[excerpt from a new book out in August ‘Fascism and Paganism; A brief comparison of Nazism, Communism and Islam.’]
Ali Sina, Robert Spencer, Ibn Warraq, Bernard Lewis to some degree, and several other outspoken critics of Islam support the claim that Islam itself is fascistic arguing that Islam shares with fascism essential characteristics, such as supremacism, leader worship, exclusionism, totalitarianism and glorification of violence. Christianity by comparison is premised upon the Golden Rule: ‘Do unto others as you would have done unto you’. There is no such declaration to be found in Islam. In fact Islam expresses the opposite. Anything that is good for Islam and Muslims, including; lying, killing, warring, stealing or destroying is to be embraced. The onward march of Islam is the all important factor, and nothing else matters.

All fascist cults are based upon this core ideal – the success of the cult supersedes all other considerations. The ethos of these cults – Mohammedism, Hitlerism, Leninism, Stalinism - are similar. A recurring theme in all of them is that the cult’s interest overshadows the human understanding of right and wrong. The cult’s only objective is to advance the interests of its philosophy which is regarded as the ultimate good. All concepts outside of morality, including lying, murder and assassinations are permissible. The end is deemed to be so lofty that it justifies the means. This is the same idea of fascism where the glorification of the state and the total subordination of the individual are enforced. In fascism, ‘the state is defined as an organic whole into which individuals must be absorbed for their own and the state’s benefit’. This ‘total state’ is absolute in its methods and is unlimited by law in its control and direction of its citizens. This nicely describes the pagan cults of Hitlerism, Communism and Islam. The end objective of the pagan cult [usually world-wide domination] is the important element, not the niceties of rights, freedoms or thought.

In order to ensure that Islam is triumphant and its doctrine kept pure, it is of course vital to have a party or elite to interpret the true word of the cult. For Islam there is the clerical fascism of its merged Church and State organization. Walter Laqueur discusses clerical fascism at length in his book ‘Fascism: Past, Present, Future’. Laqueur and others are correct in that the top down hierarchical form of Islam is a key element in keeping alive the so-called purity of its ideology. Islam negates divisive debate over theological ‘facts’ or ideological assumptions. This clerical theocracy leads inevitably to what Robert S. Wistrich has described as a totalitarian mind-set; a hatred of the West; fanatical extremism; repression of women; loathing of Jews; a firm belief in conspiracy theories; and dreams of global hegemony. With the exception of female repression these elements are of course common to both Nazism and Stalinism.

With the above as a truism it is clear that such paganism and fascism leads inevitability to war. Islam has been at war with the West for 1380 years. A key attribute of fascism is the Jihadic, warlike violence and intolerance it displays. Empirical evidence makes it rather clear that the Arab-Islamic violence against non-Muslims predates the modern era and is an inherent genetic attribute of Islamic ideology. It is the absolute intolerance of Arabs and Muslims towards other cultures, embedded in the Koran and Sharia law that makes the Arab culture fascist. This is not to suggest that individual Muslims or Arabs, are themselves all fascist. This is absurd. But their ideology premised on age old fascist pagan ideals is certainly intolerant and incompatible with our Western concept of the world. This underlying ideology transcends nation states, national cultures, ideological lines of division or political differences. In fact the underlying Jihadic nature of Islam unites disparate Muslims and propels them into conflict irregardless of their national identity, ethnicity or political disposition.

The only path to reform:
How then to reform the Arab-Islamic world? If the preceding sections are true and I have no doubt that they are, then what is the best way to reform Islam and protect our own civilization? I don’t believe that appeasement, which was tried for 30 years and is still an EU policy [via the Euro-Arab Dialogue group] and UN criminality and immorality full of dithering and chatter is either necessary or effective. Fascism is only emboldened by appeasement. Endogenous Islamic or domestic change is nigh impossible given that Koranic doctrine cannot be changed and that those in power have little incentive to modify their controlling ideology. The only way forward for Islam to free itself from its self inflicted medieval paganism, is through the intervention of the US and UK military in Muslim lands, and to enforce regime change or compliance with international norms and standards. The fact that such standards are Western based is irrelevant. The West is humanity’s best and only hope. Reforming Islam is only possible via the ‘Iraq model’. I have no faith that the ‘Turkish model’ will ever be Western or ‘moderate’, but I certainly believe that Iraq’s model will be. Iraq is the key test on how to drag the failed Islamic world into the modern age.

