Tuesday, 11 February 2014

Fascist!

Photo: FASCIST!

Have you ever wondered why the UAF/SWP accuses everybody (except Muslims), and every organisation (except Muslim organisations and leftist groups they are similar too - and even they're not safe) of being 'fascists' or 'Nazis'?

One illuminating reason why they do so may be because Stalin did so. This fact will prove uncomfortable to the IslamoTrotskyist UAF/SWP because Stalin is not regarded as a 'real socialist’ by these people and not only because Stalin got someone to bang a pickaxe into Trotsky's skull.

No. Stalin killed tens of millions and carried out numerous mass purges. Therefore he could not have been a 'real Marxist' or a 'real socialist'. This, by inference, also means that Soviet Union was not a 'genuine socialist state' or a 'workers' state'. (In fact, because all socialist regimes have failed big time and on all fronts, the UAF/SWP claims that none of them were genuine 'workers' states' or whatever term they use nowadays - just as Islamists say pretty much the same about all Muslim - and even all Islamic - states.)

Of course we know that Marxism led to Leninism and Leninism led to Stalinism. Trotskyism couldn't have led anywhere really because there never was a Trotskyite state or a Trotsky’s 'international' coalition of states. (Lenin, as well as Trotsky to a slightly lesser extent, was just as much an autocrat and believer in single-party totalitarianism as Stalin. The superficial and irrelevant difference stressed by the UAF/SWP, among other leftists, are just that - superficial and irrelevant to all non-Trotskyites.)

The thing about Stalin's use of the word 'fascist' was that it was more a political *tactic* than an ideological *idea*.

The thing about the UAF/SWP's use of the word 'fascist is that it is more a political tactic than an ideological idea.

Accusing enemies of being fascist *works* - politically speaking. And thus the UAF/SWP uses this term, and others, very often. According to Jonah Goldberg, in his enlightening book, *Liberal Fascism*, says that it’s the case that

"no one has to take a fascist seriously. You're under no obligation to listen to a fascist's arguments [surely he can't have arguments] or concern yourself with his feelings or rights [he has none].” (3)

(Admittedly there is a self-referential problem with Goldberg's statement above and, perhaps, even of his entire book.

If leftists and left-liberals use the word 'fascist' to silence all opposition, as with the UAF/SWP's totalitarian 'no platform' policy, then isn't Goldberg doing the same towards leftists and left-liberals? He is effectively saying that because such people accuse all enemies of being 'fascist', then that must mean that they are fascist too - that's precisely a fascist way of doing things. But isn't Goldberg himself doing it too? He is accusing leftists of being (red?) fascists and indeed in his book, *Liberal Fascism*, he accuses many liberals (leftists and left-liberals in the UK) of being fascists - though of course these red fascists don't know they're fascists; just as the some EDL members don't know they're fascists - according to the UAF/SWP's non-acute and non-sophisticated way of looking at these things.)

Back to Uncle Joe.

Stalin, after achieving absolute power in the Soviet Union, engendered many enemies. (Most of who was the fictitious result of Stalin's conspiratorial - or literally paranoid - mind.) However, his enemies were not always literal enemies within the borders of the Soviet Union. (That in the old Russian style, grew and grew over the years.) His enemies included contradictory ideas and contradictory movements - often socialist ones.

i) The socialists who were aligned with Moscow were not enemies.
ii) The socialists who were not aligned with Moscow were enemies.

How best to deal with these enemies?

Simple. Accuse them of being fascists.

(There were very many other word-weapons which Stalin used against his enemies. For example, 'Zionist', 'cosmopolitan' (usually a Jew), 'reactionary', 'reformist', 'bourgeois', 'right socialist' and so on.)

There were very many victims of Stalin's word-weapon 'fascist'. According to Goldberg again: 

“Stalin's theory of social fascism rendered even Franklin Roosevelt a fascist.” (10) 

(Again, Stalin designated Roosevelt a 'fascist', but isn't that precisely what Goldberg does in his book?)

The UAF/SWP will not love this example.

According to Stalin, and millions of other Communists, Trotsky had a death-meeting with a pickaxe primarily because he was planning a 'fascist coup' against the Soviet state. The UAF/SWP may accept that Trotsky did indeed plan such a coup. Do they also think that it was a *fascist* coup - or even a red-fascist one?

Finally, the UAF/SWP use many other word-weapons, but which Stalin himself would never have used in his own context, which include 'Zionist', 'Islamophobe', 'racist', 'bigot', 'thug', 'neo-con', 'neo-liberal', etc. In other words, the average UAF/SWP member (as also with Home Not Hate, etc.,), along with its leaders at the top (in the Central Committee of the SWP), utilise a vast array of word-weapons which are no more than leftist soundbites. (Along with soundbite phrases and even whole sentences when they can manage them.)

