Weimar Germany fell to the Nazi's due to political intrigue, apathy and ruthless, terrorist tactics. The German civil war in the 1920s and early 30s was bloody and violent. The singular innovation of the Nazi party was to attack its enemies using the ferocious 'brownshirts' or terrorist militia, whilst participating in, and gaining 'legitimacy' through democratic elections. Islamist jihadists and fascists are adept at using the same methods with the same skill to subvert pluralism; quiet 'moderates'; and develop a terror state. Never underestimate the deep regard that Arab and Islamic 'parties' have for the National Socialist example in post-Weimar Germania.

The real world application of Islamic and Muslim doctrine to political affairs makes this obvious. Islamic thinkers and leaders, those truly committed to an Islamic state, have no interest in pluralism of any variety. But with Taqiyya, or the law of 'lying' they will pretend that they are profoundly committed to tolerant secular theology and the protection of minority and non-Muslim rights. In the main nothing further from the actual truth could be created. In the real world both Arab and Islamic states, including 'allies' such as the family clans running Morocco or Jordan, tend to become one-party affairs [this is also true with quasi-Democratic Socialist Western states unfortunately but for different reasons], with little real democratic, party, or religious diversity or opposition. The Arabs have developed National Socialism and Arab statism, usually found in the form of 'great man' and one-party rule. The Muslim theocratic states have taken National Socialist power structures and merged them with the pagan irreligiousity of the moon cult of Submission. Thus the individual is utterly crushed in most Islamic states under the twin pillars of Statism and pagan theocracy.

In Muslim states the governance structure has welded together a church and state complex, something even the Nazis did not achieve but which the Russian National Socialists did attain with the deification of Lenin and the mass acceptance of Leninist-Stalinist liturgy. Islamic theology and Mecca-style imperialism was of especial interest to Hitler and was referenced by leading Russian Communists as a desirable template to mimic. In any event we can see rather clearly that there is a bi-directional influence and regard between the twin European Fascisms and their Arab-Muslim brethren however slightly different in detail they all might appear to be. This is a fact that most observers simply fail to understand. The twin European Fascisms have much in common with Arab and Muslim Fascism.

In the real world one can confirm the above depictions by looking at key Muslim states. I have long felt that with exogenous change in the form of military, political and economic pressure and force; that Arab and Muslim states can conform themselves to Western ideals of representative-Constitutional government, secularism, pluralist political debate and the protection of female and minority rights. But such ideals will only be realized through the application by Western states of moral, economic, political and military force. This is why for example that only Iraq has the potential currently, amongst the misbegotten and deformed states of the Arab-Muslim world, of approaching normalcy and Western norms and standards of living and conduct. This is also why Libya will turn out to be a tragedy in which tens of thousands of people or 'rebels' according to the Western media will die. No Western and US power and leadership means that the good people advocating change will simply be slaughtered. How does such a sorry fact help our 'political' and moral prerogatives, not to mention our image as leaders fighting for 'freedom' amongst Arabs and Muslims?

Saudi Arabia: This great 'ally' has no political parties whatsoever. None. Islamic Sharia law apparently solves all disputes, agitations, problems and mundane things like dissent, opinion, and choice. There is no chance of an ouster of the ruling princes by the Arab 'street' as occurred in Egypt. Most Saudis are quite happy living in a Muslim-ocracy. They have recently annexed Bahrain.

Bahrain:  This port is basically a one party Sunni state, with a majority of Shias being politically dispossessed. Egypt recently sent in 1000 troops to support the Sunni regime suggesting that the small state is an extension of the House of Saud's territory. As Saudi goes, so goes Bahrain. Don't expect any change in either nation.

Tunisia:  Next to Egypt, Tunisia represents the greatest chance for a change of governance to something resembling a true pluralist-constitutionally valid polity. But the Islamist forces are strong, and there is also a good chance that a more Islamic fundamentalist regime will take control. No one knows. Let's hope for the best.

Algeria: Is a state riven by war between a secularist-Muslim government and Islamic terror groups. In 1991 the FIS or Islamic Front de Salut [rather an odd name, roughly meaning, the front of good Islam], won more than 50 % of the popular vote and declared that it would ban all other parties. The secular government and military disallowed the election, which led to a civil in which probably more than 100.000 people are dead. An offshoot of the FIS, called the GIA, is a radical and very powerful Salafist sect [GIA meaning roughly 'the way of Islam'], has declared that all political parties must be eradicated. Nice.

Sudan: In 1989 the radical Sufist-Wahabi sect the National Islamic Front seized power, abolished political parties, and instituted a terror regime. Darfur and the slaughtering of non-Arabs or darker skinned Muslims by the Arab dominated NIS is the logical result. 400.000 non-Muslims, and darker skinned Blacks have been murdered in the past 15 years with over 1.5 million displaced by the Arabs running the country from Khartoum. It is a genocide. The South has of course seceded. An act of self-defense and desperation to escape the Muslim Arab predations emanating from the North. Yet no one in the media describes Darfur as a Muslim killing ground where Arabs are eradicating non-Arab people.

