...same as the old Nazis. We might have defeated them (at least temporarily) in Europe, but the same mentality is thriving in the Middle East, and has been for decades. And it makes the notion that Israelis are the new Nazis all the more stupid.

[Update late morning]

Speaking of stuck on stupid, here's Exhibit A: Ward Churchill gives a speech. Theme: Zionists are Nazis.

I hate Illinois -- er, I mean Islamic Nazis.

It's always been said that one can't truly understand Mein Kampf unless you read it in the original Arabic.

Why are some people trying to muddy our thinking with the inaccurate term 'Islamofascism.' Islamist radicals lack most or all of the distinguishing features of Fascism, chiefly corporate sponsorship and extreme ethnic nationalism. Musolini, the definer of Fascism, called it corporate statism. It was founded on an alliance of corporate and other wealthy interests to seize control of the state under the banner of nationalism. While sometimes embracing religion, it always turned on it. This doesn't sound like al Qaeda in any respect.

Islamic radicals like Saudi Wahhabis are funded by corporate networks like the Al-Amoudi/bin Mahfouz-Rajhi Golden Chain network; fictionalized
in the Dan Silva novel The Messenger. The belief in the restored caliphate provides the nationalist edge. Syrian & Jordanian Salafis are
funded by more unorthodox sources; and Iran's Revolutionary Guard through a whole network of foreign contacts.

Very interesting. Several followup questions occur:
- Why is the corporate aspect not part of the public discussion?
- How many of the funding sources are still active six years after 9/11?
- How much of the surviving funding is ideologically committed versus token payoffs?
- In other words, what are we dealing (or not dealing) with now? And if not, why not?

The comparison between Jews and Nazis always reminds me of this - Adolph Hitler Meets with Grand Mufti Amin Al Husseini

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=arG6N46CbmY

I think we need to establish a definition for "fascism" first before we can determine whether the term rightly applies to totalitarian Muslims.

The Nazi government was no friend to free-market capitalism. Turn to the NSDAP's 25 point program. These planks don't exactly jive with the Cato Institute:

11. Abolition of unearned (work and labour) incomes. Breaking of rent-slavery.

12. In consideration of the monstrous sacrifice in property and blood that each war demands of the people personal enrichment through a war must be designated as a crime against the people. Therefore we demand the total confiscation of all war profits.

13. We demand the nationalisation of all (previous) associated industries (trusts).

14. We demand a division of profits of all heavy industries.

16. We demand the creation of a healthy middle class and its conservation, immediate communalization of the great warehouses and their being leased at low cost to small firms, the utmost consideration of all small firms in contracts with the State, county or municipality.

17. We demand a land reform suitable to our needs, provision of a law for the free expropriation of land for the purposes of public utility, [How do you say "Kelo" in German? - AKH] abolition of taxes on land and prevention of all speculation in land.

20. The state is to be responsible for a fundamental reconstruction of our whole national education program...

The economics of general fascism is discussed here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economics_of_fascism

Do remember not to confuse corporate interests with free markets. Businesses have a long history of doing end-runs around markets and getting special favors from governments - protected monopolies, taxpayer-funded largesse, etc.

Fascism is always nationalistic, but does it always have a racial component? I know it did in Germany and (de facto fascist) Imperial Japan, but what about Italy and Spain?

Islamic nationalists certainly exist (*cough* Iran *cough*). Islamic groups are certainly divided by sect (Sunni vs. Shi'a). If there are ethnic divisions, they probably exist mainly by default; most Islamic terrorists who stay in the Middle East (outside of those enlisting in the guerilla movements in Iraq and Afghanistan) tend to stay in their own countries. I do wonder about this, though: do the Egyptian (Gaza) and Jordanian (West Bank) Palestinians share common unity, or do they tend to not mix with each other?

Alan:
No it's not always racial and the regimes in Italy, Spain and Portugal weren't any more racial than most present democratic nation states, i.e. not to any significance, and in some cases could be argued to be less so.

