It takes a nation to protect the nation
Admin: this forum header contains 3 comments. The first two are from Joe Bloggs, and the 3rd is a long article by Paul Austin Murphy. This has been done to allow easy location of some key info. This forum has become a repository for info about the Fascist Left = National Socialists = Nazis.
Joe Bloggs: Etymology of the word "Nazi"
I came across this account in a book on the SS (which I picked up in a museum bookshop, and forgot to write down the details). So, stumbling across it again today (in search for the quote about Egyptian national radio glorifying the Holocaust in the 1960s), I thought I'd record it for posterity.
“The term “Nazi” (along with “Nazism”) is a political epithet invented by Konrad Heiden (7 August 1901 – 18 June 1966) during the 1920s as a means of denigrating the NSDAP and National Socialism. Heiden was a journalist and member of the Social Democratic Party. The term is a variant of the nickname that was used in reference to members of the SDP at the time “Sozi” (short for Sozialisten). “Nazi” was a political pun, based upon the Austro-Bavarian slang word for “simpleton” or “country bumpkin”, and derived from the fairly common name Ignatz. It would be like saying “nutsy”. So, if for no other reason, one should easily understand why the term was regarded as derogatory by the National Socialists and why they would never use it to describe themselves. One should also see why it would be used and popularized by Marxist-Bolshevik agitators and understand how it was seized upon by various other political opponents and subversive types, both within Germany and abroad, including the international media and political leaders of the western powers.” (Metapedia)
I haven't got the time to do an assessment of either metapedia or the site where I found that quote. However, it fits exactly with my memory of what the book on the SS said about the creation and popularisation of the term "Nazi". Every time we use "Nazi" rather than "National Socialist", we are enabling the Left to disown the collectivist genocide of jews done in the name of Socialism.
Joe Bloggs: The True History of Germany and the 2nd World War
I think that National Socialism is going to be rehabilitated (particularly in Germany).
This book was self-published in 2009, and by 2011 the German version had gone through 11 editions. Even the English language version is on its 6th edition.
The internet revolution is robbing the power elite (media, academics) of their hold over information/narratives.
A documentary of the book is available on the internet, and makes surprising viewing. It contains a lot of information/claims about the run-up to WW2 of which I was unaware. The documentaries shown on British TV take a very different angle.
The bottom line is this: Germans are starting to say that blame for the causes of WW2 lie elsewhere than Hitler/Germany. When people start to realise that National Socialism was (for its time) a "progressive", socialist, redistributive, unifying ideology I can see Germans starting to find that they've been lied to for a long time. Since the modern Leftists are also jew-hating/anti-Israeli, then I can see the taint of anti-semitism being a small price for them to pay to reclaim their national pride. God help us if the Leftists embrace National Socialism rather than rejecting the cartoon version of "nazism" and fascism we've been fed for 50 years or more. Since the muslims in Europe are leading this resurgence in neo-nazism, it could be a terrible alliance.
We are living in extraordinary times.
Paul Austin Murphy: Why National Socialists (Nazis) are Socialists & Not Patriots
“We are socialists, we are enemies of today’s capitalistic economic system for the exploitation of the economically weak, with its unfair salaries, with its unseemly evaluation of a human being according to wealth and property instead of responsibility and performance, and we are all determined to destroy this system under all conditions.” - Adolph Hitler, May 1, 1927
“We will initiate massive state-subsidized work programs in order to fulfil our goal of full employment at fair and just wage… the capitalist system has created a war between the classes. The losers of this war have been the working class… the modern class structure being based largely on one’s economic prowess… The spoils of this parasitical elite class will be seized and redistributed to the people.” - Andrew Anglin, 2013, from the blog, Total Fascism
A website commentator, by the name Jamie Clayton, once told me why he was such a fan of National Socialism. He wrote:
This is almost word for word what countless Communists/Leftists have said about Stalin's regime as well about various other Leftist states. In fact Seumas Milne, the assistant editor of the Guardian, still often waxes lyrically about how the Soviet Union (in Jamie Clayton's words) “created100% employment” and made sure that “big business was not allowed to profit at the expense of small” and “the poor were valued as much as the rich”. Or, in Seumas Milne's own words, the Soviet Union
“delivered rapid industrialisation, mass education, job security and huge advances in social and gender equality. It encompassed genuine idealism and commitment...”
The issues Seumas Milne doesn't address (except to downplay or deny them), are those of the totalitarianism, the complete annihilation of democracy, the labour and death camps, the Gestapo/KGB, the class and race 'liquidations', the war economies, the Soviet Union's imperialist empire, the deadly uniformity, etc. But who cares about all that if you have “100% employment”, “social justice” and “class equality”?
Marxist Accounts of National Socialism
There have been literally hundreds of Marxist/Leftist accounts of the nature of fascism and Nazism; as well as of the rise of the Nazis and fascists in the 1920s and 30s. (Many accounts have been Marxist even though the writers and analysts didn't necessarily see themselves as being Marxists.)
All of these accounts claim that Hitler’s and Mussolini’s socialist credentials were completely baseless.
