.il/hasen/pages/ShArt.jhtml?itemNo=162902&contr
         assID=2&subContrassID=5&sbSubContrassID=0&listSrc=Y&item
         No=162902.
Spy Rumors Fly on Gusts of Truth: Americans Probing Reports of Israeli
         Espionage, by Marc Perelman. URL: http://www.forward.com/is-
         sues/2002/02.03.15/news2.html.
Spying on America, by Charles R. Smith. URL: http://www.newsmax.com/
         archives/articles/2002/1/16/110443.shtml.
Suspicious Activities Involving Israeli Art Students at DEA Facilities, by the
         Drug Enforcement Administration. URL: http://cryptome.org/dea-
         il-spy.htm.
The Israeli “Art Student” Mysteryby Christopher Ketcham. URL: http://real-
         info.1accesshost.com/artstudents.html.
The Israeli Art Student, Papers by Justin Raimondo. URL: http://www.anti-
         war.com/orig/dea1.html.
U.S. Arrests 200 Young Israelis in Spying Investigation, by Ben Fenton.
                             After Fascism


              URL: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/
              news/2002/03/07/wspy07.xml&sSheet=/news/2002/03/07/ixworld.
              html.
     U.S. Busts Huge Israeli Spy Ring, Says French Paper, by Reuters newswire.
              URL: http://www.nationalpost.com/news/world/story.html?f=/sto-
              ries/20020306/250416.html.
     U.S. Deports Israelis Amid Warnings of Espionage Activities, by Ted Bridis.
              URL: http://ap.tbo.com/ap/breaking/MGAQS1FAGYC.html.
     U.S. Intelligence Failures and Israeli Spy Ring, by Bob Broomby, BBC News.
              URL: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/world/europe/2294487.stm.
     U.S. Police and Intelligence Hit by Israeli Spy Network, by Charles R. Smith.
              URL: http://www.newsmax.com/showinsidecover.shtml?a=2002/1/2
              8/205623.
     Was Israel Involved in Los Alamos Espionage?, by Carl Limbacher. URL:
              http://www.newsmax.com/showinsidecover.shtml?a=2002/1/28/205
              623.
252. Orme Jr. . URL: http://www.nti.org/db/missile/2000/m0010913.htm.
     U.S. Had to Wage Long Battle Against Israel’s Technology Transfers to China,
              by Donald Neff. URL: http://www.mideastfacts.com/9706070.html.
     U.S. Informs Israel of Missile Violation, by IsraelWire. URL: http://www.nti.
              org/db/missile/1998/m9810696.htm.
     U.S. Military Technology Sold by Israel To China Upsets Asian Power Balance,
              by Tim Kennedy. URL: http://www.mideastfacts.com/9601012.html.
     U.S. Upset By Israeli Arms Sales To India, by Arieh O’Sullivan. URL: http://
              www.mideastfacts.com/isrl_arms_2india.html.
     U.S. ‘anger’ at Israel weapons sale, by the BBC. URL: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/
              hi/middle_east/4101961.stm.
     What the Cox Report Does and Does Not Say About Israeli Technology Trans-
              fer to China, by Shawn L. Twing. URL: http://www.washington-report.
              org/backissues/0799/9907049.html.
253 Israel Among the Leaders in Pirated Computer Software, by IsraelWire. URL:
     http://www.mideastfacts.com/sftwr_isrl_worst.html.
     Israel Faces U.S. Sanctions Over Software, by Judy Dempsey. URL: http://www.
     mideastfacts.com/software_piracy.html.
     Israel to be Fined $150 Million for Software Piracy, by Avi Blizovsky. URL:
     http://www.mideastfacts.com/sftwr_prcy_fine.html.
     U.S. Industry Says Israel Major Source of CD Piracy, by IsraelWire. URL:
     http://www.mideastfacts.com/cd_piracy.html.
