Cookie Notice

However, this blog is a US service and this site uses cookies from Google to deliver its services and analyze traffic. Your IP address and user-agent are shared with Google along with performance and security metrics to ensure quality of service, generate usage statistics, and to detect and address abuse.

Tuesday, 29 August 2017

Vote Socialist - Get Fascist

There is a fascinating dialogue in the comments to the post below that highlights how history is re-written. It was during WWII, I suspect, that the US government realised that securing black commitment to the war effort was critical. The trope was then developed that the US government - in direct succession to Abe Lincoln's Union - was the manumitter of Southern slaves and the champion of freedom, and this was the reason the civil war had been fought. This is the version of history that has stuck. The alternative reality - that the war was about the Constitution, in which victory for the Union meant that local power and autonomy was made forever subservient to the central State - has been lost. The latter reality makes it personal, as the statues being pulled down are of men who fought for Localism, a particular passion of mine. It's easy to hate someone for supporting slavery, harder to condemn them for their support of Burke's Little Platoons.

And so to Lord Tebbit (one of the few life peers I am happy to acknowledge) and his gentle reminder in the Telegraph that Fascism sprung from the left. Bernard Shaw and Virginia Woolf were both proto-Nazis, as most Fabians were in those days, advocating extermination camps using gas to kill (but humanely, in the English way) the poor, the genetically wanting, the educationally subnormal and anyone else who threatened the racial purity of their Fabian paradise. The Lefty Swedes were still compulsorily ripping out the wombs and excising the testicles of the mentally sub-normal until 1975, thirty years after we hanged a number of Germans for doing the same thing. Please do read the good Lord's piece if you can. It's a reminder of the truth of the warning "Vote Socialist - Get Fascist"


Anonymous said...

The main difference between the two ideologies is that the communists believe that specialism comes from money, and that as long as the means of production are under the control of "the party" life will be a land of milk and honey.

The national socialists believed that the nation required the expertise of experienced industrialists to rebuild germany.

For this schism the communists thereafter referred to the nazi's as far right. When this happened the only European leader who had been really beastly was stalin, nobody knew what hitler would do to his scapegoats in the early days of his government.

I suppose that the nearest thing we have to nazism in this country is the Labour party, which practises much of the same ideology as the nazi party did.

rapscallion said...

As I've said elsewhere before. There is relatively little difference between communists and Nazis. Or socialists and fascists if you prefer. Both are socialists anyway and both want total control of all aspects of your life. I don't need to elaborate here what NSDAP means in German. Methods vary according to country and time, but the end result is much the same. Socialists just prefer to discriminate on the basis of class, perceived or actual, whereas the fascists, or rather the Nazis discriminated on the basis of race and also fabian eugenics. The end result is never in doubt and the last century has a total of over 100 million souls murdered in the name of socialism. Socialism in whatever form leads inevitably to the gas chamber or the bullet in the back of the head. The degree of socialism practiced is only an indicator of the time taken to get there.

Dioclese said...

Got a lot of time for Tebbit. Said hello to the guy in Waitrose only last week...

formertory said...

Good to see someone of Lord Tebbit's calibre and wisdom condemning Fascism as Left-wing (I can't read his piece because of the Telegraph's paywall). Of course it is; under the broad definition of Fascism being that political system where the needs of the State are paramount, and its People merely pawns to be manipulated, Communism and Socialism and National Socialism are simply different shades of Fascism.

Ronald Reagan had the measure of it, too: href="">YouTube. I've seen that clip linked to a couple of times recently. And hasn't he been proven right?

formertory said...

Urr.... sorry. Don't know where the opening and closing "< a >" tags in that link went.

Span Ows said...

here's that link again: or HERE with tags :-)

(by the way, worth listening to 2 or 3 more of those Reagan videos, well worth remembering what a real 'saviour' he was).

What hasn't been mentioned yet was that Mussolini's Fascism was born of his belief that International Socialism (Communism) couldn't wand wasn't effectively crossing borders, the people would be more easily led with their own version, his Third Way.

mikebravo said...

Hence the visceral hatred. Fascism is a herecy!

formertory said...

Thanks, Span Ows. Being old enough to remember Reagan's election as President, I also recall that it took the BBC and their (even then) trendy lefties just a few minutes to start a mocking campaign - with Not The Nine O'Clock News leading the way.