That's strange. Mussolini started out life as a literal or explicit socialist. He spent at least twelve years of his life as a socialist activist and many of the ideas and values of socialism stayed with him throughout the rest of his life. Hitler, On the other hand, is said to have adopted socialist ideas and policies simply to serve his racial nationalism. (Why couldn't he have been both a racial nationalist and a socialist? More of which later.)
Leftists/Marxists also glibly claim that that the Nazis and fascists didn’t genuinely believe in “the common ownership of the means of production”. Perhaps not. However, not a single socialist or Communist regime in the 20th century put the means of production in the workers’ hands either. The Communist parties - or the Communist/socialist states - put the means of production into their own hands - even if “on behalf of the workers”. Not only that. Many socialists and Communist knew that this would happen - and even said this this would happen - well before they gained state power. So, in the end, the means of production, in the 20th century, were never in the hands on the workers in any country or at any time. (But, of course, come the next Leftist revolution, everything will be so much better.. and if not then, perhaps the time after that.) Consequently, from a socialist/Communist perspective, singling out the Nazis and fascists for being guilty on this count is a little rich.
As I said, some – though not all – Leftists/Marxists claim that from the very start (i.e., circa 1920), Hitler simply used socialism for his own ends. Nonetheless, Professor Rick Wilford does at least deign to cite the Nazi’s socialist ‘Twenty-Five Point programme’ of 1920 (note this academic's unacademic use of irony):
“The ‘Twenty-Five Point Programme’ of the Nationalist Socialist German Workers Party published in 1920 included such ostensibly impeccable socialist goals as the nationalisation of large corporations, the abolition of unearned income, the confiscation of war profits and the prohibition of land speculation. But the commitment to such an agenda wore increasingly thin, albeit, albeit that Hitler was keenly aware of the need to counteract the growth of support among workers for socialism…” (page 200)
On the other hand, some Marxists have vaguely - or quietly - admitted that Hitler was indeed a socialist - of some kind - in the very early days. Nonetheless, they too claim that by the late 1920s Hitler had completely given up on socialism.
Another Marxist/Leftist claim is that Hitler “was keenly aware of the need to counteract the growth of support among the workers for socialism”. This completely overlooks or discounts the possible fusion of socialism and nationalism. That's also odd if you consider the rather obvious fact that Hitler was a National Socialist.
Specifically, Marxists/Leftists discount two things. Firstly, they discount Hitler’s fusion of national and socialism. Secondly, they also discount the possibility that German workers (even if socialist) would - or could - have quite happily accepted Hitler’s fusion of socialism and nationalism. It’s as if Leftists/Marxists simply take it for granted that nationalism and socialism could never have been fused and therefore that the German workers would never have been truly committed to Hitler’s National Socialism. Yet why couldn’t nationalism and socialism have been fused? Do Marxists think it is a conceptual or even a logical impossibility? Surely not! And why couldn’t millions of German workers have happily accepted that fusion of nationalism and socialism?
Again, Leftists/Marxists reject even the very possibility of any fusion of nationalism and socialism. That mindless assumption, or Marxist diktat, is of course believed - or simply just propagated - to distance all (international) socialists from Hitler’s (national) socialists.
Another claim is that Hitler never had the mass support of the German workers anyway. Professor Wilford writes that
“[b]y the later 1920s the relative failure of the Nazi Party to secure mass support among the working class led them to re-orientate their appeal to capitalists, small businessmen, farmers and white-collar workers.”
Some historians have argued that the Nazis did, in fact, have the mass support of the workers by the late 1920s. But it all depends on what exactly 'mass support’ means (in terms of numbers). If Leftists mean that Hitler never had the support of all – literally! - the German working class; then Hitler simply wouldn't have needed that level of support to secure political victory. In fact in all kinds of democracy no party has ever needed or received such mass support in order to secure power. (England's SWP usually has a year turn-over of about 1500 members.)
Another well-known Marxist commonplace is that Hitler turned his back on the workers and then embraced the ‘capitalists’ instead (in the late 1920s and early 1930s). Apart from this not be true on many historical and political accounts, Leftists imply that Hitler wouldn’t have welcomed the support of “capitalists, small businessmen, farmers and white-collar workers” in the early 1920s. That simply isn’t true either. Hitler was always a national socialist. If that were not the case, he would have simply been a socialist in the early days. But he was never a revolutionary socialist - who believed in class war - and no one has ever claimed that he was. The whole point of National Socialism, even in the early 1920s, was that it was against class conflict. It wanted to unite the classes on behalf on the nation and the German race. And there are many quotes from both Hitler and the Nazis generally which explicitly state that the uniting of the classes, although still within an explicitly socialist context, was a primary goal of National Socialism. (The Marxist “abolition of all classes” is another version of this same Nazi idea – the unification of all classes.)
