"I have been reading your amazing blog and listening to some of your podcasts with Carolyn. Not sure how I haven't run across your work before. Amazing stuff." (reader's comment, 10 May 2016)
Come chat with us! Download and install an IRC-client -- Hexchat is recommended -- and go to the channel #National-Socialism on the Undernet server.

18 November 2017

A Note on so-called White Supremacist Terror



Milton William Cooper with his Chinese wife and their child.


For several years now there has been an effort (for example, by the SPLC) to redirect some of the paranoia about terrorism that developed after 9-11 into a persecution of White racial advocates, on the premise that "White Supremacists" commit a significant amount of terrorism.

I will admit that some of what could be called White Supremacist Terror has happened. There was Glenn Miller who killed three in 2014, and Dylann Roof who killed nine in 2015, and ... what else? In a country with about 14 thousand murders every year "White Supremacist Terror" is a microscopically tiny phenomenon.

You wouldn't know this from the amount of attention devoted by mainstream media. When a Negro criminal kills several White people, it may not even make national news, but when a White person kills several Blacks -- or even one Black, if an argument can be made that it might be racially motivated -- mass-media make sure that everybody knows, and they try to make everyone believe that this is the real crime-problem in the country (when in reality Blacks are much more likely to commit violence against Whites than vice versa).

The rhetoric that is used to magnify and generate alarm about this tiny phenomenon of White Supremacist Terror is based mainly on (1) selectively defining certain actions as terrorism and removing them from the overall context of violence in the United States, and (2) labeling perpetrators as White Supremacists who are not.

In the case of the death of Heather Heyer in Charlottesville last August, there has been a hasty insistence that James Alex Fields deliberately killed her with his car and therefore committed an act of terrorism, even though he is not even charged with First Degree Murder, and has not yet been convicted of anything, and even though circumstances suggest that it may have been an accident resulting from panic at the fact that he found himself amidst a crowd of Antifa who were attacking his car. People with credentials and in positions of responsibility have been attempting to provoke hysteria about this alleged incident of terrorism and trying to portray it as an example of a much larger problem. They attacked President Trump for not playing along with their histrionics.

From their perspective there really is a "larger problem" but it isn't White Supremacist Terror: it's the fact that White people are now openly organizing in support of White interests. They would like to use the accusation of terrorism to shut down a movement that is completely legal.

The fact that they would leap at such a dubious example to support their complaint of White Supremacist Terror indicates that they really don't have much to show. They are grasping at straws.

What they call "White Supremacist Terrror" is mostly NOT that. Most of the violence that the SPLC has classified as WST (in its report a few years ago) was actually perpetrated by "Sovereign Citizens." 

Sovereign Citizens are a different kettle of fish from White Nationalists/Alt Right.

A few decades ago there was a lot of overlap between White racists and people obsessed with the Constitution. This was probably a legacy of the Constitutional rhetoric used to oppose federally mandated racial desegregation, for example in the "Southern Manifesto" of 1956, drafted by Strom Thurmond and signed by 101 Southern Congressmen and Senators. Although the real concern was racial, the form that it took was a complaint that the government was not abiding by the Constitution. For several decades it was typical for would-be defenders of White racial interests to use Constitutional arguments -- increasingly, as time progressed, without even mentioning that the real concern was racial. As they became more and more afraid to talk about their racial concern, they talked more and more about substitute concerns, like the Right to Keep and Bear Arms. 

Constitutionalists, in their endeavor to remain within the bounds of respectability, typically have a great fear of criticizing Jews. This, however, leaves a void that has to be filled. How do you explain who is responsible for anti-White agitation and why; how do you explain the paradox of supposedly White people trying to undermine the White race, if you cannot talk about Jews? To fill that void the Constitutionalists resort to substitute terms and substitute conspiracy-theories: "Communists" (which is  true but not the whole truth), "liberals" (which is really only a euphemism for Communists), "Insiders" (a term used by the John Birch Society), "Illuminati."

White racial advocacy seems to be much less tied to Constitutionalism and its inhibitions these days. Why is that?