Mind you, it was nothing compared with the naked bias and vitriol they reserve for Trump, even in the main news broadcasts of the day.

Anonymous said...

Much of the argument about whether Fascists (in the broad sense) are left or right wing comes from thinking that politics is a single axis of left-to-right. Looking at the two-axis diagrams on the Political Compass site makes this clearer: there can be left-wing Fascists (Mussolini) or right-wing fascists (Hungarian type).

Don Cox

Jumbo Driver said...

"Liberal Fascism" by Jonah Goldberg is the best book I have read on the fascism of the Left going back a century. I bought it when I was in the USabout 12 years ago.

Anonymous said...

Raedwald said:

'Bernard Shaw and Virginia Woolf were both proto-Nazis, as most Fabians were in those days, advocating extermination camps using gas to kill (but humanely, in the English way) the poor, the genetically wanting, the educationally subnormal and anyone else who threatened the racial purity of their Fabian paradise.'

Not forgetting Sidney and Beatrice Webb. Fabian's are still interested in 'racial purity' and the interbreeding to achieve it has always been part of their conversation with the Labour Party. Tony Blair was a recent president of the Fabian Society and he was a keen supporter of miscegenation - so much so he imported millions to make the job easier.

You see for the socialists racial purity means no ethnic groups because there won't be any once they've finished. Ethnic groups have origins but when the race mixing peaks there'll be no origins. The Left invented identity politics to destroy human diversity. The aforesaid applies to white ethnic groups as ordered by the UN through it's proxy the EU.


Demetrius said...

The workers flag is deepest red, blow them all I'm going to bed.

Budgie said...

The echoes of Fabian Fascism (one of the many banal varieties of socialism) is seen today in this pleasant land in the shape of abortion. The child is unwanted? Fine, get rid of it, no questions asked. Nothing is immoral when morality is optional.

Nobody supposes that the various administrations of Christianity have not themselves contained evil, but without a universal externally supplied morality we are lost. We have thrown the baby out with the bath water - literally.

As a civilisation we chose socialism, a religion-like belief system but without God, rather than Christianity. We have paid for it ever since, it seems, from pick-and-mix morality to the death camps for the inconvenient.

Anonymous said...

Comments here are a right laugh....
"Liberal fascism"
"National Socialism"
Both oxymorons and meaningless. It's a funny thing really. Trying to rewrite history so that furious right-wing ideologies become left-wing really doesn't wash for those of us with a brain. Anyone that trusts a word of what "on yer bike" says is already a lost cause but to then start with the Ray gun praise is jumping the shark stuff. The reason Reagan was picked on was because like Trump he was a below average intellect that couldn't find his arse with a map and a torch, not any other reason, but the best one I save for last. The god squadder that has the temerity to say Socialism is responsible for this death and that death while ignoring the biggest mass murder ideology of all time....religion

Anonymous said...

Anonymous said @ 14:34

'The reason Reagan was picked on was because like Trump he was a below average intellect that couldn't find his arse with a map and a torch..'

There are three types of coward:




Which two are you Mr Tingey?


James Higham said...

as most Fabians were in those days, advocating extermination camps using gas to kill (but humanely, in the English way) the poor

Indeed - atrocity in the nicest possible way.

Gordon the Fence Post Tortoise said...

Since socialist and fascist in the same sentence I thought this interview with George Soros (Beelzebub etc...) was perpherally relevant and I still have to wonder at exactly what George is up to with his billions before he sheds the mortal coil ....

MichaelF said...

Sorry Raedwald, but you are wrong in (dare I say it) your simplistic analysis of the American Civil War. For the Confederacy, from the outset it was a war to perpetuate and extend slavery (although that is not the same thing as saying that every last Confederate soldier fought solely in slavery's defence). The Ordinances of Secession and Declarations of Causes make no bones that the secessionists feared chattel slavery would not be secure under a Republican government. It's true that the war began (on the North's part) as a war solely to save the Union, but that is not how it ended. The character of the war changed, and the realisation in the North came that a victory that left slavery intact would be a victory not worth having. To pretend that secession was not directly motivated by slavery is to seriously mislead. Sorry to rant, but the ACW is a particular interest of mine.