The terrible and depressing thing is that the juvenile use of these word-weapons often does the job. After all, i) the EDL and even UKIP cannot give talks at student unions because such coups are 'fascist' or 'essentially Nazi'.

ii) No one can criticise *any* aspect of Islam without being accused of being an 'Islamophobe' or a 'racist' or a 'Nazi' or a 'bigot' or a 'thug'.

iii) The *Daily Star*, a couple of years back, quickly - very quickly! - stopped supporting the EDL - not because it realised that the EDL was indeed racist or a Nazi group, but because leftist groups (such as UAF/SWP, Hope Not Hate, etc.) persuaded its cowardly journalists and editor that the EDL was a Nazi group. Either that or the *Daily Star* knew that the EDL was *not* Nazi but nevertheless it also knew that supporting the EDL would do the newspaper much damage both in terms of sales and reputation. Or, at the very least, this might have been what various leftists and left-liberals threatened would be the consequence of the Star supporting the EDL. Indeed the *Daily Mirror*, if not the *Star*, explicitly supports groups such as Hope Not Hate.

iii) Way back in the 1980s, even the Conservative Party, not just its ‘New Right', were very often classed as being 'fascist' by many equivalent leftist groups.

Of course, such student-like uses of the word 'fascist' against everyone who dares to disagree with them may result in its use ceasing to be taken seriously. In fact that has been the actual result for many people. Unfortunately, many people are still almost instinctively frightened or enraged when someone, or something, is deemed to be fascist. However, whenever the rest of us hear the word 'fascist', we should reach for our guns. (This is, of course, a *fascist* reaction to the use of the word 'fascist'!)


Have you ever wondered why the UAF/SWP accuses everybody (except Muslims), and every organisation (except Muslim organisations and leftist groups they are similar too - and even they're not safe) of being 'fascists' or 'Nazis'?

One illuminating reason why they do so may be because Stalin did so. This fact will prove uncomfortable to the IslamoTrotskyist UAF/SWP because Stalin is not regarded as a 'real socialist’ by these people and not only because Stalin got someone to bang a pickaxe into Trotsky's skull.

No. Stalin killed tens of millions and carried out numerous mass purges. Therefore he could not have been a 'real Marxist' or a 'real socialist'. This, by inference, also means that Soviet Union was not a 'genuine socialist state' or a 'workers' state'. (In fact, because all socialist regimes have failed big time and on all fronts, the UAF/SWP claims that none of them were genuine 'workers' states' or whatever term they use nowadays - just as Islamists say pretty much the same about all Muslim - and even all Islamic - states.)

Of course we know that Marxism led to Leninism and Leninism led to Stalinism. Trotskyism couldn't have led anywhere really because there never was a Trotskyite state or a Trotsky’s 'international' coalition of states. (Lenin, as well as Trotsky to a slightly lesser extent, was just as much an autocrat and believer in single-party totalitarianism as Stalin. The superficial and irrelevant difference stressed by the UAF/SWP, among other leftists, are just that - superficial and irrelevant to all non-Trotskyites.)

The thing about Stalin's use of the word 'fascist' was that it was more a political tactic than an ideological idea.

The thing about the UAF/SWP's use of the word 'fascist is that it is more a political tactic than an ideological idea.

Accusing enemies of being fascist works - politically speaking. And thus the UAF/SWP uses this term, and others, very often. According to Jonah Goldberg, in his enlightening book, Liberal Fascism, says that it’s the case that

"no one has to take a fascist seriously. You're under no obligation to listen to a fascist's arguments [surely he can't have arguments] or concern yourself with his feelings or rights [he has none].” (3)

(Admittedly there is a self-referential problem with Goldberg's statement above and, perhaps, even of his entire book.

If leftists and left-liberals use the word 'fascist' to silence all opposition, as with the UAF/SWP's totalitarian 'no platform' policy, then isn't Goldberg doing the same towards leftists and left-liberals? He is effectively saying that because such people accuse all enemies of being 'fascist', then that must mean that they are fascist too - that's precisely a fascist way of doing things. But isn't Goldberg himself doing it too? He is accusing leftists of being (red?) fascists and indeed in his book, Liberal Fascism, he accuses many liberals (leftists and left-liberals in the UK) of being fascists - though of course these red fascists don't know they're fascists; just as the some EDL members don't know they're fascists - according to the UAF/SWP's non-acute and non-sophisticated way of looking at these things.)

Back to Uncle Joe.

Stalin, after achieving absolute power in the Soviet Union, engendered many enemies. (Most of who was the fictitious result of Stalin's conspiratorial - or literally paranoid - mind.) However, his enemies were not always literal enemies within the borders of the Soviet Union. (That in the old Russian style, grew and grew over the years.) His enemies included contradictory ideas and contradictory movements - often socialist ones.

i) The socialists who were aligned with Moscow were not enemies.
ii) The socialists who were not aligned with Moscow were enemies.

How best to deal with these enemies?

Simple. Accuse them of being fascists.

(There were very many other word-weapons which Stalin used against his enemies. For example, 'Zionist', 'cosmopolitan' (usually a Jew), 'reactionary', 'reformist', 'bourgeois', 'right socialist' and so on.)

There were very many victims of Stalin's word-weapon 'fascist'. According to Goldberg again:

“Stalin's theory of social fascism rendered even Franklin Roosevelt a fascist.” (10)

(Again, Stalin designated Roosevelt a 'fascist', but isn't that precisely what Goldberg does in his book?)

The UAF/SWP will not love this example.