So if it were the case - as on the classic Marxist account - of Hitler and the National Socialists stringing the German working class along, and then jettisoning them because of “the relative failure of the Nazi Party to secure mass support among them”, then all that doesn’t make much sense. In other words, the Nazis actually embraced ‘capitalists’ from the beginning – or at least Hitler and the ‘Right socialists’ did. Many capitalists, on the other hand, didn’t return that favour until, in actual fact, after Hitler was elected in 1933 - or at the very least immediately before. And all this despite the fact that in the Marxist version, the Nazis secured important capitalist support in the late 1920s and onwards. This is not to say that some capitalists didn’t support the Nazis before 1933 – of course they did! Nevertheless, the Marxist version has it that the capitalists exclusively helped Hitler gain power. On many other non-Marxist accounts, on the other hand, most capitalists (though it depends on which type of capitalist we are talking about) jumped ship to the Nazis just before or after the Nazis were elected (as capitalists or businessmen often do when a new party gains power).
Finally, Hitler's 25-point plan sums up Hitler's socialist credentials well and very explicitly. This plan is virtually indistinguishable from what, for example, the SWP/Counterfire/Respect - and many other Leftist groups - have offered over the years. However, since the plan was written in the early 1920s, it will obviously sound a little antiquated in certain respects.
Despite it various archaic phrases and policies, Hitler's socialist plan for Germany graphically demonstrates one of the biggest political lies or deceits of the 20th century: that the National Socialists were the literal opposites of the International Socialists (i.e., Communists, progressives, Trotskyists, etc.). Not surprisingly Leftists (Seumas Milne is a very good example of this) will want to keep this dirty little family secret hidden from the public at large. Indeed numerous Leftists over the years have come up with all sorts of neat little gimmicks and deceits to play down the socialist realities and credentials of the Nazi Party and of Adolph Hitler himself. But what else would you expect?
Why Both International Socialism & National Socialism are Totalitarian
Historically, Leftists have always claimed that “equating Stalin’s Russia with Nazi German and fascist Italy was a powerful way of demonising the communist threat to liberal democracy” (Wilford, pg. 213). Or, to quote Seumas Milne again, such “fashionable attempt[s] to equate communism and Nazism [are] moral and historical nonsense”.
Not only that. Leftists don't like the fact that the term ‘totalitarianism’ is “employed in a cavalier fashion” when applied to Communist/socialist regimes – any Communist/socialist regimes! It seems that the charge of totalitarianism cannot - by definition! - be applied to any Communist/socialist regime. Predictably, this simply means that only the Nazi and fascist regimes of the twentieth century were truly totalitarian. Well, well, who'd have thought otherwise, eh?
There are, of course, differences between Nazism and Communism/socialism. And Marxists/Leftists have fixated on these difference as a means to distance Communist/Marxist totalitarianism from Nazi/fascist totalitarianism. Nonetheless, these difference can’t - and don’t - mean that 20th century Communist/socialist regimes weren't totalitarian. For example, there are differences between democratic parliamentary parties: that doesn’t stop all of them being committed to parliamentary democracy. There were differences - some quite substantial! - between Italian fascism and German Nazism: that never stopped Marxists/Leftists from lumping them together.
Yes, Marxists/Leftists do indeed have their own quaint, insubstantial and unimportant differences in mind when they claim that no Communist/socialist regime - and even Stalin’s Soviet Union! - was ever totalitarian. Nonetheless, they are differences that don't make a difference to this issue.
So despite all the above, National Socialists are almost the exact counterparts of International Socialists. The following are just some of the many things which Leftists and Nazis believe and share:
i) A hatred of capitalism, (“capitalist”)democracy and America.
ii) The glorification - or fetishisation - of (Nazi/Leftist) state and street violence; all often in conjunction with the same - though sometimes tacit - hard-man's mantra: “By any means necessary.”
iii) Black-and-white (or Manichean) world-views with all the consequent conspiracy theories (often the same ones!) which go along with them.
iv) The promise full employment, selfless leaders, complete class equality and the annihilation of the Jews (or 'Zionists' in the case of Leftists).
That's why Leftists and Nazis need each other. They reflect each other and are fighting over the same political bones.
These two groups of socialists, both national and international, have sustained themselves on these largely unreal ideological oppositions. (Their mutual fight for political power, however, has always been very real.) Nazis would be nothing without the Marxists/Communists and vice versa. They feed off each other and would die if the other died. And that's mainly why the Inter-Nazis class everyone on the outside of their own little gang/sect as 'Nazis'; and it's equally why Nazis class everyone on the outside of their own little gang/sect as 'Marxists'/'Communists'.
After 90 years, this cartoon battle between the Reds and the Blacks has become very boring and entirely predictable. It's a pseudo-fight of supposedly “opposing ideologies” which simply disguises the fact that the Reds and Blacks are estranged brothers fighting, ultimately, for the same end – complete state power. And in order to bring that state power nearer, they promise us virtually the same economic and social prizes for our support.