There is the influence of White racial advocates like George Lincoln Rockwell, and especially William Luther Pierce, whose message has become much more accessible in the age of Internet than it ever could be during their lifetimes. In their discourse they made relatively little reference to the Constitution and  individual rights, because these are useful only for defensive arguments. They introduced a much broader perspective. Instead of pleading for the federal government to abide by the Constitution, Rockwell and Pierce unabashedly focused on race, and explained the actions of the federal government as an attack on the White race, not fundamentally by Blacks, but by Jews. The attack is aimed not so much on our bodies as on our minds. The way to deal with this attack is, first and foremost, to make people aware of it. There was, for example, Dr. Pierce's pamphlet, Who Rules America, detailing Jewish control of mass-media. Once the insight about Jewish influence on our thinking has been gained, that influence can be rejected, and correct thought, and then correct action, can follow.

What is called the Alt Right today seems to owe much more to Rockwell and Pierce than to the Constitutionalists. You can see the continuation of Dr. Pierce's awareness-campaign about Jewish media-control in the use of triple parentheses to identify (((Jewish journalists and other Jewish public figures))), and in the recent attention called to the Jewish trick of representing themselves as a "fellow white person" as a way to be more persuasive to White people. The whole baggage of Constitutionalist ideology is being discarded by the Alt Right. Richard Spencer exclaimed defiantly to a questioner at Texas A&M University, "Big government forever!"

What became of the Constitutionalist approach to defending the White race? It has the mild ramification of people who listen to Rush Limbaugh and vote for "less government," and a more strident ramification in phenomena like the patriot movement of the 1990s. Constitutionalism as a strategy for racial survival has the very great disadvantage that it is straitjacketed by the imperative to portray itself in terms of approved values and principles, and therefore, being afraid to talk candidly about its own real purpose, is easily sidetracked.

Jews set up mouthpieces like Milton William Cooper to make sure that the patriot movement was sidetracked. Anti-racist Constitutionalism was promoted, and seems to have become a significant phenomenon. Whereas racists in the past had invoked the Constitution as a defense for the White race, this new anti-racist Constitutionalism makes the Constitution, and general obsession with individual rights, an end in itself. This is an anti-government ideology with no purpose beyond opposing the government. Consequently, the people who have gravitated to this ideology end up in much pointless conflict with the government, like William Cooper himself who died in a shootout with police over a completely trivial matter. The heir to William Cooper as pontiff of this unhinged movement is Alex Jones, who likewise has Jewish connections. 

Some of the people obsessed with the Constitution and individual rights call themselves Sovereign Citizens. The overwhelming majority of incidents in the SPLC's report on "White Supremacist Terror" involved Sovereign Citizens, in several instances shooting police, whom they believed to be violating their individual rights under color of law, as William Cooper used to teach.

But the Sovereign Citizens' movement has no clear connection to White Supremacy. The defining motives of a Sovereign Citizen are not racial motives. In fact, some of the Sovereign Citizens in the SPLC's report were not even White.

Thus, the statistics for "White Supremacist Terror" are heavily padded with crimes that are in no way racially motivated, stemming rather from an ideology promoted by anti-racists, most prominently by Milton William Cooper with the backing of some Jews -- Hollywood Jews Aaron Russo and Anthony J. Hilder, to name two whose association with him is publicly known.

The propaganda about "White Supremacist Terror" is mostly a fraud.

13 November 2017

Cenk Uygur's Holocaustian Faux Pas at the Web Summit




A few days ago, Cenk Uygur of the Young Turks show on YouTube was moderating a panel-discussion at the second annual Web Summit in Lisbon, Portugal. When a Muslim on the panel said that Muslims should pursue moderation (thus implying that Muslims had in some way gone wrong), Uygur undertook to defend Islam by attacking Christianity:

“The Holocaust was what? Seventy years ago? It seems like Christianity was monstrous, just seventy years ago, way worse than Islam has ever been, than any religion has ever been. If you took your point of view in 1942, you would say: The Christians are the worst; the Christianists are the ones that are destroying the world! We must reform Christianity, which is so barbaric that it has just killed thirteen million people! These Christians are the problem!” (Cenk Uygur at the 2017 Web Summit)

In the ensuing argument, Uygur emphasized that Christians were by far the most bloodthirsty people of all time....

10 November 2017

Dinesh D'Souza had a bad night on Twitter

The incompetent foreigner made the mistake of challenging me to support my assertion that his book was full of half-truths. The whole point of issuing such a challenge is to say Gotcha! when there is a poor response or no response. 