254 Crash of Cargo Plane in Holland Revealed Existence of Israeli Chemical and
     Biological Weapons Plant, by Victor Ostrovsky. URL: http://www.washington-
     report.org/backissues/1298/9812019.html.
     Does Israel Have Smart Germs?, by Eric Margolis. URL: http://www.foreign-
              correspondent.com/archive/genes.html.
     Does Israel Have the Neutron Bomb?, by the Center for Non-Proliferation
              Studies. URL: http://www.nti.org/db/nuclear/1994/n9411479.htm.
     Fears of New Arms Race As Israel Tests Cruise Missiles, by Uzi Mahnaimi and
                                      Notes                                     


                Peter Conradi. URL: http://www.nti.org/db/missile/2000/m0011200.
                htm.
       Hide and Seek: Israel’s Nuclear Game, by Dr. Edna Homa Hunt. URL: http://
                www.washington-report.org/backissues/1297/9712035.html.
       Israel Reveals Secrets of How It Gained Bomb, by Inigo Gilmore. URL:
                http://www.portal.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/
                news/2001/12/23/wnuke23.xml&sSheet=/news/2001/12/23/ixworld.
                html.
       Israel’s Covert Nuclear Program, by Eric Margolis, URL: http://www.foreign-
                correspondent.com/archive/nuclear.html.
       Israel’s Nuclear Friends, by the Center for Non-Proliferation Studies, URL:
                http://www.nti.org/db/nuclear/1994/n9411478.htm.
       Israel’s Nuclear Weapons, by Warner D. Farr, LTC , U.S. Army. URL: http://
                www.fas.org/nuke/guide/israel/nuke/farr.htm.
       Israel’s Weapons of Mass Destruction: A Summary, by the Center for Non-
                Proliferation Studies. URL: http://www.nti.org/db/nuclear/1993/
                n9314558.htm.
       Israeli Nuclear Stockpile Undercuts U.S. Credibility at NPT Conference,
                by Frank Collins. URL: http://www.washington-report.org/backis-
                sues/0695/9506012.htm.
       Israeli Weapons of Mass Destruction: A Threat to Peace, by John Steinbach.
                URL: http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/STE203A.html.
       Mordechai Vanunu and Israel’s Nukes, by Mark Gaffney. URL: http://www.
                counterpunch.org/gaffney01312003.html.
       President Johnson Suppressed Reports that Israel Smuggled Nuclear Technolo-
                gies from U.S., by Joseph Sobran. URL: http://www.mideastfacts.
                com/zionsoblbjliberty.html.
       Background: What is a Krytron?, by the University of Alberta ‘s Department
                of Electrical Engineering. URL: http://www.ee.ualberta.ca/~schmaus/
                elect/pas5.html.
       Israel-Hollywood Nuclear Connection, by Robert Windrem, URL: http://
                stacks.msnbc.com/news/606092.asp.
       Nuclear Trigger Dealer Arrested, by Sam Kiley and Michael Evans. URL:
                http://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/0,,3-2001253839,00.html.
       U.S. Man Admits Nuke-Linked Sale to Israel, by Hil Anderson. URL: http://
                www.upi.com/view.cfm?StoryID=28122001-080648-7543r.
       U.S. Nuclear Technology Smuggled to Israel, by Julian Borger. URL: http://
                www.film.guardian.co.uk/News_Story/Guardian/0,4029,530204,00.
                html.
       See also: The Great Krytron Caper, by Najwa Sa’d. URL: http://www.washing-
                ton-report.org/backissues/071585/850715006.html.
255.   America’s Most Shameful Secret, by Eric Margolis. URL: http://www.foreign-
       correspondent.com/archive/uss_liberty.html.
       Attack on the Liberty: Lifting the ‘Fog of War’, by David C. Walsh. URL:
                http://www.wrmea.com/archives/June_2004/0406026.html.
       Book Says Israel Intended 1967 Attack on U.S. Ship, by James Risen. URL:
                             After Fascism


               http://www.mideastfacts.com/risen_nyt_liberty.html.