Why National Socialists aren't Patriots
“National Socialism is a biological struggle, or group evolutionary survival strategy… Nationalism can only be based on race or ethnicity. National Socialism is ultra-patriotism. - Mark Pringle
“There you go again spouting you anti-nazi rhetoric! You should join Hope not Hate my leftist friend and stop playing at Nationalist politics.... a liberal piece of shit like you. Your lack of understanding of racial and ethnic dynamics is frightening. You are not part of the solution but part of the problem... what else would I expect of a liberal pretending to be a nationalist.” - Athelstan
Of course the massive differences between patriotism and National Socialism/fascism are conveniently ignored by International Socialists/Leftists (as well as by Nazis when they need to spread their word to patriots who aren't Nazis). It's very convenient for them to be able to fuse patriotism with Nazism/fascism - all the better to destroy them both. However, the terrible fact is that International Socialists share far more with National Socialists than patriots do! This shouldn't be at all surprise if you consider the fact that the two groups are both totalitarian and socialist.
For a start, state-worship is not the same as patriotism.
English National Socialists will of course say that they too are against the state. However, National Socialists aren’t against the state in the abstract. National Socialists are against the current state or government. Why? Because it’s not a National Socialist state.
If it were a National Socialist state, Nazis would worship it; which Nazis, historically, have always done. Indeed because Nation Socialism is essentially about the worship of the National Socialist state, Nazis wouldn’t think twice about annihilating patriots (such as “liberal nationalists”) who didn’t worship that state. They'd also annihilate all the patriots who didn't do or think the things that the Nazi state - or the Nazi Party - required of them.
Patriots, on the other hand, aren’t necessarily against the state or government; they just don’t confuse love of the state/government with love of the people and their traditions, cultures and values.
This Nazi inability to distinguish states and peoples is shown in the virulent anti-Americanism which has always been rife in Nazi movements (as it has been in Leftist and Islamist movements). I quoted Jamie Clayton early on and here again he shows his Nazi credentials with his position on America as well as his position on Israel (i.e., the Jews):
“Does America sympathise with the Palestinians? Or does it despite its supposed hatred of tyranny side with the occupier rather than the occupied?”
And elsewhere he writes:
“America is a bully and there is nothing more satisfying than watching a bully being beaten and humiliated by those they have spend years tormenting.”
What you have here is that because Nazis associate the people with the state, this person is failing to distinguish Americans from what various American states/governments have done. To a Nazi, the state must embody the people (or race) rather than simply be its servant. That's why you get this mindless anti-Americanism from Nazis (which goes all the way back to Hitler).
This is not to say that all American patriots will be against the state/government no matter what it does. It depends. Some American patriots, for example, are complete isolationists when it comes to foreign policy (or interventions) and some aren't. Nazis, on the other hand, are totally committed to whatever the Nazi state does and totally against whatever any non-Nazi/fascist state does (e.g., America, the UK and Israel).
And just as you can hardly expect any self-respecting Nazi to have good things to say about a capitalist democracy like America and its people (save American Nazis), so you can't expect a Nazi to support a leader who helped defeat the Nazis – Winston Churchill. Hence Jamie Clayton believes that Churchill “betrayed Britain”. And if it were up to him, “his remains would go in the same skip Jimmy Saviles grave ended up in”. Or, to put it the way Mark Pringle put it: “You EDL are always going on about Churchill.”
It's also blindingly obvious that no Nazi will have any time for a constitutional monarchy, such as we have here in the UK. Despite his embarrassingly naivete about how much actual power the Queen has, and how little power the monarchy has had ('the royal prerogative' was last used, in Parliamentary terms, in 1835) in the last two hundred years or so, Clayton still feels the need to tell us that
“although we are a democracy, we could easily be like Saudi Arabia if we wanted as the Queen allows us a democracy that is in no way compulsory.”
In addition to all that, you will have no doubt often heard National Socialists (along with Leftists) talking about the government/state “censoring views”, “limiting freedom of speech”, and “silencing certain opinions”. When they do so, they're exclusively talking about their own views, their own freedom of speech and their own opinions. Thus Nazis (as well as Leftists) hate the government/state not for its hatred of free speech in the abstract - but for its hatred of National Socialist free speech. If the National Socialists (or Leftists) gained power, they would censor views, limit free speech, etc. on a scale that would even make our present Government seem libertarian – as history has shown.
Finally, what I have never understood is why an English patriot would be so keen on German National Socialism - and the way the Nazis did things - in the first place. The English have their own ways of doing things. The German National Socialists - who were of a specific historical period (1921-1945) - had their own very German way of doing things. So what’s so English about German National Socialism? Why do British Nazis want to mimic German Nazis who only had political power for 12 years (a shorter period than Tony Blair's New Labour)?
The British hate Nazism and there is no British version of Nazism (or of totalitarianism). Previous English versions of Nazism were utterly indebted to foreign models: from Oswald Mosley's Italian fascism to the obsessions with German Nazism of the British National Socialist Movement (BNSM) (formerly the British Movement), Combat 18, etc.
I would say that at any one time, there are less than 1500 active Nazis in the UK, probably less. (In other words, probably less or equal to the entire membership of the SWP.) So it doesn’t matter how many juvenile and ultra-hard Nazi websites there are, or even how active some hard-core Nazis are on other people's websites or in other movements, the British are highly unlikely to buy into fascism in the near future. It’s not in our nature. However, yes, come a severe enough crisis, then people, in large numbers, may well do so. But having said that, they are just as likely to adopt revolutionary Marxism or even Islamism in such a crisis. Sometimes it doesn't really matter - to the politically and socially desperate - what extreme remedy they adopt; especially if they're being deceitfully offered an unspoken utopia by Leftists/Nazis/Islamists.