According to Stalin, and millions of other Communists, Trotsky had a death-meeting with a pickaxe primarily because he was planning a 'fascist coup' against the Soviet state. The UAF/SWP may accept that Trotsky did indeed plan such a coup. Do they also think that it was a fascist coup - or even a red-fascist one?

Finally, the UAF/SWP use many other word-weapons, but which Stalin himself would never have used in his own context, which include 'Zionist', 'Islamophobe', 'racist', 'bigot', 'thug', 'neo-con', 'neo-liberal', etc. In other words, the average UAF/SWP member (as also with Home Not Hate, etc.,), along with its leaders at the top (in the Central Committee of the SWP), utilise a vast array of word-weapons which are no more than leftist soundbites. (Along with soundbite phrases and even whole sentences when they can manage them.)

The terrible and depressing thing is that the juvenile use of these word-weapons often does the job. After all, i) the EDL and even UKIP cannot give talks at student unions because such coups are 'fascist' or 'essentially Nazi'.

ii) No one can criticise any aspect of Islam without being accused of being an 'Islamophobe' or a 'racist' or a 'Nazi' or a 'bigot' or a 'thug'.

iii) The Daily Star, a couple of years back, quickly - very quickly! - stopped supporting the EDL - not because it realised that the EDL was indeed racist or a Nazi group, but because leftist groups (such as UAF/SWP, Hope Not Hate, etc.) persuaded its cowardly journalists and editor that the EDL was a Nazi group. Either that or the Daily Star knew that the EDL was not Nazi but nevertheless it also knew that supporting the EDL would do the newspaper much damage both in terms of sales and reputation. Or, at the very least, this might have been what various leftists and left-liberals threatened would be the consequence of the Star supporting the EDL. Indeed the Daily Mirror, if not the Star, explicitly supports groups such as Hope Not Hate.

iii) Way back in the 1980s, even the Conservative Party, not just its ‘New Right', were very often classed as being 'fascist' by many equivalent leftist groups.

Of course, such student-like uses of the word 'fascist' against everyone who dares to disagree with them may result in its use ceasing to be taken seriously. In fact that has been the actual result for many people. Unfortunately, many people are still almost instinctively frightened or enraged when someone, or something, is deemed to be fascist. However, whenever the rest of us hear the word 'fascist', we should reach for our guns. (This is, of course, a fascist reaction to the use of the word 'fascist'!)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
*) Note. I've just realised!!! That must be a bogus quote (below the image of Sarah Palin above) even if the individual existed. Neither the word nor the concept of fascism existed in 1835! Fascism began in the 20th century. The Italian word 'fasces' or whatever it is (for a bundle of something) existed, but that had nothing to do with political fascism. Not even in ancient Rome was there political fascism. I'm gonna check out that geezer now - Sinclair Lewis. Unless it's just an innocent mistake which meant '1935'. In which case, according to Jonah Goldberg, mentioned in the post, fascism had already come to America and it wasn't 'wrapped in the flag and carrying a cross'. It was 'liberal fascism'.

2 comments:

  1. I think you are doing Jonah Goldberg a dis-service. One of the main thrusts of his argument, is that when one looks not just at the opposition of Mussolini's fascists to democracy and freedom of speech, but also to their OTHER political views, then it becomes clear that fascism is of the Left. That is why it is so wrong for someone like Thatcher to be accused of being a fascist - the most she did that could be described as "fascist" was her insistence that the IRA not be given "the oxygen of publicity". Beyon that, she believed and did the opposite of what fascists do.

    Goldberg is not saying (as fascists would): "do not let those who disagree with me speak". But THAT is what the fascist Left like the UAF, and other Leftist groups do. They are the true inheritors of the mantle of fascism - they share the opposition to democracy, freedom of speech, and all the other LEFTIST social policies which Mussolini's fascists propounded.

    No discussion of the meaning of the word fascism should commence until people are aware of the substantive Leftist social policies of Mussolini's fascist party.
    http://www.conservapedia.com/Fascist_Manifesto,_1919 Reading that makes it clear how much the Leftist media have been able to take the public for fools, by re-defining that left-wing tract as "far right".

    I'm sure Jonah Goldberg is an advocate for democracy, freedom of speech and for social policies which would be anathema to fascists, and their brothers in crime, communists. He is simply pointing out that, in the light of what historical documents show fascism to be, then the modern Liberalism/Leftism is closer to the true meaning of fascism than are any of those things which the media designate as "fascist". On those grounds, if Goldberg had an informed opinion on EDL, he would say they were "not fascist" - EDL has no programme to curtail democracy and freedom of speech (they are defending the existence of such things), nor does EDL propose any kind of progressive social policies as the Italian fascists did.

    Thus, I cannot see on what grounds you criticise Goldberg.

    ReplyDelete
  2. No. My point was very simple. It was only about him using the word "fascist" almost as much as the Left. I know he's committed to democracy and the rest. But I was just making a self-referential point. I agree with most of what you say; except that I think he uses the term too broadly... sometimes. He should say, for example, that the governments of 1930s America were quasi-fascist, etc. rather than 'fascist'...

    ReplyDelete