I posted the answer that I had formulated hours earlier, and D'Souza, instead of saying gotcha, had no comment -- because I was clearly right. 

You will note that there is about an hour's difference between my three posts responding to his challenge, and my follow-up comment about how he shut up after I put up. In the interim he started responding to criticisms from other people that were easier to handle.

I made lots of other anti-Dinesh posts, and I made some friends. Unfortunately most of those who "liked" my anti-Dinesh posts seem to be leftists, but an overt leftist is less reprehensible in my view than a foreign opportunist posing as a "conservative."




09 November 2017

Talking-Points for Demolishing Dinesh D'Souza


Dinesh D'Souza's narrative about how the Democrats are "the real racists" or, lately, "the real fascists" or even "the real nazis," is so full of holes, and so easily refuted, that it can be hard to understand why anyone could really be taken in by it. 

At least, it is hard to conceive of how somebody with a memory extending back to the 1970s could be taken in by it. In the 1970s, before Trotskyite Jews calling themselves "Neoconservatives" had acquired much influence, conservatism had not yet been entirely redefined as the demand for free markets and less government (which is actually liberalism, not conservatism).  The pro-White motive in conservatism, therefore, was much more conspicuous a few decades ago. For anybody who remembers that, D'Souza's contention that Segregationists were leftists is such obvious balderdash that it requires no refutation. Certainly, Rush Limbaugh, born in 1951, knows enough that he cannot genuinely take D'Souza seriously in this -- yet he plays along.

Nonetheless, there are sincere people, all of them I suppose too young to remember politics before Reagan, who are not just playing along but really have been deceived by D'Souza. Because they are sincere, they can be persuaded.

I have had some success in convincing followers of Dinesh D'Souza on Twitter that he has been lying to them. If somebody says that D'Souza's book is excellent or interesting, I respond that it is a stupid book. Alternately one could say that it is a very dishonest book. Thereupon there is a reaction of incredulity and a demand for an explanation. Now a discussion begins. These are the points that I have used. (I believe that these blurbs are all short enough to be copied and pasted on Twitter.) 



Eugenic Sterilization and Party-Affiliation
D’Souza hides the fact that eugenic sterilization was promoted mainly by Republicans: the first five governors to sign eugenic sterilization into law in 1907-1911 (in IN, WA, CA, CT, NV) were all Republicans. 

Twenty out of thirty-two governors who signed eugenic sterilization into law were Republicans.
The picture that Dinesh D'Souza tries to paint, is that REPUBLICANS WERE ALWAYS CONSERVATIVE AND NON-RACIST, and DEMOCRATS WERE ALWAYS LEFTIST AND RACIST. If eugenic sterilization was mainly a Republican cause then HIS PICTURE IS MESSED UP. That happens to be the case.

Dinesh Hides Republicans behind the word "Progressives"
D'Souza selectively avoids calling eugenicist Republicans by their party-affiliation and calls them “progressives” instead. When D'Souza talks about "progressives" he is usually talking about Republicans.
In fact, the label “progressive” was particularly associated with Republicans like Theodore Roosevelt. D'Souza carefully avoids mentioning this.
Dinesh D'Souza has laid a booby-trap for Republicans with this book. If they follow his lead by noisily condemning eugenic sterilization, it is only a matter of time before somebody points out that it was supported first and foremost by Republicans.

The Republican Connection to Slavery
So, Dinesh D'Souza blames Democrat slaveholders but not Whig slaveholders? What about the fact that Abraham Lincoln campaigned for our three slaveholding Whig presidents -- Wm H. Harrison, J. Tyler, & Z. Taylor? It does not seem that Lincoln was a committed abolitionist at all.


The Supposed Party-Affiliation of the Ku Klux Klan
Dinesh D'Souza claims that the Ku Klux Klan was "the military wing of the Democratic Party." Anybody who went to school in the United States should know that no U.S. political party ever had a "military wing." Furthermore, the Klan of the 20th century often supported Republicans.