Raedwald said...

MichaelF - fair points. The defence of slavery, racism and white supremacy is inimicable to democracy - and with Localism. And since writing this post it's emerged that many of these confederate war statues were only erected in the 1960s - as a token of refusal of black equality. So I take half a pace back.

Anonymous said...

Don't give that twaddle that, the Union were fighting for some morally superior cause, that awful'English' civil war like all others was about power and who weilded it. The south had the better generals and the north had bigger guns, more men, just ask Napoleon what he'd think - no chance.

So much windbaggery, bollocks is regurgitated by 'liberal intellectuals' they're still vigourously revisiting history right now "noble north Abe was wonderful, savage south - less than men" blurb........Into that, the 'slavery' meme was tacked on in the aftermath and isn't it the case - still that the propagandists/winners got to impose their own narrative, they had to in order to deflect away from the industrial slaughter of brave men who fought - on both sides, brother against brother.
This was no great victory, no it was just about spilled guts and unnecessary death. Furthermore, it left the south bitter, divided and as a backwater - that was deliberately done, too keep them 'down'.
I still can't fathom what the south was fighting for, certainly at the outset they thought that the British would come in on their side, it didn't happen and after that it was always going to be a bloodbath and a failure to communicate, until all sides had had enough bloodletting, nobody wins in a civil war.

MichaelF said...

Anonymous. Your pseudonym is eloquent in itself. Why not try reasoned argument, founded on evidence, instead of emotion and personal abuse? As for leaving the South bitter (and incidentally the South is not synonymous with Confederate - throughout the war there was such a thing as Southern Unionism) perhaps the secessionist authors of that war should have given war's horrors a little thought before they appealed to violence. Still, in the canon of the Lost Cause, "Truthiness" = History.

MichaelF said...

Anonymous. In case you hadn't noticed, "the South" also included 4 million black slaves and I will be astonished if they were "left bitter" by the victory of the Union.

MichaelF said...

Anonymous. As for "the 'slavery' meme [being] tacked on in the aftermath", you will find Lincoln's policy set out at length in his Second Annual Message, 01 December 1862: "Without slavery the rebellion could never have existed; without slavery it could not continue. Among the friends of the Union there is great diversity of sentiment and of policy in regard to slavery and the African race amongst us. Some would perpetuate slavery; some would abolish it suddenly and without compensation; some would abolish it gradually and with compensation: some would remove the freed people from us, and some would retain them with us; and there are yet other minor diversities. Because of these diversities we waste much strength in struggles among ourselves. By mutual concession we should harmonize and act together. This would be compromise, but it would be compromise among the friends and not with the enemies of the Union. These articles are intended to embody a plan of such mutual concessions. If the plan shall be adopted, it is assumed that emancipation will follow, at least in several of the States."

MichaelF said...

Anonymous. You are strangely quiet. Pray, what can be the matter?

MichaelF said...

Anonymous. Try reading some reputable history instead of Lost Cause propaganda. 'Bye.

Anonymous said...

MichaelF said @ 06:36

'Sorry to rant, but the ACW is a particular interest of mine.'

And mine:

Before history became politicized, historians understood that the North intended for the South to bear costs of the North’s development of industry and manufacturing. The agricultural South preferred the lower priced goods from England. The South understood that a tariff on British goods would push import prices above the high northern prices and lower the South’s living standards in the interest of raising living standards in the North. The conflict was entirely economic and had nothing whatsoever to do with slavery, which also had existed in the North. Indeed, some northern states had “exclusion ordinances” and anti-immigration provisions in their state constitutions that prohibited the immigration of blacks into northern states.

If freeing slaves were important to the North and avoiding tariffs was important to the South, one can imagine some possible compromises. For example, the North could have committed to building factories in the South. As the South became industrialized, new centers of wealth would arise independently from the agricultural plantations that produced cotton exports. The labour force would adjust with the economy, and slavery would have evolved into free labour.

The fight over which new states created from former “Indian” territories would be “slave” and which “free” was a fight over keeping the protectionist (North) versus free trade (South) balance in Congress equal so that the budding industrial north could not impose a tariff regime. Two days before Lincoln’s inaugural address, a stiff tariff was signed into law. That same day in an effort to have the South accept the tariff and remain in or return to the Union - some southern states had seceded, some had not - Congress passed the Corwin amendment that provided constitutional protection to slavery. The amendment prohibited the federal government from abolishing slavery.