      Cover Up of the Attack on the Liberty, by Sarah Weir. URL: http://www.coun-
               terpunch.org/weir10242003.html.
      Dead in the Water, by Mike Ewens. URL: http://www.antiwar.com/ewens/uss-
               liberty.html.
      Even as U.S.S. Liberty’s Heroic Captain Receives New Honor, Coverup of Israeli
               Attack on His Ship Continues, by Paul Findley. URL: http://www.
               washington-report.org/backissues/0398/9803026.html.
      Friendless Fire?, by U.S. Naval Institute, URL: http://www.usni.org/proceed-
               ings/Articles03/PROwalsh06.htm.
      Israel Attacks the United States, by David Paul. URL: http://www.mideastfacts.
               com/1967-liberty.html.
      Israel’s 1967 attack on U.S. ship deliberate, book says, by David Ensor. URL:
               http://www.mideastfacts.com/risen_nyt_liberty.html.
      Israel: America’s Deadliest Ally, by Jeff Elkins. URL: http://www.themodernre-
               ligion.com/jihad/deadliest-ally.html.
      Israeli Attack on U.S. Navy Ship Led to Cover-Up, by Admiral Thomas Moorer.
               URL: http://www.wrmea.com/archives/March_2004/0403009.html.
      National Security Agency Documents on Attack on USS Liberty Prove
               What?, by James M. Ennes. URL: http://www.wrmea.com/archives/
               sept03/0309025.html.
      Navy Captain, Other Officials Call for Investigation of Israel’s Attack on USS
               Liberty, by Delinda C. Hanley. URL: http://www.wrmea.com/archives/
               july_aug2003/0307042.html.
      Our Friends, the Israelis, by Justin Raimondo. URL: http://www.antiwar.com/
               justin/j102703.html.
      The Assault on the U.S.S. Liberty Still Covered Up After 26 Years, by James
               M. Ennes Jr. . URL: http://www.washington-report.org/backis-
               sues/0693/9306019.htm.
      The Israeli Attack on the U.S.S. Liberty, June 8, 1967, And the 32-Year Cover-up
               That Has Followed, by James E. Akins, URL: http://www.mideastfacts.
               com/akins_liberty.html.
      The Liberty Cover-Up, by Charley Reese, URL: http://www.mideastfacts.
               com/liberty_reese.html.
      The U.S.S. Liberty: A Demon That Won’t Go Away, by James M.
               Ennes, Jr. . URL: http://www.washington-report.org/backis-
               sues/061686/860616005.html.
      The U.S.S. Liberty: Still Covered Up After 35 Years, by James Ennes. URL:
               http://www.yellowtimes.org/article.php?sid=399.
      U.S.S. Liberty and Qana Massacre Compared, by Mark Genrich. URL: http://
               www.mideastfacts.com/liberty_qana_cmpr.html.
      U.S.S. Liberty: Periscope Photography May Finally Reveal Truth, by James
               M. Ennes, Jr. . URL: http://www.washington-report.org/backis-
               sues/0697/9706019.htm.
      U.S.S. Liberty: Questions Persist, by Thomas H. Moorer. URL: http://www.
               mideastfacts.com/liberty_moorer.html.
                                          Notes                                          


       U.S.S. Liberty: The Cover-Up, by James Bamford. URL: http://www.mideast-
               facts.com/bamford_liberty_extrct.html.
256.   Israel Spying on U.S.? - A Fox News report by Carl Cameron with Brit Hume.
       Cameron looks into evidence of Israeli espionage against the U.S. (see links
       above) and indications that the alleged spies may have known in advance about
       the WTC attacks. URL: http://www.mideastfacts.com/fox_4part_onisrl_911.
       html.
       Et Tu, Israel? - Another article by Justin Raimondo. Raimondo now reacts to
               the Fox News report and hopes that this will finally cause the U.S. to re-
               evaluate its special relationship with Israel. URL: http://www.antiwar.
               com/justin/j121401.html.