In Iraq we have a Western Constitution brokered by US power fashioned onto a limited and well defined Islamic state. This is the only possible solution to unlock Islam from its deep sleep and modernize the ideology. I would prefer not to see Islam included at all in the Constitution of Iraq, and I feel that a Proportional Representative [PR] system is a very bad political system in which to build a nation and solve divisive problems. However the reality is that most Iraqi’s are religious and their culture is premised upon Islam and having a PR system might be a way forward to create a true government of national unity. Preferably we need to separate completely the ideas of church and state but in Iraq and elsewhere the political and spiritual reality is that Islam will have to be protected in order to ‘sell’ the idea of massive democratic reform to various interest groups. The system of PR however might be a far greater obstacle to political reform than most ‘experts’ believe.

Nevertheless events are moving forward in Iraq and some progress is being made. As we have seen in Iraq military action in removing fascist regimes from power will attract deranged fascists, terrorists, Al Qaida and those who have no desire to see Islamic fascism fall to Western military might. These so-called ‘insurgents’ or better named terrorists must be completely liquidated. A ruthless war against these pagan savages must be fought and as many killed in as short as time as possible. In Iraq there lie 50.000 or more dead terrorists which is an overwhelmingly massive defeat for fascist Islam against US power. We need more such battles if we are to eradicate the Islamic terrorist threat. The same attitude must be applied against Hamas in Palestine and against the mad Mullahs of Iran and indeed any state that participates as a link in the terrorist and Islamic fascist chain.

Of course many detractors of pre-emption and military might exist and unfortunately populate the left wing media and newspaper outlets. Most in the West do not support pre-emption or the use of military might. This was true during the Cold War and the Vietnam War as well. Most ‘experts’ comment for example that Iraq might descend into sectarian civil war and anarchy. This view is suspect for many good reasons. Most Iraqis want their new government to work, most want peace, and a landlocked, oil-poor Sunni theocracy is not viable. An oil poor Sunni state would only survive if it was funded by Iran or Turkey [improbable] and Syria. There is simply no good economic argument to form a Sunni state and most Sunnis recognize that they need to share the oil wealth of a greater Iraqi state to survive. However, even if sectarian conflict results in the partitioning of Iraq and the creation of a pro-Western Kurdish state and a Western allied Shia state along with a pro-terrorist Sunni state, it would be a marked improvement in the geopolitical balance in favor of the West.

An Iraqi tripartite split would also allow the Kurds and Shias freedom from Sunni fascism. The do-gooders and left wing moralists should be reminded that fascism murdered close to 600.000 innocents in Iraq and started 2 major regional wars. It is hard to argue coherently that whether Iraq stays whole or splits, the world and the majority of Iraqi’s are not better off thanks to the US led invasion. The exception would be if Iran would take over and indirectly rule a Shia rump of Iraq. Considering that the US would still have military bases in both Kurdistan and 'Shia-stan' long after a breakup this likelihood is quite remote. In any event a breakup of Iraq would provide an impetus for the US invasion of both Iran and Syria to secure the borders of the rump statelets of Kurdistan and Shia-stan. Such military interventions are long overdue.

Rebuilding Iraq is merely the first step in a long process. The Western powers or more accurately the only Western power that will protect civilization – the United States - must regime change other despotic Islamic governances across the Middle East. This also means ending funding for fascist dictatorships and organizations including Egypt, Hamas and the Gulf states. Destroying terror groups such as Hamas, Al Qaeda, the Muslim Brotherhood and other fascist militancy’s is also an obvious necessity. But terrorism requires state sponsors and the West’s own security necessitates regime change in the Middle East and the modernization of Islamic regimes. We cannot allow any states to sponsor terror. Once Iraq is free and functioning – and it will be in one form or another – then change should ripple throughout the Middle East solidifying one hopes democracy in Turkey and Jordan; and forcing political and societal change upon Saudi Arabia; Syria; Egypt; and perhaps even Iran. Syria and Iran are obvious next steps in pre-emptive regime change and ones that are long overdue. Preventing the Iranians from acquiring a nuclear capability requires regime changing the theocracy and this will only be accomplished through an invasion.

Diplomacy with Iran, much as it was with Iraq, is a waste of time.