Just as Hitler's Nazis hated the English and their traditions, so too do contemporary English Nazis (as do, of course, Trotskyists/progressives and Communists). But primarily they hate English democracy. They hate it because it won't do exactly what they want it to do. And as a result of the inevitable failures (some real, some bogus) of all democracies - including our own, Nazis (as well as Leftists) must believe that all non-Nazis suffer from “false consciousness”. You see, both Nazis and Leftists believe that because the platonic Media has such a complete control of all our gullible minds and souls, then the only way we could possibly escape from its omnipresent lies would be to embrace Nazism or Leftism and thus, in the process, free ourselves from our false (i.e., non-Nazi/non-Leftist) consciousness.
The 'media', et al explain – if only to them - why the majority of English people simply won't buy their totalitarian package-deals.
The fact is that the English, on the whole, simply love their freedom too much. Consequently, the promise or bribe of “100% employment” and all the other visionary prizes (even if achievable) Leftists and Nazis offer us, simply won't sway the deal.
Just FYI, I came across these claims that National Socialism was a revolutionary doctrine. http://www.worldfuturefund.org/wffmaster/Reading/Hitler%20Speeches/... That was in the very first speech of Hitler I chose to read from that site.
Look at how Hitler refers to his fellow Nazis: "You know, my old Party comrades, that our victory in 1933 was not an easy one." It's no different to the way that socialists/communists address each other. http://www.worldfuturefund.org/wffmaster/Reading/Hitler%20Speeches/...
And in this speech: "My German Fellow Countrymen and Women, My Comrades!" http://www.worldfuturefund.org/wffmaster/Reading/Hitler%20Speeches/...
It is interesting that in this page the website is complaining about how the various collections of Hitler's speeches are incomplete. The only collection they admit is complete, is one in German. If I'm right that the Leftist academics have worked assiduously to make Hitler appear right-wing, then they would do their best to produce misleading reports on what the Nazis said and wrote.
Another statement that even in 1942, Hitler saw himself, his party and his "comrades" as socialists.
"To be sure, the more we worked, the more we put Germany in order, the greater grew the hatred, unfortunately. For now there came something in addition. Now came the stupid hatred of the social strata abroad, who believed that the German model, the socialistic German model, could break in on them also..."
Later in that speech, Hitler re-affirms that what was going on in both Italy and Germany was revolutions.
I'm glad you still have such an optimistic view! I've been to too many events, been involved with too many initiatives, and had too many conversations with ordinary people, where the necessary support just hasn't been forthcoming because of conflicting agendas - and its normally the political/societal freedom agenda that loses out. Words without deeds is cheap, and after a while, that degree of inaction takes its toll on you. I've also had cases where people come to complain to me about loss of freedom, even bringing me newspaper cuttings, to prompt me to speak out about it. They won't of course, they are already too busy with tennis, cricket, dinners and whatever.
You say "You can cherish your freedom without necessarily being politically active".
I think that's where we differ :-) although I would rephrase my negation to be:
"You can't say you cherish your freedom if you won't do anything when its threatened"
Paul Austin Murphy said:
"I was contesting your simple statement of fact that the English love their freedom."
It's extremely hard to say anything with using speaking generally. So when I said the English love their freedom, I didn't mean every single Englishman as such. Then again, you can't argue the opposite either - that they don't.
I don't think that every Englishman watches Big Brother. And even if they did, that may not have a big impact on their attitudes to freedom, etc. You can cherish your freedom without necessarily being politically active. Of course, some, or even many, people who watch X Factor may well be complete morons or political nihilists: some people involved in politics are morons too. (All they do is memorise sounbites and the jargon.) ...
Political Correctness and legal sanctions have functioned to incrementally reduce the number of venues where people even have the freedom to speak (never mind the freedom to act). Schools, universities, the workplace, public debates have all had freedom of speech curtailed. Many people will now only speak beyond what is permitted by political correctness within the safety of their own home. That is basically the only environment which the law has said is off-bounds. Although since people have been arrested for doing things like putting up a flag in a window inside their own home, even that is not truly off-bounds.
These legal changes have come about on the back of the Public Order Act (an Act to curtail Mosley's blackshirts). But the Act is being used in exactly the kinds of ways that a fascist/communist government would have curtailed people's rights.
One of the things I find curious about Paul's vision is his idea that "the British" or "the English" have some kind of perennial, never-changing psychological nature. Such an attribution of unchanging qualities of a people would normally rely on biological permanence as its basis. But even those qualities rooted in biology can be changed, by inter-breeding (as is done with dogs and other domesticated animals). I just don't see on what basis we can attribute such an unchanging psychological nature to any "people". I talk to young relatives about things such as privacy and political action, and it is like I'm talking to people very unlike all of my generation. IMO those who are of university-age now are very different from the people who were at university with me (and it's not just a question of my group from university - other people I have met in later life of a similar age to me, whether or not they have been to university, have the same attitudes as those who I knew at university).