Egypt: With Mubarak gone, the next regime will take shape after the September 2011 elections. Its form will probably surprise all of us. Though the radical Egyptian Brotherhood is officially banned, it captured dozens of seats in the 2006 election and stated that it would seize power and suppress all political parties. It has now shown a more 'moderate' disposition to hide or deflect interest from these 2006 pronouncements. The MB has been waging a low level civil war against the government and civilians, including tourists, for decades a fact that most in the media have ignored. Of course thousands of Coptic Christians have been killed in the last few decades, innumerable churches and Christian buildings destroyed and hundreds of thousands of non-Muslims forced out of the country. The media terms this inter-faith harmony.

Pakistan: Many radical Islamist parties exist and have rarely stopped rioting and dissenting over some issue including issues over blasphemy, apostasy, the supposed alliance with America, or laws which are not Islamic enough. As with parties in Bangladesh, Malaysia, Indonesia and Nigeria, these Wahabbist parties have declared that political pluralism is incompatible with a true Islamic state.

Iraq: Sunni radicals under various banners have gained a large percentage of seats in the Iraqi parliament. The Sunni Salafists have repeatedly declared that a democratic system is incompatible with the goals of Islam and have promised a Talibanic style of governance should the Americans leave, or should they somehow achieve power. Thankfully with the Shias in the majority a proto-Fascist Sunni state is unlikely.

Somalia: Four years ago parts of the failed Muslim state were under Ethiopian occupation after innumerable irruptions by Somalian Muslims across the border attacking Ethiopia. In 2006 the Islamic court militia of Somalia declared that a Sharia law regime was the only acceptable form of government. To prevent this radicalisation and the incessant ravages across the frontier, the Ethiopians invaded. Somalian pirates or Muslim corsairs now violate laws, sea passage, and trade, and have attacked some 600 vessels in the past year. Just following Mohammed's example of plunder and brigandage – not to mention the inglorious 1000 years of Muslim pirating and slave trading in the Mediterranean basin.

Iran: Khomeini and the Islamic Revolutionary Guard abolished all political plurality in 1979. Elections are held in Iran, but votes can only be cast for regime approved Islamist parties. So you can choose between various shades of black or black.

Lebanon: Hizbollah [party of Allah or god], controls most of the country outside of Beirut. It is an Iranian financed terror group dedicated to eradicating Israel and establishing a radical Baathist state in Lebanon allied with Syria. It is a great example of Nazi tactics – use a terror militia to dominate a country and kill dissenters, whilst establish a parallel political and social system to take over the nominative state. In creating a parallel state Hizbollah enjoys military and political primacy.

Al Qaeda: Radical lunatics within the Al Qaeda have constantly declared that elections are un-Islamic and political parties unnecessary. In this Wahabbist view, only Sharia Law and Islamic conformity are necessary for society.

Hamas: Backed by Syria and Iran, Hamas won 70% of the last election's votes and constitutes the main power in 'Palestine' or Arab held territory of Israel. Hamas of course wants Israel's complete destruction. In order to achieve this they must first wage and win their internal civil war with 'moderate' Fatah, the party of current Palestinian PM Abbas. Fatah only wants to annihilate Israel through demography, whilst Hamas prefers a military genocidal solution. Hence Fatah is moderate.

Turkey: Current Prime Minister Erdogan is the head of the Virtue Party, by all accounts an Islamist party with a secular agenda. The great debate in Turkey is over the real objectives of the VP. Is it a moderate pro-Western secular force or will it gradually, as it has recently done, change the Constitution completely, to enforce an Islamic dominated state. Given the pronounced propaganda in schools and on state media, which exhorts Islamist ideals, it is rather clear that Turkey is moving away from secularism, towards some type of Islamist ideal. But don't expect the Western media to tell anyone that since Turkey is such a great 'friend'. As history as shown the Turks are moving more towards Islamic fundamentalism, a move which is well in tune with the majority population's wishes. Non-Muslim theology is simply not tolerated in Turkey, a fact that cannot be disputed.

The danger is clear. The good people in the Arab and Muslim world might indeed lose out to Muslims who want a more theocratic state. In the real, ie. non-UN, non-EU world, Islamism, or radical fascism is a mutable and growing force. The radical Muslims are adept at using democratic processes and whatever opportunity is presented to them, to subvert plurality and freedom. Here is a question. If the Islamists are doing this around the world, what makes the chattering Marxist class, think that the Arab-Islamic groups of North America are any different?

Just a question.