Segregationist Democrats were Conservative
There used to be conservative Democrats. D’Souza pretends that segregationist Democrats were leftists when in fact figures like Senator James Eastland (Democrat, Mississippi) were regarded as extremely conservative.
Conservative Democrats were not LIBERAL LIKE YOU, Dinesh. They tried to conserve the community school, States' Rights, individual rights, freedom of association, public morality, and LAW & ORDER.
Would you like to explain, Dinesh, what was conservative about federally mandated school-desegregation and forced busing? It looks like LEFT-WING TYRANNY to me, and that was the consensus among White people in the South. CONSERVATIVE DEMOCRATS OPPOSED THIS LEFT-WING TYRANNY.
Senators LYNDON B. JOHNSON and ALBERT GORE, SR. were NOT TYPICAL SOUTHERN DEMOCRATS. They both REFUSED to sign the 1956 "Southern Manifesto" of opposition to federally mandated racial desegregation.
Two of the 101 Southern politicians who signed the Southern Manifesto were Republicans from Virginia.
They claim, "Democrats voted against Civil Rights," or even, "More Republicans than Democrats voted for civil rights." Both claims are false. The vote was very regional. Not one Southern Republican voted in favor of that Act. The only Southerners voting for it were a few Dems.
Dinesh D'Souza says: "Every segregation law in the South was passed by a Democratic legislature and signed by a Democratic governor." This is literally impossible, since most of those states had adopted anti-miscegenation laws before the Democratic Party even existed.
One state of the "Jim Crow South," West Virginia, received its  segregation-laws under Republican rule, beginning with Arthur I. Boreman in 1863.


Eugenic Sterilization and the former Confederacy
The eugenicist movement was weaker in the former Confederacy than in the rest of the country.
While 32 out of 48 (67%) of the United States enacted eugenic sterilization laws, only 55% of former Confederate states enacted such laws, compared to 70% of the other States.

Eugenic Sterilization and Racial Segregation


17 states had MANDATORY racial segregation. Of these, only 9 (53%) enacted eugenic sterilization laws. 16 states PROHIBITED racial segregation: Of these, 11 (69%) enacted eugenic sterilization laws. There was NO RELATIONSHIP between racial segregation and eugenic sterilization laws.
23 out of 32 states that enacted eugenic sterilization laws had no mandatory racial segregation. 
In fact, states with mandatory racial segregation were somewhat less likely to enact eugenic sterilization laws, compared to states without racial segregation.

Southern Segregationist Voters Migrated to the GOP
White Southern Democrats started voting for the GOP because Richard Nixon in 1968 and 1972 seemed to oppose forced busing. This method of winning the segregationist vote for the GOP, called Nixon's southern strategy, was devised by Kevin Phillips.
Dinesh D'Souza tries to obfuscate the well known fact that most Southern segregationists switched to the GOP by putting the focus on Segregationist politicians, of whom very few switched parties.
Very few segregationist politicians changed parties, because the Democratic Party continued to be dominant until 1980. Politicians like Senator James Eastland (who died in 1979) would have been less influential in the GOP. But those segregationists were conservative!




The Big Switch that Dinesh D'Souza Denies
D’Souza pretends that those “progressive” Republicans and conservative Democrats were the same group. Furthermore, he wants us to believe that they were all left-wing Democrats. Clearly, none of them were left-wing Democrats! 
In 1924. the Democratic presidential nominee John W. Davis denounced the Ku Klux Klan, while the Republican incumbent Calvin Coolidge avoided saying anything on the subject. The result was that the Ku Klux Klan supported Calvin Coolidge in 1924.
More Democratic than Republican politicians voted for the Civil Rights Act of 1964: in the House there were 153 D and 136 R votes in favor; in the Senate, 46 D and 27 R votes in favor. And of course it was signed by a Democratic president, sleazy LBJ.
In 1964 there were, from the former Confederacy, 12 Republican Congressmen and 1 Republican Senator (John Tower of Texas): every single one of them voted against the Civil Rights Act.
The racial attitudes of the two parties by 1983 can be roughly gauged by the Senate's vote on a holiday to commemorate MARTIN LUTHER KING. While majorities of both parties voted for the holiday, ONLY 4 DEMOCRATS -- BUT 18 REPUBLICANS -- VOTED AGAINST THE HOLIDAY. 
As it turns out, what D'Souza calls the nazi roots of the American left are, on the one hand, “progressive” Republicans, and, on the other hand, conservative Democrats that have now migrated almost entirely to the GOP.