All manner of people who might be placed at various different positions on a political spectrum (e.g. communists, nazis, zealous christians) believe that people can be transformed by education/propaganda (which is why there are groups of christians who as vehemently opposed to any positive representation of homosexuality - they think that young people will be converted/recruited to that "lifestyle").
Another thing struck me about the refusal of the Left to countenance the fact that Hitler was a socialist. They will scrabble about for some aspects of National Socialism that do not fit their definition of socialism, then declare that Hitler was only using the word "socialist" but was not "in reality" a socialist. Thus they posit an objective reality, against which the applicability of a word can be posited. However, these same Leftists will want to argue that anyone (with brown skin) who declares themself to be a muslim, must be regarded as a muslim, no matter how discrepant their behaviour/interpretation of islam is. Thus, these Lefists want to have an objective definition and self-definition when it suits them.
I just have an observation really about the English/British youngsters of today. Joe says the university goes of today are unlike those of his uni days. This I can believe. I find the lads and lasses of today are not inquisitive, I rarely hear anyone question anything.
The only time you see any sort of outrage from the younger generation is when they're following leftist agendas. I know a lot of kids (should I call them that) under 30, because I have a large family, and very few of them know whats happening outside their own housing estate. They never ask, and when I tell them they don't care. But they know how to use the term racist.
The youngsters have been conditioned to follow the socialist agenda whether they are aware of it or not. I think PAM is right in saying that the English love their freedom. But the freedom of today is very different to the freedom of my youth, as mine was different to that of my parents.
Hitler and the Nazi's lost the human conflict, but socialism, in what ever brand name you want to give it won Europe. The people who love freedom (as we would call it) have never been able to define freedom and democracy. The Socialists have a plan, it has all the best words like equality, freedom, choice, fairness, and the sheep lap it up!
When was the last time someone from the right of politics could pull the public along with them. The days of Thatcher and Reagan are over. Who in present day politics is going to stir the emotions of todays youngsters and pull them away from socialism. Certainly not true blue Dave. And anyway, who are the youngsters of today. Mainly the offspring of immigrants from Islamic or socialist countries, and neither of those ideologies are about love for your country. And certainly not love for this country.
"One of the things I find curious about Paul's vision is his idea that "the British" or "the English" have some kind of perennial, never-changing psychological nature. Such an attribution of unchanging qualities of a people would normally rely on biological permanence as its basis." - Joe
When have I ever come close to saying that the English have a fixed nature about anything? It's been our culture and history that has provided a certain nature - not fixed - as regards freedom.
When I say that the English are X, I don't mean every Englishman and I don't mean that X is a necessary or essential part of being an Englishman. I am not an essentialist about the English love of freedom. Despite that, we have a culture, going back to the Magna Carta, the peasants' uprising, to universal suffrage, to the vote for women, etc. which shows that we have gone about things, on the whole, with a concern for freedom - not absolute freedom, of course, but growing degrees of freedom. Now this history has only been replicated by few other nations or cultures and only a certain times. (Apparently, the Turks gave women the vote before the British did.) Even in Europe, the traditions have been very different - and not only in the first half of the 20th century.
If we don't think well of the English, and England's traditions and history, then what's it all about? Why do people, on this website and elsewhere, class themselves as patriots? If you think that we have no traditions and history of democracy and freedom, and that most Brits don't give a shit about freedom and democracy, then where's the patriotism and why bother at all?
If I were an essentialist about the English people's love of freedom, I would say that the they will, of necessity, still love freedom in 100 years time - but I'd never say that! In fact I wouldn't even say it about thirty years' time.It's true today - not necessarily tomorrow.
You cannot think that the English have no love of freedom simply because they aren't counter-jihadists or/and anti-Leftists. They may still love their freedom and not see where the real threats are. Alternatively, they may see the alternatives to the status quo - and the alternatives ideologies - offered by PEOPLE LIKE US as worse than the problems. That's fair enough. And that's why they are not doing what we think they should be doing - not because they have no love of freedom.
PAM These statements are found in your starting post.
"The British hate Nazism and there is no British version of Nazism (or of totalitarianism). Previous English versions of Nazism were utterly indebted to foreign models: from Oswald Mosley's Italian fascism to the obsessions with German Nazism of the British National Socialist Movement (BNSM) (formerly the British Movement), Combat 18, etc."
"The fact is that the English, on the whole, simply love their freedom too much. Consequently, the promise or bribe of “100% employment” and all the other visionary prizes (even if achievable) Leftists and Nazis offer us, simply won't sway the deal."