A solid, generalized yet precise, definition of fascism is probably unattainable as fascism and just about all various forms of totalitarianism are widely divergent outside the core principles of giving absolute power and total control to a small group of people purposedly representing some sort of higher ideals and mandated (or even demanded) to make full use of that power and control. Communism, national socialism, fascism, islamism, and any other like them; they're all different expressions of the same fundamental ideas.

Gary:
"- Why is the corporate aspect not part of the public discussion?"

Because the general public is mostly ill-informed, uninterested, and busy living. However that is not to say that the "corporate" (more correctly financial) aspects aren't being discussed: you just won't find many sensible examples of it in the MSM. I recommend starting to read NRO and similar sites where these kinds of things actually do surface from time to time. The Tank at NRO is one of the best places I've found so far for general coverage along with Bill Roggio at 4th Rail.

As for long meaty in-depth examinations I guess that would likely be classified material.

During the Cold War the US State Dep (I think it was them, I tried searching my bookshelves but they're a complete mess and I don't have that many issues of the magazine) published (with appropriate denial of responsibility for the content) a magazine named something like "Problems of Communism". If something similar to it exists for the present long war then that would undoubtably be a good place to read opinons on the topic of the financial networks as well as many other things.

"- How many of the funding sources are still active six years after 9/11?"

Depends what exactly you mean by "sources". Do you drive a car? Do you donate to charity? Et cetera. Anyway I would guess most sources are still existing whether they be individuals or states.

More importantly the structures moving the money are severly weakened although some of them are very hard to get to as a lot of money traditionally moves as cash transported by hand in these cultures (not necessarily illegal). The big-time (international banking etc.) financial part of the structures was one of the very first things to be counterattacked after 9/11 and while it will always be a continuing battle my impression is that those parts have gone as well as can be reasonably expected.

"- How much of the surviving funding is ideologically committed versus token payoffs?"

As far as I know that's very hard to answer and also somewhat uninteresting. Some of the money is taken by force by the way ("protection" money) and some is by trickery and delusion (individual or state "charity" accounts for a lot). Corruption spits in the pot as well. Much of the ideologically comitted money seem to be of a "slush fund" nature rather than explicitly towards this or that terrorist group and much of the money that actually is explicitly given to a group has more to do with common aims than a shared ideology.

"- In other words, what are we dealing (or not dealing) with now? And if not, why not?"

The US and others (with the US in the lead on just about all of it with the noteable exception of the IRA) have been dealing with it since long before 9/11 but it's not a problem that has an ultimate solution of any kind; only mitigating solutions and continued attention.

Alan again:
As I understand it they mix if they need to or find it in their interest, it's not uncommon and it doesn't just apply to islamic movements. During the last decade both communist, islamic, neo-nazi, and fascist groups and countries have cooperated in various forms, even all together at the same time. Might sound strange unless one is aware that a lot (relatively speaking) of people move back and forth between the various ideologies, particularily in Germany where communism and national socialism share a very high level of open anti-semitism (or more precisely: jew-hatred since arabs are semites too).

Wikipedia actually had an entry for Problems of Communism and it seems the publisher was the United States Information Agency. The link also mentions and directs to its continuation renamed to Problems of Post-Communism. Might be worth a visit.

Wikipedia link.

Heh, reminds me superficially similar title with an entirely opposite meaning: Problems of Leninism. The problems in question are not things within Leninism that are broken, but rather things around the world that are broken that Leininism promises to fix. Written by J. V. Stalin in 1952; my copy is an English-language eleventh printing, published in Peking, PRC. You never know what you'll find on sale at the book store...

In the wake of the October Revolution, Trotsky told the Bolsheviks' political opposition to go "into the dustbin of history." Communism will go into the bargain bin of history.

That's entertaining ^_^ I wouldn't be surprised if the USIA chose the name for the magazine as a referential taunt.