This is a good stand-alone criticism to post whenever the incompetent foreigner is mentioned:


Dinesh D'Souza Recycles Cultural Marxist Propaganda
Dinesh D’Souza’s attack on Andrew Jackson as a “racist” would instantly be recognized and reviled as Cultural Marxist propaganda if it were not clothed in Republican partisanism.
What do you think President Trump would say about Dinesh D'Souza's attack on Andrew Jackson as a "racist," given Trump's admiration for President Jackson, and the fact that he has been compared to President Jackson (and likewise called a "racist")?



Only Democrats would make deals with Fascists? Really?


The USA and Fascist Italy had positive relations, during Republican as well as Democratic administrations, until the invasion of Ethiopia in 1937. Dinesh D'Souza wants to pretend that all men of good will saw Mussolini as a bad guy from the start, and that was not the case.


These are points that any sincere person should be able to grasp without much difficulty. 

One could also dispute D'Souza's assertions about fascism, but because it is a more obscure subject your interlocutors will find the argument harder to follow.  Therefore it is better just to point out the misrepresentations about American political history.

One young woman asked me if there were another book that I could recommend to her, perhaps one that refutes D’Souza. I told her that I was writing that book.

06 November 2017

Followers of Dinesh D'Souza are Stupid.


This post appears on Dinesh D'Souza's Twitter page: 


What follows is an obviously satirical song that has Democrats boasting of their racism and various unpleasantries that Cultural Marxist (Jewish) propaganda emphatically associates with racism. It includes the line, "Stick with us and we'll create an Aryan nation." In other words, it is a song that echoes D'Souza's own bizarre characterization of the Democratic Party, in his books Hillary's America and The Big Lie.

That already should be enough for somebody with an ounce of common sense to conclude that the song wasn't really made by Democrats. But there's more: one of the vocalists uses a funny voice. You have to be more than just poorly informed. You have to be very dim to think that this is real.

Nonetheless, a majority of the comments on D'Souza's post are from people who believe that it is real. (There are many more than I can show in a screenshot.)


It was so bad that a Jew, Rubin Friedman, felt obliged to explain to D'Souza's gullible goy followers that it was a joke.

I guess that I should not be surprised. If they could accept the rubbish that he has peddled in his books, then they are ready to believe anything.

It is really too bad that the eugenic sterilization movement initiated by Republicans more than a century ago did not make greater progress in raising the national IQ.

* * *

UPDATE (11PM EST): D'Souza apparently recognized today that his followers cannot tell whether he is serious or joking, and now tells them up front when he is joking.
Pitiful.

05 November 2017

Maurice Bardèche on Mussolini





The broad outline of Bardèche's view of Mussolini is intuitively obvious. Clearly, Mussolini accomplished good things for Italy, and then, at some point, became unrealistically ambitious. How much more fortunate Fascist Italy would have been if the temptation of an opportunistic entry into the Second World War, at a moment when France was already on the verge of defeat, had been resisted.

Since I know little about Mussolini, I can only accept what Bardèche says about him. Regarding the next section, about Hitler, I shall have some points of contention.

I omit the first few paragraphs of this chapter, where Bardèche argues that he as a fascist does not have to approve everything that a fascist has ever done. That point should be self-evident.




The Caesarism of Mussolini
Maurice Bardèche 
From Qu'est-ce que le FASCISME? (1961)

...  The first version of fascism that contemporary history presents to us is Italian Fascism. Originally, it is a movement of socialist activists and veterans that saves Italy from Bolshevism.

Mussolini's mother was a schoolteacher, and his father was a blacksmith who was an activist for the Communist International. Mussolini was imprisoned at the age of twenty for having fomented a general strike. He is initially defiant, takes up exile in Switzerland, translates Kropotkin; the first periodical that he founds is called La Lotta di Classe (The Class-Struggle); the first daily newspaper that he manages is a socialist newspaper. The beginnings of Fascism are consistent with this origin. The speech at San Sepulcro, which is the birth-certificate of the fascio, proclaims the confiscation of the property of the newly wealthy (nouveax riches), the dissolution of the large secret societies, the redistribution of land, the participation of  workers in the management of businesses, and the suppression of titles of nobility.