And then this in your last post
"we have a culture, going back to the Magna Carta, the peasants' uprising, to universal suffrage, to the vote for women, etc. which shows that we have gone about things, on the whole, with a concern for freedom"
I think these two views of "the British" you are articulating are oversimplifications. Fascism/Nazism didn't explicitly originate in Britain fully-formed, but that the British Union of Fascists existed shows that there was not a hatred of fascism. The BUF only really existed for 7 years before WW2 made sure that the BUF was marginalised. Fascism/Nazism existed in Italy and Germany from the end of WW1 to the end of WW2. But I think it is only an accident that fascism arose in Italy first, since the recognised foundation of fascism was the British "guild socialism". http://mises.org/humanaction/chap33sec4.asp Again, we should really distrust what any socialist has to say about the nature/origin of fascism/nazism, and instead trust someone like von Mises (when the Nazis arrived in Vienna where von Mises lived, they went straight to his home to arrest him as their principal enemy in Austria).
That fascism/nazism had a longer life in Italy/Germany is purely accidental. The origins lay in Britain, and Britain eventually had its own fascist party. If WW2 had not intervened, whose to say what would have happened. We are all agreed that certainly since WW2 the history and nature of nazism has been distorted. IMO what we are given as "Nazism" is a caricature of fascism. If we ignore the caricature, we see that there were fascist/nazi movements in Holland, Norway, Belgium, Finland, Bulgaria, Argentina, Denmark, Switzerland etc. And, of course, Britain.
When you cite 4 events from almost 800 years of history, I assume you are implying that no such similar events could be found in the history of any other country. But I expect a Frenchman could cite 4 events from 800 years of French history and claim that demonstrated a love of freedom among the French. America's constitution enshrines concepts of freedom that we can only dream about having.
Bizarrely, there's even connections to be made between the British Union of Fascists and the suffragettes, showing that one of your principal examples of the British love for freedom is not so remote from the example of British fascism which you don't want to acknowledge. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Union_of_Fascists#Early_success
"If we don't think well of the English, and England's traditions and history, then what's it all about? Why do people, on this website and elsewhere, class themselves as patriots? If you think that we have no traditions and history of democracy and freedom, and that most Brits don't give a shit about freedom and democracy, then where's the patriotism and why bother at all?"
You seem to think that 4F is only concerned with freedom in Britain. It isn't. Of the people who write here most are living in Britain, but a large minority are in other countries.
I believe freedom is a good thing, and that the more that people have of personal freedom the better it is. And I'd apply that to any people, anywhere. Even if Britain had no history of freedom, I still would think that it would be good for people in Britain to be free rather than controlled. Same for Saudi Arabia.
I can't speak for everyone else on this, but I'd say the point about 4F is that we share a fundamental belief in national self-determination, and freedom within a legal framework governed by democratically-elected national governments. To the extent that this exists in any country, it is going to be undermined/destroyed by subversive, totalitarian elements (muslims, socialists, collectivists of any hue). The very first sign that this is going awry is when people are unpatriotic. If they have an allegiance to a foreign ideology over and above their fellow citizens, then disaster is looming.
For a people who you seem to think have a love of freedom as demonstrable cultural trait, we have got one of the least democratic systems in Europe. The vast majority of the British public show no real interest in making Parliament more democratically accountable. Countries like Switzerland, Denmark, Holland and even Sweden are showing more readiness to resist islamic totalitarianism than the are the British. Take the EDL out of the picture in Britain (and EDL are going down in history as "a fascist movement"), and there is absolutely no resistance to the loss of freedom that's been going on for the last 20 years.
"When you cite 4 events from almost 800 years of history, I assume you are implying that no such similar events could be found in the history of any other country." Joe
Joe, you really must stop taking such cheap shots. I cited only four examples because I was in a rush. You know as well as I do that there is more to British history than those four examples I cited.
If you insist on ME not getting get personal or aggressive (as you said about some of my previous posts), then don't accuse me of thinking something as simple-minded as thinking British freedom revolves around four points in history. I haven't got time to get back now, but if you didn't like my previous off-hand reactions too your remarks, perhaps you you should keep your slights and condescensions - even if not as explicit as my responses to you - to a minimum.
As before, my negative and vocal reactions to you were only reactions to your previously negative and condescending statements on what I've said. The fact that you keep your simplifications and caricatures about my positions less vocal and explicit than my own towards you, just means that you are being tactical rather than diplomatic or honest.
What has happened before, on this page, is that you have said outrageous and patronising things about what I've said, if in your fairly toned down way, and then you affect surprise when I react negatively or aggressively to it.
But since you are being so patronising, try this. I do think you have got a conspiratorialist and absolutist mind-set which you might well have picked up when you were a Trotskyist. All this "totalitarianism is just around the corner" and "no one understands political reality like me" is exactly what I'd expect from an ex-Trot or an ex-Nazi. But, no, I'm not saying you are a Trot. Again, I am saying that you are displaying Trotskyist ways of thinking about things.
I also think you are too absolutist and uncritical about what Hayek, etc. say about things. You may well have simply swapped one absolutist ideology (Trotskyism) for another (Hayek's libertarianism). No wonder you have a problem with the English.
I do think you have got a conspiratorialist and absolutist mind-set which you might well have picked up when you were a Trotskyist. All this "totalitarianism is just around the corner" and "no one understands political reality like me" is exactly what I'd expect from an ex-Trot or an ex-Nazi.