Two days later in his inaugural address, which seems to be aimed at the South, Lincoln said: “I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so.”

Lincoln’s beef with the South was not over slavery or the Fugitive Slave Act. Lincoln did not accept the secessions and still intended to collect the tariff that now was law. Under the Constitution slavery was up to the states, but the Constitution gave the federal government to right to levy a tariff. Lincoln said that “there needs to be no bloodshed or violence” over collecting the tariff. Lincoln said he will use the government’s power only “to collect the duties and imposts,” and that “there will be no invasion, no using of force against or among the people anywhere.”

Here is Lincoln, “the Great Emancipator,” telling the South that they can have slavery if they will pay the duties and imposts on imports. How many black students and whites brainwashed by Identity Politics are going to sit there and listen to such a tale and not strongly protest the racist professor justifying white supremacy and slavery?

So what happens to history when you can’t tell it as it is, but instead have to refashion it to fit the preconceived beliefs formed by Identity Politics? The so-called “civil war,” of course, is far from the only example.

In its document of secession, South Carolina made a case that the Constitutional contract had been broken by some of the northern states breaking faith with Article 4 of the Constitution. This is true. However, it is also true that the Southern states had no inclination to abide by Section 8 of Article I, which says that “Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises.” So, also the South by not accepting the tariff was not constitutionally pure.


Anonymous said...

Raedwald said @ 07:25

'MichaelF - fair points. The defence of slavery, racism and white supremacy is inimicable to democracy - and with Localism.'

Lincoln Unmasked

Harry Jaffa, the dean of the Lincoln cultists, has more than once compared the Southern cause to that of Nazi Germany. DiLorenzo embarrasses Jaffa in this book by pointing out passages in Hitler’s Mein Kampf in which the German leader expressed both his support for Lincoln’s war and his unwavering opposition to the cause of states’ rights and political decentralization (which, as a dictator seeking absolute power, he naturally sought to overturn in Germany). Hitler even adopted Lincoln’s fanciful retelling of American history in which the states were creatures of the Union rather than vice versa.


BillyMarlene said...

No matter what persuasion the extreme, they will all want to take the middle ground.

Jeremy Corbyn called John McDonnell into his office one day and said,
"John, I have a great idea! We’re going to go all out to win back Middle England.”

“Good idea Jeremy, how will we go about it?” said McDonnell.

“Well,” said Corbyn “we’ll get ourselves two of those long Barbour coats, some proper Hunter wellies, a stick and a flat cap –, oh, and a Labrador. Then we’ll really look the part. We’ll go to a nice old country pub, in Much Something in the or other and we’ll show we really enjoy the countryside and Middle England.”

“Right Comrade,” said McDonnell.

So a few days later, all kitted out and with the requisite Labrador at heel, they set off.

Eventually they arrived in a quiet little village and found a lovely country pub and, with the dog, went in and up to the bar.

“Good evening, Landlord. Two pints of your best ale, from the wood please,” said Corbyn.

“Good evening, Jeremy,” said the landlord. “Two pints of best it is, coming up.”

Corbyn & McDonnell stood leaning on the bar contemplating taking over the country, nodding now and again to those who came in for a drink, whilst the dog lay quietly at their feet.

Suddenly the door from the adjacent bar opened and in came a grizzled old shepherd complete with crook. He walked up to the Labrador, lifted its tail with his crook, looked underneath, shrugged his shoulders and walked back to the other bar.

A few moments later, in came a wizened farmer who followed the same procedure to the bewilderment of Corbyn and McDonnell.

People of all ages and gender followed suit over the next hour.

Eventually, unable to stand it any longer, McDonnell called the landlord over.

“Tell me,” said McDonnell, “Why did all those people come in and look under the dog’s tail like that? Is it an old country custom?”

“Good Lord no,” said the landlord. “It’s just that someone has told them that there was a Labrador in this bar with two arseholes.”

MichaelF said...