In twenty years, what from this program did Fascism fulfill? What we can say, what we must say, is that it was something else. Very quickly, Fascism forgot a large part of its revolutionary program in order to accomplish a work of practical efficiency and unity. It had come to power to avert anarchy, chaos, civil war. It acted with great urgency to reestablish order, work, peace. Then it organized and constructed. Italy became again the nation of builders. The Roman sap once again flowed in the old tree-trunk. Mussolini was initially a proconsul. Fascism produced roads, hospitals, schools, aqueducts; it drained marshes; it increased the harvests. "Asfaltar no es gubernar" [1], was one reaction. But it also governed. Mussolini established corporatism, an achievement requiring much more finesse than an Autobahn. The Charter of Labor was certainly not the echo of the speech at San Sepulcro. But it realistically laid the foundations of a socialist city that the future could expand: the replacement of parliamentary assemblies with union-meetings (instances syndicales), the representation of workers, collective contracts, social security, organization of leisure-activities, were so many beginnings that a will for socialist management could develop and transform. There was however one essential condition. Since Fascism wanted to maintain private property while imposing its will on the selfishness of liberal capitalism, it was necessary to know that the Fascist state found itself faced at every moment with surreptitious opposition, and that it was committed to perpetual vigilance.

This was thus the youth of Fascism and I confess that I cannot think of it without nostalgia. There were black shirts and boots, lictors and raised arms, but without anything raucous and colossal. Mussolini was barely guarded. He loved the people, the children, informality. He was easily accessible. Sometimes, he took his red car -- which he drove, it was said, quite badly -- and departed alone to wander in his province of Italy more simply than a Laelius or a Scipio ever had. He was beloved. "You are all of us," was said to him. The slogans had not appeared on the walls and it was not an article of faith that Mussolini was always right. It was a "popular dictatorship," said the Fascists themselves,  words with a bizarre resonance today. It was the time when Mussolini wore white gaiters and a bowler hat. I quite love this touching period.

The Fascist style came only later, with its uniforms, its emblems, its inscriptions, its heel-clickings, and its chief portrayed with fists on hips and chin high. These military forms of discipline symbolize the unity of the nation. They make the nation feel its own strength; they intoxicate it with effectiveness, with energy; they promise to it manly action; they speak to it about honor and sacrifice. Through them, man escapes his mediocre and routine life, from the joyless function that he humbly performs in the city; he becomes a soldier at his post; his life has a meaning; he is united with the other men of his nation as a soldier is united with his comrades. Traditional Fascism recognizes itself in the parades of these young heroes who are quite hard, quite uncompromising, who can also furnish at once, as blind destiny demands, martyrs or butchers, brutes or saints. The struggle against power, the struggle to prevent nations from dying, cannot do without these phalanxes, I know. Always the suit of lights.

But if the very life of the nation is based on this military civic-mindedness, how
dangerous it becomes! Mussolini, having become Duce, declared infallible, no longer appearing except on the balcony like a pope, accompanied by dignitaries who come to a halt six paces in front of him, loses in my eyes all the charm of the little socialist
schoolteacher who had become his people's guide. And above all, he is no longer the people's guide that he was. The splendor of majesty, the habit of performance, separate him from men. He no longer knows Italy except through spectacular tours and the reports of prefects. This consul, in the midst of ovations, condemns himself to being no more than a bureaucrat. The dignitaries of Fascism are his eyes, his hand, his lictors. And if these men are idiots? If the distance becomes greater each day between the real country and the idea that the helmeted army maintains in the mind of the dictator as it passes under his windows singing?

The catastrophe of Italian Fascism had perhaps no other origin. Mussolini, irritated by the sanctions, was dreaming of an Italy that would be military, Roman, helmeted, invincible. He heard the footstep of the legions. And the footstep of the legions echoed, in fact, under his windows; his praetors were showing the locations of his camps to him on maps. He spoke of the "warrior nation" and, as a consequence of speaking about it, he believed in the "warrior nation." He forgot the charming Italian people and the mandolins of Naples and the hardworking craftsmen of Italy and its immense poor lands and the steaming soup on the table of the family that awaits the children in the evening. He was beholding a dictator's dream instead of the face of Italy. And he was forgetting also that social justice is a battle that is won each day, that it demands an infinite love and infinite attention, that there is need of constant monitoring to defend the workers against the rich, and that one cannot rely on the reports of prefects.