       9/11 - What Was Israel’s Role? - A third article by Justin Raimondo. Raimondo
               examines further implications of possible Israeli involvement. URL:
               http://www.mediamonitors.net/justin18.html.
       The 9/11 Enigma - Justin Raimondo continues to look at the question of Israeli
               involvement in 9/11, drawing together several other threads in the in-
               vestigation, ones pointing to a very ominous conclusion. URL: http://
               www.antiwar.com/justin/j121901.html.
       Five Israelis were seen filming as jet liners ploughed into the Twin Towers on
               September 11, 2001 - Neil Mackay of the Sunday Herald proves that
               it’s not just Justin Raimondo following this story. URL: http://ww1.
               sundayherald.com/37707.
       Kean on the Truth - Could 9/11 have been prevented? A new report by the
               9/11 commission says yes. Justin Raimondo comments on this and
               continues to push the Israeli angle. URL: http://www.antiwar.com/jus-
               tin/j121903.html.
       Ghosts of 9/11 - On the third anniversary of 9/11, Justin Raimondo reviews
               the state of play on this story and makes some additional remarks about
               the Israeli spy case at the Pentagon. URL: http://antiwar.com/justin/
               ?articleid=3539.
257.   Thomas L. Friedman of the New York Times is the prime example of present-
       ing himself as a liberal analysts but fully supporting the Fascist onslaught and
       with reference to Iraq, repeatedly calling for defeating “nihilists” in “the heart of
       Islamic world.”
258.   See: “2004: Year of the Salve,” at URL: http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/
       yearoftheslave.html.
259.   A senior Russian parliamentary official and leader of the ultranationalist Liberal
       Democratic Vladimir Zhirinovsky said the publication of Prophet Muhammad
       cartoons in the European press was a planned action by the U.S. whose aim is
       “to provoke a row between Europe and the Islamic world”. See: http://www.
       radicalleft.net/blog/_archives/2006/2/8/1751098.html Christopher Bollyn
       has the following in American Free Press (February 4, 2006) to share: “Agents of
       certain persuasion’ are behind the egregious affront to Islam in order to provoke
       Muslims, Professor Mikael Rothstein of the University of Copenhagen told the
       BBC. The key “agent” is Flemming Rose, the cultural editor of JP, who commis-
       sioned cartoonists to produce the blasphemous images and then published them
                               After Fascism


       in Denmark’s leading morning paper last September…The International Herald
       Tribune, which reported on the offensive cartoons on January 1, noted that even
       the liberalism of Rose had its limits when it came to criticism of Zionist leaders
       and their crimes. Rose also has clear ties to the Zionist Neo-Cons behind the
       “war on terror. Rose told the international paper owned by the New York Times
       that ‘he would not publish a cartoon of Israel’s Ariel Sharon strangling a Pales-
       tinian baby, since that could be construed as ‘racist.’ Rose traveled to Philadel-
       phia in October 2004 to visit Daniel Pipes, the neo-conservative ideologue who
       says the only path to Middle East peace will come through a total Israeli military
       victory. Rose then penned a positive article about Pipes, who compares “mili-
       tant Islam” with fascism and communism. URL: http://mathaba.net/0_index.
       shtml?x=508448.
260.   William Horsley, “Polls find Europeans oppose Iraq war,” BBC, February 11,
       2003. URL: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/2747175.stm, http://
       www.joleinen.de/www/html/content/politische_arbeit/IrakAnzeige030204.
       pdf ?lang=DE.
261.   Global Policy Forum Report: “European Rally Against War,” September 30,
       2002. URL: http://www.globalpolicy.org/ngos/advocacy/protest/2002/
       0930europe.htm.
262.   Ron Suskind, “Without a doubt,” The New York Times, October 17, 2004.
       Cashed URL: http://www.truthout.org/docs_04/101704A.shtml.

								
To top