Anonymous: Your piece is long on assertion and fantasy. Very short on evidence and honest historical enquiry. The falsehoods are too many to enumerate, but here I will just say:

1. If the war was not fought in defence of slavery, why in 1860 and 1861 did the Confederate leadership insist that it was exactly that? See the Ordinances of Secession and Declarations of causes for their opinion.

2. The tariff was levied in ports, not by state, and was collected overwhelmingly in Northern ports. For the period June 1858-June 1859, the net tariff (amount collected less the cost of maintaining the customs houses) paid in Northern ports was $42,551,216, (93.7%), in Southern ports $2,866,496 (6.3%). In 1860, the tariff collected in Northern ports amounted to $48.3 million (92.4%), in Southern ports $4.0 million (7.6%). The tariff collected at the port of New York alone constituted 66.7% of the total -- $34.9 million. By comparison, the total value of all goods imported through Charleston was only $2.0 million (and the net tariff collected there in 1858/59 was only $299,339.43). In 1860, 92% of federal revenues came from the tariff, 3% from land sales, and 5% from other sources. Where you get your figures and your fantasy economics from, I have no idea.

3. On the tariff generally, see:

4. Well, well, so Lincoln said in the First Inaugural that he had neither the desire nor the intention of interfering with slavery. Guess what? That is because (i) he had no legal authority, in peacetime, to interfere in any way with it since it was protected by law and (ii) He was desperately trying to keep the country together in obedience to the duty the law imposed on him.

5. "Lincoln telling the South they can have slavery" ??? They had it anyway, as it was protected by the Constitution. Lincoln was announcing the Government's intention (as was its duty under the Constitution) to collect the duties and imposts like all its predecessors. It was not some sort of "bargain" and it takes a very perverse understanding to regard it as one.

6. The Constitution was not a "contract" between the national authority and the individual states. The Constitution, and the government created by it, were (as the Preamble expresses) the creation of the whole People of the United States. The Constitution was ratified by popular conventions in each state, elected for that occasion on a wider franchise than was customary. Hence the Preamble speaks of "We the People of the United States", not "we the states". Neither the Constitution nor the the Federal Government were the creatures of the states, and it is mistaken to speak of a "contract" between them.

7. Thomas DiLorenzo is not an historian and his purported "historical" works have come under severe criticism: "Writing for The Daily Beast, Rich Lowry described DiLorenzo's technique in this book ["The Real Lincoln"] as the following: 'His scholarship, such as it is, consists of rummaging through the record for anything he can find to damn Lincoln, stripping it of any nuance or context, and piling on pejorative adjectives. In DiLorenzo, the Lincoln-haters have found a champion with the judiciousness and the temperament they deserve.' Reviewing for The Independent Review, a think tank associated with DiLorenzo, Richard M. Gamble described the book as a 'travesty of historical method and documentation'. He said the book was plagued by a 'labyrinth of [historical and grammatical] errors', and concluded that DiLorenzo has 'earned the ... ridicule of his critics.'

8. The fact that you try to drag in Hitler to buttress your case speaks volumes.

9. I don't propose to waste any more time on your post and will not be commenting further. Feel free to luxuriate in your ahistorical fantasy world with those a like opinion. 'Bye.

Anonymous said...

MichaelF said @ 18:56

'8. The fact that you try to drag in Hitler to buttress your case speaks volumes.'

Does it? The reply you refer to was to Raedwald.

A direct ancestor of mine was involved in the North Atlantic Slave Trade: interdiction. He was Royal Navy gun crew, frigate. They would start by pistol shooting the mizzenmast about halfway up. Most got the message and came about. Those that didn't got an big iron ball through wheelhouse. He and his crewmates spent 12 years enforcing the abolition - they were paid by results so they were pretty good at it.


DOCUMENTARY: Who Brought The Slaves to America?


The Forgotten History of Britain's White Slaves in America


G. Tingey said...

Sorry Radders

Where you ARE correct, is that many who claimed to be on the left have been very keen to crawl up the posteriors of those on the "right" when it suited them, especially if it meant treating women like dirt
( Corbyn, you tosser, I'm looking at YOU! )


Anonymous said...

the lady doth protesteth too much.

Dr Evil said...

the Causus Belli of the US Civil War was states rights. It most certainly was not slavery. And most of these here slavers were democrats.