Lost in his dream of grandeur, he played with the shadow and forgot the essential. As emperor of a phantom nation, he presses buttons that activate nothing. But finally, as Lieutenant Bonaparte at Montereau and Champaubert[2] nearly saved the success of Napoleon, it is the little socialist schoolteacher who miraculously came to the aid of Mussolini the dictator.

Nothing is more moving in the history of Italian Fascism than the return to roots accomplished under the iron fist of defeat. The program of the Salò Republic in 1944 is that upon which Mussolini ought, twenty years earlier, to have staked his power and his life. That is the true Fascism. But, like the battles of the French countryside, it came too late. There is a moment when no wisdom can any longer stop the avalanches caused by mistakes. Mussolini died of his caesarism, of the isolation that caesarism brings, of the delusions that it allows to develop, of the optimism and the easy satisfactions with which it contents itself, of the stardust that it casts into the eyes of others, and that finally blinds it. Italian Fascism was possessed by the ghost of Rome: in this intoxication with history, it lost touch with reality. We must learn that fascism cannot content itself with being a caesarism.
___________________
[1] To pave is not to govern. This was actually said, not about Mussolini but about Franco, by Salvador de Madariaga, a Spanish expatriate who lived in England and enjoyed high status there as a proponent of liberalism. 
[2]  These were among Napoleon's last battles, in February 1814, wherein he made efficient use of his small force against much greater numbers. The performance in these last battles, although excellent, was not sufficient to win the war and prevent Napoleon's exile to Elba.

02 November 2017

Maurice Bardèche on what is and is not "fascism"

The term fascism is problematic. 

Before the rise of Hitler, and even before the rise Mussolini, there was a concept of national-socialism. National-Socialism was a general term. Anne Morrow Lindbergh (wife of the aviator) used national-socialism as a general term as late as 1940 in her book, The Wave of the Future.

But because Hitler's was by far the most famous movement to call itself national-socialist, the concept became specifically identified with his development of it, which includes certain ramifications of Darwinism that distinguish the German movement from its Italian analog.

Therefore, if our use of words were more logical, we should say that Fascism was the Italian form of national-socialism, instead of saying that National-Socialism was a type of fascism. 

The name Fascism is rooted in specifically Italian history. On that basis alone, it seems odd to apply the term to any movement outside of Italy. 

But what happened is this. Fascism became world-famous before many people heard about national-socialism. Consequently, just as Xerox, the preeminent maker of photocopy-machines, saw "xerox machine" and "xeroxes" become general terms for copiers and the copies that they produce, "fascism" (with a small f) superseded "national-socialism" as the general name for nationalist movements that guard the interests of workers.

Nowadays, when one wishes to refer to such a movement while avoiding resonance with the specific movements of Mussolini and Hitler, one can use the term "social-nationalist" -- which is obviously just another way to say national-socialist.

Nonetheless, for better or worse, "fascism" remains prevalent as the general term for such movements. Instead of properly categorizing Fascism as Italian national-socialism we bizarrely categorize Hitler's  movement as "German fascism."

This is very convenient for Communists, because, unlike "national-socialism," which is descriptive, "fascism" has a meaning that is not readily apparent, and is thus easily misrepresented. (You will also notice that the descriptive term National-Socialism is rarely used even in regard to Hitler's movement, replaced almost always by the nondescriptive "Nazism": there is a purpose in this.)

If we cannot do away with this generalized use of "fascism," we should at least insist that it be applied only to movements that Mussolini or Hitler would recognize as what they represent.

The problem that Maurice Bardèche identifies in this introduction to his 1961 book, Qu'est-ce que le fascisme? (What is fascism?), is the reckless and hypocritical use of even that misbegotten term, without regard for any reasonable definition.





Inquiry about Fascism
Maurice Bardèche 
From Qu'est-ce que le FASCISME? (1961)


I am a fascist writer. One ought to thank me for my acquaintance: for it is, at least, one established fact in a debate where the elements are obfuscated.

Nobody, in fact, admits to being fascist. Soviet Russia, which lives under single-party rule and a police-dictatorship, is not a fascist country; it is even, so it seems, the complete opposite. The Hungarian government that has tanks fire upon workers and tries strikers before a military tribunal is not a fascist government either. It merely defends the power of the people. A provisional government that employs terrorism to impose the will of a revolutionary faction on an entire country is not a fascist organization either; it is a movement of national liberation.[1] Thus it is not the form of the institutions that characterizes fascism, but something else.