I was never a Trotskyist. I was brought up in a Trotskyist household. Until 3 years ago, I always considered myself to be "leftwing", on the anarchist side.
As for me "understanding political reality", I have the humility to admit that I spent 30 years of my life fighting for the wrong side. There's few who have misunderstood politics as badly as me. I think it's best that I stop commenting on any of your posts.
There are three common Marxist criticisms of a patriot.
One, that the patriot has an essentialist view of his people, as in having a "fixed nature which does not change".
Two, that he believes that there are aspects of the English, or their history, which are unique (as in my saying that there was a concern with freedom going back to the Magna Carta, etc.). This too was criticised as being, again, essentialist.
Three, that he believes English will never embrace Nazism/fascism, etc. Here again, that he has an essentialist view of the English.
What the Marxist fails to realise is that what has been the case for the English, and for England, was not NECESSARILY the case. I never said it was necessarily the case that the English were concerned with freedom or that it was necessarily the case that they would never embrace Nazism.
The Marxist makes this mistake with the conservative/liberal position on capitalism. The Marxists always claimed,from Marx onwards, that conservatives or liberals, from Adam Smith onwards, always claimed that capitalism was "natural", 'inevitable" or "necessary" - that it was a necessary part of human nature. No capitalist ever claimed that. Something can be "natural", in a vague sense, to a people or a culture, without it being necessary. So when capitalism grew slowly in Europe, it was indeed a natural process in that capitalism, unlike communism, was not state imposed (though the state was partly involved from the beginning - if only after the fact). Nonetheless, the creating of capitalist societies was not a necessary or essential part of human nature or cultures in Europe. But given certain conditions, it did grow naturally; which is not to say, either, that it is in the DNA of any people (although certain determinants of capitalist behaviour may well be).
The same is the case with your Marxist accounts of my positions on England and the English.It has indeed become quite natural (though nothing to do with DNA) that the English pursued freedom and/or democracy in various way and according to certain definitions. Nonetheless, it wasn't necessary that they did so. It wasn't an essential part of an Englishman's nature. It wasn't in his DNA.
*) The other things, besides the Magna Carta, the Peasants' Revolt, etc,, which were part of the Englishman's search for freedom? - William Blake, David Hume, Adam Smith, J.S. Mill, John Locke, Milton, the Tolpuddle Martyrs, aspects of the English Civil War, the Reformation, the Methodists, Wycliffe, Roger Bacon, Francis Bacon, Parliament, the notion of checks and balances, Shelley, the Liberals, the Whigs, aspects of both Liberalism and Conservatism in the 19th century, the Whigs in the 18th and 17th centuries, the Levellers, the Rule of Law, religious tolerance, nonconformity, the punk movement, '60's London', the Beatles, the Labour Party in the 19th century and early 20th century...
(None of that list is foolproof and I don't agree with what all those people and groups believed. Also, I don't argue that some parallels can't be found in other nations/cultures - though not in bulk and in one nation alone.)
I'll just add my two pennyworth on a few of things.
1. The purpose of 4F is to act as a library for ourselves and future generations, so we can trace back trends when we are arguing now, and so that, hopefully, future historians will be able to have a clearer view on what happened. The latter is necessary not just because the Fascist Left deliberately delete all contradictory evidence (at least 1/3rd of all posted videos here get removed), but also because of the kind of "security by obscurity", that material becomes lost and irretrievable simply due to the volume of new material layered on top of it, using the same key words.
A good example of this is the collection of crimes and terrorist acts for which the Burqa was used. Muslims love to say this is a side issue and dismiss any single case, and its hard to remember enough to fill out an argument, but no need! Just navigate to that forum while arguing and they suddenly have to explain away 20 or more cases where this special concession they alone have been granted, gets criminally abused.
2. So why do we assemble here? Well, I hope we all find the facility useful and add useful items to it (of which this forum is one). As regards each other, we don't all need to be on the same hymn sheet, or even a similar one. The thing we all have in common is a desire to get to the root of things, by using pure evidence - as opposed to the adulterated and pruned evidence the BBC gives for example - and by diligent inquiry. As regards the latter, I hope the attitude we all have is that picking flaws in each other's arguments is a constructive process. It can be un-constructive and time wasting of course (not to mention annoying). But when it is constructive, it is either because there is a flaw in the given idea, or the idea has been presented in a way which allows the common man (not that we have many of them here) to interpret it as a flawed idea. Its useful that we have a wide variety of different approaches here; it increases the chance of trapping errors.
3. So now to my personal viewpoint, the cynical, jaundiced and possibly depressing one that the English now do not demonstrably love freedom, and the consequences of that, because you ask if I really do feel like that, then what am I doing here.
First of all, it is just my personal view that the English no longer are prepared to defend their freedom, I think its misleading to say the opposite, but I don't expect everyone to see that or think that. However the consequence of continuing to think in that legacy way is that your tactics will not change.
The initial feeling on taking my negative view on the English and Freedom is, yes, a downer. But after adapting to it, I believe it has made me a stronger protagonist. There is a kind of freedom that comes with it. It would take too long to explain, but I can say that its not a strategic dead end; the opposite in fact.