There is no more unanimity about the ends than about the means. If you defend capitalism, you are necessarily fascist, according to the Communists. But the common opinion does not agree with them. The United States, England, Adenauer's Germany, are fascist only for representatives of the Soviet Union and their lackeys. Even in France where political crises have brought to power a kind of presidential rule (régime présidentiel)[2], the man in the street shakes his head with disbelief when one explains to him that he lives in a fascist dictatorship. Thus, to heed respectfully the CEOs of the banks and major trusts is not enough to be convicted of fascism without further discussion.

This criterion that escapes us, however, one feels can be found eventually through some examples, if we have a resolute conscience. "There are some fascist countries," exclaims the resolute conscience, "and you very well know which ones. The military dictatorships of Latin America, the countries where the politicians are only managers for fruit-juice vendors, Franco's government in Spain, these are what we call fascism. the definition that you seek, derive it from your own analysis: a fascist regime is that which denies liberty to the people in order to maintain the privileges of a wealthy minority. Do not play games with words. Fascism is the combination of a method and a goal: it suppresses liberty, which is not blameworthy in itself, but it suppresses it in order to assure social inequality and poverty, and that is how we recognize it."

There is only one objection to this definition, but it is embarrassing. It is that there is no fascist who is willing to recognize fascism in the military dictatorships of Latin America, in the fiefs of fruit-juice vendors, or even in Franco's Spain, which, moreover, cannot honestly be equated with the preceding examples. Fascists refuse to recognize themselves in what the intellectuals, the newspapers, and the political parties call fascism. They go farther: they condemn, as their adversaries, these examples that are opposed to them. What then is this fascism in which we see everything other than the press, the radio, and the learned men of our time?

If I were one of a kind, this clarification would not be worth the effort. But a strange prodigy occurs: the fascist writer, the fascist intellectual, is nowhere to be found; the government that is willing to be taxed with fascism exists only at the antipodes, and it is as archaic as a Negro king[3]. But on the other hand there are fascist groups and they do not hide it; there are young fascists and they proclaim it; there are fascist officers and one trembles at this discovery[4]; finally there is a fascist spirit and above all there are thousands of persons who are fascist without knowing it, under another hat that they wear and that they regard with suspicion, of which fascism, as we conceive it and not as one describes it, would be their entire hope if one explained to them what it is. Behold the mirror that reflects our hearts: I want them to recognize themselves. Or that they know, at least, in what cause they are not our brothers. Even our enemies ought to know what they are fighting. The weather (le temps) that filled our sails has made us sail past the Cape of Lies. The Land of Lies recedes into the mist; twenty-year-old eyes no longer see it. And now, in the wind that is rising, it is no longer necessary to be afraid of words.
______________
[1] Most likely referring to Fidel Castro. One of Bardèche's chapters asks if Castro is a fascist.
[2] Charles de Gaulle, of course.
[3] In 1958 (three years before this publication) the Premier of Québec, Maurice Duplessis, was compared to a "Negro king" by André Laurendeau, meaning that Duplessis could maintain in Québec the 19th-century combination of extreme cultural conservatism (granting enormous influence to the Catholic Church) and laisser-faire economic policy, because forces outside of Québec kept Duplessis in power, much as a Negro king in Africa might be kept in power by the British and could do as he liked so long as he cooperated with the British on matters of importance to them. The period of Deplessis's policies (1936-1959) is called la Grande Noirceur (the Great Darkness). When Bardèche refers to an archaic "Negro king," it seems that he has in mind the backward rule of Maurice Duplessis, which was sometimes wrongly called fascist. Bardèche seems to say that Duplessis did not object to the label, even though it was inaccurate.
[4] In May 1958 a group of generals, supported by "committees of public safety," seized control in some of the French colonies and in Corsica, and demanded that Charles de Gaulle take over the French government and stop the dissolution of the French Empire. De Gaulle had given them reason to believe that he supported their cause, but once in power, he did the opposite. These generals were called "fascist" by the Communists in France. There seems to be some ironic humor in Bardèche's reference to the "discovery" of the "fascist officers," since as Gaullistes they surely did not consider themselves fascist, any more than De Gaulle himself.